• "DRONE ACTIVITY IN PROGRESS, MOVE ALONG CITIZEN." Artist in NYC makes fake street signs, CNN took no
    61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mac338;34570299]Complete lack of national security and safety master race [IMG]http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/rankings2007/map.jpg[/IMG] AKA virtually no surveillance outside private cameras.[/QUOTE] Only Greece is doing a remotely good job? Didn't see that coming.
[QUOTE=MR-X;34566203]I mean I'm from the UK but I've lived in various parts of the world but spend most of my time in the US. And you're not exactly recorded at all times during the day. It isn't like there are cameras every 2 feet, they're basically in main areas that people congregate,Alleyways and such. Americans are recorded every day at traffic lights and other traffic areas. I don't understand why people from the US are paranoid of being recorded. CCTV is actually very effective and allows police to be proactive. What is so scary about being recorded in public? People don't know who you are, it is like sitting in public and a hundred people see you. If you're not committing crimes or involved in illegal activity then you're simply another by-standard. [B]CCTV is intended to be a part of law-enforcement so they can be proactive and record crimes in progress[/B].[/QUOTE] [quote]In London, a Metropolitan Police report showed that in 2008 only one crime was solved per 1000 cameras. There are valid reasons for including CCTV as a component of a physical security program, but deterrence is not one of them.[/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-in-the-spotlight-one-crime-solved-for-every-1000-cameras-1776774.html[/url] The argument "If you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of" is a moot point. I'm not thinking about what the CCTV's are doing now, I'm thinking about what CCTV's will allow to happen in the future. Camera's in every suburb and street, Automated facial tracking documenting and storing my every move. As technology becomes more and more sophisticated and extensive, so will these surveillance and tracking systems. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live as a permanent suspect of the state.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34570317]Only Greece is doing a remotely good job? Didn't see that coming.[/QUOTE] Honestly the lack of security here is almost funny. I was on an airport in Northern Norway and I was waiting to get my bags scanned, but the security guard didn't show up so we just walked passed the scanner. No cameras, one guard who was on break. [editline]6th February 2012[/editline] It was a good experience flying from there.
[QUOTE=mac338;34570299]Complete lack of national security and safety master race [IMG]http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/rankings2007/map.jpg[/IMG] AKA virtually no surveillance outside private cameras.[/QUOTE] Eh, I don't think it's so bad considering how you're not allowed to own or buy guns here :v: Surveillance here is basically only to prevent thefts, on airports it's basically only to prevent illegal goods and plausibly sharp objects.
You're not allowed to buy guns in Sweden? That must be wrong. Here in Norway you can buy guns as you please, as long as your background check doesn't turn up with tons of criminal records. I mean, hunting is very popular and I can imagine it's the same in Sweden.
I am still trying to work out the endemic surveillance society rating for the US. What are the criteria for this? I'm not denying the rating or whatever, I'm just curious. The US law enforcement system is very disorganized, somewhat by design. Local law enforcement does not answer to federal law enforcement. In some very rare cases, local law enforcement doesn't even answer to state law enforcement. The federal agencies are powerful, but not THAT powerful. There are a lot of cameras, but they are overwhelmingly privately owned and only given to the government by request or warrant. I'm just trying to piece together where this notion is coming from.
I don't know, I'm sure you can read into it here; [url]https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/leading-surveillance-societies-eu-and-world-2007[/url] [QUOTE]No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007 State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector Spreading use of CCTV Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mac338;34570720]You're not allowed to buy guns in Sweden? That must be wrong. Here in Norway you can buy guns as you please, as long as your background check doesn't turn up with tons of criminal records. I mean, hunting is very popular and I can imagine it's the same in Sweden.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, hunting rifles... I forgot about those. Pretty hard to conceal those at an airport though.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34570724]I am still trying to work out the endemic surveillance society rating for the US. What are the criteria for this? I'm not denying the rating or whatever, I'm just curious. The US law enforcement system is very disorganized, somewhat by design. Local law enforcement does not answer to federal law enforcement. In some very rare cases, local law enforcement doesn't even answer to state law enforcement. The federal agencies are powerful, but not THAT powerful. There are a lot of cameras, but they are overwhelmingly privately owned and only given to the government by request or warrant. I'm just trying to piece together where this notion is coming from.[/QUOTE]I'm more confused on how public surveillance is a form of human rights abuse.
[QUOTE=Simski;34570732]Oh yes, hunting rifles... I forgot about those. Pretty hard to conceal those at an airport though.[/QUOTE] You can own almost all sorts of handguns and rifles here though (as far as I know). I think our local Norwegian gun man, Prusselusken has a few.
