If you aren't doing anything illegal...

[E-Sabbath]

I agree. However, certain of the laws there are cited, and 2003 was the date of L v Texas. Thus, at the point you comitted the act, you were breaking the law as it stood, provided it was before 2003.

Not that it is horribly relevant, but the point remains, these laws cover the most private moment one, two, or many people can have together. There may or may not be laws on topics that obscure in any code.

Cruising laws are, as far as I can tell, legal, not entirely uncommon, but certainly not obvious.
http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/21233/

Have you, in Virginia Beach, between 2 PM and 4 AM, ever driven past the same point twice in three hours? Let’s say you lived there, drove home, then drove out to get milk along the same road.

That is, apparently, illegal.

You are more familiar with the area than I am, so I would appreciate your opinion, and the precise statute. But it seems to be a perfect example of an incredibly horrible law, typically enforced in an less than impartial manner, that can be applied to any individual, in order to make their life more difficult.

It would be better for the purpose of this discussion if I could find something that covered within the house, but I think this will do until I find something better.

So. Driving to the store to get milk, and driving home, in less than three hours. Illegal. Many people are presumably not aware of this.

Should people care if they’re being watched? It’s a wonderful revenue-generation bill if needed, you know.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Steve MB]

@Bricker

Yes, but not in Virginia, where it’s illegal. I never used my radar detector in Virginia.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you use it; it’s illegal to have it (unless it’s disconnected and inaccessible, not merely turned off).

I think that the issue of whether we can expect a trained lawyer, much less an ordinary member of the Teeming Millions, to steer clear of legal entanglements if his every move were subject to scrutiny (which is, after all, one of the questions raised in the OP) can be regarded as settled.

Of course. And I never travelled in Virginia with a radar detector in the passenger compartment of my car. And I knew to do this not because I was a lawyer – this was in my college days – but because large signs are placed on most of the major highways into Virginia that proclaim “RADAR DETECTORS ILLEGAL,” thus notifying everyone.

Sorry. If you feel this settles the issue, then it settles it in a way favorable to my side.

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

Should people care if they’re being watched? It’s a wonderful revenue-generation bill if needed, you know.

Let me again point out that I am absolutely opposed to the idea that people should accept being watched constantly.

I am only objecting to the idea that the REASON they should oppose this is a morass of impenetrable laws, such that they would be breaking some without even knowing.

@E-Sabbath

IHave you, in Virginia Beach, between 2 PM and 4 AM, ever driven past the same point twice in three hours? Let’s say you lived there, drove home, then drove out to get milk along the same road.

That is, apparently, illegal.

This appears to fall into the same category as speeding. In Virginia, it’s an infraction, not a crime. I never claimed to have avoided speeding all my life; speeding is not a crime, even though it’s forbidden by law.

[E-Sabbath]

http://my.highschooljournalism.org/va/hampton/hsjinstitute/article.cfm?eid=701&aid=8200

Virginia Beach does seem to have an anti-profanity law. Bricker?

http://markmaynard.com/index.php/2003/05/

Search for Friendship Patrol. Seems to come from a WaPo article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36153-2003May24&notFound=true

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=16134&pid=1015

“Most people don’t know.”

Tell me about this, Bricker. It seems to be a good case study for our discussion.

[E-Sabbath]

Right, and I seem to have found a morass of impenetratable laws for us to examine. Local to you, so I hope you are reasonably familiar with them.

It’s always nicer to debate things with specifics. I’m not trying to go, “Oh, you’ve never done anything wrong.” I’m trying to examine what restrictions can be in place at any moment, thanks to local influences. In this case, it seems to be Pat Robertson, possibly. Is it reasonable that someone could break these laws without even knowing? Hm. Perhaps we should return to the Op and restate.
Would you realize from a “No @#$@” sign you should wear shirts over your bathing suit on a boardwalk?

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

Right, and I seem to have found a morass of impenetratable laws for us to examine. Local to you, so I hope you are reasonably familiar with them.

It’s always nicer to debate things with specifics. I’m not trying to go, “Oh, you’ve never done anything wrong.” I’m trying to examine what restrictions can be in place at any moment, thanks to local influences. In this case, it seems to be Pat Robertson, possibly. Is it reasonable that someone could break these laws without even knowing? Hm. Perhaps we should return to the Op and restate.
Would you realize from a “No @#$@” sign you should wear shirts over your bathing suit on a boardwalk?

