Slashdot Mirror
1984 Comes To Boston
walmass writes "In preparation for the DNC in Boston, 75 cameras monitored by the Federal government will be operating around the downtown Boston location. There are also an unspecified number of state police cameras, and 100 cameras owned by the Metro Boston Transit Authority. Quote: 'And it's here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over. "We own them now," said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet."'"
If you make a Nazi or 1984 reference, you lose.
Don't you mean "London, England comes to Boston"?
Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?
I'm considering going to cash for most everything. Has anyone experimented with that lately, and what difficulties did you face?
Support the ACLU and the EFF. Those are the people fighting these battles for you. The guy in the article who says "''I definitely think it's good for safety reasons," said Chris Bellomo, a 55-year-old teacher from Cheshire, Conn. ''I feel more comfortable [knowing] that, if something bad happens, more people are going to be watching and aware of it, and that help will be there if it is needed." forgets that freedom has a cost, and I'm willing to live with a little danger in exchange for being beholden to no man other than myself. As Penn & Teller say, these cameras are "Bullshit!".
Please bid on this Karmann Ghia! Please pleas
anyone else wonder if the chief is a hacker who was just misquoted?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The difference between that and modern day NYC is? Take a look around Washington Sq. park if you're in the area...
Me email iz skyewalkerluke at microsoft's free email service.
damn, I guess there will be no more public Urination for me...
"If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
The idea was to use facial recognition software in order to identify any potential threats. After the system failed to identify a single problematic person or otherwise do much good, it was cancelled.
"will be able to zoom in from their work stations to gather details of facial descriptions or read license plates""
Somehow this tells me the terrorists won
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
They're only cameras.. they're in public places.. What do you expect? Why do you care? Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't? If so, that's why the cameras are there. And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.
The streets of Boston Uncensored! You'll get live footage of EVERYTHING going on, straight from the police archives. That is, once the related trials are over....
Think of it this way: in the near-distant future everyone will have full movie-studio digital video / still camera features in their mobile personal computers (which is what cell phones are turning into). Minaturisation means you could be being filmed or recorded anywhere at any time. This will have a chilling effect.
20 years late.
Considering the roving bands of terrorists that have taken hold of Americas freedoms. We'll catch those bastards before they have a chance to go through with another attack. Hurray! Thanks Big Brother. I hope those cameras come to my town sooner rather than later.
Free at last! Free at last!
_____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
So will you still be allowed to wear hats or other facial coverings, so that you can't be identified by those cameras? Or would that be ruled as "unpatriotic" and grounds to be arrested?
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
Isn't this vaguely nixon-esque?
Let's say-- we of course hope this will not happen, but stuff is hard to predict-- there are, as is sometimes unavoidable in a situation where there are protesters (and I'm sure there will be protesters) instances of police brutality during the upcoming DNC.
And let's say that the police cameras record this.
Do you suppose anything will come of said recordings?
Another question: when Britain installed similar cameras, there was some thing where some tripped-out version of the FOIA would allow you to request any film they had of you on those cameras. Does Massachusetts have any kind of state-local version of the FOIA that would allow private organizations to request copies of these Boston street cameras?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
What's the big deal if your being watched in the public for the sake of your safety? Unless you got something to hide, this is not like they're putting cameras in your home or anything....
Still excepted everywhere except when dealing with govt agencies like the DMV. You haven't used it lately?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
That's how it started here in a lot of UK cities: to tackle security in downtown areas, a few streets were covered with CCTV cameras. Result: crime shifted towards other areas, CCTV is claimed to be responsible for a drop in crime (but only in the covered area), and more cameras are introduced. I don't want to sound too gloomy, but get ready for a snowball effect..
Somehow I don't think he was just talking about the cameras...
WE're getting the language changes (known as political correctness and spin), and now the cameras. The US and the UK are together... It's getting frightning....
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
London has it, Monaco has it. The question you have to ask, is "Are you entitled to privacy in the middle of a public street?"
Noname3 loses.
"Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't?"
Indeed. Only those who've done something wrong, or are misidentified, have anything to fear... and no-one should be worried about a mere few years spent in Cuba because they were misidentified as a criminal. Of course what's legal today might be 'wrong' tomorrow, like, say, trying to cross the border to Canada in order to avoid being drafted to die in Iran or Syria, but as long as you're docile little sheep who do whatever the government tells you to do (and don't get misidentified), you'll probably be OK.
With the recent ruling from the Supreme Court, a video record could be used to create a database that could be correlated between activity deemed suspicious and logs of those people being asked for their identities. Similar record gathering means could then be in place for the RNC in NYC the following month.
"Power it not a means, it is an end."
What rights are in question?
People do NOT have a right of privacy in public. This is nothing new. This is NOT 1984! 1984 is government cameras in your home. This shrill scream of "1984" all time just weakens it's real meaning.
I don't mind cameras in public places. This might help prevent crime since we can't carry guns to defend ourselves.
Public Cameras are not private and cameras by default are not evil.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Is this really needed in one of the safest cities in the US? I'm surprised that I did not hear more protest about those cameras. What has this counrty come to when the only way we can make ourselves feel safe is to monitor everybody and anybody?
Time makes more converts than reason
It isn't the 'terrorists' we need to worry about - it's those who would 'save' us from them.
Who really poses a bigger threat to your well being on a day to day basis?
A) Osama 'been bombin'
B) The local police force
Uhmm...hmmm...let's see.... 'B'!
...belong to us" ?
This isnt about freedom, you don't have cameras in your home or microchips in your arm. If you don't like cameras then move out of the city and move to the country where you'll have more privacy. When they start putting cameras in my house or start using satelites to spy on what I'm doing inside my private area thats when its a violation of my right to privacy.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Maybe they can put one inside Fenway to watch the RedSox terrorize their fans with another losing season.
Who said that 1984 was about communism?
The idea is that they will be able to get 1000's of Democrat's faces on camera and stored, facial recognition will then work on profiling them as best it can so they can be classed as terrorists (because they question the great leader bush). As a side line, anyone who so much drops a cigarette on the ground will be charged with a minor offence and their name will be taken off the voter roll (just in time) they will of course get a full apology and have their name put back on after a small 'processing' time which should be done sometime after November 2004. The face recognition database will be used in up-coming Republican rallies so that any Democrats seen there can be quickly moved away. As for monitoring boats, they're just bored.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Did you really expect them to let a political event this major go by without heavy monitoring, especially after what happened in Spain?
As for leaving the cameras there after the DNC is over: again, what did you expect? Are the police *really* going to throw out perfectly good cameras?
For all you pro-Kerry people: if no one bombs the DNC and your man gets elected, maybe you won't have to worry about this trend towards constant surveillance.
I needed that.
not Metro Boston....
get it right or pay the price!
First you say:
"I don't mind cameras in public places"
Then you say:
"People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people."
Am I the only one who can see the obvious reality disconnect here?
You live in a sick sick country. And some call it "The Leader of the Free World(TM)".
What a load of BS.
Time to break out - Baron von Costume's DELUXE DISGUISE KIT
Now police will be anticipate crime waves when sales of fake mustaches and chin putty go up.
cinatas si gis siht
Not only are there cameras, but:
. Random searches on public transportation
. Restrictions on what you can carry
. Restrictions on where you can go
. Restrictions on when you can go
. Major road closings
. Just about every ATF and FDA dog in the country will be in town
Not only will we be the most watched, but also the most controlled. Except for some protests in the past few weeks, Bostonians seem to be the most cowed and beaten people I've met. I'm amazed, simply amazed. We've truely traded our feedom for a false sense of security. When the next terrorist attack comes (which most likely won't be in Boston), hopefully we'll open our eyes to this. If not, we will only give the terrorists more power over us.
RM
}#q NO CARRIER
this CANNOT go unopposed.
wsshhhttt!
"If you haven't read 1984 yet, do it now."
And for an interesting counterpoint, read Robert J. Sawyer's Hominids.
He writes of a society where everyone's every moment is recorded. The saving grace is that only the individual or a court can access the records. With the proper controls, such a record can be handy. Excellent book that leans to the left while at the same time challenging a lot of positions of those of us who lean left.
This is just installing cameras in PUBLIC places. Places where there are already plenty of witnesses, this just makes the process automated. There are no privacy concerns here, the cameras are in public places. If they start installing stuff like that in our homes and other private places, we should worry. The only people that this should worry now are real criminals, who will get caught by this system. For everyone else, this provides a perfectly objective witness, which is always good.
let's say we all get the mark of the beast on our foreheads tomorrow...let's say it's an RFID chip...let's say everything and anything you ever do will be recorded by some great computer and database somewhere on the planet? Even everything you do inside your own home...everytime you do your wife some government nut job can watch it if he wants.
This isn't the price we pay for being civilized, or terror free. It's the price we pay for the technology we love so much.
The problem though is real criminals always know how to get around technology to do whatever they want. It stops average Joe that's for sure...but it's not going to stop everyone.
I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but the only reason why I would have a problem with someone somewhere knowing about everything I do and say is if they have the power to make it look I did and said something I didn't...and that they do.
Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public. That's why it's called public.
This is NOT 1984! They are installing extreme security measures in preparation for the DNC because of what the DHS tells them is a considerable threat from terrorists. Then, once the DNC is over, they don't want to just throw everything away. If this were 1984, they'd be installing the cameras in your house and Micheal Moore would vaporize.
If nothing else, we've seen that (on the whole) it's morbidly inefficient for a single authority to try and use cameras to monitor a large area for an extended period of time.
So far, every attempt at installing cameras to monitor the public by the government has been a huge FUBAR because people destroy the cameras, and the software that tries to automate the surveylance process sucks. So take off your tinfoil hat and stop hassling the local food store to order more spam for the compound.
This is NOT a evil gubmint attempt to take over your life, it's an attempt to stop a potential attack on the DNC.
FAITH IN GOD IS STRENGTH
`"We own them now," said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet."`
They mean the cameras...right?
Oddly enough, the police department in various parts of Scotland have discovered that the CCTV cameras installed on public buses have helped to catch criminals. Fixed point cameras are helpful in deterring crime in certain areas, but eventually criminals figure out the blind spots in the system.
