Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by idkew, Apr 27, 2004.
Not _technically_ Big Brother, as Orwell's creation peered into homes and life destroying privacy even among family members. I think that as a crime prevention measure this may be very successful. Not as invasive as it could be. They don't but microphones in your car and monitor your conversations or something.
Still, it does make you a little queasy. After the public outcry regarding gMail, I think that the public is becoming more aware of privacy rights. At least more aware than they were when they let that tripe known as The Patriot Act get through congress
let's remove the technology for a second and say that there is now one police officer for every person in the US. an officer is assigned to you and they follow you around 24/hrs day, sitting outside your house until you leave.
the officer's job is observe your every movement and step in when you do something illegal.
has privacy been violated?
The article mentions nothing about cameras outside homes. The cameras watch the streets and keep an eye on cars that don't belong to residents. It's like having a police car on all roads in and out of town marking cars that don't belong to residents.
i see you've completely missed my point. a little abstraction goes a long way.
I think zim's analogy is very pertinent. the camera scenario might even be worse as it is subtle and produces a permanent record.
The cameras will run every licence plate every time a car is passing AND will take pictures of who is inside. By necessity, it will assess if it's a resident's car only after the data acquisition.
It follows that if you live or visit there, there will be information on every movement you make in a public area. They will know where you went, when and who you where with (independently whether in a car or not).
Once the records are there, it becomes only a matter of time before someone will use for whatever purpose.
It is the DEFINITION of a police state.
Are police states usually safer them free ones? yes.
Is it worth it? Not in my book.
There is always a trade between safety and freedom. When attempting to strike the "perfect" balance, I would find desirable if freedom kept the upper hand.
I do take it to be a serious matter, and I think that it is a dangerous decision to make. But maybe I am misinterpreting this. Data will only be gathered in fully public areas so residents will still have full privacy in their homes.
Besides, this is hardly your average community. Sounds like it a community full of older insanely rich retired type, so that may have also affected the decision as well.
I thought Big Brother's been here.
Safer how? Aren't police states usually riddled with corruption? So you might be safer or have an easier time prosecuting a wrong doer but all that power seems to go to *someones* head...
Police states tipically tend to have less street crime because of the massive police presence and the disproportion between crime and punishment. So if you happen to agree with doing what you are told, you're safe. If you unfortunately disagree, then you become a safety hazard and are quickly disposed of, and safety is triumphantly restored for all the other happy campers.
Ie. Saddam's Iraq vs. US Iraq...
If law-enforcement survailance and checkpoints that take your license plate and picture automatically are your qualifyer then you're already living in a Police State. If you've ever crossed the border from Canada or Mexico into the US in a car you've been through exactly that kind of checkpoint.
The described surveilance doesn't reflect a permanent record, just a record of 3 months.
You are also assuming the level of software intelligence and interconnectivity to be far higher than is really possible. It'll have visual record alright but it won't know who's who.. just which cars have associated .jpg images and warrants to the owner. It would provide no more data than a few more cops on the street, except in this case the mountain of data collected will need to be sorted out by someone to make any sense of it.
Picture the hell of being the officer stuck spending hundreds of hours looking through two and three-quarters months worth of surveilance shots looking for ONE suspect who may or may not be present. Ick.
Face-ID technology is in it's infancy. Even if the technology was currently reliable enough to deploy it would require that 90% of law enforcement agencies keep this kind of surveilance database AND keep 360 degree headshots of all their bookings on an open server.
Bottom line: DON'T BE SO DAMN PARANOID!!! THE TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!
being paranoid is what keeps the police out of state.
Being Paranoid is what keeps the US in the position of having so many conflicting national police and intelligence agencies that they couldn't track the small mountain of security alerts before 9/11 that would have been plain to agencies like the RCMP in Canada or even (dare I say it) the Mexican National Police.
Paranoia in the citizenry in this country guarantees that the current system of law enforcement and Intelligence "City States" will continue to be both sporadically too invasive as Congress and the Supreme court scramble to make sense of the regs for them all and too innefectual because of the knee-jerk reactions from said regulatory bodies for said transgressions.
Basically: Paranoia on a national scale is self perpetuating. If we stopped being paranoid long enough to cut it down to no more than three national police agencies we'd be able to make them more answerable and not have to be so paranoid.
