Liberal Zak: “Hell no!”

Dad of a 6 month old Zak: “I’m planting an RFID in my kid’s right buttcheek at the earliest possible convenience.”

Conflicts, conflicts…

Really interesting comments, PopTarts.

I’d be more inclined to trust the gov’t if the gov’t had proven itself trustworthy.  But it has not.  Over and over it has lied and manipulated, starting wars and fattening corporations to the detriment of ordinary people.  Even local officials cannot be trusted - again not a prejudice but experience.  One of our kids’ DARE officers was trying to get the kids to narc on their parents and another was later busted for selling dope.

The list of official malfeasance is like the Energizer Bunny; it goes on, and on, and on…

Even when officials have good intentions they are often good intentions in the wrong direction.  They are earnestly trying to accomplish something that doesn’t need accomplishing.  The war on drugs is an excellent example.  It has turned our inner cities into war zones, fattened and empowered gangs and crime syndicates, and prompted the creation of ever more dangerous street drugs.

As for opposing the gov’t being an obstacle to getting things done, an apocryphal quote from Mark Twain goes: “No man’s liberty or property are safe while Congress is in session.”

As for “hate speech” the correct response is counter-speech, not censorship.  What happened to, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it”?  The same right ensures the democratic marketplace of ideas will function as it is supposed to. Check out the thread on “Being allowed to believe what you want to believe.”

We’ve gotten used to being pretty complacent about our freedoms.  This is a big mistake.  It especially bothers me that our children are being taught to get in line and follow. Even small examples of disorderly conduct are being hit with huge sanctions.

Actually DOF, I have thought about the issue of freedom of expression and censorship and the whole market place of ideas.

The response of “counter speech” is not the “correct” response (in the technical sense of the word correct and others being wrong) but rather it is an American response. Canadian adopt a slightly different variation to the market place of ideas response and there are several different types of responses in other democratic countries. Each has its own strength and weakness.

I am currently writing (or attempting) to write something that would provide a reasoned and rational basis for censoring hate speech rather than an ad hoc censoring of anything you do not like. It is mostly a legal argument focusing on using various existing laws but in VERY rough and summarised form:

1) Inconsistencies in laws: Sometimes theory does not work as well as in practice. From anti-trust and false advertising to more specifically laws on defamation. If you defame another person by publishing an article even if you get a front page apology you may still have to end up paying damages to the person. Why? In a true market place of ideas the truth would triumph and if so there should not be any damages especially since damages are based on lose to reputation.

2) Discoveries on human mind: Research have shown that humans are not exactly rational beings (which is why sometimes people question assumptions made by economic theories). But more importantly, studies have shown that people tend to remember what they believe in. So even if you tell the person that the statement made was wrong, if that statement supports his belief, he will tend to carry on believing in them. A look at discussions by people on say President Bush on issues such as the reason for war shows how people get entrench in their position in an almost “protectionism” like system rejecting ideas that oppose their belief.

3) Speech and Violence: Expression in the form of violence is not protected and neither is a threat of violence to a person even if you did not really mean it. Radio Television Rwanda did not kill anyone but its speech that called for genocide showed the link between speech and violence. Or more fantastically, a mobster making a standing offer to pay anyone who kills a particular person cannot claim to be protected.

4) Long and Short term: With the link of speech to violence, a person from that has been targeted and perhaps had violence done would take cold comfort in knowing that perhaps the market place of ideas would work in the “long run” but in the “short run” they just have to suffer. As one John Maynard Keynes once said, we are all dead in the long run.

5) Direct Violence: Statements that call for direct violence against a particular group should not be protected.

6) Truth as defence: Speech that may lead to indirect violence such as stating that a particular group is inferior or that they are “diseased” etc should be examine using laws of defamation such that if the statement has truth in them they are protected but if they are not then they are not protected. Half truth is not allowed in the court of law (tell the whole truth...) and thus statements that is true but is a half truth is not protected. This should work together with the concept of malice.

Individual v Group: Why is it that actions that is not acceptable by the law if it is directed as an individual suddenly becomes protected when directed against a group.

7) Others: I have other parts that is related to feminist and establishment theories together with potential pitfalls. There is also more legal stuff on aspects examining the various possible forms of enforcement and remedies.

Pop Tarts,

here’s a link to the ABC News article. They don’t provide a link to the report proper (as far as I can see).

Just one quote:

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get “government approval” of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

Pop Tarts,
I don’t think comparison to Asia is necessarily a good POV.  I’ll take Japan on since I’m more familiar with it than the other countries you mentioned.

