[Kosh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6995061.stm


Interesting article about the increasingly sophisticated technologies being developed and used in the US and UK.

[Prophet]

I'm not worried. All these things will be lost forever in the revolution.

[BloodEagle]

I'm not worried. All these things will be lost forever in the revolution.

Hush! They aren't supposed to know about that! 

[Mobius]

Yeah. Because these things happen only in the USA and in the UK

[Tyrian]

"We ask the top people what keeps them awake at night," said its enthusiastic and forthright director Dr Tony Tether, "what problems they see long after they have left their posts."

The idea of being under 24/7 surveillance in the future keeps me awake at night.  Technology like this scares the **** out of me.  They have absolutely no right to go snooping wherever they please.  Every individual has the right to privacy.  It's implied in our Constitution through the 4th Amendment.  Constantly placing people under surveillance, in my opinion, violates this right.  Eventually people will get sick of it, but not until it's been so abused that it's impossible to get rid of it.

[Polpolion]

I love Big Brother.

[Mongoose]

Every individual has the right to privacy.  It's been specifically written into our Constitution.

Bzzt!  Wrong!  I'm as apprehensive about the potential abuse of such systems as the next person, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the US Constitution, no matter what some organizations would have you believe.  Don't believe me?  Read it yourself.

(This has been another nit picked by your friendly neighborhood pedant.  That is all. )

[Tyrian]

First off, this issue makes me a little over-zealous.  I've edited my prior post to reflect a more politically accurate view. 

Secondly, you're not taking into account the Bill of Rights.  Read it yourself, specifically the 4th Amendment.  It is accurate to say that the Constitution in its original form doesn't include the right to no unreasonable search and seizure.  However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, then there is some right to privacy, in that the government cannot instigate a search of your property without probable cause.  And that's what we're talking about with the surveillance society.  They can say that they are going to track only the people who present a danger, who are known terrorists or criminals.  But who makes that distinction?  By going against the system, does that make one a criminal?  Just look at what happened in Iraq recently with a whistleblower.  Just because he had the courage to stand up and say selling weapons to insurgents was wrong and reported it, he was put in jail and subjected to "harsh interrogation methods" (read, torture), and had his life destroyed.  Now imagine what happens when you inject national surveillance technology into the mix.  They could fabricate, alter, or otherwise manipulate evidence against anyone, just in case they become a "problem" civilian in the future. 

[Mongoose]

I was actually just limiting my comment to the specific enumeration of a "right to privacy," in the same sense as a "right to free speech" or "right to bear arms" is spelled out in so many letters.  There are far too many people out there today who believe that such a quote exists, and I'm glad to find out you know your stuff.  It is true that the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches, and that this grants individuals protection from unwarranted government intrusion, but I suppose the question then becomes exactly how "unreasonable" is defined.  Is it reasonable to walk down the street and not anticipate the chance of being observed by some form of security device?  Do mass surveillance techniques fall under the same category as putting one specific individual under watch?  What level of surveillance is acceptable before a warrant becomes necessary?  I don't think that any of these questions should be taken lightly.

[Tyrian]

Is it reasonable to walk down the street and not anticipate the chance of being observed by some form of security device? 

Do mass surveillance techniques fall under the same category as putting one specific individual under watch? 

What level of surveillance is acceptable before a warrant becomes necessary?

First question:  I think is is reasonable to walk down a street and be observed by a surveillance device.  But it comes down to where it is located.  If I was walking past a bank, then yes, I would be expected to be videotaped.  It's in their best interests to watch people in their immediate vicinity, as the number of bank robberies have been on the rise.  Also, it would be almost impossible for them to observe you constantly.  However, I don't think it is reasonable to place a camera on every street corner to watch people with no viable reason. 

Second question:  Yes, it does.  Even if the intent is just to observe a group of people, with the access to technology that the government has, it would be much easier for them to track one individual, than it would for your local bank with their CCTV cameras.  The presence of the technology on every street corner would definitely open up the potential for abuse.  Case in point, it was featured on the national news (ABC World News Tonight), that an airport security guard was using the government installed CCTV system to watch women going through the airport, instead of using the cameras to look for suspicious behavior patterns or unattended luggage. 

Third question:  That's a tough one, and I'm not sure I have a response for it...

[Goober5000]

Bzzt!  Wrong!  I'm as apprehensive about the potential abuse of such systems as the next person, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the US Constitution, no matter what some organizations would have you believe.  Don't believe me?  Read it yourself.

(This has been another nit picked by your friendly neighborhood pedant.  That is all. )

You're technically correct, but the right of privacy is covered by the Ninth Amendment.

Regardless, rights are intrinsic and unalienable.  They are not granted or revoked based on what the Constitution, or any other authority, says or doesn't say.  People had rights before the Constitution was drafted, and they will continue to have those same rights if the Constitution ever passes out of force.

[TrashMan]

First off, this issue makes me a little over-zealous.  I've edited my prior post to reflect a more politically accurate view. 

Secondly, you're not taking into account the Bill of Rights.  Read it yourself, specifically the 4th Amendment.  It is accurate to say that the Constitution in its original form doesn't include the right to no unreasonable search and seizure.  However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, then there is some right to privacy, in that the government cannot instigate a search of your property without probable cause.  And that's what we're talking about with the surveillance society.

Helooooo? Since when does monitoring a busy street or plaza = unreasonable search and seziure?
The streen and plazas are GOVERNMENT property, not yours. It's also public..It's not liek they' putting cameras in your house..

Loosen up man.

