REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

We give them a gun and badge

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 23:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1644
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 28, 2008 3:44 PM

SUCCATASH


http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9020749

A bicyclist was accused of trying to run down a cop and resisting arrest. WTF?

I just hate the thought of having video cameras everywhere, but damn, they do seem to come in handy at times.

And sorry, that link makes you watch a commercial first. I'm sure it's on Youtube, but I couldn't find it.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 28, 2008 7:50 PM

KHYRON


In the UK, one has video cameras in most city centres and to be honest, I don't mind them at all, I consider them to be beneficial. I think most people who complain about them being an invasion of privacy and a sign of living in a police state are a bit too paranoid and/or have an overinflated sense of self-importance. So what if "the government" is theoretically able to tell that at 13h45 you walked into the HMV store and 15 minutes later you went to HSBC? It's a public space, anybody could record this information, it's just that in almost all cases, nobody, including the bad ol' government, cares.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 28, 2008 8:08 PM

RIGHTEOUS9



My thought is that I don't mind the watchers being watched,

but I worry quite a bit about this sort of technology permeating everything, not because they will be used regularly in a healthy democracy, because even when shit goes kind of bad in our system, that's not very likely,

but what happens if things go really bad? What happens when our government continues to implement technology that can limit or make nearly impossible any kind of "illegal" activity without swift state driven repercussions?

We're laying the groundwork for something that if not likely, is at least potentially the snowflake that turns into the avalanch of total totalitarianism, and no air or light in sight at the bottom of that snow pack.

It's the same and only reason why I believe the second amendment is so important in this country, in spite of my own aversion to guns, and my aversion to other people having them.
..............


On the other hand, I believe I'm totally paranoid.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


The problem with video is loss of context. You have no idea what happened leading up to the events captured by the camera, and we're conditioned to give more credence to the images than to any verbal report of what went before.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:43 AM

PIRATECAT


What's up been away out in LA. Just enjoying the racial tension and smokie skies. I don't think cameras have reduced crime or even helped in England. I don't like em. Now for cops I've lived in to many cities not to know their tax collectors. They hassle the working man all the time. Within two weeks of moving to a city I can tell you where the drugs are sold. Cops who work as bouncers at topless bars are crooked. I wouldn't trust em. Na' Orleans is a good example of what the police was about during Katrina. I've told a few cops off in my time. I also did comunity service because of it but won the case. Just can't tell cops their smoking dope they get pissed. My grandfather use to say cops are the protectors of the rich. Late gator.




"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:47 AM

PIRATECAT


Hmm I think I covered it. double post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:37 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
In the UK, one has video cameras in most city centres and to be honest, I don't mind them at all, I consider them to be beneficial. I think most people who complain about them being an invasion of privacy and a sign of living in a police state are a bit too paranoid and/or have an overinflated sense of self-importance. So what if "the government" is theoretically able to tell that at 13h45 you walked into the HMV store and 15 minutes later you went to HSBC? It's a public space, anybody could record this information, it's just that in almost all cases, nobody, including the bad ol' government, cares.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.



That's only the first step before they put cameras in your own house for National Security. Don't you read books man?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:45 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



Uh Geezer, officer claims guy tried to run him down...

are you suggesting he did it at an earlier time? cuz that's fucking silly, and the video clearly demonstrates taht the bicyclist was not riding straight at the cop when he was knocked on his ass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:31 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
In the UK, one has video cameras in most city centres and to be honest, I don't mind them at all, I consider them to be beneficial. I think most people who complain about them being an invasion of privacy and a sign of living in a police state are a bit too paranoid and/or have an overinflated sense of self-importance.



I guess it depends on what kind of police protection you want. I want the law, and the police, to leave people be if there isn't a problem. Their function is to keep the peace, not to ensure ubiquitous compliance with the law. The law is there to provide ready guidelines for how to deal with a situation when there is a problem, not to enforce perfect conformity in society.

What you're defending here is essentially warrantless surveillance. You could make the same arguments in defense of routine random searches of our homes, or our vehicles, or our persons - and many have - but the question is: "Is that really the kind of world we want to live in?"

We're fairly rapidly approaching a future where it will be technically feasible to force people to obey the law. Our fledgling attempts at preventative law, coupled with advanced electronics and surveillance equipment, are leading us to a place where it will be virtually impossible to break the law in the first place.

We can install circuitry in all vehicles that allows police to disable them at their discretion, or automatically if surveillance equipment indicates a crime has been, or seems likely to be, committed. Many look eagerly to a future where everyone is infallibly identifiable and instantly apprehendable should they 'cross the line'. But is that what we want?

