Well, I think it would be a huge problem for the government to collect all communications preemptively, whether or not a warrant is needed to search the database. And I’m pretty sure the courts wouldn’t ever allow such a huge violation of the Fourth Amendment to ever occur.
Is that what you think the reason was for the Fourth Amendment? Our right to be secure in our effects is just because the Framers wanted to break the law with impunity?
Dunno. Not an American. All I’m basing my opinions on are on what people are saying in this thread and that seems like they want to litter whenever they want to without the ‘man’ stopping them. You tell me what you are worried about happening if someone was watching you walk down the street, because that is what the eye would be doing, correct?
No, for the tenth time, the concern is that the government has no reason to videotape all persons on an ongoing basis, even if a warrant is required to investigate one person. This is the definition of a dragnet, an unreasonable search, and Big Brother.
ETA: it isn’t incumbent upon people to justify why the government shouldn’t monitor them 24/7. The burden is on the government to describe why it is reasonable and based on probable cause, which is impossible to do.
How else would they catch litterers ?
It’s more like we’re worried about what would happen if someone were following us around 24 hours a day noting down every single place we went and every other person we interacted with (or were at least in proximity to).
Again, another nebulous answer. What specifically is the reason that collecting information on what happens in public spaces is wrong when they can do it piecemeal now?
The police can shoot me now, too. I don’t see much point in justifying wrongdoing on the grounds that it can’t be stopped if the wrongdoers really want to engage in it.
Also, piecemeal is not as threatening as wholesale and in bulk. The U.S. model is all about limits to government power.
If you don’t feel any personal need or desire for privacy, that’s cool. But many of us very strongly do, and the idea of being watched at all times – the idea of being watched as individuals, identified and classified in detail – is anathema to us.
You could embed gps/rfid emitters in everyone, and that would solve a lot of problems. Those two guys who escaped from prison in New York state would have been recaptured in hours, not run around for weeks. But most of us do not want to surrender that much of our privacy.
It isn’t because we want to commit crimes. It’s because we don’t like the idea of the government monitoring us in our day-to-day lives.
If you disagree, well, cool. Disagreement is at the heart of Great Debates. But don’t dismiss the opposition as mere criminal wannabes, 'cause that’s not the basis for our viewpoint.
So, because of how you ‘feel’ the rest of society must put up with murderers, terrorists and litterbugs running around free?
The ultimate digital wallet if you add some biometrics. No more identity theft. Sounds convenient.
Is there any threshold of Skyeye that would lead you to support it? What if it was able to reduce the murder rate by 90%? What about 50%? Is there any protections that could be put in place that would change your mind?
It’s actually pretty easy to define. Maybe resolution can’t be any better than 4 pixels per square meter. If they played games by blurring the picture it would lose its value as evidence. If a jury sees a blurry picture then they can’t make any sense of it.
Unsubstantiated. Do you have a cite showing how the NSA abused their data collection on an American?
Iran-Contra is real. The “CIA funnelling crack into black ghettos” is CT bullshit.
And getting a warrant is barely a restriction and yet it works.
Well, if you really want to play the hyperbole game…
“So, because of how you feel about litter you’re willing to tattoo every man with an ID number and inject a microchip into his body, and mandate surveillance of every person at all times by government overseers?”
I would have thought, though, that a Great Debate would rely more upon rebutting what the participants actually have said, rather than making up more and more extravagant exaggerations.
I’m willing to play your game, but I confess I don’t admire it very much.
Rebutting what? You’ve not offered any reason not to do this other than you don’t like being looked at when you go outside. I have no idea why it bothers you when anyone can watch you now. Again, the only reason anyone has given is that they don’t want to get tickets for littering or jaywalking. So, if I mention littering it is because the chaff I have been given to make my bricks (arguments) is pretty slim.
The problem is not so much the collection and proper use of that information, it’s more about what unscrupulous people might be able to do with that collected data once it exists.
Consider: email is great - the idea that I can send a near-instant message to anyone else on the planet. Fantastic. But now we have email, we also have spam, phishing, etc.
There is a risk that any system can be abused for purposes other than that for which it was intended.
I have nothing to hide, and in general, I would support a little more, and better-quality video monitoring of public spaces, but a system that automatically records and documents the movements of everyone would (I think) be too tempting a data set to remain unexploited - if a Labour government implemented it, the next Tory government would sell the database to marketing companies. If a Tory government implemented it, the next LibDem/UKIP/Green coalition(!) government would use it to nanny us.