I've seen the television sized screens on the double deckers. A 16" LCD display is mounted on the ceiling at the front of the top deck of the bus. There are around six cameras on the top of the bus which cover the staircase, both sides of the back row of the bus; the favourite location for drunk teenagers -neds (Non Educated Delinquents) and the front of the bus. The display cycles through the entire set of cameras. Quite entertaining if you can get a front row seat. Then you can watch the ned-cam as the bus goes through the city.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
FYI, MBTA stands for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, not Metro Boston Transit Authority.
So practice an art long admired in the great city of Boston: civil disobedience. If you don't like them, destroy the cameras. One second with a spray can and they're useless. And then the cops come and guard them, and you post pictures of that on the 'net, and they look like idiots. If you get busted, you'll get your day in court.
And in other news....GAP, Kenneth Cole and Abercrombie & Fitch are introducing a wide assortment of fashionable full headed hoods in the greater Boston area.
"Remaining Anonymous is going to be all the rage this fall," says Pina Ferlisi, the GAP's chief designer for adult clothing and accessories. "Our initial line are going to have both single fall tones and a few classic plaid patterns. We're staying away from corduroy - it's just to heavy on the head."
"Needless to say, this will be part of our 'Unlisted' line, " states Paul Blum, President and Director of Kenneth Cole. "Our black leather hoods are going to offer our anonymous users all the warmth they'll need, and all the privacy our US Constitution is supposed to provide."
Look for the new hood lines being rolled out in stores this September.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Who will watch the watchmen? The watched!
People.... this can be a good thing. The rich, powerful or corrupt have always had the power to invade your privacy because its just an illusion and will alway be so. Privacy laws just protect the powerful from being watched by the masses.
Instead of fighting a lossing battle to stop this technology we need to ensure that it will be available to everyone and that the feeds will be open to the public. Put cameras on the streets, in the police stations and in government buildings. I don't mind being watched as long as I can watch everyone else. Imagine a world were everyone is equipped with their own personal cameras and recorders... with so many eyes spreading their light everywhere the world might become a more peaceful and happy place.
Is this a shock to anyone? Physical surveillance was the last piece of the puzzle, not the first. We've already had our buying habits tracked in detail for at least a decade.... Our surfing habits collected from logs or spyware.... Our driving habits tracked through transponder use....
You need to install monitors or something. That way, the cops can claim they are on the job. I think it's win/win for both Dunkin' Donuts and the public.
Yep. For your own good.
Only following orders. We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
Protect and Serve, with fries on the side. Don't film the cops, however, they HATE that.
Those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety.
I wonder how Paul Revere and the Sons Of Liberty would like it if the "lawful government" of Boston had been able to watch their every move...
The mighty American constitutional republic lasted, what, 4 score and 7 years? Naa, not even that long.
All hail the great Empire of the United States! Unfortunately, the wonderful article "America's Empire of Bases", Freedom Daily, April 2004, is not yet online. It will be, and you will be able to read it here:
http://www.fff.org/toc/fr04.asp
As the US governments do to others, we find they also do to Americans. And it sucks.
But don't blame me, I vote Libertarian.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Actually, it's Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. Almost noone gets it right, even native Bostonians...
Just reading through some of the conspiracy posts...I can only think of instances where cameras have helped, not hurt.
Remember Carlie Brucia? The 11 yrd old in Florida, her abducter was on tape and caught shortly there after. There are countless instances of police video helping and hurting the police, but in either instance it protected the innocent party.
I realize that its cases like this that help TO justify increasing use of video surveillance, and like most things that surveillance can always be taken to an extreme. But at what point can public surveillance actually hurt us? Does it infringe on our privacy when it monitors a public place in which we don't have any privacy anyway?
And yet, they make us pay for New Orleans' Mardi Gras videos... why can't the public get free feeds of that? Please?
"In the future everybody will be famous for fifteen minutes."
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
What a picture! People going about their own business, yet beeing tracked.
One thing i think about is Star Trek, where just abut anybody can say "Computer.... where is so-and-so?" Yet, strangely enough, in their utopian society there was a natural respect for everyone. I'm not sure anyone really felt that was an abuse.
Cut to the Star Trek clone Voyager, and i remember one episode where they had to "research" someone, so they went through all their private logs. *That* is an abuse.
I don't see the cameras as a problem, its the people that use them. I simply do not trust them and especially the changing government behind them. Perhaps if a private company handled it though, there would be more respect.
Have you read my journal today?
everyone here is going crazy that the cops have cameras everywhere but are totally oblivious that some guy with a camera phone is taking pictures of your credit card
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
What rights are in question?
That's an easy one: the right of the government to the constant surveillance of its own citizens.
I don't think they have the right. As the government is only imbued with the powers we as citizens allow it to have, I hope to convince everyone else they don't have that right, either.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It all seems very pointless to me. Are these cameras really gonna to stop a terrorist from doing anything? I think we all understand that they will do ANYTHING, including taking their own lives for the sake of their cause.
they know there will be cameras, and they'll work their way around them if that have to. If they don't attack at the convention, they'll target something else to get their point accross.
Wasn't it Chomsky that said if we really want to stop the terrorists, we should stop participating in state wide terrorism ourselves?
"This is really a situation where we are really being asked to blindly trust the government. There is no oversight of this. There are no safeguards."
My fellow citizens of Oceania, we are at war with Terrorism. We have always been at war with Terrorism. This new surveillance equipment is DoublePlusGood! Big Brother must protect us from Terrorism. To think anything else is a thoughtcrime.
War is Peace
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
You assume that these cameras will not point where people live. Why? There are well know instances of cameras being installed that looked directly into people's houses.
Assides from that, this is obviously something new. Cameras are much cheaper and more effective at abusive practices than policemen are. Cameras can be used to keep tabs on political opposition and can be concealed in ways that no undercover agent can. The spirit of 1984 is that Big Brother is watching you. In downtown Boston, that is true.
As your tax dollars were spent on this, you might ask why and how effective it will be at it's stated purpose. In the UK, the stated purpose was anti-terrorism and then crime prevention. Neither of those has been effectively demonstrated.
This touches on another Big Brother aspect of camera deployment, oligarchy. There's never been a ground swell of people requesting such services. I can't imagine a place where cameras would actually be voted in by a majority of the population, I've never heard a politician mention them before an election nor are they part of anyone's campaign. Decisions are being made without asking the public. If you disagree, you might find your movements in public watched.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I propose that we put a video camera in every hallway and every office of all major government buildings and play the videos back in all major cities across America.
Surprised in all of these posts, that nobody has suggested use of targeted use of EMP, to take these things out if they bother too many of you. The only thing is that this kind of use of EMP might be a bit too indiscriminate for just the camera though.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
e.g. Families use this MTBA stop during the weekday early afternoons . . . time to run the Pokemon ads. The nightclub crowd is here weekends at 10PM . . . let's run the red-bull ads. . .
Sure some of this can be done now, but with CCTVs they can fine tune it and actually see if anyone pays attention to the ad or not.
Oh, for fuck's sake, people, this is not about our right to privacy; it's about the government's right to monitor its (presumably innocent) citizens.
Do we want a government powerful enough to track us wherever we go? I don't. They *don't* need this power to do their jobs of attempting to protect us. (Nobody can "protect" us, they can only *try* to protect us.)
Liberty is not only about our rights as citizens, but more about our rights to be free of a government that feels free to track and control us. That's why "free speech zones" are an abomination, and this surveillance is a slap in the face.
If we allow our government to control us instead of us controlling it, we are no longer a democracy. (Are we a democracy?)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The what what? Oh, you mean the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority.
And this is old news. Those of us in Boston have been dealing with the implications of this for months now. From cameras, to random "Papers, please!" ID checks on the subway, or not carrying anything larger than a loaf of bread on the Orange Line during the convention, to closing an entire Interstate highway from 4PM until late in the evening for an entire week.
Nothing special about these cameras. There's no face recognition software, there's no "do not walk on sidewalk" list. Nothing to see here folks.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Two years ago, some friends of mine were walking in Boston when they witnessed a women being harrased by two young men. They called the police via cell phone reporting their location and then
they approached the men and told them to back off... the women ran away as fast a possible. They were then sucker punched by the men and beaten. The police then arrived shortly. They were taken to the hospital and were treated for various injuries. The attackers later approached the police, said they were friends of the people attacked and wanted to know where they were taken. The police told them which hospital. They then went to the hospital and waited for them to be released...then they attacked them again. This time they were caught by the police. Upon arrest they accused my friends of being the original attackers and that they were protecting themselves. My friends were then arrested for assalt. Months later they appeared in court to follow up on both cases...only that the attackers did not arrive to court to press their position. The attackers case was thrown out, but my friends case was also unresolved. Situations like this one, if caught on tape would have been quickly and correctly resolved. - I am completely for cameras in any public area.
You hat wearing commie.
You will go on your way now, you will not look at the cameras, and you will like it.
Faster!
You seem to enjoy your anonymity here, fucker.
-dameron
It may also make people say "Hey, I don't want this" after they actually see it in action for themselves.
It's Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority you insensitive clod.
Hats like this one will be perfectly acceptable.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Please, police cameras in public areas are a long way away from thought crimes, telescreens, and the Ministry of Love. Save the hyperbole for your English lit class, it in no way serves your argument.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I can't be the only one who thinks this whole 1984 scaremongering is just a whole load of fuss about nothing, can I?
Haven't we got more important things to worry about? The RIAA for example?
1984 came to boston like twenty years ago...
I think quoting Orwell and having a Bush/Cheney fanboy sig got you modded down. I think we need a "-1, Confused" moderation option.
Ignore the title, couldn't think of anything appropriate.
Anyway, I scanned the comments, and didn't see anyone mention the fact that this is the DNC. If it was the RNC, I think there'd be a lot more "the all-powerful republicans don't want to be protested, so they are taking measures to subdue us all!" Again, I just took a cursory scan, so someone may have mentioned political parties' role.
I'm just sayin'... if it were the other way around.... I mean, the Dems let these laws get through congress too. Don't blame all republicans just b/c they happen to be in power right now.
-bZj
.sig
Since the government thinks cameras are okay, they should install citizen monitored cameras in squad cars, police stations, and the Governor's Office.
