NYC Wants to Ban Geiger Counters 457
Ellis D. Tripp noted a village voice article about attempts in NYC to pass a law requiring permits for air monitoring devices including apparently geiger counters. I'm sure everyone will feel much safer not knowing anything.
Preventing Learning (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet most New Yorkers don't know how to run a Geiger counter (or possibly even what one is).
All the same, slaves were prevented from learning how to read, Jews in the death camps were not given any information about the war, their future, and today, people we want to strip of power are kept in the dark.
Check my history, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that those in power (ALL of them, not just the Bushies) have gotten to the point of realizing that the American populace have become dumb sheep. Through fear, all is possible for them.
Refuse, resist.
Chemical Dectectors.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's for your own good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, it's crap. I seriously doubt as many people as they're representing are going to be buying these things; the vast majority will be installing them indoors, where they'll be lucky to detect ANYTHING, and the shoddy ones will tend to go off for crap that would set off your smoke alarm...I used to have a CO detector near my kitchen...It's somewhere in my backyard now, after the 10th time it went off when I dumped some liquor in a skillet to deglaze it.
People may buy this stuff, but the vast majority won't, and the ones that do are almost MORE likely to view an alarm as a false positive than the police themselves. New Yorkers are tough bastards. They'll piss and moan, but they're not super-hazard conscious...You can't be, and live in the City all the time, because you're far more likely to be killed by a manhole or a cracked out subway driver than any terrorist.
Homeland Job Security (Score:4, Insightful)
The World Today (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, immediately, this sounds retarded. However, I can picture one benign reason for this.
We all saw what happened this month with Mass Effect. One idiot decides that it is equal to XXX porn without evver seeing it, and all sorts of people believe him and run with the story. Well, maybe they didn't believe him, but figured since he can be faulted for the mistake, they can run with it to scare people. I could see major "news" networks going nuts over a reading from some moron that wired his sensors wrong.
Is that any reason to excuse this law? No. Just saying I could see one possible reason. Since Journalists can't be trusted to fact check, an incorrect reading could cause a mass panic that would obviously be very problematic.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way is this good for the people? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest trouble isn't false alarms, terrorists, or corporate lobbying. The biggest trouble is that government listens to itself more that it listens to the people.
Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to say there weren't some deep fricking scars, but you can't live there and be that high strung about environmental safety issues; the first day you come home, take off your white shirt and your white undershirt, and notice that, while they were the same color when you put them on, one of them is now a sort of stinky grey...You have to accept it and move on, or you will lose your fricking mind.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you have to apply for a permit that you're not necessarily granted for science research? Oh wait, the article has that as a concern. From the article: "Dave Newman, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, claimed that under this law, the West Virginia air-quality experts who tested the air after 9/11 would have been a bunch of criminals."
Yeah, good idea, if you want to make the world a thoughtcrime maybe. I mean this is so far as to call possession of a geiger counter something you can be be fined for. That in itself is a bit of crazy.
One possible solution (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem is why is the citizen always perceived as the enemy? Why are criminal punishments always deemed the solution? Here is my solution: Establish a citizen corps of air/radiation testers. Require a minimum set of standards for equipment and require some sort of proof that the operator knows how to operate the device and that the device functions properly. This may involve some sort of licensure. If you meet the requirements and become a member, you will have established the repute required to report a crisis to the proper authorities.
If you are not a member, you will still be allowed to own or operate these devices. However, if you detect a problem, you are obligated to report it to your closest deputy as defined above, who will verify and report it to the authorities if legitimate. You will not be punished for false positives because the purpose of the deputy is to filter these. However, if by your irresponsible actions you cause a panic, you will be held responsible, possibly criminally.
This engages the community, establishes a system of responsibility and gives a method to report problems. No one has to give up their equipment. It's almost like we live in a society, where people work together and laws aren't just made on the spot to ban stuff and create criminals out of regular people.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The World Today (Score:5, Insightful)
The organs of the state are a far greater risk to everyone today than terrorists, and the only people who did anything to stop the one successful foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil were citizens who reported suspicious behaviour to the authorities, which ignored them. And the folks on United 93, who saved who knows how many lives at the cost of their own. The authorities have been no more successful in stopping domestic terrorism in the U.S., either.
There is no excuse for keeping citizens in ignorance against the possibility that they might make a mistake with the imperfect knowledge they have.
We, the people, have been far more endangered by governments panicing due to false alarms (WMDs anyone?) than anyone could possibly be endangered by any number of citizens with faulty air monitoring instruments. At least we have laws that can be used to punish people who give false alarms...
But the same holds for fire alarms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's as shitty a reason to criminalize something as I've ever heard in my life. What if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" thus causing a panic? Maybe they should issue free speech permits to make sure only competent professionals will be heard.
