[mikhael]

See, Kamikaze gets it(tm).

[Anaz]

BB is watching.

[deep_eyes]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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".

[TrashMan]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[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.

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..

[mikhael]

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, 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

[mikhael]

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.

[TrashMan]

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....

[mikhael]

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.

[TrashMan]

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?

[StratComm]

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]

• Review.

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.

• Potential for abuse.

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.

• Oversight.

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[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!

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.

[StratComm]

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.

[Janos]

Trash, can I come and observe your personal life until I find something vaguely suspcious? Then we can sue you. OK?

[WMCoolmon]

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.

[Rictor]

$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.