I'll come out and say it. I don't want law enforcement that's so efficient and a society so buttoned down that I'm virtually incapable of committing a crime in the first place. In my opinion, a sane society includes an outlet for situations when the law doesn't work.

If a family member is severely injured, I want to be able to speed and run stoplights to get them to the hospital that much quicker. If I need drugs, I want the ability to buy them illegally, especially if our government has conspired with pharmaceutical interests to control drug availability. I want to be able to steal food if that's what needs to happen to feed my kids.

In many ways, crime is a safety valve to overreaching government and inappropriate laws. Closing off that safety valve with draconian laws and ubiquitous monitoring leads nowhere I want to go.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:36 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



I like your definition of what the law is supposed to be SergeantX, and you echo my fears about such technology being widely implemented.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, my position on it's always been pretty obvious.

One thing I especially do NOT like is how those who want to point those cameras at US, react when those cameras are pointed at THEM.

Or how police react to being filmed, or having a camera pointed at them.

That alone, all by itself is reason enough to have a problem with this whole concept.

That bein said, I am ALL IN FAVOR of us citizens using such technologies to remind the police that THEY are mere citizens too, not some kind of nobility or privledged upperclass, cause they *need* to be reminded these days, you ask me.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:59 PM

KHYRON


Righteous9, 6ixString, as I said, paranoid.

Righteous9, I agree that it can be argued that the groundwork for totalitarianism is being laid, but that's because of numerous other measures that've been implemented over the last few years, not because of CCTV in public places.

SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
What you're defending here is essentially warrantless surveillance. You could make the same arguments in defense of routine random searches of our homes, or our vehicles, or our persons - and many have - but the question is: "Is that really the kind of world we want to live in?"

No you couldn't make the same arguments. My original post wasn't that long, you could've quoted the whole thing and seen that I already mentioned the crucial point being that this is a public space.

I emphasize: The big difference between what you describe and CCTV in public spaces is that the latter is surveillance in a public space. What one does in a public space is information that's readily available to anybody who's there and willing to pay attention. The authorities could also put a whole lot of police officers (in uniform or not in uniform) on the streets to do the same job as the cameras, only that would cost a lot more and if they're uniformed, it'd come across as too intimidating.

I find it funny how people object to CCTV in city centres because it's an "invasion of privacy" and will "undoubtedly eventually lead to a 1984-like society", but actual, real erosions of personal privacy and civil liberties (and there've been many in the last few years) for the most part get far less attention, probably because they're not as visible as cameras mounted on poles.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:14 PM

CITIZEN


If it's impossible to break the law, there's no freedom. Freedom to only do what authority wants, isn't freedom. Punishing people for crimes they were going to commit but haven't actually committed yet is much the same thing. Minority Report was fascist.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:02 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
If it's impossible to break the law, there's no freedom. Freedom to only do what authority wants, isn't freedom. Punishing people for crimes they were going to commit but haven't actually committed yet is much the same thing. Minority Report was fascist.



That's about it Cit.

I want the freedom to drive 95 and take my chances on the expressway if I'm in a hurry, knowing there may be a cop there to bust me (which cost me $362 bucks after the ticket and license reinstatement about 2 years ago). I don't like knowing that it can't be done anymore because there are cameras everywhere watching, or because the IPass toll system can use the speed it took to get from toll A to toll B to figure out you were speeding and then print off a ticket for you in the mail. They haven't begun to implement the IPass system for that use yet, but I've been telling people for years now that the technology in place is already doing that (you can see exactly what time you were at which toll location on the internet) and that a state government that is in the hole will eventually get around to exausting all options when finding ways to tax people more.

I'm not going to get mad when I get caught by a human cop. Even when he gave me the $312 ticket and my eyes bulged out of their sockets so hard they almost fell out of my skull I still laughed it off and said "I don't get the friendly guy discount?" to which he told me "I gave it to you because you were actually going 40 over the speed limit, not 30"......

As it is today, I only drive about 55 or 60 on the expressway in my beast to conserve gas at these prices, but I'd like the choice to take my chances, should the desire ever overtake me.

Incidentally, when I saw Minority Report in the theatres I left thinking it was the scariest movie I've ever seen because short of the Precogs, I'm convinced that all of that technology and invasiveness will be made and one day be considered the norm by the proles. And I'm not even sure that with bio-engineering, CIA mindcontrol experiments and the mentality that we do WHATEVER it takes in the name of National Security that the Precogs are out of the picture themselves.

