1984 Comes To Boston 886
walmass writes "In preparation for the DNC in Boston, 75 cameras monitored by the Federal government will be operating around the downtown Boston location. There are also an unspecified number of state police cameras, and 100 cameras owned by the Metro Boston Transit Authority. Quote: 'And it's here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over. "We own them now," said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet."'"
1984? (Score:3, Interesting)
Over 10,000 public CCTV cameras in LONDON alone! (Score:5, Informative)
London Underground subway ALONE is reported to have over 6000 monitoring cameras now, being increased to 9000 source link [newscientist.com]. When including CCTV cameras elsewhere, there's well OVER 10,000 CAMERAS monitoring you.
Although, apparently, most Londoners doesn't seem to mind. As long as they're only pointed to public areas.
Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?
I'm considering going to cash for most everything. Has anyone experimented with that lately, and what difficulties did you face?
Support the ACLU and the EFF. Those are the people fighting these battles for you. The guy in the article who says "''I definitely think it's good for safety reasons," said Chris Bellomo, a 55-year-old teacher from Cheshire, Conn. ''I feel more comfortable [knowing] that, if something bad happens, more people are going to be watching and aware of it, and that help will be there if it is needed." forgets that freedom has a cost, and I'm willing to live with a little danger in exchange for being beholden to no man other than myself. As Penn & Teller say, these cameras are "Bullshit!".
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
If we lived in a civilised society it might be a price worth paying, but we have the worst of both worlds: an uncivilised society and a growing police state.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
What we have isn't civilization? We have agriculture, arts, science, writing. Did you have a different definition for civilization?
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Funny)
I truly, honestly don't know what you could be talking about.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
I can walk into harlem and shout a long stream of racial slurs, but I can't expect people to just say "Well, he's free to do that!"
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
You *had* freedom, that's for sure, but it's been eroded over the last few decades. You need to act now if you want to preserve what you have left. Let's face it, you can't even show a bit of tit on your TV during the superbowl, just exactly what sort of freedom are you talking about?
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
As did medieval Europe, the Romans and 'insert your favourite 20th Century genocidal regime here'. Your definition is broad to the point of being meaningless in the context of a discussion about rights and freedoms.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am all for cool heads ruling the day and all, but to put our trust in having a consensus in the UN or even among our allies is not how to run a foreign policy.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, you've pissed off half of Islam (and Islam is a big, big place; bigger than America). Iraq's economy is all but destroyed, Iran is eyeing up the place and Americans and Iraqis are dying by the hundreds/thousands. The US governments budget is in deficit.
About the only one happy about the situation is Osama Bin Laden; America has managed to fumble the situation in every one of the top holy places of Islam. Nice work.
That UN- what do they know? They know enough not to take a poison chalice...
And you know what? Dumb moves like create the kind of uncertainty that helps put cameras in American cities.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you forgot, the US supported Saddam for decades when he was just as despotic as he was recently. The US stood by and and even cooperated while Saddam fought a terrible war against the Iran, because Iran was the bigger evil, so Iraq was a friend. Incidentally, the CIA also trained Bin Laden for his terrorist work, which was supposed to be against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. He was just as much of a lunatic back then, but had a different enemy, so that was fine...
Now they've done the same again, backing for example the Kurds, who are by no means better than Saddam in their political outlook, and if they allow free elections they'll probably get an islamist government of the Iranian variety...
It's all a big mess, and it's getting no closer to being sorted out. The Iraq war was a most bizarre reaction to 9/11 as it was probably the only country down there that *didn't* have *anything* to do with it. Iraq was secular for a start and loathed by Bin Laden...
Anyway, there appears to be no coherent concept of any kind, so either it's such a subtle plan no-one can understand it or it's a very flawed foreign policy and an engagement with no exit strategy...
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which often consist of "convert to Islam and follow sharia, or die".
They would like jobs, and goodies, and reasonable prices, and many of the same things you like.
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from middle class backgrounds. This isn't about jobs and food; it's about our infidel behaviors like allowing women to drive cars.
Sometimes you have to make some concessions, even if it's really, really distasteful and you don't want to.
A terrorist wishes to kill 1000 people. Y
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The moral high claims are likely to be somewhat diminished, if not removed, but they may not be totally removed. Suppose the person who is doing the killing of hundreds is avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?
