EPTINDECT - a "secret" project of the EU - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Soulstice
United States288 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On July 29 2012 00:34 Euronyme wrote: 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? ...not to mention that people highly underestimate how much that information is worth. Someone will find ways to capitalize on it, no doubt at all. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On July 29 2012 00:35 Soulstice wrote: "He loved Big Brother." Ending of 1984. Good book and very pertinent to this discussion. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
The step up with this project is not in the amount of time you're spent being recorded, it's in adding a computer hub to interpret that information and decide whether you are a threat. How exactly does this infringe on any of your liberties? Actions you take in public areas have never been considered sacrosanct. This is just a new expansion of our civilization which people who are averse to change will despise, until they realize it doesn't change their everyday life in any way. Edit: On July 29 2012 00:36 r.Evo wrote: ...not to mention that people highly underestimate how much that information is worth. Someone will find ways to capitalize on it, no doubt at all. This would be a separate concern I suppose, but any technological advancement is going to have leeches attempting to capitalize. We must ensure that the data is used responsibly, but if so, I don't see a problem with it, philosophically. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Call me when they start infringing on anyones liberties or kidnapping them without justification. | ||
|
Trowa127
United Kingdom1230 Posts
| ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
If you trust the system blindly no problem at all. For myself i believe there are people in charge who might abuse this. The police isnt trustworthy all the time, not that im a crazy conspiracy theorist, but i believe there are black sheeps everywhere, and so i might give up total safety for some more freedome. But i suppose they cover this one up with the war on terror once again maybe child safety as well. If its fully automatic and not connected to the internet and only shows you the "best of" cases it might be a good idea but thats not the case here i guess. Anyway they working on this for some time and the trigger are publicy known so anyone who has something bad in mind will avoid those triggers and therefore this is useless. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both. Indeed, but how exactly is a camera in a public park a hindrance of freedom? | ||
|
rookie44
12 Posts
We should be able to have open debates on these issues before funding is approved WE get to decide how we develop not some people in a room somewhere. If this actually happens on a massive scale then you will find me taking random walks at midnight and generally acting suspiciously without ever doing anything illegal. Passive-aggressive protest. | ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
Do you know how many cameras it would take to cover all crowded EU public places ? Europe is having a very deep economic crisis right now, Africa is having a hunger crisis and they're really gonna spend all this resources and money on that monstruous shit ??? As if we were overwhelmed by crimes; I don't see any. This program is here to make sure we obey according to the law, and not to our moral standards, because if we would, we'd probably throw those INDECT guys to jail and use that money in a more needed and respectfull way for humanity. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 29 2012 01:05 JustPassingBy wrote: Indeed, but how exactly is a camera in a public park a hindrance of freedom? Please read the articles. It's actually a lot bigger than that. 1. There will be a network of all internet usage, phoning, and surveillance film of people. 2. There will be a search engine to put together all these things into a profile 3. In this profile 'suspicious activities' such as 'meeting with groups of people', 'swearing' 'yelling in public' etc will be summed up. 4. The programme is so far largely secret. What will be released in public will be decided by a small group of people that also includes 'representative from the media industry', suggesting private sector leaning on the legal system. This is something that most people seem fine with in the states, but not something popular in Europe. 5. This is basically a complete power tool that's ready to be used if the wrong kind of government would be elected. We already have huge national socialistic movements in Europe, primarily in the Netherlands and Hungary afaik. Hitler was elected. This is an immense tool of power for a leader to pick off opponents, ready to be used. 6. We don't know what kind of government we'll have in 10 years, let alone 50. Trusting blindly in future heads of state to that extent has been proven foolish. This is why we have democracies, and giving heads of state godlike power over its population is not a good way to preserve democracy. | ||
KwarK
United States42906 Posts
