Rules

Let's assume for the sake of this discussion: rules are necessary.

The question is:

What makes a rule a 'good rule'?

On the example of security it appears to be a dance between security and privacy.
With the follow up question how is privacy connected to freedom?
I mean I do want terrorists to be stopped from roaming about. That means surveillance of movement. Since we don't know exactly who's going to turn out to be a terrorist. So that maybe implies I have to make all my movement accessible as well?
How do you differentiate, because I would assume online chatter doesn't necessarily make someone a terrorist. Even if I understand the temptation of convenience to use it as evidence.
I mean personally I wonder if there really is a complete bundle of my entire online life, but what is it really good for?
I assume there has to be an AI involved though that's hardly imaginable to me how sthg that can't understand the meaning of a story would go about categorising human beings?

I don't think AI would be the problem in this equation it's the temptation to 'create facts' about people. Find the unifying markers of what category you currently are against and then everybody in that group is guilty.
But does 'justice' fit in the equation?

...more questions than answers it would appear...

a reply to: Peeple

We live in a society where rules are necessary. I could argue that 'good' rules protect society and bad rules endanger it. But the efficacy of any rules is dependent upon the willingness of society to obey them. Making something illegal does not prevent it from happening. It only provides us a way to prosecute the perpetrator after the fact, if they get caught. You could say our entire judicial system, our rules, is one giant, "I'm warning you...don't do it..." And we see how well that works.

Of course, the patriot in me sees most rules as governmental over-reach. If I want to collect rain water, I should be allowed to and I shouldn't have to ask permission to do it. Collecting rain water is a long way from terrorism. But when rules are codified they all end up in the same book.

It is disingenuous to simultaneously have American citizens with Real ID's being poked prodded padded down and x-rayed in airports while we have an open border with little to no vetting of illegals entering by the millions.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

a reply to: Peeple

For me I've always asked the reasoning behind the rule and usually people tell me 'they don't know'. A good rule will have common sense reasoning behind it, a bad rule where nobody knows why it's in place, to me, is a bad rule. For instance, when I was unemployed and filling out gov't forms I was told there would be a two week waiting period, and I asked what is the reasoning behind that? the answer was "I don't know", so I asked to speak to a Manager, same response "I don't know". It is frustrating to me to have to follow rules without knowing why I have to follow rules.

Aren't there apps/programs available to make your online footprint virtually invisible? I'm not a tekkie so I've never looked into it and I'm just a regular citizen so online security is not an issue for me?

From watching how police track down killers' activities online and off, with cameras everywhere now, it looks like it's impossible to avoid being tracked.

a reply to: Peeple

My mind immediately jumped to this...

a reply to: Peeple

This:

34:1
It took me a while to realise that all that I have become, is all of that which I used to think lesser. That I lost something while I was looking for something else

34:2
Every time I opened myself to something, it opened me to that something. Like watering a plant I know is poisonous, to know why it seeks to kill

34:3
Not to know the pain it brings, but rather the explicitness of its expression. Like opening a wound which may not heal, to see where mind and body meet

34:4
We are slaves to our own limitations, whether they be met by expectation or regard. It is life meeting expectation through consideration. It is stasis but also stative

34:5
You open passages which should not be entered, if no reason was given not to. Rules are the definition of their own necessity, or they need not be met

34:6
Their application cannot be in “want” lest it be submission to such

34:7
“Do what I say, not what I do” cannot be said, if I, or you, are capable of doing as is done. All who would restrict in such a way, should be contended as a matter of duty, if not of course

34:8
Binding of the mind can cut just as deep as those of the wrists, though it is our choice if we bleed in such a way. We allow doors to remain closed, if none choose to try open them

34:9
Holding yourself to the wrath of pain, makes you both more and less than its measure

34:10
A boundary that isn’t sought and challenged is non-existent, and a boundary which forces itself unjustly can never be kept

34:11
A boundary which shows no respect, will never receive it, and a boundary for preventing harm, cannot then be allowed to cause it

34:12
What is one person’s wine is another’s poison, and the measure of a victim lies within perspective

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

‘Fweeedom’ where have we heard that before? Some snotty little tacker who now holds a position in politics. Interesting. Terrorism has a definition, what is it?

Why is politics always portrayed as something of importance and as having, or adding, value to our lives? I opine that it is neither and doesn’t do anything but stroke the egos of the useless eaters who make their ‘living’ as politicians.

These ‘people’ should be made to work for a living and politics should be classed as a hobby.

a reply to: Peeple

a reply to: Dalamax

Exactly those thoughts:

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

ran through my mind when I was writing it.

But it didn't take the direction yours took. I was much more busy with following that down to the individual. Because it's true.
And it's politics that tells who is which.
Imagine things would be a little different Ukraine could be seen as endangering our friend Russia if things were a little different. Afghans and the Taliban could be heroes resisting attacks from the cold capitalism and communism at the same time.
There really weird bit is those are true for somebody out there. And we're just so deeply infiltrated by our own point of view, in a pretty random string of events that could have gone differently at a lot of junctions.

But I do think it's necessary we conduct ourselves coherently as Leviathan in a sea of Dragons, Godzillas and all kinds of real threats too. So I don't agree that no politics is a solution.

a reply to: Compendium

What is 'This'? What are the numbers?

Why?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Right. Rules need to be enforced. Which means I have to know who broke them, when and where.
I think top level criminals, those who harm society the most, are those acting morally questionable, but still not breaking any rules.
I think the body of laws evolves exactly out of that, somebody does something harming society and we then make a rule against such behaviour.

I think the issue is more complicated.

a reply to: Peeple

Something I wrote a few years ago during my period of self-annihilation

The numbers are for correlation of verses, that's all

This particular text was written paralleling verses I was looking at in the Qur'an and Bible

Part of an unfinished treatise on submission, authority and law. Which addresses faults within the base reasoning and logic of certain teachings and verses