9 ms·

Makes sense. A farm is private property. You don't have the right to come into my house or my place of work and film me. (Even if you suspect I'm doing somethin

by cdoxsey 13y ago

Makes sense. A farm is private property. You don't have the right to come into my house or my place of work and film me. (Even if you suspect I'm doing something wrong) Also makes sense that falsifying a resume in order to do so would be illegal.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
There are already trespassing laws which prevent that. This is just plain thuggery.
- valleyer 13y ago
  I don't understand what you mean by "thuggery" here. Can you explain?
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    1. Trespassing is already a crime. 2. Trespassing here could uncover more serious crimes that are happening. 3. Somebody lobbied a bunch of politicians to make trespassing a very serious offense to deter people from uncovering a more serious crime. Part 3 is the thuggery.
    - valleyer 13y ago
      OK. "Thuggery" seems like a strange way to describe that though since there's no violence involved.
      - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
        I agree. I couldn't think of any word close enough. I was thinking more in terms of the original meaning of "thuggery" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee A band of organized criminals.
bbosh 13y ago
But what if you are filming from the public street/highway. Surely that should be legal?
axanoeychron 13y ago
This does not follow. Private property is private but you can still commit crimes on private property. This logic would permit egregious abuse to go on unchallenged behind closed doors because its private property. This cannot honestly be what you are saying? There is a balance between the laws that might be broken in order to discover a crime. If someone commits a crime with the intention to discover another crime, you seem to feel it is acceptable to ignore the second crime? It's actually not okay to create precedent that penalizes people that discover your crime, it only makes crimes easier to hide.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  To some degree this is what Miranda rights are all about. How does that figure in your ethical map?
danvideo 13y ago
No, that doesn't make sense. If it is considered wrong/unethical to film on private property in Idaho - why would they legislate for a specific industry? Shouldn't filming video on private property be illegal all across the board in Idaho if the problem is about basic rights?
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Its clearly a knee-jerk reaction to unfortunate events. But consider: Farms cannot be reasonably secured. Can't prove 'breaking and entering' when all you have to do is park and walk, maybe cross a fence. So they would need some special rules to make them private space at all.
  - boomlinde 13y ago
    Since we are on the topic of pure speculation about the intention of this law, let's present another theory: it is in the interest of the farming industry to stop animal rights activists from documenting the illegal practices that are sometimes involved in producing cheap meat since it would be detrimental to their business if they were widely known, and they have been lobbying to get this bill to pass not because of ideological privacy concerns, which are already protected by other means. From your description, it seems like there is no "breaking and entering" to prove. Trespassing, falsified resumés etc., but there are already laws for that, and the laws themselves don't make it easier or harder to trespass.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      Agreed;those are the unfortunate events I referred to. Uglyness all around. And that there is no 'breaking and entering' was actually my point. Farms are not houses; yet still private.
  - indrax 13y ago
    Of course you can't prove breaking and entering if that is not what was done. "Can't be secured" means only that they want a large space free from scrutiny without paying to properly secure it. This is like legislating to make URL modification illegal 'hacking' and justifying it by saying programmers are too expensive. If our society wants people to have stronger protection for large unsecured areas, they it should apply to all such areas.
boomlinde 13y ago
It's not about your house. This law concerns farms only.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  A farm is Somebody's house. I live on one for instance. While we don't torture animals, keep your cameras out of my space anyway thank you.
  - boomlinde 13y ago
    Way to miss my point, which is that this law concerns farms specifically and not homes or workplaces in general. I assume that you deliberately misinterpreted me, so what point are you trying to make?
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      That 'your house' sounded like belittling the parent post. Just sticking up for farm residents. Clearer?
      - boomlinde 13y ago
        I didn't mean to belittle the parent. "My house" was his example. His argument obviously wasn't that he is living at a farm specifically, but that private property should be protected in general, which i whole-heartedly agree with, but doesn't really support his stance on privacy laws that concern farms only.
  - tremendo 13y ago
    > A farm is Somebody's house. and a food-production facility too? subject to USDA inspections and a whole set of regulations, being that what comes out of it has direct impact on public health? Certainly there should be provisions to protect the privacy of the people living there, as there should be ways to ensure that also the public good is served and protected.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
unclebucknasty 13y ago
If, in your place of work, you are doing something illegal in the production of a product intended for public consumption, then it seems that the calculus would change.
keeshawn 13y ago
My hypothetical rape dungeon is private property, too. I would expect my right to privacy is trumped by the general public's right to not have horrifying crimes committed. If you run an operation like this and someone blows a whistle, they should be legally protected, not prosecuted.
- randomdata 13y ago
  If I stumbled upon you committing a crime in your rape dungeon, recorded and made videos of it public, I would fully expect negative consequences to come my way. For one, the victim probably doesn't want those images shown to others. It seems to me that the more logical course of action would be to report you to the police and let them deal with it, not try to shame you in public.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - keeshawn 13y ago
    The victims in this case are cows.
    - randomdata 13y ago
      And, more often than not, the owners who happened to hire a bad employee. Sure, there should be repercussions for the choice to hire the person, but realize it is not always obvious who is bad without hindsight. It is embarrassing to have hired a programmer who botches your application, and it is equally embarrassing to have hired a farmhand that abuses your animals. I wonder how Google/Facebook/Microsoft would react if people started posting videos of people writing bad code while on the job?

