Is the death penalty moral/ethical?

[Formless]

Nice Black/White fallacy you have there. Nice way to ignore the obvious possibility of people who are just doing something that isn't socially accepted, but otherwise requires moving through public spaces. (just to name something off the top of my head, people going to adult entertainment like strip clubs) Remember, anyone who seeks privacy is conspiring to commit crime!

Or the evil totalitarian government can just refuse zoning. There are much easier methods for cracking down.

This is the sound of the point flying right over your little head.

Oh for the love of-- stop posting this strawman and actually address my points. You said that privacy violates peoples rights. Which rights? The only "right" it violates that I can think of is the right to poke your nose where it doesn't belong. While your proposal wouldn't put camera's into peoples homes, and I never said it did, the principal behind it (that people do NOT have a right to privacy) is exactly the same. You said that you don't think people have a right to privacy, yet you nevertheless contradict yourself by allowing for it in peoples own homes. Why? Why contradict yourself, Samuel? I am attacking the blanket statement, not your stupid proposal.

The right to live is the highest right. Anything that cuts down on crime helps that. Or do victims of crime not take precidence over your paranoia?

Again, why does crime stem from privacy? Why should we revoke the right to privacy just to satisfy your apparent paranoia of criminals? Answer those questions rather than beating around the bush, fucknut. Also, your argument is inconsistent. You insist that privacy is not a right, yet you are reluctant to apply this philosophy to peoples homes. Why?

And everyone who wants privacy is a de facto criminal now, huh Samuel? Never mind gays and minorities. Never mind people doing stigmatized activities that aren't against the law. Never mind that people don't have a right or need to stick their nose into other people's business, not even the government unless they have shown probably cause.

Yeah, obviously the fact you can help said minorities by catching people commiting crimes against them, but no- we have an evil government that will only use this to oppress people, even if you make it so that things can't be hidden! Right...

And we are supposed to believe your Utopian values apply to real life... why? You still made a Black/White fallacy, own up to that fact.

And the government doesn't need probable cause in public. A police officer doesn't nee a warrent to look through your car window.

But if he is looking through my window constantly, he would be brought up for stalking. What do you think 100% 24/7 surveillance is like, Sammy?

I don't follow. Its in the books, Samuel, we have a right to privacy. On what grounds, legal, ethical, or logical do you think we should revoke that law?

Tradition is not an argument.

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question you dumb shit-fucker! Answer it!

Good grief. How is it immoral, you donky-cock?

It is amoral. It is a desire that does not physical affect others. This is pretty simple.

But not having it can have physical consequences on people, so removing the right to privacy is immoral. What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?

Furthermore, prove that privacy increases the crime rate. Merely saying that it does won't cut it.

You don't believe that increasing the rate of convictions and successful arrests will reduce crime. I honestly don't know how to respond to that.

But that reduction is based on the removal of a right that is currently on the books, and which we have shown logically can lead to nasty consequences if it wasn't protected by law. There is a practical limit to the amount of power we can give to the government, no matter how much we fantasize about benevolent tyrannies who can protect us from hypothetical criminals by taking away our right to privacy in public spaces.

So I take it... concession accepted?

I never said that it would, you strawmanning piece of shit. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, and start coming up with coherent arguments that don't rely on your own say-so.

Yeah, a complete strawman to point out your arguments are BS because the "government can use it to opress us" doesn't apply because the government can already do that, but cheaper. They don't need a widespread camera system to crack down on unwanted people- just cameras in strategic places.

The goal posts will remain where they are, thank you. You said, and have been saying, that I think that utilizing your public surveillance system will lead to government oppression when I only said that government oppression in the future is not off the table. That is a Strawman, imbecile.

And as I already said above, this is a measure that would 1) make resisting a tyranny needlessly difficult and 2) make the slide to using oppressive measures easier for the shitpieces who would want such an abusive government because there is already a precedent set for essentially stalking all citizens at all times in their own country, no warrants necessary. After all, all the measures that you noted are very visible, and the oppressors have to either cover up what they are doing or provide some flimsy justification for why they are doing it. But with video tapes giving them constant soft power through 24/7 intel gathering all the decisions can happen behind closed doors and at the cover of he night. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Arguing with you is like punching a brick wall bare handed, it seems to accomplish nothing but a bruised fist.