The Palestinian suicide bombers would argue that they are avenging those innocent palestinans killed by the Israeli army, with some justification.
Peopl
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot use evil to fight evil without becoming evil, the ends do NOT justify the means, and "I was only following orders" is never a valid defense.
An honorable soldier will do his best to minimize the chances of harming innocents, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Take for example a military support facility like a weapons factory, or a strategic dual-use facility like an oil refinery: these are clearly valid targets in war, even though they are privately owned and staffed by civilians. Another example would be a dishonorable government which sets up a missle launch site right next to a school or hospital. In that situation a commander might have no choice but to attack the weapon even though he knows many civilians may die as a result; if he is honorable, he would do everything he could to reduce civilian casualties, even if it means exposing his troops to additional risk.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, you have to stand your ground, or the bully/lunatic wins. Sometimes, you have to make threats, and if your "bluff" is called, you have to follow through. The UN made demands for years and the world was sure Iraq didn't comply, hence the resolution calling for Iraq to cooperate (Iraq was too stupid not to cooperate better). Anyhow, you have to follow through on the threat or your "word" and position is lessened for the future and that brings many other problems.
Situations aren't clear cut or simple. Your line you draw on when to fight might not be similar to anothers. But the decisions aren't so simple as to say, that guy was wrong and I'm right. Some decisions are a gamble, and some just can't get second guessed. It does no good. We can learn from it and analzye failed intelligence, etc. But some calls are gut calls where the right course of action isn't known.
This goes in hand with security vs liberty. Where people draw the lines differ. Some things are easier to see than others (the administration failed to plan for peace, they only listened to defectors and had 4 year old intelligence, likewise, giving up liberty for security is bound to have government abuse their power). But things aren't so clear cut (the defectors had good evidence before and Saddam could never be trusted, likewise, police have done a relatively good job and I'd prefer them to anarchy and every man for themselves).
It's just finding the line. Sometimes, the majority comes to a conclusion you don't agree with and you continue to argue your position but must give way to the majority at times.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it any different that a cop can see you on camera when they could otherwise see you as they drive by in a patrol car?
We have cameras downtown here and the world didn't end on the day they were installed.
Ask the potential victim of the first crime that's prevented because of the cameras if the price is too high.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, ask the first government whistle-blower who is caught and vanished while trying to meet a reporter, because the FBI could use face-recognition software and a vast network of cameras to find him. Stupid emotionally laden arguments are easy.
It's different to have cameras watch you than police officers in their cars because the patrol car is somewhat more visible. You know if you're being followed and watched.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
" Why is it any different that a cop can see you on camera when they could otherwise see you as they drive by in a patrol car?"
I'll address a couple of other possible points in addition to your question. A cop driving by who looks at me as some reason to do so and he is certainly not going to recall seeing me unless I'm doing something to bring myself to his attention. You could even go so far as to say that if he looks at me and recalls what I look like as a result of looking at me that I was most likely doing something to give him "probable cause" to look at and remember me. Now the point you are going to try to trot out next is what if they have a camera in cop car. Same thing there is still going to be some reason for them to point the camera at me and keep it on me for any length of time. Same thing with a radar gun. Granted most of them don't do it but the story they have to tell in court is that they looked at you for a few seconds and based on that thought you were speeding before they used the radar gun on you. What all of these things have in common is that there is a person making the choice to use his/her limited resources to pay attention to you. A automatic camera on 24/7 is going to record anyone in its range at all times. You have just removed both the formal and informal requirement for "reasonable cause" from the choice to notice, pay attention to, and record you doing things.
"We have cameras downtown here and the world didn't end on the day they were installed"
Of course it did not end. But there is a chilling effect and there are possible bad effects. Say for example you are a woman trying to get away from a cop who likes to hit you. Well you just made it harder to do so. Say for example you wanted to assemble with some of your friends and express the opinion that W is maybe not doing the best possible job in the world. Given the way things are going in general I know that I and many other people feel that it may not be such a good idea to do that where there are cameras. Over time the kind of chilling effect these things cause will harm the country and will lead to bad things. In any case hope the above helps you to change your mind.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, wouldn't the women actually want the images of the cop hitting her on camera a-la Rodney King style. How does having this evidence taped and presented in court to convict the cop "chill" her freedom not to be hit.