by cdoxsey 13y ago

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

There are already trespassing laws which prevent that. This is just plain thuggery.

valleyer 13y ago
I don't understand what you mean by "thuggery" here. Can you explain?
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  1. Trespassing is already a crime. 2. Trespassing here could uncover more serious crimes that are happening. 3. Somebody lobbied a bunch of politicians to make trespassing a very serious offense to deter people from uncovering a more serious crime. Part 3 is the thuggery.
  - valleyer 13y ago
    OK. "Thuggery" seems like a strange way to describe that though since there's no violence involved.
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      I agree. I couldn't think of any word close enough. I was thinking more in terms of the original meaning of "thuggery" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee A band of organized criminals.

bbosh 13y ago

But what if you are filming from the public street/highway. Surely that should be legal?

axanoeychron 13y ago

This does not follow. Private property is private but you can still commit crimes on private property. This logic would permit egregious abuse to go on unchallenged behind closed doors because its private property. This cannot honestly be what you are saying? There is a balance between the laws that might be broken in order to discover a crime. If someone commits a crime with the intention to discover another crime, you seem to feel it is acceptable to ignore the second crime? It's actually not okay to create precedent that penalizes people that discover your crime, it only makes crimes easier to hide.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
To some degree this is what Miranda rights are all about. How does that figure in your ethical map?

danvideo 13y ago

No, that doesn't make sense. If it is considered wrong/unethical to film on private property in Idaho - why would they legislate for a specific industry? Shouldn't filming video on private property be illegal all across the board in Idaho if the problem is about basic rights?

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Its clearly a knee-jerk reaction to unfortunate events. But consider: Farms cannot be reasonably secured. Can't prove 'breaking and entering' when all you have to do is park and walk, maybe cross a fence. So they would need some special rules to make them private space at all.
- boomlinde 13y ago
  Since we are on the topic of pure speculation about the intention of this law, let's present another theory: it is in the interest of the farming industry to stop animal rights activists from documenting the illegal practices that are sometimes involved in producing cheap meat since it would be detrimental to their business if they were widely known, and they have been lobbying to get this bill to pass not because of ideological privacy concerns, which are already protected by other means. From your description, it seems like there is no "breaking and entering" to prove. Trespassing, falsified resumés etc., but there are already laws for that, and the laws themselves don't make it easier or harder to trespass.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Agreed;those are the unfortunate events I referred to. Uglyness all around. And that there is no 'breaking and entering' was actually my point. Farms are not houses; yet still private.
- indrax 13y ago
  Of course you can't prove breaking and entering if that is not what was done. "Can't be secured" means only that they want a large space free from scrutiny without paying to properly secure it. This is like legislating to make URL modification illegal 'hacking' and justifying it by saying programmers are too expensive. If our society wants people to have stronger protection for large unsecured areas, they it should apply to all such areas.

boomlinde 13y ago

It's not about your house. This law concerns farms only.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
A farm is Somebody's house. I live on one for instance. While we don't torture animals, keep your cameras out of my space anyway thank you.
- boomlinde 13y ago
  Way to miss my point, which is that this law concerns farms specifically and not homes or workplaces in general. I assume that you deliberately misinterpreted me, so what point are you trying to make?
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    That 'your house' sounded like belittling the parent post. Just sticking up for farm residents. Clearer?
    - boomlinde 13y ago
      I didn't mean to belittle the parent. "My house" was his example. His argument obviously wasn't that he is living at a farm specifically, but that private property should be protected in general, which i whole-heartedly agree with, but doesn't really support his stance on privacy laws that concern farms only.
- tremendo 13y ago
  > A farm is Somebody's house. and a food-production facility too? subject to USDA inspections and a whole set of regulations, being that what comes out of it has direct impact on public health? Certainly there should be provisions to protect the privacy of the people living there, as there should be ways to ensure that also the public good is served and protected.
- nknighthb 13y ago

unclebucknasty 13y ago

If, in your place of work, you are doing something illegal in the production of a product intended for public consumption, then it seems that the calculus would change.

keeshawn 13y ago

My hypothetical rape dungeon is private property, too. I would expect my right to privacy is trumped by the general public's right to not have horrifying crimes committed. If you run an operation like this and someone blows a whistle, they should be legally protected, not prosecuted.

randomdata 13y ago
If I stumbled upon you committing a crime in your rape dungeon, recorded and made videos of it public, I would fully expect negative consequences to come my way. For one, the victim probably doesn't want those images shown to others. It seems to me that the more logical course of action would be to report you to the police and let them deal with it, not try to shame you in public.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- keeshawn 13y ago
  The victims in this case are cows.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    And, more often than not, the owners who happened to hire a bad employee. Sure, there should be repercussions for the choice to hire the person, but realize it is not always obvious who is bad without hindsight. It is embarrassing to have hired a programmer who botches your application, and it is equally embarrassing to have hired a farmhand that abuses your animals. I wonder how Google/Facebook/Microsoft would react if people started posting videos of people writing bad code while on the job?