|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 03/25/06 03:22
With neither quill nor qualm, Connie Pierce quothed:
> In article <MPG.1e8d64b3ac5231ff98984d@news.isp.com>, Neredbojias
> <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
>
> > With neither quill nor qualm, Connie Pierce quothed:
> >
> > > > > >....A video camera on a public street corner isn't any different from
> > > > > > a police officer standing there watching you...or anyone else standing
> > > > > > there watching you for that matter...it's out in public.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely true . . .
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. The naivety of that opinion will not do your progeny (-if
> > > > any) any good at all.
> > >
> > > Then educate us. How is a video camera *that* much different than a
> > > police man standing on the corner actively watching you??
> >
> > There is always a difference between human and mechanical means, but the
> > real point is that perpetual surveillance is _definitely_ not a good
> > thing.
> >
> > > Personally, I have nothing to hide. If someone were following me,
> > > "staring" at me with a VC, then I'd mind (it would be tres creepy). But
> > > otherwise, I don't really give a damn. I'm not even the least bit of an
> > > exhibitionist. I just figure that if I'm in public and I do something
> > > stupid, then I deserve to either be caught (if a crime) or embarrassed
> > > (if doing something humiliating). And if you're doing something that's
> > > either a crime or stupid, well, you have no street sense/survival
> > > skills and deserve what you get.
> >
> > Very idealistic - just like Communism.
>
> No, realisitic. I grew up on the streets of DC . . . the worst crime
> ridden area in the States (evne worse than NY, actually). I've seen
> shit that would make your hair turn white. Shit that woudn't have
> happened if there were VCs. As someone who's been the vic of crime on
> the streets, I thinnk it's damned good idea. If there had been a VC, I
> know I wouldn't have been a vic. So shoot me for wanting to protect the
> next poor schmuck from meeting the same fate as I.
>
> BTW, I'm not advocating VCs on ALL streets (and neither is our gov) -
> just the ones that have the highest iincidents of rape, murder, drugs,
> etc. Places, to be honest, innocent citizens shouldn't be to BE taped.
> At least not at night.
>
> And they have implemented a few cameras in DC and yas know what? Those
> few streets now have kids playing on them during the day and evening,
> crime has gone w-a-a-a-y down (almost non-existent), and values have
> gone up. And I've seen the footage and no one looks repressed - they
> look happy, safe, and like you or I do when walking down the street,
> knowing that a gang of Crips isn't going to shoot them down in cold
> blood over a pair of sneaks.
>
> In DC, a family of four turns down the wrong street and is shot by gang
> members for invading their turf - 16 mo baby's head is literally shot
> off her shoulders by the gunfire. Mom, baby, and brother (4) all die,
> Father lives with severe brain damage (I think he actually ended up
> dying later). That happened on a street that is now uunder
> surviellance. Since then, no crime.
>
> Most of the citizens who now have their streets VTed are grateful.I
> think personally, the community should be the ones to decide. It's
> THEIR lives and THEIR safety. Not yours. If a VC fucks up your day and
> makes you feel hinky, but saves the lives of innocent people going to
> work, to the store, etc, well . . . that's too bad. I have the right
> to live and my right to live outweighs your right to feel comfy on the
> street.
>
> By your reasoning, gun control is bad (I am FOR gun control, BTW -
> Farmer Fred doesn't need an AK-47 to shoot crows out of his corn patch,
> in MHO). I mean, making it harder for everyone (esp nutjobs) would be
> bad, right? Violates his 2nd amendment rights, right? His freedom,
> right? your rights end where my nose begins. And if my nose wants to be
> able to walk down the street in DC without getting my ass shot at
> (AGAIN), I should just have to shut up and get shot, even though a
> well-placed VC could have saved my life, right?
>
> >
> > > > > we're in the middle of a big controversy here
> > > > > because the city/county wants to put in video cameras to discourage
> > > > > Spring Breakers from doing some of their obnoxious (not all of them,
> > > > > but enough) crap.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's become divided into a "party" issue - the Reps in favor of and the
> > > > > Libs against.
> > > >
> > > > Well that's no surprise. Republicans are always in favor of "family
> > > > values". <derisive laugh>
> > >
> > > I don't get what family values has to do with this subject? The Reps
> > > are for it mainly to discourage the complaints and to create revenue
> > > (from fines). Family values on this matter have nothing to do with it -
> > > it's all in the name of commerce and getting more money from tourism. (
> > > :
> >
> > Families don't appreciate the kind of fun spring breakers do.
