I always thought this arrangement was a bit janky. You enforce it, you're a troll. You don't, and you lose it. A really subjective and blurry line of when you should or shouldn't, even with the "within the same product category" requirement.
Slightly off topic but I was thinking about this the other day and wonder if satellite TV and satellite radio don't also suffer from another problem. Does it really make efficient sense to get either from a satellite when there is a cell phone tower or cable tap close by? Sure, satellite may make sense for a network TV feed for an affiliate to grab, but not much else. As for music, why should I pay for a feed all the way from space, when Android Auto serves a Pandora feed to my car just fine?
Since AT&T discovered that a land cable gets a phone call around the world more reliably, I suppose they have to do something with the unused satellite transponders. And I don't think that the broadband from space is going to go far, except for niche situations either.
I see the point that dogs trained as they are are potentially useless, but considering their previous use as a free pass, I have no sympathies on that whatsoever.
I think this to be a symptom of too much fear for their own sake. I am 100% for the police being able to perform their jobs and get home at the end of the day. But not at the expense of the general public. I see it as part of their mandate to take risks so that the genal public doesn't have to. If the answer to an adverse situation is a hail of bullets, there is something wrong. I see it as backward that an untrained individual is believed to be able to completely retain their composure more so then a trained professional. The alternative being a civilian gets shot, just for the sake of "better safe then sorry". Most of the time that sentiment is seen as anti-cop. But I would be surprised if that is the norm for private security. I would think that a private security firm would be reluctant to field an individual that poses that kind of professional liability.
Facial recognition tech is NO WHERE near where it needs to be, for law enforcement to use it in the way they have been. Another case of politicians/government not understanding technology, at all.
I think the real question here is, "what does someone need to see in the performance of their jobs?". This is true in any profession. We all have people who come into our own homes to provide services and give private information to others for the same reason.
In the case of law enforcement, would we want them to be more proactive or reactive? We could have the utmost in privacy if police stayed at the station and only made an appearance when called. They would be dealing with crime instead of preventing it. A speedster can then get away with it until he causes a fatality and then pays the price. A sad consolation to those others involved.
There is a line to be drawn here, and there are benefits and pitfalls, where ever that is. There have been case studies that have proven that increased patrolling does not impact crime as much as one would think, but the increased presence does give the perception of less safety. (Look it up.)
I'm not making an argument that we need more or less. (I think less.) But, we all need to decide how much is too much and live with the benefits/consequences, regardless. This case provides just the discussion needed. Congratulations to all of you for the good comments on this.
I didn't read the paper you mentioned, but you are correct in the misgivings about the whole, "I've got nothing to hide" thing. The thinking is backward, especially when a cop tells you that.
A true criminal has absolutely nothing to lose, except his freedom (aka incarceration). In contrast, someone on the other end of the scale, like a law enforcement officer has everything to lose. Hence, things like his personal address etc. are not public knowledge, out of a matter of necessity (aka. concern of retaliation).
Your average citizen is more toward that higher end of the scale, not the lower. When someone says, "they have nothing to hide", what they actually mean is, "I have nothing to hide from the government". That too is a foolish notion, but it explains things like the decisions we make every day about to whom to provide information about social security numbers, credit cards numbers, etc.
I thought to that this seemed like a waste of money. I was going to mention that in my comments above. But I had a second thought. What would be more expensive?
1) Having several cops in helicopters.
2) Having a multitude more, covering things on the ground.
Since wages are the biggest expense, 1) is the most cost effective. You aren't missing anything, money wise. As a side note, maybe someone higher up has also made the realization that some of these rank and file officers don't have the professionalism to deal with the public properly in regards to force and keeping them at arms length until actually needed, might save on a few lost lawsuits later.
I had this exact discussion the other day, only about homicide. "Why didn't the [bias] media cover this murder?" My reply was, was are any of them even news worthy? (Too many to cover them all.) The point being...bias in the choice, yes because covering them all in impractical/impossible.
To directly answer your question... since Snowden, the Feds are looking at them all. No bias there. At the federal level the 4th Amendment is already dead. And property rights are dead at all levels (Civil Asset Forfeiture). If this is the biggest fish you have to fry, you're just not paying attention.
