EPTINDECT - a "secret" project of the EU - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On July 29 2012 06:55 Audemed wrote: The system will not be run and monitored by computers. The system will be run and montored by humans, with governmental oversight. When was the last time you heard of a human with power at his disposal who did not abuse it, in the entire history of the human race? Orwell was right. Maybe not the specifics, but everyone knows he was right. Humans abuse power, but they also do good with it. Otherwise progress would not be possible and humans would have died out already. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
Same as posting on the interwebs you can still do whatever the fuck you want. Just makes you easier to catch. Do common people really think "they" are so interested in what you do? I'm not really sure I would give a fuck if someone knew where I was all the time or my spending habits or where i hang out or what I drink or which arsecheek of my ladyfriend I prefer to touch. If a political party or group is going to use it to destroy the opposition, they can do it easy enough without something this complicated. " We have awesome powers, my X-Men. It is our birthright... And, perhaps, our burden. But, as Valerie said, with that power comes responsibility -- and also accountability. " | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On July 29 2012 07:15 MoonfireSpam wrote: This thread is full of the same inane drivel that came about when people were talking about how forcing Twitter to disclose details on potential perpertrators of libel etc. Same as posting on the interwebs you can still do whatever the fuck you want. Just makes you easier to catch. Do common people really think "they" are so interested in what you do? I'm not really sure I would give a fuck if someone knew where I was all the time or my spending habits or where i hang out or what I drink or which arsecheek of my ladyfriend I prefer to touch. If a political party or group is going to use it to destroy the opposition, they can do it easy enough without something this complicated. " We have awesome powers, my X-Men. It is our birthright... And, perhaps, our burden. But, as Valerie said, with that power comes responsibility -- and also accountability. " More importantly, what if the political party or group DOES use it to destroy the opposition? Any chance of organizing a resistance in secrecy would be impossible with constant surveillance of all communication channels and public spaces. | ||
|
M4nkind
Lithuania178 Posts
And can some one tell me how would you use your "freedom" in public places when you are not watched by cameras | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On July 29 2012 06:56 m4inbrain wrote: Of course we have. But these videos cant be used for commercial purposes, they are not.. Ahm, dont know the english word again ("ausgewertet"). They dont watch all the tapes, all the time. Just if something happened. Also, a normal security cam cannot recognize me, and record the "paths" i take through the city. Well they can, actually, but it just would make sense if there was a cause for this. Edit: wait, surveillance means "watch people specifically", right? For example, tapping into your phone and stuff? I'm not sure on its exact legal definition. I think that's probably right though. You bring up a good point, there is quite a difference between looking through a bunch of tapes trying to predict a future crime or hit upon a random crime, and using the tapes once a crime has already been established. That's something I hadnt thought about initially. A large focus of many of the new monitoring/surveillance systems coming out, is their predictive ability. I guess the reason I don't care about this distinction is that, I don't have the view that privacy is a right in public places. It doesn't matter to me whether someone is fapping to videos of me walking around at work or outside, so long as none of it ever effects me. And with the right laws in place, i never would be effected, unless I was breaking the law or someone else was (lawsuit and ez money) So the end result is the same, or about the same, as If I was never recorded In the first place. I haven't broken any laws, and of the system is set up RIGHT, that is the end of it. If people are afraid this is too open to corruption/abuse that's another discussion. Just want to lay the groundwork that using surveillance to catch dangerous criminals is a highly moral proposition. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On July 29 2012 07:20 nttea wrote: More importantly, what if the political party or group DOES use it to destroy the opposition? Any chance of organizing a resistance in secrecy would be impossible with constant surveillance of all communication channels and public spaces. Actually I would have thought that something so omnipotent would make it much easier for opposition to gain a shred of evidence and start a revolution. It would suck if this was implemented in say North Korea where there is already total domination, but in a relatively liberal country it gives as much power to both sides and importantly makes people more accountable, which on balance I would argue outweights the potential risk. Aren't most shitfucks in existance due to secrecy/lack of evidence rather than over survelience? For sure that Travyon Martin bollocks wouldn't still be ongoing if someone recorded the damn event. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 29 2012 07:32 M4nkind wrote: communist countries had low crime rates and there was little freedom. I think control of people is needed so that we would have better order. Once there were 1000 people in the world and there was 1 idiot. Now we got 4kk more, so there are 4kk more idiots and it takes only one of those to do something stupid like unleashing gun fire, doing some acts of violence etc. When population was low police could watch over the streets but now they lack eyes to keep order. I see nothing wrong in implementing new technologies to scope with increased population. And can some one tell me how would you use your "freedom" in public places when you are not watched by cameras It's still a crime if the government commits it. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
So essentially you're "on tape", but no one is allowed to view said tapes without a certain type of warrant, and can't be used to uncover anything that isn't a huge threat to human lives. Another issue would be, how much can these tapes be "scanned" to look for certain unwanted behaviour? Should, for instance, a computer program be allowed to scim and scan tapes and look for certain signs of threat, and should this then be used to prevent previously mentioned treacherous crimes? Because no human being with any sort of power should be allowed to view any such footage, because it would potentially influence them to further investigate something that would otherwise not really be a big deal, and would not be uncovered, but suddenly shows up on tape. For instance, a police officer looking for disorder will easily find something that isn't considered "human trafficing", but will feel compelled to "do the right thing" and start looking into ways to apprehend the perpetrator of the unwanted behaviour he came across "illegally"; to go out of his way to find a legal way to serve his own agenda. The day anyone is prosecuted by the use of this technology, is the day people will become _very_ radical and there will be civil unrest. And we will either get a police state or a state of anarchy (or a mix of the two). It can in no way be used to serve the people. Anyone incapable of seeing this should _not_ be in charge of anything. | ||
