Uzi - let me put this more simply. Having everyone surveilled by the government continuously is the harm. Nobody has to be conked on the head or unjustly imprisoned to constitute a wrong.
Most of what you quote happens because the police have nothing to monitor their activities. Such a system would aid in that. Like cops wearing body cameras. But such a system must have controls in place. The answer to controlling police behaviour is more monitoring and control, not less.
Gebus, I get that. I’ve been asking ‘WHY’ is it harmful or wrong.
In this case, “more monitoring and control” of police means monitoring and control of the entire population. I think the cure sounds worse than the disease.
And, again, who is doing the monitoring and control? Who punishes the police when they misbehave? Don’t worry, I won’t hit you with this hammer in my right hand because, if I do, my left hand will slap my right hand.
-VM
Because the government shouldn’t monitor people without good reason.
What “harm” would be done if the police had the power to just drop by your house and have a quick look-around? We would of course have safeguards to prevent any abuse of this power (like the cops stealing your silverware or something), and it’s not like you have something to hide, right?
MEBuckner: [Agreeing with you.] I know some people who were zapped by a Fire Department Safety Inspection – without a warrant – and you can’t say no to them. The inspector came in, looked all around the house, pointed out one or two safety violations, and went away.
We are strongly suspicious that this was a ruse by the police to “search” the house without probable cause. If the fire inspector had “just happened to see” evidence of wrong-doing “in plain sight” he would have been able to report this, and that would have been the basis for a warrant and a raid.
We not only should not surrender our privacy to legal surveillance, but should also clamp down on pretenses and pretexts of this sort.
(And if a fire inspector ever comes to my door, I will turn him away, saying that he can make an appointment for tomorrow at one, but not today, thank you.)
It will happen whether you want it to or not. Technology will advance enough that facial recognition will happen from your mobile phone. A terrorist act will happen that will cause such an outcry as to why no one was watching for them. You can either implement a system that allows oversight or some group like the NSA will fill the gap.
I would assume it would be the people you elect to represent you in government who would provide the monitoring and control. Elect better people.
Isn’t this thing monitoring an area? You just happen to be in that area. They aren’t monitoring you specifically unless you are up to no good (or apparently the system was designed by monkeys allowing any chimp access with no logging).
Nice strawman. But, I think the preventative device you are thinking of is called a ‘warrant’. They need it before they enter your house without your permission. Unless this system is designed to see through your roof, but I’ve not heard that it does so.
Right. Sure. And this here shotgun sends lead pellets into an area at high velocity. You just happen to be in that area :rolleyes:.
Not a reasonable option. Bottomline is you can’t guarantee the people doing the monitoring will be responsible, reasonable or law-abiding.
No they don’t. I’ve linked two news stories upthread where that was not the case. Trinopus’ anecdote would be another. Also, 90% of searches of a motor vehicle following a traffic stop are warrantless, without probable cause and technically illegal, even though they happen daily.
I didn’t ask “Legally and constitutionally speaking, why can’t the cops do that?”
What I asked was What harm would it do if they could do that?
If a police officer taps you on the shoulder and says “Sir, you’re blocking the sidewalk–please step aside”, the difference between that and said police officer drawing his service sidearm and blowing your brains out is clear-cut. Things like being deprived of your liberty (put in jail or prison), being deprived of your property (being fined or having your assets “forfeited”), or being subject to possibly lethal physical violence (being summarily executing for obstructing the public right-of-way) are obvious, bright line “harms”.
