Big Brother Has Extended His Reach

[AmateurScientist]

Well, I was driving home from work this evening and I was dismayed to see that Big Brother has extended his reach in my city.

I took an unusual route home and went through a large intersection where construction crews have been working for the last two weeks or so. I just discovered why.

To my dismay I looked up while stopped at the light and saw that staring me in the face was a video camera. Yep, at each arm of the traffic signal, facing each direction of travel is a fully wired, fully functional motion picture camera, snooping into everyone's cars.

I realize that legally none of us has the same expectation of privacy in our automobiles on the roads as we do in our homes or at our places of work. Nevertheless, it is one thing for the driver next to me to look at me through my car windows, and quite another for my local government police department to stare at me.

I was doing nothing wrong. That's not the point. The point is that it's creepy to be spied upon by your government. It means you are under suspicion at all times. You are being treated as a suspect in an unspecified crime. Go ahead; you might as well confess, Mr. Smith. 2 + 2 = 5. Admit it, and we'll stop torturing you.

Yes, the poor British have faced this for a decade or so, and to a much greater extent. I understand that in much of London, for example, very sophisicated video cameras, capable of being remotely turned 360 degrees and zoomed, are perched on every street corner. You can't put that genie back in the bottle.

Yes, there are passive cameras set to trigger photos of speeding motorists in parts of Europe. Yes, similar cameras have also been implemented in select cities and on certain highways in the US.

Now, my city is one of them. I don't like it one bit. It's not comforting at all to know that others put up with the same intrusion.

Privacy is a dying concept. Intrusion into our everyday affairs by our governments is becoming more and more commonplace, and few seem to care much about it. They prefer the intrusions to feeling insecure.

How many times must we be reminded that those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither?

AS

[Mark]

Given that Fearless Leader in this country has launched plans to monitor EVERY electronic transaction (including posts to THIS board), and identify people by their very WALK, for chrissake...I'd say the traffic signal thing is relatively minor.

[HarryKeogh]

does anyone here find they can no longer do one thing that they used to be able to do pre-september 11th? everyone saying how big brother is watching us and our freedoms are being taken away, i just dont see it. maybe im too naive or idealistic.

[Supercharts]

Video cameras at a large intersection?
Could it be for traffic control?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Video cameras at a large intersection?
Could it be for traffic control?

Of course it's for traffic control. Intrusions into citizens' personal lives and restrictions on personal freedoms can nearly always be justified with rational or even "legitimate" bases. That's how freedom erodes. Slowly, bit by bit, with perfectly rational justifications.

The next thing you know, we wake up in a virtual police state, without having even noticed. It's kind of like going bald.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
does anyone here find they can no longer do one thing that they used to be able to do pre-september 11th? everyone saying how big brother is watching us and our freedoms are being taken away, i just dont see it. maybe im too naive or idealistic.



If you were swarthy and dark skinned, I suspect you might feel different about the issue.

AS

[Mark]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
does anyone here find they can no longer do one thing that they used to be able to do pre-september 11th? everyone saying how big brother is watching us and our freedoms are being taken away, i just dont see it. maybe im too naive or idealistic.



Yes, you are. Just because the constant surveillance of your every move is not in your face, it does not make it less insidious; it makes it more so. Your freedoms are being taken away...that you don't notice yet, does NOT make it better.

[Supercharts]

Well maybe the ACLU will fight the cameras being placed in intersections for traffic control. Then they can go after the traffic lights. Then speed limits.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Well maybe the ACLU will fight the cameras being placed in intersections for traffic control. Then they can go after the traffic lights. Then speed limits.

Come on, Supercharts. The ACLU has its place. One of their lawyers just faxed me some helpful info today, as a matter of fact. I like them.

Anyway, you know very well that cameras are very different from traffic lights and speed limits. This isn't about some fictional "right" to speed or break traffic laws. This is about overreaching by government. If it doesn't get nipped in the bud, it's usually too late to stop or reverse it.

It's already happened over and over.

AS

[Linda]

The concept of placing cameras at intersections as a deterrent to running red lights (not for speeding) has been around for years. With the increased incivility on the roads and the increase in disregard for red lights, I welcome the installation of these cameras. I wish we had them at every major intersection in Broward County. Running red lights is out of control. The cameras are set so that they will not activate unless a car enters an intersection on a red light. I saw a demonstration by the company that manufacturers and installs the equipment. I support the concept completely.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Linda
The concept of placing cameras at intersections as a deterrent to running red lights (not for speeding) has been around for years. With the increased incivility on the roads and the increase in disregard for red lights, I welcome the installation of these cameras. I wish we had them at every major intersection in Broward County. Running red lights is out of control. The cameras are set so that they will not activate unless a car enters an intersection on a red light. I saw a demonstration by the company that manufacturers and installs the equipment. I support the concept completely.

Linda, that's precisely the problem. Most folks rationize them as you do and have little problem with them.

As I said, it's always easy for government to justify its intrusions into citizens' daily lives. Think of how much very private, personal info the IRS gathers about you, all in the name of taxing you. It's all perfectly rational.

Back to cameras. About 4 years ago, my state's former governor proposed placing video cameras in every public school. I wrote a scathing letter to our newspaper which published it. I explained why that was a horrible thing to do, and how it would then be only a matter of time before cameras watched all of us, on every public street corner. You can come up with 1000 rationalizations for them. Predictably, parents were overwhelmingly in favor of the cameras in schools. Why? Security and the warm fuzzy feeling they would give the parents knowing their kids were being looked after, of course. What about the kids' expecations of privacy? No one cares. Parents invariably want to sacrifice their kids' privacy for the comfort of knowing they're safe.

Wait until it's you. The government just wants to know you are safe. Safe at home. Safe at the market. Safe in your car. Safe at work. Safe in the rest room, where robberies sometimes occur. Still don't care?

AS

[arcticpenguin]

On the privacy issue I think there's an important distinction. Any person, law enforcement agent or whatever, could stand at that intersection and observe you speeding, or whatever it is you do in that car. So the process is being automated, and can be in operation 24 hours a day, but it is not really an intrusion into a new private space.

Now if they start putting cameras in your bedroom, I would consider that an intrusion of privacy.

I remember a judicial ruling, I can't remember if this was in California or where, but the deal with the cameras was that the company installing & maintaining the cameras got a cut of the traffic fines. The judge ruled, and I thought properly, that this was illegal and a bad idea. The company would have a clear profit motive in misadjusting the equipment to increase the number of fines.

[WildCat]

They're doing the same thing here. But in many cities where they've been installed they've since been taken down because it was shown the yellow lights were too short or there was public opposition. The ACLU actually doesn't mind them.
Cameras are everywhere in London, and the crime rate has been soaring. Seems maybe the police there are relying too much on them and not on foot patrols?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
On the privacy issue I think there's an important distinction. Any person, law enforcement agent or whatever, could stand at that intersection and observe you speeding, or whatever it is you do in that car. So the process is being automated, and can be in operation 24 hours a day, but it is not really an intrusion into a new private space.

Now if they start putting cameras in your bedroom, I would consider that an intrusion of privacy.


Isn't that really the greatest danger, AP? It's the slippery slope. Once the cameras are on the street corners--you know, for public safety--how long is it before they are other places. Also, do we really want cops on every corner? Isn't that an important step towards a police state? Being watched all the time, everywhere?

Automating the process makes it that much easier, and that much more insidious.

Just say no to cameras. I don't care why they are there. They don't belong when they are placed there by government. Private businesses can put them in their stores. That's different.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by WildCat
They're doing the same thing here. But in many cities where they've been installed they've since been taken down because it was shown the yellow lights were too short or there was public opposition. The ACLU actually doesn't mind them.
Cameras are everywhere in London, and the crime rate has been soaring. Seems maybe the police there are relying too much on them and not on foot patrols?

No, it seems people get used to them and ignore them. They still commit crimes. Also, the presence of cameras merely displaces crime; it doesn't reduce it at all.

AS

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Mark


Yes, you are. Just because the constant surveillance of your every move is not in your face, it does not make it less insidious; it makes it more so. Your freedoms are being taken away...that you don't notice yet, does NOT make it better.

just please give me some examples of freedoms being taken away. if you think that having a snapshot taken of your car running a red light is an example of a loss of freedom you must have gone crazy when seat belt laws went into effect.

[renata]

Originally posted by WildCat
They're doing the same thing here. But in many cities where they've been installed they've since been taken down because it was shown the yellow lights were too short or there was public opposition. The ACLU actually doesn't mind them.
Cameras are everywhere in London, and the crime rate has been soaring. Seems maybe the police there are relying too much on them and not on foot patrols?


Los Angeles was ordered pay back 500,000 because onse such camera took photographs .5 seconds too early. Yellow light stayed on for 3.5 seconds, but camera took photos after 3 seconds. The tickets issued through that camera were ruled invalid

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata



Los Angeles was ordered pay back 500,000 because onse such camera took photographs .5 seconds too early. Yellow light stayed on for 3.5 seconds, but camera took photos after 3 seconds. The tickets issued through that camera were ruled invalid

Yeah, I heard about that. Something for all the pro-camera advocates to think about.

I'm very disturbed by the seemingly-widespread approval of these things in the US.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Yeah, I heard about that. Something for all the pro-camera advocates to think about.

I'm very disturbed by the seemingly-widespread approval of these things in the US.

AS


AS

I quite agree with you on this instance (quick- let's synchronize our clocks!). I tend to be a tad paranoid about privacy and government reach, having lived in USSR. I, of course am not comparing the two countries. However, I will never forget the capacity of people not only to justify but be proud of most humiliating government intrusions into private life. So I have been watching the recent creep with alarm.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by renata



Los Angeles was ordered pay back 500,000 because onse such camera took photographs .5 seconds too early. Yellow light stayed on for 3.5 seconds, but camera took photos after 3 seconds. The tickets issued through that camera were ruled invalid
local news article on this (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/051603_nw_red_light_camera.html)

(Nobody seems to be claiming in the article that there was any malfunction in the system, but it's enough money and bad publicity to bring on some finger-pointing.)


Q

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata



AS

I quite agree with you on this instance (quick- let's synchronize our clocks!). I tend to be a tad paranoid about privacy and government reach, having lived in USSR. I, of course am not comparing the two countries. However, I will never forget the capacity of people not only to justify but be proud of most humiliating government intrusions into private life. So I have been watching the recent creep with alarm.

Actually, I'm not at all surprised you agree. You, of all people here, should agree.

Also, I suspect many thoughtful lawyers, regardless of political bent, understand why this issue is so grave, given their likely familiarity with the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

I'm just as disturbed, if not more so, about persons' complacency and unexamined trust in the good intentions of government as I am by the intrusions themselves.

BTW, you must think I'm some liberal. Not at all. I am quite conservative about many things (I'm probably the most conservative "plaintiffs' lawyer" you'll ever meet. It certainly enhances my credibility). I am very libertarian regarding personal freedoms, however, and about government intrusions into personal matters. I include all drug use in the latter category.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Actually, I'm not at all surprised you agree. You, of all people here, should agree.

Why me of all people? Just so you know I have been accused here of both being a bleeding heart knee jerk liberal and a radical right wing hawkish conservative. :)

I'm just as disturbed, if not more so, about persons' complacency and unexamined trust in the good intentions of government as I am by the intrusions themselves.

That is what alarms me. Registrations of immigrants, detentions of people without access to attorneys, that creepy Total Information Agency ( or something close to that name). Goverments frequently take emergencies (real or invented) and use it to acquire extra power. Few people are able to step outside the current sitation as it is and evaluate it. I am not pretending that I am either. There are also serious and real security issues, and I do not know how to solve them. But the talk of national ID cards and other things lately, while people at all levels of government cheerily justify it makes me very concerned. Ironically, I always considered Republicans as the party that wanted government out of people's lives. However, as past few years proved, any party in power wants itself in people's lives.



BTW, you must think I'm some liberal. Not at all. I am quite conservative about many things (I'm probably the most conservative "plaintiffs' lawyer" you'll ever meet. It certainly enhances my credibility). I am very libertarian regarding personal freedoms, however, and about government intrusions into personal matters. I include all drug use in the latter category.



I never thought of you as a liberal! In fact my comment was made because I think of you as a conservative, and I thought you considered me a liberal. Weird, what people perceive us as? :) I am also quite libertarian about personal freedoms and social structure. We have more in common that we thought! Could evil plaintiffs attorneys and evil insurance investigators reconcile their differences and live happily ever after? :D

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


Why me of all people? Just so you know I have been accused here of both being a bleeding heart knee jerk liberal and a radical right wing hawkish conservative. :)


I meant you, not because of your presumed political bent, but you because of your heritage and country of origin. Anyone who has actually lived in a totalitarian state and has contrasted it with personally living in a relatively free state should appreciate the freedoms more than others.

As for the bleeding heart knee jerk liberal bit, I usually assume most folks in California are liberal.



That is what alarms me. Registrations of immigrants, detentions of people without access to attorneys, that creepy Total Information Agency ( or something close to that name). Goverments frequently take emergencies (real or invented) and use it to acquire extra power. Few people are able to step outside the current sitation as it is and evaluate it. I am not pretending that I am either. There are also serious and real security issues, and I do not know how to solve them. But the talk of national ID cards and other things lately, while people at all levels of government cheerily justify it makes me very concerned. Ironically, I always considered Republicans as the party that wanted government out of people's lives. However, as past few years proved, any party in power wants itself in people's lives.


Agreed completely. Well said. Is English really your second language?


I never thought of you as a liberal! In fact my comment was made because I think of you as a conservative, and I thought you considered me a liberal. Weird, what people perceive us as? :) I am also quite libertarian about personal freedoms and social structure. We have more in common that we thought! Could evil plaintiffs attorneys and evil insurance investigators reconcile their differences and live happily ever after? :D

That was a joke.

I have never considered myself to be a plaintiffs' attorney. Personal injury cases are such a tiny part of my practice. I get them so seldom and don't enjoy them at all (except for the very occasional decent fee they can generate).

I'm just an evil corporate attorney. Of course, all the corporations I represent happen to be really small.

I like insurance companies. They buy my lunch a lot. They helped me buy my house and car. Thanks.


:D

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

I meant you, not because of your presumed political bent, but you because of your heritage and country of origin. Anyone who has actually lived in a totalitarian state and has contrasted it with personally living in a relatively free state should appreciate the freedoms more than others.

As for the bleeding heart knee jerk liberal bit, I usually assume most folks in California are liberal.


Yes, immigrants know the warning signs. We also tend to be a tad more paranoid than necessary.
Hey, we elected Reagan, and we are trying to recall our elected Democratic governor! We are not that liberal.



Agreed completely. Well said. Is English really your second language?

Thanks! Yes, I did not speak a word of English until I was 14.



That was a joke.

:o One of the problems with English as a second language is that humor has to be of the brick dropped on my head variety. I have particular difficulty with puns and double entendres, but obviously also with simple irony. :)



I have never considered myself to be a plaintiffs' attorney. Personal injury cases are such a tiny part of my practice. I get them so seldom and don't enjoy them at all (except for the very occasional decent fee they can generate).

I'm just an evil corporate attorney. Of course, all the corporations I represent happen to be really small.

I like insurance companies. They buy my lunch a lot. They helped me buy my house and car. Thanks.


:D

AS

Hey, where is my car and house? Attorneys keep trying to buy me lunch and dinner, and I keep trying to get a new car from them! Harrumph.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


Thanks! Yes, I did not speak a word of English until I was 14.



That's amazing!

What's a sad commentary on our American schools is that you speak (write, anyway) far better English than 95%+ of high school graduates.


Hey, where is my car and house? Attorneys keep trying to buy me lunch and dinner, and I keep trying to get a new car from them! Harrumph.

I keep telling you. Come over to the dark side....

(We issue new cars to all new members. You have to be in a year before we give you the house. After ten years, you get a vacation home!)

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


That's amazing!

What's a sad commentary on our American schools is that you speak (write, anyway) far better English than 90%+ of high school graduates.


I suppose I could get offended that you assume my skills is a sad commentary on US education system and not a great commentary on my individual brilliance. Nahhhh :p



I keep telling you. Come over to the dark side....

AS

AHA! You just admitted it! Yours is the dark side! Mine is the side of fairness and goodness!

(AS, how does it feel hijacking your own thread?)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


I suppose I could get offended that you assume my skills is a sad commentary on US education system and not a great commentary on my individual brilliance. Nahhhh :p



You don't let anything by, do you? :D


AHA! You just admitted it! Yours is the dark side! Mine is the side of fairness and goodness!


Insurance fair? Ha ha ha ha ha. My math professor tried to get me to become an actuary. If only.... I would rule the world!


(AS, how does it feel hijacking your own thread?)

Is this my thread? I forgot what it's supposed to be about, anyway.

AS

[Thumper]

Isn't there a psychological facet to this discussion?

Cameras do a much more obvious job of observing you than does a human being. A cop standing on the corner is nothing compared to a camera. Cameras are opressive to the spirit. I've experienced it myself... I was driving down a street in Vancouver, WA, minding my own business, then I noticed cameras overhead. Once I noticed that, my entire sense of happiness disappeared. All because of those cameras.

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


You don't let anything by, do you? :D

Who me?? ( There is no fluttering eyelash smilie-darn!) Well... No, I don't. This is nothing! Can you imagine me at a mediation? :D Let's just say my personality and my profession are quite compatible.


Is this my thread? I forgot what it's supposed to be about, anyway.


Something about how much you like George Orwell, I think.

[Ms.Tirius]

We had this very same discussion at work today. The village we live in installed video cameras on Main Street a few years ago, recently there were a series of burgularies, the only thing the video cameras caught on tape were the police responding to alarm that was set off. As far as I'm concerned the darn things are basically useless.
Things have definitely changed, 5yrs ago I could walk down to the bay at 2AM and enjoy the peace and quiet, now we're chased away by code enforcement. There's also a really nice little bay beach in town that I used to take the kids to once in awhile, it's now completely fenced off, and they monitor who goes in or out.

[Kilted_Canuck]

My city, which is on quite a budget decided it was much easier and more effective to put BOXES WITH FLASHES ON THEM rather than actual cameras over infamous traffic lights. Less than a Km from my house is an intersection where the transcanada highway meets the first large arterial street coming into my city. This light is frequently run by semis and cars mostly at night and even during the day, causing quite a few fatalities. Puting in the camera boxes and signs saying "Red light cameras" has lowered the number of accidents on that intersection by >60%.

Heck, even traffic sensors (that monitor how busy a street is) have been proven to reduce the number of speeders on large streets.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Thumper
Isn't there a psychological facet to this discussion?

