|
Of course something like this would eventually be implemented. You can't expect the police to stay exactly the same when the world is changing so rapidly. New technologies will be used to try and improve public safety.
These changes are not problematic in and of themselves, they could be if there are changes in the law, but if simply used to enforce the existing law, one based on individual freedom, it really doesn't change much.
The police is already listening in on much of what you say over the phone, are you being targetted or your opinions now?
Insane people like Alex Jones are publicly spewing their insanities, are they being shut down?
Just because law enforcement would be able to hear everything, wouldn't mean they would start shutting free speech down, the two are not related in the slightest.
It is naïve to expect the world of law enforcement to remain static in such a rapidly changing world.
|
On July 28 2012 21:54 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote:
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets. Is this a troll post? I'm only asking because you only have one post, and your opinion is... short-minded at best. "Freedom is not lost in one fell swoop, it's lost a book at a time, a magazine at a time, or a CD at a time." In this case, a few cameras at a time. 
Yo buddy, hang around, im certain a pseudorandom ignorant guy with a gay name/icon combo will tell you that romanians and sarcasm dont mix.
|
Can't believe there are still people naive enough to parrot the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' tripe.
|
My issue is that I, as well as many others, DO have something to hide. I like to enjoy marijuana, I like to download copyrighted material, I like to stock up on cheap black market beer.
There exists a grey area in the laws of most countries that people such as myself exploit.
If I'm going to get flagged as a criminal and put under surveillance by this system, then that does signify a significant change in how law enforcement works.
You may condemn me for breaking the law, but if the law was less stupid then I wouldn't mind this system at all.
|
On July 28 2012 22:00 ayaz2810 wrote:
Inb4 all the "thoughtful" posts about loss of freedom. Give it a rest hippies. You act like the government will break down your door in the middle of the night and kidnap your children to do medical experiments on them.
If you keep rolling over to things like this, they just might do that in the future.
|
On July 28 2012 22:13 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 22:00 ayaz2810 wrote:
Inb4 all the "thoughtful" posts about loss of freedom. Give it a rest hippies. You act like the government will break down your door in the middle of the night and kidnap your children to do medical experiments on them. If you keep rolling over to things like this, they just might do that in the future.
The politicians themselves are also inhabitants of the EU.
Not every politician gets a hardon at the thought of a totalitarian dictatorship over Europe.
|
On July 28 2012 21:41 Taktik wrote:Show nested quote +Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets. Oh so u wouldnt mind if government would install camera in your house? I mean its for your safety, if anyone would try to rob u police would be there in 2 minutes, and u are good person and got nothing to hide so why not? Step by step.
"a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places"
Since when is my house public? Moron.
|
I don't think the last link in the OP links correctly, its the exact same link as the one leading to the german article, not a video from Anonymous.
|
On July 28 2012 21:53 DJFaqU wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote:
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets. That's the dumbest thing I've read today. I guess you'd have no problem with everyone reading all your private stuff and listening to your conversations 24/7, either.
Thing is though, most of the people who've quoted me on that forget about the " a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places" part.
Guess you're the dumb one here lad, jog on.
People trying to be intellectual on a forum yet they miss the key word, nice one.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 28 2012 22:08 zalz wrote:
Of course something like this would eventually be implemented. You can't expect the police to stay exactly the same when the world is changing so rapidly. New technologies will be used to try and improve public safety.
These changes are not problematic in and of themselves, they could be if there are changes in the law, but if simply used to enforce the existing law, one based on individual freedom, it really doesn't change much.
The police is already listening in on much of what you say over the phone, are you being targetted or your opinions now?
Insane people like Alex Jones are publicly spewing their insanities, are they being shut down?
Just because law enforcement would be able to hear everything, wouldn't mean they would start shutting free speech down, the two are not related in the slightest.
It is naïve to expect the world of law enforcement to remain static in such a rapidly changing world.
the more power you give to those in charge, especially if you don't have an instance controlling it (there is nothing that is able to control the EU-comission), there is going to be a point when there is enough uncontrolled power to be abused completely.
And yes obviously law enforcement is not going to remain static. But that doesn't mean every development there is a good one and should be supported.
