Heck, my laptop has a camera built into the display, it’s looking at me right now… always…
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Additionally there is increasing buzz about speeding cameras being installed around various streets. Yet, I can’t remember any planning commissions, town meetings, local newspaper articles, or county officials making any mention to any of this stuff. It just seems to pop up.
[/quote]
In our city, a township installed a portable traffic camera. One day someone stole and destroyed it. When it was replaced, a woman speeder sued the city and won her case. The city was forced to take the camera down.
On the other hand the ubiquitous cameras, cell phone cams and so on in the hands of citizens in combination with the Internet make it very difficult for the police to get away with things they would have gotten away with before.
Today in an urban environment they are under constant surveillance too.
That is only true as long as a government actually gives a shit, if they would not care anymore they had means at their disposal the Nazis and the Communists could only dream of.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The thing is, how long can they marginalize everyone who simply takes a look at the way things are going? Right now, I doubt I could go buy eggs without appearing on about 50 surveillance cameras. It is like people won’t START worrying about this shit until we actually have in home surveillance and legal wire taps of the population on all lines.
Are there people living who can’t see the potential for abuse? I guess the attitude is we will let our grandkids handle it?
[/quote]
I was just thinking about this yesterday. I was actually swinging thru a Starsucks drive thru (lazy…I know) and there was one of those little black domes that masks a security camera staring right at me.
I happened to glance up and looked straight into it, which gave me a creepy feeling that I was being watched (and that by looking at the camera it would look like I was guilty of something…but who knows what). I get that feeling every time I look directly at one of those cameras and the experience seems to be getting more frequent.
Rampant privacy violations, anyone?
DS
[quote]orion wrote:
On the other hand the ubiquitous cameras, cell phone cams and so on in the hands of citizens in combination with the Internet make it very difficult for the police to get away with things they would have gotten away with before.
Today in an urban environment they are under constant surveillance too.
That is only true as long as a government actually gives a shit, if they would not care anymore they had means at their disposal the Nazis and the Communists could only dream of.[/quote]
Which is what we should be afraid of…however, what we get instead is people laughing all of this off as if there is no threat at all.
I am being honest when I say I have a feeling our great grand children will be fighting civil wars more than wars abroad.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Laugh all you want.
Charlotte Iserbyte is an accomplished author and has been ringing the alarm bells for the last thirty years when it comes to covert gouvernement policies.
There’s absolutely no justification to deny her entry in wikipedia.
She has a lot of people shaking in their boots.
I wasn’t laughing at Charlotte Whoeversheis. I was laughing at you via Zap’s reference to irony.
Do you believe that our freedom is at risk given our current state? Conspiracy theories aside, do any of you actually believe that the way we are headed is conducive to freedom as we have known it? On the way to work there are more cameras than I can count at nearly every intersection. If someone wanted to abuse any powers of government, do you think doing so is possible now?
All I see in this thread is laughter about a situation that I truly don’t find to be that funny. I also don’t own any foil hats.[/quote]
I am sorry, but where in this 9+ minute rant do you see a connection with cameras at intersections.
We have an highly edited desultation from a former low level “advisor” to a Dept of Education office, now out of government for more than 20 yrs. She is commenting on some sort of conspiracy to brainwash children, which has been undiscovered to this very date!
Now, 20 years later those children are in their 30s. Will they please step forward and give evidence?
No. (The ConspiraTrolls will say they are brainwashed into silence.)
Will someone other than her tea-party guests study this phenomenon and report back?
No. That’s right, the Conspiracy doesn’t allow open reporting.
Last, look at the filthy comments appended to this youtube video.
Then tell me, Prof X and others, who has been brainwashed, by whom, and for which purpose.
The tin foil hats come in all sizes.
Regrettably, an omnipresent and absolute oligarchy/tyranny is a logical outcome of humans doing science.
