asprilla

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...3-1702,00.html

"His arrest came after detectives yesterday released CCTV footage of a man wanted over the home invasion and assaults, as a large squad of police worked on the murder investigation."


Just wondering how the CCTV nay-sayers will respond.

bigAPE

I've avoided this whole CCTV discussion, as I don't think it's relevant to the issue of Internet Censorship, which is what we should all be far more worried about.

However, my personal opinion is that I don't have a real problem with CCTV cameras. I don't in principle have an issue with the authorities anonymously monitoring day to day life using CCTV in the same way that I don't have a real issue with some of the anonymous monitoring cookies in the Net. I do however have a HUGE issue with the authorities actively restricting my activities, either physically or on-line.

I feel the same way about ID Cards in the UK. In my view Monitoring (CCTV) and Authentication (ID Cards) are OK, but blanket Restriction and Censorship is not.

Al

asprilla

Good point mate, sorry, I don't want to take the thread off topic. Perhaps the CCTV stuff should be left alone, the main issue at hand is freedom of speech & internet censorship:



Personally I do not feel that my "freedoms" are being gradually eroded.

Freedom is all about doing what you want to do, and being able to make choices. At the same time, our society has legislated against many, many acts that are deemed as morally unacceptable, unfair or dangerous to individuals & businesses. Robbery, murder, fraud...etc, etc. The list is very long. We are not truly free - we are free within the framework of rules that we have set for ourselves.

Our society continually makes determinations about the makeup of this framework of rules. We are the ones who ultimately set the rules.

Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about violations of freedom of speech...and I am concerned about internet censorship (who should determine what we can & can't see on the internet? And how will it be implemented ) - but I don't see these as big issues to be honest. When you step back and look at the "whole", I think we still enjoy a great degree of freedom and will continue to do so.

rabsody

I am always concerned about govt. playing 'Big Brother' and subscribe to the 'give em an inch and they will take a mile' theory. But I suppose when you think about it, all other forms of mass communication, such as TV, film, newspapers, radio etc, are censored in some form.

Do you also consider that to be an infringement of your freedom? (BTW - just playing devil's advocate here).

asprilla

Well, not me. I don't think that a little media censorship here and there really has any impact on my freedom. But then, there is a line somewhere and when that line is crossed, I'll probably feel differently about it and start jumping up and down.


sorry - I'm not sure if that post was directed at me or someone else but I've answered anyway... heh heh!

rabsody

No it wasn't directed at you specifically, just trying to throw a different slant on it .. but thanks for answering!

bigAPE

There is a distinct difference between Regulation and Censorship.

For ten years I worked for the body in the UK that vetted Television Advertising for approval to air. We had a public, open, Code of Practice which all the advertisers and broadcasters have to meet, things like if they made an outrageous medical, technical or financial claim in their ad they had to actually provide evidence.

Some advertising was deemed too risky for children and was given an "Ex Kids" restriction for broadcast, which meant that the advert was only to be shown after 19:00. Some more risky advertising was consigned to post 21:00 and even 23:00. Only rarely did some smart arse agency come up with a commercial which was so overboard (naked boobs flying about, sex on screen, swearing, etc) we wouldn't allow them to air it without modification and even then it would only need altering.

That is Regulation and in my opinion that is how it should be handled. It's also how it currently is handled in most countries, including here in Australia (although the organisation here seems to be smoking dope most days).

Censorship, on the other hand, would not allow any of those products to even be aired, hiding the fact that they exist.

The problem is that you can't Regulate the Internet, anyone who believes they can (e.g. Steven Conroy) is a pompous moron. Australian doesn't own or manage the "Internet" it is a global platform which can not be regulated by one government in one country which has the population of New York.

Because these people can't regulate the Internet their gut uneducated reaction is to censor it. This has been the case with religious and moral zealots for centuries. Censor what you don't understand or are frightened of, usually under the guise of a civil service.

Al

rabsody

Hm, yes, you're right that the problem is the internet can't be regulated. That's the main strength and weakness of it I guess. We can all contribute whatever we want towards it. I love reading about all some loony cult or conspiracy theory or salacious gossip or whatever ... from their perspective.

My primary concerns about the net are:

(a) the desensitising of (particularly) young adults in the areas of porn and violence/gore. who wants to look in detail at real life dead bodies mangled in a road accident on the net?! or someone whose brains are spilling on the pavement? sexual health workers say that kids now experimenting sexually are bypassing the petting and heading straight for the hardcore stuff because internet porn has become so fundamental in their sexual education. it's all a little bit different from glimpsing a nipple in your dad's playboy at 13/14 and it is shaping the sexuality of the upcoming generations. whether that's good or bad is subjective, but i think it's a bit of a shame.

