Yet there are claims they are currently abusing their power. So, this friction you speak of only makes it more inefficient and costly. Is government supposed to be like this in every area, or just the ones you disapprove of?
I’ve addressed this earlier. You don’t like a law, then ignore it and get arrested. The more people in jail for stupid shit, the more pressure there will be to fix the law. Of course, you are only fixing the symptoms rather than the root cause of why such laws are made in the first place.
I’m more or less fine with this in principle. I’d much rather prevent crime than punish crime, and one of the few things that we know deters crime (and in general deters bad behavior) is surveillance. Even pseudo-surveillance, actually (people in lab psychology experiments change their behavior if they’re in the presence of mirrors or other images with human faces on them).
I have been playing fair. You have given arguments that I don’t disagree with. Yet you think that just by making those arguments, that me disagreeing with them is somehow ignoring them or misrepresenting them. And yet you do the same. Fine. No point in discussing it further is there?
Agreed.
You think your points are valid and expect me to concede to them when I don’t agree. Sorry, but I don’t concede. I think admitting that it would be better if we didn’t have to have this sort of surveillance is enough of a concession to that.
I’ve never said that existing rights should be given up. My whole point in this argument is that a person’s right to privacy doesn’t extend to when they are outside in public. Yet, I am continuously asked about silly things like shoe cameras and police entering a person’s house without warrants. I’ve also ‘conceded’ the reality that the SC disagrees with my take on the expectation of privacy. So, case closed. I’ve lost.
How long did we talk about lives being saved when that was your bugbear, not mine? I’ve said the tool has many uses, yet you’ve deliberately only wanted to focus on the one issue that makes this tool of any sense to you. I’ve tagged along on your crusade to keep you engaged. Don’t blame me when I bring up other uses that I think are important as well and then get mad when I discount your opinions when you’ve discounted those other uses.
It has been mentioned previously. I have never been sure whether the system worked by just tracking people as unidentified blobs or had more capability to identify the person in real time and I’ve laid out scenarios based upon both.
Obviously, the latter way would be the only way that Wayne could be tracked and actively prevented from being near Dianne. The former would only work to confirm that Wayne had been the actual attacker (or disprove it as Dianne usually isn’t the only person hiding at these locations and may have been caught in the cross fire).
Hmm…GPS tracking chips inserted into a non-removable part of the body? At birth? Heh. When I become the ‘Evil Overlord’.
Controls to prevent certain activity from happening, Measures to record what happens. You can have both and they can be automated to a certain extent. If the warrant says the system will be used to look at certain map areas, then usage outside that area should be recorded. Better yet, the system blocks any usage outside the warranted areas for that particular session. You do realize that I’m making this up as I go along with many assumptions on how the system could be used and controlled, correct? So, keep that in mind if you choose to nitpick. A system CAN be designed with the correct controls in place to minimize abuses and measures to ensure that abuses that do occur have a higher likelyhood of being discovered.
I’d prefer the opposite approach. If the police find evidence, then it is always admissible. But if they broke the law doing it, then they are subject to whatever penalties anyone else would be subject to. eg. if they found 100kilos of cocaine in a person’s trunk by an illegal search then the find stands, but they get charged with breaking into your car like any other hoodlum. I’ve never liked police privilege.
Who enforces the constitution? It is just a piece of paper by itself and meaningless without enforcement. Do you do it? You’re neighbor? Or is it the same group of people you think it protects you from? So, really you trust them more than you think you do.
I agree. A good example. For me, a far better one than people hiding their secret affairs.
I’m going to disagree that it would increase the risk to Dianne in any meaningful fashion if proper controls are put in place. If it was demonstrated that such control do work would you change your mind in this example? Just asking, not for any trickery, but for the point of the discussion. If you say no, then we are too far separated ideologically to bother continuing to talk any further on the subject. I’m willing to say, at this point, if sufficient controls are not in place, then I wouldn’t support this system.
If the world was a better place, such that the people in charge of this system were deemed trustworthy enough to manage it and not abuse it, and controls in place that negated any sort of abuse, would you still object to its implementation?
Yes, it is unfortunate. Comes from allowing religion to exist unchallenged, imho. Funny thing is that a lot of those same bigots are the ones worried about being outed.
One of the reasons I think this system is unworkable. The technology isn’t there yet if we can’t even get decent cameras on every police officer.
Both positive and negative. I like not having to worry about my horse throwing a shoe.
No, the controls in the system independent of the police officer do that. There are no controls preventing police officers from doing whatever they want to other than themselves or by direct supervision in most of their work.
