Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World 166
An anonymous reader writes: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke on Thursday to faculty and students at the University of Oklahoma City about the privacy perils brought on by modern technology. She warned that the march of technological progress comes with a need to enact privacy protections if we want to avoid living in an "Orwellian world" of constant surveillance. She said, "There are drones flying over the air randomly that are recording everything that's happening on what we consider our private property. That type of technology has to stimulate us to think about what is it that we cherish in privacy and how far we want to protect it and from whom. Because people think that it should be protected just against government intrusion, but I don't like the fact that someone I don't know can pick up, if they're a private citizen, one of these drones and fly it over my property."
What are the bounds of property? (Score:3)
How high above the dirt do I own? In theory, I could just go straight up with a powerful enough camera lens and zoom in and see what I want on your property from another piece of property, possibly miles away. I see little difference than selling people rights to the dirt, but not to the minerals, and the legality of drilling diagonally underneath someone else's property.
Right now where I'm at on this is allowing someone to look at my property, as long as they aren't "above" my property, and if they do cross my property line they can be held responsible, including me shooting it out of the sky. I can always go inside, just like neighbors can peer over a fence.
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, as far as I am aware, you are not allowed to have security cameras on your property that film parts of other's properties. Those laws should suffice, or at least be amended to include "roaming" cameras.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Also, as far as I am aware, you are not allowed to have security cameras on your property that film parts of other's properties. Those laws should suffice, or at least be amended to include "roaming" cameras.
Be sure to check with your local laws. IANAL and I understand the law slightly differently --- which might be because we're in different localities (or because IANAL).
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting issue is, the photons that formed the image were not on their property at the time, nor do they have a legitimate claim to ownership of those photons just because they happened to bounce off their stuff. They probably bounced off a lot of other stuff, too. "My photon! MY PHOTON!" has more than a little bit of the ring of insanity about it. :)
If you don't want a photonic record of your actions, the sensible answer is to avoid photons that can form such a thing, i.e., stay inside your dwelling
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard, nor ever will think I'll hear of that issue again. Uninteresting issue is uninteresting. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, as far as I am aware, you are not allowed to have security cameras on your property that film parts of other's properties. Those laws should suffice, or at least be amended to include "roaming" cameras.
Ok. I'm calling bullshit. Please provide a sample of such a law. I've never seen video camera footage that did NOT film others peoples property. I'm not really sure how that would be possible while still getting a useful image.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, would you please refer to sections B. and C below? To answer your question, you must angle the camera's down so that they record only up to the top of the fence or to the property line.Private property has an expectation of privacy in Georgia.
Not taking a section quoted out of context to make it appear you are right when you were really wrong: [ehow.com]
(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:
(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or any other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;
(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; or
(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage (fenced yard) of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded;
Ummm...you do realize the parts you quoted out of context are really the exceptions to the law that state where recording is legal? Reading the entire section it only states it's illegal to record activities "which occur in any private place and out of public view". It doesn't say a single word about recording on another persons property. In other words what you linked to actually shows you're wrong. At
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm...you do realize the parts you quoted out of context are really the exceptions to the law that state where recording is legal? Reading the entire section it only states it's illegal to record activities "which occur in any private place and out of public view". It doesn't say a single word about recording on another persons property. In other words what you linked to actually shows you're wrong. At least with regards to GA law. Please try again.
Obvious troll is obvious. Or obviously stupid. Either way, doesn't matter. Other people's property is private property... it doesn't "only" state it is illegal to record in a private place. Your place, your consent.
I've never seen video camera footage that did NOT film others peoples property.
Must have had consent. Or you've never seen closed circuit television of a robbery in a convenience store on a T.V. show.
And I'm saying you obviously do have it on you and do smell like it. That is the smell of someone who is so used to the stink they don't realize they are wrong when they are
Re: (Score:2)
One that I enjoyed reading a out is the ariel tram in Portland OR. Residents were concerend with the gondolas flying overhead and peeking into their private back yards. Residents were assured the view is out and not down. One resident then put offencive material in his "private back yard", and there was a stir on his choice of back yard decor. He reminded the tram operators that passangers can not see into his private back yard. Its your problem as it is my private back yard.
