Coffeehouse Thread

201 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Police State - It's Coming?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    esoteric

    It's a political question. There is no other way to characterize it. I'm quite happy my country is a much more relaxed society, but the trend is certainly towards more surveillance, especially with the current government, and especially since 9/11. I'm fine with cameras outside crowded places like supermarkets, banks, etc. Mobile phones are also surveillance devices. You get used to it.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    dahat wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    Why do people expect that there would be privacy outside?


    I think the bigger beef here (my only in this case) is that the government is forcing private groups to install security cameras rather than allowing and/or encouraging them to do it on their own.

    I'm all for state owned and run cameras in public (and publicly owned) places... however see it as the responsibility of the private property owners to decide if they want to spend the money on a security camera system, let alone network it with the police.


    The quote does mention residential properties, but there is not distiction between a house and an apartment complex when it comes to the definition of residential. 

    I imagine that it would be perfectly legitimate to force them to put up cameras in common areas that are essentially public, anyway.

    You have to pay for safety fences around semi-public pools in residential developments, how is that any different?

    I can see in a few years (decades) that places of business will be sued if they don't start doing this due to it's perceived deterrence.  We're a pretty litigious country, and all it takes is some victim to claim that since a readily available tech could have been used to apprehend the assailant, the business is partially at fault.

    I wouldn't agree with the suit, but I'll bet ya $5 (canadian) that it'll happen Smiley

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    dahat wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    Why do people expect that there would be privacy outside?


    I think the bigger beef here (my only in this case) is that the government is forcing private groups to install security cameras rather than allowing and/or encouraging them to do it on their own.

    I'm all for state owned and run cameras in public (and publicly owned) places... however see it as the responsibility of the private property owners to decide if they want to spend the money on a security camera system, let alone network it with the police.


    The quote does mention residential properties, but there is not distiction between a house and an apartment complex when it comes to the definition of residential. 

    I imagine that it would be perfectly legitimate to force them to put up cameras in common areas that are essentially public, anyway.

    You have to pay for safety fences around semi-public pools in residential developments, how is that any different?

    I can see in a few years (decades) that places of business will be sued if they don't start doing this due to it's perceived deterrence.  We're a pretty litigious country, and all it takes is some victim to claim that since a readily available tech could have been used to apprehend the assailant, the business is partially at fault.

    I wouldn't agree with the suit, but I'll bet ya $5 (canadian) that it'll happen



    Currency Conversion Results (USD / CAD)
    Symbol U.S. Dollar Exchange
    Rate
    Canadian Dollar Bid Ask
    USDCAD=X 1 Oct 8 0.9876 0.9876 0.9876 0.9879

    You aren't going to save much.

    Unless you're using the Euro.

    Currency Conversion Results (EURO / CAD)
    Symbol Euro Exchange
    Rate
    Canadian Dollar Bid Ask
    EURCAD=X 1 Oct 8 1.3873 1.3873 1.3873 1.3879


    So Big Brother is coming, and we are all heralding his arrival. Wow.

    Ben Franklin wrote:

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Just a little illustration so we can all appreciatte the magnitude of the demise of the strength of the (un)mighty dollar.

    I never thought I'd see the day when the Canadian Dollar was worth more than the US Dollar. (No Offense implied).

    (USD / CAD Exchange Rate - 2 Year Period)

    Chart

  • User profile image
    TimP

    And security cameras have what to do with exchange rates?

  • User profile image
    dahat

    ScanIAm wrote:
    The quote does mention residential properties, but there is not distiction between a house and an apartment complex when it comes to the definition of residential.


    There is also the issue of size which I don't think is touched on all that much. This obviously isn't geared towards single family homes or even duplexes... but multi-unit apartment complexes and other larger facilities.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    I imagine that it would be perfectly legitimate to force them to put up cameras in common areas that are essentially public, anyway.


    In principal we agree... however I'm not a fan of unfunded mandates.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    You have to pay for safety fences around semi-public pools in residential developments, how is that any different?


    My guess would be that with a pool there is a well established liability should a small child not be prevented from falling in. The same cannot be said for cameras today.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    I can see in a few years (decades) that places of business will be sued if they don't start doing this due to it's perceived deterrence.