Using email as an example again, would you be happy for employees in a government agency to have automatic and free daily access to your email account? You have nothing to hide, so there would be no harm in them gathering stats on who you had contacted and about what topics?
It isn’t nebulous. Frankly, I’m getting tired of repeating myself simply because you can’t understand that we are starting from different questions: you ask, essentially, why shouldn’t the government do this, and expect that the only possible valid answers are explanations of the harm to millions of individuals as compared to the .2% (or whatever) may be arrested because of the technology.
I am starting from the point that the government does not have an inherent right to monitor people for no reason, and that any police intrusion must be as limited in scope to what’s needed for the investigation as much as possible. This is the whole basis of this form of government: people aren’t supposed to prove that they aren’t supposed to be free from government surveillance. As to why mass surveillance is different than a targeted investigation, I’ve addressed this in most of my posts, and cited a Supreme Court opinion on this topic. If you aren’t going to read my posts, what’s the point of this debate?
It isn’t because my widdle feewlings are hurt like a sad puppy when I think of this. It’s because we have civil fucking rights in this country and we don’t have to put up with authoritarian bullshit from overlords in Beijing unless we can figure out a really good reason why we don’t.
The fact that criminals may be going free because the government can’t do everything it wants isn’t some threatening argument that makes anyone on my side of the argument worry about appearing soft on crime. It’s routine here. Murderers get to walk free because the police violated their civil rights by doing illegal searches. We generally accept that people are innocent until proven guilty, and our legal system has a huge bias toward letting guilty people go free rather than allowing police power to expand arbitrarily.
Probably not, because 99% of the people being recorded have done nothing to warrant government surveillance of their daily lives. Maybe if there was a mass outbreak of violence, I could see the technology possibly being used in a tailored way to end a serious emergency - like if litterbugs revolt against the government. You know, when the shit really hits the fan and our streets are strewn with half-chewed gum and empty Doritos bags.
That’s not what I’m saying. A law or regulation is only as good as the means to enforce it. Simply writing “y’all can’t do that” and calling it a day is, surprisingly, not enough.
Why ? Can the jury tell the resolution has been lowered ? How ?
All the more reason to trust the nice policeman who swears up and down the software analysis did everything for them.
As I said. Google. It’s a powerful tool.
Well yes, if the police specifically had it out for John Smith, then they wouldn’t need Skyeye to show that he was at a protest and to go harass him. But if they want to know who all was at a specific protest, Skyeye would make it much easier to see what specific people were at the protest and where to go find them. It’s just like police don’t need tanks and grenade launchers to intimidate people, but having them definitely makes it easier for them to do so.
Also, I’m not sure Skyeye would have helped in regards to keeping tabs on the cops. The cops threatened or assaulted people in view of others, but said it was okay because they felt threatened or whatever. I don’t think Skyeye would help with things like that, what needs to happen there is better training and a different outlook on policing.
Right, I’m not crying for someone getting a fine for littering. But it’s the unequal prosecution that could be used. I’m sure if you follow someone long enough, even the squarest, most law following person, you could find something to harass them about. An old chapstick falls out of their purse when they’re getting their keys, that’s littering right there. The speed limit drops abruptly outside of a little town and you don’t slow down quick enough, then that’s speeding. Or even if the cop don’t have anything valid arrest them on and they know that they’ll be in jail overnight and then released with no prosecution, it’s still harassment that no one wants to happen to them.
I think I would support it if the following happened:
[ol]
[li]First, reform the police. Decrease police militarization (which is already starting to happen). Increase training, including how to deal with the mentally ill. I don’t want to give them new tools to use until they’ve shown they can responsibly use the ones they have.[/li][li]Put restrictions into place on who can see the video and how they can access it. Something where the cops could see and figure out who did a major crime, or could follow the goings of someone after there has been a warrant issued for a major crime, but where they can’t just look on Skyeye any time they want to for anything.[/li][li]Have secure measures into preventing people from watching the video unauthorized. I don’t want an angry cop or IT guy or whoever using the video to follow an ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend or abuse it in other ways like that. [/li][/ol]
The fact that the US police/security agencies do not regularly run amok is proof that it is enough.
