Comments on: Private vs pubic shutter control

Private vs pubic shutter control

Rothko — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:18:36 -0800

The ongoing battle on shutter control continues between military, commercial and non-profit NGO entities, just as Google Maps finishes adding the rest of the world to its site (even if the detail is lacking). And when Israel restricts the rest of the satellite imagery companies to 2-metre resolution, for whatever reason, should the rest of us expect the same level of privacy as commercial and military satellites continue on an exponential path to greater resolutions?

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:30:34 -0800

Huzzah, Google now recognizes that the rest of the world exists, not just North America and Britain floating in a big ocean, as the map showed before. Too bad it doesn't recognize cities in those new countries, though. Hopefully, that will come in time... It's missing Vatican City, though.

By: ladd

ladd — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:09:11 -0800

Where can I get one of these pubic shutter controls?

By: cedar

cedar — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:17:02 -0800

I think the problem is that we are redefining privacy. It's always been a given that there is no right to privacy in public places -- now, all of a sudden, everyplace is public. At least from the sky. There are certainly legitimate security concerns about having military bases, corporate development centers and the like being subject to public scrutiny. However, how does one determine what is truly important -- say, unit dispersement in a war zone -- and what is simply hidden for the sake of being hidden -- say, a nasty strip mine in West Virginia?

By: ori

ori — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:38:33 -0800

Are the Jews developing a weapon to destroy civilization again? I read all about it in the Protocols.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:12:40 -0800

Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitism again?

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:56:20 -0800

No, there's no right to privacy. And satellites filming your nasty hairdo is probably not the biggest cause for concern. Just try to keep a low profile and don't do anything wrong. I don't know, why we had to settle on those guiding principles, but there it is.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:57:14 -0800

As long as they can't make out marijuana leaves I'm not sure it's really a big deal.

By: oaf

oaf — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:33:59 -0800

No, there's no right to privacy. I wonder where you get this erroneous idea.

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:00:23 -0800

My colleagues have been searching for such a right -- in constitutional documents, in international treaties and conventions... so far, nada.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:20:49 -0800

Wait a minute, rights have to be documented before they exist? I wonder where you get this erroneous idea.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:21:34 -0800

Rothko: Criticism of Israel is not in and of itself anti-semitism, but criticisms of Israel are are often cover for anti-semitism. It depends on the context.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:46:32 -0800

Criticism of Israel is not in and of itself anti-semitism, but criticisms of Israel are are often cover for anti-semitism. Of course they are. Sit down here, and I'll make you a nice cup of tea.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:04:07 -0800

Well, you certainly refuted me. Are you seriously going to argue that, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia's criticism's of Israel are not cover for anti-semitism?

By: rafter

rafter — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:42:47 -0800

Are you seriously going to argue that, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia's criticism's of Israel are not cover for anti-semitism? Criticism of Syria and Saudi Arabia is not in and of itself anti-Arab, but criticisms of Syria and Saudi Arabia are are often cover for anti-Arab sentiment. It depends on the context.

By: quarsan

quarsan — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:56:54 -0800

and criticism of belgium is typical luxembourgian walloniophobia

By: dabitch

dabitch — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:57:13 -0800

".....there is no right to privacy in public places..." Ok then, just one question. Is my back yard a public place? Is yours?

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:00:51 -0800

Rothko: Criticism of Israel is not in and of itself anti-semitism, but criticisms of Israel are are often cover for anti-semitism. It depends on the context. Is the context here anti-Semitic? I was not aware criticism of Israel's satellite secrecy was grounds for being called a Nazi, and the person who made that comment did not qualify it. That's pretty cowardly.

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:23:55 -0800

Wait a minute, rights have to be documented before they exist? I wonder where you get this erroneous idea. A positivist conception of law. You might want to look into it. One gets enforceable rights from those "documents". One might have thought that Charter rights were innate before the Charter. Many were a part of the Cdn Bill of Rights for example, but that was only enforceable against the federal government. "But they're rights!" Try that line against the provinces in 1980 and see where it gets you. International law varies from this only in respect to jus cogens, but that's another beast entirely. So yes, legal scholars "look" for evidence of enforeable rights -- and so far have found nothing for privacy.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:42:02 -0800

You might want to look into it. Don't be so fucking snotty. Those of us who believe people have inalienable rights regardless of what people with guns and documents might think don't need to be told to "look into" anything, we need to have our rights respected. If you choose to believe in guns and documents as necessary preconditions for your rights, that's your lookout, but don't assume the rest of us disagree simply because we haven't thought about it sufficiently. And it's really tiresome to have every criticism of Israel greeted with veiled hints that the critic might be anti-Semitic. "Not calling anyone an anti-Semite, oh no! It all depends on context, you see! Just mentioning the possibility, because it has to be constantly kept in mind that someone who criticizes Israel might be an anti-Semite! But nothing personal, please don't get upset!"