Darren Comment Carnival, Edition #1
I haven’t been posting as much lately, but I have been commenting more than usual. Some of the comments were long enough to be blog posts, themselves. Because I don’t think I’m going to be able to write a blog post until next week, I’m going to do something different. Here’s the first Darren Comment Carnival!
#1.) If you want an example how blogging can make a difference, you should check out Rational Jenn’s posts on the “American Community Survey.” On one of those posts, a ACS supporter (and someone with a personal stake in it, too) came on post a comment in defense of the ACS, partially based on the fact that the ACS data is reported in “non-aggregate” form. That’s supposed to make us think that our data (and the ACS stores a LOT of data) is safe with those nice ACS employees, but I disagreed. This comment is a little too close to being a rant, but here it is anyway:
Patricia Becker said that the data collected was only be used in “AGGREGATE FORM ONLY.” This may be how it’s sent out for consumption by politicians, but that doesn’t change the fact that the data is still kept on an individual level. If you were to fill this survey out, there will be some database with a record just about you. Think of it like a big Excel document with a column for your first name, next to the column for your last name, next to the column for your salary, next to the column for your SSN, etc.. There are probably few with access to that non-aggregate data, but still… that’s data in NON-AGGREGATE FORM.
And what about the paper copies of the surveys? And what about the memory of the government employee who typed in the survey information into the computer? And what about the memory of the government employee who asks the questions over the phone or in-person? More data in NON-AGGREGATE FORM held by individuals who don’t have right to know.
I wouldn’t trust any government employee with my data any farther than I could throw an ACS survey taker off my front porch, and neither should you. They can say that they prevent “unnecessary” access, but can we know? We can’t. And if the fact that they’re willing to resort to government force to make people fill this out this survey says anything, it says this: They don’t really care about the privacy of your data, or you.
The question of how the ACS data is kept, used, etc. is not the essential issue, but I would just like to suggest that we not forget who we are dealing with. Or better yet, let’s not forget *what* they’re dealing with. Imagine passing by your local ACS survey taker and her boyfriend at the grocery store, and then imagine her whispering something to her boyfriend as they both look at you and giggle. Imagine reading a story about an ACS employee reporting her laptop (with a hard-drive full of data) as “stolen.” Or read Patty Becker’s comment above and think about whether you want to take her word for it.
#2.) Valzhalla wrote a blog post titled “Life, and other kinds of existence” in which she commented on the British GMC’s actions against a doctor who *almost* helped a severely-sick woman commit suicide. I posted a comment here:
I agree with you. I’m not able to contemplate what it would take for someone like “Patient A” to say that non-existence is better than living under those conditions, but that’s exactly the reason why I — and groups like the GMC — need to be kept out of the matter. Only one individual had to suffer through the circumstances that Patient A had to endure, and that’s she. On what grounds can another person interfere with her decision to stop living under those circumstances? Not someone who respects Patient A’s right to her life.
[…]
I think that the way the GMC is punishing this doctor is a horrible, back-handed way for them to dictate to others how they should live their lives. Apparently they have a problem with the right of a patient to end their lives, but they can’t make suicide illegal. And even if they could, there would be no way to enforce it. So instead, the GMC punishes a doctor for holding a contrary position than theirs. They point to his role in the suicide, but that’s just an excuse to punish him — not a reason to punish him. They’ll let their arbitrary rules on doctors and let the effects trickle-down to the patients.
#3.) I use a RSS reader to quickly filter and group all types of content. It’s so efficient, I’ve even been able to keep up on blogs that I don’t agree with. One of those blogs is a blog titled “Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature,” which is written who has a bone to pick with Objectivists. It’s not a site that I would normally comment on, but I saw an incorrect statement about Ayn Rand that I thought deserved to be challenged.
What was it? The blogger said that Ayn Rand liked “religious emotion.” I asked for a reference, and he brought out the following part in the Fountainhead:
‘You’re a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings.’
‘That’s true,’ said Roark.
Which prompted me to post the following reply:
Without opening The Fountainhead to check that quote, I can already see a problem with your interpretation. When the man told Roark that he was “profoundly religious,” he also said “in your own way.” Given the type of character Howard Roark was and given the fact that he agreed with the man, I think that’s context enough to know that the statement was not an “appreciation” of religious emotion.
But in this case, we don’t have to interpret anything. Ayn Rand explained exactly what she meant in the quote you picked in her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition to The Fountainhead. There, Ayn Rand wrote:
[quote]
The same meaning and considerations were intended and are applicable to another passage of the book, a brief dialogue between Roark and Hopton Stoddard, which may be misunderstood if taken out of context:
” ‘You’re a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings.’
” ‘That’s true,’ said Roark.”
In the context of that scene, however, the meaning is clear: it is Roark’s profound dedication to values, to the highest and best, to the ideal, that Stoddard is referring to (see his explanation of the nature of the proposed temple). The erection of the Stoddard Temple and the subsequent trial state the issue explicitly.”
[end quote][…]
I’ll just add one more thing to this: It’s one thing to disagree with something (even Objectivism), but it’s another thing to make incorrect statements about it.
#4.) And to finish it off, I’ll go back to the same… old… subject: Internet radio royalty rates! On an article about a music artist who agrees with the webcasters, I posted this comment:
Tags: [comments, internet radio]If Michael White wants webcasters to play his music, all he has to do is give them permission. What’s missing in in practically all of the talk over internet radio royalty rates is the fact that musicians have the right to negotiate their own rates. If they want, they can even offer their music for free. So if Michael White wants his music to be played on internet radio, he can do it — no matter how high SoundExchange wants to charge.
Comments
Leave a Reply