| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/BWhalin/DiversionsLinkster/103235ani.gif) Laughs>Liberty But as much as I hate the Orwellian hyperboles being used, I have to agree that this is a waste of money and potentially harmful to our existing and weak democracies. And please stop with the Benjamin Franklin quotes and use of 1984. And if INDECT becomes official and standard procedure in European democracies, most of us will moan and groan for a day and forget it even exists. Just like with the PATRIOT Act and NDAA. | ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
On July 30 2012 00:22 Cel.erity wrote: 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. Did you really compare internet and indect ? I was about to explain the differences between the two, and why you cannot considere indect as an improvement of technology but I don't think you're a 4 year old and I think you can answer this on your own. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On July 30 2012 00:32 Diks wrote: Did you really compare internet and indect ? I was about to explain the differences between the two, and why you cannot considere indect as an improvement of technology but I don't think you're a 4 year old and I think you can answer this on your own. Of course it's an improvement of technology. They are taking existing technology and improving it, for X purpose. You can't argue against developing the internet, or the technology behind Indect, or the atomic bomb, or cloning. It's just progress and it will (and should) occur whether you like it or not. Is the world better off without bombs? Guns? Internet? Indect? These are extremely fuzzy questions that no human can hope to have the answer to. So instead of trying to halt our progress, focus on how these things can be used for the greater good. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 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. Please don't spread false information. Maybe in the US a detective can do what he wants, in the EU (or at least in germany), he can not. He actually has no more rights than any other private person, at all. For example, you can't hire a detective based on pure curiosity. If you give your rights away (based on a working contract for example), that can be different - BUT. A detective observing you in your house (even without technical equipment) is actually a fellony. If he steps on your lawn, you can sue him (but he does not need to, you can sue him anyway if you can prove that he is in fact observing you in your house). Also, if you for example take a prostitute to a place which is not "really" public (like, theirs hardly any civilian etc), and he follows you - you can sue him for violating your privatsphere, etc. So it may be so in the land of home-made-sheriffs etc, but not in countries where personal freedom and privatsphere is a base right. Edit. source, but its in german, so.. :/ | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 Posts
| ||
|
Itsraiiningpaper
United States25 Posts
| ||
|
Kalles
Sweden83 Posts
A problem with INDECT is the asymmetrical power it gives. The problem is that these systems are typically built without having any oversight what so ever. So, sure the police and other government organisations can use it for good and evil (IE it _will_ be used to take a look at suspected criminals, but also look for that journalist that published critical corruption articles etc where miss-use will go unpunished as always). The real problem with the increased surveillance is that there is no real public debate about it. Every step along the road to increased surveillance is taken because it is possible, without any consideration or public debate (if it can be avoided). Also today, the legal system is balanced partly by us having a private sphere. The laws are written to take this into consideration. Partly removing the concept of the private sphere without a global view of how this will affect the legal system (for instance "innocence until proven guilty") is hazardous and ought to require a public democratic debate. [If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu] | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On July 30 2012 01:01 m4inbrain wrote: Please don't spread false information. Maybe in the US a detective can do what he wants, in the EU (or at least in germany), he can not. He actually has no more rights than any other private person, at all. For example, you can't hire a detective based on pure curiosity. If you give your rights away (based on a working contract for example), that can be different - BUT. A detective observing you in your house (even without technical equipment) is actually a fellony. If he steps on your lawn, you can sue him (but he does not need to, you can sue him anyway if you can prove that he is in fact observing you in your house). Also, if you for example take a prostitute to a place which is not "really" public (like, theirs hardly any civilian etc), and he follows you - you can sue him for violating your privatsphere, etc. So it may be so in the land of home-made-sheriffs etc, but not in countries where personal freedom and privatsphere is a base right. Edit. source, but its in german, so.. :/ Sorry, my mistake. I'll take your word on the article... Can't read German. In the us, we have similar protections.... There is a legal concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" which applies to hotel rooms, your house, etc. basically it is illegal to observe/record people there, and evidence acquired in such a manner would have to be thrown out, and could get you sued. The examples evo listed though... Pardon me if I'm wrong, but all of those could be acquired without observing someone in their house or hotel room. He only said "I know when you leave/enter" not "I know what you did in there" So really, the info he said could still be acquired legally even in Germany, yes? I just fail to see how INDECT violates anyones rights since it specifically states they will operate in accordance with Eu's policies on privacy and human rights...even in germany is legal to observe people when theyre outside their house yes? I could easily figure out if someone is Having an affair or planning to drink with friends just by tailing them in/out of their neighborhood or waiting around their favorite stores/places. If that too, is illegal in Germany then my mistake. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 30 2012 09:34 Zahir wrote: Sorry, my mistake. I'll take your word on the article... Can't read German. In the us, we have similar protections.... There is a legal concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" which applies to hotel rooms, your house, etc. basically it is illegal to observe/record people there, and evidence acquired in such a manner would have to be thrown out, and could get you sued. The examples evo listed though... Pardon me if I'm wrong, but all of those could be acquired without observing someone in their house or hotel room. He only said "I know when you leave/enter" not "I know what you did in there" So really, the info he said could still be acquired legally even in Germany, yes? I just fail to see how INDECT violates anyones rights since it specifically states they will operate in accordance with Eu's policies on privacy and human rights...even in germany is legal to observe people when theyre outside their house yes? I could easily figure out if someone is Having an affair or planning to drink with friends just by tailing them in/out of their neighborhood or waiting around their favorite stores/places. If that too, is illegal in Germany then my mistake. Afaik it's illegal in Sweden atleast. If nothing else you could argue he's stalking you. I think filming people specifically without their consent is considered a crime. Filming a group of people is not. On July 30 2012 00:25 Shiragaku wrote: Dude...you guys know that some of the best gifs we have seen on the Internet could not have come into existence without public security cameras? + Show Spoiler + Laughs>Liberty But as much as I hate the Orwellian hyperboles being used, I have to agree that this is a waste of money and potentially harmful to our existing and weak democracies. And please stop with the Benjamin Franklin quotes and use of 1984. And if INDECT becomes official and standard procedure in European democracies, most of us will moan and groan for a day and forget it even exists. Just like with the PATRIOT Act and NDAA. So far Europeans seem more protective of their privacy than Americans. There's a huge pirate party movement in Europe, that's getting a lot of momentum thanks to all the constricting surveillance the EU and governments are setting up without votes from the public. I think the main reason why there's a lot more against it here is because there's no real threat of terrorism or anything like that. If you read what the patriot act involves it's pretty nuts. It actually allows putting a person in a lifetime of prison without a trial for no specified reason. If something like that were to be implemented in a European country, I'd wager there'd be a revolution. I'm surprised that Americans who seem to have made freedom their motto have let their civil rights escape them without more fighting back. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On July 31 2012 09:07 Euronyme wrote: Afaik it's illegal in Sweden atleast. If nothing else you could argue he's stalking you. I think filming people specifically without their consent is considered a crime. Filming a group of people is not. Not sure about other countries in the EU but anything related with film/fotography and privacy rights is incredibly tricky in Germany. If you, for example (I'll stick to photographs but filming is pretty similar, just even more confusing) make a photo of a group of people and one could argue that without person x the picture would lose something vital to what it's trying to express that persons x right to privacy can stop the picture from being published (or net them some money if it was published) IF that person x can also be identified by people "close to him". e.g. a photo of 200 people at a market might be fine in one case but if one of the persons wears an incredibly fancy hat (think one of FuDDx's balloon hats), is vital to the image and his wife could see the picture and say "that MUST be my husband" he suddenly can get the right to surpress the picture / get in on monetary benefits. Another person which is just as visible but wears a more ordinary hat might not be granted the same rights. The whole thing is - on purpose - incredibly vague and up to individual court decisions if someone actually decides to sue for something like that. But basically, yeah, taking films/pictures of someone without their consent can be considered a crime if the above (person of interest being vital to the picture/film and/or can be clearly identified) is present. Then suddenly you get all kinds of exceptions to those rules as well if said person e.g. commits a crime, can be considered as part of something culturally/scientifically important (e.g. making a photo of a person wearing traditional clothing - where you can argue the clothing is more important to the picture than the person wearing it) etc. pp. - another big thing is that it's strictly forbidden to film/take pictures of police officers on duty (unless you're a journalist and/or they're commiting some kind of criminal act at that point in time) - this one goes as far as the police having the right to destroy your film/memory card right there on the spot without any discussion. On the general observation topic I COULD be wrong but I think that following someone around to find out what he's doing when or where is legal neither in Germany nor in the US. Maybe someone can shine some more light on that topic though since I'm really not sure about it. For the places where we DO have videocameras running 24/7 there are very strict laws about how long the record can be kept and who will be able to access it. The whole "How long can/should we keep records on xy?"