Who's to say this "skeleton" key will not fall into the wrong hands, oh wait it would from the get go.....

This lock box idea is disgusting and should be stopped.

That said, the video seems to be making a big deal about the representative's statement that "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea." That statement is completely accurate. Just because millions of people believed the world was flat did not make it so. Just because millions believed the sun orbited the earth did not make it so. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on its veracity.

Thankfully we have things like laws and constitutions which prevent people from imposing their will on us, whether they are the majority or the minority.

creepy..

kamyar enshayan is a megalomaniac.

Liberals doing what they do best.
Providing a Government solution to a non problem.

The leaps in logic needed to have created this ordinance, are astounding.
They did the LAST thing that should be done.

First, they could have created the system, without it being mandatory, so that anyone who wanted to join in, could do so if they wanted to.

Secondly, anyone who didn't want to participate in the system, would automatically forfeit their right to sue city hall and the fire department over a broken window or door in case of a false alarm.

And only as a third and stupid option would someone create this mandatory system for everyone. It's absolutely ridiculous

step 1 ) steal one ubiquitous lockbox.
step 2 ) take the lock apart to see the tumblers / cut key to match.
step 3 ) profit.

>> ^Skeeve:

This lock box idea is disgusting and should be stopped.
That said, the video seems to be making a big deal about the representative's statement that "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea." That statement is completely accurate. Just because millions of people believed the world was flat did not make it so. Just because millions believed the sun orbited the earth did not make it so. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on its veracity.
Thankfully we have things like laws and constitutions which prevent people from imposing their will on us, whether they are the majority or the minority.


While I agree with the tone, candor and direction of this statement; doesn't our system of constitutional republic representative democracy have the same central guiding light? More to say, the wrongness of something isn't the first consideration, but the popularity of it. Take for instance, free speech. Congress shall pass no law, has turned into "Well, except for hate speech, and well, speech that might cause or a riot, o right, and well speech that could threaten national security." What I mean is, while the constitution is good as slowing the rate at which popularity overrides civil liberties, there is currently no real difference fundamentally with the fears you rise and our own system. Popularity still speaks louder than rightness. I, however, have failed to see a better system...but I am hopeful there is some evolution, or revolution in store for a system that values truth, or at very least, reason more than popularity.

Don't get me wrong, our system isn't perfect. We have developed methods of limiting the power of the majority (constitution, Bill of Rights, independent judiciary, etc.) so that simple majority rule doesn't rob the minority of rights but there are still issues.

That doesn't change the fact that something embraced by the majority isn't, ipso facto, correct. In this particular case, even if the majority voted for the measure, I think the checks and balances would ensure that people would not be forced to participate in the program.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Skeeve:
This lock box idea is disgusting and should be stopped.
That said, the video seems to be making a big deal about the representative's statement that "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea." That statement is completely accurate. Just because millions of people believed the world was flat did not make it so. Just because millions believed the sun orbited the earth did not make it so. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on its veracity.
Thankfully we have things like laws and constitutions which prevent people from imposing their will on us, whether they are the majority or the minority.

While I agree with the tone, candor and direction of this statement; doesn't our system of constitutional republic representative democracy have the same central guiding light? More to say, the wrongness of something isn't the first consideration, but the popularity of it. Take for instance, free speech. Congress shall pass no law, has turned into "Well, except for hate speech, and well, speech that might cause or a riot, o right, and well speech that could threaten national security." What I mean is, while the constitution is good as slowing the rate at which popularity overrides civil liberties, there is currently no real difference fundamentally with the fears you rise and our own system. Popularity still speaks louder than rightness. I, however, have failed to see a better system...but I am hopeful there is some evolution, or revolution in store for a system that values truth, or at very least, reason more than popularity.

Holy shit! Kamyar Enshayan = @NetRunner?!

Oh and... "Haha, way to go statist idiots!"

@blankfist I have to say, this is just getting sad. A City Council deciding on a building fire code regulation? Aren't there real injustices still happening in the world?

IMO, the people objecting raised mostly reasonable questions about it. The video doesn't show the answer to the reasonable questions, just to the boneheaded ones (e.g. you mean you're going ahead even though we whined at you in person?). If people don't like what the council does, they have plenty of recourse to take.