[QUOTE=mac338;34570731]I don't know, I'm sure you can read into it here; [url]https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/leading-surveillance-societies-eu-and-world-2007[/url][/QUOTE] There are some nasty gems in there, but the majority of that stuff is pretty crap. Particularly stuff related to spying on foreign communications. Domestic surveillance generally is only problematic when it is against our own people. Which isn't to say I smile upon looking into everyone's data outside the US, but that is a very different topic. Then you have stuff like national biometric databases. Which is a fancy way of saying "oh hey, DNA turned out to be useful like finger prints. Lets collect a sample along with the finger prints whenever we convict someone." It is functionally identical to the finger print database. Border surveillance? Preeeeettty sure North Korea has us beat there, but call me when we install anti personnel landmines at the border with Mexico. Right to privacy in the United States? Ever see a show which records people in public and then blurs their faces out? Right to privacy laws. They are a major arm of US tort law. I knew something was wrong when Greece was the only nation with minimal security on the map. [editline]6th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mac338;34570740]You can own almost all sorts of handguns and rifles here though (as far as I know). I think our local Norwegian gun man, Prusselusken has a few.[/QUOTE] You just have to pay a yearly fee for hunting licenses, prove to the government that you need to hunt, pass a 30 hour safety course, obtain a certificate which specifically identifies the model of firearm you want, and then go to the store and buy it. Or if you like sport shooting, you have to take an exam and then regularly visit the range for as long as you want to retain that gun. You have to own a gun safe and allow the cops in your house whenever they want, because owning a gun makes you a criminal. Except you don't actually own it because you can't actually sell it to anyone. Fully automatic weapons are, unsurprisingly, banned. As are high caliber handguns. I am not chiding or giving Norway flak for their laws, as Norway does pretty well as a nation overall, buuuuut the laws aren't as forgiving as you make them out to be. Well, at least not to an American, but I suppose our views on such things are painted by our own experiences.
Well, what do I know? Highest caliber weapon I have is a gas-driven BB gun.
[QUOTE=DarkWolf2;34570327][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-in-the-spotlight-one-crime-solved-for-every-1000-cameras-1776774.html[/url] The argument "If you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of" is a moot point. I'm not thinking about what the CCTV's are doing now, I'm thinking about what CCTV's will allow to happen in the future. Camera's in every suburb and street, Automated facial tracking documenting and storing my every move. As technology becomes more and more sophisticated and extensive, so will these surveillance and tracking systems. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live as a permanent suspect of the state.[/QUOTE] Im in agreement
[QUOTE=squids_eye;34570270]Why does who pays for it matter at all? The point is you still get recorded probably on a daily basis, assuming you leave the house.[/QUOTE] The government cannot access privately owned surveillance tapes without either a warrant or cooperation, whereas a government installed cameras tape goes to, you guessed it, the government [editline]6th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DarkWolf2;34570327][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-in-the-spotlight-one-crime-solved-for-every-1000-cameras-1776774.html[/url] The argument "If you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of" is a moot point. I'm not thinking about what the CCTV's are doing now, I'm thinking about what CCTV's will allow to happen in the future. Camera's in every suburb and street, Automated facial tracking documenting and storing my every move. As technology becomes more and more sophisticated and extensive, so will these surveillance and tracking systems. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live as a permanent suspect of the state.[/QUOTE] This is more along the lines if what I meant, I just didn't know how to effectively express it without using overused terms and analogies to things like 1984 and Orwellian
You have no privacy unless you work for it. With your name and your home address plus enough funding, anyone can find out basically everything important about you. (Ofcourse this will start to require work on your stalkers part too, but that's why there are private detectives).
"If you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of" I think a certain man called benjamin franklin would disagree.
I'd have no problem with being recorded while i'm in public streets and such, and I don't see why anyone would have.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;34571696]I'd have no problem with being recorded while i'm in public streets and such, and I don't see why anyone would have.[/QUOTE] It isn't like the government uses it to make a profile of every citizen's movements and activities. It's probably only even looked at if something gets reported in the area.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;34571755]It isn't like the government uses it to make a profile of every citizen's movements and activities. It's probably only even looked at if something gets reported in the area.[/QUOTE] Uhuh, but how long until?
[QUOTE=Crimor;34571455]"If you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of" I think a certain man called benjamin franklin would disagree.[/QUOTE] well good for him and?