The misuse of the '1984' like cliche that our government is ever-watching, ever-controlling must stop. It is becoming hard to find an op-ed item anywhere that doesn't somehow try to relate the Bush administration to an Orwellian-style government.
Do you really think the Boston police are going to abuse this technology to try to 'root out' political opponents? Is the English language going to slowly shrink into a Newspeak-like oppressive-thought system?
No. Its not.
Orwell wrote his piece about a different time (1942-1949 approx) and a different system of government altogether (the British monarchy). This simply doesn't apply to modern American government, and simply never will - in an American democracy.
At the moment we have assault, rape, mugging, brawling, pickpocketing etc. In the UK though, we can also add... peaceful political protest.
i gh t-to-protest.shtml
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/r
So there you go. It all depends what the political elite think should be defined as a crime.
BTW, experience of cameras in the UK is that they don't reduce crime, at all, they just move it around a bit. Manchester for instance installed cameras throughout the city center and the result? Crime still went up 12% after they went live. Installing decent lighting is significantly cheaper and more effective.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
So? Who cares? So *they* (AKA - other people) can see what I'm doing? Big whoop-dee-do. Seriously. I'm not breaking any laws whatsoever. I don't really care that they can see my face on some camera and know my license plate number, and that I drive a beat up ol' truck.
:-P
Yes...all you tin foil hatters are going to tell me that I won't have any rights. Umm...let's see...I can still surf the web. I can still walk down the street (and, I can, technically, be safer now). I can still drive to work. I can buy what I want (except, of course, illegal narcotics -- but I'm not into those). I don't see any new restrictions. Just, now, more people know what I'm doing. Great! Now I don't have to have it in my away message all the time.
I really don't see the problem...unless, of course, you have something to hide. Do you?
However, the images should be put on the web. Such information should be available to all in the spirit of the First Amendment's to the Constitution. Here in Arizona, and probably other places too, it is already being done - ADOT
If you can see into a persons home from the street because they have the drapes or blinds open they cannot have an expectation of privacy in that room.
I'm more worried about my tax dollars on the Big Dig than this in Boston.
How long have you been hooked on plastic? Plastic is convenient, to be sure. Yet cash is not a problem of any kind. Keep some in your pocket; you'll use it. And, surprisingly, it's accepted almost everywhere (even many "online companies" are willing to take offline payment... and if your current favorite isn't, then change providers).
Cameras in public are not the issue. You are in public, what you do can be watched. It's when the cameras are installed in the bedrooms that it's time to worry.
No, the important stomping of civil rights and liberties goes back a couple of years. Those 'free speech zones'. Areas where you are allowed to protest. Guess what, there's a real big damned free speech zone; it's called the United States of America. Shame that most of the sheep in this country don't get too pissed off about that, yet tin foil beanie types get all worked up over cameras.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Victory! Welfare!
In your face
Calculate your chances of being directly affected by a "terror" attack/event. For the sake of gross oversimplification, let's say that 10,000 Americans were killed on U.S. soil as a direct result of the actions of "terror"ists, including domestic ones, over the last 12 years. (OKC bombing, the unibomber, anthrax letters, '93 WTC and '01 WTC, those exploding planes, the DC *cough* snipers *cough*, etc.)
:P
Now let's look at a non-"terror", non-health related activity that just about everyone in the US participates in in one form or another: transporation via roadway. Let's see... according to saferoads.org, we're looking at 43,220 deaths. Interesting. You are at least four times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, assuming you don't bus about everywhere, than by the result of an act of "terror".
You believe my figures are wrong? Actually, you're correct. The 43,220 people that died in traffic accidents? They all died in 2003. I don't know about you, but the only thing these "terror"ists have me terrified of is the resulting actions of my own government, state and local as applicable.
Now that the control grid is out in the open you can see it.
i ti on.html
R TI CLE_ID=38645
l e= 44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004
Learn the real reason this is happening.
http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html
http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemol
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/swfqw.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A
http://www.unlearning.org/editor30.htm
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&artic
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
Make no mistake. He was talking about you, dear citizen. You are nothing more than property of the State.
Spend your little life working hard so they can ride on your back, be ready to die fighting their wars, and never question whichever Leader is in authority.
Yours is not to question. Yours is not to be free. Your is to pay and obey.
You are nothing more than property of the State.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Last i heard it was called Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority.... who exactly ran the facts for this story?
I wonder how long it will be before somebody gets pissed about being recorded all the time, and develops something that gives off a small radius of EMP to distribute underground to counter the always on camera effect?
If you make a Nazi or 1984 reference, you lose.
Wrong.
Godwin's law, as originally stated, was (approximately) that any discussion thread on usenet (and similar systems), if it did not die first, would eventually warp into something that would provoke a mention of NAZIs - and that the NAZI reference indicated that it had wandered from interesting topics to topics that had been rehashed so many times that they were no longer interesting - at least to old hands (such as Godwin) who had other things to spend their time and internet access on.
Of course, this was quicky misstated into the "Folk Godwins Law" - warped forms like "Mention NAZIs and the thread is dead. You can all drop the discussion and go home now." or "First one to mention NAZIs loses." These forms have been used to systematically shut down debate, whenever someone makes a posting propagating any totalitarian meme that happens to have been used by the NAZIs and someone else points out how the meme had been used to aid oppression.
Such misuse is not merely misinformed, but dangerous. It leads to the increased spread of totalitarian memes and the suppression of counter-memes in the form of historical evidence of the memes' horrendous effects. "Those who do not understand history are condemed to repeat it." And this misstatement of Godwin's law is a prime example of an enabling meme - which selects against learning history and promotes "improved" cover-versions of its worst disasters.
Godwin himself has pointed out the misstatement. But he also asserts that his original law holds - because discussions of the downside of the Folk version (such as this one), though they point out the misuse, do NOT put the thread back on the subject - instead diverting it down the rathole of discussing the misstatement of Godwin's law. So the damaage due to the misuse still occurs.
But venues like Slashdot allow branching. This can take asides aside - so the main thread can continue.
Since you have been so nice as to make the Folk Godwin's Law posting as the FIRST (still above threshold) post, perhaps we can pull that discussion aside RIGHT HERE, and head off repeated Folk Godwin cites in the rest of the comments.
Perhaps that way we can ACTUALLY DEAL WITH the important business at hand: Defending freedom from yet another totalitarian encroachment.
So I STRONGLY suggest that anyone who has read this far STOP following this thread and GET BACK TO that more life-critical task.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Originally Mike Godwin called it "Godwin's Rule". I'm not sure at what point it morphed into a law.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
A leader of the people needs no security from them.
People in a truly civilized society can take care of themselves and doesn't need to be monitored by some 'governing body'.
The fact we have people like that personal you quoted is why we don't have privacy, and shows how far we have gone ( in the wrong direction ) these last few hundred years.
Personally I think its sickening.
As to your other question: I've gone to mostly cash living, and there aren't major issues.. I of course write checks for my house, and car as those are already registered to me and tracked anyway so why bother... Also if you spend about 10grand at once in this country, in cash, they also require ID or refuse the sale... so with large purchases you are screwed.. around here anyway
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Information on the ussurpation from the "person," beknownst as "Federal,"
I attained all my current sustained information and more sources from a verry practical man and would like to share this eMail address for all to question:
contact "revokethetrust [at] yahoo [dot] com" for information.
As well, for those of you not willing to make the contact to derive information to become a Secured Party in their Person, otherwise you can find a great wealth of information from the archives of one user on eBay mostly. I attained this second contact from "revokethetrust [at] yahoo [dot] com", to be aware of the digital works of rare public domain political and law texts provided by a registered seller and user the person "josephus1" at eBay.com.
Among these candid works are various titles and freak topics to our ears, such as...
1815 US Constitution overthrows 1789 US Const
Law Of Nations by Vattel 1805
1854 Citizen Manual. Study Of Rights
Was It Lincoln, or Jeferson Davis The Traitor?
History Of The Supreme Court G. Myers Rare
Black's Law Dictionary 1st Ed. Rare , Blacks
Tyranny Unmasked by John Taylor 1822
1891 Principles Of Constitutional Law, Thomas Cooley
1878 The Republic of Republics Rare Book
1914 Public School Teaches Right Of Secession
1896 Silver and Gold A rare book on the Gold Standard
***Knowing silver and gold premise of law is important to remove one element of "Federal" jurisdiction; not using their fiat money. ***
Rare 1832 Political Class Book
Rare `1834 Exposition Of Constitution
There are too many to name. Anyone willing, some related material is available or otherwise stolen onto Gnutella networks and easily downloaded with eDonkey clients.
Sincerily,
Alpha Troll
Directly from the police chiefs mouth, you see how something as 'innocent' as 'protecting the DNC' is used to encroach on rights.
Then afterwards, they leave them up to continue to spy on innocent citizens ' well we own them now '...
Shades of 'its for the kids, today' comes to mind. Remember its harder to win back your freedom after you give it away then it is to fight to retain it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ok this is just a minor nitpicky point... but MBTA = "Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority", not "Metro Boston Transit Authority". The MBTA is the public transportation system for half the state, not just Boston.
all of you crying 1984 must be criminals. why else would you be against this? the evildoers of our society are the only ones who will be affected, so why do you care? i guess if your sister, mother, grandma, gets mugged at the atm, or dragged into an alley and raped, you wouldnt want a camera there to either stop it in progress, or help capture the perp? maybe the knowledge that the camera is watching could possibly stop the crime in that area altogether, saving you or your loved one. cry your freedom. hypocrites.
Lear from the Amish orders.
Why do you think Amish are not visually outstanding people? Myself, having been among the Amish, they are awesome people because they keep God's law; God is awesome, making them awesome. They all look the same; though shalt not kill, not steal, love thy neighbor as thy self, et al.
If we were more like the Amish, yet reasonable in the sciences which the Amish are intently negligent (aka old-world defenition of "ignorance"), then we would all wear pocket-protectors on our button-less shirts, suspenders with our pantaloons, awesome-looking boots that can stamp those spiders that muck our 1000BaseTX cables, and elite straw hats. DO NOT INSTALL AN INSIGNIA ON YOUR FOREHEAD OR HAT OR ANYWHERE ON YOUR BODY OR PERSON THAT MAY IDENTIFY YOU OR YOUR PERSON WITH ANY COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION OR OTHER ENTITY. The purpose is to be secure in your own liberty among your fellow equals; the best of both worlds, you provide your own security in attempt to keep your liberty from others.
