Fear Wins - Depressing

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Good grief, some of you are so terrified it is silly. Heck, I’m not even against cameras in PUBLIC places, especially if they are gathering information to be used after the fact. Your liberties aren’t infringed just because people can observe what you are doing in public.[/quote]

It’s not the system itself that is worrying, but the potential for misuse of the system once it is in place. People can be followed around without their knowledge; the process will eventually be automated, letting computers track someone across the city.

It’s not just criminals who need to worry. Peaceful protesters could be tracked and eventually harassed. If some guy you know has (unbeknownst to you) a criminal record, you might be placed on some list simply because you’ve been seen in his company, etc.

I don’t think people should expect anonymity in public, but a certain amount of privacy should be expected and demanded.

Some disturbing developments:
CCTV camera “tails” suspects: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1655200.ece Camera track and record people who have “suspicious” behavior.

Airplane seat cameras that record every tick and twitch of your face: The tiny airline spy that spots bombers in the blink of an eye | Daily Mail Online

Cameras to monitor cameras: BBC NEWS | Scotland | South of Scotland | CCTV to safeguard speed cameras (But who watches the monitoring cameras?)

Houston police chief wants cameras in apartment complexes and private homes: USATODAY.com - Houston police chief wants cameras on homes, streets

Camera operators spying on a naked woman in her home: BBC NEWS | UK | England | Merseyside | Peeping tom CCTV workers jailed

[MrRezister]

I’ve been struggling with this one for a while now, and I can’t come up with any series of events that will likely result in the foiling of a terrorist plot.

It will take thousands of cameras just to cover the heavily-trafficked areas of a city like NY. There is no way that the city can maintain the kind of manpower needed to monitor all those cameras at once, so even if there is a crime committed “on film”, the footage will more likely be used to catch the offender than to prevent the crime. In the case of TERRORIST ATTACX(!!!) this will be too late.

On the other hand, I understand that I’m not entitled to any reasonable expectation of privacy while walking down the street. And I suppose it’s possible such a surveillance system might come in handy for catching those criminals dumb enough to commit their crimes out in the open where they will have to know that they are on camera. So that’s good, I suppose.

In the end, I think it breaks down like this: “Do I trust my Government (or any Government, for that matter) to protect me from the people around me?” That’s a “no” for me. I don’t trust my friendly neighborhood LEO (JBT in paranoia-speak) anymore than I trust the Fed with my retirement.

Furthermore, I believe that the more reliant we become upon the Gov to protect us from the Bad Man, the less we rely upon our neighbors. And as the distance between me and my neighbor grows, so does distrust.

I don’t feel like I need mommy watching over my shoulder every minute of the day protecting me from the Bad Man. I think we should all be just as vigilant(or moreso) against the dangers of Tyranny as we are against Terrorism, and this system is just ripe with opportunities for abuse.

[nephorm]

[quote]pookie wrote:
It’s not the system itself that is worrying, but the potential for misuse of the system once it is in place. People can be followed around without their knowledge; the process will eventually be automated, letting computers track someone across the city.
[/quote]

Too late: gate detection! http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7172563.html

[lixy]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Too late: gate detection! [/quote]

You meant to write gait.

[Mikeyali]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

My God JeffR, you are just as much an enemy to freedom as lixy is. My fucking country is becoming inundated with cowards.

mike

[Mikeyali]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A surprising number of jackasses serve in the US military.

Well, I think the highlight of my day was being called a “jackass” by JeffR.

Browsing the Army Special Forces field manual 31-27 (Pack Animals in Support of Special Operations), I found a rather complimentary appraisal.

The jackass, say the Green Berets, is a strong, calm, intelligent worker with a natural inclination to like people, He does not flee in terror after being spooked, but he has a strong survival instinct, which is often mistaken for stubbornness: he is not stubborn, but simply smart enough not to blindly obey a command that will put him in undue jeopardy.

That’s me in a nutshell!

Thank you, Jeff.
[/quote]

My friend, you should consider that return post-haste. America needs her warriors now more than ever.

mike

[vroom]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Certain behaviors raise flags. There are all sorts of hints.