> > Republicans would be happy to put an end to it because it is annoying to
> > the mainstream voting family-type masses and quashing it is in line with
> > Rep Party "family" policy to boot.
>
> LOL, actually, as I think I said before, it cuts down on tourism and
> takes dollars away from the LIBs (not the Reps) running our fair little
> burg here. Family values has nothing to do with it - money does. The
> Dems want to shut all of the places like Club LeVela, the strip clubs,
> etc, down period. The Reps say that a few well-placed VC would be
> enough to discourage kids fucking in front of the local nightclub.
> Unless the kids in question are potential porn stars and too cheap to
> make their own video tape . . . They also think that a few VCs would
> keep tourists from getting knifed outside of the local tittie bar.
> >
> > > > > We've already had Libs threaten to call in the ACLU over
> > > > > it (invasion of privacy) while the average citizen (not including
> > > > > tourists/Spring Breakers) thinnk it's a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > Oops, hold on there. You are assuming that today's "average citizen"
> > > > _can_ think in the first place. There has been some question regarding
> > > > this in recent times, particularly after they re-elected Bush.
> > >
> > > I'm an average citizen and I *DO* think quite often, LOL. I'm in favor
> > > of it because of the drug problem that we've had (really bad problem
> > > with dealing in several areas where the cams are being proposed) and
> > > because of the many child abductions (Joseph Smith was caught on the
> > > basis of a video tape).
> >
> > I was, of course, being sarcastic.
>
> Didn't come off that way, sorry. It came off as though you were telling
> me that *I* don't think.
> > However, it is without sarcasm that
> > I can quite truthfully say there is little crime in a police state.
>
> Very true, but then that woudn't have a snowball's chance of happening
> in the US. LOL.
>
> No, really . . . Police state? Bullshit. *THAT'S* pretty naive of you
> to think that's going to happen. That's giving our parties w-a-a-a-a-y
> too much "credit" - considering the fact that our gov doesn't agree on
> *ANYTHING* I don't see our Dem & Rep parties agreeing on anything close
> to that. 1984 was a piece of fiction. Police states in society are
> rare, especially in a capitalist one. LOL.
>
> No, really, let's look at GW (a good candidate for creating a PS if I
> ever saw one) . . . if GW tried to pass some kind of bullshit like
> that, either by law or by action, he would be stopped in five seconds
> flat by the Dems, the Reps who don't agrgee with him, the people, the
> lobbyist groups, etc. Even our own military, who's been taught what a
> "lawful" order is, woudn't assist him. And he'd need the soldiers to do
> it.
> >
> > > > > Personally, I figure if you're in public, you're in full view of others
> > > > > (some of whom, esp with the video camera industry the way it is now,
> > > > > may be filming you). I figure "what's the difference?" If you
> > > > > re doing something stupid or funny but not a crime, the people who are
> > > > > more likely to use that "against" you are the common citizen with their
> > > > > HandyCam (America's Funniest??).
> > > >
> > > > Would there be any difference if _every cubic inch_ of so-called "public
> > > > space" was video-recorded 24/7?
> > >
> > > I don't get what you mean . . . privacy *IS* a basic American right,
> > > but several cases have proven that you are only "guaranteed" privacy in
> > > your own home or business (unless they use cameras, too). Personally, I
> > > don't mind it. I'm not retarded enough to do anything that could be
> > > misconstrued in public.
> >
> > I mean that if the average person in the US ever was under constant
> > scrutiny by authoritarian forces, your freedoms would be history. Many
> > of them are history now. You just don't realize it.
>
> Not really. We have the US Constitution here. It takes damn nigh a war
> to toss out one of our amendments or constititional rights. See the
> comment up above about getting our two parties to agree on *ANYTHING* .
> . . most often, we have one party control the WH, and one party
> control Congress. Just how I like it personally. No party whould have
> all the power. And in our country, no one does. It's a system of checks
> and blanaces, not a Monarchy.
>
> Typically, the countries that dissolved into PSs were Monarchies
> (Russia, China), Dictatorships (Germany), and such - not democracies.
> Our Congress can veto ANYTHING that the Prez decideds should be a law.
> In order to change or modify the Constitution, all three branches have
> to come into play at some point. And again, they don't play nicely. For
> goodness sake, we can't even agree on a memorial for the WTC!
