So I just read about Indect and I was really surprised to not find anything about this on TL.
What is INDECT?
It is a project to develop a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places, detects "suspicious" behaviour, tries to identify that person, searches for information about that person via internet, police registers, official databases(search engines, social networksand so on) and traces and follows it. It is supposed to include unmanned drones, surveillance cameras, face and movement recognition, mobile phone locating, computer linguistic algorithms to interpret sms and chat logs and similar things.
What would it mean(in my opinion)?
If this would get implemented into our society it would lead to the police state that has been feard forever. It would mean a around-the-clock observation of everything happening in urban areas. It would search every data it could find about you just because you were running or forgetting your luggage somewhere.
A similar system has been implemented in San Francisco Subway stations. But this one only detects "suspicious" behaviour. This alone is bad enough, but the EU-developed system would go quite a lot of steps further.
Why "secret"? The point is that there is nearly no coverage about this in any way in mainstream media or any control over it by a democratic instance. So the EU-congress is trying to keep it secret before it gets stopped as ACTA got stopped by the people.
edit: i'll make it obvious for those who can't read. " a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places"
Surely you're not gonna start banging your woman on the street nor at the trainstation so really, think twice before you start talking 'bout privacy. If it'd state that the government would put up camera's everywhere then I wouldn't support that system, but if it's in crowded public places and whatnot,.. I honestly don't mind.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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.
Putting up cameras actully doesnt do anything. Uk has cameras everywhere, but still have higher crime rates. The US have drones over the middleeast, but they are still fighting there. Nothing changes, it just gives some people a false sense of security...
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
In my opinion, the government has no right to interfere in my life on this scale. Of course if you have nothing to hide you have no issues; but why should a bunch of unelected EU bureaucrats have the right to invade my privacy to such a large degree?
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.
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.
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
authorities have proven themselves time and time again to abuse power and information
also money spent on this crap should instead be invested in education and giving people better opportunities such as providing investment for small businesses etc, make society a better place and you'll see a drop in crime/nefarious behavior, cameras don't solve shit they might just catch some people for your privatized prisons but society won't benefit
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.
That's really all there is to be said here. It dismays me to read any amount of support here for this. Must not be thinking men or women.
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
That's the dumbest thing I've read today. I guess you'd have no problem with everyone reading all your private stuff and listening to your conversations 24/7, either.
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
Is this a troll post? I'm only asking because you only have one post, and your opinion is... short-minded at best.
"Freedom is not lost in one fell swoop, it's lost a book at a time, a magazine at a time, or a CD at a time." In this case, a few cameras at a time.
Main problem with EU is that people who haven't been elected by the people are making big decisions that should be people's choice. Like in this case, safety vs privacy.
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.
the problem i habe with such "i got nothing to hide" statements comes with the complete failure to realize that the state is not immune to abuse of it's powers.
The more you hand your freedoms into the hands of the state the less free you are. Logic is it not ?
Completely honestly the way I look at it is that people need to have the freedom to do the "wrong" thing (whatever that might be). Doesn't really matter if this wrong behaviour is criminal or not. What if I'd like to dance in the town square at night without being photographed and have my background searched?
On July 28 2012 21:38 ...what wrote: People get scared and they demand safety, until they realise the price of safety.
How long can society compromise between safety and freedom?
It's not a question if we can. We've always had to pit these two against eachother and we always will.
I wouldn't have a problem if this was national - but it's EU, which isn't elected and there are countries which are culturally and otherwise so corrupt I wouldn't allow them to affect Finland at all e.g. Greece, Italy, Romania. Giving a Greek official something is asking for trouble.
Of course something like this would eventually be implemented. You can't expect the police to stay exactly the same when the world is changing so rapidly. New technologies will be used to try and improve public safety.
These changes are not problematic in and of themselves, they could be if there are changes in the law, but if simply used to enforce the existing law, one based on individual freedom, it really doesn't change much.
The police is already listening in on much of what you say over the phone, are you being targetted or your opinions now?
Insane people like Alex Jones are publicly spewing their insanities, are they being shut down?
Just because law enforcement would be able to hear everything, wouldn't mean they would start shutting free speech down, the two are not related in the slightest.
It is naïve to expect the world of law enforcement to remain static in such a rapidly changing world.
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
Is this a troll post? I'm only asking because you only have one post, and your opinion is... short-minded at best.
