|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 03/25/06 03:22
With neither quill nor qualm, Onideus Mad Hatter quothed:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:28:39 -0700, Neredbojias
> <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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,
>
> Um...humans are mechanical though, biomechanical. *shrugs* And if a
> human is watching through a mechanical means, then where does the
> difference lie?
>
> >but the real point is that perpetual surveillance is _definitely_ not a good
> >thing.
>
> Maybe...but not from the point you're thinking. From your point of
> view, you should actually be pushing for perpetual surveillance...see
> the idea is that if you flood the system with too much data it becomes
> useless. Even if you found some uber level way of tracking and
> cataloging all that information the fact is that it does reach a point
> where you get a kind of information overload and there's just too much
> data to sift through to find anything meaningful.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Are you saying that democracy is about being able to get away with
> crime so long as no one see's it? Cause if that's the case, I'd have
> to go with communism...well except for the fact that communism simply
> doesn't work without some form of capitalism built into it. Like our
> hypocritical Chinese brethren.
>
> >> 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.
>
> So really, your position is that you're worried third parties will try
> and use the video footage to help push certain ideals and points by
> use of creative editing...but uh...well they can already do that (and
> do, do that), so I don't really see your point...especially since it
> would be CLOSED CIRCUIT television, meaning third parties wouldn't
> have access to such footage and if they produced any footage from said
> source they would be arrested and prosecuted...so where's the problem?
>
> >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.
>
> Like it says in my .sig:
>
> "Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
> that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
> of its relevancy."
>
> >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?"
>
> Whoever has the most advanced technology at their disposable.
I disagree with you in some areas, but that was still an excellent post.
My compliments, Hatter. I apologize to you (and CP) for not making a
better answer myself, but I just don't have the time to spend on an
endeavor which I am not particularly speedy at to begin with.
Additionally, the longer the argument gets, the more its lengthening
seems to accelerate and there is almost never a clear-cut resolution to
the myriad points which can arise in such a discussion. I hope you'll
be happy with the statement that my respect for you has risen, and
though we may not agree on many points, I can at least consider your
views to be worthwhile of consideration.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|