|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 16, 2014 11:13:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 14:30:23 GMT -5
Just heard that if we had the techology of today, Amelia Earhart's plane would have been found a long time ago. Anything can be used for good or bad. As someone (you?) noted that because of cameras in just about every store now, crime is decreasing. Spying has always gone on, and now even more intrusive being that we have the technology and it's going to be used. It has been used to prevent terror attacks, and at the same time it's being used to spy on everyone. If it can be done, it will be done. And it is going to even get worse. I really don't know anymore what to think about it. Does the good make up for the bad?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 16, 2014 15:14:54 GMT -5
When has it been used to prevent terrorist attacks?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 15:19:22 GMT -5
Well, that's what I've been led to believe. I can't prove or disprove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 15:46:12 GMT -5
Just heard that if we had the techology of today, Amelia Earhart's plane would have been found a long time ago. Anything can be used for good or bad. As someone (you?) noted that because of cameras in just about every store now, crime is decreasing. It's a bit more complex than that. From what little research I've looked at, camera surveillance may decrease crime if things are set up so authorities are alerted immediately and can arrive faster on the scene. But that means you're going to need people who watch those cameras and report anything immediately. Usually that is not what happens, so most of the time what we get is surveillance for the sake of surveillance (or worse, surveillance for the sake of keeping tabs on people).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 18:40:10 GMT -5
Well, that's what's been reported. And I believe it. And cameras don't have to mean that police have to be called right away. Surveillance cameras are able to get images of perpetrators and also to prove or disprove alibies, i.e., helps to solve crimes. Not to mention the technology of forensics. And these days most of us have been finger printed for Driver's Licenses, or jobs, etc. So we do lose our privacy but if used properly can be more beneficial than detrimental. That's the sticking point--the used properly part. Who knows what the future holds.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 16, 2014 19:53:59 GMT -5
Most surveillance is there for social control. And there have been no cases, that I am aware of, where surveillance cameras prevented terrorist attacks. Does it not bother you that your government (via the NSA) monitors all your phone calls, your emails, your online activities etc?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 23:32:39 GMT -5
It absolutely does bother me.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 16, 2014 23:49:50 GMT -5
People are apathetic about surveillance because they can't see it. They see discreet cameras on street corners, but they don't appear threatening in any way. There's a disconnect. It's like one-way mirrors in police stations. The people being questioned know what they are, and they know they are being watched by people in the next room, but they can't help behaving as if they were normal mirrors. Unless you can see something, it isn't real. If, instead of surveillance cameras, there were police spies perched in observation towers on every corner, people would be outraged because it would be clear to them that they were effectively living in an open prison, their every move monitored and assessed. And recorded, incidentally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 6:47:16 GMT -5
Well, that's what's been reported. And I believe it. And cameras don't have to mean that police have to be called right away. Surveillance cameras are able to get images of perpetrators and also to prove or disprove alibies, i.e., helps to solve crimes. Not to mention the technology of forensics. And these days most of us have been finger printed for Driver's Licenses, or jobs, etc. So we do lose our privacy but if used properly can be more beneficial than detrimental. That's the sticking point--the used properly part. Who knows what the future holds. Sure, but that doesn't prevent crime, it just makes it less work for the police to find a perp once the crime has already been committed.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 22, 2014 8:36:33 GMT -5
One summer night, after I'd locked up my clinic, I decided to walk into the city centre - less than a mile distance - to meet up with some of my friends. It was around 11.30pm. I walked for a few minutes (it was a fairly busy main street), and then I felt a drop of rain on my face. Now, if you're familiar with Irish weather you know that a drop of rain on your face is the prelude to a downpour. Always. So, as I was wearing only a light jacket, I stopped, turned, and headed back in the opposite direction, towards the taxi rank. Two minutes later a car screeches to a halt beside me, and a group of men wearing flak jackets jump out and surround me. One of them is shining a bright torch in my face. I don't need to see any identification to know they are plain-clothes policemen. Within seconds a marked police car also pulls up, and three uniformed policemen jump out. So I'm thinking they've obviously mistaken me for somebody else. Their demeanour is aggressive. They ask me if I have any ID. I tell them no, and that I don't need to carry ID. They demand to know my name, so I give them a name. They demand to know where I'm coming from, and where I'm going. I tell them that's none of their business, and I ask them what all this is about. "Why were you behaving suspiciously?" "What are you talking about?" "You were walking, and then you stopped and went back the way you'd come. We were watching you on CCTV. Why did you do that?" "You're kidding." "No, we're not kidding. Do we look like we're kidding? Why did you suddenly stop and turn back?" "I was going to walk into town, but I changed my mind." Why should I tell them the reason? "You changed your mind!" "Yes, I changed my mind." "Just like that? For no reason?" "That's it." "And you expect us to believe that?" "That's up to you." "Why are you out so late?" "It's half eleven!" It went on like this for a good ten minutes. On the one hand - now that I knew why they'd stopped me - I thought it was hilarious. On the other hand, I was well aware that these Special Branch guys weren't above "finding" illicit substances in your pockets, or breaking your arm because you "resisted arrest". And while all this is going on there are flashing lights, radio conversations with police HQ etc. Anyone passing by would have thought it was the scene of a major sting operation. They gave up eventually, and got back in their cars. But not before warning me that they would be "watching me" in future.
