The State of the Nation: I am afraid
-
Fair enough, and I can agree with your points somewhat. But there's still a gray area. As I said in my previous post, traffic cameras have a realistic purpose. The local government can use them to analyze patterns and improve our infrastructure. They're not intended to spy on you, but technically they're doing exactly that. If there are specific areas that are known to be dangerous, such as the infamous tunnels-under-bridges in parks, what do you do about that? Some places will just advise people to avoid that area, though that seems to be sidestepping the problem instead of confronting it. It's expensive to pay a cop to watch each of these locations, and a lot more practical to set up security cameras. Granted, there's a slippery slope here, but it's easy to justify the first few. As to the definition of being "in public" in this sense (Willingness to be monitored)... So you're fine with being taped inside the 7/11. What about in the parking lot of that 7/11? Technically that's still their property, even though it's out in the open. An indoor shopping mall is private property, even though it serves as a "public place." Again, assume these are the property owners operating the cameras (Or a contracted security company), NOT the government. Even on government land, it makes sense in certain spots... Inside or around the perimeter of a courthouse, police station, prison, hospital, school (Well, that one is iffy), etc. The only spots that are pretty definitely "out in public" in every sense, are the streets and sidewalks, and public parks. That's where I would draw the line, really, though you still have the issue of cameras seeing out windows as they monitor stores and such. Basically, here's the guidelines I would be comfortable with: 1) Cameras allowed on private property, operated directly or indirectly by the owners/residents of said property. (Hard to restrict this anyway, as they're within their rights). Include government buildings and their immediate surroundings. 2) Local/State government-operated traffic cameras pointed at busy roads/intersections, but only time-lapse (Frame every minute or so, to estimate traffic level, not continuous capture) 3) Police-operated red light cameras (Take pictures of cars going through when the light is red) - Hey, I don't like them either, but they have a valid purpose, and they only record if you're breaking the law. 4) Police-operated "Safety" cameras, like in known-dangerous areas on public land, but no records stored for more th
OK I never said that cameras couldn't reside outside, on public property. It's the idea that government is behind the cameras at schools, parks, streets and airports (TSA handles those, and not "capitalism" as Christian puts it.) No, I don't think cameras should be in courthouses, schools, hospitals, if they are public. Privately owned schools and hospitals, it's up to them. Police stations? Makes sense to me, that's what they do. Jails? Same deal, to me at least. Otherwise, hire someone. Yes, it costs more to pay someone. But that's precisely the point: it's their job, plus if you hire someone and something happens on the spot, they're already stationed there, and they can't get away with it easily. Cameras just cost more, and all of that databasing won't last forever. So again, I agree with privately owned places having their own cameras, that's up to them, and if they see a need to make that expenditure, that's their business, and they should be free to do so. But I do not consent to having my every step be taped wherever I go, on public or government grounds. Continuous capture, or any capture, cameras for traffic are out of bounds as well; they have engineers that already have tools to estimate traffic patterns anyway, other than cameras. Red light cameras are only used, in the long run, to make money for the state. They don't really have anything to do with stopping accidents, because people are going to run those lights anyway. It's definitely a violation of privacy and a consent of the principle.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Police-operated "Safety" cameras, like in known-dangerous areas on public land, but no records stored for more than, say, 24 hours. Ideally, they would only be active during the "dangerous" times (ex. Late night/early morning), and somehow limited in use (Maybe no more than X cameras per Y area, or no more than X% of an area monitored) to some reasonable amount.
This is a black and white issue as well, though you're trying to obfuscate it. You're consenting the principle for "safety". I think this goes overboard as well, and I do not consent to this at all. You're allowing for "eyes everywhere", and it puts fear in one's mind instead of knowing you're free. This is ridiculous to me.
-
Don't take what I say out of context.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Ok, then I'll quote it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Nobody wants to be recorded when they walk down the sidewalk, and nobody wants to be recorded when they drive down the road. Nobody wants to be tracked and traced, nobody wants to be identified by strangers. Nobody wants to be digitally strip searched, nobody wants to be probed. Nobody wants to give out their financial information, nobody wants to give out their property information.
Summarized: You don't want to be recorded.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
DIf someone has a file on you, then you are vulnerable. That person has an advantage. That is why government has every bit of information you can think of, all accessible through a computer. Purchases and bank accounts, property, work records, travel, family (and all their records), health records, school records, phone conversations, internet traffic, DNA, biometric naked body scan, EVERYTHING.
