CDZ Privacy, does it exist anymore, and why is it not protected anymore ?

[beagle9]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

What is the benefit for young people to hold their personal data and information as privacy priority, considering young people could all get to know each other and communicate with each other in improved ways if their information is available and accessible?

Whatever social media (in which privacy is relevant) is used, I usually assume it's purpose is to know and communicate with people in improved ways, therefore making information altogether more valuable if shared.

. All good, but it's when someone tracks or uses the information in a harmful way is when it all gets crazy. Like pismoe says, these kids these days are hap-hazzardly doing this stuff with what seems to be little to know guidance involved. But that's another story.... Let's say that a person is using the privacy functions on their Facebook, and then they get hacked or a friend let's their friend who has another friend that might see the information that was not intended for that person to see, and the unwanted friend used the information to do damage to the person. This would constitute (IMHO) a violation of the person's privacy along with the intent to do harm with the information gained, and the attempt to assassinate ones character with the information gained. All such things are protected under the law, if a person misuses information gained in which was gained and used against a person's permission and/or will for such a person to do so, then a violation occurs. However, harm and intent to do harm must be shown and proven in a court of law when a claim or case is therefore brought against another. Remember, this is only if information gained by someone, is then used in an illegal manor by that someone who had gained the information for such illegal purposes.. Hey we can listen or gain as much information as we can muster, but it's what we do with the information or how we gained the information that could be found as a criminal act if use it for destructive purposes that would cause harm against another.

Using information for harmful purposes has nothing to do with policy or technology, nothing to do with privacy.

Using information for harmful purposes is about health.

Hackers and other violators aren't healthy people.

Healthy people thrive from lawful measures and do not need to adopt subversive and substandard tactics to achieve personal fulfillment, nor do they need to worry with the possibility of unhealthy intrusions.

. I think me and you are speaking the same things, where as technology is great, but where it can go wrong is when good technology is used by criminals to do bad things with it. Then it's not the technologies fault nor the person's fault for creating the technology, but the acts of criminality fall squarely upon the criminal themselves once they do something wrong that causes harm to another with it. It's the same with a gun, where as it's not the gun that is a problem, but yet the person holding it, and then using it to do harm is definitely the problem. The unwillingness these days for us to go after the people doing the damage, and instead blaming guns, technology or other has become a major problem in this country now. To many excuses are made for crooks and criminals these days, and they are a direct threat to everything good in this nation. Holding a gun or having access to sensitive information, and then using both of them in a criminal manor or way, should be prosecuted by this nations justice system everytime it occurs.

The problem seems to be in how to approach those who are doing damage, and not so much in deciding to neutralize them with their damaging social incongruities.

I think it has already been concluded through democratic discussion that blaming guns, technology, or workers isn't a problem anymore, and that instead we face a dissociate and impulsively reacting behavior when capturing perpetrators and moving them to rehabilitation facilities.

That sort of unnecessary, even delusional, defensive behavior found in captured criminals is what makes the situation difficult, since even if the threat they impose in being so impulsively reactive doesn't escalate to create a greater direct risk to the population exposed, their prolonged imprisonment eventually becomes costly to the facilities and also to the population that is indirectly affected by their extended, static, absent and dissociate relational ability to communicate and work efficiently into social reintegration.

. Regardless we must up hold the law at all cost.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ?

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.
  

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

 

[beagle9]

Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ?

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ?

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

What the outward facing video cannot in many cases do is provide insight into the nature of focus on the road and the driving conditions extant at the moment of calamity. It's not guaranteed that the audio will in every case, but in some cases it might, whereas unless the video depicts the driver veering strangely, perhaps even giving clues to some mechanical shortfall such as excessive vibration that can be measured from the motion of the frames, nearly never can or will.

 

[beagle9]

Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ?

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

What the outward facing video cannot in many cases do is provide insight into the nature of focus on the road and the driving conditions extant at the moment of calamity. It's not guaranteed that the audio will in every case, but in some cases it might, whereas unless the video depicts the driver veering strangely, perhaps even giving clues to some mechanical shortfall such as excessive vibration that can be measured from the motion of the frames, nearly never can or will.

