Caring / avoiding harm, and equity/justice are universal morals (care about others, don't hurt them, and be just and equitable to others).

Humans and primates have these values ingrained in them. When people violate them, they feel guilty (sociopaths are pathological because they violate them without guilt).

Other universal morals, like group loyalty, are usually subordinate to these main two. That is, you should not harm lots of outsiders unfairly out of blind loyalty to your own group.

"Do unto others" is much too simple, but I think it's intended to suggest care/avoid harm and equity/justice.

FOIA and similar state laws generally do not require the government to CREATE data, such as an index like you describe.

Those mistakes I think any judge has made are due to arbitrary personal bias, not bribes or even systemic bias. The exception might be bias in favor of attorney-defendants, or protecting the system.

Judicial reform appeals to me, but the immediate problem is where do you get "better" judges? You would have to offer more pay and/or a reduced workload, which means an increase in taxes (virtually if not literally impossible). Our current judges reflect our current society, they have merit but also flaws. They care and do their best, but some are misguided. I am not happy with some of them, but respect others very much.

I would be willing to "opt in". Anyone else who opts-in (allowing me to know their basic info on sight) can also know mine.

I would be OK with a stranger approaching me to ask for help/to discuss something I have experience in. Others might know to not to bother me (maybe put "no solicitors" in my basic info).

The only obvious downside, to me, would be if others know my basic personal info, and I don't know that they know it, and I do not know theirs.

Agreed. Any critics should take their camera and fly to the next hot spot and take their own photos...nothing to stop you, other than not wanting to risk your own blood and treasure, and probably come home empty handed because it's damn hard work, including getting access to timely shots.

Would you like pictures of the rebels when they grab Gaddafi? It would make a great photo. Should you be a cold, dismissive jerk to the rebels and then ask them to take you with when they go to grab him?

When a photographer alters or stages their photos, they get fired. They compete for who gets access to the most timely, dangerous, subjects. War photographers DIE doing their job. Tim Hetherington (who directed the documentary "Restrepo") was killed in Libya recently. Kevin Carter, famous for the famine photo of starving toddler with a vulture landed nearby, committed suicide at age 33, leaving a note that said:

"I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ..."

A convoy of journalist-observers with a candidate en route to register for an election was massacred by the local warlord in the Philippines in 2009. The details are despicable. The Magindanao victims able to be identified are:
Alejandro "Bong" Reblando
Henry Araneta,
Napoleon “Nap” Salaysay
Bartolome “Bart” Maravilla
Jhoy Dojay
Andy Teodoro
Ian Subang
Leah Dalmacio
Gina Dela Cruz
Maritess Cablitas
Neneng Montano
Victor Nuñez
McDelbert "Macmac" Arriola
Jolito Evardo
Daniel Tiamson
Reynaldo Momay
Rey Merisco
Ronnie Perante
Jun Legarta
Val Cachuela
Santos "Jun" Gatchalian
Joel Parcon
Noel Decena
John Caniba
Art Betia
Ranie Razon
Archie Ace David
Fernanado "Ferdz" Mendoza

To deride conflict photographers takes a lot of nerve if you haven't done it yourself.

That makes sense.

I would also agree with the logic further up; even if the article is correct, this is the same as a malicious lie about you being circulated, behind your back, before the internet. At least now, you can use the same internet to check the credibility/reputation of the source of the lie versus the subject of the lie.

I was told a judge once instructed a jury as follows: when an attorney is grilling a witness, you get to decide if the attorney impeached the witness, or impeached themselves (by making baseless insinuations).

Bravo. There are public health implications to sharing medical data that so clearly outweigh privacy concerns. The difference is a factor of possibly a million lives saved by collecting, sharing, and analyzing medical data versus embarrassing moments and unfair prejudice when data is mishandled (unfair prejudice sucks but it can be and is dealt with by methods other than privacy).

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine an opt-in system that eventually allows a huge meta-analysis of data that discovers the cause (and cure) of autism. Then, a parent's child is newly diagnosed with autism, but the parent (and child) have not opted-in to share THEIR medical data. They are given the option: we will cure your child, but since you are benefiting from the shared data of others, you would be required to also opt-in and share your medical information.

I can't image a significant number of people would say "No thanks. My child being cured of a disabling illness is not as important as keeping our medical information private. We will keep our privacy, and you can keep your cure for this illness."

I will also say "Me, too" on your other point: I do not spend time wishing I knew about other people's foot fungus, back pain, or whatever other medical conditions. No matter how embarrassing or stigmatizing your medical info, unless I know you personally and you come to me for help with your illness, it's just not on my radar.

The distinction is between consciousness (or awareness) versus "conscious awareness", which is the awareness that one IS conscious.

My garage door opener has an electric eye that makes it "aware" whether anything is blocking the path of the closing door. It is not aware that it is aware of this. I, on the other hand, am both aware if the path is blocked, and I am AWARE that I am aware of it.

A toaster with a microprocessor could be called "aware" of specific info, but it's now aware that it's aware of it.