Cheers.
Sincerily,
Alpha Troll
We need to push for public access to government-operated surveillance devices. The cameras aren't going to go away.
Publically accessable cameras could be used to watch for police misbehavior at the same time that the police are watching through the same cameras for criminal activity and protestor misbehavior.
Misidentified individuals would be better able to defend themselves in court if the complete footage from all cameras is available. The police won't be able to omit the footage that hurts their case.
An alternative (non-legistlative) solution would be for private organizations and individuals to set up their own cameras in windows of houses, apartment buildings, and offices, and carried by people. The problem is that privately-operated public cameras won't have the resolution or storage capacity of government-operated cameras. Stationary cameras would need to record in a long-duration (at least several hours) loop, and their operators would need to know that something interesting has been recorded in order for the proper footage to be saved.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
The book is about a government controlling the whereabouts of their citicens.
Things like installing camera's in public places, wiretapping without court order, demanding things like creditcard information for x-referencing when entering a country (1) and so f***ing on.
Like a terrorist will have just one suspicious crecitcard. -DUH-
Privacy is terrorism.
Please come to Boston for the cameras I'm stayin' here in the jail and they've got lotsa room You can sell your paintings in the protest zone . . .
"Metro Boston Transit Authority" wow. Its Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Who will watch the watchmen? The watched!
.
Translated from the original:
I hear all this time the advice of my old friends--"Put on a lock and keep your wife indoors." Yes, but who will ward the warders? The wife arranges accordingly and begins with them. High or low their passions are all the same. She who wears out the black cobble-stones with her bare feet is no better then she who rides upon the necks of eight stalwart Syrians.
Ogulnia hides clothes to see the games; she hires attendants, a litter, cushions, female friends, a nurse, and a fair-haired girl to run her messages; yet she will give all that remains of the family plate, down to the last flagon, to some smooth-faced athlete. Many of these women are poor, but none of them pay any regard to their poverty, or measures themselves by the standard which that prescribes and lays down for them. Men on the other hand, do sometimes have an eye to utility; the ant has at last taught some of them to dread cold and hunger. But your extravagant woman is never sensible of her dwindling means; and just as though money were for ever sprouting up afresh from her exhausted coffers, and she had always a full heap to draw from, she never gives a thought to what her pleasures cost her.
"Whenever a cinaedus is kept he taints the household. Folks let these fellows eat and drink with them, and merely have the vessels washed, not shivered to atoms as they should be when such lips have touched them. So even the lanista's establishment is better ordered than yours, for he separates the vile from the decent, and sequesters even from their fellow-retiarii the wearers of the ill-famed tunic; in the training-school, and even in gaol, such creatures herd apart; but your wife condemns you to drink out of the same cup as these gentry, with whom the poorest trull would refuse to sip the choicest wine. Them do women consult about marriage and divorce, with their society do they relieve boredom or business, from them do they learn lascivious motions and whatever else the teacher knows. But beware! that teacher is not always true, he darkens his eyes and dresses like a woman, but adultery is his design. Mistrust him the more for his show of effeminacy; he is a valiant mattress-knight; there Triphallus drops the mask of Thais. Whom are you fooling?1 not me; play this farce to those who cannot pierce the masquerade. I wager you are every inch a man; do you own it, or must we wring the truth out of the maid servants?"
I know well the advice and warnings of my old friends--"Put on a lock and keep your wife indoors." Yes, but who is to ward the warders? They get paid in kind for holding their tongues as to their young lady's escapades; participation seals their lips. The wily wife arranges accordingly and begins with them. . .
[...]
There are women who always delight in the unwarlike and soft kisses of eunuchs, and in the lack of a beard, and in the fact that an abortive drug is not needed. However, that lust is supreme when the young crotches are delivered to the doctor after the development of mature heat and black pubic hair; therefore, Heliodorus snatches the awaited and developed testicles only after they have begun to weigh two pounds - to the detriment of the barber. A true and miserable weakness afflicts the slave dealers' boys, and these boys are ashamed of the bag and chickpea left behind. [But] conspicuous from afar and noticeable to everyone, the eunuch made by his mistress no doubt rivals the custodian of the vine and garden [i.e. Priapus]. Let him sleep with his mistress, but, Postumus, you must not entrust Bromius, who is already hardened and shaving, to the eunuch.
Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?
No. In many respects, that's what you pay for living in an urban population center. Without digressing into philosophical rants, in general one must give up liberties when one wishes to live in high densities (understand this perspective comes from a libertarian who doesn't like to give up any of them!). There's just no other way when you've got a million plus people packed into a 10 mile square or so.
If you don't like being micromanaged, get the hell out of the city. Not everyone desires liberty. Many are comfortable being herded like sheep, and many more are willing to do whatever in exchange for having a nice variety of places to eat and be entertained at. Ask yourself how many of your friends would give up the megaplex cinemas, malls, food courts, bookstores, etc. just to live without all the restrictions? Not many.
Still, if independence and autonomy mean anything to you (let alone much lower taxation), get out of the city. There's plenty of places in Flyover USA to be on a broadband connection "an hour out of town." Pick a second tier city - a Tulsa, Kansas City, Quad Cities, Independence, Des Moines, Omaha, Cheyenne, etc. where you've got a decent airport and find a small town an hour outside. Property's a fraction of what you'd pay on the coasts ($1K to $3K an acre in the upper midwest for anything of quality, again an hour outside of a metro).
Oh, and if you build, be sure to pick up any of the good books out there on building in a rural location. There's a lot one might overlook, like:
- water quality (and the presence of good drinkable water - no water = no land value!)
- septic perk test: flat bottom land usually means huge drainfields with today's septic rules. Hillsides on decent soil allow you to save some money on septic.
- power: if you don't have lines near where the house will be, you gotta pay to have them run. Power companies get spendy really fast on this, so that mountain top location might look cool but it'll cost ya!
- wind: all the rural old timers laugh about us city slicker fools that build the big surburban house smack on top of the hill. works fine until you get that 25-year windstorm or blizzard.
Oh, and a note: make sure you focus your purchasing dollars through our local merchants if you do (e.g. grocery, hardware, etc.). It'll cost you more, but if you lose them you'll get to drive that hour for every misc. item you need from the store.
Understand there's a different kind of security out here; instead of cameras, your neighbors will get to know you. If you're a decent honest type, that's all that matters. If you've ever given this a thought, get out and drive this weekend. Look for the most remote direction on your map. Don't start looking until you've gone an hour. You might be shocked at what it does for your life, living with good honest people, not having the stresses and compromises of urban life, etc. Many friends of mine that have done this concur that it's almost like recovering from a long period of numb, half-braindead living. I go horseback riding over the "lunch hour" several times a week, push dirt with my tractor, go shooting with my neighbor (alas, street signs are off limits!), work in the huge garden and do the small town scene.
As I've noticed more and more technology people doing exactly the same thing I've done, I have to think we might be early adopters (or perhaps yet pioneers per the marketing definition) in a rural resurgance, consisting of people who live here because they can, as knowledge workers. I'll bet in a few years it'll be:
"You live in the city? I'm sorry. Work hard and perhaps in time you can manage to get out."
In that quote he is refering to the people of Boston.
The mighty American constitutional republic lasted, what, 4 score and 7 years? Naa, not even that long.
Yet another stupid Libertarian dig an Lincoln. He seems to be the big bogeyman with you people lately, and all because he went to war with a reactionary gang of slavers trying to sunder the Union - oh wait, I forgot, the Civil War wan't really about slavery, right? Yeah. Uh - huh.
I bet you people still wonder why you are so politically marginalized these days, despite the governments depradations and your many good ideas (right to privacy, ending the War on Drugs, pulling back from foreign entanglements, etc). Free clue: get rid of the neoconfeds and other assorted fruitbats and try running canidates who can actually win elections. What's more, run in elections that you people can actually win - forget about the presidency for now, you haven't a chance; instead concentrate your time, money and effort on state and local elections. If you spend a few years on building a decent grassroots you'll find you're a lot more successful in winning elections for higher office (Senate, House, White House).
70% of the libertarians are wacked as they stand. That meaning they stand 'too far' to the extreame at either end to be or be meaningful as a political force.
And before you ask, I am a Libertarian. I am probably the type of Libertarian you hate as well, a Conservative-Libertarian.
As for your question of how the "Sons Of Liberty" would respond, they'd probably have spit on the Democratic party with the 'aura' of fearish hate that they have been building on since the death of the 'old' Democrats in the 60's. They probbably would have said that those who placate and supplicate themselves in weakness before an enemy deserve the chains that they lay upon themselves.
Psst. Brush up on your "Son's of Liberty" history a bit. Much like the "Son's of Liberty and their Sedition and Treason Acts", I would like to see them come back into effect as well. That's how 'far' the "Sons of Liberty" went to protect this land, we are very close to the same point. Figure if we don't get terrorism under control, I give it 5 or 10 years before they are brought back into effect in order...for the only reason to control those who are doing harm to the country. Toss the PCness out the window...it's hurting...not helping.
I could go on...but I don't see a point.
Om, nomnomnom...
Where I live in city-centre Liverpool (England) there are CCTV cameras on all the main streets. If I walk out of my house, I'm on camera, and if I walk into the town centre nearly every step of the way I'm on camera. The aim is to have around 240 cameras around the city centre monitoring millions of square metres as part for the Liverpool CitySafe Initiative.
And you know what? When I'm walking back from town at night I'm extremely glad of it. When you've been assaulted and most of your friends who live nearby have been mugged then perhaps you'll understand why. I'm normally extremely libertarian in my views but when you and your partners safety are in question then it sadly pays to be pragmatic. The Guardian newspaper featured an interesting article on CCTV in Liverpool and it's privacy implications, but the fact remains that surveys show that 93% of people are in favour. It works, too, because crime has been cut quite dramatically as part of the initiative.
