Slashdot Mirror
No Pictures, Thanks
An anonymous reader writes "HP has received a patent on technology that would allow anyone who didn't want their picture taken to remotely instruct cameras to blur their face. While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here? What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people? If this tech can be used to blur faces, it can be quite easily adapted to turn cameras off altogether, with deeply troubling implications. And even without these 'what if' scenarios, isn't there an expectation that, if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?"
A real-world broadcast flag. Just what we need. Thanks, Carly!
sulli
RTFJ.
use good old-fashioned film!
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Maybe the cop cameras just won't use that functionality. Just because it exists, doesn't mean that every camera in the world will be running it.
It will have certain applications to certain situations, but implying that criminals can immediately use this to their benefit is just pure speculation.
And they said zombies weren't real!
There is a more low-tech solution available as well. There's this guy who advertises in the back of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine who will blur anyone's face for a fee.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
if their faces are blurry they'll die in 7 days!
This is probably the most useless patent ever filed. It allows HP to attempt to sell a device that no one will buy, because what it does is prevents someone from photographing the owner with a camera, also produced by HP, that no one will buy, because it can be scrambled.
The best part is, the end of the article mentions that HP doesn't plan on a commercial use for the patent, for exactly that reason.
Up next, Smith and Wesson announce a device that will prevent you from being killed by someone using a specific model of gun that they make. Get yours now; you can't afford to be vulnerable to 0.0001% of the guns in the world!
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
This might be useful when I'm cruising down the road at 15mph over the posted speed limit and notice a second too late the police van parked on the side of the road waiting to take my picture.
#include
Just figure out how it detects the blurring signal and jam it. If it's visual, try some filters, if it's RF just put a tin-foil-hat on it.
Duh! I thought /. catered to hackers. I don't see much hacker aptitude in such worry-warting.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They've actually been around for quite some time. They are called ski masks.
Who wants a camera which enables anyone to remotely cripple it.
Something tells me this item is NOT going to be a big seller.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I've heard digital photos are often inadmissible as evidence in court because of how easy they are to modify. This sounds like rather intentional automatic digital editing, which would just make picture reliability / integrity worse. IANAL, but can someone else fill in the legal issues here?
So here's a technology that is trying to PROTECT peoples' privacy, and the first thing you can fucking think of to say is that this has serious privacy PROBLEMS, and about cops blurring their faces so they can beat people?
Please, sir, are you fucking serious?
Hey, maybe they should just make a regulation against cops beating and mistreating people.
It's a patent, not a law... Come back and complain about it when it becomes law and every camera has to implement it...
If you have boobs attached to your face, please blur them too. Thank you.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
I'm just thinking about the first time someone would commit a crime and all you see is a Laughing Man logo with a spinning quote from Catcher in the Rye around it over the criminal's face. And next thing you know there are dozens of people claiming to be the Laughing Man...
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
Tinfoil hats cause interference.
They may hve figured out how to do this, then decided to patent it specifically to prevent its use in the wild.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm a believer in the firmly rooted idea that when you're in a public place, you're willingly presenting yourself to the view of others and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This was a problem for me when I took a photo of a stranger's car because I believed she was abusing the disabled placard system. It was on private property-- a mini-mall-- but still in a public place. Neither of us could understand the other's point of view. While I can understand her not wanting me to take a picture of _her_, it was difficult for me to accept her angry and indignant view that I needed her permission to photograph her car. She retaliated by taking a photo of _me_ (ha!). Needless to say a device in her pocket that could have disabled my digital camera would have bothered me greatly. Which is why if something like this ever comes to market, I'm going to stick with the 1965 Pentax SLR, which is entirely mechanical, instead of the more modern Kodak digital. Seems like DRM is just making us go back to older but DRM-free tech :/
Not really - If you're distinct enough to recognize, you can be photographed by anyone, but those photos can't be distributed for profit without your consent for the most part. For instance, no one can snap a picture of you and use that in an ad or commercial without your consent, but a journalist can publish photos of you in a newspaper. I'm not sure about how the law works around it, but I know that it can get pretty complicated if you sell digital photos because you need stacks of waiver forms.
Because expanded police powers increase the threat of the development of a police state. We need to keep a leash on the police. They are a useful tool for keeping peace in society, as long as they are OUR tool.
If you increased police powers significantly, you would run the risk of those powers being abused.
This seems like a rather silly concern. There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of old cameras out there using digial or analog media to store images that won't be affected by such a device.