It isn’t any of my business at all, nor, if I was the government interested in building this system anything other than a non-functional requirement to prevent this abuse that would have to be met before implementation.
The people you referred to above are fearful of their families and neighbors. And the people collecting guns for self defence aren’t doing so to protect themselves from the police during a break-in, but their neighbors.
I don’t know why you mention things against the law, because it seems that even if all this thing does is catch lawbreakers, you’d still be against it. I don’t doubt that this could be used inappropriately, but I think the likelyhood is low if the appropriate controls are in place. At this point, what is there to discuss? Without the controls, we both agree that this is likely to be abused. A system with the controls in place is where we differ at this point.
I have made quite a few arguments and/or presented evidence that you simply did not respond to. A response of “I disagree because…” is productive. A nonresponse is not–I find out later that you must have disagreed when you argue as if the points I have raised never existed.
There are a number of points you have raised that we haven’t found any common ground on, but I think you’ll find very few that I have treated as if you never spoke.
I expect you to RESPOND to the points that I make. Whether that response is agreement, concession, or disputation is up to you. What is frustrating is when you cherry-pick my post for sentences to dispute, ignoring context and whole lines of argument as if they never happened.
When did you do that?
If you really mean that, then you should leave that out of your argument going forward–or at least asterisk it. Otherwise, you once again say that people should have no expectation of privacy when outside, which leads me to once again argue the point.
For the sake of clarity, it is not my position that people should have the same expectation of privacy outside their homes as inside them. In fact, expectations of privacy “in public” are quite limited, but within that limited set is included “not being under police surveillance at all times.”
Well, you argued that the system was worth the loss of privacy based on a) lives saved and b) criminals caught. To me, b is a complete nonstarter, so I’ve focused on a, where the argument (in my opinion) has a chance of working.
I’ve focused on the strongest part of your argument. If you can’t justify it on the grounds of lives saved, then the chances of justifying it on the basis of criminals caught seems vanishingly small. You sure will have a hard time selling it to the public on that basis.
If you bring them up as a “plus this”, it’s fine. However, when we are arguing over “lives saved” and I’ve just undercut part of your argument, then bringing up other uses is just changing the subject without acknowledging that part of your argument has been refuted.
FYI: I thought all along, I’ve thought we were discussing the former.
[shudder]
From my standpoint, you have, from the beginning, been conflating “prevent” with “deter” or “discourage”. I think that these types of controls can lessen the abuses, but not prevent them. If not for the “controls” that we currently have to “prevent” abuses of police powers, there probably would be a lot MORE abuses. However, with those controls in place, there are still way too many.
I understand, and I’m not arguing that these types of controls are without value. I am arguing that pretty much any system can be circumvented (or ignored), and there will still be too much abuse that slips through the cracks–based on the amount of abuse of current powers that slips through the current cracks.
We’re fairly aligned in this area, if not necessarily on every detail–I have more agreement than disagreement with your paragraph. That being said, I can’t change the world to be more like that…and my discussion of the subject of SkyEye necessarily assumes the currently existing world.
The courts enforce the constitution, not the police, and the enforcement is after-the-fact. That’s the point I’m trying to make. And I’m not sure what you mean when you say that I “trust” them. If I’m floating in the ocean, I’ll hang on to any life preserver I can find; doesn’t mean I wouldn’t rather have a boat.
Again, “discourage” vs. “prevent”. I don’t think there are a possible set of controls that could eliminate any Diannes from becoming victims.
It’s a tough question, and we may, in fact, be too far apart. Assuming that they are rock-solid abuse-preventers…I think, for me, it would depend on how the “controls” were enacted. The concern is that the controls might be too easily removed at a later date…an example of what I mean is the kind of removals that the Patriot Act have allowed.
In which case, maybe the debate is over what you (vs. I) consider “sufficient”.
In that world, I’m not sure that such a system would be needed. However, if it were needed, I would personally need to see a very strong case made about the acceptable uses and expected benefits. Right now, I honestly think that very few tangible benefits would pan out. Rather, I think that the actual criminals would work more at night and learn to move in and out of crowded/covered areas to prevent being identified.
That is to say, much like gun control laws, the system would more effectively surveil law-abiding citizens than those with criminal intentions.
I’m sure there’s some overlap, but what you describe hasn’t been my general experience. Then again, this is hardly an area of expertise for me.
For what it’s worth, I have no problem with surveillance of police officers, and I do think increased use of cameras is a good thing. Of course, things like that can “break” at the most inconvenient of times…
Agreed. I wasn’t trying to suggest that I am anti-technology. I am trying to suggest, though, that number of potential bad unintended consequences for SkyEye seems, to me, quite high.
