Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The right to privacy in public places
Posts
Off the top of my head: To see which government employee met with a reporter to be an anonymous whistlerblower. To track who attended a legal protest to harass them later.
The possibilities for abuse are rather large, and while they would probably be illegal, that's not exactly an ironclad protection (its from the US, but look at how the FBI has used the Patriot act for example)
So basically it's back to the "if the government were to turn evil it could be used for evil" argument.
What's this business about "turning" evil?
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
That's when you're not evil and then you become evil. Like what would have to happen with our government for any of these fears to have any practical value, since our government isn't evil. It's misguided and seflish at times, but not evil.
My sentiments exactly. Law enforcement at every level have shown that if given power they abuse it; the great the power, the greater the abuse, see the recent findings about abuse of the Patriot Act for examples.
Also of concern is that those with political power are the ones who control the cameras. Here in Washington, we have many security cameras in public places. Interestingly enough, many are only on (or at least we are told— there is little if any oversight of them) when the various police forces and their masters consider it important to have them on. If we allow our government to operate like this on a national scale, video footage will become so common at trial that it will be hard to obtain convictions without it, allowing those who can prevent footage from being recorded to commit certain acts with impunity. Further, because our Habeus Corpus rights have been taken and will not be returned until a case comes before the Supreme Court, we could even come to a point at which a person can be held without charge or trial simply because the government claims to have seen a crime on camera, without ever having to produce footage of the crime.
America is slowly slipping away and there are few better signs than the constant intrusion of an automated police state into our everyday lives. There needs to be a correction soon, because if there is not, it will be too late for any resistance whatsoever.
It's either completely retarded or pretty much evil at this point. I have too much faith in humanity to favor the former option.
Edit: Besides, they both have the same result.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Sadly, I don't. And I find it weird that you'd rather believe that Humanity is pointedly evil than merely stupid. I know this is a tangent, but basically your faith in Humanity is spent on their intelligence and not their moral integrity...I dunno man.
Do you not think it will be seen as more than a little suspicious if the cameras are turned off for the hour a crime was committed?
No, with second thoughts they wouldn't because they would be thinking Skynet more than Culture or Polity. I'm sure there would be less options open for abuse though
Evil is by far the most rational path. If I am to believe that humanity is intelligent, it is assumed that a large portion of it is decidedly evil, and most of the rest passively so.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Speaker: Citizen, you are outside after curfew. Return to your home or be arrested.
Seriously, it will happen. If given an inch the government take a mile. Cops can be right there and people continue to fight so yelling at them from a distance isn't going to help. I mean you're entrusting these things to people. Officials or not they're human and as corruptable as the rest of us. I mean look at our politicians. The people who make the laws we have to obey.
Not if nobody outside law enforcement knows when the cameras are operating—as is currently the case in Washington, DC. All we get are signs stating that an area may be under surveilance; and that’s only for the local PD. The Secret Service, FBI police, military, and private security firms run cameras with no external oversight or explanations to the public. If people get used to cameras just being on some times and off at others, we’re in trouble.
The problem? They would mail this picture from the camera to people's houses. Too many people were getting busted having affairs while driving their mistresses around and getting caught speeding, and this was sending a picture of them caught in the act to their homes. Now, when the cameras take pictures, before the image is sent home everyone in the car but the driver is blurred out. I don't know if this is done by the software automatically, or by an officer, and I don't know if they keep the non-censored version on file somewhere too.
@Violent Chemistry: If you think "cameras are detrimental to children's health" is the worst thing the private schools in Asia are doing to children, you don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about. At least cameras can prevent teachers beating students (which is fairly common in public schools).
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Which is bigger: water or pillows?
The question can't be answered without specifying how much of each we're talking about.
In order to implement this properly, extreme precaution needs to be taken. Essentially, the standards for 'tracking' someone who isn't actively committing a crime should be higher than just "we have a hunch." I get very uncomfortable thinking about rows of techs at monitors arbitrarily 'flagging' people for constant surveillance.
