DesertRatt
All Bark, No Bite!
Because i is dirt cheap compared to a mechanical switch.
What modern things do you hate/dislike?
- Thread starter Telecolor 3007
- Start date
Yeah.
And this underlying reason is not a new one unfortunately.
~
Another thing that recently resurfaced unexpectedly on music gear, but that I actually quite like is VFD screens.
I do hope that these have a longer lifetime than their 80's counterparts.
(Pictured: UDO DMNO synthesizer)
MuseChaser
Super Member
There's so much wrong here, I don't even know where to begin. One step at a time, I guess....
No one carries around a desktop or laptop everywhere they go, and desktops and laptops almost never have GPSs or dynamometers. If one's online activity is the bulk of one's life, then there's more to worry about then being spied upon. Life should be spent off-line, with online time geared towards enhancing your offline time.
That's an age-old response to the issue of privacy, and one that's been discussed by myself here in a few other threads over the years. I understand your point; if you're not doing anything illegal, why do you care? Well, the response is that, if you don't care and are OK with sharing your life with everyone, no one objects to that. Some people are just private people. I'm one of them. Shouldn't we have the option of choosing who to share our daily lives with? Kind of one of the main points of humanity and being an individual, at least to me.
You are being forced to share where you are and what you're doing, and you don't mind. Cool... no issues with that. Shouldn't it be equally OK for folks to NOT be forced to do that, with the only option to never have a smart phone (which WAS my path for quite a while, until it became almost a necessity in order to do business)?
Katz vs. United States. Yep. 1967. Things are different now (understatement of the year). At that time, out and about in public meant that the only people who could see you were the people YOU could see, for the most part. In terms of the world's population, figuring (in your favor, I'll use a ridiculously high number) 1000 people are in your immediate area and can see you, that would be about 0.0000143% of the population (and yes, that's percent. Move the decimal point two more times to the left for the ratio). If someone DID snap your picture in public without your permission at a place legally defined as public with no expectation of privacy and published it back then, you'd have no recourse. Publishing was definitely not instantaneous, nor did it reach everyone interested via a smart phone in their hand or a laptop in their kitchen.
I've had Google blur my house for years (which wasn't easy... ). Same arguments were made... "Mr. So and So, anyone can walk past your house and look at it, and this is no different." My response was "if seven billion people want to walk past my house and look at it, they are welcome to. It's their job to come see it, not your job to bring my house to them without my permission. Until that time, get my house off the internet. " It IS different. There is NO comparison.
The crux of the matter, and what really rubs me the wrong way, is that many of those who have no objection to sharing everything object to those who don't want to share everything. We're all different.
No one carries around a desktop or laptop everywhere they go, and desktops and laptops almost never have GPSs or dynamometers. If one's online activity is the bulk of one's life, then there's more to worry about then being spied upon. Life should be spent off-line, with online time geared towards enhancing your offline time.
That's an age-old response to the issue of privacy, and one that's been discussed by myself here in a few other threads over the years. I understand your point; if you're not doing anything illegal, why do you care? Well, the response is that, if you don't care and are OK with sharing your life with everyone, no one objects to that. Some people are just private people. I'm one of them. Shouldn't we have the option of choosing who to share our daily lives with? Kind of one of the main points of humanity and being an individual, at least to me.
You are being forced to share where you are and what you're doing, and you don't mind. Cool... no issues with that. Shouldn't it be equally OK for folks to NOT be forced to do that, with the only option to never have a smart phone (which WAS my path for quite a while, until it became almost a necessity in order to do business)?
For now.... we'll see how long cash actually lasts, but that's another discussion.
Katz vs. United States. Yep. 1967. Things are different now (understatement of the year). At that time, out and about in public meant that the only people who could see you were the people YOU could see, for the most part. In terms of the world's population, figuring (in your favor, I'll use a ridiculously high number) 1000 people are in your immediate area and can see you, that would be about 0.0000143% of the population (and yes, that's percent. Move the decimal point two more times to the left for the ratio). If someone DID snap your picture in public without your permission at a place legally defined as public with no expectation of privacy and published it back then, you'd have no recourse. Publishing was definitely not instantaneous, nor did it reach everyone interested via a smart phone in their hand or a laptop in their kitchen.
I've had Google blur my house for years (which wasn't easy... ). Same arguments were made... "Mr. So and So, anyone can walk past your house and look at it, and this is no different." My response was "if seven billion people want to walk past my house and look at it, they are welcome to. It's their job to come see it, not your job to bring my house to them without my permission. Until that time, get my house off the internet. " It IS different. There is NO comparison.
Yes there are. I know my neighbors, and they know me. We watch out for each other, we CHOOSE to live in the same area, and being captured by one of their security cams is fine with me. I use an ATM machine maybe once a year, and if those ATM cams catch some crook planting a card reader or worse, GREAT. I have a huge problem with license plate readers replacing toll booths where cash used to be king (and employed people), and police indiscriminately scanning all license plates (I'm a HUGE supporter of law enforcement, but am not comfortable with surveillance without cause). Intersection cams... no strong feelings either way, unless they're used to record individual license plates for daily activities rather than SOLELY to penalize infractions.
The crux of the matter, and what really rubs me the wrong way, is that many of those who have no objection to sharing everything object to those who don't want to share everything. We're all different.
One other thing. What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow. The argument "not doing anything wrong" may suddenly be mooth. Lots of examples in today's world.
Unless your neighbours have cameras storing the recording data locally and not somewhere in the cloud though some subscription all examples you mention are subjected to mass surveillance.
Individual choices about wanting to share have no impact on these matters.
