[Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill

Sun Mar 2 01:24:08 PST 2014

I'm going to cut to the chase first because I need to eat some crow.

Scott wrote:

Ummm....nope.  I think I made it very clear below when I wrote verbatim that
'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.'
If you feel that was an ambiguous statement, how would you reword it
yourself to make it much more crisp, clear, and not prone to
misinterpretation by yourself or others?

Well, Scott, I think rewording is unnecessary, but what is necessary is
something you don't have any control over, and that's the reasonable
assumption that your words will be correctly read by others.  In this
instance, I misread your statement - I somehow saw the word 'other' where it
simply did not exist.  My sincere apologies, and I'm sorry your post is the
whack upside my head I needed to remember the importance of reading with
more care.

Scott also wrote:

I'm fine with that analogy and if it's constitutionally sound, then
violators of ag-gag and other anti-whistle blowing laws can rest safe
knowing that they can use the 1st Amendment if being prosecuted for breaking
those unconstitutional laws which would result in those laws being struck
down.  Nice to know.

That's my interpretation of the issue, as well as others who are actual
lawyers and know far more about the law & Constitutional issues than I've
forgotten.  It's an issue that still has to be sorted out by the courts,
though, and likely in every state that has capitulated to ALEC &
agribusiness' nonsense . . . if the history of equal treatment under the law
is any indicator.  AFAIK, the case filed in Utah is the first, so at this
point employees and others have absolutely no protection from criminal
prosecution in states that have stupidly adopted ag gag laws.

Scott also wrote:

Is your statement above wrt 'having no objection to individuals documenting
and reporting illegal activities' unequivocal or would you prefer that your
employees follow your business's policies of reporting and documenting those
alleged illegal activities first to you and/or to your HR department before
perhaps unnecessarily taking these charges to the press and/or police in the
event that such are unfounded and might do unnecessary harm to your
business?

A preference is different than criminalizing not doing so, yes?  I would
prefer that employee concerns about and documentation of suspected illegal
activities were brought first to me or HR, however I'm against making it
criminal to not do so first . . . and I'm categorically against making it
illegal for "normal" people to collect such evidence as ag gag - and other
anti-whistleblower -- laws do.  Since there are a lot of bottom feeder
private and public employers out there, I can think of lots of reasons why
going directly outside the "chain of command" could be the best - and safest
- first step when dealing with suspected illegal activities, can't you?

Scott also wrote:

Good to know.  Would you have any objections if Google (or any other search
company) were to report alleged abuse when analyzing your internet searches?
Same thing if the NSA searched through metadata?  Seems like the ends would
justify the means if such available information brought to light genuine
abuse of any living thing close to you.

So are you still vehemently against the NSA and companies who offer 'free'
services scanning internet traffic of everyone including some very bad
people who hurt (or intend to hurt) other people and other living creatures?

Are you asking if I advocate Thought Police?  If that's the question, then
the answer is a vehement NO.  Looking/searching for information on a subject
isn't the same as participating in the subject of the re(search), is it?  I
guess I'm not clear what you're asking, so can you please clarify?

I also tend to reject "the ends justify the means" philosophies.  I'm much
more of a "do no evil that good may come" kind of gal.  Warrantless searches
(and I don't count secret courts as legit, but that's just me) fall into
that category, so yes, I remain opposed to warrantless searches.  There may
be exceptions to my general opposition, but I can't readily think of any -
feel free to toss out any examples.

Scott wrote:

Let me know if you need anything else and definitely provide a response on
NSA metadata & corporate scanning of your electronic communications.

Does the above answer?  If I've failed to adequately address your questions,
please come back at me - I'm trying to read carefully, but since I've made
at least one significant mistake recently, I don't want to do so again.

Finally, Scott also wrote:

As you pointed out previously, I'm naive not to be overly concerned about
this.  Fear not, I'll complain mightily about the injustice of privacy
intrusion when I get railroaded by the NSA or company spying on me but maybe
you'll get some satisfaction in saying 'I told you so'.

I would get absolutely no satisfaction from either - I'd prefer no harm in
the first place.  But, the reality is that I know a lot of people who have
been harmed by non-governmental privacy breaches and private information
being sold & resold with absolutely no consumer control.  I am acutely aware
of the very real "real world" harms by those who have been the victims of
identity theft (without exception through no fault of their own) and people
fighting - in vain -- to get errors on credit reports corrected.  There is
virtually no recourse for those victims, and I personally know quite a few.
OTOH, I personally know of no individual (although I've read news stories &
I recall that poor UI student many years back) harmed by governmental
spying.  Please do not think I'm not totally against that kind of
governmental abuse (IMO) because I am.  Completely.  And I regularly speak
out against it and protest and do everything I can to make sure my
objections are known.

But, the fact of the matter as far as I'm aware is that individuals are far,
Far, FAR more likely to suffer very real harm from intrusions by businesses
with minimal if any recourse than to suffer harm  from governmental spying.

But, rest assured, Scott, that if you are the victim of either and so wish,
I'll be protesting just as loudly for you as for everyone else  :)  And with
absolutely not a single "I told you so."  I don't see it as an either/or
situation:  I view both as being crucial personal privacy issues.

Saundra

Moscow, ID

Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as
it is to the caterpillar.

~ Bradley Miller

From: Scott Dredge [mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:17 PM
To: Saundra Lund; viz
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill

Saundra wrote:

<Scott, you seem to be terribly confused.  Idaho's ag gag law has nothing to
do with privacy rights and everything to do with property rights, so you're
trying to compare apples & oranges.  Nice try, though  :)*

You'll get no argument from me about me being terribly confused.  Thanks for
the dialogue in order to set things straight and hopefully enlighten me.

