"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Security cameras on the street, I can see as taking away liberty. As far as cell phone cameras supplementing 9-1-1 calls, this makes the jobs of emergency responders easier and the cameras aren't on all the time, only when you send an image to 9-1-1. And if you call 9-1-1, you better have a damn good reason to do so anyway. But there are definitely some useful applications: firefighters can get an idea of what they're dealing with and figure out what to dispatch to the scene, emergency patients can be better evaluated remotely and first-aid before the ambulance comes can be recommended.
There's a ten year old study that says that just having other citizens carry concealed weapons improves your safety overall. I've never heard a rebuttal that held any water. So, even if you don't want to carry a weapon yourself, you do want to live in a state that allows it.:)
Crime also went down in Kennesaw, GA (but increased in surrounding towns) in the decade following its passage of an ordinance that required each household in the town to own at least one servicable firearm. To those who claim that such an ordinance would be unfair by mandating the ownership of an object, it was purposely written to be full of exemptions - conscientious objectors, ex-convicts, etc were exempted. Nor has anyone actually been fined for not owning a weapon. But the law was designed to set an example to follow.
There should be more uniform guideline, for example larger cities tend to be more restrictive as to the use of 911, smaller towns tend to be more liberal.
I went to college in a small town in PA. The police station only had a dispacher at the desk during certain hours. 9-1-1 connected you to the police dispatcher in the next town over -- there wasn't really a centralized 9-1-1 system. So you were told to call 9-1-1 in non-emergency situations (noise complaints, whatever) if the police didn't answer on their normal phone number.
Just showing a potential attacker that you are carying on your belt is enough to make him melt away.
Actually, if I were going to openly carry, I'd carry some weapon that requires skill and training to use effectively, like a sword. Too much chance of a gun being taken away in an inattentive moment and used against me. Concealed carry OTOH...
lots new fines for crimes on camera, all those jaywalkers = profit! because its easy to do, feel the mu
That was tried about 10 years ago when Giuliani first came into office. It stopped quickly since everyone in NYC jaywalks and the enforcement campaign eventually pissed off the wrong people. Look at any intersection in NYC - there are plenty of people jaywalking even in front of cops. You'd still need a cop to hand out the summonses and NYC cops generally have better things to do. Automated enforcement like a red light camera? Possible, I guess, but people don't wear license plates:) And automated facial recognition technology isn't 'there' yet and probably will never be. Can you imagine the furor if a few thousand people *incorrectly* get automated tickets for jaywalking?
The only reason that NYC "functions" at all is that 90% of its laws are enforced selectively if at all.
And I sure as hell don't like the idea of a small mugging, where some thug punches me in the nose and steals my iPod, turning into a shooting, where some thug punches me in the nose, steals my iPod and my gun, and then shoots me with it.
If you carry a gun openly, this can be a problem. If you carry concealed in something like a shoulder holster, your scenario is less likely since the thief would have to know that you're carrying and, even if he did, get at the gun. Trigger locking mechanisms that sense something like a magnetic ring, a ring with an RFID tag, or require a specific motion of the trigger (not just a pull) to fire are another potential solution. If the thief takes the gun and tries to fire, laugh at him while either running away or retaking the gun.
mainly, because what if i can't talk on the phone eg home invasion and i'm hiding or i'm mute or something.
Not sure if pics would help, but they could be useful. BTW, voiceless 911 calls get a callback. If no one answers saying it was a mistake, an attempt is made to locate the phone and respond. Of course, a far better response to a home invasion would be the homeowned getting out his gun and preventing the assholes from invading another home. Ever. Sadly, it's far too difficult to acquire a gun legally in NYC, and even if you shoot a burglar, the system is likely to be on their side, not yours.
Actually yes, preventing crimes is worth sacrificing your "right" to tell other people and the police what they can and cannot do with their own personal cell phones.
That's not the worrisome part of the article. The worrisome part is where they want fixed streetcorner cameras to spy on citizens.
OTOH, used film cameras are *cheap* now. I have a couple and got a few dozen rolls of film from a former boss who decided to go all digital last year. I'm set for a loooooong time:/
But do you really want to put a gun into a device that you frequently hold against your head?
There was the story of the guy who got robbed several times and thus kept a gun on his night table next to his phone. All was well until the phone rang late at night and he "answered" the wrong object.
