Slashdot Mirror
World Sousveillance Day
Sousveillance Cyborg writes: "Sousveillance is inverse surveillance, and a worldwide community of cyborgs is promoting sousveillance as a way toward more privacy and less secrecy.
Today is World Sousveillance Day (WSD).
See http://wearcam.org/wsd.htm. Transmitting live from around the world at noon (moving with time zone)."
It might have been helpful to have this put out before the day it happens.
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
I certainly would not be doing this in an airport.
:)
For that matter, shooting photographs of security stuff in general may be a bad idea. You could easily get arrested for such stuff, even if it is an invasion of privacy.
But, as always there's an alternate.. there's the middle finger.
.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Check out the FAQ at wearcam.org. Its a pretty interesting read. Why dont we have a World Subjectrights Day everyday?!?! This is something that shouldnt be ignored and should have more attention givin to it. Too many people/companies dont take accountability for there actions and this has to stop!
Given the current craze about security it seems to me that taking pictures of surveillance cams and the personnel operating it is a sure-fire way to get questioned and maybe jailed for a night.
Might be just me though. Maybe it helps to wear a "I am not a terrorist" t-shirt. Maybe not.
+++ath0
-In your car, in case of an accident or traffic stop.
-Hidden in your cellphone, to record in all those forbidden places. What do casinos and department stores have to hide?
I think Dec. 24 is one of the worst days they could have chosen to do this. Why?
Just about anybody that celebrates Christmas is busy on Christmas Eve. Mom's gotta clean the house, Dad's gotta find a Turboman actionfigure for Young Jimmy, Highly Paid IT Businessman is busy partying, Joe Homeless is busy begging.
The only people that are going to have no problem doing this on Dec. 24 are people that don't celebrate Christmas at all. Typically these would include various racial groups which the US has declared war on right now....
So, would it be a great idea to have lots of people that (dumb) Yankees would consider to look like terrorists running around, taking pictures of things and getting security all riled up?
I think this WSD should be on a more relaxed time of year. Maybe some time in April or something.
This is actually a puckish wrapper around how things should be run daily anyway. There is nothing wrong with cameras mounted on streets and stores filming whomever might be around, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with cameras being held by people filming whatever they may see. The fact is that cameras create accountability (and generate raw information) no matter where and how they're used. Whether that accountability is acted upon and acted upon in a correct manner is a seperate subject that doesn't really involve the cameras themselves.
As Brinn said, there is no stopping the spread of cameras now, but why would anyone want to stop them anyway? People need to simply accept the cameras and use them instead of fighting them every step of the way, missing out on the great things that cameras can provide average citizens.
Those who are able to arrange things so they are rarely watched.
this would have been perfect 5 months ago when i got a visit from 2 "detectives"
;-)
but i wonder what would happen if i took a picture of them or started videotaping them... my guess is they'd beat the shit out of me
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
I'm about to be one of those snooty people who points out the hypocracy of the Slashdot crowd, so I'll try to be brief. Do you want to be a part of a community or do you want to have privacy? It's a matter of degrees, but at the most basic level those two concepts are mutually exclusive. The deal is, if you interact with human beings, you lose privacy. The risk of being surveiled comes with the risk of going someplace. You can't be completely anonymous and live a normal life. Try getting a phone or car or decent internet access without a name. Part of being a memeber of the human race is to have an identity that other people, businesses and even your government can associate with you... and part of that identity is a face (which just might be photographed at any time if you happen to be out in the real world). Don't want your face on the Jumbotron? Watch the game on TV in your Y2K bomb shelter in Montana if you're all that concerned. :)
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Maybe I have a limited imagination, but I have trouble seeing how exactly the average citizen can "use" these cameras. It is likely that if we did find a way to use cameras which don't belong to us that we would be prosecuted for it.
What I can imagine, though, is a scenario where once the system is in place, the scope of its use is gradually increased until it is being used not only in ways that are unacceptable, but also in ways we were specifically told it wouldn't be in the beginning.
