So I request the footage and the cop says no. So much for oversight.

Or I request the footage and the suspect says no. Possibly because the cop intimidated him into refusing permission. Again, so much for oversight.

I don't see all civilians as being good. I do see civilians as being at the lower end of the power imbalance and I want to maintain oversight capability to keep it from getting more imbalanced.

There is a fine line. Without more info you don't know which side I'm on. For example, what if I want to examine footage from the time when a cop is alleged to have used excessive force when apprehending a suspect? Is that me being a busybody or reasonably wanting to keep an eye on those authorized to use lethal force? And how do you make the dividing line objective enough to codify in rules? Because if you can't do that, then you're stuck with picking someone to make subjective calls, and then you're forced to trust them to get it right. Given the levels of regulatory capture we've been seeing, that's not an option that bodes well.

point. Viewing the footage at the station to determine which chunk you want to buy a copy of should be free. Even if you don't buy a copy you have enough information to get it subpoenaed if you need it in a case.

Depends how you define free. Your question seems to be equating "free market" with what Wikipedia calls "laissez-faire", but for many people, "free market" means a market where the forces of supply and demand are free from manipulation by any large entity, not just the government. Which means no monopolies or monopsonies. The problem is that keeping someone who wants to build a monopoly from doing so can be difficult without adding other forces, and even if they don't want one, if nobody else wants to compete, they effectively have one and you can only hope they don't use their power for evil.

Unfortunately that's also business as usual pretty much anywhere. The legislature passes a law saying "the people gotta adhere to these regulations" and the regulations are maintained and added to over time by a bureaucracy, with no need for the legislature to approve the changes before they go into effect.

If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen, can tell the difference between being refused access to footage because the subject is embarrassed about something that I really don't have any need to know and being refused access because either the police or the subject are embarrassed about something that I do have a reasonable need to know, then I'm fine with that.

But lacking the ability to make that distinction myself without having seen the footage myself, and having a lack of trusted disinterested parties who have seen it, I have to lean towards making it available. And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.

As a cop, your camera should never be off. But I, as a private citizen, should be able to get a copy if I have a good reason. In my opinion, the best indication that I have a good reason is if I'm willing to shell out 5 or 10 bucks per minute of footage (enough that I'm unlikely to be able to profitably resell it, but not so much as to be prohibitive) or willing to get a judge to agree that I have a good reason (which should cost less but I'm sure there'll be fees for applying).

I believe that unfortunate as it may be, privacy and secrecy are being eroded by large scale surveillance. However, given that as a practical matter the government _will_ surveil the people, it is far better for the people to also surveil the government, because that helps keep the power imbalance smaller.

I know that and you know that. Now tell my hypothalamus that just because my stomach is empty doesn't mean I haven't had enough food.

Well, then _a_ model is reality. But it's not our model.

And now we get into the differentiations between "normal care", "prudent care", "stupid behavior", and "paranoid preparedness". Unfortunately the boundaries are subjective.

One thing that's currently regulated is "anticompetitive behavior". One example of such is lowering the price on your product enough to drive the competition out of business, absorbing the loss with your (presumably larger than theirs) cash reserves, and thereby becoming a monopoly provider.
Would you consider that behavior to be force, fraud, or okay? (Seriously, I'm curious how you would classify it. I could see arguments for each; they're pretty broad categories.)

I think it's less that "letting people warp what the encyclopedia looks like to them to fit their preconceptions" is a good idea, than that "letting people warp what's in the encyclopedia to fit their preconceptions" is a bad one.

The problem the poster seems to be trying to point out is that the term "Net Neutrality" gets thrown around a lot without having a solid meaningful definition. Yours looks good to me, but I bet if you asked 20 people what they thought it meant you'd get 22 answers and maybe two would be compatible with yours :)

You are right that some pot smokers think it is their right to smoke anywhere they want. I think you are projecting in that you seem to think BVis specifically holds that opinion as well, but I see nothing from him that indicates that.

Is Square a bad option? (I haven't heard anything particularly bad about them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to that field.)