A Balancing Force to Mass Surveilance?

moerty asks: "The advent and application of video surveillance by governments on its peoples has been a worrying trend in western society. The recent incident with the use of tasers on a UCLA student has highlighted a shift of power where surveillance in the hands of civilians can be used as an equalizing tool against government oppression. What are the best optic/sound capture devices for such a situation? A plus is having a device that is inconspicuous, since photographers are usually targeted due to the visibility of their cameras. What about off-site storage and the hosting of such videos? As a follow-up, what organizations exist that encourage the use of the camera as an equalizing tool?"

Comments

Not necessarily

[quanticle]

Nothing for you to see here, please move along.

Government oppression is alive and well, apparently.

In all seriousness, miniaturization of surveillance technology is a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, we can have cell-phone cameras that can record police brutality. However, the government gets access to the same technology, allowing them to monitor us more easily as well.

You can't offset systematic surveillance with luck

[hey!]

There is some virtue in the idea of a totally "transparent" society. The problem with most disclosures of private information is that they put you at a disadvantage; either they are out of context, or they fall disproportionately on you but not others around you.

However, nobody who argues that we should chuck privacy argues that we should chuck it for everyone. They're really more interested in turning privacy from a right into a commodity, that some people can buy and others have to go without.

Sure, sometimes you can catch a bad cop in the act. Good. But you can't catch the people you really need to watch; the people who control the surveillance network.

Re:I support cameras.

[GigsVT]

You don't have to give up your guns to be a pacifist. You can reject the initiation of force while reserving the right to defense.

Re:I support cameras.

[GypC]

If only all good people were like you, then us bad guys could take over the world...

*sigh*

Someday... someday...

No, people stop for two reasons:

[blueZ3]

One, because the law says to stop at a Stop sign. There are a good number of folks out there who stop because obeying traffic laws is the right thing to do. Let's just skip right over the obligatory /. moral relativism--there are people in the real world who don't feel a juvenile compulsion to break any and every law to prove they are somehow fighting "the violence inherent in the system." There are nonsensical laws, even laws that deserve to be ignored, but generally traffic laws don't fall into that category.

Secondly, they stop because they're aware of their fallibility. Just because it's three o'clock in the morning and they didn't notice any headlights on the cross street while they were approaching the intersection doesn't mean that there's no oncoming traffic.

I've been surprised by supposedly intelligent people I ride with who don't use their signals when changing lanes. The rationale is frequently "I already looked and there's nobody there, so I don't need to signal." My response is invariably the same "Haven't you ever started to change lanes and then seen someone you didn't realize was in your blind spot? That person has no way of knowing you're about to clobber them if you don't signal." The response is usually a non sequitur.

Re:The Panopticon Flourishes

[hungrigerhaifisch]

I say let it roll! I say let's get every politician, police officer, judge, corporate CEO, etc. wired for audio and video and have it stream to the internet 24/7! If we can't hide, then neither can they. That would be the panspectrum then...which in comparison to the panopticum doesn't just 'suggest' that you could be being watched, but watches you constantly, or more precisely just records everything you or anyone else does 24/7.

But a question I need to ask, even if everything would get recorded (and in today's world a lot already does!), who cares?
What are the consequences? And more importantly, do all those cameras not make peaple forget their obligation to react when they see injustice?
The UCLA-incident, I mean, how many students saw and just watched or worse, were so perverse to pull out their mobiles and record it, instead of stopping the cops(or what ever they were) from torturing their fellow student?

Re:I support cameras.

[radtea]

Jesus was very specific about living by the sword, turning the other cheek to our enemies, and loving all even those who don't love us.

Matthew 10:34: (Jesus instructs his followers) Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 26:51-54 (Judas betrays Jesus to the high preists) Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?"

It is certainly plausible based on the second passage quoted that Jesus had no problem with his followers carrying swords, but didn't want them using them in that particular circumstance. The first quote above is general doctrine the second is regarding the specific circumstances of his arrest. Then again, one can plausibly interpret the first quote allegorically, but then you're on that slippery slope that leads all to quickly to "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" territory. After all, any Inquisitor would tell you with a straight face and pure heart that torturing heretics until they repented was an act of love, because the heretic's immortal soul was being saved from eternal damnation.

So it would be wrong to think that Jesus was very clear on the matter of swords and violence. There is very, very little in the Bible that is clear and unambiguous, and believing there is clarity in the Bible is a sure sign one is at risk of becoming a danger to oneself and others.

Re:I support cameras.

[Alphager]

Would you report someone who committed a crime against you, knowing that it would result in their imprisonment?

No, definitely not. I am insured against as many crimes as possible, so why would it matter if the "evil doer" was caught or not? So that the evildoer can be prevented to make another victim?

Self Defense

[Phil_At_NHS]

"you cannot defend yourself with a gun --- they're purely offensive weapons. You can defend yourself with a sword against another sword, or a knife (if you're good) against another knife, but with a gun your only options are (a) to try to shoot someone (and therefore risk killing them) and (b) to not try to shoot them."

This is a strange way of thinking. I think you have an incomplete understanding of "defense."