No, I wouldn’t.

@Washington Post

The city’s trademark No Bad Behavior sign – a red circle and slash over cartoon symbols for a curse word – is everywhere, posted on the street and on buttons worn by clerks in the city’s souvenir shops. Other signs list the voluntary “rules of common courtesy,” passed by the City Council, that ask visitors to refrain from cursing, sexually explicit behavior or “any behavior which is likely to intimidate, harass or disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of others.”

“Voluntary.”

Now, Virginia Beach does prohibit both indecent exposure generally and public nudity specifically. But the prohibited “state of nudity” means:

… a state of undress so as to expose the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple.

There is no law requiring the wearing of shorts over a bathing suit. There is a City Council voluntary program that consists of asking people not to do that. But the criminal law is violated only if that bathing suit exposes the male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, or shows the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple. And yes, if I did that, I would expect to be violating the law.

So no, I don’t believe that anything Virginia Beach is doing here is something that would cause someone to violate the law unawares.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Everyone believes that buying this month’s Playboy is perfectly legal. If you were to show me a law that made it illegal, I would concede the point that the law is effectively unknowable; no one could be expected to know that a law forbid that conduct.

I only mentioned Playboy earlier on as an exaggeration, but then referred to “anal stimulation devices” in my more serious post #73.

But – could we imagine “…one determined cop, one determined district attorney, one determined judge and one determined juror…” all of the fundamentalist stripe, who looked at Rachel Sterling’s nudie pics and decided they were legally obscene?

It is conceivable.

Good, because this is the point I was trying to make (though again, with devices rather than mere nudie pictures). The law being cited contains the phrase “or similar”, which certainly allows enough wiggle room for law enforcement to pursue a case, especially on (heh) a hot-button issue like this. It’s not enough, I feel, for you to say what you would do if you “were a juror”. I thought it appropriate your acknowledged that if someone else was a juror, then the law could be misapplied (as you interpret it) and someone with a personal collection of six anal stimulation devices who didn’t have an intent to distribute was nevertheless presumed to, and convicted of same.

But it would represent a substantial departure from who the law has been applied, and with every step along the way, the chances increase dramatically that someone would end it. The determined cop may be offended, but the odds are the district attorney won’t file charges. The district attorney may be determined, too, but then the odds are the judge would simply dismiss. And if, against all odds, the judge were equally determined, then we need twelve jurors who are similarly determined. And so on, through the appellate courts.

Meantime, a defendant has been charged as a sex offender by people who may be influenced by a need to get re-elected using a morals issue as a platform (depending, of course, on whether or not judges and district attorneys are elected in a particular Texas venue). Also, if only one juror in twelve is incapable of critical thinking and firmly decided that “similar” implies “intent to distribute” because “anal stimulation” implies “pervert”, the trial is hung and the defendant possibly required to go through it all over again, with mounting legal expenses. How much would you pay to defend yourself against such a charge, if the alternative was a lifetime labelling as a sex offender? Would you bankrupt yourself, if necessary?

That’s not “the law acting upon the unwary.” If it happens, it’s the system of law itself not functioning.

The “system of law” is administered by fallible human beings and it is a worthwhile exercise to examine any law and imagine scenarios where it could be misapplied even by people who don’t think that’s what they’re doing. What does the word “similar” mean to you? Is it not feasible that an expensive years-long prosecution of a defendant might be sparked by what someone else thinks “similar” means?

Why don’t you point out that a crooked cop could plant drugs in your pocket during a traffic stop pat-down? After all, that, too, is an innocent action getting caught up in a prosecution even though the actor had no idea he was violating the law, right?

You don’t bring up that scenario because it, too, is inapplicable to what we’re – or at least, what I – am discussing.

Assumes facts not in evidence. I didn’t bring up the issue of the crooked cop for the same reason I didn’t mention the ambient temperature of Jupiter: it’s irrelevant, not inapplicable (anther fine distinction, to be sure). I don’t need to assume malice on the part of the cop, DA, judge or juror; just a disproportionate reaction to what they perceive as perversion.

I’m not claiming such things never happen; I’m saying that doesn’t fit what I objected to originally.

I think it’s entirely on point; somebody somewhere makes an arbitrary determination that your actions are in violation of law, even if you knew of the law in question and were confident that no such violation existed (because in this particular hypothetical, you knew for a fact that your six+ collection of anal stimulation devices was not for distribution). Now you have to publicly argue the point. Good luck, in Texas.