An example of this would be the "anti-terrorist" cameras installed all over London. These are now being used to detect and prosecute all sorts of lesser crimes. Of course, many people don't have a problem with that, but you have to be extremely careful where the lower bound gets set. Is that a nudie magazine in your pocket, visible in frames 237-512 when you crossed Market Street?
Maybe you can't imagine any activites/liberties you presently indulge in which the government might eventually decide are nonsat, but my paranoia meter jumps a couple of clicks every time this stuff makes the news.
So, here we another installment of the Citizens Against the [supposed] Big Brother, a "watchdog" group of paranoiaphiles dedicated to overthrowing whoever-it-is we're at odds with. The group promotes reverse surveillance (sousveillance!) and encourages people to generally reverse monitor various monolithic entities though such *coughing* ingenious methods as using the 1-800 how's-my-driving numbers, etc. While I'm sure that there are legitament reasons for "sousveillance," this is little more than another group of schizoid people who are convinced that every time you use an ATM, you're selling out to the Antichrist, and that yes, in fact, your neighbor's satellite dish actually is just a device that the FBI is using to watch your every move in your house.
Give me a break, this type of paranoia is so vogue it's disgusting. There are real threats to civil liberties, but "sousveillance" isn't going to counteract them. Though the group claims they're turning the wheels of democracy, they would be more appropriately observed to be a factional group.
Even if they're right, nobody in the paranoid realm has ever given me a good answer to the question, "Why should the government even care what you're doing?" If you pay your taxes, walk the dog, and tune into Must-See-TV on Thursdays, you're in line with the rest of society, and the government could really care less what you're doing. Even if you *gasp* use Linux or program computers, the government really isn't interested at all in what brand of toothpaste you buy from the grocery store.
In related thoughts, there needs to be a Godwin's Law for 1984 references, such that a reference to "Big Brother" or other Orwellian terminology immediately invalidates what you're saying.
Does this remind anyone else of the guys in SnowCrash that wore all the surveillance gear. They walked around and gathered data from basically anywhere and tried to sell it. What were they called? Its been such a long time since I read the book Also I think Ive heard CmndrTaco mention them occasionally, but not in the same vein as this "Sousveillance" idea/scheme.
It does sound interesting, but are not cops legally entitled to use violence against you and you cannot exercise any violence against them? So I would imagine that if you were to go and start taking pictures and such wouldnt the cops simply hit you on your head and take you to jail for being a nuisance?
Why are you people scared to watch the people that watch us? Shouldn't THEY be watched more than us to begin with, since they are given such power? If we're getting arrested for making sure everything goes fairly, then I no longer have faith in whichever governing body is responsible for that kind of thing.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
If you're gathering evidence that relies on tone of voice to document wrongdoing there's nothing like a tape recorder. And if you're gathering evidence that relies on gesture and facial expression to document wrongdoing there's nothing like a pinhole camera.
In fact, digital video cameras is how the human rights abuses of the Taliban were first documented by RAWA .
But pick your battles, carefully, kids. This isn't a contest to see who can be the most annoying to security people who are doing their jobs honorably.
I think wearcam.org should send someone down the street knocking on people's doors, asking why their peepholes only work one way.
Come on, guys. It's simple economics. If a store wants to reduce losses due to theft, they install cameras. Or they install domes that look like cameras. If you're going to be insulted about that, why aren't you insulted that you can't leave without going through the registers, or that they lock the door after hours, or that the "Employees Only" areas are only for employees? Why not require retailers to move their entire stock outside under a large awning, and turn their backs to us to show how much they trust their customers?
Come on, dude, you're living in a paranoiac techno-Robin-Hood fantasy that would have been only moderately tolerated even before 9/11. Now, your implication that the security guys in Wal-Mart are worse than the terrorists who blew up WTC, makes your opinion worth less than sludge.