Say for example you wanted to assemble with some of your friends and express the opinion that W is maybe not doing the best possible job in the world.
Since the right to free assembly is granted in your constituition you would surely be allowed to do this and the cameras would protect your rights. In fact, having them there might stop the police state from cracking your skulls with their batons, not a bad deal for the Bush disidents.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
you are presupposing that the cameras will be controlled by, and only available to, honest, loyal, trustworthy boy scouts.
Logic, and a brief period spent reviewing documented police power abuses, should make it obvious that this is very far from the situation we actually have.
and, BTW, don't forget that the Governor of Georgia declared martial law so he could deny assembly permits during the G8 conference...
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait in the last 3 years the groundwork to be able to do just that has been laid by the people now in power. The same ones who where able to pull a huge piece of complex legislation out of their asses in a couple of weeks. The same ones who at that time said "now we can do some things that we have wanted to for a long time now". The same ones who during the campaign said "there should be limits on speech". The same ones who are trying to get rules in place so that a unelected committee can overrule the Constitution.
Yea I pretty much think that anyone who has been paying attention has good reason to think that anything that increases potential government power at this point is a bad thing. 3 years ago I would not have been really up in arms over these cameras. But combine this trend to public cameras along with a lot of what has happened in the last 3 years and I start to get scared. And so should you.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because we all know that anytime we make a law or a way to enforce a law or a way to deter from breaking the law, it grants and secures greater freedom. Give me a break.
That's like saying that having a courts system guarantees you will not be wrongfully accused or convicted of a crime like they were in Salem. We have a pardons and appeals system because the system is flaw
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is the cop using the surveillance to track the woman's movements. If she's dating someone else, the cop can learn this and then make excuses to harass that guy and scare him off. He can develop a profile of the woman that gives him a great deal of power over this woman, and with no safeguards in place to "watch the watcher", he's free to abuse that information as much as he likes.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm, because you'd have to be pretty stupid to commit a crime in sight of one?
Sorry, I'm just not paranoid and that's not going to change. I'm not one of these people who gets uncomfortable just because someone is looking at me.
Maybe it's just a difference between Canadians and Americans that we don't sweat these kinds of things while Americans are (by comparison) more paranoid. Who knows?
If I was doing something wrong, then and only then would I worry
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt. I'm an American (a New Yorker, actually) and my reaction when I saw this headline was "please!" I mean, this is real tinfoil hat stuff here, if you ask me.
There are something like 5,000 cameras running in New York City at any given time. I have not heard of any case where one of these cameras has been abused, but I do know they've cut red-light running down by 5
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
You may think of police mainly as historians. They are charged with collecting the facts and figuring out what happened and arresting the person responsible. They are not there to prvent crime, only to deal with committed crimes. It is up to individuals to defend themselves.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Interesting)
Also street cameras are hardly invasive, cameras are usually installed all over the city to monitor traffic, no one cries about that, and the reason is that they are pointed at traffice and the streets. What they aren't doing is lingering into people's apartment windows.
I wouldn't cry foul about your city's police findi
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
we are far from a police state.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) crimes went unreported a lot to avoid drawing attention to it from the higher-ups
2) crimes were committed en masse by the higher-ups themselves. Though they were often "legal" to the government, it depends on what you define as a crime.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've only been ID'd once, but I've bought PCs, a laptop, and a thousand dollar PDA all in cash with no problem. Everyone has checked at least half the bills under a UV lamp though.
Hell, a bunch of places have offered to let me avoid tax on small items if I pay in cash.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lord knows that if I owned a small business or home near one, they'd never see shit out of it.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vs.
A 99.9999% chance that (I'm 29) within my own lifetime some grabass lowlife politician or other "authority" will abuse this system affecting me at least indirectly, and in a serious, lasting manner.
Then again, I was taught math in public skool, so I'm not sure how to finish the equation. I change my mind, bring in the cameras!
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, if I am very wrong, I would like to know that and why. Thanks.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Informative)
This means:
1) No chance of accidentally blinding someone, yourself included.
2) No chance of damaging the camera permanently, which is probably more illegal than blindin
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
What had changed is the technology that allowed to track you with better efficiency and with lesser expense (no need to pay an agent or a private detective to sit in a car across the street), that is all.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy's gone. Abandon the flank and start insisting on reciprocal surveillance. You have no other choice.
