Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WMCoolmon on August 31, 2005, 04:52:37 am
-
One of those fun philosophical discussions.
A great thinker once said, "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." I think it may have been Thomas Jefferson, but it may have also been Benjamin Franklin. I'm actually not sure.
Regardless of whose to blame, at first glance the quote would seem to imply that freedom and security are exclusive.
But in some ways they aren't. Take, for example, the right to privacy.. It's commonly regarded as a 'freedom', to be free from unauthorized searches. But in a sense, you're providing security for your information.
Or freedom of speech. Without some kind of security, someone could just off you and suddenly your freedom is gone.
So, are 'freedom' and 'security' opposite ideas, or is it possible for freedom to coexist with security?
Or is this all just rambling from a sleep-deprived mind? ;)
-
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...
-
That is if you inteprett that quote to mean freedom as in civil liberties. There are many that think that he was refering to economic freedom and economic security.
-
lifed no fun unless theres a chance you can die.
-
Freedom and security though seemingly in opposition will always coexist because nobody is ever completely free, completely oppressed, completely secure, or completely insecure.
-
But then, take a look at the western world at the moment (namely the US). Time after time, the 'Freedom' is given up to better 'Security'. The abject destruction of most Freedoms is being done so damn slowly that either nobody really notices or takes heed, or it is noticed and they just think 'well, if we have to give up a little freedom for the sake of security, so be it'. Sooner or later, we're going to wake up and realise we have sign a register every time we take a piss...
...While Freedom and Security don't have to oppose each other - in fact, many Freedoms do indeed entitle one to a certain degree of Security, and Vice Versa - right now, 'Freedom' is systematically being destroyed in most Western Countries - predominantly in the US - in the name of better 'Security' for the plebes...which I think to be a complete waste of time...
...well, to sum up what I think, I believe the time has come for another Communist Revolution, with me at its Head of course :devil: ...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...
[color=66ff00]America proves otherwise.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...
Trashman puts his foot in it yet again :p
Whether you agree with the point or not saying that Benjamin Franklin wasn't a great thinker is only going to make you look foolish.
BTW a more correct version of the quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)
Notice the qualifiers. Freedom in return for safety is allowed. In other words I give up my freedom to murder people to gain some security from having people murder me.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Freedom and security though seemingly in opposition will always coexist because nobody is ever completely free, completely oppressed, completely secure, or completely insecure.
Truerer... er... (where does that dang word stop??) words... :yes:
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...
That is definitely a throbbing faux pas for anyone who wants to claim patriotism, and a damn good laugh to anyone who doesn't.
-
Freedom is more important that security provided by others, since the moment you place anything above your freedom all your other rights are also devalued.
Or... something. Look what do you want from me? I've been working today.
-
Freedom and Security are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 'Freedom from' and 'freedom to' are, however.
We give up the freedom to kill anyone we don't like for the assurance that we won't be ourselves murdered. We give up the freedom to enter anyone's home at any time for the assurance that no one will break in to our homes. It's a social bargain. It's also a damned good argument in favour of using lethal force to defend one's person and house, ie. if someone breaks into my house they've voided at least part of the bargain, and can therefore be considered to be wearing a target.
-
Hmmm.. Well, the opposite of Freedom is Incarceration (more or less) not security. In some cases you must deny the freedom of one for the greater security of many. But when you deny the Freedom of many for the sake of security for many, then you have to look very carefully at what is going on, because to start playing with Freedom ion a country where they have been taught the Freedom is a hard-earned liberty that is worth dying for, you start treading on some very dangerous ground.
That's particularly the case when those trades of Freedom for Security are really a cop-out, a defence against the symptoms, not the disease.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Trashman puts his foot in it yet again :p
Whether you agree with the point or not saying that Benjamin Franklin wasn't a great thinker is only going to make you look foolish.
BTW a more correct version of the quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)
Notice the qualifiers. Freedom in return for safety is allowed. In other words I give up my freedom to murder people to gain some security from having people murder me.
So what? Even great people say rap from time to time.
And if his sentance means what people think it means, than THIS statement of his is stupid.
and since you're never truly free I don't give much into all those freedoms anyway.
Id cards? Cammeras? Security checks? GPS trackers?
Petty stuff nad fine by me.
Most of you have no idea what it truly means to loose ones freedom....
-
All I know is little orange signs have appeared on the walls at work and they insist on keeping the blinds closed. I mean, damn it, I need my vitamin D! :blah:
-
???
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
So what? Even great people say rap from time to time.
And if his sentance means what people think it means, than THIS statement of his is stupid.
If you believe that fine. But you were saying that he wasn't a great thinker which is obviously patent nonsense.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Most of you have no idea what it truly means to loose ones freedom....
Most of us are smart enough to want it to stay that way. :p
-
I susected it was Benjamin Frakling.. .Weather he was a great thinker or not, he surely wasn't thinking when he said that..or maby he was drunk...meh...
Most of us are smart enough to want it to stay that way.
Are you implying something?
-
Translation: Franklin is a great thinker until his opinions contradict those held by shrubs.
Corrective Measures: Terminate the meatbags!
-
If he can so quickly juge people and deny them the right to freedom based on their perception on what's necessary for security, then yes....
Then agin it depends on the meaning of his sentance..
-
Nobody deserves either Freedom or Security
:drevil:
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
If he can so quickly juge people and deny them the right to freedom based on their perception on what's necessary for security, then yes....
Yeah cause old Ben is going to rise up out of his grave and personally deprive people of their freedoms. :rolleyes:
Freedom is a right but it's a right that is earned. You earn it by making damn sure that no one takes it away from you. If you're stupid enough to actually give it away without complaint then you've nullified the right to blame anyone but yourself for its loss.
That's what he was on about.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Are you implying something?
I'm quite plainly stating that I have no intention of giving away my essential liberties in order to experience what it is like to lose my freedom. In the same way that I have no intention of cutting off my head in order to see what it would be like to be decapitated.
I have an imagination see. I don't need to physically experience something in order to know it's not good for me. Just because I've never lived in a totalitarian state doesn't mean I don't know why it's a bad idea or what can cause it.
-
What Bush is doing ain't taking aways freedoms...not in the least
Irritating maby...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
What Bush is doing ain't taking aways freedoms...not in the least
Irritating maby...
[color=66ff00]You would be the first of many of his victims.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
What Bush is doing ain't taking aways freedoms...not in the least
Irritating maby...
Fine. Go live in Guantanamo and tell me about all the freedoms you have then.
-
Would you consinder installing hidden cammeras in all private areas (streets, parks, squares) as taking away freedoms?
You are a civilian. Tell me, what freedoms have you lost so far?
-
streets, parks and squares are PUBLIC places. Not Private.
-
No, I wouldn't consider installing cameras in all public places, like they have in England (or is it just London?). As far as I'm concerned such an act by any government agency--local, municipal, county/parrish, state OR federal--is an out-and-out violation of the Bill of Rights.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You are a civilian. Tell me, what freedoms have you lost so far?
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to refuse to incriminate myself. The british government's RIP bill states that a policeman can ask to see any encrypted file on my PC if they wish to as part of an investigation. If I am unable or unwilling to give them access to the file I could go to jail for 2 years.
I'd say that both of those rights were pretty f**king important and I think it's outragous that the bill was
a) Passed in the first place
b) Ignored by almost everyone.
It's f**king ridiculous that forgetting your password can earn you two years in jail.
And that's just for us Brits. Americans have lost far more even if many of them haven't seen it yet.
-
Indeed Kara, but let's not forget your friend and mine, the Patriot Act...
-
I'm not. I was simply too lazy to start on losses of freedom in the US. It would take far too long to write them all down.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to refuse to incriminate myself. The british government's RIP bill states that a policeman can ask to see any encrypted file on my PC if they wish to as part of an investigation. If I am unable or unwilling to give them access to the file I could go to jail for 2 years.
I'd say that both of those rights were pretty f**king important and I think it's outragous that the bill was
a) Passed in the first place
b) Ignored by almost everyone.
It's f**king ridiculous that forgetting your password can earn you two years in jail.
And that's just for us Brits. Americans have lost far more even if many of them haven't seen it yet.
how about the sneak 'n' peak bill where Agents can search your home and don't even have to tell they've been there!
-
We have one of those in the UK? Cause if so I missed it.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
No, I wouldn't consider installing cameras in all public places, like they have in England (or is it just London?).