The council are all elected officials, and the people objecting are unable to make their case to the people of the city about why this should move their vote in the next election. They can file suit against the law if they think it violates some sort of Constitutional statute. Or worst comes to worst, sue the city if something does indeed go wrong and they incur damages because of the lockbox.

As to the conversation @GeeSussFreeK and @Skeeve are having about "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea", while I agree that statement is true, it also is almost a non sequitur. Gallileo was prosecuted by the Catholic church for saying things that later turned out to be true. George Bush wasn't tried for war crimes, even though he's directly confessed to ordering crimes against humanity (waterboarding).

If you want to see your meritorious ideas gain the force of law, you need to win popular support for those meritorious ideas. Saying "free speech is in the Constitution" isn't at all a guarantee you're going to be legally allowed to speak your mind. Free speech (or any other right you think you're entitled to), will only persist as long as a significant portion of the population feel strongly that you should have it.

So back to the actual lockbox case. Suppose the government accepted all liability for damages that may result from lockbox abuse. Does that set your minds at ease? If not, what "right" is it you think is being violated?

@NetRunner

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

The examples you pose are actually the exact ones I was thinking of when I think of the brutality of democratic things, at times. I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now. Forgive me, about to go on a tangent, but I want a trial by fire to so speak if you have the time. This will be a wall of text for the uninterested.

When I was first exposed to this phrase/idea, it was from Spock. And from then on, I always took it as the rational position one has to take to help the whole at the cost of the one. It was a profound idea in my youth. It had such a charity to it. It seemed to speak to the core of what is good. Everything that is good about man was contained in that one simple phrase. The devil is in the details, though, so I decided recently to examine my long held Vulcan heritage.

Over the past couple of years, since my fall from Grace, I have been increasingly interested in the role of evolution in the social development of our species. We have a lot in common with our animal kin, especially the social nature of mammalia. The role of emotions and intuitive social orders with post rationalized rule set changes are the order of our creed. For an animal that has a very long gestation period, few offspring per litter, and long maturation periods, certain social orders HAD to be developed or we wouldn't survive. Many of our longest held evolutionary advances aren't because they are "good" morally, but are good for survival when being chased by tigers. In that, I think the democratic pricible is actually as old as social creatures, and even more basic, as force.

I think the reason Spock's words stung so true in my heart of hearts is it spoke to millions of years of culture beyond my ability to fully comprehend. It spoke past my reason to the core of my being. Now, when I examine the phrase "the needs of the many..." and take into light the core being, I find a much different sentence. Let me tell you what I found that I didn't expect.

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position. When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote. We might not consider our vote a weapon, but essentially, when you boil it down it is our most trusted language. So much so, that every animal we face understands it. We have subjugated nearly every animal on this planet via force, and now try our hands at the very planet itself. All the while, we never asked ourselves the question, is using force right?

When being chased by a tiger, you can't ask that question. Even more so, it is the application of force that seems to drive the evolution on this planet forward. However, it only advances the flags in the due course of force. Any being that comes after HAS to play by these rules or be defeated before it can flourish. But is this the way it HAS to be? Does humanity find itself on the precipice of being able to change the entire course of evolution on the planet? Perhaps so. Slowly, we have taken the cunning, and brutal wolfs of the winter lands to being the noblest of companions. And cats, wait, never mind, fuck cats.

Humans might soon, within perhaps our children's, children's lifetime, find themselves in the unique position to change the rules of the game, for good. Weather or not we want to will be the only question. So the question is, why? What is so wrong with Democracy and the underlying shreds of managed force something to be concerned about? Let me bring on my final point.

The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

While I have still not made all my points, like why I also think the democratic position is actually bad (perhaps even morally bad); in spite of that, I do suppose that it is insufficient to manage our path. It isn't that I want it to be wrong, it is that we truly need something else if we intend to survive past an infant species. If we lose the game, the cycle of force will most likely continue on without us, spawning forth new entities of force. But if we win, we will rewrite the rules for all existence on the planet. No longer bound to rules that keep up from being eaten by tigers, but by rules that extend us to the furthest reaches of our dreams.

