Is it Orwellian? I'll tell you what I think because I can and here I go. I think I don't *care* what a camera sees me do in a public place...it's public! Anything I'm willing to do or say in Times Square is something I don't mind being caught on tape! Why are people concerned about the govmint seeing them go about their shopping? It's just a computer watching anyway.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
I'm with you on that. They say that here in the UK, every time you go out in public, you're recorded 300 times on camera. As for me, I couldn't care less if I'm seen on camera.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It does not matter in public. It eases the burden of having the neighbors snitching and getting the money from crime stoppers. Plus, if you aren't committing any crimes you shouldn't have to worry.
The Nazi's had informants and we have cameras, what's the big deal?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Aren't most of those tapes reviewed when there is a chance that they caught a crime in action? Like if there is a robery, they check the tape/ photos from that area to see if it was caught. Right?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
In New York City, I would say that most cameras aren't even owned by the city government. They're owned by private businesses.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by OverRon: I'm with you on that. They say that here in the UK, every time you go out in public, you're recorded 300 times on camera. As for me, I couldn't care less if I'm seen on camera.
They have software now that employs face-recognition technology. It can't do a 1 for 1 match but can easily round you down to 10 likely people. I was watching a Discovery Channel doco on Casinos the other night - and they showed the security woman at work. She suspected someone - ran the screen cap through the database and then presto - 10 'likely' people - and she just picked the one that matched the cam grab the closest. It was someone she had a hunch that had - I guess tried cheating at the casino.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
If you want to talk about Orwellian standards, what about those CCTV cameras that have speakers so the people at the controls can give verbal warnings?
Telling someone to pick up the rubbish they just dropped, or informing them that authorities on are on the way if there's been an accident seems like a good enough idea, but disembodied voices coming from camera lenses are still pretty creepy.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I've got no problems as long as we don't live in a country with a police like the Statzi in East Germany - scary stuff they were!
I would like to know who's watching, but if it is some spooky wooky spy crap, I guess telling us would kind of give up the game.
Have you all heard of that ultrasonic noise thingy that emits a whining that you can only hear if you're under 25? That's offensive. The idea is that it drives away the hoodie wearing bastards from hanging around intimidating people, but it is a rather blunt weapon - I can hear it, and I don't loiter outside the off licence drinking White Lightning and swearing at passers by.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I just re-read that. I sound like Alan B'Stard.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
There was a big fuss about the city of Fredericton putting up surveillance cameras in a section of the downtown known as "The Tannery"; its a little square with about a dozen or so bars around it... sound thinking, if you ask me. But there was an uproar. The cameras were put up anyways.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I've got all my security cameras up in the Flameboard.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I just re-read that. I sound like Alan B'Stard.
LOL! That show was classic!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Have you all heard of that ultrasonic noise thingy that emits a whining that you can only hear if you're under 25? That's offensive. The idea is that it drives away the hoodie wearing bastards from hanging around intimidating people, but it is a rather blunt weapon - I can hear it, and I don't loiter outside the off licence drinking White Lightning and swearing at passers by."
Over here, I think it's better-known for kids using it as a ringtone, so adults don't know when they're getting messages and such.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Yeah, they do that around here too. It is very annoying. At least when you hear vibrating noises from a girls pants you can snicker to yourself. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I downloaded the MP3 of that ringtone to see if it worked, and it did, but I wouldn't like to use it - it hurt my ears.
About the face recognition tech, I knew about that, but again, I don't mind being placed in a public place. I really wouldn't care if there was a record of all my movements throughout the day. I mean, the government *can't* be watching that - they'd have to have at least 1 agent for every 5 people in the country to watch everyone all the time! The only time they'd check my records is when there was a crime in some place and a computer search showed I was there. Then they take a look, see I didn't do it, and I'm exonerated. In other words it helps me.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Like I have said before. They'd send me sympathy cards for such a disgustingly boring drab life. If they'd put money in them I guess it wouldn't be so insulting.....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
A fun story to link to whenever this subject comes up; but did anything actually come of it?
quote: Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.
Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hey, I wonder if all the members of the opposition party go straight home to their spouses at the end of the day?