Now, you might think that situation was farcical; and so it was. However, I have no doubt at all that if the same thing had happened to someone who was more easily intimidated by the police, they would probably have spent the night in the cells, and possibly have been charged with "loitering with intent" or some other trumped-up charge. They backed off me because I had the right accent and I was able to argue with them - in other words I was more trouble than I was worth. But someone with the "wrong" accent, or who was the "wrong" colour, could easily have been railroaded for some unsolved case, or beaten up or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 22, 2014 10:20:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 20:09:24 GMT -5
Well, that's what's been reported. And I believe it. And cameras don't have to mean that police have to be called right away. Surveillance cameras are able to get images of perpetrators and also to prove or disprove alibies, i.e., helps to solve crimes. Not to mention the technology of forensics. And these days most of us have been finger printed for Driver's Licenses, or jobs, etc. So we do lose our privacy but if used properly can be more beneficial than detrimental. That's the sticking point--the used properly part. Who knows what the future holds. Sure, but that doesn't prevent crime, it just makes it less work for the police to find a perp once the crime has already been committed. Well, it would sure prevent that particular perp from committing another crime while incarcerated, wouldn't it, Markus?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 22:39:01 GMT -5
One summer night, after I'd locked up my clinic, I decided to walk into the city centre - less than a mile distance - to meet up with some of my friends. It was around 11.30pm. I walked for a few minutes (it was a fairly busy main street), and then I felt a drop of rain on my face. Now, if you're familiar with Irish weather you know that a drop of rain on your face is the prelude to a downpour. Always. So, as I was wearing only a light jacket, I stopped, turned, and headed back in the opposite direction, towards the taxi rank. Two minutes later a car screeches to a halt beside me, and a group of men wearing flak jackets jump out and surround me. One of them is shining a bright torch in my face. I don't need to see any identification to know they are plain-clothes policemen. Within seconds a marked police car also pulls up, and three uniformed policemen jump out. So I'm thinking they've obviously mistaken me for somebody else. Their demeanour is aggressive. They ask me if I have any ID. I tell them no, and that I don't need to carry ID. They demand to know my name, so I give them a name. They demand to know where I'm coming from, and where I'm going. I tell them that's none of their business, and I ask them what all this is about. "Why were you behaving suspiciously?" "What are you talking about?" "You were walking, and then you stopped and went back the way you'd come. We were watching you on CCTV. Why did you do that?" "You're kidding." "No, we're not kidding. Do we look like we're kidding? Why did you suddenly stop and turn back?" "I was going to walk into town, but I changed my mind." Why should I tell them the reason? "You changed your mind!" "Yes, I changed my mind." "Just like that? For no reason?" "That's it." "And you expect us to believe that?" "That's up to you." "Why are you out so late?" "It's half eleven!" It went on like this for a good ten minutes. On the one hand - now that I knew why they'd stopped me - I thought it was hilarious. On the other hand, I was well aware that these Special Branch guys weren't above "finding" illicit substances in your pockets, or breaking your arm because you "resisted arrest". And while all this is going on there are flashing lights, radio conversations with police HQ etc. Anyone passing by would have thought it was the scene of a major sting operation. They gave up eventually, and got back in their cars. But not before warning me that they would be "watching me" in future. Now, you might think that situation was farcical; and so it was. However, I have no doubt at all that if the same thing had happened to someone who was more easily intimidated by the police, they would probably have spent the night in the cells, and possibly have been charged with "loitering with intent" or some other trumped-up charge. They backed off me because I had the right accent and I was able to argue with them - in other words I was more trouble than I was worth. But someone with the "wrong" accent, or who was the "wrong" colour, could easily have been railroaded for some unsolved case, or beaten up or whatever. I thought you said that this only happens in he U.S.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 22, 2014 22:49:34 GMT -5
Nooo. I never said that. The UK is 100 times more surveilled than the US. And Ireland only slightly less than the UK. You're lagging behind the mass surveillance curve by a decade or so. You still have time to nip it in the bud over there. But will you? I doubt it. There has been no great outcry in the US about the NSA listening in to Americans' phone calls, or collecting millions of recordings from "private" videocams in people's homes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 22:59:42 GMT -5
But I (and you) didn't mention NSA here, did I/you? You're still talking about surveillance (god, I hate spellng that) but what you went through was a KGB kind of interagation type encounter, wasn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 23:21:58 GMT -5
I think I understand you now...you believe that surveilance is to catch the inncent, whereas we see it as proctection. If enough criminals are caught by cameras, they might think twice before commiting that stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 23:34:47 GMT -5
In the last month here, there was a woman walking home from a job at a restaurant in Ala Mona Center. She was walking to her home which was a building in Waikiki. When she got to the entrance to her building, a man accosted her, throwing her violently to the ground and stole here purse. He got away in car waitng for him. The woman sustained internal bleeding and after being in a coma for three weeks, diied. No one could ever see how this person could ever be caught. But unbenowst to us in the public, a store with cameras shown that the perp passed seeing that he was following the woman, caught him and now he has been charged with manslaughter, which in itself is injustice. The man should be at least be charged with 2nd degree murder. In Hawaii 1st degree miurder can only be charged with 1st degree murder if two or more people had been murdered. I disagree with that very ferousitlly.
