Your entire post is about your fear of something that might possibly happen with no evidence it might happen. Your posts are just a collective slippery-slope fallacy.
It is not my fault you are an idiot. Stop acting the a fucking paranoid asshole and maybe you might say something worth reading, but as you are, all you say is "I am afraid of everything so it shouldn't be done. It doesn't matter that I don't know anything about what the subject, my fear means I am right!"
The only thing to understand in your posts is that you are a paranoid, tin-foil-hat-wearing asshole.
You are in PUBLIC, asshole. You also don't get a say whether or not cameras record you. If you want that say, stay in your fucking house. What the fuck is wrong with you that you don't understand that you have no fucking right to privacy in a public space? Next, you will be whining because someone looked at you or took your picture while you were walking down a public sidewalk.
And, you are attempting to use a red herring because this system in question does not record all everything, everywhere, all t he time, dipshit. It only records an area when it detects a sound that matches gun shot from that area.
Now, stop being a shithead, grow the fuck up, and stop treating public spaces like it is your back yard.
I suggest you go learn about the camera system in London, the system in question, and the big difference between the two.
Oh, wait, that would require you to not be a dumbass. Here, let me help you: The camera system in London is a general observation system, which means the cameras are on all the time and someone has to be watching them. The shotspotter system has cameras hooked up to microphones and a computer. When the microphones pick up a sound with the characteristics of a gun shot, the computer determines where the shot occurred, notifies people, and turns cameras to the crime scene and pictures are taken. The difference is the difference is that shotspotter only takes pictures of a suspected crime scene at the time of the crime so there is no reliance on continual surveillance to detect and respond to crime or gather evidence. It is automated.
Can you understand that or are you going to continue to try to change the subject to general surveillance?
Oh, and if you are suggesting that "cameras may help stop a murderer" is to prevent a crime, one is not a murderer until AFTER the crime has been committed. If it were "stop a murder" it may be said to be preventing a crime. But, "stop a murder" is to stop a person who has already committed a crime. Back to reading comprehension you go.
There is no guarantee that any technology would prevent or even deter crime. And, any technology that would prevent or deter first time offenses would most likely be incredibly invasive and/or completely destructive to most, if not all, people's rights.
Basically, it would take mind control or 24/7/365 surveillance.
As to why implement this technology, while it may not prevent the crime it captures, it will help put the person who committed that particular crime away. In that way, it will indirectly prevent some crime, specifically, the crimes that would have been committed by the convicted offender while the offender is behind bars.
I have decided to give you an abject lesson in slippery slope reasoning so you will understand the error of your reasoning. All the following examples have a more solid foundation in reality than yours and you can guess the follow-on conclusion
We know that Saddam Hussein has used poison gas weapons (WMDs) on his own people. He has invaded a peaceful neighboring country. We know he was trying to develop other WMDs and that he is hindering examination of possible weapon manufacturing sites. Iraq manufacturing WMDs is the first step in launching another offensive against Iraq's neighbors.
We know that Iran has long range missiles capable of reaching Israel. We know that Iran is enriching Uranium. Enriching Uranium is the first step to Iran using atomic and nuclear weapons against Israel.
North Korea's leaders are insane. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons. North Korea is developing long range ballistic missiles. Developing long range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons is the first step to launching a nuclear attack on the United States and/or its allies.
Do you need me to go on? I can do mosques, health care reform, financial reform, the bail-out, etc. Slippery slope can be used to justify anything because it does not require any proof, just a possibility.
In this situation, crime prevention is a red herring.
The tool in question is not designed to prevent crime by its presence, but rather to gather evidence of a crime as soon as the possible crime is detected. The fact that the system only detects crimes involving a gun being shot, may lower gun crime rates, but it will not lower the rates for crimes not involving guns.
It is not "Bruce got locked up because the camera took his picture - I'm Joe and I'll be mugging you instead". Rather, it would be "Bruce got locked up because the camera took his picture because he used a gun - I'm Joe and I'll be mugging you with a knife instead."
At best, this system will deter some gun crime, but it is not designed to prevent or deter all crime. Claiming that the system will not deter or prevent crime is a red herring because the system is not designed to prevent or deter crime.
