Forget.. mobs dressed in black, smashing cameras.

Post #3,345 by Ashton 8/1/01 12:58:11 AM Reply	Forget.. mobs dressed in black, smashing cameras. And: all which would have had to go Very wrong before.. that many folk would get off asses and away from a Tee Vee. Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such. I OTOH see that the reasons currently being bandied - have to do with crowd surveillance, face recognition - allegedly OK because "they mean well", want to see IF any of those faces are Wanted faces. Of necessity such pix must be compared with file pix - and if not stored this week, the techno is available and cheap - to store All pix. Just in case. Even to coordinate face-matches with time-codes of a variety of locations = tracking. And much more, as we well know: essentially a search warrant for NO probable cause - a fishing expedition 24/7. "A series of quantitative changes eventually constitute a qualitative change." I say that the direction of a possible, impending ramping-up of just plain surveillance is itself a qualitative change in the way Muricans might next live their lives. I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring. This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and only a private locked door.. where certain measured activities might be permitted (except sex of some kinds, ingesting plants of some kind, reading __ (not quite yet))-- while everywhere else, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared. No, we aren't there yet - but if we actually Get there: IMhO very much ugliness Will have occurred all along the way. And by that stage - we shall already have lost too much to list. Meanwhile, vigilance and action is the obviously sane course - and we shall soon enough see, how many Muricans care or do not care - if their daily activities are fodder for nothing less serious than, universal dossiers. Everyone reading this forum is capable of extrapolating the fact of many cameras + all which can be done with the images. And all can see what occurs (has already occurred) when techno makes something, once impossible: very very easy. This is far from a trivial prospect, or a mere 'quantitative change'. Protest all you like that - there is no real difference between a policeman observing faces in a crowd and happily matching One -- and, all of the above. I disagree in toto. Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater - all of this sound and fury shall be moot. We can see who will man the barricades if and when these have appeared. Meanwhile we may all hope this IS seen to be a moot topic. Via countless next rejections of the idea. A.
Post #3,423 by addison 8/1/01 11:06:07 AM Reply	Not the only thing forgotten. Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such. No, Ashton. Our fundamental disagreement is over the fact that I speaka English. You no speaka English, you speaka emotion. I have fundamental, basic PROBLEMS with cameras being everywhere. I don't like them everywhere. But they're NOT ILLEGAL. And I realise this. Nor, can I realistically point to any given case law and scream "THIS IS WRONG". I don't LIKE cops having databases. But I accept the realistic fact that they DO, and WILL. I want laws governing access and logs to said data, and accountability. I've said this many times. allegedly OK because "they mean well", Allegedly who? I never said that. I've disabused you twice of that notion. Are you illiterate or just stupid? (Sorry for the insult there, but I didn't know how else to ask that, since its been covered, and its what you said, not I). I didn't say that it was OK because they 'meant well'. I said that they weren't any different from any other public safety equipment. I still stand by that. Now, stop telling me what I "said" and stick to what I did say. I know its harder - a lot. But either that, or I have to presume that you're doing it intentionally. And intention deception - how do you classify that? I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring. You can deem the law of Gravity to be a crock of butter. It doesn't change it. That is the issue at hand. You ignoring it is your problem, not mine. Your focus is at issue, not mine. You wanting to redefine it away is.. well, you get the picture. In fact, that's the problem with your argument - you don't LIKE the actual issue, so you change it. "Red Herring?" No.. changing it away from that (or attempting to) is a red herring.... This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and only* a private locked door.. ... while everywhere else, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared.* That's how it is. If you're in a public place, its public. If you are in a private place, its private. If you don't like the concept of a permanent record - then you'll have to get a law passed FOR THAT PURPOSE. This isn't (merely) my opinion, its the law. And right now, the law doesn't cover what you do in public. Do what you will. Its your ignorance showing there. Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater Ya know. For all your insults, all your derisions, you've yet to provide one really tangible piece of evidence why this sort of thing is bad. Just one. I know its easier to insult, and to toss straw onto me. But c'mon, Ash. Just one. If they do, well, hell, why wouldn't they? Why not? When you're at the meeting frothing and declaring that things done in public is a red herring, and everybody looks at you and asks "What kind of mushroom did he have on his salad?" well, I don't think you'll do very well. I can tell you reasons I don't like the idea. I can come up with likely abuses of the system(s). But those are not legal reasons that they aren't allowed to put them up. Addison
Post #3,480 by Ashton 8/1/01 4:08:54 PM Reply	Once again you speak of The Law, monolithically ..as if it were utterly unambiguous. Implicit in that view IS digital think ultimately ending as Right/Wrong. If you are insulted by my characterizing the mindset behind this view of The Law as I have done - consider that your expressed idea of The Law is not uniformly shared. Libraries have been written about the nuances. And considering 'emotional' as pejorative is just another piece of cant. The people who elected to fight the Redcoats were &^#$^ emotional! about what they decided, and what consequences they accepted. Then after redefining emotion you presume to be sole possessor of correct English too. Ah it's so lovely when One Knows One is Right\ufffd While denying that you are spouting digital think: you persist in ignoring, no matter how many times I mention it - the "reserved powers" clause - as much The Law as any of the countless statutes officially on someone's books and - often contradictory and varied, from locale to locale. Lastly you adhere to your digital idea of Public/Private - also in your mind but not all minds. We #&@* LIVE all over and not just behind our locked doors (which are hardly our 'castles' either - given the laws regulating behavior even there). For you: The Law is permission from authority, already written. For me and my ilk - the State must prove it has the license from Constitutional implications, before it may embark upon any new program of limiting my "reserved powers" - not vice versa. It is only in your mind that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will. You think it's cut & dried - and why can't I just See that You are Right !? Hah. That's ~ same message as the folks that ring doorbell and will explain to me all unasked: how the Universe works! - and Why can't I just See it ? You emotional, about your purely intellectual perfectly logical / legal exercise here? Nahhhh. I demur. More cameras soon? Barricades sooner. A.