Of course, were are more accustomed to CCTV cameras in Britain. We have the highest ratio of CCTV cameras per population of any country - something like 4m (or one for every 13 people). There are traffic cameras on many roads capable of snapping speeding drivers or those that jump red lights. It is estimated that each person in Britain is caught on camera 300 times a day. The implications are worrying, and the situation needs to be carefully monitored, but when I'm walking back from the pub at night I can't help but feel a little more reassured.
when I heard about the idea that was bopping around about postponing the elections in the event of a terror attack, I thought, hmm, I would still vote on election day. then My wife said "what good would that do, the new day would still be public knowledge and they could stage another one on the new day" .
that gave me pause. could Bush actually use terrorism to usurp the US democracy Via the continual postponement of the elections?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
There is nothing illegal or even intrinsically wrong about taking your image in public. Just ask the press. And if you live in an urban environment, chances are video cameras are watching you routinely, if not almost continuously in some areas. On the urban campus of my alma mater, for example, there are over 400 such cameras.
Why no, I have nothing to hide from those sworn to be my mortal enemies. Nor from those who enjoy killing and torturing huge swaths of the population as a political power grab. Why would you let yourself be stalked by a band of murderers as protection from petty thieves?
Evil holds more power in this world than good. The proper controls are impossible.
This just in: all houses are now State property. You are always in public.
That's nothing that a paintball gun won't take care of. -muhahaha-
Yes, my first post sucked. It was karma whoring at its basest. I've read your entire post and nodded my head. Your post, this article, AndroidCat's reply, and this article have made this teenager slightly less ignorant. Thank you. (I'll be willing to put that in writing if you want.)
Now, here's why I think this article is dangerous, sans my contorted view of Godwin's Rule.
Rather than discuss the negative ramnfications of recording people in public, the ACLU director Barry Steinhardt is quoted as saying "What this demonstrates is that '1984' is now technologically possible."
The problems with this I have are that 75 cameras viewing the public does not demonstrate that 1984's millions of cameras in home and in public are feasable. It does not discuss the negative effects of cameras in public. It stirs fear by using a book as reference, a book that includes torture as a punishment for thought crime.Plus, references to 1984 are almost as done to death as references to Nazis.
First it is provisional cameras just for a big gathering. Then they stay.
Then it will be unprecidented authorities handed over to law enforcing agencies to arest detain, question, interrogate, rough treat anybody under the pretext of security. All of that in the name of democracy and freedom!
Then we wake up in 1952 saluting Josef Stalin's paradise on earth.
It's amazing how gullible people are and willing to be misslead. You twist the truth to your liking and allow people to believe that some evil-doers hate their way of life and that 9/11 practically happened because some people hate football and McDonalds and civilization!
Then you pose the question, "Are you willing to waive some of your basic democratic rights to aid the war for... democracy?"
Most of the people don't even see the contradiction anymore. They were waiting for Spiderman 2 to hit theaters anyway.
Then you mislead people to a war based on lies, supposedly that you want to instill democracy in Iraq so let's bomb the hell out of them.
Sure that makes sense as well! No questions asked all the debate is wheather we should use conventional bombs or small-time nuclear ones.
Hmmm democracy in Iraq? You really want that? That means you want the iraqi people to elect their government and control their fate as a nation? Hmmm so you naturally want the iraqi people to decide how to handle their country's resources on their own? Meaning, you want the iraqi people to decide where, how much and at what currency they want to sell their oil?
Riiiiight! That's what we want! That's why americans are dying right now! Because we want the iraqi people to assume full control over their country's resources!
Amazing but many people actually belive all that crap, not only that but they encourage their kids to go and die for it too!
What would those people think if they learn that in europe for example street cameras are blackened with paint, broken or even burned as a clear civil reaction to the implementation of a police state? And all this is done not from the local anarchy club but many times with the auspicies of local municipalities?
Yeah I know more "freedom haters"...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Actually, I think all cash is not necessarily the best way to go. Unless you lead a very simple life, you are going to need credit (house loan, car loan, student loan, line of credit, credit cards, etc).
/. crowd who worry about privacy issues, how many of you keep blogs?
I thing the best approach is the hide in plain sight model where cash is used for things that are private and credit is used for things that are not.
I'm curious about one thing -- of all the
Ok, fine. Public privacy is not a right. Point well taken.
/.'ers how these systems are supposed to prevent terrorists from acheiving their objectives?
What about the effectivness of public surveillance? What is it supposed to do? Prevent terrorists attacks? You know they had video surveillance cameras at the security check points on the morning of Sept.11, don't you? There were plenty of cameras in and around the WTC on the morning of Sept.11, but that obviously didn't deter the terrorists.
So can you explain to us un-enlighted
Once you realize you can't answer that postively, then you realize they aren't going to be using these systems for the purposes they are presenting to us.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Canada still remains a functioning democracy to a large degree, so when ombudsmen like the privacy commissioner castigate the government, public pressure often forces a change in policy.
If that doesn't work, like the Americans, you can always sue.
Wow, it's good that the Federal Government is watching the Democratic Convention.
I'm sure bush+co will be very careful not to let any turbaned, kaffiyeh'd nutcases get through.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Move to a city which doesn't have the cameras. Perhaps even one of the small rural communities which have been shrinking so much over the last two or three decades.
More background.
Remember, Information wants to be Free!
or, wait... is that only information that isn't about you? public space surveillance? big friggin' deal. like in most every case, what's important is who can get the info, and what they do with it. the FOIA or something similar better cover these laws, for example. that's a fight worth fighting.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
white out.
Someone needs to make some strong IR radiators and put them near these cameras. If they're cheap enough and easy enough to make, everyone could carry them around just dropping them casually in line of sight of the cameras.
I'd vote Libertarian, but I think Noam Chomsky's pointed out the incompentency of the party to such a degree, that my added stupidity would only be more of the old "kicking the dead cat". Preverbaly, of course.
Personally, I think a good part of the feelings of "Down with American imperialists!" around parts of the world would be better translated as "Down with the Modern World!". I.e. people get pissed off when they see they traditional ways being wiped out by exposure to media and technology, and increased urbanization. And it's easy to finger the United States for this.
Best I could say to these people is... sorry? We went throught this too.
As much as I'd like to have some sort of cultural connection with my rural European ancestors... I don't.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Hmmm? I thought so.
"..local landmarks".
"perhaps we can pull that discussion aside RIGHT HERE"
/.!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Are YOU a dreamer!
This is
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
And he jumps out. Put a frog into cold water, and slowly heat it up and he'll just sit there and boil to death without ever noticing. Yall are making such a fuss over this now, but you still dont realise just how hot the water already is. I think its time we did what our forefathers intended us to do with government, fight with it. It is every citizens right to fight tooth and nail with his government over matters they find controversial, it is every citizens DUTY to question their government should they have an issue with it. And no, said government does not have the privelige(sp?) of denying you an answer. Despite bush's desire for blind sheep to lead around, there are still those with their eyes open. It starts with camera's and police patrolling public area's (excessively, not just like in the mall and whatnot), and it progresses onward. Pretty soon you've got cheney running the gestapo and bush tossing the constitution into the ovens at Dachau 2.0 time to jump out of the pot. time to turn off the stove.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
See how many civil liberties you lose then.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
9/11 was just a warmup exercise.
Bush has PLANS for you.
Starting with a NUCLEAR terrorist incident and a Second Korean Wsr.
You heard it here first.
Suckers.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It's amazing how just a little juxtaposition could change everything.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The constitution granted you liberty, but within the bounds of your governing law, and I don't recall it granting you privacy in public spaces, this simply isn't possible anyway since there is almost always someone else in a public space, especially in the big cities.
You haven't lost ANY liberty be being monitored on CCTV since those liberties you were granted are within the confines of your legal system. You have lost privacy, but only in public. Not really the same thing.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
does not equal:
Metro Boston Transit Authority
it equals:
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
A few months ago, two guys living in an old chevy terrorized suburban Washington DC, sniping at citizens seemingly at random. The police were looking for a Timothy McVeigh type in a white van, whereas it turned out one perp was named Mohammed and the other was an illegal alien and they drove an almost-black chevy Caprice.
I had an empty, helpless feeling every time I heard of another person getting shot. As you may recall, the perps were caught because one guy got guilty and confessed. Had these guys been a little more "professional" in their terrorism many more would have died.
The typical American reaction is to seek some technical solution: a way to locate the source of the shot in seconds. Turns out that there's a signal processing technique called "time reversal" that integrates the information from an array of sensors and irons out the reverberations to identify the source of the gunshot. A little while ago, I found this article that describes it. I dearly hope the next sniper who decides to terrorize a city does so where they have cameras and adequate microphones networked so as to enable this technique.
Whether it's evil or not to pepper public spaces with sensors depends upon what "public" means. It troubles me to see on the Discovery channel the videos from Britain where these cameras are commonplace, because these TV shows desensitize the public to surveillance cameras. On the other hand, part of me says, "what privacy can I reasonably expect in a town square?"
the garbage is where they will go, unless they are willing to continue to put up the same $$$ like they did to deploy them. The cameras will suffer HUGE amounts of vandalism and abuse, and unless they use hidden means, or install cameras to watch the cameras,
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
That's not that many cameras in Boston. There's something like TWO ORDERS of magnitude more public monitoring cameras in London!
London Underground subway ALONE is reported to have over 6000 monitoring cameras now, being increased to 9000 source link. When including CCTV cameras elsewhere, there's well OVER 10,000 CAMERAS monitoring you.
Although, apparently, most Londoners doesn't seem to mind. As long as they're only pointed to public areas.
I can't wait until we get a nonviolent society...
Eggs and shotguns. And that's all I've got to say about that.
Give me a break. Yes, the book 1984 is a very vivid example of how this technology can be misused, but to assume or imply that the Boston police are installing these cameras for the express purpose of CONTROLLING and SPYING ON the public, as seen in the mentioned novel, is ludicrous. The cameras are for people's SAFETY.
Although originally an architectural design, the basis of Benthams panopticon was that we would never know whether people are actually looking at the cameras or not, creating an environment whose aims are "to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary"
Although having feeds open to the public may make use feel better in some way, it does not alleviate in any way, the permanent, concious feeling of being watched and the inherent conditioning this system creates.
Current security at the location of the DNC is pretty lax (to put it mildly). The pictures were taken by someone who appears to have had full, unchallenged access on their "unencumbered tour".