I did read what you wrote, but apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
I'm not saying these systems create a police state, I'm saying that unopposed installation of these systems is a step towards a police state.
So, you have decided to move on to the slippery-slope fallacy. Great move.
After the ShotSpotter installations, full blown London style CCTV is only a small step away.
Unless, of course, it isn't and it doesn't. A camera that takes a picture of an area after a crime has occurred is much different than a CCTV system that monitors the streets constantly and it is not "only a small step" from one to the other. It is a rather large step.
Comparing CCTV coverage and citizen tracking systems to "just more police on the street" is bogus. Police on regular patrol duty don't track and log your movements for later.
Red herring. This is not about CCTV or citizen tracking systems. This is about a system that images a location where a specific act, an act that is illegal in almost every city in the United States, has occurred.
Someone disagreeing with you is not a "red herring".
Your response to my post was an FUD filled screed and said absolutely nothing about the shotspooter system. You chose to try and change the topic to general privacy rights and your irrational, paranoid fear that the United States is becoming a police state, a stance which you did not even bother to provide any proof. Your post was a red herring, an attempt to change the subject to something else.
Now, that I have explained to you where you failed, will you please shut the fuck up?
If I go out, in public, I don't need a cluster of cams, recording every movement through a city for 24/7. Does that make me a murderer or a criminal? Not even the slightest.
False dichotomy. It is not an either/or proposition. The fact that you want to reduce it to that shows your ignorance and arrogance.
Being watched 24/7 surely changes that entire area of evolution.
No one is being watched 24/7, therefore you statement is false. Also, you ignore the fact that this system does not watch 24/7. It activates on the sound of a gun shot, which is most-likely an illegal act as most local governments have laws against discharging a weapon in public.
When you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Everyone and anyone can see what you are doing. From the security cameras at the mall to the cameras in the ATMs, to people with camera phones, to shotspotter cameras, if you are in public they have every legal right to record you. Let me guess, you believe that if someone films you breaking the law in public, they are invading your privacy, right? But, if they film a cop violating someone's rights, it is not violating anyone's privacy, right?
You are a pathetic hypocrite and you apparently think public spaces are you own private playground.
Great, yet another dumbass. Your post is yet another red herring.
1) These cameras only take a picture of the area of and only after a shot has been fired. The point is not to deter crime so much as it is to investigate and prosecute the crime.
2) As these cameras are not on all the time, your argument is irrelevant.
Now that you have demonstrated your ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and inability to argue logically, please shut the fuck up.
These cameras are not on 24/365. They take pictures of an area where a shot was fired after a shot has been fired. In other words, it takes a picture of an area AFTER a crime has been committed. This is completely different strip searching "every single air passenger, if it could help stop a single terrorist incident" as in the former a crime has already been committed while in the latter no crime has yet been committed.
A picture being taken of a public place is not the same thing as a person being strip searched. As I stated before, you have no expectation of privacy in a public place. You may as well claim that a police officer on a street corner seeing commit a crime on a public street is a violation of your right to privacy.
Now that you have demonstrated your inability to argue logically, please shut the fuck up.
I suggest you take a better look at those state graphs, because they do not support your contention.
If what you say is true, then states with stricter gun laws and lower gun ownership should have the lowest death by gun rates, but the graphs show the opposite. Just look at California, New Mexico. Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Look at the Midwest
The correlation is just not there.
As for your graph, it does not necessarily show any a correlation because you do not have the data labeled by state, there is no explanation of what each axis is, and there is no explanation of the correlation and/or any statistical significance. Your graph looks like it came straight out of "How to lie with statistics". I will not even go into source bias as it the evidence is there for anyone to see.
1) Please demonstrate in detail a basic logic course without mathematics. 2) Please explain in detail how anyone can enter a mathematics intensive fields, such as engineering, without a firm grounding in mathematics? Do you suggest that we make mathematics an elective? Or, just wait until high school to teach mathematics?
Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?
Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?
Oh, and if you are going to piss on about "privacy", the cameras and actions take place in PUBLIC. No one has an expectation of privacy in a public space. So, if you are going to say something about privacy, you can STFU now.