Post #3,534 by addison 8/1/01 8:14:09 PM Reply	What can I say? But you are a low-down, out and out, dirty liar. If you are insulted I am insulted by direct falsehoods, and their repeated assertations after being (mistakingly presuming they were innocent mistake) corrected. I see there is no point. If you get in a corner, you lie. It is only in your mind* that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will.* Nope. Been stated many times. The only way you could say that was that you - you are implementing the "Big Lie". Like I told you before - you are the falsehood-spouting mouthpiece of irrational 'meedja'... Talk not of Rush, of the Meedja - for you speak of yourself. Except now I realise you're doing it on purpose. So while I attempt to use facts, and correctly state what (at least I think, and beg pardon if I misunderstand) people are saying, you are out spreading lies. Lies lies and more lies. What more can I say? I tell the truth, you lie. I presume its a mistake, you lie more. So fine - continue your dishonesty. Not a lot of my business - and I'll just tarnish my reputation and my honor - which I guard scrupulously - trying to discuss with you as you continue to lie time and again. So if you insist on being known as a hypocrite, and worse - a direct, unabashed liar - more power to you. For you have no excuse for that description being any sort of mistake, or accident. Not any more. (I also would presume this means the end of rants about the "Repo lying", were you not as blatant a hypocrite as a liar.) Addison PS - My very sincere apologies to the rest of the people here, especially those who, despite disagreeing with me, do the honor and favor of discussing with me. I've attemped to keep the vitrol down, and merely state what had happened here in the name of civility, and if I failed, again, my apologies.
Post #3,553 by Ashton 8/1/01 9:58:21 PM Reply	I regret you are taking a characterization of a mindset - one which I see you apparently defending, in each reply - as if I imagined that You personally ARE that mindset. I have treated your assertions as being (your best understanding of) "what The Law states / does not state" currently. I am arguing with the mindset for which you appear to be an apologist: A) The law is clear about cameras - they are allowed and more will be allowed (whether you or I like it). B) Short of making new laws - any other actions are ~ despicable (my summary not your word). I have noted your also stated 'reservations': as each new er flaw of present legalistic application, is mentioned by one or another. Obviously! you are not "happy" with The Law as it is often interpreted. Either. Yet you rebut my comments re the Source of (at least our) Law, the means for gaining attention to unworkable ones, and the occasions where civil disobedience has been required in the past: as if those concepts are foreign to you / anathema to Murican behavior / irresponsible if not scurrilous, even to speak of. I do not need to LIE about "what you might, would? will!~ do" re say, some next proliferation of surveillance equipment near-to home or far away. I have never pretended to know (since: I couldn't). Your reductio of the emotional quality which lies behind every action (which anyone ever deems "important") is as insulting as the LIES you claim I am telling about YOU. Can we get this straight? I have No Idea what you might do or not do re any aspect of this topic. I argue with your IDEAS, and your characterization of ~ "what the problem is" - and do not confuse those with YOU. It is always and everywhere Devil's Advocacy IMhO unless and until a proponent says: "this is the way it is supposed to be". (Rush allegedly does that a lot, for ex.) THEN it may become 'personal' - the self-ID with the POV has been made. Argue as passionately for a POV as you want. Expect ridicule of the POV by those who find it flawed. (They certainly will, if mine is flawed) If it really is your POV - the ridicule is STILL about the POV. Personally, I consider any discussion of 'surveillance' to go to the heart of "whatever 'personal freedom' might mean", anywhere at all. And I will oppose its ascent in Murica, as assiduously as I would have opposed nascent Nazism in Germany (and would likely be dead as consequence - if I hadn't fled the country in time.) If such a trend occurs here: I cannot ever claim ignorance of where it was leading. And choices will be ~same, I expect: fled or dead. I doubt you are 'for increased surveillance', either; just a guess. I know what I will tolerate - not what you will. Nor do I presume that I know that. If this is not clear enough.. then ditto: What can I say? A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!