Slashdot Mirror
Suicide Caught on Surveillance Tape Appears Online
Jason writes "Reuters reports (and News.com mirrors) that the video of a man who shot himself after his girlfriend broke up with him has appeared online under the heading of 'Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects.' It goes on to say that the police officers receive no training to deal with privacy issues."
One wouldn't think this would need training, it should be common sense that something like that video shouldn't be shared.
I seriously hope that was a feeble attempt at humour. Otherwise it is really, really disturbing that people actually want to watch this.
Its sick that that would be able to get online, the family must feel terrible, watch some news station go and have a field day with it
"headline news at 5:30, we'll show you the website to download the movie police dont want you to see
Its even worse when some news station (xof) goes and exploits things like this
Oh, it get's better:
"It goes on, comes off, goes on. It's a joke," said Lane's mother. "That's why something has to come out of this hearing. I want my son's tape off that Web completely."
She's sad, distraught, angry , and confused. I'd hate to be the one that has to explain to her that you can never get anything "off that Web completely" once it's on.
everything in moderation
Yeah, cuz it's ok to watch people blowing up if it's a movie ... it's make belief...
You're prolly the same type of person who thinks wearing "faux fur" is ok because it's not real fur and therefor not really symbolic of skinning an animal and wearing it's fur...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Maybe it's not sensitivity training that the cops need, maybe it's that they shouldn't have access to surveilance tapes. Or maybe the suicide was supposed to be public. In a public place your image is not your property, but this still definitely qualifies as an invasion of privacy.
Generally, though, it's not aout whether the cop should be more sensitive about what he puts on the web, it's that he shouldn't be allowed to put anything from a surveilance camera on the web, or he should be able to put all of it on the web. Either the unfortunate Mr. Lane committed suicide in public, or he didn't. We still haven't figured out here [the US: I'm not talking about slashdot or places like the UK where these cameras are more ubiquitous and widely accepted] which we value more: privacy or freedom of information.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
The big deal isn't so much that someone killed themselves and has it on tape, this happens all the time. It's the fact that police officers recieve no privacy training, meaning your shit, much of which they have access, or can get access to, is no longer safe once they have it.
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
After seeing that video where a russian soldier gets beheaded, I have vowed not to watching videos like this anymore. If anything else, it desensitizes us about humanity. Sure lot of bad things happen in the world but that doesn't mean we need to watch it night and day. Some people seemed to be obsessed with watching these stuff almost to the level that they are addicted to it. Now that is pornographic.
Activists United
After the "inconclusive evaluation" of the use of cameras last year in a particular area in Edmonton, the police in Edmonton are going to try and "evaluate" them again. What's sickening is that people aren't fighting back against this. Sure, there are crimes committed, but the cameras caught one car theft and one guy holding a gun. That's all for a cost of $46000.
Yes, you read correctly, $46000. That's roughly the cost of putting a cop on the streets for half a year.
Fight back against the use of cameras as much as possible. Otherwise, Big Brother may creep up on us without us realizing it.
Part of me can't believe this is happening but the other, more cynical part of me thinks that this is just a sign of things to come as our population grows and our technological prowess pervades most corners of society. Cameras are so small and so inexpensive now...we're moving past the science fiction of last century.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should look at this not as some sort of horrific "thing" but more as a new by-product of our decreasing privacy. Time to break out the psychology books...
...then again, what was that sci-fi book with the apartments with clear walls?
Two points:
1) Acts performed in public are by definition not private. He did this in the lobby of public housing, therefore there is no right to privacy. We can debate the ethics of distributing the video, but the fact remains that this was a public performance.
2) Dead people have little, if any right to privacy. Even the Social Security Administration publicly releases your SSN after you die.
IANAL
From what I understand, he was in the public. Why is there such a big concern for privacy? If somebody shoots themselves in front of a large crowd, is their mother going to come out a few days later and say "all those people in the crowd should be sued for seeing my son shoot himself" I think not. This is not so much a privacy issue as it is an ethics issue.
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
...is because watching people die in front of your eyes scares you shitless and gives you nightmares and occupies your thoughts. No bad thing, the same is probably true of me. (But luckily I've never seen anybody actually dying close-up in full graphic colour in real time.)
