you're right it's bull - i thought the fcc is forcing an end to analogue broadcast tv , precisely because the more-efficient digital broadcasting enables better use of the spectrum (= more use / variety)? it will interfere to the extent that it gets in the way of their own use of the extra space.
The UK is on the vanguard of video surveillance, and the EU is not too happy about that.
The EU's 2003 working document on video surveillance, wants rules concerning video surveillance to be harmonized across the EU, and makes a clear allusion to the UK:
"Whereas video surveillance appears to be somehow justified under certain circumstances, there are also cases in which protection is sought impulsively by means of video cameras without adequately considering the relevant prerequisites and arrangements.
"This is sometimes due to the economic benefits granted on a large scale by public bodies as well as to the offer of better insurance terms in connection with the use of video surveillance equipment."
Failing a massive turn in the EU (possible with another serious terrorist attack), I think the UK will be pressured into moving in Europe's direction, instead of the opposite. I don't think that pressure will work, though.
I agree with you, however, that this idea is unlikely to become law, as I said in my post.
I doubt extracting DNA and comparing it against a central database will become as fast as examining an identity card anytime in the near future.
That does not matter. If these loose words of the judge are ever put into law (unlikely, but given surveillance-mad Britain, who know...), this proposal would force every Briton - and visitor - to prove his or her innocence for every crime in the future. That will take time, but UK authorities don't care about that. Their abstract view of justice (catching criminals) has blinded them to the liberality upon which Western justice is based.
Speed be damned. This is about the slow constriction of society.
I already avoid traveling to America; now, perhaps I will need to avoid the UK as well. Although not perfect, at the least the EU has its privacy directive.
yeah, but i can sit on my front porch and do the same thing legally.
No you can't, unless your porch can drive down the highway. This system can be used to establish routes of an enormous number of people; your porch only tracks people passing by one point.
So the senator from Nevada actually wants universities, in essence, to report to Hollywood? Wouldn't their money be better spent on, say, sports programmes, or perhaps even education (if they still do that these days)?
I accept that the summary is against data mining - which clearly bothers me as well.
But I do not understand:
...that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists.
I thought that this was precisely the "province" of the FBI: nationally-coordinated police work, including into all sorts of fraud (here: insurance, identity, and wire).
No it's not the same. Science translates what the German Wissenschaft and the Latin scientia try to cover: the academic, rigorous study of something.
Science does not mean "exact or physical science," which, as the academic, rigorous study of natural physical phenomena, is just a subset of the original term.
in a way you're right, of course. the majors do control the listening of the masses, and govt does enforce decency laws.
but this new proposal would also effect indie labels (and perhaps their artists), who would reap whatever benefits extended copyrights offer. however, i can't see them willfully trading away their voices for these rights. but, if such a nebulous proposal ever became legislation, how could they not, legally speaking?
thus, the extended copyright would go further: it's extension of a tacit censorship would not only make it explicit, but also broaden its scope.
perhaps the result will be that indie (and perhaps other) artists will release stuff without copyright - lacking legal protection, but also legal restraint. perhaps if you swear on record in the future, you speak your mind, but don't draw what cameron is trying to call "a pension."
clearly, if you have read this far, you know i am not a lawyer (and cameron is still a long way from being elected).
I don't know how responsible an intern can be held for IBM's manuals, esp. with their ridiculous editorial demands (my favourites: we could not use "abort" - in the age of DOS - or "i.e." or "e.g.") You can probably find examples to the contrary, but those comprised part of the policy.
But I agree with you - once the writer finished working with the developers, those books went through all sorts of meetings, committees, line managers, editors, etc. All value was usually safely removed by the time the book saw the press.
When I discovered I could no longer use non-approved locks on my luggage while transiting through the USA, I decided never to fly there again. I am sure nobody cares, but that's my decision.
The concentration of cameras in the UK ha already reached far beyond "high risk locations."
But anyway: You are basically saying that the good have nothing to fear. And I am saying that such a society no longer treats anyone as good, only as a potential suspect.
it is better for laws to be obeyed out of fear than not obeyed at all
On a case by case basis, I would agree. It is better that this would-be criminal here not carry out his plans because he fears getting caught.
But when a society is structured on that principle, or worse, when the state begins to act as if that is the structure of society, then that society lives in the grip of fear, and will tolerate anything to ensure safety.
