21–30 of 166 posts
The perfect event (the capitol) to normalise the practice even further. And those who should be opposing it most passionately will be applauding it’s use, because they started with ‘the bad guys’.
Funny enough, the capitol insurgents brought their own surveillance. Courtesy of FB and Twitter. Pretty sure all the video material streamed and posted by themselves would be more than enough in that case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP but I believe most of the surveillance derives from third parties. The government doesn't directly control or monitor most of the surveillance tools (google, telecoms, geoloc, &c.), or at least not in most advanced countries. But it's getting easier and easier for them to access these data and there will probably be less and less safeguards. For example in France we're in a permanent "state of emergency" since…
It cannot be for “the greater good”, or the law would not have been written that way before the “emergency”.
For the sake of our kids.. I have no idea how we will avoid a complete surveillance state in the future. Tracking devices in every pocket. And algorithms that can turn every camera into a tracking device.
All we can do is try to make a society where that doesn’t matter.
IMO such a society is as anarchic as possible, though “as possible” is still well short of the level in, say, The Culture; the exact level is dynamic and tech-dependent.
The perfect event (the capitol) to normalise the practice even further. And those who should be opposing it most passionately will be applauding it’s use, because they started with ‘the bad guys’.
We saw the same in London after the 2012 riots. Instead of stopping the rioting and looting the police let it go on and then took all the cctv and arrested the perpetrators after the event. It’s lazy policing, hundreds of shops got damaged and looted simply because for whatever reason the police wouldn’t do what people want them to do. Stop people committing crime at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP but I believe most of the surveillance derives from third parties. The government doesn't directly control or monitor most of the surveillance tools (google, telecoms, geoloc, &c.), or at least not in most advanced countries. But it's getting easier and easier for them to access these data and there will probably be less and less safeguards. For example in France we're in a permanent "state of emergency" since…
It cannot be for “the greater good”, or the law would not have been written that way before the “emergency”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think defines a "complete" surveillance state? I.e. what would be different from now.
We don’t have mandatory in-home surveillance, for the moment.
But I'm wondering if that really is what needs to occur before we consider a a state to be a complete surveillance state, if, for example, almost every home has some kind of device that can be exploited for surveillance, e.g landline, mobile phone, television, smart devices, laptops/desktops/tablets, internet routers/modems, smart meters, smart heating, rubbish collectoin etc?
I.e. have we opted in to in-home surveillance to a sufficient level to make mandatory surveillance almost of no use.
The perfect event (the capitol) to normalise the practice even further. And those who should be opposing it most passionately will be applauding it’s use, because they started with ‘the bad guys’.
We saw the same in London after the 2012 riots. Instead of stopping the rioting and looting the police let it go on and then took all the cctv and arrested the perpetrators after the event. It’s lazy policing, hundreds of shops got damaged and looted simply because for whatever reason the police wouldn’t do what people want them to do. Stop people committing crime at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We saw the same in London after the 2012 riots. Instead of stopping the rioting and looting the police let it go on and then took all the cctv and arrested the perpetrators after the event. It’s lazy policing, hundreds of shops got damaged and looted simply because for whatever reason the police wouldn’t do what people want them to do. Stop people committing crime at the time.
So instead we should increase the risk of death and injury instead of safely picking people up once things deescalate? I don't think that's lazy by any measure.
When people unlawfully break into a building, why the heck shouldn't facial recognition be used to identify them? We are not talking about using cameras on the street to give people jaywalking tickets. If you owned a business that was looted, and you had video of the looters, wouldn't you want them caught?
"We have video of a crime, arrest these people", is how facial recognition is advertised (and you bought the story).
But it keeps being used as "there is a 87% chance that this person walking down the street in Atlanta is the person who robbed a liquor store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in 2006, go arrest that guy"