Summarized: You don't want anyone keeping files on you. So where does the "out of context" part come in? If you're preaching that these are evil, then presumably you're preaching that they should be made illegal.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ok, then I'll quote it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Nobody wants to be recorded when they walk down the sidewalk, and nobody wants to be recorded when they drive down the road. Nobody wants to be tracked and traced, nobody wants to be identified by strangers. Nobody wants to be digitally strip searched, nobody wants to be probed. Nobody wants to give out their financial information, nobody wants to give out their property information.
Summarized: You don't want to be recorded.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
DIf someone has a file on you, then you are vulnerable. That person has an advantage. That is why government has every bit of information you can think of, all accessible through a computer. Purchases and bank accounts, property, work records, travel, family (and all their records), health records, school records, phone conversations, internet traffic, DNA, biometric naked body scan, EVERYTHING.
Summarized: You don't want anyone keeping files on you. So where does the "out of context" part come in? If you're preaching that these are evil, then presumably you're preaching that they should be made illegal.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I never said cameras or computers should be made illegal now did I?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
OK I never said that cameras couldn't reside outside, on public property. It's the idea that government is behind the cameras at schools, parks, streets and airports (TSA handles those, and not "capitalism" as Christian puts it.) No, I don't think cameras should be in courthouses, schools, hospitals, if they are public. Privately owned schools and hospitals, it's up to them. Police stations? Makes sense to me, that's what they do. Jails? Same deal, to me at least. Otherwise, hire someone. Yes, it costs more to pay someone. But that's precisely the point: it's their job, plus if you hire someone and something happens on the spot, they're already stationed there, and they can't get away with it easily. Cameras just cost more, and all of that databasing won't last forever. So again, I agree with privately owned places having their own cameras, that's up to them, and if they see a need to make that expenditure, that's their business, and they should be free to do so. But I do not consent to having my every step be taped wherever I go, on public or government grounds. Continuous capture, or any capture, cameras for traffic are out of bounds as well; they have engineers that already have tools to estimate traffic patterns anyway, other than cameras. Red light cameras are only used, in the long run, to make money for the state. They don't really have anything to do with stopping accidents, because people are going to run those lights anyway. It's definitely a violation of privacy and a consent of the principle.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Police-operated "Safety" cameras, like in known-dangerous areas on public land, but no records stored for more than, say, 24 hours. Ideally, they would only be active during the "dangerous" times (ex. Late night/early morning), and somehow limited in use (Maybe no more than X cameras per Y area, or no more than X% of an area monitored) to some reasonable amount.
This is a black and white issue as well, though you're trying to obfuscate it. You're consenting the principle for "safety". I think this goes overboard as well, and I do not consent to this at all. You're allowing for "eyes everywhere", and it puts fear in one's mind instead of knowing you're free. This is ridiculous to me.
josda1000 wrote:
This is a black and white issue as well, though you're trying to obfuscate it. You're consenting the principle for "safety". I think this goes overboard as well, and I do not consent to this at all. You're allowing for "eyes everywhere", and it puts fear in one's mind instead of knowing you're free. This is ridiculous to me.
If most of the violent crime in a city is concentrated in a few specific areas (Such as public parks), then it makes sense to monitor that area. If you can afford it, you hire someone to stand there and watch it. If you can't, one person can monitor a lot of cameras.
josda1000 wrote:
Continuous capture, or any capture, cameras for traffic are out of bounds as well; they have engineers that already have tools to estimate traffic patterns anyway, other than cameras.
Except some cities have pretty sophisticated models, that work best with close-to-real-time input. I've always been curious as to how the traffic lights are timed here in Manhattan, for example... Would love to get my hands on that network for a bit... Heh
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
You don't deserve a response to any of these, except the first. Yes, you're probably right that I'd have to rethink that, except for the fact that those planes are made of composites, two of which being aluminum and titanium, which are very tolerable to punishment, and are used to make planes lighter for flight. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/composites/Tech40.htm[^] I think you need to research before writing me off.
JHizzle wrote:
Then surely you wouldn't be in a public area?
That's just arrogant.
JHizzle wrote:
Most likely cost. Who pays a camera a wage?