Rats...
You're using her as bait, Master!
It may well, however, require a small fee. This is defined in the DPA as a maximum of £10.
Go to a shop (only do this in big chains, no-one wants to hurt independents). Go when it's busy. Very busy. Make sure they have plenty of CCTV cameras. Make sure you get in as many of them as possible. This increases your impact.
Then, go to an employee. Under the DPR's `Code of Practice,' `All staff should be aware of individuals' rights.' If not, ask to see the `Data Protection Controller' or, the Manager.
You may well need to fill out a Data Protection Subject Access form, or write a letter with proof of identity to the Shop's Data Controller.
You are entitled:
to be told if any personal data are held about you AND, if so:
to be given a description of the data;
to be told for what purposes the data are processed and
To be told the recipients or the classes of recipients to whom the data may have been disclosed.
Also:
to be given a copy of the information with any unintelligible terms explained;
to be given any information available to the controller about the source of the data;
So, they'll be required to give you copies of information they hold about you. You probably don't want this, but the administrative burden is the aim here.
If they don't provide the said details with 40 days, complain to the DPR and they will be likely to be fined.
Running "around with cameras acting like a bunch of annoying jerks" does not preclude "doing something hard but constructive". What is it, did everyone on /. today wake up and take their grumpy pill??
Boyd, who regularly "runs around with cameras..." (-Most- people I know keep disposable cameras in their vehicles... sprinkle them around.)
You post the question "Where's the accountability?" — anonymously?
Did you see the Sousveillance video? He's not doing exposés of concealed cameras in dressing rooms; he's strolling through department stores, asking employees idiotic questions about the "mysterious dark domes" in the ceiling as if they were part some massive coverup, and none of the poor idiots (non-University of Toronto CE students) around him were totally unaware that they were being watched in a department store. It inspires no social change (except perhaps more stores banning video cameras), and has no effect outside of feeding his overinflated ego. This is nothing more than stupid camera tricks posing as citizen activism.
While we're on the subject, let's throw it out to the group—how would you like this guy to walk into your employer's business and start following you around with a camcorder? "Why do I have to have a password to use one of these computers? What are those weird white boxes with red lights in the corners of the ceiling? Why is the server room locked? Why did you call the police?" Seems pretty juvenile when you think about it.
Yes, you can get a limited view (10 or so) of a room through the distal end of a peephole, but it is essentially a one-way device.
In a similar manner, you can see through a one-way mirror by reducing ambient light as much as possible and placing a high-powered light flush against the surface of the mirror. See, if the guy at wearcam.org had constructed such a setup, with a rubber-gasketed camera and flash which he used to take pictures of the folk watching us in department-store dressing rooms, and filled a website with those photos (preferably alongside statements, denials, and changes of policy from the stores in question), then he'd be performing what would arguably be a public service.
As it is, he's filming camera domes as if they were UFO's and salespeople as if they were MIB's. For all his bravado, he isn't coming close to anything like a controversy.
Is this how I'm supposed to burn karma?
I live in Canada, but I'm Romanian. I'm also an atheist, and a libertarian.
I don't know what your response is supposed to mean. I don't hate Russians, I don't follow the politics of my homeland anymore (why should I?)
If you're going to do sousveillance on the Government, you might wind up like Jim Bell.
The definition of privacy, at least in the USA where I reside, has the words reasonable expectation of usually put before it. IF the police deaprtments have used telephoto lenses without a search warrant, then it looks like they are using unusual methods of search. Most police do not sit with binoculars, so therefore, using advanced technology on minor crimes can usually be considered inadmissable in court, and that being the primary evidence of apprehension, be thrown out of court.
But if they are speifically looking for you, then you are, as they say, up shit creek without a paddle.
Does he have a valid concern? Yes, I think he does. I'm not thrilled with the pervasiveness of cameras either. But how does harrasing the clerk at the register change anything?