911 calls in NYC will activate the camera on mobile phones so people can send video of the emergency as it happens.
Can they activate your camera remotely in general, or do they need your "permission?" Of course, with a black pastie over the glass nipple, they're unlikely to get any useful video unless you let them get it. The other thing is: you can't talk on a phone and aim the camera well. This seems like a nice idea but not terribly useful.
We are photographed 1000s of times every day without even being aware of it (ok I pulled this number out of my ass but we are photographed a lot).
On the flip side of the coin, abuses by the police and government are more likely to be recorded if citizens are armed with cameras with the capability of sending the images off the device immediately. They may smash the phone, but the pics may already be on a server across the country.
Just find the US equivalent of this phone http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/1600/ It's cheap ( 1 week) if you turn off the screensaver It even has a colour screen Just dont expect any features besides phone/text
I got a Nokia 3120 free with a Cingular 1-year plan. Basically the same thing with a different power button (which failed after a year, but looks like the 1600 is better since it isn't a rubber-covered hard-to-push button on top!). It did phone/text excellently and even had a usable WAP browser and I think e-mail functionality included. If you dig down into the menus, those small Nokias are a bit more functional than they are given credit for!
I'd target a high speed intercity train. If I time it right, I should be able to blast a 125mph train into pieces on a high speed track
There's only one train line in the US (DC Boston) that reaches that speed. The rest are 100mph tops (if you're lucky). Sadly, train speeds haven't improved and in some cases have decreased since the steam era. Blame it on the popularity of the car plus onerous crash safety regs for trains that make them weigh 1 1/2 times as much as their European or Japanese equivalents.
That being said, they don't even need explosives. Just interfere with the operating mechanism of a drawbridge or cause it to open as a train is crossing it. This actually happened (by accident) near NYC in 1996(?) - a train basically ended up half in a swamp, half in a river. Even suddenly opening a lift bridge on a road during a high-traffic time when everyone's doing 60 mph would be a disaster.
You can't protect against people who are determined to do sabotage. The best you can do is keep them out of the US in the first place and lock them up for a long time or execute them if they happen to get caught. Not making enemies also goes a long way.
Wouldn't it be better and cheaper to base this on the ground at the small proportion of airports used by large passenger aircraft, not on the aircraft themselves?
A ground-based system wouldn't be able to blind a missile's seeker head with a laser, since the seeker is pointed *up*. They'd need to have surface-to-air missile sites with faster missiles designed to shoot down missiles before they hit the target. Sort of like the Nike system of the 50s through 70s, except that Nike missiles were only effective against relatively slow-moving and high-flying Soviet bombers. (The horse stables near where I grew up used to be a Nike base in the 60s.)
If they are that low why not just use an optically guided, or even guided by wire, missile?
Or a Cessna loaded with explosives loitering in the jet's flightpath. Remember that the 9/11 terrorists weren't terribly picky about preserving their own lives. Oh no! Now they'll ban small planes:/
"Saved" is a bit strong, but there was a DHL A300 hit by an SA-7 over Baghdad that made an emergency landing:
That's a war zone where the Americans are the invaders and interlopers. The DHL jet is providing material support to the invaders. That's a far cry from a domestic flight from LAX to NYC.
Off the top of my head, never. However, it will probably make a whole lot of people 'feel' safe. And, in the end, that's what matters today. A few billion for a sense of safety? That's nothing.
It'll take money away from programs that prevent terrorists from entering the US in the first place like increased border patrols, and, yes, better passport security. Not to mention foreign intelligence so we can avert a strike *before* it is attempted. I can understand this system on certain international flights, but not on every puddlejumper flight in the US.
It's part of the American way of thinking. It's just like the way retailers here price things. Instead of just having a set price on an item, they give it a ridiculous jacked-up price, and call that the "normal" price. Then, they set a more reasonable "sale" price.
Nah, it's a human thing in general. Think of an open-air market in any developing country - sellers expect buyers to haggle, so they jack the listed prices up (the proverbial 'Turkish bazaar'). This is fine and expected in a business environment. However, when the stakes become more than money, haggling ceases to have a place - in the case of the justice system, the stakes are lives or some portion thereof (jail time) plus future reputation.
Thanks for the info, I thought government officials were immune to prosecution for performing actions as part of their job.
Not if the actions were illegal when performed and/or violated the Constitution which they were sworn to uphold. Kind of like the fact that a soldier can be shot for genocide and the fact that the orders came from "on high" is not a defense.