[E-Sabbath]

@From The WaPo article

In 2000, retired Army Col. Cornell Fuller, 61, helped start the Friendship Patrol, a group of volunteers who patrol Atlantic Avenue on busy holiday weekends. They join the paid municipal staff of the Youth Intervention Team, which patrols nightly to discourage public drinking among the younger set.

“It has worked really well,” Fuller said, as he walked up Atlantic Avenue. "Most of the time, if we stop somebody to give a warning, people will say, ‘Thank you.’ "

Some tourists aren’t even aware of the city’s myriad regulations, Fuller said, such as the one prohibiting loud car stereos or Ordinance 22-10, otherwise known as the Thong Law, which prohibits exposure of “buttocks, with less than a fully opaque covering.”

Bricker, clearly, there are some ordinances and regulations there that bear investigating. (Wet white shorts could be illegal from that wording.) You’re on the scene. Would you care to see what you could locate from local newspapers or whatever? I understand some of the ordinances are voluntary, and I understand some may not be. This strikes me as a perfect example of murky law. Shall we dig further?
When is law ever voluntary? Remember, the power to tax is the power to destroy. The voluntary law is a perfect example of a chilling effect. Citizens patrol the streets, with the approval of the city, to enforce these voluntary laws.
Who says they would not be given access to these theoretical cameras?

fixed code. --G*

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

I am only objecting to the idea that the REASON they should oppose this is a morass of impenetrable laws, such that they would be breaking some without even knowing.

Really, you should know better than to repeat this after it has been clearly pointed out to you that it is a misrepresentation of the reasoning advanced on this thread.

[Steve_MB]

Driven a car with a radar detector?

Yes, but not in Virginia, where it’s illegal. I never used my radar detector in Virginia.

@Bricker

I never travelled in Virginia with a radar detector in the passenger compartment of my car.

The former elicits the inference that the detector was present and installed, but merely turned off. The signs to which you refer don’t do anything to clarify the distinction between this situation and the presence of a radar detector in an unusable (disconnected and inaccessible) condition.

[yelimS]

Alright…

@pravnik

You wouldn’t mind if the police routinely conducted suspiscionless searches of your home, automobile, and person, and tapped your telephone conversations?

@athelas

Let’s assume that the proposal is to have everyone monitored (visually, let’s say), and that there is absolutely no chance of any information reaching non-government hands (so that nothing that the videos hold will be posted on the internet for all to see)

Suspicionless searches of my home and cameras taping me (supposedly not in my home, but I bet this will be protested by the same people saying i live in a fantasy world…) aren’t quite the same.
But really, if you aren’t doing anything illegal, what do you care if the government tapped your phone? Of course there’s some Watergate scenarios where this might be a problem, but if someone knows your dirty little secrets, and doesn’t even let you know they do, what’s it to you?

Der Trihs: Ignoring problems won’t accomplish anything? I bet you cry all day long for the children starving in Africa, and work your ass off to save them, and thus, your life feels better than mine. Too extreme an example for you? Can’t you see the same applies to your personal problems? They’re only problems if you let them be. I’ll put it another way: your good/ bad feelings are all inside YOUR head. Why struggle to keep/ make the world the way you want it? Depend on yourself, enjoy the company of other people when it’s mutual.
I’d actually venture to say if anyone’s living in a fantasy world, it’s you, thinking you can change it.

[Lilairen]

@yelimS

But really, if you aren’t doing anything illegal, what do you care if the government tapped your phone? Of course there’s some Watergate scenarios where this might be a problem, but if someone knows your dirty little secrets, and doesn’t even let you know they do, what’s it to you?

Someone sticking their nose into my business, with neither reasonable justification nor legitimate interest; further, doing so not merely with the prurient gossip-seeking spying techniques that are accessible to those private citizens who do not wish to show basic respect for their neighbours, but with levels of power that are unavailable to ordinary people.

[davenportavenger]

@yelimS

Of course there’s some Watergate scenarios where this might be a problem, but if someone knows your dirty little secrets, and doesn’t even let you know they do, what’s it to you?

Have you ever kept any secrets from anyone? Or had someone confide a secret in you? It doesn’t have to be anything dirty. Suppose your wife or husband whispered something sweet to you and told you not to tell anyone else. Wouldn’t the specialness of the message be dampened if you knew it wasn’t for your ears only, even if you knew that the message was totally innocuous and would not be used against you in any way?