Want truckers to slow down and obey the time limit laws? Don't pay them by the mile. Oh, and if you don't like being overtaken by semi at 70+ mph, don't drive on the highway. Having to pass an idiot driving 50mpg in the center of a three lane highway is very disconcerting.
Maybe they should install Breathalyzer ignition interlocks in all cars to prevent drunk driving. Maybe they should install 30 minute black boxes in all cars to encourage safer driving. Maybe they should put speed limiters in all cars to prevent speeding. Maybe they should put devices in cars that cause them to try to stay in the left hand lane.
Oh, and speaking as an ex-truckdriver, if you want disconcerting, try having an idiot in a car pull in to your safety space then slam on their brakes. Try having an idiot in an SUV try to pull over on top of you.
Try pulling 80,000 lbs driving on the interstate with the traffic at 60mph in the rain and having an idiot in a minivan pull on to the interstate in front of you going 35MPH. Try slowing by 35mph 80,000 lbs of semi-tractor in the rain in about 100 feet with out jack-knifing because some stupid fuckhead loaded his kids into a minivan and pulled onto the interstate in front of you going half the current travel speed. Yes, the kid in the backseat thought they were going to die, and I thought they were going to do so as well. Lucky for them, I was good at my job.
Unintentionally and unknowingly killing someone is a worse act than trying to kill someone and failing? An accident is a worse act than a deliberate attempt?
So, I guess you never do anything because you can never guarantee that you will "exercise the care necessary to do something correctly" every single time in all things. To do attempt to do anything would be morally wrong because you could never guarantee you would do it perfectly and to fail is, by your own statement, morally wrong.
The subjects of the test were saying literally "no harm, no foul". During the experiment, they believed it was not wrong to try to kill someone if you failed.
Person A accidentally breaks five tea cups while cleaning. Person B purposefully breaks one tea cup.
Most people would say that B's actions were "more wrong" than A's. People who had their RTPJ disrupted said that A was "more wrong" because of the extent of the damage.
Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.
Believe it or not, I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones.
It is the distance traveled through the air to impact with the ground that matters. Falling down stairs does not count as a 6 foot fall. You are rolling down the steps with maybe a 2 foot fall. Falling off a stool is a 3+ foot fall.
If you fall 6 feet or more, you are likely to have serious head injury or broken bones. Remember, when one falls, one will most likely land on one's back and that means probably head impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Your entire post is about your fear of something that might possibly happen with no evidence it might happen. Your posts are just a collective slippery-slope fallacy.
It is not my fault you are an idiot. Stop acting the a fucking paranoid asshole and maybe you might say something worth reading, but as you are, all you say is "I am afraid of everything so it shouldn't be done. It doesn't matter that I don't know anything about what the subject, my fear means I am right!"
The only thing to understand in your posts is that you are a paranoid, tin-foil-hat-wearing asshole.
You are in PUBLIC, asshole. You also don't get a say whether or not cameras record you. If you want that say, stay in your fucking house. What the fuck is wrong with you that you don't understand that you have no fucking right to privacy in a public space? Next, you will be whining because someone looked at you or took your picture while you were walking down a public sidewalk.
And, you are attempting to use a red herring because this system in question does not record all everything, everywhere, all t he time, dipshit. It only records an area when it detects a sound that matches gun shot from that area.
Now, stop being a shithead, grow the fuck up, and stop treating public spaces like it is your back yard.
I suggest you go learn about the camera system in London, the system in question, and the big difference between the two.
Oh, wait, that would require you to not be a dumbass. Here, let me help you: The camera system in London is a general observation system, which means the cameras are on all the time and someone has to be watching them. The shotspotter system has cameras hooked up to microphones and a computer. When the microphones pick up a sound with the characteristics of a gun shot, the computer determines where the shot occurred, notifies people, and turns cameras to the crime scene and pictures are taken. The difference is the difference is that shotspotter only takes pictures of a suspected crime scene at the time of the crime so there is no reliance on continual surveillance to detect and respond to crime or gather evidence. It is automated.
Can you understand that or are you going to continue to try to change the subject to general surveillance?
