EPTINDECT - a "secret" project of the EU - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Vapaach
Finland994 Posts
| ||
|
lbmaian
United States689 Posts
On July 28 2012 23:49 NEOtheONE wrote: 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. These quotes can never been seen as absolutes and must be considered with context. Even for that corrected quote, the context was the American revolution, where Americans had to weigh the costs of rebellion against remaining tax-paying subjects of the British empire. This same cost analysis can apply anywhere, and in most cases, rebellion is not worth it (you don't rebel every time the government does something you dislike). The original incorrect quote ("He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both") needs to be even more qualified. Simple counter-example: would you like people to have the freedom to carry nukes around because obviously the more weaponry you have, the more secure you are? Or would you like the freedom to kill whoever is competing with you (threaten your "job security")? On-topic: Somewhat worrying, but I'm reserving my opinion on it for now. Privacy vs. security is a very slippery slope in BOTH directions. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On July 29 2012 00:41 NEOtheONE wrote: Ending of 1984. Good book and very pertinent to this discussion. Not pertinent at all. Seriously people, stop with 1984, it's a great book but it doesn't need to be bring in every discussion like this. The quote in itself is in no way related to the discussion. It's just a clever way to say '1984 ITS HERE AHAHAHAHHA'. You need to understand that if you want society to works, you need a balance of freedom/security. If the crime goes up, you can sacrifice a little freedom for more security. Else it would be brazil/russia/mexico everywhere and I doubt that one would want that. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 28 2012 23:41 sevia wrote: 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. Can I just ask if you consider a conversation held in a public place as public? There are many ways to monitor conversations. For instance, monitoring with whom you engage in said conversation is a form of monitoring it. Hence any conversation I have with anyone in a public place must either be considered private enough NOT to be monitored, or it must be considere public and OK to be monitored. This could implicate you in alot of things, as you cannot always control with whom you have a conversation: It might be someone you barely know, who happens to be a criminal; and now you're implicated because you were seen together in public. Because your conversation was "public" and so could be monitored. You could be extensively scrutinized -- maybe without your knowledge, but maybe you'd be inconveinienced by it aswell. Maybe your boss would get wind of the situation, when you're suddenly questioned by police at your work place; or some other place where you're seen by a colleague or someone who knows who you are. Good times. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + From the age of the thought police- greetings From the age of big brother- greetings From the age of newspeak- greetings Welcome to the age of continuous warfare We are the free; we are the peaceful They're the aggressors and they are the hateful Who are they? We're defending democracy; we're protecting our borders They resent freedom and they utilize terror Who are they? They lurk in the shadows Endlessly plotting to destroy our very way of life If you do what we say then everything will be fine We will protect you as we live in the age of Faceless Nameless Endless War Who controls the past controls the future Who controls the present controls the past We have that control You submit to authority when you're residing in fear So don't ever question and don't you dare criticize Don't believe what you see, just accept what you hear It's in your best interest that your knowledge is purged It's a beautiful thing the destruction of words War is peace Freedom is slavery Ignorance is strength It's a beautiful thing the destruction of words Once we control what's spoken we'll see no more dissension Just politicized images to skew your perception You can't trust your own judgment; you can't trust yourselves So we will protect you from yourselves We will protect you; we will protect you You are a threat to yourselves So we will protect you You are a threat to yourselves So we will protect you It doesn't matter if victory is possible This war is not meant to be won It is meant to be continuous And that's only possible on the basis of ignorance The most practical way to keep our power structure intact Is to keep society on the brink of starvation So we, as the ruling class, will maintain our power By waging war against our own population We will break you'' we will break you Keep your dissent to yourselves Or we will break you Keep your dissent to yourselves Or we will break you Here comes a candle to light you to bed Here comes a chopper to chop off your head From the age of the thought police- beware From the age of big brother- beware From the age of newspeak- beware Beware of the motive in continuous warfare You may thing we are free' you may think we are peaceful But we're the aggressors and we are the hateful Who are we? We dismantle democracy; we invade others' borders We repress freedom and we utilize terror Who are we? We'll drive you into the shadows Forever destroying your very way of life If you're not on our side then you'll be in our sights There's no neutrality in our "war on terror" We are the enemy; we are the enemy Take a good look at ourselves Because we are the enemy Take a good look at ourselves Because we are the enemy | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 28 2012 23:59 Kurr wrote: 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. Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. 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. Are you so sure you know the law to the full extent, and have never and never will do anything that isn't allowed by the law? Have you ever driven a car and stopped part-ways on the pedestrian foot-crossing (i.e "zebra stripes"), not ever touched them? Or never parked closer than EXACTLY 5 meters in front of one? Or never parked illegally for that matter, or never peed outside? Never bathed naked, never been outside your backyard with a drink, never ever been above the speed limit, never driven into a intersection without a clear path out of it, never missed a stop sign; "In Walnut, No person shall wear a mask or disguise on a public street without a permit from the sheriff." -- I hope no one from that town ever wore a halloween costume, cause they'd be found out and get criminal status. And these took me a minute to think up and search for. Good luck living the millions of minutes of your life, outside. I'd be more scared to go outside with this system than without. Law in the UK: "It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance." ... "Children in London are forbidden to play any game, fly a kite or slide on ice or snow in the street." By law you'd be liable to get "caught", just like any drug dealer. You'd be an individual breaking the law. You might not get a high priority, but based on what they find, you'd get fined for this and that. Imagine the cash flow of speeding tickets, when everyone who is above the speed limit for a few seconds is automatically caught. The state would get super rich without doing any effort. And you just gave them the right to do it. I'm not against the idea, in isolated instances, in certain places, at certain times. But in no way will I agree with any way this is implemented while it is kept in "secrecy" and not fully debated and properly restricted, and properly accounted for. And properly protects a persons privacy. First then, and only then, will I start to consider agreeing with some form of implementation of it. | ||
|
Trowa127
United Kingdom1230 Posts
On July 29 2012 09:24 Cutlery wrote: Because people love to overreact and this thread shows it. Are you so sure you know the law to the full extent, and have never and never will do anything that isn't allowed by the law? Have you ever driven a car and stopped part-ways on the pedestrian foot-crossing (i.e "zebra stripes"), not ever touched them? Or never parked closer than EXACTLY 5 meters in front of one? Or never parked illegally for that matter, or never peed outside? Never bathed naked, never been outside your backyard with a drink, never ever been above the speed limit, never driven into a intersection without a clear path out of it, never missed a stop sign; "In Walnut, No person shall wear a mask or disguise on a public street without a permit from the sheriff." -- I hope no one from that town ever wore a halloween costume, cause they'd be found out and get criminal status. And these took me a minute to think up and search for. Good luck living the millions of minutes of your life, outside. I'd be more scared to go outside with this system than without. Some sanity! Hooray! | ||
|
CounterOrder
Canada457 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. Best post in this thread. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
The problems you pointed out already exist in our present system. There are vague, obscure and overly strict laws, and there are police and cameras all over the place. If the government was as petty as you fear people would already be getting busted for jaywalking constantly in urban areas, instead the system and the people who run it are largely reasonable. More surveillance would not change the character of a society. The solution to bad laws and, potentially, too heavy handed government is more reasonable laws and officials. Not blocking government improving its tools and demonizing technology rather than its users. | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
Like seriously what is the EU powertrippin on? There should be no way this gets passed. | ||
|
GT3
Iraq100 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
