On 29 August 2014 04:10, David Harmon wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:40:44 +1000, "Lee Mulvogue" > wrote: > >- how exactly do you know they are spying on you? > >- how do you know it is taking pictures? > >- how do you know these pictures are being transmitted and not stored? > >- if transmitted, how do you know it's via wifi? > > Why do you think you need to know that? That is, if Bob knows it what > does it matter how he knows? > > Glances at tag. See it's [OT]. Good. (We don't seem to have a [Philosophising and/or general waffling] tag.) I can't answer for anyone else, but I can note how others appear to have related to queries over many years. In this case the challenge of thinking up arcane solutions tends to have overcome the more usual societal restraints but, in most cases, if somebody wishes to achieve an end which may possibly be "best" solved by stepping outside the normal bounds of behaviour or may involve illegal or antisocial or immoral or ... acts by any of the parties involved then, a degree of confidence that things are as they seem to be or why it is thought that things are as they seem to be, often seems to be desired. In this case Bob asked only about means of back-tracking the target to its origin. Nothing illegal was suggested or requested, and the shotguns-sluggun- birdnet-fishingline-emp- ...suggestions were not what he asked about. But, having had such ideas broached, the hive mind starts to look at the larger picture which has evolved and wonder if the answers to the question that was not actually asked appear reasonable. So, I think I think, the question "how do you know", while only answerable by Bob, is really "how do we know?". ie The hive mind needs to know how it knows in order to decide whether its responses are conceivably reasonable. > BTW, shooting it down would be highly illegal. Just in case somebody > takes that idea seriously. DIY law enforcement is generally frowned on > anyway, and even more so if you are making up your own laws as you go. Issues of legality are a consideration, but there is a tendency in such situations for perceived reasonableness and perceived morality to attain greater weight than mere matters of law may require. And it's not certain that shooting it down would be highly illegal. The "why do you think you need to know that?" question also works in reverse. eg "Don't you think you need to know more in order to be able to comment meaningfully on illegality?" I do not know what laws apply wherever Bob is or even what the circumstances are which affect the legality or reasonableness or morality of any given action. Overall, "knowing more" is usually felt to be desirable. ie 'Need to know' is usually felt less relevant than 'want to know' :-) Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .