1 edit
@shavixmir saidThanks for a long and thoughtful post, Shav.
Okay…
Legally:
To place cameras to that extent, one has to weigh up various aspects:
Privacy impact compared to benefits to society.
You have to argue its proportionality (is it really that worthwhile).
You have to argue its subsidiarity (can the same benefits be achieved with less impact on privacy).
You have to make it very clear with which goals the cameras ...[text shortened]... trends? How open is the information on the cameras?
Probably not the sort of answer you expected…
On the one hand, it would be useful to have some empirical data, such as you suggest: how many crimes actually go unsolved for lack of video surveillance data, how many crimes are solved because of video surveillance data, what are the probable dark figures (i.e., crimes committed where such data were available but the data were not correctly interpreted, crimes committed in places where no cameras were mounted but might have been solved had cameras been there, etc.), can crimes committed in public be solved by using less invasive technologies, etc. On the other hand, and there are two caveats, IMO…
1. Once the tech is in place, even if empirical evidence shows it to be ineffective or too intrusive to be justified, it won‘t in practise be removed. The powers that be will just keep using it anyway.
2. Justification by results (Door no.1 as above) ignores a question of principle. Should there be mass surveillance of a whole population where the principle of „innocent until proven guilty“ is supposed to be sacred? Doesn‘t mass surveillance basically mean that the government treats everyone as a suspect? And isn‘t that abominable, in principle?
You can make the same arguments about torturing terrorists. Either you take door no. 1 and argue how many lives were saved by torturing terrorist suspects, or you take a principled position and say, we won‘t torture people because its an inherent evil.
My two cents.
@shavixmir saidI agree with all of that. And there will be misuse. But I think he issue is, are cameras a good idea for out protection on the face of it. I say yes. Just look at how criminals have been caught using such footage. And again, I docent care what footage I am on, personally. If I am legal, etc, what harm can they do me?
Okay…
Legally:
To place cameras to that extent, one has to weigh up various aspects:
Privacy impact compared to benefits to society.
You have to argue its proportionality (is it really that worthwhile).
You have to argue its subsidiarity (can the same benefits be achieved with less impact on privacy).
You have to make it very clear with which goals the cameras ...[text shortened]... trends? How open is the information on the cameras?
Probably not the sort of answer you expected…
@moonbus saidI am simply saying that you can spy on me all day. If someone uses it for nefarious reasons, like Nixon, that is another issue. I like the cameras to help us catch criminals and the cretins who steal things, and hurt people, you get my drift certainly.
You surprise me, Joe. Aren’t you the one with a visceral distrust of big government? the potential for misuse of surveillance technology is very great, yet you’re willing to believe that not only the present administration, but all future administrations, act in good faith. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember that then-president Nixon used the FBI to spy on his political opponents. Don’t think that can’t happen again.
1 edit
Everyone....Please see this, a CAMERA of which we speak is used to catch a guy who calmly loads his gun and executes a sleeping homeless man on he street. I wish they could make out his culture. Maybe they do.
I rest my case. This happened yesterday,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11803869/Horrific-moment-man-casually-loads-gun-executes-homeless-man-St-Louis-sidewalk.html
@yo-its-me saidBeing facetious, as Marauder keeps asking me the names of cultures Frankly I think that there Should be names assigned to each culture….., or, can we reason that it all really qualifies as one culture, thus one name.
What dose this sentence mean?
@averagejoe1 saidI am very much in favor of monitoring certain public places which have been targets for terrorists, such as train stations, air ports, and in the case of hooliganism, stadiums. Britain however has a huge number of cameras in residential areas, and I strongly suspect it’s a cost-cutting measure and an excuse to reduce the number of constables on the beat. It also happens to be one step away from implementing a police state, like China where if you take part in a political protest on Monday, the stasi visits your parents on Tuesday.