I think that you’re missing the point I’m making: When we’re talking about MOST laws, they don’t “prevent” crime; they punish it. The expectation is that punishing crime will have a deterrent effect, and it does, but it does not prevent crime. Crime still happens. Abuses of police powers still happen.
So, from my standpoint, your controls will deter abuses, but I personally think there will be plenty of abuses that are not deterred. That is, we can throw Wayne in jail–or execute him–and we should, but the fact remains that Dianne will still be dead.
Fair enough. If by “prevent this abuse”, you mean “make it so that no abuses can happen”, I think this is a requirement that cannot be satisfied.
Well, this isn’t really relevant, but most of the hard-core gun-hoarders that I know of are either preparing for some kind of apocalypse/anarchy scenario (in which case, I’m not sure that the term “neighbors” is meaningful) or they’re arming themselves to defend their “rights” from the government, of which the police are a small subset. I don’t really know of any people that are afraid that their neighbors are suddenly going to randomly attack them or invade their homes. Of course, there’s every kind of crazy out there somewhere, but I don’t think this is a common kind of crazy.
That’s a bit of an overstatement. If you create some kind of widget that unerringly identifies/catches violent criminals, you wouldn’t find me jumping up to complain. If you create a widget that unerringly identifies/catches people that smoke pot in their backyards, then I’m against it. As you’ve mentioned, this widget has “many uses”, and a lot of them involve (potentially) enforcing bad laws. And I know you’ve told me that I should change or get rid of bad laws…still working on it (with almost no success).
More specifically, I think we disagree that there could be controls that would prevent all abuses. And there may well not be much left to say on that issue.
I have been pruning these posts for brevity, not to avoid your questions. If I have removed something that you have deemed important, I can assure you it was because I thought I was answering it further down or had been addressed elsewhere. To do anything else wouldn’t require me to analyze my own argument properly.
I remember at least one time saying that I’d prefer not to be watched.
Police or government? Regardless, that a camera is watching you doesn’t mean police are watching you. If the tool is only used when a warrant is issued, then that data should only be accessed in the investigation of a crime or suspected crime (eg. kidnapping). So, does a tree make a sound when if falls in the forest if no one is there to hear it? Yes. But does it matter that it makes a sound if no one can hear it?
The argument for you has a chance of working. I don’t discount trying to put killers away.
There are lots of people who would want it for catching criminals alone. You do have the highest prison population in the world. Someone has to like sending people to jail to support such a mess. I’d prefer that if someone had to go to jail, it was the actual person who did the deed.
For the most part. I do distinctly remember earlier that there was talk of identifying people continuously.
And the more police know they are being watched, the better chance that it will reduce abuses and record ones that do occur.
The courts are the government, aren’t they? If not, then the police aren’t the government either.
How many cases are there now where the Wayne’s of the world use their cop buddies to tell them where these safe houses are?
Yes! Cameras on high don’t usually have that ability to ‘break’ because Joe cop wants to plant a gun on his trophy.
I had ‘apocalypse’ in an earlier draft. But during an apocalypse, who will be the people attacking ‘Fred the Prepper’? It is unlikely to be any government agency. More likely to be random hordes of zombies or the guy across the road who knows that Fred has a basement full of provisions and guns.
Probably a more interesting discussion at this point is how to go about doing so without ignoring the law to do it eg smoking pot. Another thread, though.
You did not address it at all. In fact, it is your proposal that papers over the symptoms, by (literally) locking away the examples that would show society the error of its ways before more enlightened viewpoints can spread. To reiterate the paragraph of the essay that best encapsulates the critical issue:
This distinction points to another advantage of the current “inefficient” system, in which the police are much more dependent on citizen cooperation to detect crime and pursue criminals than they would be with “SkyEye”:
The cops are looking for some guy who knocked over an old lady to steal her purse? Yeah, I saw some guy running in that direction, white, about five-ten, two hundred pounds give or take,… sure, I can clear off a little time on my schedule to talk to a sketch artist.
The cops are looking for some guy who was smoking the Demon Weed With Roots In Hell? Sorry, didn’t see anything like that. Nope, don’t know anything. Excuse me, I need to go iron my dog…
And how much time do they spend finding the guy who can help them find the guy? That is inefficient, when they can use the system to find the criminal directly.
So, cops wasting time enforcing bad laws and not directly finding the person they are looking for. Again, inefficient.
