First alleged crime committed in Space.

[Lord Revan]

As for war crimes: generally, the military gets a pass, as they aren't 'employees' as much as they're basically indentured servants, but I'm not going to get into a discussion on the legal status of members of the military. They're regarded more as an arm of the government, thus basically an extension of the country, and for the most part war crimes are either simply not reported or largely buried in the mass of other news considered more interesting by the general population. Shitty? Yeah, that's the USA for you.

Indentured servants? That's a new one. Also, I thought that they were supposed to disobey illegal orders?

Basically they sign their own ass over to the military for a fixed, renewable time period so... yeah I thought 'indentured servant' fit?

And, yes, technically they are supposed to disobey illegal orders. The main problem is: will they KNOW it's illegal? Supposedly they're able to figure that out for themselves, but, well, seems people are kind of bad about just doing what they're told regardless because one of the big things about militaries is training the troops into basically obeying what they're told what to do without questioning... there's a reason Catch-22 was written about soldiers.

Which isn't to say I don't think they can think for themselves, I just think that a.) they kind of suck at actually teaching the troops to do so and b.) US popular media (entertainment and news) generally inculcates an attitude that basically worships the military and ignores its wrongdoings, making it easier for people to deliberately fuck up.

As to NASA-- *personally* I don't think it really reflects on them that much either, I'm more just going for a discussion of cultural aspects of crime/criminals, I guess?

I dunno about how it's in the US military but back when I was serving in the finnish defense force(compulsory service but still) we were explained which orders should be considered illegal (granted it wasn't a very detailed explanation more like a general overview) and there was a system in place to use if you thought an order was illegal.

First you would ask the order to be given in writing (so you had evidence) and then asked to see a superior officer (superior to the officer giving the order that is), this system was in place both to protect the servicemen and to prevent abuse (since the order would be in writing and signed by the officer in question they couldn't claim they never gave such order, but also in the order was in fact legal you could get into trouble and there would be evidence of that too).

[Broomstick]

Not really; my beef is entirely with the content of this thread. Did people lose their right to private life by virtue of working in space?

I view it as a further symptom of the general loss of privacy here in the 21st Century. None of us have much of any of it left. Nosy neighbors are nothing new, but now instead of the home to either side of your it's the whole goddamned planet looking in your windows and reading your mail.

I do not in any way approve, but have no idea what, if anything, can be done about it.

[K. A. Pital]

Did people lose their right to private life by virtue of working in space?

At this point, right or wrong, they do, especially when you become a public figure from your social media interactions.

Well... no. They do not. Only in case the crime is severe can media attention be justified. Otherwise - no.

[Gandalf]

Basically they sign their own ass over to the military for a fixed, renewable time period so... yeah I thought 'indentured servant' fit?

To put it politely, that's stretching it

And, yes, technically they are supposed to disobey illegal orders. The main problem is: will they KNOW it's illegal? Supposedly they're able to figure that out for themselves, but, well, seems people are kind of bad about just doing what they're told regardless because one of the big things about militaries is training the troops into basically obeying what they're told what to do without questioning... there's a reason Catch-22 was written about soldiers.

Which isn't to say I don't think they can think for themselves, I just think that a.) they kind of suck at actually teaching the troops to do so and b.) US popular media (entertainment and news) generally inculcates an attitude that basically worships the military and ignores its wrongdoings, making it easier for people to deliberately fuck up.

Think through the implications of this statement. If people in the armed forces aren't being taught their basic legal responsibilities (like not invading countries illegally, torture is a no-no, etc), aren't they just a group of hired thugs?

As to NASA-- *personally* I don't think it really reflects on them that much either, I'm more just going for a discussion of cultural aspects of crime/criminals, I guess?

Yeah, weirdly Timmy seems to be echoing the arguments used to keep gay people out of the armed forces.

[AniThyng]

Think through the implications of this statement. If people in the armed forces aren't being taught their basic legal responsibilities (like not invading countries illegally, torture is a no-no, etc), aren't they just a group of hired thugs?

