The goofier part is that you didn't know who he was until this came up. Now you barely know who he is, and that he's unfaithful.
It reminds me of the woman who sued the shopping mall after a grainy security video of an unidentifiable person falling into a fountain wound up online. Nobody possibly would've known who she was until she filed a lawsuit.
An additional problem with the "everyone knows the one guy" example is that *everyone in the town* could be file sharing. If just the one well known guy says he'll stop, then the results are still 100% "effective", despite 99% of the population continuing to share.
With two or three (if can I still count Continental) major airlines HQ'd here in the state, not to mention all the tech and energy companies, such a move would cripple the US economy. It wouldn't happen.
I'm late in seeing this, so you might not see my response, but at the top of the podcasts where Kevin talked about this tour, he specifically said he realized the entry cost to these Q&A+movie sessions was expensive for some in this economy.
He openly invited those who couldn't pay the added cost to see the movie in theatres this fall, or wait until it comes out on BitTorrent a little later and grab it for free.
As I mentioned in another response, I don't see how automating duties to reduce costs is a bad thing. You make a fair point about it getting to a point where it could be blanketed everywhere, but I don't know if that makes it illegal. If you could afford the manpower to do someone, and it's legal, then I don't see why replacing the human with technology inherently becomes illegal.
Am I missing something? I totally understand the matter of taste ("should we do/allow this?"), but from a pure legal standpoint, I don't see where it could be knocked down yet.
Thanks for responding, but I'm still not convinced. On your two points:
1) Do they need a warrant to track you in person? If so, excellent point, and I agree. If not, then there is precedent for not needing a warrant to track someone.
2) Needing a person to "work" instead of having a machine do it seems like a weak argument. No doubt the gov't is lazy, but I support automation of all sorts of other processes. Why should this be excluded?
I'm conflicted on this issue. Part of me agrees that it should require a warrant, because it feels like an invasion of privacy. Another part of me recognizes that a GPS isn't much different than a robot cop, who could be assigned to follow you 24/7.
Mike's counter to the latter view is that if you know you're being followed, you might act different, and therefore it's ok when it's people following you. That presupposes that you notice that you're being followed and/or the people following you aren't very good at being covert.
Provided that it's only tracking your movements in public, how exactly is a GPS different from a really good cop, in this regard?
I'm not really joking. I haven't heard anybody talk about using it in ages. I can see a certain tail of people not active in adopting new technologies, but that would've had to be a small portion of the pirate community. Wouldn't it?