Yep, like I said (A TWO EDGED SWORD), where as now the driver might actually have some protection against a sorry company that won't keep their fleet up. He or she yell's "I can't steer" (after the worn belt breaks), just before the crash. He or she yell's "I can't stop this thing" (brake failure), just before the crash.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ?

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

What the outward facing video cannot in many cases do is provide insight into the nature of focus on the road and the driving conditions extant at the moment of calamity. It's not guaranteed that the audio will in every case, but in some cases it might, whereas unless the video depicts the driver veering strangely, perhaps even giving clues to some mechanical shortfall such as excessive vibration that can be measured from the motion of the frames, nearly never can or will.

Yep, like I said (A TWO EDGED SWORD), where as now the driver might actually have some protection against a sorry company that won't keep their fleet up. He or she yell's "I can't steer" (after the worn belt breaks), just before the crash. He or she yell's "I can't stop this thing" (brake failure), just before the crash.

Yes. I wasn't taking exception with the consequential duality inherent in having either or both the camera and audio recordings.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ?

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

What the outward facing video cannot in many cases do is provide insight into the nature of focus on the road and the driving conditions extant at the moment of calamity. It's not guaranteed that the audio will in every case, but in some cases it might, whereas unless the video depicts the driver veering strangely, perhaps even giving clues to some mechanical shortfall such as excessive vibration that can be measured from the motion of the frames, nearly never can or will.

Yep, like I said (A TWO EDGED SWORD), where as now the driver might actually have some protection against a sorry company that won't keep their fleet up. He or she yell's "I can't steer" (after the worn belt breaks), just before the crash. He or she yell's "I can't stop this thing" (brake failure), just before the crash.

Yes. I wasn't taking exception with the consequential duality inherent in having either or both the camera and audio recordings.

The fact remains however, there is no expectation of privacy in your place of employment. Whether that place of employment is an office, or a truck cab. The expectation of privacy belongs to your employer and only applies to the government.

 

[beagle9]

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

What the outward facing video cannot in many cases do is provide insight into the nature of focus on the road and the driving conditions extant at the moment of calamity. It's not guaranteed that the audio will in every case, but in some cases it might, whereas unless the video depicts the driver veering strangely, perhaps even giving clues to some mechanical shortfall such as excessive vibration that can be measured from the motion of the frames, nearly never can or will.

Yep, like I said (A TWO EDGED SWORD), where as now the driver might actually have some protection against a sorry company that won't keep their fleet up. He or she yell's "I can't steer" (after the worn belt breaks), just before the crash. He or she yell's "I can't stop this thing" (brake failure), just before the crash.

Yes. I wasn't taking exception with the consequential duality inherent in having either or both the camera and audio recordings.

The fact remains however, there is no expectation of privacy in your place of employment. Whether that place of employment is an office, or a truck cab. The expectation of privacy belongs to your employer and only applies to the government.

. Ok, then how is it that we had need of none of the bull crap before ? I will tell you why.... Because we allowed this country to go straight to hell is why, and it keeps getting worse every day. Soon it will be at those people's doorsteps that think they are immune to it or actually are the enablers of it all, and when it gets there also, then I don't want to hear their crying about it.

When they come for the guns, I don't want to hear them crying about it.

When their neighborhoods finally are invaded, and their money can't help them anymore, then I don't want to hear them crying about it.

When their daughter kills that baby with an abortion, then I don't want to see them act all surprised and such.

When they can't get healthcare without mortgaging the house, then I will look over from my 5 bed uni-hospital room, and laugh at them.

Like I said one thing leads to another, and when these justifiers finally fall victim to their own folly, then I don't want to hear one peep out of their ignorant selves. There is no precedent for what they desire now, but as this nation becomes more and more detached from one another, and she begins to sink, and then implode from the pressure of it all, then I will be there to watch as she goes down while thinking I told ya so.