It would seem like if your bar for illegal behaviour is at the level of "don't invade countries illegally" and not say, an individual soldier or unit violating rules of engagement, the true issue is no longer the military at all but the civilian government that sent that military to an illegal war.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not really; my beef is entirely with the content of this thread. Did people lose their right to private life by virtue of working in space?

I view it as a further symptom of the general loss of privacy here in the 21st Century. None of us have much of any of it left. Nosy neighbors are nothing new, but now instead of the home to either side of your it's the whole goddamned planet looking in your windows and reading your mail.

I do not in any way approve, but have no idea what, if anything, can be done about it.

Level the playing field. Everyone gets to know everything about everyone.

Call it MAH: Mutually Assured Humiliation.

That or bomb society back to a pre-internet tech. level. That's the other "solution".

[K. A. Pital]

So, it is “Circle”, then? “Secrets are lies," "sharing is caring," and "privacy is theft”?

TRR, are you even thinking this through or just saying things?

[The Romulan Republic]

So, it is “Circle”, then? “Secrets are lies," "sharing is caring," and "privacy is theft”?

TRR, are you even thinking this through or just saying things?

I'm describing the world as it is. We're not going back to a world where everyone has privacy, not unless we abolish the internet. You want to convince me I'm wrong, tell me how that can be done without knocking humanity's tech. level back several decades at minimum.

I don't like it, but I'd rather that everyone's secrets were out there in the open, than that its just the powerful governments and corporations spying on everybody, while private citizens who leak stuff are prosecuted for espionage (or assassinated, if they're Russian).

I believe in a level playing field, that's all.

[K. A. Pital]

There are secrets and there are secrets - there are stories where public interest is clear and there is gossip, dirt-diggin, intrusive abuse of people‘s social interaction to generate media views. It is not the same!

The fascination with gossip, vivisection of people‘s private lives - who sleeps with whom, who marries or divorces whom - is absolutely unhealthy regardless of whether perpetrated via the Internet or via tabloids and yellow press.

Don’t turn this into a bullshit conversation about „tech level“. And for god‘s sake, life is not a strategy game and we are not unlocking achievements in Sid Meier. This is just a bunch of people without consideration being money-hungry and generating cash on gossip, clickbait and voyeurism.

[The Romulan Republic]

There are secrets and there are secrets - there are stories where public interest is clear and there is gossip, dirt-diggin, intrusive abuse of people‘s social interaction to generate media views. It is not the same!

The fascination with gossip, vivisection of people‘s private lives - who sleeps with whom, who marries or divorces whom - is absolutely unhealthy regardless of whether perpetrated via the Internet or via tabloids and yellow press.

I don't disagree, but that is not what this story is, however hard you've tried to insist that it is, and your and my distaste does not change the reality of the world that we live in.

Don’t turn this into a bullshit conversation about „tech level“.

Is there a different term you would prefer so you can stop deflecting from my point with nitpickery? Or would that defeat your purpose?

And for god‘s sake, life is not a strategy game and we are not unlocking achievements in Sid Meier. This is just a bunch of people without consideration being money-hungry and generating cash on gossip, clickbait and voyeurism.

Privacy is dead. Tell me how we can undo that without a global cataclysm that shuts down the internet, and I'm all ears.

[K. A. Pital]

Privacy isn’t dead, and there are efforts to constrain datamining, social network data resale, Paparazzi behavior, also through laws.

I‘ve said enough.

Your point is that we should do nothing, because „it’s the Internet“. Guess what, no, and it’s not something which cannot be sensibly approached.

A first step would be not keep propagating clickbait yourself, how’s that for a change?

[Ace Pace]

Privacy is dead. Tell me how we can undo that without a global cataclysm that shuts down the internet, and I'm all ears.

Privacy is far from dead. Some parts of privacy are dead. Such as the ability to walk down the street of a Western city without being photographed. Or the ability to pay for the majority of your needed services anonymously. Or use public transportation in an anonymous fashion.