Link http://gondolaproject [gondolaproject.com]
Drones are just a distraction (Score:5, Insightful)
Orwellian society has come to us not because of technology, but because of people. Everyone from the President, NSA, Congress, Courts, Law Enforcement, and General Public is guilty of encouraging or simply allowing the erosion of our liberties. Because we need it to fight the terrorists, druggies, and especially child molesters. Think of the children!
Even if we manage to get government espionage under control, what technology is allowing is for private companies to collect massive amounts of data on us. And every idiot who installs apps on their phone that require "spy on you" permissions is guilty of helping them do so and even financing them. I can't see this stopping until someone makes a sufficiently shocking news story about violations of people's privacy. Maybe someone will make an app that forwards a copy of your browsing history to your mother and significant other, and a message to you saying "this is a small fraction of what every company knows about you".
Re: (Score:2)
We must learn from the enemy, but we must not become the enemy. What about instead, "honest" websites start collecting what information they can do so legally, and then asking people if they can do what they wish with it, including forwarding it to their mothers. Maybe even ask for their Google/facebook account login (sneakily as the unethical do, teaching them in the process how this happens), and then asking, "Is so and so your mother/wife and would you like to forward this to them?"
We must get creative.
Re: (Score:2)
You will not own much property when you need to live in jail / prison to get room and board after the robots take most of the jobs. Or you can go back to school and run up the loans and hope you get a job and have time to pay them off before you get too old and get layed off.
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Every recording method and device is suspect, not just drones. 1984 has been privatized and the price has come down to the level that a typical home owner can afford it. And, not everyone that can afford it is a peeping-tom.
Canada seems to be ahead of the curve compared to the U.S..
drone-based-businesses-soar-in-canada-as-faa-grounds-us-entrepreneurs:
https://gigaom.com/2014/09/12/... [gigaom.com]
Re: (Score:2)
and guns are legal in most of the USA so i can shoot someone's drone out of the sky if it's spying on my property
Re: (Score:2)
and guns are legal in most of the USA so i can shoot someone's drone out of the sky if it's spying on my property
The gun you are looking for is called a HERF [slashdot.org] gun. A HERF gun is a form of directed energy weapon. Think of it as an aimed EMP. The drone just drops out of the sky completely dead.
Re: (Score:2)
and guns are legal in most of the USA so i can shoot someone's drone out of the sky if it's spying on my property
Falling bullets still mame and injure people, even if they don't kill. Wouldn't it just be easier to interfere with the control signals and "liberate" the drone from it's owner? You have a mains powered transmitter - they have batteries. Yes they can encrypt the signals, yes you can still make the drone uncontrollable.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're trying to be insightful, but your argument isn't so strong for shotguns (which would far more practical for shooting at flying drones).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.
HOWEVER:
the authority to govern "navigable" airways comes with some caveats, which most people here aren't considering.
First, "navibable" in U.S. law implies that manned craft can use that route to travel interstate. That is pretty much the same definition as "navibable" waters.
The Federal government's AUTHORITY to govern "navigable airways", just like their authority to govern "navigable waters", stems from their authority, granted by the Constitution, to govern interstate commerce.
"Navigable airways" are particular altitudes and routes. They are clearly defined in aviation charts.
Everything else is "fair game", and by the Constitution (and Common Law) is up to the landowners and the States.
To put it in a nutshell: by ancient common law (which still holds; U.S. is a Common Law country) everything EXCEPT the clearly-defined "navigable airways" is indeed legally controlled by the landowner below, and is not subject to Federal jurisdiction.
Further, in my state, it is not legal to use any means to "surveil" property which isn't normally visible from the street, by ANY means, including aircraft, without a warrant. And yes, that means using a stepladder to see over the fence IS a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the FAA has no say if I fly drones over my land (or private land where I have the owner's permission).
