For my Canadian friends

[sear]

"The number of people wanting to leave East Germany was actually not large." R5 #420

We don't know that.
We may have a fairly accurate count of how many tried to breach the Wall at or near Berlin.

But successful escapes perpetrated a hundred kilometers away would have been an embarrassment to the Soviets, who would have preferred to keep quiet about it.
Thus the full tally of successful escapes from East to West may remain under-counted to this day, potentially substantially so.

"The number of people wanting to leave East Germany was actually not large." R5 #420

Let's not conflate what they did, with what they wanted to do.
Anecdotes I've read indicate rumors inside the Soviet Union of Western prosperity resulted in for example a simple pair of bluejeans being swapped even up inside the Soviet Union, for a Trabant.

 

[Rigby5]

We don't know that.
We may have a fairly accurate count of how many tried to breach the Wall at or near Berlin.

But successful escapes perpetrated a hundred kilometers away would have been an embarrassment to the Soviets, who would have preferred to keep quiet about it.
Thus the full tally of successful escapes from East to West may remain under-counted to this day, potentially substantially so.


Let's not conflate what they did, with what they wanted to do.
Anecdotes I've read indicate rumors inside the Soviet Union of Western prosperity resulted in for example a simple pair of bluejeans being swapped even up inside the Soviet Union, for a Trabant.

That actually poses a question of status and style that makes it even more a case of propaganda.
The reality is the Trabant was one of the best cars ever made.
It was what was used for the flying car that took Harry Potter back to Hogwarts.
The body was rustproof fiberglass and it had a light 2 stroke engine that was not only indestructible, but got over 40 mpg.

 

[sear]

"The reality is the Trabant was one of the best cars ever made." R5 #422

"Proof of Trotsky's farsightedness is that none of his predictions have come true yet." Isaac Deutscher

" propaganda " R5 #422

Yes.

"... the Trabant was one of the best cars ever made. ...
The body was rustproof fiberglass and it had a light 2 stroke engine that was not only indestructible, but got over 40 mpg." R5 #422

This is why so many 2026 and 2027 model year cars so closely emulate these spectacular market-coveted features you've disclosed here.
What's more prestigious than showing up at a gasoline station with a Trabant?
Showing up at a gasoline station with a Trabant, pouring a quart of oil into the fuel filler neck, and then topping it off with ethyl. "All the way with ethyl !"

 

[Rigby5]

"Proof of Trotsky's farsightedness is that none of his predictions have come true yet." Isaac Deutscher


Yes.


This is why so many 2026 and 2027 model year cars so closely emulate these spectacular market-coveted features you've disclosed here.
What's more prestigious than showing up at a gasoline station with a Trabant?
Showing up at a gasoline station with a Trabant, pouring a quart of oil into the fuel filler neck, and then topping it off with ethyl. "All the way with ethyl !"

As a mechanic until 1978, I find US cars to have been incredibly silly.
A V8 engine is going to weigh over 700 lbs all by itself, and use up a great deal of gas just accelerating its own mass.
Which is why now makers are more likely to install a turbo charged 4 cylinder engine with the same hp as a V8.
Two stroke engines make much more sense than 4 stroke engines, since they produce twice the hp without needing a larger engine.

The only bad thing about the Trabant was mixing oil with the fuel.
By using fuel injection and super charging, they did not need to do that, and it would have had much better emissions ratings, which is what killed the Trabant in 1991.

 

[sear]

"As a mechanic until 1978, I find US cars to have been incredibly silly.
A V8 engine is going to weigh over 700 lbs all by itself, and use up a great deal of gas just accelerating its own mass.
Which is why now makers are more likely to install a turbo charged 4 cylinder engine with the same hp as a V8.
Two stroke engines make much more sense than 4 stroke engines, since they produce twice the hp without needing a larger engine.

The only bad thing about the Trabant was mixing oil with the fuel.
By using fuel injection and super charging, they did not need to do that, and it would have had much better emissions ratings, which is what killed the Trabant in 1991." R5 #424

I got in trouble for topic-drift before.
But there's ramble potential in the following, from the For my Canadian friends topic:

 

[sear]

"People confuse what they want with what is best." R5 #406

I've had a few days to puzzle over this one R5.

"... what is best"? For whom?
The axiom asserts we seek what is in our own enlightened self-interest. But then why did Trump get elected?

 

[Rigby5]

I've had a few days to puzzle over this one R5.

"... what is best"? For whom?
The axiom asserts we seek what is in our own enlightened self-interest. But then why did Trump get elected?

The problem is that people enjoy emotional responses so much that they often don't bother thinking through the consequences.

One of the things people get tripped up on is how they like power, speed, and size for cars, when they actually should know that smaller and weaker cars actually are much better.
An example is they think US cars with large engines are good because they pass strict parts per million emissions tests.
But the reality is that they are only getting 20 mpg when the VW TDI was getting 50 mpg and had less than a fourth the CO2 emissions of the US cars.
So they made VW then pay all sorts of fines for a car that actually was 4 times cleaner than most US made cars.
Testing ppm has nothing to do with how much total emissions a car produces.

 

[Shiftless2]

Nothing to add ....

 

[Shiftless2]

You have to ask what Dougie is afraid of people finding out

Ford government to restrict public access to politicians’ documents​

The proposed legislation comes amid battles for access to documents on the Greenbelt and Skills Development Fund scandals and the premier’s personal cell phone records

https://www.burlingtontoday.com/local-news/ford-government-to-restrict-public-access-to-politicians-documents-12000251

 

[Rigby5]

You have to ask what Dougie is afraid of people finding out

Ford government to restrict public access to politicians’ documents​

The proposed legislation comes amid battles for access to documents on the Greenbelt and Skills Development Fund scandals and the premier’s personal cell phone records

https://www.burlingtontoday.com/local-news/ford-government-to-restrict-public-access-to-politicians-documents-12000251

I like government transparency, but not personal cellphone records.

 

[sear]

"You have to ask what Dougie is afraid of people finding out" S2 #429

"I like government transparency, but not personal cellphone records." R5 #430

B.O. R. ARTICLE #4: Ratified December 15, 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no [search] Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is 4A good enough?
Or do you believe cellphones deserve unusual protection? If so, what?
Why?

 

[Rigby5]

Is 4A good enough?
Or do you believe cellphones deserve unusual protection? If so, what?
Why?

I am not really sure since I have not thought about it enough, but I think there is a difference between things written and spoken.
Written things take far more time, and you are aware of their implications, so you are much more careful.
The "Karen" videos we see all the time show that people are far more spontaneous in speech, and it does not seem entirely fair to store it verbatim, especially not without their knowledge.
I think people do not realize cellphones are computers and that everything they say is stored for posterity.
So I think it is wrong to allow cellphone dialog to be accessed by others, used as evidence, or released to the public?

 

[sear]

"I am not really sure since I have not thought about it enough, but I think there is a difference between things written and spoken.
Written things take far more time, and you are aware of their implications, so you are much more careful.
The "Karen" videos we see all the time show that people are far more spontaneous in speech, and it does not seem entirely fair to store it verbatim, especially not without their knowledge.
I think people do not realize cellphones are computers and that everything they say is stored for posterity.
So I think it is wrong to allow cellphone dialog to be accessed by others, used as evidence, or released to the public?" R5 #432

I believe forensic smart-phone examination can reveal details including what telephone numbers have been contacted, perhaps for how long.
How much of that information is extracted exclusively from the device itself, and how much provides clues to further investigations, such as a particular cell-tower's traffic data.
That data may perhaps disclose that cellphone A was in contact with cellphone B for 3 minutes on Monday January 3, 2027.
I'm not aware of any means a duly authorized government warranted search could actually retrieve the audio or text of that 3 minute conversation.
I suspect not.

Whether iPhone or android secretly stores such content in situ ??? Cookies? Browser history?

