Gap in gov't could be business opportunity

[srqrebel]

"MAPLE VALLEY, Wash. - During the eight days that Tanya Rider lay seriously injured in her crashed SUV, her husband was fighting red tape to get authorities to launch a search for her, he said Friday."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_re_us/woman_found;_ylt=AlvALaAY122lqkVerRlu_.tH2ocA

"...A King County Sheriff's spokesman expressed sympathy but said the agency followed standard procedure in the case.

"That's a terrible, terrible experience ... a heart-wrenching experience, and my heart goes out to him," Deputy Rodney C. Chinnick said Friday.

"It's not that we didn't take him seriously," Chinnick said. "We don't take every missing person report on adults. ... If we did, we'd be doing nothing but going after missing person reports."

Adults are entitled to privacy if they decide to do something out of the ordinary, and Chinnick said Rider's initial missing person report did not contain either of the two elements that would trigger an immediate search: evidence of foul play or unusual vulnerability such as age, mental condition or lack of critical medications.

"Not showing up at home is not illegal," he said.

Perhaps a business that specializes in locating missing persons PRONTO might have a market, seeing as how the law enforcement community chooses to be selective.  I have a feeling Tom Rider would have gladly purchased the services of such a company.

Just a thought... 

[J’raxis 270145]

Gotta say I actually agree with the government here:—

Adults are entitled to privacy if they decide to do something out of the ordinary ...

People take off sometimes; they're not "missing" and you shouldn't be supporting tracking these people down just because they might be hurt or in trouble. And if someone who ran away for their own reasons is tracked down by some "concerned" family member, I don't see any good coming from that situation.

This one example of a tragedy being used to push for greater action over missing person reports reminds me of the "for the children" nonsense I hear far too often about: One child gets molested or killed, and it's suddenly used as justification to further restrict people's rights and intrude on their private matters.

[David]

I'm uncertain if there would be a market for that. 
But your initial idea is sound.  This is most obvious in much of the middle east.  Most of the large so called 'terrist' groups are charities, and employment, smugglers of gov't controlled items, armed protection, ect.  It is one of the reasons they are so popular.  It isn't because they hate america or isreal, but because they provide for very real needs of the ordinary people. 

[Lasse]

Private investigators and skiptracers are already around.

[srqrebel]

Gotta say I actually agree with the government here:—

Adults are entitled to privacy if they decide to do something out of the ordinary ...

People take off sometimes; they're not "missing" and you shouldn't be supporting tracking these people down just because they might be hurt or in trouble. And if someone who ran away for their own reasons is tracked down by some "concerned" family member, I don't see any good coming from that situation.

I agree with your privacy concerns, and the thought had briefly occurred to me as well.  The thing is, if I were operating such a venture, I would certainly be sensitive the desires of the "missing" person, when found.  That would enable my customers to look out for the well-being of their loved ones without imposing on them.  Any company that would invade the privacy of individuals without their consent, could (and should!) be exposed as dishonorable.

As a side note, in the world without a State that I envision, privacy would likely be at least somewhat less important than it is today.  One would not need to hide much of anything except actual criminal acts -- actions that bring harm to others.

[PowerPenguin]

Private investigators and skiptracers are already around.

Have you ever used such services? I haven't had a need, but I wouldn't really know where to look either, if I did. Maybe I should look in those ancient things they call phone books one of these days... 8-)

[Lasse]

Private investigators and skiptracers are already around.

Have you ever used such services? I haven't had a need, but I wouldn't really know where to look either, if I did. Maybe I should look in those ancient things they call phone books one of these days... 8-)

Nope, we don't have either over here.

[dan_sayers]

His statement that in a free world, privacy would be less important is sound. Take a ridiculously small example. You have an unexpected guess who won't be there long. They smell something in the kitchen and are either attempting to invite themselves to dinner or simply preparing to deliver a compliment. Either way, they ask, "What'cha got cookin'?" Who today would answer, "It's none of your business"? If we lived in a world where trans fat was banned, MSG was banned, paprika is banned... Suddenly the question isn't so innocent and the need to protect that information stricly for the sake of protecting it would be elevated.

In a free market, supply and demand are king. We find privacy valuable today because it is a rare commodity. If conditions were that there was no state, privacy would be abundant, and therefore its possessors would not cling to it as tightly. As a generality anyways.

[J’raxis 270145]

His statement that in a free world, privacy would be less important is sound. Take a ridiculously small example. You have an unexpected guess who won't be there long. They smell something in the kitchen and are either attempting to invite themselves to dinner or simply preparing to deliver a compliment. Either way, they ask, "What'cha got cookin'?" Who today would answer, "It's none of your business"? If we lived in a world where trans fat was banned, MSG was banned, paprika is banned... Suddenly the question isn't so innocent and the need to protect that information stricly for the sake of protecting it would be elevated.

In a free market, supply and demand are king. We find privacy valuable today because it is a rare commodity. If conditions were that there was no state, privacy would be abundant, and therefore its possessors would not cling to it as tightly. As a generality anyways.

Even in a free world, you would still no doubt have people disapproving of certain behaviors, so other people would want to keep such behavior private. Unless you expect that in a free-market world, the various organized religions, with all their taboos, are going to disappear, too.

[Raineyrocks]

Off topic here but:

Happy Birthday J'raxis!

[dan_sayers]

Even in a free world, you would still no doubt have people disapproving of certain behaviors, so other people would want to keep such behavior private. Unless you expect that in a free-market world, the various organized religions, with all their taboos, are going to disappear, too.

Disapproval is not law. Present day, some disapprove of me open carrying. That doesn't mean I cease to and yield to them. On the other hand, I realize that some might disapprove of what is commonly mistermed as "coarse language." When I'm in public, I tend to curb my language a bit out of consideration of the same. Neither disapproval am I legally bound to yield to. In both cases, I am free to choose how to act. Disapproval is not an end and therefore not counterintuitive to freedom.

As for you mention of religion, don't you? In terms of control, the natural enemy of freedom, are not religion and government parallel?

[J’raxis 270145]

Even in a free world, you would still no doubt have people disapproving of certain behaviors, so other people would want to keep such behavior private. Unless you expect that in a free-market world, the various organized religions, with all their taboos, are going to disappear, too.

Disapproval is not law. Present day, some disapprove of me open carrying. That doesn't mean I cease to and yield to them. On the other hand, I realize that some might disapprove of what is commonly mistermed as "coarse language." When I'm in public, I tend to curb my language a bit out of consideration of the same. Neither disapproval am I legally bound to yield to. In both cases, I am free to choose how to act. Disapproval is not an end and therefore not counterintuitive to freedom.

The original post implied that people only desire privacy to hide from laws, and removing these laws would make people not want to hide much anything:—

As a side note, in the world without a State that I envision, privacy would likely be at least somewhat less important than it is today.  One would not need to hide much of anything except actual criminal acts -- actions that bring harm to others.

I was pointing out that this is false. People would still desire privacy, to avoid disapproval of certain behaviors. That disapproval is not law was actually my point.

As for you mention of religion, don't you? In terms of control, the natural enemy of freedom, are not religion and government parallel?

Yes and no. Here is a lengthy post I made to the FSP forum recently, on this very topic. I'd certainly like these religions to go away, but so long as people are voluntarily enslaving themselves to them, that's their right. And some people even think religion, or at least the ideals of religions like Christianity (peace, love, &c.), actually fosters freedom. So in a stateless society or otherwise mostly-free state, religion will persist.

[J’raxis 270145]

Off topic here but:

Happy Birthday J'raxis!

Thanks.

[David]

Even though religion is the source of a good deal of violence, messing with others religion is a way to cause even greater violence.  Encroaching on other peoples freedom of conscience is a good way to start a problem. 

[dan_sayers]

People would still desire privacy, to avoid disapproval of certain behaviors.

I must not be like the people you describe. The way I regard privacy, it is not unlike oxygen; It's just another need of the human spirit. Not to avoid disapproval, but to simply feel complete.

so long as people are voluntarily enslaving themselves to them, that's their right.

But is it in fact voluntary? I was raised in the Bible. Not because I chose to, but because I was made to believe that I'd spend an infathomable amount of time in a fiery lake if I did not. Were it not for this use of a fear tactic, I would have a similar laissez-faire attitude towards religion. It's hard for me to keep an open mind in that regard because of all of the bogus laws and efforts that are inflicted upon us simply because a large number of people feel it is the holy way.

I find privacy to be valuable because I value it highly.  This has nothing to do with its availability.

How can we know? Have any of us ever lived in a set of circumstances where our privacy was never challenged?

Privacy is not relative, it is absolute.

Well, after the statement I made above, I must agree. I was thinking more of the specifics. For example, if I'm leaving somewhere and a friendly asks me where I'm going, I don't think twice about answering them. If a policeman asks me this, I turn to stone. I don't actually have a problem with the question, but rather the techniques used to mine it and the potentiality of it being used against me. And of course the conservation of our right to refuse because we live in a time when it is in fact very challenged.