[Broomstick]

The right to live is the highest right. Anything that cuts down on crime helps that. Or do victims of crime not take precidence over your paranoia?

We could virtually elminate crime by putting everyone under what is effectively house arrest so you couldn't leave your house without permission and strict surveillence and control.... but I think few would find it acceptable.

And everyone who wants privacy is a de facto criminal now, huh Samuel? Never mind gays and minorities. Never mind people doing stigmatized activities that aren't against the law. Never mind that people don't have a right or need to stick their nose into other people's business, not even the government unless they have shown probably cause.

Yeah, obviously the fact you can help said minorities by catching people commiting crimes against them, but no- we have an evil government that will only use this to oppress people, even if you make it so that things can't be hidden! Right...

The fact that surveillence can be used to catch criminals does not mean it will be so used. There is so much historical precedent for oppressing or even exterminating minority groups that you can't dismiss this potential for abuse out of hand. Genocide does exit, as does lesser forms of oppression. Anything that can make that sort of bias easier to exercise should not be taken lightly, and being able to better locate people would certainly fall under that.

I don't follow. Its in the books, Samuel, we have a right to privacy. On what grounds, legal, ethical, or logical do you think we should revoke that law?

Tradition is not an argument.

The recognition by the US Supreme Court and US government of a right to privacy (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Privacy Act of 1974, Roe v. Wade, Katz v. United States, among others) is a little bit more than mere "tradition". There is also the portion of the 4th Amendment to the US constitution saying "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which has usually been held to protect, among other things, privacy.

Furthermore, prove that privacy increases the crime rate. Merely saying that it does won't cut it.

You don't believe that increasing the rate of convictions and successful arrests will reduce crime. I honestly don't know how to respond to that.

Samuel - provide EVIDENCE of your assertion that increased surveillence in public places either reduces crime or increases convictions. That is what he is asking for. It also what I am now asking for.

I never said that it would, you strawmanning piece of shit. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, and start coming up with coherent arguments that don't rely on your own say-so.

Yeah, a complete strawman to point out your arguments are BS because the "government can use it to opress us" doesn't apply because the government can already do that, but cheaper. They don't need a widespread camera system to crack down on unwanted people- just cameras in strategic places.

So - you have conceeded that surveillence can be used in an oppressive manner. Adding additional cameras will not make this less oppressive.

[kinnison]

Rights are not inherent. If they violated the social contract that severely, they forfeit their rights. It is why Alysium is using utility.

Unforfeitable rights are a good proxy for maximizing utility. They also avoid having to make the argument that reasonably avoidable killings can be moral.

Actually, we could, but the methodology (solitary and never leaving the cell) to do so is considered cruel and inhumane.

Escapes that result in further crimes are also rather rare, even with our dysfunctional prison system.

Ridiculously early releases that free the perp to commit further crimes are not rare at all - at least in the UK, and probably in most of the US as well.

Three reasons why I think the death penalty is moral and necessary: 1) It is proportionate to the crime. 2) He won't do it again under any circumstances. 3) Pour encourager les autres; the penalty acts as a deterrent to those who might contemplate a similar crime.

A rather weaker argument from utility is that society doesn't have to feed, house and medically treat the perp for maybe 50 years. Rope and bullets are cheap. Prison space is not.

Human rights stem from a "contract" with society. You don't want to follow the rules? Fine. Then the rest of society has no reason to support you, and plenty of reasons to eliminate the threat.

[Teleros]

Three reasons why I think the death penalty is moral and necessary: 1) It is proportionate to the crime. 2) He won't do it again under any circumstances. 3) Pour encourager les autres; the penalty acts as a deterrent to those who might contemplate a similar crime.

Whilst I agree, there are problems with this...