Cameras do a much more obvious job of observing you than does a human being. A cop standing on the corner is nothing compared to a camera. Cameras are opressive to the spirit. I've experienced it myself... I was driving down a street in Vancouver, WA, minding my own business, then I noticed cameras overhead. Once I noticed that, my entire sense of happiness disappeared. All because of those cameras.

Yes. There is also the presumed infallibility of cameras and other automated equipment. For an accused, it can be very difficult to beat an accusation made by a machine with a valid defense. Judges defer to machines and their supposed infallibility far too often. Juries often do it too.

We have a new breath testing machine for DUIs in my state. It was designed in part to meet our extremely stringent standards for breath testing. It supposedly removes all human interface with the process of testing a sample of the subject's breath, except for pushing a button. The thing calibrates itself, measures all kinds of variables automatically, and get this--even tests itself to see if it is working correctly. If not, it shuts itself off. Anyone else see the logically flaw with this?

I loathe the hubris involved on the part of the engineers who design and build a machine which tests and calibrates itself. Can you say HAL 9000? What about engineers designing "bulletproof" devices like this one? I have a few words in rebuttal for them. Titanic, Apollo 8, Challenger, Columbia.

Engineers can get too cocky. The ones who designed this new Draeger DUI breath testing machine are too cocky.

AS

[7th sextile]

So what was the problem with Apollo 8?

[Stig]

I'm fully with you on this one AS. It is very disturbing. One day our babies will be chipped at birth and it will be rationalised away by saying it is for our own benefit:confused: .

Next it will be "security" cameras link up to the police station in our living rooms to protect us from burglars.......

Every time we loose a bit of freedom, the next generation doesn't notice because they were born into it. Eventually it'll be a living nighmare but no-one will notice.

Stig

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by WildCat
Cameras are everywhere in London, and the crime rate has been soaring. Seems maybe the police there are relying too much on them and not on foot patrols?

I have no problem with cameras in city/town centres monitoring vandalism or anti social behaviour, as long as this ADDS to, rather than being used INSTEAD OF, police patrols.

But, can anyone explain why 'they' are installing cameras in rural car parks? Recently I had cause to stop at a car park miles from any houses or businesses (Dartford Viewpoint, if anyone in UK knows it) and they have installed a camera to monitor the car park! I have seen the same thing on stopping points along the A303 in rural Somerset & Dorset.
Does the benefit of catching some courting couple at it, compensate for the cost of installation/running/monitoring these cameras?
This is truly Big Brother gone made

[davefoc]

Well AS,
On this one, I disagree with you. I think the cameras are fine although my daughter recently got a ticket in San Francisco based on the things for $270 or so. I thought the fine was too steep but I don't see the things as some great intrusion on my liberty or the beginning of the ride down the slippery slope.

I even thought that it would have been a good idea to harness the cameras for surveillance during the recent sniper attacks on the East coast if that was possible. I thought monitoring vehicles in a large number of locations with cameras and then trying to find the same vehicle on tape near locations where a shooting had just occurred might be the only way they were going to get the shooters. In fact, if the guys hadn't called the police on their own, stopping them might have required something like that.

[c4ts]

If they really just wanted monitor people running through red lights, they'd have a motion sensor under the light that triggers a camera nearby to take a picture whenever the light is red.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by 7th sextile
So what was the problem with Apollo 8?

Oops. Apollo 1. Flash fire killed all three astronauts on the launch pad.

AS

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Well, I was driving home from work this evening and I was dismayed to see that Big Brother has extended his reach in my city.

I took an unusual route home and went through a large intersection where construction crews have been working for the last two weeks or so. I just discovered why.

To my dismay I looked up while stopped at the light and saw that staring me in the face was a video camera. Yep, at each arm of the traffic signal, facing each direction of travel is a fully wired, fully functional motion picture camera, snooping into everyone's cars.

...

AS

Excuse me a moment good people, but allow me to offer a professional opinion.

I have worked in emergency medicine and I been a transportation engineer for the last several years, and this system sounds like the cameras are being set up to monitor intersection safety and to preform automated traffic counts as opposed to being used for law enforcement.

Statistics show that most of the complex and difficult accidents occur at intersections where a rapid and accurate response is essential, and the cameras help with this as opposed to sending a police officer out to accident, then having him report back. While this process may only take a few minutes, if the accident involves hazardous chemicals, a fire, an multi-vehicle accident, etc. then every second counts. Since the cameras are already on the scene, one can use them to make an immediate assement and send out help accordingly. I have seen these systems demonstrated at conferences and in cities like St Louis and they can be quite effective.

If you really want to know what is going with the intersection, then I suggest that you consult the 'Blue Pages' in your local telephone directory and contact the Traffic Engineers Office of the city in question, and see what they can tell you about it.

I hope this helps!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Stig
I'm fully with you on this one AS. It is very disturbing. One day our babies will be chipped at birth and it will be rationalised away by saying it is for our own benefit:confused: .



Yes, and doting parents will be falling all over themselves to be first in line to get their babies chipped. You know, for their "protection."



Next it will be "security" cameras link up to the police station in our living rooms to protect us from burglars.......


Yes, we are not far from that. Again, fearful people will be rushing to have them installed, not comprehending the consequences.


Every time we loose a bit of freedom, the next generation doesn't notice because they were born into it. Eventually it'll be a living nighmare but no-one will notice.

Stig

Yep. Fools.

AS

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by c4ts
If they really just wanted monitor people running through red lights, they'd have a motion sensor under the light that triggers a camera nearby to take a picture whenever the light is red.

I'm pretty sure that's how they work. The cameras are still-photo deals, not video cameras.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Excuse me a moment good people, but allow me to offer a professional opinion.

I have worked in emergency medicine and I been a transportation engineer for the last several years, and this system sounds like the cameras are being set up to monitor intersection safety and to preform automated traffic counts as opposed to being used for law enforcement.

Statistics show that most of the complex and difficult accidents occur at intersections where a rapid and accurate response is essential, and the cameras help with this as opposed to sending a police officer out to accident, then having him report back. While this process may only take a few minutes, if the accident involves hazardous chemicals, a fire, an multi-vehicle accident, etc. then every second counts. Since the cameras are already on the scene, one can use them to make an immediate assement and send out help accordingly. I have seen these systems demonstrated at conferences and in cities like St Louis and they can be quite effective.

If you really want to know what is going with the intersection, then I suggest that you consult the 'Blue Pages' in your local telephone directory and contact the Traffic Engineers Office of the city in question, and see what they can tell you about it.

I hope this helps!

Thanks, Crossbow. No, it doesn't help at all. It only serves to confuse the issue.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what justification is proferred by the government. I don't care how much more efficient it makes their "services" or how safe other people feel with them.

Government cameras spying on us, for whatever reason, is an intrusion into human dignity and decency that lovers of individual freedom should not tolerate under any circumstances.

Corraling persons of Japanese descent living in the US, even US citizens, and interring them in concentration camps was justified with a perfectly good reason. It was for our safety, for national security. We were at war with Japan, for Skinny's sake.

It was still wrong and unnecessarily restrictive. The ends don't justify the means.

Didn't anyone in this thread supporting cameras, for whatever reason they are placed somewhere (of course I understand they are placed at intersections for traffic control--give me a little credit, OK?) read and comprehend 1984?

What was Orwell's point, anyway?

Aren't thoughful persons concerned about government projects like Carnivore and Echelon?

Do you mind if I put a video camera on my porch and aim it at your front door? You know, just to make you feel safer so you won't be burglarized?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I'm pretty sure that's how they work. The cameras are still-photo deals, not video cameras.

Not in the UK, they aren't. Those are extremely sophisticated video cameras with full tilt, 360 rotation, and zoom. They are scary beasts.

Still or motion, you should be afraid, very afraid.

AS

[Thanz]

AS, I think you are going a little overboard here. I don't know what the cameras you saw are for - whether they are red light cameras or what Crossbow described - but let's just assume they are red light cameras.

If it can be shown that red light cameras reduce injuries and deaths at dangerous intersections, the quite frankly I don't give a damn if you don't want your picture taken there.

you said: The whole point is that it doesn't matter what justification is proferred by the government. I don't care how much more efficient it makes their "services" or how safe other people feel with them.

Government cameras spying on us, for whatever reason, is an intrusion into human dignity and decency that lovers of individual freedom should not tolerate under any circumstances.


With this I disagree, and I disagree with your slippery slope arguments. Do you really think that we lack the ability to examine each instance on it's own? All laws intrude on your personal liberty. Red lights, speed limits, everything. Why do you think that people are incapable of making a rational decision to say - take some pictures of cars at an intersection if it will save the lives of people. You need to balance the intrusion with the benefit, something that you refuse to do.

Supporting red light cameras does not imply support for cameras on every corner, cameras in my living room or youpointing a camera at my front door. I can draw line. Why can't you?

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


The whole point is that it doesn't matter what justification is proferred by the government. I don't care how much more efficient it makes their "services" or how safe other people feel with them.


That is really the core. Surveillance pretty much in any form can be said to save lives. Cameras on all roads will increase the speed of emergency response. Cameras in all commercial buildings will decrease the armed robberies and assaults. Cameras outside your home will decrease rapes, invasions and burglaries. Tracking devices in kids will decrease murdered, abducted children. National ID cards will decrease illegal immigrant entry and potential illegal activities. Weekly mandatory population drug tests will decrease drug abuse.

We know that surveillance can save lives. However, there are values to privacy that we use to not live in the perfectly safe world.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I have to disagree with you AS. Look at this situation:

A very busy intersection has a common problem with people running red lights. Now, usually people wait a moment for the red light runners and no real harm is done, aside from the aggravation. Occassionally, an accident occurs. Sometimes it is fatal, others it is not. Either way, damage is done and a very busy intersection is blocked, disrupting traffic and business throughout a portion of the city.

The city can do two things:
1. Hire a police officer to watch over the intersection 24 hours/day.
2. Install monitoring equipment that will do the officer's job.

It is much cheaper to maintain the monitoring equipment than it is to employ a couple of officers full time. The intersection is costing lives and money. So, some solution must be forthcoming.

Enough people will complain that the intersection is dangerous and that something must be done. The city will do the intelligent thing and install monitoring equipment. Not only does this pay for itself after the first few months, but it continues to generate revenue and reduce accidents for a long time afterwards.

A lot of people get this paranoia that the government hires thousands of workers to go through these videos to spy on innocent citizens. This is ridiculous. There are other invasions of privacy to worry about. This is not even an invasion of privacy. We are not free to do whatever we want, wherever we want, and this has to be enforced.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Thanz
AS, I think you are going a little overboard here. I don't know what the cameras you saw are for - whether they are red light cameras or what Crossbow described - but let's just assume they are red light cameras.

If it can be shown that red light cameras reduce injuries and deaths at dangerous intersections, the quite frankly I don't give a damn if you don't want your picture taken there.

you said:

With this I disagree, and I disagree with your slippery slope arguments. Do you really think that we lack the ability to examine each instance on it's own? All laws intrude on your personal liberty. Red lights, speed limits, everything. Why do you think that people are incapable of making a rational decision to say - take some pictures of cars at an intersection if it will save the lives of people. You need to balance the intrusion with the benefit, something that you refuse to do.

Supporting red light cameras does not imply support for cameras on every corner, cameras in my living room or youpointing a camera at my front door. I can draw line. Why can't you?

Thanks, Thanz. It's fine that you disagree.

It's not about line drawing. The contortions made to dismiss my arguments, and similar ones, as hysterial are a big part of the problem.

It's about creeping intrusion and the complacency of the citizenry. Even you, an attorney who should know better, have no problem with the creeping.

Please see Renata's post immediately above for a brilliant retort and explanation.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Thanz

Supporting red light cameras does not imply support for cameras on every corner, cameras in my living room or youpointing a camera at my front door. I can draw line. Why can't you?

I forgot to respond to this specifically. Then what happened in the UK, where they literally do have cameras on every corner, at least in London? Was every citizen asleep at the freedom monitoring switch while the police were quietly taking away their freedoms?

Do you mean you don't feel even the least bit creeped out knowing that such cameras, if placed on every corner in your city, would be watching you each time you stepped out of your house or office?

I would hope you would. The possibility that you, and many others like you, wouldn't is what is so disturbing about this issue to me. Citizens must be vigilant about protecting against constant creeping of intrusions into their lives by government. They almost always occur innocently enough at first, and then corruption sets in and the innocence is lost. So is the freedom that preceded it.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote

A lot of people get this paranoia that the government hires thousands of workers to go through these videos to spy on innocent citizens. This is ridiculous. There are other invasions of privacy to worry about. This is not even an invasion of privacy. We are not free to do whatever we want, wherever we want, and this has to be enforced.

First, we should be free enough not to be spied upon by our government and treated as suspects whenever we set foot outside our doors.

Second, it doesn't take 1000s of government workers to sift through miles of videotape to cause a breach of privacy. It just takes one, and only one instance of it for it to be unacceptable. Paranoia or naivite?

AS

[Jeff Corey]

On Long Island, in Suffolk County, we have the highest rate of traffic fatalities in NY. According to a recent Newsday series, a majority of fatalities occur at intersections and involve people running red lights or stop signs.
So I am willing to cede a bit of freedom to attempt to reduce the likelihood of some soccer mom in a 3 ton SUV or a testosterone junky in a pickup killing me.

[Stig]

For those of you that do trust the government right now - I say that this might not always be the case. What if a really bad bunch of people got in control (some might say this has already happened)? There are proposals for national ID cards for UK citizens being made by the Home Secretary at the moment. This card may have biometric data stored on it. One day they might require that your DNA sequence be stored by the government. What if some really evil folks were to get in control in the future and have access to all this data.

Protect your freedoms while you can.

Stig

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
On Long Island, in Suffolk County, we have the highest rate of traffic fatalities in NY. According to a recent Newsday series, a majority of fatalities occur at intersections and involve people running red lights or stop signs.
So I am willing to cede a bit of freedom to attempt to reduce the likelihood of some soccer mom in a 3 ton SUV or a testosterone junky in a pickup killing me.

Jeff, take another look the next time a car registered in New Hampshire is nearby. Remember what it says on their license plates? "Live free or Die!"

Bless Patrick Henry. He got it.

AS

[renata]

One difficulty with giving up a little liberty in order to save lives is that benefits of surveillance are obvious, immediate and easy to calculate. We all know people who were hurt in road accidents, we imagine someone running a red light and killing us, our families. But privacy is an ephemeral concept, difficult to quantify or measure. So losing a tad of it does not mean much, compared to x number of lives saved by giving up a little of something we can't calculate. Safety always wins in those types of calculations.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata
One difficulty with giving up a little liberty in order to save lives is that benefits of surveillance are obvious, immediate and easy to calculate. We all know people who were hurt in road accidents, we imagine someone running a red light and killing us, our families. But privacy is an ephemeral concept, difficult to quantify or measure. So losing a tad of it does not mean much, compared to x number of lives saved by giving up a little of something we can't calculate. Safety always wins in those types of calculations.

Yep. As Ben Franklin responded when asked what had they wrought, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Was it also Franklin who said this?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I wish that were printed on all coins in the US, instead of "In God We Trust."

AS

[arcticpenguin]

Now this is what Iwould call invasion of privacy: Hidden camera on ship causes terror scare (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/23/boat.scare/index.html)

A hidden camera in the ladies' room of a party ship inadvertently sparked some anxious moments Thursday night on a cruise around Manhattan.
...
A male employee on the ship was being questioned, police said. It was unclear what, if any, charges the man may face.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I forgot to respond to this specifically. Then what happened in the UK, where they literally do have cameras on every corner, at least in London? Was every citizen asleep at the freedom monitoring switch while the police were quietly taking away their freedoms?

I have no idea what happened in London. My only experience is with what has happened here, and my experience does not lead me to the same creeping conclusion that you have made. More on this in a second.

Do you mean you don't feel even the least bit creeped out knowing that such cameras, if placed on every corner in your city, would be watching you each time you stepped out of your house or office?

Yes, I would find it a little crrepy to say the least. Unfortunately, there already are security cameras that can track me on my daily routine - on the subway, in the underground mall on my walk to work, and more in the office building I work in. Curiously, you have no problem with these private security measures - yet where I am, they are much, much more pervasive than any government surveillance.

I would hope you would. The possibility that you, and many others like you, wouldn't is what is so disturbing about this issue to me. Citizens must be vigilant about protecting against constant creeping of intrusions into their lives by government. They almost always occur innocently enough at first, and then corruption sets in and the innocence is lost. So is the freedom that preceded it.

AS

We had a government that tried to introduce photo radar on the major highways in the province. This was met with huge opposition, and one of the major themes of the opposition was invasion of privacy. Another was that it was nothing more than a revenue grab. The photo radar was short lived.

The same objections have not been made to red light cameras. I think it is because the public can see the benefit of the cameras in less accidents, and do not feel the same invasion of privacy. This is what I am talking about with drawing lines. It doesn't have to be a slippery slope. Here, people rejected one kind of camera but accepted another, each on their own merits. I would think that cameras on every corner would be rigoursly opposed.

[Brown]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Corraling persons of Japanese descent living in the US, even US citizens, and interring them in concentration camps ....Just a minor point here.

There is a big difference between internment (confining during wartime) and interment (placing a dead body in a grave).

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Brown
Just a minor point here.

There is a big difference between internment (confining during wartime) and interment (placing a dead body in a grave).

LOL. OK, internnnnnnment. Thanks.

:D

AS

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Thanks, Crossbow. No, it doesn't help at all. It only serves to confuse the issue.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what justification is proferred by the government. I don't care how much more efficient it makes their "services" or how safe other people feel with them.

Government cameras spying on us, for whatever reason, is an intrusion into human dignity and decency that lovers of individual freedom should not tolerate under any circumstances.

Corraling persons of Japanese descent living in the US, even US citizens, and interring them in concentration camps was justified with a perfectly good reason. It was for our safety, for national security. We were at war with Japan, for Skinny's sake.

It was still wrong and unnecessarily restrictive. The ends don't justify the means.

Didn't anyone in this thread supporting cameras, for whatever reason they are placed somewhere (of course I understand they are placed at intersections for traffic control--give me a little credit, OK?) read and comprehend 1984?

What was Orwell's point, anyway?

Aren't thoughful persons concerned about government projects like Carnivore and Echelon?

Do you mind if I put a video camera on my porch and aim it at your front door? You know, just to make you feel safer so you won't be burglarized?

AS

Well, AS, I would have to say that you are over-reacting to this situation.

After all, the roads belong to the public and as such they are subject to public regulation. If you do not like that, then do not use them.

As far as putting cameras in to help keep property safe, that sort of thing has been done for decades.