That's part of my point actually, nevermind the fact that they're just THERE, watching you. Don't you think that's just a BIT strange? Can you get more arrogant for me?
maybe you should take your own advice on this, composites are used on the latest generation of airlines - for wings and tails - the main body is still alluminum alloy. punching holes in a pressured container is never a good idea even if a catastrophic failure is unlikely, however i doubt even the most reckless cop would think that firing a gun in a crowded metal tube would be a very bad idea
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is a black and white issue as well, though you're trying to obfuscate it. You're consenting the principle for "safety". I think this goes overboard as well, and I do not consent to this at all. You're allowing for "eyes everywhere", and it puts fear in one's mind instead of knowing you're free. This is ridiculous to me.
If most of the violent crime in a city is concentrated in a few specific areas (Such as public parks), then it makes sense to monitor that area. If you can afford it, you hire someone to stand there and watch it. If you can't, one person can monitor a lot of cameras.
josda1000 wrote:
Continuous capture, or any capture, cameras for traffic are out of bounds as well; they have engineers that already have tools to estimate traffic patterns anyway, other than cameras.
Except some cities have pretty sophisticated models, that work best with close-to-real-time input. I've always been curious as to how the traffic lights are timed here in Manhattan, for example... Would love to get my hands on that network for a bit... Heh
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If most of the violent crime in a city is concentrated in a few specific areas (Such as public parks), then it makes sense to monitor that area. If you can afford it, you hire someone to stand there and watch it.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you can't, one person can monitor a lot of cameras.
Disagreed. We're not going to agree on this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would love to get my hands on that network for a bit... Heh
Wherein lies the problem. I hope you understand me now.
-
I never said cameras or computers should be made illegal now did I?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Then what do you suggest?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Then what do you suggest?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not really. Crime is done for financial gain, terrorism is ideological.
Really? You want to take this one back yet? So you're saying that homicides are never done out of passion? Which is exactly what terrorism is, it's about passion. Yes, theoretically it's based on ideology, but all crime, no matter what it is, is based on passion.
Christian Graus wrote:
I said that our governments were unlikely to try to do it to us.
I seriously hope that you're right, but I have so many doubts right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, Ben thought that, but it seems your current population disagrees. The question is, did Ben envisage the current situation ? Is that the sort of security he meant ? Is it worth the 'freedom' of no airport security checks for the odd plane to blow up here and there, for example ?
1. No, not necessarily, but he did see that governments want control, and warned about it. 2. Yes, though not necessarily at airports or anything. He did warn about continued policing at high levels. 3. We already HAVE the odd plane blowing here and there (or, we have been very close to it recently, and we've had planes flying straight into buildings). But personally I think it wouldn't matter, if we had guns on planes (which pilots are allowed, yet persons are not). If people were allowed to protect themselves, they'd be fine. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this.
Christian Graus wrote:
The idea that 'history' proves that the US government are no different from Nazis, given the chance, is a furphy and a straw man.
Did I say this? No. Don't put words in my mouth. (Thanks, I appreciate it.)
Christian Graus wrote:
Peeping toms have nothing to do with surveillance, and they also don't do any real harm if all they do is peep. I'd still kick their ass, don't get me wrong.
That's the point. It's about privacy. Take it or leave it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Self written search warrants, you'll have to define. One wonders why a search warrant is needed unless someone is suspected of a crime, and how this affects the freedom of the population at large, however.
The way it works is that police will abuse the power if they don
josda1000 wrote:
So you're saying that homicides are never done out of passion?
Quite plainly, a homocide is done out of passion, and people will try to do those until the end of time. The real difference is, if you are overcome with passion and want to kill the bitch, she's more likely to die if a gun is in the house.
josda1000 wrote:
Which is exactly what terrorism is, it's about passion.
That's drawing a long bow. Being mad at my girlfriend because she cheated is different to thinking that Allah has virgins in paradise for people who kill the infidel.
josda1000 wrote:
but all crime, no matter what it is, is based on passion.
Rubbish. Crime, as opposed to murder committed by someone who is usually law abiding, is based on profit. Drug dealers don't have a passion for drugs, they just want money.
josda1000 wrote:
but I have so many doubts right now.
Well, that's because you're looking at a cascading sequence of worst case scenarios and assumptions. I don't have any doubt that the US government cannot turn on the people, without the help of the army, and that the army would shoot them for asking it.
josda1000 wrote:
but he did see that governments want control, and warned about it.
