Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Dec 30th 2005, 12:41 pm
#1
Pass me the Marmite..
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA.
Posts: 864
Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Probably another contraversial topic but I'm open for debate on something I don't really understand (perhaps it needs a poll). But anyway :-
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
Cameras even in the USA too have helped put away perverts. Most recently, the bxxstard who took the young girl at the garage and killed her. At LEAST he can't do it again now.
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced.
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
Cameras even in the USA too have helped put away perverts. Most recently, the bxxstard who took the young girl at the garage and killed her. At LEAST he can't do it again now.
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced.
Dec 30th 2005, 12:52 pm
#2
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by franc11s
Probably another contraversial topic but I'm open for debate on something I don't really understand (perhaps it needs a poll). But anyway :-
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
Cameras even in the USA too have helped put away perverts. Most recently, the bxxstard who took the young girl at the garage and killed her. At LEAST he can't do it again now.
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced.
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
Cameras even in the USA too have helped put away perverts. Most recently, the bxxstard who took the young girl at the garage and killed her. At LEAST he can't do it again now.
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced.
They have their place, but they don't replace real police officers, they can't arrest anyone and they don't stop crime; cameras only move crime to another place (like a non-silent burglar alarm), or make criminals improve their tactics.
Dec 30th 2005, 12:54 pm
#3
Account Closed
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,266
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by franc11s
Probably another contraversial topic but I'm open for debate on something I don't really understand (perhaps it needs a poll). But anyway :-
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
Cameras even in the USA too have helped put away perverts. Most recently, the bxxstard who took the young girl at the garage and killed her. At LEAST he can't do it again now.
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced.
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
Cameras even in the USA too have helped put away perverts. Most recently, the bxxstard who took the young girl at the garage and killed her. At LEAST he can't do it again now.
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced.
They fought for freedom from tyranny and have tended to resist government interference in their personal lives ever since.
What do you think is the reason for the Second Amendment?
Dec 30th 2005, 12:57 pm
#4
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by franc11s
We even have the technology today, to automatically scan every web cam or security camera and compare every face found with that on a database (I think that is how the UK works). It won't be long before it's real time (or already is), just like they do with number plates in the UK.
The argument against that is you'll only be able to pick out known persons.
Again, this technology has its place but its not the be all and end all.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:14 pm
#5
Pass me the Marmite..
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA.
Posts: 864
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
It doens't really mean more protection for you and your family though; the girl in Florida still got kidnapped and killed even with the camera there.
They have their place, but they don't replace real police officers, they can't arrest anyone and they don't stop crime; cameras only move crime to another place (like a non-silent burglar alarm), or make criminals improve their tactics.
They have their place, but they don't replace real police officers, they can't arrest anyone and they don't stop crime; cameras only move crime to another place (like a non-silent burglar alarm), or make criminals improve their tactics.
2. WE - the people don't want to pay more taxes to have more police officers so anything to help their job surely is good. And ALL police offices I have ever spoken too are in favor of it. They DO stop crime, how on earth do you support that argument.
Maybe I misread your post. You at least don't bring up the "big brother" argument so your not for or against more perhaps ? That's a good start IMHO.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:15 pm
#6
Pass me the Marmite..
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA.
Posts: 864
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
Just to address this point; that technology has been talked about for years but there isn't a reliable program for it yet.
The argument against that is you'll only be able to pick out known persons.
Again, this technology has its place but its not the be all and end all.
The argument against that is you'll only be able to pick out known persons.
Again, this technology has its place but its not the be all and end all.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:24 pm
#7
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,271
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
They are a useful tool in the detection of crime. Witness descriptions are notoriously unreliable so a good mug shot on a camera can be very handy. It can also provide irrefutable evidence at trial too. Theres nothing better than walking into court and slapping tv, vcr and tape onto the table to make the defence lawyer face drop like a kid who just lost his sweets down the drain.
Unfortunately they tend not to deter criminals from their activities, they merely modify them. But they do help us catch and convict so I am in favour, yes.
Unfortunately they tend not to deter criminals from their activities, they merely modify them. But they do help us catch and convict so I am in favour, yes.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:26 pm
#8
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by franc11s
1. BUT the guy is now off the streets and he could have taken 3 more kids since. That DOES protect people.
2. WE - the people don't want to pay more taxes to have more police officers so anything to help their job surely is good. And ALL police offices I have ever spoken too are in favor of it. They DO stop crime, how on earth do you support that argument.
Maybe I misread your post. You at least don't bring up the "big brother" argument so your not for or against more perhaps ? That's a good start IMHO.
2. WE - the people don't want to pay more taxes to have more police officers so anything to help their job surely is good. And ALL police offices I have ever spoken too are in favor of it. They DO stop crime, how on earth do you support that argument.
Maybe I misread your post. You at least don't bring up the "big brother" argument so your not for or against more perhaps ? That's a good start IMHO.
Cameras can hinder a police force because of all the 'data' they generate - plenty of false positives - police spend their precious time on chasing these up.
You pay the price for not wanting to pay for more police in other ways - more crime; cameras do not and should not be considered a replacement of men/women on the ground.