[QUOTE=Crimor;34571455]"If you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of" I think a certain man called benjamin franklin would disagree.[/QUOTE] Stole the words out of my mouth. I was honestly expecting the reporter to pull a "liberty for temporary safty" quote at the very end when she was talking about giving up freedom, and was disappointed.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34571862]Uhuh, but how long until?[/QUOTE] From "public surveillance" to "comprehensive profile of everything every citizen does" I'd say two months, give or take a week depending on how weather trends pan out over the year. Don't you think that people are smart enough to draw the line between the two? Or is that far beyond the ken of the unwashed plebian masses?
[QUOTE=Isuzu;34571862]Uhuh, but how long until?[/QUOTE] Why does everyone assume that it is going to happen eventually? Sometimes technology is invented and not horrifically abused by the government you know.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34570733]I'm more confused on how public surveillance is a form of human rights abuse.[/QUOTE] The easiest way to see how it could be an abuse is to imagine this: If a cop were to follow you around - without cause or suspicion, and indefinitely - while you are on public property, do you feel this would be ok? Essentially, that is what the cameras allow; except, instead of a few people followed by cops, it's everyone that happens to be visible to any camera, and any time after that so long as the recordings are kept.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;34573197]The easiest way to see how it could be an abuse is to imagine this: If a cop were to follow you around - without cause or suspicion, and indefinitely - while you are on public property, do you feel this would be ok? Essentially, that is what the cameras allow; except, instead of a few people followed by cops, it's everyone that happens to be visible to any camera, and any time after that so long as the recordings are kept.[/QUOTE] That is a silly comparison. It's not at all like that, it's more like having a police officer on every corner making sure no one is breaking the law. They aren't following you specifically and they probably don't care about what most people in the tapes are doing let alone bother following specific people over multiple cameras without a good reason.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;34573545]That is a silly comparison. It's not at all like that, it's more like having a police officer on every corner making sure no one is breaking the law. They aren't following you specifically and they probably don't care about what most people in the tapes are doing let alone bother following specific people over multiple cameras without a good reason.[/QUOTE] It's not individual cops either, though, because the feeds all go back to whatever local center there is. So it's more like a few cops that are simultaneously on many street corners. Face tracking software will continue to get more advanced, and the systems will ultimately be capable of tracking anyone they see, and become more like my original comparison. If that isn't a problem to most people, it will happen whenever it is affordable.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;34573673]It's not individual cops either, though, because the feeds all go back to whatever local center there is. So it's more like a few cops that are simultaneously on many street corners. Face tracking software will continue to get more advanced, and the systems will ultimately be capable of tracking anyone they see, and become more like my original comparison. If that isn't a problem to most people, it will happen whenever it is affordable.[/QUOTE] You do realise that they could do similar things right now? The technology is there to take finger prints and DNA samples from everyone so that if they commit a crime they could be caught, but they don't do that because the public wouldn't like it. The same thing applies to keeping a huge up to date database of every single citizens face to monitor movement. Plus it would be a massive waste of resources.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;34575473]You do realise that they could do similar things right now? The technology is there to take finger prints and DNA samples from everyone so that if they commit a crime they could be caught, but they don't do that because the public wouldn't like it. The same thing applies to keeping a huge up to date database of every single citizens face to monitor movement. Plus it would be a massive waste of resources.[/QUOTE] In the US, those things constitute a search of a person, so any legal challenge would succeed at the supreme court. Not quite the same as causing a public outrage, though I sure hope there would be outrage. Taking videos in the public doesn't necessarily violate the Constitution, so legal challenges would be much harder. The amount of outrage would also be a lot less than enforced personal searches. However, given that the TSA still exists, with all its actual searches and pathetic amounts of public outcry, and its massive, and increasing, budget... I wouldn't really expect face tracking systems to be so detested.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;34577546]In the US, those things constitute a search of a person, so any legal challenge would succeed at the supreme court. Not quite the same as causing a public outrage, though I sure hope there would be outrage. Taking videos in the public doesn't necessarily violate the Constitution, so legal challenges would be much harder. The amount of outrage would also be a lot less than enforced personal searches. However, given that the TSA still exists, with all its actual searches and pathetic amounts of public outcry, and its massive, and increasing, budget... I wouldn't really expect face tracking systems to be so detested.[/QUOTE] I think people probably would. They almost definately would if it was in Europe atleast. You didn't acknowledge my second point though. It would take an incredibly powerful computer to track and process the locations of so many people, It would make more sense just to track the people who are already in the police database as known criminals or with criminal records.
god i hate CNN write an article you twats, i don't want to watch your stupid video
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.