Can you at least concede that not everyone is advanced as you and that some of us are wired (by evolution–there are good biological reasons why people have historically had a need for privacy) to be more distrustful of others, especially others who can affect our lives in major ways (i.e. the government)? Obviously it must be ingrained, otherwise there would not be laws and cultural rules protecting one’s privacy and we would not have “lack of privacy” as a punishment.

I think that if your mental tricks really were that easy we would have collectively figured it out by now. I wager that you’re the odd one out here, not us “paranoids.”

[intention]

@Bricker

If I wanted to buy and keep a badger as a pet, though… I have no idea if the law permits this or not.

Bricker, for a man who says that there are no laws that are not immediately obvious to every eighteen year old, this is a curious confession …

w.

[Sweet_Mercury]

@yelimS

but if someone knows your dirty little secrets, and doesn’t even let you know they do, what’s it to you?

Because that no longer makes them your secrets, does it? Just because you don’t know that someone has harmed you, or stolen from you, or disrespected you as a person, or violated your rights as a free citizen, does not mean that they haven’t done so, and it doesn’t somehow excuse them from moral accountability.

When was the last time you found out, after the fact, that people in whom you placed your trust had violated that trust and wronged you in some fashion? Did the fact that you didn’t know that it had happened until later somehow soften the blow, or did it, in fact, increase exponentially your indignation?

I posit that when someone is wronged even without his or her knowledge, this doesn’t lessen the wrong done, but increases it greatly. Because not only has the individual been wronged in the original sense, but has also been wronged in the fact that he or she was robbed of any ability to object to or defend themselves from the infraction.

[yelimS]

@davenportavenger

Have you ever kept any secrets from anyone? Or had someone confide a secret in you? It doesn’t have to be anything dirty. Suppose your wife or husband whispered something sweet to you and told you not to tell anyone else. Wouldn’t the specialness of the message be dampened if you knew it wasn’t for your ears only, even if you knew that the message was totally innocuous and would not be used against you in any way?

Can you at least concede that not everyone is advanced as you and that some of us are wired (by evolution–there are good biological reasons why people have historically had a need for privacy) to be more distrustful of others, especially others who can affect our lives in major ways (i.e. the government)? Obviously it must be ingrained, otherwise there would not be laws and cultural rules protecting one’s privacy and we would not have “lack of privacy” as a punishment.

I think that if your mental tricks really were that easy we would have collectively figured it out by now. I wager that you’re the odd one out here, not us “paranoids.”

Finally some sensible arguments. But in arguing whether otherwise harmless surveilance is bad, I still hold that people should not care. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge, and perhaps I should have sooner, that there’s a biological reason for wanting privacy, and even that it has had, and to some degree still has its uses, if only as an easy way out.
My mental tricks are that easy? I’ve already said I don’t even claim to master them myself, I’m not about to go outside in the nude, and I do like to keep secrets, I’m only trying to say there’s no logical reason for it, and on my way to becoming a better person, the worry for my privacy has got to go. It’s not the privacy that’s the problem, it’s worrying about losing it.
My main point in this debate is that people shouldn’t be upset just because other people know things about them (especially when I don’t think it’s very likely that surveilance equals people actually going through all, or even a significant amount of the available material), and nothing else . If it’s inside other peoples heads, where you can’t even get, why care? It doesn’t hurt you if you don’t know it hurt you, life is an experience, and your only care should be to make it a good one.

[Der_Trihs]

@yelimS

But really, if you aren’t doing anything illegal, what do you care if the government tapped your phone? Of course there’s some Watergate scenarios where this might be a problem, but if someone knows your dirty little secrets, and doesn’t even let you know they do, what’s it to you?

Because they can sell them or give them to someone else ? Because they may take offense at something legal you do, and set out to screw up your life ?

@yelimS

Can’t you see the same applies to your personal problems? They’re only problems if you let them be.

I am not an onmipotent god; I can’t wave my hand and make problems vanish.

@yelimS

I’ll put it another way: your good/ bad feelings are all inside YOUR head.

So if someone rips my guts open with a knife, I should just ignore the pain and stagger on my way, and not even go to a doctor, because it’s “all in my head” ? Right. Suuuuure it is.