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
Which basically says that they'll use, CCTV footage to issue people parking fines. On the same news article they had a woman who literally pulled into a parking space for 10 seconds to let a bus pass her, and she pulled out of the parking space, but got sent a parking fine because she appeared on two frames of CCTV footage as being parked there.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Given the vast expanses of empty highway in NB, they'd be hard pressed to track all vehicles here... Same applies for most provinces, too, actually.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I know that when my family goes to Ontario to vacation each summer, we use a highway that uses cameras to track your progress on it to see how far you travel, and then sends you the bill for the toll, instead of having toll booths every exit.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:Originally posted by OverRon: I saw this on BBC News last night clicky
Which basically says that they'll use, CCTV footage to issue people parking fines. On the same news article they had a woman who literally pulled into a parking space for 10 seconds to let a bus pass her, and she pulled out of the parking space, but got sent a parking fine because she appeared on two frames of CCTV footage as being parked there.
My local council are the only one in the UK (outside of London) that has applied for this. The only one!
Funny thing is, I heard on the news this moring that only 1% of parking tickets are contended in England and Wales, but of those 60% are upheld in favour of the driver.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
But sod's law says that if it was 60% of tickets being contested, it'd be 1% of them in favour of the driver.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: I know that when my family goes to Ontario to vacation each summer, we use a highway that uses cameras to track your progress on it to see how far you travel, and then sends you the bill for the toll, instead of having toll booths every exit.
What highway is that? I was thinking of taking a bike trip this summer. Haven't decided whether to go east or west yet. It'd be nice to avoid those toll highways and take the back roads. Of course I might get off scot free anyway seeing as my license plate faces the left side.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Unless you're planning to go to Toronto you probably won't encounter it. But it sounds like maybe the 407.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I looked it up and tried it, and couldn't hear a thing.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I hate the cameras to!!
Posted by Revanche (Member # 953) on :
My concern is the erosion of rights, to include privacy. Single items at a time don't appear to be intrusive, but once they become common, an escalation of the violation becomes more acceptable.
Example: cameras by businesses can be rationalized. It is their business they're protecting, sure. Next, police (or 'civil') cameras are rationalized by referencing the previous business cameras. Afterall, the police can already review the business cameras; why not just put those cameras in more public spots, where they're more likely to do some good.
Next, cameras on highways, to monitor license plates. Afterall, if someone is committing a crime, why should be they be allowed to go unidentified. That 'crime' includes speeding isn't too far a reach.
True story: last month Comcast (a US cable television company) revealed a pilot program where a small camera built onto the cable receiver would be used to identify customers by basic body shapes (not facial recognition). The idea is to bring profiles of TV viewing up automatically, according to that customer's previous viewing habits. Sounds cool: it could immediately identify the latest Law & order episode for me or Bob the Builder for my son. Sounds convienent.
Why not expand upon that? Parolees...they already wear anklets in some cases. What if we put cameras over their doors, to monitor their comings and goings? You know...to make sure they're not gaming the system?
Oooh...what if we set up a camera system to replace the med-alert necklaces. That way, when my 93 year old neighbor falls and hits her head, the system can recognize a sudden and unlikely movement to alert a person to the monitor, see if she's okay.
Hell, why not put up a camera system like that for everyone? Its not like only old people need it. What about that single pregnant mother? What if she experiences sudden complications and can't reach a phone either. In fact, wouldn't it make it cheaper to subsidize it and require it for all new homes.
Its not the police asking to do this, afterall. Its for the common health of all society. Sure, if a crime is committed within a home, why shouldn't the police have the right to review it. Afterall, a crime was committed.
Wow, with a little modification, that movement software could be altered to report any strange activity by anyone, and alert a 'monitor.' Now, we can all have an unblinking eye in our home.
I mean...there's NO reason to be scared of this technology. Its here to protect us.
See...its the mission creep that concerns me. We get used to the small changes. There no reason to issue a blanket "No" on these societal changes, but you must always review and be a master of your own government. Ask, "does it make sense?"
What would your parents, at your own age, think of these developments?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Putting up cameras that can be used to solve crimes isn't a problem, as long as that's the only thing they're used for.
Now, as soon as you find a government you can trust to do that...