 

[beagle9]

The sounds recorded, not just conversations, may provide an indication of what was going on inside the cab at the time of an unfortunate event's occurrence.

• Passenger: Damn, she's hot!
  Driver: Who? Where?
  Passenger: Over there on the bench. Red mini skirt.
  Driver: Sh*t!
  Collision occurs.
• Passenger: Did you see the naked pics of Trump's wife?
  Driver: No. I heard about them though.
  Passenger: Hang on, I'll pull them up on my phone.
  Passenger: Here ya go....
  Driver: Holy sh*t. Lucky f*cker. I'd hit that.
  Collision occurs.
  
• Vehicle collides with deer
  Driver: Damn. Did you see that thing? It just jumped right in front of me out of nowhere.
  Passenger: Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it's dead for sure now.

I haven't checked legal precedents and/or code, but I'd think that if the truck belongs to the company and not the driver, there's no basis for the driver construing the cab as his personal space.

. Well I guess the proverbial double edge sword is yet again cast here, where as it's like someone else gave their analogy on this as well, when they said it is a cockpit recorder where the pilot says "Oh God" followed quickly by (the flaps are stuck or the stick won't respond), just before the crash or rather he curses in which usually suggest he has done something wrong (found drunk at the stick, but not so drunk that he couldn't yell OH @#$%&& just before the crash). I guess these companies best make sure their maintenance is in tact, because everything always cuts both ways. The video will still give everyone what they want without the audio, because either way it is going to be one or the others fault regardless, and the video will show that in rates of speed, weather conditions, angles of approach etc. etc.

What the outward facing video cannot in many cases do is provide insight into the nature of focus on the road and the driving conditions extant at the moment of calamity. It's not guaranteed that the audio will in every case, but in some cases it might, whereas unless the video depicts the driver veering strangely, perhaps even giving clues to some mechanical shortfall such as excessive vibration that can be measured from the motion of the frames, nearly never can or will.

Yep, like I said (A TWO EDGED SWORD), where as now the driver might actually have some protection against a sorry company that won't keep their fleet up. He or she yell's "I can't steer" (after the worn belt breaks), just before the crash. He or she yell's "I can't stop this thing" (brake failure), just before the crash.

Yes. I wasn't taking exception with the consequential duality inherent in having either or both the camera and audio recordings.

The fact remains however, there is no expectation of privacy in your place of employment. Whether that place of employment is an office, or a truck cab. The expectation of privacy belongs to your employer and only applies to the government.

. The government is already in your restrooms with your children, and it is teaching them how it's ok if 7 year old Johnny thinks he's a girl, so hurry and get him on hormone drugs in prep him for the total transformation. They are already telling your daughters it's ok to get rid of the baby without your input or permission. It is telling you that you better not defend yourself or else. You probably defend every bit of this nation losing it's grip, so don't just act as if these things are contained when they are not.

 

[320 Years of History]

Ok, then how is it that we had need of none of the bull crap before ? I will tell you why.... Because we allowed this country to go straight to hell is why, and it keeps getting worse every day. Soon it will be at those people's doorsteps that think they are immune to it or actually are the enablers of it all, and when it gets there also, then I don't want to hear their crying about it.

When they come for the guns, I don't want to hear them crying about it.

When their neighborhoods finally are invaded, and their money can't help them anymore, then I don't want to hear them crying about it.

When their daughter kills that baby with an abortion, then I don't want to see them act all surprised and such.

When they can't get healthcare without mortgaging the house, then I will look over from my 5 bed uni-hospital room, and laugh at them.

Like I said one thing leads to another, and when these justifiers finally fall victim to their own folly, then I don't want to hear one peep out of their ignorant selves. There is no precedent for what they desire now, but as this nation becomes more and more detached from one another, and she begins to sink, and then implode from the pressure of it all, then I will be there to watch as she goes down while thinking I told ya so.

