It's a more fundamental issue than those legal oddities of the day. It's whether people have a right to remember, right to share their memories (there must be lots of nuances here), and whether others have a right to be forgotten or deny some or all of such sharing - and how all those play together.
I can't wait for the day brain-machine interfaces will become more advanced and commonplace (so cyborgs become something way more advanced than just limb prosthetics), and hope the day comes fast enough so the true issue is forced before any decisions are made off the ill-informed assumptions and the shuttle designs are left to depend on a width of horse's ass.
I have a right to collect evidence in my own defense, and that evidence may not be abrogated by by-standers to the event who might attempt to prevent me gathering that evidence.
Its the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it covers you whether you like it or not, thankfully. You might not like it but thats gonna change the moment you need to exercise that very right yourself.
How do you figure? There is no "right to record," nor is surveillance mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, it points out in Article 12 and 29 that rights and freedoms can and should be limited by law if they impinge on the rights and freedoms of others, such as those mentioned in Article 12:
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
That doesn't seem as clear cut as you're implying.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Seeking and receiving information covers gathering facts, evidence, or observations from public events or spaces (e.g., documenting protests, government actions, police conduct, or everyday occurrences visible in public).
You might not like it, but its a key mechanism by which we, the people, keep despots and the police state in check.
I do like it, and agree it's an important mechanism, but it's not a blank check as it's in tension with the other articles. I do not read that as granting you the right to any and all information you might desire. For instance, I hope we can agree that allowing the public to film bathrooms or gynecology appointments crosses a line.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has as much teeth as The New Colossus does. It's a bunch of prose with absolutely no binding or enforcement mechanisms.
Yeah, that is totally okay, its why human rights are so important to protect. You wouldn't want to be in a situation where an authority doesn't allow you to avoid them like the plague, would you? It is, therefore, your right to record those authorities .. so that they will go away, too.
Totally agree. To be clear, I'm not arguing for a ban on smartglasses. I'm simply explaining why they make me uncomfortable.
The ability to record authorities is something I fully support, but I still don't want to be in that video if I can help it.
On top of that, most smartglasses are not private. If authorities can access the feeds, then my neighbor with RayBans becomes an authority, and it makes it that much harder for me to avoid them like the plague. This similarly applies to Ring doorbells and Flock ALPRs.
>If genocide were the goal this war would have lasted one day.
And the retaliation from the rest of the world in those circumstances would be swift and measured in hours, and there would be a smoking pile of rubble in that particular part of the world that would be uninhabitable for centuries.
There are plenty of people on HN who are active in protecting human rights, and this particular incident is a clear example of the amount of work still left to do in the world by those of us who care about each other more than we cling to national identities - especially those national identities with a long track record of human rights violations.
tl;dr - the roots of the authoritarian personality grow fertile in the desire to be free of 'the filth of others'. Altman seems like he'd go crazy if he didn't keep his machine spectacularly clean ..
Japan is certainly the place to go for second-hand synthesizers and other music equipment, though. The gear is well taken care of, and usually a fair bit cheaper than local rates.
Fair point! I did see an extraordinary amount of music gear in akihabara and never really processed that information.
And the love and care they treat possessions with as well as the way they package second hand devices is inspiring.
It's kind of odd in a way in contrast to Kintsugi (where repair is highlighted). Almost aiming to keep things in perfect condition but then in a way celebrating repair?
Of for sure, the second hand market in Japan is really very inspirational.
In the 90's I did a trip to Japan for second-hand synth gear and came back with 4x the stuff I'd have had, if I'd only shopped local - and this was in a period where synths (my favourite investment) were lower valued on the market even in the US ..
The whole program is an Easter egg :) “sorry, he wasn’t born yet! try again” vs “no, he is already in heaven, try again”, and that cute goodbye routine.
Your desire to consent to being recorded in public places does not counteract my right to record everything I can perceive in public. Period.
reply