Anyone can already get all that info on you just by hiring a detective, and then proceed to do whatever they want with it. Meanwhile this project seeks to develop methods that will fall under the eu's human rights and privacy codes. Yeah I know "don't believe everything that say"... Explain what makes this vastly powerful government tool any different from the other vastly powerful tools we already let them have. Or the tools they already have that they could be abusing right now but, in the eu at least, generally arent. I mean this argument is like saying "I don't believe my government should have a police force since it might abuse it" not a good argument for anything other than tearing down your govt and starting a new one. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 29 2012 09:48 Zahir wrote: The problems you pointed out already exist in our present system. There are vague, obscure and overly strict laws, and there are police and cameras all over the place. If the government was as petty as you fear people would already be getting busted for jaywalking constantly in urban areas, instead the system and the people who run it are largely reasonable. More surveillance would not change the character of a society. The solution to bad laws and, potentially, too heavy handed government is more reasonable laws and officials. Not blocking government improving its tools and demonizing technology rather than its users. I've not done much programming, but I'm fairly sure I could quickly write a script that would identify and fine anyone driving above the speedlimit. The reason this isn't being done today is because of priorities and resources. If an automated script were to rake in milions, or bilions; then GG. Who would you trust with that? | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 29 2012 10:38 Zahir wrote: Anyone can already get all that info on you just by hiring a detective, and then proceed to do whatever they want with it. Meanwhile this project seeks to develop methods that will fall under the eu's human rights and privacy codes. Yeah I know "don't believe everything that say"... Explain what makes this vastly powerful government tool any different from the other vastly powerful tools we already let them have. Or the tools they already have that they could be abusing right now but, in the eu at least, generally arent. I mean this argument is like saying "I don't believe my government should have a police force since it might abuse it" not a good argument for anything other than tearing down your govt and starting a new one. One difference is that the tools they have now aren't automated. They require resources and prioritizing. Take away the codependence of these factors, and things may change. On top of that, remove some of the privacy you enjoy today, and things change further. Not having a police force is not the opposite of having privacy. Current police force is very well balanced on budget and what is needed. Ofcourse they (like anyone else) will always want more resources, to catch more bad guys. We're not saying this is bad. It gets bad when the amount of data is near limitless and things get automated and everything is caught. Once things get more and more automated, not even the slightest indiscretions have a reason to pass under the radar: They are still unwanted activities, even if they are simply fined offenses. (Getting out of a parking ticket isn't always that easy.) Ofcourse we don't get there tomorrow, but why would we inherently trust in a secretive project like this? This system would allow for abusive situations in the future, when things are different, things change politically, not always for the "better". Before this is implemented there clearly needs to be a big discussion of ethics and privacy. Disregarding such topics is dangerous. Very dangerous. "Nothing will change" ever? ..right. Things will without a doubt change drastically within the next 100 years. Atleast I'd expect so. Technology keeps developing, and new knowledge about nature is discovered. Ofcourse things will change. What looks like sensible law today will look stupid tomorrow. At one point policing will, most likely, become highly automated. But that shouldn't happen until laws are rewritten to allow for freedom and getting off with "warnings" for victimless offenses. In fact, there would be less need for tickets as an automated law enforcement would not need as costly an upkeep? The new form of order would require a much different penalty system, where infact warnings would be more common than tickets; because you would potentially be caught instantly, and would be given the chance to right your wrong, specially if you didn't even know you were doing something wrong. For instance, cameras catch all. "If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it make a sound?", translates to that it is possible to break a law without anyone noticing it or being any worse off. Laws aren't made to stop this type of freedom; the tree 'doesn't' make any sound so it is fine. But when there are eyes everywhere then it does make a 'sound', if only to the cameras; which then become the party which is infringed upon (for instance naked streaking in the middle of the night hurts no one, but the cameras still see it), which is stupid in and off itself. There has to be giving with the taking. Progress with the progress. Not more restriction, but allow freedom as guidelines are set. Privacy in how the data is handled: Is it stored? Is it simply analyzed for specific behaviour and then discarded? Can someone go back in recordings and see how you "behaved" two years ago? Can this monitoring be used to incriminate you? Under what law and constitution would this be allowed? It isn't, which is why there's special consideration of rights