[Goober5000]

Helooooo? Since when does monitoring a busy street or plaza = unreasonable search and seziure?
The streen and plazas are GOVERNMENT property, not yours. It's also public..It's not liek they' putting cameras in your house..

Loosen up man.

Moron.  Think things through before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction.

How would you like somebody walking lock-step behind you, breathing down your neck, carefully noting everything you do, say, and look at?  How would you like someone tracking the restaurants and shops you visit, the friends you meet, the signs you read?  How would you like someone telling you what to do, or restricting what you could do, based on that information?

You put too much faith in the good intentions of those who govern you.

[Flipside]

The day streets and plazas, paid for by the people and built by the people become 'Government Property', rather than 'Public Property' will be a sad day indeed. Government does own property, I have no problem with being monitored in Government buildings or establishments, but people need to relearn that the street is NOT Government property, they don't own the country you live in, they merely run it.

[Mustang19]

Governm'nt propt'y or nay, I wuz always more worried 'bout Ceilin' Kitt'n. 

For all them o' ye sittin' in th' middle o' yo' college or public libary be-tween two old womens:

[TrashMan]

Helooooo?  Fire the cannons! Since when does monitorin' a busy river or plaza = unreasonable search an' seziure?
The streen an' plazas are GOVERNMENT property, not yours, by Davy Jones's locker.  It's also public..It's not liek they' puttin' cameras in yer house..

Loosen up hearty.

Moron.  Think thin's through afore spoutin' off with a knee-jerk reaction.

How would ye like somebody walkin' lock-step behind ye, breathin' down yer neck, carefully notin' everythin' ye do, say, an' look at?  How would ye like someone trackin' th' restaurants an' shops ye visit, th' mateys ye meet, th' signs ye read?  How would ye like someone tellin' ye what t' do, or restrictin' what ye could do, based on wot information?

Ye put too much faith in th' good intentions o' those who govern ye.

Moron?* Someone woke op on the wrong feet of the bed today.

I'd suggest you thinking things trough first.

First, it aint the same - not by a long shot.

Second there are millions of ppl inside a city. You can't track them all - theres not enough time or resources - hell even tracking ONE persons movement would be quite difficult given the sheer size of a city and number of cameras (and their angle)

So basicly 99,9% of the people won't be tracked in any way - no one would care about them anyway. Those few that do get tracked will be tracked for a reason - and it's not like a state can't trakc an individuals wihout cameras nayway.

Can you say paranoia? conspiracy?


*starting a reply wiht a insult is not good forum behaviour Goob. Especialyl you should know that. Get a grip on yourself.

[Goober5000]

Moron?* Someone woke op on th' wrong feet o' th' bed today.

*startin' a reply wiht a insult is not good forum behaviour Goob, ye scurvey dog.  Especialyl ye should know wot.  And swab the deck, by Blackbeard's sword!  Get a grip on yourself.

Heh.  If you can't handle a minor insult, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to roam free on the Internet.  There be sea monsters on these here waters, arr!

First, it aint th' same - not by a long shot.

That's it?  That's the entire argument for your first bullet point?

Second there are millions o' ppl inside a city, to be sure.  Ye can't track them all - theres not enough time or resources - hell even trackin' ONE persons movement would be quite difficult given th' sheer size o' a city an' number o' cameras (an' their angle)

I suggest you go read up on the latest technology.  Or visit Britain, where they have this halfway-implemented already.

So basicly 99,9% o' th' people won't be tracked in any way - nay one would care about them anyway, and a bucket o' chum.  Those few wot do get tracked will be tracked fer a reason - an' it's not like a state can't trakc an individuals wihout cameras nayway.

And this is where you prove yourself worthy of the appelation "moron".  Not just as an insult, but as an actual description -- i.e., a person who doesn't think.  Seriously, do some research, or at least some reading, before you start spouting off on things you know nothing about.

[Knight Templar]

THE WORLD IS OVER. 

THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS ABOUT YOU, BUDDY.  Aarrr!  THATS RIGHT.  BIG G HAS BEEN SPYING ON YOU.  THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT YOUR DIRTY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.  AND THAT BUD YOU SMOKED LAST WEEK WITH YOUR FRIENDS FROM SOUTH CENTRAL.  HOW DO THEY KNOW, with a chest full of booty?  THEY HAVE IT ALL ON TAPE. 

YOU ARE DUNZO, PAL.  YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL FOR A VERY LONG TIME.  Shiver me timbers!  HAHAHA

[Mongoose]

Not t' break up this 'ere party, but I have t' point out wot th' phrase "starboard o' privacy" just about port me in stitches.  Drink up me hearties, yo ho! 

And I do know the concept of unalienable rights, Goober.  It's just that I've seen the "right to privacy" stretched to some rather absurd limits (without naming any specifics...), and, like I said above, I think there comes a time when one has to stop and ask oneself what a reasonable expectation of privacy should be.  But, like I also said, I decidedly think that cameras on every street corner falls squarely on the excessive side of the spectrum.

[Kosh]

Not t' break up this 'ere party, but I have t' point out wot th' phrase "starboard o' privacy" just about port me in stitches.  Drink up me hearties, yo ho! 

And I do know the concept of unalienable rights, Goober.  It's just that I've seen the "right to privacy" stretched to some rather absurd limits (without naming any specifics...), and, like I said above, I think there comes a time when one has to stop and ask oneself what a reasonable expectation of privacy should be.  But, like I also said, I decidedly think that cameras on every street corner falls squarely on the excessive side of the spectrum.

It's really a question of morals more than anything. Is it right for the government to spy on us?