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:5, Informative)
Zero. Since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, you don't "own" a goddamn thing. You have property only at the pleasure of the government, and as long as there isn't a corporation who can make better use of your property. And by "better use", I mean, will pay more in taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You can own property if you have a Land Patent. Good luck getting one of those; like you said, the Supremes served their masters well.
Re: (Score:2)
There are always "patented mining claims" for sale in my state. Does the patent convey with the title?
Re: (Score:2)
The patent means the property stays in your name, cannot be judged against, confiscated or be part of Eminent Domain. Nor would it be subject to sale to satisfy your debts.
Groovy instrument!
Re: (Score:2)
Nifty. But is it preserved when sold?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question, I'll look into that.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't exist ANYMORE in the U.S.
The rest of it follows logically as my point.
No conspiracy theories needed. It hasn't been theory for years.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the UCC, the monster can use the land under jurisdiction of the Fed, meanwhile the land is part of the state. Not yours.
You can buy and sell value, but when it comes down to it, Eminent Domain, or Debt. can flick you like a flea at any point. You actually own shit. You use land.
The statement that you own land is a laymans perspective that isn't questioned often enough for the public to realize, that isn't the case.
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, "how high above the dirt you own" is already well defined, both in law, regulation and court cases. What is happening at the ground and a bit above on your property is yours and you can even own copyright on it. Government and individuals are not supposed to snoop on you. Fliers are not supposed to fly below 500' above you in rural areas, higher in urban areas. The result is that if someone is peeping on you in a situation where you can reasonably expect privacy you can sue them and they can also separately be fined and imprisoned by the government. The government itself is supposed to get a warrant to view you.
Just as importantly, the other logical question is how far down below the surface do you own. This is your mineral rights.
Typically in the eastern United States you own all the way down, let's say to the mantle. The exact depth doesn't get too much precedence since deep drilling hasn't been done but fracking may be changing that soon.
Out in the western United States you may well not own below your surface soil, you may well not own your mineral rights, you may well not own your water rights and you may well not even own the rain that falls upon your land. Check your deed and your state laws.
In the fourth dimension of space you own nothing. That is possibly reserved for the alternative owners who may or may not own the land you own in this variation of the multiverse. This will not appear on your deed.
In the fifth dimension (time) your ownership started at some point in the past delineated by your purchase and will end at some point in the future marked by your death or other event. Again, check your deed for the particulars.
Re: (Score:2)
Out in the western United States you may well not own below your surface soil, you may well not own your mineral rights, you may well not own your water rights and you may well not even own the rain that falls upon your land. Check your deed and your state laws.
This. I got roped into a sales presentation one time in Las Vegas where they were trying to sell land in some no-name town that supposedly had an aquifer under it and the land was going to be very valuable very soon. The minute I mentioned mineral rights the sales team whisked me out of there so fast it took my hat 5 minutes to catch up. Clearly the deal was not actually going to include the rights to the water, if any, and they didn't want me anywhere near any of the other victims^H^H^H^H^H^H customers.
Re: (Score:2)
In the fifth dimension (time) your ownership started at some point in the past delineated by your purchase and will end at some point in the future marked by your death or other event. Again, check your deed for the particulars.
Hmm, according the the book "A Wrinkle in Time" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Time is the fourth dimension. Plus the Tesseract Concept was I thought a great solution to getting around. I do want to point out it was like 30 years ago when i read this book. But I was down with a red head smarty/nerdy chick being the hero.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... then your world is a subset of the real world. How fascinating to meet you.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please enumerate your 4 spacial dimensions and where you learned them?
Re: (Score:3)
If you're limited to three dimensions then I'm sorry but you won't be able to understand. Here... ... did you get that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is happening and judges sometimes throw it out as government gone too far. Hopefully the trend of government getting their knuckles knocked will intensify.
Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score:4, Informative)
and if they do cross my property line they can be held responsible, including me shooting it out of the sky.