Not everyone resents surveillance. Many (including myself) welcome it under many circumstances
So you don't accept total surveillance
My original post only railed against indiscriminate surveillance, not surveillance per se. A private business can surveil its premises all it wants (changing rooms, etc. excluded) - I have no say in that, and, well, it's their right. I can always shop somewhere else if I want. With court-approved requests, the state can surveil suspected criminal actions. I could go on.
But indiscriminate surveillance of public space is something different, not only because I cannot avoid public space, not only because it is in some small sense mine, but also because public space is not just space, it is a responsibility that concerned citizens have to one another. A surveillance society arises when the state no longer sees, or wants, its citizens assuming that responsibility.
Society benefits from an absence of total surveillance, because then its members are treated as, well, social, and will probably act as such. Having lived on a few continents, I can happily report that societies lacking pervasive video surveillance can thrive in relative safety.
In a society in which anti-social behaviour has become the norm, and evidence-gathering an obsession, cameras are at best a stop-gap measure. I guess that's the UK today.
You don't know if any given headset is connected to a working recording device or even if it contains a working camera
The concept of the panopticon works on the premise that it is possible nobody is watching - you just never know. This premise is shattered if you see an agent with a camera, because at the very least, that agent is looking at you, or can.
In other words, the panopticon sees the presence of the state in its absence - this is how J. Bentham solved the problem of controlling many prisoners or workers with very limited resources.
are you serious? the idea that public space equals surveillance space? i know that we have no right to expect privacy in a public space, but by the same token a liberal society should have no right to surveil it indiscriminately and thoroughly. if it does, it is not liberal, but, by definition, totalitarian.
moreover, such a practice if anything is harmful to law enforcement, and for at least two reasons. (1) it causes massive resentment (almost nobody enjoys being watched all the time). (2) it changes the nature of law-abiding citizens: instead of obeying laws out of a sense of civility, laws are de facto obeyed out of fear. at the very least, that is the presupposition of a surveillance society: we are watching you, so be good.
as for your non sequitur, i am not implying laws should not be enforced because i am against indiscriminate surveillance. last time i checked, cameras did not enforce laws. and if they ever do, god, we're in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
you're right it's bull - i thought the fcc is forcing an end to analogue broadcast tv , precisely because the more-efficient digital broadcasting enables better use of the spectrum (= more use / variety)? it will interfere to the extent that it gets in the way of their own use of the extra space.
Failing a massive turn in the EU (possible with another serious terrorist attack), I think the UK will be pressured into moving in Europe's direction, instead of the opposite. I don't think that pressure will work, though.
I agree with you, however, that this idea is unlikely to become law, as I said in my post.
That does not matter. If these loose words of the judge are ever put into law (unlikely, but given surveillance-mad Britain, who know...), this proposal would force every Briton - and visitor - to prove his or her innocence for every crime in the future. That will take time, but UK authorities don't care about that. Their abstract view of justice (catching criminals) has blinded them to the liberality upon which Western justice is based.
Speed be damned. This is about the slow constriction of society.
I already avoid traveling to America; now, perhaps I will need to avoid the UK as well. Although not perfect, at the least the EU has its privacy directive.
That KKK thing could be true, no idea. But he also signed Run DMC and Public Enemy.
mod parent up
all your comment implies is really how unimportant this damage probably is.
In hoc signo vinces.
yeah, is this a joke? i tried disabling everything i could think of while keeping java enabled - nothing.
btw, i am a dedicated proxomitron user (disabled for a moment to try the demo). never see any ads or pop-ups ...
So the senator from Nevada actually wants universities, in essence, to report to Hollywood? Wouldn't their money be better spent on, say, sports programmes, or perhaps even education (if they still do that these days)?
Use rice syrup, which contains no fructose. You can substitute it 1:1 for corn syrup.
I use it to make all sorts of treats, including marshmallows.
I accept that the summary is against data mining - which clearly bothers me as well.
But I do not understand:
I thought that this was precisely the "province" of the FBI: nationally-coordinated police work, including into all sorts of fraud (here: insurance, identity, and wire).No it's not the same. Science translates what the German Wissenschaft and the Latin scientia try to cover: the academic, rigorous study of something.