I am simply saying that you can spy on me all day. If someone uses it for nefarious reasons, like Nixon, that is another issue. I like the cameras to help us catch criminals and the cretins who steal things, and hurt people, you get my drift certainly.
@averagejoe1 saidI personally disagree with continues camera surveillence.
I agree with all of that. And there will be misuse. But I think he issue is, are cameras a good idea for out protection on the face of it. I say yes. Just look at how criminals have been caught using such footage. And again, I docent care what footage I am on, personally. If I am legal, etc, what harm can they do me?
But if it’s going to be used, it has to adhere to a strict scope and be rigorously monitored.
@averagejoe1 saidMaybe it was this guy:
Everyone....Please see this, a CAMERA of which we speak is used to catch a guy who calmly loads his gun and executes a sleeping homeless man on he street. I wish they could make out his culture. Maybe they do.
I rest my case. This happened yesterday,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11803869/Horrific-moment-man-casually-loads-gun-executes-homeless-man-St-Louis-sidewalk.html
https://www.mayheminthedesert.com/crimebulletin/2022/10/2/arrest-of-budding-serial-killer-targeting-las-vegas-homeless
@yo-its-me saidHe means black, white, Latino, Asian, etc.
What dose this sentence mean?
"Culture" is what they say to not appear racist.
Not sure who started this. Probably someone on Fox News.
@moonbus saidThat's been said about any measure made to protect the safety of citizens: increasing police activity, stricter gun laws, tracking devices like GPS, etc. Any nation moving toward a police state is likely to already have such measures in place.
It also happens to be one step away from implementing a police state, like China where if you take part in a political protest on Monday, the stasi visits your parents on Tuesday.
Surveillance to protect the public is a good idea but the potential for misuse is exceedingly high....just like GPS or any other such technology. As Shav already mentioned, the key is what legal protocols are in place to protect from the abuse of said measures.
@suzianne saidIt was me. You will start seeing culture a lot.
He means black, white, Latino, Asian, etc.
"Culture" is what they say to not appear racist.
Not sure who started this. Probably someone on Fox News.
Who is Susan Rice?
1 edit
@vivify saidIt’s a rough world. We are preaching to the choir. A guy can slip a girls phone when she’s not looking, connect it to his Find Me app, and stalk her for the rest of her life. Not moral, maybe not legal, and we also must be sure CCTV street cameras are not mis-used?
That's been said about any measure made to protect the safety of citizens: increasing police activity, stricter gun laws, tracking devices like GPS, etc. Any nation moving toward a police state is likely to already have such measures in place.
Surveillance to protect the public is a good idea but the potential for misuse is exceedingly high....just like GPS or any other su ...[text shortened]... mentioned, the key is what legal protocols are in place to protect from the abuse of said measures.
New times are coming everyone. Hey, I hope all those college grads with no debt and making a whole lot of money don’t get ahead of you. They will definitely get ahead of the people who are toiling to earn money to pay taxes which will pay for their college loans.
Is there not a logical thought amongst you folks?
The story appears to have taken a sad turn; the body of an infant has been recovered.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/01/uk/constance-marten-mark-gordon-baby-body-intl
If mass surveillance had led the police to rescue a live infant, it would have strengthened the argument in favor of mass surveillance.
I believe the tech (which now includes automated face recognition software, and the ability to manufacture deep fakes) has far outrun politicians’ comprehension of and ability to implement effective privacy protocols.
@moonbus saidHey Marauder, if you're there, this may be a good time for us to start assigning names to the cultures, which you have suggested. 😲ne of these people should have been tutored on culture before they hooked up.
The story appears to have taken a sad turn; the body of an infant has been recovered.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/01/uk/constance-marten-mark-gordon-baby-body-intl
If mass surveillance had led the police to rescue a live infant, it would have strengthened the argument in favor of mass surveillance.
I believe the tech (which now includes automated face recognitio ...[text shortened]... ) has far outrun politicians’ comprehension of and ability to implement effective privacy protocols.