tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post5678450917296171004..comments2023-07-25T05:54:36.811-07:00Comments on thaxis: Running Stop LightsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-42201682785644805372008-11-19T13:56:00.000-08:002008-11-19T13:56:00.000-08:00Yes, you're right, the privacy issue isn't simply ...Yes, you're right, the privacy issue isn't simply one of surreptitious observation -- it seems to also have something to do with frequency/amount of observation. If a cop blatantly trailed me all day, it's the constant attention as much as anything that constitutes my loss of privacy. Why is privacy in itself, a good thing? I'm not completely sure, but it does seem to be something that has inherent value to us.mijopohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17603131814763831844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-70336025715484524872008-11-19T11:07:00.000-08:002008-11-19T11:07:00.000-08:00Yeah, I guess both comments stop the slippery tech...Yeah, I guess both comments stop the slippery technology slope by insisting that a human be in the loop. But still, if we all knew that cameras were perched at all stop lights, we'd eliminate the surreptitious expectation. So too my Orwellian box that rides with us, doling at tickets for infractions like a Pez dispenser. If we all knew it was there, would the privacy problem really go away?<BR/><BR/>Finally, an a.larson's point, I'm trying to get at a normative not descriptive anaysis of privacy with regard to law enforcement. Perhaps it's true (as I supect it is) that we cry foul if not a human in the loop, but this begs the question of why humans need be in the loop; laws are still laws, and infractions still well-defined in spite of the absence of humans.<BR/><BR/>The more I think about this issue the more I think it's just really troubling, and hard to unravel with classic philosophical analysis. <BR/><BR/>Any one recommend a book or article?Erik J. Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00992991998553823280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-57139720836667124142008-11-19T03:44:00.000-08:002008-11-19T03:44:00.000-08:00I think the problem is with surreptitious observat...I think the problem is with surreptitious observation. We have a reasonable right to privacy and to expect that the government isn't directly observing what we're doing unless we're aware of their doing so, or unless they've accumulated reasonable evidence that we may be committing crimes. Stop light cameras violate this expectation, as do tickets from unmarked police cars in my opinion.mijopohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03113114446433726232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-28429470430833555742008-11-18T15:21:00.000-08:002008-11-18T15:21:00.000-08:00I don't think that logic and the formalized though...I don't think that logic and the formalized thought experiment are the correct tools here. The debate between personal liberty and public safety cannot be understood this way. We "human citizens" play a silly psychological game, and call it civilized life. Frankly, we want it all, and we can’t have it. The idea of a slippery slope is really just a good way to understand human nature. In other words, we just are the slippery slope. And most of the time, we make up the rules after we make up our (illogical) minds (don’t take my word for it, ask Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)<BR/>Here’s how I cast the same debate: Technology as an extension of “being caught in the act by some other human” seems like dirty pool. Meaning that we all want to get away with as much as we possibly can! The human element (our need to be social and our predisposition to define ourselves as members of a larger community or social group) is largely responsible for our ethical and legal constructions. Speeding is only bad if we get caught doing it by some other member of the same group, or if, worst case scenario, our speeding costs ourselves or other members of our social group something important (accidents!) <BR/>The camera blows up the system. It is not a person, but it has the authority to “catch us” doing things that only matter relative to other people. It’s not logic, it’s human nature. Haven't we all witnessed some serious driving infraction and wished desperately that there were a cop around to see it? No one ever wished that there were a camera there.A. Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04306144352764734813noreply@blogger.com