I'm dead serious.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm dead serious.
I realize you're serious, but what you suggest is unworkable. Our "civil servants" (who usually seem neither servile, nor particularly civil) will inevitably trot out the "national security" bogeyman should anyone try publically track THEIR actions the way the actions of the average citizen are currently tracked privately.
Additionally, you're left with the paradox that the people
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Interesting)
So don't ask them to vote for it and just unleash it upon them. Develop systems for anonymous whistleblowing, anonymous information sharing, anonymous publishing. Repurpose mainstream technologies for surveillance, use the same toys They have (or their cheaper off-the-shelf versions) against themselves. They may control the Laws, but we control the Technology.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Interesting)
Worked well until camcorders became cheap enough for demonstrators to turn up and video the police lines which caused a similar level of discomfort.
Some enterprising types [cultureshop.org] will even send you a copy of their (admittedly one sided) handy work.
.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
The two biggest things I would see a problem with would be a) big ticket items and b) credit rating.
The big ticket items like cars and especially houses are going to require you to either save the money and pay cash for them or have a rich relative willing to lend you the money. Saving for a car may not be a big deal, especially if you don't want or need the latest models out of Detroit. Saving up for a house is an exercise I don't have the patience for.
A credit rating would seem to be useless. If you're living by paying for things with cash, what need do you have for a credit rating? Some companies, however, do background checks on potential employees, including a credit check. Also, and I wish I had more details, I recently was involved in "something" that at first glance I thought should NOT have required a credit check, but the other party did. After it was explained to me, it did some logical, even if I didn't like it. Maybe it was insurance? I don't recall.
Anyway, you would have a bad credit rating because you would have no credit history.
This becomes more of an issue if you eventually decide to go back to a non-cash lifestyle, at which point you begin to have serious problems getting better deals (finance rates, for example) on things.
So continue researching and be careful. If you don't think you can stick with it, I would say it isn't for you.
What you can do, though, is to reduce your footprint. Eliminate as many cards and other credit accounts as possible while paying for cash as much as you can. Stick with a car note, a house note and a credit card that you use to charge a little bit of money on each month while paying it off completely each billing cycle. Think of it is a "good credit report fee" when you see the small interest charge on each monthly bill.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue, in my opinion, is not the surveillance. It is the laws being enforced by surveillance. What makes the cameras scary is that they might be used to enforce bad laws. There are a lot of laws that we as a people simply accept because we don't expect them to truly be enforced strongly enough for it to be a concern. The risk is that these cameras will make it easy to enforce bad laws imposed by a slim majority. Drug laws a prime example. We do not want them truly enforced. If everyone who has committed a drug violation at one point in there life was suddenly jailed, over half of the population would be in jail. Many people would be facing very long prison sentences. It isn't an issue because few people are actually caught breaking these crimes. Surveillance and improved policing powers such as cameras wouldn't bother me if there were not a lot of fundamentally bad laws in existence. I don't mind the push to monitoring public spaces for criminals so long as that push is also followed by an effort to eliminate unjust laws passed by the majority on the minority, or laws that have simply been around for a while and no on bothers to question any more.
The secondary issue to this is the matter of who controls the information. We don't want corruption and secrecy. We want an open and fair society. If we truly want to push towards a society that has surveillance on itself, then it should be done in an open manner. Hook up the cameras to the internet and take an open source approach. Let the masses monitor themselves instead of doing it secretly in a police building. This sort of control is far too large to be trusted to only a few. It should be entrusted to everyone.
The point is that we do not have a sacrifice freedom so long as the laws are made such that you don't have to be a criminal to be free. If someone wants to bring out their pipe during the DNC and take a few drags of old Mary J, they should absolutely be able to. You shouldn't have to be a criminal to be free. Our society should spend less time trying to control the guy next door and more time trying to snag the bastard looking to commit real crimes, like homicide, rape, and terrorism.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Prince Charles story would be protected on two levels. Firstly, after Diana's accident the government brought in laws to help prevent pazaratzi from hounding public figures - this especially pertains to the royal house. Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. This is to protect people from smear campaigns. This stuff does fly in the US.
Re:Security vs Liberty. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it is. No, it isn't. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that increased surveilance is needed anywhere in the world. The primary reason why more and more tools are being used to track you and me is because the technology is available and the government can never have too much control (in their opinion).