In the US it is not.
How does this make you feel now?
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
I'm not arguing for a public right to privacy. I'm simply saying that we normally enjoy a degree of anonymity in public that I, personally, am in no hurry to relinquish. To bring up Planned Parenthood again, I don't necessarily think that one has a right to visit them in secret, however, I can think of several people who wouldn't want their visits know to their parents or relatives, and so despite the fact that they don't have the right to go unobserved, I don't feel it's warranted to shout their whereabouts from the rooftops.
It's kind of like how students don't have a right to private lockers, but it's still nice to not have school officials going through them on a lark, or telling Joe that you have a crush on him.
If Y allows them to do X, then yeah its a valid argument.
The point, as I and others have repeatedly made, is that cameras do not 'allow' the problematic behaviour described. They're just another way of carrying out the same old abuses of power that have been carried out ever since we figured out how to walk upright and set fire to shit. Banning them or restricting their use does nothing to address the root problem, it just lends a false sense of security to people who don't think very clearly.
Please tell me you're going to concurrently argue for the banning of all weaponry since it makes it easier to kill someone, as well as banning the internet for making it easier to harass, bully, and track down people you don't like, or I'm going to dismiss your position as internally incoherent.
Um, I was just being random. I have nothing of substance to add.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
On grounds of practicality I can't argue for the banning of all weaponry, but I'd argue for restricted access to weapons. But if we're allowed access to weapons, I'd argue against any move to restrict ownership of arms to authorities only because it disrupts the balance of power between a government and its citizenry.
I wouldn't argue for banning the internet, but I'd argue against actions such as the Chinese governments active restrictions on internet access for its citizens. The internet can be misused to monitor people. CCTV serves no other purpose.
Although hey, I might be changing my mind on the subject since my friend brought up the example that if I were beaten close to death and surveillance footage caught the perps, I'd marry Mr Telescreen. Here's to being a hypocrite!
When I'm walking back through town late at night I find it quite comforting to know that if I get mugged there's going to at least be some of it captured on film. Frankly I don't care if the government knows where I'm driving my car. If I'm off doing something illegal in public then I can hardly complain when they try and catch me out.
So there's my simplistic view on the whole thing.
SoogaGames Blog
The gist of it was that they were running a pilot project where you'd have a security guard monitoring a street via CCTV. The only catch was that he'd also have access to a PA system. These security officers were encouraged to intervene not only for major infractions but minor ones as well.
The video showed a woman haphazardly discarding litter on the ground only to be surprised by a loud booming voice asking her curtly to pick her shit up and put it in the trash that's not even 10 feet from her.
They also mentioned that it had prevented an altercation between 2 groups of people. The guy simply came on the PA, told them to disperse and they did.
I can't think of a good reason not to have this here in Canada.
No, not at all.
1) Littering is a crime. There's nothing totalitarian about enforcing non-littering policies.
2) Police officers tell people to disperse all the time even if they aren't doing anything wrong. THAT I rather have a problem with. Now I haven't seen this Discovery Channel special, but the way Meiz described it, it sounds like the two were about to get into a fight which IS illegal and cops break fights up all the time whether they've started or not. THAT I am fine with. Mind you, loitering is also criminal activity in many areas.
I don't see how enforcement of "little laws" that nobody pays any mind to suddenly makes the whole thing totalitarian. You can argue about the laws themselves, but enforcing them? Nah.
If anything, it's good to keep a general eye on the general public because sometimes people just have excessively poor judgment.
Or you're beaten to death. Does anyone else get a mental image of parents and their kids in waiting rooms? "Stop beating desperaterobots you guys. No really, you better stop. Don't make me get out of my chair and walk over there. (into cell phone) I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you back."
Not really adding anything, just thought it was funny.
Never been to East-Berlin?
They had those speakers everywhere, screaming communist propaganda at you nearly 24/7.
*edit: As I said: slippery slope.