I suppose that by the dictionary definition of the word, that would be accurate. In reality, however, I think that carries a very different connotation. I think a fink is generally accepted as a person who "tattles" on others, no matter how petty the infraction, for their own personal gain. I am fairly certain that is what you meant in your usage.
I would not call a person reporting suspicious activity around my local resivior or airport a fink any sooner that I would call you a fink for calling the police if you saw someone that appeared to be breaking into my home or selling drugs on the local school yard. I'm not talking about ratting out a bunch of hippies smoking a joint in the park, I am talking about crimes against society. Crimes that actually effect people.
I am all about having privacy in my home. I have NO expectation of privacy in public. Hence, calling it public. If I don't want someone knowing something, I don't make it public. It stays at home or on my person or in my head. I have even LESS expectation of privacy at work or in restricted access areas. I EXPECT that I will be watched at all times. Therefore, I don't go or don't do anything that I am not supposed to (posting on slashdot aside...:-). You can drop the "sensitive target" qualifier if you want. As long as I am in a public place, I assume that someone is watching. Maybe not even with a camera...maybe just watching the low-tech, old-fashioned way (holes in the newspaper). If you want to call the police because you saw me speeding or jaywalking, fine. Go ahead, fink. On the other hand, if I see someone getting mugged in an alley, I am damn sure that I will call the cops shortly before I commence kicking (or attempting to kick) the crap out of the assailant. I personally view this as my civic and moral duty. I am sure the ACLU will find some problem with me "finking" on the criminal, but I don't give a damn. Call me a fink, but if I see a real crime being committed, I will do something about it whether there is a camera or not.
Finally, you can be sure that we agree on one thing. I will not stand for the government to invade my privacy. I am a free citizen of a great nation and I have no intention of giving that up willingly...or at all. I believe the major difference between the two sides of this argument is the expectation of privacy. That's really what I see the core issue being. I don't care if you want to watch me walk down the street. If I want to avoid the cameras, I can.
I get the feeling someone is watching me...oh wait...it's that camera in the corner.:-)
As truly sad as that is, at least the camera provided some evidence of what happened. Hopefully, they were able to capture the assailant and bring him to justice. If this could happen more often, it might provide a deterrent to such horrendous crimes.
RTFA...this is a proposal to the US Government. The US Government isn't trying to do a damn thing at this point other than decide whether or not this is a good idea.
"You're telling me "unsophisticated" "security guards" will have the power to turn anyone they don't like into the US authorities."
Yes. Assuming the person that they don't like is in an area under surveilance where THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE!
If I put up cameras at my house and you break in, does that make my photographing you a witch hunt? Hell NO. That is me, defending my home. Cameras at the proposed locations would be to spot people who DON'T BELONG THERE. If you can't or don't read the no trespassing signs, that's your bloody problem.
"but mass, random worldwide surveillance like this is actually IN the book 1984"
a) this is NOT "mass, random, worldwide sureveillance." It is a PROPOSAL for a focused system of cameras to watch areas that YOU aren't supposed to be in.
b) 1984 is a great work of fiction. It is NOT supporting evidence of a vast real-world government conspiricy.
c) I wish people would quote something other than 1984.
I can't believe some of the things that I am reading here...
First, let me say that I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Walker's idea that adding cameras in these areas will actually increase security. Cameras (for the most part) are forensic tools. They are tireless eyes that capture everything for later review. I don't think that adding these cameras with a bunch of bored homebodies watching is going to protect me from a terrorist attack. I would prefer to see actual guards partolling the perimeter of the mentioned "targets."
Also, please learn some more diverse literary references. I am tired of the same old 1984 reference everytime the government does something. It is old.
As for this whole "Big Brother" idea. It is pure paranoia. This is a private venture by an entrepreneur attempting to make money. Pure and simple. I would agree that Mr. Walker is attempting to make money from people's fear of being terrorized, but I don't see any deeper threat than that. This venture doesn't even appear to have government sponsorship at this time.
Third, NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PLACES MONITORED. You can bet your ass that if I ran a company that had power plants, sensitivie areas, dangerous chemicals, etc. I would have a secure perimeter. I would have a big-ass fence with razor wire, armed guards, dogs, flood-lights, and yes, even cameras. I wouldn't pay some dope $10/hour to sit on his fat ass at home watching the cameras, but they would be there.
Finally, who cares? I honestly don't give a damn if the government wants to take pictures of me walking down the middle of Fifth Avenue. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place. I am in public. I expect that there will be other people there and some may even be paying attention to what I am doing. Therefore, anything I want to remain private stays in my home or somewhere else where I can reasonably expect privacy.
I think this new proposal, in and of itself, will be largely ineffective except to provide forensic evidence AFTER something has happened. I think money could be better spent on other measures. It is fascinating to me, however, how some people find conspiracy in everything. I certainly have skeletons in my closet that I want to stay there, but I don't see the FBI knocking on my door because they saw me walking down the street.
For the love of all things holy...
American OnLine? What happened to fact checking and proofreading in journalism. It makes me ill to see some of the blatent grammatical errors and incorrect facts that are to be found in "professional" journalism.
If you missed it, re-read the article. They actually called AOL "American Online."
Sorry for the rant, but I have been seeing crap like that all day.
HA HA HA....That is too friggin' funny. That is, quite possibly, the best flame I have ever seen. Thanks for making my day.
All I can say is pay for BroadBand like the rest of the "non-college" world.
Slashdot Mirror
A fink?
:-)
I suppose that by the dictionary definition of the word, that would be accurate. In reality, however, I think that carries a very different connotation. I think a fink is generally accepted as a person who "tattles" on others, no matter how petty the infraction, for their own personal gain. I am fairly certain that is what you meant in your usage.
