I don't think it's a good idea to let the government install surveillance equipment everywhere in public places; it makes it that much easier to just ignore the rules and/or change the rules later, since all the equipment will be there.
Plus, the idea of a democratic government having surveillance devices everywhere is creepy and wrong. It just shouldn't happen, good intentions or not.
The "government" is not your mom nor your neighbor.
No, it's much, much worse; it's made up of normal people who are given authorities that normal people don't have. Power corrupts. The government is not made up of perfect angels who cannot make mistakes or abuse their powers, but normal people. That is a big part of the problem. You would do well to remember this.
And why the government would harass you? What would it get from harassing you?
What did governments get from harassing MLK, OWS, anti-war protestors, or any of the other hundreds of millions of people that were abused by governments throughout history? You are incredibly naive. If you do something that challenges the government's powers, you could become a target. If you do something that is unjustly illegal, you could become a target.
As long as you somewhat obey the law and, most importantly, pay your taxes, the "government" won't give a shit about your petty life.
Even if what you do is illegal, it may not be immoral. Furthermore, the countless abuses of government powers throughout history disproves your pathetic little theory. Brush up on your history, please.
No, it means it doesn't matter what you think, ethics cannot be framed to support your argument.
Ethics can't be framed to support your argument, either. Not objectively, anyway. You seem to be assuming something about my thought process, but it's just not working out for you.
And if we're talking about this specific example, officers who patrol around also tend to not be able to fly. They can use helicopters, but that's even more costly.
Having dozens or hundreds of officers patrolling around, recording at all hours qualifies as mass surveillance. Stop being so dense.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Having thousands of cheap cameras, which can record footage (Big difference here!) and send that footage to a central authority, and never have to sleep, is absolutely different, and qualifies as mass surveillance. Having that many officers for the sole purpose of surveillance is also cost prohibitive, so they'd never be able to replace even cheap surveillance devices.
I believe my exact words were "Despite what you think".
Well then you better start freaking out about the police helicopters and dashcams.
What part of "mass surveillance" do you people not understand? A few dashcams do not cover the same ground as (for example) cameras installed everywhere in public places. Helicopters are prohibitively expensive, but if they became cheap and automated, such surveillance would become a problem.
I don't care what you think.
Considering you're telling me how I think, I would think you would care how I actually think. Or are you more concerned about what goes on in your own delusions?
Except taking footage in public does not violate anyone's rights, no matter how much you wish it did.
Just because the government doesn't acknowledge certain rights, that doesn't mean that people don't believe they should have them, and that it's wrong when the government violates these not-yet-implemented rights. But yeah, I do believe in privacy from mass government surveillance of public places.
Also, I said "such as," meaning it was an *example*. Using the above person's logic, contractors would be able to do *anything* the government couldn't do, which would be insane. That was the point, and it wasn't intended to just apply to this specific scenario.
Also, despite what you think, ethics are subjective.
Who hires the contractors? The government. The government's ability to hire contractors for certain purposes can be restricted.
And when the government hires contractors to do something (such as to violate people's rights), the contractors become a de facto part of the government. Otherwise, they'd just be able to hire contractors to do *anything* they're not allowed to do, constitutionally or otherwise.
"spying" has come to include all stuff we don't like.
The government is definitely spying on you when it has ubiquitous surveillance devices recording as much as possible, even when it happens in public.
right and wrong doesn't come down to degrees.
When something is done past a certain degree that it becomes harmful (in my eyes), I consider it wrong. Very simple.
So because they are good at it, that is a problem?
Because they have virtually limitless resources and ability to harass, it is a problem. History, with its numerous examples of government abuses, further shows that it is a problem.
Stop getting wrapped up in what implementation they are using or how efficient they are.
So, I should stop thinking about anything and mindlessly declare that the situations are the exact same while disregarding the implementation and efficiency? That sounds ludicrous.
Mass Surveillance is a meaningless term.