Though not billed as one, Minority Report is one of the best horror flicks ever made.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:18 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


My problem with 24/7 surveillance is that you can piece together any kind of damning story if you just pick ... the ... right ... parts.

Did you or did you not withdraw $1000 from the bank and Saturday June 23, 2005 ? And you expect us to believe you only went shopping ? Can you explain how Finn Hero just happened to receive $1000 later that day ? I thought not. And how do you explain that your neighbor just happens to go to the same church as Hero ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Exactly right Rue... I hate that we fight so much sometimes.

"Rue..... is...... a..... bitch...."


Rue, ain't it funny how life is so out of our control? I'ts really a strange thing how two intelligent people can be pitted against each other constantly because of their ideals. What a bitch, huh?

Love, and my undying respect and best wishes,
~6SJ

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If it's impossible to break the law, there's no freedom. Freedom to only do what authority wants, isn't freedom.
Some would say that freedom resides in being able to mold the law through public pressure. The FF for example did not envision a society that was lawless or lawbreaking, but a society (as opposed to a bunch of individual doing their own thing) which was self-governing.
Quote:

Punishing people for crimes they were going to commit but haven't actually committed yet is much the same thing. Minority Report was fascist.
This is an entirely different argument from the concept of having an enforcement system which is efficient in terms of prosecuting crimes which have already occurred.

AFA lawbreaking being a safety valve... safety valves might be bad things if they prevent paradigm shifts. Let's imagine a draconian law: an 8 PM curfew. Let's imagine that for some reason (War on Drugs?) the Administration really really wants that curfew in place, despite grumbling, disutility, and outright hardship. Now, there are two answer to that: break the law as individuals, or change the law as a group.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:38 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Since I have little faith in most of my fellow human beings in terms of personal constitution, I prefer to break the law lone wolf style. I know I'm not a "bad" person. Christ, I capture bugs at work or in my apartment in a cup with a sheet of paper and let them go outside. Even the ugly ones like centepeds...

That's just me though. I really appreciate the efforts put out by a lot of groups there. But unfortunatly a lot of those groups do underhanded things and other things that are completely against my moral/self preservation compass.

Organizations of any kind are always corrupt. It is up to the individual to put on display how righteous they are by their actions. Or what a shitty person they are in contrast....



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:44 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


Khyron come on,

I appreciate your comment that I'm paranoid...that may be accurate,

but for many of us posting, its just not true that we take these other issues lightly. This camera thing may be one issue where we actually see some republican support, but all of the other illegitimate actions of our government over the last 8 years are the very reason why such widespread technology worries me.

this administration has chosen to do what it wants. It has ignored checks on wiretapping U.S. citizens already.

Of greater concern is that congress has done nothing about it, and in-fact, just recently, while in the majority, democrats have given the President more power to spy on Americans, in the name of safety.

So, my point is not that there aren't bigger concerns. My point is that if we fail to stop those bigger concerns from being implemented, 20 years from now we may have no options. My point is that the revolutionary war would be impossible under the kind of surveilance and fail-safes on vehicles, etc. that will eventually be fully implemented into our society.

You could argue that it's absurd to suggest that we will ever need one, but I'd say that it's optimistic to suggest that our experimental government is going to continue on as intended forever. It's proven quite resiliant, and I'm in awe of it, but while I'm not on the front lines of thinking that we are going to need a Revolution soon, because that will mean a failure of our system, which I still believe in,

I personally don't want to take it off the table as an option for future generations, and I think this kind of technology could do that, theoretically.

It's just something that everybody should remain mindful of when they approve of these steps. It should never be too far from their minds what the possible consequences are, however unlikely you might see them.

Sygm,

as per the Revolutionary War,

the 3rd option is to breakt the law as a group.
Changing the law as a group is obviously preferable.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Couldn't have said it better myself.... really.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Since I have little faith in most of my fellow human beings in terms of personal constitution, I prefer to break the law lone wolf style.
Fair enough. Sometimes it takes a little of both.

But for all intents and purposes, the most effective individual lawbreaking is

1) One which is done for impersonal reasons (Think of the student standing in front of the tank in Tianamen Square. Or fo the "ecoterrorist" The Fox)

2) And is done in front of cameras, or otherwise makes it into the news.

FWIW I think the greatest threat to freedom is media censorship, especially the internet.