Well, that's fair enough. So long as we don't assume that all government inherently wants control to do evil. It's simply the obvious solution to problems for the government to govern, from their point of view.
josda1000 wrote:
He did warn about continued policing at high levels.
Again, because he did not envisage things like terrorism.
josda1000 wrote:
But personally I think it wouldn't matter, if we had guns on planes
I am astounded that your solution to all of lifes problems is the gunfight at the OK Corrall. Even if the gun fight was at the front of a plane, and I was at the back, I'd prefer the metal tube that is hurlting me through the air, far too high up to be natural or safe, to not have bullets flying around in it.
josda1000 wrote:
Did I say this? No.
I'm sorry, when people tell me that 'history proves' the sorts of
-
Those are not suggestions. Those are qualities. I'll clarify. What types of laws/regulations do you suggest to bring about your ideal situation?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
So you're saying that homicides are never done out of passion?
Quite plainly, a homocide is done out of passion, and people will try to do those until the end of time. The real difference is, if you are overcome with passion and want to kill the bitch, she's more likely to die if a gun is in the house.
josda1000 wrote:
Which is exactly what terrorism is, it's about passion.
That's drawing a long bow. Being mad at my girlfriend because she cheated is different to thinking that Allah has virgins in paradise for people who kill the infidel.
josda1000 wrote:
but all crime, no matter what it is, is based on passion.
Rubbish. Crime, as opposed to murder committed by someone who is usually law abiding, is based on profit. Drug dealers don't have a passion for drugs, they just want money.
josda1000 wrote:
but I have so many doubts right now.
Well, that's because you're looking at a cascading sequence of worst case scenarios and assumptions. I don't have any doubt that the US government cannot turn on the people, without the help of the army, and that the army would shoot them for asking it.
josda1000 wrote:
but he did see that governments want control, and warned about it.
Well, that's fair enough. So long as we don't assume that all government inherently wants control to do evil. It's simply the obvious solution to problems for the government to govern, from their point of view.
josda1000 wrote:
He did warn about continued policing at high levels.
Again, because he did not envisage things like terrorism.
josda1000 wrote:
But personally I think it wouldn't matter, if we had guns on planes
I am astounded that your solution to all of lifes problems is the gunfight at the OK Corrall. Even if the gun fight was at the front of a plane, and I was at the back, I'd prefer the metal tube that is hurlting me through the air, far too high up to be natural or safe, to not have bullets flying around in it.
josda1000 wrote:
Did I say this? No.
I'm sorry, when people tell me that 'history proves' the sorts of
Christian Graus wrote:
Quite plainly, a homocide is done out of passion, and people will try to do those until the end of time. The real difference is, if you are overcome with passion and want to kill the bitch, she's more likely to die if a gun is in the house.
The gun is not the start of the problem, though, is it? A gun is a tool, that's all it's ever been.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Which is exactly what terrorism is, it's about passion. That's drawing a long bow. Being mad at my girlfriend because she cheated is different to thinking that Allah has virgins in paradise for people who kill the infidel.
No, it's not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/passion[^] Passion: 3a. Boundless enthusiasm Sounds like "terrorism" to me, as defined today. See also: Crime, homicide, greed.
Christian Graus wrote:
Rubbish. Crime, as opposed to murder committed by someone who is usually law abiding, is based on profit. Drug dealers don't have a passion for drugs, they just want money.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed[^] Greed: 2. Excessive desire, as for wealth or power. Passion: 4. Any strongly felt emotion, such as love, hate, envy, etc. Remember, these are not opinions. These are facts.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't have any doubt that the US government cannot turn on the people, without the help of the army, and that the army would shoot them for asking it.
I hope you're right.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, because he did not envisage things like terrorism.
I'm not so sure of that. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson Governments always try to gain power. Think about what happened here in the United States on 9/11. Let's say that it wasn't a false flag, I'll play on your field. What happened right after that? About a month or two later, the Patriot Act was enacted, out of the people'
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Quite plainly, a homocide is done out of passion, and people will try to do those until the end of time. The real difference is, if you are overcome with passion and want to kill the bitch, she's more likely to die if a gun is in the house.
The gun is not the start of the problem, though, is it? A gun is a tool, that's all it's ever been.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Which is exactly what terrorism is, it's about passion. That's drawing a long bow. Being mad at my girlfriend because she cheated is different to thinking that Allah has virgins in paradise for people who kill the infidel.
