|
On July 28 2012 22:21 RolleMcKnolle wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't disagree, but how is this specific project giving more power to anyone? It's only a system that automates processes that already exist - what matters is how the gathered information is used.
If it is used as intended, then there's nothing to worry about. If it comes to the point where it's used in oppressive ways (such as persecuting political opponents, activists, etc) then the existence of such surveillance will be the least of our problems. Police states can exist with or without such technology. The existence of technology itself does not imply the existence of a police state (or vice-versa).
Obviously it isn't very comfortable and I would rather not have it implemented, and if I was to vote on it, I would vote against. It's just that I don't see it as a very important or pressing issue, certainly nowhere near the ACTA (and similar trash) level of serious.
|
To avoid the fascist dystopias we've all(hopefully) read/heard/known about, we should never let the "machine" capable of maintaining it be built.
|
On July 28 2012 22:41 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 22:21 RolleMcKnolle wrote: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. I don't disagree, but how is this specific project giving more power to anyone? It's only a system that automates processes that already exist - what matters is how the gathered information is used. If it is used as intended, then there's nothing to worry about. If it comes to the point where it's used in oppressive ways (such as persecuting political opponents, activists, etc) then the existence of such surveillance will be the least of our problems - police states can exist with or without such technology. The existence of technology itself does not imply the existence of a police state (or vice-versa). Obviously it isn't very comfortable and I would rather not have it implemented, and if I was to vote on it, I would vote against. It's just that I don't see it as a very important or pressing issue, certainly nowhere near the ACTA (and similar trash) level.
Well first: Information is power, so the question where this is giving power to anyone is easily answered.
Secondly automated processes are way more effective. If I want to demonstrate I want to be sure that nothing is checking all my personal background data, and I also don't want any files to include these information.
I don't want to have additional security checks on airports just because I visited an Occupy demonstration.
Maybe this being wrong and important isn't as obvious as in the case of ACTA, but actually complete and utter surveillance of public places is at least as significant as restricting the internet.
And no, having these systems in place, would change the workings of a police state significantly. So even in that special case there would be a huge difference.
|
On July 28 2012 22:35 SEGGLE[8] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 22:31 HaRuHi 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. 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.
All things I listed I think are things I`d like to do in public places. Americans hide their alcohol in paperbags, it was forbidden in germany to wear headscarfs a few years ago, it is forbidden to go without in some eastern countries. How are you gonna bath naked if not on a public beach? Never got stoned while enjoying the sunset? Are you ok with hiding your affection for someone because the government thinks they can tell you whom to love and who not and do that then instead secretly, and having to watch your everystep so you don`t end up in some correctional institute?
And it takes me some time to write answers because english is a foreign language for me. 
|
Honestly whenever i come upon something like this i suspect it being real fishy. There are already cameras in pretty much all the "public" places here ( parks , any kind of monuments , obviously all the stores , etc) . So im really interested of what does a "public place" really mean for them. Its pretty much proven that people will abuse as much as we let them or untill it gets noticed and considering all the holes and flaws current law system has and how much it likes to screw over people ( especially those who do not know every single aspect of the current law system) i do not support this. And really if you think about it , if this system is such a great and inovative idea of keeping us safe why try to implement it without public approval , that alone makes me doubt it . >_>
|
I don't think this project is morally right. To literally have an eye on all of you're citizens doesn't seen the right way to go about crime.
|
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been.
I hope to expect some resistance from the people if they know whats good for them. Your government is treating you as if you are already a criminal.
|
On July 28 2012 22:40 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 22:37 Erasme wrote: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 +
if you don't think that being a part of a society is losing some freedom, then you shouldn't lecture me in philosophy.
|
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.
But I'm not good person 
|
So they're discussing a system which would allow them to identify and stop crime on a massive level while at the same time making it so that nobody actually gains information about you in any way.
1) They only view public places so there's no invasion of privacy.
2) They only cross-check with information they already have access to: internet, their databases, etc.
3) It's unmanned so nobody is actually gaining information about you unless you're doing something wrong; it doesn't go on to a manned level unless there is highly suspicious activity which the system has confirmed.
So basically they make the current system more expedient and successful and make it so your privacy is respected more.