Another blow for the war against knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
What's this got to do with the Police? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Give them time...they're working on it, I'm sure.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
The point though, is that using a bad Geiger counter does not cause any direct harm, as opposed to punching some one. That they could cause harm at all is speculative, not a logical conclusion.
And outlawing things based on speculation is not ok.
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that that's not quite right. It is already illegal to cause a panic by any means, including shouting "Anthrax!" That law doesn't apply when the thing causing a panic (anthrax, Godzilla, the Pistons winning the championship) actually happened. Speech that doesn't incite a panic is still generally allowed.
What should be done is regulate them these devices like smoke detectors. You are encouraged to have them, but you pay a fine if the authorities are summoned on a false alarm.
Re:I don't like this at all. (Score:2, Insightful)
BRB, need to find my tinfoil helmet.
Since my submission got butchered.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, yes, if they're outright banning these and not coming up with alternatives, then that could be a problem with being worse off from before out of a shady "fear" in them misdetecting, but if they'd on the other hand come up with a new wave of certified detectors as well as having real facts backing up these fears, then I don't think this is a bad idea at all.
So for me it depends a bit on what exactly will happen, but I can at least go as far as to say that I don't agree with a blanket statement that it's better to sit on one's butt and not try to ban cheap detectors that risk having cops spend their valuable time in places that are perfectly safe. So if they have the science to back these claims up, and a reasonable way to provide citizens with what they want, such as by certification and better controls here, I'll just say -- go for it.
Re:In what way is this good for the people? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what happens when you live in a police state: laws and policy are made for the benefit of police, not the people.
Sure, ours is a mostly-benign police state; so long as you're white, middle class, fairly mainstream in your religious and political views, and don't make trouble by standing up for such outdated notions as individual liberty, you're unlikely to run into any trouble. But a benign police state is still a police state.
Re:Preventing Learning (Score:1, Insightful)
No he (probably) isn't. The insightful bit would be the observation that people who are deprived of information are easier to control, therefor, you don't want the government to take away 'information' from it's citizens unless there is a very good reason to do so (such as: activation codes of nuclear weapons, although most situations require more careful considerations
Re:One possible solution (Score:3, Insightful)
* Banning Geiger counters is stupid because this is America and if I want a Geiger counter I should be able to own one. I'm not a criminal for owning a Geiger counter, don't make me into one for owning a clicking box.
* If I want a Geiger counter, and if I think I need a Geiger counter for my safety, your dumb law is not going to stop me. Again, don't make me into a criminal for wanting to protect my personal safety.
* If I detect some sort of emergency, I want to report it because believe it or not, I have a sense of civic duty. If I'm not causing a panic, don't make me into a criminal for trying to help my community.
Everybody wants to make their job easier, and the NYPD probably thinks that the easiest way to avert panic is by banning Geiger counters and air quality detectors. They are not a judicial court and are not concerned with your civil rights as an individual. They are charged with maintaining civil order. So I don't blame them for wanting to make it easier to maintain civil order. But if you are concerned about civil rights, you need to remember that that's not directly the job of the police. Your rights are often in opposition to their ability to do their job as smoothly as possible. Please do not construe this as anti-police, but you need to keep this in mind when they suggest legislation. They are not necessarily taking into account the big picture. They are looking at the problem with the slant "what makes it easiest to maintain public order."
You will get my Geiger counter when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I agree with the law, but at least I can sort of see where the idea comes from... not everyone is properly educated to operate a geiger counter and determine what its readings really mean in a given situation, and there is really no need for such a device in the hands of the general public.
If people are really that paranoid to begin with, then it's even more likely that they're going to report false positives. Think unconditional trust in a device you don't fully understand combined with the sort of paranoid "any minute now" mentality of someone who would buy and use a personal radiation detector. I would suggest people with a constant fear of radiation exposure use simple dosimeter badges instead - those are cheap, near-impossible to use incorrectly, and need to be professionally analyzed. No user error, no false positives, no panic.
=Smidge=
Re:Preventing Learning (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to the slavery comparison, the poster was drawing a parallel between the rules governing education of the black slaves in Colonial America with the proposed prevention of self-education that this law could bring. His concern on this ground may not be as strong as the first, but nonetheless, being able to draw such historical parallels typically gains the comment of "insightful."
Lastly, comparing something to Nazi Germany, though monotonous in online communities, should never be discouraged unless they are maliciously false. It's my understanding that we (civilization) are supposed to learn from the mistakes of our forefathers. I, too, am constantly wary of people starting that slide down the slope that would lead to a strictly controlled public with no fortitude to stand up to their government.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
It also shows how much of a diet of fear and panic America is currently suffering. Looks like they are now worrying about people worrying so much that they panic!
Accept he logic of the State Triumphant.. or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh you fuddyduddy libertarian.