Frankly, I don’t care about people choosing to smoke weed, or care if they don’t. Most laws preventing what people do willingly with no harm to others I don’t agree with. Add that concept to your constitution and you might avoid these issues entirely.
Okay, several times I have mentioned a gaping hole (or several, depending on how you look at it) in the SkyEye system: People who intend to conduct crimes can make sure that they travel through crowded/covered places before and after to avoid being identified (people who live in multiple family dwellings and don’t have jobs would be particularly difficult to identify). Or they could wait until it’s dark. Which means that the criminals that will be caught will be the ones who are stupid OR who did not premeditate their crimes. As I understand it, most of the unsolved violent crimes that we have now take place in areas where a lot of people don’t have jobs or single-family homes; that is, in areas where SkyEye will be the least effective.
As far as I can tell, you have completely ignored this point, and continue to argue that SkyEye will solve a lot of crimes that currently go unsolved. I would like it if you would at least RESPOND to this issue.
And from that, I’m supposed to infer that you are conceding that “it would be better if we didn’t have to have this sort of surveillance”, and that this is a meaningful concession? You’re expecting me to read an awful lot into what appear to be off-hand comments.
In this particular context, I’d say the two were interchangeable. Ultimately, any enforcement action that would result from the content of the footage would be implemented by some sort of “police”, regardless of whether an actual policeman was the one watching the tape. Whoever IS watching the tape (legally, as part of their job) is, effectively, a part of the police force.
Here’s an example of what I was talking about: You’re dropping whole segments of the argument. I just spent a great deal of time talking about the difference between “prevent” and “deter”, and earlier in the thread we talked about the fact that improper (warrantless) searches DO happen. Now, you’ve jumped back to arguing from the standpoint that the rules will never be broken, so no one will ever see the footage without a proper warrant. In your hypothetical law-and-order world, this is okay. But in the real world, I thought we agreed that the government breaks its own rules. This ground has been covered, but it seems like you’re trying to hit a reset button.
If there’s a recording of the tree falling that someone can listen to at any time, then this philosophical conundrum doesn’t really work, because someone can hear it later…unless you’re trying to turn this into some kind of Schrodinger’s Cat discussion.
I think you’ve got a problem with this argument, though, because the killers that people most want to put away are most likely the ones that SkyEye won’t be of much help in catching–I’m referring to the issue from the very beginning of this post.
It’s a fair point, as far as the culture in the U.S., but I think the tide may be starting to turn in that regard. The public wants violent criminals in jail–the more the public learns how much of the “mess” is a result of non-violent offenders and ridiculous minimum-sentencing laws, the more I think this may start to be corrected…
Having said that, again, the criminals that most need to be caught are the ones that are most likely to elude SkyEye. I really do think there is a parallel here with many of the gun control laws–they don’t keep guns out of criminal hands because the criminals don’t obey those laws. Similarly, the real bad guys will find ways to elude SkyEye when they’re up to no good.
I think there was talk of how difficult (and undesirable) that would be. From my standpoint, it wasn’t on the table, and it seemed like you pulled it out against a strong argument, making it feel like a bad plot device, which is why I treated as such.
Again, my concern isn’t with the police being watched–I’m generally in favor of that. My concern is for all the non-governmental citizens who are ALSO being watched. So, from my standpoint, putting cameras on cops and their cars = good. Putting cameras on everyone, in case a cop happens by = bad.
I also think it’s reasonable to assume that the police will be more aware than the general public of where to go (and when) to avoid being caught by SkyEye. They’ll be in the best position to know the weaknesses of the system and how to exploit them.
You’re hearing a different distinction than the one I’m trying to make. The police are part of the government, and the courts are part of the government. However, the courts are NOT an enforcement body, per se. They dole out judgments, fines and punishments after the events occur. So, in the context of what we were talking about, they don’t actively prevent violations of someone’s rights, any more than they prevent murders. However, they may throw out criminal evidence that resulted from a violation of rights.
The point is that rules still get broken, and police powers still get abused. Hopefully, the action of the courts will have a deterrent effect, but the mere fact that they exist does not mean we can assume that SkyEye won’t be abused by police or other government someones. I’m pointing this out because you’re argument seems to be of the form: “You have a legal system to prevent abuses, so abuses of SkyEye will not occur.” And I don’t think this argument works in the real world.
There are definitely cases where Waynes manage to track down their wives. However, in the current state, they can’t rely on cops for that because, without SkyEye, their cop buddies don’t know where their wives are. In fact, the location of shelters is kept as secret as possible from as many people as possible. My point was that SkyEye will make this kind of secret much harder to keep.
I also suspect that the Federal Witness Protection program would never recover, either.