"meaningless" is a meaningless term.
You're not going to convince me that the government having surveillance devices installed everywhere in public places, or making use of surveillance drones everywhere, are good things. It just isn't going to happen.
You cannot seriously have an issue with the collection of such freely available imagery.
I do. Especially when it's the government doing it. We The People can easily restrict their activities if we choose to do so. The fact that "anybody" can do it doesn't mean we should let the government, with its virtually limitless resources and authority, do so.
What can the police do these days? Automatic license plate scanning? Red Light cameras? Automated Speed cameras? How about a FLIR camera on a helicopter?
I think that's all morally wrong. The fact that we allow it means we're not living up to the whole "land of the free and the home of the brave" thing.
What do you think the limit should be?
On the government's use of surveillance technology in public places.
Banning "the government" from surveillance would also ban regular people from recording in public, otherwise a government agency could simply have someone working with them, a contractor perhaps, do the recording.
Simply incorrect. Governments have far more resources with which to make use of surveillance devices, so prohibiting them from doing so would help. Furthermore, all their footage goes to one central authority (the government), while they would have to hunt down other people's footage.
As for hiring people, doing so in such ways could also be made illegal. After all, something doesn't become okay just because you hire people to do it.
I'd also love to see how they would "vanish" my footage when it's stored in numerous places around the world.
How would I know how you personally choose to store your footage? I'm not talking about *you*, specifically. The surveillance will mainly be to track you and watch for mistakes, which they can then use to harass you. Even if you have footage on your side, you won't necessarily have public opinion or laws on your side.
You assume that it will be easy to detect who they are, or that your footage will not be vanished. Furthermore, public opinion and laws will not always be on your side. Privacy (in this case, from mass government surveillance) is still very useful, and for me, desirable.
Privacy in public is a contradiction so there is no point throwing a tantrum over it.
Privacy from *mass government surveillance of public places* is not a contradiction. Guess how we can prevent it, while still having public places? Simply put, we can simply restrict the government's usage of surveillance devices in public places. If it's such a huge contradiction, then that would not be possible, but since the government doesn't have to be able to use such surveillance devices everywhere, it obviously is possible.
punished for... what? for looking at stuff that is outside in plain view from the sky?
For conducting mass surveillance of public places, which is absolutely 100% different from someone merely seeing you, and especially so when something as powerful as the government does it. The problem is a combination of them recording footage and doing so for huge areas. I don't think I even need to explain how this is different from using your eyes to look around.
If you honestly don't see a problem, you need to think a bit harder.
Real problems? Such as what? Are you attempting to stop the government from violating our fundamental liberties or the highest law of the land? If not, there isn't really anything more important in a country that's supposed to be a land of free and brave people.
Or are you one of those people who are completely and utterly ignorant of the myriad of government abuses throughout history to such a degree that you trust the government and all future people who will be in the government to never abuse their powers, make mistakes, or violate anyone's rights? Perfect humans don't exist, so if that's you, then it's time to wake up from your naive delusions.
No one seems to know what the word "hypocrite" means these days, or even the fact that calling someone a hypocrite does not invalidate their arguments. I see many people using that word every other sentence, and it rarely applies or even matters.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a good idea to let the government install surveillance equipment everywhere in public places; it makes it that much easier to just ignore the rules and/or change the rules later, since all the equipment will be there.
Plus, the idea of a democratic government having surveillance devices everywhere is creepy and wrong. It just shouldn't happen, good intentions or not.
I disagree; we have the government to thank for that precedent, as they're the ones who created the laws.
The "government" is not your mom nor your neighbor.
No, it's much, much worse; it's made up of normal people who are given authorities that normal people don't have. Power corrupts. The government is not made up of perfect angels who cannot make mistakes or abuse their powers, but normal people. That is a big part of the problem. You would do well to remember this.
And why the government would harass you? What would it get from harassing you?