Can you shoot down airliners who cross your property lines?
You actually don't own all airspace over your property. There has been a SCOTUS ruling [wikipedia.org] on the matter.
Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.
It is clear that the land owner does not own navigable airspace. Navigable airspace is defined with respect to fixed wing aircraft, the FAA has done that, it is unclear as to what navigable airspace means with respect to small drones. There is even a clause that allows helicopters to fly below normal flight minimums. There still needs to be legislation defining exactly what "space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land" legally means. Having to fly comercial drones at fixed wing minimums would render them useless. This is one of the reasons why the FAA is holding back on allowing commercial drones as the laws backing them up are unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no rights to what you might think is your property. Truth of the matter is when the US signed onto the TPP deal, they signed over US Sovereignty to corporations, thus US Sovereignty is now property of corporations. Thus meaning the power of the entity that granted the deed of your property to you or the people that hold the note on it was signed over to corporations, thus is the event horizon of the black hole in the home lending market. You under the TPP can't own property anymore but they are
Re: (Score:2)
enh (Score:5, Insightful)
The impression I got was that she was more against private ownership of camera-equipped drones. I'm guessing that this argument will be used to put limits on individually owned drones, not on government owned drones.
Re: (Score:3)
Or on corporate drones. Many of the surveillance drones used by the government are actually owned and operated by contractors. The big corporations won't have any problem owning drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Or on corporate drones. Many of the surveillance drones used by the government are actually owned and operated by contractors. The big corporations won't have any problem owning drones.
You're right. And as I said in another response, I'm thinking that media drones will also get a legal pass, as long as they're not used to embarrass the police, by, you know, exposing their misuse of surplus military equipment, as just one example.
Re:enh (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think private individuals using drones to be a peeping tom is a serious problem, but assuming for the sake of argument it is, consider that drones are cheap and getting cheaper, so losing a few may not be a problem. Also, they're hard to see at night, which is when all the cool stuff is happening. And you know, right, that modern drone camera systems downlink to a base station for a live feed? So dropping the drone doesn't destroy the video.
Jamming the drone may give you some temporary relief, but even that won't actually cause the drone to crash, as modern drones have a "go home" failsafe if they lose signal.
On the other hand, touching off a firearm in the city limits under circumstances not considered life-or-death is generally frowned upon by the local constabulary. Likewise, but much less serious, jamming in general is frowned upon by those same agencies.
But again, I doubt that individuals using drones for some purile neighbor spying will become a thing. Much more likely would be drones deployed by the media, which may get a legal pass as long as they're not embarrassing the police, private security entities, and of course, any local or national government agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Jamming the drone may give you some temporary relief, but even that won't actually cause the drone to crash, as modern drones have a "go home" failsafe if they lose signal.
That depends on how much power you are willing to use to "jam" it and how directional you choose to make it.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that's true, but to foil the "go home" you'd have to jam GPS as well as control signals. And the obvious counter to that is inertial guidance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the peeping tom. I'm worried about the peeping tom who is in fact a government snitch, since nearly any private activity could be construed as illegal, given the right spin and a motivated prosecutor, especially in a climate of moral panic.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't actually talking about city property. If you live in the city, you don't expect privacy anyway.
If you want to take pictures at night, don't expect to see much.
I envision a sky filled with drones, armed drones downing camera drones, home radar systems, anti-drone EMP missles.
Necessity fuels the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Street view stays on the roads... generally. Drones can go to the second story where someone's open window is why they're naked.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell kind of system rips your clothes off when the window opens?
Re: (Score:2)
Street view stays on the roads... generally. Drones can go to the second story where someone's open window is *while they're naked.
Oops..
What the hell kind of system rips your clothes off when the window opens?
Well funded, blackhat pornographers?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, if it actually got to court, good luck proving a damn thing.
Where's the drone? Ohhh , did you lose it somewhere? Musta downed it in some water somewhere. Tough shit!
