| reply to amigo_boy
Re: No way. said by amigo_boy:.... your rights have been massively improved. You have instant, more affordable, richer (file-transfer and video) and global communications. The ability to publish your own news to the entire world (and to read everyone else's).
Those are huge improvements if you view the world through a lens of "us versus Big Brother." Nobody imagined this just 30 years ago.
[/BQUOTE :Only you would view it as such. Our rights have not improved. Our rights were ALWAYS there to begin with but the quick and convenient way of communicating was not. More easily communicating DOES NOT EQUAL more rights. You can look to China as a clear example of the silliness in what you say. If we were restricted from expressing ourselves (like China) and the internet then allowed us to express ourselves more and the government allowed it and made laws to support/protect it, then and only then would our rights improve. I don't think anyone here would argue the rights of the citizens of China have improved one bit. Their government still tries to prevent them from gaining any rights in communicating. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Skippy25:Our rights have not improved. I think anyone except the most extreme activist can see that our rights are improved as technology improves.
Your right to freedom of movement is enhanced by advances in air travel, allowing even the poorest person to be able to travel the world. (Unimaginable even 40 years ago).
But, with expanded or enhanced individual power comes greater challenges for social interests (such as preventing planes from being crashed into skyscrapers).
Medical advances are another example. What better improvement of your rights than to extend your life so you can exercise your rights longer? Nobody in the 1900s would have expected MRIs and CAT scans. Not even basic medicine like viagra (enhancing your right of "freedom of association").
But, with those advances can social challenges to protect against drug abuse, medical quacks, or counterfeit drugs.
said by Skippy25: Our rights were ALWAYS there to begin with but the quick and convenient way of communicating was not. Rights are always balanced by social interests. Read about Civic Republicanism, or Locke's "state of nature" and how individuals give up (allow suspension or reduction of exercise of) rights in return for the benefits that come from society.
For example, in a state of nature you have the right to hunt down someone who does you wrong and avenge yourself. When you entered the "social contract," you gave up that right for a more orderly social process of law enforcement, trial and punishment/correction/restitution.
If you don't believe your rights are balanced by society's needs, try getting on your roof at 3AM and broadcasting your political views through a loudhorn. You'll find out real fast (unless you live on a farm) how far your "perfect right to free speech" extends.
Conversely, if your neighbors were having a party at 3AM (exercising their perfect right to "freedom of association") you'd realize pretty quickly how you benefit from society's balancing of rights (as you call the police to have the party broken up).
It's impossible to have a discussion about challenges (like the article we're all responding to) when we can't even find common terms about the individual and society.
Mark |
|
|
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| You make some good points, but again we need to remember that this is all about the balancing act. I hold by my belief that deep packet inspection goes too far when done without a warrant. I consider it akin to a police officer checking every car that passes on a road at every time and (with logging) recording every piece of content in the car at the time. It both slows traffic down (creating problems) and increases cost (creating problems).
A pure IP based log might be doable, but I don't know what sort of restrictions might be run into because of this. Moving forward with IPv6 each log entry would need to hold both the time and two 128-bit IP addresses which could also become a serious impediment to performance. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by chimera:I hold by my belief that deep packet inspection goes too far when done without a warrant. I think I agree with that (unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the period after 9/11 and before passage of the Patriot Act in 2006 to better accommodate changed circumstances.).
The topic which seems to be under discussion isn't deep-packet inspection. Just maintaining the kind of point-to-point records that exist as historical data (for forensic purposes) at telcos. Who you received email from, who you sent it to. Who you contacted with IM or VoIP.
That's information which is part of the delivery portion of the protocol. Not examining content.
To me, that's a similar to what telcos have captured for decades regarding telephony. I don't think it violates a principle.
Mark |
|
| He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
-B. Franklin
I'm sure you've heard of him.
Maybe next they should start putting microphones in all our rooms at home and video recording devices while we're at it.
Ever read the book 1984 |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by AnonymousL :
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
1. You misquoted Franklin. The real quote is: ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's important to note Franklin's use of qualifiers which you conveniently omitted. They indicate that he believed there could be unessential liberties, and permanent safety.
2. The quote is from 1755, republished in 1775.
It's hard to know what Franklin believed 20 years later.
For example, Franklin was in London just 6 years before the revolution and criticized Wilkes and his supporters as deserving punishment for "ungratefully abusing ... the best king any nation was ever blessed with."