    In theory yes... however the series of events that would have to happen first are pretty specific in order for any win for the plaintiff to occur.

    Just saying "You should have had cameras because they prevent crime,  I was the victim of a crime that could have been prevented, therefore you are at fault" is a rather long stretch as you can say the same for many preventative measures. Instead in order to be successful in court the plaintiff would likely need to show a history of crime in the area, recommendations from security professionals and police (prior to the incident being litigated) recommending that cameras be installed and the  negligence of the property owner/manager.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    I wouldn't agree with the suit, but I'll bet ya $5 (canadian) that it'll happen


    No bet. I too expect that it will happen... only because of the statistics involved. Lots of dumb people and cheap court costs. Like I said though, the case would end pretty quickly unless there is a big ole piece of negligence laying around.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society.

    Don't forget that 2008 will be the end of the State ID and Drivers license.

    Don't forget to get your Federal ID card in advance to illustrate what a good little citizen we all are.

    Wo Ihre Papiere sind

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    phreaks wrote:
    Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society.


    Straw Man. Please don't misrepresent my points.

    If by "Orwellian Society" you mean "widespread installation of public/police surveilance cameras" then I'm guilty as charged.

    But where have I, or anyone else, said they support the encroachment of our freedoms and rights in this thread?

    phreaks wrote:
    Don't forget that 2008 will be the end of the State ID and Drivers license.

    Don't forget to get your Federal ID card in advance to illustrate what a good little citizen we all are.

    Wo Ihre Papiere sind


    It's all well and good to decry this, but besides posting on a forum on THE INTERNET!, what other proactive steps have you taken to get your voice heard by people who actually have power and juristiction over you? Like say.... your congressman?

  • User profile image
    SaraJo

    JeremyJ wrote:
    I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere. 

    People get the mistaken impression that someone is going to be watching their house 24/7.  There are not enough police officers to be able to do that.  If a crime happens in an area then they look at the tapes.  Otherwise they just get erased after a certain amount of time.  If it helps catch the bad guys then great!


    the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing.


    In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    SaraJo wrote:
    
    JeremyJ wrote:
    I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere. 

    People get the mistaken impression that someone is going to be watching their house 24/7.  There are not enough police officers to be able to do that.  If a crime happens in an area then they look at the tapes.  Otherwise they just get erased after a certain amount of time.  If it helps catch the bad guys then great!


    the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing.


    In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.


    They aren't watching you, per se, they are automating the process of watching an open area of publicly accessable space.  If you don't walk through this public area, then you aren't being watched.  It's no different than having a security guard on duty or hiring a cop to walk a beat. 

    He can eyeball you as you walk down a public street, but that isn't Orwellian in any way.  I think the "big brother is watching you part was taken a bit to literally.  The point of 1984 was that the government was constantly watching you and there was no privacy at all. 

    If you want privacy, you have to work for it, it's not going to happen for free. 

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society.


    Straw Man. Please don't misrepresent my points.

    If by "Orwellian Society" you mean "widespread installation of public/police surveilance cameras" then I'm guilty as charged.

    But where have I, or anyone else, said they support the encroachment of our freedoms and rights in this thread?

    phreaks wrote:
    Don't forget that 2008 will be the end of the State ID and Drivers license.

    Don't forget to get your Federal ID card in advance to illustrate what a good little citizen we all are.

    Wo Ihre Papiere sind


    It's all well and good to decry this, but besides posting on a forum on THE INTERNET!, what other proactive steps have you taken to get your voice heard by people who actually have power and juristiction over you? Like say.... your congressman?


    Bah. I've sent numerous e-mail's to my Congressman. Not all about this topic, but a few. I have never received a single reply, not once.

    Patrick Kennedy is my Rep, and he knows he can do whatever he wants. If there is a Kennedy running for office in my state, they will get elected, regardless of their merit.

    Yes, this is the same guy that crashed his mustang into a barrier a few months back and was driven home by police instead of being given a sobriety test, and also the same guy that got drunk at a restaraunt last year and started jumping on tables yelling, "I've never worked a day in my life, and I'm proud of that!".

    So yeah, I've tried it, it's fruitless.

    And What the heck do you mean by "straw man"?

