|
On July 28 2012 23:39 Dead9 wrote:"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
"If it becomes the norm to put in the hands of the government powerful tools of observation--means to implement widespread and effective observation, and abuse aforementioned capability to unjust and invasive ends--the government may do so".
I think that's closer to the argument being made by those who are against this. Perhaps a straw man is somewhere in there, because that's not the argument being made here, or so I think.
|
We are living the eternal Babylon.
|
On July 28 2012 23:49 NEOtheONE 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. 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.
Martial Law is bad enough, but if Martial Law is ever declared, your head of state / the EU gets almost God status, as they can see everything, hear everything and monitor everything.
Then you better hope you're not the one fighting an oppressing government.
Imo you have to think for the future. This is something that hardly is going to go away. If this system is implemented it's here to stay. We don't know who the rulers in Europe will be in 50 years.
Giving up civil rights is generally a very very bad move.
|
On July 28 2012 22:51 Rictusz wrote:
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 . >_>
Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it.
Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there. This is a chance to help that out a bit.
And no I don't feel bad that people being intoxicated in public or doing illegal drugs will be arrested and not just thugs. That's the law and I agree with it.
This doesn't impeded on ANY of my rights because the law already exists. This just helps law enforcement find individuals who break it.
|
Is there a petition of this going around? I could really use that now....
|
I value privacy higher than "safety". I think it's funny how leaders are trying to sneak out weird laws without people knowing. I don't really get why or how they are allowed to even try. I'm not that well versed in politics but shit like this makes me want to be.
|
On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote:
Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there.
You certainly seem to be, at least.
|
On July 28 2012 22:00 ayaz2810 wrote:
Don't see the big deal. I have nothing to hide from big brother. As long as there is no abuse of the system, it seems to be a good thing. Having any degree of privacy in a public place is not a right. As long as you stay outta my private business, go for it.
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.
Actually, in Germany, you have that right (the one marked bold). The german police is only allowed to save data referring to you, when there is a concrete suspicion you did something illegal. So in this case: The police could film you walking down the street but they would not be allowed to safe the video in any persistent form unless they have a strong suspicion you did something illegal.
Of course, if this EU thing gets accepted, the german rights would need to be adapted.
I guess all I wanted to say was: People have a limited right for privacy even in public areas.
@Topic: I cannot imagine this will be implemented as I can't see any real justification for such a huge break in our rights.
|
On July 28 2012 23:40 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
totally agree with this, governments have proven in the past how prone they are to abusing laws and using laws against perfectly innocent people, not to mention the fact that governments are tied to huge corporations now and those huge corporations would love as much information about you as possible
|
One step closer till we all have a microchip implanted in our brain at birth so they can have access to our every thought and throw us in prison if they feel we are a threat to their world domination. It's too late to stop this, the indoctrination through media is allready far out of controll. They can do whatever the fuck they want and it's no way to stop this. If there was a God, now will be the right time for another mass extinction of our race. EU, USA, UN, Red Cross all are moving towards the world goverment, and when that happens it's game over. If you are going to laugh at me I feel good for you. I would rather not know these monstrous facts, I would be way less depressed. Peace.
|
We have a thing in Sweden where the defence could watch and listen to all communications going out of the country. They have a similar system where they home in on phrases and such. The pretence is basically anti terrorist.
This was a major part to the whole reaction with a pirate party who even got members elected into the EU now.
I'd like to see the reaction when privacy is completely destroyed as soon as you go outside your home.
I'd be very surprised if this goes through. If it does, it'll be a major shit storm.
|
On July 29 2012 00:09 acidfreak wrote:
One step closer till we all have a microchip implanted in our brain at birth so they can have access to our every thought and throw us in prison if they feel we are a threat to their world domination. It's too late to stop this, the indoctrination through media is allready far out of controll. They can do whatever the fuck they want and it's no way to stop this. If there was a God, now will be the right time for another mass extinction of our race. EU, USA, UN, Red Cross all are moving towards the world goverment, and when that happens it's game over. If you are going to laugh at me I feel good for you. I would rather not know these monstrous facts, I would be way less depressed. Peace.
Who's "they"?
Fact of the matter is, we are all human beings. No one is interested in you in particular by the way, otherwise they would install cameras in YOUR apartment specifically, not in public areas.
At the end of the day, if you are a law abiding citizen, this doesn't affect you.
P.S : There already exists ways for law enforcement to follow your every move, word, internet activity, etc. if you are a suspect of something like terrorism or such. People are scared that someone will look at their activity and see that they sent some stupid sex related texts or that they talked about doing drugs with a friend. Realize that no one gives a fuck, even the people who's job it is to listen to these things, because they are looking for real criminals and not your life story.
|
This is disgusting. A lot of people need to be thrown in jail over this.
|
On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 22:51 Rictusz wrote:
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 . >_>
Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there. This is a chance to help that out a bit. And no I don't feel bad that people being intoxicated in public or doing illegal drugs will be arrested and not just thugs. That's the law and I agree with it. This doesn't impeded on ANY of my rights because the law already exists. This just helps law enforcement find individuals who break it.
Sure people might like to overreact , but is that really a bad thing? If anything overreaction will make things like these attract more public attention and in that case make the government think more carefully of what they can do and what could be pushing over the top. Pretty sure that crap like ACTA would have easily passed if it wasnt for the internet overreacting to it.
|
On July 29 2012 00:17 Rictusz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote:On July 28 2012 22:51 Rictusz wrote:
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 . >_>
Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there. This is a chance to help that out a bit. And no I don't feel bad that people being intoxicated in public or doing illegal drugs will be arrested and not just thugs. That's the law and I agree with it. This doesn't impeded on ANY of my rights because the law already exists. This just helps law enforcement find individuals who break it. Sure people might like to overreact , but is that really a bad thing? If anything overreaction will make things like these attract more public attention and in that case make the government think more carefully of what they can do and what could be pushing over the top. Pretty sure that crap like ACTA would have easily passed if it wasnt for the internet overreacting to it.
