The big problem with this argument is that the people who force privacy issues out into the open aren't people having affairs or weird hobbyists. They're criminals. An example -- discussion recently about whether to put cameras on Austin streetcorners. In public places. Pointed at public intersections. Pros: Austin has a huge hit and run problem, especially against bikers -- this will end that and save lives. Cons: it infringes upon my privacy. What?! Okay. EDIT: I have more. The pro-privacy argument basically hinges on this: we want to complain now, because it's better than waiting too long and not being allowed to complain at all. That makes some sense, in certain contexts. The issue is when it hinders rationality, when it allows assholes to kill cyclists because I don't want a camera on me when I'm stumbling home drunk from the bar.We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.
How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.
This has never happened to me, and if it were to, the logical solution would be to move to a place where I could reasonably expect privacy. Not a park or the workplace.The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Well the most common answer is a logical fallacy: the slippery slope. "If we don't protect our privacy explicitly, we are going to wake up in Ukraine tomorrow."
I feel that the cult about "surviving" "living long" and the horror of death, is more or less purely occidental and rather new in our history. Of course I'd like that anyone (cyclist or not) live the longer possible. But there are some things with more value than my life. I suppose, I already could live to 150 if I submit to a drastic medical surveillance, have a tube in my ass and my heart monitored 24h a day.
I could easily reach 100 with a better diet, some exercise and medical checking every other month.
And if I accept some camera in my front yard I 'd probably reach 80 year. My point is: What sacrifice I'm willing to do, to live longer.. And what will be the quality of this longer life. Seriously if living to 90 need you to have a camera in every public place.. It sucks, and I probably rather take the risk to be hit by a car.discussion recently about whether to put cameras on Austin streetcorners. In public places. Pointed at public intersections. Pros: Austin has a huge hit and run problem, especially against bikers -- this will end that and save lives. Cons: it infringes upon my privacy. What?!
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I'm not anti-death, I'm pro-fucking-justice. Your "argument" is that you (and by extension all other cyclists and pedestrians) would rather die at the age of 25 than install basic security measures in public places. You know what? Let's fire the Austin Police Department and end all search warrants, because I don't really mind getting shot anymore. You've convinced me.
What you would sacrifice for your goal: I pay happily taxes so the police Department and justice court would be funded.
I dont want any privacy about how much I make. I dont try to hide any tiny amount from the IRS. Money is not a too big sacrifice to do for some greater justice. But dont try to know what I do with my money. Or where, and when I go. I dont care how much criminal you will catch with your cams , I dont want any on my porch. I bet you just have your priority the other way around. Cause instead of a cam you could hire some policemen to do a better job at actually... You know , preventing crime and investigating it, instead of just filming it. But it's cheaper to put a cam and call it a day.. And you dont like wasting your taxes. I like my natural right for privacy better.
This slippery slope is real. Sacrificing a little privacy for one thing does make it seem more acceptable to sacrifice a little more for something else, so forbidding yelling fire in a crowded theater makes it easier to swallow national security letters, and accepting cameras at dangerous intersections makes it easier to accept cameras at every street corner. Making a "reasonable" compromise shifts the bounds for what is reasonable.
That Wikipedia page you linked seems more pointed to social issues (segregation, abortion, etc). It certainly doesn't apply in the cut and dry manner that you suggest; anyone who thinks that making it illegal to cause public panic is a good idea loses all credibility.
Causing public panic by, for example, writing pamphlets against the draft.It certainly doesn't apply in the cut and dry manner that you suggest; anyone who suggests that making it illegal to cause public panic is a good idea loses all credibility.
...causing public panic by yelling 'fire' in a theater or 'bomb' in an airport. Look, if everyone thought the same way as I did, I would say chuck the Constitution out and let's apply common sense! But they don't, and we can't. So sometimes we need laws about things like what you can say in a public place. This is a pity, but it is what it has to be. And yes, I agree by and large with the clear and present danger test. Do I like it every time? No. Do I acknowledge it has to exist? Yes.