Barrny, I understand how you think. but I believe you're living in a world that doesn't exist anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 23, 2014 0:14:46 GMT -5
In my opinion the relationship between the security industry and the government is far too cosy. Governments want more surveillance and other security technology to monitor and control the population, and the security industry - which overlaps with the arms industry - is worth trillions of dollars annually, and essentially bribes government officials into investing in security technology, whether it be CCTV cameras, facial recognition software, "crowd control" (ie, dealing with protesters) weaponry, security barriers or whatever. It suits the government - not just the US government, but governments in general - to either privatize security, or leave it in the hands of (largely) unanswerable and unregulated agencies like the NSA and the CIA. So, for instance, there are tens of thousands of "private soldiers" in places like Iraq, working for the US government, but not subject to any of the rules and regulations that apply to members of the regular army. By hiring private contractors to do the dirty work, governments remove themselves from direct responsibility. Similarly, the vast majority of the people who monitor CCTV images and "private" phone calls - are hired on a contractual basis. They are not members of any police force.
Security measures - including street CCTV - are sold to the public as being in the interests of increased safety, crime reduction etc. However, a number of studies have shown that the benefits are tiny compared with both the amounts of money invested in these systems and the level of intrusion they represent. For example the presence of CCTV cameras has almost zero effect on the number of crimes committed on the street. Even in large stores with prominent CCTV cameras, there is virtually no reduction in shoplifting. The reality is that most criminals don't pay any attention to CCTV. They just regard it as an occupational hazard. And CCTV is only very rarely introduced as evidence in serious crime trials.
The real reason behind the push for increased surveillance is social control. Especially since the advent of the web, it is easier for people to organise, to share information, to set up campaigns and protest movements. From the government's perspective, the people now have too much power. This was highlighted in the early days of the US occupation of Iraq, when Donald Rumsfeld railed against the web and the freedom it gave people to report cases of torture, expose the government's lies etc. Surveillance is all about the government maintaining control over the people. It has nothing at all to do with keeping people safe. Of course there are cases where CCTV can be used to identify murderers, robbers etc. But that's not the reason for the surveillance. That's merely a side benefit.
