"Intruding" is not the same as being watched. The CCTV operators aren't asking you where you're going or what you're going to do when you get there, they're just looking at what you're doing on the street. That's not eroding your liberty in the slightest. Do you demand police officers on the street don't look at you as you pass?
I'm on the same page as you are - I was trying to reconcile the faulty comparison between London's Ring of Steel (the real Police camera network) and the proposed NYC version, as the comparison was faulty, I was doomed to fail from the beginning - thanks for being polite in addressing my argumentative short-comings;) I'm aware of the differences, especially between the CC camera network and the City's network.
I lived in london for 8 years until May of this year, so I'm quite familiar with the CC and City.
Then the problem isn't CCTV but stupid laws. Again - fix the problem - the stupid laws. If the laws are fair and decent, having someone with your best interests at heart looking out for you when you're in public is a great thing.
Then fight the power-mongering and outright corruption! Never settle for second-best - if your country is fucked, try to fix it! Did the founding fathers just say "eh... fuck it. what can we do?" or did they actually do something? It's the "fix the symptoms" attitude that lets fucked-up people stay in power, unchallenged. If the system is broke, it's your duty to try and fix it.
I did elaborate. I told you what I saw. He doesn't say it's never happened, just that he doesn't know about it ever happening. Our positions are not mutually exclusive.
Could you not be bothered to actually debate what I said, or do you feel calling me a fool is somehow enough to counter my points? Or maybe you're in favour of people being able to do illegal stuff without fear of being caught? Fantastic.
That depends on how the police are regulated. If they have decent civilian oversight, then the recording of data can only happen if the population wants it. It sounds like your real beef is with an unregulated police force that can do what it wants, not with CCTV. Perhaps you should try focussing your efforts on fixing the real problem?
But they can be used to combat both crime and terrorism. Using two distinct words in one sentence to describe to two different notions is not dangerous. If you're worried about them being contracted to mean the same thing, then maybe you should focus on that, instead of people legitimately using them in their intended meanings? The police combat crime and terrorism - is that dangerous?
You're confusing the Congestion Charge cameras with the City of London's "Ring of Steel". Those are not for charging folks, but to look at all cars entering/leaving the city, and to see if there are any suspicious movements. Data is not logged, nothing is stored in the national police computer - numberplates are simply checked against the police database, and any stolen cars or cars with incorrect license plates are flagged, and patrols on the streets are notified. How is that "Big Brother"?
... It has been used many times in the UK to stop crimes in progress. For instance, I saw a TV show where the new speaking CCTV cameras interrupted some guy getting the shit kicked out of him. The attacker realised he was on CCTV and ran off. The camera operator simply followed him from one camera to the next, constantly reminding him he's been videotaped, the cops have his description and are en route, and that he really can't get away. He was caught. CCTV is a great technology. People are hesitant to accept it because it can be used inappropriately or illegally, but then so can any law-enforcement technology - does that mean we get rid of police cars, police helicopters, police computers, or even the police themselves? Shooting society in the foot by refusing to tackle corruption when it occurs, and instead taking the easy route of just crying foul when inherently useful technology is made available, is not helping anyone. CCTV, at its worst, gives police a way of seeing a recording of a crime that has happened, and at best gives police a view of a crime in progress. If the problem is the police might mis-use it, then your problem isn't with CCTV but the police. It would be in society's best interests to fix the problem, not limiting the police's efficiency. The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes, but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go. The police have a mandate to use all available technology to protect the public - CCTV is just another tool in the toolbox.
Apart from use a d-pad, A, B, X, Y, and shoulder buttons. And a stylus. So no, you can't do everything you can do on a DS on an iPhone. Not even close.
That's not an SDK. Those applications don't use the iPhone, they use whatever web server they're hosted on. It's a bit of a cop-out to say they're applications that run on the iPhone. As we've seen from Google's web-based "applications", they leave a lot to be desired when compared to actual software running on the hardware in your hands Web apps have their uses, don't get me wrong, but they're only a sub-set of useful applications. And it's not as if we even got a decent explanation as to why custom native apps aren't allowed on the iPhone, either. If web-based applications are so useful, why does OS X ship with anything more than Safari?