"The government should never engage in spurious surveillance..."
Shoulda, woulda, coulda... They don't need a warrant for general public surveillance of this type. They watch us, we watch them. We're finally making some headway in exposing bad policing by observing them personally in public without repercussion and you want to endanger that liberty by saying they can't. Bad call...
I do see the point in complaining about this, but we can't have our cake and eat it too. There has been numerous court instances of it being clarified that the people have the right to film police in public spaces. I draw the line at public surveillance cameras, but if they want to put actual bodies in the air, as human individuals they can make the same argument we have. I don't like it, but I see more value to be gained in the public retaining the right to film cops then disallowing it for both sides. If they didn't do this, they would have officers on the ground. More then are in those 'copters. Keeping both apart unless necessary, may be the better option right now.
I think some here are operating under the fallacy that Facebook "needs" a specific reason to moderate anybody. It doesn't. Stossel, and I'm a fan BTW, is suing for being moderated for being attributed as saying things he didn't say, not freedom of speech. He knows exactly what he is doing, suing for the correct thing. Under Section 230, he can go after those who attributed him incorrectly. If those organizations happen to be owned by Facebook, he can sue on those grounds only. If not, he has to sue elsewhere. But suing for the moderation in and of itself, would be a lost cause, as platforms are free to moderate for (from the text),
" restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
"Otherwise objectionable" is an extremely low bar to satisfy in regards to moderation. There are a million things that are "otherwise objectionable". The "speech" argument is only applicable to government, if you are talking about Amendment #1. Section 230 makes that point explicitly.
Depends...
As far as convivence, it Depends. Paper books can be better on the can.
Halo, a Sony exclusive...
My first thought...Halo, a Sony exclusive. LOL
Re: A bit late
I always thought this arrangement was a bit janky. You enforce it, you're a troll. You don't, and you lose it. A really subjective and blurry line of when you should or shouldn't, even with the "within the same product category" requirement.
I feel so sorry for these guys
I feel so sorry for these guys. Someone pass me a Kleenex. Oops... Sorry, I meant a tissue.
Just wait until the genetics folks craft an actual monster
Just wait until the genetics folks craft an actual monster. Let's see 'em win that one.
Satellite is so 20th century
Slightly off topic but I was thinking about this the other day and wonder if satellite TV and satellite radio don't also suffer from another problem. Does it really make efficient sense to get either from a satellite when there is a cell phone tower or cable tap close by? Sure, satellite may make sense for a network TV feed for an affiliate to grab, but not much else. As for music, why should I pay for a feed all the way from space, when Android Auto serves a Pandora feed to my car just fine?
Since AT&T discovered that a land cable gets a phone call around the world more reliably, I suppose they have to do something with the unused satellite transponders. And I don't think that the broadband from space is going to go far, except for niche situations either.
It's all relative...
If I have several steaming piles of crap in front of me to choose from, which is the best?
I see the point, but...
I see the point that dogs trained as they are are potentially useless, but considering their previous use as a free pass, I have no sympathies on that whatsoever.
Re: Police concerned about drivers of change
Agreed. They want things just as they are. They would have a sh*t fit if the cameras couldn't be turned off either.
Re: Re: Re:
They can observe for a developing situation.
Re: Re:
I think this to be a symptom of too much fear for their own sake. I am 100% for the police being able to perform their jobs and get home at the end of the day. But not at the expense of the general public. I see it as part of their mandate to take risks so that the genal public doesn't have to. If the answer to an adverse situation is a hail of bullets, there is something wrong. I see it as backward that an untrained individual is believed to be able to completely retain their composure more so then a trained professional. The alternative being a civilian gets shot, just for the sake of "better safe then sorry". Most of the time that sentiment is seen as anti-cop. But I would be surprised if that is the norm for private security. I would think that a private security firm would be reluctant to field an individual that poses that kind of professional liability.
Re: Re:
Facial recognition tech is NO WHERE near where it needs to be, for law enforcement to use it in the way they have been. Another case of politicians/government not understanding technology, at all.
Re: Re:
I think the real question here is, "what does someone need to see in the performance of their jobs?". This is true in any profession. We all have people who come into our own homes to provide services and give private information to others for the same reason.