I also don't see how HP would market this. Any hint that this technology is in a camera would destroy its sales (pros wouldn't touch it and reviews would herd the unwashed masses away). Certainly it could not stop the paparazzi or stalkers (both of which would circumvent as described above), so what's the value in owning the technology? Stopping 20% of tourist snaps? Certainly no one's going to want to add this to disposables (ups the cost), so even there you miss most of the audience.
Nope, this is less of a rights issue and more of a matter of filing for a patent because that's the only potential value you could extract from a technology.
I reckon a lot of what has happened in the U.S. in the past several years would've previously been considered to be "unlikely to be mandated by law" and "nothing to be concerned about." You never know.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras!
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical.
The AC is on crack when he says it can be quite easily adapted to turn cameras off altogether, with deeply troubling implications. It isn't some magic EMP device, the camera is under no obligation to obey. And there is no way it would be retrofitted to the millions of existing cameras anyway.
Big Brother left the building. In fact, he was never here.
Because many of us don't inherently trust law enforcement or government to do the "right thing."
I think there should be some sort of policy in all technology companies, dilbert style, that says that non-technical people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about should not be allowed to make product suggestions or patents. There is already a similar policy in the airline industry that says non-pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly planes and i hear it works very well!
This is one of those ideas with no thought behind it, its based on the assumption that like good little boys and girls we are all going to accept technology lock down - they haven't even figured out how they are going to persuade other companies to stick this in their cameras?! or is this going to be mandatory by law soon? well i've got news for any legislator who thinks for a fucking second they are going to dictate what i can do to my property in my own home. To me it seems like this idea was thought up not by a business minded person (who in their right mind would try and cripple only their companies products for no reason!?) but by a complete and total idiot, in fact i would like that idiot to come and explain themselves, slashdot?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Because history shows that the police are not always our friends.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...Or for that matter, any cameras without this "feature".
And once the market demand goes down, people will just stop using them.
As simple as that.
This "techonology" could be used in places where you don't want some goof with a cellphone camera taking snaps of stuff, i.e.: my company's office, the ladies change room at my local gym/pool, government offices, etc. I know I'd love to have something that disables a cellphone camera in specific areas - right now I have to rely on the honesty of my guests in disclosing if their camera has imaging capabilities or not... (hint: I work with secured technologies).
The patent may be broad enough to cover the larger concept of obscuring/degrading/modifying digital data when captured via certain types of devices.
"Content's a bitch."
And even without these 'what if' scenarios, isn't there an expectation that, if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?
Sure, I guess. But uh, even though while I'm in public I must expect that I'm fair game for being farted on, I still don't like it. Just because you're "fair game" doesn't mean you have to enjoy it. I'm fair game for being shit on by a pigeon too, but if someone made an anti-pigeon-shitting device that allowed me not to get splattered by bird feces, I'd take it and run away gleefully laughing.
Just because you CAN take pictures of everything doesn't mean you should. Some of us want to be able to walk around outdoors without the concern of being in someone's photo gallery because they have a camera phone and too much time. I don't see why that's so bad.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
Dilbert may have used it but it dates back to the belief of certain cultures (Native Americans, etc) that were unfamiliar with photography when it first debuted and thought that the camera would steal their soul. Even knowing how the technology works I can understand this feeling. It's like being upset that someone is sniffing your packets when you can't use ssl to protect yourself.
One summer at camp there was a kid that would only agree to be in the cabin photo if he wasn't forced to look at the camera. He later threatened to eat me, but that's beside the point.
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
There have been some pushing for mandated sounds on camera phones, to avoid people snapping pictures down blouses or up skirts without some chance of the target knowing about it. I believe I saw something recently that the EU was strongly in favor of this.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Great! I have an evil-bit scrambler to sell you for only $39.99, plus shipping.
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical. Nobody would prevent you to carry your older digital camera, or an an analog one, which can then completely ignore the request for cooperation in the other person's face blurring.
VKh
This submission is what happens when someone accidentally wears their tin foil hat inside-out.
paintball
Dude, those liberal-conservative labels are for blinkered sheeple.
Expansion of police powers increases the danger of a police state forming. It does not guarantee it. I was merely indicating to the original poster, why we need to concern ourselves with restriction of police power even if it results in some reduction in police efficiency. High police efficiency, for example, existed in the Third Reich - didn't help their citizenry much, it just enabled criminals and gangsters in the police forces to exploit them more easily.
