Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Pretty sure it's a rule by now. You can't mention public surveillance without making an Orwellian allusion.

[scriver]

The point is that first people consider any rape that's not stranger danger "not what rape is really like," tell women that it's their fault and need to protect themselves--and that 1/6 of them will be raped, and then guys feel offended by the women, as opposed to by the rapists causing this problem, if they're asked to give lone women late at night a wide berth.

*shrog*

Ah yes, the male hivemind that controls every facet of society. Forgot about that one.

...I'm not sure whether to comment on your post itself or on the ridiculousness of posting something like that right after another jump-to-conclusions argument has just been dissolved.

[Loud Whispers]

Anyway, since we're not allowed to walk between extremes, let's turn in another direction.

Mass surveillance, Cameras on Every corner, personal drones following you home, ensuring everyone is save and secure.

Tl;dr: London

[winner]

I once accidentally shot myself in the crotch with pepper spray.  (I thought "pepper blaster" mean it was a strange kind of pepper grinder). I can report that capsaicin is quite effective incapacitating me for several hours.

[Steeled]

I'm not sure what people have against public surveillance... There are enough cameras in Sydney that police can have some control over street crime, although the interesting effect here is that while crime continues to go down, publicity of that crime goes up and people think it is becoming more of a problem, so anti-crime policy gets more and more extreme, and that might be a good thing to some degree, just not as draconian as we see here.

Do you work for the NSA? Because it sounds like you work for the NSA.

[Max White]

If I did, do you really think I would still use the internet, knowing what we do?

[Steeled]

If I did, do you really think I would still use the internet, knowing what we do?

You have to garner support somehow. Also if senators, congress and assemblymen can except themselves from laws, I'd think a government agency would look after their own.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'M ONTO YOU G-MAN!

[Leafsnail]

Isn't the NSA controversy due to private rather than public surveillance though?

[Max White]

Honestly? We can't really tell the difference most of the time. Data is data, and after all, the guys at the pirate bay insist copying isn't stealing, so it isn't like we are actually taking anything.

[Steeled]

Isn't the NSA controversy due to private rather than public surveillance though?

So the government openly watching your every movement is better than them secretly watching your every move? The government shouldn't be allowed to do either without a permit, and then they shouldn't be allowed to spy on a few hundred million people.
The federal government shouldn't be able to have such vast powers, and people should stop thinking it's a good thing. When the former head of the KGB says he's jealous of the NSA and how he'd never be able to get away with that people should realize somethings wrong.

Why people feel such a compelling need to give away their rights to a faceless, unaccountable government I have no idea.

[BFEL]

You know, I wouldn't really care if something watched my every move if I had any confidence it was just doing it impassively as opposed to selling all my secrets to the highest bidder and generally using it to be the Legion of Doom.

Basically, surveillance would be alright if it wasn't synonymous with complete, absolute dickitude. Which, y'know good luck with that.

[Leafsnail]

There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.

[Steeled]

There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.

I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.

[Graknorke]

There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.

I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.

Again, public is different to private.

[Steeled]

There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.

I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.

Again, public is different to private.

Are you telling me that people have no expectation of privacy in their own fenced in backyards?