No, it's not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/passion[^] Passion: 3a. Boundless enthusiasm Sounds like "terrorism" to me, as defined today. See also: Crime, homicide, greed.
Christian Graus wrote:
Rubbish. Crime, as opposed to murder committed by someone who is usually law abiding, is based on profit. Drug dealers don't have a passion for drugs, they just want money.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed[^] Greed: 2. Excessive desire, as for wealth or power. Passion: 4. Any strongly felt emotion, such as love, hate, envy, etc. Remember, these are not opinions. These are facts.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't have any doubt that the US government cannot turn on the people, without the help of the army, and that the army would shoot them for asking it.
I hope you're right.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, because he did not envisage things like terrorism.
I'm not so sure of that. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson Governments always try to gain power. Think about what happened here in the United States on 9/11. Let's say that it wasn't a false flag, I'll play on your field. What happened right after that? About a month or two later, the Patriot Act was enacted, out of the people'
josda1000 wrote:
The gun is not the start of the problem, though, is it? A gun is a tool, that's all it's ever been.
"Hey, guns don't kill people..... But they sure help!" -- Paul Giamatti in "Shoot 'Em Up"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Quite plainly, a homocide is done out of passion, and people will try to do those until the end of time. The real difference is, if you are overcome with passion and want to kill the bitch, she's more likely to die if a gun is in the house.
The gun is not the start of the problem, though, is it? A gun is a tool, that's all it's ever been.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Which is exactly what terrorism is, it's about passion. That's drawing a long bow. Being mad at my girlfriend because she cheated is different to thinking that Allah has virgins in paradise for people who kill the infidel.
No, it's not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/passion[^] Passion: 3a. Boundless enthusiasm Sounds like "terrorism" to me, as defined today. See also: Crime, homicide, greed.
Christian Graus wrote:
Rubbish. Crime, as opposed to murder committed by someone who is usually law abiding, is based on profit. Drug dealers don't have a passion for drugs, they just want money.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed[^] Greed: 2. Excessive desire, as for wealth or power. Passion: 4. Any strongly felt emotion, such as love, hate, envy, etc. Remember, these are not opinions. These are facts.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't have any doubt that the US government cannot turn on the people, without the help of the army, and that the army would shoot them for asking it.
I hope you're right.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, because he did not envisage things like terrorism.
I'm not so sure of that. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson Governments always try to gain power. Think about what happened here in the United States on 9/11. Let's say that it wasn't a false flag, I'll play on your field. What happened right after that? About a month or two later, the Patriot Act was enacted, out of the people'
josda1000 wrote:
A gun is a tool, that's all it's ever been.
Of course. A tool for killing. That's all it is. And so long as we care about the actions of people who kill other people, we'd want to limit their access to such tools.
josda1000 wrote:
See also: Crime, homicide, greed.
Except, it did not say that. Which is exactly why you're trying to focus on the tiniest part of terrorism and crime, in order to suggest a small correlation, makes them the same. You are WAY off base here.
josda1000 wrote:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed\[^\] Greed: 2. Excessive desire, as for wealth or power. Passion: 4. Any strongly felt emotion, such as love, hate, envy, etc. Remember, these are not opinions. These are facts.
And I honestly don't see what point you think you are making. Some crime, like terrorism, is done out of passion. One difference is that terrorism is systematic, and other crimes of passion, by definition, are not. That's just one, I could go on forever, because this line of thought from you is both pointless, and bizarre. Sorry.
josda1000 wrote:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson
You can take quotes that we can apply to our world context all day long. Apart from the idea of the government fearing the people being a joke, as covered previously, this does not prove that Jefferson envisaged islamic terrorists.
josda1000 wrote:
Let's say that it wasn't a false flag, I'll play on your field.
You must be joking. I am sorry, if you're suggesting that 9/11 was a government run operation, then I think this conversation is over. I've frankly spoken to those nutjobs as much as I care to.
josda1000 wrote:
The reason why you WON'T kick the ass of a police officer is because they have the gun. You're disarmed.
No, it has to do with respect.
josda1000 wrote:
AND if someone is just watching you from above, there's no telling what that guy with the camera would want to do. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile.
Well, what are you suggesting he'd do with it ? <