..Indeed an aspect of modern life to dislike.
0b11011001
Active Member
Should life be spent off line? I guess that depends on who you are. There are a few people that like spending a lot of time on a computer.
And some people’s online time has no effect on their offline life, think serious gamer here.
The government is not forcing you to do anything. You can still buy cheap flip phones that have limited tracking capabilities, and/or get a land line as your phone number and forward calls to a pay as you go phone, bought with cash.
Regardless of the date of the Kay’s v. US ruling, it does not concern itself with technology that can record your presence, or the number of people that may have access to it. For any of that to matter, you first had to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being out in public precludes any chance of that happening. And photographers do not need every person’s permission, that may be in a picture they took in a public place.
Been to Zillow lately? Your house is there, and it is not blurred.
The license plate belongs to the state. Since it is their property, they can scan it anytime they like. Also you are on public roads. So again, no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If they did away with toll bridges, would you also object to someone being out of a job? Being that they are civil servants, I am pretty sure they are still employed by whatever agency they work for. It is hard to get rid of civil servants, even when they are inept.
I am not against you wanting your life to be private. I just think you have an unrealistic expectation of what privacy is.
When Ted Kaczynski was living in his cabin in Montana, he had privacy, and would have remained so, had he not sent people certain packages. So privacy is possible, you just have to be willing to make it happen.
Problem with a tattoo is that if you get sick of one you have, it's difficult to get it removed.Yeah, it's not my definition of feminine. But, I'm just an old fart stuck in the past.
Last edited:
US Navy Official Warning: "Never get drunk, pick up a port-leave barfly, and get her name tattooed onto you."
It's like putting a bullseye on your forehead forever.
0b11011001
Active Member
I don’t think your view of unalienable rights exactly matches those of the founding fathers.
And it is not surveillance to set up cameras in a public place, where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. LPRs are just that, they track license plates, not who is necessarily driving that particular vehicle. Furthermore, most of the cameras in public, are put there by corporations, or the government.
MuseChaser
Super Member
That's EXACTLY who I'm thinking about. The more time one spends interacting online, the greater the chance for depression and difficulty relating to people in person. I've taught thousands of students, seen the impact on families, of people addicted to being online. It's horrible.
Yes. Exactly my point. It was a ruling that occurred decades before there was universal access to anything anyone wanted to post. and couldn't possibly predict current ramifications of that ruling. It's like ruling, say back in 1900, that no one was allowed to make transatlantic crossings more than ten times a year. It wasn't stinking possible, so what's the difference?
Understood. We may differ in what we define as a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that my daily activities, home, and car are not routinely surveilled and that data is not available to everyone.
Care to wager on that?
That's a screenshot, taken just now, from Zillow for my address. I accept checks, money orders, or cash. For hopefully very obvious reasons, I didn't include the url in the screen grab, as it includes my address.
The license plate belongs to the state and is a requirement to drive on public roads. Let's file that under "painfully obvious." Again, when the license plate system began many, many decades ago, the ABILITY to use them as they're currently being used to surveil and track EVERY citizen wasn't there. It was simply a means of showing at a glance that the car was registered with the DMV. It's much more than that now. You don't care, I do. We're different.
Huh?
The privacy I expect was VERY real for the first 2/3 of my life. Yes, young(er) people don't/can't remember those times, nor are they aware just how INCREDIBLY fast things have changed. I am 65. May I ask your age?
Understood... yes, it is still possible to live off the radar, but these days that means being disconnected from all humanity, for the most part. That has only been the case for the last few decades. A VERY sad turn of events.
0b11011001
Active Member
I am 63 years of age. Did you really expect things to remain as they were in 1970? Hitler had successfully catalogued certain ethnic groups in the early 40s with relative ease, thanks to Thomas Watson and IBM.
For that matter, I am sure there were people who thought the world had changed at the end of WWII. But in fact, the world has changed by the end of WWI. Man was capable of manned flight, machine guns killed people with extreme efficiency, and mechanized armor had been proven on the battlefield.
Time is irrelevant in the Katz v US ruling. That ruling established a two part test to determine if a 4th amendment search had occurred:
- Did the individual exhibit an actual, subjective expectation of privacy?
- Is that expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable?
As for people who spend a lot of time online, I was not referring to kids, but people who are coders, hackers (ethical or otherwise) and adult gamers who have jobs and a social life.
simplynuts
Super Member
they sell and attachment that plugs into the computer port to disable the feature
simplynuts
Super Member
Retired and having to pay school taxes, having to pay tax on my house on what it is worth now rather than what I bought it for. You don't get taxed on the value of a stock until you sell it, why not a house?
DesertRatt
All Bark, No Bite!
The "tax problem" is the ultimate destruction of every state in history. Taxes collected are never used efficiently-ever. This implies uncontrollable losses that must be recouped by future increases in taxes. It's a doom loop.
0b11011001
Active Member
“Property taxes are based on current market value rather than purchase price to ensure local governments have the necessary revenue to fund essential services (like schools, police, and road maintenance). Using current values ensures owners of identical homes pay similar taxes”
The costs of those aforementioned services have gone up, since you bought your home. Say you bought your home in 1970, would you like getting 1970 level of services in 2026?
MuseChaser
Super Member
That, my friend, would be an absolute dream come true.
0b11011001
Active Member
Think carefully now, less police to protect property, less fire coverage, ambulance service.
There were less people for municipal services to deal with in 1970, than there are today. So less people employed by municipalities means longer lines or longer hold time on the phone. No thanks!
This; the only thing worse is trying to follow gps navigation in one without cutting someone off.