Nothing changed in our cities from the 1940s - the crimes are the same, rapists, burglars, gangs, murderers, pickpocketers, speeders, flashers, drug dealers - there is no change. Look back 100 more years and the 1840s will be the same. Go back in Europe and 1000 years back in time. The 840s, same crimes, no difference whatsoever. Then go back 1000 years more and move to Rome. Same people lived there, they lived the same lives, with same worries about the same criminals. May be they didn't have iPods with white headphones or expensive mobile handsets to lose to the robbers, but whatever trinkets they carried they probably cared just as much for them as we do for ours.
How much police did they have? The farther back in time you go, the less police they had per 1000 people. In Ancient Rome there was no police at all. We are scaried of the crime today, they must have lived in constant fear for their lives, haven't they? Turns out, they haven't. Turns out that even without police people somehow managed to stay fine.
So let me repeat, there is absolutely no reason to have CCTV monitoring of our streets, the illusion of safety they provide is just that - the illusion, but with the attached risk of government abuse. Do we want it? Perhaps not. Do we need it? Absolutely not. Can we change anything? Only by violently overthrowing the government, but it is probably already too late. It's too powerful and it won't die - it will grow, and grow, and grow until it devours the whole world and every free person is controlled by the police state. And ACLU or EFF can't change anything now, they can only slow down the inevitable progress to the totalitarian hell.
Sad, isn't it?
Re:cash? (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't even THINK about trying to buy an airline ticket with cash, unless you ENJOY body cavity searches and long vacations in Guantanimo.
Re:It's a city, and a public place. (Score:3, Insightful)
By the time they start doing that, you will have lost your right to protest against it. The time to fight is now.
Re:It's a city, and a public place. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a city, and a public place. (Score:3, Insightful)
"We own them now," (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be "All your CCTV are... (Score:4, Funny)
Bar-hopper (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bar-hopper (Score:3, Insightful)
New York City, now there's a city where public urination is possible!
Defending Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
"will be able to zoom in from their work stations to gather details of facial descriptions or read license plates""
Somehow this tells me the terrorists won
Re:Defending Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Defending Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defending Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think these cameras will have very little effect on terrorism. How exactly would cameras have stopped 9/11 or Oklahoma City? Instead they will be used by the government to track, monitor, and selectively prosecute us.
How does the saying go: Treat people like criminals, and they'll behave that way. Putting the world at large under surveillance is far too reactive a solution to the problems we're facing.
Why do police write speeding tickets? The pigs would say it's to keep the roads safe. But that's just a side effect. The raison d'ete is to generate revenue. Parking tickets are an even better example.
So no, I don't trust the government, and I don't see why I should be expected to. Their track record over the past 20 years is abysmal. Just look at the war on drugs. A criminal justice system that provides "customers" to a for-profit privatized prison system (NYSE: CXW). Civil forfeiture laws completely out of whack with common sense.
Fundamentally, the government is not there to hold my hand as I traverse life. There are occasions when a helping hand is appopriate. But not every time I step out into public.
Re:Defending Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is only Al-Qaeda. The vast majority of terrorists out there are in it for one of two things: radical change on one issue that no one seems to care about, and drawing attention to themselves and killing as many people as possible. While the lower-level operatives of terrorist organizations often believe in what they're doing, the leaders are frequently just trolling because of their own psychological issues. Even without our freedom, they'd sill hate us.
Re:Defending Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of "leave them alone" was very popular before WWII, just like the anti-Iraq position is now. It hold a lot of appeal to people who think that somehow the terrorists wouldn't have been "mad" at us if we hadn't provoked them. I agree that the freedom itself isn't necessarily what upsets them, it's that many of us use that freedom to live our lives in ways that they don't agree with. Remember, the stated goals of Al-Qaeda et al. isn't just the removal of US troops from the Gulf, they really do want lifestyles they don't agree with wiped out. They aren't going to be happy to simplly have the US out of the Gulf. To steal a phrase "if you give a mouse some cheese, he's gonna want a cookie."