"Freedom is not lost in one fell swoop, it's lost a book at a time, a magazine at a time, or a CD at a time." In this case, a few cameras at a time.
Yo buddy, hang around, im certain a pseudorandom ignorant guy with a gay name/icon combo will tell you that romanians and sarcasm dont mix.
My issue is that I, as well as many others, DO have something to hide. I like to enjoy marijuana, I like to download copyrighted material, I like to stock up on cheap black market beer.
There exists a grey area in the laws of most countries that people such as myself exploit.
If I'm going to get flagged as a criminal and put under surveillance by this system, then that does signify a significant change in how law enforcement works.
You may condemn me for breaking the law, but if the law was less stupid then I wouldn't mind this system at all.
On July 28 2012 22:00 ayaz2810 wrote: 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.
If you keep rolling over to things like this, they just might do that in the future.
On July 28 2012 22:00 ayaz2810 wrote: 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.
If you keep rolling over to things like this, they just might do that in the future.
The politicians themselves are also inhabitants of the EU.
Not every politician gets a hardon at the thought of a totalitarian dictatorship over Europe.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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.
"a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places"
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
That's the dumbest thing I've read today. I guess you'd have no problem with everyone reading all your private stuff and listening to your conversations 24/7, either.
Thing is though, most of the people who've quoted me on that forget about the " a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places" part.
Guess you're the dumb one here lad, jog on.
People trying to be intellectual on a forum yet they miss the key word, nice one.
On July 28 2012 22:08 zalz wrote: Of course something like this would eventually be implemented. You can't expect the police to stay exactly the same when the world is changing so rapidly. New technologies will be used to try and improve public safety.
These changes are not problematic in and of themselves, they could be if there are changes in the law, but if simply used to enforce the existing law, one based on individual freedom, it really doesn't change much.
The police is already listening in on much of what you say over the phone, are you being targetted or your opinions now?
Insane people like Alex Jones are publicly spewing their insanities, are they being shut down?
Just because law enforcement would be able to hear everything, wouldn't mean they would start shutting free speech down, the two are not related in the slightest.
It is naïve to expect the world of law enforcement to remain static in such a rapidly changing world.
the more power you give to those in charge, especially if you don't have an instance controlling it (there is nothing that is able to control the EU-comission), there is going to be a point when there is enough uncontrolled power to be abused completely. And yes obviously law enforcement is not going to remain static. But that doesn't mean every development there is a good one and should be supported.
On July 28 2012 22:17 Desertfaux wrote: I don't think the last link in the OP links correctly, its the exact same link as the one leading to the german article, not a video from Anonymous.
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.
Ok, this seems like a good statement but I would like to ask how a camera in a public place reduces your freedom? It doesn't hinder you in any way, and when used correctly by the state, will only detect your actions against a law that the people created anyway. The big problems here are 1) the way it's used 2) the law, imo.
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.
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.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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.
Since I've edited my first post in this thread about 5 minutes ago I guess you had to think a bit to come up with that answer. The key piece here is "public places". I've heard people whining about getting robbed & beaten and whatnot on the streets and at public places and most of the time the ones committing those crimes get away and honestly if that system could help, then why not. It's for public places. People crying about their privacy have probably missed that key word.
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.
Ok, this seems like a good statement but I would like to ask how a camera in a public place reduces your freedom? It doesn't hinder you in any way, and when used correctly by the state, will only detect your actions against a law that the people created anyway. The big problems here are 1) the way it's used 2) the law, imo.
Assuming that a) the law is always representative of the will of the people which implies that we live in a perfect democracy and also that public opinion is uniform, and b) that all governments are benign, to which I say HAHAHAHAHAHA.
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.
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.
Only if you consider anarchy as a form of freedom.
On July 28 2012 22:08 zalz wrote: Of course something like this would eventually be implemented. You can't expect the police to stay exactly the same when the world is changing so rapidly. New technologies will be used to try and improve public safety.
These changes are not problematic in and of themselves, they could be if there are changes in the law, but if simply used to enforce the existing law, one based on individual freedom, it really doesn't change much.
The police is already listening in on much of what you say over the phone, are you being targetted or your opinions now?
Insane people like Alex Jones are publicly spewing their insanities, are they being shut down?
Just because law enforcement would be able to hear everything, wouldn't mean they would start shutting free speech down, the two are not related in the slightest.