Key Internet Censorship Law Struck Down Yet Again
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/key-internet-censorship-law-struc
k-down-yet-again


---------------------------------
Give to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
www.eff.org

Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just to address the general utility of laws and police forces.

Generally they will not keep you safe against a determined - thief, rapist, mugger, killer ... Those people are outside of normal social controls.

But they will make society safer in this way. They make sure the rest of the population - the 90% - adheres to most social norms (laws) most of the time. Because it is just SO embarrassing to be hauled off in handcuffs in front of your neighbors, friends, family or co-workers for shoplifting, pounding on your spouse, or failing to pay $2000 worth of parking tickets.

A prime example when this breaks down is the Rodney King riots. It's not like the police were holed-up eating donuts and watching TV. But what do you do when thousands on thousands of people decide to loot and burn stores ?




***************************************************************
Remember - it's rape, pillage and THEN burn ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:23 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


HMMM

you pinpoint the possible instigators before things really snowball, you preemptively arrest them, etc...

frankly the problem here is the mass crowd control technologies they are coming out with, microwaves...etc.

I shit you not that like 5 years ago I saw on the discovery channel a company that was working on a beam that they thought could literally mentally pacify people. Far fetched maybe, but they had a government contract. Breakthroughs will be made to deal with large crowds.

Still, it will be their ability to quell large crowds by targetting people with certain reading habits, certain social connections, etc...that will make grand scale movements difficult.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Sound beams were one of the tools as I recall. It was kind of like a sound-taser - it causes people to collapse - except without the electric jolt. There was another one they were supposedly trying out in Iraq. I don't remember what that was.

So Gandhi's tools have utility. What DO you do when your workforce just stops working ? What DO you do when thousands of people lie down in the street ?

As you say, that makes the 'ringleaders' all the more critical - the ones who have the ideas and the skills to enlighten others.




***************************************************************
There is nothing more powerful than an idea. So you have to stop the thinker.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:39 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
[...]but for many of us posting, its just not true that we take these other issues lightly.

I was referring to the public debate on these issues (or, in many cases, lack thereof), not so much the debate here. Although some things aren't really debated here as much as I expected them to be, like FISA (huge debate on other sites).
Quote:

this administration has chosen to do what it wants. It has ignored checks on wiretapping U.S. citizens already.

Of greater concern is that congress has done nothing about it, and in-fact, just recently, while in the majority, democrats have given the President more power to spy on Americans, in the name of safety.

Kinda my point, actually.

Anyway, I still don't see how CCTV cameras in public spaces are so bad. Sure, "technology" as a whole may be (and almost certainly is) abused by governments, and this problem will probably get worse as technology advances, but CCTV cameras in the context we (I?) have been discussing? Come on, unless they actually invade somebody's privacy, they're very beneficial.

We're probably arguing about different things though. I'm talking about cameras surveilling public spaces, a couple of other people here seem to be off on a "Beware of 1984/V-for-Vendetta/generic-apocalyptic-police-state-society" angst-trip. Prize to anyone who can convince me that the former implies that the latter is on its way.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Another technology is super-slippery gel that makes it impossible for people to even stand up. (But then, if you're laying in the streets that doesn't matter!) Let's assume that a repressive government decides to tear-gas, sound-beam, irradiate, or otherwise torture at-a-distance a whole group of people laying helplessly in slippery gel.

How does lawbreaking help?

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're really concerned about oppression, you have to start thinking tactics and strategy. Just reacting isn't going to help.

So, in the multi-step push for freedom, there are several avenues that one can take simultaneously. The first is to use all legal avenues available to you, up to and including ensuring the integrity of the vote, which SHOULD BE in serious question considering the fractious nature of folks around around these parts but isn't.

That means creating a serious campaign to get people involved. Often it means a poster child to highlight the problem: a sympathetic victim. It will also require deeds of derring-do, plastered all over the airwaves. Then, if your interests are counter to the powers-that-be... and you'll know just how counter you are based on the amount of resistance you face... you'll have to fight being ignored to death. If they can't ignore you, they'll ridicule you. If that doesn't work, they'll shove you to the curb and arrest you for resisting arrest!

You really have fight this out in the media. But if you want an example of people who've made a lot more headway than I every thought possible, look at PETA.

If you find yourself blocked by laws created just for you, then other tactics are required.

-------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:08 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Since I have little faith in most of my fellow human beings in terms of personal constitution, I prefer to break the law lone wolf style.
Fair enough. Sometimes it takes a little of both.