As far as I'm concerned such an act by any government agency--local, municipal, county/parrish, state OR federal--is an out-and-out violation of the Bill of Rights.
Ok this quote confuses me... You wouldn0't or would consider it a violation?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
So what? Even great people say rap from time to time.
And if his sentance means what people think it means, than THIS statement of his is stupid.
So does it mean that apply to you too?
Originally posted by TrashMan
Most of you have no idea what it truly means to loose ones freedom....
And you do?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Ok this quote confuses me... You wouldn0't or would consider it a violation?
I would not consider intalling cameras everwhere. In other words, I believe that idea to be completely wrong.
If it were done, I would consider it completely wrong. It would violate the constitution.
Does that help you understand my position?
-
ERm...I wih I has the qute from Nation States here right now..
It's a PUBLIC space mind you..when you're out there PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY SEE YOU! *shock*
Can you immagine what having cammeras in every stret cound do for the security?
Someone robs a banks/blows up a building and you can backtrace his steps to his house within minutes!
-
It's not the legitimate reasons that are the problem, it's the potential for abuse. Any such system can, and eventually will be, abused by those in power, and does not accomplish anything that actual police work could not do.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
ERm...I wih I has the qute from Nation States here right now..
It's a PUBLIC space mind you..when you're out there PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY SEE YOU! *shock*
Can you immagine what having cammeras in every stret cound do for the security?
Someone robs a banks/blows up a building and you can backtrace his steps to his house within minutes!
People can see me, yes. Absolutely. And if they see me, well and good. No problem. But SURVEILLANCE is a different animal from being seen by Joe Suit on his way to the Latte House to get a cup of joe. See, the kinda of cameras you're talking about are a tool of the state. A tool of the police in particular. The police cannot put a watch on me without a reason, backed up by a court of law before they start (or at least, before the PATRIOT Act anyway). The camera system you talk about reverses the equation: I'm under watch all the time and have no way to opt out, even if I've done nothing wrong. Sorry, that's exactly the sort of thing the Bill of Rights is intended to protect me from.
In the final equation, I'll accept the risk that a terrorist/bankrobber/murderer/thief/hijacker might go free if it means that innocent people's rights will be protected. Err on the side of liberty, not the side of security.
-
Many parts of the US constitution were put there so citizens could make sure their government served them and not the other way around. If universal government surveillance is allowed, even in public locations, this is just getting closer to a police state that can decide whatever it likes is "serving" the people. The government isn't supposed to be like a nosy parent, more like a sibling that we push all the work onto. :p
-
See, Kamikaze gets it(tm).
-
BB is watching.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
One of those fun philosophical discussions.
A great thinker once said, "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." I think it may have been Thomas Jefferson, but it may have also been Benjamin Franklin. I'm actually not sure.
Benjamin Franklin said it best. it was actually said that, "Those who give up freedom for security, will end up loosing both, and be deserving of niether."
and this was said because he feared a "powerful" central gov....
but yes the concept is the same. i would never give up my rights just so i have the "idea" of being safe from binladen wanting to blow my spic ass away because he doesnt like my Fossil watch.
-
Something that doesn't seem to cross people's minds often, is that if you take enough power from the average citizen and give it to someone else (say, the police), those people become less able to defend themselves if those people are removed from the equation.
And as you give more and more power to those people because of something bad that happened when they didn't prevent it, then the average person becomes less and less able to defend themself.
To carry this to a rather drastic conclusion - would September 11 have happened if it was common practice *encourage* passengers to be armed? Probably not.
The benefit of having power spread around between multiple individuals is that if one individual goes bad, the others can easily overpower or prevent them from doing something even worse than if they had all the power.
But that's discussing power.
I think people throw around "freedom" and "security" to prove their point a lot, when what they're really discussing is "power".
-
Originally posted by StratComm
It's not the legitimate reasons that are the problem, it's the potential for abuse. Any such system can, and eventually will be, abused by those in power, and does not accomplish anything that actual police work could not do.
It can accomplish it more efficient and faster...
People can see me, yes. Absolutely. And if they see me, well and good. No problem. But SURVEILLANCE is a different animal from being seen by Joe Suit on his way to the Latte House to get a cup of joe. See, the kinda of cameras you're talking about are a tool of the state. A tool of the police in particular. The police cannot put a watch on me without a reason, backed up by a court of law before they start (or at least, before the PATRIOT Act anyway). The camera system you talk about reverses the equation: I'm under watch all the time and have no way to opt out, even if I've done nothing wrong. Sorry, that's exactly the sort of thing the Bill of Rights is intended to protect me from.
In the final equation, I'll accept the risk that a terrorist/bankrobber/murderer/thief/hijacker might go free if it means that innocent people's rights will be protected. Err on the side of liberty, not the side of security.
I really don't get it..
What kind of right are we talking here? You're free to go about you buissnes and do what you want. Nobody is stoping you.
What are you all paranoid and worried about? You going to work is taped on cammera, so what? (tapes would be deleted after a week or so if nothing interesting is on them anyway for storage purposes).
Specificly, it's not a watch on you but a watch on the street... you may or may not be on that street.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
What are you all paranoid and worried about? You going to work is taped on cammera, so what? (tapes would be deleted after a week or so if nothing interesting is on them anyway for storage purposes).
Specificly, it's not a watch on you but a watch on the street... you may or may not be on that street.
Ah, but you're forgetting the Golden Rule: When you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
It can accomplish it more efficient and faster...
MacDonalds can make a meal faster and more efficiently than I can, but I can do it better and make sure its the way I want it every single time.
I really don't get it..
What kind of right are we talking here? You're free to go about you buissnes and do what you want. Nobody is stoping you.
Incorrect. I am NOT "free" to go about my business. I'm able to go about my business on the sufference of the watchers. You're confusing "free" with "not yet arrested".
What are you all paranoid and worried about? You going to work is taped on cammera, so what? (tapes would be deleted after a week or so if nothing interesting is on them anyway for storage purposes).
Specificly, it's not a watch on you but a watch on the street... you may or may not be on that street.
How do you and I know what is on those tapes? How do you and I know who is watching those tapes? How do you and I know that those tapes are being used only in the tracking of crime? How do you and I know that system even works? How do you and I know that the people watching the system are trustworthy? How do you and I know that the system is not being used to track the movements of individuals on faulty "evidence"?
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT after you. Those in power are to be distrusted on the basis of the fact that they have power. As long as you doubt them, as long as you question every single thing they do, as long as you know how they do their job, and have access to every shred of information and technology they do, as long as you know what their interests and motivations are, THEN you can trust them. Of course, the only way you can know all of that is to BE them. THAT is why we're paranoid, and that is why the police and the government and the military are all required to be the servants of the people.
-
No, you are free ... nobody is tracking you in general but watching a public area.
Even if tehy are tracking you, you wouldn't know it anyway...and if you didin't do anything you wouldn't be arested for anything.
Or are you worried that someone will abuse those tapes to incriminate you? (alltoguh I can't immagine how as if you haven't done anything, the only way to incriminate you would be to doctor the paes - which can be proven oin court - and if they are willing to go that far then they don't need tapes to get you)
Just give me an example of how could somone abuse those tapes..
-
Strangely you avoided answering ALL of my questions. Every one. This is getting to be a pattern with you.
Look, if I can't trust the police with one woman's camera phone (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/29/mobile_pic_download/), then I can't trust them with a whole network of cameras.
Having a state supported surveillance system, as I have stated before, violates the right of due process. You
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No, you are free ... nobody is tracking you in general but watching a public area.
Even if tehy are tracking you, you wouldn't know it anyway...and if you didin't do anything you wouldn't be arested for anything.
Where does the public area begin and end. Does it begin when I leave my front door? Does it end when I get to work? What about in the restaurant where I'm meeting some friends for dinner? Is that public or private?
Don't dodge these questions. Answer them. One by one. ANSWER them. I have a very particular reason for asking these particular questions.
-
You could allso answer mine anf give me an example of how that survailance system would be abused.
But her's I'll try to answer all the questions:
How do you and I know what is on those tapes? - you can have a pretty good idea, since you're know what area they are survailing (the main streets)
How do you and I know who is watching those tapes? - you don't. just as you have no ida as far as ANY tape ever used in court is concerned. the same thing applies to anything. You have no idea who got to read your statements or see the "evidence" or similar stuff
How do you and I know that those tapes are being used only in the tracking of crime? - what else can they be used for? watching teens having sex in the public' Well, here's a tip - don't do things you might regreat in public. logical enugh..
