Who can we get to put forth this idea!? I would love to see/hear the reactions of our "public servants" that we want to track their every move. Like where were they all when Nick Shirley was testifying about fraud? The wine
Bar downstairs?
This is all ha-ha, but misguided. There is nothing wrong with surveillance cameras in public spaces. If you don't feel comfortable being seen, you should not go out in public. Or wrap yourself up in a burqa (which, of course, would make you more conspicuous). Invisibility is not an option. We've lived in public for 300 years. Maybe little children have phobias about this, but not adults.
The issue isn't being seen in public (see also PINAC), the issue is WHO is keeping the data (records of our travels), what are they doing with it, and how can I verify that my data is being destroyed (as is claimed) rather than simply being moved into another silo to be used for building a profile on citizens in good standing.
"Maybe little children have phobias about this, but not adults."
I'm perfectly willing to have a reasonable conversation with you on this, or any other subject, but BS like I quoted above disqualifies you from the "Civil Discussion ONLY**" guideline.
I disagree that data storage is an "issue." It's part of the package. Any neighborhood can have curious people sitting out on their front lawn, watching their other neighbors. They may even be under contract to report what they see. And they have memories. You would never have any legal basis for enjoining them from what they do. It is functionally equivalent to what you fear. And if you do not fear it, what is the problem?
Being willing to have a reasonable conversation first requires a commitment to conversation. I said nothing uncivil.
You implied that anyone who disagrees with you is a child. That is hardly civil. Kindly confine your arguments to the actual facts, not manipulative emotional garbage. This is the last I'll say on the subject.
We are told that this data will be erased after 30 days. How do we confirm that? And how do we confirm that the data isn't simply moved to another silo? This is OUR government, they are to be held accountable to us, by us.
What do I fear? The government, obviously. And if you don't, then you are so unaware of the government overreach (ranging from murdering a president, to burning down a religious campus full of children, to murdering it's own citizens, and trampling on various enumerated rights as they see fit) that I don't understand why you are here at all.
No, I implied that anyone who is afraid of going out in public is like a child. In an adult, that is a serious neurosis. Either you agree with the statement or not.
I don't care if the data is never erased. It is an open question if it ever can be preserved. How can anyone ever tell? Where is the harm? You don't seem to understand that tyranny is easily feasible without all this technical claptrap. I am opposed to the registration of firearms, for example, but that has nothing to do with surveillance of public behavior and everything to do with protection of rights under the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
I am concerned about and oppose identified misdeeds of government, but I don't see any violation of rights depending from simple observation of public behavior. The examples you mention for causes of concern don't mention surveillance at all, which illustrates my above point.
If we have to worry about a social credit scheme, we are in far deeper trouble than public surveillance systems. Everything then becomes a tool of oppression. So, should we ban everything? A meatspace score is not being measured, so what is your real-life concern?
The government does NOT need to track our movements. But they DO need to be able to respond to criminal events after they occur, more effectively than being totally without information. Several years ago, my car was broken into, and from that my house was crashed and trashed and valuable goods were taken. Had there been more comprehensive surveillance, it may have been possible to identify the vehicle used by the culprits, and track them down. Similar purpose in fire investigations, or post-disaster reconstruction. I now have my own surveillance cameras. Is that wrong? Should I be prevented from making them available to the authorities for crime investigation?
I doubt that the government is "tracking our movements." That would require a global picture, far beyond the integrating capability of current systems, and not required for the uses I mentioned above. And what if they were? It would be overwhelmingly boring.
The point is: you do not have anything to fear presently. Nor any impending plan to fear in the future. So, there is no "reasonable" fear. And, you still cannot do anything about nosy neighbors and street witnesses. Your anxiety seems unusual, unless you are contemplating illegal activities. The real threats to our freedom are against the 2nd and 4th Amendments, not from public surveillance.
I need privacy, not because my actions are (or will be) questionable, but because the government's judgement and motives are.
"I now have my own surveillance cameras. Is that wrong?" There is nothing wrong with a private individual having surveillance devices on their own property, and making recordings available to the government (with a warrant) if/when the individual's property rights have been violated.
Given your tale of being robbed, it has become obvious that your position is based on your fears. You have done something about it, yet you still want the Nanny State to watch your every action.
"The point is: you do not have anything to fear presently." You couldn't be more wrong. Corporations harvesting our data are a huge threat to every individual. Psych profiles get built for marketing purposes. You are nothing more than a datapoint for mass marketing as far as corporations are concerned. I am a person, an individual, and I strenuously object to having my life put under a microscope so that Corporate American can try to manipulate me for the purpose of extracting every penny from my existence.
But it doesn't end there. These psych profiles WILL eventually get shared with the government, and then we'll be living in the Minority Report (minus the psychics) with the Dept. of Precrime judging our every move.
They're PUBLIC servents. They are to be scrutenized by us at all times and we are to be anons to them unless we commit a crime which forfeits anonymity.
Add microphones and you have a deal.
Body cams ?
And give every citizen a link for seeing and hearing any of it they are interested in witnessing.
Who can we get to put forth this idea!? I would love to see/hear the reactions of our "public servants" that we want to track their every move. Like where were they all when Nick Shirley was testifying about fraud? The wine Bar downstairs?