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
Dude, I wish I had some points for you.
Alas, I don't I think that you really aren't trolling on this one. If you are, hell, you deserve the points for being an excellent troll.
Really people. If there is this big conspiracy, then where is the proof, other than kook words on the kook internet with no pictures, no concrete evidence but a ton of kook ranting? What posesses a person to believe them more than anyone else without proof? In almost any side of an issue, both lie. I want some dang evidence. Independent evidence of Big Brother.
Where have all of your liberties run off to compared to the massive slaughters that the populations of *say* China, Russia, or dictator held lands have suffered? The things that politicians are doing in the United States today might also be the result of the one thing that we complain about on Slashdot all the time...
Ignorance of technology. With a lack of independent voice in tech issues, they listen to companies. The movement should be independent. I know, we've been complaining about this forever... it is a legit idea.
Make action with not the seemingly exciting "counter-terrorist" agenda setting weirdness, but the boring, write-your-congressmen ways that the rich corporations beat over your heads every day. Granted, sign this petition is not as fun as storming a mall with security cameras, but it gets more action and less arrests.
It is not very slashdottian to say this, but your rights are not disappearing, they are being adjusted. They have been adjusted of every session of congress since it was founded. So please get out there and readjust them back in a way that you think is right. Real concrete movements to counteract real concrete laws. It isn't glamorous, but it does work. And it doesn't require harassin' working stiffs on the job.
Steve Mann's site doesn't even mention misuse of dressing-room video. His only mention of anything similar is in a spiel for his "art exhibit" which included a mocked-up anthrax decontamination facility, which he apparently thought would be an ideal place for getting lots of pr0n video. As such, my response was to his site and stated purpose, not to yours, no matter how noble yours might be.
When you say "department stores need cameras to protect their stock - but they need to do it in an accountable way," do you mean that if they misuse the video, they should be subject to lawsuits? Or are you saying that they should have a CorpWatch representative overseeing all videotape loading, unloading, and archiving? Does the corner 7/11 store need to hire one as well, since they have a camera behind the register? Where do you want to go with this?
"What recourse does the victim have?" The same recourse that they would have if a peeping tom videotaped them at home and posted mpeg's on the Internet—except that in the store's case, it would be much easire to prove liability, and to get a lucrative settlement. Which is why stores are very careful with such tapes, and only show them in the executive breakroom, where they belong.
"I posted anonymously because I don't have a login ID for slashdot, and I can't be bothered to get one." Yet you have the time to post anonymously ad nauseum? I'm simply dumbfounded by this statement.
Go in peace, my child.
..it would have been nice to know about this before I finished my last-minute Christmas shopping... oh, well. Next year, perhaps.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
That's right. He isn't really acomplishing anything. But he is very likely having a great deal of fun. The guy just feels the need to disguise that to some extent.
It's fun to screw with people. Try it some time. Go down to the Bose store, and ask that chick if she wants to make out on that leather couch. Or, if you're old enough to make that inapropriate, try screaming "BACK THAT ASS UP!!!" to the next Chevy Suburban you see backing out of a parking space.
Almost anything will work. It's fun. Try it.
If you're lucky, maybe she'll accept (although, considering the forum...) or maybe the SUV will pump the brakes and make the back end bounce.
The people in the video were pretty much just laughing at him. It was fun for everybody. And maybe they got some of his message in with it, but who really gives a fuck?
It's illegal to wear a mask in my city. I'm not the only one..
.
.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Ironically, just as technology has advanced to the point where distributed, grass-roots surveillance ("sousveillance") is becoming possible, it has simultaneously advanced to the point where faking video is equally becoming possible.
Within a few years, unauthenticated video footage will be useless, because anyone will be able to conjure up whatever fakery they like. All those underground sousveillance cameras will be producing data which could have been made just as easily on a high end workstation.
Only authenticated video will be trusted. That means that the police and government will trust their own video cameras and be able to use them at trial. But video records from private citizens will be no better than hearsay.