How do you and I know that system even works? - logic. giy robs a bank. the cammera infron of the banks shows from which street he came from. so you cut to the cammera from that street. and it shows you the previos one.. and so on and so on..
How do you and I know that the people watching the system are trustworthy? - how do you know anyone in the police or the government is trustworthy? Try asking less obvious question.
How do you and I know that the system is not being used to track the movements of individuals on faulty "evidence"? - again, you don't. Police agents can be shadowing you on "faulty" evidence or bug your house. practicly anything can be done on faulty evidence.. Again, try finding better questions.
your turn....
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You could allso answer mine anf give me an example of how that survailance system would be abused.
Um. I did. Read again. Camera Phone. Abuse. Woman's rights violated.
How do you and I know what is on those tapes? - you can have a pretty good idea, since you're know what area they are survailing (the main streets)
Only if I have right of review on the tapes. I do NOT know what's on the tapes. I don't even know if the tapes exist. I must have access to them, and so must every other person that can be filmed by the system. This access must exist at all times, because I must be able to challenge anything that any policeman claims he saw in the tapes.
How do you and I know who is watching those tapes? - you don't. just as you have no ida as far as ANY tape ever used in court is concerned. the same thing applies to anything. You have no idea who got to read your statements or see the "evidence" or similar stuff
Actually, there are certain assumptions that can be made about who read a statement I give the police when they question me. By the way, did you know that in the process of a formal enquiry, the police have to identify themselves as the police so that you know exactly to whom you are giving your statement? Yeah. The Camera System doesn't let me know WHO is watching me and when.
How do you and I know that those tapes are being used only in the tracking of crime? - what else can they be used for? watching teens having sex in the public' Well, here's a tip - don't do things you might regreat in public. logical enugh..
Let me hold off on responding here. Answer the other questions I asked first.
How do you and I know that system even works? - logic. giy robs a bank. the cammera infron of the banks shows from which street he came from. so you cut to the cammera from that street. and it shows you the previos one.. and so on and so on..
That won't work. I give you Times Square in New York City during the lunch hour. If you can track someone through that crowd with cameras, the NYPD would like to talk to you and likely give you about a billion dollars.
How do you and I know that the people watching the system are trustworthy? - how do you know anyone in the police or the government is trustworthy? Try asking less obvious question.
You dodged the question. I don't know they are trustworthy. In fact, I firmly believe they are NOT trustworthy.
How do you and I know that the system is not being used to track the movements of individuals on faulty "evidence"? - again, you don't. Police agents can be shadowing you on "faulty" evidence or bug your house. practicly anything can be done on faulty evidence.. Again, try finding better questions.
And under the current system, for them to be shadowing me, they have to be investigating me on the basis of something they believe I have done. That means they are investigating me AFTER I've (allegedly) done something. The Camera System is investigating me BEFORE I do anything wrong and that's a violation of my rights.
Now, answer my other questions. And don't answer them with questions. Answer them with statements and discussions.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Um. I did. Read again. Camera Phone. Abuse. Woman's rights violated.
That's a personal cell phone and a whole differnt issue. I said give me an example of abuse with thse specific cammeras..
Abd the officer who abused the womans't privacy gor fired. Doesn't that imply the system works?
Only if I have right of review on the tapes. I do NOT know what's on the tapes. I don't even know if the tapes exist. I must have access to them, and so must every other person that can be filmed by the system. This access must exist at all times, because I must be able to challenge anything that any policeman claims he saw in the tapes.
If you are charged for a crime or a policeman claims he saw something, then those tapes would be saved for the court/due process and you and your laywer would get to see them.
Actually, there are certain assumptions that can be made about who read a statement I give the police when they question me. By the way, did you know that in the process of a formal enquiry, the police have to identify themselves as the police so that you know exactly to whom you are giving your statement? Yeah. The Camera System doesn't let me know WHO is watching me and when.
The cammeras belong to the police, and as such their abuse would fall under the internall affairs of the police and anyone abusing it would be subjected to persecution. Who else would be watching you anyway?
Do you propose we remove tha cammeras from ATM's or infron of hte banks, couse tehy cover a somewhat larger area and can be used as evidence too?
[qoute]
You dodged the question. I don't know they are trustworthy. In fact, I firmly believe they are NOT trustworthy.[/quote]
I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question they way it was asked. If you don't want stupid answeres don't ask stupid questions.
And under the current system, for them to be shadowing me, they have to be investigating me on the basis of something they believe I have done. That means they are investigating me AFTER I've (allegedly) done something. The Camera System is investigating me BEFORE I do anything wrong and that's a violation of my rights.
Eh? Violation of your rights? humbug..
Tapes are made and tapes are deleted if nothing of interest is on them (banks robbery or a crime). THEN they backtrace the steps.
You seem to forget that tose cammeras would be recording ANYONE who crosses the streets. You seriously belive they would be tracking everyone or you in particular?
Now, answer my other questions. And don't answer them with questions. Answer them with statements and discussions.
What other questions?
-
Again, nothing you've offered as a benefit actually does anything that ordinary police work couldn't do just as well. Besides the unnecessary cost of maintaining such a system, it also opens up some sticky issues:
[list=1]
Who exactly is reviewing these tapes? Is there a police officer sitting at a desk with a huge CCTV display in front of him? If so, the very act of watching those live feeds can constitute an invasion of privacy. And without full disclosure of EVERYTHING (which is unacceptable as having every step of my life released into public domain isn't acceptable either) you really don't know who's watching.
Saying that you can't prove the system is abused is a very different thing than proving it isn't. Even if documented examples don't exist, that doesn't mean that we can trust that, for all time, some abuse won't take place. What if the system in question was being set up in Moscow, a city KNOWN for its police corruption? That would be bad on a number of levels, as you're giving clandestine survalence capabilities to an organization that can't be trusted without them.
If you're willing to dismiss 1) and 2), you've still got the issue of accountability for the police or whoever monitors the system. Who do they report to, and how? If they report to any form of government, there again is another avenue for abuse. You, for whatever reason, think government can and should be trusted to not make abuses on "good faith" and for that I'm sorry, because no one can be trusted in that way, most especially those in power. And you can't say they would be accountable to the public, again, because there's no way that the public would actually get to know how and for what ends the system was being used and have it still function at all.[/list]
I will also reiterate that the real problem with a city- or nation-wide survalence system is not the legitimate uses, it's the potential illegitimate ones. And you can't counter those concerns by offering more legitimate reasons.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
That's a personal cell phone and a whole differnt issue. I said give me an example of abuse with thse specific cammeras..
Abd the officer who abused the womans't privacy gor fired. Doesn't that imply the system works?
Yeah its a PERSONAL phone. A police officer--a servant of the people--stole someone's PERSONAL data from her phone and showed it to his buddies. He has shown that he--a servant of the people, who arguably should know better--cannot be trusted. Sorry, its quite relevant. Yes, this one cop got caught. What about the other cops who have done this? You cannot trust those in power not to use that power.
If you are charged for a crime or a policeman claims he saw something, then those tapes would be saved for the court/due process and you and your laywer would get to see them.
The cammeras belong to the police, and as such their abuse would fall under the internall affairs of the police and anyone abusing it would be subjected to persecution. Who else would be watching you anyway?
Do you propose we remove tha cammeras from ATM's or infron of hte banks, couse tehy cover a somewhat larger area and can be used as evidence too?
The police work for the public, and as such anything that belongs to the police belongs to the public. Such a system must have strict oversight by someone other than the police, else there is no way to ensure that the whole system is not abused. The police have a vested interest in not incriminating themselves, and therefore cannot be trusted to admit to such incriminating behavior when it happens. Who else would be watching me? What about the friends of the police who decide to make a copy of a tape, as in the camera phone incident.
I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question they way it was asked. If you don't want stupid answeres don't ask stupid questions.
If you persist in calling me stupid and/or declaring my questions stupid, I won't continue the conversation. Answering a question with a question is no answer. Make a statement.
Eh? Violation of your rights? humbug..
Tapes are made and tapes are deleted if nothing of interest is on them (banks robbery or a crime). THEN they backtrace the steps.
You seem to forget that tose cammeras would be recording ANYONE who crosses the streets. You seriously belive they would be tracking everyone or you in particular?
I have no proof at all that they are erased. My personal rights are not at issue: the rights of every single person under the scrutiny of those cameras are.