Infact, privacy has never been better if you want to

• * Communicate with someone in a secure manner (Yes, even from the scary intel agencies)
  * Consume media of any type anonymously and in an untraceable manner
  * Transfer large sums of money anonymously across countries
  * Create content in an anonymous fashion and distribute it

So my question to you, is what privacy matters to you that you think is dead?
Because you're also basically stating an absolutist view, of "if some privacy is dead, I'd rather all privacy be dead"

I don't like it, but I'd rather that everyone's secrets were out there in the open, than that its just the powerful governments and corporations spying on everybody, while private citizens who leak stuff are prosecuted for espionage (or assassinated, if they're Russian).

[The Romulan Republic]

Privacy is dead. Tell me how we can undo that without a global cataclysm that shuts down the internet, and I'm all ears.

Privacy is far from dead. Some parts of privacy are dead. Such as the ability to walk down the street of a Western city without being photographed. Or the ability to pay for the majority of your needed services anonymously. Or use public transportation in an anonymous fashion.

Infact, privacy has never been better if you want to

• * Communicate with someone in a secure manner (Yes, even from the scary intel agencies)
  * Consume media of any type anonymously and in an untraceable manner
  * Transfer large sums of money anonymously across countries
  * Create content in an anonymous fashion and distribute it

So my question to you, is what privacy matters to you that you think is dead?

Any communications online or by phone, unless encrypted (and that's assuming they never figure out how to crack those encryptions, or force the tech. companies to put a back door in).

Surveilance cameras everywhere, hell, everyone's carrying one on their smart phone.

Shit like revenge porn being put all over the internet.

Every stupid thing people ever say or do online being recorded for posterity (which raises the possibility that soon the only politicians and media figures left who haven't been forced out over scandalous things they've said in the past will be the ones who are so shameless that it becomes accepted, like Trump).

Oh, sure your average person probably won't get noticed much in the general mishmash- but its there if someone wants to find it.

[Ace Pace]

Nihilism, tech Nihilism everywhere.

Any communications online or by phone, unless encrypted (and that's assuming they never figure out how to crack those encryptions, or force the tech. companies to put a back door in).

Any communication online, using modern End to End encryption on a secure mobile phone, is unreadable to all known mathematics. If you're worried about tech companies, then you (like any privacy thinking person) use Signal rather than a tech companies product.

Surveilance cameras everywhere, hell, everyone's carrying one on their smart phone.

It's like you're not reading my post. Did I not explicitly mention this as lost? Also, regarding mobile phones, there is a large cultural difference between North America and Europe, where taking wide angle people shots is frowned upon.

Shit like revenge porn being put all over the internet.

Every stupid thing people ever say or do online being recorded for posterity (which raises the possibility that soon the only politicians and media figures left who haven't been forced out over scandalous things they've said in the past will be the ones who are so shameless that it becomes accepted, like Trump).

Oh, sure your average person probably won't get noticed much in the general mishmash- but its there if someone wants to find it.

I too can mention random things that are now far more private than they were even two decades upon. Ancedotes are all fine, but I asked a question.
What privacy is dead? Which precise privacy?
Because privacy is a very wide subject, there's privacy from state, privacy from the public. There's ambient privacy and explicit privacy. They are all different things!

The main thing that has died is ambient privacy, but that's also debatable.

[Broomstick]

For the average person, they can stop putting all their lives on social media. Although I am on Facebook I seldom post anything there. People have commented that you really don't get much about me from my presence there, because I think before putting anything up there and keep things very controlled. Something that other people, apparently, don't have the self-discipline to do. I don't purchase ragsheet type magazines so I don't contribute to the paparazzi industry. Those are just two examples of how an ordinary person can contribute to controlling the whole lack of privacy thing.

But people don't think about what they're doing, or the consequences of their actions.

When I call 911 I don't want privacy - I want my phone to send my location to the authorities, I want to be found. That's a good use of the tech we have today. On the other hand, I don't want someone secretly filming me taking a shit on a hotel toilet. Technology should work for humans, humans should not work for technology.

[K. A. Pital]

You can also quite well walk down the street without being photographed or put online - depends on the city, the street and the time. Many nations in the EU also have no google street view or some cities ban it.

