Slashdot Mirror
Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA
sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
Crowdsourcing Big Brother in Lancaster, PA
Uh, I read the article and it sounds like 10 self-appointed people running the show with 12 volunteers. How in the hell is that crowdsourcing?
... one operating outside my elected official's jurisdiction would be a true horror show.
Don't even get me started on a who will watch the watchmen rant. Such a monitoring activity operating at all upsets me
My work here is dung.
'the innocent have nothing to fear'.... What the hell is that crap? When did that become the rally flag for the loss of freedoms? Next they will tell us that if they don't get these cameras, the terrorist win.... Oh wait!
"'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'""
Sheize: Ugly things are happening across the earth.
NO SIG
Who is this "we" you talk about?
NO SIG
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
I don't know about the rest of Slashdot (I haven't really seen that rhetoric but if you do, I won't argue) but I am certainly against all meddling. I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now, Blue Laws, and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights (red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis).
If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property, that's fine. As soon as it's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it's not acceptable. No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood). i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.
How does being watched in public spaces restrict your freedom?
Cameras.
A chilling quote:
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.
But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
Rhetoric aside, you should have a seat belt cutter in your car in case the seat belt suddenly becomes an irremovable hazard. In any case the seat belt may help, it may also become life threatening.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I wear my seat belt and require them to be used by others when I drive. I'm not against that but I am against the police having the authority to pull someone over for the offense (it hasn't come to that in MN yet but it will eventually). I can't always tell when my wife has her belt on in the car when I'm sitting next to her (it blends in with the color of clothing she wears most frequently), how the fuck is the cop going to do so from afar?
Historically, the two have had high correlation. See Persians, Romans, British, American, etc.
While they weren't perfectly free nations, they each had quite progressive legal systems that provided relatively good degrees of equality and freedom to its citizens compared to other major powers of the world at the time.
How does being watched in public spaces restrict your freedom?
Because you are not free to do things that are not illegal, but may be frowned upon by your community.
Meeting your mistress. Attending AA. Organizing a protest rally. Attending a meeting of an unpopular political group. Going to a fertility clinic. Going to an abortion clinic. Not resting on the sabbath. Going to the wrong church. Going on a date with a woman of a different race. Going to a gay bar. Going to a strip club. Purchasing alcohol. Looking at a child or married woman for too long or in the wrong way. Checking the wrong book out of the library. Stopping to offer condolences to the last victim of wholesale surveillance.
See "chilling effect."
corruption.
shortening the length of the yellow light leads to more tickets and increased revenues for the camera company and for the locality.
if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.
however, the stories I've read/heard on the subject all seem to involve these cameras being installed and the yellow duration being shortened. And the camera's end up generating a good amount of money, but the number of accidents stays about the same.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I care because if you become incapacitated in a collision because you were not wearing your seat belt, there is a period of time where you cannot have control over your car (because you're no longer in it) and you put the lives of anyone else around you at a greater risk. Not to mention that a 150-200 lb fleshy projectile is dangerous.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
I too was against seatbelt laws, but after being busted and attending a seatbelt education class, I have modified my position. If you are alone in your car, then you should have every right to endanger yourselves. However, if there are any other people in your car, then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision. Therefore, you should be required to be belted to avoid the possibility of hurting others.
As far as the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" argument, I would say it is now, "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing." One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private. The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle. That being said, the video from public cameras should be available for everyone's use; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians. I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded, because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally. Granted, police would quickly learn how to do things "off camera", but if both the police and the suspect are recording, then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
What a sociopathic attitude. There are countless things many of us don't do and don't approve of and would prefer not to have to pay for. But, we all live in a society.
I wish I didn't have to pay for idiots who talk on cellphones while driving, or for stupid people to have kids. I wish I didn't have to pay for health freaks living to 100 using up all that money on health care. If they had any sense and smoked, drank, and ate cheeseburgers they would die at 65 and save us 10 million dollars.
Do you want to be unapproved for health care or reproduction privileges because your DNA is more costly to maintain than some arbitrary level society sets? Do you want to live in a society where doctors run through extensive checklists, wasting precious time, to see if you did anything unapproved to disqualify you from receiving treatment for your heart attack, car crash, or bullet hole?
Plus, you are wrong. People who die in auto accidents stop being a drain. Those idiots that survive them with their seat belts cost big bucks to patch up and put back into active duty, only to tie up precious resources the next time something happens.
Man, you really need that seminar!
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one. Or whoever has to clean up after an accident.
No probably to it...you can blame insurance companies and lawyers who sue everyone in sight (note I'm not referring to all lawyers). Seat belt laws are about financial risk management nothing more. Just one more example of why the state must protect us from ourselves. Our founding fathers really should have writting "Life, LIberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as long as the money of the powerful isn't affected.
When playing the odds, I'd rather bet on the seat belt being helpful. Yes, some people have been trapped and died from seat belts, but a great deal more people have been saved by them. It's like fear of flying... flying is statistically much safer than driving by any metric you care to use (per mile traveled, number of passengers, whatever). But more people fear flying than driving. A seat belt cutter is not a bad idea to have accessible in a car, but you're an idiot if you refuse to wear a seat belt because there is no cutter or justify it by saying you might get trapped.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Laws are not there to include that which is acceptable, but to exclude that which is unacceptable.
Regarding the legislation of micromanagement: Many believe that if it's better for a person to do something, like wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet, then they should be required by law to do so. If this viewpoint is accepted and implemented, then as surveillance becomes omnipresent and combined with computer facial recognition and statistical analysis, it will become illegal to take any action other than that which the monitoring system has deemed optimal. There will be one legal course of action in any given situation, which has been predetermined by a committee-designed piece of software after its analysis of billions or trillions of hours of video data. Taking a different rout to work than has been determined for you would be wasteful, and is therefore illegal. Attempting to pursue a career other than the one that you have been determined best suited for would be inefficient, and is therefore illegal. Refusal to procreate with the mate that has been chosen for you, or procreation with an unsanctioned mate, would result in suboptimal offspring, and is therefore illegal. After all, why should the children suffer for your selfish emotions? If you show signs of discontentment with this lack of Independence, you will receive "counseling" to help you better conform.