On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote: > Have you been to an airport or train station within the last 10 years? Have > you taken a look at the lamp posts around your town? Have you watched Law & > Order on TV? Have you watched the Discovery channel? They're already > looking. Now, as for doing anything they want when they want and/or doing > whatever they want with it, time for basic American civics for Chris. > > Here in the US, people have rights. They are not granted by the government, > they are granted by God. The government was instituted to secure them. > Governments have no rights, only powers and only those granted to them by > the people. This means that because I (and others) hold that the people may > exercise their rights (using a camera for example), it does NOT follow that > the government (in any form) or any agent of the government may do the same. > Since, as regards this land, your reply has no relevance to what preceded it > (my post), your entire reply is a non sequitur. If you live in another land, > YMMV.
That's a nice idealistic view, and it neatly dismisses my points without considering them, but it doesn't hold up in reality. The US government sets its own rules, with little or no meaningful public consultation. Judging from the Patriot Act, the government doesn't seem to mind removing rights and freedoms when it wants to. If the government decides to eavesdrop on you, they have the right to... a right which they granted themselves by passing it into law. Call it a "power" instead of a "right" if you will, but it works the same in practice. I'm sure you're familiar with the Act, which--among other things--allows the government to wiretap phones and read your email without notifying you, and without having to go before a judge to show probable threat of criminal activity. So much for the Fourth Amdendment. Evidently your rights are granted by God, but are able to be amended, removed, and controlled by the government. > Now, before you go off half cocked again, we were talking about taking > photographs and not anything that could be construed as stalking. > Stalking creates a reasonable fear for safety and therefore is a form of > assault. Well, the Patriot Act grants the government the legal authority to stalk you without having to show cause. Where do you draw the line between photography and stalking? Shel's photo definitely isn't stalking, but how about if he took a photo of her without her knowledge every time she came into that restaurant? Repeated recording of a subject(s) over a period of time without their knowledge sounds like stalking to me. How is that any different from the covert surveillance that you mentioned in your first paragraph? Are there signs on the street that inform you every time you enter and leave a videorecorded zone, or are you recorded without your knowledge? It's great to assume that this extensive footage of you will never be used for questionable purposes by the government, but, given the powers that the government has been granting itself in post-9/11 USA, I think it's naive to make that assumption. chris