Some poor miserable person, in agony (or, a stupid fool we are better off without) has died. What in the hell are we doing "rubbernecking" on the information superhighway at this crash?
This is neither news for nerds (news for morbid voyeurs?) nor is the fact that a death has been photographed "stuff (snuff) that matters".
Let's put this thread (and the subject) to rest.
I'm somewhat qualified to comment on this situation as my brother did the same thing. He took his own life shortly after spending part of his day playing pool with me. I believe that he had chosen to kill himself way before and spent the day with me for my benefit. It's how I will remember him. I thank him for that. It will have been two years now come this June.
His choice of location would not have afforded a videotape and I am glad for that as well. Not a day goes by that I don't miss him. I don't think being reminded of it online ala "The Star Wars Kid" is appropriate. I really feel for the family. It's not easy at ALL to go through that with someone so close to you. I would imagine all the people joking and laughing here have never experienced the situation.
As with many of the stories you see online you don't know all the facts. However it seems to me to be a situation of double stupidity. Not only do you have a heartless bastard posting the video online...he is also a racist. I can only hope that life's karma catches up with him. Maybe one day I'll have mod points and meet him in real life.
-M
...that one abrogates some privacy rights when committing a crime (suicide is....) in a public place?
I wouldn't watch the video of the soldier getting beheaded becouse that is a man of honnor being attacked.
I did want to see the guy shooting himself. Morbid curreosity.
I also made sure I ate nothing first.
I don't think it would desensitive me (unless I saw it a lot).
First it's "Hah suiside. One less loser"
Next it's morbid curreosity.
Then it's "wow look how cold he is like he's lost his soul or something" a bit of understanding. Getting in a persons head is something I do. Imperfictly of course my thoughts come first so by bisses cancle out...
Then... BLAM...
For a split second you might even feel something cold running down your neck. It's just your mind playing tricks on you and other tricks as well.
Being in a persons head kinda makes you unready for tragic things like that.
Then your not laughing anymore.
However the people who are part of that website making the commenst they do are already desensitised and they've never seen this before.
I don't actually exist.
In George Carlin's latest act, he talks about how someone should make an 'All-Suicide Channel' because that's the ultimate reality TV. And people would line up to watch. That's essentially what's beginning to happen here. It wouldn't be the first time Carlin predicted a trend. A few years back, he predicted that some nut would go apeshit and shoot up a church. Not more than six months later, it happened for the first time. One last thing - you people that thinks a man killing himself is funny, go back to Fark, where you belong.
"I can still see the vid and I'm laughing harder the first time than I did the first or second."
--LordKaT
I shouldn't even have to explain why it's more than just a little disturbing that three moderators saw fit to publically mark this comment as "Funny".
Im on for 50 that some senator will pass an emergency law making searching, viewing, downloading or even caching this file carry upto 20 years jail.
Senator's son? Sure, it would happen.
Black kid in the ghetto? No chance.
1) He was named "Paris Lane"? like some bastard cross between Paris Hilton and Lois Lane but about 10E8 less sexy?
Probably not
2) This is low-incoming housing, right? where did he get money for a gun if the taxpayers are helping him pay rent?
Something that your middle-class self might not be aware of: There are some places in this country where a gun is almost a neccessity for security. Just because you live in a nice neighborhood where you don't have to worry about someone breaking in, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is like that.
3) does dead people have actual rights regarding privacy? I mean, pretty sure that there are laws against defiling a corpse, but suicide is considered felon in like 9 states anyway, and I am pretty sure felons get less rights than regular people... still beats getting your body dragged through the streets and buried at a crossroad w/ a stake through the heart, though (old english punishment for suicide)
The legality has very little to do with the real issue here: Step out of your preconventional morality world.
4) erm... this appeared on a... pornography website?
No.
Here's a question for you: Why ask such stupid questions? Usually a joke takes some sort of form, instead of being merely a random combination of offensive and/or redundant statements.
Hey, everyone else is running out to see Mel Gibsons snuff film. Whats wrong with this one?