Please stop jumping on "omg dis is so bad" bandwagons before actually thinking things through logically.
|
|
|
"if gay marriage is legalized, people will want to get married to animals"
"if marijuana is legalized, people will start trying out harder drugs and the crime rate will go up"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
|
On July 28 2012 23:33 Yonnua wrote:
So they're discussing a system which would allow them to identify and stop crime on a massive level while at the same time making it so that nobody actually gains information about you in any way.
1) They only view public places so there's no invasion of privacy.
2) They only cross-check with information they already have access to: internet, their databases, etc.
3) It's unmanned so nobody is actually gaining information about you unless you're doing something wrong; it doesn't go on to a manned level unless there is highly suspicious activity which the system has confirmed.
So basically they make the current system more expedient and successful and make it so your privacy is respected more.
Please stop jumping on "omg dis is so bad" bandwagons before actually thinking things through logically.
Let me clarify the wording "public place" for a moment. A place is public as long as it's not in someones house (durrrrr).
How would you feel if I could tell you the following about you:
I know when you leave the house, I know when you return. I will know if you were really late for work or if you entered a prostitutes house on the way. I know when you bought condoms, I know where you shop (a little short on cash atm since you changed your favorite supermarket? I might be able to give you a personalized loan!), I know whether you bought beer - I will also know if there will be friends at your house to consume that beer or if you are all alone most of the time - do we have a little problem with alcohol? How much would it be worth to you that your wife (who you told you stopped drinking years ago) doesn't find out?
The list goes on and on. Now, you might say "Haha, yeah, YOU won't know that, that will all be kept private by our gouvernment!!!11" ... Considering how "private" "private information" has been in the last years, do you really, really believe that this information won't come out and abuse won't be possible? There is an incredible amount of money to be made with information like this. Spend enough money to get a certain information and you will get it.
|
On July 28 2012 22:51 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
I don't think this project is morally right. To literally have an eye on all of you're citizens doesn't seen the right way to go about crime.
Having an eye on citizens, in public places, where you're not doing anything you would care if the government filmed or not anyways.
If they were putting cameras in private residences, and monitoring private conversations without warrant, then we would have problems. But I don't see how this is any different from putting a police officer with an internet connection on every street corner.
|
On July 28 2012 23:33 Yonnua wrote:
So they're discussing a system which would allow them to identify and stop crime on a massive level while at the same time making it so that nobody actually gains information about you in any way.
1) They only view public places so there's no invasion of privacy.
2) They only cross-check with information they already have access to: internet, their databases, etc.
3) It's unmanned so nobody is actually gaining information about you unless you're doing something wrong; it doesn't go on to a manned level unless there is highly suspicious activity which the system has confirmed.
So basically they make the current system more expedient and successful and make it so your privacy is respected more.
Please stop jumping on "omg dis is so bad" bandwagons before actually thinking things through logically.
In a perfect world where government selflessly spends every single cent for the people they represent instead of wasting money mindlessly or with a goal to gain profit for themselves and their future projects i have no doubt it would work like that. In our world however there is a reason to doubt them , at least for me. But i guess im glad to see not everyone has lost trust in them and became as cynical as i am.
|
This is scary, i dont like the idea that somebody is watching me all the time.
|
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.
God that's such a good quote. Sums my opinions right up.
Just imagine the power the top politicians have. Look at what happened with the Arab Spring. What would've happened if the government had surveillance literally everywhere and could just take out key persons instantly.
Don't give unelected EU politicians more power than they already have. Power corrupts is another great quote.
|
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.
It's not even an actual Benjamin Franklin quote. It's a paraphrase of the quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
To get at what it means, the best correlation would be "emergency powers" granted to the leader of a nation or an agency of the government. The illusion is that these powers will provide some additional security (temporary at best) at the cost of some fundamental right or freedom. Martial Law would probably be the best example of this.
|
I don't even understand how the Franklin quote applies in the first place.
This is a system that gathers information from pre-existing, lawful, public sources, and runs it through an algorithm that simply automates what law enforcement is doing now anyways. You don't lose any freedoms. Your rights are not being infringed on. All it does is take public information and pieces it together in a way that makes it easier for the police to prevent crime and catch those who do commit it.
You can make the 'slippery slope' argument all you want, but this is not nearly as big a deal as all the Big Brother fear-mongerers are making it out to be.
|
CAMERAS fixing me? MAN thats just wrong. I cant believe that people can approve thats shit. YOU dont gonna solve crimes with that.. THATS JUST TO SPY HUMANS BEHAVIOR. my GOD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