They can’t but if the resolution has been lowered it because useless as evidence. The prosecutor shows you (the jury) a pixelated blob and says “This is John Doe”. Do you believe him?
First off, that’s overall NSA abuses, not the program described by Snowden. Second, you’ll note that they were censored. Third: that’s all you got? A few spooks spy on ex-girlfriends? While wrong (and illegal) it’s trivial and in no way is justification for blocking a potentially major crime-fighting tool.
I understand what you’re saying but do you have any evidence that police are looking for ways to harass people for attending protests. I agree that it’s possible but is it even remotely likely?
I’m in agreement that the militarization of the police is a problem. For me part of the issue is that it doesn’t seem effective and isn’t worth the problems that it creates. The Skyeye is potentially different. I will gladly put up with a few rogues spying on their ex-girlfriends for a major reduction in crime.
In regards to Ferguson it might have helped determine if Brown was actually running away and if he stopped, etc.
I think there are a lot of posts since the last time I was on that answer this. Of course, you may still disagree, but there’s no real justification for “refusing to see”.
Summing up what’s been put on the table so far, the biggies (I think) are
[ol]
[li]In the U.S., we believe the right to privacy is extremely important, so it takes a really good reason to violate it. The more people whose privacy you’re violating, the better reason that you need. One part of that privacy is public anonymity. The ability to follow a person’s movements for an extended length of time effectively removes anonymity in public.[/li][li]Equal protection under the law is also important, and it’s an area where our track record is not great. So, for instance, if a whole bunch of white people are smoking pot illegally every day, with no consequences, while at the same time millions of black people are rotting in jail for smoking pot, then there is no equality of enforcement.[/li][li]The power of this tool opens up MANY possible avenues of abuse. Like, if someone makes a smartass comment to a cop, and he can head back to the station, find out where they live, what they drive, and then follow them around for several weeks. Or if a woman dumps her boyfriend, and he knows the right people to be able to track and harass her, show up when she’s on dates with other guys, etc. Or if someone with access turns out to be a stalker…seriously, this list can just go on and on.[/ol][/li]
A lot of the ways something like this can be abused fall unevenly on the public. If you’re a conservative, middle class, white man, the odds that it does you harm are pretty low. If you’re not, your chances go up. Of course, whether the less-at-risk give a shit what happens to the more-at-risk, I guess, is a just a personal decision.
More specifically to your point, this is not specifically about being able to “get away” with committing petty crimes. It’s about being able to get away with living your life without being harassed or unfairly targeted by people in power, like police, government officials, etc. We should try to obey the law, but we should NOT have to constantly worry about whether we might piss off (or excite) the wrong person.
-VM
You’re being offered a lot of reasons and selectively deciding which ones to acknowledge and respond to. Specifically, you’ve been given whole lists of stuff and you keep reducing it down to “getting away with littering”. People will put up with a certain amount of this, but you’re not fooling anybody with your professions of “not understanding” what we’re trying to say. Stop cherry-picking the other side’s arguments if you want to be believable.
Either you understand the significance of anonymity, or you don’t. It’s clear that we can’t MAKE you understand it. But there’s enough information here that you certainly can’t legitimately pretend we haven’t tried.
-VM
Your first listing is an expectation of privacy and anonymity. You claim that I don’t understand that answer yet you don’t say why it is important, which is what I’ve been asking people to do. I know why it would have been important to me when I lived back in North America eg. I had a high performance car that could stop on a dime. Why should I be limited to the same speed as that big semi trailer that stopped in 4 times further distance? So, I should be able to drive faster than he did. I want to drive faster than the speed limit, but not get tickets. See? That’s why I value anonymity. Why do you?
Your second and third listing are essentially the same on how the system can be abused. It think you don’t understand how IT systems work and should be designed. Anyone who built such a global and comprehensive system is going to put checks into the system. Similar algorithms that would check for suspicious activity could also be used for monitoring the users of the system. All activity would be logged. If you claimed that you were being being targeted, then it should be an easy check to see who was watching you and see if their viewing patterns confirmed what you were saying. Warrants could be directly attached or linked to the system confirming permission and the limits thereon. A systems without these controls could be implemented, but it wouldn’t be long before it was found out and forced to be implemented. Geez, even cheap ERP systems have similar tracking mechanisms.