1. It may be proportionate to the crime, but that doesn't mean it's moral. More, it smacks of revenge and punishment... is that moral / ethical?
2. The criminal may never be able to commit crimes again, but neither can he contribute to society.
3. How effective is the deterrance argument for say murder? If you're so sure you'll get away with it then it doesn't apply, and if you act without thinking it's also irrelevant. Or maybe not - it's hard to measure how many murders weren't committed due to a particular policy after all.
4. If you kill the wrong man, you've actively harmed society. And left the real criminal out there somewhere.

Human rights stem from a "contract" with society. You don't want to follow the rules? Fine. Then the rest of society has no reason to support you, and plenty of reasons to eliminate the threat.

I doubt many human rights advocates believe that idea. You have human rights because you're human. Fin, end of argument, nothing more to add, etc etc. People might accept that argument more easily with regard to civil or political rights though - but then I suspect most people would consider a "right to life" to be a human, and not a civil or political, right.

[Darth Wong]

In summary, as you can see Samuel made the claim that somehow people do not have a right to privacy because for some unexplained reason it violates other people's rights

If your in public and you are insisting that your actions not be monitered, odds are good you are up to something. Due to the fact that being in public is... public./

Nice Black/White fallacy you have there. Nice way to ignore the obvious possibility of people who are just doing something that isn't socially accepted, but otherwise requires moving through public spaces.

Handicapping police officers so that people can avoid police surveillance while doing things that are not socially accepted? What the fuck kind of scheme is that? When people do things that are not socially accepted, they can still be seen by the public. They can still suffer severe consequences, especially when they live in mono-cultural environments such as small rural towns.

Heavy public surveillance would NOT lead to the consequences you fear-monger about, for the simple reason that this surveillance is already quit possible in public anyway. It's just not automated and efficient. If anything, the increased universality of it would probably lead to a loosening of rules on certain kinds of conduct, as all of the "do as I say, not as I do" people realize that they could be caught too. Right now, those ridiculous rules are often used in a very targeted manner: powerful people break them with impunity but they can be used in targeted surveillance and prosecution to eliminate or marginalize undesirables.

[Darth Wong]

Human rights stem from a "contract" with society. You don't want to follow the rules? Fine. Then the rest of society has no reason to support you, and plenty of reasons to eliminate the threat.

I doubt many human rights advocates believe that idea. You have human rights because you're human.

And who defines those rights? Human rights are defined by society, to suit the goals and values of society. They are nothing more than an abstract intellectual construct, created to serve as a convenient method for generating rules that people will find acceptable. They have no intrinsic claim on validity whatsoever.

Absolutist approaches to human rights ignore this fundamental reality.

[kinnison]

Teleros, the OP specified the assumption that you definitely have the right perp and he/she is definitely guilty.

In any case, there are an admittedly small number of cases (mass murderers and serial killers) in which it is difficult to imagine that you are executing the wrong person. Take a concrete example - the Yorkshire Ripper. It is possible that he was not actually guilty of one or two of the murders for which he was convicted. So what? He's still guilty of the others; and you can only execute someone once.

To expand the discussion somewhat, and possibly derail it more than somewhat; it is my opinion that sentencing, at least in the UK, is far too lenient for virtually any crime one cares to name, especially in the case of career criminals. In particular, I thoroughly disapprove of the practise of concurrent sentencing. "The culprit asked for 47 other burglaries to be taken into consideration." This does nothing except help the cops' arrest and conviction record look better. If you have committed 47 burglaries then you should serve 47 sentences.

I also think that any homicide, whether intentional or not, committed in the course of committing another crime should be treated as murder and not some lesser crime such as manslaughter.

[Samuel]

Again, why does crime stem from privacy? Why should we revoke the right to privacy just to satisfy your apparent paranoia of criminals? Answer those questions rather than beating around the bush, fucknut. Also, your argument is inconsistent. You insist that privacy is not a right, yet you are reluctant to apply this philosophy to peoples homes. Why?

Yes, I have a pathological urge to not die. Just like every other living thing on the planet.

As for why I don't put it in people's homes, isn't it obvious? They aren't going to be commiting crimes on their own property! The exception is abuse (bomb making would still require buying the ingredients), but there are more efficinet
ways to detect that.

And we are supposed to believe your Utopian values apply to real life... why? You still made a Black/White fallacy, own up to that fact.