This is a slight misquote. I think the actual quote was:
"We 0wn0rz them now," said police Superintendent Robert Dunford.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
I know that the section is "Your rights online", but shouldn't it be, technically, at least this time, "your rights offline"? :)
:)
Ok, enough of that. I actually live in Boston. This whole DNC thing, to be honest, is turning into a pain in the ass. I really want to find out how bad it's going to be for NYC during the Republican convention though.
I actually ride the Orange T (subway) line every day to work, from the North of town. This is the line that goes virtually underneath the convention center. The local government is already going nuts over this: They will be shutting down highways coming into the city during the convention center, they will not be stopping the subway at the station closest to the center (North Station), and they're promising to shut down the entire subway system in the event of a bomb scare.
But here's the best part: the subway police are reserving the right to do bag searches, and they have forbidden any bags "bigger than a loaf of bread". Goodbye laptop.
I work in computer security. I understand the need for heightened security over someone that seems to have a chance to be the next president of the US. I understand that we all need to give a little, etc. I understand that it's special circumstances. But I think the whole thing is just getting ridiculous, blown way out of proportion. I mean, we're getting a bunch of policians and we are virtually shutting down the city. My company is actually activating our disaster recovery facility (which is way outside the city) so we can have people work during the week.
I have a feeling after the pain they are putting Boston through, the whole city might start voting Republican just to spite the %#!$%! Democrats.
-Jack Ash
All surveillance cameras in public places should be on the web.
Anyone else who thought he was speaking about a Water Closet (better known as toilet) instead of storing them? I thought it was rather obvious that they would not put a camera in there. That would be _really_ 1984.
It does not bother me that a camera might be watching me do something illegal in public. A cop could watch me do something illegal in public. Why does it matter if it is a cop or a computer? If a cop, cop watching a TV screen, or a computer manages to catch a criminal before he does something bad, good.
The "it could be done before on a smaller scale, without computers, and laws were designed around this so you should accept it" argument is common and a fallacy.
Laws are designed with the limitations of what can be done in mind. For example, the ability for someone to know who I've called in the last hour, one time in my life, is not generally a privacy violation. It's largely useless data. However, in the presence of computers, it's possible to find out that 90% of the time after I call Al on weekdays, he calls Frank, and never otherwise calls Frank. If I am a political agitator under watch, police may now also place Frank under watch.
It used to be that reverse phone books were a bit dodgy to have. Now, in the presence of computers, a regular phone book simply is equivalent to a reverse phone book.
Do not underestimate the changes to the environment that massive data processing allows, and the different laws that are appropriate to such an environment.
May we never see th
You do both of us a dis-service, sir, by assuming that there is a libertarian "type" that I hate, and by insulting a bunch of people who wish you no ill will what so ever.
My objection to anyone is based on their choice to use force against people who have done them no harm. That's all.
If you do not advocate the initiation of force, then what is there to which I can object?
I may disagree with choices you make for yourself, but so long as you do not force those choices on others it really is your decision. My disagreement is irrelevant. It's your life.
Your use of "Conservative" does confuse me. A few days ago here on Slashdot, a gentleman who identifies himself as a "Socialist-Libertarian" engaged me in discussion about how awfully far "right" of political center the US government is. Now you bring up "Conservative-Libertarian", which means nothing to me except you and he really should get together and compare notes.
So what makes you "Conservative" as compared to simply "Libertarian"? What policies do you consider so important that you would initiate force against people to impose those policies?
If you have no such intention to initiate force, why distinguish yourself by watering down "Libertarian"?
Thank you for the history lesson, but I was not being particular in my prior posting. If I had I would have given proper attribution for the various quotes as well.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Secondly, the linguistics of the first clause are not restrictive. They are explanitory. If I said, "since it is necessary for you to drink orange juice to get your intake of vitamin C, no one shall deny anyone the right to have an orange juice", would you argue that I only intend to protect YOUR right to drink OJ, and not those of other individuals? It does provide some rationale as to WHY they wanted "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed upon.
Furthermore, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why would the government need to grant any army the right to have arms? Plus, using your interpretation, the 2nd ammendment is a grant of power to the government, instead of a guarantor of individual rights, which would make it completely out of character for the Bill of Rights, which is all about limiting what the governemnt is allowed to do. Logically that interpretation makes no sense and is out of line with what the founders intended.
If the anti-gun lobby were honest they would say that the second ammendment is a "dangerous anachronism" that needs to be repealed, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. At least that would be intellectually honest. Then we could have an honest debate about the need (or lack thereof) of such a right. Unfortunately I don't see this happening.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I'm normally extremely libertarian in my views but when you and your partners safety are in question then it sadly pays to be pragmatic.
An "Extreme Libertarian(tm)" that becomes pragmatic and gives up freedoms when safety is a concern. Um. Yeah. We call those Conservatives or Republicans where I'm from.
Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public.
My day to day activities are a one man performance. It is my Intellectual Property, and thus I own copyright on them. By recording them without compensation, the government is in violation of our strong Intellectual Property laws. "All the world is a stage". Therefore, they may view, but it is against the law to record. They are pirating my performances! It's no different than someone sneaking into a public venue and recording a movie screening. Next thing you know, they'll be file sharing on some darpa.net thing, and everyone will be viewing MY performance for free!!! They are blatantly stealing my IP. I think a DMCA notification is in order, don't you?
Please quote the part of your constitution that grants you the freedom to move around in public without being monitored by the government.
You have that completely backwards. If you would read the US Constitution, you would discover that it is a list of enumerated powers which have been granted to government. The 9th and 10th amendments explicitly spell this out, for anyone who missed it the first time.
Reading. It's not just a good idea.
On the other hand, what Metropolitan Boston does has nothing to do with the US Constitution, so I cannot speak for them.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Unfortunately, I personally agree with you. However, I'm not ready to give the alternative to voting a try yet, since the alternative is violent revolution.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
1984 would be if they installed cameras in your homes. Cameras installed in public places is probably a good thing.
For those who still do not believe that cameras are bad thing (tm), here is the story.
The coutry is Yugoslavia/Serbia.
Here is the preface: 1989, "TV" revolution in Romania. It was the last country in Europe with communistic dictator regime. I remember my family sitting and watching TV. We laughed - "finally will Romania be a normal country, just like us!". It may sound strange, but we considered our country to be at least decade in front of Eastern European countries. In that moment we had a good reason to believe that we are on the good track - last thing in our country that prevented us to compare to Western countries, the local communistic party, just lost its monopolly that year.
Ok, we were not free for Western standards, but we were on a good way. And there goes the part II - Slobodan Milosevic.
Next picture - Belgrade, 9th March 1991. Huge demostrations against Milosevic. Inittially peacefull demonstrations turned violent, due to police actions. Two people has been killed. I recall people captured on reporters' cameras. One of them was a guy from my high school. There was a photo where policemen beat him while he is lieing on the street. Everybody in our small town (not Belgrade) knew about photo, meaning that everybody knew that he was taking part in demostrations. Luckily for him, his father was a director in a big company, so he had no consequences in the school. But it could be a reason for kicking out the school, if you did not have some good background. In that moment Milosevic still had a support of about 60%.
Additional pictures: traffic monotoring cameras pointed to demonstrators on city's main square during every single oposition's action.
Now let us move this ancient story to more familiar environment (at least to you)- USA today.
Country is more-or-less democratic.
Suddenly, country moves to open dictature (or even worse, hidden dictatorship regime)
Country is under threath of war.
You dont like current regime.
You are in a minority.
The only thing you can do is to go to some peaceful demonstrations.
If you go there, you will be recorded by cameras.
If you get record in secret police... [your imagination here]. Actually nothing happens, but you are in their books, and they may show you that they know about you.
Actually, if you are "normal" citizen, they will not do a thing, even if they record you. Nothing will happen if you, an ordinary citisen, go to a foreign embassy on some unusual (but still unimportant) business. But if a member of secret police asks "informaly" your brother about it... That scares. That really scares. That scares just enough that you will consider carefully if you really shoud do similar thing again. [This was my own experience.]
Having you in their records will just slow your actions. And that is what they want - they do not need you to be with them, they just want you to sit silent and not to act against them. Quite enough for them. It will buy them a decade or two, meanwhile they will cause WWII, atack Croatia and Bosnia, slaughter 400.000 people (examples taken from Germany, Serbia and Rwanda).
How much it takes for a country to become a dictature from democracy? Not too much. How much it takes for traffic survailance camera to become a tool for monitoring suspicious citizens? Same amount of time.
I really hope that USA will not follow Serbian pattern. Because, in Serbian time scale, you (USA) are somewhere in 1991/1992. With this pace, you will become a democratic country again somewhere in 2012.
Meanwhile, sit home and wait your regime to fall to about 30% of support. Then you may appear in front of camera again, without any fear. But on 5th of October 1/16 of country will have to go to Washigtom to demostrate against electional fraud, and things will be settled again...
No sig today.
The DEA has these around Houston already with access for others as well. The management can just tune to a channel on their TV and get to see an intersection of some sort. The IT guy told me they operated on Microwave and were throughout the city.
....the Coast Guard will be using its new ''hawkeye system"...
There's a M*A*S*H joke there somewhere....
Keep in mind, I've never heard of Godwin's law before (don't do much "usenetting," or any other sort of posting).
;o)
Godwin's law, as originally stated, was (approximately) that any discussion thread on usenet (and similar systems), if it did not die first, would eventually warp into something that would provoke a mention of NAZIs - and that the NAZI reference indicated that it had wandered from interesting topics to topics that had been rehashed so many times that they were no longer interesting - at least to old hands (such as Godwin) who had other things to spend their time and internet access on.
Ok. Simplified and paraphrased, it states that a thread, if it does not die off, eventually it provoke a NAZI reference.
Sounds like common sense, to me at least. If a thread dies, the law holds, regardless of a mention of NAZI's or not, via the "if it did not die first" statement.
If the thread has not died, then either a mention of NAZI's has occurred, or not. If it has, the law holds true.
If the mention has not occurred, then the law still holds true, since it leads to one of the above events.
Or I could just be nitpicking
Here's another reminder to myself to preview my statments first... if nothing else, spell check :o)
That creepy voice imploring you "if you see something, say something" is on the subway PA about every 15 minutes.