It is now possible for one person to bring down a jetliner, or to walk into a school and kill anywhere from a few up to hundreds. Assault weapons, bio weapons, stinger missles, suitcase nukes, all of these things make an absolute government a necessity. Such a government has to be right ALL the time or a few individuals could literally upend society. Thus, a tyranny is a necessity.
Something like the Khmer Rouge with high tech is in our future.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Did anyone see the movie Enemy Of the State? I remember a few people laughing when that movie came out as if it was impossible for the government to track down someone that easily.
Gee…not now.
Televisions will soon be designed to work both ways, so you can be watched.
I am already under the suspicion that camera phones can be used the same right now.
Well,a modern (GSM) cellular phone is already enabled to be used as a personal tracking device.
So they know where we are…all the time.
[/quote]
Not just to track but to listen even if it’s off!!!
knot sur this is tru. Publik edjucasion woorked for me! So this is unpossible if u ask me.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Did anyone see the movie Enemy Of the State? I remember a few people laughing when that movie came out as if it was impossible for the government to track down someone that easily.
Gee…not now.
Televisions will soon be designed to work both ways, so you can be watched.
I am already under the suspicion that camera phones can be used the same right now.
Well,a modern (GSM) cellular phone is already enabled to be used as a personal tracking device.
So they know where we are…all the time.
Not just to track but to listen even if it’s off!!![/quote]
Great thread and great links! I hopefully speak for all of us here when I express thanks!!
(Okay, the last sentence is a troll job, just for the fun. The first sentence is sincere.)
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I am sorry, but where in this 9+ minute rant do you see a connection with cameras at intersections.
We have an highly edited desultation from a former low level “advisor” to a Dept of Education office, now out of government for more than 20 yrs. She is commenting on some sort of conspiracy to brainwash children, which has been undiscovered to this very date!
Now, 20 years later those children are in their 30s. Will they please step forward and give evidence?
No. (The ConspiraTrolls will say they are brainwashed into silence.)
Will someone other than her tea-party guests study this phenomenon and report back?
No. That’s right, the Conspiracy doesn’t allow open reporting.
Last, look at the filthy comments appended to this youtube video.
Then tell me, Prof X and others, who has been brainwashed, by whom, and for which purpose.
The tin foil hats come in all sizes.[/quote]
While I am sure no one missed the woman this topic was under the heading of, clearly you are able to see that most of us were responding generally to the concept of government control of the population.
Did you think we simply didn’t understand the topic?
I still think the topic is related. We can argue about this woman for all of 2 posts and then this thread will be delegated to the bottom of internet hell.
Is your tin foil hat on too tight or did you really think this post you just wrote was informational?
Considering how this topic began and the initial responses, there would be no debate about the deeper subject matter at all. There would only be 2 or 3 posts making fun of the OP.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Regrettably, an omnipresent and absolute oligarchy/tyranny is a logical outcome of humans doing science.[/quote]
So is rebellion against it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you believe that our freedom is at risk given our current state? Conspiracy theories aside, do any of you actually believe that the way we are headed is conducive to freedom as we have known it? On the way to work there are more cameras than I can count at nearly every intersection. If someone wanted to abuse any powers of government, do you think doing so is possible now?[/quote]
Depends on what kind of “freedom” you mean - if you are concerned about the security cameras on the way to work, call your local representative. I hate the things - but I think they are more about the state raising revenue with less resources expended rather than an effort to spy on us more.
And while freedom certainly is under attack, the raging battles occur at the level of increasing taxes (biggest assault on “freedom” anyone could imagine), the growing/already bloated regulatory state, a Supreme Court that has recently said it is ok to transfer private property from one private owner to another in the name of “public use”, and attempts to nationalize every conceivable act in the purview of government.
Well, as usual, you just don’t read very well - here we have yet another conspiracy thread, with the title “Dumbing Down America”, and the conspiracy theorists are quite dumb, and Zap noted the irony of really dumb people complaining about how other people are dumb, and that was what was funny.
