[ddt_Osprey]

There's worse things than Snowden's revelations though, like cheerfully donating your organs to a government that executes you over some religious aerobics classes. [1]

I hope this whole panopticon thing doesn't get finished until after we can grow organs in vitro, rendering my donations moot.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...

[ctack]

I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't see the connection between organ harvesting and the construction of a global panopticon.

You also seem to be supporter of such a panopticon. Could you explain why? Or are you just trolling?

[throwanem]

He's saying, I think, that it's worth keeping a sense of perspective - that there are much worse things than being watched. He's not wrong there.

[alanwatts]

Comparing to the lowest common denominator to feel better about something is often akin to denial.

[throwanem]

No doubt. But I've had a while to consider this possibility, having noticed general aviation aircraft loitering over Baltimore for some time now and half surmised something like this may be going on, and you know what? I'm fine with it. Being watched from the sky is hardly ideal, I concede. But also worth considering, I think, is that the next time I get mugged, if there has to be a next time, maybe being watched from the sky will make it possible for the police to catch the son of a bitch who does it.

That's one of the things that can happen in Baltimore. It is far from the worst. Indeed, it, and things much worse, happen in Baltimore every day. Don't misunderstand me here - media depictions aside, this is a wonderful city with which I fell in love very quickly, and where I expect and intend to continue living for the remainder of my life. But this is also a city, wonderful though it be in many ways, in which many bad things happen to many innocent people. Being observed from on high by our government bears a certain degree of potential danger, of course. There's an argument to be made, and I think a very cogent one, that that potential danger is outweighed by the very real danger evident in this city's crime statistics. I'm okay with being watched from the sky if it is likely to reduce that danger, and I think that it is.

I realize that people who have never been the victim of a violent crime may feel differently about this. I understand that their perspective on a matter such as this may well be different from mine. I also don't think it is unreasonable of me to regard their perspective as incompletely informed. Basing an argument around my personal experience is not something with which I'm wholly comfortable for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it's often deployed as a tactic against dissent. But there's also something to be said for the idea that there's only so much a virgin can be expected to know about sex. I don't really know if it's reasonable to expect there be a single right answer on a question like this one. But I certainly know where I come down on it.

[ctack]

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences and thank-you for being straight up.

First of all, I don't know your experiences and am in no way trying to cheapen them, but I too have been the victim of crime (a break in while I was sleeping and I woke up and screamed and woke up the house and assailants thankfully fled) and lots of treasured possessions were taken. If I'd been asked in the first year of that, I'd have let the government put cameras in my bathroom and the death penalty would not be enough for them. But of course as things have cooled off; I've moved on and found peace. And now the idea of giving away completely the right to private movement in the name of safety seems plain wrong.

[throwanem]

Certainly that's fair enough. As I said before, I don't know that it makes sense to expect there be a single right answer to a question like this.

Your response neatly demonstrates the other primary reason I do not like to construct an argument around personal experience. Everyone's experience is unique, and such arguments are thus both unlikely to be convincing and weak in the extreme. To use such an argument was an error on my part which I even expected at the time I would probably regret, but I foolishly went ahead and did so anyway. Perhaps I will use better sense next time.

It is curious to me that you speak of a "right to private movement". This is an idea I find it difficult to comprehend, because the movements of which you speak are not private. They are public. They may largely have taken place unobserved heretofore, but I find it difficult to construct an argument for the idea that, simply because some, perhaps many, of your actions in public have not been seen up to now, this implies the existence of a positive right that such actions in public not be seen into the indefinite future. There is case law to the effect that you do not have a general right to privacy within the confines of a motor vehicle. What about a sidewalk is different?

[alanwatts]

Off topic

[ddt_Osprey]

NO U