The stations and trains are covered in posters depicting "vigilant" citizens doing their part to protect Freedom, close-ups of an eye reminding you that our enemies only wait for you to drop your guard - really straight out of some cheesy science fiction movie about a semi-futuristic totalitarian regime.
Now apparently they are going to be doing random bag-checks for the DNC (I think they've decided on bag screens now, not sure if that's better or worse), and I am sure that's going to stop right after the DNC is over.
So yeah, the MBTA is definitely doing their part in the whole fear mongering campaign.
sic transit gloria mundi
If you ever wanted to know how many cameras are in New York City check out:
http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/
Maybe they should hang neon-lit signs from the traffic cameras that say: "Smile, you're on camera!" Which, in my opinion would be a good idea.
Have you ever seen those lit-signs on interstates or roads that when you drive by them, they tell you how fast your driving? The one I drive by often on the interstate (which is under endless construction work), just tells you how fast your driving...it's there to help you keep your speed in check and it gives the driver a chance to obey the speed limit.
Now back to those surveillance cameras, I wouldn't mind them at all, so long it had a sign or something that told me they were there. as with your post about the police cars, you're exactly right. It's hard to miss a police car, and at least I know i'm being monitored. However with cameras monitoring you, you *don't* know they are there. Which is deceptive to me. If it isn't fesible to hang signs on the cameras, how about "anyone cought for the first time gets a warning"
At least you know where they are by the photo, and i'm sure if people knew they were there, they'd be very careful while driving around them. *shrugs*
What I hate the most is those damn traffic lights that sense how fast you're going as you approch the light. So if your going "too fast" (whatever speed that is) they'll flash from green to yellow and then red quicker then you can blink your eyes.
We have one in an intersection where i pass through coming home from work. On the nights that I work late, the roads are basically empty at that time.
So i'm coming down the road doing about 1-3mph under the speed limit, which is 35mph. I'm ~50 meters or so away from the intersection/light. It's red. Then it changes to green. Now by that time, I'm about 5-8 meters away from the light. Since it just turned green, I didn't slow down much because the light just turned and under normal circumstances I could have gone through the intersection without slowing down.
BUT NO..
Since i was over a certian "speed limit" that was LOWER then the speed limit sign posted on the road, the light darts back to yellow and quickly to red. So being the kind of guy who likes to obey the law, I slide to a stop. Which puts myself in danger of crashing and increases the possibility of hurting myself and others. All because the local law enforcement thought it'd be profitable to trick you in to running a red light and then chase you down to serve you a ticket.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
As another poster indicated, these stupid "non-jailable" misdemeanors are simply for one thing: municipal revenue generators. You can't publicly denounce them because, hey, you don't want to allow "criminals" to run free and get away with breaking the "law," do you? Only an idiot---or a criminal---would defend "criminals."
When you allow the state to have ultimate collection power, they will use it, as they do now. Don't believe me? Take a day and sit in on traffic court. Out of the few hundred people there, you won't find ONE person who wins his or her case, except for those where the officer doesn't show up. If the officer shows, the person loses. Every time. Oh, and despite all the "criminals" getting tickets, 40,000 people still manage to die each year from vehicle accidents. How is this preventing you from getting "killed in the middle of a public street"?
Yeah, right.
Alright, so now we're being watched even more than before. I don't like it (and i live in Boston, so I really don't like it).
The police/government are a regulating body acting on behalf of the members of the population that they are to be regulating/protecting (assuming that those members abide by the established laws of that society). Since they are acting on my behalf and for the (in their opinion) greater public well being by watching us to make sure we do our part not to detriment our society, i think that we ought to be able to monitor them (the law enforcement agencies/gov't agencies) to ensure that they are doing their part. I would like to see what goes on in the public areas of my local precinct/city hall/etc. via a wired video feed that i can browse at my leisure to ensure that this societal handshake agreement to live civilizedly, us being protected and them protecting, is upheld. If they need to watch us all the time for no particular reason, i feel that we should be allowed to do the same.
sigSEGV - doy!
Big whoop, Chicago has hundreds, if not thousands, of cameras in The Loop & Downtown.
Why is it illegal to record my voice without my knowledge, but it's okay to record my image without my knowledge?
Also, if someone has a camcorder, which records video and audio, and they are using it around me, if I don't know they they are using it, is it illegal because it is recording audio without my knowledge?
And what about police cruisers? I'd swear I've seen video from some of them with audio being recorded. Why are they allowed to record audio of me, without my knowledge, but I am not allowed to record audio of them without their knwoeldge? I've heard of a case where someoen recorded an officer and then sent it to their supervisor because they thought they were being rude and they charged the person with something and protected the officer.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Had anyone actually read the article (that includes the OP)it's spelled out there.
Of particular amusement are the 2 posters that posted "corrections" that were incorrect.
visit them at http://www.mbta.com/
sheesh!
(rant over)
"Ask the potential victim of the first crime that's prevented because of the cameras if the price is too high."
How the fuck would you qualify such a person? "Well, sir, she walked across the street, and she wasn't gang raped. I'd say the cameras did their job beautifully."
Hey, dumb fuck. Are you at all aware that in all the years the UK has had cameras everywhere, that NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING TERRORIST has ever been captured through the use of big brother hardware?
Try getting a god damned clue before you open you fuckwit neo-con pie hole.
But if security after the DNC is what they're shooting for, Downtown is not where they need the cameras the most.
I present this link for those intrested in EMP tech:
p ort/1996/apjemp.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/re
--------
"Nocse te Ipsum"
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/the-birds.html
hat tipped in the general direction of: k10k.
> freedom itself isn't necessarily what upsets them, it's that many of us use
> that freedom to live our lives in ways that they don't agree with.
Like propping up tyrannical regimes in the Middle East because those leaders are friendly to our interests?
All rhetoric aside, the US government really has done some not-nice things to more than a few foreign lands, and some of the people there do have legitimate grievances with our government.
That doesn't justify terrorism, of course, but trying to whitewash the situation as "they hate our freedom!" completely misses the reasons why many people hate our government, and just makes the situation worse.
(Keep in mind, too, that a great many people in other countries love Americans but hate America. People are not the same as their government, here or there.)
Mod parent up!
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Call it what you like. You can still do it.
Not since the restraining order, I can't.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If the British had this system, the whole Boston Tea Party could have been stopped. http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/USA/T eaParty.html/
h tml/
In addition.. just think of the heads up that the Red Coats could have had when Robert Newman climbed the steeple of Christ Church and hung two laterns for Paul Revere to see. http://www.oldnorth.com/hist.htm/
In fact that whole nasty war with Britain could have been nipped in the bud with proper intelligence.
http://www.bostoncitylinks.com/boston_revolution.
Personally -- I'm not sure what the real answer/solution to the security issue is these days. I understand the concern. Maybe the solution is to hold events such as these in areas that is it easier to "secure" -- say something in a remote part of the country (like the Burning Man event) or a smaller town outside of the mega metro areas. May not be popular with the media, or other those businesses that look towards making a profit over these conventions.
Another possibility is to "network" the conventions. Why does it have to be all in one place, real time video conferencing, etc. could eliminate the need to have all those people at one place at one time.
Anyway -- just something to think about.
"They want us to stop helping Israel.." ..from taking land away from arabs who live there with provided for free US tanks, bulldozers and machine guns to give to Israelis instead ..from Israeli soldiers with free US paid for machine guns, shooting dead 12 year rock throwing arab kids, because they are 'a threat', on a pretty much daily basis ..from rocketing residential neighborhoods full of innocent arab people with provided for free US rockets, and helecopters because yesterday somebody shot into some adjacent Israeli land that Israel took from them last week.. ..That with US help, we have let Israel kill more palastinians/arabs just to take more land from them than were killed in 9/11 in NYC.
Yep, I can see why arabs might be mad that we help Israel...
At the moment, Israel is a racist aparthied state, like South Africa was in those dark days..
We shouldn't be helping them really.
And we wouldn't be if it wasn't for the all the special interest lobbying on Capital hill. Only different is that instead of something like the DMCA (another travesty brought on by capital hill lobbying), this time, people (ie. arabs) die, because are government is acting the way the lobbyists want, and not doing the right thing. Americans die too, when we get things like 9/11 as a result..
Nothing for Americans to really be proud of (most aren't event aware what our government does there anyways, but go there and have a look some day, like I did.. you'll be in for a shock..), and it goes very far in explaining things like why arabs hate us, 9/11, and other things that otherwise make no sense to most Americans..
A public school is not a public area, any more than a building full of public servants is a public area. Ditto with public housing.
Perhaps the poster (and the rules) should state something like 'cameras in public places pointing at street level'.
I've been doing that for a few years now. Most of my recurring bills (electricity, net access, etc) I can pay with cash, it just means I have to walk a few extra blocks. For the two or three cases where this isn't practical, I buy postal money orders (still cheaper than paying fees on a credit card or checking account.)
I've never had a problem buying anything in a store with cash. Buying stuff on-line can be a little tricky; most merchants are set up for credit card payments, and don't even consider the alternatives. With a little persistence, I can usually get them to do the deal my way - and if not, shit, there are plenty of other places who'd be happy to take my money.
So to sum it up: you'll need to give up a little convenience, but it's entirely possible to live a civilized life while minimizing The Man's surveillance.
i live in medford, oregon. we have city police wi-fi on almost every light post in the city/surrounding areas and a couple hundred wireless cameras in the downtown areas that handle everything from speedind cars, people running red lights or even the ocasinal
robbery....
>> If you make a Nazi or 1984 reference, you lose.
> Such misuse is not merely misinformed, but dangerous. It leads to the increased spread of totalitarian memes...
ok, lets update the rule then. if you say "meme" or "paradigm" or any other buzzword, you lose. (I know i stop reading after the first or second buzzword)
Doesn't that cause much overlap ? I mean , 6000 cams in a subway system, that's more cameras than square feet of subway track, ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
that's more cameras than square feet of subway track
Holy crap. Try googling! For instance, it says here that the Tube has over 400km of track.
Anyway, the cameras are mostly in the passenger tunnels connecting station to platform. They're there to stop/catch muggings and assaults, not to see if the trains are running on time.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
"We own them now," said Dunford. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet."
So, then, I guess this means that you'll be willing to give them up if we find a buyer, right?
