I do accept it. I’m just interested in how you compare a potential slight or blow (depending on what silliness you were up to) to your dignity against the missing people I’ve listed above?
I said his post was ‘nice’. What did I mean by that? How’s this then: An 8/10?
How are any of these things, that everyone bloody well does, a loss of dignity to any specific person? And just be clear, I someone catches you cheating on your wife, who do you think is responsible for your ‘loss of dignity’? Certainly not your wife’s friend taking the picture and showing it to her.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, few people care that you are meeting your girlfriend at the cafe.
Finally some examples of what you are worried about. Rather than worrying about being caught littering, you just don’t want someone to find out you’ve been cheating on your wife!
You are bound and gagged in someone’s basement hoping against hope for a rescue, but you can take comfort in the fact that someone out there isn’t being laughed at for tripping in a funny way.
Look, I’m really not trying to devalue your opinion, but when I weigh the potential good vs the potential bad, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be implemented subject to reasonable restraints like I’ve mentioned above. Believe me when I say there are things I’d rather remain private and not have to justify why I’ve done them - Actually I wouldn’t bother justifying anything. I did them, so there you go. You can go f*** yourself if it offends you in some way. (not you specifically, just saying generally).
How’s this? It doesn’t matter whether you say “nice” or “8 / 10” if you immediately proceed to dismiss the actual content as irrelevant.
I deliberately created a list that included some ringers and some that should have inspired more thought. For instance, tripping over your own feet was the most obvious ringer, while the same-sex date should have inspired more thought. Surely you realize that there are reasons that some gay people want to remain in the closet.
Why did I create such a list? It was an experiment.
Hypothesis:Uzi is not willing to engage in a legitimate debate that respects any of the points being made by the other side.
Null Hypothesis:Uzi is trying to engage in a legitimate debate, but just can’t understand what we’re trying to say.
Prediction:Uzi will select one or two of the ringers and ridicule them, while ignoring the items that should cause concern.
Evidence:
Conclusion: I feel pretty comfortable rejecting the Null Hypothesis.
Of course, and you thought MEBuckner’s post was really nice. Got it.
It would be really nice if you would stop acting like my concerns are about what you or I might personally be caught doing.
Let me ask you this. Have you thought about the potential blackmail value of this video archive? Have you thought about what a dishonest person/company/official might be willing to do to get access to it?
Have you thought about the potential value to a political incumbent, with a challenger beating him/her in the polls, if the incumbent could review everything the challenger has done in public for his/her entire life? What about a police chief who’s being investigated by IA? Reckon that IA officer might have ever done something he’d be embarrassed to have publicized?
It’s not that your safeguards are “unreasonable”; it’s that I don’t think they will work in practice. Too many holes, not enough boat.
Again, the loss of dignity (I prefer the term civil rights) is the fact that millions of people would be continually monitored by the government. Whether they were picking their noses or stepping out on their spouses is irrelevant.
You keep arguing that the loss of civil rights is a negligible price to pay for arresting more people. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, or maybe the second highest. Has it occurred to you that the solution to crime isn’t to put more people in prison?
It was a nice well written post with points that had essentially been made before. Points that I don’t think are as valuable as the potential benefits this tool could provide.
Stop thinking this is about you. It ain’t. I’m just asking ‘you’ to demonstrate what reasons there are that counter the good such a tool could be used for.
Go ahead and try and blackmail me. See if you could collect a penny for your efforts. And it isn’t about me, either. Anyone who does things that they can’t justify probably shouldn’t be in a decision making position let alone having done things worthy of paying off a blackmailer for.
Yet they work in practice everyday on IT systems around the world.
Then all examples as to why this is a bad thing are not relevant? It doesn’t strike you as odd why I’m confused by your ‘because I said so’ argument?
Putting more kidnappers and murders in jail is a very valid solution. That you argue against it is very odd indeed. Yet, I hope I have been emphasizing finding the person the kidnapper has taken, rather than what happens to the kidnapper? How about limiting the system to access for only crimes against a person? No drug shit or littering, etc.
A thought experiment: Suppose we develop little miniaturized drones with cameras and microphones on them–little flying bug-bots. Would it be OK to have these routinely zip into our houses and buzz around taking pictures and recording everything that goes on and uploading it all into a database, provided that no human could actually inspect the contents of that database without a warrant signed off on by a judge?
It isn’t a “because I said so” argument. We’re talking the most basic of civil rights here, but it’s clear we’re living on different planets. I think people have freedom of conscience, you’d like to ban all religions. I believe in limited government, you think it would be helpful to have Big Brother watch everyone.