Oh, and if you are suggesting that "cameras may help stop a murderer" is to prevent a crime, one is not a murderer until AFTER the crime has been committed. If it were "stop a murder" it may be said to be preventing a crime. But, "stop a murder" is to stop a person who has already committed a crime. Back to reading comprehension you go.
There is no guarantee that any technology would prevent or even deter crime. And, any technology that would prevent or deter first time offenses would most likely be incredibly invasive and/or completely destructive to most, if not all, people's rights.
Basically, it would take mind control or 24/7/365 surveillance.
As to why implement this technology, while it may not prevent the crime it captures, it will help put the person who committed that particular crime away. In that way, it will indirectly prevent some crime, specifically, the crimes that would have been committed by the convicted offender while the offender is behind bars.
Trying to say a technology is wrong because of your opinion and not fact is fucked up and you need to shut the fuck up until you have some facts.
I have decided to give you an abject lesson in slippery slope reasoning so you will understand the error of your reasoning. All the following examples have a more solid foundation in reality than yours and you can guess the follow-on conclusion
In this situation, crime prevention is a red herring.
The tool in question is not designed to prevent crime by its presence, but rather to gather evidence of a crime as soon as the possible crime is detected. The fact that the system only detects crimes involving a gun being shot, may lower gun crime rates, but it will not lower the rates for crimes not involving guns.
It is not "Bruce got locked up because the camera took his picture - I'm Joe and I'll be mugging you instead". Rather, it would be "Bruce got locked up because the camera took his picture because he used a gun - I'm Joe and I'll be mugging you with a knife instead."
At best, this system will deter some gun crime, but it is not designed to prevent or deter all crime. Claiming that the system will not deter or prevent crime is a red herring because the system is not designed to prevent or deter crime.
I did read what you wrote, but apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
So, you have decided to move on to the slippery-slope fallacy. Great move.
Unless, of course, it isn't and it doesn't. A camera that takes a picture of an area after a crime has occurred is much different than a CCTV system that monitors the streets constantly and it is not "only a small step" from one to the other. It is a rather large step.
Red herring. This is not about CCTV or citizen tracking systems. This is about a system that images a location where a specific act, an act that is illegal in almost every city in the United States, has occurred.
Let us see what a red herring is:
Your response to my post was an FUD filled screed and said absolutely nothing about the shotspooter system. You chose to try and change the topic to general privacy rights and your irrational, paranoid fear that the United States is becoming a police state, a stance which you did not even bother to provide any proof. Your post was a red herring, an attempt to change the subject to something else.
Now, that I have explained to you where you failed, will you please shut the fuck up?
You don't get to say who looks at you in public.
False dichotomy. It is not an either/or proposition. The fact that you want to reduce it to that shows your ignorance and arrogance.
No one is being watched 24/7, therefore you statement is false.
Also, you ignore the fact that this system does not watch 24/7. It activates on the sound of a gun shot, which is most-likely an illegal act as most local governments have laws against discharging a weapon in public.
When you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Everyone and anyone can see what you are doing. From the security cameras at the mall to the cameras in the ATMs, to people with camera phones, to shotspotter cameras, if you are in public they have every legal right to record you. Let me guess, you believe that if someone films you breaking the law in public, they are invading your privacy, right? But, if they film a cop violating someone's rights, it is not violating anyone's privacy, right?
You are a pathetic hypocrite and you apparently think public spaces are you own private playground.
Great, yet another dumbass. Your post is yet another red herring.
1) These cameras only take a picture of the area of and only after a shot has been fired. The point is not to deter crime so much as it is to investigate and prosecute the crime.
2) As these cameras are not on all the time, your argument is irrelevant.
Now that you have demonstrated your ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and inability to argue logically, please shut the fuck up.
Red Herring.
These cameras are not on 24/365. They take pictures of an area where a shot was fired after a shot has been fired. In other words, it takes a picture of an area AFTER a crime has been committed. This is completely different strip searching "every single air passenger, if it could help stop a single terrorist incident" as in the former a crime has already been committed while in the latter no crime has yet been committed.