In the Orwell book, monitoring technology was used to keep the population under control. In this case it is being used to foster public safety and protect private property. Now then, if you can show that somehow this technolgy is being used to for some other purpose, then you may have a case, but until then you do not.

[Linda]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I remember a judicial ruling, I can't remember if this was in California or where, but the deal with the cameras was that the company installing & maintaining the cameras got a cut of the traffic fines. The judge ruled, and I thought properly, that this was illegal and a bad idea. The company would have a clear profit motive in misadjusting the equipment to increase the number of fines.

When the presentation on this issue was made to our City Commission, the issue of cost/revenue came up. The cost to install the cameras was considerable and was to be paid up front by the city to the contractor. The contractor did not receive any of the revenue generated by traffic fines, and it was shown that the increase in traffic fine revenues would pay for the cameras and installation in a fairly short time....I believe under 2 years. Due to the fact a state statute was in place mandating that in order to be enforceable, any traffic violation had to be personally witnessed by a law enforcement officer, the decision was made at that time to forego the purchase of the cameras until the state amended that statute. There was a test court case going on in Sarasota at the time....I don't know how that ended up.
However, it was found that just putting fake cameras up and posting signs reduced the incidence of red light violations considerably. Or at least until everyone realizes they're not real.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, AS, I would have to say that you are over-reacting to this situation.

After all, the roads belong to the public and as such they are subject to public regulation. If you do not like that, then do not use them.

As far as putting cameras in to help keep property safe, that sort of thing has been done for decades.

In the Orwell book, monitoring technology was used to keep the population under control. In this case it is being used to foster public safety and protect private property. Now then, if you can show that somehow this technolgy is being used to for some other purpose, then you may have a case, but until then you do not.

If I could ignore history and what I believe about the evolution of how governments misuse powers, I might agree with you.

As I cannot, I do not agree.

To learn why starting with simple traffic control cameras is a bad idea, one need look no further than the UK. As I indicated above, they literally are on every street corner in London and other cities.
Today, there is virtually nowhere in public one can go in the heart of the city where he will not be monitored by cameras.

As with most government intrusions, they start small enough and innocently enough. It's just a traffic camera and just to deter drivers from running red lights.

Well, our government assured everyone concerned at the time of their introduction that social security numbers would never be used for anything other than accounting for your social security benefits. Of course, today they are the de facto identification for you in nearly all transactions in which verification of your identity is paramount. This includes most private transactions, not just those interactions with various governmental agencies you must endure.

There is a tremendous difference between private store owners monitoring their goods with cameras and governmental agencies monitoring the citizenry in public places.

There already have been abuses by the police arising from the video monitoring in the UK. Persons have been mistakenly accused of crimes due to misidentification and due to mistaken intentions deduced from what the cameras displayed. Others have been libeled due to leaks of videotape to local media.

I'm surprised you have such faith in government's ability not to abuse its powers. Powers tend to grow and extend. If left unchecked, they can easily stifle the populace.

That is the point Orwell was making.

AS

[Brown]

Whenever increased surveillance is called into question, it seems like someone always defends it by saying, "Well, unless you're doing something that you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about."

So far, I don't think anyone has made this argument explicitly, so I thought I would.

And I answer the argument, "That's not necessarily true."

It is true that those who act according to the rules are probably less worried about surveillance than those who are plotting mischief. But even those who play by the rules have something to worry about, and this may be part of what AS is saying.

Even though the surveillance may have been instituted to deter or address mischief, there will be those (some of them not governmental entities) who will demand that it be used for other purposes.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Thanz


I have no idea what happened in London. My only experience is with what has happened here, and my experience does not lead me to the same creeping conclusion that you have made. More on this in a second.



Fair enough. We can learn from others' mistakes, however. The seemingly irreversible situation Londoners find themselves in today deserves scrutiny. That so many of them are complacent about the ubiquity of cameras is frightening, and should also serve as a lesson to us.


Yes, I would find it a little crrepy to say the least. Unfortunately, there already are security cameras that can track me on my daily routine - on the subway, in the underground mall on my walk to work, and more in the office building I work in. Curiously, you have no problem with these private security measures - yet where I am, they are much, much more pervasive than any government surveillance.


I wouldn't say I have no problem with private security cameras. I have much less problem with them.

The difference between the vast resources of and potential abuses by government and the relatively minor ones by private actors is key. I'm not afraid of what Target might do with a videotape of my walking through its aisles. I have little confidence in the capacity of government not to find some nefarious use for catching me on video doing something or in the company of someone which could be used against me later. For instance, if I were to run for mayor, the incumbent could leak video footage of me smoking and demonize me with it. What if someone had recently become involved in a public scandal, and two months earlier I had been caught on video having lunch in the park with him or her? Guilt by association, despite the video having nothing to do with the scandal. Many of us have an irrational tendency to believe that videotape does not lie.

Think this sounds like so many conspiracy theories spinning out of control? Think again. Have you heard of the Stasi? They were the East German secret police. At the peak of their powers, they had recruited 1 in 3 East German citizens to spy on their neighbors. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Stasi files were uncovered containing trivial, innocous personal information about the majority of the former East German citizens. The files were housed in enormous file rooms that went on for miles when put aisle to aisle. That is what governments left unchecked can and will do to their citizens. It's not as far fetched as you might think.




We had a government that tried to introduce photo radar on the major highways in the province. This was met with huge opposition, and one of the major themes of the opposition was invasion of privacy. Another was that it was nothing more than a revenue grab. The photo radar was short lived.

The same objections have not been made to red light cameras. I think it is because the public can see the benefit of the cameras in less accidents, and do not feel the same invasion of privacy. This is what I am talking about with drawing lines. It doesn't have to be a slippery slope. Here, people rejected one kind of camera but accepted another, each on their own merits. I would think that cameras on every corner would be rigoursly opposed.

I would think that too. Only I would be wrong. London again. Londoners apparently accept them in large numbers, with only a minority finding fault with them.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Brown
Whenever increased surveillance is called into question, it seems like someone always defends it by saying, "Well, unless you're doing something that you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about."

So far, I don't think anyone has made this argument explicitly, so I thought I would.

And I answer the argument, "That's not necessarily true."

It is true that those who act according to the rules are probably less worried about surveillance than those who are plotting mischief. But even those who play by the rules have something to worry about, and this may be part of what AS is saying.

Even though the surveillance may have been instituted to deter or address mischief, there will be those (some of them not governmental entities) who will demand that it be used for other purposes.

Yes, Brown, you are dead on correct. Surveillance by government should always--repeat always--be viewed with extreme suspicion and prejudice.

That so many persons fail to recognize the potential nefarious uses government can and does make of information it gathers about its citizens is frightening. That is exactly what Ben Franklin meant in his famous quote about trading liberty for security. They are not just words. They are important concepts that everyone who values individual freedoms should ponder very deeply.

Anyone who defends intrusions into personal liberties with such a simplistic argument that if you aren't doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about is being foolish and/or naive.

What do you think Watergate was about? (It's a rhetorical question, for anyone tempted to try to explain)

This is no different from the fundamental reason why the protections afforded persons in the US by the due process of law are so vital to our freedom and liberty. Often, we hear simple-minded rhetoric that the Constitution only protects criminals.

Wrong. Anyone can be accused of criminal conduct. The fact is that persons are accused of criminal conduct they didn't do or that isn't really criminal as claimed every single day in every single state. The protections afforded by the Constitution hardly seem trivial when it's your butt in the hot seat.

Again, this isn't just talk. In my criminal practice I see the tangible effects of these things routinely, as do other criminal defense attorneys. These things affect real people with real lives, many of whom do not deserve the abuses heaped upon them by sometimes well-meaning authorities.

Who do you think stands as a buffer between the ordinary citizens and the police state? The government? Please. It is the police state, when left unchecked.

The unpleasant answer is quite often lawyers and the "mere technicalities" found in the Constitution and cases interpreting and upholding them.

Now, what was I talking about again?


:D

Brown, don't let me go off on these tangents anymore, OK?

AS

[jj]

MIB come to door:

MIB: Excuse me, sir, we'd like to discuss some of your credit card receipts.

S: Err, could you show some identification?

MIB: No, sir, we can't, we're with the Office of Homeland Security, and we are not allowed to release our identities.

S: Have a nice day then.

----later---

CRASH! Alright, everyone, HANDS UP! YOU ARE ALL IMPOUNDED UNDER THE HOMELAND DEFENSE ACT! GET ONE SET OF UNDERWEAR, YOU're GOING TO GITMO.

S: No, I'm not, show me a warrant.

MIB: Ratatatatatata. Don't need one any more, you criminal creep. Ahh, one more atheistic terrorist bites the dust. Shame he wouldn't just tell us that he didn't really mean to contribute to Satanists. That's right, a****le, you're not going anywhere now, and we're taking your life insurance proceeds as terrorist funds, too!

----

That's what our beloved leaders would like to have the power to do, you know.

---later---
MIB: Well, your honor, his pattern of charitible giving showed multiple donations to satanistic organizations, and he even once said that the Boy Scouts should have to accept atheiests and gays.

Judge: Well, then, what's the problem? You did your job. Who did he think he was, asking for a warrant, anyhow?

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, AS, I would have to say that you are over-reacting to this situation.

After all, the roads belong to the public and as such they are subject to public regulation. If you do not like that, then do not use them.

As far as putting cameras in to help keep property safe, that sort of thing has been done for decades.

In the Orwell book, monitoring technology was used to keep the population under control. In this case it is being used to foster public safety and protect private property. Now then, if you can show that somehow this technolgy is being used to for some other purpose, then you may have a case, but until then you do not.

Crossbow,
I think you are missing AS's point here. How will you know when the government stops using it for 'public safety' and starts using it to just find out what you are up to. YOu wont, unless you are part of the government that is doing it. Cameras on private property are one thing, but public property is a different matter. Who will be babysiting or monitoring our government to find out if it is doing these things? Answer, our government. Do you think the government of Orwell's 1984 started out that way, no, they slowly wittled away freedoms while no one noticed until they had reached such a state.

Once you give the government the means (justified by a different end) what is to stop them from using it for other ends. Once you give up a freedom, it is almost impossible to get it back.

AS,
I too am very liberal when it comes to personal and social freedoms/issues, but am very conservative economically and with regard to other issues. I dont know if this makes me a libertarian or not. Anyway, I live in St. louis, so I was troubled to hear that from Crossbow that they are here, Ive never noticed.

Edited to add: I remeber seeing something about how the camera monitoring in london used some software tha tcould identify people by the faces, and they kept a tighter watch on what convicted criminals were doing. this might not sound like such a bad idea on the surface, and certainly could be used to find or watch people who are currently wanted, but imagine someone who is in the database for a past crime and they have paid their debt (ie jail whatever). You can bet taht they will be watched more closely even if they are just out at the market and are no longer participating in crime.

[AmateurScientist]

Ha ha. Good one, JJ.

Yep. Kinda what happened to Randy Weaver's family, huh?

(Yeah, I know Weaver has outstanding warrants for firearms violations and supposedly wouldn't let law enforcement onto his property to serve them, or something like that. It doesn't mean his wife and kid deserved to die.)

People are much too trusting of authority.

AS

[jj]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Ha ha. Good one, JJ.

Yep. Kinda what happened to Randy Weaver's family, huh?

(Yeah, I know Weaver has outstanding warrants for firearms violations and supposedly wouldn't let law enforcement onto his property to serve them, or something like that. It doesn't mean his wife and kid deserved to die.)

People are much too trusting of authority.

AS

Well, AS, imagine this. Some idiot like the people who persecuted Kelly Michaels and who have deep belief systems in the existance of evil get ahold of our credit card receipts, and see these donations to JREF, CSICOP, etc.

And since you DO know law enforcement people, you know that some (few) of them are like this, too.

Seems to me that's all it would take. The decision would never stand up in the long run, but the people would still be just as dead, and the survivors probably out the life insurance and any chance of compensation, too, because of the removal of due-process in the various passed-in-a-panic acts.

[AmateurScientist]

Charles,

That describes me too. I alway point out that I consider myself a libertarian with a little "l," as I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. They can get a little kooky sometimes, in my opinion.

Thanks for explaining to Crossbow better than I did why the ends do not justify the means.

I know Crossbow means well. He, like so many others, doesn't seem to grasp the ultimate consequences of ceding liberty in small degrees. And, of course, no, I'm not contending that anyone has the liberty to do whatever he wants in public. That's silly. We do have, or at least should have, a fundamental expectation that we will not be spied upon by government whenever we step outside our houses.

That is precisely what Big Brother was all about. Not having the ability to hold private conversations or to associate with persons without it becoming official government knowledge is oppressive in itself.

AS

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Stig
Every time we loose a bit of freedom, the next generation doesn't notice because they were born into it. Eventually it'll be a living nighmare but no-one will notice.

Stig

Can we be so sure that it hasn't happened already?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Brown
Whenever increased surveillance is called into question, it seems like someone always defends it by saying, "Well, unless you're doing something that you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about."

So far, I don't think anyone has made this argument explicitly, so I thought I would.

And I answer the argument, "That's not necessarily true."

It is true that those who act according to the rules are probably less worried about surveillance than those who are plotting mischief. But even those who play by the rules have something to worry about, and this may be part of what AS is saying.

Even though the surveillance may have been instituted to deter or address mischief, there will be those (some of them not governmental entities) who will demand that it be used for other purposes.

I agree, but would put it more simply: The people doing the watching are the same ones who get to decide if you have done anything wrong or not. Not you.

[Mark]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Ha ha. Good one, JJ.

Yep. Kinda what happened to Randy Weaver's family, huh?

(Yeah, I know Weaver has outstanding warrants for firearms violations and supposedly wouldn't let law enforcement onto his property to serve them, or something like that. It doesn't mean his wife and kid deserved to die.)

People are much too trusting of authority.

AS

Oops..you lost me there. I work on the streets with the police. If a persons raises a gun against the police, as far as I am concerned, he has surrendered his civil rights. Kill him. The death of his wife and child is a tragedy HE deserves the blame for.

That said, I agree with you 100% on the rest of this stuff.

[renata]

Originally posted by Mark


I agree, but would put it more simply: The people doing the watching are the same ones who get to decide if you have done anything wrong or not. Not you.


That is exactly right. I remember reading a story a while back about the new face reckognition system they use to screen people at large sporting events- it was supposed to screen out terrorists. Except somebody decided it was a great idea if it could also look for people behind on child support payments. Now, those people are breaking the law, so it is a great idea, right? Maybe the next level will be people who forgot to pay their parking tickets.

I do not recall whether the child support issues were implemented or not.


The bottom line for me is- I do not trust any government, and I especially do not trust the government that thinks it "knows best", like the current one does.

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Think this sounds like so many conspiracy theories spinning out of control? Think again. Have you heard of the Stasi? They were the East German secret police. At the peak of their powers, they had recruited 1 in 3 East German citizens to spy on their neighbors. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Stasi files were uncovered containing trivial, innocous personal information about the majority of the former East German citizens. The files were housed in enormous file rooms that went on for miles when put aisle to aisle. That is what governments left unchecked can and will do to their citizens. It's not as far fetched as you might think.




After USSR crumbled, it was found out that in my parents' workplaces, between 25% and 35% of people informed on the co-workers to the authorities. Mind boggling. Personal story- my father was asked to inform on his co-workers. He refused. They said they would ruin his career. He refused. They produced embarassing pictures. He refused. They let him go, but he never advanced in his workplace. It is very difficult to refuse in these conditions. Many people rationalize their participation, some think if inform on matters they consider meaningless then there is no harm done.

[Mark]

Originally posted by renata


After USSR crumbled, it was found out that in my parents' workplaces, between 25% and 35% of people informed on the co-workers to the authorities. Mind boggling. Personal story- my father was asked to inform on his co-workers. He refused. They said they would ruin his career. He refused. They produced embarassing pictures. He refused. They let him go, but he never advanced in his workplace. It is very difficult to refuse in these conditions. Many people rationalize their participation, some think if inform on matters they consider meaningless then there is no harm done.

People are the same all over. Look around...how many of your neighbors do you think would actually stand up to authorities even if they thought what they were doing was wrong? The U.S. Government under the Bush Administration is in the middle of the biggest power grab in our country's history...and most seem completely uninterested...even supportive.

[Andalyn]

I think Arctic Penguin made an excellent point earlier in this thread.

I'm of two minds on this. I can see Amateur's point. However, the overriding thought that keeps coming back to mind is:

What is the expectation of privacy?

Is there a realistic expectation of privacy at an intersection?

What about at an ATM?

ATM cameras have long been used as a tool for other crimes, not relating directly to the ATM.

Without a realistic expectation of privacy, part of me thinks that there is no complaint.

[Crossbow]

Pardon me, but I am not advocating the ceding of personal liberty.

The cameras are simply a tool to get data quickly and efficiently; please take a look at the below when you get a chance and see if you seriously think that this tool has resulted in any of your liberties being lost.

For traffic conditions in St Louis, MO, take a look at:
http://www.gatewayguide.com/index.asp

For real-time traffic monitoring cameras take a look at:

Charlotte, NC:
http://www.ncsmartlink.org/cameras/

Hampton Roads, VA:
http://home.hamptonroads.com/traffic/index.cfm

For California:
http://video.dot.ca.gov/

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Mark


Oops..you lost me there. I work on the streets with the police. If a persons raises a gun against the police, as far as I am concerned, he has surrendered his civil rights. Kill him. The death of his wife and child is a tragedy HE deserves the blame for.

That said, I agree with you 100% on the rest of this stuff.

Well, I don't feel like researching it right now, but my recollection of the Randy Weaver affair is that the local sheriff's department, the ATF, and the FBI all swarmed, complete with helicopters, over the Weaver property to arrest Weaver on the outstanding warrants.

Weaver's 14 year old son ran to investigate with his dog when they showed up. Yes, he was armed. His dog barked, the FBI shot and killed the dog, and the kid shot back. The FBI shot and killed the kid, once in the arm, and again in the back.

The mother was inside the house, standing behind a wooden front door, holding her baby, when several rifle shots fired by law enforcement officials pierced the door and killed her. She was not armed.

It is vital to remember that at the time Weaver and his family were at home. At the time of the raid on their home, they were not committing any offenses.

How can you possibly intimate that the kid and the mom had it coming or that Weaver himself caused their deaths?

IIRC, Weaver had outstanding warrants for federal firearms violations--he possessed some firearms the possession of which were prohibited under federal law. That was his crime, period. Is that punishable by death? Or the deaths of one's family?