You completely missed what I was saying. I'm saying we, humans, have lost as soon as we have to fight. I'm not saying there aren't important wars that have to be won, but considering we, humans, have intelligence and the ability to discuss problems and to impart knowledge to others, to share ideas and opinions, to understand each others' problems and above all to be rational, resorting to violence is far from ideal, regardless of the importance of the war. I'm not talking about surrender or appeasement. If we could have solved WWII before it started, getting the German people to realise Hitler was dangerously full of shit, all those millions of lives would have been saved. I fail to see how you can see that as being worse than them dying.
The progress of your side means the enemy has to change their tactics. Instead of fighting the same fight as your side, they will do whatever they can, with increasing desperation, to fight back. We've been seeing it for decades, and it means more innocent folks get hurt, as they're usually less well-protected as the armed forces.
Any time we fight, we've already lost, no matter the outcome of the war. War is nothing to be rejoiced in. To settle disputes without beating seven shades of shit out of each other is the true measure of civilisation. Caving skulls in is the pursuit of uncivilised animals.
I think it might have something to do with the rest of the world not being too happy with the US being where they are, and the ability for news and information about incidents like Fallujah to reach the global public. It's not as if the US is fighting the same wars as it was 50 years ago.
Apple are probably more concerned with the fact developing a Linux version if iTunes would cost more money than it'll make in iTunes Music Store revenus... Linux doesn't have the market share clout to command a port of iTunes as Windows does.
How is surveillance searching OR seizing? The 4th amendment doesn't state anything about cops watching people, just stuff about cops/anyone going into your home to look around at what you have or taking your stuff without a reason.
Then why isn't the effort being put into making sure the police force is properly governed, instead of wasting energy in limiting the cops' access to useful technology because their alleged propensity towards corruption is somehow sacred? Fix the problem!
Slashdot Mirror
"Intruding" is not the same as being watched. The CCTV operators aren't asking you where you're going or what you're going to do when you get there, they're just looking at what you're doing on the street. That's not eroding your liberty in the slightest. Do you demand police officers on the street don't look at you as you pass?
I'm on the same page as you are - I was trying to reconcile the faulty comparison between London's Ring of Steel (the real Police camera network) and the proposed NYC version, as the comparison was faulty, I was doomed to fail from the beginning - thanks for being polite in addressing my argumentative short-comings ;) I'm aware of the differences, especially between the CC camera network and the City's network.
I lived in london for 8 years until May of this year, so I'm quite familiar with the CC and City.
Then the problem isn't CCTV but stupid laws. Again - fix the problem - the stupid laws. If the laws are fair and decent, having someone with your best interests at heart looking out for you when you're in public is a great thing.
Then fight the power-mongering and outright corruption! Never settle for second-best - if your country is fucked, try to fix it! Did the founding fathers just say "eh... fuck it. what can we do?" or did they actually do something? It's the "fix the symptoms" attitude that lets fucked-up people stay in power, unchallenged. If the system is broke, it's your duty to try and fix it.
Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public?
I did elaborate. I told you what I saw. He doesn't say it's never happened, just that he doesn't know about it ever happening. Our positions are not mutually exclusive.
Could you not be bothered to actually debate what I said, or do you feel calling me a fool is somehow enough to counter my points? Or maybe you're in favour of people being able to do illegal stuff without fear of being caught? Fantastic.
That depends on how the police are regulated. If they have decent civilian oversight, then the recording of data can only happen if the population wants it. It sounds like your real beef is with an unregulated police force that can do what it wants, not with CCTV. Perhaps you should try focussing your efforts on fixing the real problem?
But they can be used to combat both crime and terrorism. Using two distinct words in one sentence to describe to two different notions is not dangerous. If you're worried about them being contracted to mean the same thing, then maybe you should focus on that, instead of people legitimately using them in their intended meanings? The police combat crime and terrorism - is that dangerous?
You're confusing the Congestion Charge cameras with the City of London's "Ring of Steel". Those are not for charging folks, but to look at all cars entering/leaving the city, and to see if there are any suspicious movements. Data is not logged, nothing is stored in the national police computer - numberplates are simply checked against the police database, and any stolen cars or cars with incorrect license plates are flagged, and patrols on the streets are notified. How is that "Big Brother"?