What's this shit about three charges for a single act? It sounds like an end run around double jeopardy. They could likely try you separately for each.
That's part of the problem with the easy availability of plea bargains (to prosecutors). They'll charge you with three things, offer to drop the two most serious offenses, and you'll think you're getting off lucky pleading guilty to a misdemenor with "only" a fine for punishment. Whereas, if once charges were filed by a prosecutor, you had to go through the indictment process (in front of a judge for misdemenors, a grand jury for felonies) and then either a guilty plea or trial, I suspect that a lot of the more serious "bullshit" charges would never happen in the first place since there would be no real chance of conviction.
Eh, most grand jury's are simply rubber stamps for the prosecution. I don't think that requiring them would decrease anything.
They're also composed of citizens other than the prosecutor who have no professional interest in seeing the case go to trial. I imagine that truly frivolous charges by a prosecutor would provoke a WTF? type response in at least some of the members.
Slashdot Mirror
Security cameras on the street, I can see as taking away liberty. As far as cell phone cameras supplementing 9-1-1 calls, this makes the jobs of emergency responders easier and the cameras aren't on all the time, only when you send an image to 9-1-1. And if you call 9-1-1, you better have a damn good reason to do so anyway. But there are definitely some useful applications: firefighters can get an idea of what they're dealing with and figure out what to dispatch to the scene, emergency patients can be better evaluated remotely and first-aid before the ambulance comes can be recommended.
-b.
Crime also went down in Kennesaw, GA (but increased in surrounding towns) in the decade following its passage of an ordinance that required each household in the town to own at least one servicable firearm. To those who claim that such an ordinance would be unfair by mandating the ownership of an object, it was purposely written to be full of exemptions - conscientious objectors, ex-convicts, etc were exempted. Nor has anyone actually been fined for not owning a weapon. But the law was designed to set an example to follow.
-b.
I went to college in a small town in PA. The police station only had a dispacher at the desk during certain hours. 9-1-1 connected you to the police dispatcher in the next town over -- there wasn't really a centralized 9-1-1 system. So you were told to call 9-1-1 in non-emergency situations (noise complaints, whatever) if the police didn't answer on their normal phone number.
-b.
Actually, if I were going to openly carry, I'd carry some weapon that requires skill and training to use effectively, like a sword. Too much chance of a gun being taken away in an inattentive moment and used against me. Concealed carry OTOH...
-b.
That was tried about 10 years ago when Giuliani first came into office. It stopped quickly since everyone in NYC jaywalks and the enforcement campaign eventually pissed off the wrong people. Look at any intersection in NYC - there are plenty of people jaywalking even in front of cops. You'd still need a cop to hand out the summonses and NYC cops generally have better things to do. Automated enforcement like a red light camera? Possible, I guess, but people don't wear license plates :) And automated facial recognition technology isn't 'there' yet and probably will never be. Can you imagine the furor if a few thousand people *incorrectly* get automated tickets for jaywalking?
The only reason that NYC "functions" at all is that 90% of its laws are enforced selectively if at all.
-b.
If you carry a gun openly, this can be a problem. If you carry concealed in something like a shoulder holster, your scenario is less likely since the thief would have to know that you're carrying and, even if he did, get at the gun. Trigger locking mechanisms that sense something like a magnetic ring, a ring with an RFID tag, or require a specific motion of the trigger (not just a pull) to fire are another potential solution. If the thief takes the gun and tries to fire, laugh at him while either running away or retaking the gun.
-b.
Not sure if pics would help, but they could be useful. BTW, voiceless 911 calls get a callback. If no one answers saying it was a mistake, an attempt is made to locate the phone and respond. Of course, a far better response to a home invasion would be the homeowned getting out his gun and preventing the assholes from invading another home. Ever. Sadly, it's far too difficult to acquire a gun legally in NYC, and even if you shoot a burglar, the system is likely to be on their side, not yours.
-b.
That's not the worrisome part of the article. The worrisome part is where they want fixed streetcorner cameras to spy on citizens.
-b.
OTOH, used film cameras are *cheap* now. I have a couple and got a few dozen rolls of film from a former boss who decided to go all digital last year. I'm set for a loooooong time :/
-b.