And they also will tend to do a lot more than just film cops. How about if we assign a drone to each cop that follows the cop everywhere he/she goes and just films the cop and immediate surroundings?
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize these people as fearful of their neighbors, per se. It’s the apocalypse itself that they’re fearful of…some kind of catastrophic collapse of society after which the idea of “neighbors” will no longer be meaningful.
(And some are just spoiling for a fight, and whether the other guy is a neighbor isn’t particularly relevant.)
Not sure what you mean…if you mean a way to prevent bad laws from being enacted, well, that was the intent of the Constitution. Clearly, it does not fully prevent bad laws from happening. If you mean, how to get bad laws revoked, then I would say that Steve MB’s link is very relevant to that discussion.
In either case, I agree that it belongs in a different thread.
I agree with your post in its entirety. However, I think Uzi is arguing from a standpoint where the assumption is that such issues will be addressed some other way (or should be)–rather than have an inefficient system, why don’t you just pass better laws?
It’s an optimistic position, to be sure…it annoys me because he seems to be suggesting that you or I (or, I guess, the two of us in cahoots) can do just that. We just haven’t been voting properly…
I haven’t ignored it, I’ve answered it many times. This is ONE tool among many that the police could use to solve crimes. Should they not collect fingerprints or DNA either because not everyone’s data is in a database? As I said earlier, this could allow the police to see that Wendy was at a coffee shop and left with someone. If they are lost in the crowd, it would allow them to check the coffee shop at the time and track witnesses who may have seen them together at their last known location eg. the coffee shop.
So, you think Joe Cop can login to the system and browse to his hearts content without any record of it occurring? I’ve already laid out that, if I designed the system, he’d have had to go through much workflow to get warrants and approvals, etc., before being allowed to login. All of his browsing would be available to both the judge granting the warrant, the prosecution team and the defense team. Hence prevention is built in to a certain extent. Deterrence happens when he manages to do things during that search for his own agenda. If the chances of getting caught are high, then it is unlikely it will be abused.
Yes, but we are back to a cost/benefit analysis, aren’t we. If this can only save a few lives or only catch the stupidest of criminal, then maybe it isn’t worth doing. If it can only see a bunch of pixels and not determine who someone is, then it maybe isn’t worth doing. I think it can do more if used intelligently. I also think that your own argument minimizes the privacy issue that I’ve been saying all along. Don’t want to get caught doing something then do it where you have an expectation of privacy. It would be just as hard to find out that the two people meeting together are gay lovers rather than just friends.
As an aside, those cameras on cars would probably provide a far higher resolution than any skyeye, and could be used to determine who a person was. A good thing? If it only searched for wanted criminals would that be okay?
I’ve never thought of police as being tech savvy. Might be TV shows giving me that impression.
The part of the government that would manage SkyEye shouldn’t be part of enforcement, either. They manage the system and report violations of the system to the appropriate body for enforcement.
Does the legal system prevent crime from happening? Crime can always happen. You put a lock on your door to prevent random strangers from walking into your house, not hardened criminals. For them you need alarms systems, etc.
I assume that someone has to take Dianne to the safe house. Someone who knows how to negate the system as well as any criminal? Either the system is effective or it isn’t.
Government should run efficiently because it is using money we give them (voluntarily or not) to do things all of us elect them to do.
I think people want to follow laws that make sense and should have the ability to challenge those same laws when they don’t. Breaking those laws you don’t approve of shouldn’t be the only way to change them.
I might have mentioned it before, but I think laws should have an expiration date on them where to be continued they must be reviewed by government and signed off on. Or at least a subset of them that fall under ‘for your own good’. Laws that protect you from yourself rather than laws that protect you from other people.
This isn’t much of an answer. This “tool” is inherently costly and includes placing everyone under partial surveillance, which is a big deal. You’re argument has been that it will be “worth it” because of lives saved and criminals caught. A lot of my argument has been making a case that there won’t be a lot of lives saved, and I haven’t seen you refute that. Now, moving into the area of “criminals caught”, I am pointing out that that benefit will probably also be much smaller than you’ve been suggesting–particularly with regard to violent criminals, who are the ones we most WANT to catch.
Your answer seems to be, “Well, if it does any good at all, then it’s worth it,” and that’s just not a very good answer.
btw, there is a reason that not every person’s DNA has already been collected into a database. Generally speaking, we don’t collect DNA samples from (apparently) law-abiding citizens unless there’s a good reason to. We also don’t usually place them under surveillance and track their movements for no good reason. It’s that privacy thing, again.