On July 28 2012 22:17 Desertfaux wrote:
I don't think the last link in the OP links correctly, its the exact same link as the one leading to the german article, not a video from Anonymous.
fixed
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused, what freedom am I sacrificing here?
|
On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:46 Kanaz wrote:
As long as the surveillance is only in the public i don't see a problem.
As long as you don't do any shady business, you got nothing to lose vs this. The world is not looking to get any better soon, so i don't see a problem in this. As long as they won't interfere in your private stuff, (house appartment etc) - they should still need a warrant from a judge to search places like this. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both.
Ok, this seems like a good statement but I would like to ask how a camera in a public place reduces your freedom? It doesn't hinder you in any way, and when used correctly by the state, will only detect your actions against a law that the people created anyway. The big problems here are 1) the way it's used 2) the law, imo.
|
On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:46 Kanaz wrote:
As long as the surveillance is only in the public i don't see a problem.
As long as you don't do any shady business, you got nothing to lose vs this. The world is not looking to get any better soon, so i don't see a problem in this. As long as they won't interfere in your private stuff, (house appartment etc) - they should still need a warrant from a judge to search places like this. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both.
Quick reply and the one I was going to give as well.
It has been said n times but it will always be true. People who would relinquish their freedom in order to obtain security will inevitably end up with neither. Sacrificing freedom for security also indicates that they do not deserve either as well.
|
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
The problem is that good should not be defined by people you probably did not even vote for. In many countries being gay is considered very bad behaviour. In some countries consumption of marihuana is considered illigal. Some decades ago people considered prohibition as good. Bathing naked might be illigal in your country.
If you agree 100% with your government, sure it is nothing to worry about. But should you ever not share the public opinion on something, get ready to go to jail for being a "bad" human.
|
On July 28 2012 22:31 HaRuHi wrote:Show nested quote +Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets. The problem is that good should not be defined by people you probably did not even vote for. In many countries being gay is considered very bad behaviour. In some countries consumption of marihuana is considered illigal. Some decades ago people considered prohibition as good. Bathing naked might be illigal in your country. If you agree 100% with your government, sure it is nothing to worry about. But should you ever not share the public opinion on something, get ready to go to jail for being a "bad" human.
Since I've edited my first post in this thread about 5 minutes ago I guess you had to think a bit to come up with that answer. The key piece here is "public places". I've heard people whining about getting robbed & beaten and whatnot on the streets and at public places and most of the time the ones committing those crimes get away and honestly if that system could help, then why not. It's for public places. People crying about their privacy have probably missed that key word.
|
On July 28 2012 22:27 aseq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On July 28 2012 21:46 Kanaz wrote:
As long as the surveillance is only in the public i don't see a problem.
As long as you don't do any shady business, you got nothing to lose vs this. The world is not looking to get any better soon, so i don't see a problem in this. As long as they won't interfere in your private stuff, (house appartment etc) - they should still need a warrant from a judge to search places like this. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both. Ok, this seems like a good statement but I would like to ask how a camera in a public place reduces your freedom? It doesn't hinder you in any way, and when used correctly by the state, will only detect your actions against a law that the people created anyway. The big problems here are 1) the way it's used 2) the law, imo.
Assuming that a) the law is always representative of the will of the people which implies that we live in a perfect democracy and also that public opinion is uniform, and b) that all governments are benign, to which I say HAHAHAHAHAHA.
|
On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:46 Kanaz wrote:
As long as the surveillance is only in the public i don't see a problem.
As long as you don't do any shady business, you got nothing to lose vs this. The world is not looking to get any better soon, so i don't see a problem in this. As long as they won't interfere in your private stuff, (house appartment etc) - they should still need a warrant from a judge to search places like this. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both.
I hate this quote because the principe of society is losing freedom for security.
|
On July 28 2012 22:37 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On July 28 2012 21:46 Kanaz wrote:
As long as the surveillance is only in the public i don't see a problem.
As long as you don't do any shady business, you got nothing to lose vs this. The world is not looking to get any better soon, so i don't see a problem in this. As long as they won't interfere in your private stuff, (house appartment etc) - they should still need a warrant from a judge to search places like this. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both. I hate this quote because the principe of society is losing freedom for security.
Only if you consider anarchy as a form of freedom.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