-topic is being debated a lot and got extended on some fronts over the last couple of years (e.g. phonerecords your carrier has to keep up). | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 31 2012 14:52 r.Evo wrote: Not sure about other countries in the EU but anything related with film/fotography and privacy rights is incredibly tricky in Germany. If you, for example (I'll stick to photographs but filming is pretty similar, just even more confusing) make a photo of a group of people and one could argue that without person x the picture would lose something vital to what it's trying to express that persons x right to privacy can stop the picture from being published (or net them some money if it was published) IF that person x can also be identified by people "close to him". e.g. a photo of 200 people at a market might be fine in one case but if one of the persons wears an incredibly fancy hat (think one of FuDDx's balloon hats), is vital to the image and his wife could see the picture and say "that MUST be my husband" he suddenly can get the right to surpress the picture / get in on monetary benefits. Another person which is just as visible but wears a more ordinary hat might not be granted the same rights. The whole thing is - on purpose - incredibly vague and up to individual court decisions if someone actually decides to sue for something like that. But basically, yeah, taking films/pictures of someone without their consent can be considered a crime if the above (person of interest being vital to the picture/film and/or can be clearly identified) is present. Then suddenly you get all kinds of exceptions to those rules as well if said person e.g. commits a crime, can be considered as part of something culturally/scientifically important (e.g. making a photo of a person wearing traditional clothing - where you can argue the clothing is more important to the picture than the person wearing it) etc. pp. - another big thing is that it's strictly forbidden to film/take pictures of police officers on duty (unless you're a journalist and/or they're commiting some kind of criminal act at that point in time) - this one goes as far as the police having the right to destroy your film/memory card right there on the spot without any discussion. On the general observation topic I COULD be wrong but I think that following someone around to find out what he's doing when or where is legal neither in Germany nor in the US. Maybe someone can shine some more light on that topic though since I'm really not sure about it. For the places where we DO have videocameras running 24/7 there are very strict laws about how long the record can be kept and who will be able to access it. The whole "How long can/should we keep records on xy?"-topic is being debated a lot and got extended on some fronts over the last couple of years (e.g. phonerecords your carrier has to keep up). In addition to that, the footage isn't even processed and kept if no crime has been commited. This new system would save the footage and add to some kind of profile of you if you went by the camera and swore, if you were in a group of friends, or if you yelled loudly for instance. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs. You yuros worried yet? | ||
|
lozarian
United Kingdom1043 Posts
On August 09 2012 23:03 Lockitupv2 wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/ £400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs. You yuros worried yet? Nope. If it means fewer little shites being antisocial mini-thugs, I'm all for it. If it doesn't work, it was a nice experiment, try again. If it does work, then it means a better quality of life for all concerned. We yuros occasionally look at principle, rather zealously holding on to exact words, in law and rights. Can't think where that came from. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 28 2012 21:51 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both. To be fair, Franklin said this and then ran away from the states to have both and avoid fighting for either. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On August 09 2012 23:03 Lockitupv2 wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/ £400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs. You yuros worried yet? If an author makes an update because most of the article seemingly was too extreme, you should probably include it: UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didn’t quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in people’s homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits. Good find nevertheless, if it's the "take the most troublesome families out of their homes" to "temporarily supervise them" I think it's an allright measure though. Doesn't sound like this can be done randomly and without court orders. Maybe some brits can shed some light on what this is about exactly. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On August 09 2012 23:16 TheTenthDoc wrote: To be fair, Franklin said this and then ran away from the states to have both and avoid fighting for either. What does that have to do with the quote? He didn't said anything about duties of fighting for it or anything like that. The quote is about sacrificing your rights and freedom, which is what's relevant. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
GSL
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