Japan has a shame culture that’s very focused on community.  This leads to several problems, of which the GPS tracking systems in backpacks and RFID are only one result.

Japanese culture:

1. In the country, everyone knows what you’re doing.  There’s no need for RFID because people are always watching and gossiping.  Japanese people like knowing where all of their group is.

2.Conformity is prized.  All the students wear uniforms and any self-expression is removed, covered in black hair spray, or sent home.

3. In the 60s and 70s, mothers were urged to become super parents and work themselves practically to death to provide for their children’s happiness, safety, well-being, school lunches, etc etc.  This was part of an effort to encourage a baby boom to recover from the effects of WW2.

Problems:

1.  As more people move into the city, it becomes impossible to keep an eye on everyone at every time.  Even so, Japan is one of the, if not, THE safest country in the world.  But as crime increases, the defenses they are used to become hard to maintain.

2.  Also a result of city living, people who don’t conform or already have friends may never have friends.  Some people become complete recluses and never leave their houses for years while their parents/someone they pay bring them food and necessities.  Some people make a living off keeping other people company.

3.  Children are losing their desire to make lives of their own and instead live in their parents’ homes for as long as they can manage, jobless and leeching off their ever-generous parents.

These RFID tags result from all of these problems--the loss of surveillance capabilities, the increased individuality of some/exclusion by friends which could lead to any number of things such as suicide and running away, and the institutionalized encouragement of parents to protect their young beyond what is really, in my mind, normal.
In addition, Japanese have a general tendency to apply bandaids over gaping wounds--so long as it looks good, it must be good--whether or not it actually works.  Another example is police cars that play loud warning recordings as they drive through neighborhoods.  They’re meant to deter criminals, but all they do is help criminals get away.  So I wouldn’t say that the use of these tags for Japanese schoolchildren is the result of healthy attitudes regarding technology and safety.

As for government, the Japanese govt is full of corrupt officials who take handouts from the mafia in exchange for commissions of companies held by mafia people.  Elections are pretty well fixed before they’ve voted, but people go along with it because they’re afraid to be different/it’s too hard to change.  If you want to call that a good model, I won’t stop you, but I strongly disagree.

(Apologies to Japan for my vast generalizations...)

Also, I think you could use your fear argument to support the use of RFID as well...the people are quick to use such devices for fear their kids will be kidnapped by Osama, the liberals, or the big boogey man.

I think you had some good points about the use of RFID tags in some situations.  But I still think, as with any technologies such as guns, cars, fire, etc., there have to be limits set.  I’m more than happy to use those tags when I go to the health club or in the case of a medical allergy but I’ll be damned if I’m gonna carry a tracking device in my bag or carry a national ID card with one.  Those things have shown up in money and on lipstick tubes from Walmart, and I think that’s going a bit too far.

the Japanese govt is full of corrupt officials who take handouts from the mafia in exchange for commissions of companies held by mafia people.

Mafia? Really?

Or are you using mafia as a term for organized crime in general and not necessarily La Cosa Nostra? I would have thought organized crime in Japan would be dominated by the Yakuza.

Indeed you are right.  But I am wary of typing or saying that word here...probably nothing would happen, but most Japanese seem mortified if I mention the name, and my friend was scammed by one of them for quite a lot of money...I’d just rather not go there
I sure am superstitious for an atheist

We all have our little superstitions, no matter how much we adhere to logic.

I’m a huge baseball fan and I’ve managed to convince myself that if my team is winning and I turn off the game before the end, the other team will rally and win. Of course I know it’s completely irrational and most of my brain rejects the idea, but I still watch to the end, every time.

That’s not a superstition, that’s a rationalization. I use them all the time with my wife. She hates me for it…

“But honey, I can’t turn off the TV now or the bad guys will kill James Bond!”

“Sweetheart, that’s a movie. Not a live sporting event. You can’t use that superstition in this situation.”

“Oh. I can’t? OK.”

Is there a different concept of trust? Is it different between:
1) I do not trust the government because it is corrupt.
2) I do not trust the government because I fear it will use its powers to oppress me.
I think they are two different kinds of distrust.

In a sense, you are right that Japanese officials seem corrupt either through the construction works or through the powerful finance ministry. But is this distaste of government similar to the distaste with regards to the fear that government may track the citizens down. Obviously, my knowledge of Japan is limited only to my trips there compared to you actually living there. Are you a native?

