Consenting to the company’s recent policy update leads to a de facto limitation of your rights to privacy. 

If you look at facts on the ground, you can see that Turkey's intervention led to a de facto division of Cyprus.

She was charged with defacement of property after she graffitied the entire southern wall of the museum. 

Unauthorized use of someone else’s account can amount to website defacement.

A truce led to a semblance of peace for a while. 

This gesture on their end generates some semblance of respect, even though I know they hate me. 

In your own words, please briefly summarize the article.

Have you taken public transit in New York City? What about in other parts of the world? How do they compare? 

What comes to your mind when you think of public transit in New York City?

According to the passage, the written implementation of a rule didn’t seem to change the number of cars polluted with “human waste.” Why do you think this was? 

Do you like following rules? Why or why not? 

What do you think is the point of rules? 

Why do you think there are crazy laws that exist in the records? 

If you have a question or questions that you'd like to discuss during your class, please write them down.

A system of coping

Rules

시대의 대처술

On September 22nd, 2020, the MTA, a public corporation responsible for governing and managing public transportation in the New York City metro area, published a news release stating that they were formally banning defecation on buses and subways. Although not previously articulated in law, a prohibition of defecation on public transit had been a de facto [1] standard up until that point.  Indeed, the MTA of New York City had already explicitly detailed rules against urination in public transport, as well as various “catch-alls” describing defacement [2] or damage of public transit property. The implementation of this new rule would allow the MTA to formally levy a fine to individuals caught violating it. Prior to the passing of the new rule, some seventeen cases a month of subway cars containing “human waste” resulted in delays ranging from several minutes to several hours. After the implementation of said rule, the number of cars soiled with “human waste” has not significantly changed, although it may be too early to tell.  Rules are useful insofar as they are followed by the people they govern. Governments, sometimes in collaboration with people, create systems of rules called laws that ensure social standards. Laws also help protect rights, maintain safety, and resolve inter-citizen disputes. Given that this particular rule was instituted by the MTA without significant practical impact, it begs the question: what did the MTA hope to do by formally articulating a ban on defecation?  Perhaps, the MTA as an entity functions like a failing parent, screaming at unrelenting children to listen. By putting rules down on paper, one finds a semblance [3] of control, of security. Laws, in a world of the unabiding, provide only emotional comfort.

2020년 9월 22일 뉴욕 광역도시권 대중교통 관리공단인 엠티에이(MTA)는 버스와 지하철에서 대변을 보는 것을 공식적으로 금지한다는 뉴스를 발표했습니다. 법에 명시되어 있지는 않았다고 하더라도, 이때까지 대중교통수단에서 용변 금지는 극히 당연한 일이었습니다. 사실 뉴욕시 엠티에이는 대중교통 관련시설을 더럽히거나 손상시키는“모든 행위”를 포함, 이미 대중교통수단에서 소변을 금지하는 분명하고 상세한 법을 가지고 있었습니다. 그러나 이번 새로운 법규가 효력을 발휘함에 따라 엠티에이는 법을 위반하다 적발된 사람에게 벌금을 부과할 수 있게 되었습니다. 새 법규가 통과되기 이전에는 차량에서 발견된 “인간의 분비물” 때문에 지하철이 몇 분에서 몇 시간까지 연체되는 일이 한달에 17건 정도는 있었습니다. 아직 단정짓기는 너무 이르지만, 새 법규의 시행 후에도 “인간의 분비물”로 오염되는 지하철의 수는 그리 크게 줄어들지는 않았습니다. 규칙이란 것은 적용 대상이 되는 사람들이 준수해야만 유용합니다. 정부는 때로는 사람들과의 협력 하에 사회의 기준을 보장하기 위해 체계적인 규칙, 즉 법을 만들어냅니다. 법은 또한 권리를 보호하고 안전을 유지하며 시민 간의 불화를 해결하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 하지만 이번에 엠티에이가 제정한 이 법규가 실제적으로 별다른 효과가 없다는 사실을 보면 다음과 같은 의문이 떠오릅니다. “엠티에이는 대변 금지를 공식적으로 명시한 법을 규정함으로써 어떤 결과를 얻기를 원했을까”하는 것입니다. 어쩌면 엠티에이의 역할은 마치 말 안 듣는 아이한테 소리만 지르는 실패한 부모와 같은 것일지도 모릅니다. 그들은 규칙을 종이에 적어 명시함으로써 통제감이나 안도감 같은 것을 느낄 수 있습니다. 하지만 아무도 지키지 않는 세계에서 법이란 그저 정신적인 위안만을 줄 뿐입니다.