As the friend who emailed me the story wrote, “An embarrassment for our country.”
Amazing that there’s not even a mention of the young man who was gunned down in the tubes because he was misidentified (using surveillance cameras) as a terror suspect…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Amazing that there’s not even a mention of the young man who was gunned down in the tubes because he was misidentified (using surveillance cameras) as a terror suspect…[/quote]
He should not have been there in the first place. What does he expect using public transportation?
Seriously, this is a bad trend. I am in favor of limited usage of this technology in spots that due to their remoteness may be susceptible to sabotage or that have proven to be major trouble spots but I think it is inappropriate in most areas.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
As the friend who emailed me the story wrote, “An embarrassment for our country.”[/quote]
No worries…Big Brother has your back.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Amazing that there’s not even a mention of the young man who was gunned down in the tubes because he was misidentified (using surveillance cameras) as a terror suspect…[/quote]
Great point.
I spend most of the year in the UK right now, and the extent to which surveillance cameras blanket the country is scary. I counted 10 on one block of central London that couldn’t have been 80 yards long, and I probably missed a couple. 1/5 of all security cameras are in Britain, which has less than 1% of the world’s population. And the crime rate has gone up since surveillance cameras became widespread.
I’d be against this if the United States wasn’t at war with a secretive enemy who thrives on our divisions.
I’m going to start my own poll. It will only include people who’ve had family members killed on 9/11 or on the U.S.S. Cole.
Anyone want to bet that nearly 100% would approve of this measure?
I suspect that people’s view would be drastically different had their sister/brother/mother/father/son/daughter etc… been killed in these attacks.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’d be against this if the United States wasn’t at war with a secretive enemy who thrives on our divisions.
I’m going to start my own poll. It will only include people who’ve had family members killed on 9/11 or on the U.S.S. Cole.
Anyone want to bet that nearly 100% would approve of this measure?
I suspect that people’s view would be drastically different had their sister/brother/mother/father/son/daughter etc… been killed in these attacks.
JeffR[/quote]
But that doesn’t matter in the least to the majority who haven’t and view it as an imposition to their personal liberty.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’d be against this if the United States wasn’t at war with a secretive enemy who thrives on our divisions.
I’m going to start my own poll. It will only include people who’ve had family members killed on 9/11 or on the U.S.S. Cole.
Anyone want to bet that nearly 100% would approve of this measure?
I suspect that people’s view would be drastically different had their sister/brother/mother/father/son/daughter etc… been killed in these attacks.
JeffR
But that doesn’t matter in the least to the majority who haven’t and view it as an imposition to their personal liberty.[/quote]
My God, liftus.
I agree with you.
Perhaps the majority should ask themselves, “What if it was you?”
If you asked me on September 10th, 2001, I’d be against Big Brother watching over.
Now, the lines are blurred.
I can’t get the image of atta walking through the terminal out of my mind.
What if another camera had caught him doing incriminating things.
Could we have stopped it?
In summary, I’m fully aware of the ramifications if this is abused. However, in this war and law enforcement in general, knowledge is power.
Without it, the enemy has all the advantages.
JeffR
What expectation to privacy do we have out on a sidewalk? As it is, anyone has the right to watch us, correct? For instance, some lady can’t sue a construction worker for staring at her until she was out sight. A policeman can watch a person that caught their attention, no? I’m not making the case for this, just thinking about the legal arguments that are going to come up.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Perhaps the majority should ask themselves, “What if it was you?” [/quote]
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Thomas Jefferson
Too predictable? Oh well…
Just remember, smile for the camera.
Jeff is right sometimes you need to sacrifice some of your liberties for the greater good. I might not of thought that prior to 9/11. In light of the events that have occured since, it is no wonder the world is blanketed by surveillance.
You can actually get online and view some of these throughout major cities in streets and pubs. They almost make it out like a sort of novelty to cover their true intent. How do you kill cancer? Run poison through your own blood until the enemy is exterminated
Lixy Thomas Jefferson didn’t live in this world nor could he have possibly imagined what his would have become. I hardly think that quote is appropriate. Truly, you have had some good points, but you really try and push the envelope.lol
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Perhaps the majority should ask themselves, “What if it was you?”
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Thomas Jefferson
Too predictable? Oh well…[/quote]
I think you mean Benjamin Franklin.
-Gendou
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’d be against this if the United States wasn’t at war with a secretive enemy who thrives on our divisions.
I’m going to start my own poll. It will only include people who’ve had family members killed on 9/11 or on the U.S.S. Cole.
Anyone want to bet that nearly 100% would approve of this measure?
I suspect that people’s view would be drastically different had their sister/brother/mother/father/son/daughter etc… been killed in these attacks.
JeffR[/quote]
Of course 9/11 and the USS Cole attacks could have been prevented if the US had been blanketed with cameras.
We as a country generally don’t put decisions in the hands of the those most directly affected by an issues for a reason. Cold, rational calculation is the ideal, if not always the practice.
As an example, we don’t leave it to a MAD member who lost their kid to a drunk driver to decide whether perhaps prohibition needs a second look. This same strain of argument though is what led to the ban on ephedra and will lead to the FDA tightening up on supplements in general, to use examples more relevant to this website.