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
Why stop with roads? How about we put the cameras in our homes and make them in the form of television screens that work both ways and can show news or entertainment or government propaganda? These "telescreens" could let the government make sure you're not committing any sort of crime in your home.
Seriously, the whole vehicle movement database idea is creepy to me. It seems to make the assumption that any citizen is a potential criminal who has to be monitored. If it's ever put into place someone will have to put up a few "Welcome to Oceania" and "Big Brother Is Watching You" billboards.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Every citizen is a potential criminal. I know that sounds cynical, but I don't trust people until and unless I get to know them and find them to be trustworthy.
Also, I want to repeat what I said before - I don't mind cameras in public places or on highways because it's public. Everyone can see what I'm doing anyway; why do I care if they add a computer to the mix? I think "privacy" is kind of a silly idea - do people really feel "violated" if someone watches them order a sandwich or something? Or do they just not want to be seen jerking off in the public restrooms?
Posted by Revanche (Member # 953) on :
Oh, I definitely do not want to be seen jerking off in a public restroom. I want to be very clear on that!
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
I don't have a problem with public cameras in general, it's when they start tracking citizens' movements and storing that data that it crosses the line into violation of privacy.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Every citizen is a potential criminal. I know that sounds cynical, but I don't trust people until and unless I get to know them and find them to be trustworthy.
It's okay that you personally don't trust people; it's for that very reason that my home is locked at all hours, even when we're at home. Our neighbors, Idaho natives for the most part, think our behavior is pretty funny. However, the government of any true democracy must hold the philosophy that individuals are "innocent until proven guilty". This certainly ties the hands of the government when it comes to the prosecution of criminals, but it is a fairly common belief that it is better to allow a criminal to go free than to imprison an innocent.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
That's a good point. I guess the argument is really about the very fine point between believing everyone to be potentially guilty or as good as guilty.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Revanche: Oh, I definitely do not want to be seen jerking off in a public restroom. I want to be very clear on that!
Then dont wax the monkey in a public lav. YOu wont get caught, believe me, it works.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Are you basing this evidence on the fact that you don't try to beat one out in a public khazi, and no body has caught you?
Because that's a very small sample. (See? I mock his scientific credentials and his genitalia! Bwuahaha!)
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
No, I have never wanked off in a public loo, but I believe it is a fact that you cant get caught doing something if you don't actually do it.
By the end of this thread, we must count how many accronyms for masturbation and toilets we have made.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Euphemism, not acronym.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Minor detail.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
"SOMEONE SHUT ME UP PLEASE" Very funny.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Ha. Charles has been busy...
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
What are the odds that any particular public restroom you may step into is equipped with surveillance cameras? Imagine that you step into the stall, seat yourself and begin your business, all the while completely unaware that some Krispy Kreme eating rent-a-cop is watching you to make sure you're not hiding any fine Sears merchandise on your person. Even if you're not doing anything more personal than using the facilities, that thought is unpleasant.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Sean seems to have found all of them, or quit his self spanking in favor of over posting on Flare.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I'm glad I'm loved here. Posted by Revanche (Member # 953) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: By the end of this thread, we must count how many [euphemisms] for masturbation and toilets we have made.
Wow, I go to the head to rub a sean out and this thread just blows up again.
[rimshot]
Ouch...hard audience.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I wouldn't worry about donut-eating mallcops nearly as much as perverted and/or unscrupulous employees with a knack for A/V equipment setting up SearsToiletVoyeur.com.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Or any establishment run by Chuck Berry.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Uh...because child prostitution and income tax evasion makes for a good toilet seat cam?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Uh... because Chuck Berry used to put cameras in the women's rooms of his restaurants.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Was it ol' Chuck who claimed he only wnated to know why they used so much toilet paper?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I wouldn't worry about donut-eating mallcops nearly as much as perverted and/or unscrupulous employees with a knack for A/V equipment setting up SearsToiletVoyeur.com.
As long as they don't put them in Wal*Mart...
quote:Originally posted by Revanche:
quote:Originally posted by Sean: By the end of this thread, we must count how many [euphemisms] for masturbation and toilets we have made.
Wow, I go to the head to rub a sean out and this thread just blows up again.
[rimshot]
Ouch...hard audience.
I think I just died a little inside.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)