Technology giveth, and technology taketh away. So it will always be.
Excuse me, but there are plenty of other religions all over the world, plenty of which the US has no problem with. Not to mention all the people IN the United States who aren't Christian. Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Pagans, and Wiccans unite and smite down this ignorant fool. I'm not disputing that today was a poor choice for this event, but saying the other religions of the world are miniscule is slanderous.
You all seem to have either forgotten, or been unaware of, the fact that there have been numerous cases of security cameras pointed into dressing rooms at department stores. A department store's desire to prevent theft does not outweigh someone's to privacy while trying on clothes in a dressing room. A person should not have to worry about whether some security guard is getting his rocks off watching them dress/undress.
Every one of us has, at one time or another, scratched our a** or privates when we thought no one was looking. We've all had a finger up our nose at some point in our lives. Well, if I scratch my butt, it's not for the amusement of some Walmart rent-a-cop staring at monitors.
What happens when some law enforcement agency subsidizes the cameras at a local shopping mall in exchange for copies of all videos produced from them?
Stores should display privacy policies just like web sites do. Are the cameras manned or recorded? If they are recorded, how long are tapes stored and who maintains control of the tapes? Does the store guarantee that there are no cameras that can be pointed into dressing rooms and lavatories? Does the store have a policy that prohibits their employees from revealing non-criminal activity revealed by the cameras (e.g., public figure discreetly kissing someone other than spouse, man adjusting toupee, etc.)?
I'm an old-fashioned liberal. I think that people's rights are more important than businesses' profits. I'd rather see *mart make a few million dollars less this year than to have them invade the privacy of people who are doing nothing more criminal than adjusting their underwear.
I've got a simple solution. We convince some people to start surveillance-free businesses. I don't know what kind of idiot would actually start a surveillance-free kwikymart, but let's say you can convince someone to do it.
Then we give everyone a choice. You can go where you might be watched and pay the regular price OR you can go to a surveillance-free store and pay 20-50% more. Of course, advertising that you are a surveillance-free store might make it even worse than a standard store and ease the pressure on the other stores.
So if you are fine buying half as much stuff then you can support the surveillance-free effort. But the rest of us will just deal with cameras.
I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment behind this effort, but I believe that it must be directed at the right targets.
It's just a model.
EndersGame
You know, in this day and age I am surprised more people with digital cameras and camcorders aren't recording some of the crazy stuff people are doing and throwing it up on a website. That smells like a sure fire website right there that would be bound to get lots of traffic and continue on with the idea of Sousveillance.
Maybe a site like that exists, but I have never heard of it. A weak argument I know...
I'd code this up, but I'm not enough of an activist.
Spoofzilla. Use a gnutella-alike protocol. You can spoof packets to any ip address running spoofzilla. This allows you to choose not to be classified by IP addresses...
Heh.
Also alows you to do DOS attacks, and get around your IRC ban.
God spoke to me
Video camera footage is stuff back from dead kennedy's era. Tape the brutality when it occurs. And some people will loose their jobs. It works, whatever. It just keeps touch on the untouchables.
I thought his intention was to actually meaningfully counter invasions of privacy... The only way to do that is to add more layers of privacy. My idea was aimed mainly at the FBI's main target... If you keep fighting where someone else is fighting, but doing it 10000x better, then you hold them back from other fields of war.
Its like the prisoner struggling in vain through the jaildoor for the keys, when there are no walls. If you make sure the prisoner never realizes he could just walk around the door, then he stays trapped.
God spoke to me
The gradual acceptence of Security Cameras by the public seems to be rather insidious. People are convinced that cameras make them safer and are willing to give up rights in order to be safe (yes, please don't quote me Ben Franklin). Where is the data by an independent source showing the overall reduction in crime due to the cameras? As I recall, the police (at least in our area) state that the problem doesn't disappear, it just moves where the cameras are NOT.