Re: (Score:2)
As a designer of military weaponry, I predict you have wasted your money.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't she one of the very people that actually helped to build the Orwellian society we already have?
Because people think that it should be protected just against government intrusion, but I don't like the fact that someone I don't know can pick up, if they're a private citizen, one of these drones and fly it over my property
Except private citizens aren't doing this and lack the funds and tools to do it even if they wanted to. Our government, on the other hand, is fist-deep in our assholes at any given moment. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind allowing the government to do as it pleases, while placing further limitations against citizens that aren't even a problem to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, she is one of the people to blame, if you have a reductionist view that all government members have the same goal and opinions.
And if you have no idea how the supreme court works.
Given that, you're totally correct. How about specific cases?
Re: (Score:3)
She had a job before being on the Supreme Court.
I'm just mentioning this, in case you were born yesterday.
not so much for drones, but in other cases... (Score:1)
It would sure help if people stopped throwing enormous wads of cash at companies peddling Orwellian wares designed to spy on you, or guide you into uploading everything you do to their web servers for data mining.
But no. Hundreds of millions of us stand in line to fork over cash to those companies. THAT is why we live in an Orwellian world. Well, no, I take it back... it's just one reason. There are other reasons too. But it sure as fuck doesn't help.
if only (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's not like she isn't doing this as a PR stunt that will be widely reported on how she is "mentoring" our future.
Re:if only (Score:5, Informative)
Do you understand how the Supreme Court works? They can only adjudicate cases brought before them. They can't make policy outside of those cases, so in fact, she is not in a "position to do more than talk" until a case comes before her challenging surveillance. And even then, she's one vote out of nine.
A Supreme Court justice can do three things in their official capacity: talk, write and vote, and the talking they do is mostly asking questions. They can't initiate any action at all.
If you want something "done", you've got to talk to your congressbum.
Re:if only (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you understand how the Supreme Court works? They can only adjudicate cases brought before them.
While true in a strict sense, in a broader sense the Supreme Court has the ability to shape jurisprudence around bigger issues. Take, for example, the recent plethora of federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans in a number of states. The Supreme Court did NOT rule on this issue directly. In fact, the majority rulings last year explicitly avoiding tackling that issue. But, as Scalia noted in dissent at the time, the type of argumentation used in the majority opinion strongly implied that no legal logic would support a gay marriage ban.
So, in the process of adjudicating a case before them, the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for other rulings that were strictly unrelated, but followed from the legal arguments employed.
In this way, Supreme Court justices can shape jurisprudence on cases far beyond their docket. If they begin to make strongly worded objections to Fourth Amendment violations and present new legal justifications for stopping those violations, chances are those sorts of legal arguments will be upheld by lower courts.
And even then, she's one vote out of nine. [snip] If you want something "done", you've got to talk to your congressbum.
True, but 1 out of 9 is somewhat better odds than 1 out 435 in terms of hoping to "get something done," particularly when a number of privacy-related cases have been coming before the Court in recent years.
Re: (Score:2)
But only as far as the cases that come before it, whether or not they accept them.
That's true both in the strict sense, and the broader sense. The Supreme Court can not initiate any action.
Re: (Score:2)
But only as far as the cases that come before it, whether or not they accept them.
That's true both in the strict sense, and the broader sense. The Supreme Court can not initiate any action.
Well, as of last year, it seems it can (in a way), as long as someone involved in a lawsuit elsewhere asks nicely. The Court has now created ex nihilo a new veto power for itself. The precedent is United States v. Windsor [wikipedia.org]. As Justice Scalia wrote in dissent:
The Court is eager--hungry--to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges' intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the "judicial Power," a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete "Cases" and "Controversies." Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?
[snip]
Windsor's injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. [...] What the petitioner United States asks us to do in the case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not to provide relief from the judgment below but to say that that judgment was correct. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction.