Diverting from Topic at hand to questions on Japan:
By the way, one thing that I have never been comfortable is going to a traditional inn, those with the hot springs, and meeting the opposite sex naked. I just feel so uncomfortable that I cannot enjoy the acid burning my skin away. Speaking of Japan, I am now drooling thinking about the food there. Another question, is it just the particular few restaurant I visit but is fugu only sold in specialised restaurants because the few times I had it was only at those restaurants that only serves it, (when it is in season, what do they serve at other times of the year?) excluding those inns that serve you a nice elaborate meal in your room. Finally, I must add that the BEST BEST tempura I ever had was at this Tokyu restaurant that only serves tempura (not just your usual prawn and vegetables but a whole range). At least with Sashimi you can find comparable places across the world but not tempura. Great place, to keep the oil clean they change it after each course and of course seeing the chef dipping his fingers into the boiling oil is always nice… Alright I have to go eat something, all this talk about food. I have to go to Japan soon, just to eat the food!

Originally posted by Pop Tarts:
Is there a different concept of trust? Is it different between:
1) I do not trust the government because it is corrupt.
2) I do not trust the government because I fear it will use its powers to oppress me.

I am thinking that those are both good reasons to not trust the government with RFID tags.  Why should we differentiate between different kinds of trust when the government will “use its powers to oppress me” “because it is corrupt.” No RFID tags for the government to embed in its citizens as long as the law grants us a right to privacy.

Three different points to be made:
1) Expanding on point Market place of ideas
Recent cases have shown the potential failure of the market place models. (Note I am not saying other models are better but merely market place model is not the best.) The recent McLibel case just decided in the European Court of Human Rights determine that one would not get a fair trial if one is not provided legal aid especially up against a big corporation like McDonald. The seems to recognise that cash can influence the opinion of people and that success of ideas in the market place model may turn on how wealthy one side is. A more tenuous case can be made out over the recent valentine day suicide. There is a recognition that a person may prey on another’s emotional state.

Of course, as the article on Air America shows. People may simply gravitate to ideas that they like. How is it a market place when you only give thought to ideas from an “approved” or “trusted” or “fair and balanced” network.

And the distribution of religion and the its various substrains is not equal across the world but it strongly relates to the region. If market place of ideas work there should be a fair distribution.

2) Right to Privacy
Is there truly a right to privacy? If I hire a private investigator to follow a person around am I breaking any laws? What about those celebrity phtographers? It can be argued that there is a over-reaching right to privacy but one could argue that such right is extremely limited.

3) Types of trust
I think you (Theocrat) need to read my comments in light of my earlier statements on the difference in culture since I am not making the exact argument you are trying to take down.

But if I was making such an argument, I could easily adopt the argument favored by some religious people. The argument made in relation to the comments that there are many people who do bad things in the name of religion, that is how is their actions relevant to your belief.

In other words there is a need to separate the issues. Based on your argument I could easily provide that since we do not trust the government with our privacy then surely we cannot trust the government with guns since getting shot at is somehow more dangerous than getting tracked, so better not to have the police or the military.

DOF, thanks for posting that Jack Gordon essay. If even a significant fraction of the American populace would read those Shell-Economist essays, the world would be a much better place.

Originally posted by Pop Tarts:
3) Types of trust
I think you (Theocrat) need to read my comments in light of my earlier statements on the difference in culture since I am not making the exact argument you are trying to take down.

I never did understand why you brought Japan into this discussion to begin with.  Could you concisely and clearly remake your argument?  Shana posted what seems to be a counterargument(forgive me if it is not) to your reference to Japan.  What do you say to her?

Originally posted by Pop Tarts:
The argument made in relation to the comments that there are many people who do bad things in the name of religion, that is how is their actions relevant to your belief.

I’m taking a technical writing class right now so I should know how to get to the essence of wordy sentences, forgive me, but I am not sure what this means.

Originally posted by Pop Tarts:
Based on your argument I could easily provide that since we do not trust the government with our privacy then surely we cannot trust the government with guns since getting shot at is somehow more dangerous than getting tracked, so better not to have the police or the military.

Except that as long as we have the right and ability to bear arms we can level the playing field somewhat.  If we and the government were given the right to use RFID tags.  The government can track us, but exactly how can we use them against the government to level the playing field there?  We can’t exactly track the government in return.  RFID tags are a one sided issue when it comes to privacy.  Only government benefits from their use.

I wrote a huge post which was eaten mercilessly by my taking too long to type it.  RAR.

Soon I will get over the frustration.  That time is not now.

Some response:
1) Ctrl A + Ctrl C
Is the most important thing to do before posting. Copy and place it on a notepad or just copy before hiting the post.

By the way this post would have been lost if I had not use the above method.