A lot of your comments quoted above tacitly imply that one's wealth has something to do with what one will or will not countenance with regard to this matter of privacy. That just doesn't make sense.

Additionally, the basic logical theme of your remarks is that of the slippery slope. That too is an illogical line of reason for one's accepting that the sequence of events you've tacitly postulated will in fact occur. Sure, it's possible for those things to occur just as it's possible for an asteroid to hit Earth or for one to win the lottery. Unlike those two things, however, we have the means to control the occurrence of the outcomes you've suggested even as we broaden or tighten the scope of what is and is not allowable privacy in "this or that" locale.

 

[320 Years of History]

The government is already in your restrooms with your children, and it is teaching them how it's ok if 7 year old Johnny thinks he's a girl, so hurry and get him on hormone drugs in prep him for the total transformation. They are already telling your daughters it's ok to get rid of the baby without your input or permission. It is telling you that you better not defend yourself or else. You probably defend every bit of this nation losing it's grip, so don't just act as if these things are contained when they are not.

Assuming the gov't is in the restroom, being there to tell "Johnny" it's okay that he thinks he's a she isn't why it's there. Besides, "Johnny" already knows it's okay to think he's a she. It's everyone else that has a problem with thinking it's okay. Absent their input on the matter, "Johnny" would get his hormone treatments and surgery(s), go on with her life, and be just fine.

 

[beagle9]

Ok, then how is it that we had need of none of the bull crap before ? I will tell you why.... Because we allowed this country to go straight to hell is why, and it keeps getting worse every day. Soon it will be at those people's doorsteps that think they are immune to it or actually are the enablers of it all, and when it gets there also, then I don't want to hear their crying about it.

When they come for the guns, I don't want to hear them crying about it.

When their neighborhoods finally are invaded, and their money can't help them anymore, then I don't want to hear them crying about it.

When their daughter kills that baby with an abortion, then I don't want to see them act all surprised and such.

When they can't get healthcare without mortgaging the house, then I will look over from my 5 bed uni-hospital room, and laugh at them.

Like I said one thing leads to another, and when these justifiers finally fall victim to their own folly, then I don't want to hear one peep out of their ignorant selves. There is no precedent for what they desire now, but as this nation becomes more and more detached from one another, and she begins to sink, and then implode from the pressure of it all, then I will be there to watch as she goes down while thinking I told ya so.

A lot of your comments quoted above tacitly imply that one's wealth has something to do with what one will or will not countenance with regard to this matter of privacy. That just doesn't make sense.

Additionally, the basic logical theme of your remarks is that of the slippery slope. That too is an illogical line of reason for one's accepting that the sequence of events you've tacitly postulated will in fact occur. Sure, it's possible for those things to occur just as it's possible for an asteroid to hit Earth or for one to win the lottery. Unlike those two things, however, we have the means to control the occurrence of the outcomes you've suggested even as we broaden or tighten the scope of what is and is not allowable privacy in "this or that" locale.

. You ignore what has already been going on, and then you try to paint some kind of picture that hides in the background what has been going on, but the background has become so full that the picture has become a blur to you and others for whom have allowed yourselves to become blind to what has been going on. Wealth is power, and the powerful make decisions with that power, but wealth doesn't bring Godly wisdom if his hand isn't allowed on it or if it wasn't acquired without his blessings to begin with.. "Wealth" if looking at it from a perspective in which it has been obtained in a bad way, and therefore is being held by those who have greedily acquired it, then of course it will cause such people to then bring about all sorts of plans full of fear tactics and/or workings in hopes to keep it stored up into the barns as much as they possibly can (the bulk of it). For this reasoning we will see many tactics never seen before therefore unleashed upon this nation as we muttle along in confusion of, and it will change the whole dynamics of the nation into something unrecognizable soon. It's happening now, but people have been conditioned that it is all ok, and therefore justified.

 

[Hiryuu]

The fact remains however, there is no expectation of privacy in your place of employment. Whether that place of employment is an office, or a truck cab. The expectation of privacy belongs to your employer and only applies to the government.