Well, in the US, assulting a gay person still counts as assult. Which is a crime. You seem to think that the government will let people get away with it because they don't like gays... even though that hasn't been consistantly the case.

But if he is looking through my window constantly, he would be brought up for stalking. What do you think 100% 24/7 surveillance is like, Sammy?

You sleep on a park bench?

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question you dumb shit-fucker! Answer it!

Moral and logical- duh! You know, all my previous arguments have been of that type.

But not having it can have physical consequences on people, so removing the right to privacy is immoral. What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?

Not having privacy physically harms people? I need to see this.

But that reduction is based on the removal of a right that is currently on the books, and which we have shown logically can lead to nasty consequences if it wasn't protected by law. There is a practical limit to the amount of power we can give to the government, no matter how much we fantasize about benevolent tyrannies who can protect us from hypothetical criminals by taking away our right to privacy in public spaces.

The government as it exists could count as a benevolent tyranny. They can put you to death, take your possessions, conscript you... seriously, I don't see how watching you compares to those.

I only said that government oppression in the future is not off the table.

Which I have been responding to. If they decide to go oppressive, they will install the system anyways.

But with video tapes giving them constant soft power through 24/7 intel gathering all the decisions can happen behind closed doors and at the cover of he night.

Government offices are public property. You do realize that?

We could virtually elminate crime by putting everyone under what is effectively house arrest so you couldn't leave your house without permission and strict surveillence and control.... but I think few would find it acceptable.

Unrealistic. The guards would abuse their power and make the situation worse. As it is, there is no way to do something like that. Not to mention that extreme boredom would drive people to suicide, probably at a rate higher than the murders.

More realistic would be accompanied by robotic guardians at all times.

The fact that surveillence can be used to catch criminals does not mean it will be so used. There is so much historical precedent for oppressing or even exterminating minority groups that you can't dismiss this potential for abuse out of hand. Genocide does exit, as does lesser forms of oppression. Anything that can make that sort of bias easier to exercise should not be taken lightly, and being able to better locate people would certainly fall under that.

Historically, people who commit genocide don't want their crimes recorded or on video- in fact, non-violent resistance requires an audience to work most effectively.

The recognition by the US Supreme Court and US government of a right to privacy (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Privacy Act of 1974, Roe v. Wade, Katz v. United States, among others) is a little bit more than mere "tradition". There is also the portion of the 4th Amendment to the US constitution saying "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which has usually been held to protect, among other things, privacy.

You are right- it isn't old enough to be tradition. My parents are older that it is. Not that I am not violating a person's person, their home, their papers or their effects.

Samuel - provide EVIDENCE of your assertion that increased surveillence in public places either reduces crime or increases convictions. That is what he is asking for. It also what I am now asking for.

You want me to provide evidence for the assertion that having video evidence of a crime leads to convictions?

So - you have conceeded that surveillence can be used in an oppressive manner. Adding additional cameras will not make this less oppressive.

The Boy Scouts can be used in an oppressive manner as junior spies. Should we ban them too?

[Formless]

Nice Black/White fallacy you have there. Nice way to ignore the obvious possibility of people who are just doing something that isn't socially accepted, but otherwise requires moving through public spaces.

Handicapping police officers so that people can avoid police surveillance while doing things that are not socially accepted? What the fuck kind of scheme is that? When people do things that are not socially accepted, they can still be seen by the public. They can still suffer severe consequences, especially when they live in mono-cultural environments such as small rural towns.

Heavy public surveillance would NOT lead to the consequences you fear-monger about, for the simple reason that this surveillance is already quit possible in public anyway. It's just not automated and efficient.

Name one place where I claimed that heavy public surveillance would lead to abuse. Or where I said that we should handicap police officers, for that matter. Samuel came up with that idea, not me. I only worry that if history has shown anything, the government cannot be trusted with this kind of blanket surveillance, that is all. Samuel has yet to show any evidence that his idea would actually work in the real world or be used in the way he wants it to be used. He is just assuming that it will.