"Online", in this case, is intentionally vague, and means "deep pockets". I'm willing to bet (a lot) there's a lawyer involved in this, who will do his damndest to haul into court the NY Housing Authority, or the security company, or the NYPD or the manufacturer of the surveillance equipment or the property owner or the website owner or HUD or anyone else who might have both some implied control over the property or the tapes and an insurance policy that will cover the liability.
And in the name of protecting the privacy of the victim (who needs no protection, and probably didn't give a rat's ass about it at the time he shot himself) the lawyer will show the tape over and over (traumatizing the family, who I doubt needed to see the tape) to a judge and/or jury to convince them that somehow a grave wrong has been perpetrated by someone somewhere (who would show the tape to anyone else, or email it, or publish it on a website, or who didn't stop the act in the first place). If the lawyer does his job and finds someone with both responsibility and the means to pay, some court will direct that funds be moved to the lawyer.... errr, I mean to the aggrieved party.
This is why there are insurance companies, why there are lawyers, and why there are civil courts. This isn't a story about suicide, privacy, race, youth, or public housing. It's economics. For every kid who blows his brains out on camera there are a whole bunch who do it in private. Damn shame. When it makes the news it's because some lawyer is making a move to collect money--most likely on contingency. This is a disgusting story, and the outcome is guaranteed to be just as disgusting.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
Millions of people watched the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals and humans on a massive scale live as entertainment for centuries. Barbaric as that may have been, this is only disturbing insomuch as it reveals an aspect of human nature(a curiosity about death) which frightens and disturbs us but which is none the less still very real.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
I bet you don't understand the nature of living in a housing project.
Sure, there are crimes committed, but the cameras caught one car theft and one guy holding a gun.
The camera also prevented an unknown number of crimes in that area... Most criminals aren't dumb enough to comitt a crime within the viewable area of a well-known camera operated by the police. How many crimes were reported there before the camera was put up?
Sure, some of this crime will move to other parts of the city, but at least the good people are no longer scared away from a business district. No wonder the business owners want the camera there.
If you want to commit suicide, a gun is a very good investment. It can bring a very abrupt end to all of your money troubles.
Why the hell would the family be looking for it on the web anyway? Hell, if they weren't making such a big deal out of it, almost nobody would even know it was out there. They have now ensured that it will remain on the net forever. Real bright.
If you actually click the link you will see that the video is broken anyway.
I just posted it because Google IS censoring this page.
I saw the preview of this story so I went to google and searched for "'Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects.'". And the page came up. If you think I'm a sick fuck for wanting to see what the fuss is about then go ahead and feel that way. Personally I think censorship of any kind is more offensive than anything you'll find on rotten.com or what have you.
Anyway I tried the search a few minutes later and the page was gone. Stuff doesn't usually just disappear out of google like that.
I like google, I depend on it, and I expect google to find what I'm looking for if it exists on the web at all. While I don't usually search for this sort of thing, it definitely irritates me that google is now deciding what I should and shouldn't see.
And yes I do think it's socially and morally repugnant to post stuff like this on the web. But it's a far lesser offense than censoring it.
Wait, you probably think the world should be "fair" to everyone and all the hard edges should be rounded down and padded, huh? You probably own plastic Tonka Toys, too.
Uncle Sam will be by to change your diapers in a bit, you big Nancy.
Or put another way, what you are saying is that for the low cost of $46,000, these police cameras reduced crime in a certain area to only two offenses in a year? Sounds like a success to me.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Ever see the film "Adaptation?"
It's an okay movie...follows a very difficult plot line so it's hard to watch. But at two points in that film, the director includes car crashes. Not spectacular, hollywood crashes, but very realistic ones. Unbelted bodys flopping out of windows like mannequins, and then just dying.
Those films scared the shit out of me. I have seen hundreds of car crash films, and it wasn't until "Adaptation" that I was scared enough to really slow the fuck down and start driving safe.
My point is, viewing films that illustrate the real consequences of violence is so much more worthwhile than viewing realistic violence that paints a gung-ho story. It doesn't desenitize us because it is harder to ignore the consequences or right them off as just a story. I don't think there's anything "sick" about being curious or even interested in so-called morbid video. Death is what happens at the end of each of our lives...and to ignore that is far worse than wanting to see a desperate man's final moments.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Otherwise it is really, really disturbing that people actually want to watch this.