. Ok, then how is it that we had need of none of the bull crap before ?

Whoa there Lone Ranger, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We didn't need cell phone chargers not so long ago. You ever wonder why you don't see a lot of cell phone pictures of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11? That's because people weren't carrying around cell phones that could take decent pictures in 2001.

To say we don't need something based on what wasn't used before the technology made it possible, kind of throws modern medicine out the window.

 

[320 Years of History]

You ignore what has already been going on

No, I'm don't. I simply realize that what's transpired so far doesn't rise the extreme you've projected and I realize that we can, and will if desired, do something about it if/when folks are of a mind to implement the extreme notions you've identified.

 

[beagle9]

The government is already in your restrooms with your children, and it is teaching them how it's ok if 7 year old Johnny thinks he's a girl, so hurry and get him on hormone drugs in prep him for the total transformation. They are already telling your daughters it's ok to get rid of the baby without your input or permission. It is telling you that you better not defend yourself or else. You probably defend every bit of this nation losing it's grip, so don't just act as if these things are contained when they are not.

Assuming the gov't is in the restroom, being there to tell "Johnny" it's okay that he thinks he's a she isn't why it's there. Besides, "Johnny" already knows it's okay to think he's a she. It's everyone else that has a problem with thinking it's okay. Absent their input on the matter, "Johnny" would get his hormone treatments and surgery(s), go on with her life, and be just fine.

. We're you thinking about your sex or gender at 7 years old ? No you weren't, and don't try and lie by saying you were. At 7 years old, all we were thinking about is kid stuff, and not what some screwed up adults wanted us to think about instead. Let kids be kids is what I say, and get the screwed up adults and government out of their kid lives. Now back on topic before this gets way out there.

 

[beagle9]

The fact remains however, there is no expectation of privacy in your place of employment. Whether that place of employment is an office, or a truck cab. The expectation of privacy belongs to your employer and only applies to the government.

. Ok, then how is it that we had need of none of the bull crap before ?

Whoa there Lone Ranger, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We didn't need cell phone chargers not so long ago. You ever wonder why you don't see a lot of cell phone pictures of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11? That's because people weren't carrying around cell phones that could take decent pictures in 2001.

To say we don't need something based on what wasn't used before the technology made it possible, kind of throws modern medicine out the window.

. You know what I meant... Where not children here.

 

[Hiryuu]

You know what I meant... Where not children here.

Children get pissed when they don't get there way, or when they think their parents are being nosy, don't know crud, aren't being fair or are invading their privacy.

So no, we're not all being children.

 

[320 Years of History]

We're you thinking about your sex or gender at 7 years old ? No you weren't, and don't try and lie by saying you were.

No, not that I can recall. Indeed, were one to ask of what I was specifically thinking as a seven year old, I'd have to answer in terms of events I can remember from then and infer that they and things related to them were what I was thinking about.

• I got a telescope for my birthday that year, so I was thinking about the moon and the stars.
• I loved to read about nature and animals, and I recall asking my parents if we could go to Africa for Christmas to see zebras and lions and whatnot.
• I remember visiting my Southern relatives and hearing Granddaddy's tales about there being 'gators in the pond in front of the house and that being the reason he never could catch a big fish there. I thought I probably shouldn't go down to the pond by myself.
• I recall singing songs with the women who worked in my family's home. I thought I like singing and hanging out with them.
• I remember my aunt advising me to "never let the good be the enemy of the best."
• I remember watching television with Mother one evening and Daddy's walking into the room and heading straight for the restroom to "puke his brains out," whereupon Mother shuffled me out of the room and told me to go to bed. I was wondering why Daddy was sick.
• I remember playing all sorts of games -- tag, baseball, kickball, football, Monopoly, Life, croquet, badminton, checkers, duck-duck-goose, dominoes, etc. -- with my friends, parents, and others. I'm sure I was thinking about how to win.
• I asked Daddy to help me build a treehouse, which he did. So I thought about all sorts of things related to that task.