... It has been used many times in the UK to stop crimes in progress. For instance, I saw a TV show where the new speaking CCTV cameras interrupted some guy getting the shit kicked out of him. The attacker realised he was on CCTV and ran off. The camera operator simply followed him from one camera to the next, constantly reminding him he's been videotaped, the cops have his description and are en route, and that he really can't get away. He was caught. CCTV is a great technology. People are hesitant to accept it because it can be used inappropriately or illegally, but then so can any law-enforcement technology - does that mean we get rid of police cars, police helicopters, police computers, or even the police themselves? Shooting society in the foot by refusing to tackle corruption when it occurs, and instead taking the easy route of just crying foul when inherently useful technology is made available, is not helping anyone. CCTV, at its worst, gives police a way of seeing a recording of a crime that has happened, and at best gives police a view of a crime in progress. If the problem is the police might mis-use it, then your problem isn't with CCTV but the police. It would be in society's best interests to fix the problem, not limiting the police's efficiency. The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes, but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go. The police have a mandate to use all available technology to protect the public - CCTV is just another tool in the toolbox.
You're confusing "security" with "risk".
Apart from use a d-pad, A, B, X, Y, and shoulder buttons. And a stylus. So no, you can't do everything you can do on a DS on an iPhone. Not even close.
The bullshit didn't come from AT&T but from Apple, btw.
That's not an SDK. Those applications don't use the iPhone, they use whatever web server they're hosted on. It's a bit of a cop-out to say they're applications that run on the iPhone. As we've seen from Google's web-based "applications", they leave a lot to be desired when compared to actual software running on the hardware in your hands Web apps have their uses, don't get me wrong, but they're only a sub-set of useful applications. And it's not as if we even got a decent explanation as to why custom native apps aren't allowed on the iPhone, either. If web-based applications are so useful, why does OS X ship with anything more than Safari?
How about if Mac users stop being smug, people who dislike smugness stop bitching about it? That seems fair.
You completely missed what I was saying. I'm saying we, humans, have lost as soon as we have to fight. I'm not saying there aren't important wars that have to be won, but considering we, humans, have intelligence and the ability to discuss problems and to impart knowledge to others, to share ideas and opinions, to understand each others' problems and above all to be rational, resorting to violence is far from ideal, regardless of the importance of the war. I'm not talking about surrender or appeasement. If we could have solved WWII before it started, getting the German people to realise Hitler was dangerously full of shit, all those millions of lives would have been saved. I fail to see how you can see that as being worse than them dying.
It's Apple's software, not Microsoft's. Try again.
The progress of your side means the enemy has to change their tactics. Instead of fighting the same fight as your side, they will do whatever they can, with increasing desperation, to fight back. We've been seeing it for decades, and it means more innocent folks get hurt, as they're usually less well-protected as the armed forces.
Any time we fight, we've already lost, no matter the outcome of the war. War is nothing to be rejoiced in. To settle disputes without beating seven shades of shit out of each other is the true measure of civilisation. Caving skulls in is the pursuit of uncivilised animals.
I think it might have something to do with the rest of the world not being too happy with the US being where they are, and the ability for news and information about incidents like Fallujah to reach the global public. It's not as if the US is fighting the same wars as it was 50 years ago.
... then linux will never be ready for the desktop, and will always be playing third-fiddle to Windows and OSX.
Did you manage to get the sand out of your vagina, or is there still some left?
Apple are probably more concerned with the fact developing a Linux version if iTunes would cost more money than it'll make in iTunes Music Store revenus... Linux doesn't have the market share clout to command a port of iTunes as Windows does.
How is surveillance searching OR seizing? The 4th amendment doesn't state anything about cops watching people, just stuff about cops/anyone going into your home to look around at what you have or taking your stuff without a reason.
Then why isn't the effort being put into making sure the police force is properly governed, instead of wasting energy in limiting the cops' access to useful technology because their alleged propensity towards corruption is somehow sacred? Fix the problem!