On July 29 2012 00:53 Probe1 wrote: The great concern is John I. Innocent is going to be recorded by the 1984 machines and somehow it will be used to illegally detain him or something. Well, that's slick shit in a movie but even during the worst excesses of the Bush administration we weren't exactly illegally kidnapping (extraordinary rendition to the politically correct) Girl Scouts or Joe A. Innocent from their beds. Call me when they start infringing on anyones liberties or kidnapping them without justification. Actually there were renditions on completely innocent people but it happened to too few people and didn't seem real enough to the majority that nobody actually cared. | ||
|
vitruvia
Canada235 Posts
| ||
|
Tom Cruise
Denmark482 Posts
generally people on TL are quite intelligent no offense to anyone, but i'd not go as far and say "generally", lol | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
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. You act like they won't. What with how crazy things are getting around the world, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
On July 29 2012 01:33 aka_star wrote: OP sounds like an alarmist caught up in the political motives of the anonymous campaign. Are you scouting for simple minds to wrap ? generally people on TL are quite intelligent so its unlikely to be fruitful for you. well sometimes you have to sound alarming, and to try to underline that something is dangerous if you think it is. If people think different than me, it's fine. I'm not trying to tell them what they are supposed to do. I'm just saying that I was surprised that noone had posted this here before (and I posted my opinion on what it entails in the long run). I don't know what you mean with simple minds to wrap. I'm neither trying to tell people to give me money nor am I trying to get an advantage out of this. I'm just trying to raise awareness about something that i think is an issue. If you want to say that I'm trying to convert people to "follow anonymous", you are also wrong. I'm not affiliated with Anonymous in any way and I stumbled upon their vid via the page I posted. So I don't know why you needed to be offensive, but feel free to contribute to the thread. | ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On July 29 2012 00:45 Cel.erity wrote: Shocking to me to see so many people opposed to this. You must know that anytime you step into a public area, there is a good chance that you're on a security camera. There are cameras in shops, casinos, ATMs, traffic lights. The police use this footage all the time. The step up with this project is not in the amount of time you're spent being recorded, it's in adding a computer hub to interpret that information and decide whether you are a threat. How exactly does this infringe on any of your liberties? Actions you take in public areas have never been considered sacrosanct. This is just a new expansion of our civilization which people who are averse to change will despise, until they realize it doesn't change their everyday life in any way. Edit: This would be a separate concern I suppose, but any technological advancement is going to have leeches attempting to capitalize. We must ensure that the data is used responsibly, but if so, I don't see a problem with it, philosophically. I'm not sure about the laws in other countries, but over here we have very strict laws as to how long e.g. video footage can be kept. In fact, some of the stuff is designed so that it overwrites itself after a certain amount of time. In this case, we're talking about actually storing all this information in case "something urgent pops up". We must ensure that the data is used responsibly, but if so, I don't see a problem with it, philosophically. We can't. Information is probably the trade good with the highest value out there. All this stored data won't be on some kind of "highly secure secret server" - the plain amount of data is just way too much for that. Real question is who will grab it first to use it for what. | ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
On July 28 2012 23:40 r.Evo wrote: 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. Then I guess the problems with commercialisation and specifically commercialisation of information isn't it? You want to solve that problem? Stop shopping name brands and start going to local greengrocers. Governments aren't the source of that problem, the sources comes from the industries that want that information having too much power because people just give them all of their money. Don't come in here blaming the EU government trying to stop crime and saying it's all about trying to get money. The EU can't physically have financial interests in that because it has a fixed income based in tax coming to it from the member states. This policy has nothing to do with money so don't misrepresent it as being that. Even for those governments that do have financial interests because of industry lobbying, don't blame them when it's the fault of society for making those particular acting industries so powerful. Not to mention the fact that all of the information you listed above is completely irrelevant and who would care if it's known by the government. So they have more accurate information about who's using prostitutes... so what? They aren't going to send people round to laugh at you and if you think there's any negative ramification of that then you're completely delusional. If anything it gives them more active statistics about what's actually happening in terms of prostitution and maybe they actually have a better chance at cracking down on the pimps and stopping harmful exploitation in the industry. | ||
| ||
