41–50 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police officers often go into private homes. Should the video be made public? What about freedom of information act?
No. I'm referring to public property. But the police should still be wearing body cameras if they go into a private home and the video should be available to the homeowner if he/she wants to contest something.
> Contemporary mass surveillance relies upon annual presidential executive orders declaring a continued State of National Emergency, first signed by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and then continued on an annual basis by President Barack Obama,[3] and upon several subsequent national security Acts including the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment Act's PRISM surveillance program. Mass surveillance is a bipartisa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the direction it's going, USA will likely want face recognition in the streets in the near future. I wonder how will the government convince their citizens it's for their own good. Maybe it will start in troublesome neighborhoods, show some benefits, and slowly expand everywhere.
The same way they used 9/11 to sell mass surveillance: using fear. Home invasions, muggings, child predators, think of the children. Maybe have news networks report more about certain type of crimes. Make sure to report on the few instances that installed cameras did help solve. If street cameras do stop some crimes, it will be difficult to argue against them, because you can't really have an expectation of privacy i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe spending untold billions of dollars on a mass surveillance state that cows the population into authoritarian submission is a phyrric response to the threat of terrorism. Terrorism which is exacerbated by our own shadowy geopolitical agendas... And it's ludicrous to say "We shall have a mass surveillance system or mass terrorism!", as if security theater revealed the actual effectiveness of such actions! Do you…
"cows the population into authoritarian submission" ? I don't see this happening at all. There have been countless protests against the Trump administration, and the main stream media has being criticizing the Trump administration every single day. Please give me an example supports your projection.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm not against more surveillance cameras in public places. As a photographer, I have the right, and should continue to have the right, to film in any public place. Private businesses and the government should do it too. Put cameras on all police officers and as many public employees as possible. As long as fair access is maintained to the footage, the more the better.
But that's not what's happening here, it's not just a camera. It's a vast data aggregation network that ties together time series, high resolution photos of a large area, along with software that can follow an individual from source to destination, and then follow whoever that individual met, roll back in time and find out where they came from and went and met with, etc.
Of course this can be tied to cell, wifi, credit card purchases, face rec, internet activity and thousands of other inputs. Once that's done, it's a microscopically thin line from local cops solving crimes in the past to an oppressive government rounding up dissenters for re-education.
This is not sci fi, it's the road to global authoritarian surveillance state, and we're paving it here.
So I support police accountability body cams and people's rights to take pictures, but not the state or corporation using it for data ingest against us.
(Triangulation of gunshots in realtime, etc.)
On the one hand we eliminate privacy, on the other we can eliminate crime.
I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle.
- - - -
As a pulled-in-the-wool tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiac the sad thing about Snowden was that the poor kid had to flush his life down the toilet to get people to understand what we (the tinfoil hat crowd) knew goddamned well was already going on. Of course the NSA is slurping up all available data everywhere because that's what I would do.
We are not going to rollback surveillance. The folks that want to roll it back are so naive that they must be monitored by the rest of us for their own safety and ours. I wish it weren't so but there it is.
The question is do we want to become a world of Morlocks and Eloi? Or do we want to go for some sort of Star Trek future, where the sensors and computers and world-destroying weapons are governed by a strict but flexible humane and open government?
If you are a citizen of the US you have an awesome government that is open to participation at all levels, g'wan and get involved! Happy Fourth of July!
> Contemporary mass surveillance relies upon annual presidential executive orders declaring a continued State of National Emergency, first signed by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and then continued on an annual basis by President Barack Obama,[3] and upon several subsequent national security Acts including the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment Act's PRISM surveillance program. Mass surveillance is a bipartisa…
This is purely from an outside perspective btw, but from what myself and friends have conversed about, the us doesn't seem to have a left. At least not a particularly powerful political left.
The current crop of leftists is a combination of older people who became politically conscious before the 1980s (i.e. 50+ years old like Bernie Sanders), people burned by 2008, and people who were deeply shocked by Trump's election and started reading about the economic and political underpinnings of it, and some representatives of minorities that consistently feel the boot of oppression. Fortunately, there is some rising consciousness, but who knows where everything will go. We're in for a wild ride...
Item: Auto-autos (self-driving cars) and the accompanying infrastructure will be a defacto ubiquitous surveillance system. (Triangulation of gunshots in realtime, etc.) On the one hand we eliminate privacy, on the other we can eliminate crime. I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. - - - - As a pulled-in-the-wool tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiac the sad thing about Snowden was that the poor kid had to fl…
This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm not against more surveillance cameras in public places. As a photographer, I have the right, and should continue to have the right, to film in any public place. Private businesses and the government should do it too. Put cameras on all police officers and as many public employees as possible. As long as fair access is maintained to the footage, the more the better.
I feel like this is a popular misconception, a sort of strawman argument. It kind of goes like "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so taking some pictures in public is okay." It could even be extended to say the footage could be reviewed later if a crime were committed, that helps public safety. But that's not what's happening here, it's not just a camera. It's a vast data aggregation network th…
Taking a picture is fine. I can take pictures in public places constantly, pick out the top dozen or so every month and publish an art book.
The mass collection of data assigned to individuals is not. Putting a 10TB hi-res camera in a balloon and taking constant pictures of a city, tagging each person as they walk around? That is insanity.
We never had to worry about the second scenario because it was deemed impossible. It would be like a traffic cop who was able to remember every car that passed him, who was riding in it, for decades at a time. No laws had to be made for the same reason we don't outlaw flying while wearing a cape.
The collection and storage of data assigned to an individual should be under the total control of that individual, on a case-by-case, line-item individual approval process. This would allow public photography to continue the way it always has.
Item: Auto-autos (self-driving cars) and the accompanying infrastructure will be a defacto ubiquitous surveillance system. (Triangulation of gunshots in realtime, etc.) On the one hand we eliminate privacy, on the other we can eliminate crime. I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. - - - - As a pulled-in-the-wool tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiac the sad thing about Snowden was that the poor kid had to fl…
My friend was raped by the police, in the police station. Giving all the power to the police does not eliminate crime; it just changes who commits the crimes.