Not to mention, of course that if you actually want to prevent further catastrophic acts of terrorism the current solution involves circumventing the Constitution because it's more expedient than cleaning up the beurocratic mess that got us here in the first place.
But of course, all of this is digression.
The definition of a Police State is not surveilance in Public, it's Marshall Law. The Police have ultimate authority and can call in Millitary backup. Unless folks in this community are woken up by police at 3AM to be questioned about who was in their car last Saturday... we're not there yet.
I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think you need martial law to be in place to have a police state. The major characteristic of a police state is control by the authorities.
especially in a future perspective, this could and will be done electronically. A regime where the authorities know every your movement, listens to your conversations and knows what you're typing in macrumors political forums (hi guys, nothing personal here, ok?) to me qualifies as a police state, and certainly would be a significant step toward Big Brother totalitarian scenarios.
I agree that we are not there yet (although many steps have been taken in that direction) and I take your word that the technology is not ready as of now, but if comprehensive surveillance coverage were to become standard everywhere we would not be living in a free country. In this sense I find this "development" very disturbing.
As far as paranoia, my impression is that, at least in the US, its induction for no necessary reasons and the propagation of a "culture of anxiety" (from winter storms to WMD) have unfortunately become "tools of government"
but mischief- without some paranoia, the sheet can be easily pulled over our eyes. while i do agree there are elements of the gov. that are ineffectual, we as a people can not let the gov. grab power as it sees fit. once the gov has this power, it is nearly impossible to take it back.
first step: cameras in the streets.
second step: cameras that a "smart" and record the comings and goings of citizens on the roads.
next step: smart cameras that record everything outside of the home.
final step: smart cameras in the home. big brother has come of age.
People always quote these type of progressions, but rarely have we seen such progression go unchallenged (at least none I can think of )
First Step: Google screens your internet searches and includes ads based on specific strings.
Second Step: Google screens E-mails and includes ads based on specific strings. Public outcry. Google has to heavily defend it's system.
I think that the general public is becoming far more aware of invasion of privacy than they ever have before.
which is exactly why i say we need *some* paranoia. it HAS stopped these progressions from happening. if we let the gov. do as they please, these things would happen, but we don't. we are paranoid, a good paranoid.
1. Your insurance expired and your too poor to renew it so you keep driving the car. Not anymore. They already notify the liscence people of your lapse in insurance but the cops never follow up other than putting out a pickup if spotted type notice on their in house systems. Not important enough to find you and arrest you or anything but if your plate comes thru a check and boom you are then pulled over and arrested. How about now in that town with those automated camera's? Get a ticket in the mail?
2. You have an aliabi fine lets check the automated camera system to verify you were where you said you were. Or just as bad GPS system.
I heard a story on tv years ago about how Florida was selling liscence information to mail advertisers. The idea was the stuff was public record so why not. They sell the information for speeding tickets to traffic schools and lawyers. I know my mail box gets really full from them schools every time I get a speeding ticket. So how about information about who was on what street at what time that had which stores on it?
Yes, I trust this government, I really do. Good government, good government. (are the guys in the black trench coats offline now?)
Blog-Tracking May Gain Ground Among U.S. Intelligence Officials
Tue Apr 27, 8:53 AM ET
By Doug Tsuruoka
People in black trench coats might soon be chasing blogs.
Blogs, short for Web logs, are personal online journals. Individuals post them on Web sites to report or comment on news especially, but also on their personal lives or most any subject.
Some blogs are whimsical and deal with "soft" subjects. Others, though, are cutting edge in delivering information and opinion.
As a result, some analysts say U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials might be starting to track blogs for important bits of information. This interest is a sign of how far Web media such as blogs have come in reshaping the data-collection habits of intelligence professionals and others, even with the knowledge that the accuracy of what's reported in some blogs is questionable.
Still, a panel of folks who work in the U.S. intelligence field - some of them spies or former spies - discussed this month at a conference in Washington the idea of tracking blogs.
"News and intelligence is about listening with a critical ear, and blogs are just another conversation to listen to and evaluate. They also are closer to (some situations) and may serve as early alerts," said Jock Gill, a former adviser on Internet media to President Clinton, in a later phone interview, after he spoke on the panel . . .