Besides, you also show your absolute lack of understanding of British history - Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, Roundheads and Cavaliers, civil war? Mean anything to you?
Yes, us Englanders (good thing you used the proper term there, we hate being called English!) alway toast the Queen first thing in the morning while wishing that the pesky democraic House of Commons would go away and we could go back to the days of the divine right of kings.
:)
Well, Sun readers do anway
"Oh, and congratulations on your "lasting peace" in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I hear that's working out really well.
Thank you. Yes, both are significant improvements over the previous regimes."
Perhaps from an objective point of view. But do you truly expect them to accept an occupation by American forces (as is de facto the case)? Only a country that has never been occupied would believe that. One thing is a revolution - the right of the people to form a new government, that is our right. But can you imagine a foreign country invading the USA and taking control of its government, no matter how fucked up it had become? It is clear the US would like to keep the new government on a tight leash, which gives it very little credibility as representing the people.
Iraq without Saddam is a nation in chaos. I fear that the USA will be forced to keep the order, not only against attacks on itself but also among different ethnic and religious groups. This leaves the US in a very difficult "guarddog" position taking heavy losses, making the whole operation unpopular both at home and abroad. Either that, or they will be forced out. In which case it is likely to end in civil war, an islamic state like Iran or similar, which will also reflect badly on the USA. You stirred a hornet's nest, and I'll be very surprised if you get out without getting stung.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There may be 10,000 CCTV cameras in london, most of which are probably on private land, shopping centers, inside shops or pointed at road trafic.
Only the high-street cameras are easilly accessable to the police, then trafic cameras which just requires phoning up the trafic monitoring station... after which it requires people handing over VHS cassettes or being issuesd with writs fromthe court to do so.
But the federal goverment is installing these cameras, not a city law inforcement, or even a state law inforcement.... I don't know about you but I think that's the most scary part.
The story cite 100 MBTA cameras. The poster changes this to Metro Boston Transit Authority.
This is actually the Massachusetts Bay Trasnportation Authority. Check out www.mbta.com
In 1984, didn't they like kill people or take them away to prison camps for even 'thinking' the wrong thing. How is this '1984 comes to Boston'.? The only similarity is that there are video cameras.
I don't agree with surveilance everywhere but the title of the article its stupid.
The biggest problem with the US is people will not like something, but neither will they do anything about it. Your civil liberties are being taken away, so take them back! In Minneapolis there were cameras going up everywhere, some people didn't like this, for one reason or another. Over a few months dozens of cameras were stolen, destroyed, or just found to be missing. Civil disobedience is one of the few ways the people have a voice, the government doesn't listen anymore, they have their own agenda. How many things have you seen changed in this country by people? How many more have you seen changed for business? Your rights are gone, but you don't need to sit in front of the tv waiting until you have nothing left, get off your ass and protect the rights granted to you for not only living in America, but your rights as being a human. Civil disobedience in this day and age is the only answer.
TruePunk | Games
Citizen genixia, spellcrime is noncrime. Semantically it's been proven that I could have done all manner of reprehensible things to the word "committing" and the kind reader would "get it". Don't play prole, MiniTruth is unconcerned with Slashdot except as a tool for identifying crimethinkers and as a vector for crimespeak.
o mitig
Below you will find that regardless of spelling you will recognize the following word:
coimitting
comimtting
comiting
commiiting
c
comimiting
comitng
This is very blackwhite, and maybe after the morning jerks you'll feel better.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
remove extra slash at the end of the link
T eaParty.html
h tml
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/USA/
http://www.oldnorth.com/hist.htm
http://www.bostoncitylinks.com/boston_revolution.
That were being prevented by some anti-public monitoring laws (for the sake of privacy), slashdotters might be outraged that they didn't have the freedom to point their webcams at public places..
It's public space. Shouldn't anyone have the right to point a camera at it? Why should we have that right, but the government NOT have that right? Personally, I'd rather have them rig up the public places, and then expand the definition of "public" to include "public venue", so I could bring cameras to concerts and movies. Well, not so much movies...mostly live stuff. But I figure that would have to blanket-apply to movies.
There are cameras in cellphones now. Places are making laws against people using them to photograph ladies "down under". Whether the government is behind it or not, you're on camera..
When was the last time you were in public, in a city, and you felt you had all the privacy in the world...to do...whatever the heck it was that was lawful, yet needed utter privacy to be doing?
You know, it seems like a lot of people are under the impression that the Police are going to be using this system to solve crimes.
If the federal government is responsible for these cameras, then they aren't under any obligation to let the police use them.
Besides, the Police in most cities are underfunded and incompetent. I wouldn't worry about the Police if I were a terrorist or criminal. Rather, I would be concerned about the CIA and the HSA, who are very well funded indeed and have nothing else to do, since the threat of Terrorism is largely a ruse to frighten the public.
Along those lines, I just love the Fox News Channel. They have a ticker across the bottom of the screen that says: Terror Alert: >Elevated and has since 9/12/2001. Jesus Christ - who's fooled by this?
You also lose if you make a reference to Godwin's Law.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
but what about when it's 750? or 7000?
weither it is cameras or cops the numbers matter. If for example I saw a police officer at every street conner i would wonder exactly where i was living: In america or a police state. But if we have this with cameras,it's suppose to be ok.
Let me put it differently. These cameras are being installed (and others are being used) while there is supposed to be a "significant" threat. Since these cameras are goin to be left there,does that mean we will never be out of a state of "significant" threat?
What do you say to the man that has nothing? Cast it away!!
It was in the rural midwest rather than the south, but I have had someone tell me that I was going to hell and then take a swing at me after I declared that I believed in evolution.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Okay okay so they have a longer line than I thought, but still ten thousand cameras! Heck, I should jet over there and start subway-cam porn sites :)
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Well, Toby Keith seemed to fan the flames more than any political party. And it was blown out of proportion-- the Dixie Chicks are a terrible band on their own without saying inflammatory stuff. Heh heh. Natalie made her comment outside of the US (3/10/3 in London), and she said it so casually like it was just a joke, not realizing that words do indeed pack a powerful punch. "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." The fact she never had the marbles to say it inside the United States is what bothered me about it. Did she honestly think it wouldn't come back to them? Their record sales came from all sorts of people, people who don't necessarily give a crap of their political viewpoints but thought enough of their music to set aside a few dollars for their album.
It seems hypocritical to say "Well, I have the right to say whatever I want, but you don't have the right to stop buying my CDs and stop playing my music on the radio." Say what you want-- be prepared to reap the consequence.
At the same time, I am a bit wary of people who base their whole political doctrine on a handful of recording artists or actors, on either side of the issues.
I feel bad CBS had to relegate the movie to cable; I don't get Showtime so I missed it. I think I saw it on DVD so maybe I'll look into it. At least it's available. If I understand it correctly, the Republican Party did raise a stink about it but the GOP is not a government organization. This is very important to understand. The FCC didn't shut it down. Is it a terrible loss that it didn't show on Prime Time? Sure is. People should be smart enough to decide for themselves what's truth and what's fiction. In a perfect world...
I mentioned my post to a friend and he said "In a perfect world, people would choose to buy a product [Slim Fast] on merit alone." I replied "In a perfect world, people wouldn't need to be buying Slim Fast."
My personal definition of censorship implies it comes from a government. A company choosing to limit what it broadcasts or prints is simply acting on a business decision. If a publisher decides it won't publish a particular novel because it has a bad word in it and it might affect how it's able to sell books in the future, but the author decides it's integral to the novel to keep it (Say, "All Quiet on the Fuckin' Western Front") it's the publisher's right to refuse, as long as the author has a right to market his novel elsewhere.
That's just me, I'm a pretty simple.
"The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces." --Aldo Leopold (Paraphrased)
ok, lets update the rule then. if you say "meme" or "paradigm" or any other buzzword, you lose.
All words were buzzwords when they were young. This is how useful new words happen.
Abandoning any conversation when a buzzword shows up cuts you out of all conversations about subjects where an important generalization has been made recently (in language-evolutionary timescales).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ok. Simplified and paraphrased, it states that a thread, if it does not die off, eventually it provoke a NAZI reference.
Sounds like common sense, to me at least. If a thread dies, the law holds, regardless of a mention of NAZI's or not, via the "if it did not die first" statement.
You missed the point of the rule: One way for a thread to die is to just stop. Another is to have the active end sucked away from the original subject and into a stock infinite-loop. Mention of NAZIs is a sign that the latter has happened.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
>Well, the incompetence of British Rail is legendary even on this side of the pond
;-)
British Rail don't run the underground. Never have done.
>Of course I could just be talking out of my ass
Of course I couldn't possibly comment...
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Isn't that going to be made into a Reality TV Show sometime soon??
Can't wait!!
Cameras are not the sole problem that many citizens are concerned with. Rather, they are a symptom of a feeling that our freedom is being eroded by an over-controlling government intent on knowing absolutely everything that is happening - in the off chance that ic can prevent some bad thing from happening.
The real problem is that people want to have some semblance of privacy. Most people strongly believe that the government should be in NO way involved in your personal, private life. Mass information-gathering techniques by the government - recording video, databases of regular citizens, indexed photos of people at rallying events, the government outright spying on its citizens (illegal in the US, btw, or used to be a few years back) - all these things are considered intrusions into your private, personal life. People don't want this.
The reason cameras are singled out - when they are potentially less intruding than, say, Echelon or the Total Information Awareness system (for some info: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/) - is that cameras are more visible. You can see them. They actually record you walking by them, whereas these other information-gathering systems operate in a clandestine fashion that you will likely never really hear about.
Now, all this aside is the fact that many people believe the government is out of control. I mean, why does it need all this security and control? If the country is so screwed up, why should we continue to prop it up on its 2 legs??
As many disgruntled citizens are aware nowadays, it is because the government is only interested in furthering the agendas of large corporations. To the detriment of its citizens. When the people protest, we get shot with rubber bullets, beaten with clubs and gassed.
What a wonderful society we live in.
Heh. Oh well. I ride "the T" all the time. Hopefully, these cameras should stop all the murders at some of these stations.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
Eat shit and die tard!!!! The mad poster is awesome!!! You, on the other hand, are a wart on the ass of a whore.