Ah yes, tell that to the moron in the Honda Civic that almost slammed into me last week. The reason? He was so obsessed with looking at the accident that had happened in the other lane he almost missed his turn.
Humans are unfortunately obsessed with seeing other human's suffering. That's why show's like Cops and Trauma: Life in the ER are so popular. It does not surprise me in the least that people would want to see it. Sad, but true.
Anyone thought that he might have done this in the elevator lobbym knowing that the video camera is there, on purpose?
- learn to swim.
No one is making them watch it. Welcome to the real world, because, as the number of cameras increase, the number of these incidents will skyrocket.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
No, but Google does have a bias in favor of more popular sites, particularly news sites. If you require two words in the name of the site in your search, the site still comes up. There's a big difference between "censored" and "knocked off the first position" at Google...
Simply put. Sites with higher pagerank, including this one, have started using that phrase and not given a link back to the originating site...
As it has been stated, this isn't about privacy at all, but about character. Police officers are people too, and in any group of people, there will be those with little character. Unfortunately, a cop with 5h1t for character has the ability to hurt people in a especially profound way. Though the person who killed himself can't be done any harm at this point his family and friends can. If an officer posted this and they find out who he/she is, that person doesn't need privacy training, he needs to be fired. Yeah, it happened in a public place and yadda yadda yadda, but for an officer to release this kind of footage is simply distasteful and seems to be unbecoming for a public servent. If you've seen a person lose their life before your eyes, you know that there is nothing entertaining about it. You'd think someone in that line of work would respect that.
Nah, the poster was trying to be analytical and explain the issue. It is pretty likely that the title was meant to be racist, so "apparently" is appropriate. He could have said "this statement by a sheet wearing KKK motherfucker" and communicated no more.
Drawing conclusions based on a single sentence is dicey. Being conservative in commenting is just the smart way to go.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Why do people always say this kind of thing? I don't mean this as a personal attack, but some of us actually have convictions that are based in thought instead of emotion... Whether it is a loved one doesn't really things if you really believe and stick to your guns.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
She really doesn't understand the Internet. If she manages to get this off the Internet, it will be the first time anything controversial *ever* gets moved off the Internet.
I'll bet this movie has already been published to a Freesite, as a matter of fact, as soon as someone heard that someone was trying to censor the movie.
Ultimately, I can understand the mother being upset, but OTOH, if I want to run naked down Main Street carrying a squirrel and someone gets me on tape, I'm going to have to put up with video of it being out there.
This guy chose to shoot himself in public. I don't think shooting onesself is a good idea; I think that shooting onesself in a public place is an even worse idea if one wants to have a private suicide. If someone had been standing there with a camcorder, and the police hadn't been involved, there wouldn't even be an issue -- plenty of hand-camcorderized deaths have been taped, and even sold to TV stations (though not, to the best of my knowledge, suicides -- just accidental deaths).
I can understand complaints about the misuse of military/police surveillance, but I don't think that someone doing something in public really has a right to expect that images of that action not be reproduced. We have laws to protect against paparazzi and similar in private, but in public everything is fair game.
May we never see th
You're prolly the same type of person who thinks wearing "faux fur" is ok because it's not real fur and therefor not really symbolic of skinning an animal and wearing it's fur...
What an unsupported, misguided analogy.
Faux fur is a celebration of the beauty of animals, and given that no animals were harmed in its production, I don't really see an issue with it. It isn't symbolic of skinning an animal any more than dressing up as a alien for Halloween is symbolic of capturing aliens and parading them through our streets, or putting a picture of a tropical paradise symbolizes boxing the island and installing it in your condo.
This camera system was installed to improve the safety of these project neighborhoods. It has been abused to provide entertainment to racist demented individuals. This is very wrong.
Humans are unfortunately obsessed with seeing other human's suffering
While I will fully agree that people have a strange attraction to accident scenes, I don't think the real reason is a desire to see suffering. Instead people just want to be a part, however trivial, of an event. If you can say that you saw the blood in a big accident that covers the news, well damnit you're hot shit because you were a "part" of that event, even as a spectator. It's the same for big accidents, big police busts, amazing events, power outages, whatever -- people want to associate themselves with it somehow.