But for all intents and purposes, the most effective individual lawbreaking is

1) One which is done for impersonal reasons (Think of the student standing in front of the tank in Tianamen Square. Or fo the "ecoterrorist" The Fox)

2) And is done in front of cameras, or otherwise makes it into the news.

FWIW I think the greatest threat to freedom is media censorship, especially the internet.

Key Internet Censorship Law Struck Down Yet Again

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/key-internet-censorship-law-struc
k-down-yet-again


---------------------------------
Give to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
www.eff.org

Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/]


The internet is the only thing that has changed anything recently. The Strisand Effect, some call it. Censorship of the internet is the end of freedom in the US.... the final nail in the coffin.


That's right. Use the cameras. No reason we can't use it right back if it's there. Just don't be surprised when AT^&T has immunity for deleting videos on your phone seconds after they're made.

It's in your contract dummy..... Didn't you read the fine print?

Don't worry about it too much though. There's only 3 cell phone companies left and all of them say that they'll record 100% of your phone conversations and archive them in the name of National Security.

Don't worry about it though.... your recordings will never be looked at, or edited like an episode of The Hills......

As long as you're not doing anything that is illegal/immoral 50 years from now, 100% of the time, because a camera is on you 24/7, you're cool man. Why sweat it? You're a paranoid idiot....



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


6ix, there are phone companies that don't do that. CREDO for instance. There are sources for software that don't invade your privacy, like Debian Linux or Ubuntu. In the future there will be cars which do NOT have On Star (or equivalent), just as now.

If you willingly place your neck in the yoke, you deserve everything you get.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:33 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
I emphasize: The big difference between what you describe and CCTV in public spaces is that the latter is surveillance in a public space. What one does in a public space is information that's readily available to anybody who's there and willing to pay attention. The authorities could also put a whole lot of police officers (in uniform or not in uniform) on the streets to do the same job as the cameras, only that would cost a lot more and if they're uniformed, it'd come across as too intimidating.



I'd make the argument to you that if this is all okay because it's being done in a "public place", then what the hell are you driving on? Are not the roads public places? If you're walking down the sidewalk, what's to stop the cop from going into your pockets, since you are indeed walking in a public place?

Just curious.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:47 AM

KHYRON


The inside of my car is not a public place - and the insides of my pockets are definitely not public places.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Face recognition software. 'They' (in this case the TSA) tried to get it going in airports but gave up on it when they (quality-tested) the software - it didn't recognize airline employees despite the fact that they were most-carefully photographed. That didn't stop 'them' (in this case Florida police) from using it at football games, or (other 'thems', other times) concerts, demonstrations etc.

What if 'they' claimed that according to their records you were at an airport before a plane blew up - and you have no alibi ? That then gives 'them' probable cause and you are now in Kafka territory, if 'they' are pursuing an agenda.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:50 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
I emphasize: The big difference between what you describe and CCTV in public spaces is that the latter is surveillance in a public space. What one does in a public space is information that's readily available to anybody who's there and willing to pay attention.



The issue isn't about information security. You're right. If I go out in public, whatever I do is potentially tomorrow's headline. The issue is warrantless surveillance. It's specifically the question of whether we want the government monitor our actions and gather potential evidence against us before there is any suspicion criminal conduct. This issue will only become more relevant as technology makes such tracking and monitoring easier and more effective.

Preventative law enforcement is pointing us in some very dangerous directions. It's a particularly insidious trend in large part because it's so hard to convince people it's wrong. "If you aren't guilty, you don't have anything to hide" is a compelling argument for a lot of people - especially when they're frightened and insecure. It's also core to the zeitgeist of fascism.

Quote:

I find it funny how people object to CCTV in city centres because it's an "invasion of privacy" and will "undoubtedly eventually lead to a 1984-like society", but actual, real erosions of personal privacy and civil liberties (and there've been many in the last few years) for the most part get far less attention, probably because they're not as visible as cameras mounted on poles.


There are plenty of other issues that need discussion. The visibility of the cameras definitely gives the issue more press than less titillating fare. But, as I said, my concern is the shift in our approach toward law enforcement that this issue highlights.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Simple.

Do Not Cooperate.

My car (MY CAR, which I OWN) does not have functioning black boxes, hasn't since the moment I made the last payment - and I do not use Ipass for both the reasons Jack stated, and because they have a tendancy to kill the batteries and then start fining you like crazy.

Anyone tries to extort personal info, they get lied to, and go on, TRY to point an RFID scan at me, heh heh heh.

Fake Name of the Week: Lee V Malone


Non-Cooperation works from the other side too, quite often the cashier or person on the other end "gets the joke" and decently continues matters without making an issue of it.

