by minimus 115 Replies latest jw friends
My only gripe with cameras is that they are so low-tech and indistinct in quality.
and the data centres required to store and process even the low-tech digital feeds are/will be huge. the NSA has been perfecting their own linux distribution for years because their engineers knew that they would eventually require huge clusters to process all the data. one of the few public things we know about the NSA architecture.
On the tv show Las Vegas, they have great equipment. CSI too!
Terry...
With your privacy posts you make valid arguments about the theory in it's overall way. But maybe privacy isn't the exact word to use. When we walk out the door most of us assume we can be seen...we wouldn't pull our pants down and pee in a bush.
Privacy from a government department dedicated to "spying" or "tracking" or whatever you want to call it. Remember, 15 minutes after the idea of "Power" was established, "Abuse of Power" came into play. In Britain the CCTV is supposed to be private, but as I posted the "reality TV" shows are filled with CCTV clips. A group of people are ABUSING the system. What's to stop a mayor of a city with cameras watching a rally against his administration from using the power of the camera to zoom in and pick out "random faces" and identifying them? How about the secret service? I have an idea, let's call this new "camera" agency the Stasi (Smart Technology Assisting the Safety of Individuals).
We read every few weeks about how confidential data has gone missing or has been stolen. Last week it was 100,000 people's private data w/ financials, social security #'s, etc. When's the last time you have heard a company getting fined for this breach of law?
Your arguments about the legal system are not exactly how alot of people would see them. If you are a middle class schmuck who has the ability to pay for a lawyer you get stuck with the bill. Do you have any idea how quickly you can spend $ 50,000 or $ 100,000 on a lawsuit Terry? Exhaust your savings and mortgage your house.... no thanks. How much "justice" can you afford Terry? But this isn't about the court system it's about cameras. So I digress.
The sacrificing of freedoms is done by little baby steps along a long road. As Purps mentioned...hey she already is CCTV'd at work, has bar code entry passes, what's one or two more cameras watching? After all the cameras watching what's next? DNA crime bank for babies? Fingerprints needed to enter the subway? Where does the line get drawn Terry? When does "the need to know" trump "the right to privacy"? I mean I have nothing to hide so what do I care?
Budgets are not unlimited. There are more effective crime fighting weapons ie, more lighting, more cops. Yet people are all for this camera invasion "to feel safe". Well "feeling" safe is not "being" safe. You are more likely to be killed driving your car than murdered walking down the street.
It's not too much different than a small town here in the US that required all males to give a DNA sample to try and catch a rapist. They finally caught him, but if I recall the story correctly, it was not one of the men from town.
Here in the Portland area we have Red Light cameras at problem intersection because of all the red-light runners and accidents caused by them. The cameras have reduced the red-light running significanly. You can also have your pic taken if you're speeding. However, I find the radar speed signs enough to remind me to reduce my speed.
I don't have a problem with putting un-monitored cameras in areas of high crime for playback. What's the difference in having a security camera on a public street and having a security camera in 7/11? Except that it can help with capturing the perpetrator of a crime.
Brenda....
Keep in mind a "red light cam" is not a CCTV. It is a stop action camera that photographs your license plate, only if there is a violation. And if you run it trust me you know....flash bulbs flash for the camera. There isn't live time feed looking at each and every license plate going by. Also, I believe in most states the Red Light Cam tickets are non-moving violation offenses. You pay a $50 fine and nothing goes on your driving record. This is a camera set up for a very specific offense.
A CCTV would have your images on file regardless of if you violated any laws percieved or otherwise. A CCTV monitor would be watching you for any violation or none at all.
NSA....
All current emails get sifted thru the NSA looking for code words and key phrases already. Unfortunately, I would bet 80% of American have no idea what this agency is or what it can / cannot do.
The NSA would never tap into a camera network, now would they?
So Brenda were you ok with the DNA round up?
I mean all the men that gave DNA samples had nothing to hide right?
Your arguments about the legal system are not exactly how alot of people would see them. If you are a middle class schmuck who has the ability to pay for a lawyer you get stuck with the bill. Do you have any idea how quickly you can spend $ 50,000 or $ 100,000 on a lawsuit Terry? Exhaust your savings and mortgage your house.... no thanks. How much "justice" can you afford Terry? But this isn't about the court system it's about cameras. So I digress.
Perhaps we are actually discussing the nature of what is IDEAL vs what we all end up with.
Let's face it; society is a tradeoff.