I would not call a person reporting suspicious activity around my local resivior or airport a fink any sooner that I would call you a fink for calling the police if you saw someone that appeared to be breaking into my home or selling drugs on the local school yard. I'm not talking about ratting out a bunch of hippies smoking a joint in the park, I am talking about crimes against society. Crimes that actually effect people.
I am all about having privacy in my home. I have NO expectation of privacy in public. Hence, calling it public. If I don't want someone knowing something, I don't make it public. It stays at home or on my person or in my head. I have even LESS expectation of privacy at work or in restricted access areas. I EXPECT that I will be watched at all times. Therefore, I don't go or don't do anything that I am not supposed to (posting on slashdot aside...:-). You can drop the "sensitive target" qualifier if you want. As long as I am in a public place, I assume that someone is watching. Maybe not even with a camera...maybe just watching the low-tech, old-fashioned way (holes in the newspaper). If you want to call the police because you saw me speeding or jaywalking, fine. Go ahead, fink. On the other hand, if I see someone getting mugged in an alley, I am damn sure that I will call the cops shortly before I commence kicking (or attempting to kick) the crap out of the assailant. I personally view this as my civic and moral duty. I am sure the ACLU will find some problem with me "finking" on the criminal, but I don't give a damn. Call me a fink, but if I see a real crime being committed, I will do something about it whether there is a camera or not.
Finally, you can be sure that we agree on one thing. I will not stand for the government to invade my privacy. I am a free citizen of a great nation and I have no intention of giving that up willingly...or at all. I believe the major difference between the two sides of this argument is the expectation of privacy. That's really what I see the core issue being. I don't care if you want to watch me walk down the street. If I want to avoid the cameras, I can.
I get the feeling someone is watching me...oh wait...it's that camera in the corner.
All spelling criticism aside...:-)
Did you read the article? This has NOTHING TO DO with neighbors spying on one another. NOTHING. It is about surveilance of sensitive targets.
Mistrust? I immediately mistrust someone sneaking around a restricted area near a resivoir or power facility, etc.
I do not consider it a right or an essential liberty to go into an area that is restricted for the good of the society that has allowed me to prosper.
As truly sad as that is, at least the camera provided some evidence of what happened. Hopefully, they were able to capture the assailant and bring him to justice. If this could happen more often, it might provide a deterrent to such horrendous crimes.
RTFA...this is a proposal to the US Government. The US Government isn't trying to do a damn thing at this point other than decide whether or not this is a good idea.
"You're telling me "unsophisticated" "security guards" will have the power to turn anyone they don't like into the US authorities."
Yes. Assuming the person that they don't like is in an area under surveilance where THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE!
If I put up cameras at my house and you break in, does that make my photographing you a witch hunt? Hell NO. That is me, defending my home. Cameras at the proposed locations would be to spot people who DON'T BELONG THERE. If you can't or don't read the no trespassing signs, that's your bloody problem.
"but mass, random worldwide surveillance like this is actually IN the book 1984"
a) this is NOT "mass, random, worldwide sureveillance." It is a PROPOSAL for a focused system of cameras to watch areas that YOU aren't supposed to be in.
b) 1984 is a great work of fiction. It is NOT supporting evidence of a vast real-world government conspiricy.
c) I wish people would quote something other than 1984.
I can't believe some of the things that I am reading here... First, let me say that I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Walker's idea that adding cameras in these areas will actually increase security. Cameras (for the most part) are forensic tools. They are tireless eyes that capture everything for later review. I don't think that adding these cameras with a bunch of bored homebodies watching is going to protect me from a terrorist attack. I would prefer to see actual guards partolling the perimeter of the mentioned "targets." Also, please learn some more diverse literary references. I am tired of the same old 1984 reference everytime the government does something. It is old. As for this whole "Big Brother" idea. It is pure paranoia. This is a private venture by an entrepreneur attempting to make money. Pure and simple. I would agree that Mr. Walker is attempting to make money from people's fear of being terrorized, but I don't see any deeper threat than that. This venture doesn't even appear to have government sponsorship at this time. Third, NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PLACES MONITORED. You can bet your ass that if I ran a company that had power plants, sensitivie areas, dangerous chemicals, etc. I would have a secure perimeter. I would have a big-ass fence with razor wire, armed guards, dogs, flood-lights, and yes, even cameras. I wouldn't pay some dope $10/hour to sit on his fat ass at home watching the cameras, but they would be there. Finally, who cares? I honestly don't give a damn if the government wants to take pictures of me walking down the middle of Fifth Avenue. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place. I am in public. I expect that there will be other people there and some may even be paying attention to what I am doing. Therefore, anything I want to remain private stays in my home or somewhere else where I can reasonably expect privacy. I think this new proposal, in and of itself, will be largely ineffective except to provide forensic evidence AFTER something has happened. I think money could be better spent on other measures. It is fascinating to me, however, how some people find conspiracy in everything. I certainly have skeletons in my closet that I want to stay there, but I don't see the FBI knocking on my door because they saw me walking down the street.
For the love of all things holy... American OnLine? What happened to fact checking and proofreading in journalism. It makes me ill to see some of the blatent grammatical errors and incorrect facts that are to be found in "professional" journalism. If you missed it, re-read the article. They actually called AOL "American Online." Sorry for the rant, but I have been seeing crap like that all day.
HA HA HA....That is too friggin' funny. That is, quite possibly, the best flame I have ever seen. Thanks for making my day. All I can say is pay for BroadBand like the rest of the "non-college" world.