Humanities desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 5

Private surveillance questions

The willingness of many Americans (and others, I presume) to accept private surveillance is difficult for me to understand. A few questions:

The ADT Corporation frequently advertises a video home security system service, for which people actually pay, by means of which activities in the home can be monitored remotely by the user on a mobile phone, and which will also lead to police being contacted in various emergencies. Question: when are they watching and when not? How often does a homeowner get busted for something seen on these cameras? Does the ADT Corporation have a legal duty to watch for certain types of crimes to report when possible? (domestic abuse comes quickly to mind) I won't ask if the NSA gets a copy of the information, only whether they've admitted it. Anyway - if anyone understands these issues, please sing out, or point to some sources.

Speaking of ads... ads about surveillance. Why do so many companies publish television ads that hint, not very subtly, that their products are spying on their users? An example that sticks out: an ad by ~~Epsom~~ Epson in which an actress representing their printer scans and copies documents, then pauses her activity to literally 'phone home to mother'. Or car ads like 'You talk, Sync listens'. What is their goal?

In general, why do products with serious surveillance or security issues not have more trouble in the marketplace? I would think that, for example, the very serious security vulnerabilities in cars [1] would have provoked an angry rejection of modern models, yet I see no evidence that consumers ask or companies offer cars that are free from surveillance and indeed even lethal sabotage. To the contrary, OnStar is offered as a ... feature. Consumers lined up to get the Xbox One. Why?

I just don't understand this huge disconnect between the public which says it opposes being spied on, and the supposedly free market that sells them ever more ways of being spied on. Wnt (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note... I believe you're looking for Epson. They make printers. I'm sure many fine printers have come from Epsom but they're not really known for it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! Wnt (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A typical response (mostly OR, but easy to find in online discussions) is that americans don't want the government to be spying on us. At the same time they opt in to corporate data-gathering schemes (most striking to me is Facebook) because they accept it as a tradeoff for a service which they want. Staecker (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People are concerned about the Xbox One "spying" on them. See e.g. here [2], or just google it. In that case, hard-core security types won't buy it, and millions of others will. I think the fear is far overblown, in that a ~~paranoiac~~ security-and-privacy-conscious consumer can simply unplug the system or sensors when not in use. Also, I'll mention that anything that records any form of information (text, audio, video, etc) can potentially be used to "spy" -- it all depends on your threat model. For most of Xbox's market (it seems) the ability to play exclusive games with the latest motion capture is a big incentive. While you're on the topic, have you considered how many people pay top dollar to carry around "tracking devices" in their pockets? They mostly think it's quite handy to have mapping and navigation systems on their phones :) My point is, there is no way to have a motion-capture entertainment system (or personal always-on GPS) that cannot be used for ill, and to potentially harm the owner. Call it a necessary evil if you will, but most consumers just want the cool new stuff. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. I assume that you only ever send or read encrypted email, right? How else can you be sure your mail provider isn't spying on you ;)[reply]

Actually, that's another example. There's no reason why a phone couldn't come with a GPS unit that is only activated by the user (even with a physical toggle switch) so that he can find where he is but not be tracked all the time. Instead, what I hear about are people carrying around phones that have GPS, for purposes of the government, but the poor saps using them don't even have access because they "don't have the software". I'd be curious how many of those there are. I mean, there's all this out and out bullshit about the Free Market and how the Free Market perfectly satisfies consumer demand, and when I look at things like this, I don't see the slightest evidence that the Free Market even exists. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any of the ads you mention and I don't know what the products do, but from your question about ADT ("Does the ADT Corporation have a legal duty to watch for certain types of crimes...") it sounds as though you think that they employ people to watch video feeds from customers' homes. In reality I think it would be a huge scandal if any employee was ever found to be doing such a thing. If the word "monitoring" in the ads means anything, it's that they have 24-hour call centers that are notified if a window is opened or a motion sensor trips, at which point they call the home and/or the police to check that everything is okay. They are marketing to people who feel more comfortable if their homes are being "guarded"—or "watched", if you prefer, since guards are also called watchmen. That doesn't mean they want a guard peering in their windows. Some of them want to be able to peer in the windows themselves, remotely, if they're afraid something awful is happening, and that's the service ADT advertises for their Internet-connected cameras.

