321–330 of 398 posts
I liked the prose in this piece; it felt like a novel. And as someone commented before, I felt myself immersed in the story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct that "face" isn't an idea that is unique to Asia. But on the other hand, if you don't think there is an extra emphasis on it in certain Asian cultures (can't speak for China, but I have lots of experience with Japan), you are simply wrong. The lengths Japanese people go to avoid bucking a trend, or staying within the cultural boundaries is, on average, much further than most Western cultures would. Fo…
Saving your own face is as common in Asian culture as in western. I mean, just look at Boeing doing everything to avoid taking responsibility (you still cannot name an individual in Boeing who has taken responsibility). How is that any different than Japanese “face saving”. Being conservative about your culture, or not wanting to buck the trend probably has a lot more to do with appetite for risk (which in turn likel…
Very different.
I assume Boeing is arguing because they either believe they did nothing wrong (sense of justice) or they will get in trouble for admitting they were wrong (sense of security). There are probably other possibilities.
Those are very different than saving face. That has more to do with maintaining your own personal standing with your community (sense of pride and self-worth).
I don't think Boeing is refusing to take blame because they are worried that their standing within their community is at risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
150 years ago. Today if Scotland voted to leave the UK with a clear majority, the UK would let them go. If Puerto Rico voted to leave the US with a clear majority, the US would let them go. I'm not sure what would happen if say 75% of a city wanted to leave the US because that has never happened and isn't very likely to.
The situation is that today the policy of the UK government is not to allow another referendum on Scottish independence...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only person that believes international crime will see a significant drop if China controls HK? I'm actually glad this glorified money laundering/financial crime haven is being shut down. The sooner China gets extradition powers, the sooner we can close the criminal enterprises operating in/through HK for the past 1-2 centuries. Running drugs/drug money through HK is something that has been going on for a ve…
I'm sure you'll be shocked! shocked! when it turns out the CCP has an interest in running those enterprises, rather than shutting them down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this is not semantics at all. It specifically mentions publication. Again, limits to publication is not the same as an expectation of privacy, which cannot exist in a public place. This is why invoking privacy when arguing against surveillance in public places is nonsensical. I note that while my main point was the difference between privacy vs. anonymity people argue on a detail...
Just because a case involves publication it does not mean that legal concepts developed therein only apply to that. Anyhow, the quoted P.G. and J.H. vs The United Kingdom in my last reply specifically deals with surveillance. You may find the court's arguments nonsensical but you can't stand by the fact that this has never been a concept anywhere. It certainly is a concept there. I even quoted you the court's assessm…
In fact, the paragraph you quoted previously is immediately followed by the following (which you left out by mistake, I'm sure):
> A person who walks down the street will, inevitably, be visible to any member of the public who is also present. Monitoring by technological means of the same public scene (for example, a security guard viewing through closed-circuit television) is of a similar character.
I.e. video surveillance of public space is fair game. The issue is with permanent record and automated processing (as per the case right after the excerpt above), which is not too different from what I have been saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation is that today the policy of the UK government is not to allow another referendum on Scottish independence...
That's not the case. The policy of the UK government is that they just had a referendum in 2014, so one is not needed today, not that another referendum should never be allowed. The latest poll I can find shows that the majority of Scotland opposes another referendum at this point, so why would they have one right now before Brexit is complete?
The point is that the government is obviously finding ways to avoid a referendum because they obviously don't want Scottish independence.
Let's not be naive here.
The hard truth is that governments of any country on Earth favour self-determination in two cases: (1) when it does not apply to them, and (2) when they expect that they result will favour their interests. That's how geopolitics works. "People's interests" is just for PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, your friends living in HK probably come from the “upper” middle class from China (depends on how old they are, ironically the younger the less likely they arise from lower class). For them it’s dreadful to imagine allowing the vast larger rural and under-educated population to make a decision. I agree though HK people should have a choice Since the scale is too small and people are mostly highly educated
> allowing the vast larger rural and under-educated population to make a decision. Culture Revolution PTSD?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no expectation of privacy in public places. You are trying to prove me wrong by subtly shifting the argument. > You're claiming that because there's no expectation of privacy on the street someone can just run CCTV and do what they like with those images. I never claimed that. But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in England.
I am not subtlely shifting the argument. I'm giving you at least one clear example where someone in public had an expectation of privacy and that was upheld by English courts. I've also showed that English data protection laws provide an expectation of privacy and restrict what type of filming and photography people do in public places. > But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in…
The Met Police (among others) disagree. [1]
Again, Naomi Campbell's case is not about filming a public space.
It's also clear that there might be special cases, e.g. for national security.
Data protection does not forbid filming in public.
[1] https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...