What other questions?
Are you blind?Originally posted by mikhael
Where does the public area begin and end. Does it begin when I leave my front door? Does it end when I get to work? What about in the restaurant where I'm meeting some friends for dinner? Is that public or private?
Don't dodge these questions. Answer them. One by one. ANSWER them. I have a very particular reason for asking these particular questions.
And let me add: answer them with statements, not questions. Clear, lucid, specific statements. Not open ended or vacuous platitudes.
-
You ARE paraniod.
There is no privacy in public areas - if you're at work, in a restoraunt or at home - THAT's private propoerty, private space. But as long as you are on the streets or public squares climing privacy is illogical since you're in plain sight of everyone around you!
City-wide street survailance would be EXTREEMLY efficient.
And for the matter of erasing - tapes would be erased for a simple reason - storage. You would have thoushands of cammeras, thousands of tapes each day. You simply can't keep them all, no way, no how.
Every service or insitutioin (police, firefighters, military, etc..) work on two principles:
1. trust - you should trust those people to do their job right.. give them a benefit of the doubt
2. internal control - the subgroup that controls and monitors a service, exposing those who misuse their power and punishes them.
Every governemnt service works this way. You say you can't trust anyone - what do you propose - to dismiss the police? Dismiss hte firefighterrs? Hell, why not dismiss the whole governmet seing as you don't trust them.
EVERY system, no matter how well though of will have some exploitable holes under the right circumstances - there is no perfect one. Does that mean we have to abandon everything, use pure anarchy?
My bottom line is that if you do something stupid in public - it's 100% your fault!
If you're only argumant is that the system has a possiblity of being misused sometimes - than that's no argumen at all for any system can be misused sometimes. A cop can plant some incriminating evidence on you whenever he wants and what can you do about it?
anywayy you claim me avoding answeriong your questions and at the same time you haven't answered mine - give an clear example of a abouse of that system.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
anywayy you claim me avoding answeriong your questions and at the same time you haven't answered mine - give an clear example of a abouse of that system.
You must have me on ignore. I've said, quite clearly, that proving it cannot be abused cannot be done by not finding proof of actual cases of abuse. They are not the same.
-
Trash, can I come and observe your personal life until I find something vaguely suspcious? Then we can sue you. OK?
-
And for the matter of erasing - tapes would be erased for a simple reason - storage. You would have thoushands of cammeras, thousands of tapes each day. You simply can't keep them all, no way, no how.
I can walk to a couple computer stores and buy a 200GB hard drive for $100. A DVD can store 2-3 hours of video, and only uses about 5 GB. That's with 5.1 surround sound, and a resolution that's probably at least 1/3 larger than most city cameras. But even at 40 GB/day, just one of those hard drives could store at least a working week's worth of video for a camera.
With the type of money that's being thrown around for "national defense", you could keep a LOT of that video around.
-
$100 x 52 (weeks) = $5,200 for one camera, for a year.
Now assuming that 100,000 cameras are active in every major city (this is a very low figure. I think London itself has around 500,000) that would be $520,000,000 per year per city. Without at least $10 billion per year, I don't see the camera plan being too effective.
Of course, I'm for removing all state cameras. They are simply not needed in places like Chicago and Paris and Toronto.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
You must have me on ignore. I've said, quite clearly, that proving it cannot be abused cannot be done by not finding proof of actual cases of abuse. They are not the same.
Eh? such a system doesn't even exist yet, so how can I ask for proof? I was asking for an example (ficticous)..
Trash, can I come and observe your personal life until I find something vaguely suspcious? Then we can sue you. OK?
You're afraid of someone trackign you every move. Given how many citizens are in each city and just how great a chance is that anyone you choose to track is actually involved in some greater criminal activity, it would be totaly pointless and not to mention unwise and logisticly allmost impossible to track every single person on the cammeras....
The system would be used to track specific individuals if there is enough "hints/evidence" that he maby be up to something (and even this is very limited as it tracks only on the streets) and would allso be used to track down criminals aftera crime has been commited...
-
@Rictor - and that's why older videos get deleted - save money, save storage...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Now assuming that 100,000 cameras are active in every major city (this is a very low figure. I think London itself has around 500,000) that would be $520,000,000 per year per city. Without at least $10 billion per year, I don't see the camera plan being too effective.
They could supplement their budget income by submitting clips to America's Funniest Home Videos though :D
Gives a whole new meaning to the show "You've Been Framed" too. :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Rictor - and that's why older videos get deleted - save money, save storage...
Not necessarily. If it costs $100 to store 120GB today, it will be half that in two year and a tenth of that in five years. Within 15 or 20 years, the resources will exists to monitor every city with hundreds of thousands of cameras. It is estimated that a single individual in London is captured on camera 300 times in an average day. Are you compltely fine with this?
Listen, if the ability exists, it will be abused. Simple as that. Besides, I believe that even crime serves a purpose in society, and should not be made impossible. Laws should not be enforceable (notice I didn't say enforced, but enforceable) to the point where a transgression is impossible to commit. I probably won't find too many people who agree, but I have my reasons.
-
No, no, I'm with you on that Rictor. The law must be tempered with mercy to truly create a world with justice. As a natural continuation of that thought, some laws must be broken to continually balance the levels of control and freedom in society.
As for the CCTV - it's physically possible to track someone once they get on the motorway (freeway :p) near my house right up into the city centre, throughout the city centre, and back again. In total that's about 18 miles, not much, but consider that the same applies if I were driving to any council (housing) estate in Glasgow, or other low-income area.
-
the price of storage goes down but the time and effort to track every single idividual would skyrocket (more people due to population growth)
It's simply too complex a matter to track so many people constantly. you won't have Joe sitting on monitor A and tracking Billy Bob and Mike on monitor B and tracking Lawrence. It would take too much manpower and not to mantion that you would need ot copay each tape as there is no tellign on what cammera the guy you are following is recorded. It would simply be too tedious and too expensive.
They way it would work it to have a couple of guys going trough the tapes and looking if they can spot a crime-in-progress OR after a crime has been reported go to the tape of that day and tat location and locate the criminal and track it's movements back to his home.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Eh? such a system doesn't even exist yet, so how can I ask for proof? I was asking for an example (ficticous)..
Ok, so this is quite different from what we've been arguing about. So in the interests of Stupid Hypothetical Arguments for TrashMan™, I'll give you one. I mentioned Moscow earlier, so we'll set this in an environment where corruption is a given. The only reason to do this is to prevent needing to insert "corrupt" in front of every reference to a cop or the police in general. So, here goes.
Lets say you are a rich businessman. You've got lots of money and the cops know it. You leave your house and go to the bank. The police monitors you on your trip, and can see that you're going to the bank. So, after you leave, they watch your movement and radio to a cop on the street that you're coming and have a lot of money on you, so that the corner cop can stop you and demand a bribe or he'll put you up on more charges than you can count. So now it's either face fake charges, or pay the bastard, neither of which is a good alternative. This is extreme, sure. But it's not out of the question even when police have a substantial degree of oversight.
-
Well, yes, but a) there's nothing preventing corrupt officials from taking bribes today, and cameras would not really enhance their ability to do so, and b) the rich are a small minority. If the worst that an extensive CCTV netowork could be used for was fleecing down a few rich businessmen, I would consider it benign. But sadly, the implications are far greater than that.
-
I am aware of that, but that's the easiest "fictional event" to come up with and explain to Trashman. It in fact doesn't apply particularly well to cameras specifically as this is done in parts of the world without an extensive CCTV system anyway. However, as a fictional event - which was a new request by Trashman - it works.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
the price of storage goes down but the time and effort to track every single idividual would skyrocket (more people due to population growth)
It's simply too complex a matter to track so many people constantly. you won't have Joe sitting on monitor A and tracking Billy Bob and Mike on monitor B and tracking Lawrence. It would take too much manpower and not to mantion that you would need ot copay each tape as there is no tellign on what cammera the guy you are following is recorded. It would simply be too tedious and too expensive.
They way it would work it to have a couple of guys going trough the tapes and looking if they can spot a crime-in-progress OR after a crime has been reported go to the tape of that day and tat location and locate the criminal and track it's movements back to his home.