Last edited by anotherlimey; Dec 30th 2005 at 1:28 pm.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:27 pm
#9
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by franc11s
Actually, these are good reasons for more big brother too. I think the technology IS more advanced than you think. Also, I agree, it's not the be all and end all but it's a good way to go..
Facial recognition has its place, but like profiling it can easily be circumvented.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:28 pm
#10
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
Just to address this point; that technology has been talked about for years but there isn't a reliable program for it yet.
The argument against that is you'll only be able to pick out known persons.
Again, this technology has its place but its not the be all and end all.
The argument against that is you'll only be able to pick out known persons.
Again, this technology has its place but its not the be all and end all.
At the Tampa superbowl a couple of years ago every single person was scanned .. it came up with not one result.. although one black guy was identified as a white wanted man ... It will improve though..
Dec 30th 2005, 1:29 pm
#11
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas
They are a useful tool in the detection of crime. Witness descriptions are notoriously unreliable so a good mug shot on a camera can be very handy. It can also provide irrefutable evidence at trial too. Theres nothing better than walking into court and slapping tv, vcr and tape onto the table to make the defence lawyer face drop like a kid who just lost his sweets down the drain.
Unfortunately they tend not to deter criminals from their activities, they merely modify them. But they do help us catch and convict so I am in favour, yes.
Unfortunately they tend not to deter criminals from their activities, they merely modify them. But they do help us catch and convict so I am in favour, yes.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:31 pm
#12
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by franc11s
Maybe I misread your post. You at least don't bring up the "big brother" argument so your not for or against more perhaps ? That's a good start IMHO.
You do know what Echelon is right? No one complains much about that.
I suggest this book if you want to find out more on big brother and why his activities are costly and pointless.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038...books&v=glance
Dec 30th 2005, 1:33 pm
#13
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
I'm in favor for "MORE" monitoring, not less... by the government. At the moment, the "do gooders" in washington are beating up on a president about too much "big brother". I want more, to protect my family, not less.
To protect your family? from what?
We had no camera's or ID cards during the blitz, yet we managed to beat Nazi Germany.........
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
The I don't care I have nothing to hide arguement is a misnomer - The Jews had nothing to hide either when they were sent to ghetto's then to camps.
When you don't speak out at the beginning when they are chasing someone else, there might not be anyone left to speak out for you when it is your turn
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
This is REALLY bizarre statement.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
A certain Brazilian chap would love to differ, but he's dead.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
Who are the "do-gooders" The ACLU? The Democrats? whom are these
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced
As again, protection from what? terrorists? pedo's? you think they're just a recent phenomenon? They been around for ages. If you witnessed what happened in New Orleans, the government couldn't give a monkeys fudge about protecting you or your family, otherwise guns would be outlawed along with every other conceivable dangerous implement.
Maybe we should all live in bubbles so we don't get flu also.
To protect your family? from what?
We had no camera's or ID cards during the blitz, yet we managed to beat Nazi Germany.........
If they suspect someone, they should be allowed to monitor them. Who cares. I don't care if they monitor ME in error - shite, I have nothing to hide.
The I don't care I have nothing to hide arguement is a misnomer - The Jews had nothing to hide either when they were sent to ghetto's then to camps.
When you don't speak out at the beginning when they are chasing someone else, there might not be anyone left to speak out for you when it is your turn
If I had young kids, I'd love for them to be implanted with a chip that could find them if they got lost/kidnapped.
This is REALLY bizarre statement.
Cameras in England (take the train bombings), helped catch those involved (who didn't blow themsevels up).
A certain Brazilian chap would love to differ, but he's dead.
There is so much more the government could do and I'm for more and I can't see why the "do gooders" are bothered.
Who are the "do-gooders" The ACLU? The Democrats? whom are these
So, if it means more protection for you and your family are your for MORE big brother. If not, please share the argument. I've yet to be convinced
As again, protection from what? terrorists? pedo's? you think they're just a recent phenomenon? They been around for ages. If you witnessed what happened in New Orleans, the government couldn't give a monkeys fudge about protecting you or your family, otherwise guns would be outlawed along with every other conceivable dangerous implement.
Maybe we should all live in bubbles so we don't get flu also.
Dec 30th 2005, 1:35 pm
#14
Pass me the Marmite..
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA.
Posts: 864
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Originally Posted by Ray
I have to agree facial recognition is still in its infancy
At the Tampa superbowl a couple of years ago every single person was scanned .. it came up with not one result.. although one black guy was identified as a white wanted man ... It will improve though..
At the Tampa superbowl a couple of years ago every single person was scanned .. it came up with not one result.. although one black guy was identified as a white wanted man ... It will improve though..
Dec 30th 2005, 1:39 pm
#15
Pass me the Marmite..
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA.
Posts: 864
Re: Big Brother - cameras ? Etc ?
Manc - that all seemed so off topic... to me anyway... I wouldn't even know where to start on the argument re the Jews. The guy shot in London by the police ? what's that have to do with a slice of bread ? No cameras were involved, all police work !!