You say you can defend yourself with a sword against another sword. Typical of the gun banner mentality, this treats the weapon as a being, and ignores the problem. Yes, when I swing my sword at you, you can swing your blade in such a way as to prevent mine from cleaving you crown to crotch. However, you have not defended yourself against me: I am still here, I still want to kill you, and I am still capable of killing you. I swing again, you block again, rinse lather repeat. At some point, you are going to have to do me bodily harm, disable me to the point where I can no longer swing my sword at you, or you will end up dead, having failed to do more the prolong your life by a few moments. Anything less is not really an option. "Self Defense" is an end, not a means. The end result is to prevent harm that would otherwise be done to you. Ask any police officer who has shot someone who pulled a gun on them, if they thought it was "self defense". If they had not fired, they would have been shot by the bad guy. Since they did fire, they were not. Harm was prevented, "self" was "defended" from bodily harm.

As far as Deterrence:

"You can use a gun as a deterrent, but that's a drastically different thing, and frequently not a very useful one." IF a man comes at a women with a knife intending to rape her, and she pulls a gun and he runs, one, this is indeed self defense. She prevented harm with her gun, even though she did not have to pull the trigger. "Deterrence" is based on an unknown. A sign in a liquor store that says, I carry a .44 magnum three days a week, you guess which three, is "deterrence." The THREAT of the gun, not the actuality, is deterrence.

You say that it is frequently not very useful. According to the FBI, (who should know,) of all the things you can do when faced with a criminal, the MOST EFFECTIVE way to prevent harm to self, is to resist with a gun. You are more likely to get hurt if you resist with a knife sword, or club. You are more likely to get hurt if you run. You are more likely to get hurt if you cooperate. You are least likely to get hurt if you pull a gun. That is a simple undeniable fact.

Re:Self Defense

[Atlantis-Rising]

You say that it is frequently not very useful. According to the FBI, (who should know,) of all the things you can do when faced with a criminal, the MOST EFFECTIVE way to prevent harm to self, is to resist with a gun. You are more likely to get hurt if you resist with a knife sword, or club. You are more likely to get hurt if you run. You are more likely to get hurt if you cooperate. You are least likely to get hurt if you pull a gun. That is a simple undeniable fact.

You're more likely to get shot.

Maybe, if you have your gun out first, or you get into a mexican standoff? maybe.

But if I come up on you with my gun in my hand, and you start drawing your sidearm, you're getting a bullet right between the eyes. After all, it's self-defense. If I have a sword in my hand and you start drawing your sword, then we have to actually fight if we want to inflict harm. But if we're at guns, as soon as you draw a firearm you are considered a clear and present danger, and dealt with appropriately- ie, inflicting terminal force.

Really, that's all guns do- they accelerate the use of terminal force, because there's no skill to using firearms. Any idiot can shoot somebody, and a lot of idiots do shoot people. Hence, anybody with a gun pointed in your direction is a threat to your life. On the other hand, an idiot with say, a knife; that's a very different circumstance. It takes a good amount of skill to be able to wield a knife effectively. Even if somebody has a knife drawn and is holding it on you at close to point blank range, there's absolutely no guarantee he'll be able to kill you or significantly wound you.

Guns... have lead to the acceptance of the use of immense force. And in many ways, that's a sad thing. So. If you don't want to get killed, don't draw a gun.

Re:Self Defense

[Atlantis-Rising]

No, it's really not.

I've fought a guy with a knife before; and I do it in practice all the time. An untrained idiot with a knife can get lucky, but is not as dangerous as most martial artists would have you believe. The trick is to disarm them before they can close to grappling range, (or knife-fighting range, I suppose), because grappling with a knife is luck of the draw.

Seriously, I know you meant well, but your post is so far off reality that it's not even relevant. I could quote you plenty more things, like the way many police forces around the world have changed their equipment and rules of engagement for dealing with people carrying bladed weapons in light of their all too real experiences, but I think the point is made. Knives are every bit as dangerous as guns; far more so, actually, at what you called "close to point blank range". While I take your point about guns, it is foolish -- no, suicidal -- to underestimate other weapons.

I don't underestimate other weapons. However, knives are not direct-fire weapons that anyone can effectively use to kill anyone else. Guns are. Guns are much more dangerous just based on that.

You're also very wrong about what really happens when trying to use a weapon to defend yourself against someone threatening you with another weapon. For your own safety, I encourage you to read some of the literature on this subject before relying on these ideas. A lot of self-defence is in your mind, and that starts with not doing stupid things because you think you know better than everyone else.

Yes; defense is in your mind. I have a black belt in Tae Kwon Doe; I regularly spar with arming swords and do dagger and grappling techniques... and do you know what the most important part of self-defense is?

The most important part of self-defense (aside from muscle-memory) is clarity of purpose. People don't lose sparring matches because they're incompetent- they lose sparring matches because they're not willing to strike. If I've broken into your kitchen, and you're unarmed save for a knife, and we're standing about five feet apart from each other and gazing at each other- the victory is going to go to the person who is absolutely sure they want to fight, absolutely sure they want to win, and doesn't hesitate. If that means the unarmed person, the person with a knife is dead. If that means person with a knife, the unarmed person is dead. Having a knife just makes it a little easier, and will tip the balance in an otherwise equal fight.

Make no mistake, however- killing someone with your bare hands is not only possible, it's downright simple. A knife doesn't do anything but make that easier. A gun changes the paradigm.

Re:Carry a taser

[Chabo]

There's a difference between "not allowed to" and "won't".

WTF

[Ayanami Rei]

This entire fucking thread is offtopic.

Mod this whole meta-judeochristian-philisophical-wtfbbqry down. Including this post.

BOMBS AWAY. Make sure to use all five of your points. Thanks.