--------------

If cell-user A tells cell-user B: "I just robbed a bank." can government use that private conversation as the legally biding equivalent of a sworn confession? At my most recent check years or decades ago, no it couldn't.
Whether that's changed, ... news to me.

" I think there is a difference between things written and spoken." R5 #432

American Heritage usage panel uses the "casual speech" standard.

 

[Shiftless2]

I like government transparency, but not personal cellphone records.

So how do you know if those gov't officials have been using their personal phones for official business. This is no different than someone setting up their own email server in their garage and doing business on it.

 

[sear]

"I like government transparency, but not personal cellphone records." R5 #430

"So how do you know if those gov't officials have been using their personal phones for official business. This is no different than someone setting up their own email server in their garage and doing business on it." S2 #434

Oh.

Personal opinion:
as a culture we should be wary of unenforceable law.

a) IF it's a government issued cellphone, and
b) IF it's for official use only, then
c) there should be reasonable means to insure, patrol, verify compliance.

B.O. R. ARTICLE #4: Ratified December 15, 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ...

Fine.
A government issued cellphone, or office, or desk is not, must not be included. For obvious reason, it's not "their", it's the government's.

 

[Rigby5]

I believe forensic smart-phone examination can reveal details including what telephone numbers have been contacted, perhaps for how long.
How much of that information is extracted exclusively from the device itself, and how much provides clues to further investigations, such as a particular cell-tower's traffic data.
That data may perhaps disclose that cellphone A was in contact with cellphone B for 3 minutes on Monday January 3, 2027.
I'm not aware of any means a duly authorized government warranted search could actually retrieve the audio or text of that 3 minute conversation.
I suspect not.

Whether iPhone or android secretly stores such content in situ ??? Cookies? Browser history?

--------------

If cell-user A tells cell-user B: "I just robbed a bank." can government use that private conversation as the legally biding equivalent of a sworn confession? At my most recent check years or decades ago, no it couldn't.
Whether that's changed, ... news to me.


American Heritage usage panel uses the "casual speech" standard.

Computer communications requires sending packets of data, that are retained by the sending computer until the receiver sends back acknowledgement that is got it and no longer has to be saved.
That includes each cellphone tower.
So it is very easy for cellphone towers to just not delete any packets to or from any particular phone number.
Yet I think the user has an expectation of transient privacy?

Here is the AI answer:
{...
Yes, phone calls can be used as evidence in a trial, provided they are legally obtained and properly authenticated. Here are the key points to consider:

• Legal Obtaining: Phone calls must be legally obtained, such as through a search warrant or consent from all parties involved.
• Authentication: The recordings must be authenticated to prove their genuineness and integrity. This includes providing a chain of custody and metadata.
• Relevance: The recordings must be relevant to the case and material to the issue at hand.
• Consent: In some cases, consent from all parties involved is required to use the recordings as evidence.
• Exceptions: There are exceptions to the consent requirement, such as one-party consent or business use, which allow for recordings without consent.
  It is crucial to understand the specific legal requirements and exceptions that apply to your situation to ensure that phone calls can be used as evidence in court.

...}

 

[Rigby5]

So how do you know if those gov't officials have been using their personal phones for official business. This is no different than someone setting up their own email server in their garage and doing business on it.

With government employees, there are laws or regulations requiring them to use the government provided email servers in order to satisfy the FOI Act.
So they know they are breaking the law when they set up their own email server and use it instead, for government business.
But that is my question?
Is there a difference between cellphone and email?
And I think there is?

 

[Shiftless2]

With government employees, there are laws or regulations requiring them to use the government provided email servers in order to satisfy the FOI Act.
So they know they are breaking the law when they set up their own email server and use it instead, for government business.
But that is my question?
Is there a difference between cellphone and email?
And I think there is?

Funny thing is, not everyone obeys the law. That's the reason the public needs access to personal cellphones etc.

 

[sear]

#437 & #438

Nutty enough to go both ways:
- government employees conducting personal business via government equipment, &
- government employees disclosing confidential government information on private, non-secure networks.

Still not clear to me which breach was more extensive, Ed Snowden, or Don Trump.