This is a fine example of a strawman argument. I have not said that it will be EASY for someone to circumvent the rules, nor have I said that every person in law enforcement will be breaking them. What I HAVE said is that abuses will happen, and, based on recent history, they will happen with regularity, just like abuses of currently existing policing power are abused with regularity. Just like data breaches and hack attacks on ‘secure’ systems happen with regularity.
Got it. I have understood what you’ve been saying all along: Measures will be taken to deter abuses, and I am sure they will do some good. However, they will not completely prevent abuses from happening. Abuses will happen. Honest mistakes will happen. Saying, “Controls will be included, so abuses shouldn’t happen,” doesn’t entitle you to proceed as if no abuses will happen. I applaud your desire to minimize them, but you have not successfully established that the risks have been eliminated, and it is really annoying when you argue as if they have.
It is pretty much a certainty that it will be abused. The question is to what extent these “controls” will minimize the abuses. Clearly, your confidence is high, based on the idea that proper procedures will be followed. My confidence is low, because similar controls are so commonly bypassed by both governments and criminals (and idiots) for existing tools.
Yep, that’s pretty much what I’m saying.
Sorry, this isn’t the kind of forum where such vague pronouncements can just be accepted as valid. That is to say, you’re welcome to think whatever you want to, but if you want it to impact this discussion, you’re going to have to back it up with something a little more substantive.
So, you’re declaring a kind of equivalence between
[ol]
[li]An expectation that criminals will try to circumvent surveillance.[/li][li]An expectation that people who are not breaking any laws should have to behave like criminals if they don’t want their privacy violated.[/ol][/li]Sorry, I don’t agree that this notion “minimizes” the privacy issue in any meaningful way. Making law-abiding citizens feel and behave like criminals doesn’t sound like any kind of happy ending to me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “those cameras on cars”. If you’re talking about cameras like are currently mounted in many police cars, then it’s fair to say that I have no objection to them–although from what I’ve seen, they don’t serve as much of a data mine for spotting criminals.
On the other hand, if you’re suggesting that all cars should have cameras on them and the footage should be collected by the government, then no, I don’t think that idea is “okay”.
Police don’t have to be tech savvy to gossip about where there might be gaps in SkyEye coverage (or places where the footage has turned out to be unreliable) or how hard it is to track someone who goes to a shopping mall. Since the use of SkyEye would be part of their day-to-day worklife, they’d have more practical familiarity with the strengths, weaknesses, and quirks of the system than the vast majority of the public. You’ll find that they have a pretty good feel for the strengths and weaknesses of speed-detection “tools” like radar and laser ‘guns’, not because they understand the technology, but because they deal with them regularly.
The part of the government that USES the system would be part of enforcement, pretty much by definition. How you classify the part of the government that is supposed to monitor them isn’t really relevant. I think you’re still missing the point that I was making: It’s not about whether you choose to categorize people as “enforcement”. The POINT is that if you’re "reporting a violation’, then the violation has already happened. Punishing violations will hopefully have a deterrent effect, but it is very much not the same as “preventing”. You seem to think that I’m making fine distinctions about government functions or labels, when I’m not. All I’m doing is pointing out the practical difference between “prevent” and “deter”.
It’s a good thing to try to deter criminal acts. However, the fact that you intend to do your best to deter criminal acts does not entitle you to pretend that you’re preventing them, and they will not happen.
This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I’m talking about. We try to find ways to deter bad behavior, but we are not able to prevent it. It’s the same with SkyEye, and it seems to me that you’re unwilling to accept that, in spite of whatever controls you put in place, there WILL be abuses, and there WILL be non-criminal people harmed. You just don’t seem to be willing to consider this as a “cost” associated with SkyEye. Far as I can tell, you only have eyes for the benefits you think it will provide. (Which is why I have spent so much time pointing out reasons that the benefits would likely be MUCH less than you seem to expect.)
Sorry, I really don’t understand what argument you’re making here. I’ll just roll the dice and point out that, when you’re trying to keep something secret, the fewer people who have the knowledge (or a way of gaining the knowledge), the more likely you are to successfully keep your secret. SkyEye would greatly expand the pool of people with the potential to discover the “secret”.
I believe that you may be saying that you think I’ve made a good point. In which case, thank you.
I agree. However, the fact that we think the government ought to run well doesn’t mean that it does run well. I’m not even convinced that it CAN run well. But yeah, of course I wish that it did.
I don’t disagree with your “wish”, but I don’t see how the “average” person is going to have much in the way of better options. If you’ve got ideas of how this could actually work in practice, I think they could be the basis for an interesting new thread.