In the case of law enforcement, would we want them to be more proactive or reactive? We could have the utmost in privacy if police stayed at the station and only made an appearance when called. They would be dealing with crime instead of preventing it. A speedster can then get away with it until he causes a fatality and then pays the price. A sad consolation to those others involved.
There is a line to be drawn here, and there are benefits and pitfalls, where ever that is. There have been case studies that have proven that increased patrolling does not impact crime as much as one would think, but the increased presence does give the perception of less safety. (Look it up.)
I'm not making an argument that we need more or less. (I think less.) But, we all need to decide how much is too much and live with the benefits/consequences, regardless. This case provides just the discussion needed. Congratulations to all of you for the good comments on this.
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't read the paper you mentioned, but you are correct in the misgivings about the whole, "I've got nothing to hide" thing. The thinking is backward, especially when a cop tells you that.
A true criminal has absolutely nothing to lose, except his freedom (aka incarceration). In contrast, someone on the other end of the scale, like a law enforcement officer has everything to lose. Hence, things like his personal address etc. are not public knowledge, out of a matter of necessity (aka. concern of retaliation).
Your average citizen is more toward that higher end of the scale, not the lower. When someone says, "they have nothing to hide", what they actually mean is, "I have nothing to hide from the government". That too is a foolish notion, but it explains things like the decisions we make every day about to whom to provide information about social security numbers, credit cards numbers, etc.
Re:
I thought to that this seemed like a waste of money. I was going to mention that in my comments above. But I had a second thought. What would be more expensive?
1) Having several cops in helicopters.
2) Having a multitude more, covering things on the ground.
Since wages are the biggest expense, 1) is the most cost effective. You aren't missing anything, money wise. As a side note, maybe someone higher up has also made the realization that some of these rank and file officers don't have the professionalism to deal with the public properly in regards to force and keeping them at arms length until actually needed, might save on a few lost lawsuits later.
Re: Re: we can't have our cake and eat it too
I had this exact discussion the other day, only about homicide. "Why didn't the [bias] media cover this murder?" My reply was, was are any of them even news worthy? (Too many to cover them all.) The point being...bias in the choice, yes because covering them all in impractical/impossible.
To directly answer your question... since Snowden, the Feds are looking at them all. No bias there. At the federal level the 4th Amendment is already dead. And property rights are dead at all levels (Civil Asset Forfeiture). If this is the biggest fish you have to fry, you're just not paying attention.
Re: Re: we can't have our cake and eat it too
I'm going to blow past all that by saying the 4th Amendment in no way covers public areas. Only case law would cover that. By my guest.
Re: Re: we can't have our cake and eat it too
"The government should never engage in spurious surveillance..."
Shoulda, woulda, coulda... They don't need a warrant for general public surveillance of this type. They watch us, we watch them. We're finally making some headway in exposing bad policing by observing them personally in public without repercussion and you want to endanger that liberty by saying they can't. Bad call...
we can't have our cake and eat it too
I do see the point in complaining about this, but we can't have our cake and eat it too. There has been numerous court instances of it being clarified that the people have the right to film police in public spaces. I draw the line at public surveillance cameras, but if they want to put actual bodies in the air, as human individuals they can make the same argument we have. I don't like it, but I see more value to be gained in the public retaining the right to film cops then disallowing it for both sides. If they didn't do this, they would have officers on the ground. More then are in those 'copters. Keeping both apart unless necessary, may be the better option right now.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think some here are operating under the fallacy that Facebook "needs" a specific reason to moderate anybody. It doesn't. Stossel, and I'm a fan BTW, is suing for being moderated for being attributed as saying things he didn't say, not freedom of speech. He knows exactly what he is doing, suing for the correct thing. Under Section 230, he can go after those who attributed him incorrectly. If those organizations happen to be owned by Facebook, he can sue on those grounds only. If not, he has to sue elsewhere. But suing for the moderation in and of itself, would be a lost cause, as platforms are free to moderate for (from the text),
" restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
"Otherwise objectionable" is an extremely low bar to satisfy in regards to moderation. There are a million things that are "otherwise objectionable". The "speech" argument is only applicable to government, if you are talking about Amendment #1. Section 230 makes that point explicitly.
More comments from Dan >>
Dan’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt