English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

3:00 AM

importantly, for Lucasfilm, Lucas is now out of the picture.

So hopefully we've seen the end of the tinkering with the old films

Hell, maybe Disney will even release one of the older, less-fucked-up versions on bluray! If they did that, I might forgive them.

I am specifically avoiding the BluRays because they make Darth Vader shout "Nooooooo!" at the end of Return of the Jedi. That was done so that now BOTH trilogies end with him shouting "Nooooo!", and thus both ending lamely.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 "Culture", he calls it!

At least they will probably get a monetary injection from Disney, one should hope.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Listen Mr. I'm-not-one-of-the-hoi-polloi, Star Wars and Mickey Mouse are part of the culture whether you like it or not.

@Cerberus Perhaps. But Star Wars is pretty profitable. So maybe not. Maybe the only real result is the removal of GL.

Cerberus

So you say. inclines head in Maggie Smith's typical way

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

The truth is that the 20th century has seen culture change in a radical way. Now instead of everyone learning all those dusty old stories, there are new stories to take their place, and cartoony versions of the old stories. And the magic of television has made them ubiquitous. More people today are familiar with the Disney Hercules than the classical legends. Does that even matter? probably not.

Cerberus

It's just pop culture.

Some bits are good, most are not.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:08 AM

pop culture IS culture

Cerberus

It's not Culture.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

sure it is

Cerberus

It may be culture, but not Culture.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

bah. what is "Culture"-with-a-capital-C?

Cerberus

We're not supposed to have a serious conversation about this.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:09 AM

we're not?

Cerberus

Nope.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

oh, are we waiting for tchrist to be around, so he can be annoyed by it?

Cerberus

By what, exactly?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

by the argument, and the opinions expressed therein.

Cerberus

Your connecting Disney with "culture" was too funny to pass up on.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:10 AM

Ideally we should have the argument while he's in the middle of talking about unicode, or typesetting, or some new word he just learned

@Cerberus Ah, but it IS culture. I am serious about that.

Disney is a big part of American (and Canadian) culture.

Cerberus

In the anthropological sense.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 As if that ever stopped him!

Or anything, really.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Anyway, what kind of culture is disney not part of? It's not serious enough? Not artistic enough?

Cerberus

I would sooner call it entertainment.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

lots of art is "entertainment".

Cerberus

But not vice versa.

At least not that deserves the name.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:14 AM

bah. you're just being snobby

Cerberus

You're just being like those North Koreans in grey uniforms.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

in what way?

Cerberus

Suggesting that all art is equally good, or that quality is related to popularity.

Well, that's actually not the NK part.

The NK part is a slew of superficial and uniformly produced "art".

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I never said all art is equally good, nor that quality is related to popularity.

Cerberus

But suggested.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:17 AM

I just said Disney is part of the culture

Cerberus

3 mins ago, by Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

bah. you're just being snobby

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus You are.

You are refusing to consider that anything Disney does has any artistic merit.

Cerberus

Ah, but was it relevant? That is the question.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

You are suggesting that popularity implies non-quality

Cerberus

Now you're exaggerating my position.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:18 AM

as you were mine

Cerberus

Yes.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Great!

Time for beer

Cerberus

Well, I said "suggest", and you say "are refusing" at first.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

In any case. My original statement was that Disney is trying to form a monopoly on culture. This is true irregardless of whether or not Mickey Mouse has ever appeared in a Disney sanctioned work of "Art".

Cerberus

What I meant was that Disney and pop culture in general produce lots of things that are superficial and low quality, and that culture is not seldom used to mean "high culture", and that surely very little that Disney has ever made is that.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:20 AM

The point is that Disney would like to own ALL the movies, comic books, TV shows, etc.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Absolutely.

10 mins ago, by Cerberus

Your connecting Disney with "culture" was too funny to pass up on.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Disney owns a TON of stuff. Surely lots of what they own is the top of the art form.

Cerberus

snobbish face Pah!

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Your finding humour in that statement just indicates your automatic snobbery

That's your default setting: disdain

Cerberus

Hey, I have just watched Downton Abbey, which is little more than a civilized soap opera in costumes. I don't feel that enjoying superficial entertainment is immoral or anything. But one can make the distinction.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:22 AM

Cerb voice: If it was made in this, or the previous, millennium, it must be rubbish!

Cerberus

Nah.

Our century has good culture too.

But surely you will agree that the majority have bad taste?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I think, given the previous conversations today, I will only agree that the majority taste bad.

Cerberus

Which conversations?

Oh, that.

Well, then you should perhaps taste some muscle meat.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I dunno. Most people eat crappy food and pollute their bodies with stuff I'd rather not eat.

Cerberus

Pollute their bodies?

With what?

You cut off the fat.

And we all eat dioxines.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:26 AM

alcohol, tobacco, drugs, nasty food, environmental pollutants.... etc

Cerberus

Which are probable stored in the liver anyway...

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Yeah but humans are at the top of their food chain. So the pollutants accumulate.

Cerberus

How do those things pollute your human steak?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

We'd actually make pretty poor meals, nutrition-wise

Cerberus

Huh?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:26 AM

@Cerberus Don't you know that what an animal eats affects how it tastes?

Cerberus

Why should we be any less nutritious than cows?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Cows eat grass

that makes them taste good

Cerberus

Well, perhaps I should tell you the story about these presenters again.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

farmers also feed them other stuff to improve flavour. or in some cases to improve quantity.

Cerberus

Because they said they tasted good, the muscle part.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:27 AM

nah it's okay. I'm not have a serious conversation about cannibalism. The last one was almost the lunch of me.

Cerberus

Really?

I didn't know you were so sensitive.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I was actually surprised at how many people in the room seemed to be genuinely offended that I am not opposed to cannibalism.

Mahnax

Hiya.

Cerberus

Hi!

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

hey Mahnax. You're looking tasty today.

Cerberus

3:28 AM

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 What I heard sounded funny.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 ...

Mahnax

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Thanks, Mrs. Hiny, you are too. You know, I've been craving some nice tricep meat, now that you mention it.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think we at least share one thing: the desire to confront ideas that shake things up a bit.

@Mahnax hands out morphine and knives to room

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mahnax My triceps would probably be okay to eat. They're not too tough and slightly fatty. But my forearms would probably be too stringy.

Mahnax

@Cerberus Thanks, but we won't be needing the morphine. cackles

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Confronting ideas is good.

Cerberus

3:30 AM

Oh, dear.

Do leave him enough to ehm use his mouse and keyboard.

Mahnax

That's not the triceps though, that's the wrists and hands.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I read a Stephen King short story once, about a doctor who is smuggling heroin when he is shipwrecked on a tiny island. He runs out of food within days and starts to eat his own body.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I have shocked people often enough by arguing against the anti-paedophile craze.

Mahnax

Ooh, have you read that one Stephen King book where the lady captured the author?

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think that makes no sense. Especially not within days!

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:32 AM

@Mahnax No. Only that one book of short stories.

Cerberus

Why not let your body eat itself the natural way?

By just starving.

Mahnax

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Oh, I read that once.

Cerberus

@Mahnax That sounds funny!

Mahnax

I think there was a story that happened on a plane, or something. It was weird.

Cerberus

I don't think people ever eat themselves when they're starving, btw.

Mahnax

3:33 AM

@Cerberus Wait until you get to the part where she, ehm, SPOILER damages him.

Cerberus

They just starve and burn their tissues from the inside to get energy.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mahnax It also had a story where a guy had a typewriter whose insert and delete keys would actually change reality. And a story about a guy who found a tiger in his school bathroom. And a story about a monkey toy that played the cymbals... and something happened. forget what.

Cerberus

@Mahnax Oh, dear. That sounds...scary.

Mahnax

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Oh, hrmm. That sounds vaguely familiar, but it's been awhile.

But speaking of books, my birthday books came in the mail today.

I can't decide which to read first.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Well, what can I say. I didn't write the story. Anyway the Dr. in the story used the heroin to numb the pain of his auto-amputations.

Skeleton Crew

Skeleton Crew is the second collection of short fiction by Stephen King, published by Putnam in June 1985. A limited edition of a thousand copies was published by Scream/Press in October 1985 (ISBN 978-0910489126), illustrated by J.K. Potter, containing an additional short story, "The Revelations of 'Becka Paulson," which had originally appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (July 19 – August 2, 1984), and was later incorporated into King's 1987 novel The Tommyknockers. The original title of this book was Night Moves. Stories collected {| class="wikitable" |- ! Title ! Originally published ...

Cerberus

3:37 AM

He should have saved the heroin to distract him while he was sick from starvation.

And catch some fish or summin.

David Wallace

@Mahnax Buridan was an ass.

Mahnax

@DavidWallace Blast.

David Wallace

Anyone read Gerald's Game?

Cerberus

What is it, a boot?

Oops sorry, I was Canadianised by the room.

I meant, what is it about?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I'm ignoring that.

2

Cerberus

3:41 AM

FAIL!

David Wallace

A man takes his wife to a remote location for a romantic weekend. He handcuffs her to the bed, then dies of a heart attack.

Cerberus

You can't ignore something by being on the star wall!

@DavidWallace Ah, that is a common and delightful story line.

David Wallace

She spends much of the book wondering if she's going to have to eat her hand to survive.

Cerberus

Eat?

Chew off!

David Wallace

Well, yes, OK.

Cerberus

3:43 AM

I believe humans generally can't do it?

But (some?) animals can?

David Wallace

I forget what actually happens in the book.

Cerberus

Oww.

David Wallace

I think maybe she deliberately dislocated one thumb or something, and that was enough.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I saw a movie where a guy cut off his thumb to escape handcuffs

He was in a hurry though

had a killer to stop

David Wallace

and access to a sharp knife, clearly.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:46 AM

There was a guy who was pinned under a boulder while hiking somewhere, and had to cut off his arm with his pocket-knife

that is a true story

David Wallace

I don't think I could ever do that.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

this is the story about the surgeon, that I mentioned earlier.

@DavidWallace Well, he would certainly have died.

nobody knew where he was

no chance of rescue

David Wallace

I still don't think I could bring myself to do it.

Cerberus

I would probably risk the gamble and hope someone came to rescue me before I died from dehydration.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 How could he have known?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

he admits that he was an idiot for going out alone, without proper gear, and not telling anyone where he'd be

@Cerberus very remote location

Cerberus

3:47 AM

He was indeed.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Very far from his house too, as in, hundreds of km away?

@DavidWallace I don't know.

Perhaps if you're going crazy from thirst, you will have a different perspective.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Aron Ralston

Aron Lee Ralston (born October 27, 1975) is an American outdoorsman, engineer and motivational speaker. He is widely known for having survived a canyoneering accident in south-eastern Utah in 2003, during which he was forced to amputate his own right arm with a dull multi-tool in order to free himself from a dislodged boulder, which had trapped him there for five days and seven hours. Even after he had escaped, he still had to climb down a 65 foot (around 20m) sheer cliff face to reach safety. The incident is documented in Ralston's autobiography Between a Rock and a Hard Place, and is t...

David Wallace

I'd probably decide to do it, make a few shallow cuts, then freak out.

Cerberus

Perhaps.

But then you'd be lying there, with cuts, and with nothing to do, the thirst driving your crazier and crazier...

After a couple of hours of boredom, you would perhaps recommence.

David Wallace

I'd probably end up too weak to slice through the bone. Bone is really hard.

Cerberus

Perhaps you could break it.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:51 AM

@DavidWallace He had to break his arm first

Cerberus

Delightful story.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Well, he survived.

Too bad he didn't get to eat the arm.

Cerberus

> The property in question was heavily wooded, with a locked gate and "no trespassing" signs to notify strangers that they were unwelcome. But the judges found that this did not establish the "reasonable expectation of privacy" required for Fourth Amendment protection.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

okay I promise no more cannibal jokes today.

Cerberus

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/…

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 We can handle it.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

3:52 AM

@Cerberus today is over in 8 minutes

Cerberus

Ahhh.

Are you sure you will be able to restrain yourself that long?

David Wallace

He abseiled down a 20m wall one-handed.

Cerberus

Barefoot in the snow, yeah, yeah.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I'm not sure that's the wrong decision. I'd have to see what the accepted case law says.

Though tbh I don't know why they couldn't have received a warrant.

Cerberus

Yeah.

Surely you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that case?

The police should just have got a warrant.

heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/…

Does this link work for you?

its_me

4:00 AM

When's a good time to call you? — what should I say when I am asking for a period of time?

Cerberus

A normal persion would reply to this with a period, like "after 6" or "between 6 and 9".

David Wallace

@Cerberus Well, yes it does. But I would advise anybody squeamish not to click it.

Cerberus

Oh...

I get a "no cookies" page.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I don't know how the courts interpret "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a large property that contains a "field".

its_me

@Cerberus Okay, what if the answer I get is simply "9 AM would be fine."

David Wallace

4:02 AM

@Cerberus It's a really scary news story about a town in India being overrun by a swarm of poisonous spiders. With a really nasty picture at the top.

Cerberus

I believe it just means what it sounds like: would a normal person expect to be seen there by normal people?

David Wallace

If you really want to read it, I will email you the content. But you could probably live without the experience.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace yay India! Most screwed up nation on Earth!

Cerberus

@its_me Then I would interpret that as "you may call me at 9 AM and later".

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

> as they were celebrating a Hindu festival swarms of spiders suddenly appeared and attacked them, The Times of India reported.

Cerberus

4:03 AM

@DavidWallace Hmm what does the picture show?

David Wallace

A large spider.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace No need.

Oh, I can take a large spider.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

> District authorities are also panicking - and they are considering spraying the town with the insecticide DDT. Locals say the most terrifying aspect is that spiders appear in swarms and their behavior is highly aggressive.

> Teams of Indian arachnid experts have flocked to the town, hoping to identify the species, but so far they have drawn a blank.

And the best part:

> "All the bite patients first went to witch doctors, who cut open their wounds with razors, drained out blood and burnt it. That could have also made them sick," Phatowali said.

its_me

@Cerberus The thing is, I also want to know the time 'later to which' i can't call you.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Oh, dear.

I have found the cookie blockage, now reading it...

@its_me Well, can you really make people give you a specific time from if they don't offer one themselves?

If there is a specific period to which you are bound yourself, then it would be reasonable to ask them to give you a specific period.

its_me

4:07 AM

@Cerberus Busy people aren't always clear. Their answers are stupidly short sometimes. I want to know howI can politely ask so that their answer would be "9 AM to 5 PM"

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@cerb did you see the update, and "promoted" comment on that article? it makes several relevant points

> The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds

its_me

@Cerberus Exactly. How should I frame it?

Cerberus

Then you could ask, "I am in the office tomorrow between 8 AM and noon; may I call you then? If not, at what hours would you be available?"

Or "would it suit you if I called you then?".

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@its_me If you want to know when to call, you can ask "When should I call" (already answered, but unsatisfactorily), or you can say "how late/early can I call?", or "when would it be too late to call", or as Cerb says you can propose a time-slot

its_me

Excellent @Cerberus and @Mr.ShinyandNew安宇

Perfect for me

Cerberus

4:11 AM

OK. The thing is, you are asking them a favour, so you can't expect them to be waiting by the phone for several hours if they are normally not near a phone or normally can't pick up the phone during those hours.

So, if they aren't specific enough, you will perhaps just have to try several times.

its_me

okay

Cerberus

Or, if you are doing them a favour, you can tell them when you will call them.

"I will call you around 10."

its_me

@Cerberus they always are. When I email them they always ask me to call (PR folks)

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes, so that argument makes no sense.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus it makes no sense?

Cerberus

4:14 AM

@its_me Ah OK, I see. And do you need them, or they you, or neither, or both?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Apparently the court rejected it, for those three reasons, right?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus The court rejected the notion that it was unreasonable search/seizure

Cerberus

That's not the point of the update, is it?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

on the basis of the defendants didn't own or lease the land

its_me

@Cerberus both, I mean, actually I call them for clarifications, but since they are the PR department they are (in a way) obliged to answer me

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Uhh are we reading the same thing?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

4:16 AM

@Cerberus okay on further reading, the gov't argued that and the court ignored that argument

but implied that that would have been a valid argument

Cerberus

@its_me Ah OK. Are you in a hurry? If not, and you are usually able to answer your phone, you could ask them to call you back, "because I was unable to reach you today and yesterday". Or you will have to call them at the exact time they propose, like that 9 AM, if you can. Suppose they say "call me between 9 and 12": they may be unavailable again, if they are bad picker-uppers like that!

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes.

That's how I read it.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

anyway, I'm of the opinion that the ruling makes sense, but the precedents do not, and essentially if the police activity would normally be considered trespassing then it should be considered an unreasonable search.

Cerberus

It is admittedly worded in a confusing way, that update.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

heh. legal judgements are usually confusingly worded.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I don't know what to think of the ruling, but I think there is clearly an expectation of privacy. That was my point. And hanging up cameras when someone on someone's land, which has a locked gate? His daughters might have been having sex there. Why not get a warrant?

Mahnax

4:20 AM

cracks open Orwell's Animal Farm

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think it is the article's fault here.

its_me

@Cerberus They gave me their mobile number. So, they are pretty much available all the time. But "I" don't want to call them during the after-office hours.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus well, your "clearly an expectation of privacy" doesn't mean much in the legal world. Lots of people think they clearly understand what the law grants or forbids, but they don't.

Anyway, the Real WTF is why they are working so hard to bust pot growers. yeesh.

Cerberus

@its_me Understandable. So did they propose a specific time, like 9 AM? Or is this your first request for a time?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Well, it should mean that. That's all I'm saying. There is no higher authority than either the court or my common sense, so beyond that there is not telling what it "really" means. Apparently I disagree with the court, so there is no higher authority that you could use to convince me. Only arguments could.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Well, eg, the courts have ruled that a farmer in a field has no expectation of privacy. This is not automatically insane.

And they've also ruled that a fence does not automatically grant privacy either.

And they've ruled that a no trespassing sign doesn't grant privacy.

Cerberus

4:25 AM

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Indeed not.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

So a fenced-in field with a sign isn't automatically private.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Why should a fence not provide a reasonable expectation of privacy, if you can't see through it or walk around it easily?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Well, it might not be high enough. It might be in a state of disrepair. etc. I don't know.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Not if it might escape a normal person's notice; but otherwise, and combined with a fence?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Right, under the right circumstances, the expectation of privacy might be unreasonable.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Nah. I don't think a "no trespassing" sign should mean anything. Anyone can put up a sign that says whatever they want, doesn't mean the police are beholden to it.

@Cerberus So probably the right case needs to overturn the precedent and establish better guidelines.

Cerberus

4:28 AM

If it is closed off, and you need to open a door to enter it, and it has a sign, I think that should count.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I don't think the sign should be relevant.

Cerberus

But, if the police say they haven't seen any signs, then the owner should provide some evidence to make it seem likely that there was indeed such a sign there at the time.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Well, without the sign, you might think the door was the entrance to ehm some place you were allowed to enter.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I think the burden of proof should be on the police, actually, to provide, eg, photographs of the property they wish to tresspass on.

Cerberus

Perhaps.

David Wallace

In New Zealand, "reasonable" means that anything seen by someone walking from your front gate to your front door is considered public view. Even if your front gate has a sign or needs to be specifically opened.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

4:31 AM

@Cerberus Maybe. But what if the police just hang a sign on it that says "Welcome!", take a picture of the door, and then go in?

Cerberus

Then the burden of proof is on the owner.

To prove that that sign wasn't there.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I think it's better to require the police to prove that it makes sense for them to even be there in the first place.

Cerberus

Well, I don't know.

If the property is public a place, do they really need a warrant to enter it?

I think the distinction between "reasonably expected to be unseen" and the opposite is valuable in certain cases.

The distinction between owned by X and owned by the state seems less relevant, I think.

David Wallace

There are a million legitimate reasons why a police officer might enter someone's property. Anything they happen to see there, whether it's related to the original reason or not, is surely fair game. Right?

Cerberus

Because people are usually not harmed by the police entering their property — unless the entering itself causes certain harm, like looking at their private stuff.

its_me

4:35 AM

@Cerberus It's my request for time

David Wallace

In this case, the people are being harmed by the police looking at their private marijuana crop, right? Umm, how, exactly?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus If the property is public, they don't need a warrant. If any random person is allowed to be there (eg, on an airplane), they don't need a warrant. If it's private, they need a warrant, irrespective of whatever signs are there.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace I would say so, yes, if their entering it in the first place was not something that there should be certain barriers against. Which there should be, if it is a place that people could expect some privacy in.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace because that's used as evidence of growing marijuana.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 And is a random field private?

David Wallace

4:38 AM

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 So, "harmed" here means "having the law enforced upon them"?

Cerberus

Why does private v. public have to be the (only) relevant criterion? The criterion should be something meaning, something to distinguish between actions that the police should and should not be allowed to do ad libitum.

David Wallace

If I grow marijuana in a place that a police officer could see it in the course of legitimately going about their duties, then I deserve to be locked up for stupidity, if nothing else.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Well, is it a private field? or a public space? Is any part of the field accessible by road? visible? etc.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace It doesn't work that way: the law is not there to protect these people in particular, but to make sure the police don't just barge in wherever they like, because you will only know whether it is harmful or not after the fact. That's why there needs to be a barrier.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace Well, in this case, they had to trespass on private property to find a hidden crop, then install surveillance cameras to see who was actually tending the crop.

David Wallace

4:40 AM

I would think that once they've seen the crop, they have the right to find out who's growing it.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus The point is that you don't have an expectation of privacy in a public place. And the definition of "public place" is larger than "owned by the government".

@DavidWallace No. They don't, because they don't have the right to see the crop. Their initial trespass taints the evidence.

At least, it should.

The thing is, there are so many laws that just about any person is breaking a law somewhere, at some time.

Therefore the police aren't allowed to wander in, look for something, anything that is illegal, and then "find out who's doing it".

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I would say a public space is a space where people are normally allowed to enter, like the street, or a shop, or a front yard (unless there is a bell and mailbox at the gate, and some indication that people are not supposed to enter. People do not normally need to enter someone else's field, so I think that would not be a public space in Holland. But I don't think that is the right distinction to make. So what if the police enter any random field? Do we need a law to prevent that?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Otherwise, they could easily harass anyone whom they or their masters disapprove of.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I don't think that's what a public space means under Dutch law.

Places where you have a r.e.o.p. are fewer than non-public spaces.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I'm not saying "government-owned" = "public". I'm saying there are lots of privately-owned places that might qualify as public for certain people.

But eg, a shop is a public space, but the employee lounge is not. At least, that's what I'd say.

Cerberus

4:44 AM

Yes, but only places where normally random people enter.

Normally, people don't enter a random field.

So it is not a public space.

But that shouldn't matter.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Well, it's not just about entering though. It's also about visibility. And some other things the courts have decided.

Anyway, I agree that in this case, there is probably a good argument to be made that this field should not be considered a public space.

Cerberus

What matters is: should the police be allowed to enter any random field? And I say, yes, why not, because noöne would be harmed if they did.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

That just because a property is large doesn't mean it can't also be private.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Now you're doing it again.

2 mins ago, by Cerberus

Places where you have a r.e.o.p. are fewer than non-public spaces.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 What is private?

Do you mean non-public, or REOP?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus REOP

Cerberus

4:47 AM

Okay.

Then we are agreed.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Like, if I have a house on a large property, with high walls, and vast acres of enclosed space. Just because the property is large doesn't mean people should be barging in. Just because I don't have a house, or the house isn't on this part of the lot doesn't mean I don't deserve REOP.

Cerberus

Agreed.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I would say police should not be barging into random fields. Unless they can see into the fields.

Cerberus

So I was saying that REOP was a good criterion, I think that was my point.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Well, one normally can.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

If they have indication of private property (privately owned) then they should not go there. If they can see something, that's different: then they have a plausible cause.

David Wallace

4:49 AM

I have to stop and think in terms of - what if the police were United States Police instead of New Zealand Police.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 What if there is this open field, and they can see into it, but they don't see anything suspicious yet; but they know the owner might be into dealing in pot.

David Wallace

I mean, I want the police to catch criminals, and stop large amounts of marijuana from being consumed by schoolchildren. My government provides a police force who would do those things, without unreasonably invading people's privacy.

But I watch American police shows on TV, and I see the extreme and unfair measures that some of them go to, and suddenly, the Fourth Amendment seems a whole lot more valuable.

Cerberus

Do you have a national police?

David Wallace

Who I?

Cerberus

Never mind.

No police is without its faults, and there should be rules.

Every police force will bend and break rules if they can.

They always do.

David Wallace

4:52 AM

Certainly. I have the luxury of being able to err on the side of the police, not on the side of the criminals, in borderline cases.

Cerberus

And that's not such a huge problem.

But we do need some rules.

@DavidWallace The problem is, you can only have such a rule if it also applies to people the police suspects.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus If they know the owner is dealing pot, but can't get a warrant because they have no evidence, and can't see anything without trespassing, why should it matter if they are trespassing on his house, his car, or his field?

David Wallace

If they have no evidence, then HOW do they know the owner is dealing pot?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace The problem with that is that when the government changes and becomes unfriendly to certain individuals, or when the police are crooked, then innocent people can get harassed on trumped-up charges. Like, if the police searched my house they could bust me for copying music.

David Wallace

Then stop copying music illegally.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

4:55 AM

@DavidWallace They have no evidence [that would qualify for the issuing of a search warrant]

Cerberus

So just saying "in this case, the police were right, so it's OK that they broke the rule" doesn't work. Because you don't want to the police to be able to say "we really thought this innocent man did it, so we were allowed to trespass": then they will just do it always. If the police are punished only when it turns out they were wrong, you tread on dangerous ground: you will be creating all sorts of perverted stimuli for them to gamble and lie.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

14 mins ago, by Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

The thing is, there are so many laws that just about any person is breaking a law somewhere, at some time.

David Wallace

Certainly, you are both right. This is why I consider myself lucky that I live in a country where police corruption is extremely low, and police act reasonably and respectfully.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace You can't possibly know every law in your country and whether or not you have stayed on the right side of all of them, within their various statutes of limitations.

@DavidWallace But you can have all that, and still have rules and safeguards that enforce that behaviour.

David Wallace

Sure. Granted.

Cerberus

4:57 AM

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Because if it turns out they were wrong, they will have caused very little harm by trespassing on an open field, but more harm by entered an enclosed field, where his daughter was just masturbating, precisely because she expected privacy. Trespassing is mainly harmful when people expect privacy, that's the reason.

@DavidWallace Even in my country and yours, and in Germany, the police do things that are wrong.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

So if one day you beat a cop at golf, and he gets drunk at the driving range and takes a punch at you, and you dodge it and make him look like an ass, and then has a buddy walk into your house and start looking for violations, you are screwed.

And that happens, even in "nice" places like NZ or Canada. It's not wide-spread. but it happens.

Cerberus

And they would do more wrong things if we didn't have certain rules to constrain them.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…