China Wants To Block Blogs
At least one nation, China, is actively tracking blogs. It's also reportedly trying to block blogs. Several press reports earlier this year said the government shut two blogging services and banned access to all Web logs by Chinese citizens.
I dunno, I figure anything you post online is fair game for law enforcement. Particularly if it is a 'blog where you are expecting other people to read it! If it was a private email I'd feel differently, but that's kinda like a newspaper reporter not wanting law enforcement to read their paper..
Now blocking 'blogs I have a problem with.
Small leap in paranoia, huge gap in technology.
I take issue with your naive assumptions.
There are already cameras in the streets. Most businesses beyond a certain size surveille the areas adjacent their property. Cameras are deployed on freeways and at stoplights. Cameras are present in Police Vehicles, taxis and public transit. Cameras are routine in airports, trainstations, bus depots and essentially all malls and even grociery stores.
The mere presence of cameras means nothing.
The fact that in this one city these cameras are used to reference DMV and DOT records for the vehicle and it's owner should not be so disturbing. Any time you've gotten a parking ticket, been pulled over by police or have had a highway patrol vehicle behing you for more than five seconds, these records have been checked for your vehicle and your vehicle's owner.
The irony is that you're assuming that other records are as easily cross referenced and that it can all be done by computer. This is complete hogwash.
The quick records lookup by DMV records and Warrants attatched to the vehicle's owner are about the only records that law enforcement has EVER been able to get even close to instantly. Every traffic stop, every time a law enforcement officer sends your license plate or driver's license number to dispatch three things are checked: The status of the license and registration, the ownership, and whether the driver's license referenced or the registered owner of the vehicle have any outstanding Warrants. This has been routine for years. The key thing is that it's the ONLY information that's routinely accessable in this manner.
I'm actually more concerned by the preponderance of assumptions on this thread that "smart" cameras are even a remote possibility. MIT has spent years trying to build robots that recognize faces. The research program has proven that the technology is unreliable, extremely expensive and requires high-resolution images, at the correct angle, with appropriate lighting, at the right distance, with a library of previous images of each person to cover a variety of expressions, with little or no obstructions in the field of view. In effect what you are paranoid about most is that sci-fi and reality are closer than is actually currently possible.
There is also an assumption here of rights that do not strictly exist.
You have no right to public privacy. You have only a statutory right to private privacy. Thank the Supreme Court for that small blessing because it isn't in the Constitution. There is also no violation of the only other provision I think is even slightly relevant here: freedom of association.
All that is happening in this community in Florida is that a local PD has more money than sense. I'm very sure the system will prove too cumbersome to be of any practical use.
Just following orders: Highland Park police jail woman, 97
Ex-teacher cuffed, held on traffic warrant; son questions thinking
08:41 AM CDT on Wednesday, April 28, 2004
By KRISTEN HOLLAND / The Dallas Morning News
Highland Park police follow orders to the letter.
When they found that 97-year-old Harriette "Dolly" Kelton had an outstanding warrant for failing to pay a traffic ticket, they handcuffed her, put her in the squad car and hauled her to jail.
Officers stopped Ms. Kelton, who has lived in Highland Park for at least 60 years, for having an expired inspection sticker and registration last week. When checking her name and license, they discovered an arrest warrant for failure to pay a prior ticket for no registration.
Drivers who don't have their license or have an outstanding warrant go to jail if they're stopped in Highland Park. No exceptions.
"A warrant begins with the words 'you are hereby commanded to arrest,' " said Detective Randy Millican, Highland Park's public information officer. "How do you decide who do you arrest and who you don't? How about at age 90 but not at 91 and up? How about between 17 and 20?
"It's an order from a court to make an arrest, so discretion goes out the window," he said.
I'm not sure I understand how this ties into the current thread of discussion.
Maybe not directly, I'll admit that. But the idea that police have unlimited power is certainly related.
In this case, it is the concept that in an effort to "get tough" on crime we end up with old women getting dragged to jail. In the Florida community, rather than hire more cops to provide more security, they take the approach that everyone is a suspect.
If you don't find it relevant, fine. I wasted ten seconds of your time.