Look, this is all fine, and there are a lot of areas here where I agree with you, at least conceptually. But these “should” and “ought to” arguments basically create an imaginary world that is very much different from our real world. This particular debate about SkyEye is about taking a fledgling, partially imaginary (but technically viable) technology and placing it in our real, currently-existing world. Random references to this imaginary “utopian” world serve no purpose other than to confuse the debate (and annoy the other participants).
Particularly when you say things like, “You should make better laws” or “You should elect a better government”–as if we can easily transform our real world into some sort of better, utopian one where the downsides of SkyEye will no longer exist. This just isn’t a fair–or civil–approach to the debate.
If it were that damn easy to fix the government, someone woulda done it by now, don’tcha think?
How many times have I mentioned cost vs benefits in this thread so far? Enough that you should get the general idea that this isn’t true.
You missed my point. Just because everyone isn’t in the database doesn’t mean that the police don’t collect all available evidence. They use the tools available to them even though it might not be likely at that point in time a specific tool helps solve the crime. Collecting DNA or fingerprints might not help solve the crime in any way. Alternatively, while it might not help them solve the crime, it might ensure that someone is eliminated from the pool of suspects.
Regularity? Based upon what? Not every encounter with police results in a shooting or even harsh words, for that matter. My personal experience with them hasn’t been good, but then I don’t like getting speeding tickets. Doesn’t mean I didn’t deserve them.
I have to make an assumption that they will. I’ve already agreed with you that if these controls aren’t implemented then the system is ripe for abuse. What more do you expect?
An example? I’ll give you one actually. Snowden walking off with a bunch of sensitive data.
Then why did you answer earlier that I was saying this, “Well, if it does any good at all, then it’s worth it,”?
Uh, these the same people you think should break the law in order to change it?
I think it would be far easier to get them setup to monitor and recognize people using these cameras than SkyEye.
If it is used for facial recognition to find wanted suspects and only searches that database?
I think we’ve pointed out most of them in this thread. Criminals still make mistakes like leaving finger prints and DNA evidence for the police to collect.
Great. There is a difference between ‘prevent’ and ‘deter’. A login ‘prevents’ someone unauthorized from logging in. 20 years in jail ‘deters’ someone from hacking the login. Same as the lock on your door at home.
You may think I have a black and white view of this, but I do not. People design a system, other people find ways to abuse it. The point is that there are ways to MINIMIZE the abuse.
Well you keep tilting at non-existent windmills if that makes you happy. Cops can plant evidence
You believe it? No wonder this is so tiring if you are in doubt that saying it was a ‘good example’ means that it was a ‘good point’.
You’ve mentioned them, but you never say where you think we are. Given the amount of discussion on how (quantitatively) small the benefits are and the quantity/variety of costs (dollars, abuses), I would THINK you should be in a place of saying, “This is seeming like a lot to give up for not much that we get back.” But then you say things like “This is ONE tool among many that the police could use to solve crimes. Should they not collect fingerprints or DNA either because not everyone’s data is in a database?” and I don’t really know exactly where on the field you’re standing at the moment. But that last bit sure SOUNDS like you’re saying that if there are ANY benefits, then SkyEye is a good deal and we should do it.
Of course, I also don’t ever know for any given comment whether you’re speaking of SkyEye in the real world or in the utopian one where there are no bad laws…
You could help matters A LOT if, when I’ve misstated your position, you not only tell me that I’ve got you wrong, but ALSO tell me where you actually stand. Reminding me that you’ve “mentioned” costs and benefits doesn’t give me any clue where you currently stand. All I can make of your position is some combination of “Any benefits would be good” and “controls can be implemented to prevent abuses.” If I’m misreading what you mean with these kinds of pronouncements, by all means, please correct me. It’s not like I get any thrill from trying to guess what you mean.
To be fair, if that was your point, there was little chance of me guessing it, since it’s not particularly relevant to what we’re talking about. Of course the police use all the tools they have (well, when budgetary constraints allow). However, what we’re talking about is whether SkyEye should be one of their tools, not whether they’d use it if they had it. I have assumed all along that they would.
And yet, we don’t collect DNA from people who aren’t believed to be involved in a case. However, with SkyEye, we would collect surveillance footage of everyone. With DNA, there has to be a reason to “intrude” on a person’s privacy. That was MY point.
Asked and answered, numerous times in this particular thread.
Come on, man. You’re better than this. Tornadoes destroy homes in the U.S. with regularity. That doesn’t mean that every storm produces a tornado or that every house gets destroyed.