Most directly related to your remark, I recall that at naptime one day in the first grade, three other kids and I crawled under the beds and played "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." When I saw the girls', I thought, "What's up with that? How on Earth does that work? I'm sure glad I'm not a girl. What a nuisance that setup must be." Was sex and gender specifically on my mind? No, not in the precise and active sense of the transgender discussion broached in this line of discussion. It was nothing more than a precocious curiosity thing.

Given my first grade reaction to discovering "girl parts," there's no doubt in my mind that I definitely was not thinking I should have been born female. Indeed, I haven't ever thought the body parts I was born with are incongruous with those my brain thinks I should have been born with. Thus I'm hardly in a position to use my personal thoughts and experience as a basis for opining about or attesting to what transgender kids think about their own sex, or sex in general, at seven years old or at any any other age. I also wasn't a musical, math or other prodigy/savant at seven years old; thus also I have no idea what those kids think about.

At 7 years old, all we were thinking about is kid stuff...

Apparently, all seven year olds don't think only about "kid stuff." Perhaps, however, some seven year olds play "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and think, "That's what I should have instead of what I got." I don't know, but it's probably not outside the realm of possible thoughts youngsters may have.

 

[beagle9]

We're you thinking about your sex or gender at 7 years old ? No you weren't, and don't try and lie by saying you were.

No, not that I can recall. Indeed, were one to ask of what I was specifically thinking as a seven year old, I'd have to answer in terms of events I can remember from then and infer that they and things related to them were what I was thinking about.

• I got a telescope for my birthday that year, so I was thinking about the moon and the stars.
• I loved to read about nature and animals, and I recall asking my parents if we could go to Africa for Christmas to see zebras and lions and whatnot.
• I remember visiting my Southern relatives and hearing Granddaddy's tales about there being 'gators in the pond in front of the house and that being the reason he never could catch a big fish there. I thought I probably shouldn't go down to the pond by myself.
• I recall singing songs with the women who worked in my family's home. I thought I like singing and hanging out with them.
• I remember my aunt advising me to "never let the good be the enemy of the best."
• I remember watching television with Mother one evening and Daddy's walking into the room and heading straight for the restroom to "puke his brains out," whereupon Mother shuffled me out of the room and told me to go to bed. I was wondering why Daddy was sick.
• I remember playing all sorts of games -- tag, baseball, kickball, football, Monopoly, Life, croquet, badminton, checkers, duck-duck-goose, dominoes, etc. -- with my friends, parents, and others. I'm sure I was thinking about how to win.
• I asked Daddy to help me build a treehouse, which he did. So I thought about all sorts of things related to that task.

Most directly related to your remark, I recall that at naptime one day in the first grade, three other kids and I crawled under the beds and played "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." When I saw the girls', I thought, "What's up with that? How on Earth does that work? I'm sure glad I'm not a girl. What a nuisance that setup must be." Was sex and gender specifically on my mind? No, not in the precise and active sense of the transgender discussion broached in this line of discussion. It was nothing more than a precocious curiosity thing.

Given my first grade reaction to discovering "girl parts," there's no doubt in my mind that I definitely was not thinking I should have been born female. Indeed, I haven't ever thought the body parts I was born with are incongruous with those my brain thinks I should have been born with. Thus I'm hardly in a position to use my personal thoughts and experience as a basis for opining about or attesting to what transgender kids think about their own sex, or sex in general, at seven years old or at any any other age. I also wasn't a musical, math or other prodigy/savant at seven years old; thus also I have no idea what those kids think about.

At 7 years old, all we were thinking about is kid stuff...

Apparently, all seven year olds don't think only about "kid stuff." Perhaps, however, some seven year olds play "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and think, "That's what I should have instead of what I got." I don't know, but it's probably not outside the realm of possible thoughts youngsters may have.