In other words, there was no dispute before the court to adjudicate, and thus no case (in a legal sense). Yet the Supreme Court nevertheless chose to offer its opinion on gay rights and overturn a federal law, despite a lack of any standing, any disp
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm grateful if only because it led me to Larry Tribe's very interesting article about Scalia's tantrum in this case.
That's what's interesting about the Supreme Court. They all are smart, write persuasively. But there's always someone smarter, more persuasive. And in the case of Scalia, where he's writing from an activist agenda, you always have to get a second opinion.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013... [scotusblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just now? (Score:2)
Re:Just now? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, "private" means corporations, too. Until I see a vote on a lower court decision, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. She's been only one of maybe three Supreme Court justices who seem to believe in privacy. And one of the others seems to think privacy only applies to men and corporations.
No Worries. (Score:2)
to overrule legislated abridgments to our constitutionally-protected freedoms.
It's too bad Mademoiselle Sotomayer isn't in a position to help with that.
Troglodytes? (Score:2, Troll)
progress will occur!
The only solution is for freedom lovers to co-opt the technology itself. Camera's everywhere are a problem? Then pass laws that require all government owned camera's to be publicly accessible on the web to everyone all the time. Drones are encroaching on
That's great (Score:2)
This is big (Score:2)
...news, and the realization of how big will become apparent in the short term future.
Nanay boys (Score:2)
When I hear from time to time those wonderful thoughtful remarks by US politicians that seem to be so upfront against "reactionary" establishment, it always reminds of a 30-year old (at least) Russian meme called "The fight of Nanay boys". Basically, those Nanay folks of Far North of Russia had had this traditional entertainment show called "The fight of Nanay boys" where an entertainer would dress his lower and upper parts of his body in clothes in such a way so when he bends forward and stands on his feet
Duuuuhhhh. . . . (Score:2)
Property (Score:2)
I don't know can pick up, if they're a private citizen, one of these drones and fly it over my property.
If I follow the reasoning, if you have no property, you have no right to privacy, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice story bro. They should make a movie of it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they were an init script holdout and systemd put a hit on them.
If only (Score:2)
Orwell was an Optimist [fyngyrz.com]
Re:She doesn't mind the state controlling everthin (Score:5, Informative)
She's probably just fine with the *state* peeping into your (not her) business. That's the very definition of a self labeled "progressive". Guns, drones, private (no tax man involved) monetary interactions between people, healthcare, retirement, etc.
Actually, Sotomayor is a bit of an outlier [foxnews.com] on the Supreme Court and has been highlighted for laying the groundwork [techdirt.com] to reinstate stronger Fourth Amendment protections -- particularly against the government [msnbc.com] intrusions -- especially in her ruling [supremecourt.gov] in United States v. Jones [wikipedia.org]. (For details on her privacy rulings before joining the Court, you can see EPIC's summary here [epic.org].)
Note that in TFA she was warning about "Orwellian" surveillance, which specifically tends to refer to a world where the government is spying on you, not just private citizens. The quotation highlighted in TFS seems to focus on private citizen regulations, but she has also demonstrated more concern about many government invasions of privacy than most other Supreme Court members, including those who are definitely NOT ''progressives."
Re: (Score:2)
The more I see you post, the more I realize you've chosen your screen name extremely well.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job striking down the straw man.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that in TFA she was warning about "Orwellian" surveillance, which specifically tends to refer to a world where the government is spying on you, not just private citizens.
I think that the world described in the three stories in David Drake's Lacey and His Friends [wikipedia.org] might be a better analogy -- a world where everyone is under constant surveillance from multiple angles and by different organizations, where buying 'privacy' pays for a room with only the single mandatory government camera, and the ability of the police to roll back surveillance footage to track the movements of a criminal result in the overwhelming majority of criminals captured within hours of their crime. I thin
Re: (Score:3)
No, Sotomayor sees limits to government surveillance, unlike many of her colleagues.
Re:So did Orwell (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to understand why Sotomayor's opinions are news when they are not fundamentally different from high school book reports written all over the US.