@yelimS

Why struggle to keep/ make the world the way you want it?

Because that’s the only way it will become more like I want it ?

@yelimS

Depend on yourself,

Also known as “being a victim”. As I said, there are reasons we live in a society, instead of being billions of hermits.

@yelimS

I’d actually venture to say if anyone’s living in a fantasy world, it’s you, thinking you can change it.

So the world has never changed, I’m hallucinating, and I’m actually dressed in uncured hides in a European cave, cutting up meat with a stone knife and hoping the local chief doesn’t grab my wife ?

[yelimS]

@Der Trihs

Because they can sell them or give them to someone else ? Because they may take offense at something legal you do, and set out to screw up your life ?

Again, selling them isn’t what the OP asks for, and if you’re going to let your fantasy run free and figure out everything that could go wrong (governments having personal grudges, well it happens, but if you have such governments, preventing surveilance: 1: ain’t gonna happen, 2: won’t help much)

@Der Trihs

I am not an onmipotent god; I can’t wave my hand and make problems vanish.

Ever really tried to make the best out of a bad situation, without altering anything outside of you? You know, thinking good thoughts? If it doesn’t work, you really should try harder. Just stop for a second and IMAGINE what it would be like if you could decide what mood you were in, at all times. If you don’t think it’s possible, fine, I disagree, if you don’t think it’s worth it, then that’s fine, too, but then you’re not worth my time.

@Der Trihs

So if someone rips my guts open with a knife, I should just ignore the pain and stagger on my way, and not even go to a doctor, because it’s “all in my head” ? Right. Suuuuure it is.

If you’re always such a pessimist, how come you can’t assume that every change you try to make to the world, will fail miserably, and your only rescue is to change the way you percieve the world? Pain IS inside your head (you know, chemicals and such), but read this: i-g-n-o-r-i-n-g-i-t-i-s-n-t-e-a-s-y. And if you keep thinking of the worst case scenarios, I bet you can make it seem damn near impossible, even to me. But why the fear? You do realize, lots of people go through their lifes without being stabbed?

@Der Trihs

Because that’s the only way it will become more like I want it ?
(…) Also known as “being a victim”. As I said, there are reasons we live in a society, instead of being billions of hermits. (…)
So the world has never changed, I’m hallucinating, and I’m actually dressed in uncured hides in a European cave, cutting up meat with a stone knife and hoping the local chief doesn’t grab my wife ?

How do you make depending on yourself to be a victim? You are the only person you have absolute control over, and since you’re the paranoid one of us, you should realize it. By the way, if you don’t depend on yourself, how do you get along? Depending on others? Doesn’t that sound like… Oh, you’re helpless!
No really, help from others is fine, but the best help you can get is from the person who knows you best, and whom you have the best control over. Guess who!

And if the world hasn’t ever changed, I bet you don’t have to worry about the local chief grabbing your wife.

[Der_Trihs]

@yelimS

Just stop for a second and IMAGINE what it would be like if you could decide what mood you were in, at all times. If you don’t think it’s possible, fine, I disagree, if you don’t think it’s worth it, then that’s fine, too, but then you’re not worth my time.

If I wanted to do that, I’d just hook myself on illegal narcotics and sit in a corner giggling and drooling.

@yelimS

If you’re always such a pessimist, how come you can’t assume that every change you try to make to the world, will fail miserably, and your only rescue is to change the way you percieve the world?

Because the world is what it is, and changing my perception of it won’t accomplish anything but to make me delusional.

@yelimS

But why the fear? You do realize, lots of people go through their lifes without being stabbed?

In no small part because they worry about it.

@yelimS

How do you make depending on yourself to be a victim? You are the only person you have absolute control over, and since you’re the paranoid one of us, you should realize it. By the way, if you don’t depend on yourself, how do you get along? Depending on others? Doesn’t that sound like… Oh, you’re helpless!

We as individuals are pretty much helpless. In terms of power groups > individuals.

[yelimS]

@Der Trihs

Because the world is what it is, and changing my perception of it won’t accomplish anything but to make me delusional.

Heart of the matter, for me at least. What’s anything going to accomplish? You’ll die miserably in the end, what higher goal can you have in life but to enjoy it? Make it easier for other people to enjoy? What’s that supposed to accomplish if everybody’s like you and would rather improve (and mind you, you can ALWAYS improve) than enjoy?

Everyone hum along now:
Life’s a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.