Surveillance Pamphlet

David,

The impasse consisted of Starchild asserting that private businesses using
electronic surveillance is a net bad, while I believe in some cases it could
be and in others it could prove beneficial.

We agreed that in any case the Govt would be wrong in commandeering or
prohibiting it

Warm regards, Michael

Okay, interesting. i think there was a dispute over constitional protections for privacy as well, but i would probably need to reread the email thread to confirm.

all good, thanks,

d

David,

Yes, I think we were debating whether the Constitution protects privacy.

The answer depends on whether you see privacy as a negative or positive
right, would you agree?

I see it as positive right, so the Ninth Amendment doesn't protect it. For
example, the Constitution would allow Barak TheBomber standing on the
sidewalk, to take a picture of me standing in my bedroom nude, next to my
open bedroom window.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
San Francisco
415-673-2848 (24 hours)

Author of Three Minute Therapy:
(with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.)
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction
*A Quality Paperback Book Club/Book-of-the-Month Club Selection

To order: www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
Or toll free: 1-800-986-4135
Email: DrEdelstein@ThreeMinuteTherapy.com

Right. but to further recap my stance, I would not equate an abstract notion of privacy with trespassing or other property rights. So it's essentially okay if citizens and agents of the dark lord passively acquire information about people as long as they are not trespassing.

Also, getting rid of public property greatly diminishes the ability for citizens/agents to acquire such information as it is far easier to choose or make contracts with your neighbors if you are not adjacent to a tragedy of the commons (this includes open water and deep space)

I am in total agreement that active type means of acquiring information of a person are illegitimate and constitute trespass if no permission is made in advance ( ie. breaking and entering, microwave body scans, body searches, theft of documents or computer media, etc)

does that make sense?

David

PS - examples of passive acquisition that are permitted - but not necessarily legal as evidence - include-

- visual - naked eye or assisted, including cameras and recording devices
- aural - naked ear or assisted including recording
- intercept and decryption of encrypted communication transmitted through public spaces (and possibly private property if no prior arrangement is made). Example would be - your neighbor using a scanner to intercept a phone call you made to a secret lover.

I am not completely aware of all legal precedence on cases where the act of encryption signalled some sort of intent and/or assumed level of privacy, but in my view it shouldn't matter if you are essentially broadcasting your private signals onto other people's property. As far as I know, that is still the situation based on lawsuits back in the 80's around satellite TV decoding. The only way the broadcasters were able to make it illegal to decode was by using an encryption method used by the US military, of which the act of decryption violated national secrets acts, blah blah blah..

cc'ing Steve as he may still be interested in this topic.

David,

I agree with you that when assessing privacy "violations," the fundamental
question is, "was there a property rights violation?"

If you're on my property, I don't view my subjecting you to a microwave body
scan without asking your permission as a rights violation.

Warm regards, Michael

Right, it would be your descretion whether to allow such activities on your property. From a physics standpoint though, you could prove that microwave energy emitted from the scanner is invasive and damaging to your cells and could possibly cause cancer.

Funny, i was just thinking recently about that woman in napa who supposedly is sensitive to EMF and wears clothing of copper mesh when going out in public - including a copper veiled at that makes her look like a beekeeper. I'm not suggesting that the onus should be on people to protect themselves against _active_ intrusions like that on public property, but it is interesting that as a secondary effect she is protecting herself from both body scans and taser attacks!!

d

another example -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-443717/Im-allergic-modern-living.html