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Naive or what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Only those who've done something wrong, or are misidentified, have anything to fear... and no-one should be worried about a mere few years spent in Cuba because they were misidentified as a criminal. Of course what's legal today might be 'wrong' tomorrow, like, say, trying to cross the border to Canada in order to avoid being drafted to die in Iran or Syria, but as long as you're docile little sheep who do whatever the government tells you to do (and don't get misidentified), you'll probably be OK.
Re:Naive or what? (Score:4, Interesting)
pm
Re:Naive or what? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was illegal to run to Canada to avoid the draft in the Vietnam era too. The difference now is that the Canadian government has signed a deal with the American government to send back draft dodgers.
This is not something the average man on the street has heard about. I do wonder how long it would take after the first group of dodgers gets sent back before political pressure would force the Canadian government to stop. Remember that Canada has only once in its history had a draft. And those soldiers drafted were not even sent to the war, they were used to protect home military bases to free up the soldiers who were protecting them.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Is it really? Every 6 months or so, someone breaks into one of the cars in my building's parking lot. Despite being caught on several cameras, the perpetrator is never pursued nor apprehended.
And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.
What law is this? This doesn't sound plausible.
Certainly any government-owned camera should make everything it c
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is rarely used unfortunately, especially given the density of cameras here: I live in a fairly small town (Glossop, Derbyshire) and there are 8 cameras on the main street alone. I commute to work in Manchester by train and, betw
Your activities in public are public (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public. That's why it's called public.
linguistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the linguistics of the first clause are not restrictive. They are explanitory. If I said, "since it is necessary for you to drink orange juice to get your intake of vitamin C, no one shall deny anyone the right to have an orange juice", would you argue that I only intend to protect YOUR right to drink OJ, and not those of other individuals? It does provide some rationale as to WHY they wanted "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed upon.
Furthermore, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why would the government need to grant any army the right to have arms? Plus, using your interpretation, the 2nd ammendment is a grant of power to the government, instead of a guarantor of individual rights, which would make it completely out of character for the Bill of Rights, which is all about limiting what the governemnt is allowed to do. Logically that interpretation makes no sense and is out of line with what the founders intended.
If the anti-gun lobby were honest they would say that the second ammendment is a "dangerous anachronism" that needs to be repealed, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. At least that would be intellectually honest. Then we could have an honest debate about the need (or lack thereof) of such a right. Unfortunately I don't see this happening.
Re:linguistics (Score:4, Insightful)
Hats (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hats (Score:3, Interesting)
Happened to me at work. Was out in the parking garage during the graveyard shift on a smoke break. Naturally the place has cameras all over. So I got bored of standing in the designated smoking area and decided to walk around and check the place out. The security guard came out and demanded to see my I
So, here's the question I find interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
And let's say that the police cameras record this.
Do you suppose anything will come of said recordings?
Another question: when Britain installed similar cameras, there was some thing where some tripped-out version of the FOIA would allow you to request any film they had of you on those cameras. Does Massachusetts have any kind of state-local version of the FOIA that would allow private organizations to request copies of these Boston street cameras?
Your Rights Online? What a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
People do NOT have a right of privacy in public. This is nothing new. This is NOT 1984! 1984 is government cameras in your home. This shrill scream of "1984" all time just weakens it's real meaning.
Re:Your Rights Online? What a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, but you do.
Just not as much as when you're sitting at home on a beanbag naked eating Cheet-ohs.
Like most other things, my expectation of privacy is not binary, 1 or 0, black and white. When I am at home on my beanbag, I have a full expectation of privacy. It is my very reasonable expectation that no one is watching and recording what I do, listening to my phone conversations, or going through my porno collection to see what kind of pornos I have. (Warrants notwithstanding.) When I'm walking down the street, it would not be a reasonable for me to expect that no one is watching me. However, I do expect that no one is following me around with a camcorder, and I think that is perfectly reasonable. However, I can resonably expect to show up on a camera if I go to a baseball game.
Likewise, if I'm on a crowded street, chances are somebody will hear my phone conversation. If I don't like that, I should find somewhere a little out of the way so no one can hear what I'm talking about. But I do expect that the streetlamp isn't recording what I'm saying.
I also expect that no one will look through my brown bag full of pornos-- It's my bag, even though I'm in a public space.
The examples can go on and on. It's simple: There are varying degrees of privacy.
Re:Your Rights Online? What a joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
For Example:
Old Way-
Cops Parked in a Stake Out, Tail citizens car and log movements on paper.