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    SaraJo wrote:
    
    JeremyJ wrote:
    I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere. 

    People get the mistaken impression that someone is going to be watching their house 24/7.  There are not enough police officers to be able to do that.  If a crime happens in an area then they look at the tapes.  Otherwise they just get erased after a certain amount of time.  If it helps catch the bad guys then great!


    the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing.


    In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.


    They aren't watching you, per se, they are automating the process of watching an open area of publicly accessable space.  If you don't walk through this public area, then you aren't being watched.  It's no different than having a security guard on duty or hiring a cop to walk a beat. 

    He can eyeball you as you walk down a public street, but that isn't Orwellian in any way.  I think the "big brother is watching you part was taken a bit to literally.  The point of 1984 was that the government was constantly watching you and there was no privacy at all. 

    If you want privacy, you have to work for it, it's not going to happen for free. 


    If you believe that's truely where this will end, I think you are a bit naive.

    This will likely morph into something much more pervasive over the years. Is this really the type of society you strive for?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    SaraJo wrote:
    the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing.

    In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.


    ...and I feel totally free-market economy systems with companies taking on the role of government services ignores corport corruption and monopoly.

    No systems' perfect, but how are these cameras infringing on your rights? And if so, specifically what rights?

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    phreaks wrote:
    

    Bah. I've sent numerous e-mail's to my Congressman. Not all about this topic, but a few. I have never received a single reply, not once.

    Patrick Kennedy is my Rep, and he knows he can do whatever he wants. If there is a Kennedy running for office in my state, they will get elected, regardless of their merit.

    Yes, this is the same guy that crashed his mustang into a barrier a few months back and was driven home by police instead of being given a sobriety test, and also the same guy that got drunk at a restaraunt last year and started jumping on tables yelling, "I've never worked a day in my life, and I'm proud of that!".

    So yeah, I've tried it, it's fruitless.



    Kennedy's are a mixed bag.  We have some that appear to be worth a crap and some that aren't, but don't give up bugging your representatives.  They likely won't respond to you, individually, but if they get 100 letters/emails a day about a topic, they can't really ignore it. 



  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    phreaks wrote:
    And What the heck do you mean by "straw man"?


    Internets!

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    ScanIAm wrote:
    Kennedy's are a mixed bag.  We have some that appear to be worth a crap and some that aren't, but don't give up bugging your representatives.  They likely won't respond to you, individually, but if they get 100 letters/emails a day about a topic, they can't really ignore it.


    Letters, yes; not emails.

    Emails are handled by their secretaries which perform a substantial amount of triage. What are they going to let through: A single message critical of policy, or a bunch of fan-mail?

    Phone calls work best, especially when made to their personal cellphones or home phones (but during business hours of course, otherwise you'll seem like a stalker).

  • User profile image
    Bas

    phreaks wrote:
    If you believe that's truely where this will end, I think you are a bit naive.

    This will likely morph into something much more pervasive over the years. Is this really the type of society you strive for?


    Why is that so likely? What reasons do you have to conclude that this is not where this will end?


    phreaks wrote:
    
    W3bbo wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society.


    Straw Man. Please don't misrepresent my point.
    And What the heck do you mean by "straw man"?


    Presumably that you purposefully misrepresented his words (turning "I don't mind camera's because of the following reasons" into "I want an Orwellian police state society where the government watches my every move", and then denounced the latter, because the latter is much easier to denounce than the former.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    phreaks wrote:
    Bah. I've sent numerous e-mail's to my Congressman. Not all about this topic, but a few. I have never received a single reply, not once.


    Emails?

    There's your problem... you're lazy!

    Get off your rear!

    I've got my the phone #'s of my senators and congresswoman Washington DC offices on speed dial on my cell phone and when I've got a gripe with something they do... I let em know and a week or so later... I get a nice postage free dead tree response from them, something I use to either call or write them again and guess what I get then... another response!

    You need to remind your elected officials that they work for you and if you don't get a response... increase the pressure.

    If you don't think it works... you must not be paying attention to the news for the last few months as it was just that sort of thing that helped lead to the comprehensive immigration reform bill getting killed as well as the annoyance in the offices of Harry Reid on the Rush Limbaugh matter.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.