Maybe because she's one of only NINE people in the United States who potentially have the direct power to constrain a surveillance state, since it's clear that our Executive and Legislative branches have "sold out" and have effectively rendered many clauses of the Fourth Amendment meaningless.
Note that the Supreme Court has UNANIMOUSLY overruled [nationalreview.com] the Obama administration's stance at least 13 times in the past two years, in a number of those cases protecting privacy and related freedoms.
So, yeah, this person is one of the few who are close to our only hope in stopping the continuous march toward government surveillance, intrusions into privacy, and complete dismissal of Fourth Amendment protections.
THAT'S why her opinion is news.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your a/c post is even weaker. He stated that he was talking "about Executive power in general", and "not one that falls along party lines". This stuff has been going on for over 100 years. As a general internet post, yeah, he's not going to list every instance of executive presumption every time he needs to make a point. Obama/Bush is good enough to illustrate the examples of a hundred years of policy and practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Weak. You start blaming the guy currently in charge, currently causing the issues and then backtrack to "But Bush" because you are afraid of Obama supporters. Its people who fear being called names by idiots that let idiots like Obama get a free pass no matter what he does.
Another poster already defended me, but let me be very clear about why I made the second comment: some of the actual cases listed in the article I linked were actually originally brought against the Bush administration. Some of these recent rulings took years to get to the Supreme Court, and the Obama Justice Department was put in the position of defending actions that were originally brought against the Bush administration. This is a common legal situation.
My point is that some people might have viewed
Re: (Score:2)
Until a case is before her, Sotomayor can do absolutely jack shit. Where does the notion come from, that so many people here seem to have, that a Supreme Court justice has any "direct" power to initiate some kind of policy change? This is why they should never have stopped teaching civics in school.
Re: (Score:2)
Until a case is before her, Sotomayor can do absolutely jack shit.
Duh.
Where does the notion come from, that so many people here seem to have, that a Supreme Court justice has any "direct" power to initiate some kind of policy change?
Who said anything about "initiating" anything?
I said she was one of the few who "potentially have the direct power to constrain" the government's overreach, since the other two branches have obviously gone along with various Fourth Amendment violations in recent years. Obviously, implicit in that "potentially" is that it would require a case to come before the Court. Given that numerous people have been filing court cases against the government in recent years about privacy violations, it's reasonab
Re: (Score:2)
"...the larger criticism should be about how our schools are failing at teaching reading comprehension."
Nowadays one only needs to be able to comprehend short, dis-jointed sentences of 140 chars or less. Probably the best use of those 140 chars is a link to xkcd to illustrate a technical or nerdy point. A link to Charlie Brown to illustrate Life Issues. Etc.
Unfortunately, we no longer teach art, either.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my only point.
And they can only do that insofar as a case comes before them. They can't just pick up the newspaper and seeing that Congress passed some law say, "Hey, that's unconstitutional, let's declare it unconstitutional".
The Supreme Court is a reactive body. Unless someone brings s
Re: (Score:3)
Where does the notion come from
They teach civics on Fox these days, apparently there's something called an "activist judge" that can rewrite laws on a whim. According to Fox, these activist judges always make the wrong decision for the wrong reason.
old person surrounded by old people (Score:5, Interesting)
Old person explains something new to THEM or something THEIR peers are ignorant of but every younger person is aware of.... not news.
1984 wasn't about technology, it was about authoritarianism taken to the next level using primarily negative feedback. A realistic response (because history shows negative feedback is totally dominant) to the highly praised imaginative Brave New World which used positive feedback to control populations. It's a rebuttal based on historic human behavior. Both books need to be studied because techniques from both camps are used to control populations. Soft sciences make it more effective and technology is merely a tool.
When somebody has an epiphany; that is great, humor them for catching up. Then try to guide them to the next step and let them have another one. Technology isn't 1984; we have always been there as humans. Few societies are organized so well using the latest social science as 1984 did. It just allows things to go further and the technology allows for more micromanagement-- which is the holy grail for authoritarian systems... the end game solution. Oh, 1948 was the date of the book; 1984 is meaningless, just a future date taken from 1948 but close enough for people at the time to THINK about it.