The phrase "You talk; Sync listens" doesn't sound all that ominous to me. I dare say people associate it with a more positive image, like a friend who's a good listener. If you think your interpretation is more rational, consider that marketing slogans in ads have no impact on a company's legal obligations re privacy or anything else. If you judge their privacy practices from their ads, you're as foolish as anyone else who is swayed by advertising.

In general, what you seem to be asking is why people don't demonstrate their commitment to privacy by staying in their homes all the time with the blinds drawn and no telephones or internet-connected computers or any other link to the outside world. The fact that people try to have a life doesn't mean that they don't care about their privacy. I'm old fashioned enough to still believe that the government has the job of safeguarding people's rights, and if you can't safely use any technology that might theoretically be used to spy on you, then the government has completely failed to do that. And maybe it has, but if so that's the problem that needs to be fixed, not Kinect. -- BenRG (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benemerent Metal

I just read an article dated Sunday July 7th, 1996 in the Morning Star from Vernon, BC, Canada. The article shows Mrs. Grace O'Keefe receiving the Benemerent Medal from Pope John Paul in June of that year. She received the medal for amazing service to St. James Catholic Church. Would you please post this on your site. Thank you. Linda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.53.34 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone to help you here, they would need to know in which article and which context do you think it might be notable enough for it to be posted.

Perhaps you could post it yourself where it is relevant? DanielDemaret (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Mrs. O'Keefe to the list of recipients on the Benemerenti medal page under the John Paul II heading. I haven't added the reference though (Morning Star) because it would be out of step with the rest of the page.

Flarp (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's up for it, that page can do with a thoroughgoing vacuuming and cleanup. For starters, we can get rid of the multiple repetitions of "awarded the medal to". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of inheritance estates

When does an estate (law)#inheritance end? In other words, when does property stop being owned by the dead person's estate and start being owned by the heirs? For example, why does Bruce Chatwin still assert anything in 2011, instead of his heirs asserting things about him? I would assume that the answer is "it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction," so I'm actually looking for a summary of different laws or a list of links to them. 2001:18E8:2:1020:BD3D:A881:330A:64B5 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, there will be at least 50 different laws in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's why I said "looking for a summary or a list of links." But perhaps different U.S. states have enacted the same provisions, so it could be somewhat less than 50 for the U.S. 2001:18E8:2:1020:BD3D:A881:330A:64B5 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estates exist as such through the period of probate as directed by the executor so there's no necessary reason for them to end existence at some arbitrary cut-off point if they are managed properly. Basically what happens is they either self-liquidated by the distribution of assets to real persons or other entities, or they evolve into charities or trusts and other corporate-type entities as set up by their provisions. A judge will oversee this process in probate court. In the meantime, estate taxes as applicable and lawyer fees will eat up the capital, as will sales tax on assets and commissions of liquidators. See also estate sale and estate liquidation. Foundations set up by estates and properly managed have no set lifetime. See for example, the trust set up by Benjamin Franklin, which was liquidated in 1990, on his direction, 200 years after it was set up. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this legal the way this guy is filming this "drug addict" in Vancouver?

wwww.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGkJXh-xRU

Venustar84 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the laws in Vancouver and/or the province of British Columbia and/or the nation of Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what evidence there is for him being a "drug addict" ("crack head" as the video puts it). I mean, he's talking like a drunk, he's holding a bottle, he's talking about times he's been thrown in the drunk tank ... that pretty well convinces me that he's drunk. I would be surprised if someone on crack acted like that. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we have no reliable evidence of any criminal or other behavior, and imputing such accusations can lead to liability for defamation per se. So let's follow WP:BLP and drop the speculation about a private person. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic sports

Is there a ranking somewhere of Olympic sports by maximum number of spins or flips (or spins plus flips)? I want to compare. Which sports beat any Olympic sport? 184.152.47.209 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about figure skating? There are various required elements for the various categories. That might a factor in a few other sports as well, such as mogul skiing or snowboarding. Not so for events based strictly on speed and/or distance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can also think of diving, gymnastics vaulting, trampolining.. Skydiving and NASCAR and maybe some extreme sports must beat them all. You only need to build the halfpipe bigger (than the current one) to beat the snowboarding Olympic record for example. Yes, I don't expect to see swimming or equestrian on that list either.. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the summer games. The connection is that any event that involves judging is likely to have some required moves. In men's single in skating, for example, there are points for the number of revolutions on various spins and jumps. There's no "maximum" as such, but no one has yet successfully landed (or even tried, as far as I know) a quadruple axel. But some other types of jumps have quads. The scoring for each rotation goes up almost exponentially, so it's advantageous to land jumps that have more rotations. Having said all that, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you trying to compare different sports with each other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to compare different sports with each other. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what's been achieved in the Olympics is the current maximum until someone beats him. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...or her. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. I was thinking of snowboarding and aerial skiing and most other Olympic sports where men currently have the advantage (talent pool and a 10% or so top-flight strength and speed edge) and forgot about womens' rotational inertia and interest edge in gymnastics and trampolining where I'd be very unsure which sex holds the record without checking. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following this thread. Many world records beat Olympic records. That's why when someone breaks an Olympic record it's not necessarily a new world record. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With flip and spin records there should be fewer of these though, because records are set in half or even full turn chunks, and many won't be improved by tech any time soon the way a bigger halfpipe or clap skates on speedskaters did. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the new Winter Olympic sport of Slopestyle skiing will be right up there as an answer to this question. See this video. Pretty spectacular. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health insurance and employers

I'm not sure how it is in other countries (I'm only vaguely familiar with socialized medicine, eg Britain, Canada) but here in the US many people get their health insurance through their employer. I've been wondering for a while now why this is. I don't go through my employer for my car insurance, electric bill, or any other service besides my 401k, which makes a bit of sense since the money comes straight from my paycheck, but health insurance has been tied to employers for years. Why did this develop? I don't see why it didn't start from the beginning that I would get paid by my employer and then go get health insurance like I do car insurance, i.e. on my own. So how did this develop and why has it not changed for... well, ever. Dismas|^(talk) 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Health insurance in the United States has some enlightening comments about the rise in employer health plans since WWII. In a nutshell, it seems that unions pushed for this because it was impossible to get Congress to take any action toward establishing a national health insurance plan. And as you see, even 65 or more years later, it still meets strong resistance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian and have supplemental health insurance over and above the government-provided healthcare. This is provided at a price, shared with my employer. This is vey common, probably as common as in the US. It covers some supposedly non-essential costs including dental, prescription coverage and other services that aren't covered by our regular care. Mingmingla (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider it from the employer's point of view. If you can't get car insurance, you can get public transport or someone can give you a lift. If you can't get home insurance, then it's unlikely to stop you working (in fact, if something does go wrong, you'll probably want overtime to make more money). If you can't get health insurance, then you're going to have a lot more days off sick, since the point where it is costing you more to visit the doctor than to lose a few days of wages (once you've exhausted any free sick days) comes much sooner. As an aside, many British companies, especially in higher end jobs, also offer private health insurance to their employees, presumably for similar reasons, but related to getting the employee seen to faster, and therefore working faster. MChesterMC (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One reason mentionned sometimes (at least by my company) is that they value good health for all their employees. Whereas they don't value their employees using loads of electricity in their own home, an employee that feels good is more productive, especially if they get regular health checks and if they are is not worrying about becoming helpless because he is too sick and cannot afford the cost of getting better. Regarding why your company does not pay for your car insurance, well, in theory your company should value you having good means of mobility, but also in theory you could take the bus, or buy a house next to work and walk, so paying for everyone's car insurance would mean those taking the bus don't get this particular benefit, so it would be unfair to them to pay the car owners this little extra. --Lgriot (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]