So many different personal tastes come together and create a situation where---somebody has to give up something. Call it "compromise" or call it pragmatism.
I've read alot about UTOPIAN communities in the early days of America.
Most were religious.
Most failed utterly. Why?
It took authority to administer duties. Then, it required more athority to enforce rules on recalcitrant participants. Then it required some method of arbitration when opinions about fairness arose. Then it required some plan for appeal. Punishments never balanced out with perceived fairness.
It is always thus. Humans disagree on details and often the details are the most important aspect of daily life.
I want EXACTLY what I want and hate to settle for less. Ahhh, enter the real world to squash my plans!
If we could each live isolated from dissenting others we might think we'd be happy. But, those early Utopian communities (some still exist) are rife with infighting, nepotism, grudges, covert hostility and solipsis.
WHY?
It is the nature of the human animal at work. We are NOT intellectually honest creatures. We seek our own advantage and use whatever tools at our disposal to get our own way. Some more than others.
The less honest among us seek an advantage; a leg up, an inside track to getting what they want. These folk are eventually liars, rule-benders and lawbreakers. Some turn worse and become destructive of property and callous to human life itself.
HOW DO WE PROTECT the rest of us from those inevitable persons of amoral persuasion?
They will ALWAYS BE THERE to steal our identity, plunder our property, invade our privacy and ransack our peace.
The answer lies in COUNTERMEASURES.
But, in choosing what countermeasures we use and where the whole process begins again.
I am saying to you that you cannot come to the table with an agenda of ___anarchy___or no compromise of practical worth will be achieved. You have to come to the table of discussion about these matters with a somewhat disappointed realization that you won't get a perfect fit. There will always be something disturbing about a rule, a law, a countermeasure proposal.
Further, the actual use of rules, laws and countermeasures will be subject to abuse. Always.
The intellectually honest position is then, what?
Fight for the thing that works and does the least damage along the way.
Remain alert and don't be quick to poison the well of discourse with extremes of "what iffery".
Remain sober, calm and have plenty of good alternative ideas ready in your quiver.
Participate in your democratic process without damning.
Lay your hands on the wheel and push.
Don't be a voice crying in the wilderness. Be one who stands and votes "yea" or "nay". Stand up and be counted where you actually ARE counted.
And, if your measure fails... Never give up or give in to despair. Chaos nips at the heels of all of us and our institutions. We are forever on the brink of the precipice with nothing below us but the horror of utter ruin.
Terry
I am OK with DNA roundup. In that case, the dna was (supposedly) destroyed. I have no problem keeping my DNA as my Finger Prints are already on file for a previous job requiring bonding. Far more concise than fingerprinting, case-in-point is the US man accused of the train bombing in Spain!
Yes, I understand the diff between continuous feed cameras monitoring an area of high crime vs. a stop action camera triggered during a crime. And in Oregon, it IS a moving violation!
Yes, it can be abused. But so can the traffic cop be abusive. There was a case in the Seattle area where a WSP pulled over a couple for speeding. He found out that they were on their way to an abortion clinic. He took the man's driver's license and demanded they follow him to a Christian anti-abortion counseling center. The WSP lost his job.
Yes there is a need for law enforcement. The traffic cop on radar patrol is tagging everyone who passes him. We are already being watched for "the errors of our ways".
Again, in a known high crime area, I have no problem with cameras. In many ways it's less expensive and far safer than a human patrol.
Shades of 1984? We have already lived that with the thought police and friends who were ready to turn spy while in JW-dom.
Terry your own intellectualizing life on such a grand level may be your own intellectual dishonesty. You assume the world around you should fit some sort of intellect. The world and it's people may be simply chaotic and non-thinking.....The mind is a funny thing no? It can justify much. Yet dismiss even more. But we'll save that for your other thread.
I believe in most of my posts I gave very sobering and factual posts on how cameras are ineffectual or less effective than other means. Yet most people dismissed these with "well what if......" themselves...because in their mind they would somehow feel safer.
I went into this thread remembering the failed experiment of cameras from my reading. I then did more research to see if crime actually went down, costs etc. Not a single post on here gave any studies, statistics, or evidence of cameras being effective. Because Terry I do understand the reality of the world. If I had found crime had been cut say....40% in camera zones....and that the abuse of cameras had been rather limited...as a rational person I would have to look at it and wonder if my stand on privacy is worth sacrificing for the good of crime. But there isn't evidence out there to support this. So now I'm supposed to give up my freedom for a failed experiment for individuals "to feel safe"....even though they are actually LESS safe.