Seriously though I think it is a perfectly logical progression. After all we have already been told by every right thinking person[1] that NYC has to operate under different rules, that certain otherwise fundamental liberties must be compromised to make such a metropolis fuction.
Seriously, count em:
1. The second Amendment is pretty much void in New York. The former mayor[2] carefully explained in a recent debate that 'laws that make sense in New York might not make sense in flyover country' so I list this one first to put the accepted precedent that the idea that core Consitituitional liberties vary by population density is now accepted policy. Or I totally missed the nationwide outrush of rage, the riots, etc.
2. The right to property is probably most circumscribed in NYC. See the history of several generations of Rent Control for details.
3. The Right to follow a profession of one's choice is pretty much null and void in NY, between the unions and the almost total control by the city government through licensing and regulation designed not to pretect the public but to control entry into the professions to protect the current workers from competition.
4-999 could be filled in by anyone depressed enough to type that long.
No, if one accepts the base logic that makes that level of State control acceptable, allowing them the monopoly power to control information about the safety (read the actual performance of regulators) makes perfect sense. So all I can say is, suck it up Citizen, turn in your detectors and listen to the Safety and Civil Reassurance Administration when they calmly inform you everything is 'perfectly safe.'
Of course you COULD start demanding the whole fetid mess of dank rotting crap go to Hell. You don't even have to be a Ronulan to say that.
[1] Defined of course by the editorial board of the NYT and usually Socialist house organs such as the Village Voice. Nice to see one of their sacred oxes served up on the grill.
[2] With the partial agreement of all right thinking people[1] except they think he isn't enough of a gun banner.
That's a good point. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's look at the justification again:
All of these problems, which have yet to evidence themselves in any real way, could be met head on for less money than a registration and enforcement program. Once upon a time, the US government published standards to follow and encouraged people to know how to protect themselves. Cheap equipment was made and distributed and people were trained to use it. The Government of the day called it Civil Defense. It was cheap compared to Homeland Defense.
Now we think it would be better to waste money keeping people from having equipment and knowing how to use it. We have a very different government today. The difference is as stark as freedom and slavery.
The program stinks of incompetence as well as contempt. There are some very simple ways of telling a credible radiation threat over the phone. One of the easiest is to ask the person what the background radiation rate is and if it changes with position. This tells you quickly if the person can read a meter. You still have to investigate if they can't but you know you have a real problem and help if you are talking to someone who knows what they are doing. Squandering resources like that is foolish.
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
And guess what? _There are already laws against hoaxes_.
Godwin was an asshat (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Accept he logic of the State Triumphant.. or no (Score:5, Insightful)
To you, you have your own opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, that doesn't counter factual evidence. This is along the same lines of "I don't want XYZ regardless of studies/logic".Non-factual opinion has no basis in the court of law, nor in politics.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, when it came to criminalizing inciting panics, did they require free speech permits? No, they did not. They did not criminalize innocent behavior in the name of combating a potential problem. In this case, however, that is *exactly* what they are doing.
Who is hurt by having a Geiger counter? nobody at all. Having and operating a Geiger counter is not a public menace. Speaking your mind freely is not a public menace. Inciting panic with your words is a public menace, and that was what was criminalized... so, what does it stand to reason should be criminalized here?
Re:Accept he logic of the State Triumphant.. or no (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary use of legal guns in NYC is the threat of innocents able to protect themselves from predators. They aren't called "equalizers" for nothing. A thug doesn't need a legal gun, or even a gun.
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for making my point! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because NYC is exactly where they are needed most. I live in flyover country. Random violent crime is so rare it makes the front page on the occasion we have one. My weapon stays in a case on a top shelf of a closet on the reasoning that an accidental discharge is the greater risk. I wouldn't live in a place like NYC unless I could keep the damned thing loaded and under my pillow or srapped to my ass when I was walking the crime ridden streets of our major cities... even after the admirable efforts of NYC's former mayor to REDUCE[1] violent crime.
> You know, where hunting consists of going to the store, not actually going out and hunting?
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting. The primary purpose was the belief that armed men are Citizens while unarmed ones were only Subjects. That the carrying of arms was itself a virtue, helping to keep a Free People in the right frame of mind to be worthy of receiving the Blessings of Liberty.
But while a gun control debate would be fun, I'm instead going to stay ontopic and use your post to illustrate my original point.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
He mentions "There is no reason people in NYC need guns" and "people of the most densely populated cities" which couldn't make my argument better that there has crept into the thinking, of city dwellers at least, that individual liberty is fundamentally incompatible with cities. Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million over tossing liberty but I refuse to believe it; Free Men can live in Cities, Suburbs, the country or on the Moon. Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
And note that he ins't calling for repealing the 2nd Amendment, just substituting his greater wisdom for that of the Founding Fathers without all that tedious mucking about with having a public debate about repealing the Bill of Rights. This trend is most disturbing because it isn't just limited to gun control. McCain/Feingold shredded the 1st Amendment while those who should have been objecting were cheering. 1, 2, 9 and 10 are pretty much extinct and 5 is threatened and not once have we actually repealed any of them.