> >
> > Also, if I'm walking down the middle of a public sidewalk, I have the
> > right to a certain amount of privacy, guaranteed or not. I don't need
> > to be accosted by someone selling "Rolex" watches or discount coupons
> > for the Follies Bergeres or anything else. If someone persists in
> > bothering me, I can summon a cop who can legally rid me of my pest under
> > the auspices of general privacy laws. How does this fit in with your
> > "1984" picture?
>
> And again, NO ONE has any privacy on the street. Are you trying to tell
> me that you walk around in an opaque bubble (the only way possible to
> have privacy on the street) - how do you keep from walking into things,
> much less getting hit by a car? Wow. I certainly couldn't do that . . .
> I'd be smooshed in seconds.
>
> And if someone is following you about you can summon a cop HERE in the
> US for harrassment, not invasion of privacy. If you told a cop that he
> was invading your "privacy" on a public street, he'd thinnk you were a
> nut. Now if you told him that this guy is following you and making you
> nervous, he'd stop the guy (maybe arrest him) or give you an escort of
> some kind (been there, done that, have the T-shirt). But invasion of
> privacy? That's a good one, LOL.
>
> Perhaps I'm being harsh here, but you seem to be judging my country and
> it's laws and mores (social customs/culture) by your own. What will fly
> in GB might not fly here. And vice-versa. And honestly, just as you
> know yours, I know mine. I've lived here for 33 years, and spent 4
> years in Ge. Where, I noticed, the laws are differently translated and
> carried out. Europe and the US are not as similar as you think . . .
> esp not in politics (other than the fact that we both have them).
>
> > > > > I don't think it's too far of a stretch to act in public like you
> > > > > *were* being recorded . . .
> > > >
> > > > That isn't the idea. The real goal is for people to act decently.
> > >
> > > Well, obviously. But you can act decently and still pull the wedgie out
> > > of your ass on a busy streeet. LOL. You won't be accused of indecent
> > > behavior or wrong-doing if you pick your nose in public (Lord knows
> > > I've seen enough men do it at stoplights). The point is to be on your
> > > best behavior everywhere, but at the very least, in public where being
> > > stupid can hurt you socially, physically, and emotionally.
> >
> > And for the less-than-perfect citizen, what? -Termination? -Isolation
> > to a secluded compound for misfits?
>
> No, I'm not a Lib, I don't believe in Eugenics . . . ( : the Libs
> backed Hitler, not the Reps. We weren't even close to being in power.
> And some of the most respected Libs were the ones who pushed for the
> sterilization of the "feeble-minded" (AKA, the Jews,
> African-Americans,Polish, the poor, etc. The Reps didn't push for the
> execution of them. Or the institutionalization of them, either. We
> actually tried to stop it. ( ; But then, I guess us Reps are just
> stupid that way, huh? Unthinking?
>
> As to my comment about being stupid and getting hurt physically, I
> meanty along the lines of committing a crime that can put your ass (if
> you're VCed - better than a human witness. Human "witnesses" are more
> responsible for sending innocent people to jail than framing,
> conspiracy or faulty police work, just FYI) in jail. I would say that
> would screw you physically, wouldn't you?
>
> > You are the personification of the
> > darkest science fiction I have ever read.
>
> I'm not a "dark" person, per se. I love kittens and puppies and babies
> . . . no, really, if I see someone in trouble, I make a point to help
> them. If I see someone having difficulty with a large package
> (regardless of how it affects me physically or schedule-wise to help -
> and it irritates the crap out my hubby) I help them. I've even (in my
> younger days when I was a regional champ in Thai kickboxing) physically
> broke up a fucking knife fight between two strangers. I'm not saying
> "fuck everyone" especially those who might not be very bright . . . I'm
> saying that the most that can happen from being VTd is a bit of
> embarrassment to the average Joe on the street.
>
> And honestly, if you pick your nose on the street and get videotaped,
> *where* is the damamge? Where is the lost freedom? Yeah, some guy,
> night watchman, archiver *might* see the footage of you digging for
> gold in the middle of Main Street - okay, he has a *private* laugh at
> your expense. So the hell what??
>
> Now let's shift to a more ominous matter: you're a rapist and you just
> dragged poor Mary off the street, raped her, murdered her. A tape, if
> reviewed later, might prevent you from doing that again, saving a life.
> Joseph Smith dragged Carlie (and pardon me if I use this scenario
> again, this was in my neck of the woods so I'm a little touchy about
> it) off the street, raped her, beat her, murdered her. He was caught
> using a VC. That VC saved another girl from sharing Carlie's fate. Damn
> good thing, I say.