[quote]T-MIA wrote:
Lixy Thomas Jefferson didn’t live in this world nor could he have possibly imagined what his would have become. I hardly think that quote is appropriate. [/quote]
You might not see it as appropriate but having read quite a bit about your forefathers, I can confidently say that they’d be opposed to the current state of affairs (Iraq war, wiretapping, etc). It’s speculation, but very plausible. Having spent my whole life in a totalitarian society, I’m very suspicious when governments start looking for motives to invade privacy. I’ve pretty much heard it all before…
[quote]Gendou wrote:
…
[/quote]
It’s indeed Franklin. Thanks for catching that.
If the U.S. Govt simply enforces the laws that are already in place, there will be no need for a surveillance system.
As horrific an event as Sept 11th was it pales in comparison to what happens on american roads.
“Highway crashes killed 42,642 people last year, said Nicole Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That compares with the 43,510 who died in 2005, according to the agency’s latest figures.”
Putting things into perspective, it appears the U.S. averages approx 40k deaths per year in traffic deaths. Since 2001, that would put the number of traffic related deaths at over 210,000.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Perhaps the majority should ask themselves, “What if it was you?”
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Thomas Jefferson
Too predictable? Oh well…[/quote]
lixy,
You should stick with reading about somali politics. As we’ve identified, you’ve got a long way to go.
FOR EVERY JACKASS WHO TRIES TO USE THIS QUOTE IN THE FUTURE, LET ME EDUCATE YOU.
It was Ben Franklin who made this statement.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
During the French and Indian War Franklin, along with the rest of the PA legislature, was embroiled in a conflict with the executive branch of the Pennsylvania government. While the French and their Indian allies were massacring Pennsylvanians along the western frontier, Franklin and the legislators were using all sorts of power politics to deny funding any kind of serious defense of the colony.
They saw giving the governor the ability to assemble and arm a militia as an erosion of the sovereign rights of the legislature. While Franklin and crew were fiddling, Rome was burning.
Finally outraged colonists marched on Pennsylvania and threatened the legislature with mob violence if they did not release funds for arms and a co-ordinated response to the butchery on the frontier.
Franklin and the Quaker legislature, faced with some VERY angry folks – who were nothing compared to the Indian raiders along the Mohawk – caved. Funding was provided, the militias raised, and a campaign to drive out the French and Indians commenced.
The quote you provided was a nice sentiment, but seems so strange when people repeat it to prove ideological points:
Franklin HIMSELF gave up “essential liberty” for “safety” in very short order when pressed.
Unfortunately, thousands of Americans died while he and the legislature played politics with the war. I am a big fan of Benjamin Franklin but this quote, and the context that surrounds it, is one of the worst episodes in his public life. It represents an almost complete failure of representative government to fulfill its most basic obligation to the governed – defense of life.
JeffR
[quote]etaco wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’d be against this if the United States wasn’t at war with a secretive enemy who thrives on our divisions.
I’m going to start my own poll. It will only include people who’ve had family members killed on 9/11 or on the U.S.S. Cole.
Anyone want to bet that nearly 100% would approve of this measure?
I suspect that people’s view would be drastically different had their sister/brother/mother/father/son/daughter etc… been killed in these attacks.
JeffR
Of course 9/11 and the USS Cole attacks could have been prevented if the US had been blanketed with cameras.
We as a country generally don’t put decisions in the hands of the those most directly affected by an issues for a reason. Cold, rational calculation is the ideal, if not always the practice.
As an example, we don’t leave it to a MAD member who lost their kid to a drunk driver to decide whether perhaps prohibition needs a second look. This same strain of argument though is what led to the ban on ephedra and will lead to the FDA tightening up on supplements in general, to use examples more relevant to this website.[/quote]
etaco,
You and I have no idea what would have happened had we had surveillance at various places.
Second, people who are most affected OFTEN drive change. NRA, MAD, etc.
They lobby, they influence voting, they move the agenda.
They ARE in charge.
Cold, rational calculation is effective only when coupled with action.
Usually action is spurred by passion.
I am highlighting the disconnect between those who are largely unaffected by the threat of terrorism. They seem to think they have the luxury to live in a philosophical ivory tower. Others, who are on the front lines take a more pragmatic approach.
JeffR
[quote]vladsmicer wrote:
If the U.S. Govt simply enforces the laws that are already in place, there will be no need for a surveillance system.
As horrific an event as Sept 11th was it pales in comparison to what happens on american roads.
“Highway crashes killed 42,642 people last year, said Nicole Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That compares with the 43,510 who died in 2005, according to the agency’s latest figures.”
Putting things into perspective, it appears the U.S. averages approx 40k deaths per year in traffic deaths. Since 2001, that would put the number of traffic related deaths at over 210,000.
[/quote]
Let’s hope some dedicated people continue to protect the public.
If they do, we can keep those numbers low.
Perspective is important. However, it’s hard to make a direct correlation between traffic deaths and terrorism.
Remember there is a blanket of security around this great nation that must be factored in.
Finally, you have to remove all of the confounders in traffic deaths (alcohol, seizures, etc.) in order to make a statistical comparison.
I just think it’s too difficult to put a number value on the risk of terrorism.
JeffR