BTW, the U.S. Government paid Randy Weaver $3 million for the wrongful deaths of his wife and son after he filed federal tort claims and a subsequent lawsuit. Gerry Spence represented him.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Andalyn
I think Arctic Penguin made an excellent point earlier in this thread.

I'm of two minds on this. I can see Amateur's point. However, the overriding thought that keeps coming back to mind is:

What is the expectation of privacy?

Is there a realistic expectation of privacy at an intersection?

What about at an ATM?

ATM cameras have long been used as a tool for other crimes, not relating directly to the ATM.

Without a realistic expectation of privacy, part of me thinks that there is no complaint.

Andalyn,

You have to consider this in the context of the slippery slope. Once the cameras are firmly in place at intersections, and the populace is used to and accepts them, it's only a small step to placing them here and there. Before you know it, they are everywhere, just like in 1984.

Focusing on whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in any paticular location misses the overall point. Eventually, there will be nowhere in public in a city where one can hold a private conversation or meeting. Everywhere will be monitored. Big Brother will be watching from every corner. Fun, huh?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Crossbow,

I took a look at the traffic cameras along I-77 in NC. You are right. Those are for traffic control and remote monitoring of traffic conditions.

Those cameras are not like the ones I am discussing in this thread, although their appearance is somewhat disturbing in the context of knowing that a vast network of cameras is being built, little by little.

As I described in the first post of this thread, the cameras at the intersection I described are at an intersection. They are not on the interstate. They are aimed at the drivers of automobiles approaching from each of four directions. They are not there for traffic control. They are law enforcement cameras. There would be no traffic control purpose (except enforcement) in the location they are placed. We are talking about an intersection leading into a residential section on one end, and through to downtown on another, and to various business districts at two other ends. Not traffic control. That's what the lights are for.

AS

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Jeff, take another look the next time a car registered in New Hampshire is nearby. Remember what it says on their license plates? "Live free or Die!"

Bless Patrick Henry. He got it.

AS

He may have got it but he didn't say it. "Live free or die" was written by Gen. John Stark in 1809.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death>"

[A_Feeble_Mind]

AmateurScientist, I do not mean this to be an insult, but you are coming across as very paranoid. Your reaction to these cameras is a bit extreme.

I don't see the connection between cameras out in a public place and cameras placed in my home. Do you have any supporting evidence for this theorhetical "slipery slope?"

[Stig]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
AmateurScientist, I do not mean this to be an insult, but you are coming across as very paranoid. Your reaction to these cameras is a bit extreme.

I don't see the connection between cameras out in a public place and cameras placed in my home. Do you have any supporting evidence for this theorhetical "slipery slope?"

I don't think he is paranoid at all. I think he has his eyes open.

Stig

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Stig


I don't think he is paranoid at all. I think he has his eyes open.

Stig

As this is a skeptic's forum, I'm curious as to what evidence exists for this to be considered a threat?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


As this is a skeptic's forum, I'm curious as to what evidence exists for this to be considered a threat?

1) The millions of police surveillance cameras in use on public streets in the UK as we speak.

2) The dire warnings and illustrations of what life can be like with constant government surveillance George Orwell wrote about 60 years ago. He was quite prescient.

3) The real life stories from real people of what it was like to live under the totalitarian regimes in the former USSR and East Germany.

4) The universal tendency of all governments to expand their scope, authority, powers, and intrusions into the lives of the governed.

5) The complacency of the citizenry in the face of such relatively unchecked expansion of powers.

Need more?

AS

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Crossbow,

I took a look at the traffic cameras along I-77 in NC. You are right. Those are for traffic control and remote monitoring of traffic conditions.

Those cameras are not like the ones I am discussing in this thread, although their appearance is somewhat disturbing in the context of knowing that a vast network of cameras is being built, little by little.

As I described in the first post of this thread, the cameras at the intersection I described are at an intersection. They are not on the interstate. They are aimed at the drivers of automobiles approaching from each of four directions. They are not there for traffic control. They are law enforcement cameras. There would be no traffic control purpose (except enforcement) in the location they are placed. We are talking about an intersection leading into a residential section on one end, and through to downtown on another, and to various business districts at two other ends. Not traffic control. That's what the lights are for.

AS

AS, true some cameras are used at intersections and other places (such as railroad crossings) for the purposes of law enforcement.

But again, I fail to see what the problem is.

The streets are public property and if one wants to use them, then one must submit to public regulation.

Now then, if at some point the cameras are being used to invade privacy as opposed to recording illegal activity, then you may have a legitimate concern. But until that point, I really do not think that there is a problem.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


He may have got it but he didn't say it. "Live free or die" was written by Gen. John Stark in 1809.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death>"


Thanks for the correction. Same sentiment.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


1) The millions of police surveillance cameras in use on public streets in the UK as we speak.

2) The dire warnings and illustrations of what life can be like with constant government surveillance George Orwell wrote about 60 years ago. He was quite prescient.

3) The real life stories from real people of what it was like to live under the totalitarian regimes in the former USSR and East Germany.

4) The universal tendency of all governments to expand their scope, authority, powers, and intrusions into the lives of the governed.

5) The complacency of the citizenry in the face of such relatively unchecked expansion of powers.

Need more?

AS

I will add a few

The expanded justification of secret government mandate in the wake of 9/11

The proposed uses of face reckognition technology for less and less grave offenses

The hundreds of peole held in custody without having access to attorneys.

Cattle calls and detentions for all immigrants from certain countries, even the ones who have been in the US for years and are here legally.

Operations TIPS, and the TIA.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
AmateurScientist, I do not mean this to be an insult, but you are coming across as very paranoid. Your reaction to these cameras is a bit extreme.


Vigilant and paranoid are not synonymous. Watch your liberties slip away, little by little, and only you are to blame.

This is not some wild fantasy I am conjuring up. It is happening right now. You and I and others are letting it happen.

Walking outside and down to the corner store unfettered is something you or I probably take for granted now. In 40 years you may not be able to do that without showing your papers and having your DNA checked against a database of known suspects and fugitives.

How do you think these things get started?

AS

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


1) The millions of police surveillance cameras in use on public streets in the UK as we speak.


Have cameras been installed in people's houses because of this?


2) The dire warnings and illustrations of what life can be like with constant government surveillance George Orwell wrote about 60 years ago. He was quite prescient.


There are many fictional books written. I do not consider this to really be "evidence" of anything except for what George Orwell's opions were.


3) The real life stories from real people of what it was like to live under the totalitarian regimes in the former USSR and East Germany.


Again, how do public cameras relate to this?


4) The universal tendency of all governments to expand their scope, authority, powers, and intrusions into the lives of the governed.


Can you provide examples?


5) The complacency of the citizenry in the face of such relatively unchecked expansion of powers.


Although this sounds possible, I don't necessarily know that it is true.


Need more?

AS

I really think that you haven't provided any evidence as of yet.

[AmateurScientist]

Thanks Renata, Stig, and Mark for your support in this thread. Now, go out and spread the word about evil traffic cameras!

:D

AS

[Brown]

I would say paranoid is too strong a word. Perhaps "cautious" is a little closer. Or "suspicious."

The only point that seems mildly paranoid to me is that the government is out to try to sieze as much power as it can. And even then, "paranoid" is too strong a term; it's merely a misunderstanding of the typical dynamics.

As renata pointed out, a lot of governmental power gets expanded because of a demand that it be expanded, not from a faceless government "power grab." In other words, it is often a force outside the governmental entity, rather than the governmental entity itself, that motivates the expansion of governmental power. From my experience in state government, I found that state entities usually had quite enough to do on their limited budgets without trying to take on more power (and more responsibility). They didn't go around looking for new things to control. But they were often motivated to regulate new things by directions from the governor, pressure from the legislature, complaints from consumers, abuses by those regulated, decisions from the courts, publicity from the media, and things like that.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Please don't simply discard what I am saying. I am not simply "trolling" or trying to give you a hard time. Instead, consider me someone who may be persuaded to your cause. If you cannot provide evidence for your fears, perhaps you would reconsider why you are feeling threatened.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


just please give me some examples of freedoms being taken away.

I think this is a valid question which hasn't been addressed. (Specific to the US and Britain) Can anyone help out with this one?

[Hellbound]

Just one thing I wanted to point out here.

I've seen the term "slippery slope" used in many, many posts here.

Are you all aware that the "slippery slope" is considered a logical fallacy?

Just curious.

The expectation of privacy in a public place is, well, an oxymoron.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Originally posted by AmateurScientist


1) The millions of police surveillance cameras in use on public streets in the UK as we speak.


Have cameras been installed in people's houses because of this?



Strawman. I have not contended that government has installed surveillance cameras in homes on a wholesale basis.

If you are comfortable with the government spying on you everywhere else, then I don't know what to say. In that case, you would fall within the category of persons Ben Franklin described as deserving neither liberty nor security.


2) The dire warnings and illustrations of what life can be like with constant government surveillance George Orwell wrote about 60 years ago. He was quite prescient.


There are many fictional books written. I do not consider this to really be "evidence" of anything except for what George Orwell's opions were.


Did you read 1984? If you did, and nothing within it resonated with you or caused you concern, then again, I don't know what to say in response. Your concept of freedom from tyranny must be very different from mine.



3) The real life stories from real people of what it was like to live under the totalitarian regimes in the former USSR and East Germany.

Again, how do public cameras relate to this?



You're joking, right? If you cannot understand that ubiquitous police cameras imply a totalitarian regime, then I cannot explain it to you.


4) The universal tendency of all governments to expand their scope, authority, powers, and intrusions into the lives of the governed.

Can you provide examples?



Constitutional law in the 20th Century. The history of the expansion of federal powers in the US since its beginning.

I'm not going to attempt to write a book here.



5) The complacency of the citizenry in the face of such relatively unchecked expansion of powers.


Although this sounds possible, I don't necessarily know that it is true.



Look around. How much uprising do you see against the tremendous expansion of police powers the Bush Administration has taken since 9/11? Instead of denouncing the expansion, so many people seem to be welcoming them, stating they feel more secure. That's watching persons trading liberty for security in action.
[/B]



I really think that you haven't provided any evidence as of yet.

I'm not sure what standard for evidence testing you are using. I'm not sure you understand the premise for my argument, or even what my argument is. I'm not trying to prove there is a camera in your home as we speak.

AS

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I'm not sure what standard for evidence testing you are using. I'm not sure you understand the premise for my argument, or even what my argument is. I'm not trying to prove there is a camera in your home as we speak.

AS

The evidence I am looking for is based on facts rather than feelings and emotions. Can you, for example, show what negative things have happened since the installation of the cameras in the UK instead of just claiming they are bad?

[jj]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
I really think that you haven't provided any evidence as of yet.
Welll, look, let's say that there was actual evidence that problems were already happening.


Let's also say that that would verily define the term "too late now".

A simple look at history, especially a history where the rich run the place (new republicans, Communist Party Elite) run the place, and everyone else "knows their place", where "blacklisting" (which has come to light after 9-11 political debates now) happens, etc, would suggest that the problem is obvious to anyone who looks.

You are clearly unwilling to open your eyes and look, and I can't make you do that, so you are, I guess, doomed to be always late and in a reactive situation.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


The evidence I am looking for is based on facts rather than feelings and emotions. Can you, for example, show what negative things have happened since the installation of the cameras in the UK instead of just claiming they are bad?

First, "freedom" and "liberty" cannot be quantified. They are difficult concepts even to qualify or define. Therefore, I'm not sure any set of facts will meet your test for facts. Freedom is an abstract ideal. The loss of it, even in degree, is equally abstract. That doesn't mean it's trivial.

As to what sort of negative things have occurred in the UK arising from the installation of surveillance cameras, they can be described as two types. The first type is the intangible loss of liberty in being able to walk the streets unwatched by the all-seeing eyes of the cameras. You may consider that trivial; I do not.

The second type is more tangible. There have been documented cases, according to some mentioned in a documentary expose I saw on PBS or Discovery a few years ago. One I can think of immediately involved a man disgraced and snubbed by his former friends and neighbors due to a videotape of a man resembling him being shown on television. The videotape had been leaked by police to a news agency, who distributed it over a television show about local criminals. I forgot what the friends and neighbors mistakenly thought the man had done, but it was a bad crime. He was effectively libelled and shunned, yet he had done nothing. Of course, the man on the tape had not been convicted, either.

For a thorough report on some of the pros and cons of the proliferation of video surveillance in the UK, Canada, and the US, I suggest you read this link, which is a report by the Information and Privacy Commission for British Columbia, Canada, prepared in 1998. He touches on and expands upon many of the issues we have raised in this thread. It's interesting to read some of the history of surveillance cameras, what's being done with them now (in 1998, anyway), and how this government official struggles with some of the competing interests which must be considered in the adoption of any official policy regarding such cameras.

It is long, but the most relevant bits are near the beginning.

Investigation Report (http://www.oipcbc.org/investigations/reports/invrpt12.html)

AS

[renata]

A Feeble Mind, I agree with jj. If you can not see it, we will not be able to convince you, because what we say does indeed sound paranoid. I listed some items, apparently not enough. But here is a question: can you think of any activity you can not engage now in without the threat of being observed, that you could do freely 10 years ago?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Just one thing I wanted to point out here.

I've seen the term "slippery slope" used in many, many posts here.

Are you all aware that the "slippery slope" is considered a logical fallacy?



Well, it is used by some pretty erudite appellate judges and supreme court justices in written decisions very often. It has some validity when used appropriately.


The expectation of privacy in a public place is, well, an oxymoron.

I disagree completely. No one should be expected to be watched at all times by an all-seeing camera eye when in public. There are differing degrees of expected privacy. Failing to recognize that is failing to appreciate some of the richness of the issue.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist





I disagree completely. No one should be expected to be watched at all times by an all-seeing camera eye when in public. There are differing degrees of expected privacy. Failing to recognize that is failing to appreciate some of the richness of the issue.

AS

Agreed. It is particularly true because nobody now is even remotely self sufficient. We need to take roads ( which may have cameras) we use computers ( which are combed using that FBI internet program whose name I forgot) we talk on the telephone (bugging of which has now become easier due to recent Patriot Act). We can no longer choose to be away from surveillance unless we live in a mountain cabin herding goats. Are those the only people that deserve privacy?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


Agreed. It is particularly true because nobody now is even remotely self sufficient. We need to take roads ( which may have cameras) we use computers ( which are combed using that FBI internet program whose name I forgot) we talk on the telephone (bugging of which has now become easier due to recent Patriot Act). We can no longer choose to be away from surveillance unless we live in a mountain cabin herding goats. Are those the only people that deserve privacy?


But Renata, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

:D :D :D

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist



But Renata, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

:D :D :D

AS


What can I tell you- some activities I engage in are still illegal in most states. :p

[renata]

And another thing- have the recent security measures such as

random searches at airports
searches of cars at airports
Patriot act in all its hideousness
shouting down critics
TIPS, etc
immigrant cattle calls


Made anyone feel better and safer? They raised that alert system on a hoax, for god's sake! And of course they argue that this means they need more control, more surveillance.

[jj]

Originally posted by No Answers


I think this is a valid question which hasn't been addressed. (Specific to the US and Britain) Can anyone help out with this one?


Ok, how do I get my film, unfogged, through 10 airports?

No, it doesn't affect low-speed film. MUCH.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


First, "freedom" and "liberty" cannot be quantified. They are difficult concepts even to qualify or define. Therefore, I'm not sure any set of facts will meet your test for facts. Freedom is an abstract ideal. The loss of it, even in degree, is equally abstract. That doesn't mean it's trivial.

As to what sort of negative things have occurred in the UK arising from the installation of surveillance cameras, they can be described as two types. The first type is the intangible loss of liberty in being able to walk the streets unwatched by the all-seeing eyes of the cameras. You may consider that trivial; I do not.


But, how is this different than someone hiding in an apartment secretly watching my every move? I am watched by this person, I am watched by a camera; why is it that one is more dangerous than the other?


The second type is more tangible. There have been documented cases, according to some mentioned in a documentary expose I saw on PBS or Discovery a few years ago. One I can think of immediately involved a man disgraced and snubbed by his former friends and neighbors due to a videotape of a man resembling him being shown on television. The videotape had been leaked by police to a news agency, who distributed it over a television show about local criminals. I forgot what the friends and neighbors mistakenly thought the man had done, but it was a bad crime. He was effectively libelled and shunned, yet he had done nothing. Of course, the man on the tape had not been convicted, either.

Thank you, this is the type of evidence that I was looking for. Prior to this, you were assuming that I knew everything about the pros and cons of the cameras and that I was simply ignoring the negatives. Truthfully, I had not considered this example.

However, there are positive outcomes of the cameras, as well. I watched a documentary on TLC regarding the cameras in the UK and they were very helpful in identifying those responsible for starting and partaking in riots after a sporting event. These individuals would have escaped had it not been for the cameras.


For a thorough report on some of the pros and cons of the proliferation of video surveillance in the UK, Canada, and the US, I suggest you read this link, which is a report by the Information and Privacy Commission for British Columbia, Canada, prepared in 1998. He touches on and expands upon many of the issues we have raised in this thread. It's interesting to read some of the history of surveillance cameras, what's being done with them now (in 1998, anyway), and how this government official struggles with some of the competing interests which must be considered in the adoption of any official policy regarding such cameras.

It is long, but the most relevant bits are near the beginning.

Investigation Report (http://www.oipcbc.org/investigations/reports/invrpt12.html)

AS

Thanks, I will take a look at this link. Without evidence, what reason would I have to agree with your position? Now, at least I can see where you are coming from.

[AmateurScientist]

TIPS. I love this brainchild.

And, yes, I do feel more safe and secure knowing that my mailman is calling the FBI and local police each time my New Yorker magazine arrives.

:D

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata



What can I tell you- some activities I engage in are still illegal in most states. :p

I sending the police now.

Or should I come investigate first?


:D

AS

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata
A Feeble Mind, I agree with jj. If you can not see it, we will not be able to convince you, because what we say does indeed sound paranoid. I listed some items, apparently not enough. But here is a question: can you think of any activity you can not engage now in without the threat of being observed, that you could do freely 10 years ago?

I am not walking around with my eyes closed, if that is what you mean. ;) However, after analyzing what I previously held most dear (my faith,) and found it faulty, I am no longer willing to accept claims without some form of proof. To say that cameras watching us all the time is bad is not enough to convince me that it is.

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I sending the police now.

Or should I come investigate first?


:D

AS

Hey, you are the attorney- isn't that entrapment? :D Besides, if it is illegal in California, it is really illegal in Alabama.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I subscribed to both Guns & Ammo and Iranian Weekly. Someone somewhere may blow a fuse. :)

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


I am not walking around with my eyes closed, if that is what you mean. ;) However, after analyzing what I previously held most dear (my faith,) and found it faulty, I am no longer willing to accept claims without some form of proof. To say that cameras watching us all the time is bad is not enough to convince me that it is.


Well, we might have different alert triggers. At which point would you say your privacy has been violated and your freedoms curtailed. What would be the first sign you you?


By the way, are you familiar with Crossbow at all?:)

[AmateurScientist]

A feeble mind:

But, how is this different than someone hiding in an apartment secretly watching my every move? I am watched by this person, I am watched by a camera; why is it that one is more dangerous than the other?

It's not tyranny when it's your neighbor doing it. I'm not nearly as disturbed by my neighbor invading my privacy as I am by Uncle Sam doing it. I can have my neighbor arrested, or I can sue him, or I can punch him in the face when I catch him.

With the government, there is nowhere to turn for help. No one polices the police. When they run roughshod over my rights, it is far more serious and egregious than when Neddy next door does it. Plus, the resources the government has to abuse my rights are nearly limitless in comparison.

AS

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Hey guys, this is an interesting topic, and I'll post later, but I am leaving work now, so it will likely be 6 hours later or so.

And, yes, Crossbow better be fixing that engine as we speak.

In the mean time, since your avatar is a babe (an alien babe, hopefully?) maybe we can find a way to kill the time while he's busy. ;)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


Hey, you are the attorney- isn't that entrapment? :D Besides, if it is illegal in California, it is really illegal in Alabama.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I subscribed to both Guns & Ammo and Iranian Weekly. Someone somewhere may blow a fuse. :)

LOL!

You just gave me an idea. Maybe I'll buy John Ashcroft a membership in NAMBLA. Wouldn't that be fun to watch him squirm to defend himself against unfounded allegations? You think a light bulb might go off in his head?

(This is the guy who is embarrassed at half nude statutes in the Justice Department Building. Imagine his reaction at getting a NAMBLA newsletter, or whatever they send their members.)

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


LOL!

You just gave me an idea. Maybe I'll buy John Ashcroft a membership in NAMBLA. Wouldn't that be fun to watch him squirm to defend himself against unfounded allegations? You think a light bulb might go off in his head?

(This is the guy who is embarrassed at half nude statutes in the Justice Department Building. Imagine his reaction at getting a NAMBLA newsletter, or whatever they send their members.)

AS


Well, I entertained putting Rick Santorum on mailing list of every gay group in the US. That, and order him catalogues from two dozen porn stores. Same with Burton and the rest of the hypocrite brigade.

People, if you don't see me or AS post for the next 6-12 months, that means they have infiltrated this board.

[jj]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist



But Renata, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

:D :D :D

AS

Let's see about that. (No, AS, your sarcasm didn't escape me, but in fact some people won't see that.)

The camera at an intersection can read my plates. It comes up with a demand that somebody with a similar name welched on a credit card in some other state. Poof, next light doesn't turn green. Two minutes later I'm grabbed from my car and arrested for this. (no, reading the plate automatically isn not fantasy, chappies, not at all, not any more) Somebody with a similar name has a warrant out, same problem. (Maybe AS might want to mention the mistakes that get made during vehicle stops when warrants show up incorrectly, etc.)

It already does happen to people. People get crap on their credit records, etc, that is completely false, and it follows them for the rest of their lives even though it is "officially removed" the act of "removal" is considered "suspicious" by the score-generators.

It won't be long until people will routinely be located by car, credit card, etc, and tracked down by both public and private agencies who want them. A good example might be in NJ, where people were tracked down, suspended, arrested, etc, for alleged parking violations when they installed a new computer system and could do it. Now, some of the violations were for other plate numbers, some were simply insane (where people hadn't been, etc) but the ONLY way to get it fixed was to "settle your obligations, scofflaw". I got a letter like that, but could prove that (you'd think the 'puter would be able to tell this) I'd turned in that set of plates about 5 years before the alleged ticket was issued.

I've been contacted about 20 times about somebody who leased and stole a car and used one digit off my SS #. Same collection agency each time, followed me from NJ to Washington, demanding to know "Where is the Honda, we can get a warrant, you know" never ever even checking name, address, registration name, etc, all of which are clearly not me, and well, I don't fit the description of the proposed perp, to say the least. I got them off my back twice by calling the leasing agency, but it just doesn't stay done. They once threatened to come to my house and take any car there as "compensation". I called the police on that one, and they didn't call me back for a while that time.

This is what private companies can AND do routinely engage in. Now, imagine a country where you have to account for your condom purchase, oh, just for example, or your purchase of gyne-lotrimin, or for that matter makeup, or aftershave. (Keeping a record of what antibiotics you are allergic to is sensible. Keeping a record of how much Neomycin ointment isn't, but that's kept, too. You do notice that you have to give your phone # nowdays just to buy bandaids, yes? Hey, you have to buy too many bandaids for your kids, ma'am, please wait here while I get CPS to interrogate you!)

No, I don't have a whole lot to fear from that information, but what level do we allow government penetration to reach? From this information that is already kept, it's quite clear that one could, if one wanted, track down "felons" who are engaging in extramarital sex, for instance (including those who aren't married at all), or whose product purchases suggest that they smoke too much, or eat too much butter (lipidleggin'), etc. (well, unless they're going in stupid, which is already the result of too much idiot legislation)

Yes, I'm mixing the sublime with the ridiculous here, and quite on purpose.

Don't scoff, information is already there and available in many stores, and with the patriot act, any government official can ask for it without any warrant at all, if they want to. All they have to be do is be willing to say that somebody, somewhere, might think you're a terrorist. Given what Jedi Knight has said here, they could honestly say that with a straight face about nearly anyone on this board, and BE JUSTIFIED ACCORDING TO THE LAW!

There is already a great deal of completely illegal, irresponsible sorts of matching up of data going on, both by and not by governnment agencies. It's already gone too far in some ways, quite obviously.

So, in light of the obvious facts, and things like the credit problems, phone calls, etc are facts that you can't dismiss, you'd not be concerned?

Frankly, I may be less concerned with what government does with it than with what commerce will try to do with it.

[Charles Livingston]

I just want to add that I heartily agree with everything said by AS, Renata, and stig in this thread. Not that anyone cares, but I have not had time to post much on this today and will not until later tonight, so I wanted to support the above with this quick note. AS, as I am also an attorney i can confirm for huntsman taht although the 'slippery slope' argument can be applied incorrectly, and often is, it can also be valid in some arguments and has been used quite effectively in many judges' opinions. (Please, dont ask me to cite those cases, their specifics faded from my memory as soon as I walked out of the final).

Edited to add JJ's contribution as well, in addition to those arguing the opposite of the above.

[jj]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
(Please, dont ask me to cite those cases, their specifics faded from my memory as soon as I walked out of the final).


The only way to survive, I'll bet.

[DavidJames]

I have no problems at all these cameras. I also have no problems with similar equipment used to trap speeders. I believe it's an acceptable price to pay for safer roads.

For what it's worth, I am also not offended if they are simply used to increase revenue. People breaking laws imposed for our safety deserve to be fined. In fact I would prefer it over income, property or sales taxes as a way for municipalities to raise income.

As already pointed out, we are photographed and video taped constantly when we are out in public and while those cameras are not placed there by "the government", the tapes are available to the them in the event they are investigating a crime.

What about the slippery slope argument. Nonsense, I agree with Thanz who said we should "examine each instance on it's own".

[jj]

Originally posted by DavidJames

What about the slippery slope argument. Nonsense, I agree with Thanz who said we should "examine each instance on it's own".

Are you familiar with the well-known, often-used tactic of "flooding", i.e. the tactic of doing so much of something objectionable that people let some of it slip by?

If you aren't, read up.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by jj



Ok, how do I get my film, unfogged, through 10 airports?

No, it doesn't affect low-speed film. MUCH.

I don't know. I do know bags are sold for film which shield the radiation out.

You had this problem before, though. And it doesn't seem to be a curtailment of your freedoms. Can you give me a better example?
What freedoms have been removed, or nixed?

[davefoc]

Several times in this thread different types of surveillance cameras have all been treated like they were the same. It seems obvious that they are not and that there are different arguments that apply to each. Some of the different types as I understand them:

1. Stop light cameras - these take still pictures of drivers, their cars and their license plates at different points as they proceed through the intersection. I believe by court order in California and perhaps other places the faces of passengers are obscured. The cameras are part of a system with a computer that monitors the relationship between when the car enters the intersection and the red light. If the computer determines that the driver has entered the intersection while the light was red a process is started to issue the driver of the car a ticket.

2. Traffic monitoring cameras - These are very common along California freeways and I believe are used by the state to quickly detect and correct problems restricting traffic flow and perhaps for research to monitor the effectiveness of various congestion reduction approaches.

3. Private security cameras - These are all over the place and are used to deter criminal activity in the monitored areas such as theatres, retail outlets, homes, etc.

4. Security cameras monitoring public property - These are similar to private security cameras except they monitor public property like airports, sewage plants, water plants, sports stadiums, etc.

5. Public security cameras monitoring outdoor spaces like the cameras that are common in the UK that monitor streets and sidewalks with the idea of reducing the response time to crimes and increasing the likelyhood that perpetrators will be caught.

AS has repeatedly lumped these various types of cameras together and then said something along the lines of that they are all bad because they lead to what happened in the UK where surveillance cameras of the fifth type are common.

I suppose one can make a slippery slope argument here. Something like well if we just didn't allow any surveillance cameras then there wouldn't be any of the type 5 security cameras. Personally, that looks like a useless type of argument for this discussion. The legitimacy and legality of each of these uses of surveillance cameras will be debated and decided on a case by case basis and the acceptance of one type does not necessarily mean that another type will be implemented.

[jj]

Originally posted by No Answers


I don't know. I do know bags are sold for film which shield the radiation out.

Wrong. Now when they get one of those, they turn the Xray machine up to "high" and destroy anything related to film completely.

You had this problem before, though.

False. Up until lately, you could get film hand-inspected. Theoretically you still can, but what happens in reality is that whe you ask for it, they give you a very hard time and hassle you for an hour, or at least they do that often enough to discourage hand-checking film. And that's in the USA. In GB, there is no such thing as a hand check.
And it doesn't seem to be a curtailment of your freedoms. Can you give me a better example?
What freedoms have been removed, or nixed?
I can't carry film along with me and not have it affected by the xray. I see now that you are in a serious state of denial. Your sheer arrogance in suggesting that nothing has changed, or that nothing is denied, simply suggests to me that your mind is not open on this subject.

A classic scoffer tactic: No, that one does't count, give me another one to discount

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by jj

I can't carry film along with me and not have it affected by the xray. I see now that you are in a serious state of denial. Your sheer arrogance in suggesting that nothing has changed, or that nothing is denied, simply suggests to me that your mind is not open on this subject.

A classic scoffer tactic: No, that one doesn't count, give me another one to discount

Relax. It isn't "sheer arrogance", and I never suggested nothing has changed. I'm asking for better evidence of curtailment/ denial of freedoms than "I can't get my film through airport screening."

Can you provide it? If the film issue is important to you, then I'm sorry for having the temerity to find it less than alarming.

Really, I hope you can forgive me, and that I can do something to redeem myself in your eyes. Perhaps simply agreeing with you would achieve this?

[Larry Barrieau]

The reason that there are cameras on the corners, in rural parking areas, in Ms. T's park, all over downtown London, in convenience stores, etc., etc., is because crimes have been committed over and over again in those places.

Perhaps stricter enforcement and stiffer punishment would be a deterrent.

I believe that we can control our own government. If we can't, shame on us.

I am in favor of the red light cameras. Maybe it's because I can get a mental image of one of my boys sitting in a wheelchair and pecking at a computer with a pencil strapped to his head for the rest of his life because some guy thought that red lights were for everyone else.

Larry

[jj]

Originally posted by No Answers


Relax. It isn't "sheer arrogance", and I never suggested nothing has changed. I'm asking for better evidence of curtailment/ denial of freedoms than "I can't get my film through airport screening."

Can you provide it? If the film issue is important to you, then I'm sorry for having the temerity to find it less than alarming.

Really, I hope you can forgive me, and that I can do something to redeem myself in your eyes. Perhaps simply agreeing with you would achieve this?

Oh, yeah, sarcasm really works wonders with me. Let me tell you.

Simply put, yes, it does matter to me. It's got to the point that I fedex film back from wherever I am to the processor via the fedex process wherein I load the envelope in front of Fedex so they can know not to xray it.

The point, of course, is not just the film issue, it's the hassle that some of the people see fit to give you when you ask for hand check of film. It makes you "not like everyone else" and therefor subject to serious abuse.

And that's the hallmark of a totalitarian society, abusing people who aren't exactly like everyone else.

[jj]

Originally posted by Larry Barrieau

I believe that we can control our own government. If we can't, shame on us.

The situation today makes it clear that we can't, I think. We accept this situation wherein somebody can walk up to somebody and ask 'show me everything that this person bought here', simply because some kook somewhere suggested that they might be out of the ordinary.

[Rat]

I just don't get any of this at all. I'm not in denial. There's an oxymoron for you to pick up on. I am monitored by cameras in the street in cities, and in shops and similar premises. Nothing has come of it to bother me. If anything does, tackle it then. I'm well aware of how civil liberties could be infringed, but mine haven't been, and neither have those of anyone I know.

Can anyone outline exactly what it is you're worried about them doing? If it's catching the (very real) criminals and drunken thugs in town, all well and good. If it's prosecuting those who run red lights, speed, or similar, then fine.

These cameras, as several people have been quick to point out have been in the UK for some time, have to my knowledge not been used for any nefarious activities so far. Police brutality, corruption, tampering of evidence, and the like, generally goes on behind closed doors. I don't see what street video does to help those voew corrupt police.

Enlighten me.

[jj]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974
These cameras, as several people have been quick to point out have been in the UK for some time, have to my knowledge not been used for any nefarious activities so far. Police brutality, corruption, tampering of evidence, and the like, generally goes on behind closed doors. I don't see what street video does to help those voew corrupt police.

Enlighten me.

I'm not sure I'd be nearly as concerned in the UK as I might be in the USA.

Your government doesn't seem so prone to want to know what people do in their living rooms and bedrooms.

Frankly, cameras in public places isn't the biggest worry I have, but I can imagine people misusing nearly anything, if you take a good look at what got misused last week, for instance.

He**, man, they sent the anti-terrorism squad out to find the "missing democrats".

We're supposed to trust people who use an anti-terrorism organization to find their political opponents?

NOT!

[renata]

I think this thread is too interesting to have it sink.

Here is something I have been contemplating after discussing this topic with a friend of mine ( he is an attorney)

According to him, the major difference between a red light camera and a drug test is that the drug test is intrusive. But imagine a scenario in which a drug test was not intrusive? Say one had technology that could tell by iris of the eye what drugs, if any a person is on. I can imagine high resolution red light cameras doubling as a drug checker. Would that be OK? I know it is unlikely, but a good thing abotu hypothetical examples is that they can isolate an issue.

Imagine you take it further. Let's say you have a dowsing rod that tells you which home has a crime being committed in it. Would it be OK to walk up and down neighborhoods until it pinpoints a home where crime is being commited? This is not such a far fetched example. I remember reading about cases in which police could tell homes which had extra heat radiating, and busted owners for marijuana growing. I think the case went to Supreme Court, but I do not recall the details. Was it OK for police to drive up and down streets with their equipment measuring (I have no idea how this actually works) until they got a positive reading?


Another, random thought.

In America, unlike Europe, freedom of speech is nearly absolute. I always thought it was for historic reasons- people who founded this country had certain ideals that they fulfilled. But now I think it may be because - well-Europe is very crowded. Perhaps they had more experience with damage free speech can cause, and so are wary of it.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata
I think this thread is too interesting to have it sink.

Here is something I have been contemplating after discussing this topic with a friend of mine ( he is an attorney)

According to him, the major difference between a red light camera and a drug test is that the drug test is intrusive. But imagine a scenario in which a drug test was not intrusive? Say one had technology that could tell by iris of the eye what drugs, if any a person is on. I can imagine high resolution red light cameras doubling as a drug checker. Would that be OK? I know it is unlikely, but a good thing abotu hypothetical examples is that they can isolate an issue.

Imagine you take it further. Let's say you have a dowsing rod that tells you which home has a crime being committed in it. Would it be OK to walk up and down neighborhoods until it pinpoints a home where crime is being commited? This is not such a far fetched example. I remember reading about cases in which police could tell homes which had extra heat radiating, and busted owners for marijuana growing. I think the case went to Supreme Court, but I do not recall the details. Was it OK for police to drive up and down streets with their equipment measuring (I have no idea how this actually works) until they got a positive reading?
...


I don't see why any of the above methods should be disallowed, as they are not infringements upon your privacy.

I think that if you disagree with the particular law being enforced, then you should take issue with the law. For example, if you think marijuana should be legal, lobby for it to be so. Breaking the law and then complaining about how hard it is to hide doesn't get any sympathy from me.

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


I don't see why any of the above methods should be disallowed, as they are not infringements upon your privacy.

I think that if you disagree with the particular law being enforced, then you should take issue with the law. For example, if you think marijuana should be legal, lobby for it to be so. Breaking the law and then complaining about how hard it is to hide doesn't get any sympathy from me.

So any method of surveillance- photographs of public to check for drug use, drive by temperature measurements of your home, the "dowsing rod" are OK because it catches people that are committing crimes.

Two questions
1. What refuse to subject yourself to even if you are innocent?
2. What is these methods have a 0.1% failure rate? Should they still be used? 1%? 5%?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata


So any method of surveillance- photographs of public to check for drug use, drive by temperature measurements of your home, the "dowsing rod" are OK because it catches people that are committing crimes.

Two questions
1. What refuse to subject yourself to even if you are innocent?
2. What is these methods have a 0.1% failure rate? Should they still be used? 1%? 5%?

1.) I am not really sure what you meant here. Could you reword the question?

2.) I wouldn't want these methods to be the sole reason for a conviction. However, if it is used as part of an investigation to help develop a lead, then I have no problem. For instance, a house is determined to have marijuana via the mentioned system (which we will say has a known false positive of 35%). Instead of busting in and dragging people to jail based on that, the police stakeout the neighborhood and see if there is really a valid drug problem there.

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


1.) I am not really sure what you meant here. Could you reword the question?

2.) I wouldn't want these methods to be the sole reason for a conviction. However, if it is used as part of an investigation to help develop a lead, then I have no problem. For instance, a house is determined to have marijuana via the mentioned system (which we will say has a known false positive of 35%). Instead of busting in and dragging people to jail based on that, the police stakeout the neighborhood and see if there is really a valid drug problem there.