The points others have raised - the high potential for abuse, the inevitability that it would be used for purposes not intended, etc - are all valid in my opinion. But even in my fairly dangerous big city, there’s a 1% chance per year that someone will be a victim of a violent crime. In a safer big city, like New York, the violent crime rate is about half of that. When I compare the 0.7% rate of crime to the 100% surveillance you support, it’s a no-brainer. The government has no probable cause to watch one hundred people in hopes of catching a fraction of a criminal.
To clarify, I’m not really for banning religions, I’m against enshrining stupidity in a country’s founding documents. Frankly, you can believe whatever you like, just don’t expect special protection for your beliefs.
I believe in effective and efficient government preferably smaller. If this tool can be cost effectively implemented and make law enforcement more efficient, then I’m all for it. That it could provide more visibility in what they do is an added bonus. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Service delivery, which is what cops do, is founded on 4P’s, People, Process, Product (Technology or Automation), and Partners. This tool adds the Product portion.
Well, it would stop a lot of crimes at the conspiracy stage…
But, then, it could be used by a bad government to stop an opposition party at the conspiracy stage.
Remember how mad Republicans were at the idea of the IRS inspecting the applications for non-profit-status of certain groups? These little drone-bots could be used to inspect everyone’s papers, at any time. The IRS reviews would be trifling in comparison.
Why not? I wouldn’t serve people if they were wearing Klan outfits, either. If they don’t like Jews or Catholics, just say you are a Protestant. It’s not like one fantasy is any different than any other.
Actually, you almost got me on this one. It is ingrained in us to defer to fantasy on a regular basis and when someone questions it, you automatically pause. Thanks for helping me clear it up in my mind. This is like in the movie ‘Clerks 2’ when they are arguing ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Lord of the Rings’. People will eventually realize that it is a fanboy argument and ignore it and hire the best people, serve the hamburger, etc. By protecting it we perpetuate it.
I guess I’m just a little uncomfortable at giving the police less powers than what you or I could exercise. But perhaps this ties into to GPS case I mentioned earlier closer than I think. Monitoring isn’t inherently wrong (and neither is privacy). If there is a physical labor barrier to this rather than an eye in the sky staring at the world, you’d be ok with it?
I don’t think we’re there yet, but we soon will be. What kind of regulations would you suggest balance out the needs of security vs. privacy? And what would you suggest we do about the very real and current issue on personal drones in public areas? I don’t want my drone’s picture taking, even if I track someone, to be illegal. I would be annoyed if someone was doing it to me but I’d tell myself to get over it.
I think the right of individuals to take photographs in public areas–whether they’re holding the cameras in their hands or have them mounted on flying drones (or on “selfie sticks”)–should be protected by the First Amendment. (There might be cases, like flying a drone over someone’s privacy-fence-enclosed back yard in order to take photos of someone sunbathing nekkid, where I would probably object. That’s not really taking photos “in public”, though.)
Governments have resources vastly greater than single individuals, or even of most groups of people. I guess if billionaire Bruce Wayne announces Wayne Enterprises will henceforth be flying camera-equipped drones over all areas of Gotham City 24/7 and recording everything that happens, then we’ll have to burn that bridge when we come to it.
People should not do things that are wrong.
Some people do anyway.
We should watch them all 24 hrs a day in case they do something wrong, so we can catch them or rescue the victims.
There’s no need to worry about the “watchers” misbehaving, because people in authority should not do things that are wrong.
So, on the one hand, we should watch citizens constantly because we can’t trust them to behave. On the other hand, we don’t need to worry about public officials misbehaving, because they should all be honest, so we can trust them.
I give up. If I bang my head on a wall long enough, I’ll eventually do some damage to it, but this…this is pointless.
Well my joke about Larry Page was sort of ha-ha-only-serious. Google is engaged in collecting massive amounts of private data and doing god knows what with it.
[QUOTE=Yog Sosoth]
I would be against having cops tail someone while filming them. That seems to be harassment and an intrusion. Regular people doing that to others can possibly face harassment charges. But if it was of a wide area and taken from the sky where nobody knows they are being photographed? I can’t see how that’s an intrusion. Demonize Orwell all you want, but not every surveillance needs to be fought tooth and nail and sometimes the benefits we reap from technology is much more than we lose in privacy
[/QUOTE]
So, wait, you believe cops or private individuals stalking someone through a tele-lens 24/7 would only be harassment if they’re present at the scene ?! That’s… weird, to say the least. If anything, being stalked by invisible eyes in the sky is a lot more invasive of privacy IMO - at least when Smokey is doing it from his very totally inconspicuous van across the street, the stalkee has a recourse and can easily prove it’s happening. Or take a baseball bat to the van, as the case may be.