Lets say the cost halves every two years. Does the world population double in that time? It's not a matter of tracking anyone, it's a matter of covering a blanket area. Look, think of it this way. If you are forced to view the world through a narrow tube, you would have difficulty tracking even a few people at once. But let's say you get two tubes, then ten, then a hundred, then a million. At some point, the tubes will give you a picture which essentially lets you view any place at any time. From there, you just have to single out any individuals of interest, such a criminals, political leaders - whoever, and look at them, while ignoring everyone else. But the danger lies in the fact that any one of us could become a person of interest, depending on our actions, which means that while in practice not everyone is being scrutinized (though everyone is being monitored) the potential exists for anyone to be tracked.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You ARE paraniod.
There is no privacy in public areas - if you're at work, in a restoraunt or at home - THAT's private propoerty, private space. But as long as you are on the streets or public squares climing privacy is illogical since you're in plain sight of everyone around you!
I never mentioned privacy. I specifically argue the point of police surveillance.
I am not paranoid. I don't think anyone is out to get me. I just don't trust anyone in power.
City-wide street survailance would be EXTREEMLY efficient.
And for the matter of erasing - tapes would be erased for a simple reason - storage. You would have thoushands of cammeras, thousands of tapes each day. You simply can't keep them all, no way, no how.
I don't care if they're kept for a week, a month or a year. It only took a few moments for that cop to download the photos of that woman's phone. His PDA is not controlled by a central authority. There's no guarantee that cops would never abuse the Camera System, and once one of them does, the system is permanently compromised.
Every service or insitutioin (police, firefighters, military, etc..) work on two principles:
1. trust - you should trust those people to do their job right.. give them a benefit of the doubt
2. internal control - the subgroup that controls and monitors a service, exposing those who misuse their power and punishes them.
Every governemnt service works this way. You say you can't trust anyone - what do you propose - to dismiss the police? Dismiss hte firefighterrs? Hell, why not dismiss the whole governmet seing as you don't trust them.
EVERY system, no matter how well though of will have some exploitable holes under the right circumstances - there is no perfect one. Does that mean we have to abandon everything, use pure anarchy?
My lack of trust in them is the only thing that keeps me free of them. In the United States, that's one of the core ideas in the Constitution. You can't trust the President, so the Supreme Court and the Congress can overrule him. You cannot trust Congress, so the Supreme Court and the President can over rule it. You cannot trust the Supreme Court, so the President and the Congress can overrule it. Its called checks and balances.
My bottom line is that if you do something stupid in public - it's 100% your fault!
If you're only argumant is that the system has a possiblity of being misused sometimes - than that's no argumen at all for any system can be misused sometimes. A cop can plant some incriminating evidence on you whenever he wants and what can you do about it?
My bottom line is that unless I do something illegal, the police have no right to investigate or film me. This is an absolute, 100%, unwavering and unmitigable core belief. My point is that such a system opens the way to more abuse than efficiency. Stratcomm has pointed this out several times in this very thread.
anywayy you claim me avoding answeriong your questions and at the same time you haven't answered mine - give an clear example of a abouse of that system.
And you still have not answered my other questions, even though I've posted them TWICE. Stratcomm already gave a very good example of abuse. I've already given you a very clear example of an abuse of a camera system by the police. Tell me if my example wasn't clear, because I will clarify it for you if you'd like. I'm afraid that it will pretty much be exactly what I said up there in this post about "His PDA is not controlled..."
I am an American. I firmly believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. My opinion on unwarranted (in the strictest legal sense) surveillance of the citizenry of the country by the government (or its enforcement arm) is very much born from that Constitution. You may never have read the Constitution, nor care what it says, but that does not matter. Its the basis of my argument and the source of my position on the subject.
You may choose to trust people in power to act in the best interests of you, your family, your community and your country over their own interests. Every day in the news, however, we see that politicians and police cannot be trusted. These people in power break laws, lie, get caught lying and lie some more about lying. Police plant "evidence", make bogus arrests to fulfill quotas, shoot people in the head and then lie about the circumstances of that shooting. I don't need much more proof than that to convince me that I have to take everything these people say and do with a grain of salt and consider that they are lying or manipulating the data in such a way as to attempt to influence the beliefs and opinions of the public they are supposed to serve.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Lets say you are a rich businessman. You've got lots of money and the cops know it. You leave your house and go to the bank. The police monitors you on your trip, and can see that you're going to the bank. So, after you leave, they watch your movement and radio to a cop on the street that you're coming and have a lot of money on you, so that the corner cop can stop you and demand a bribe or he'll put you up on more charges than you can count. So now it's either face fake charges, or pay the bastard, neither of which is a good alternative. This is extreme, sure. But it's not out of the question even when police have a substantial degree of oversight.
Realyl bad example..
firstly, corrupt policeman can follow a rich buisnessman to the bank without a cammera system
Secondly, with the cammera system, their stopping the businisman oi the street and taking the money WOULD BE RECORDED - bad for them.
-
Well, using that example, here's one way it could be abused.
Say one or more police officers want to incriminate someone for a crime. They use the CCTV system to track his movements as much as possible, and figure out there's one place that he goes to regularly. (Call the guy BIll)
Then there's another person who they notice has a similar habit, and is fairly well-off. Call him Alfred.
So one day one of the officers who wishes to incriminate Bill heads to the store. He is dressed inconspicuously, and carries a change of clothes/a wig like the ones Bill is wearing that day. (Thanks to the CCTV system, they were able to determine what he was wearing the moment he stepped out of the house.)
The officer enters Bill's habitual place before Bill enters and changes clothes in the restroom. Once Bill has arrived, he leaves the place and proceeds to Alfred's usual location. He proceeds to hold him up, then flee in the general direction of the tavern, going out-of-view of the CCTV system.
A few minutes later, Bill leaves the place and continues on to his next stop.
If anyone started asking pointed questions, or the cameras had good enough quality, or the officer was actually caught, then things would quickly unravel. But if none of that were to happen, there would appear to be video evidence of Bill holding up Alfred from a source that would almost certainly stand up in court.
But worse than that is that likely in a few years, it'll be possible to easily doctor a video to make it appear like someone's there who actually isn't. A government-controlled CCTV system vs. a few witnesses who wasn't really paying attention at the time? Doesn't take a lawyer to figure out who the court and likely the jury will believe more.
-
Trashman will probably say that you can do that at the moment so let me point out one thing WMC didn't mention.
The guy incriminating Bill could do all that on his own. Normal police methods would require several policemen working together to do it.
-
That's true...I figured that there'd be at least two - one watching the cameras, the other doing the deed. But if the one guy had shift watching the cameras when Bill left his house - or was simply able to stop in the cam room at the time - he could easily do it all solo.
-
%&!!$#?¨!
I just wrote a long reply only for it to be swallowed by IE!
nevermind - a short reply.
That example of your has a hole in it. If Bill goes to the tavern regularry then he will be well remebered. If he sits at his table and dines the whole time tehn the disguised police officer will have to pass by him. Of curse, you allways the the witnesses that say he never moved from the spot or the question of motive..
Besides, the apperance of the policeman must roughly matchthat of Bill. Just a wig won't cut it.
(and yes, I was talking high-resolution cammears...normal ones aren't realyl good)
on another note to pull this off normally, without cammeras you still only need 2 policeman - one to keep track of Bill, the other one to do the deed..
Let's switch to the good points of the system.
It can be used for defense as well as offense. Falsly charged for speeding? You can prove it on the tape. Any molesting on the streets by a cop would be recorded. In many cases it could be used to prove innocence in courts - give you an aliby when "i was walking" is not enough.
On a side note, let's examine a follong scenario -bank robbing. possibe hostage situation.
Without a cammera system the police most often has no idea what awaits them - how many crooks, how heavy armed are they and most importantly who are they?
Now if htey came with a car (and hte police knows which one of those parked infront is hteirs and if it has license plates or if it's not stolen - a lot of if's) police my find hte owner and gain some info. but that' about it.
With a camera system you can get all thoser info - you can see with which care tehy came, who are the last people that entered the bank, and exactly from where teh car and the pople in it came from - thus revealing their indentity - and in hostage situations knowledge is power.
You can even let crooks in the belief that they escaped - you can track them with the cammera system and pick them uplater.
In other words it has a far greater potential to do good than vice-versa...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
[...]
In other words it has a far greater potential to do good than vice-versa...