Police efficiency is not an end in itself, in my opinion.
20 years is a long time in the business world, my friend. I'm not saying that HP definitively obtained this patent as a defensive measure, but I do think it's a possibility. Also, the same patent that is a defensive measure today could be an offensive measure tomorrow, and vice-versa.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Gee...I dunno. Regulations about that sort of thing, perhaps?
So the police who are ignoring the laws about mistreating and beating the shit out of innocent people are going to suddenly obey the law when it comes to not obscuring their faces and badge numbers when they do it?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why worry about cops first and not the (always) bad guys?
Because cops who abuse their authority are the bad guys (i.e., they are breaking the law).
The reason we need to keep an eye on the cops is due to their ability to use the legal system to cover up their crimes.
A cop-killer is more important to the a community because that individual has shown that no amount of legal authority will stop them from committing a crime. A cop "who is a killer" is more important to the public because they operate under the color of authority and can therefore act with impunity.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Actually, no. I'm not a paranoid anti-goverment lunatic, if that's what you mean. I'm not using pot either. What i did though, was to read 1984, and i have to tell that it makes you recognize some patterns you know? I don't like selective privacy.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Why the consistent anti-law inforcement sentiment on /.?
Oooh, oooh.
This is why
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Nothing interesting here, move along
All the more reason to keep my Canon A-1 circa 1970-something in good working order. The theoretical implications of this technology are disturbing, but I wonder about the actual implementation and the practicality of it. Still, a good, mechanical, film backup camera is a good thing to have for multiple reasons. Speaking as someone who has taken pictures of cops beating up people and of landscapes and what not, and who likes the geekness of the film processing and photo developing chemical and physical technologies.
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Reminds me of the scramble suits worn by narcotics agents in Phillip K. Dick's excellent A Scanner Darkly?
Hmmmmm. . .
[Soon to be a major motion picture too!]
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
Who wants a CD that can't be copied or played in a car?
Who wants a computer will only continue to give you access to your data if you keep paying a monthly subscription fee (and only if you use approved applications and operating systems)?
Who is happy with DVD players that will not play legally purchased discs from other parts of the world and will not allow the owner to skip advertisements?
This is not something being developed in response to consumer demand. It sounds like something that might be included in some future "standard" mandated by the congress (cough cough Fritz Hollings cough cough) for consumer electronic devices. Maybe someday you won't be able to use a phone/PDA/camera/whatever unless it includes DRM technology, a nationally registered ID number, a biometric login to limit use to approved users, and perhaps a GPS transmitter trackable by the government. "Legacy" devices would be around for a while, but at some point they would no longer work with the phone system. Of course, tampering with any of these functions would constitute a felony under some "Digital Millenium National Security Patriot Anti-Terrorism Motherhood and Apple Pie Act".
(OK, so I'm stretching it, but many of these things are possible, and all of them will be possible soon).
Isn't the very fact that they're beating and/or mistreating someone evidence of their vast and wide-ranging respect for regulations?
The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.
While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here?
No, I'm stupid. Howabout you tell me?
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Ah. Yes. This is the old "What if the bad guy could use it against us!" Silly me, I should have guessed.
Every technology can be used equally by anyone with any motive. The minivan is great for soccer moms, but what if the MAN uses them to transport innocent victims of the justice system or *GASP* spy on people?!?
Yes, the patent covers a technology which couldn't possibly work right now except under some exceptionally limited circumstances. Think of taking a picture of a crowd. What technology could possibly pick the one person out of the crowd that has this device and blank out only their face without user intervention and fits in a large camera, nevermind a cellphone? None. This is a useless IP grab.
But let's assume it's possible. Well, then either you use cameras that don't have this feature, you disable the feature on cameras you use, and otherwise you shouldn't care because it's not your *$#!@ camera or picture.
Worried about this technology being mandated by congress? It's unlikely given that anything done in public is public. They'd have to take away a ton of civil rights before they even got close to being able to prevent public pictures in public places.
No, Chicken little, the sky is not falling. It's not even overcast. There is little in this topic that's worth discussing to any degree as any intelligent person can work through all the scenarios and satisfy themselves of the limited utility of this patent.
-Adam
So, how does this work on a film-based camera? Is the device really big and you hold it up in front of your face or what?
This is just nonsense.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Why does everybody have to use "Troll" as a slur, even when someone has a valid point? Here's a tip: If you don't like somebody's viewpoint, they aren't trolling when they state it to you. They may seem like weak points, but the guy has a point. I don't see any goatse holes or wipo trolls.