Wilkes was incredibly popular but was imprisoned for criticizing the king and his lackeys. He was elected to the House of Commons three times from prison, and his supporters rioted for his cause. Franklin criticized them just 5 years before colonists would be in the same position (and Wiles supporting the colonials!).
In other words, Franklin isn't famous for his consistency. He can be quoted for just about any proposition.
3. If liberty was more important than security, the founding generation would have kept the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation from 1776. Instead, they ditched it after just 12 years -- in favor of the relatively massive federal constitution of 1789.
Adding even more context to the 1755 quote, Franklin was a *Federalist*. He supported the new constitution, larger government. He opposed the anti-federalists who used libertarian rhetoric the way Franklin is quoted today!
4. The real irony about the 1789 shift to relatively *massive* government is that the leading precipitating factor was Shay's Rebellion.
A group of men who opposed growing taxes, using revolutionary rhetoric from just a decade earlier. The public was appalled. They demanded a stronger government to deal with such uprisings.
In other words: the founding generation was willing to trade liberty for security. And, Franklin championed their cause, opposing libertarians who wanted less government and greater state sovereignty (with less chance for oppression).
The founding generation did the same thing every generation since them has done: found ways to use government more intelligently and effectively. Balancing individual rights with societal needs.
The founding generation couldn't even foresee their needs just 12 years after the revolution. Yet, 220 years later we're told they'd oppose us doing the same thing they did?
Mark |
|
 ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | With freedom, comes responsibility. That's the balance. |
|
Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON | the greatest responsibility to us now semi-free citizens is to work hard to keep this freedom. |
|
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Your rights do not advance with technology. Your ability to use and express those rights may, but the right itself does not as the rights are always there and that is what you are missing. My right to travel though now more convenient and in theory more safe has not changed. I can still move about anywhere in the world (within reason) I want whether it is by land, air, or sea and that is just as true today as it was 10000 years ago.
I do not have a greater freedom of speech right now because I can post on a blog or update facebook on my smartphone. I have always had the right to speak my mind against the government or anyone else.
I do not have a greater freedom to religion because it can be broadcast worldwide through TV or the internet. I have always had that right in this country.
I do not have any greater right to legal porn because it is easily accessible over the internet or because I can easily get it through PayPerView.
Society may become displaced and numb to things that were "taboo" allowing more things to become "norms", but the rights of the people to do those things were always there and technology though it may make it easier and more prevalent has not made it a new human right.
If you can give me one example of a human right that we as Americans have now or don't have now because of the internet then I will concede. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:Your rights do not advance with technology. Your ability to use and express those rights may, but the right itself does not as the rights are always there I agree. You're talking about the origin and nature of your right. I agree that rights don't originate from society.
However, if you live in a society which doesn't share your view of rights, doesn't respect your rights, then, for all practical purpose you have no rights. It doesn't matter if your rights are god-given, natural, or inherent. If you can't exercise them it's like you have none. At that point, it's merely an academic, philosophic point that they didn't originate from society.
That's the basis of civic republicanism (a philosophy having nothing to do with the modern Republican party). It's a contradiction which, on the one hand, views a virtuous government existing to promote individual rights. But, on he other hand, the virtuous individual defined as suppressing the exercise of their rights for the good of the whole.
A political system where individuals are coerced (the opposite of liberty) to participate in governance (jury, militia, voting, serving in office). Where individuals are coerced to participate in a militia (rather than allow government to use a standing army, which could lead to an unvirtuous government, oppressing the liberties of the citizenry). But, expected to submit to the consensus of their martial comrades, and not exercise their individual right to revolt.
The common theme is: although government is to respect the rights of individuals, individuals have a responsibility to not express all their rights all the time (just because they can) in order to preserve the government which respects their rights. Without that government, their rights would be in worse shape than suppressing them (due to social norms, for the good of the whole).
That's what I meant when I discussed how our rights are substantively improved through technological advances. And, how those advances create greater challenges to balance individual and social needs (social needs merely being the needs of individuals).
The origin of rights doesn't really get into the practical application of rights. Where the "rubber meets the road." The transaction which occurs when an individual leaves Locke's "state of nature" and enters into a "social contract" for mutual benefit.
The "mutual" part is where the "rubber meets the road." How rights are improved (delegating the right of retribution to the State in return for due process, a jury of peers, and protections against cruel and unusual punishment). Some individuals are losers in that exchange. A few guilty go free. But, overall, our right to retribution (and freedom of our own person) is improved.
Mark |
|