[Clarity edit]
You know, lets not switch to looking at the benefits. I, nor anyone else, denies the usefulness of a blanket camera system in the rare case of major crime in a public theater (and I'm not talking street murder here, only the big premeditated and planned stuff) so reiterating your examples is just annoying. Especially since there are real-world examples on your side which is infinitely better than some special-case hypothetical. Actually, lets look at one example of where such a system paid off; the London terror strikes earlier this year. How long did it take for the police there to get IDs on the bombers (and suspects, in the case of the second "attack")? Not long at all. Yes, a CCTV system can do that. None of use ever said it wouldn't. Doesn't mean that the system is good overall, or that I want one of those watching me all of the time, by any means. And of course back to the real-world example (because real-world > hypothetical*∞ in the case of examples), that particular CCTV system actually failed in it's only real benefit, which is stopping crime before anyone gets harmed.
[/clarity edit]
Sure, in a perfect world, we could have faith in the system's benefits and not worry about the negatives. But it's not a perfect world (and if it was the need for this system would be moot).
The issue we're all pointing out is that it HAS POTENTIAL TO DO EVIL. As such, since it really isn't needed for its benefits either, we don't want it. I really don't know how to make this any clearer. And no matter how clear you make yourself, you're not going to convince us otherwise.
EDIT:Actually, I'd argue that such a system can never do good. Benefits, perhaps, but only in the form of reducing crime. There is no action that the cameras or their operators can perform which will bring a better life to anyone under their charge.
-
Well, I think you should at least weigh the benefits. A paperclip has the potential to help do evil, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal to have them.
-
Yeah, but I don't see Trashman ignoring that though. As is becoming quite an annoying trend, if he'd just acknowledge that the system can be abused, then we could leave this as a difference of opinion. As it stands, I'm saying that I don't want it in my country and he's saying it's fine in his. When it shows up in local politics and we both have a say into it, then the discussion can come back up, but I don't anticipate HLP installing a blanket CCTV system around here anytime soon.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
%&!!$#?¨!
I just wrote a long reply only for it to be swallowed by IE!
No offense, but: :lol:
You should know better. Dump IE, man.
-
Heh, at the end of the day, nobody is a criminal until they commit a crime. Some do it for a 'buzz', others do it because it is the only way to survive, and some other crimes are done for more passion-based reasons.
Cameras will help identify someone who is in the act of offending, but will almost always be too late to help the victim in that particular case.
Getting back to the London bombings case, it needs to be remembered that those videos used to catch the bombers, also, because of their poor quality, led to an innocent Brazillian being shot dead. That is one of my concerns about that 'Big Brother' environment, CCTV Video is not even remotely close to the quality or security it needs to be to relied upon as a source of positive identification, and the options for abuse run high.
-
1. history has proven that all dictatorships have waived citizens rights on the reasons of "doing good" (for them, for the society, for the human kind, etc); don't you EVER think that when one right was waived from a society the people in command which decided this advertised it as to do harm to the people
2. history has proven that adding security and tightning control over people never actually helped into solving the real issues; it's like you want to defeat computer viruses with anti virus programs, sure for most of the people it works but it still bites some hundred computers before the main AV companies know about it and add it's signature; and in the real world those few computers which got the virus means actually some terrorists attacks (few still), meaning loss of life so it's NOT acceptable!
Humans whould have a LOT better life if they whould just know their own history and learn from their own mistakes. Sadly it seems that someone was very clever for saying: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
No, I am not trying to say what we should do, I am trying to say what we should NOT do :)
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Yeah, but I don't see Trashman ignoring that though. As is becoming quite an annoying trend, if he'd just acknowledge that the system can be abused, then we could leave this as a difference of opinion. As it stands, I'm saying that I don't want it in my country and he's saying it's fine in his. When it shows up in local politics and we both have a say into it, then the discussion can come back up, but I don't anticipate HLP installing a blanket CCTV system around here anytime soon.
I never said it cannot be abused. In fact, I specificly said that ANY system can be abused. But a system like this, with enough control would be hard to abuse and not worth the trouble of trying the abuse for hte potential benefits.
If you have 10 people on the monitors and another 10 monitoring them, all in the same room + storded tapes that can be acessed only by a special clearence then the chances for abuse go down.
and of course, I said before that this sytem would be of little use unless it's high-quality.
On another note the question is not being watched in hte public a right at all? You can't forbid someone to look at you while you're on the streets anyway..so what's the point?
I fully understand and support the concept of human freedoms & rigths but this whole thing gives me the feeling of spoiledchildren complaiing over nothing.. (no offense anyone)
-
This is a case where the drawbacks outweigh the potential for good. On the plus side, it would make investigating crime marginally easier in very specific circumstances (it would be unfeasible in a city like New York or Chicago, for example, just due to the scale of the city and the fact that you'd have to have cameras in a grid with a resolution of about 2m to prevent large blind spots). On the negative side, it will be abused (see below), and it will cost a ridiculous amount of money (more than the crime its supposed to help solve actually costs).
You can watch me in public. Police do so all the time. You can't have a system designed to FILM me in public without my consent. You will never get that consent. I will never give it.
I find it particularly telling that you consider people to be "spoiled children" for nothing more than wanting to keep their already guaranteed civil liberties. This isn't spoiled children complaining about nothing, this is people being vigilant and making sure their rights are not infringed. History has several examples of things that seemed like good ideas (tracking of the citizenry, or just particular classes of the citizenry) turning into bad things (the mistreatment of specific subgroups of the citizenry at the hands of the government, made easier because they are tracked).
-
This is a case where you think the drawbacks outweight the potentials. I say it's the other way around.
Weather you know it or not you are filmed in public aèllmost every day. Other people with their digital cammeras, cell phones, or just securitycammears from some buildings or ATM machines tape you. And everything of those can be used in court - no one is asking you concent anyway.
I don't see the right not to be filmed on the street as a right. You on the other hand do. Oh well, oppinions do differ.
I'll tell you what I do see...too many pople hiding behind words "liberty" and "right" and "freedom" every time they feel uncomfortable.
-
I'll tell you what I do see...too many pople hiding behind words "liberty" and "right" and "freedom" every time they feel uncomfortable.
Maybe because the US constitution is founded on those principles? I think this security camera dealy is completely against the spirit of the constitution, if not the literal text.
-
Part of the human right to identity is the right to anonymity. A system that allows for the cohesive tracking, monitoring or otherwise observation of individuals creates the framework for abuse.
With certain cases - like ATM or security cameras - there is an implicit permission given by you; in others - like personal cameras - you have a degree of safety for logistical reasons (unless it's a professional surveillance operation - which requires justification, time and resources - it's hard to track a population by that method).
If I was to film my neighbours every movement, that would be illegal.
If the government was to do the same, what would justify it? Legitimate suspicion, after all, would be enough for proper surveillance.
As an aside, it's a fallacy that video cannot be falsified or is sacrosanct. Both video and still (and indeed audio) can be digitally manipulated.
Additionally, I believe work has and is being done on facial recognition software (perhaps using biometrics of the unique blood vessel patterns on a face and an IR camera link?), so digital tracking is not so far-fetched.
-
Not every movement - only when you're onthe streets.
And for logistical reasons, tracking someone in real-time would be hard and prolly used only in specia lcircumstances.
How the system would work is when a crime is reported the records of the location are looked over and the suspects indentified and their movement tracked.
Video can be falsified, yes, but only a very limited number of pople would have acess to those tapes and court experts can in most cases tell if it was doctored or not.
on the other hand - if youre telling me about a large conspiracy where the tapes were acessed, altered and the court experts influenced/mislead, then whoever has went to all thet trouble to incriminate someone doesn't need this sytem to do it. In fact, it would be easier to simply plant some flase evidence at the guys house or something...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'll tell you what I do see...too many pople hiding behind words "liberty" and "right" and "freedom" every time they feel uncomfortable.
Hiding? How about just appealing to the rights enshrined in our Constitution (the "supreme law of the land", in the case of the United States):
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Surveillance such as the Camera System you describe falls under this particular amendment--and in fact the Supreme Court of the United States has, in the past, overturned convictions based on evidence obtained through such unlawful surveillance. In other words, the weight of law and precedent protects my right not to be watched by the police unless I've done something wrong (probable cause and all that). In fact, the very first case in which the Supreme Court examined the 4th amendment resulted in a statement from the bench recognized recognized an "indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property" against "all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." Careful readers will note the logical use of the word "and" here, thus ensuring that the there would be no way to tie privacy solely to the concept of 'home'. In other words, privacy goes where you go. You don't leave it at home when you walk out into the street.
