1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ban cameras (the solution?)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by vonork, May 24, 2004.

  1. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    They might as well ban guns because a solidier could go crazy and attack his/her fellow US solidiers. What they need to realize is that everything you do in life has a risk to it. For example, when I am cutting a steak, there could be an earthquake, resulting of me falling on the knife and killing myself. But I'd be a fool if I said, "We should ban stakes to prevent this." The banning of cameras in Iraq is the same thing. They can't hurt anybody.
     
  2. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    I'm surprised they didn't ban cameras already.

    It would seem like a logical policy to have in a war if you want to cover it up.

    They had strict controls on the media, but they didn't ban cameras for soldiers? Stupid government.
     
  3. WillJ

    WillJ Coolness Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,471
    Location:
    USA
    No, no, no! It's "Freedom tickling."
    Nonsense! What if there's an earthquake and the camera flies out of the soldier's hands and hits another guy in the head?
     
  4. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,087
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    You've just reminded me - a lot of the mass media industry would quickly collapse. Okay, small loss there. Regarding national secrets, you'd essentially be making the nation defenseless since a spy for any other nation could look at attack/defense plans, crypto codes, heck the messages themselves. For that matter, banks would start having a difficult time protecting their customers' interests.

    But, now that you've made your position more clear, I have to oppose "cameras everywhere" for a more general reason: human dignity. I do not think that everyone being completely exposed to everyone else protects anyone's dignity, and I don't think that "everyone's dignity is being lowered the same amount" is a viable justification.
     
  5. Wolfe Tone

    Wolfe Tone Which Way Did He Go?

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    2,770
    Location:
    Co. Down, Ireland
    The only cameras I want to see banned are speed cameras
     
  6. betazed

    betazed Seeking...

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,224
    Actually mass media industry will not collapse. Its function will change. Right now their job is to ferret out information (which they do not do) and present it to the public (right now they present what they are asked to present). In this new scenario they still have a very important function to serve. People still need to go somewhere to get all the information. Mass media can server that purpose.
    Remember this scheme only works if all parties present all the information. It is no use to me if I am the only one who declares everything. Defense agencies defend against other nations. In that scenario if the other nation is hiding then we should hide it from them too. However, if they are not hiding then we should not hide it.

    Be that as it may I would also like to ask how much of the national interest is really served by these spy agencies. That they fail we know. Pearl harbor and 9/11. How much do they succeed? Do they really justufy the cost? I am not sure at all. I am not sure that the average American will not lead a better life because he will have more access to resources then - resources which are now used by all these agencies. To what benefit? No one has explained it to anybody. When has all these agencies definitely provided a benefit (OTOH, these agencies have definitely mucked up bigtime in multiple cases that we know of). To me all they do is serve the megalomania of a select few. So do away with all those secrets. I am not sure we need them.
    Firstly banks now do not server their customer's interest. They serve their own interest and the customer falls in line. Anyway, I fail to understand which aspect of current banking is not going to work in this new scheme. Remember it will be even more difficult to do financial trickery because everyone can know every account. Do you think Enron can happen in this scenario?
    Once again I fail to see why my dignity will be lessened by you seeing me. What has dignity to do with hiding? In fact IMHO, it has to do with revealing. A dignified individual has nothing to conceal. His moral integrity lies beyond doubt. Oriental culture provides an acid test for this. The concept of privacy in Japan or India for example is very different than in US. Physical separation or isolation has very little to do with it. That it is possible to have privacy without physical separation or isolation somewhere in the world shows us that revealing everything does not necessarily hurt dignity.
     
  7. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    Why would the mass media collaps, to the contra: they would be able to prove all that copy and charge them!

    Like the pharma ex: If you copy me I can prove in a court that you have done this, by showing the video of you looking at the video from my research lab.

    So what if Usama knows the US most sectrets - We know where he is and can go and get him!
     

Share This Page