Sounds good to me.
Even the rest rooms and broom cupboards?
Why not? Congress (or staffers) are having anal sex in meeting rooms on camera.
Yes!
Get the flock ouda heeer
This is all ha-ha, but misguided. There is nothing wrong with surveillance cameras in public spaces. If you don't feel comfortable being seen, you should not go out in public. Or wrap yourself up in a burqa (which, of course, would make you more conspicuous). Invisibility is not an option. We've lived in public for 300 years. Maybe little children have phobias about this, but not adults.
There you go spouting crap again. I thought I had blocked you.
I think I was here before you. But if you have a disagreement, why not discuss it? Your reaction suggests I was on target.
The issue isn't being seen in public (see also PINAC), the issue is WHO is keeping the data (records of our travels), what are they doing with it, and how can I verify that my data is being destroyed (as is claimed) rather than simply being moved into another silo to be used for building a profile on citizens in good standing.
"Maybe little children have phobias about this, but not adults."
I'm perfectly willing to have a reasonable conversation with you on this, or any other subject, but BS like I quoted above disqualifies you from the "Civil Discussion ONLY**" guideline.
I disagree that data storage is an "issue." It's part of the package. Any neighborhood can have curious people sitting out on their front lawn, watching their other neighbors. They may even be under contract to report what they see. And they have memories. You would never have any legal basis for enjoining them from what they do. It is functionally equivalent to what you fear. And if you do not fear it, what is the problem?
Being willing to have a reasonable conversation first requires a commitment to conversation. I said nothing uncivil.
You implied that anyone who disagrees with you is a child. That is hardly civil. Kindly confine your arguments to the actual facts, not manipulative emotional garbage. This is the last I'll say on the subject.
We are told that this data will be erased after 30 days. How do we confirm that? And how do we confirm that the data isn't simply moved to another silo? This is OUR government, they are to be held accountable to us, by us.
What do I fear? The government, obviously. And if you don't, then you are so unaware of the government overreach (ranging from murdering a president, to burning down a religious campus full of children, to murdering it's own citizens, and trampling on various enumerated rights as they see fit) that I don't understand why you are here at all.
No, I implied that anyone who is afraid of going out in public is like a child. In an adult, that is a serious neurosis. Either you agree with the statement or not.
I don't care if the data is never erased. It is an open question if it ever can be preserved. How can anyone ever tell? Where is the harm? You don't seem to understand that tyranny is easily feasible without all this technical claptrap. I am opposed to the registration of firearms, for example, but that has nothing to do with surveillance of public behavior and everything to do with protection of rights under the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
I am concerned about and oppose identified misdeeds of government, but I don't see any violation of rights depending from simple observation of public behavior. The examples you mention for causes of concern don't mention surveillance at all, which illustrates my above point.
Are you not concerned about the equivalent of a social credit score in meatspace?
And what, exactly, does the government need to track our movements for?
If we have to worry about a social credit scheme, we are in far deeper trouble than public surveillance systems. Everything then becomes a tool of oppression. So, should we ban everything? A meatspace score is not being measured, so what is your real-life concern?
The government does NOT need to track our movements. But they DO need to be able to respond to criminal events after they occur, more effectively than being totally without information. Several years ago, my car was broken into, and from that my house was crashed and trashed and valuable goods were taken. Had there been more comprehensive surveillance, it may have been possible to identify the vehicle used by the culprits, and track them down. Similar purpose in fire investigations, or post-disaster reconstruction. I now have my own surveillance cameras. Is that wrong? Should I be prevented from making them available to the authorities for crime investigation?
I doubt that the government is "tracking our movements." That would require a global picture, far beyond the integrating capability of current systems, and not required for the uses I mentioned above. And what if they were? It would be overwhelmingly boring.
The point is: you do not have anything to fear presently. Nor any impending plan to fear in the future. So, there is no "reasonable" fear. And, you still cannot do anything about nosy neighbors and street witnesses. Your anxiety seems unusual, unless you are contemplating illegal activities. The real threats to our freedom are against the 2nd and 4th Amendments, not from public surveillance.
I need privacy, not because my actions are (or will be) questionable, but because the government's judgement and motives are.
"I now have my own surveillance cameras. Is that wrong?" There is nothing wrong with a private individual having surveillance devices on their own property, and making recordings available to the government (with a warrant) if/when the individual's property rights have been violated.
Given your tale of being robbed, it has become obvious that your position is based on your fears. You have done something about it, yet you still want the Nanny State to watch your every action.
"The point is: you do not have anything to fear presently." You couldn't be more wrong. Corporations harvesting our data are a huge threat to every individual. Psych profiles get built for marketing purposes. You are nothing more than a datapoint for mass marketing as far as corporations are concerned. I am a person, an individual, and I strenuously object to having my life put under a microscope so that Corporate American can try to manipulate me for the purpose of extracting every penny from my existence.
But it doesn't end there. These psych profiles WILL eventually get shared with the government, and then we'll be living in the Minority Report (minus the psychics) with the Dept. of Precrime judging our every move.
As it should be.
They're PUBLIC servents. They are to be scrutenized by us at all times and we are to be anons to them unless we commit a crime which forfeits anonymity.