Re: Are Flock cameras next? Supreme Court rules against police using sprawling cell phone location data

On 2026-07-16, D  Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>
> Scott Hoge <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> A conceptual distinction should be made between two senses of
>> "taking away the right to privacy":
>> 
>> 1. Removing the /universal/ right to privacy, or
>> 2. Implementing a correspondingly /universal/ right to know.
>> 
>> To clarify, the sense I intend is (1). A correspondingly
>> /universal/ right to know would be a straw man.
>> 
>> Such a universal right to know -- or, as you rhetorically
>> describe it, "sticking a camera in everyone's butt" -- does
>> not necessarily inhere in an ideal society, particularly if it
>> /limits physical freedom/, which I already guarded against in
>> my original claim. Literally sticking a camera in everyone's
>> butt would limit the physical freedom to walk with correct,
>> upright posture.
>
> Are you AI?

No, I'm a real person with a real major in philosophy. I study
Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Immanuel Kant.

>> The problem of privacy isn't limited to citizens who "commit
>> crimes." It extends to anyone /collectively involved/ in
>> potential socioeconomic misfortune, including the "lazy liberals"
>> that conservatives scream about, liberals who are /supposedly/
>> lazy, but may in fact have reasons justifying their actions.
>
> And you’re going with that exactly where?

/Collective involvement/ in potential socioeconomic misfortunate,
such as a drop in food availability due to overconsumption and
underwork, can be analyzed through /collective monitoring/. If we
know where all the so-called "lazy liberals" are, what they're
doing, and why, then we can use that information to solve the
problem constructively and to thereby prevent starvation of the
homeless.

Then conservatives can stop bitching and moaning about what a
"burden on society" we liberals are.

>>> No, in “ideal society” people wouldn’t feel the need to “know
>>> about each other” because they would be living among other
>>> people just like themselves.
>> 
>> What you're describing is /perfect conformity/. Which, if a
>> poor little boy in a wheelchair were born, would require
>> tossing him into the fire.
>
> No, that’s a lie. I guess I also should mention that boy’s
> wheelchair during pregnancy would limit the physical freedom of
> mother to walk with correct, upright posture.

That's beside the point. I hoped it would be /plainly obvious/
that by the "birth of a kid in a wheelchair," I meant the birth
of someone with a congenital disability.

> “Perfect conformity” is what *you* call “ideal society” - with glass
> houses, where there is “nothing to fear and nothing to hide”.

Your "glass house" metaphor carries with it the suggestion that
the house /not only/ permits external observation without a right
to privacy, but /also/ can be easily shattered. It falsely
depicts my view as being weaker than it actually is.

It doesn't imply perfect conformity either. People in glass
houses can look different.

-- Scott Hoge