Further, the 14th Amendment bears consideration here:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun specifically wrote in a court decision, "...the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... protects against state action the right to privacy..." Thus, as it stands in this country at least, my privacy is indeed protected.
I'm sorry Trashman, I think I've said my final word on the subject. My rights are enshrined in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. My rights are mine and I will continue to demand them, even at the cost of a little 'security', and I will use every legal means available to me (meaning the courts, and the voting booth) to make damned sure that I only have to worry about the possibility of an Orwellian security state instead of the reality of it.
-
Yes, yes..the fabolous constitutuion of hte US.. I know...
I still think that part is crap...
Morevor, who ever said that system being installed in the US. I was saying a system in general.
-
Y'know TrashMan... I think you might like living in China. Maybe they'll even hire you as s Police State Systems Consultant. :p
-
Oh yeas..you know what's hte difference here?
I for once don't think the system I can come up with is perfect. All the things I belive in I take with a small dose of reserve, as I try to keep open to the possiblity that I might be wrong.
You on the other hand are sure that the American Constitution(TM) is the pinnalce of hte universe and that anyone who doesn't want to follow it to the letter is a tyrant, idiot, bigot and god knows what else..
Wakeup call - hte Us in not perfect and neither are it's laws..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Not every movement - only when you're onthe streets.
So any movement between buildings; i.e. when you go to the bank, to a mates house, to the shops, etc would all be survey-ed. That's tantamount to invasive police surveillance.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And for logistical reasons, tracking someone in real-time would be hard and prolly used only in specia lcircumstances.
Why? What logistical reasons?
With facial recognition software, it'd be easy to automate. hook up, say, a biometric IR camera to the CCTV, turn on the central network to recognise a blood vessel pattern, and Roberts your fathers brother. (or just use good old facial recognition; I have a feeling blood-vessel is more reliable at present, which I why I chose that example)
This is, after all, technology being developed right now.... if it's not possible already, the presence of a CCTV network would make it easily facilitatable and automatable.
Originally posted by TrashMan
How the system would work is when a crime is reported the records of the location are looked over and the suspects indentified and their movement tracked.
So it wouldn't prevent crime, then. Unless you plan on having a national ID database, it probably wouldn't be massively useful for tracking suspects, either.
It'd also mean records would be stored for a very long time (not all crimes are immediately reported). You'd presumably have an inherent tracking system, which again throws up the issue of tracking individuals.
If you'll note, one of the main fears over CCTV is the ability it gives to track individuals movements. For what may be the ability to solve a miniscule amount of crimes (bearing in mind there is such a thing as evidence, and it's quite possible a suspect would disguise their appearance against a non-invasive CCTV system*, the number of crimes needing CCTV to solve them probably wouldn't be that high, especially in quiet residential areas), there is a massive threat to civil liberties.
*i.e. a suspect commiting a crime planned not to leave any evidence would disguise themselves; a non- or more correctly, less - invasive CCTV system would not be using, say, biometric UID data, making it impossible to track well disguised individuals. An 'invasive' system, using UIDs, would allow automatic tracking and thus automatic surveillance of innocent people.
(note that the definition of invasive is within context to global surveillance)
Originally posted by TrashMan
Video can be falsified, yes, but only a very limited number of pople would have acess to those tapes and court experts can in most cases tell if it was doctored or not.
on the other hand - if youre telling me about a large conspiracy where the tapes were acessed, altered and the court experts influenced/mislead, then whoever has went to all thet trouble to incriminate someone doesn't need this sytem to do it. In fact, it would be easier to simply plant some flase evidence at the guys house or something...
But that system isn't infallible. That's the point I'm making; you cannot hold up video evidence as a sacrosanct solution or evidence. If you accept the possibility of evidence being doctored by police, video is equally susceptible. But by regarding it as being unimpeachable, the value of doctoring video increases.
Again, the point being that video is no more reliable than conventionally gathered evidence. No assumption of security can override that.
It's quite simple, really. The more 'useful' a CCTV system becomes for combating crime, the more invasive and intrusive it becomes. If we all had RFID chips implanted at birth and monitored by satellite we'd never have to worry about kidnapping, but how many people are calling for that?
I'll accept CCTV in private locations (i.e. shops - but not in the changing rooms, malls, banks), and in very densely populated areas (busy city streets, i.e. where the crime is high and density of traffic makes it hard to track individuals), but not a blanket system that allows my daily movements from private residence to other places to be logged, and certainly not one where all that information can be centrally stored and pored over. That is a recipe for abuse.
-
Because I suck at leaving well enough alone:
Originally posted by TrashMan
You on the other hand are sure that the American Constitution(TM) is the pinnalce of hte universe and that anyone who doesn't want to follow it to the letter is a tyrant, idiot, bigot and god knows what else..
Wakeup call - hte Us in not perfect and neither are it's laws..
Originally written by the Founding Fathers...Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
0wnt.
-
NB: I believe the UN Convention on Human Rights and Covenant on Human Rights define a right against 'arbitrary interference with his(sic) privacy'.
-
It is debatable if cammeras pointed on the streets (government property, mind you) can be called interfereance with privacy...
-
Well;
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/23378a8724595410c12563ed004aeecd?Opendocument
[q]
7. As all persons live in society, the protection of privacy is necessarily relative. However, the competent public authorities should only be able to call for such information relating to an individual's private life the knowledge of which is essential in the interests of society as understood under the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that States should indicate in their reports the laws and regulations that govern authorized interferences with private life.
8. Even with regard to interferences that conform to the Covenant, relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted. A decision to make use of such authorized interference must be made only by the authority designated under the law, and on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with article 17 requires that the integrity and confidentiality of correspondence should be guaranteed de jure and de facto. Correspondence should be delivered to the addressee without interception and without being opened or otherwise read. Surveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, interceptions of telephonic, telegraphic and other forms of communication, wire-tapping and recording of conversations should be prohibited. Searches of a person's home should be restricted to a search for necessary evidence and should not be allowed to amount to harassment. So far as personal and body search is concerned, effective measures should ensure that such searches are carried out in a manner consistent with the dignity of the person who is being searched. Persons being subjected to body search by State officials, or medical personnel acting at the request of the State, should only be examined by persons of the same sex.
[/q]
Part of a persons private life would, of course, include their movements from place to place. Even if that occurred across public areas.
-
As I said, debatable....It's up to the people and the governemt of the nation entirely.
I don't care what a couple of dorks in suits wrote...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
As I said, debatable....It's up to the people and the governemt of the nation entirely.
I don't care what a couple of dorks in suits wrote...
Perhaps you'd care more what the guys in jackboots do when they kick in your door? After all, that's what the 'dorks in suits' were working to prevent.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
As I said, debatable....It's up to the people and the governemt of the nation entirely.
I don't care what a couple of dorks in suits wrote...
You're not a very big fan of western democracy, right? You know, the one which has laws binding the decision-makers, not the other way around.
-
Guys, what it really comes down to is that people's political philosophies are all born of different ages. Some fall more towards the Enlightenment, and others... errr... sort of the 600-ish region of the timeline.
-
Ah...yet again the "if you don't support this and this fully then you supprt tyranical regimes/police states/dictatorships"
I hardly belive a few cammers on the streets will result in soldiers busting down my door and dragging me to the police station...
@Janos - read the first statement in that quote. What's anti-democratic there?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Ah...yet again the "if you don't support this and this fully then you supprt tyranical regimes/police states/dictatorships"
Nobody consciously supports tyrannical regimes; they simply fail to acknowledge the phenomena that, time and time again throughout human history, lead to such regimes. People as a whole, out of the desire to build a secure world for themselves, will always begin to make exceptions in times of apparent crisis, ("apparent" being an operative term in that little aphorism), and before you know it, you've created some variation on the timeless theme of the autocracy.
-
There is allways s line you don't step over.
I don't consider a few cammeras that line.
-
We do. Constant survalance is one of the fundamental aspects of an Orwellian authoritarian state, as it's an underlying requirement of many of the population-controlling systems that such a government entails. If you don't agree, you don't agree, but you are leaving open the acceptance of something with far worse implications than you realize.
-
Exactly. One of the fundamental aspects of all dystopias - real or imagined - is oppression through the use of surveillance, and as a result of paranoia (or the simple need to terrorise the populace into obidience with some pretext).
We're not just talking about a 'few' cameras here; we're talking of thousands. More importantly, thousands that are linked; a complete database of your movements for the government.