Ooops. I have a disease of word skipping- sorry.

1. Is there anything (any form of surveillance) you would refuse to subject yourself to, even if you are innocent?



2. So any surveillance methods are OK as long as there is corroborating information, even if the surveillance methods led police to investigate further? And I take it you think 35% failure rate is acceptable to you under those conditions?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata



Ooops. I have a disease of word skipping- sorry.

1. Is there anything (any form of surveillance) you would refuse to subject yourself to, even if you are innocent?


You mean public, non-invasive forms of surveillance? Obviously, for example, I don't want to be anally probed. :)


2. So any surveillance methods are OK as long as there is corroborating information, even if the surveillance methods led police to investigate further? And I take it you think 35% failure rate is acceptable to you under those conditions?

In the case of the innocent, the further investigation would lead to an end of the investigation. If instead, it was taken to trial, Big Brother would meet his match: the lawsuit.

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
[B]

You mean public, non-invasive forms of surveillance? Obviously, for example, I don't want to be anally probed. :)



OK, so what do you consider invasive? Consider my hypothetical camera that can know whether you use drugs just by taking a photo of you. Let's also say there is a database of everyone, with all sins- murder, overdue library books categorized. And every time you leave the house, a camera takes a picture of you and runs it against the database. Is that intrusive?



In the case of the innocent, the further investigation would lead to an end of the investigation. If instead, it was taken to trial, Big Brother would meet his match: the lawsuit.


Do you trust the government not to make mistakes? Do you trust the government not to misappropriate resources and information? Do you believe that everyone currently in jail is guilty?

(I do not recall if someone mentioned it here, but Homeland Security office was used to attempt to locate a political opponent in Texas)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata


OK, so what do you consider invasive? Consider my hypothetical camera that can know whether you use drugs just by taking a photo of you. Let's also say there is a database of everyone, with all sins- murder, overdue library books categorized. And every time you leave the house, a camera takes a picture of you and runs it against the database. Is that intrusive?


I'm still not sure why this is a bad thing. What difference does it make if there is a camera watching or not? All the "sins" are already on file; I would expect a warrant for my arrest for murder and a fine sent via mail for the library books.


Do you trust the government not to make mistakes? Do you trust the government not to misappropriate resources and information? Do you believe that everyone currently in jail is guilty?

(I do not recall if someone mentioned it here, but Homeland Security office was used to attempt to locate a political opponent in Texas)

Although some may try to abuse power and mistakes will be made, we are fortunate to have a three branched government with checks and balances built in. Additionally, we have the media which gets very excited about exposing people being oppressed by "the man."

I'm not saying mistakes aren't made; I'm saying they will be made with or without cameras. What I do believe is that cameras will decrease the number of mistakes.

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
[B]

I'm still not sure why this is a bad thing. What difference does it make if there is a camera watching or not? All the "sins" are already on file; I would expect a warrant for my arrest for murder and a fine sent via mail for the library books.

So would you say any surveillance that does not invade your body is OK with you?



Although some may try to abuse power and mistakes will be made, we are fortunate to have a three branched government with checks and balances built in. Additionally, we have the media which gets very excited about exposing people being oppressed by "the man."

I'm not saying mistakes aren't made; I'm saying they will be made with or without cameras. What I do believe is that cameras will decrease the number of mistakes.

Ah, did not answer my question! OK, here is another one. Given everything would be automated, would you think there is a greater or a lesser chance of a mistaken identity?

[davefoc]

Renata,
The reasons that your suggestions would be resisted by civil libertarians IMHO are:
1. If your technology had the chance of being abused by government agencies, civil libertarians would think the cure is worse than the disease. While crime is bad, unconstrained totalitarian governments spying on everybody are worse.
2. Civil libertarians are also often just libertarians and they think that people should have the right to do what they want to do with their own bodies and they would not want to give the government something that would for practical purposes eliminate a freedom that people have now, albeit an illegal freedom.

I think the same thing applies about your ideas as that applied to the various possible uses of surveillance cameras. Each idea needs to be evaluated for its benefits and possible problems. Based on that kind of reasoning, I was pretty much ok with all the camera ideas that are being used today, but I think I'd become a pretty strong activist to work against the implementation of your ideas .

Incidentally, have you contacted edge with help on getting your dowsing machine up and running?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata
I think this thread is too interesting to have it sink.



Yes, thanks for bumping it up.


Imagine you take it further. Let's say you have a dowsing rod that tells you which home has a crime being committed in it. Would it be OK to walk up and down neighborhoods until it pinpoints a home where crime is being commited? This is not such a far fetched example. I remember reading about cases in which police could tell homes which had extra heat radiating, and busted owners for marijuana growing. I think the case went to Supreme Court, but I do not recall the details. Was it OK for police to drive up and down streets with their equipment measuring (I have no idea how this actually works) until they got a positive reading?


Yes, I was also thinking of the example of high-tech methods of detecting marijuana growers. The police in some jurisdictions use sophisticated heat-sensing devices which can "see" through house walls. They can be parked across the street and "see" that your house is unusally warm in places. If so, they may suspect that you are using many flourescent lights to heat your hydroponically-grown marijuana plants. They may be able to obtain a warrant based on this information, or they may subpoena your utility bill from the local electric company. Using the abnormally high bill for your neighborhood, they may use that information to get a warrant to search your home.

Consider this. Those same heat-sensing devices can "see" through your home and detect the presence of human bodies. In fact, if they cannot already do so, soon they will be able to tell what it is you are doing in the privacy of your own home by reading your body position and watching you in action. This would include the possibility of being able to watch you and your spouse in the bedroom.

Does anyone still see no problem with this? Is this still a case of "if you aren't doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about?"

If you still feel that way, then consider why were there political dissident prisoners held captive in the former Soviet Union? What were their crimes?

**********

Technological advances will continue to provide police with new "weapons" of detecting and providing evidence of crimes. Far too many people see that as a solely good thing. What they fail to grasp is that those same technologies will detect them doing things they would prefer to keep private, whether legal or not. This is true whether people are in their homes, at work, at the store, or in some very public place.


Another, random thought.

In America, unlike Europe, freedom of speech is nearly absolute. I always thought it was for historic reasons- people who founded this country had certain ideals that they fulfilled. But now I think it may be because - well-Europe is very crowded. Perhaps they had more experience with damage free speech can cause, and so are wary of it.

I think it may also have to do with how the US was formed vs. how most of the older European countries were formed. The US was deliberately formed and based on a set of ideals, rather than on tribalism, nationalism, or ethnicity. Also, comparatively, the colonists didn't carry much political baggage with them. They had no alliances to uphold, no political gentlemen's agreements, and no tradition of governing one way or another. They were truly free to build their government from the ground up. They were able to learn from the mistakes others had already made.

That didn't happen in any European country. They were saddled with historical baggage and political ties to others. They inherited many of their ways and were thus bound by them.

AS

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata


So would you say any surveillance that does not invade your body is OK with you?


Any surveillance? Well, no, not in the privacy of my own home. However, in public, any non-intrusive methods are fine. So, cameras are fine, but public blood tests are not.


Ah, did not answer my question!


I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to evade the questions; I thought I answered the meaning behind them.

Do I trust the government not to make mistakes? No, as the government is made of people, of course there will be mistakes. Do I trust the government not to misappropriate resources and information? I do not trust the people who can access these resources and information, but the government is composed of three seperate entities and I trust them working together (and against each other) will prevent and punish any abuses. Do you believe that everyone currently in jail is guilty? No, which why it is good that there are appeals available.


OK, here is another one. Given everything would be automated, would you think there is a greater or a lesser chance of a mistaken identity?

Lesser chance. It is easy to argue about what a witness remembers a person to look like and what they did; however, it is hard to argue that the camera is lying.

But, perhaps if there is concern about mistakes, it would be better to try to have laws created to provide protection from them? For instance, in the earlier example of the CrimeDetector 2000 (tm), since there is a known fallibility of 35%, we could lobby for a law that makes it unlawful to try a person for the alleged crime based on the CrimeDetctor alone. Do you agree that this is better than abandoning the technology in question?

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
[B]

Any surveillance? Well, no, not in the privacy of my own home. However, in public, any non-intrusive methods are fine. So, cameras are fine, but public blood tests are not.

But intrusion as you define it is a matter of method, not the information gathered. That was the purpose behind my hypothetical drug detecting via iris camera. Imagine if they do not need to take blood from you, that any information that can be obtained via blood test can be obtained via a public photograph. Is that OK?

Now, how do you define privacy of your own home? If you live in an apartment building, can you have cameras in the stairwells? Is it OK to have monitoring devices outside your window, checking for say- sounds of abuse? What if you live in a Winnebago- your vehicle is your home then- can you be monitored in your car/home? What if you just commute in your car- is it OK to have a tracking device to make sure you don't speed? ( This is not that far fetched, some cars now have so called silver boxes that are doing just that, and there has been talk of law enforcement using it- heard a story on NPR. This was used in trial recently, to prove a defendant was driving too fast when he got into an accident. Defendant did not know this was in his car. There is concern police will merely pull people over, plug into the box, and ticket if you have been going over the speed limit)



I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to evade the questions; I thought I answered the meaning behind them.

Suuuuureeee :)



Do I trust the government not to make mistakes? No, as the government is made of people, of course there will be mistakes. Do I trust the government not to misappropriate resources and information? I do not trust the people who can access these resources and information, but the government is composed of three seperate entities and I trust them working together (and against each other) will prevent and punish any abuses. Do you believe that everyone currently in jail is guilty? No, which why it is good that there are appeals available.

But government is not outside the people, it is composed by the people, with all the intervening corruption, laziness and sloppiness.



Lesser chance. It is easy to argue about what a witness remembers a person to look like and what they did; however, it is hard to argue that the camera is lying.



So if you were on a jury, say- you would have no problem convicting someone on camera evidence?


But, perhaps if there is concern about mistakes, it would be better to try to have laws created to provide protection from them? For instance, in the earlier example of the CrimeDetector 2000 (tm), since there is a known fallibility of 35%, we could lobby for a law that makes it unlawful to try a person for the alleged crime based on the CrimeDetctor alone. Do you agree that this is better than abandoning the technology in question?

I am not someone who favors abandoning of technology. I am trying to figure out what people's tolerance limits of privacy encroaching. What does privacy mean for you?


I see AS finally posted on his own thread. Help me out here, sir :)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


I see AS finally posted on his own thread. Help me out here, sir :)

Hey, you're doing great. Keep it up.

I love your examples of a listening device outside one's window to check for sounds of domestic violence, the Winnebago as home, and the speed detection tracking device. Yes, I too heard of the case where the car rental company turned over readings from the tracking device installed in its car to an insurance company who denied coverage based on the driver's speeding. I have also heard of a rental car company having a penalty clause in its rental agreement that required a driver who exceeded the speed limit to pay a penalty of $150 or so upon the return of the car.

More snooping and spying means less freedom. It's not just "freedom" to break the law. It's also freedom not to be watched when you shouldn't be. Technology broadens the scope of when you can be watched to a very uncomfortable degree. It will continue to expand as technological advances continue.

Privacy is and will continue to be the most critical controversial topic affecting nearly everyone in advanced nations in the 21st Century. It is not a trivial matter, as so many in this thread seem to imply. They are too concerned with a supposed, but fictional, crime wave and protecting themselves from it. In comparison to the aggregate harm unreasonable intrusions into our personal lives by the government and large private interests can cause, crime is a mere drop in the bucket (I understand that an individual victim of a heinous crime can suffer more, but I'm referring to the aggregate harm done to society).

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
[B]

Hey, you're doing great. Keep it up.

I love your examples of a listening device outside one's window to check for sounds of domestic violence, the Winnebago as home, and the speed detection tracking device. Yes, I too heard of the case where the car rental company turned over readings from the tracking device installed in its car to an insurance company who denied coverage based on the driver's speeding. I have also heard of a rental car company having a penalty clause in its rental agreement that required a driver who exceeded the speed limit to pay a penalty of $150 or so upon the return of the car.




Thanks :)


Actually, the speeding device was not even in a rental car! The guy owned his own car, got into an accident, was tried for vehicular manslaughter, and prosecution obtained the silver box and proved he was speeding. I think a rental place would be justified in doing this, as long as they disclosed it. I only listened to the story with one ear, so I could be mistaken, but here is the link to it
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgDate=05/28/2003&prgId=2

[DavidJames]

"Are you familiar with the well-known, often-used tactic of "flooding", i.e. the tactic of doing so much of something objectionable that people let some of it slip by?

If you aren't, read up."

Thanks but I'll stick by my statement, for the same reason I'm against the 3 strikes law and term limits. Each decision should be dealt with on it's merits.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata


But intrusion as you define it is a matter of method, not the information gathered. That was the purpose behind my hypothetical drug detecting via iris camera. Imagine if they do not need to take blood from you, that any information that can be obtained via blood test can be obtained via a public photograph. Is that OK?


I was objecting to having someone continuously prick me with needles. The information obtained is fine. What type of information would you be concerned about? Drub abuse? If there is a drug law you are opposed to, don't break the law, but fight it instead. (hmm... I do not mean to imply that I think you use drugs, it is just the first example that came to mind.)


Now, how do you define privacy of your own home? If you live in an apartment building, can you have cameras in the stairwells? Is it OK to have monitoring devices outside your window, checking for say- sounds of abuse?


Stairwells are fine. Outside my window and the prior example of see-through technology are what I would consider intrusive and similar to a camera in my house.


What if you live in a Winnebago- your vehicle is your home then- can you be monitored in your car/home?


To the same extent that people in non-Winnebago type housing are.


What if you just commute in your car- is it OK to have a tracking device to make sure you don't speed? ( This is not that far fetched, some cars now have so called silver boxes that are doing just that, and there has been talk of law enforcement using it- heard a story on NPR. This was used in trial recently, to prove a defendant was driving too fast when he got into an accident. Defendant did not know this was in his car. There is concern police will merely pull people over, plug into the box, and ticket if you have been going over the speed limit)


Honestly, this would be a huge pain in the butt, however, it does fit in with my "change the law, don't break it" idea. Perhaps this would activate enough people to have the speed limits increased to a more reasonable value.


Suuuuureeee :)

:)


But government is not outside the people, it is composed by the people, with all the intervening corruption, laziness and sloppiness.


But because of the system in place, it becomes more difficult to get away with being corrupt. Although, in the abstract, this becomes a difficult subject to discuss. Do you have an example or scenario you would like to use?


So if you were on a jury, say- you would have no problem convicting someone on camera evidence?


Without actually seeing what the camera evidence is, it is hard to give an all encompassing answer. However, assuming the camera is clear, I would say most of the time this would suffice. It sounds like you have a situation in mind?


I am not someone who favors abandoning of technology. I am trying to figure out what people's tolerance limits of privacy encroaching. What does privacy mean for you?


I'm not sure how to say what privacy means for me. Perhaps you'd like to go first? :)

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
[B]

I was objecting to having someone continuously prick me with needles. The information obtained is fine. What type of information would you be concerned about? Drub abuse? If there is a drug law you are opposed to, don't break the law, but fight it instead. (hmm... I do not mean to imply that I think you use drugs, it is just the first example that came to mind.)



I was trying to figure out whether you object to government posessing certain information or to the methods they use to get this information, neither or both. I take it you object to the methods of gathering info, not them posessing it.



Stairwells are fine. Outside my window and the prior example of see-through technology are what I would consider intrusive and similar to a camera in my house.


Ah! I thought you said heat seeking technology monitoring for marijuana use was OK? How is that different from listening for abuse?




To the same extent that people in non-Winnebago type housing are.


Because they spend enough time there? Would you say cars used for commuting should have the same protections as Winnebagos?




Honestly, this would be a huge pain in the butt, however, it does fit in with my "change the law, don't break it" idea. Perhaps this would activate enough people to have the speed limits increased to a more reasonable value.

So as long as speed limits are resonable, you would not mind going through (say) checkpoints where a police officers checks the speed monitoring device and gives you a ticket if you were speeding that day.


But because of the system in place, it becomes more difficult to get away with being corrupt. Although, in the abstract, this becomes a difficult subject to discuss. Do you have an example or scenario you would like to use?

OH! My friend, I see you have lived all your life in a free country. There are hundreds of potential human abuses, not necessarily malicious- humans are curious creatures. Did you know that celebrities get their tax forms accessed by IRS employees hundreds of times? ( I saw an article about that a few years back). Did you see my example of department of homeland security being used to track down a political opponent? That happened in Texas 2 weeks ago.



Without actually seeing what the camera evidence is, it is hard to give an all encompassing answer. However, assuming the camera is clear, I would say most of the time this would suffice. It sounds like you have a situation in mind?

Here is what I am getting at: People tend to rely on believe in technology, even if there is an error rate- hence the previous question as to what error rate is acceptable. I propose that in cases a mistake is made, it will be much more difficult to overturn it because people don't think technology makes mistakes





I'm not sure how to say what privacy means for me. Perhaps you'd like to go first? :)

No fair! I asked you first! :)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata


I was trying to figure out whether you object to government posessing certain information or to the methods they use to get this information, neither or both. I take it you object to the methods of gathering info, not them posessing it.


That is correct.


Ah! I thought you said heat seeking technology monitoring for marijuana use was OK? How is that different from listening for abuse?


I did not understand exactly how the heat seeking technology worked. My assumption was a general temperature reading, not a see-through type technology. If this heat seeking tech truly behaves this way, then people do have a right to be upset about it. So, I agree that it would be similar to listening for abuse.


Because they spend enough time there? Would you say cars used for commuting should have the same protections as Winnebagos?


If someone wants to take pictures of a Winnebago, there is nothing wrong. Unwarranted listening devices installed in cars/winnebagos/homes are always bad. (So, yes, they should have the same protections.


So as long as speed limits are resonable, you would not mind going through (say) checkpoints where a police officers checks the speed monitoring device and gives you a ticket if you were speeding that day.


How about they just send me the ticket? Stopping at checkpoints would never fly; if there was a remote access for it, that would be fine.

Actually, I am going to alter my previous comment regarding this. I am opposed to having to keep such things installed in my property; it is similar to the listening device or the see-through tech. If they want to include it on my car, fine, but I should legally be allowed to remove it.


OH! My friend, I see you have lived all your life in a free country. There are hundreds of potential human abuses, not necessarily malicious- humans are curious creatures. Did you know that celebrities get their tax forms accessed by IRS employees hundreds of times? ( I saw an article about that a few years back). Did you see my example of department of homeland security being used to track down a political opponent? That happened in Texas 2 weeks ago.


Without addressing a particular issue, it becomes harder to cover all the bases; I was not denying they exist. I did see a mention of the misuse of the DHS, but what happened? What was the resolution?