But the “harm” from having our “persons, houses, papers, and effects” subject to “unreasonable” searches has always been largely a matter of such abstract concepts as “dignity” and “privacy”. Yes, there’s the whole “potential for abuse”–the cops might steal your silverware, or falsely plant evidence of a crime as they conduct one of their routine random house-to-house searches in your neighborhood. But the Fourth Amendment and its antecedents in English and British law have never been only about that:
We as a people have traditionally drawn certain lines, based not just on direct harms (physical or financial), but also on more abstract notions like “privacy”. Now, we have new technologies that allow the government to do things that no one could have imagined in the 18th century, when these laws were being established (especially here in the United States). Eighteenth-century British and American jurists could foresee the government sending burly men with guns to bang on your door and demand to be let inside so they could go through your stuff; they chose to limit the government’s power to do that. Eighteenth-century jurists could undoubtedly imagine the government sending some sneaky fellow to follow you around town and take notes about what you were up to, and they chose *not * to put many limits on the government’s power to do that, because after all, you were already out in public, where Mrs. Grundy from down the block or anyone else might happen to spot you slipping into that tavern or brothel or meeting of the Levellers Society or “Dissenting” church; and besides, sending sneaky fellows to follow citizens around and keep tabs on them is very manpower-intensive–which tends to limit the government’s ability to abuse such practices–and the citizens being followed might easily spot the sneaky fellows following them and give them the slip.
But nobody thought to even consider what limits should be put on the government’s power to just watch everybody all the time, except when we’re actually inside our own homes, and make a complete record of every place we go and every person we talk to. I mean, how the hell would the government even begin to do that? Would they get the wizard Merlin to cast some kind of spell or something?
But now we have technological brave new worlds of things the government can do. So, where do we draw these new lines? The lines we have already drawn include concepts like “dignity” and “privacy”, so if you argue against the new lines that some people want to draw based solely on the “Well, there’s no direct harm being done to anybody!” and “What do you have to hide, anyway?”, you are implicitly arguing against the validity of the old lines as well. I mean, just think how much quicker we could have caught that monstrous bastard Ariel Castro if the cops just routinely dropped by everyone’s home on some random schedule to check things out! You don’t have people chained up in your basement, do you, citizen? (And it would do you good to have to tidy the place up a bit, so you won’t be so embarrassed when the police come by.)
I don’t want to say that all forms of surveillance in public places are wrong and should be banned. Those cameras in the subway station don’t really strike me as an Orwellian plot. Maybe we can put limits on these technologies without completely banning them; maybe the surveillance tapes have to be wiped after a certain–perhaps rather short–period of time unless something actually happens; and of course microphones–especially"shotgun" microphones–are a different matter altogether.
But I would like to be able to discuss the issues without the “Well, if you don’t have something to hide, then why do you care?” line being trotted out. I accept that when I’m out in public, other people can see me. That doesn’t mean I want a complete and permanent record of every place I’ve ever been to and every person I’ve every interacted with all on file in some huge database somewhere.
Would the government be monitoring an entire city with this system if literally nobody were on the streets – no pedestrians, no cars, nothing?
No, of course not. So it isn’t monitoring an area, it’s monitoring thousands to millions of people.
And they are monitoring people who aren’t up to no good. That’s because video footage of you will be recorded before you have done anything suspicious. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of “monitoring.” Watching people after they have done something wrong would usually be called something like “investigating.”
I think I would be ok with it, despite feeling uncomfortable. Taking pictures of the public is something everyone is allowed to do. If the police do it, we freak out, because they have the power to arrest us. But even still, I think what is legal for regular people to do must be legal for law enforcement to do. I cannot think of a good enough reason to give regular people more power of surveillance than the government.
By the way, on a lighter note, this comment reminds me of the kid’s game: “I’m just going to walk around swinging my fists. If you happen to get in the way of my fists and your nose gets broken, it’s your own fault!”
By the same token this here shotgun only flings lead pellets at high velocity into an area ; freak lead-based accident victims just happened to repeatedly be in it.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
But even still, I think what is legal for regular people to do must be legal for law enforcement to do. I cannot think of a good enough reason to give regular people more power of surveillance than the government.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is not one of principle, but of scale. Outside of Larry Page, private citizens don’t typically take pictures of everyone, everywhere at all times, pile up all the shots into a database and develop algorithms to sift through that huge pile of noise for precious little nuggets of “you, yes you, stand still Woody !”.
Basically your argument equates with : since people can see where you’re going throughout your day, and they can theoretically hear you talk (unless you happen to be alone in a forest, in which case it becomes dangerously philosophical) there’s no harm no foul in mandating you wear a device that records your every move and every word that comes out of your mouth for the police/State to peruse at their leisure.