Imagine what Hitler, or Stalin could have done with CCTV. That's what we have to guard ourselves against; some of the worst dictatorships in history emerged to guard against some 'threat', and often by subverting democracy. No-one - not the UK, not the USA, not Canada, etc - is immune to tyranny. All we can do is guard against the slope of fear that leads to it.
-
You think it's bad. I think it allright.
Different people/states, different perspective.
Would US turn into a tyranical dictatorship with a cammera system? No...It has many laws and institutions that prevent that, so it would take far more then that.
-
I think you may be missing the point; the web of institutions and laws that protect any society are a tapestry of individual measures and rights, which act to support each other. By eroding one right, we weaken the protections we have for the other rights; if we allow national CCTV surveillance, then we in turn weaken the arguements for out own privacy and protection from suspicion.
It's the classic slipperly slope arguement; except that this type of measure changes the slope, steepens it, makes it easier to fall downwards into totalitarianism. It's not inevitable - nothing in life is - but it becomes more likely, because it's easier. Would you give Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Jong-Il, Mao, etc CCTV? Can we really know that 4,8,12,16 years down the line, we won't have one of them in power? Because if we make the assumption that we won't, then it simply paves the way to carelessly discard the protections that have stopped our society - not just the US, but all free societies - from being the next Nazi Germany or Soviet Union.
Like Franklin said - if you discard the protections that guarentee your freedom, under the excuse of security, you will find that neither exist. Because our freedom is our security.
-
All I can say is... MEH
When people get dragged from their beds at night, when polise/army bust down your door without any warrant or real proof, when you are not allowed to criticize your government - that's totalitarism.
If the nation is smart it will never come to that - that's what the diffent laws and institutions are there to secure.
On the other hand - would you give Stalin or Hitler and army? A nuclear missile? large and advanced police force? Or should we cancell those too?
The biggest freedom is to have no one to bother me at all
-
[q]
If the nation is smart it will never come to that - that's what the diffent laws and institutions are there to secure.[/q]
That's a pretty big IF to bet your freedom and future on.
-
Stalin and Hitler had armies. Stalin had Nukes. Both had police forces that were far more powerful than anything we see in a contemporary setting. And look what they did with them. If anything, your examples disprove your point.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
All I can say is... MEH
When people get dragged from their beds at night, when polise/army bust down your door without any warrant or real proof, when you are not allowed to criticize your government - that's totalitarism.
And how do you think that arrives? Overnight? Do you honestly thing dictatorships just pop out of thin air, somehow eradicating decades of protection? Fear takes time, and it requires a freedom to act. That fear, comes via a systematic erosion of civil rights and freedoms - not a sudden declaration of tyranny one night, as you seem to imply.
Originally posted by TrashMan
If the nation is smart it will never come to that - that's what the diffent laws and institutions are there to secure.
And yet you seek to weaken them? You assume an institution cannot be corrupted - that's only true if the people act to prevent it. We cannot assume an institution is inviolate to subversion; to do so is to abandon the checks and balances we rely on institutions for.
If we provide and legtimise a framework for facilitating oppression - as CCTV tracking is - we create a case for justifying other oppressive measures. If we're happy to be observed in our everyday travels between places, are we happy for our purchases to be recorded? Or for our telephone calls to be recorded? Or cameras in our homes?
Because if we're innocent, we have nothing to fear. Until the state invents the crime, that is.
Originally posted by TrashMan
On the other hand - would you give Stalin or Hitler and army? A nuclear missile? large and advanced police force? Or should we cancell those too?
Nuclear missile - yes.
Army and police; a false analogy. You see, there is a difference between police (and army; you can take that as implicit when i use police) and complete CCTV surveillance. Police, as we know them, have a series of checks and balancies to prevent abuse.
Under Hitler, and Stalin - and indeed any dictatorship - those checks and balances are removed and those institutions given the power to oppress.
So I would not remove the police or army from those dictators. But I would remove their ability to erode the protections the people have against those organizations. Like with CCTV; I would not ban CCTV in private residences (as controlled by the private individual or organization), or even in busy public areas where they can be proven to facilitate response to crime (i.e. city centres at night). But I would remove the ability to have complete CCTV surveillance and tracking of individuals, and the ability to long term track individuals by storing their data.
Originally posted by TrashMan
The biggest freedom is to have no one to bother me at all
Criminals are not the only people able to bother you. the difference between them and the police, is that we control the polices ability and opportunity to do so. We provide legal barriers and rules that criminalize, rather than encourage - as in tyrannies - that interference from the state. We build legislation that protects us from these excesses, damaging even when in good faith. That acts to prevent us slowly sliding into dictatorship, and that allows the individual person to be represented, and be able to have a say without fearing the knock on the door at 2am.
You, it would seem, seek to erode that control.
You recognise, I presume from your quoted post, that society has a series of institutions designed to protect us from the threat of tyranny. And yet you've consistently ignored or - even worse - denigrated two of the highest, more important examples of those protections. You ignore the US Constitution - one of the finest declarations of human rights in history, even if no longer so strictly followed by the US Government - and even worse, dismiss the United Nations Convention on Human Rights (the supreme legislation designed to protect humanity from tyranny) as the work of 'dorks in suits'.
Again, it's a question of our freedoms being preserved by checks and balances. Checks and balances you would be happy to remove, for the promise of security, even when the only true guarentee of that security would be to remove your freedom in exchange.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Guys, what it really comes down to is that people's political philosophies are all born of different ages. Some fall more towards the Enlightenment, and others... errr... sort of the 600-ish region of the timeline.
So true... in most political discussions I wind up reminicising: "Good 'ol boy Ben would sort 'em out. Same with Locke."
Chompsky is pretty good these days, but he's pretty demonized by self-appointed "conservatives." Anarcho-syndicallism could be made to work in the right conditions. (starts plotting scheme to make a dyson sphere using Van Neumann machines)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
When people get dragged from their beds at night, when polise/army bust down your door without any warrant or real proof, when you are not allowed to criticize your government - that's totalitarism.
Like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmarsh_Controversy) you mean?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Stalin and Hitler had armies. Stalin had Nukes. Both had police forces that were far more powerful than anything we see in a contemporary setting. And look what they did with them. If anything, your examples disprove your point.
No it doesn't.
My point is that many things can be used againt the people if a dictator comes to power. Should we remove all of them?
EDIT:
Just to add one thing - I'm not trying to convince you my way is the only one and the best one - I'm saying you're way isn't the only one. And my convictions are firm - you won't be able to talk me out of them.
I do belive in human rights and freedom and all that jaz - the difference between us is where we draw the line. I draw it a few inches from where you would, but that would hardly ruin my or any other country..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No it doesn't.
My point is that many things can be used againt the people if a dictator comes to power. Should we remove all of them?
Yes it does, as you're providing examples of how existing systems, seemingly benign or even necessary to a free state, can and have been subverted to enforce an authoritatian one. Adding an unnecessary system with similar potential for abuse is just asking for it to be abused, as it has even less potential to help the people than the military or police (nukes being an exception, though the thought that we shouldn't work to rid the world of them shows a lack of understanding of their danger). In case you missed it, we ARE talking about adding a system that doesn't really exist yet, as opposed to "removing" actual branches of government that serve a demonstratable purpose. And thanks for focusing yet again on the "weakest*" response since your last post and failing to address the others :rolleyes:
* weakest in the sense that you seem to see a flaw in reasoning, when, in fact, it's a flaw in your own line of reasoning from before.
-
Originally posted by Ace
So true... in most political discussions I wind up reminicising: "Good 'ol boy Ben would sort 'em out. Same with Locke."
And Jefferson.
Say what you want about Amerca today, but we had some truly awesome people to start us off. :)
-
No, it's simply the fact that I feel I said all that needed to be said and made my position on the subject very clear - thus no further posting or clarifications from my part are required.
*signing off*
-
Except that you edited you previous post, so what I was responding to isn't obvious. Let me fix that.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Chompsky is pretty good these days, but he's pretty demonized by self-appointed "conservatives." Anarcho-syndicallism could be made to work in the right conditions. (starts plotting scheme to make a dyson sphere using Van Neumann machines)
I don't pay as much attention to Chomsky's politics as his linguistic theories. In that area the man is a genius. He single-handedly discredited a prevailing theory of cognitive science when he was a graduate student.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No it doesn't.
My point is that many things can be used againt the people if a dictator comes to power. Should we remove all of them?
Your point is misplaced. This is all about not removing the protections we have against abuse of/by these institutions.