4 ms·

> I don't see this monitoring as an invasion of anyone's privacy. I do! I consider a requirement that the government know where I am to be an invasion of priva

> I don't see this monitoring as an invasion of anyone's privacy. I do! I consider a requirement that the government know where I am to be an invasion of privacy. It really is too bad the constitution doesn’t actually include a right to privacy.

doodlebugging 4y ago
They are out there in public exploiting a public resource, sometimes to the point where that resource has been depleted nearly to extinction. There is no expectation of privacy and no right to it in this circumstance. There should be no opportunity for them to conceal what they are doing or where they are doing it. This in no way constitutes an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment since they operate entirely in or on public waterways open to all. As far as allowing the government to know where you are at any given time, that ship sailed a long time ago and it isn't necessarily the government that causes the most privacy invasion issues. Many times it is private industry who tails your activities, your purchase habits, your associates, etc. I hope you see the issue with that. The constitution makes several attempts to guarantee privacy but the interpretation of the amendments which might be useful for defining individual privacy rights is always a function of the composition of the Supreme Court at the time the case is heard. We need to be vigilant and supportive of all rights enumerated, not just our favorite or we will lose all of them to the wrong court.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  So this is like requiring hunters to wear GPS tags so the game wardens can locate and interview them more efficiently. Half the country will think this is a good idea.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    Most hunters likely already have their GPS location monitored anyway if they are carrying cell phones into the field. It is not too much of a stretch to see an edge case where one or more of them could become interesting enough to game wardens to find themselves under investigation. The vast majority of people though have no reason to worry about their government wanting or needing to know where they are at any hour. It doesn't follow though that they will not be tracked 24 hours a day using tools and devices that they make a conscious decision to purchase, thus enabling this tracking, in real time, and facilitating their discovery should the mean old government ever decide that they are worth spending some of the investigations budget to study.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      We are discussing what is coming, not what is now: a requirement to track.
      - doodlebugging 4y ago
        This libertarian leaning publication fails to emphasize the reason behind the tracking, fisheries management, since that might shine enough light on the situation that some of their more 'reason'able readers may end up understanding and offering some support to this data collection. The federal agencies involved have, as part of their responsibility, the task of managing the health of our nation's fisheries which, believe it or not, requires them to have the data about where the fish are being harvested in order to understand how healthy the population of sport and food species actually are in our federal waters. Maybe it would make more sense to subsidize the equipment that would be necessary to gather the data. We subsidize some land crops, charter boats could become like marine combines. The devices could be tracked without needing to know who owns the boat since the important information is the location where all the fish hang out and how many there are. Catch size and species distribution is already a reportable metric I believe. Any fisherman worth his salt probably wants to be able to live the fishing lifestyle forever. If their activities contribute to the collapse of local fisheries because they were reluctant to accurately report which species are in their area of operations, how often they are taken, where they are taken, etc then they have no one to blame but themselves when their livelihoods are destroyed. No one cares who takes the fish. They want to know which fish was taken, where it was taken, how many were taken there, how large they are, etc. This allows people to understand how best to manage fisheries. These are public waters and they are taking a public resource. They have no privacy expectations and shouldn't get a pass with a bullshit excuse about their secret fishing spots being leaked to the competition since that will happen anyway as their hired help jumps from boat to boat trying to make a decent living on what looks on paper to be shit wages for the work they perform. It's good to ponder how something like this can become a slippery slope but you have to avoid sliding down the existing slippery slope that where we don't have actionable information to use to prevent problems (in the fisheries) before they occur. The entire article was about using location and other information gleaned from those who are regularly in the best position to know and who have a vested interest in the information being accurate to enable them to continue in their chosen profession. The publisher made a conscious editorial decision to tilt the tone of the article towards this being a huge invasion of privacy rights for people who by the nature of their profession should not be not entitled to those protections during the conduct of their operations since their activities occur entirely in public.

doodlebugging 4y ago

They are out there in public exploiting a public resource, sometimes to the point where that resource has been depleted nearly to extinction. There is no expectation of privacy and no right to it in this circumstance. There should be no opportunity for them to conceal what they are doing or where they are doing it. This in no way constitutes an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment since they operate entirely in or on public waterways open to all. As far as allowing the government to know where you are at any given time, that ship sailed a long time ago and it isn't necessarily the government that causes the most privacy invasion issues. Many times it is private industry who tails your activities, your purchase habits, your associates, etc. I hope you see the issue with that. The constitution makes several attempts to guarantee privacy but the interpretation of the amendments which might be useful for defining individual privacy rights is always a function of the composition of the Supreme Court at the time the case is heard. We need to be vigilant and supportive of all rights enumerated, not just our favorite or we will lose all of them to the wrong court.

wrycoder 4y ago
So this is like requiring hunters to wear GPS tags so the game wardens can locate and interview them more efficiently. Half the country will think this is a good idea.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  Most hunters likely already have their GPS location monitored anyway if they are carrying cell phones into the field. It is not too much of a stretch to see an edge case where one or more of them could become interesting enough to game wardens to find themselves under investigation. The vast majority of people though have no reason to worry about their government wanting or needing to know where they are at any hour. It doesn't follow though that they will not be tracked 24 hours a day using tools and devices that they make a conscious decision to purchase, thus enabling this tracking, in real time, and facilitating their discovery should the mean old government ever decide that they are worth spending some of the investigations budget to study.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    We are discussing what is coming, not what is now: a requirement to track.
    - doodlebugging 4y ago
      This libertarian leaning publication fails to emphasize the reason behind the tracking, fisheries management, since that might shine enough light on the situation that some of their more 'reason'able readers may end up understanding and offering some support to this data collection. The federal agencies involved have, as part of their responsibility, the task of managing the health of our nation's fisheries which, believe it or not, requires them to have the data about where the fish are being harvested in order to understand how healthy the population of sport and food species actually are in our federal waters. Maybe it would make more sense to subsidize the equipment that would be necessary to gather the data. We subsidize some land crops, charter boats could become like marine combines. The devices could be tracked without needing to know who owns the boat since the important information is the location where all the fish hang out and how many there are. Catch size and species distribution is already a reportable metric I believe. Any fisherman worth his salt probably wants to be able to live the fishing lifestyle forever. If their activities contribute to the collapse of local fisheries because they were reluctant to accurately report which species are in their area of operations, how often they are taken, where they are taken, etc then they have no one to blame but themselves when their livelihoods are destroyed. No one cares who takes the fish. They want to know which fish was taken, where it was taken, how many were taken there, how large they are, etc. This allows people to understand how best to manage fisheries. These are public waters and they are taking a public resource. They have no privacy expectations and shouldn't get a pass with a bullshit excuse about their secret fishing spots being leaked to the competition since that will happen anyway as their hired help jumps from boat to boat trying to make a decent living on what looks on paper to be shit wages for the work they perform. It's good to ponder how something like this can become a slippery slope but you have to avoid sliding down the existing slippery slope that where we don't have actionable information to use to prevent problems (in the fisheries) before they occur. The entire article was about using location and other information gleaned from those who are regularly in the best position to know and who have a vested interest in the information being accurate to enable them to continue in their chosen profession. The publisher made a conscious editorial decision to tilt the tone of the article towards this being a huge invasion of privacy rights for people who by the nature of their profession should not be not entitled to those protections during the conduct of their operations since their activities occur entirely in public.