Most people have a *slightly *lower Orwell threshold :).
I’ll note that you have provided no evidence to support your belief in the accuracy of your psychic predictions. Thank goodness.
Events in another thread make me think of a similar argument: You are going to die. It will happen whether you want it to or not. Someone will shoot you. Or you’ll grow old. Or you’ll fall off your roof. You can either kill yourself now, painlessly, or some unpleasant, painful event will take you out.
I’m not sure how you’ve come to blaming me personally for the quality of our elected officials…I’ll just say this: It’s not that I am unwilling to implement your suggestion; it’s that I’m unable to.
Oh, and that was asinine.
MEBuckner: Not going to reproduce it here, but that was an outstanding post, in my opinion. Reading it actually made me feel jealous of your ignorance-fighting prowess.
-VM
Nice post.
In the US, roughly 84,000 people missing at of the later part of 2014. Over 200,000 homicides remain unsolved and clearance rates are currently at 64% (I wonder how many previously were put in jail when the clearance rates were higher were really guilty? This could help prevent that).
So, on one hand we have your abstract concept of ‘dignity’ with no real reason why this would infringe upon it vs what I just mentioned. My solution would be for you to just get used to it.
As a thought experiment on how such a system could be used and controlled (just off the top of my head, no detailed analysis of requirements, you understand).
- Report arrives on missing person.
- Officer enters login, password, maybe biometrics, and case number he is investigating. Without a case number, he can’t get in.
- In our scenario, Cindy Loo was last seen at the Starbucks on Main St. He browses to that address and the general time frame. He sees someone matching Cindy’s description leaving alone and enter the side road. A persons stops her and they both get into a van through the side door. He tracks the van to 123 Elm street where it parks in a covered garage. (He could also see things like who was last at the scene of say a murder and talk to them rather than do the random door to door search that primarily wastes larges amount of time)
- He enters a request for warrant highlighting the pertinent parts of the search. The request is prioritized, being marked urgent, and is sent to a judge.
- Judge reviews the case file and video. He signs the warrant digitally.
- Officer receives warrant and they serve the warrant rescuing Cindy from her kidnapper.
- Case file is updated, reviewed, and handed over to the DA.
Obvious controls are: 1. You can’t login without a case file. All activity in the system is linked to the case file. 2. His supervisor reviews the case before submission. 3. The DA reviews the case and all activity around it. 4. The defense attorney reviews the case and all activity around it. 5. The judge reviews the case and all activity around it.
What should be added is an oversight body that gathers analytics on the system and regularly reviews activity.
So in your carefully considered scenario, the police get to decide by themselves who to watch and when.
Wow proponents of the Sauron eye in the sky in this thread certainly have a lot of misplaced trust in the government. Your talking about these things working perfectly in A Dreamland USA that does not reflect the reality of the government. The government has already shown itself willing and able to abuse it’s power across multiple real life scenarios and various leves of government: Aming them the NSA spying without warrants, or judges approving warrants they should not have, civil forfeiture, police brutality, wrongful arrest and incarceration, a legal system that abuses the poor and let’s the rich go free.
Uzi, you’ve basically acknowledged the fact that our politicians are shitty with your (paraphrasing here) “elect better politicians” comment but you put the onus on the individual as if one person can flip a switch and instantly elect new politicians of their choice all at once across the nation. People in power don’t give it up easily and there are parts of the government that are effectively above the law, what makes you think they’ll let this system be used against them, or not abuse it. You’re living in Fantasy Land.
My carefully considered scenario that I said pulled off the top of my head? Maybe add a step where if they want to use the system they need a warrant to do so.
eg. enter case number and request a warrant from a judge to access the system. The judge grants the access. Kind of like a change request in almost any ITSM system.
Just a question here: if a government outlawed a particular religion, would that be okay with you? What harm would come of it? Wouldn’t people “just get used to it?”
I’m for all religions being outlawed. But how is your question related to someone videotaping you? You see someone actively preventing you from an activity the same as passive monitoring that ‘might’ catch you breaking the law?