quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Mixed feelings here

In some ways yeah, its good. Cops need to be accountable.

But on the other hand, the same sort of constant surveillance is coming down on you, and everyone else

A few examples... satellites very likely watch and record everything from above. Your license plates are scanned every time you pass a police car, and your photo is also taken with some of the newer systems and it is analyzed with facial recognition software. More and more malls and ATMs, gas stations, casinos etc use the same type of facial recognition systems and are tying in with the surveillance industry to record everyones' comings and goings

Google never forgets who searches for what

Your cell phone is tracked, your movements are also recorded that way

Your medical information, history etc is all stored in a central location now.

Etc etc etc

Orwell, meet everyone. Everyone, this is Orwell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Sanity I once had the same problem with those things you describe. Then my Father mentioned that we once all lived in small towns where everybody, especially the Church lady, knew exactly what everyone else was doing all of the time. I then realized this is really no different, and maybe just a little more anonymous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Another issue that is going to pop up due to this(full disclaimer ,I favor body cams on police officers)are privacy issues associated with freedom of information laws.
Small town police departments have already backed off due to the issues encountered.
On the one hand someone demands access to the tape under FOI,on the other a subject on the tape sues to maintain their privacy....placing the department squarely in the middle of litigation no matter which way they turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Mixed feelings here

In some ways yeah, its good. Cops need to be accountable.

But on the other hand, the same sort of constant surveillance is coming down on you, and everyone else

A few examples... satellites very likely watch and record everything from above. Your license plates are scanned every time you pass a police car, and your photo is also taken with some of the newer systems and it is analyzed with facial recognition software. More and more malls and ATMs, gas stations, casinos etc use the same type of facial recognition systems and are tying in with the surveillance industry to record everyones' comings and goings

Google never forgets who searches for what

Your cell phone is tracked, your movements are also recorded that way

Your medical information, history etc is all stored in a central location now.

Etc etc etc

Orwell, meet everyone. Everyone, this is Orwell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Paranoid much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sanity I once had the same problem with those things you describe. Then my Father mentioned that we once all lived in small towns where everybody, especially the Church lady, knew exactly what everyone else was doing all of the time. I then realized this is really no different, and maybe just a little more anonymous.

Thats assuming we will always be able to trust our government, and history has proven again and again thats not a wise assumption to make

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Thats assuming we will always be able to trust [insert item below], and history has proven again and again thats not a wise assumption to make


A. Those wearing pants.
B. Those with human skin
C. Those with Firearms
D. Those pushing a Religious Viewpoint
E. Those that drink water
F. Those that sleep horizontally

Point here, is that I could drop any number of examples for the above item and it would still be a true statement. Good government depends on having good people in those positions. People that take the issue as a duty rather than a celebrity spot or for ego purposes. There are those that wish to make a difference in their community because its in their heart and mind. I find many social workers are like this. An the egotistical types? They are often business leaders that feel government should operate the same way as businesses. An often find in the months that follow that government doesn't work in that manner.

Yes I understand that we should keep controls and an eye on government. But not to a paranoid level to which your going. If you have so much distrust of people, perhaps you should go live down in Antarctica....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Thats assuming we will always be able to trust [insert item below], and history has proven again and again thats not a wise assumption to make


A. Those wearing pants.
B. Those with human skin
C. Those with Firearms
D. Those pushing a Religious Viewpoint
E. Those that drink water
F. Those that sleep horizontally

Point here, is that I could drop any number of examples for the above item and it would still be a true statement. Good government depends on having good people in those positions. People that take the issue as a duty rather than a celebrity spot or for ego purposes. There are those that wish to make a difference in their community because its in their heart and mind. I find many social workers are like this. An the egotistical types? They are often business leaders that feel government should operate the same way as businesses. An often find in the months that follow that government doesn't work in that manner.

Yes I understand that we should keep controls and an eye on government. But not to a paranoid level to which your going. If you have so much distrust of people, perhaps you should go live down in Antarctica....

Thank you for clearing that up joether

"Liberals" do tend to trust their government absolutely, far more than others, as they see their government as the be all and the end all, and the answer to every question

Its as though you perceived that I insulted your version of Allah or Mohammad

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/body-worn-cameras-get-20m-federal-pilot-amid-baltimore-protests-n351721

It's good to see the administration take a proactive stand. Not just to keep citizens safe from bad cops, but to help maintain the credibility of all the good cops too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Another issue that is going to pop up due to this(full disclaimer ,I favor body cams on police officers)are privacy issues associated with freedom of information laws.
Small town police departments have already backed off due to the issues encountered.
On the one hand someone demands access to the tape under FOI,on the other a subject on the tape sues to maintain their privacy....placing the department squarely in the middle of litigation no matter which way they turn.

Yes, and then you have a legitimate camera malfunction, like Hillary's email server, during an important arrest and lawsuits fly about a police cover up. How long do you retain the data? Does the data have to be stored in special ways? Does one camera on one cop making an arrest show everything relevant to that arrest or are there things a cop would reasonably find noteworthy that are outside camera range that will now be argued out of court? Does a white cop assigned to a high crime rate area have to show a diverse "clientel" or have his job threatened because all of his stops happen to be minorities when some geek in a back room goes through the film just to look at stats and not conditions? Do cops entering private homes on a search warrant have the right to broadcast the interior of the home to the world during later developments in the case? Does the kid just walking home from school and passing the drug gang on the corner when the cop shows up with a camera have the right to be edited out of the film, and going back to Hillary's server again, how I'll that appear in court?

What I see is $20 million for cameras and billions for the ACLU.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sanity I once had the same problem with those things you describe. Then my Father mentioned that we once all lived in small towns where everybody, especially the Church lady, knew exactly what everyone else was doing all of the time. I then realized this is really no different, and maybe just a little more anonymous.

Thats assuming we will always be able to trust our government, and history has proven again and again thats not a wise assumption to make
[/quote

Yes I understand that we should keep controls and an eye on government. But not to a paranoid level to which your going. If you have so much distrust of people, perhaps you should go live down in Antarctica....

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sanity I once had the same problem with those things you describe. Then my Father mentioned that we once all lived in small towns where everybody, especially the Church lady, knew exactly what everyone else was doing all of the time. I then realized this is really no different, and maybe just a little more anonymous.

Thats assuming we will always be able to trust our government, and history has proven again and again thats not a wise assumption to make
[/quote

Yes I understand that we should keep controls and an eye on government. But not to a paranoid level to which your going. If you have so much distrust of people, perhaps you should go live down in Antarctica....

Hum, I guess if I were to join the Marines and my DI told me to like it or move to Antarctica, I'd have to accept that. Otherwise the argument seems petty. I also suppose that the liberals keeping and eye on and even running the city of Baltimore for the last sixty years or so validates your other point here. Oh wait, that's not right is it?

I believe Sanity's point, and I don't need to speak for him, pretty much was keeping an eye on the governments new ability to data mine us would be a good thing. Which would appear to comply with your statement until you turned it into a paranoid thing. Why is it you did that if you agreed with the point?