However, you have to see them to be alerted.
[/quote]

No shit Jerffy, I’m certainly alerted by your behavior!

[nephorm]

[quote]lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Too late: gate detection!

You meant to write gait.[/quote]

Yes, I did… and spelling it correctly is how I located the patent in the first place.

But thanks for pointing that out.

[Mikeyali]

The problem is that government is ever encroaching. No Constitution can protect us forever. In the end it is the valor and steel of brave citizens that keeps a citizenry safe. Quite often it is the government itself that is the enemy. This is why military men swear to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

In fact, America’s greatest enemies are domestic. Whether it is the democrat who seeks to stifle the 1st Amendment under the “fairness” doctrine, or my own city’s mayor, Mary Cheney who is seeking a city-wide gun ban. The Republicans also readily violate our liberties with equal gusto. Our Constitution is violated right in our faces EVERY day. Yet we go along.

Mark my words, you allow cameras on your city streets now, and your grandchildren will have them in their homes. And your grandchildren will smile to the nice police officer with the gun on his hip as he escorts the man inside to install those cameras. And JeffR’s grandchild will feel better, knowing how safe he is. I mean, in his eyes why does he care since he isn’t doing anything wrong?

The problem is of course that you are almost ALWAYS doing something wrong. Some unelected admin weenie just passed an order so that there can be no open flames in all of Idaho outside of city limits. I was breaking the law when I left the campground because they wouldn’t let me BBQ and instead put it on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Still illegal.

I bet our fathers never thought it would have been illegal to ride in the back of a pickup. I bet we all thought it would be legal to fire off some sparklers on the 4th.

Cowards. Feeble minded cowards, the lot of us. If you don’t strain against your chains, then perhaps you deserve them.

Since I’m just a lowly jarhead I’ll close with Alexander Hamilton. I’m sure you can speak with more eloquence than this grunt.

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
-Hamilton, �??The farmer refuted�??,
2/23/1775

mike

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Airplane seat cameras that record every tick and twitch of your face: The tiny airline spy that spots bombers in the blink of an eye | Daily Mail Online
[/quote]

Damn that dry airline air. I hope they didn’t mind me surreptitiously digging out a stubborn booger!

As for the gym, they can watch me pull my boxers out of my ass-crack after doing deadlifts or squats.

I’m really glad I’m not somebody who has to watch these things… but I can imagine the betting that goes on. 2-1 she adjusts her boobs. 3-1 little billy sticks his finger up his nose.

Oh wait, in Jerffy world everybody watching these things is an ardent professional ever alert for criminal antics. Let’s see, maybe we can outsource the camera watching overseas, as there is no way we can cost effectively watch millions of cameras anyway.

[billy_martin]

I think they should be more concerned with the mexican border, put all the cameras there. Thats the only place you won’t find them…

[pookie]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
My God JeffR, you are just as much an enemy to freedom as lixy is. My fucking country is becoming inundated with cowards.

mike[/quote]

About fuckin’ time some of you noticed.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh wait, in Jerffy world everybody watching these things is an ardent professional ever alert for criminal antics. Let’s see, maybe we can outsource the camera watching overseas, as there is no way we can cost effectively watch millions of cameras anyway.[/quote]

The UK seems to disagree with you.

But why stop at cameras? Why not automate as much surveillance as possible?

A lot of accidents could be prevented if people obeyed traffic laws and speed limits. Why not mandate that all cars be equipped to detect when you’re speeding and automatically send the info to local law enforcement so that they can coordinate to intercept you (in the case of grave offenses) or simply mail you a ticket? Systems that detect lane changes without signaling? Stops that aren’t done while completely immobilizing the vehicle? Accident rates would go down, and the remaining ones would probably be less devastating. Statistically, we’d all be a lot safer.

All ISPs could be monitored for illegal activities. Encryption could also be made illegal, since, if you’re doing nothing wrong, you don’t need to hide anything. Any copyrighted material, be it songs, music, book, image, video, article, lyrics, etc. detected going to a computer could be blocked and the owner notified for eventual legal action against the transgressor. Police could look up quickly any empty threats made in a forum or chat room. We’d all be a lot safer and much more polite.