I think it will all start by eating all the cats, because anything that will bite you in your sleep isn't fit in this new world. And I yield my time back to an audience that is most likely not interested in my thought processes that go to solving less than practical problems. I will only continue on request as to not come off as pedantic, well, more so.


edit, grammar

@NetRunner, um. Did you just justify the actions of this council?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, um. Did you just justify the actions of this council?


Nothing so black and white. In terms of passing judgment on the council, I mostly said "I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions."

Do you want to talk with me about political philosophy, or are you just looking to try to level some personal attack at me?

I'm happy to do the former, but I'm bored with the latter.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, um. Did you just justify the actions of this council?

Nothing so black and white. In terms of passing judgment on the council, I mostly said "I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions."
Do you want to talk with me about political philosophy, or are you just looking to try to level some personal attack at me?
I'm happy to do the former, but I'm bored with the latter.


Don't be such a Kamyar Enshayan!

I don't think I'll even have time this evening (Game 7 and all) to read through this discussion, but I am definitely interested. No forgiveness required for the wall of text @GeeSussFreeK - I look forward to reading/commenting.

>> ^NetRunner:

..."I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions...


The way I see it, what they had to say was "We know what's best for you, hand over your keys".

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^NetRunner:
..."I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions...

The way I see it, what they had to say was "We know what's best for you, hand over your keys".


That is the impression this video gives. But it's made by the people who're protesting it, and has all the honesty and integrity of a political campaign ad. They showed them asking what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. Had the answer been "we know what's best for you, hand over the keys", that would've been included in this clip, don't you think?

It's the net result.

The bottom line is, at the end of this "meeting" a vote was cast and the people of Cedar Falls were then obligated by law to turn over the keys to their private property, whether they wanted to or not. I don't think there's anything dishonest about the way the video portrays those facts. They are the facts. Safeguards? Who gives a shit? I don't want you to have a key to my house, my apartment, my business .. they are still mine aren't they? It is my property? I can still decide who I will allow to have a key to the place? It's crazy imo. I haven't had a chance to look up what happened on the 13th but I hope somehow this city has figured out how horribly stupid this is.

>> ^burdturgler:

It's the net result.
The bottom line is, at the end of this "meeting" a vote was cast and the people of Cedar Falls were then obligated by law to turn over the keys to their private property, whether they wanted to or not. I don't think there's anything dishonest about the way the video portrays those facts. They are the facts.

Well, let's start with that. What we're talking about is giving firemen a way to access locked areas in case of a fire, you know, so they can put it out, or possibly save a life.

It's not applicable to people's houses, it's apartment buildings (i.e. the residents don't own the property), and businesses (where no one lives).

The particular method involves a process where the keys are placed in some sort of secured lockbox on the exterior of the building, to which the fire department gets a key.

Using that key to enter your home when there isn't a fire is still a crime.

>> ^burdturgler:

Safeguards? Who gives a shit? I don't want you to have a key to my house, my apartment, my business .. they are still mine aren't they? It is my property? I can still decide who I will allow to have a key to the place?

Well they still have the legal authority to smash your door down now. Keys just save them time, result in less destroyed property, and I suspect firefighters may also want to keep the doors intact so they can be used to control the airflow in & out of a building with them.

I'm just fishing for someone to explain what the actual harm is here.

If you think the fire department would start randomly invading people's homes, I think you've lost your mind.

If you think this weakens the physical security of your residence generally (e.g. what if someone steals the fire department's key?), then I think that's a legitimate concern, but one that could be addressed by adding more safeguards.

I also think there's something of an argument to be made about privacy concerns, but those apply just as equally to the landlord having a key to your apartment as it does to the fire department.

There's also something to a line of reasoning questioning the necessity of this, but I guess I instinctively understand why they're doing it -- to protect property and lives.

Mostly I just see people having knee jerk reactions to this that don't make sense to me.

Oh, and BTW, I found the video of the entire council meeting:

http://agenda.cedarfalls.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=103&doctype=AGENDA

It doesn't look like they really answered the questions, but that's because they were posed as rhetorical questions in speeches, not as part of a conversation where they expected an answer.

>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, and BTW, I found the video of the entire council meeting:
http://agenda.cedarfalls.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=10
3&doctype=AGENDA
It doesn't look like they really answered the questions, but that's because they were posed as rhetorical questions in speeches, not as part of a conversation where they expected an answer.


They want their keys to their private property. What answer could they possibly expect?

where's @handmethekeysyou when you need him?

>> ^blankfist:

They want their keys to their private property. What answer could they possibly expect?


The biggest joke of the whole thing after watching both the May 25th and June 13th meetings? The law is already in effect, and has been since 2004.

All they're doing is changing it from 6-unit apartments and up need one to 3-units and up.

Similar laws are in effect in thousands of cities in the US, and more, because it's part of an international fire code.

@NetRunner - No one is saying the Fire Department will use the keys for ill will. They're saying that an individual could. Please, allow me to render your point moot and borderline retarded. People are assholes and degenerate pieces of shit. Giving your key to the government is just one more way for someone to fuck you over. Yes, I'd MUCH rather the FD break my door down than to have a key to my house just out there floating around.



As for your comment regarding apartments: No, tenants do not own the space, but it is their private area. Even the companies that own them aren't allowed to enter without permission.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner - No one is saying the Fire Department will use the keys for ill will. They're saying that an individual could. Please, allow me to render your point moot and borderline retarded. People are assholes and degenerate pieces of shit. Giving your key to the government is just one more way for someone to fuck you over. Yes, I'd MUCH rather the FD break my door down than to have a key to my house just out there floating around.

And if you look at my comments again, you'll see that I said that's a legitimate complaint, but that additional safeguards would be the natural response to that if you otherwise agreed with the idea.

For example, have the keys kept in a safe, to be checked out by the fire supervisors for their shifts. Logs get kept about who had which key when, and if one goes missing or a crime gets committed with one, then there's a paper trail that can be used to track who did what.

I'm well familiar with insiders stealing public information. I never quite brought myself to say it earlier on this thread, but I work for a financial services company that handles the transactions for, well, essentially every bank you've ever heard of.

As a result, I'm pretty familiar with the kinds of precautions you can put in place to prevent information theft. It seems like physical asset theft is even easier to track since you can't just take a picture of it with a cameraphone to steal it...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

As for your comment regarding apartments: No, tenants do not own the space, but it is their private area. Even the companies that own them aren't allowed to enter without permission.


I'd want to look at the law about this, but I've had landlords literally have people into my apartment for a tour without my permission before while I was out.

Hell, multiple companies did it, even.

They only seem to need your permission if you're there.

@NetRunner - I think your idea of the fire chief or senior on duty having them would work if we weren't talking about hundreds of keys. First it's the FD, then city council says PD should have it, too. Then oh, what if you call because you're having a heart attack or stroke, so the EMTs need it too. Now we're REALLY starting to dilute the pool (lol, almost wrote 'poop') of people that have access to your key.

Keys kept in a safe you say? Brilliant! We should call it a .. "lockbox"!

I like you Netrunner. You're a real fighter. BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief.

"have the keys kept in a safe, to be checked out by the fire supervisors for their shifts. Logs get kept about who had which key when, and if one goes missing or a crime gets committed with one, then there's a paper trail that can be used to track who did what.

Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.

Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.

All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner - I think your idea of the fire chief or senior on duty having them would work if we weren't talking about hundreds of keys. First it's the FD, then city council says PD should have it, too. Then oh, what if you call because you're having a heart attack or stroke, so the EMTs need it too. Now we're REALLY starting to dilute the pool (lol, almost wrote 'poop') of people that have access to your key.


Well, it's not hundreds of keys. It's a key to a box outside with the keys in it. So one key. Granted, something of a master key, so you'd really want to keep good tabs on it.

FD/EMT are one and the same for this township, from what they said in the meetings. I'd join the protest of what city council is doing if they granted access to it to the PD.

Yeah, I figured it'd be a key sitting outside someone's house rather than a massive collection. But if they're this quick to dismiss the people's concerns with the FD, it's only a matter of time before they claim they're acting for the "citizen's safety" and give it to the PD.



<edit> I have no idea why this stuff is bolded</edit> >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
@NetRunner - I think your idea of the fire chief or senior on duty having them would work if we weren't talking about hundreds of keys. First it's the FD, then city council says PD should have it, too. Then oh, what if you call because you're having a heart attack or stroke, so the EMTs need it too. Now we're REALLY starting to dilute the pool (lol, almost wrote 'poop') of people that have access to your key.