Here is what I am getting at: People tend to rely on believe in technology, even if there is an error rate- hence the previous question as to what error rate is acceptable. I propose that in cases a mistake is made, it will be much more difficult to overturn it because people don't think technology makes mistakes


I agree, which is why I think the answer would be a law that limits the use of faulty technology as the sole evidence in a case.


No fair! I asked you first! :)

It is kinda hard to define without using "private" or "privacy" in the definition. It may be easier to say what I think it is not. It is not the right to be unobserved in the middle of a city or on highways.

My question is: why are cameras in a public area, for whatever reason, a bad idea? I do not see the connection between our previous discussion and the original topic of public cameras.

[Yahzi]

I can't wait for the day when every public act is taped. From the second you walk out your door till you walk back in again - on tape.

As long as the tape is available to everyone and not just the government.

If people wouldn't lie, we wouldn't need to do this. But they do, so we need an empirical judge of every public interaction, so that people can't lie.

Accountability is good.

Edit: Renata's points are all extremely valid. However, I prefer to look at them as technical issues that need to be solved rather than objections to the idea of accountability.

[renata]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I can't wait for the day when every public act is taped. From the second you walk out your door till you walk back in again - on tape.

As long as the tape is available to everyone and not just the government.

If people wouldn't lie, we wouldn't need to do this. But they do, so we need an empirical judge of every public interaction, so that people can't lie.

Accountability is good.

Edit: Renata's points are all extremely valid. However, I prefer to look at them as technical issues that need to be solved rather than objections to the idea of accountability.



First of all, Yahzi, although you and I between have more than 3,000 posts, I do not recall any thread in which we communicated to each other. So, hello! Also, I am utterly terrified of you- more so than almost any poster on the board, so be nice. I am not a trained debater, I have no single agenda, and I am willing to admit my position may be inconsistent or irrational. Oh, please, be nice! :)

That is out of the way, I will attempt to address your post.

I am not sure whether you are being sarcastic about having a record of every public act, so the response will hinge on that. Do you honestly think the world would be a ebtter place if all public acts would be recorded and accessible? How do you separate public and private? Does everyone have to be accountable for everything to everybody? I am pretty sure there is a science fiction story written about that somewhere...

[renata]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


That is correct.



So you would not mind it if thousands of people had access to your weight, blood type, cholesterol count, predisposition to genetic diseases, sexual orientation, knowing when you last had sex, knowing whether you use spices for cooking- as long as a needle does not enter your arm?



I did not understand exactly how the heat seeking technology worked. My assumption was a general temperature reading, not a see-through type technology. If this heat seeking tech truly behaves this way, then people do have a right to be upset about it. So, I agree that it would be similar to listening for abuse.

This is my understanding- they check homes for heat radiation, they can get information on heat emanations from the home( I have NO clue how it really works- can any scientist help?)

So would you say you own sounds and temperature readings that come out of your home, so nobody can monitor that even if they are on public property? What if I showed you that thousands of women and children would be spared from assaults, abuse and murder every year if there were "listening posts" on every public corner listening for screams that perhaps would otherwise go unnoticed? Why won't safety win this time, like it does in traffic cameras?


If someone wants to take pictures of a Winnebago, there is nothing wrong. Unwarranted listening devices installed in cars/winnebagos/homes are always bad. (So, yes, they should have the same protections.

Can someone take a picture of the inside of your home/your Winnebago/your car? Because that is what the traffic cameras are doing. As we are already wildly speculating, assume there is an open beer can in your car, and a traffic camera catches it. Is that OK? Is it OK to do illegal things in your home? Why shouldn't the police have access to it- if you are not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?



How about they just send me the ticket? Stopping at checkpoints would never fly; if there was a remote access for it, that would be fine.

Actually, I am going to alter my previous comment regarding this. I am opposed to having to keep such things installed in my property; it is similar to the listening device or the see-through tech. If they want to include it on my car, fine, but I should legally be allowed to remove it.

Why would you want to remove it? Do you know how many people die every year because of speeders? The number probably compares to people who die because of idiots who run red lights? Why is it OK to monitor running red lights, but not OK to have a tracking device monitoring whether you are speeding? Lives will be saved in either case. What if there are speeding monitors embedded in all roads, and if you speed, they autamitacally give you a ticket. Is that OK? If you are not breaking the law, what do you have to worry about havign a tracking device in your car?



Without addressing a particular issue, it becomes harder to cover all the bases; I was not denying they exist. I did see a mention of the misuse of the DHS, but what happened? What was the resolution?


This is what I recall- Texas Democrats ran away to stop Republicans from getting quorum and passing redistricting laws they objected to. Some went by bus to hide in Oklahoma, one went by his private plane. Republicans were desperate to find the Dems and return them back- by force, if needed. Some Texas law enforcement guy contacted department of Homeland Security with a request to locate the plane. Then it gets fuzzy- some people say DHS helped, but did not know the reason for the request, some say they did not help much.


Here we come to the crux for the issue, for me. Technology is not the point. The point is that humans throughout history, in every society are nosy and fallible. Everyone makes mistakes they do not want others to know, and everyone wants to know about other's mistakes, to some degree. During Spanish Inquisition, people informed on heretics. In USSR people informed on neighbors, to the ridiculous minatae. That is what people DO! However, having unprecedented technology give access to almost every aspect of every life makes this easier. If people were perfect, I would not be concerned. I can, right now, go into a database and pull litigation information on anyone in the USA- claims you had, your SSN, where you live, what kind of car you had, if you had an accident, who treated you and for what. I will not do it- it is not ethical. But I can! This is why I think we have to be extremely vigilant in allowing anyone- government, private industry- access to our information.




I agree, which is why I think the answer would be a law that limits the use of faulty technology as the sole evidence in a case.

However, human nature is to rely on machines, and so when they are used, the accused would be at a great disadvantage.
So if you were on a jury, and a a device used to catch a criminal has a failure rate of 5%, wouldn't you ALWAYS have to acquit him?

Sole evidence is also tricky- are you familiar with fruit of the poisoned tree? ( Attorneys, is that the right term? Can someone explain the principle here?)





It is kinda hard to define without using "private" or "privacy" in the definition. It may be easier to say what I think it is not. It is not the right to be unobserved in the middle of a city or on highways.



I could pull a Danish tactic and scream evasion here, but I won't :)

This is why I ask you these questions- so you can tell me at which point your privacy becomes more important than someone else's safety. This is how this whole thread started, by the way.

I told you my concerns, I felt and you were not sure what the basis for them was. So I need to know where you draw the line.


My question is: why are cameras in a public area, for whatever reason, a bad idea? I do not see the connection between our previous discussion and the original topic of public cameras.

I think the connection is surveillance and privacy.

Yes, I think cameras can and do save lives. Yes, it disturbs me because I feel we are giving up a lot of our rights freely. I myself can not say at which point safety/privacy line is drawn. This discussion is as much a thought process for me as an argument with you.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I can't wait for the day when every public act is taped. From the second you walk out your door till you walk back in again - on tape.

As long as the tape is available to everyone and not just the government.

If people wouldn't lie, we wouldn't need to do this. But they do, so we need an empirical judge of every public interaction, so that people can't lie.



Ha ha. Just imagine the reality-based TV shows that could come out of this.

"HE says he was out with the guys last night.

SHE says he was getting a little extra-curricular tail.

Let's go to the tape!"

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


I can, right now, go into a database and pull litigation information on anyone in the USA- claims you had, your SSN, where you live, what kind of car you had, if you had an accident, who treated you and for what. I will not do it- it is not ethical. But I can!

I went into my database just now. I know what color underwear you are wearing right now. Ha ha.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I went into my database just now. I know what color underwear you are wearing right now. Ha ha.

AS


Wrong!!! I am not wearing... I mean never mind :)

[AmateurScientist]

A feeble Mind wrote:

If someone wants to take pictures of a Winnebago, there is nothing wrong. Unwarranted listening devices installed in cars/winnebagos/homes are always bad. (So, yes, they should have the same protections.


Ah, but remember your argument about not doing anything illegal? Then why are listening devices in cars or homes bad? If you aren't doing or discussing anything illegal...

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
A feeble Mind wrote:




Ah, but remember your argument about not doing anything illegal? Then why are listening devices in cars or homes bad? If you aren't doing or discussing anything illegal...

AS


Way to steal my thunder, AS :)! If you plod through my last post, that is the very point I made- albeit less succintly.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by renata

So you would not mind it if thousands of people had access to your weight, blood type, cholesterol count, predisposition to genetic diseases, sexual orientation, knowing when you last had sex, knowing whether you use spices for cooking- as long as a needle does not enter your arm?


Some of the listed items I have no issue with, while others feel more private. Perhaps some sort of warrant for access to details? At any rate, I do agree that there is information that exists that I don't want others knowing about without it being an issue of guilt of a crime.


This is my understanding- they check homes for heat radiation, they can get information on heat emanations from the home( I have NO clue how it really works- can any scientist help?)

So would you say you own sounds and temperature readings that come out of your home, so nobody can monitor that even if they are on public property? What if I showed you that thousands of women and children would be spared from assaults, abuse and murder every year if there were "listening posts" on every public corner listening for screams that perhaps would otherwise go unnoticed? Why won't safety win this time, like it does in traffic cameras?


"listening posts" on every public corner is a little bit different than right outside your window. I have less problem with that. And, with the temperature readings, if it is simply a temperature reading, fine; if it is a see-through technology, then no. Ooh, I just thought of a good definition for privacy. (see below)


Can someone take a picture of the inside of your home/your Winnebago/your car? Because that is what the traffic cameras are doing. As we are already wildly speculating, assume there is an open beer can in your car, and a traffic camera catches it. Is that OK? Is it OK to do illegal things in your home? Why shouldn't the police have access to it- if you are not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?


Yes, people can take pictures of your home. If you are standing naked in your living room with the curtains open, don't be surprised if you end up on the internet. And, no, it is not OK to do illegal things in your home or anywhere else. However, there is a big difference in taking the temperature of a house and video taping the occupants.


Why would you want to remove it? Do you know how many people die every year because of speeders? The number probably compares to people who die because of idiots who run red lights? Why is it OK to monitor running red lights, but not OK to have a tracking device monitoring whether you are speeding? Lives will be saved in either case. What if there are speeding monitors embedded in all roads, and if you speed, they autamitacally give you a ticket. Is that OK? If you are not breaking the law, what do you have to worry about havign a tracking device in your car?


No, how many die? I actually heard studies that suggest that highways without a speed limit are actually safer. Truthfully, it is hard to argue for speeding ANYTHING right now since the speed limit is an arbitrary value that would get you run off the road if you actually obeyed it (where I live, anyways.) I am much more in favor of evaluations being done on the roads to determine what the safest speed is for each stretch of road. (I am refering to highway driving here.)

Anyhow, if I must, I prefer the speeding monitors. What is disturbing about the in-car devices is that, as it is my property, I should be allowed to do with it as I please. Although, I have a vague feeling that if I thought about it, I could come up with other examples similar to this.


This is what I recall- Texas Democrats ran away to stop Republicans from getting quorum and passing redistricting laws they objected to. Some went by bus to hide in Oklahoma, one went by his private plane. Republicans were desperate to find the Dems and return them back- by force, if needed. Some Texas law enforcement guy contacted department of Homeland Security with a request to locate the plane. Then it gets fuzzy- some people say DHS helped, but did not know the reason for the request, some say they did not help much.


From this, it seems like power may have been abused and now the whole nation knows. The public eye can help stop abuse of power, as no one wants to look bad.


Here we come to the crux for the issue, for me. Technology is not the point. The point is that humans throughout history, in every society are nosy and fallible. Everyone makes mistakes they do not want others to know, and everyone wants to know about other's mistakes, to some degree. During Spanish Inquisition, people informed on heretics. In USSR people informed on neighbors, to the ridiculous minatae. That is what people DO! However, having unprecedented technology give access to almost every aspect of every life makes this easier. If people were perfect, I would not be concerned. I can, right now, go into a database and pull litigation information on anyone in the USA- claims you had, your SSN, where you live, what kind of car you had, if you had an accident, who treated you and for what. I will not do it- it is not ethical. But I can! This is why I think we have to be extremely vigilant in allowing anyone- government, private industry- access to our information.

However, human nature is to rely on machines, and so when they are used, the accused would be at a great disadvantage.
So if you were on a jury, and a a device used to catch a criminal has a failure rate of 5%, wouldn't you ALWAYS have to acquit him?

Sole evidence is also tricky- are you familiar with fruit of the poisoned tree? ( Attorneys, is that the right term? Can someone explain the principle here?)


I am unfamiliar with the term. I would agree that if it were the sole evidence in a case, it should not have even made it to the courtroom.


I could pull a Danish tactic and scream evasion here, but I won't :)

I really am not trying to evade; it is just hard to formulate the concept into words. If anything, you could call laziness in my attempt to get you to go first. :) Although, my definition of privacy follows: I should be able to boink my wife without being seen or heard by others (unless there is some screaming going on.) :)


This is why I ask you these questions- so you can tell me at which point your privacy becomes more important than someone else's safety. This is how this whole thread started, by the way.

I told you my concerns, I felt and you were not sure what the basis for them was. So I need to know where you draw the line.


Actually, my view is that the thread started when I asked for evidence supporting the thesis that cameras in public had led to bad things in the UK.....

*goes back and reviews progression of posts*

Oops, I guess we did change gears a little bit. Sorry.

I think I draw the line at being seen and heard in my own home. Again, I am not expecting people to turn away if I stand naked in my front window (actually, they probably would, but not because of respect for my privacy.)


I think the connection is surveillance and privacy.

Yes, I think cameras can and do save lives. Yes, it disturbs me because I feel we are giving up a lot of our rights freely. I myself can not say at which point safety/privacy line is drawn. This discussion is as much a thought process for me as an argument with you.

I, too, have been rethinking my position (actually, I never really put much thought into this before.) But, I am not sure that we are really giving up rights. It seems that we have a perception that because some laws are harder to enforce, we have the right to not get caught, myself included. I think that what may need to occur is a change in the laws due to expanded technology. My issue with speed limits (on highways, mind you; people who go 50mph in subdivisions need to be dealt with) for example.

[renata]

I was going to post an obnoxious post about AS, you and Yahzi not responding to me, when I saw that you have! :) Won't stop me from being obnoxious, though.

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Some of the listed items I have no issue with, while others feel more private. Perhaps some sort of warrant for access to details? At any rate, I do agree that there is information that exists that I don't want others knowing about without it being an issue of guilt of a crime.


Which is which, and why?



"listening posts" on every public corner is a little bit different than right outside your window. I have less problem with that. And, with the temperature readings, if it is simply a temperature reading, fine; if it is a see-through technology, then no. Ooh, I just thought of a good definition for privacy. (see below)

Why? Why is a listening post on the corner better than the one just happened to be situated outside yor window?


Yes, people can take pictures of your home. If you are standing naked in your living room with the curtains open, don't be surprised if you end up on the internet. And, no, it is not OK to do illegal things in your home or anywhere else. However, there is a big difference in taking the temperature of a house and video taping the occupants.


The temperature is being taken via some infra red emission ( somebody rescue me here) So I think they can see hot spots, cold spots, etc. Why is videotaping worse?




No, how many die? I actually heard studies that suggest that highways without a speed limit are actually safer. Truthfully, it is hard to argue for speeding ANYTHING right now since the speed limit is an arbitrary value that would get you run off the road if you actually obeyed it (where I live, anyways.) I am much more in favor of evaluations being done on the roads to determine what the safest speed is for each stretch of road. (I am refering to highway driving here.)

http://www.smartmotorist.com/spe/spe.htm

In 1998, nearly 42,000 people were killed in traffic crashes and almost 3.2 million more were injured, at a cost of over $150 billion. Speed--defined as exceeding the posted speed limit or driving too fast for conditions--is a factor in nearly one third of all fatal crashes. Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that when speed limits were raised by many states in 1996, travel speeds increased and motor vehicle fatalities went up significantly on Interstate highways in those states.


So, why should they not monitor your illegal and dangeous speeding?



Anyhow, if I must, I prefer the speeding monitors. What is disturbing about the in-car devices is that, as it is my property, I should be allowed to do with it as I please. Although, I have a vague feeling that if I thought about it, I could come up with other examples similar to this.

What is the difference if the result is the same? Your speed is monitored always, internally or externally.




From this, it seems like power may have been abused and now the whole nation knows. The public eye can help stop abuse of power, as no one wants to look bad.


That is the one instance of what we know. I am confident there are hundreds we do not know about- and no, I am not a government conspiracy cook. One example- there are estimates that there are hundreds of people detained in the US under DHS authirity, with no access to attorneys. Furthermore, the better the technology, the less we know about those slips.


I am unfamiliar with the term. I would agree that if it were the sole evidence in a case, it should not have even made it to the courtroom.

AS- your cue!



I really am not trying to evade; it is just hard to formulate the concept into words. If anything, you could call laziness in my attempt to get you to go first. :) Although, my definition of privacy follows: I should be able to boink my wife without being seen or heard by others (unless there is some screaming going on.) :)


Additional evasion noted!!! :)

So you want to engage in intimate activities without being observed- everything else is OK?



I think I draw the line at being seen and heard in my own home. Again, I am not expecting people to turn away if I stand naked in my front window (actually, they probably would, but not because of respect for my privacy.)

What is special about your home that does not apply to your car?



I, too, have been rethinking my position (actually, I never really put much thought into this before.) But, I am not sure that we are really giving up rights. It seems that we have a perception that because some laws are harder to enforce, we have the right to not get caught, myself included. I think that what may need to occur is a change in the laws due to expanded technology. My issue with speed limits (on highways, mind you; people who go 50mph in subdivisions need to be dealt with) for example.


I disagree. I am not concerned about the fact that I might not get away with a crime. I am concerned that overrelliance on technological accuracy coupled with people's tendency to snoop, and government's desire to trade people's privacy for control and security, everyone's rights are being compromised.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata

The temperature is being taken via some infra red emission ( somebody rescue me here)



I think that's right.


... I am not a government conspiracy cook.



Pssst... Russki, it's "kook." A cook makes your meal.

:D

(normally, if I'm going to be so bold as to correct someone, I try to do it by PM. It's more discreet. Given our discussions in the other thread about grammar and pendantry, and my confidence in your ability to see that I'm just teasing you, I gave myself permission to do this in the thread. If I'm offbase, let me know, please.)



AS- your cue!



Thanks. I'll try. As far as I know, the only common law evidentiary rule requiring corroborating evidence in order to convict concerns accomplice testimony. That rule is that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. You can probably imagine why.