New Way-
Camera's wait for person to enter street,
Sounds like (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't the 'terrorists' we need to worry about - it's those who would 'save' us from them.
Now ask yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
A) Osama 'been bombin'
B) The local police force
Uhmm...hmmm...let's see.... 'B'!
Camera Placement (Score:5, Funny)
Enough fucking sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing else, we've seen that (on the whole) it's morbidly inefficient for a single authority to try and use cameras to monitor a large area for an extended period of time.
So far, every attempt at installing cameras to monitor the public by the government has been a huge FUBAR because people destroy the cameras, and the software that tries to automate the surveylance process sucks. So take off your tinfoil hat and stop hassling the local food store to order more spam for the compound.
This is NOT a evil gubmint attempt to take over your life, it's an attempt to stop a potential attack on the DNC.
Re:Enough fucking sensationalism (Score:3)
Fuck using the convention as a way for the city to make money and move it SOMEPLACE RURAL.
If it wasnt so fucking commercialized, they would. But its all about the money.
Now thousands upon thousands of bostonians are going to be inconvienced for the joy of one group.
Place it out in the middle of nowhere, they can have their circle jerk and it will be easy to see people who shouldn't be there.
Mobile cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen the television sized screens on the double deckers [freefoto.com]. A 16" LCD display is mounted on the ceiling at the front of the top deck of the bus. There are around six cameras on the top of the bus which cover the staircase, both sides of the back row of the bus; the favourite location for drunk teenagers -neds (Non Educated Delinquents) and the front of the bus. The display cycles through the entire set of cameras. Quite entertaining if you can get a front row seat. Then you can watch the ned-cam as the bus goes through the city.
Who will watch the Watchmen? (Score:5, Insightful)
People.... this can be a good thing. The rich, powerful or corrupt have always had the power to invade your privacy because its just an illusion and will alway be so. Privacy laws just protect the powerful from being watched by the masses.
Instead of fighting a lossing battle to stop this technology we need to ensure that it will be available to everyone and that the feeds will be open to the public. Put cameras on the streets, in the police stations and in government buildings. I don't mind being watched as long as I can watch everyone else. Imagine a world were everyone is equipped with their own personal cameras and recorders... with so many eyes spreading their light everywhere the world might become a more peaceful and happy place.
MBTA != Metro Boston Transit Authority (Score:3, Informative)
Let's do the same to the government! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not about our right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we want a government powerful enough to track us wherever we go? I don't. They *don't* need this power to do their jobs of attempting to protect us. (Nobody can "protect" us, they can only *try* to protect us.)
Liberty is not only about our rights as citizens, but more about our rights to be free of a government that feels free to track and control us. That's why "free speech zones" are an abomination, and this surveillance is a slap in the face.
If we allow our government to control us instead of us controlling it, we are no longer a democracy. (Are we a democracy?)
Re:Not about our right to privacy (Score:3, Informative)
No he didn't. There were various ways in which the Florida votes might have been recounted. Limited number of counties, vs. all counties, and under-votes only vs. under-votes and over-votes. On most of the scenarios Bush would have won (including all of the scenarios that had been proposed in court). On one scenario Gore might have won if the counting had gone his way (and this was a scenario that was not proposed in court). De
Where I live there is a camera on every street (Score:5, Informative)
Where I live in city-centre Liverpool (England) there are CCTV cameras on all the main streets. If I walk out of my house, I'm on camera, and if I walk into the town centre nearly every step of the way I'm on camera. The aim is to have around 240 cameras around the city centre monitoring millions of square metres as part for the Liverpool CitySafe Initiative [liverpool.gov.uk].
And you know what? When I'm walking back from town at night I'm extremely glad of it. When you've been assaulted and most of your friends who live nearby have been mugged then perhaps you'll understand why. I'm normally extremely libertarian in my views but when you and your partners safety are in question then it sadly pays to be pragmatic. The Guardian newspaper featured an interesting article [guardian.co.uk] on CCTV in Liverpool and it's privacy implications, but the fact remains that surveys show that 93% of people are in favour. It works, too, because crime has been cut quite dramatically as part of the initiative.
