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.
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.