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.
Can you share an imagined an harmful unintended consequence?
What if the consequences of centering copyright law on the one digital 'thing' that a person should have exclusive rights to, were, on balance, a good thing?
Re: Re:
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.
Just saying
Re:
"This is one of the shittiest articles I have seen come from TD in a while."
QFT
'The' Government is OUR Government
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.
Re:
Go ahead, fly your manned aircraft, suspended/propelled by spinning parts (fixed wing or not) into close proximity with an unpredictably moving solid object.
What could go wrong?
Battey's Date of Manufacture?
Seems relevant...
TDDD FTW!
Mostly, the Daily Dirt is the bell of my inbox.
Thanks, and please keep it up.
Re: Re: aND IN 1980
The power is in a network of users that wasn't there yet in 1980.
If we allow shiny new hardware to distract us from the big picture we're in trouble.
Re: Ghosts in the Machine
We've have have we?
It'll make a better tweet anyway...
#ScratchPad
Ghosts in the Machine
If we program a computer to make a choice, that is a choice that we have made.
If we perceive a demon within something we've have made, where do we think the demon came from?
Moving On
A couple of points, just as a matter of record.
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.
OUR gov't! ...sheesh, this ain't gunna be easy.
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.
The bluster won't serve us, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
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.
Time to grab for the truth then. The mechanism is still in place for us to do so in a peaceful and orderly fashion.
Cynicism doesn't help.
Grammatically Correct
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Identity is Fundamental
Simplistic and spot on accurate.
What reasonable person would deny privacy law exceptions to family members and medical professionals?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm attempting to describe a set of moral truths.
You be the judge.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Why only porn?
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.
Public means public, and private means private.
Re: Re:
Can you share an imagined an harmful unintended consequence?
What if the consequences of centering copyright law on the one digital 'thing' that a person should have exclusive rights to, were, on balance, a good thing?