People could all be fitted with a GPS device, making kidnappings and lost children a thing of the past. Your boss could check to make sure you’re at home or at the doctor’s office when you say you’re sick; your spouse would be relieved to see you really are working late at the office as you said you’d be. Maybe she could ask you boss for the relevant video to make sure “work” is really what you were doing. Peep shows and strip clubs would be oddly deserted, but that would only help reinforce the moral fiber of a now much safer nation.

If all-the-time surveillance is a good thing, why stop at only cameras? Images are good, but images+sound+location is even better.

Everyone watched from cradle to grave.

Imagine the safety we’d feel.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
Oh wait, in Jerffy world everybody watching these things is an ardent professional ever alert for criminal antics. Let’s see, maybe we can outsource the camera watching overseas, as there is no way we can cost effectively watch millions of cameras anyway.

The UK seems to disagree with you.

But why stop at cameras? Why not automate as much surveillance as possible?

A lot of accidents could be prevented if people obeyed traffic laws and speed limits. Why not mandate that all cars be equipped to detect when you’re speeding and automatically send the info to local law enforcement so that they can coordinate to intercept you (in the case of grave offenses) or simply mail you a ticket? Systems that detect lane changes without signaling? Stops that aren’t done while completely immobilizing the vehicle? Accident rates would go down, and the remaining ones would probably be less devastating. Statistically, we’d all be a lot safer.

All ISPs could be monitored for illegal activities. Encryption could also be made illegal, since, if you’re doing nothing wrong, you don’t need to hide anything. Any copyrighted material, be it songs, music, book, image, video, article, lyrics, etc. detected going to a computer could be blocked and the owner notified for eventual legal action against the transgressor. Police could look up quickly any empty threats made in a forum or chat room. We’d all be a lot safer and much more polite.

People could all be fitted with a GPS device, making kidnappings and lost children a thing of the past. Your boss could check to make sure you’re at home or at the doctor’s office when you say you’re sick; your spouse would be relieved to see you really are working late at the office as you said you’d be. Maybe she could ask you boss for the relevant video to make sure “work” is really what you were doing. Peep shows and strip clubs would be oddly deserted, but that would only help reinforce the moral fiber of a now much safer nation.

If all-the-time surveillance is a good thing, why stop at only cameras? Images are good, but images+sound+location is even better.

Everyone watched from cradle to grave.

Imagine the safety we’d feel.
[/quote]

Right on, mutherfucker!

[Varqanir]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
My God JeffR, you are just as much an enemy to freedom as lixy is. My fucking country is becoming inundated with cowards.

mike

About fuckin’ time some of you noticed.
[/quote]

I think it’s a little unfair to lump Lixy in with Jeff as an enemy of freedom.

I’m aware that many of you don’t like Lixy because he is critical of American foreign policy, and rather outspoken on Muslim issues, particularly the plight of the Palestinians. Others may dislike him because he speaks from an educated European perspective, which many Americans find irritating. But let’s overlook all that for the time being.

As I see it, Lixy is against the creeping expansion of government power and control, as represented in this thread by increased government surveillance. He is against imperialism, particularly when it takes the form of invasion and heavy-handed occupation of third-world nations by a foreign superpower. He is against the displacement, repression and oppression of an entire people based on their race and religion.

If he were criticizing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany instead of the United States and Israel, doubtless he would have many supporters here.

The United States is not the Soviet Union, and Israel is not Nazi Germany, nor am I aware that Lixy has ever implied that they were. He has merely stated (perhaps even overstated) his opposition to their practices. Jeff, on the other hand, has stated his support for them.

In my estimation, the above practices represent the opposite of freedom.

As such, those who support them are, by definition, enemies of freedom, while those who oppose them are not.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pookie wrote:

But why stop at cameras? Why not automate as much surveillance as possible?

…

Everyone watched from cradle to grave.

Imagine the safety we’d feel.
[/quote]

Hey, I saw that movie. Tom Cruise actually wasn’t that bad.

Just wait. It’ll happen.

To thunderous applause.