Well, it's not hundreds of keys. It's a key to a box outside with the keys in it. So one key. Granted, something of a master key, so you'd really want to keep good tabs on it.
FD/EMT are one and the same for this township, from what they said in the meetings. I'd join the protest of what city council is doing if they granted access to it to the PD.

>> ^burdturgler:

BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief

Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.

Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.

>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.


Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?

The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.

Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.

Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.

Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.

Kinda scary!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Yeah, I figured it'd be a key sitting outside someone's house rather than a massive collection. But if they're this quick to dismiss the people's concerns with the FD, it's only a matter of time before they claim they're acting for the "citizen's safety" and give it to the PD.

But they didn't actually quickly dismiss them. I'm guessing you skipped a lot of the comments (which I can't blame you for doing), but obviously the video up top was essentially a political ad put forth by the opposition to the law.

If you want to see the whole thing (and unless you're nuts like me, you really don't), there's the full meeting of the final vote:

http://agenda.cedarfalls.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=105&doctype=AGENDA

Note, that's a meeting that took place weeks after the meeting this video contains excerpts of, which was the 2nd reading of the bill (apparently they have to read & vote bills 3 times before it becomes law). In that 2nd reading meeting, the opposition makes themselves look like total morons. In the one I just linked, they put a pretty good face forward, but pretty much still wind up defeated (IMO) by the counterarguments.

And yes, Hitler was indeed invoked at one point.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief
Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.
Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.
>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.

Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?
The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.
Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.
Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.
Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.
Kinda scary!


I was taught by Yoda (schmawy) to never let an argument from one post bleed into another.

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot. Nothing helps much after the crime is committed.

Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors". Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.

Maybe that's just cable "news" though (sorry schmawy)

@NetRunner: I read all the comments. I realize it wasn't all that quick, but they dismissed them all the same.

>> ^burdturgler:

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

Detection by who? Neighbors? Easy, wear your gear, break down the door. If someone asks what's going on, say "got a report about someone smelling smoke." Stuff the baggy uniform with whatever you like, then walk out and say "false alarm."

>> ^burdturgler:
You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot.

Umm, I'm sure guns and ammo have been stolen from cops, but I doubt it's the leading source of guns used to commit crimes. Besides this is sorta my point, all the precautions in the world won't guarantee you won't get robbed. Even the police get robbed.

You could just as easily wind up burned alive in your house because it took the fire fighters too long to bash down your door. That seems worse than the infinitesimally small added risk that you might get robbed because there was a fire lockbox outside.

>> ^burdturgler:
Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors".

Well, sure, you have the right to give a key to whoever you like. But the thing is, the fire department is legally allowed to enter your home without your permission now, solely on the basis of their own judgement about whether it's warranted or not.

Giving them a key isn't some big change in terms of the limits on your rights to control access to your residence, the legal authorization for the fire department to do their job without your express consent was.

For some reason you're comfortable with them having the legal authority to damage your property and enter your home at will, but not for them to enter your home at will without the property damage.

>> ^burdturgler:
Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.
Maybe that's just cable "news" though.


Yeah, that's more of a cable news thing. The real wealth of banks is really, really hard to steal these days because it's not kept in cash or in some vault. Bank branches don't really have much of value in them at all.

I mean think about it, do you really think there are physical paper bills for all the dollars in every account everywhere in the world? For even 10%?

Just because you're rational and logical; presenting a well reasoned and cogent viewpoint, that doesn't mean I have to like it. Just take my fucking keys and shut up already.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner: I read all the comments. I realize it wasn't all that quick, but they dismissed them all the same.


The ordinance passed 5 (or 6?) to 1. Two members were clearly sympathetic to the crowd, all were respectful, but honestly it was a stupid protest. Especially when it sinks in that lockboxes have been required in Cedar Falls for 7 years, no crimes have ever been reported, and it's the fire department pushing for the ordinance on the grounds of reducing property damage and loss of life.

If the fate of Cedar Falls means a lot to you, here's the top level link to all their meetings.

My guess? The city still stands, and other than a few landlords buying lockboxes, their lives have been largely unaltered from how it was a month ago.