It is naïve to expect the world of law enforcement to remain static in such a rapidly changing world.
the more power you give to those in charge, especially if you don't have an instance controlling it (there is nothing that is able to control the EU-comission), there is going to be a point when there is enough uncontrolled power to be abused completely.
I don't disagree, but how is this specific project giving more power to anyone? It's only a system that automates processes that already exist - what matters is how the gathered information is used.
If it is used as intended, then there's nothing to worry about. If it comes to the point where it's used in oppressive ways (such as persecuting political opponents, activists, etc) then the existence of such surveillance will be the least of our problems. Police states can exist with or without such technology. The existence of technology itself does not imply the existence of a police state (or vice-versa).
Obviously it isn't very comfortable and I would rather not have it implemented, and if I was to vote on it, I would vote against. It's just that I don't see it as a very important or pressing issue, certainly nowhere near the ACTA (and similar trash) level of serious.
On July 28 2012 22:08 zalz wrote: Of course something like this would eventually be implemented. You can't expect the police to stay exactly the same when the world is changing so rapidly. New technologies will be used to try and improve public safety.
These changes are not problematic in and of themselves, they could be if there are changes in the law, but if simply used to enforce the existing law, one based on individual freedom, it really doesn't change much.
The police is already listening in on much of what you say over the phone, are you being targetted or your opinions now?
Insane people like Alex Jones are publicly spewing their insanities, are they being shut down?
Just because law enforcement would be able to hear everything, wouldn't mean they would start shutting free speech down, the two are not related in the slightest.
It is naïve to expect the world of law enforcement to remain static in such a rapidly changing world.
the more power you give to those in charge, especially if you don't have an instance controlling it (there is nothing that is able to control the EU-comission), there is going to be a point when there is enough uncontrolled power to be abused completely.
I don't disagree, but how is this specific project giving more power to anyone? It's only a system that automates processes that already exist - what matters is how the gathered information is used.
If it is used as intended, then there's nothing to worry about. If it comes to the point where it's used in oppressive ways (such as persecuting political opponents, activists, etc) then the existence of such surveillance will be the least of our problems - police states can exist with or without such technology. The existence of technology itself does not imply the existence of a police state (or vice-versa).
Obviously it isn't very comfortable and I would rather not have it implemented, and if I was to vote on it, I would vote against. It's just that I don't see it as a very important or pressing issue, certainly nowhere near the ACTA (and similar trash) level.
Well first: Information is power, so the question where this is giving power to anyone is easily answered. Secondly automated processes are way more effective. If I want to demonstrate I want to be sure that nothing is checking all my personal background data, and I also don't want any files to include these information. I don't want to have additional security checks on airports just because I visited an Occupy demonstration. Maybe this being wrong and important isn't as obvious as in the case of ACTA, but actually complete and utter surveillance of public places is at least as significant as restricting the internet. And no, having these systems in place, would change the workings of a police state significantly. So even in that special case there would be a huge difference.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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.
Since I've edited my first post in this thread about 5 minutes ago I guess you had to think a bit to come up with that answer. The key piece here is "public places". I've heard people whining about getting robbed & beaten and whatnot on the streets and at public places and most of the time the ones committing those crimes get away and honestly if that system could help, then why not. It's for public places. People crying about their privacy have probably missed that key word.
All things I listed I think are things I`d like to do in public places. Americans hide their alcohol in paperbags, it was forbidden in germany to wear headscarfs a few years ago, it is forbidden to go without in some eastern countries. How are you gonna bath naked if not on a public beach? Never got stoned while enjoying the sunset? Are you ok with hiding your affection for someone because the government thinks they can tell you whom to love and who not and do that then instead secretly, and having to watch your everystep so you don`t end up in some correctional institute?
And it takes me some time to write answers because english is a foreign language for me.
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 . >_>
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.
Only if you consider anarchy as a form of freedom.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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.
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.
"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"
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.
On July 28 2012 22:51 FeUerFlieGe wrote: I don't think this project is morally right. To literally have an eye on all of you're citizens doesn't seen the right way to go about crime.
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.
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.
In a perfect world where government selflessly spends every single cent for the people they represent instead of wasting money mindlessly or with a goal to gain profit for themselves and their future projects i have no doubt it would work like that. In our world however there is a reason to doubt them , at least for me. But i guess im glad to see not everyone has lost trust in them and became as cynical as i am.
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.