There was the story of the guy who got robbed several times and thus kept a gun on his night table next to his phone. All was well until the phone rang late at night and he "answered" the wrong object.
-b.
Can they activate your camera remotely in general, or do they need your "permission?" Of course, with a black pastie over the glass nipple, they're unlikely to get any useful video unless you let them get it. The other thing is: you can't talk on a phone and aim the camera well. This seems like a nice idea but not terribly useful.
-b.
On the flip side of the coin, abuses by the police and government are more likely to be recorded if citizens are armed with cameras with the capability of sending the images off the device immediately. They may smash the phone, but the pics may already be on a server across the country.
-b.
I got a Nokia 3120 free with a Cingular 1-year plan. Basically the same thing with a different power button (which failed after a year, but looks like the 1600 is better since it isn't a rubber-covered hard-to-push button on top!). It did phone/text excellently and even had a usable WAP browser and I think e-mail functionality included. If you dig down into the menus, those small Nokias are a bit more functional than they are given credit for!
-b.
There's only one train line in the US (DC Boston) that reaches that speed. The rest are 100mph tops (if you're lucky). Sadly, train speeds haven't improved and in some cases have decreased since the steam era. Blame it on the popularity of the car plus onerous crash safety regs for trains that make them weigh 1 1/2 times as much as their European or Japanese equivalents.
That being said, they don't even need explosives. Just interfere with the operating mechanism of a drawbridge or cause it to open as a train is crossing it. This actually happened (by accident) near NYC in 1996(?) - a train basically ended up half in a swamp, half in a river. Even suddenly opening a lift bridge on a road during a high-traffic time when everyone's doing 60 mph would be a disaster.
You can't protect against people who are determined to do sabotage. The best you can do is keep them out of the US in the first place and lock them up for a long time or execute them if they happen to get caught. Not making enemies also goes a long way.
-b.
A ground-based system wouldn't be able to blind a missile's seeker head with a laser, since the seeker is pointed *up*. They'd need to have surface-to-air missile sites with faster missiles designed to shoot down missiles before they hit the target. Sort of like the Nike system of the 50s through 70s, except that Nike missiles were only effective against relatively slow-moving and high-flying Soviet bombers. (The horse stables near where I grew up used to be a Nike base in the 60s.)
-b.
They could fire the missile from another aircraft. The higher performance small planes (with turbocharged engines) can and do maintain 30,000 ft.
-b.
Or a Cessna loaded with explosives loitering in the jet's flightpath. Remember that the 9/11 terrorists weren't terribly picky about preserving their own lives. Oh no! Now they'll ban small planes :/
-b.
That's a war zone where the Americans are the invaders and interlopers. The DHL jet is providing material support to the invaders. That's a far cry from a domestic flight from LAX to NYC.
-b.
Unproven speculation.
It'll take money away from programs that prevent terrorists from entering the US in the first place like increased border patrols, and, yes, better passport security. Not to mention foreign intelligence so we can avert a strike *before* it is attempted. I can understand this system on certain international flights, but not on every puddlejumper flight in the US.
-b.
Wouldn't that make it a very front-looking state rather than a backwards one?
-b.
Nah, it's a human thing in general. Think of an open-air market in any developing country - sellers expect buyers to haggle, so they jack the listed prices up (the proverbial 'Turkish bazaar'). This is fine and expected in a business environment. However, when the stakes become more than money, haggling ceases to have a place - in the case of the justice system, the stakes are lives or some portion thereof (jail time) plus future reputation.
-b.
Not if the actions were illegal when performed and/or violated the Constitution which they were sworn to uphold. Kind of like the fact that a soldier can be shot for genocide and the fact that the orders came from "on high" is not a defense.
-b.
That's part of the problem with the easy availability of plea bargains (to prosecutors). They'll charge you with three things, offer to drop the two most serious offenses, and you'll think you're getting off lucky pleading guilty to a misdemenor with "only" a fine for punishment. Whereas, if once charges were filed by a prosecutor, you had to go through the indictment process (in front of a judge for misdemenors, a grand jury for felonies) and then either a guilty plea or trial, I suspect that a lot of the more serious "bullshit" charges would never happen in the first place since there would be no real chance of conviction.
-b.
They're also composed of citizens other than the prosecutor who have no professional interest in seeing the case go to trial. I imagine that truly frivolous charges by a prosecutor would provoke a WTF? type response in at least some of the members.
-b.