The micromanagement technology is arguably is required for an end game solution like 1984 because it's been tried thru out human history but eventually it fails because they can't control all the people all the time-- 1984 is the end game solution, where they finally can. Nothing is different except that it's permanent an unable to be stopped. No revolutions. Likely, there are no other nations to invade or conquer either (likely just a smokescreen.)
Terrorists like the founders of the USA would be caught early. No revolutions. Violent human struggles on the group level would end. ORDER is one of the top priorities of authoritarians. can't allow unrest. can't even allow protests -- you need a permit or it's disorderly --- we accept that despite it being in the 1st next to speech; we don't quite accept speech zones or permits for free speech... but we are not that far from it.
Your smartphone + cloud are much more dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone keeps talking about drones being an issue.. They are just the side show and distraction. We don't need to regulate drones, we need to regulate big data.
Reality is that the NSA didn't need drones to know everything about you. They could collect all payment information, all internet presence, own your smartphone with spy apps, own your PC, and track your every relationship through meta data from your telecom provider. They know who you talk to and how frequently and in fact and have in fact "stopped revolutions" while they were small when it comes to terrorism. The notion that we live in a free and open society is long gone. People have ended up on watch lists for being aware of TOR, linux and other technologies. I wouldn't surprise me if anyone that uses slashdot as they have had discussions is "watched". That's just your US government. Companies track your spending, and manipulate your environment to try an get you to consume more. There are records on your credit, what services you buy, what you read, where you shop, where you live that are traded and bought and sold as profiles between corporate entities for the sole purpose of their profitability.
Practical surveillance is here. They don't know when you fart and burp yet but with exercise sensors that report to the cloud, and the internet of things they'll know those things soon too. All they need is a big enough data center to consolidate the data build complete profiles on you. If stores (e.g Target) can start sending you diaper coupons because your purchasing habits suggest you might be pregnant believe me they will (in fact they already have).
ignorance is bliss...short term (Score:2)
People openly TELL corps like facebook in less time more than an agent could get spying on them. You can fool some of the people ALL THE TIME! You only need to appease and distract a majority, they won't care about small groups unless they get a ton of positive media attention.
Monitoring all you technology data is passive and unobtrusive but when people just volunteer everything without any thought... growing up tweeting their every shallow vapid thought... to gain some kind of validation; as if they didn
ignorance is bliss...short term (Score:2)
People openly TELL corps like facebook in less time more than an agent could get spying on them. You can fool some of the people ALL THE TIME! You only need to appease and distract a majority, they won't care about small groups unless they get a ton of positive media attention.
Monitoring all your technology data is passive and unobtrusive but when people just volunteer everything without any thought... growing up tweeting their every shallow vapid thought... to gain some kind of validation; as if they did
Re: (Score:2)
technology is merely a tool.
Wow sounds like you have actually read 1984. Big brother is an unseen but omnipresent demigod who will strap a live rat to your face if he sees you doing something he doesn't like. 'Animal Farm' is a more accurate criticism of the modern democratic state that arises from the revolutionary ashes of such demigods..
Re: (Score:2)
I read it multiple times in fact; it has the depth of thought that one simply can't grasp it all in one reading... well some people might. Having teens or even college students read it is NOT the right time, they are not ready to grasp it. It needs to be read later after some growing up and experience with humanity, plus some understanding of history. After reading Brave New World, again. These intellectual books of influence should have historical context - realizing the connections between Brave New W
Re: (Score:2)
She's been a Supreme Court justice for five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Same problem with 3d-printed firearms. It was fine and good to let you make your own into it even seems like or might be possible for just the technically adept minority of citizens. Now, not so much does the government think making your own gun is a good idea.
Restricting access to files describing functional designs is much like restricting access to books describing more traditional methods of gunsmithing.