2) Japan:
It was not an argument relating to Japan per se. But an argument that relates to culture, history and education. A person’s level of trust in a particular institution is built on previous experiences. Take the “institution” of the boyfriend or girlfriend. If a person’s 5 previous ex all cheated on the person, he or she would be very wary of the next lover.

I select Japan not because it has the highest trust in government, because one survey have shown that their level of trust is lower than US. But I select it because it is a place where the usage of RFID is quite high. The factors mentioned by Shana could contribute to their usage but such factors are also present in parts of the US. Other reasons could be that Japanese (not all obviously) are more comfortable with technology. Have you seen the research video on Swedish and Japanese kids, whereby they give the kids the mechanical toy dog (Aibo?). Both groups have not yet played with the toy dog in the past but Swedish kids lose interest after a short while in comparison to Japanese kids who were more interested in them.

The mention of Japan is not an argument for or against RFID as you make it out to be but merely an observation of various countries. For example, in non-democratic China their level of trust in government is quite high. And if I recall correctly, the institution most trusted in democratic Singapore is the dominant political party over there. These nations all had one thing in common and that is that there government played an important part in it development. But one of the reason fo the difference in Japan is due to the economic slump they are in ever since the bubble burst and successive governments have not been able to lift the economy.

3) Separate the issues:
Perhaps the use of guns is too generic a term. Let me use a different example so you do not get caught up with the “level the playing field” myth. Let us use F16 fighter jets, M1 Tanks, Tomahawk missiles or nuclear weapons. The government have them. Are they not inherently more dangerous and furthermore individuals cannot use them.

As for the statement you (Theocrat) are confused about I apologise as I cannot seem to remember the exact phrase used by CS Lewis. What is the response a religious makes when the other person states that “why should I follow your ___ religion, look at the amount of evil that have been done in the name of ___ religion.” Not looking for definition response where a person defines that if they are doing evil they are not really following the religion.

4) Usage of RFID
Finally as pointed out earlier, there are many possible usage on RFID. From medical reasons, storage of electronic money (at the beach or clubs), news/information updates, etc. A simple search of the net on RFID use would show the uses of it.

Yeah, I did copy, but I thought it posted so I went about other business, copying and pasting and only later discovered that it hadn’t. 

Anyway, Theo-I was the one who pinpointed Japan because Poptarts was using a number of east Asian countries (one being Japan) as example.  When he mentioned Japan, I thought of many reasons, what I would consider uncomfortable/bad reasons, as to why they would use RFID and why Japan is not a good role model in that way.

But let’s forget Japan.  My main issue is that I wouldn’t trust any government with that sort of capability.  It’s sort of like the Ring--in the hands of good people, it does good, and in the hands of bad people, it does bad.

On the gun issue--let’s separate the issues further.  RFID chips are not the same as guns. 
They’re of an entirely different nature and they have different purposes. 

I don’t think we should use RFID for the purpose discussed in the article.  Some other purposes are fine, others are not.
-------
On the aside to Poptarts…
Most of the onsens I’ve been to have been sex-segregated.  Try those!
I love tempura, too!

since getting shot at is somehow more dangerous than getting tracked, so better not to have the police or the military

*erghm* --looks around nervously--

I, uh, I’m not trying to come across as a smart-ass, but I’d argue that RFID and guns is kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

Primarily because, most of the time, if someone’s shooting at you, you KNOW it.

Now, if the government had figured out a way to secretly shoot us, without us ever noticing, then I might be a little bit more supportive of secretly implanting everyone with a handgun.

oh, wait. . .

--shakes head in confusion--

nevermind.

Interesting that guns and RFID would come up in the same discussion.  In Iraq, most families owned guns (Hey NRA, I thought that was supposed to prevent tyranny!?) and not trivial guns, either.  Most had assault weapons… AK47s.

One letter writer to our local paper who was part of the invading and occupying force in Germany in WWII said that most of the German families he met owned guns, too.  But it didn’t protect them from tyranny.  (Of course he’s just one guy and didn’t visit every house in Germany.)

How are governments able to tyrannize armed populations?  By an extremely tight net of surveillance.  No one makes a move that they don’t know about.

In the case of Germany and Iraq it was a highly-motivated net of informants (I’d be pretty motivated too if the motivation was torture - which is why torture is so exclusively a tool of tyranny.)

Extremely advanced electronic surveillance could accomplish - even simplify - the same level of control over a population.  Tracking devices are the never-sleeping informants.  Who gets to receive the information they collect?

This company proposes the use of RFID chips that would be left at the scene of “hit and run” accidents.

These unique identifiers would then act as a sort of “automotive DNA,” providing the registration information for that particular vehicle.