Google did not and cannot censor the page, because Google does not control the publishing of the repugnant page.
Like a library's card catalog, Google is a guide to find information you want. Google has not removed the information you sought, but removed their pointer to that information. That's not the same as burning books or suppressing publication.
Freedom of press does not grant a favorable Google PageRank.
comments like this lend weight to the argument that slashdot needs "-1 retarded" moderation
I thought the metaphor fits. It was also on topic and a witty quote.
Or have I been trolled?
I doubt the family could see this on the web anyways. The problem is that in actuallity very few people have probably seen the video. More people have simply heard about it. That's probably what happened with the family. They probably heard it from a frined of a friend who happens to know someone who read in a chatroom that bugsy532 saw some dude kill himself, and the dude's name happened to be the same name as their relative who just killed himself. So they go talk to their lawyer, who says that he can sue all sorts of people if they make a big deal out of it, maybe get them enough money to move out of their ghetto and pay for all the crack and rap videos they want.
So should the media stop showing films of any accidents where people die - I know I don't want to see any graphic images, but I've seen the film of both Space Shuttles blow up repeated without anybody being outraged.
What about all the images of bomb drops released by the US in the Gulf War 1 + 2. You do realise that the little dots running around (and then not running around) are people ?
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Meat. You like eating meat? Cool. Seen any video on how it's processed (i.e. how cows are killed, skinned and cut up)?? Seen the video(s) of how dogs and cats are prepared in other countries? Dolphins being clubbed and left floating in the water by Japanese tuna fishermen?
Yes I like eating meat. None of the above makes a shits worth of difference in that fact. Life feeds on life. I clean my own fish, and if I hunted, I'd clean my own game. Other crap like dolphins being clubbed is unfortunate, but it's not going to keep me from eating meat.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
It's worth taking two seconds out to think that, like most people, she doesn't undertand exactly what the Internet is or how it works. Based on a quick reading of that article, I'd guess that's she's never been online; hell, it's possible that she's never used a computer. All she knows is that her son's death is joke fodder for a bunch of strangers.
Seriously, man... take two seconds to reconsider your m1573r l337 attitude and grow up.
Movies in theatres don't get censored that much for violent scenes as they do for showing nudity. Even the nudity or sex that is present in the American media is mostly connected with violence, or someone being hurt implicitly by being cheated on by their partner/spouse. The message it seems to be that killing, hurting, destroying is "o.k.", while something as natural and normal as a show of affection are "bad".
Perhaps it's not just Hollywood that acts that way. If someone on campus or in High School will start a fight everone will gather and cheer or just want to watch two dumbasses beath each other up. If I would just hug or kiss my girlfriend on campus, there will definetly be the "get a room you two" looks and comments. Even the types of drugs that are "sponsored" by the govt. say a lot. For example everyone's favorite drug, alcohol, is legal and some states even have exclusive licenses to sell it. Why isn't it the same for marijuana? Both substances can be just as dangerous. Yet alcohol intoxication often leads to aggressive and violent behavior, while marijuana has the opposite effect.
Now if someone actually read down to this point. I should emphasize that it is possibly because of this aggresivness that this country has the best economy and one the best run governments. People just have a better work ethic and are also more honest, or at least appreciate honesty more.
Well that was my 2 cents. Probably off-topic.
Fine, when your family member commits suicide, and the act gets posted all over the web, we'll remember that you said that no censorship was far more important than privacy.
But don't make decisions like that for the rest of us.
If you continue to misuse the word 'censor,' you will dilute its value.
- Censorship is not the same as filtering.
- Censorship is not the same as ranking.
- Censorship is not the same as preference.
- Censorship is not the same as choice.
- Censorship is not the same as ambivalence.
