Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance in Washington DC And At Bookstores
dioscaido writes: "From reuters: 'Washington police are building what will be the nation's biggest network of surveillance cameras to monitor shopping areas, streets, monuments and other public places in the U.S. capital, a move that worries civil liberties groups, The Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday.'" Aragorn_2002 writes "I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records. Just imaging if they start to use DMCA and the new Anti-terrorist bill to subpoena someone buying books on breaking encryption." If you've ever ordered from Amazon, this might concern you. Update: 02/13 21:30 GMT by M : The full WSJ article is available on MSNBC.
The problem is that, while the US population extolls "freedom" as an abstract virtue, in reality there is little concern for actual freedoms, when warranting those freedoms proves inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unpleasant. And, increasingly, the freedoms of others have become less important to many Americans - people who don't read could care less about freedom of the press, the War on Drugs doesn't strike your typical beer- or wine-guzzling alcoholic as a problem, racial profiling doesn't bother people who aren't in the profile, and so forth. And in each case, a "reasonable" argument can be made for the contraction of freedom.
I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records.
Actually, the article says the records have not been turned over after more than 2 years because lawyers got involved. According to the article, "Through the years, the protections accorded materials covered by the First Amendment, such as books and newspapers, have evolved to protect the institutions that provide those materials as well."
I think this article is more about how the rights are being successfully upheld rather than taken away.
I Heart Sorting Networks
The surveillance is bad enough; but, with the current political climate it will probably be hard to stop the implementation. What needs to be pushed for is open access to the surveillance.
Surveillance of itself is not good or evil. But when only the government has access to the surveillance video then a small group of people get to decided on what to keep and what to discard and peoples' motives should always be suspect.
If law enforcement wants surveillance on every street corner then fine let it be. However, the citizens need to DEMAND free access to the surveilance cameras and not just after the costly legal process of a subpoena (i.e. display the images over the web). This technology already exists, the infastructure can be installed right along with the cameras. Then every citizen can see unadulterated the actual events taking place in a location and draw their own conclusions and not have to rely on the molested interpretation of the involved parties.
If law enforcment can surveil the citizens, the citizens should be able to surveil law enforcment.
Right on. The best evidence is how culture perceives these types of infringements in entertertainment and media.
In basing the economy and culture on self-interest, there is little social importance placed on 'paying your interests forward' - that is, respecting that even if a decision doesn't affect you or your family right now ("Id never need an abortion", or "I'd never be an alcoholic", or "I'm not gay, so what do I care") doesn't mean it won't in the future.
The market (that by which we depend on to exist) has little interest in social rights until they affect a majority that hurts a bottom line. Large books stores are obstinately worried about their customers privacy, but only in so far as it will affect their profit margin. If each decision of this type alienates or resticts the liberty of 2% of their consumer base (especially if they are in the 'light users' category, which can be up to 70% of your customer base, but only 10% of your profits), they are unlikely to defend said restrictions vohemently. What the market fails to take into account is that once you've sufficiently chipped away at various liberties, ovet time, the cost of the social damage is far larger than the sum of the parts. This is when everyone wakes up and realizes that the attitude references in your post do do make up a larger social structure that we've depended on to justify the more destructive aspects of our political and economic system. Everyone is (or will be) in the same boat, so the 'It doest affect me' attitude really does the society, including the immediately unaffected, a disservice.
A wise observation on your part, in my opinion.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Because what I consider wrong, and what the law considers wrong are sometimes at odds, the law frequently changes, so what isn't wrong today might be wrong tomorrow, and because what I consider wrong and what the public at large considers wrong are more frequently at odds.
If I want to buy books about growing pot or what the LSD experience is like or how to pilot a 777, it's nobody's goddamn business. If I use that information to do something illegal, then and only then does it become anyone else's business. I don't need to be harassed because I am interested in out-of-the mainstream activities, and that interest is no one's business unless it leads to lawbreaking behavior.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I've never done drugs other than alcohol and caffeine.
I think drug use should be decriminalized. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in North America. I think Philip Morris (Oops, "Altria!") could make a fscking fortune growing and selling pot, and I think the IRS and state governments could make just as big a fscking fortune taxing the sale thereof.
I also think that both the federal and state governments could save a fscking fortune by not having to house potheads and crackheads in jail. Bust the ones who drive while impaired and who get aggressive. DWI's still a crime, so's assault.
Note that I'm talking about saving taxpayer dollars by lightening the load on prisons, not downsizing law enforcement.
I'd feel safer walking the streets at night if I knew that (a) I was unlikely to be mugged for $10 in my pocket, because drugs were affordable (due to increased supply), and (b) it was more likely there'd be a cop on the street to kick the guy's ass anyways (due to cops having more free time).
More importantly, I'd also feel a hell of a lot safer getting on a plane if I knew that (c) the law enforcement effort currently targeted against drug use were channeled into securing our borders and our transportation networks against terrorists.
Legalize drugs and you generate billions in tax revenues, save billions on prison expenses, eliminate the motivation for most gang violence, and simultaneously free up the resources of a million cops to secure their communities against other criminals such as sexual predators and terrorists. Everybody wins, even the cops.
The War on Drugs is obsolete; it's a WOMBAT: a Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. Our tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.
In response to your argument that privacy outside the home is meaningless, let me ask you a few questions that your "highly intelligent" discussion fails to touch upon.
Here's my first question. What happens when the police officer who's using the surveillance equipment doesn't have your best interests in mind? What happens if the person using the gear uses it for something less than the greater good of the public?
Your argument fails to consider corruption, which by my measure is a bit stupid.
Here's another question. What happens when the person using the system isn't authorized to use it? I know a fellow who works in a public office (I won't say which one to protect the guilty) who regularly looks up criminal records and DMV information on people he knows, even though it's illegal, because he can, not because he should. When the signals from these cameras is sent to police cars, what exactly guarantees that it can't be intercepted or otherwise compromised?
Your argument fails to consider invasion, which by my measure is a bit more stupid.
Here's a third question. How many terrorists would have been caught on September 11 if the systems that were already in place and in use were actually used correctly? The answer is turning out to be many of them. There are video pictures of two of the the terrorists walking through the metal detectors in the Maine airport en route to hijacking a plane with metal box cutters. How would more cameras have made any difference in how the terrorists that acted on 9/11 did their deeds?
Your argument fails to consider utilization, which by my measure is a lot more stupid.
Here's my last question. Since these systems are subject to corruption and error, and are underutilized in their present state, how exactly is adding to the system going to give me complete security? What is more likely is that it will make it easier for corruption and invasion to work against me, and under- and misutilization will prevent any effective increase in my security.
Your argument fails to consider escalation, which by my measure is truly stupid.
Virg