Depending on the circumstances and the offense involved, I believe it would be rather easy for a prosecutor to obtain an indictment of an accused based solely on videotape evidence from a surveillance camera. I suspect many accused already have been. Indeed, I suspect many accused have been convicted solely on the basis of videotape evidence.

AS

[INRM]

Can I see an example of one of those 360-degree swivel-cams you were talking about?

I don't doubt you, I just want to see what they look like...

-INRM

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Pssst... Russki, it's "kook." A cook makes your meal.

:D

(normally, if I'm going to be so bold as to correct someone, I try to do it by PM. It's more discreet. Given our discussions in the other thread about grammar and pendantry, and my confidence in your ability to see that I'm just teasing you, I gave myself permission to do this in the thread. If I'm offbase, let me know, please.)



Noone- I mean nobody- I mean no one will make fun of my English!

AS, In this thread we already made indecent suggestions and you claimed to see my underwear. Correct away!! :)




Thanks. I'll try. As far as I know, the only common law evidentiary rule requiring corroborating evidence in order to convict concerns accomplice testimony. That rule is that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. You can probably imagine why.

Depending on the circumstances and the offense involved, I believe it would be rather easy for a prosecutor to obtain an indictment of an accused based solely on videotape evidence from a surveillance camera. I suspect many accused already have been. Indeed, I suspect many accused have been convicted solely on the basis of videotape evidence.

AS


And this is why I am not an attorney. I always thought fruit of the poisoned tree referred to the fact that if evidence as obtained based on a illegal or unreliable manner, everything is barred. So, for example if following a method with 35% failure rate (the infra red surveillance, say) police break into the house and find marijuana, their find may be inadmissible if the method is ruled inadmissible. I should stop getting my criminal law knowledge from law and order.

Wait a second- that is in civil law too! I remember when I was young and just starting out I spoke with the expert of the other side without getting permission of their attorney first. Everything I gathered and deduced after that conversation, even the knew avenues of investigation was invalid- even my conclusions. That was an unpleasant conversation with my boss, I can tell you that!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


Noone- I mean nobody- I mean no one will make fun of my English!

AS, In this thread we already made indecent suggestions and you claimed to see my underwear. Correct away!! :)



Claimed?

:D



And this is why I am not an attorney. I always thought fruit of the poisoned tree referred to the fact that if evidence as obtained based on a illegal or unreliable manner, everything is barred. So, for example if following a method with 35% failure rate (the infra red surveillance, say) police break into the house and find marijuana, their find may be inadmissible if the method is ruled inadmissible. I should stop getting my criminal law knowledge from law and order.



That is partly correct. Illegally obtained evidence usually means that obtained without a warrant in violation of the accused's Fourth Amendment rights. The exclusionary rule regarding the fruit of the poisonous tree means simply that such evidence becomes inadmissible at trial. It does not mean that no evidence can be admitted or that the case may not proceed (although sometimes that is the effect of excluded evidence, as there sometimes is no other lawfully obtained evidence to support a conviction).

I think you might be mixing your rules here. With regard to whether the infrared surveillance evidence is admissible, it could be challenged on the basis of whether the scientific test used to gather it is "good" science or not. The legal test is somewhat more sophisticated than "good" science, but that's the gist of it. It is also called the "Frye" Test, after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from the 1920s or 30s. In part, it has been supplanted by the "Daubert" Test, after a more recent decision from the 1990s.

If the proponent of the scientific evidence fails to demonstrate the acceptance of the test's reliability and accuracy by the relevant scientific community, then a judge may decide it cannot be admitted. This is not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.


Wait a second- that is in civil law too! I remember when I was young and just starting out I spoke with the expert of the other side without getting permission of their attorney first. Everything I gathered and deduced after that conversation, even the knew avenues of investigation was invalid- even my conclusions. That was an unpleasant conversation with my boss, I can tell you that!

That's because your information about the other side's expert testimony must be gotten through formal discovery methods. The other side has a right to oversee the process. Again, that's not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It has to do with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Fourth Amendment and cases intrepreting and applying it.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Claimed?

:D




Like I said in my prior reply to that ridiculous fantasy, if you had really seen, you would have some difficulty determining the color of my underwear....
:D

Quick! Someone resuscitate AS!




That is partly correct. Illegally obtained evidence usually means that obtained without a warrant in violation of the accused's Fourth Amendment rights. The exclusionary rule regarding the fruit of the poisonous tree means simply that such evidence becomes inadmissible at trial. It does not mean that no evidence can be admitted or that the case may not proceed (although sometimes that is the effect of excluded evidence, as there sometimes is no other lawfully obtained evidence to support a conviction).

I think you might be mixing your rules here. With regard to whether the infrared surveillance evidence is admissible, it could be challenged on the basis of whether the scientific test used to gather it is "good" science or not. The legal test is somewhat more sophisticated than "good" science, but that's the gist of it. It is also called the "Frye" Test, after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from the 1920s or 30s. In part, it has been supplanted by the "Daubert" Test, after a more recent decision from the 1990s.

If the proponent of the scientific evidence fails to demonstrate the acceptance of the test's reliability and accuracy by the relevant scientific community, then a judge may decide it cannot be admitted. This is not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Indeed I was mixing them up- thanks for the correction. But if the judge rules a test inadmissable, can deductions following from that test be admitted? In other words if bad science led to a correct finding, is everything flowing out if inadmissible or just the science?

I can't wait to get the legal bill from AS on this :)



That's because your information about the other side's expert testimony must be gotten through formal discovery methods. The other side has a right to oversee the process. Again, that's not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It has to do with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Fourth Amendment and cases intrepreting and applying it.



Oh- my supervisor was wrong! He said it was fruit of the poisonous tree. Too late to tell him that, though :)

Thanks, AS!

[davefoc]

I was a little confused by what Renata was asking. I think she is asking if a warrant is obtained based on scientific information which is later invalidated and as a result of the search incriminating evidence is found would the incriminating evidence be excluded.

As an example, there is a test used at least in the US to determine whether a fired bullet came from a particular box of bullets based on similarities between it and the unspent bullets in the box. It now looks like this test which has been used for years is much more unreliable than thought. Suppose one obtained a good faith search warrant based on this test, incriminating evidence was found, but subsequent to the issuance of the search warrant the test that the search warrant was based on was found to be bogus. Could the incriminating evidence still be used?

I am not sure whether this was renata's question but if it wasn't i still find it interesting.

[renata]

Originally posted by davefoc
I was a little confused by what Renata was asking. I think she is asking if a warrant is obtained based on scientific information which is later invalidated and as a result of the search incriminating evidence is found would the incriminating evidence be excluded.

As an example, there is a test used at least in the US to determine whether a fired bullet came from a particular box of bullets based on similarities between it and the unspent bullets in the box. It now looks like this test which has been used for years is much more unreliable than thought. Suppose one obtained a good faith search warrant based on this test, incriminating evidence was found, but subsequent to the issuance of the search warrant the test that the search warrant was based on was found to be bogus. Could the incriminating evidence still be used?

I am not sure whether this was renata's question but if it wasn't i still find it interesting.


That is exactly what it was! Thanks for stating it so well :)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


Like I said in my prior reply to that ridiculous fantasy, if you had really seen, you would have some difficulty determining the color of my underwear....
:D

Quick! Someone resuscitate AS!



Nah. No need to resusitate me. I don't embarrass easily (unless anyone fawns over me--I'm not big on fawning or gushing). I like naughty girls.


Indeed I was mixing them up- thanks for the correction. But if the judge rules a test inadmissable, can deductions following from that test be admitted? In other words if bad science led to a correct finding, is everything flowing out if inadmissible or just the science?


No. If the test is found to be unreliable, then any results of such a test would clearly not be admissible. This applies only to scientific evidence, however. It is meant to keep so-called "junk science" out of the courtroom.


I can't wait to get the legal bill from AS on this :)


I'll just keep a tab running. I'll collect in pitchers when we do that drinking thing.


Oh- my supervisor was wrong! He said it was fruit of the poisonous tree. Too late to tell him that, though :)

Thanks, AS!

Actually, you could still possibly get that information into evidence, provided your side took the deposition of the expert and he said those same things in his deposition, or he responded similarly to written interrogatories. His sworn answers in the interrogatories or his deposition are admissible; your testimony as to what he said in your phone conversation is not. That's because it's hearsay.

This has nothing to do with "fruit of the poisonous tree."

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Nah. No need to resusitate me. I don't embarrass easily (unless anyone fawns over me--I'm not big on fawning or gushing). I like naughty girls.

1. You misspelt resusitate :)
2. What gave you any ideas about my nature? I merely meant that my avatar was underwearless.



No. If the test is found to be unreliable, then any results of such a test would clearly not be admissible. This applies only to scientific evidence, however. It is meant to keep so-called "junk science" out of the courtroom.

See Davefoc's wonderful follow up to my question. Will any information gathered as a result of this illegitimate test be thrown out, like in the case of a bad warrant?



I'll just keep a tab running. I'll collect in pitchers when we do that drinking thing. On drink does it for me, so they will have to carry you out :)



Actually, you could still possibly get that information into evidence, provided your side took the deposition of the expert and he said those same things in his deposition, or he responded similarly to written interrogatories. His sworn answers in the interrogatories or his deposition are admissible; your testimony as to what he said in your phone conversation is not. That's because it's hearsay.

This has nothing to do with "fruit of the poisonous tree."



We settled the case. The expert revealed something he probably would not have if he had been coached by his attorney. I followed up, and got a good result, but my boss prohibited me from using it. So this was a case in which each side had dirt on the other, and we split the difference. But he told me it was the fruit of the poisnous tree- glad to see it was wrong. Although, of course I made a mistake also.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


2. What gave you any ideas about my nature? I merely meant that my avatar was underwearless.



Not wearing underwear is naughty.



See Davefoc's wonderful follow up to my question. Will any information gathered as a result of this illegitimate test be thrown out, like in the case of a bad warrant?



No, if it is admissible by other means, it's admissible. Its source is immaterial in a civil case. Of course, the proponent of the evidence must lay an adequate foundation for its admission (must show it's reliable proof).

The exclusionary rule ("fruit of the poisonous tree") is a remedial rule in criminal cases. It is meant to be a stick with which to hit the police when they ignore or run afoul of the Fourth Amendment rights of an accused. It does not apply to private parties in civil cases.


On drink does it for me, so they will have to carry you out :)



You misspelled "one."

:D

If I'm that drunk, I am perfectly capable of getting myself thrown out, thank you. No carrying of me.

AS

[renata]

I like this thread. I am bumping it. Disregard the underwear talk, though.


Any more thoughts from the Feeble Mind or anyone else on this?

John Ashcroft wants the Patriot Act prolonged ( I am surprised they did not name it "anyone who votes against me has sex with goats act"


I heard a story on NPR about how Denver police monitored political activists for decades. ACLU sued them and settled the case- under the agreement, police must have reasonable suspicion that a person or group is involved in criminal activity before opening files on them.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata
I like this thread. I am bumping it. Disregard the underwear talk, though.


Any more thoughts from the Feeble Mind or anyone else on this?

John Ashcroft wants the Patriot Act prolonged ( I am surprised they did not name it "anyone who votes against me has sex with goats act"


I heard a story on NPR about how Denver police monitored political activists for decades. ACLU sued them and settled the case- under the agreement, police must have reasonable suspicion that a person or group is involved in criminal activity before opening files on them.

Yeah, thanks Renata, for bumping the thread. I would also like to have even more discussion on this and related topics.

The death of privacy as we have grown to know it in the past century is one of my favorite topics. It, coupled with another of my favorite topics--the ever-expansion of government intrusions into our personal lives--makes for terrific discussions, in my opinion. Of course, they are not the sorts of light-hearted topics one can casually toss out in polite company, but I love debating and discussing them with intelligent, thoughtful persons like the posters here.

Please, more posts.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Unrelated question:

Renata, what are you wearing?

:D

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Unrelated question:

Renata, what are you wearing?

:D

AS

What, did the transmission from the cameras become fuzzy? :)

This is a schizophrenic thread, to be sure!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata


What, did the transmission from the cameras become fuzzy? :)

This is a schizophrenic thread, to be sure!

You think?

:D

AS

P.S. Answer the question!

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


You think?

:D

AS

P.S. Answer the question!


I see how it works. He deletes my quote from his sig. He refuses to pay for the webcam access, like everyone else. He just wants a freebie! D@mn lawyers :)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata



I see how it works. He deletes my quote from his sig. He refuses to pay for the webcam access, like everyone else. He just wants a freebie! D@mn lawyers :)

Just like a woman. First, you complain about my quoting you in my sig. Now, you complain about my taking it out.

We men can't win. We're always wrong.

:D

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Just like a woman. First, you complain about my quoting you in my sig. Now, you complain about my taking it out.

We men can't win. We're always wrong.

:D

AS


Well... yes, of course men are always wrong. Why is that a surprise? If all boys get taught that in kindergarden, world would be a much better place.

Just get used to it and know your place :)


PS Very boring attire, I had an MSC this morning, so just a suit. Sorry to disappoint! :) You couldn't let me keep my mystery woman reputation, could you? Are you sure you are a defense attorney, not a prosecutor? :p

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata



Well... yes, of course men are always wrong. Why is that a surprise? If all boys get taught that in kindergarden, world would be a much better place.

Just get used to it and know your place :)


PS Very boring attire, I had an MSC this morning, so just a suit. Sorry to disappoint! :) You couldn't let me keep my mystery woman reputation, could you? Are you sure you are a defense attorney, not a prosecutor? :p

Yes, mistress.

AS

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Yes, mistress.

AS


Now that is more like it :)

[renata]

AS, did we scare posters from this thread?


Well, that is too bad, because I am bumping it again.

This morning I heard a story on NPR regarding crime lab in Harris County, Texas. Apparently, there have been many violations in it, and any DNA evidence from 1992 is being reexamined. Harris county send mroe men to death row than any other county in US, and more than any other state other than Virginia and the rest of Texas.

Prosecutors have been implicated in inflating results, hiding exculpatory evidence. There is a grand jury examining criminal misconduct in the crime lab and in the prosecution of cases relying on the crime lab. Apparently, there was contaminated data from a leaky roof, sloppy record keeping and mistakes. Furthermore, independent analysts say crime lab routinely misrepresented the strength of the evidence.


Why am I posting this here?

Because one of the dangers in relying on technology, even one as precise as DNA analysis is human error- that will always be present. However, people tend to rely on technology more than on any single witness or human testimony. I believe jury is so used to thinking DNA is 99.9999% correct, they do not tend to think humans could have made errors gathering or examining data. ( Note that I am NOT arguing against technology, I am arguing for awareness of its limitations)

Therefore, opportunity for conviciting an innocent man is greater than if there was no high tech scientific criminal evidence.

So as we get more and more surveillance and other technological means, opportunity to prove oneself innocent shrinks. I posted a similar point before in this thread.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by renata
AS, did we scare posters from this thread?



I have no idea, but thanks for bringing it back up.


Why am I posting this here?

Because one of the dangers in relying on technology, even one as precise as DNA analysis is human error- that will always be present. However, people tend to rely on technology more than on any single witness or human testimony. I believe jury is so used to thinking DNA is 99.9999% correct, they do not tend to think humans could have made errors gathering or examining data. ( Note that I am NOT arguing against technology, I am arguing for awareness of its limitations)

Therefore, opportunity for conviciting an innocent man is greater than if there was no high tech scientific criminal evidence.

So as we get more and more surveillance and other technological means, opportunity to prove oneself innocent shrinks. I posted a similar point before in this thread.

I agree with your premise and your conclusion. Forensic technology is almost universally hailed and praised by the public, but few stop to consider that it's uncritical use endangers the presumption of innocence and the opporunity for a fair trial.

AS

[Boo]

As I was cruising through this thread, a comment about microchipping babies at birth caught my eye. There has been talk within the medical comunity of the suposed development of a chip that is to be implanted in military personnel, that contains name, DOB, blood type, SSN and medical information. An electronic dog tag if you will. The current thought is how wonderful will it be for everyone to have this.

This idea can be extrapolated to monitoring vital signs, location, and even home phone number and address. How convenient if you or your loved one can't speak for themselves in an emergency. All we have to do is scan you. What a way to monitor prisoners or parolees.

There is a part of me that says this is a wonderful thing, but how much of my and my children's privacy do I want to give up?

A child that is chipped is kidnapped, all airports and transportation terminals scan you as you walk through a doorway. Now we've located a kidnapped child.

Never again worry about losing your passport or driver's lisence.

How much of a good thing is too much?

Boo

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Boo
As I was cruising through this thread, a comment about microchipping babies at birth caught my eye. There has been talk within the medical comunity of the suposed development of a chip that is to be implanted in military personnel, that contains name, DOB, blood type, SSN and medical information. An electronic dog tag if you will. The current thought is how wonderful will it be for everyone to have this.

This idea can be extrapolated to monitoring vital signs, location, and even home phone number and address. How convenient if you or your loved one can't speak for themselves in an emergency. All we have to do is scan you. What a way to monitor prisoners or parolees.

There is a part of me that says this is a wonderful thing, but how much of my and my children's privacy do I want to give up?

A child that is chipped is kidnapped, all airports and transportation terminals scan you as you walk through a doorway. Now we've located a kidnapped child.

Never again worry about losing your passport or driver's lisence.

How much of a good thing is too much?

Boo

Good example of Big Brother technonology.

That same chip that allows a kidnapped child to be located easily also allows a stalker to follow your every move electronically.

Also, undoubtedly someone will develop a way to surrepticiously scan all that handy data in your chip as you pass by and rob you blind with it.

Never mind all the nefarious uses persons in government will find to exploit the surfeit of information about you at a fingertip.

AS

[xouper]

AmateurScientist: Also, undoubtedly someone will develop a way to surrepticiously scan all that handy data in your chip as you pass by and rob you blind with it.I hadn't thought of that. I had mixed feelings about implanted chips, but that one comment has changed my mind and now I am totally against them.

[jj]

Originally posted by Boo
There has been talk within the medical comunity of the suposed development of a chip that is to be implanted in military personnel, that contains name, DOB, blood type, SSN and medical information. An electronic dog tag if you will. The current thought is how wonderful will it be for everyone to have this.


Cooollll. So all the enemy has to do is make a device that homes in on this.

I think that might JUST be a bit of a problem, eh?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by jj


Cooollll. So all the enemy has to do is make a device that homes in on this.

I think that might JUST be a bit of a problem, eh?

Well, it might not be an RF transmitter, what if it's a passive chip?

Could you still track it accurately over say, the metal on the boot, or the guy's rifle?