One of the few places where "They shouldn't be filming me in public" and "I should be able to film anyone else in public" aren't seen as logically inconsistent.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Please visit our gift shop!
Cameras are electronically disabled in the park.
Please visit our gift shop!
Golden Gate Bridge color photos are now only $3.99!
Please visit our gift shop!
[Scene: Planet Express: Lounge. A show called Cop Department is on TV.]
Cop Department Announcer [voice-over; on TV]: Cop Department is real. The people you see are not actors. Most of them aren't even people.
[Fry, Bender and Leela sit slumped on the couch. The coffee table is filled with dishes, uneaten burgers and boxes of Chinese food. On the TV is a dazed centipede-like alien with a blurred face.]
Alien [on TV]: C'mon man, I didn't fire off no laser.
Smitty [on TV]: Then why is there a smoking hole in your ceiling sir?
[The camera points to the ceiling.]
Alien [on TV]: What? Crazy upstairs lady must've been shooting down.
URL [on TV]: Sir, you're on the top floor of this particular domicile.
[snip!]
Alien [on TV]: OK. OK, I'm co-operating.
Smitty [on TV]: That's it, now put up your hands.
[The alien puts it's 20 hands in the air and URL moves towards him, cuffs at the ready.]
URL [on TV]: Nice and slow. Aww yeah!
Smitty [on TV]: And while you're at it, unblur your face.
Alien [on TV]: Aw man.
[He unblurs his face. It wasn't a TV effect!]
--Futurama, "The Lesser of Two Evils"
Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
What makes you think you'll have a choice?
If this technology works, how long until there's a law passed that, "due to the threat of terrorism," all digital cameras sold or imported into the US must have this "feature." All "sensitive" sites will be equiped with jammers. As will all law enforcement officers, to prevent them from being targeted by terrorists.
Needless to say it will be illegal for the hoi poi to have or use this technology. With suitable exceptions for major contributors to the republican party - I mean officers of major, "critical" public companies.
The way this paints a big bullseye on every potential target ("Hey, Sven, let's drive around town and take pictures of everything and see what's blurry!") will be completely ignored. 'Cause, you know, those foreigners are too stupid to think of it.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I have a foolproof device that blocks any camera from taking a picture of your face (patent pending).. it involves a piece lead cilinder large enough to cover your entire body and a hole in the bottom to slip the feet out of so you can walk... and there's a light edition too that involves a black cloth covering you but it won't work against X-ray cameras.. :)
The police don't necessarily care about photos when they are beating people. In many cases they are following orders. For instance, when the police are sent in to break up a peaceful demonstration they go in with full riot gear and Billy clubs. The NYC Republican convention protests are a great example of this. Throughout the 19th century there are many examples of authorites ordered to repress civilians of america. The 1932 Bonus Army in which the US military was dispatched against peaceful civilian demonstrators. From 1920 to 1940 police were used extensively to break up peaceful and violent union picket lines. Often times these actions resulted in the death of american civilians. It's not one or two "bad cops". It is a purposefully placed systematic corruption aimed at benefiting the powerful. Another example of abuse of innocents by our American government is the Abu Ghraib Prison scandals. The jailors were not ashamed of what they did. They were just following orders. Hell, they took pictures of themselves doing it. Were the people they were raping with broomsticks (yes there are documented cases of this) Hanging up in chains, beating with fists, attacking with dogs and even prisoners beaten to death. Were these people innocent? We will never know as they were never given a trial. But back to my point. No cop is a bad cop when the entire system is corrupt.
> I also have a shaved head
balding
> and a big frame
fat
> and tend to look a little rough
tired
> and edgey.
members only jacket + goatee.
Just come clean: The trick is that, while you may look like a harley-riding David Brent, you're driving a Ford Festiva when the cops pull you over.
They couldn't switch it off, they could only turn it down.
Yes they could, but only the members of the "Inner Party" (I read the spanish version so in english it might be called differently).
The rest of the members (and I guess the proletariat) could only turn it down.
No sig
Because crime isn't actually as bad as you'd think from watching TV.
In reality, most of us live in an age of incredibly low crime rates, even those of us who live in cities in America. I've never even seen a gun, and the one time I was within a mile of an actual violent crime, there were so many cop cars (and bikes and helicopters) after the guy it was like a scene from The Blues Brothers.