What has been under assault is the privacy of protesters: which I find is something that needs to be counteracted, not lamented in a „oh well, nothing can be done“.

Ace is right, in many ways there are even improvements to privacy: secure, encrypted faraway communications (not phone lines which can always be tapped by law enforcement), ability to, with some planning and clever approaches, publish your opinions anonymously, avoiding immediate targeting by police or your dangerous opponents.

Total surveillance and dash cams are banned here, for example, and evidence collected with the use of unauthorized surveillance is unpresentable in court.

Would this be enough to consider the death of privacy a premature and childish statement?

[loomer]

Privacy being difficult to maintain (whether true or false) meaning that we ought not respect the privacy of others in their intimate affairs is a tremendously broke-brain approach anyway. Even if it's difficult to maintain, in what way can that possibly justify a normative approach that disregards privacy elsewhere? It's a better argument to invoke celebrity status as overriding privacy rights, and if that is a more reasonable position, you know you done fucked up somewhere in the chain.

[Elheru Aran]

Basically they sign their own ass over to the military for a fixed, renewable time period so... yeah I thought 'indentured servant' fit?

To put it politely, that's stretching it

What do you call it then?

And, yes, technically they are supposed to disobey illegal orders. The main problem is: will they KNOW it's illegal? Supposedly they're able to figure that out for themselves, but, well, seems people are kind of bad about just doing what they're told regardless because one of the big things about militaries is training the troops into basically obeying what they're told what to do without questioning... there's a reason Catch-22 was written about soldiers.

Which isn't to say I don't think they can think for themselves, I just think that a.) they kind of suck at actually teaching the troops to do so and b.) US popular media (entertainment and news) generally inculcates an attitude that basically worships the military and ignores its wrongdoings, making it easier for people to deliberately fuck up.

Think through the implications of this statement. If people in the armed forces aren't being taught their basic legal responsibilities (like not invading countries illegally, torture is a no-no, etc), aren't they just a group of hired thugs?

Believe me, I know. I have a brother in the Marines, so there's some personal concern here.

Now that said: I think the problem is in large part social and cultural expectations/stereotypes. Given the absolutely ridiculous idolization of the military (active military anyway, veterans are a different though similar situation), there's a LOT of pressure on anybody who joins to be a 'good soldier' outside of the normal indoctrination/training they receive in the military. Don't forget the paradoxical 'the government is out to get us/USA is the best country' mindset which encourages a lack of questioning of authority (despite not trusting said authority... go figure). It's all a bit of a toxic stew that culminates in the military basically being somewhat frozen for lack of initiative and relying heavily on direct orders from the government to do pretty much anything, while wallowing in its hero-worship from the general public and taking advantage of that cultural profile to submit absurd budgetary requests.

So how does this percolate down to the common soldier? First, he (or she) is likely joining for a fairly basic reason like reliable health care, meals and lodging, the GI bill to pay for their school, but the cultural veneration of the military is almost always a part of their decision. Then they are trained to absolute obedience. That's part of why boot camps are so harsh-- they're even harsher if you DON'T obey, thus ensuring wash-out of the more independently minded. After boot camp, they DO receive further training in things like ethics and such-- the UCMJ is a thing, and for the most part gets enforced probably more readily than most civilian laws. But for all that, the common soldier is still strictly expected to follow orders. The officer corps is expected to have more discretion, but ultimately it's pretty rare as a result of everything mentioned so far that a PFC will actually stand up to orders he or she believes are illegal. It's far more likely for something to get anonymously leaked to the civilian press, or a civilian contractor on base sees something going awry and reports it.

This doesn't mean it never happens-- I'm sure it does, however rarely-- but most of the time these are handled internally, which means most civilians don't ever really learn about these incidents because of the whole making the military look bad thing.

It's a similar situation with the constabulary here in the US, although you hear a lot more about police incidents because there's a lot more civilians around to witness and report it. Out in the middle of Nowhere Country on the other side of the world... not so much, unfortunately.