God that's such a good quote. Sums my opinions right up.
Just imagine the power the top politicians have. Look at what happened with the Arab Spring. What would've happened if the government had surveillance literally everywhere and could just take out key persons instantly. Don't give unelected EU politicians more power than they already have. Power corrupts is another great quote.
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.
I don't even understand how the Franklin quote applies in the first place.
This is a system that gathers information from pre-existing, lawful, public sources, and runs it through an algorithm that simply automates what law enforcement is doing now anyways. You don't lose any freedoms. Your rights are not being infringed on. All it does is take public information and pieces it together in a way that makes it easier for the police to prevent crime and catch those who do commit it.
You can make the 'slippery slope' argument all you want, but this is not nearly as big a deal as all the Big Brother fear-mongerers are making it out to be.
CAMERAS fixing me? MAN thats just wrong. I cant believe that people can approve thats shit. YOU dont gonna solve crimes with that.. THATS JUST TO SPY HUMANS BEHAVIOR. my GOD
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"
"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.
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.
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.
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 23:33 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.
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 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 00:09 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 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 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 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?
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?
...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.
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.
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?
...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.
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.
Some people in this thread need to be reminded that there is a difference between anarchy and not wanting to be surveyed and have my life invaded when I've done nothing wrong and the vast majority of people have done nothing wrong. You can't subvert the majority to expose the criminal minority. That isn't anarchy.
Well if you are not sure everyone in the system, and who is in charge, has the best intentions for you this is terrible. 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.
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.
Indeed, but how exactly is a camera in a public park a hindrance of freedom?
Terrible idea, and in a way pointless by doing it in semi-secrecy.
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.
And seriously, the cost of that operation must be astonishing ! 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.
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.
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.
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.
it's funny cuz people never seem to have an issue with it before they realize it's actually there. i think it was last year in college when one of our teachers asked my class how we'd feel about a thing such as "mass surveillance for safety purposes", of course everyone was cool with it at first, people came up with a lot of ideas as to why it would be a good idea and how it would help the society. then our teacher told us that they've actually been doing it in large parts of europe for almost 3-4 years, specifically mentioning "INDECT" if i recall correctly. suddenly, half of my class thought it was a fucking stupid idea cuz there's no way they'd ever allow anyone to watch out for them by documenting every move they make.
generally people on TL are quite intelligent
no offense to anyone, but i'd not go as far and say "generally", lol
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.
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.
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.
While I think this a horrible idea and shouldn't go through I'm intrigued by the fact we are capable of designing a system that can do all of that autonomously. With the right applications this could be some very helpful technology.
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Generally people on TL don't even read the articles posted in the OP...
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
That's the dumbest thing I've read today. I guess you'd have no problem with everyone reading all your private stuff and listening to your conversations 24/7, either.
I'd have a problem with that, but that's not the case.
1984, here we come. this is the inevitable outcome of power and wealth getting concentrated in the hands of a minority of private individuals who then tailor the world and its conditions according to their will. technology is a double edged sword; it can free everyone on the planet and grant a comfortable life, or it can be used as a tool of control and enslavement.
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.
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.
If you really think having information like that available all over the place isn't a bad thing then I don't know what to tell you. Oh well, guess there are enough people who already tell everyone via GPS and Facebook what they're doing anyway, eh?
Edit: We're not talking about some private sector firm here. We're talking about the gouvernment making total surveillance in public places and also storing and "using" that information a legal thing for them to do. Imagine any and all information about you in public places being stored somewhere on a disc. Video and audio footage.
Now think about what can be done with that information. Oh wait, we're not talking only about you. We're talking about all EU citizens. Can't possibly go wrong.
I've heard of ultra-sensitive cameras being placed on digital advertisement signs, so it changes it's chosen advertisement based on the demographic (gender, race) of the drivers passing by. This is the first time I've heard of Indect though.
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.
That's really all there is to be said here. It dismays me to read any amount of support here for this. Must not be thinking men or women.
Yeah that's why we should abolish laws, police officers, taxes, government, militias and the army, and parental authority. That quote has no relevance here because no freedoms are being sacrificed. You do not have the freedom to go to public places and not be observed and recorded, by a police officer, private citizen or traffic camera.
The reason people irrationally freak out is because of the technology involved. In reality there is little difference between a cop car patrolling a neighborhood keeping an eye out and a drone doing the same thing. Your right to privacy stops at your front door, has always been that way, and using technology to accomplish what we already use cops, security cameras etc does not change a damn thing as far freedom or privacy.