Sure, there are exceptions; maybe you live in Gary, Indiana or inner city DC. But for most of us, the chances of being beaten up or having our stuff stolen by law enforcement are much greater than the chances of the same happening because of a violent criminal.
Someone in your apartment block deals drugs? Guess it's time for a drug forfeiture sweep. Doesn't matter if you're found innocent, you can kiss your worldly possessions goodbye.
Selling video signal clarifiers or bootleg arcade game emulators? You could be the next person to be raided by the Department of Homeland Security. (No, I'm not kidding.)
Sharing lots of files? Thanks to Bill Clinton, copyright violation in sufficient quantities is now a felony, and you could find the feds kicking down your door.
Political protester? It's now routine for protesters (whatever the cause) to be illegally mass-arrested in advance to get them off the streets, mistreated in jail, and then freed without charge once the event being protested is over. That's if you're lucky; if you're unlucky, the cops engineer a riot and wade in with the tear gas and batons. If you're really unlucky, they discover that you once sent a pair of boots to a Chechen rebel or contributed to an Islamic charity, and you suddenly disappear to jail indefinitely, or to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured.
I don't lie awake at night worrying that my next-door neighbors might steal my stuff; even if they did, I have insurance, and it's just stuff. I do sometimes worry that I might get arrested or "disappeared" by the US authorities.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
This isn't going to be a problem for police. With a couple of notable exceptions *cough*Rodney*cough*King*cough*, they're already well skilled in hiding their own wrongdoing.
Why, the New South Wales Police (Sydney, Australia) Senior Constable with badge number 66312 simply left the room and removed his official badge and other identifying stuff before he started beating up on me in the old North Sydney Police Station. There were lots of other police in the room at the time, but none of them saw a thing. (Good thing I'd already committed the number to memory huh!)
No, cops won't need to worry about electronic gadgets to blur faces - they'll just turn the other, er, cheek like they've been doing for years!
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"Have you tried to find a 5.25" floppy lately?"
I know I've got one lying around my paperless office somewhere. Maybe buried under one of my e-books.
Glad you are so easily amused. A long time ago, in the 60's, I saw half a dozen cops beat a man to death. To *death* as in caved in body, blood everywhere, etc. They were laughing and shrieking obscentities at the crowd and asking who wanted it next, etc. Right up there in the top 10 gross things I have ever seen. Their "brothers" holding shotguns and assault rifles also surrounded the crowd (at a small to medium sized anti war demo) who were watching this, and systemtaically went through and seized any cameras (not many I saw, a few though), and also beat a few more people for sport. The guy they wasted was just someone in the front lines they picked at random, I watched the whole thing go down. And no, he wasn't throwing rocks or anything like that, no one was, at least up front where I was, it was just your typical yelling and slogan chanting action before they decided to have a little police mini riot. They never got charged with a thing as far as I could find out later. I personally took the story as far as I could, with a couple other witnesses, which was to the lieutenant governor at the time. Still no action, and it NEVER even made the news anyplace either. Couldn't find out the kids name even, cops wouldn't say and later denied that anything had happened. I'd classify it as a perfect crime they committed and the blue code of silence was part of it. Dozens of cops watched it, too, yet not a single whistleblower.
So ya, a slashdotter might be concerned over that possiblity. So..have another ghoulish chuckle, it's a freebie.
A quick read of the 'pair of boots story' shows that it's a British tale, and ain't just about boots. Quoted from your story:
Of course being 'held with out trial' says alot in itself and the Patriot Act scares me, but you wild accusations need to be countered, Strongly. Sure there are bad Cops, but most are decent hard working people trying to make a living knee deep in shit (your comments for example).The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
When people talk about strong encryption, they always talk about how the government has no right to interfere, how VOIP is hard to tap and that's good. Why the hell is this increase in privacy related to police powers? I mean, it's a plausible situation, but no one ever asks if strong encryption can be used by government agents for illegitimate reasons. Seriously, this is such a biased posting. What about drug dealers using the device to prevent photo surveillance of deals? What about any illegal activity that is prevented from being photographed? If it increases privacy, it increases it for everyone. The question is wrong because it's one-sided.
The article mentions that only cameras in range of the device would be affected. What happens if I use one of the digital cameras with the 10x zoom to take a picture from outside the privacy range?
Does this affect ALL cameras in range, or only cameras pointed at the person wanting privacy? If it affects all cameras, how do I prevent the paranoid person behind me from spoiling my family pictures at Disneyland? If it only affects cameras pointed at the person with the privacy device, how does the camera know who has the device, or which way it is pointing?