If crime is just moving around avoiding the cameras, then some will say that we need more cameras EVERYWHERE and then the evil criminals will have nowhere to hide. Is there any data showing that there is NO way this will happen (cost ineffective or otherwise) and that there would be no way that crime reduction would actually happen?
The rhetoric that we are losing rights doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the average person. How can we show them that cameras can be a BAD thing? Showing them why losing our civil liberties over time will lead to a worse life may help a little tiny bit.
Hell, if you know how to present your case even moderately well, you will be able to convince the average person that having a surveillance camera in their home is a GOOD thing.
First you need to ask them how they feel about the effectiveness of cameras to deter crime. They will probably answer "I think that they are effective."
Build on that. Ask them that if since they are so effective then they wouldn't mind more of them to monitor the idiots on the road and the areas that they go shopping and visiting at. They will probably answer "Yes".
Again, build on that. Ask them if they would like to make their streets safer in their neighborhood by installing cameras. They will bleat "Yes". Ask them about installing a camera in front of their house to keep it safe and they will again answer "Yes".
Inform them that the most common form of crime in the United States is domestic violence. Appeal to them how it rips apart families and causes pain and suffering. Ask them if they have watched the TV show "COPS" and cite examples.
Now convince them that since it is such a major problem and that there is no way to protect those people that it might be best to install the cameras for the interm in previous offenders homes, just for safety mind you. They will grudgingly answer that it might be prudent.
Now inform them that since there is no way to spot the offenders BEFORE or WHILE the first offense is comitted that it would be safest for the community for ALL people, including them, to have a camera in the house.
I have had a person answer (and I quote here), "Yes, I see what you mean. That might be an idea that I can live with."
Reread the previous quote. How in God's name are we going to get the average person to:
A) Think about the consequences of their actions or inactions.
B) Start caring about their civil liberties.
C) Understand HOW this technology can be misused.
D) Understand WHY this technology could be misused.
E) Understand the need for people to watch the watchers. And have the PEOPLE watch THEM.
How are we going to get the average person to start processing information with their brains rather than with their feelings?
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Another common criticism is that by simply shooting low-level clerks in department stores, we don't get to the true perpetrators of surveillance in higher places. Nothing could be further from the truth. Shooting at low level clerks creates a problem they can't deal with. The clerks then get their managers. The managers see the problem, and very quickly the matter escalates to head-office. The quickest way to get to speak with a manager is to photograph the low-level clerks. You get to speak to a manager much faster than if you merely ask to speak to a manager (in which case they often lie and claim that the manager is not present, or is in a meeting).
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
pretty much because you dont have the balls to do it.
They will attack you, they will steal your camera (use a throw away and have a second peron covertly photograph. Espically photograph you getting assulted by the security team.
It's a helluva rush, and it get the point across. I reccomend everyone doing it at lest once. if you have the guts.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
On the whole an insightful comment, but it goes too far when it says
The differences between the old USSR and the present day US are minimal....
I don't think you realize quite how unpleasant the old USSR was. The US still has a long way to go before it gets there. But if people continue being complacent, it will continue in that direction. "All those in favor of losing their rights, do nothing".
While I can't watch the video here and the political ramblings on the webpage sometimes wandered off into the slightly kookier side of the issue, I wouldn't completely discount the value of acting like a jerk. Such behavior is just a level of refinement away from the brilliant social satire done by Michael Moore, the genius behind "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth".
One such example of his behavior (from the first season of "The Awful Truth") was heading to the headquarters of an insurance company that had refused to pay for a life-saving liver transplant for one of their policy holders. The policy contained two conflicted clauses, and the company had chosen the least expensive option (rejecting the claim). Attempts to resolve the matter via traditional grievance procedures had failed, and the person in need of the liver wouldn't have survived the multiple years necessary for a court battle.