<A more correct analogy would be that ag gag - and other anti-whistleblowing
-- laws elevate property rights above the First Amendment, but I don't
suppose you'd like that more correct analogy.>

I'm fine with that analogy and if it's constitutionally sound, then
violators of ag-gag and other anti-whistle blowing laws can rest safe
knowing that they can use the 1st Amendment if being prosecuted for breaking
those unconstitutional laws which would result in those laws being struck
down.  Nice to know.

Au contraire - I have no objections.

<And, just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself
would have wanted Upton Sinclair prosecuted for writing The Jungle.>

Ummm....nope.  I think I made it very clear below when I wrote verbatim that
'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.'
If you feel that was an ambiguous statement, how would you reword it
yourself to make it much more crisp, clear, and not prone to
misinterpretation by yourself or others?

<And, just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself
object to the double standard created by employers video taping,
photographing, recording, etc. employees on the job, customers, and others
while prohibiting employees, customers, and others from doing the same.>

Confirmed - in general I'm against double standards including ones that
would benefit me personally at the detriment of someone else.  I'm guessing
that there might be some instances where a perceived double standard might
make sense to me, but I'd need to address those on a case by case basis.
Specify any if you think you can uncover an inconsistency in my opinion, and
you'll likely get me to change it to something more consistent unless I have
some bias due to personal experience or broken logic.

 Categorically deny because 'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone
that roots out wrongdoing.'

<Finally, just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself
reject that investigative journalism is a necessary part of keeping business
and government honest.>

Categorically deny because 'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone
that roots out wrongdoing.'

Is your statement above wrt 'having no objection to individuals documenting
and reporting illegal activities' unequivocal or would you prefer that your
employees follow your business's policies of reporting and documenting those
alleged illegal activities first to you and/or to your HR department before
perhaps unnecessarily taking these charges to the press and/or police in the
event that such are unfounded and might do unnecessary harm to your
business?

<And, if I had a nanny in my home who thought he/she was  witnessing abuse
or neglect my children . . . or a pet sitter who thought he/she was
witnessing abuse of my non-human family members . . . I would have no
objections to said person documenting their concerns with videos, photos,
etc. and providing same to the authorities for investigation.  Absolutely
none.>

Good to know.  Would you have any objections if Google (or any other search
company) were to report alleged abuse when analyzing your internet searches?
Same thing if the NSA searched through metadata?  Seems like the ends would
justify the means if such available information brought to light genuine
abuse of any living thing close to you.

So are you still vehemently against the NSA and companies who offer 'free'
services scanning internet traffic of everyone including some very bad
people who hurt (or intend to hurt) other people and other living creatures?

<I look forward to your clarifications!>

Let me know if you need anything else and definitely provide a response on
NSA metadata & corporate scanning of your electronic communications.  As you
pointed out previously, I'm naive not to be overly concerned about this.
Fear not, I'll complain mightily about the injustice of privacy intrusion
when I get railroaded by the NSA or company spying on me but maybe you'll
get some satisfaction in saying 'I told you so'.

-Scott

Saundra Lund

Moscow, ID

It's a matter of taking the side if the weak against the strong, something
the best people have always done.

~ Harriet Beecher Stowe

From: Scott Dredge [mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Saundra Lund; viz
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill

Wow!  It seems like privacy is a double edged sword, isn't it?  You and Tom
recently expressed your vehement outrage about how wrong and unethical it
was for the NSA to be scanning metadata and for companies of so-called
'free' services (email accounts, search engines, etc.) to be recording your
activity and scanning those records for information.  And now unsurprisingly
you've flipped-flopped in favor of surreptitious video taping.  Just for the
sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself have absolutely no
issue with being video taped against your knowledge on your own property and
in your own home in order to ensure the you are not inflicting cruelty on
<insert any living thing>.

For the record, I find animal cruelty to be reprehensible and I'm in favor
of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.

-Scott

> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:50:32 -0800
> Subject: [Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill
> 
> Just when I think Idaho can't possibly slide any further into GOP
insanity,
> I'm proved wrong:
>
http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Ag-Gag-Bill-Idaho-Law-Governor-Butch-Otter-D
> airy-247886431.html
> 
> This is beyond disgusting -- although not surprising -- that in Idaho,
being
> a whistleblower is a bigger crime than tormenting and torturing sentient
> beings. And if you think this kind of despicable treatment of "farm"
> animals is rare in Idaho, you couldn't be more wrong. And, if you think
> this kind of abuse doesn't happen right here in Latah County, you're
living
> in la-la land.
> 
> Good job, Otter & you damn GOP lunatics. We'll now make it a point to make
> absolutely certain none of the meat or dairy products we purchase come
from
> Idaho animals since you've decided to AGAIN condone animal abuse to
protect
> agribuisness. The Idaho GOP has just done perhaps one of the smartest
> things possible to kill sustainability because the little guys will pay a
> bigger price than the factory farms when people like me stop buying animal
> product in a state that values the almighty dollar over protecting farm
> animals from rampant abuse. It's too bad those invested in sustainability
> didn't do a better job of speaking out against the ag-gag bill -- I was
> quite disappointed that while there has been some effective advocacy
against
> GMOs, for raw milk, and in other issues, there seemed to be very little
(if
> any) in-state organized opposition to the ag-gag bill. At least, according
> to the news articles I read. Pity.
> 
> 
> 
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> 
> I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to
> protection by man from cruelty of man.
> ~ Mahatma Ghandi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140302/d053040f/attachment-0001.html>