As has also been pointed out, there's also the problem of criminals (in uniform or otherwise) using such a device to block the collection of photographic evidence. If a device like this does become mandated for all digital cameras, I can see a booming business selling privacy devices to those wanting to get past security cameras.
"For example, let's assume a reporter was given temporary access to a government facility (e.g. one that belongs to say FBI or the NSA.) which has classified equipment or information in it. If this technology was applied, the agency to whom the building belong to, could then strategically place devices inside the building that instructs a certain type of camera to automatically blur out sensitive areas. That way, the reporter wouldn't be able to accidentally divulge classified information about the facility (It has happened before if I'm not mistaken). In many of these buildings no cameras are allowed, period, so this could also be a reasonably safe way around that. It would probably be necessary for the agency to provide a camera of their own that has been properly checked out though. The only thing the reporter would need to bring would be a memory stick to hold the pictures."
:^)
That's a cool idea. Sorry I don't have mod points, but I can boost the visibility a bit.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
"So the police who are ignoring the laws ... are going to suddenly obey the law when it comes to not obscuring their faces and badge numbers when they do it?"
:-/
You mean, in the same way that gun control has been so successful in New York, Chicago, and D.C.?
"So the criminals who are ignoring the laws about raping, robbing, and murdering are going to suddenly obey the law when it comes to turning in their illegal firearms when anti-gun legislation is passed?"
Yeah, I got karma to burn.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Well, you have a valid point, but let's think rationally here. The left is always talking about racism and mistreatment of people, right? Some actual, some fantasized. This even goes as far to silence my voice if I'm making a gross generalization about a large group of people.
My point is, aren't you making a really gross generalization yourself when you say that a large group of people (law enforcement) is somehow bad or worth degrading? Come on, you're only seeing one side. I happen to know a few people in law enforcement. They are ALL nice, decent, hard-working, and law-abiding citizens themselves. I, for one, do not want a state of chaos where there's no protection for me.
main(0)
Say what? It's worse now then it was back then, including how many people are outright killed by cops. Magnitudes worse. You have no knock raids now as common, and frequently they just barge in and kill everything moving, sometimes even at the wrong address, and mostly get away with it.. Every police force from podunk on up size has black suited anonymous ski masked ninja killers squads with full military arms. You have cameras going up all over, civilian surveillence cams, you have random freekin checkpoint roadblocks,straight out of a bad grade B war spy movie,and people accept it, something we were taught as kids only bad places like east germany had, massive and pervasive government data mining that is going way beyond just flat files in actual file cabinets, spy satellites, helicopters using penetrating radar running grids over cities mapping everything, mass arrests at demos when there is no violence whatsoever, things called "free speech zones" that are just barbed wire enclosures that they 'allow" any protesters to assemble in, the complete abandonment of Posse Comitatus, government snatches and removals to camps where you can be charged in secret and held indefinetly, they are sticking RFID tracking chips in everything, including humans now, and on and on and on and on. I mean, sheesh, that crap is all real stuff!
I call the whole system much more "abusive" than it used to be and the trends are full bore brave new world styled total fascism, right around the corner.
If you can't see it...well... sorry but it's true. I guess you would have had to watch it, every year another law, another technique, another facet of command and control *over* the civilian population introduced. It's called the "slow boiling frog" technique and it's worked admirably for those people seeking it.
Victoria Snelgrove, murdered by the Boston police this past October would probably disagree with the parent poster about the idea that police misconduct is "negligible." So would Abadou Diallo. And Abner Louima. Google the name Clifford Glover. While you're there, look up Eleanor Bumpers, too. I'd mention Rodney King yet again in this thread, but that'd be trite.
Let's not go around espousing the idea that because recent history has seen a lull in police brutality in the United States, that it isn't a problem, or that it's acceptable in any way.
And, especially, let's not go around supporting the curtailment of technologies that can keep these abuses in check.
Fight for something better: www.socialistalternative.org
So if police powers doubled tomorrow, we wouldn't actually be any closer to a police state, as long as (I assume) the police behave themselves?
That line of thinking is exactly why most Americans still believe they have freedom, when basic human rights like due process have been thrown out the window. As long as it's not happening to you, it's not really happening, right? Never mind that the police can seize your vehicle just by accusing you of posessing drugs, with no actual proof -- if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
Let's call a spade a spade. Expansion of police powers is *exactly* what makes a police state.
You took his stuff. You pound him.