Privacy for some, drones for everyone else

So - people who are concerned about spying technology should be spied upon:

"If you're concerned about it, maybe there's a reason we should be flying over you, right?" said Douglas McDonald, the company's director of special operations and president of a local chapter of the unmanned vehicle trade group.

Who is this "we", I wonder? Big business in a league with unsupervised law enforcement agencies?


Speaking of which:

"We are not out there to abuse people's rights, but at the same time we're out there to protect public safety," said Grand Forks Sheriff Robert Rost. "The public perception is that Big Brother is going to be snooping on them and that is not the case at all. It will not be misused."

There you go - a cop says people's rights will not be abused, and you should believe him, and if not, then a drone might make its way to your house.


But some people will always have privacy:

And for all the assurances, there is much that isn't said or revealed. Some of the equipment used by the university can't be seen by the public because of federal privacy rules. Although legal, anyone photographing outside the base can find themselves being questioned by county, state and Air Force law enforcement. When asked how many times U.S. Border Protection has dispatched drones at the request of local police, a spokeswoman for the agency said it does not keep those figures.

No privacy for individual citizens, but complete "privacy" for the government, law enforcement, and corporations. Winning the future!

Pity the rich

Pity the rich art collectors:

Alan M. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, is in a similar bind. An antiquities collector, he is eager to sell an Egyptian sarcophagus he bought from Sotheby’s in the early 1990s. But he is stymied, he said, because auction houses are applying tighter policies to the items they accept for consignment.

“I can’t get proof of when it came out of Egypt,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

He didn't seem too worried back in the day about whether or not there was proof of whether it was looted or not. Only when his money is at stake do such things matter.

Pity the rich:

“Even objects that entirely lack history are also not necessarily smuggled or looted,” said William G. Pearlstein, a New York lawyer who advises collectors and dealers in the antiquities trade. “Many owners simply failed to keep records of their objects, which they treated like other household possessions.”

Of course! Because it is entirely sensible to treat antiquities that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just like other household items, like a coat rack, or a potato masher.

Pity the rich:

What is clear is that collectors are uneasy. They worry that placing undocumented items for auction exposes them to litigation from foreign nations or perhaps a seizure effort from United States authorities acting as their agent. Many expressed their concerns at a forum in March, hosted by the Asia Society in New York and titled “The Future of the Past: Collecting Ancient Art in the 21st Century,” where collectors spoke of a “climate of fear.”

A real "climate of fear" it is, when one can't sell cultural property that may very well have been looted or illegally and unethically exported any old time one wants. Who knows what's next in this "climate of fear"? Gulags and re-education camps, perhaps?

Pity the rich:

One former museum director suggested that when a museum declines a gift, it can strain relations with a longstanding benefactor. Marc F. Wilson, who oversaw the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Mo., from 1982 to 2010, said museums must be more careful but ought not leave benefactors feeling, in effect: “You can’t take my items? So you can’t take my $30 million either?”

Because we all know that altruism and philanthropy aren't cheap - especially for the rich! Pity them!

Paging the "job creators"

Economic genius Steve King (R-Iowa) on the unemployed:

"One of the things is, people are told they don't need to create opportunities," he said. "It's up to somebody else to offer them a job."

Yeah, because you and your rightwing associates can't shut up about the "job creators" and how they have to be coddled or else they will have their feelings hurt and "Go Galt" and renounce their citizenship and move to Singapore, or whatever. 

Isn't it the job of the "job creators" to offer all these people a job? Duh.