Science does not mean "exact or physical science," which, as the academic, rigorous study of natural physical phenomena, is just a subset of the original term.
i happen to be very familiar with plato. the big difference is that the republic makes no pretense to be a democracy, as we understand the term.
in a way you're right, of course. the majors do control the listening of the masses, and govt does enforce decency laws.
but this new proposal would also effect indie labels (and perhaps their artists), who would reap whatever benefits extended copyrights offer. however, i can't see them willfully trading away their voices for these rights. but, if such a nebulous proposal ever became legislation, how could they not, legally speaking?
thus, the extended copyright would go further: it's extension of a tacit censorship would not only make it explicit, but also broaden its scope.
perhaps the result will be that indie (and perhaps other) artists will release stuff without copyright - lacking legal protection, but also legal restraint. perhaps if you swear on record in the future, you speak your mind, but don't draw what cameron is trying to call "a pension."
clearly, if you have read this far, you know i am not a lawyer (and cameron is still a long way from being elected).
so the government decides what may hear, and the recording industry what we may listen to. great.
I now expect you to show up in my freaks.
I don't know how responsible an intern can be held for IBM's manuals, esp. with their ridiculous editorial demands (my favourites: we could not use "abort" - in the age of DOS - or "i.e." or "e.g.") You can probably find examples to the contrary, but those comprised part of the policy.
But I agree with you - once the writer finished working with the developers, those books went through all sorts of meetings, committees, line managers, editors, etc. All value was usually safely removed by the time the book saw the press.
i actually did an internship at ibm toronto writing an rpg manual (as400).
When I discovered I could no longer use non-approved locks on my luggage while transiting through the USA, I decided never to fly there again. I am sure nobody cares, but that's my decision.
... and replaced it with a page linking to Google News's coverage of the day.
The concentration of cameras in the UK ha already reached far beyond "high risk locations."
But anyway: You are basically saying that the good have nothing to fear. And I am saying that such a society no longer treats anyone as good, only as a potential suspect.
My choice is clear.
On a case by case basis, I would agree. It is better that this would-be criminal here not carry out his plans because he fears getting caught.
But when a society is structured on that principle, or worse, when the state begins to act as if that is the structure of society, then that society lives in the grip of fear, and will tolerate anything to ensure safety.
So you don't accept total surveillance
My original post only railed against indiscriminate surveillance, not surveillance per se. A private business can surveil its premises all it wants (changing rooms, etc. excluded) - I have no say in that, and, well, it's their right. I can always shop somewhere else if I want. With court-approved requests, the state can surveil suspected criminal actions. I could go on.
But indiscriminate surveillance of public space is something different, not only because I cannot avoid public space, not only because it is in some small sense mine, but also because public space is not just space, it is a responsibility that concerned citizens have to one another. A surveillance society arises when the state no longer sees, or wants, its citizens assuming that responsibility.
Society benefits from an absence of total surveillance, because then its members are treated as, well, social, and will probably act as such. Having lived on a few continents, I can happily report that societies lacking pervasive video surveillance can thrive in relative safety.
In a society in which anti-social behaviour has become the norm, and evidence-gathering an obsession, cameras are at best a stop-gap measure. I guess that's the UK today.
The concept of the panopticon works on the premise that it is possible nobody is watching - you just never know. This premise is shattered if you see an agent with a camera, because at the very least, that agent is looking at you, or can.
In other words, the panopticon sees the presence of the state in its absence - this is how J. Bentham solved the problem of controlling many prisoners or workers with very limited resources.
are you serious? the idea that public space equals surveillance space? i know that we have no right to expect privacy in a public space, but by the same token a liberal society should have no right to surveil it indiscriminately and thoroughly. if it does, it is not liberal, but, by definition, totalitarian.
moreover, such a practice if anything is harmful to law enforcement, and for at least two reasons. (1) it causes massive resentment (almost nobody enjoys being watched all the time). (2) it changes the nature of law-abiding citizens: instead of obeying laws out of a sense of civility, laws are de facto obeyed out of fear. at the very least, that is the presupposition of a surveillance society: we are watching you, so be good.
as for your non sequitur, i am not implying laws should not be enforced because i am against indiscriminate surveillance. last time i checked, cameras did not enforce laws. and if they ever do, god, we're in trouble.