A picture being taken of a public place is not the same thing as a person being strip searched. As I stated before, you have no expectation of privacy in a public place. You may as well claim that a police officer on a street corner seeing commit a crime on a public street is a violation of your right to privacy.
Now that you have demonstrated your inability to argue logically, please shut the fuck up.
Red herring. These cameras help investigate and prosecute crimes by taking pictures when a shot is fired, of the area where the shot was fired.
Nothing was said about preventing crimes.
Now that you have demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension, please shut the fuck up.
I suggest you take a better look at those state graphs, because they do not support your contention.
If what you say is true, then states with stricter gun laws and lower gun ownership should have the lowest death by gun rates, but the graphs show the opposite. Just look at California, New Mexico. Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Look at the Midwest
The correlation is just not there.
As for your graph, it does not necessarily show any a correlation because you do not have the data labeled by state, there is no explanation of what each axis is, and there is no explanation of the correlation and/or any statistical significance. Your graph looks like it came straight out of "How to lie with statistics". I will not even go into source bias as it the evidence is there for anyone to see.
1) Please demonstrate in detail a basic logic course without mathematics.
2) Please explain in detail how anyone can enter a mathematics intensive fields, such as engineering, without a firm grounding in mathematics? Do you suggest that we make mathematics an elective? Or, just wait until high school to teach mathematics?
Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?
Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?
Oh, and if you are going to piss on about "privacy", the cameras and actions take place in PUBLIC. No one has an expectation of privacy in a public space. So, if you are going to say something about privacy, you can STFU now.
Want truckers to slow down and obey the time limit laws? Don't pay them by the mile. Oh, and if you don't like being overtaken by semi at 70+ mph, don't drive on the highway. Having to pass an idiot driving 50mpg in the center of a three lane highway is very disconcerting.
Maybe they should install Breathalyzer ignition interlocks in all cars to prevent drunk driving. Maybe they should install 30 minute black boxes in all cars to encourage safer driving. Maybe they should put speed limiters in all cars to prevent speeding. Maybe they should put devices in cars that cause them to try to stay in the left hand lane.
Oh, and speaking as an ex-truckdriver, if you want disconcerting, try having an idiot in a car pull in to your safety space then slam on their brakes. Try having an idiot in an SUV try to pull over on top of you.
Try pulling 80,000 lbs driving on the interstate with the traffic at 60mph in the rain and having an idiot in a minivan pull on to the interstate in front of you going 35MPH. Try slowing by 35mph 80,000 lbs of semi-tractor in the rain in about 100 feet with out jack-knifing because some stupid fuckhead loaded his kids into a minivan and pulled onto the interstate in front of you going half the current travel speed. Yes, the kid in the backseat thought they were going to die, and I thought they were going to do so as well. Lucky for them, I was good at my job.
Almost all of those crashes caused by texting involved only 4-wheelers.
Unintentionally and unknowingly killing someone is a worse act than trying to kill someone and failing? An accident is a worse act than a deliberate attempt?
I disagree.
So, I guess you never do anything because you can never guarantee that you will "exercise the care necessary to do something correctly" every single time in all things. To do attempt to do anything would be morally wrong because you could never guarantee you would do it perfectly and to fail is, by your own statement, morally wrong.
The subjects of the test were saying literally "no harm, no foul". During the experiment, they believed it was not wrong to try to kill someone if you failed.
Person A accidentally breaks five tea cups while cleaning. Person B purposefully breaks one tea cup.
Most people would say that B's actions were "more wrong" than A's.
People who had their RTPJ disrupted said that A was "more wrong" because of the extent of the damage.
Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.
Very Carefully!
Two words: Expert System.
Look it up.
It is the distance traveled through the air to impact with the ground that matters. Falling down stairs does not count as a 6 foot fall. You are rolling down the steps with maybe a 2 foot fall. Falling off a stool is a 3+ foot fall.
If you fall 6 feet or more, you are likely to have serious head injury or broken bones. Remember, when one falls, one will most likely land on one's back and that means probably head impact.
What kind of mad skills and knowledge are you expecting of a person being paid, on average, less than US$16.00 per hour?
Will you expect them to be able to diagnose illness and injury over the phone? A medical degree?
What happens if the dispatcher gets it wrong?