And it still is.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Depends on what kind of “freedom” you mean - if you are concerned about the security cameras on the way to work, call your local representative. I hate the things - but I think they are more about the state raising revenue with less resources expended rather than an effort to spy on us more.[/quote]
I have no doubt they have the basic purpose of raising more money from minor traffic infractions. The question was specifically whether you think the growing level of surveillance could be abused and whether steps should be taken on a grand scale against it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Regrettably, an omnipresent and absolute oligarchy/tyranny is a logical outcome of humans doing science.
So is rebellion against it.[/quote]
Exactly. And overthrow. Because the build-up to any drastic action like a civil war takes many-many years. And what kind of information is built up in the masses’ heads throughout that time is crucial to it’s outcome. That’s why bringing it up and discussing is important as far as I’m concerned.
Apparently they now have a camera for every 5 people in London. I think the worst trait of the ‘internet generation’ is built-up ignorance. Just living in a metropolis I have to ignore many things even by getting to work. The cameras also have a numbing effect in that you get used to and accept their presence. Which in turn ‘prepares’ you for further privacy intrusion.
I knew that Enemy Of the State was totally possible and may be happening and the first thing that reminded me of the movie lately was Google Maps when you click Satellite. You kind of begin to realize that if that’s what you have at your fingertips, what does the government have…
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Not just to track but to listen even if it’s off!!![/quote]
This is not as outlandish as it may seem.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Depends on what kind of “freedom” you mean - if you are concerned about the security cameras on the way to work, call your local representative. I hate the things - but I think they are more about the state raising revenue with less resources expended rather than an effort to spy on us more.[/quote]
It’s not about what the cameras are there for or how they are currently being used. It’s what can be done with that ability. The same goes for wiretaps, abductions and extra-jurisdictional prisons and courts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
All I see in this thread is laughter about a situation that I truly don’t find to be that funny. I also don’t own any foil hats.
Well, as usual, you just don’t read very well - here we have yet another conspiracy thread, with the title “Dumbing Down America”, and the conspiracy theorists are quite dumb, and Zap noted the irony of really dumb people complaining about how other people are dumb, and that was what was funny.
And it still is.[/quote]
Why are you calling Professor X dumb? He’s one of the best posters on here and provides insights that most of us (me esp) wouldn’t think of. Being suspicious of government is NOT dumb.
Sorry for the intrusion…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have no doubt they have the basic purpose of raising more money from minor traffic infractions. The question was specifically whether you think the growing level of surveillance could be abused and whether steps should be taken on a grand scale against it.[/quote]
Could it? Sure.
Now - what to do on a “grand scale” about it? Such laws are the province of municipalities and, to some degree, states.
If you don’t want them around - get involved in local politics. There is no “grand scale” available to stop traffic cameras. Such laws are part of state’s police powers, and the federal government has no scope to get involved.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Regrettably, an omnipresent and absolute oligarchy/tyranny is a logical outcome of humans doing science.
So is rebellion against it.
Exactly. And overthrow. Because the build-up to any drastic action like a civil war takes many-many years. And what kind of information is built up in the masses’ heads throughout that time is crucial to it’s outcome. That’s why bringing it up and discussing is important as far as I’m concerned.
Apparently they now have a camera for every 5 people in London. I think the worst trait of the ‘internet generation’ is built-up ignorance. Just living in a metropolis I have to ignore many things even by getting to work. The cameras also have a numbing effect in that you get used to and accept their presence. Which in turn ‘prepares’ you for further privacy intrusion.
I knew that Enemy Of the State was totally possible and may be happening and the first thing that reminded me of the movie lately was Google Maps when you click Satellite. You kind of begin to realize that if that’s what you have at your fingertips, what does the government have…[/quote]
It is that apathy or numbness to it all that gets to me the most. We are even seeing it in this thread. It will obviously get more intrusive over time yet there are people even in this thread who act like it isn’t really anything more than a minor inconvenience and that any talk otherwise involves foil hats.
I truly don’t understand those who think this way.