Censorship has a specific meaning. Use it carefully and it will continue have meaning. Use it whenever you dislike another's speech (or lack thereof) and you're just crying wolf.filtering is censoring a sample, not a population
ranking says only that A is more relevant or applicable than B
does preference of A really mean censorship of B?
choosing A does not mean censoring B
right to free press does not equal a right to be heard in a specific forum, including google's index
It's interesting how differently people react to seeing this kind of stuff. I used to work at LinkExchange as a banner/site checker. My job was to seek out objectionable material on sites before letting them in the network. During the year I did it, I saw a lot of nasty stuff. Gory photos from crime scenes, child pornography, rape clips, etc... in my judgement most of it was real.
:) Cheers.
I never got desensitized. Every time I came across a site that looked like it might contain such content, I'd break into a cold sweat. I'd search cautiously and if I found something I'd quickly squint my eyes and navigate to the "ban" button. And my day would thus be ruined. The image would stick in my head for hours (if not days) and make me sick to my stomach. To this day I get the same reaction to such content. I am still very sensitive to the sight of real violence. I avoid it whenever I can.
On the flip side, I have no problem at all with movie violence. I can watch loads of sensationalized gore. I can enjoy movies like Evil Dead 2 and Seven without batting an eyelash. In fact I even made a reasonably violent indie film of my own.
I am sometimes deeply affected by realistic, emotionally charged film violence, like that in Schindler's List -- though not to the degree that snuff affects me.
I have occasionally had friends email me pictures or movies to "check out! funny!" and then watched a guy have his leg broken in half. Ha ha.
I don't really understand how so many people can watch real violence/suffering and find it entertaining, even in a morbidly curious way. However, I admit that many fine people I know can watch it and not lose their humanity. I'm sure there are people here who can't understand how I can watch movie violence and maintain my humanity.
I don't have a point. Just reporting
You betray your intent to censor by referring to the material as filth. Google has taken deliberate steps to suppress this material, which, despite hair-splitting, meets the commonly used definition of censorship. Google should tread carefully in this sort of area, lest it find itself liable for things it fails to suppress some time in the future.
Yes, she used the term wrong. She lives in a housing project, maybe she hasn't the same time and resources to sit in front of a computer for hours like us. Be thankful you were born rich enough to get "online" at will and stop laughing at people less fortunate than yourself. Mod: This post was not funny.
OK, let's posit that killing animals for their fur is wrong (at least unless you need the fur). Now, you're saying that wearing fake fur is wrong because it's symbolic of the harming animals.
Fine. Now, hopefully you'll agree with me that murder, rape, assault, and other violent crimes are wrong because they hurt people. By your argument (if X is wrong, and Y is symbolic of X, Y is wrong), any literature and art which includes symbolism of these violent crimes is wrong. I assume then you'll be down at your local library checking out and burning every major work of literature since, and including, the Bible.
I don't know anyone who wears fake fur because it's symbolic of skinning an animal. I know lots of people who wear fake fur because it doesn't hurt any animals, they think it's pretty, they want to look stylish, and/or it feels nice after a couple hits of ecstasy. Given that I don't care if someone else wears a "fake person" costume, I certainly don't think the animals give a shit.
I don't understand why a global context would be a necessary component of censorship. Is not Germany's (attempted) suppression of Nazi literature censorship, though it has little effect outside her borders?
I thought I was the only person on the planet who noticed this. And was disgusted by it.
"We think this is deplorable, but we're not above using a dash of it for our ratings." Nothing like capitalizing off of the same urge that makes people slow down to look at car accidents.
I can even remember the exact moment I stopped watching the news. It was a child porn segment.
Anyone who's ever opened a porn mag (of the legal variety) knows that usually the first page of a photo shoot is a teaser page that has a goofy title of some sort, and a PG rated picture of the subject of the shoot.
The fucking show was showing the teaser pages from child porn mags on the "tune in after this commercial break" message. The title of one of the teaser pages was "Lots 'o Love".
And that, folks, is when I stopped watching the local news.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
This guy's real, Jesus wasn't.
Believe what you want about who Jesus was, whether he was the son of God, or whatever, but most historians will tell you they definately believe there was a guy named Jesus who caused quite a stir among society in his time and apparently he still causes quite a stir today. How many people do you know of that are used as a point of reference when measuring time? (i.e. B.C. & A.D.).