(b) deviants of all forms (paedophiles, snuff movies, people who like phil collins etc) now have an avenue to connect with others of the same ilk whereas before tinternet this would have probably been extremely difficult. finding others who share the same "interests" normalises their behaviour and often exacerbates it when they find like minded individuals.

I'm not advocating censorship but if there were two areas that could effectively be censored, these would be my pick.

ozzieeagle

Take your point about deviants finding one another and having their values reinforced. That is probably the most damaging outcome of the internet in daily lives.

Re the Violence on the net, another totally negative aspect, but is it worth censoring, maybe but only if it can be absolutely proven that it's damaging society. Personally I cannot understand the motives of people that make movies like the Saw series, and have it come under the banner of entertainment. So the net is not alone in the potrayal of violence and gore.

Now the Sex aspect, is possibly the most debatable. Basically it depends on where you are in history as to how humans view this complex part of our daily lives. From the Good old Romans, who gave us The Orgy... To the Victorians who made glimpsing at ankles erotic. No one will ever get right and wrong out of where sex stands in our daily lives. I wonder if people in distant past times debated the rights and wrongs of erotic paintings and sculptures.

I guess it comes down to whether you beleive people are naturally monogamous or polygamous.

As for home truths, again thats all about personal perception.

bigAPE

I totally agree, these sites do exist and are simply shocking but you need to put it into context. These sites are rare and while the content is insane it is not something which children will just stumble upon. With the aid of filter software (available from most shops or free from the government) the machine they use will not allow them to find it even if they wanted too. That is the process used by families in free countries all around the world. It works. It's not fool-proof, but neither is the mandatory countrywide filtering that the government is suggesting and that will effect every computers speed of access to the Internet.

I, like you, wish these people would all spontaneously combust next time they go to the toilet, but they won't. They are the slimiest dirtiest dregs of our species, but sadly they are also smart due to the knowledge and secrecy they have to employ to hide their perversion. They don't use websites to communicate, they use other encrypted secure electronic services (and I'm not talking about Bit Torrent) to pass their smut around. Services which these filters won't even touch. In fact if anything it will force them to be smarter and even harder to catch.

The government should put this $44m into extra federal police and computer equipment to actually, physically, catch and arrest these freaks!

Al

Hutch

The thread's about the whole issue of personal freedoms so I'm more than happy for CCTV to be included in it.

As to your point. It proves, ermmm, what? Who's to say that the police weren't going to solve the crime anyway, without the CCTV footage? Who's to say that in a million other cases the focus on CCTV footage hasn't actually impeded the progress of a case as plod chases up red herrings, blind leads and blurry suspects? Quoting one incident where the use of CCTV may or may not have helped proves sweet FA.

Or let's put it another way. Let's say that I go out one night and get totally pissed. On my way home I run a man down who, it's later discovered, is a child molester. Do we then say, "Great, pissed people driving cars are the solution to the paedophile issue - let's legalise drunk driving."? Ludicrous example, yes, but the logic is exactly the same.

To be honest, I'm absolutely amazed by people's total disregard for their own basic human rights. Several people on this thread have said they're not fussed by things like constant video surveilance of our every move, of the censorship of free information on the Internet, of the right, even, to protest. I wonder how far the government would have to go before those people woke up and realised that they were living in a totalitarian state?

jond

I was reading in one of the OHs magazines the other day about a serial killer in Perth who they believe has killed at least 3 woman. The Police have CCTV footage of a suspect, but it is such poor quality that they have never released it because they think it would harm their investigations rather than help them.

jond

To be honest, I'm absolutely amazed by people's total disregard for their own basic human rights. Several people on this thread have said they're not fussed by things like constant video surveillance of our every move, of the censorship of free information on the Internet, of the right, even, to protest. I wonder how far the government would have to go before those people woke up and realised that they were living in a totalitarian state?[/QUOTE]





That reminds me of a line from a song that I can't fully remember or who sang it, but i think it went something like this.

"I would rather die as a free man, than live as a puppet or a slave"

Never a truer word spoken

asprilla

I am not setting out to prove anything... I simply quoted a story which very clearly demonstrates the usefulness of CCTV. Can you seriously argue that CCTV has not been of any use in this case?

If the logic is the same, then why has your drink-driving "solution" not been implemented yet?

Tableland

This is not legislation yet though is it? Looking (very quickly, supposed to be working) at the mechanics of this the socialists will have no difficulty getting this through the House, will they? They have a significant majority there. As for the Senate, I know this is a closer call. The Coalition and the Greens are not supporting this (how could any liberal support this FFS?) and they have 42 seats in the Senate, whereas the ALP and Family First have 33 seats and there is one independent. Will they mimic the British socialists, again, and copy when they bribed the DUP over the 42 day detention outrage, and do the same by buying the Greens?

So how does this get through the upper chamber? My analysis of Aussie politics is cursory at best so I'm interested in this. It's not already law is it?