Once upon a time the fundies wanted to regulate booze. Realizing the federal government had no such authority, and believing in our Republican Form of Government[2], they did it the right way and pushed through an Amendment though it took them a hell of a lot longer than just getting 50%+1 vote in Congress. So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Remember that you can't just object to ONE of these violations, because if one accepts the logic that allows ANY of these violations to occur the rest logically follow. Choose. Choose wisely.
[1] Reduce from truly insane to levels that make Dodge City at it's worst look like a safe place to raise children.
[2] As distict from the Republican Party... for the benefit of the Government educated.
Re:Accept he logic of the State Triumphant.. or no (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meantime, you're comparing welfare to violence. Those two things are not necessarily in the same group, nor in the same group as guns.
Re:RTFA (Score:1, Insightful)
Have you ever been sitting at home and suddenly thought "Boy I wish I had a geiger counter!"? Has there been a moment in your life where things all hinged on you being unable to determine the levels of radioactive material in your surrounding area?
There shouldn't be a need to ban them...as they're generally unnecesary. What's going on in New York City that your casual citizen would suddenly want one? Is this like the duct tape/plastic sheeting fad of late 2002?
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you for making my point! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, realist. The advantages of living in a city are more than outweighed by the risks and expenses, especially in the era of Internet commerce and FedEX delivery. I lived in the Dallas metro area for five years in the early 1990's and got to experience it first hand. Had my car broke into twice (and it was a POS Datsun B210, not exactly an inviting target) and was forced to violate the important safety rule of not looking into the barrel of a loaded firearm once.
Since then I have wisely opted to only occasionally visit metropolitian areas and stick to the areas with at least a semblence of the rule of law. The problem is nationwide, the police increasingly can't enforce order and the population is barred from taking over their own defense. But while it is bad everywhere the problem is most acute in the large cities where Democrats rule with an iron hand.. over the law abiding at least.
The core problem is the notion that only the State has power, wisdom and Rights, that everyone else must cower in fear, their only option to plead for help from the all powerful, all knowing and all caring State. That any attempt to solve one's problems without a government program is not only misguided, it is dangerous and must be legislated against.
Look at the topic for this thread again. In only a couple of generations we have devolved from a proud free people into the sort of pitiful creatures that actually sit down and rationally discuss whether or not the State can regulate the possession of a Geiger counter. And you dare call me a coward? I can't properly respond to that in a civilized manner so....
[mode=flame setting=extra_crispy]
Fuck you. Fuck you and all who think like you. Fuck the pathetic whore that begat you, fuck the government schools that finished the job your congenitally defective parents started of turning what could have been a lovable retard into a pitiful worm fit only to labor under the yoke of the socialists.
[mode=normal]
I'd like to take this opportunity to applogize to everyone else who had to read that. Some insults just have to be answered in the spirit they are offered in. If a mod finds they can't forgive it and gives this post flamebait I'll understand.
> Either grow a spine or just stay inside your house wearing a shawl and quivering everytime you hear something outside.
Or move somewhere where the police still manage to keep order, where I don't have to worry about crime yet I don't live in fear of the Police either. Where I can have a gun, but keep it in the closet because it isn't needed. But I keep it as insurance against darker days and not only is this OK with everyone it isn't even remarkable because most everyone else has one. Being good upstanding citizens though, instead of criminal scum, we don't blow each other into kibbles every Saturday night. So if I hear something go bump some night I'll grab my equalizer and go see what's up.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Accept he logic of the State Triumphant.. or no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem then isn't that the detectors might be faulty; it's that they might work all too well. Far-fetched? I would have thought so a few years ago...
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Accept he logic of the State Triumphant.. or no (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious: Has this view of citizenship ever been espoused by anyone outside of the US?
Re:One word: Tchernobyl (Score:2, Insightful)
what's causing harm? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point though, is that using a bad Geiger counter does not cause any direct harm
Well, yes it *does*, if you then go and phone the police screaming about some massive radiation reading that your $4.99-from-eBay Geiger counter is going berzerk over.
It's not the alarm that's causing any harm, it's the person using it that causes the harm.
FalconRe:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds like some really sick Department of Homeland/Republican (in)Security idea to totally cripple what little is left of the EPA. Sneak the law in New York and then spread it to the rest of the country.
Naturally of course those with licensed detectors would only use them in corporate, profit friendly ways and ensure that those that supported the party did not have their profits terrorised while those that opposed the party were kept under permanent scrutiny.