I'm inclined to self-identify as a Jew (sort of Meta-Abrahamic) I'm not so sure this statement immediately defines me as a member of any larger groups.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, referring to OUR government as 'the government' should be considered both grammatically and politically incorrect.
This is an obvious truth that shouldn't be hard for anyone to grasp at all. The way it is phrased here is like referring to your own mother as 'the mother', not only is this impolite, it's also kind of stupid.
If we can't get a grip on this we'll likely never be able to correct the injustices you guys work so hard to expose.
Go ahead, fly your manned aircraft, suspended/propelled by spinning parts (fixed wing or not) into close proximity with an unpredictably moving solid object.
The only way any kind of real and survivable change can take place is by our existing democratic process, legally and as safely as possible. Attempts from outside of our system would be squashed like a bug.
Any oligarchs or nefarious 'powers that be' in our system hold their grip on power mostly through manipulation of the public narrative. This public narrative is far from impenetrable and unchanging. With hard work and a little 'luck', there is definitely a chance that we can pull this off.
Those of you who think that it's too late now or that nobody wants to hear any of this... ya'll are very wrong.
This is OUR government, regardless of how bad things may have gotten DC, this is still our representative democracy we're talking about, a government of, by, and for the people, to paraphrase Mr Lincoln.
Why then, do we allow ourselves to say or write "the government", when that shows about as much respect as calling your mother "the mom"?
I love my government! I don't want be disrespectful at all.
When talking about OUR government, it might make some sense to tighten up the grammar that we use.
The forest would be a public space obviously, and if there's no one else around then who's taking the pic?. Remote cam or live observer either one establishes a public situation, unless the subject set up a tent or some other personal space and that was violated.
It makes no difference who's house this takes place at, it only matters that this is a private situation, and that if your going to use the images publicly you need permission from the subjects depicted. Public vs Private, note the distinction.
The private eye photo scenario, why would this be any different than the law is now? Seems like a red herring.
Cannot is a simple imperative. I'm suggesting that we the people must get a grip on these very issues of our identity and rights in a digital world, and seize ownership of the information that makes up our invidual selves in the information economy.
I should be careful with ambiguity between the words personal and private. And the word private needs to be inserted in the first line of the post above.
This claim then, with the word 'private' included, is about both where and in what context an image is taken, even more so than it's about what the image depicts. In most cases just being taken in a completely private setting should give the subjects of an image absolute rights about its use.
The ownership of such images and other obviously private records cannot be in question. It is the most absolute form of copyright, and the most absolute Human right in cyberspace.
To suggest that actual traces and live memories of ourselves we leave behind in the physical world carry the same weight as the infinitely propagating absolute records of the digital realm is absurd. Not to mention the privacy issues of an actor obtaining any of the above listed samples from a subjects personal space.
Again, we shouldn't be conflating embarrassing with personal.
'Embarrassing' is a subjective quality and has no bearing on privacy, while 'personal' is central to privacy and is not really subject to interpretation.
The 'natural copyright' to intimate and/or sexual images is one of perpetual prerogative, the subject has an inalienable right to change their mind at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
Even if we have permission at one time to post an image, the subject still maintains the right to demand it be removed at any time. This might make it difficult to run a website or other business that uses these sorts of images as a product, but oh well.
Posting an intimate or private image of a person without that person's direct permission should be a much more serious crime than posting a copy of a song that has already been sold ten thousand times to ten thousand others, no comparison.
I'm not suggesting rights to digital depictions of ones body (DNA, iris, fingerprints included) are the only rights we have, I'm suggesting that this is where our natural Human rights should start in the new digital domain.
Re: Re:
Just saying
Re:
QFT
'The' Government is OUR Government
This is an obvious truth that shouldn't be hard for anyone to grasp at all. The way it is phrased here is like referring to your own mother as 'the mother', not only is this impolite, it's also kind of stupid.
If we can't get a grip on this we'll likely never be able to correct the injustices you guys work so hard to expose.
Battey's Date of Manufacture?
Re:
What could go wrong?
TDDD FTW!
Thanks, and please keep it up.
Re: Re: aND IN 1980
If we allow shiny new hardware to distract us from the big picture we're in trouble.
Re: Ghosts in the Machine
It'll make a better tweet anyway...
#ScratchPad
Ghosts in the Machine
If we perceive a demon within something we've have made, where do we think the demon came from?
Moving On
The only way any kind of real and survivable change can take place is by our existing democratic process, legally and as safely as possible. Attempts from outside of our system would be squashed like a bug.
Any oligarchs or nefarious 'powers that be' in our system hold their grip on power mostly through manipulation of the public narrative. This public narrative is far from impenetrable and unchanging. With hard work and a little 'luck', there is definitely a chance that we can pull this off.
Those of you who think that it's too late now or that nobody wants to hear any of this... ya'll are very wrong.
Re: Re: Re: THE government hasn't been behaving as OUR government for decades.
The truth is not illegal, and all is not lost.
OUR government is 100% malleable.
Silly as all of this sounds it's the truest (truthiest) stuff many of you have ever seen.
True dat.
Re: Re: Re: THE government hasn't been behaving as OUR government for decades.
This being the 21st century and all, your Tommy gun fantasy seems a little outdated.
Re: THE government hasn't been behaving as OUR government for decades.
Cynicism doesn't help.
Grammatically Correct
Why then, do we allow ourselves to say or write "the government", when that shows about as much respect as calling your mother "the mom"?
I love my government! I don't want be disrespectful at all.
When talking about OUR government, it might make some sense to tighten up the grammar that we use.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Identity is Fundamental
What reasonable person would deny privacy law exceptions to family members and medical professionals?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It makes no difference who's house this takes place at, it only matters that this is a private situation, and that if your going to use the images publicly you need permission from the subjects depicted. Public vs Private, note the distinction.
The private eye photo scenario, why would this be any different than the law is now? Seems like a red herring.
Cannot is a simple imperative. I'm suggesting that we the people must get a grip on these very issues of our identity and rights in a digital world, and seize ownership of the information that makes up our invidual selves in the information economy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You be the judge.
Re: Re:
This claim then, with the word 'private' included, is about both where and in what context an image is taken, even more so than it's about what the image depicts. In most cases just being taken in a completely private setting should give the subjects of an image absolute rights about its use.
The ownership of such images and other obviously private records cannot be in question. It is the most absolute form of copyright, and the most absolute Human right in cyberspace.
To suggest that actual traces and live memories of ourselves we leave behind in the physical world carry the same weight as the infinitely propagating absolute records of the digital realm is absurd. Not to mention the privacy issues of an actor obtaining any of the above listed samples from a subjects personal space.
Re: Why only porn?
'Embarrassing' is a subjective quality and has no bearing on privacy, while 'personal' is central to privacy and is not really subject to interpretation.
Public means public, and private means private.
(untitled comment)
Even if we have permission at one time to post an image, the subject still maintains the right to demand it be removed at any time. This might make it difficult to run a website or other business that uses these sorts of images as a product, but oh well.
Posting an intimate or private image of a person without that person's direct permission should be a much more serious crime than posting a copy of a song that has already been sold ten thousand times to ten thousand others, no comparison.
I'm not suggesting rights to digital depictions of ones body (DNA, iris, fingerprints included) are the only rights we have, I'm suggesting that this is where our natural Human rights should start in the new digital domain.
More comments from Ken Riel >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ken Riel.
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