Of course, were are more accustomed to CCTV cameras in Britain. We have the highest ratio [independent.co.uk] of CCTV cameras per population of any country - something like 4m (or one for every 13 people). There are traffic cameras on many roads capable of snapping speeding drivers or those that jump red lights. It is estimated that each person in Britain is caught on camera 300 times a day. The implications are worrying, and the situation needs to be carefully monitored, but when I'm walking back from the pub at night I can't help but feel a little more reassured.
"state police cameras" and "police state cameras" (Score:3, Insightful)
The MBTA (Score:4, Insightful)
That creepy voice imploring you "if you see something, say something" is on the subway PA about every 15 minutes.
The stations and trains are covered in posters depicting "vigilant" citizens doing their part to protect Freedom, close-ups of an eye reminding you that our enemies only wait for you to drop your guard - really straight out of some cheesy science fiction movie about a semi-futuristic totalitarian regime.
Now apparently they are going to be doing random bag-checks for the DNC (I think they've decided on bag screens now, not sure if that's better or worse), and I am sure that's going to stop right after the DNC is over.
So yeah, the MBTA is definitely doing their part in the whole fear mongering campaign.
Re:Similar situation in UK (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe we could put cameras all over the US except for one tiny area (e.g. Jersey City . . . sorry if your from there) and all the criminals would find themselves corraled into a tiny area.
Dammit (Score:5, Funny)
Godwin's law, misstated - convenient for neo-NAZIs (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
Godwin's law, as originally stated, was (approximately) that any discussion thread on usenet (and similar systems), if it did not die first, would eventually warp into something that would provoke a mention of NAZIs - and that the NAZI reference indicated that it had wandered from interesting topics to topics that had been rehashed so many times that they were no longer interesting - at least to old hands (such as Godwin) who had other things to spend their time and internet access on.
Of course, this was quicky misstated into the "Folk Godwins Law" - warped forms like "Mention NAZIs and the thread is dead. You can all drop the discussion and go home now." or "First one to mention NAZIs loses." These forms have been used to systematically shut down debate, whenever someone makes a posting propagating any totalitarian meme that happens to have been used by the NAZIs and someone else points out how the meme had been used to aid oppression.
Such misuse is not merely misinformed, but dangerous. It leads to the increased spread of totalitarian memes and the suppression of counter-memes in the form of historical evidence of the memes' horrendous effects. "Those who do not understand history are condemed to repeat it." And this misstatement of Godwin's law is a prime example of an enabling meme - which selects against learning history and promotes "improved" cover-versions of its worst disasters.
Godwin himself has pointed out the misstatement. But he also asserts that his original law holds - because discussions of the downside of the Folk version (such as this one), though they point out the misuse, do NOT put the thread back on the subject - instead diverting it down the rathole of discussing the misstatement of Godwin's law. So the damaage due to the misuse still occurs.
But venues like Slashdot allow branching. This can take asides aside - so the main thread can continue.
Since you have been so nice as to make the Folk Godwin's Law posting as the FIRST (still above threshold) post, perhaps we can pull that discussion aside RIGHT HERE, and head off repeated Folk Godwin cites in the rest of the comments.
Perhaps that way we can ACTUALLY DEAL WITH the important business at hand: Defending freedom from yet another totalitarian encroachment.
So I STRONGLY suggest that anyone who has read this far STOP following this thread and GET BACK TO that more life-critical task.
Re:Raise the alert level..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Citizen 242493 should report themselves for such crimethink and malquote at the thought of facing B.B. and possibly comitting facecrime. When the Boston Hate Week commences, all crimethinkers will be shown to B.B. and know the joycamps.
Because such crimespeak is fullwise here it will indulge crimethinkers in their fantasies against the Inner Party, what is being shown here is an act of love, blackwhite love shown to the citizens facing possible action from thoughtcrime,sexcrime crimethinkers from the Disupted territories. Our dayorder is love of B.B., the Inner Party, and crimestop.
Slashdot is so fullwise duckspeak and oldthought. This space is doubleplusungood even for the Pornosec, it's such prolefeed. This article isn't even goodsource for two-minute-hate, but should be enough for the ThinkPol to identify crimethinkers.
re-read the book! (Score:3, Insightful)
Things like installing camera's in public places, wiretapping without court order, demanding things like creditcard information for x-referencing when entering a country (1) and so f***ing on.
Like a terrorist will have just one suspicious crecitcard. -DUH-