>
> > > > > you're certainly being mental recorded
> > > > > here (such a small town - you can't fart without someone guessing what
> > > > > you had for dinner). So if you don't fix wedgies, pick your nose or
> > > > > otherwise act the ass in public, you have nothing to worry about.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, a problem that we've had with the SB - just FYI, is public sex
> > > > > after hours in front of bars, strip clubs and the like. The majority of
> > > > > the locals are wet blankets and are mad about it . . .
> > > >
> > > > The real problems you have are your politicians and non-partisan
> > > > delusions.
> > >
> > > Actually, our politicans are Democrats. ( :
> >
> > Oh, excuse me, that invalidates everything I've said...
>
> No, but it puts paid to the Rep bullshit you're spewing. *I'M* a Rep
> (don't believe in abortion, thank-you-very-much - why? cause I think
> it's murder) and I'm no lock-stepper. The Reps in gov are typically
> ultra right wingers, Rep citizens are thoughful, intelligent people. To
> categorize someone solely on their politics is not only insulting, but
> it's retarded. Have you ever stopped a Rep on the street and asked them
> why they feel/vote the way they do? They'll tell you why without
> resorting to bullshit like assigning ulterior motives to the other
> party. Or citing the Libs as idiots or irresponsible.
>
> Don't know if you're a Lib/Dem or not, but the most asinine of them
> that I've met - the cultish onees . . . well, you'd fit in quite
> nicely from your attitude. they automatically (the cultish ones, not
> the *average one*) think that Rep citizens are brainwashed and stupid.
> They tell us THEY know what's best for us.
>
> If we went to a poolice state it would be by the Libs and it would look
> a lot like the one in Demolitiion Man . . . not 1894. The Reps are
> continually under attack and the Libs here sue over EVERYTHING (did you
> spit in front of a lady? Well, you just violated her rights!). The Reps
> rape the environment (something I'm not happy with), they shove our
> asses into war at the drop of the hat. and they;re greedy for moolah.
> But they dont tell us how to think, they just want $$. The Libs here
> try to tell us how to think, what to say, what to do, what not to do.
> Damn, I'm too scared to fart on a public street, knowing that some Lib
> will sue me for "environmental violation."
>
> But in the end, I like the Dems, I like the Reps. We need them BOTH for
> a safe government. As long as one is watching the other (and backbiting
> the other)I can sleep at night.
> >
> > > Just curious . . . are you also against the VCs in police cars? I
> > > would think they (like the ones wer're discussing) would be a good
> > > idea. It protects everyone - at least those who can keep from digging a
> > > wedgie out of their ass in public! LOL.
> > >
> > > I'm also for it because I believe it creates a protective barrier
> > > between the average citizen and the police, BTW. We've had several
> > > "issues" with our police that I think could have been settled if there
> > > had been a VC handy. One man was shot (and no VC, therefore no record)
> > > and killed by police on a street well known for drug dealers. The
> > > police say he drew a gun on them, witnesses said he didn't. Would have
> > > been nice for the guy's family to have some sort of evidence proving
> > > the guy was innocent of selling drugs AND pulling a gun when they took
> > > the family home, car, bank accounts, etc.
> > >
> > > Don't you think?
> >
> > I'm not against VCs in police cars. I'm not against VCs at all if
> > they're not abused. But one thing to remember, one very primary thing,
> > is "Who watches the watchers?"
>
> We would. It's called being a part of our government. It's called
> voting. It's called responsible politics. Again, our gov is a system of
> checks and balances. Even the prez can't fart without someone saying
> "eww!" CIA head honcho? The press will oust his latest wrong-doings.
> Then we'll scream, the ACLU will get into the mix (somehow, they always
> do) and he'll be history (or promoted, depending on how big the stink
> is). But again, don't judge my country's politics by yours.
>
> Got a little pissed off here, I admit. Mainly because it seems to me
> the people who scream so loudly about freedoms and such usually have
> too much already. They apprently have the freedom to tell me how I
> should think and to say that their right to walk down the street
> feeling good vibes is more important that other's rights to stay alive
> and live in crime free areas.
> *shrugs*
Oh man... You expect me to debate all that stuff?? If I were into
debating, I would've verbally leeched my way into public service.
You make some good, valid, logical points. There are also some not.
But my main point is to not throw away what freedoms we have left simply
because some of us are too short-sighted to see the danger in doing so.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|