ONCE PLAYED that game, and the questions began, this is where the parents put everyone on the right track again, and all of it into the proper perspective, but if have mental problems then more should be done to address that situation or the parents should know to get help and not encourage something because today's strange thinkers suggest otherwise .

 

[320 Years of History]

We're you thinking about your sex or gender at 7 years old ? No you weren't, and don't try and lie by saying you were.

No, not that I can recall. Indeed, were one to ask of what I was specifically thinking as a seven year old, I'd have to answer in terms of events I can remember from then and infer that they and things related to them were what I was thinking about.

• I got a telescope for my birthday that year, so I was thinking about the moon and the stars.
• I loved to read about nature and animals, and I recall asking my parents if we could go to Africa for Christmas to see zebras and lions and whatnot.
• I remember visiting my Southern relatives and hearing Granddaddy's tales about there being 'gators in the pond in front of the house and that being the reason he never could catch a big fish there. I thought I probably shouldn't go down to the pond by myself.
• I recall singing songs with the women who worked in my family's home. I thought I like singing and hanging out with them.
• I remember my aunt advising me to "never let the good be the enemy of the best."
• I remember watching television with Mother one evening and Daddy's walking into the room and heading straight for the restroom to "puke his brains out," whereupon Mother shuffled me out of the room and told me to go to bed. I was wondering why Daddy was sick.
• I remember playing all sorts of games -- tag, baseball, kickball, football, Monopoly, Life, croquet, badminton, checkers, duck-duck-goose, dominoes, etc. -- with my friends, parents, and others. I'm sure I was thinking about how to win.
• I asked Daddy to help me build a treehouse, which he did. So I thought about all sorts of things related to that task.

Most directly related to your remark, I recall that at naptime one day in the first grade, three other kids and I crawled under the beds and played "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." When I saw the girls', I thought, "What's up with that? How on Earth does that work? I'm sure glad I'm not a girl. What a nuisance that setup must be." Was sex and gender specifically on my mind? No, not in the precise and active sense of the transgender discussion broached in this line of discussion. It was nothing more than a precocious curiosity thing.

Given my first grade reaction to discovering "girl parts," there's no doubt in my mind that I definitely was not thinking I should have been born female. Indeed, I haven't ever thought the body parts I was born with are incongruous with those my brain thinks I should have been born with. Thus I'm hardly in a position to use my personal thoughts and experience as a basis for opining about or attesting to what transgender kids think about their own sex, or sex in general, at seven years old or at any any other age. I also wasn't a musical, math or other prodigy/savant at seven years old; thus also I have no idea what those kids think about.

At 7 years old, all we were thinking about is kid stuff...

Apparently, all seven year olds don't think only about "kid stuff." Perhaps, however, some seven year olds play "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and think, "That's what I should have instead of what I got." I don't know, but it's probably not outside the realm of possible thoughts youngsters may have.

ONCE PLAYED that game, and the questions began, this is where the parents put everyone on the right track again, and all of it into the proper perspective, but if have mental problems then more should be done to address that situation or the parents should know to get help and not encourage something because today's strange thinkers suggest otherwise .

Frankly, I don't think that what a person thinks about their own sex and whether it's the right or wrong one for themselves is someting the rest of us who have never had that experience should concern ourselves about in terms of whether it's a problem or not a problem. I think those of us who are content with the "bit" we've been given need to just move on with our lives and let the folks who are dissatisfied with their "bits" do whatever they want to do with themselves to address the matter.

I have to be honest. Were any of my kids to have informed me that they felt they should become the other sex, short of sending them to a therapist, I don't know what I'd do or allow. That's just not the kind of situation that I think lends itself to abstractly concluding about it, one's choices and feelings, etc. until/unless one must live it. I think that as a parent and I think it in the abstract with regard to folks who feel they are of the wrong sex. The science can say all sorts of things and show all sorts of things, but the reality is that I just don't know what that must be like. I can't even imagine what it's like. The same is so in my mind about a number of things that are uncommon, but not unheard of in the human experience.