What did governments get from harassing MLK, OWS, anti-war protestors, or any of the other hundreds of millions of people that were abused by governments throughout history? You are incredibly naive. If you do something that challenges the government's powers, you could become a target. If you do something that is unjustly illegal, you could become a target.
As long as you somewhat obey the law and, most importantly, pay your taxes, the "government" won't give a shit about your petty life.
Even if what you do is illegal, it may not be immoral. Furthermore, the countless abuses of government powers throughout history disproves your pathetic little theory. Brush up on your history, please.
I have merely stated facts and my own opinion.
So have I.
Fact: Under the law if you are in a public location, you have no expectation of privacy.
Fact: The discussion is not about the law. Stop trying to make it about the law, unless you're saying what you think the law *should be*.
I don't care if you personally think it's unethical.
And I don't care if you personally think what the law says is relevant; to me, it's not.
And if you don't care at all what I think, just stop responding. I do care about responding to what you say to some extent, though.
Sure buddy. Keep deluding yourself.
About what?
No, it means it doesn't matter what you think, ethics cannot be framed to support your argument.
Ethics can't be framed to support your argument, either. Not objectively, anyway. You seem to be assuming something about my thought process, but it's just not working out for you.
Replacing thousands of cheap surveillance devices with helicopters would be extremely expensive. It is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.
And if we're talking about this specific example, officers who patrol around also tend to not be able to fly. They can use helicopters, but that's even more costly.
Having dozens or hundreds of officers patrolling around, recording at all hours qualifies as mass surveillance. Stop being so dense.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Having thousands of cheap cameras, which can record footage (Big difference here!) and send that footage to a central authority, and never have to sleep, is absolutely different, and qualifies as mass surveillance. Having that many officers for the sole purpose of surveillance is also cost prohibitive, so they'd never be able to replace even cheap surveillance devices.
I believe my exact words were "Despite what you think".
Which makes it sound as if you know what I think.
And what's with the massive influx of AC idiots defending the government's nonsense?
Well then you better start freaking out about the police helicopters and dashcams.
What part of "mass surveillance" do you people not understand? A few dashcams do not cover the same ground as (for example) cameras installed everywhere in public places. Helicopters are prohibitively expensive, but if they became cheap and automated, such surveillance would become a problem.
I don't care what you think.
Considering you're telling me how I think, I would think you would care how I actually think. Or are you more concerned about what goes on in your own delusions?
Except taking footage in public does not violate anyone's rights, no matter how much you wish it did.
Just because the government doesn't acknowledge certain rights, that doesn't mean that people don't believe they should have them, and that it's wrong when the government violates these not-yet-implemented rights. But yeah, I do believe in privacy from mass government surveillance of public places.
Also, I said "such as," meaning it was an *example*. Using the above person's logic, contractors would be able to do *anything* the government couldn't do, which would be insane. That was the point, and it wasn't intended to just apply to this specific scenario.
Also, despite what you think, ethics are subjective.
You don't know how I think.
Who hires the contractors? The government. The government's ability to hire contractors for certain purposes can be restricted.
And when the government hires contractors to do something (such as to violate people's rights), the contractors become a de facto part of the government. Otherwise, they'd just be able to hire contractors to do *anything* they're not allowed to do, constitutionally or otherwise.
You don't seem to understand the law very well.
You don't seem to understand ethics very well.
"spying" has come to include all stuff we don't like.
The government is definitely spying on you when it has ubiquitous surveillance devices recording as much as possible, even when it happens in public.
right and wrong doesn't come down to degrees.
When something is done past a certain degree that it becomes harmful (in my eyes), I consider it wrong. Very simple.
So because they are good at it, that is a problem?
Because they have virtually limitless resources and ability to harass, it is a problem. History, with its numerous examples of government abuses, further shows that it is a problem.
Stop getting wrapped up in what implementation they are using or how efficient they are.
So, I should stop thinking about anything and mindlessly declare that the situations are the exact same while disregarding the implementation and efficiency? That sounds ludicrous.