[pookie]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think it’s a little unfair to lump Lixy in with Jeff as an enemy of freedom.[/quote]

To clarify, I was commenting on the second part of the statement, the one mentioning the cowardly flood recently afflicting the US.

Although Lixy clearly has issues, as he keeps saying how eloquent and informative my posts are.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
The UK seems to disagree with you.

But why stop at cameras? Why not automate as much surveillance as possible?

A lot of accidents could be prevented if people obeyed traffic laws and speed limits. Why not mandate that all cars be equipped to detect when you’re speeding and automatically send the info to local law enforcement so that they can coordinate to intercept you (in the case of grave offenses) or simply mail you a ticket? Systems that detect lane changes without signaling? Stops that aren’t done while completely immobilizing the vehicle? Accident rates would go down, and the remaining ones would probably be less devastating. Statistically, we’d all be a lot safer.

All ISPs could be monitored for illegal activities. Encryption could also be made illegal, since, if you’re doing nothing wrong, you don’t need to hide anything. Any copyrighted material, be it songs, music, book, image, video, article, lyrics, etc. detected going to a computer could be blocked and the owner notified for eventual legal action against the transgressor. Police could look up quickly any empty threats made in a forum or chat room. We’d all be a lot safer and much more polite.

People could all be fitted with a GPS device, making kidnappings and lost children a thing of the past. Your boss could check to make sure you’re at home or at the doctor’s office when you say you’re sick; your spouse would be relieved to see you really are working late at the office as you said you’d be. Maybe she could ask you boss for the relevant video to make sure “work” is really what you were doing. Peep shows and strip clubs would be oddly deserted, but that would only help reinforce the moral fiber of a now much safer nation.

If all-the-time surveillance is a good thing, why stop at only cameras? Images are good, but images+sound+location is even better.

Everyone watched from cradle to grave.

Imagine the safety we’d feel.
[/quote]

Don’t heap that pile of steaming turd at my feet.

I think after the fact camera review to retrace events and so on is good. To the point that many cameras reuse storage after a period of time has passed and it becomes unlikely that it will be needed.

When is the last time you shopped at a corner store? Did the surveillance camera cause you nightmares?

[JeffR]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

My God JeffR, you are just as much an enemy to freedom as lixy is. My fucking country is becoming inundated with cowards.

mike[/quote]

Coward?

Interesting.

That’s one I haven’t been called in a while.

However, I’m not the one feeling insecure when I can’t take my gun into the Toys R’ US.

I don’t get off on scaring little ladies and running my mouth when the cops confront me.

That would be you.

JeffR

[JeffR]

[quote]varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
My God JeffR, you are just as much an enemy to freedom as lixy is. My fucking country is becoming inundated with cowards.

mike

About fuckin’ time some of you noticed.

I think it’s a little unfair to lump Lixy in with Jeff as an enemy of freedom.

I’m aware that many of you don’t like Lixy because he is critical of American foreign policy, and rather outspoken on Muslim issues, particularly the plight of the Palestinians. Others may dislike him because he speaks from an educated European perspective, which many Americans find irritating. But let’s overlook all that for the time being.

As I see it, Lixy is against the creeping expansion of government power and control, as represented in this thread by increased government surveillance. He is against imperialism, particularly when it takes the form of invasion and heavy-handed occupation of third-world nations by a foreign superpower. He is against the displacement, repression and oppression of an entire people based on their race and religion.

If he were criticizing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany instead of the United States and Israel, doubtless he would have many supporters here.

The United States is not the Soviet Union, and Israel is not Nazi Germany, nor am I aware that Lixy has ever implied that they were. He has merely stated (perhaps even overstated) his opposition to their practices. Jeff, on the other hand, has stated his support for them.

In my estimation, the above practices represent the opposite of freedom.

As such, those who support them are, by definition, enemies of freedom, while those who oppose them are not.[/quote]

varq,

I’m a worse person than lixy?

Ouch.

Anyway, I actually agree with many of your stated fears.

I repeat that this certainly can be abused.

However, I’m still in favor of gathering intelligence.

You would be too, if this war affected you directly.

JeffR