I'm not saying I'm all for a police state, I was against ACTA and other internet-policing related activities even though I don't do much wrong on the internet (or anywhere else).
However, this is something about placing cameras in public places in big hubs... places which are usually infested with thugs most of the nights anyway.
|
On July 29 2012 00:17 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 00:09 acidfreak wrote:
One step closer till we all have a microchip implanted in our brain at birth so they can have access to our every thought and throw us in prison if they feel we are a threat to their world domination. It's too late to stop this, the indoctrination through media is allready far out of controll. They can do whatever the fuck they want and it's no way to stop this. If there was a God, now will be the right time for another mass extinction of our race. EU, USA, UN, Red Cross all are moving towards the world goverment, and when that happens it's game over. If you are going to laugh at me I feel good for you. I would rather not know these monstrous facts, I would be way less depressed. Peace. Who's "they"? Fact of the matter is, we are all human beings. No one is interested in you in particular by the way, otherwise they would install cameras in YOUR apartment specifically, not in public areas. At the end of the day, if you are a law abiding citizen, this doesn't affect you. P.S : There already exists ways for law enforcement to follow your every move, word, internet activity, etc. if you are a suspect of something like terrorism or such. People are scared that someone will look at their activity and see that they sent some stupid sex related texts or that they talked about doing drugs with a friend. Realize that no one gives a fuck, even the people who's job it is to listen to these things, because they are looking for real criminals and not your life story.
"At the end of the day, if you are a law abiding citizen, this doesn't affect you."
This is the same as the "if you follow the law you have nothing to hide" argument, which is established to be bullshit. People desire and have the right to the secrecy of their legal actions. Surveillance destroys that. What is being created here is Panopticon society, which is a horror that we try to avoid for a reason.
|
On July 28 2012 21:38 ...what wrote:
How long can society compromise between safety and freedom?
Forever.
|
On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 22:51 Rictusz wrote:
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 . >_>
Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there. This is a chance to help that out a bit. And no I don't feel bad that people being intoxicated in public or doing illegal drugs will be arrested and not just thugs. That's the law and I agree with it. This doesn't impeded on ANY of my rights because the law already exists. This just helps law enforcement find individuals who break it.
Thank you to worry about my security but in 30 years, I haven't need the help of cops for anything in my entire life.
I don't want to be protected like that and I've never asked for that; I can take care of my self and surrounding.
I've lived in many places considered dangerous and I've never felt the need for more "protection".
I hate how the EU authorities can force shit like that without having to ask the population.
As if they knew what's best for me better than me or my parents do.
|
On July 29 2012 00:20 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 00:17 Rictusz wrote:On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote:On July 28 2012 22:51 Rictusz wrote:
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 . >_>
Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there. This is a chance to help that out a bit. And no I don't feel bad that people being intoxicated in public or doing illegal drugs will be arrested and not just thugs. That's the law and I agree with it. This doesn't impeded on ANY of my rights because the law already exists. This just helps law enforcement find individuals who break it. Sure people might like to overreact , but is that really a bad thing? If anything overreaction will make things like these attract more public attention and in that case make the government think more carefully of what they can do and what could be pushing over the top. Pretty sure that crap like ACTA would have easily passed if it wasnt for the internet overreacting to it. I'm not saying I'm all for a police state, I was against ACTA and other internet-policing related activities even though I don't do much wrong on the internet (or anywhere else). However, this is something about placing cameras in public places in big hubs... places which are usually infested with thugs most of the nights anyway.
You put policemen there. What this is, is a system designed to sift through for people determined "most likely to commit a crime" for whatever reason. What do you think they do once they're found? Sit back and wait? No, they'll send out an officer to tail or arrest. If the person is innocent, what a disgusting act. And last I checked, we believed in innocent until proven guilty. This is the exact opposite.
|
On July 29 2012 00:20 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 00:17 Rictusz wrote:On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote:On July 28 2012 22:51 Rictusz wrote:
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 . >_>
Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. Crime is rampant in the streets of every major city in the world pretty much. A lot of people are afraid to go out at night because of all the thugs out there. This is a chance to help that out a bit. And no I don't feel bad that people being intoxicated in public or doing illegal drugs will be arrested and not just thugs. That's the law and I agree with it. This doesn't impeded on ANY of my rights because the law already exists. This just helps law enforcement find individuals who break it. Sure people might like to overreact , but is that really a bad thing? If anything overreaction will make things like these attract more public attention and in that case make the government think more carefully of what they can do and what could be pushing over the top. Pretty sure that crap like ACTA would have easily passed if it wasnt for the internet overreacting to it. I'm not saying I'm all for a police state, I was against ACTA and other internet-policing related activities even though I don't do much wrong on the internet (or anywhere else). However, this is something about placing cameras in public places in big hubs... places which are usually infested with thugs most of the nights anyway.
This is far more infringing than "putting up a camera in big hubs infested by thugs". This is basically a computer stasi that records and keep files on everything you do once you leave the home and step into the range of a camera, as far as I understand it.
It says that 'swearing', 'moving the wrong direction' and 'sitting for a long time' are among what's considered suspicious activites.
What exactly this act involves is largely secret so far, and it's being decided what's going to be released in public by an "ethics board" with policemen, representatives of the media industry etc.
Is this something that should be implemented in a democratic society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