Mass Surveillance is a meaningless term.
"meaningless" is a meaningless term.
You're not going to convince me that the government having surveillance devices installed everywhere in public places, or making use of surveillance drones everywhere, are good things. It just isn't going to happen.
I don't know of any laws, but I don't care. I'm saying I think it *should* be illegal.
You cannot seriously have an issue with the collection of such freely available imagery.
I do. Especially when it's the government doing it. We The People can easily restrict their activities if we choose to do so. The fact that "anybody" can do it doesn't mean we should let the government, with its virtually limitless resources and authority, do so.
What can the police do these days? Automatic license plate scanning? Red Light cameras? Automated Speed cameras? How about a FLIR camera on a helicopter?
I think that's all morally wrong. The fact that we allow it means we're not living up to the whole "land of the free and the home of the brave" thing.
What do you think the limit should be?
On the government's use of surveillance technology in public places.
Banning "the government" from surveillance would also ban regular people from recording in public, otherwise a government agency could simply have someone working with them, a contractor perhaps, do the recording.
Simply incorrect. Governments have far more resources with which to make use of surveillance devices, so prohibiting them from doing so would help. Furthermore, all their footage goes to one central authority (the government), while they would have to hunt down other people's footage.
As for hiring people, doing so in such ways could also be made illegal. After all, something doesn't become okay just because you hire people to do it.
I'd also love to see how they would "vanish" my footage when it's stored in numerous places around the world.
How would I know how you personally choose to store your footage? I'm not talking about *you*, specifically. The surveillance will mainly be to track you and watch for mistakes, which they can then use to harass you. Even if you have footage on your side, you won't necessarily have public opinion or laws on your side.
That's the land of the free and the home of the brave for you. So brave. So free.
You assume that it will be easy to detect who they are, or that your footage will not be vanished. Furthermore, public opinion and laws will not always be on your side. Privacy (in this case, from mass government surveillance) is still very useful, and for me, desirable.
Privacy in public is a contradiction so there is no point throwing a tantrum over it.
Privacy from *mass government surveillance of public places* is not a contradiction. Guess how we can prevent it, while still having public places? Simply put, we can simply restrict the government's usage of surveillance devices in public places. If it's such a huge contradiction, then that would not be possible, but since the government doesn't have to be able to use such surveillance devices everywhere, it obviously is possible.
punished for... what? for looking at stuff that is outside in plain view from the sky?
For conducting mass surveillance of public places, which is absolutely 100% different from someone merely seeing you, and especially so when something as powerful as the government does it. The problem is a combination of them recording footage and doing so for huge areas. I don't think I even need to explain how this is different from using your eyes to look around.
If you honestly don't see a problem, you need to think a bit harder.
I don't care about being recorded in public locations so long as I can also record everyone else.
I do, if it's the government. You should, because it makes it even more trivial for the government to harass its targets.
Looks like the future is going to be all about masks. But they'll just ban those, won't they?
Real problems? Such as what? Are you attempting to stop the government from violating our fundamental liberties or the highest law of the land? If not, there isn't really anything more important in a country that's supposed to be a land of free and brave people.
Or are you one of those people who are completely and utterly ignorant of the myriad of government abuses throughout history to such a degree that you trust the government and all future people who will be in the government to never abuse their powers, make mistakes, or violate anyone's rights? Perfect humans don't exist, so if that's you, then it's time to wake up from your naive delusions.
Usually prompted by stupid discussions about whether Snowden is a traitor. But yeah, the discussion should be about the government's treachery.
No one seems to know what the word "hypocrite" means these days, or even the fact that calling someone a hypocrite does not invalidate their arguments. I see many people using that word every other sentence, and it rarely applies or even matters.
and is what we should want our government to do
I find spying on allies reprehensible, and don't think it should be done. "But they're doing it too!" is no excuse for immoral activities.