From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 14:31:33 MDT
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "\[ Robert-Coyote \]" <coyyote@hotmail.com>
>
> >When privacy has no value
> >
> >It will be a boon to all the pedophiles lurking about.. santaclause even
> >"He
> >sees you when your sleeping.. He knows when your awake.."
>
> I don't foresee transparency getting to the point that it is legal for dirty
> old men to leer at people while they are in various states of undress within
> the privacy of their own homes. Perverts will be perverts, but I can't see
> their behavior ever getting the sanction of law.
>
Whats all this about it being against the law Zero? I thought you don't think
anyone has a right to privacy, so it CAN"T be against the law, by definition.
> Sure, once tiny and powerful surveillance technology is in the hands of the
> masses we will all be vulnerable to the inquisitive and prurient interests
> of our neighbors. But the same tech that threatens us will also be there to
> protect us. It is, of course, a double edged sword. So you watched me
> lounging in the nude last night? Well guess what? Someone watched you,
> watching me and now *you're* going to jail. Nyah, nyah.
Not everyone can watch everyone else all the time. Those who do unpleasant
things or are unpleasant people will likely be watched much less than the
pleasant people will be watched by unpleasant people. Thus it is only a risk
that such people will be watched at any given time.
> >Wow nasty double masectomy scars your mother has.. can't she afford breast
> >reconstruction?
>
> See above.
>
> >Good morning Jim.. we all saw you materbating on camera last night.. and
> >this is not good for our corporate image, your terminated.
>
> 1. You broke the law by spying on me while I was, er, "massaging" myself.
What law is that? If there is a law against violating a person's privacy, then
what are all these cameras for? Using your logic, if there is a law protecting
your privacy, then there is no need for cameras that violate your privacy.
> 2. Firing me for doing things on my own time which are not illegal is
> against the law. So now, I will wait til the $billion IPO and sue the
> bejesus out of the company for invasion of privacy, wrongful termination,
> intentional infliction of emotional distress and any number of federal civil
> rights violations and...job? I don't need no stinkin' job! Thanks a bunch
> boss!!
Firing you is only illegal if you have not signed a contract to that effect.
With ubiquitous surveillance, employers, government bureaucracies, and political
parties will all mandate that their top people sign contracts that they will not
engage in un-PC behavior. Once the public sees how well such clauses keep Slick
Willy and his kind in check, such requirements will spread to more and more
occupations, just as drug tests have done. Violating that contract, even on your
own time, means termination.
> >Hey George.. we should have Insta-patented that idea we discused last night
> >over a few beers.. Suzie has just stolen the whole deal.
>
> Yeah Bob, but good thing for us our whole conversation was recorded, as well
> as the fact that Suzie was listening in. All we have to do is submit this
> data to the Patent Office and her patent never gets issued. Or better yet,
> we could just sit back and see if the idea actually works. If so, we just
> wait til the $billion IPO and sue the bejesus out of her for interference
> with prospective business advantage, unfair competition, misappropriation of
> trade secrets, commercial espionage and...idea? We don't need no stinkin'
> idea! Thanks a bunch Suzie!!
If there is no privacy, then there is no misappropriation. Your ideas are public
domain as soon as they leave your brain. Heck, I'll bet once surveillance proves
to not work well on detering crime, you'll want to put mind taps on people.
> >Knock Knock. hello!!! We noticed YOU use this non biodegradable tampon..
> >please have a free sample of our green friendly tampon !
>
> Hey thanks! It's free *and* green? Just what I was looking for. I'm
> really glad you were able to anticipate my needs like that! Sure beats the
> days when I had to go the the market and hunt up and down the aisle for just
> the right kind of widget.
If you go back to use those bad tampons after your free sample is used up you
will be publicly excoriated for not being sensitive to the environment.
> >Damnit I'm sick of never getting a "date" because my penis is too small..
> >Why cant they get to know me first!
>
> Would you really be interested in someone who would not date you because of
> that? Would you really be interested in someone who would *break the law*
> and violate your privacy to find that out about you? If you are that
> desperate, chances are you would never get a date no matter how big you are.
Tell me, who do you think attracts more women? Pee-Wee Herman or Woody Allen?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:56 MST