when dealing with terrorism etc. But in a regular court of law, I don't see this monitoring being applicable. It would be a crime against society. I do not understand why these things should not be taken under consideration, when you are told everything you do in public is stored as data. For all time. For now it might be fine. But approaching this naively and without criticism would be big stuff for the history books. Never to be repeated. It is designed in its need for so called "homeland security", NOT for catching criminals. And that's that. The privacy law is quite clear on this. The streets won't be safer (in its 'every-day' sense) unless this program is abused. And once it is abused, once it (government) breaks privacy laws, then what do you have left? Good faith? From http://www.indect-project.eu/ : "It should be underlined that the INDECT project is a research project, allowing involved European scientists to develop new, advanced and innovative algorithms and methods aiming at combating terrorism and other criminal activities, such as human trafficking and organised crime which are affecting citizens’ safety." Suggesting that anyone being caught shoplifting, or mugging someone on the street, can't have these recordings as evidence against them. These recordings would not be allowed as evidence, nor would any investigation based upon these recordings be allowed in court. Also, these recordings should not be stored, nor accessible to human eyes; else all we have is good faith that nothing will be abused. It's not just muggers who can commit crimes; the state can aswell. INDECT is a promise of security, and a promise that no one will look. The only information that will ever be stored and used from these tapes is the patterns of organized crime. I'm fine with that, in theory. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 29 2012 09:05 Erasme wrote: Not pertinent at all. Seriously people, stop with 1984, it's a great book but it doesn't need to be bring in every discussion like this. The quote in itself is in no way related to the discussion. It's just a clever way to say '1984 ITS HERE AHAHAHAHHA'. You need to understand that if you want society to works, you need a balance of freedom/security. If the crime goes up, you can sacrifice a little freedom for more security. Else it would be brazil/russia/mexico everywhere and I doubt that one would want that. You're saying people in russia/brazil/mexico are the most free in the world? | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On July 29 2012 08:50 Cutlery wrote: 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.. But, the counter argument to this is that the "law" could fuck you over anyway, they don't need a video tape. They need a crooked cop to beat you down and say they caught you doing XYZ and a testimony from a "witness". It's very easy to indict people for fake crimes, why the heck aren't you scared of the police force snowmalling into a Russian style "OMG JAIL PUSSY RIOT" and constantly trying to fuck da police. To the dude talking about stopping people pissing outside and being drunken cunts. If it means London doesn't smell like piss and sound like a zoo after 23:15 then that sounds like a decent benefit. | ||
|
JeanLuc
Canada377 Posts
On July 29 2012 09:05 Erasme wrote: Not pertinent at all. Seriously people, stop with 1984, it's a great book but it doesn't need to be bring in every discussion like this. The quote in itself is in no way related to the discussion. It's just a clever way to say '1984 ITS HERE AHAHAHAHHA'. You need to understand that if you want society to works, you need a balance of freedom/security. If the crime goes up, you can sacrifice a little freedom for more security. Else it would be brazil/russia/mexico everywhere and I doubt that one would want that. Brazil/Russia/Mexico are not the way the are because of lack of governmental spying on the people. IN most cases the government is the problem. Governments kill people. Investing obscene amounts of power in government sacrifices both safety AND freedom. | ||
|
Bigpet
Germany533 Posts
| ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
Once information is collected and avaiable, legal limitations to use that will be ignored (legal or illegal) by the time. Better not create the tools as abuse will come for sure | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On July 29 2012 19:59 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: The laws and technology for public (?) observation is installed with good intent. Abuse comes later as initial restrictions are stretched more and more by the time. E.g. audio monitoring in private places was allowed initially (in germany) only if there is a judicial order. However some years later it turns out police has blank allowance in advance most of the time. Once information is collected and avaiable, legal limitations to use that will be ignored (legal or illegal) by the time. Better not create the tools as abuse will come for sure Anything can be abused. Would you argue that we should never have created the internet? It's certainly done its fair share of harm. Advances in technology are inevitable, it's really a waste of energy to fight against them. Instead, focus that energy on making sure they're used in the right way. | ||
| ||