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
So let me get this straight. He kills himself in a lobby of a public housing building, i.e., an area accessible by the public, and this is a privacy issue? I understand and sympathize with his mother and agree that whoever let the tape out should be punished, but I believe that privacy cannot be an issue when you do something in a public area.
On a tangential note, would the family of this guy be liable if, say, an impressionable child had wandered into the area right as the event took place?
What bothers me most about this isn't the privacy concern, but rather that there is apparently an appetite out there for viewing this kind of thing.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Excuse me, but an officer who doesn't realize it's immoral and wrong to post or email the video of someone's suicide?
What kind of degenerate excuse for a human being needs training to know better? Someone with such a complete lack of empathy or common sense is allowed to carry a gun and a badge?
Just when you think the American "justice" system couldn't get any worse...
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
> But don't you see this is exactly the root of the problem? Google is making those
> decisions for the rest of us.
> And it is censorship. It's limited of course to Google, as the site itself is still available,
> but it is censorship. Google is modifying its content to specifically deny the access to a
> particular piece of information *on Google*. This is censorship.
No, it's not. Censorship is when the government stops you. If you want to get this file and host it yourself then no-one will stop you. What Google decides to store in their database is entirely up to them - who are you to tell them what to you? If you don't like it, why not start your own search engine?
You've got it backward, buck-o. When you apply censorship, you're making the decision for "the rest of us".
Following your logic, the domain registrars could remove their endorsement as well. Major ISPs could decide that it isn't worth their while to route packets to your servers, or acknowledge that you occupy the IP address that you think you have.
I suppose the difference is private industry assistance vs. government action. It's sort of unrealistic for you to expect to publish anything if you have no help from anyone in the private sector. However, you could argue that if THAT many people (read: everyone) doesn't want it published, who's your audience?
I guess your definition of censorship requires that some kind of enforcement agent prevents you from acting in an otherwise law-abiding way in order to prevent the publication.
I mostly agree with that, but it would be rather easy to convince a few major ISPs to prevent you from using them to publish (if the content is of a certain nature), which pretty much ruins any chance of online publication. I don't know whether it's "censorship" or not, but it certainly prevents someone from reading your publication even if they wanted to.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
There is a major difference between 'censorship' and 'government censorship'. From reading many of the comments, it seems that that is what many people seem to be forgetting. If google did indeed delete the site from their index, then it is indeed censorship. It is not as extreme as the governent sending in armed troops and shutting down the servers that the website is hosted on, but it is censorship.
This isn't that bad though, becuase if I do conclusivly find that google did actually delete the page from their index, then I will be more likely to use a different search engine, and so will other peoeple. So, it is not in google's best interest to delete the index.
Censorship is anytime that a major host of information denies access to that information. If Google did delete the index, then Google isn't actually denying access to the website, but they are denying access to the link to the site, which is censorship. It's just not as bad as government censorship.
Someone with such a complete lack of empathy or common sense is allowed to carry a gun and a badge?
I thought those were the only people allowed to carry a gun and badge. You need a certain mentality to become a police officer, and it obviously includes the will to stamp on another human being and say "oops, your fault."
There are nice cops out there, I'm sure, but they are few and far between. Do you know why? It is because the raison d'etre for the police force these days is not investigating crimes. It is not protecting the innocent. It is not being "your friendly neighborhood officer." It is giving out speeding tickets.
I've had my house and car broken into several times before. Called the cops each time. In all but one case, there were *obvious* traces of entry. We're talking fingerprints on glass windows so sharp and clear that I could have sampled them myself with a piece of scotch tape. Guess how the cops responded?
The first time it was quite a surprise - after an hour I call the police station back to ask where the forensics unit they said they were sending out is. The response (I got a different operator than last time, apparently one more willing to tell the reality of the situation) "Oh, we don't do that." My response of course was, "well what do you do?" Upon which she replied "There'll be someone down in another hour or so to take a statement." "Huh. Will there be any kind of follow up?" "No, not really." "Great, thanks. Don't bother - I've got business to take care of."
I wish I'd been as sharp as that guy in Texas who called back after twenty minutes and said "Yeah, don't worry about sending anybody over - the guy was still hiding in my house so I shot him." Four squad cars were there in seconds. Guess what they were doing that was so important that they couldn't come earlier to insure the safety of a citizen? The article I read didn't say, but I'm guessing speeding ticket duty.