|
M4nkind
Lithuania178 Posts
On July 29 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote: It's still a crime if the government commits it. I would say it is means to order. I may sound freaky but I really adore communism over democracy. For me order > freedom. People tend to use their freedom for all most stupid personal agenda. And order is common good. How are you putting your freedom to good use? | ||
|
SomeONEx
Sweden641 Posts
edit: After reading a bit on the site I have 2 things to say: 1. I found 3 spelling mistakes on the front page. English is my second language and if I wrote those mistakes I would be laughed at in Sweden as a 17-year old, and that was on the front ***(bad word) page? 2. In the FAQ they said something like "...we don't want a China-firewall..." which instantly made me think about the South Park episode of "Sexual Harrasment Panda" where Kyles dad explains something (I've forgot..) to Kyle and Kyle responds: "But isn't that fascism?" and Gerold answers: "No because we don't call it fascism".  | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 29 2012 07:59 M4nkind wrote: I would say it is means to order. I may sound freaky but I really adore communism over democracy. For me order > freedom. People tend to use their freedom for all most stupid personal agenda. And order is common good. How are you putting your freedom to good use? It depends how the need for order is interpreted. Half the world could end up with fines and short jail time and tarnished records just because of the many ways the law is broken everyday willingly or unwillingly. It all depends on how you (or the police state) uses the information available. Do they scrutinize every possible red-light crossing? Do they look for cars who enter an intersection before the exit is clear (breaking another traffic rule)? Because this would then lead to 90% of "city-drivers" to be fined multiple times a day. So where do you draw the line? I'm in no way saying this will happen. But I'm also not gonna be naive and claim these things WON'T happen AT ALL ever never. Because that, my friend, they will; unless there are very strict guidelines and no one is actually allowed to view the recordings. Except for in very extreme cases with great suspicion of a huge threat against human lives, for instance. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
Oh noes! Police state aaaaa! Why be so hysterical when such an idea is sensationalist at best? Looking at the website I can't see anything that jumps out as sinister, but if the government's monitoring you in any way, might as well freak out right? | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On July 28 2012 21:41 Taktik wrote: 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. some people do have cameras set up in there homes for security purposes setting up cameras to watch a park/public place is jsut like having officers patroling it but alot more effecient and inexpensive | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 29 2012 07:59 M4nkind wrote: I would say it is means to order. I may sound freaky but I really adore communism over democracy. For me order > freedom. People tend to use their freedom for all most stupid personal agenda. And order is common good. How are you putting your freedom to good use? Yes, god forbid someone uses their freedom to benefit themselves. I mean, what's the point to life if you can't live it how you want to? And why should anyone adhere to a common good if it doesn't really benenfit them? ...Nevermind the fact that every attempt at your beloved Communism has resulted in an oppresive dictatorship. edit: On second loon, not sure about this act | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
Seriously, the system we already have in place (police, FBI/CIA or equivalent, court system) is about a thousand times more oppressive to our freedom than what's being suggested in this Indect project. They're only adding an inch to the mile-long list of ways that the government can protect you and screw you. I wonder if the people who oppose this would support budget cuts to their local police department, or if they'd like us to go back to a time before DNA evidence was allowed in court, or if they have any idea what they're fighting for. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
Say you smack down a surveillance drone, like, with a gun or golf club if you want to be more subtle. Now, with this action you protect your privacy; are you entitled to this privacy by law? Or will you get prosecuted for destruction of public property? It's just a "silly example" but it has to be considered, just like any other scenario. Petty crimes being prosecuted because of this intrusion of privacy. "Crimes" that wouldn't even be considered crimes if not for these drones. I can understand the need for it at the olympic games; as the authorities want to keep things as civil as possible and I trust them not to use it to go after petty potential acts of crimes, but use it to keep everyone around the olympic city safe from harm. A sort of special event. Everybody there is there to partake in the atmosphere; and aren't concerned with matters of privacy and everyday life, but rather that of watching and enjoying the games. I think this is fine, if, ofcourse, used responsibly. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 28 2012 22:29 Aerisky wrote: 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. I believe it's "temporary" safety/security  In a way, war is little different. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
| ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 28 2012 22:31 HaRuHi wrote: 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. If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it: Does it make a sound? Yes - now it does, the security cameras will record it. Every move you make could be scrutinized and prosecuted. No one knows the full extent of the law. Simply getting married in a 'public place', like on a remote beach without people, could be a violation of law -- there's goes your happy day... Without the cameras no one would be the wiser, and no one would feel a law had been violated, and frankly, anyone going about their day on the other side of town would not care. But that no longer gets you off the hook. Simply standing in your backyard, peeing on the "edge" of your property, suddenly costs you 400 bucks in my country (Norway -- peeing in public). One drop lands outside, and you're gonna bleed. The possibilities for "abuse" (within the boundaries of the law) are endless. Seemingly quite profitable aswell. The state could get rich off of this, devoting lots of time and effort into making money this way... Maybe they don't look for it but come across it, if not with the current system, then with the next. It should deffinitely NOT be done in "secrecy" but should be debated entirely and openly. In theory I think I could like certain aspects for it. But I'm potentially scared shitless of the consequences that may eventually arise. If it is sufficiently restricted and debated, I'd deffinitely be for a "trial" thingy, like for instance the olympic games are (?) of the system. But then again, I'd possibly fear the snowballing effect.. | ||
| ||