It's about how we use the technology. Not the fact that it is used.
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.
That's really all there is to be said here. It dismays me to read any amount of support here for this. Must not be thinking men or women.
Yeah that's why we should abolish laws, police officers, taxes, government, militias and the army, and parental authority. That quote has no relevance here because no freedoms are being sacrificed. You do not have the freedom to go to public places and not be observed and recorded, by a police officer, private citizen or traffic light.
The reason people irrationally freak out is because of the technology involved. In reality there is little difference between a cop car patrolling a neighborhood keeping an eye out and a drone doing the same thing. Your right to privacy stops at your front door, has always been that way, and using technology to accomplish what we already use cops, security cameras etc does not change a damn thing as far freedom or privacy.
It's about how we use the technology. Not the fact that it is used.
I'd like to see your reasoning for that. Is a robot not that different from a human being nowadays?
On July 28 2012 21:34 SEGGLE[8] wrote: edit: i'll make it obvious for those who can't read. " a system that automatically watches and observes people in public places"
Surely you're not gonna start banging your woman on the street nor at the trainstation so really, think twice before you start talking 'bout privacy. If it'd state that the government would put up camera's everywhere then I wouldn't support that system, but if it's in crowded public places and whatnot,.. I honestly don't mind.
unmanned drones are not restricted to public places.
On July 29 2012 03:24 r.Evo wrote: If you really think having information like that available all over the place isn't a bad thing then I don't know what to tell you. Oh well, guess there are enough people who already tell everyone via GPS and Facebook what they're doing anyway, eh?
Edit: We're not talking about some private sector firm here. We're talking about the gouvernment making total surveillance in public places and also storing and "using" that information a legal thing for them to do. Imagine any and all information about you in public places being stored somewhere on a disc. Video and audio footage.
Now think about what can be done with that information. Oh wait, we're not talking only about you. We're talking about all EU citizens. Can't possibly go wrong.
I don't really know what you guys think "any and all information about you in public places" is really going to be. It's going to be you - outside - going to work, going to meet friends, whatever. How is that information being on a disc infringing on your freedom in any way whatsoever? How will it even effect your life? Let's be honest, it won't. There are already CCTV cameras all over most public places in the EU. Surveillance in most public places is already the norm. I don't know where you've all got this idea that suddenly the EU will start selling off information to people. Nobody's really shown any incentive for anybody to do that. 90% of this thread has just been people talking about how knowing what people do in public places suddenly means we'll be in a police state. Take a step back, take a reality check, and consider how this will actually change your day to day life. Because, chances are, unless you're doing something suspicious or illegal in public places, it won't.
On July 29 2012 03:24 r.Evo wrote: If you really think having information like that available all over the place isn't a bad thing then I don't know what to tell you. Oh well, guess there are enough people who already tell everyone via GPS and Facebook what they're doing anyway, eh?
Edit: We're not talking about some private sector firm here. We're talking about the gouvernment making total surveillance in public places and also storing and "using" that information a legal thing for them to do. Imagine any and all information about you in public places being stored somewhere on a disc. Video and audio footage.
Now think about what can be done with that information. Oh wait, we're not talking only about you. We're talking about all EU citizens. Can't possibly go wrong.
I don't really know what you guys think "any and all information about you in public places" is really going to be. It's going to be you - outside - going to work, going to meet friends, whatever. How is that information being on a disc infringing on your freedom in any way whatsoever? How will it even effect your life? Let's be honest, it won't. There are already CCTV cameras all over most public places in the EU. Surveillance in most public places is already the norm. I don't know where you've all got this idea that suddenly the EU will start selling off information to people. Nobody's really shown any incentive for anybody to do that. 90% of this thread has just been people talking about how knowing what people do in public places suddenly means we'll be in a police state. Take a step back, take a reality check, and consider how this will actually change your day to day life. Because, chances are, unless you're doing something suspicious or illegal in public places, it won't.
On July 29 2012 03:24 r.Evo wrote: If you really think having information like that available all over the place isn't a bad thing then I don't know what to tell you. Oh well, guess there are enough people who already tell everyone via GPS and Facebook what they're doing anyway, eh?
Edit: We're not talking about some private sector firm here. We're talking about the gouvernment making total surveillance in public places and also storing and "using" that information a legal thing for them to do. Imagine any and all information about you in public places being stored somewhere on a disc. Video and audio footage.
Now think about what can be done with that information. Oh wait, we're not talking only about you. We're talking about all EU citizens. Can't possibly go wrong.
I don't really know what you guys think "any and all information about you in public places" is really going to be. It's going to be you - outside - going to work, going to meet friends, whatever. How is that information being on a disc infringing on your freedom in any way whatsoever? How will it even effect your life? Let's be honest, it won't. There are already CCTV cameras all over most public places in the EU. Surveillance in most public places is already the norm. I don't know where you've all got this idea that suddenly the EU will start selling off information to people. Nobody's really shown any incentive for anybody to do that. 90% of this thread has just been people talking about how knowing what people do in public places suddenly means we'll be in a police state. Take a step back, take a reality check, and consider how this will actually change your day to day life. Because, chances are, unless you're doing something suspicious or illegal in public places, it won't.
Not to fucking mention you can't walk through a city without constantly being on several security cameras. It's not just a few security cameras. It's dozens. Do you really think you're not being watched already? How would this change that at all? The police may or may not know your name before they ask you for your id?
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.
That's really all there is to be said here. It dismays me to read any amount of support here for this. Must not be thinking men or women.
Yeah that's why we should abolish laws, police officers, taxes, government, militias and the army, and parental authority. That quote has no relevance here because no freedoms are being sacrificed. You do not have the freedom to go to public places and not be observed and recorded, by a police officer, private citizen or traffic light.
The reason people irrationally freak out is because of the technology involved. In reality there is little difference between a cop car patrolling a neighborhood keeping an eye out and a drone doing the same thing. Your right to privacy stops at your front door, has always been that way, and using technology to accomplish what we already use cops, security cameras etc does not change a damn thing as far freedom or privacy.
It's about how we use the technology. Not the fact that it is used.
I'd like to see your reasoning for that. Is a robot not that different from a human being nowadays?
A camera is a camera whether it's attached to a cop car, a stop light, the ceiling of a store or university, or a drone. I'm guessing what most people actually have a problem with is the EXTENT of this public surveillance. Not the existence of it. I'm hoping someone articulate will try and argue that point so I can analyze it... Personally, I view surveillance of public areas as a good thing and I want to understand why some people dislike it other than that slippery slope!!! argument which can apply to anything.
On July 29 2012 06:29 sVnteen wrote: lolol maybe you should read the articles more closely and be less emotional when you write a thread about it
It's honestly a good thing to watch the crowded public places to keep the people there safe don't you think? noone is interfering you privacy
As soon as a camera is pointed at you, its interfering with your privacy. For example, you cant just take a picture of me, if i dont want it (and use it for something). You have to delete it, or give it to me.
In germany (you actually should know better), the laws would actually have to be changed, to allow this system. And thats for a reason.
Dont get me wrong, im all for technology that makes open spaces/public spaces safer, but not without knowing a. who is watching me right now, and b. what is he using that information for. If, for example, that system actually could just track, lets say, the "Kriminaldatenbank" (the police-picture-roster, dont know the english word) - im all for it. But as soon as there is information to be sold (like how often do i go where, and whatnot), im against it.
I find it hard to understand how that makes surveillance even possible in Germany. A security camera can record thousands of people per day and I'm sure they don't all give consent... Does Germany not have security cameras or are there special rules?
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.
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.
On July 29 2012 06:50 Zahir wrote: I find it hard to understand how that makes surveillance even possible in Germany. A security camera can record thousands of people per day and I'm sure they don't all give consent... Does Germany not have security cameras or are there special rules?
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?
AFAIK even in Germany with its unique privacy laws, it is legal to film people in public as long as you don't publish the footage. Obviously the police still records and investigates such footage when they have reason to.
The European Parlament rejected ACTA, I don't see them hiding such a project especially since they aren't a executive corps. You surely must confound them with the Comission or the Council but I think the council has other stuff to do right now.
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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
On July 29 2012 06:50 Zahir wrote: I find it hard to understand how that makes surveillance even possible in Germany. A security camera can record thousands of people per day and I'm sure they don't all give consent... Does Germany not have security cameras or are there special rules?
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.
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.
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.