If you’re not willing to put in the mental effort to make a better argument than this, better not to respond at all.
I don’t know about expect, but I would hope that you would not make a ridiculously implausible assumption (“having controls will mean no abuses will occur”) and then argue as if that ridiculous assumption were true. Particularly after this much time has been spent by me, and others, establishing the implausibility of the assumption.
This is the kind of thing that I’m talking about when I say that you argue as if none of the previous discussion had occurred.
Asked and answered, numerous times, previously in this thread.
I would say that BOTH the collection of that data and the fact that Snowden was able to access it are examples in support of my assertion that abuses will happen, in spite of there being controls in place to try to prevent them.
Because that’s what it seems like your position is. In this particular case, you threw out an “if…maybe” construction (actually, more than one), which did not suggest that the conclusions matched your actual position. So, not knowing what you meant by phrasing these things as hypotheticals, I just confirmed that the “maybe” conclusions you suggested did, in fact, match MY position.
And for the record, if you think I’m misunderstanding your position, saying things in the form of “If…maybe” is not a particularly good way correct my understanding.
You’re mixing contexts again. The main examples we were discussing were someone having a secret gay love life or someone escaping an abusive spouse. Neither of these are illegal.
So, no, I don’t think it’s safe to assume that I meant the same people. That being said, since something like SkyEye–and the issue of civil disobedience that Steve MB brought up (which I think is what you’re referring to)–affect everyone, then I suppose you could conclude that any random example of “people” you choose to name could be considered part of the group that I refer to as “citizens”.
I’m sure you’re right, but the coverage area of cameras mounted on police cars is much less than that covered by SkyEye. Plus, without he ability to “track back” the subjects, then whose face are you recognizing? Which is why a) I don’t have any objections to those cameras and b) with or without facial recognition, I don’t think they’re much of a net for catching criminals. They do have the potential to be a good net for catching misbehaving cops, though.
You can keep trying to sell me on the cop-car camera benefits, if you like, but it’s not really necessary: I’m not opposed to them.
On civilian cars, unless facial recognition improves by a great deal (and high quality cameras get a lot cheaper), I think this represents an expensive intrusion with almost no benefits.
We’ve talked about the obvious ones. I’m sure there are more that we haven’t thought of.
Sure they do. Otherwise, we wouldn’t ALREADY be able to catch a lot of them–without SkyEye. My point is that, the ones that we don’t already catch (which, if caught, would represent a “benefit” of SkyEye) largely consist of the kinds of criminals that would either be smart enough to elude SkyEye or would be part of the demographics (apartment / housing complex dwellers, unemployed, etc.) that SkyEye would be much less effective at identifying. In addition, a whole lot of these crimes happen at night, when I would expect SkyEye to be much less helpful in identifying/catching bad guys.
Agreed. And yet, unauthorized people still log into accounts. Systems are still hacked. Houses are still broken into. And policing powers are abused by employees of the government. Just to be clear, I have not said that these things do no good. What I have said is that, in spite of these “controls”, the bad things that we’re trying to prevent still regularly happen.
You just said (or seemed to say) that you assume that, with “proper controls”, abuses of the system won’t happen. This is my argument that your assumption is unwarranted.
And I haven’t disputed that point. What I have said is that this “minimized” amount of abuse/misuse will probably still be significant, because in spite of similar controls on IT systems / policing powers, a whole lot of abuse/misuse occurs.
If you didn’t say things like “I have to assume that they will [eliminate the risk of abuse]”, then I wouldn’t get the idea that you have a black-and-white view of the subject.
Or you could clarify your position, so I can distinguish it from a windmill. It’s not like I’m looking for windmills to take a poke at. Trying to argue the various “iterations” of your argument is like playing Whack-a-Mole–rather than standing your ground, you seem to be playing evasion games.
You could cut down on “That’s not what I meant” and put in more of “Here’s what I meant…”
btw, I don’t even have a guess what “Cops can plant evidence” means in the context of my post or your response.
Sorry, your phrasing threw me off. It’s never safe to give me just a sentence fragment, because my imagination runs away with it. So, when you say, “Another good example”, my inner English Teacher says, “Of what?” and my inner crazy person starts throwing out ideas, like
Another good example “in support of your argument”.
Another good example “of why privacy doesn’t exist”.
Another good example “of how to change the subject”.
Another good example “of the violence inherent in the system”.
Another good example “of why monkeys shouldn’t have typewriters”.
Another good example “of the occasional correctness of a stopped clock”.
Another good example “of karmic dissonance”.
Another good example “of why I hate you”.