Tiny little grains of sand, wearing out the machine, one grain at a time.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:07 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally Posted by Signym:
Some would say that freedom resides in being able to mold the law through public pressure. The FF for example did not envision a society that was lawless or lawbreaking, but a society (as opposed to a bunch of individual doing their own thing) which was self-governing.

Having laws and enforcing them is different to preventing anyone from breaking the law.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:23 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:

There are plenty of other issues that need discussion. The visibility of the cameras definitely gives the issue more press than less titillating fare. But, as I said, my concern is the shift in our approach toward law enforcement that this issue highlights.


I remember a recent report on some technology that can read brain waves at a distance, and how individual emotions can be diserned through brain activity. The further suggestion was that this technology could be a logical extension of cctv, finding people preparing to commit a crime.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Uhhmm - they sometimes still can't tell if a person is having a seizure or not, even with a full head of silver electrodes directly attached to the scalp.

Not that such a technology is impossible, just that I can't see it happening in my lifetime (I hope).

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:08 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I remember a recent report on some technology that can read brain waves at a distance, and how individual emotions can be diserned through brain activity. The further suggestion was that this technology could be a logical extension of cctv, finding people preparing to commit a crime.



That reminds me of an interesting Twilight Zone episode. The gist of it was a guy who worked at a bank who suddenly gained the ability to hear other people's thoughts. One afternoon he "heard" a fellow employee planning to rob the bank. The culprit was observing operations at the bank and perfecting his plan for robbing it. He had finally set a date - this Friday after close.

Well, after some soul searching, the guy decided to turn in his co-worker. To make a short story shorter, after much fuss, the co-worker never did rob the bank. Afterwards the guy asked him, incredulous, "I know you were planning to rob the bank. I know you were planning to do it Friday. What happened?" The co-worker laughed, and confessed that he runs through that little fantasy in his mind every week. It helped to pass the time but, of course, he'd never actually do it.

I'm sure hoping we aren't gearing up for the thought police.



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:57 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Uhhmm - they sometimes still can't tell if a person is having a seizure or not, even with a full head of silver electrodes directly attached to the scalp.

Not that such a technology is impossible, just that I can't see it happening in my lifetime (I hope).


It was actually more like a brain scan, showing what areas of the brain were firing from a distance, and it was a working prototype. They showed trails where emotions such as anger were showing distinct and clear brain patterns, that were the same for all subjects. Of course it's just some guy on a forum telling you what he saw in a TV news program a few months back, and when was the last time a news outlet correctly reported a scientific finding?

The main point for me, was that all the people on this report were talking about how it could be used in junction with CCTV to read people getting violent and aggressive, before they actually become outwardly violent and aggressive. That for me is worse than any totalitarian regime in history, sure the KGB could rifle through your pockets, but they couldn't rifle through your mind. If your mind is not safe from prying eyes, then you have no privacy and no freedom, even if the eyes in the sky can only make a vague estimation of your emotional state. I'd add that the most disturbing dystopic visions usually include mind control and reading, 1984 had the government psychologically analysis Winston Smith in order to discern and use his greatest fears against him.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Like I said, F*** Russia
Thu, October 1, 2020 03:01 - 177 posts
Trump Best Not Underestimate Biden's Debate Ability
Thu, October 1, 2020 00:56 - 56 posts
There are some hilariously delusional people on here. Trump is going to lose so hard your head will spin in circles. lol.
Thu, October 1, 2020 00:34 - 40 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Thu, October 1, 2020 00:09 - 5601 posts
Voter Fraud in Ilhan Omar’s District new Video Exposes Ballot Harvesting
Wed, September 30, 2020 22:08 - 31 posts
What it's like living in California now..
Wed, September 30, 2020 22:01 - 12 posts
Electoral College 2020
Wed, September 30, 2020 20:57 - 32 posts
Where Did All Of The Voting Fraud Threads Go?
Wed, September 30, 2020 20:51 - 20 posts
More Democraps Admit Lying
Wed, September 30, 2020 20:34 - 2 posts
South Korean-Built Mini Nuclear Reactors That "Won't Melt Down" Approved For US
Wed, September 30, 2020 18:59 - 1 posts
Institutionalized Election Fraud: PA Supreme Court Changed Election Day In PA To 6 November
Wed, September 30, 2020 18:36 - 14 posts
Breoanna Taylor Details Discussion
Wed, September 30, 2020 17:54 - 80 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL