Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public. After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos. Despite certain city/county ordinances why not masks or helmets with tinted faceplates. What if exoskeletons become practical? Shouldn't they be treated the same as an auto? steve
At 11:09 AM -0700 7/3/01, Steve Schear wrote:
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public. After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos.
Not in many places. At least here in California, and probably in many other states, there are restrictions on which windows may be tinted, and by how much. Despite certain city/county ordinances why not masks or helmets with tinted faceplates. My motorcycle helmet has a tinted faceplate. Very darkly tinted, in fact. (So dark that the vehicle code requires it be removed at night and replaced by a clear plate, or lifted up.) The whole issue of "going masked" is a murky one, legally. We have had many discussions of this over the years. Women wearing veils, men wearing beards, sunglasses, Halloween or other party masks, etc. I believe that a major constitutional challenge to "going masked for the purpose of going masked" laws would, by a court faithful to the U.S.C. and the Founders, be struck down. The need of a traffic cop to check for a valid driver's license, for example, can be met in much less restrictive ways than throwing someone in prison for wearing a wig which some judge deems to be a "disguise." (Not that there are many, if any, people sitting in prison today for the crime of "going masked for the purpose of going masked." Time to take the laws off the books, though, lest they be applied to cyberspace or to public camera countermeasures, as we are discussing here.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public.
What has 'public' got to do with 'probable cause'? Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos.
'permitted' pretty much sinks your whole point.
Despite certain city/county ordinances why not masks or helmets with tinted faceplates. What if exoskeletons become practical? Shouldn't they be treated the same as an auto?
You mean with license plates, and annual inspection? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
The whole issue of "going masked" is a murky one, legally.
No, it isn't. While police certainly need 'probably cause' to institute a search there are NO (zero, nadah, nil, nul, none) requirements on citizens to wear any particular part or type of clothing (or not wear it even). Any such law would violate the 1st. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public. After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos. Despite certain
Not everywhere, and even then not all windows.
city/county ordinances why not masks or helmets with tinted faceplates. What if exoskeletons become practical? Shouldn't they be treated the same as an auto?
steve
-- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
The whole issue of "going masked" is a murky one, legally.
No, it isn't. While police certainly need 'probably cause' to institute a search there are NO (zero, nadah, nil, nul, none) requirements on citizens to wear any particular part or type of clothing (or not wear it even). Any such law would violate the 1st.
So I can go out in public nude, and not expect to be arrested? Wrong. While, in absolute terms, the right to free expression ought to include the right to nudity, in practice it does not. As a male, I am *required*, by the state, to wear something that covers up the dangly bits when I go out in public. The state also refuses to license establishments to serve food unless those establishments have a clear policy refusing admittance to barefoot people. Does the state require me to wear shoes, or is it their puppets the shopkeepers who do so? Does it matter? NO. Shoes are also required for all riders of state-sponsored public transit. I support the right of antisocial people to smear themselves with green jello and run naked with scissors around the block flapping their arms and shouting "splee three frooks!" if they want to, but the state does not agree. There are also types of clothing that I am forbidden by the state to wear; I had a friend in Kansas City who cross-dressed once and got busted for -- I kid you not -- "Intent to defraud." Since he was wearing a full beard at the time, I don't know anyone who'd have fallen for his supposed fraud, but let us just say that if you are a man dressed in women's clothing, the law enforcement agencies of a lot of places will go out of their way to find a law to charge you with. Unconstitutional? Sure. Standard Practice? Absolutely. Don't go spouting off that these laws *don't* exist just because they *ought* not exist. Someone who doesn't know you may actually believe you and wind up in jail. Bear
At 06:44 PM 7/3/01 -0700, petro wrote:
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public. After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos. Despite certain
Not everywhere, and even then not all windows.
Forget windows. Noone tells bimbos to remove wigs, facepaint, sunglasses, gloves, various subdermal implants. You can, of course, *observe* them, but you can't force them to reveal (flash to Planet of the Apes sequel) their *true face*.
In Iowa, it is illegal to tint your windshield, and side and rear windows
can only be tinted to a certain percent (They police have devices to measure
opacity).
The reasoning is that cops need to be able to see the driver's face for
identification and when stopping a car to see if you are pulling a gun on
them.
-Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Honig"
At 06:44 PM 7/3/01 -0700, petro wrote:
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public. After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos. Despite certain
Not everywhere, and even then not all windows.
Forget windows. Noone tells bimbos to remove wigs, facepaint, sunglasses, gloves, various subdermal implants. You can, of course, *observe* them, but you can't force them to reveal (flash to Planet of the Apes sequel) their *true face*.
At 08:22 PM 7/5/2001 -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
In Iowa, it is illegal to tint your windshield, and side and rear windows can only be tinted to a certain percent (They police have devices to measure opacity).
The reasoning is that cops need to be able to see the driver's face for identification and when stopping a car to see if you are pulling a gun on them.
I wouldn't be surprised if most or all outdoor cameras use a polarizer to reduce glare and improve image quality in sunny situations. If so, windshields with cross-polarized inner liners (invisive to the naked eye as they would appear to be just a slight added neutral tint) should make their job much harder. steve
At 06:44 PM 7/3/01 -0700, petro wrote:
Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their observation while in public. After all one is permitted tinted windows on autos. Despite certain
Not everywhere, and even then not all windows.
Forget windows. Noone tells bimbos to remove wigs, facepaint, sunglasses, gloves, various subdermal implants. You can, of course, *observe* them, but you can't force them to reveal (flash to Planet of the Apes sequel) their *true face*.
But they, you usually don't want to. It is however a more accurate analogy. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
participants (7)
-
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Neil Johnson -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Steve Schear -
Tim May