So Mr. Moore, with the man who needed the transplant, went to the office and gave out invitations to the man's inevitable funeral. He harassed employees. He made a pest of himself. He even held a mock funeral down in the street once getting thrown out. Obnoxious? Yes. Funny? Hell, yes. Effective? Well, the insurance company authorized the liver transplant, and the guy was in the audience (post transplant) for the host segment of the show.
The point is that sometimes the deck is stacked so heavily in favor of large companies that acting like a jerk is your only resort. The result is to (hopefully) focus a large amount of negative publicity at the company so that they can't ignore it. Anything else tends to get lost in the crowd. A company could care less if one person writes a letter complaining about their use of video surveilance. But if that one person sits in a store and videotapes the surveilance system, in clear view of all the other shoppers, it's suddenly an incident that must be addressed.
If that person then puts his/her videotape up on the web, you've just magnified that publicity. If that site gets slashdotted, kick the audience up another order of magnitude. If the footage is interesting enough (either via humor or insight) that you've get television coverage, your audience has skyrocketed, and the company is forced to respond.
Still, sometimes acting like a jerk is just plain obnoxiousness, but if done right, it's the key to humorously getting your point across.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
Such behavior is just a level of refinement away from the brilliant social satire done by Michael Moore [imdb.com], the genius behind "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth".
On the other hand, it's just a level away from the work of Tom Green, too, whom I won't dignify with a link.
Anybody can walk around with a camera and act like an asshole. Saying "I'm doing it for artistic reasons" doesn't make it art, unless you also think Yoko Ono scrawling "fuck" on a museum ceiling is art.
This guy has a valid point, but the only people who are going to listen long enough to hear it are those who already get it.
True enough. But I'm still trying to provide at least some validation for the technique. The post I replied to could be converted to the analogy of, "What's the point at smacking a little white ball around a big green field?" My reply, by citing someone who actually gets it right, is trying to show that sometimes that little white ball gets hit into the hole on the far side of the field. A lot more people appreciate golf (even if some people deride it as not being a sport) versus the number of people who at least appreciate what this guy's attempting to do.
Futhermore, there's at least some hope for the guy. Just as someone can get better at golf, this guy can hopefully learn from his mistakes and refine the process a bit. While I'm not going to automatically give him a gold star for effort, he does have some theoretical potential. Maybe he'll do some direct good. Maybe not. Either way, he's at least spawned an interesting Slashdot discussion.
Seriously though, from what I've seen of Michael Moore's stuff, he seems to go to the top. Doing this to the executive assistant of someone important is a lot more effective. It also helps that Micheal Moore doesn't sound like he sleeps in a foil lined room at night. Most of the time.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
You mean the guy responsible for an increased awareness about testicular cancer? While most of his antics are immature "look at me" stunts, he did use the attention people gave him to bring attention to a very serious problem. Admittedly, it was something that he had a personal stake in (just as Michael J. Fox has a personal stake in Parkinson's research and Christopher Reeve has one in spinal injury research), but he did do some societal good.
but he did do some societal good.
:-)
I don't recall saying he did no GOOD; I said he did no ART.
A sewer does societal good, too, but I ain't hanging what comes out the other end up on my wall.
Hell, some guy owes him a debt of gratitude for making Drew Barrymore all weepy and vulnerable, too.
As a Christian celebrating Christmass, I had the day off and a video camera in my hand. What was I capturing? Mundane details of family life in New Orleans. I saw nothing terrible, thank goodness. No one got riled up either. It's amazing where you can go with a smile. Had I heard of something terrible at a time and place where I was, I'd take a closer look at my tape. Sure, it would not be as good as a Rodney King tape, any picture is better than none. There I was, sousvailance, without knowing it. Surely, others were doing the same thing.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I'm not sure why there are so many negative comments here. It's like 50% of the posts say, "Slashdotters are paranoid weenies." Great, there's nothing like reading insults all day, except being so lifeless as to write them.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.