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
The only way I see this working, is if it is purely a "public" surveillance thing, AND if it actually protects you by law, and isn't used in a way where "someone" (i.e the "people in charge") use it to get information about you WITHOUT a 'warrant'; hence you're protected by law until a judge warrants the use of said surveillance in order to look into suspicious behaviour. Now how protective this law is would get highly debated; but I'd propose it be used for issues like human trafficing, terror threats (like bomb threats -- did person in question actually place a bomb in claimed location?), and possibly for the catching of so called drug lords; and MAYBE be used to help confirm rape charges (as these charges are often enough 'impossible' to prove, and could perhaps serve to get to the truth; but then could not be used for anything else should something else be uncovered (like speeding, running a red light, etc etc) unless uncovered offenses are compromising "national security" or future crimes against human lives; but can't be used to prove, for instance, a murder should such be uncovered by "accident").
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.
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.
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?
And people still complain about old (and still existing) communist states like the Soviet, Mao-China and of course North Korea.
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".
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.
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.
Whoa. Big conspiracy to destroy personal freedoms put cameras everywhere arrest all the criminals.
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?
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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
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.
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.
Some people take this "freedom" crap too far, to the point where they act alarmed at anything that even remotely appears to intrude upon their privacy or restrict something that they likely would never do anyhow. If you like freedom so much, try living in anarchy for awhile, I'm sure it will work out great.
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.
Can I just go on a thought experiment (or what you call them)?
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.
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.
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.
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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..
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.
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.
On July 29 2012 00:35 Soulstice wrote: "He loved Big Brother."
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.
On July 28 2012 22:51 FeUerFlieGe wrote: I don't think this project is morally right. To literally have an eye on all of you're citizens doesn't seen the right way to go about crime.
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.
There is only naivety in one who believes this is not heavily exploitable and hurting of one's freedom as a human being. Security comes from a cultural change followed by a systematic change of how wealth is distributed in a way people will not need to be violent in order to get what they need, and more than that, in a way people will not be paranoid and egoistical because they wouldn't have been raised in a place where you are paranoid and egoistical or you are dead.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some sanity! Hooray!
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.
One step closer to babylon and fascism, if you support this I can jump to the conclusion that you are a social outcast for reasons that are obvious. It's only a matter of time before they install cameras in non-public places with reasons like "We lack coverage over this area so over the span of the next year we will start surveiling that place aswell"
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.
Best post in this thread.
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.
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.
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.
Some sanity! Hooray!
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?
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.
Best post in this thread.
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?
"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.
On July 29 2012 00:35 Soulstice wrote: "He loved Big Brother."
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.
You're saying people in russia/brazil/mexico are the most free in the world?
Don't see the problem honestly, if you're a good human being without having to hide something I'd actually support this. Too much crap going on nowadays on the streets.
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..
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.
On July 29 2012 00:35 Soulstice wrote: "He loved Big Brother."
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.
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.
All the people saying "I ain't got nothing to hide". I would ask you if you would feel the same if this was China or Russia (I would like North Korea as an example but that would be absurd to the highest degree) doing it? You don't make the rules and you may be fine with the rules as they now are. But the infrastructure stays there even if the law changes and it slowly takes a turn for the China, so to speak. Civil disobedience is needed from time to time to remind the people in power that they're supposed to serve the people and not the other way around. If you systematically rot out every possibility of organized resistance then that's a problem.
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
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.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Best post in this thread.
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.
people can just make like monkeys to give INDECT 99% false-positives untill they drop it all together or make it illegal for people to partake in any kind of monkey bussines, basically criminalising nonconformism.
i don't know about other places but alot of major cities in the us already use cameras to watch activity.. if its the same degree but with a highly advanced program to synthesize all the data and better find criminals, that is perfectly fine with me but yeah this is all public information so i don't really feel this is an invasion of privacy it just needs to be regulated obviously to where there can be no abuse.. which is hard to enforce.
i don't know if anybody has said this, but anybody watch person of interest? its an entire show centered around this technology. should check it out, its a pretty cool show
The INDECT tool looks like a very good tool from the perspective of the police of course (why wouldn’t it).
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]
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.
Best post in this thread.
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.
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.
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.
Best post in this thread.
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.
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.
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.
Best post in this thread.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best post in this thread.
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.
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.
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.
£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.
£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.
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.
To be fair, Franklin said this and then ran away from the states to have both and avoid fighting for either.
£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.
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.
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.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/BWhalin/DiversionsLinkster/103235ani.gif)