If public safety was the issue, CCTV cameras would be "live" only. Or the tapes would be kept for a few days. In fact they are stored permanently, and have been since they were first introduced. Why? Because facial recognition technology is being improved all the time, and soon it will be possible to type a person's name into a computer and track their movements on a TV screen, not just in real time - it is already possible to do that - but retrospectively, going back 10, 15 or 20 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 0:31:11 GMT -5
Exceipt you forget one thing. The U.S. is composed of 50 startes, unllke where you live. There was a time where our state decided to use vans to hide to spot vehichle that were speeding. Didn''t take long before the people protested and the vans were done away with. You've got to compare democracies verus those govenments who are not. Instead of critiziing the U.S, maybe you need to start more at home. Of course, criticizing your own is so much harder than some other. You don't have responsiblity for "the other". just criticism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 0:40:12 GMT -5
So, in other words, you don't care one whit what I have to say about this topic. Of course, you never asked my opinion, so I can't actually complain. So I won't complain anymore. I'll just think it. Just let me know when you believe that my thoughts are wrong. Then we will really have something to talk about.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 23, 2014 1:15:56 GMT -5
I'm not criticizing anyone. There is as much - well, almost as much - apathy about mass surveillance in Europe as there has been in the US. As I said above, people just don't "get it". They will eventually, but by then it will be too late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 1:23:05 GMT -5
I'm not criticizing anyone. There is as much - well, almost as much - apathy about mass surveillance in Europe as there has been in the US. As I said above, people just don't "get it". They will eventually, but by then it will be too late. This proves you do read minds. Because thought (hoped) this is what you really thought. I'm trying to "get it" but so much of it, is so hard to know what is right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 1:38:44 GMT -5
I know your night is my day (unlss you're my cat..haha). I hope you're feeling better, and I'm signing off now. I'm early to bed and early to rise kind of person. I so appreciate everyone here who participates. Otherwise, who are we? Just a tiny blip in the internet world. We're not that. Good niight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 11:15:39 GMT -5
Sure, but that doesn't prevent crime, it just makes it less work for the police to find a perp once the crime has already been committed. Well, it would sure prevent that particular perp from committing another crime while incarcerated, wouldn't it, Markus? Sure, but in my experience that's not what people mean when they talk about crime prevention. If that is what you meant, sure I agree. But that still requires that people actually sift through all that surveillance data to get those couple minutes where they can see the crime being committed. It's not something that happens magically just because somebody puts up a camera, but that's how a lot of people seem to think surveillance technology works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 13:57:31 GMT -5
But combing through suveillance videos is not an everyday thing. And besides, that kind of investigation is a part of the job. And I think you're underestimating people and what they know. There are so many criminal investigation shows on TV now that we are better educated about those kind of things. Maybe too much. You'd think criminals are catching on, too. But even knowing so much, most still do stupid things. The explanation I heard was that they don't take into account the overwhelming emotions that they are subject to while committing crimes which makes them careless. Or maybe some just really think they're invincible. Or they're just plain desperate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 13:11:42 GMT -5
I could scream! I just wrote a three-paragraph posting just when I clicked on create, FACTS went down and a screen came up saying sorry, they were having a problem at the moment. Well, I'm having a problem now! Arrrrrrgh!
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 24, 2014 16:12:42 GMT -5
Never type anything directly onto a website, Lily, or whatever you've written is liable to be lost because of timeouts, disconnections and various other glitches. Open Notepad and type your message there. Then copy and paste it to the text box on the site. I do all my work, and write all my messages, emails etc on a Notepad page which I save periodically.
Years ago, when I was writing Quantum Perception, I wrote an entire chapter comprising 12-15 pages in one all-night marathon - it was extremely complex subject matter, with references to various sources - and when I'd finished, just as I was about to save it, there was a power blackout lasting less than a second, and my screen went blank. Since then I've written everything in Notepad, saving as I go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 16:33:20 GMT -5
I know you're right. I've done that before, but I guess I'm just too lazy. Anyway, I thought I was safe because I chose the feature in my profile where the last thing you wrote without it being posted comes back to you in a screen where you can use it again or not. I feel personally persecuted now, haha. Anyway, when I write directly on FACTS, I will continually copy and paste before I post. I'll re-do my post later. It's about my personal experience with Cyber Crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 20:36:47 GMT -5
Okay, I'll try this again.
Anyway, there's going to have to be some policing of the internet because of the hideous cyber criminals hanging out there. I was one of the of those that got caught in the Target fisaco. Fortunately, even though it took a week or so for us customers to get the word about the hacking of customer's financial data, my debit card apparently hadn't been sold and used yet (by internet criminals). As soon as our knew about this, I right away canceled my card and got a new one. And I had to pay $20 for the privilege. So I got screwed anyway. I bet banks are making a killing on this. It can't cost all of $20 to issue new cards for current customers.
Another cyber crime that I got caught in was when I caught a cyber crime virus It took over my desktop with huge red letters outlining all the nasty things I was into, and I could get rid of it by purchasing the cure--with my credit card. (Can you imagine if this happened to someone at their job?) It actually kind of spoofed a virus checking program and I was almost fooled--but thankfully I wasn't. I tried turning off my computer, but the stuff was still there when I turned it back on. Anyway, thankfully (again) these sub-humans had to keep the internet working in order to get my credit card number, so therefore I was able to go to the symantec website (I have Norton Anti-virus program) and download a tool to get rid of this junk. By the way--if you want a laugh, I caught this virus when I clicked on the image of a Far Out cartoon deer that was standing up against a tree with a target tatooed on his chest. Haha.
Anyway, I no longer use a debit card to shop, just cash. Online I use a credit card, which is much safer because it doesn't connect right to your bank account. Lesson learned. When the West was wild, a cattle rustler were hung from the highest tree. These modern day rustlers deserve nothing better.
|
|