The police in the US are a joke. Unless you're going 75 miles per hour in a 65 zone, of course.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Using such emotionally drenched rhetoric is never a good way to win an argument. Consider a man whose wife has just been killed in a car wreck, and now wants to ban the use of all automobiles - he could very easily make the same sort of statement. If we are going to discuss things here, let us do it in a manner that is free of such emotional appeals which do little to further the spread of knowledge.
My blog
Alcohol doesn't even grow on plants
Uh, not directly I guess. There is a refining process, but the basic ingedients come from plants.
it's not aout whether the cop should be more sensitive about what he puts on the web, it's that he shouldn't be allowed to put anything from a surveilance camera on the web, or he should be able to put all of it on the web. Either the unfortunate Mr. Lane committed suicide in public, or he didn't.
Let's get the whole issue out in the open, public places belong to the public, not the government, and private places belong to their owners. If the place is not public, there should be no public surveilance. If the place is public and there is public surveilance, ALL of it should be published. There should be equal access for all people to all public information. I don't need police censors dolling out the nasty bits with offensive comentary, I need all of it. I paid for it, it's my space, I own it and the technology exists to index and share it.
Video capture equipment is already pervasive and it's going to get better. Eventually, you will be able to carry hours of recording capability in a shirt button. You should use such devices. Private surveilance is the only counter to the abuse of public surveilance and the abuse of that information by those who control it. If the same information becomes available privately, the government will be ashamed of not making the public records available. "Why did we spend all of this public money?" people will be able to ask when public surveilance systems are made redundant. Existing slander and publication laws are sufficient to prevent abuse of private footage, such as cads will make of their aquantances' sex lives.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If someone on campus or in High School will start a fight everone will gather and cheer or just want to watch two dumbasses beath each other up. If I would just hug or kiss my girlfriend on campus, there will definetly be the "get a room you two" looks and comments.
On the one hand, it might be nice to have "get a room you two" comments for fights, but I think I'd be a little uncomfortable being watched and cheered on by a ring of people when kissing my girlfriend.
On a more serious note, this mentality is one reason that I'm worried about the rise of a fascist state in America. A psychologist examining the lives of fascist leaders in the wake of WWII came up with a disturbing common trend in most of their lives -- a strong, disapproving father figure combined with a strong repression of sexuality and encouragement of violence with a projection of responsibility for immorality on an outside, hated group. They called it the "F factor," and I'm sadly disappointed that I can't find an web link about it after reading mention of it in "The Lucifer Principle," by Howard Bloom. Does that profile sound familiar for any large, politically active group in America right now?
It's a shame that "Godwin's Law" (which has been in existence long before Godwin uttered it and even long before the Internet was born) has silenced all open debate and reflection upon the rise of fascism in Europe. Most Americans honestly have no idea how Germany went from a democracy to a fanatical dictatorship after WWI. Few are even really aware of the fact that it was ever a democracy. Italian and Spanish history at the time is a complete mystery, and no one is really taught what happened in between monarchy and military dictatorship. As such, America is completely unprepared for and unaware of the changes taking place within itself right now, and the most ignorant of history are the ones leading the charge right now. If America's economy ever collapses like that of post-WWI Germany, I'd start worrying, and I'd start reading on 1930s Germany and Italy if I were you. It's really terrifying to see much of the same rhetoric used in political rallies today.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You've got some valid critiques, but I'd like to play devil's advocate.
I have noticed that being a police officer is alot like being a sys admin. Our users constantly wonder why we don't cater to them more, while we constantly wonder why our users don't take more interest/responsibilty for knowing how to use their systems.
Please place at least half of the blame where it truly deserves to be - in the useless legislation that turns our police officers into glorified baby-sitters (Wear your seatbelt! Click it or Ticket!) on top of expecting them to risk their lives 24/7 for middling pay and bad press.
If you truly want your police officers to improve, then vote against useless legislation that criminalizes victimless crimes (drug possession, "copyright" infrigement, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.) and then maybe our police officers will have time to work against real criminals (murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.)
Just my $.02
blue