Conscious awareness is akin to being "sentient", in that it's immoral/illegal to brutalize a sentient being. You can brutalize your toaster, but not a person or animal. We take it on faith that others have conscious awareness...for all I know, I'm the only person who is AWARE of his consciousness, and everyone else is a biological robot that's not actually sentient.

I don't think biology can explain conscious awareness. We can't even prove it exists, despite everyone having the direct, personal experience of it.

In 2003, Arlene Corpuz did a Google search for "microsoft word class handout". She found my website where I had teaching handouts I wrote. Arlene was in the Philippines, emailed me, and I provided the documents she wanted.

She had a Geocities homepage in her signature. I read it, and we corresponded.

In September of 2004, I landed in Manila. In June of 2005, Arlene and I were married in the USA. In March of 2008, our daughter, Athena Corpuz Gregerson was born.

This was the advantage, for us, of sharing information about ourselves online. We have not experienced any disadvantages yet.

Well, malignant lymph nodes grow. Having naturally large lymph nodes are not "growing". My brother's lymph nodes tripled in size in a few weeks.

That's supposed to be why we have doctors -- to figure out complicated things (decision trees), not dismiss a change in your condition with a cursory evaluation.

I agree.

My late brother's doctor told him his swollen lymph nodes were nothing -- he had no symptoms, and a routine white count showed no infection.

That's how lymphoma presents. The next year he was in the ER due to wheezing, and was diagnosed with stage 3 Hodgkin's lymphoma, which eventually killed him (photos of his last years). He had a bone marrow and stem cell transplant...not looking for lymphoma in someone asymptomatic turned out to be pretty expensive as well as fatal for the patient.

This story is not rare, either. After speaking to a handful of other Hodgkin's patients, they all had similar experiences. And those were the survivors.

Yeah. Survival of the fittest is about the fittest species, not the fittest individual.

Any species that makes selfless sacrifices for others in the species will out-compete the species in which members only look out for no. 1.

Being a social animal (caring what others think of you) and being altruistic is a huge competitive advantage in terms of survival...of your species as a whole, not necessarily you personally. This could explain why people generally feel satisfaction and self-esteem when they help other people, and ashamed when they exploit others. People without these traits are considered deviant, and often end up in prison.

The ideals we hold as truly noble, it turns out, help the species (if at the expense of the individual).

Yeah.

I was sued in federal court for posting the photo of a man who had sued me for defamation. He sued me because I was causing negative publicity, but my statements were true/opinion and protected speech. I defended myself and prevailed.

I have also licensed photos I've taken of people for commercial use in advertisements. The law is not clear in all jurisdictions on the duty to obtain permission (CA and NY have statutes, some other states don't have a single case dealing with the issue). Also, permission is the duty of the publisher of an advertisement, not the photographer.

I photographed a parade many years ago, then a customer wanted to license a marching band photo for billboard use. The client correctly wanted a model release for a recognizable band member. I tracked down the school, then the student, got a release and paid the student. There would have been no way to get hundreds of releases when the parade occurred (and paid each person).

I just licensed a photo of an elementary school student for advertising use. I offered to get a model release, but the client was not interested. I am trying to locate the student anyway to pay her a modeling fee. The student is overseas in a developing country. I took the photo six years ago, but I know her first name, volunteered at her school, and donated a construction project. I can say from experience she will probably be happy the photo was used in this ad, and be thrilled to get paid. If I cancelled the deal out of concern she might object, she would probably be very disappointed and confused.

The above does not apply to "sensitive subjects" that the average person might be expected to object to being associated with (subjects like illness, teen pregnancy, abortion, smoking, criminal activity, etc).

As a footnote, my photo (when I was a child) was often used in advertisements. One had me appearing as a criminal. I was paid and liked seeing the ads.

That's my experience with this issue.

I found it hard to believe or describe when I visited (in 2004). From one block north, the Forbidden City was obscured by smog on a cloudless day. It otherwise felt like you were smoking all the time.

I appreciate your point of view and maybe I won't change your mind, but will provide more about Hoppe v Klapperich:

“If the attorney proceeds upon facts stated to him by his client, believing those facts to be true, and if those facts, if true, would constitute probable cause for instituting such a prosecution, then the attorney is exonerated.”

Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 242, 28 N.W.2d 780, 792 (1947).

If the client's claim was true, he paid a stranger in a sauna $850 in cash for a photo to use in advertising. He admits having no personal knowledge if the stranger actually owned the rights to the photo. I said was my photo, and was used without permission. They initially agreed with me...until I posted a web page. Then they reversed positions, said the stranger was the true photographer, and sued for defamation.

I had a certifcate of copyright registration, proof of prior publication, out-takes, the high-resolution file. I offered this evidence, they said they didn't want it.

Not wanting to pay the rightful owner when you are using stolen property is not probable cause to sue the rightful owner for defamation. That means the attorney is liable (under Hoppe) because the litigation lacked probable cause.

It might be akin to suing someone for defamation because they claim to own the house you are squatting in. They have title to the house, all the neighbors agree they have lived there for years, but you claim "I paid a stranger in a sauna $850 to live in this house". Probable cause does not allow for the absurd, and I believe such a claim is absurd.