Of course, I will admit that it is already hard to avoid having your actions recorded by someone thanks to the proliferation of camera phones. But also, that information can only be used when there is reason to gather evidence, rather than being recorded at all times and stored in a database as he proposed. In a similar vein, I have no problem with targeted surveillance because it can then be justified on a case by case basis rather than being applied to everyone. That is a lot more limited in scope than what he is suggesting.

So if you can find somewhere where I said either of those things (and maybe I did, its a long argument and I'm not the best debater around), I will concede those points. Otherwise, shove it.

If anything, the increased universality of it would probably lead to a loosening of rules on certain kinds of conduct, as all of the "do as I say, not as I do" people realize that they could be caught too. Right now, those ridiculous rules are often used in a very targeted manner: powerful people break them with impunity but they can be used in targeted surveillance and prosecution to eliminate or marginalize undesirables.

The problem is of the defining of undesirables, which is unfortunately a different discussion. I wouldn't want society to define undesirables in an unfair/unethical manner even if society is upholding that definition fairly. That doesn't make the situation any better than before, although I concede that it might make said situation rarer if the powerful decided it would only screw themselves. However, I would like to point out that as the world works now, the rich and powerful get away with these kinds of things quite often anyway, even when they get caught. They are the ones that can get a hold of the high price lawyers, after all, to say nothing of the fact that they can better afford to pay for crime than most of us.

[Formless]

Again, why does crime stem from privacy? Why should we revoke the right to privacy just to satisfy your apparent paranoia of criminals? Answer those questions rather than beating around the bush, fucknut. Also, your argument is inconsistent. You insist that privacy is not a right, yet you are reluctant to apply this philosophy to peoples homes. Why?

Yes, I have a pathological urge to not die. Just like every other living thing on the planet.

And yet you seem to worry that anyone seeking to keep others out of their business is plotting to commit crimes. You are still avoiding the question, asshole. Why do you think that incident of crime is connected privacy rights?

As for why I don't put it in people's homes, isn't it obvious? They aren't going to be commiting crimes on their own property! The exception is abuse (bomb making would still require buying the ingredients), but there are more efficinet
ways to detect that.

Agreed. However, might I point out that the police and the FBI still resort to spying on criminals (with warrants, of course) so as to catch criminals conspiring to commit crimes. Oh, and you can also grow/make drugs in your home too, which is illegal. Huh... you know what? You still have no reason not to spy on peoples homes, yet you don't advocate spying on peoples homes. Did you just not think of those possibilities, or is there another reason still?

And we are supposed to believe your Utopian values apply to real life... why? You still made a Black/White fallacy, own up to that fact.

Well, in the US, assulting a gay person still counts as assult. Which is a crime. You seem to think that the government will let people get away with it because they don't like gays... even though that hasn't been consistantly the case.

You seem to think that the social climate of the country is going to remain stable. For all we know, if this kind of destabilization happens, the government might just look away. Or might be the ones doing the assaulting, such as through the police. Again, why would reality necessarily work the way you say it will?

But if he is looking through my window constantly, he would be brought up for stalking. What do you think 100% 24/7 surveillance is like, Sammy?

You sleep on a park bench?

Er... I meant in the context of looking through a car window, not a house window. You know, if the police were following my car around. But I can run with this. How does your plan take into account the homeless?

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question you dumb shit-fucker! Answer it!

Moral and logical- duh! You know, all my previous arguments have been of that type.

Uh, what logic? What morals? You made a few claims, but you haven't backed any of them up yet.

But not having it can have physical consequences on people, so removing the right to privacy is immoral. What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?

Not having privacy physically harms people? I need to see this.

The people who use this knowledge can physically harm me. The harm is indirect, but it is there. Yes, it might not happen, but it could. You seem to be in denial about this.

But that reduction is based on the removal of a right that is currently on the books, and which we have shown logically can lead to nasty consequences if it wasn't protected by law. There is a practical limit to the amount of power we can give to the government, no matter how much we fantasize about benevolent tyrannies who can protect us from hypothetical criminals by taking away our right to privacy in public spaces.

The government as it exists could count as a benevolent tyranny. They can put you to death,

In some situations, and it is debatable if this is right or wrong, hence this thread.

take your possessions,

Not without a warrant or cause to gather evidence.

conscript you... seriously, I don't see how watching you compares to those.

The draft hasn't been around for a long time now, and if it returns I'm leaving the country. Frankly, nothing said that your fantasy is justified just because of how our government does things currently, because the way our government does things currently could be wrong. I'm not saying that it is, but that is faulty logic nonetheless.

I only said that government oppression in the future is not off the table.

Which I have been responding to. If they decide to go oppressive, they will install the system anyways.

And that makes it right how? And why should we put up their system for them? Like I said, if you put up the system first, it becomes harder to argue against them abusing said system because you already consented to its use.

But with video tapes giving them constant soft power through 24/7 intel gathering all the decisions can happen behind closed doors and at the cover of he night.

Government offices are public property. You do realize that?

So?

[Samuel]

Name one place where I claimed that heavy public surveillance would lead to abuse.

Replace the w with a c and we have your whole argument.

I only worry that if history has shown anything, the government cannot be trusted with this kind of blanket surveillance, that is all.

Amazing since this has never occured before in history. Care for an example?

Samuel has yet to show any evidence that his idea would actually work in the real world or be used in the way he wants it to be used. He is just assuming that it will.

It works well enough that stores use them. So that is proof of concept there. As for using them how I want- to enforce the law of course. Do I need to provide evidence that is what the police generally do? Is this ask basic questions hour?

Of course, I will admit that it is already hard to avoid having your actions recorded by someone thanks to the proliferation of camera phones.

It is noticable and rare. People only use them when you are an idiot.

However, I would like to point out that as the world works now, the rich and powerful get away with these kinds of things quite often anyway, even when they get caught. They are the ones that can get a hold of the high price lawyers, after all, to say nothing of the fact that they can better afford to pay for crime than most of us.

But it does reduce the social stigma and highlight the hypocricy.

And yet you seem to worry that anyone seeking to keep others out of their business is plotting to commit crimes. You are still avoiding the question, asshole. Why do you think that incident of crime is connected privacy rights?

Because people commit their crimes in public. Duh!

Agreed. However, might I point out that the police and the FBI still resort to spying on criminals (with warrants, of course) so as to catch criminals conspiring to commit crimes. Oh, and you can also grow/make drugs in your home too, which is illegal. Huh... you know what? You still have no reason not to spy on peoples homes, yet you don't advocate spying on peoples homes. Did you just not think of those possibilities, or is there another reason still?

I don't believe the growth of certain drugs is wrong- not to mention the whole "sealed greenhouse with huge powerconsumption is a tip off. Additionally, we can see people gathering to conspire.

You seem to think that the social climate of the country is going to remain stable. For all we know, if this kind of destabilization happens, the government might just look away. Or might be the ones doing the assaulting, such as through the police. Again, why would reality necessarily work the way you say it will?

Crimes against gays are still counted as crimes in the US. Why should this change?

Er... I meant in the context of looking through a car window, not a house window. You know, if the police were following my car around. But I can run with this. How does your plan take into account the homeless?

If they are in public they will be on camera.

The people who use this knowledge can physically harm me. The harm is indirect, but it is there. Yes, it might not happen, but it could. You seem to be in denial about this.

Or they could simply watch you normally. This doesn't require a camera system.

In some situations, and it is debatable if this is right or wrong, hence this thread.

We are debating morality. The government can legally do it.

Not without a warrant or cause to gather evidence.

Eminent Domain. Remember the whole fiasco recently when the Supreme Court said they could take your land for higher tax revenue and a bunch of states made laws to stop that?

The draft hasn't been around for a long time now, and if it returns I'm leaving the country. Frankly, nothing said that your fantasy is justified just because of how our government does things currently, because the way our government does things currently could be wrong. I'm not saying that it is, but that is faulty logic nonetheless.

We still have the selective service system set up. And forty years isn't "a long time".

I'm pointing out the idea that this would lead to tyranny is wrong because the government already has greater power. How do you not get that.

And that makes it right how? And why should we put up their system for them? Like I said, if you put up the system first, it becomes harder to argue against them abusing said system because you already consented to its use.

So?

Cameras are to be installed in all public areas... do I have to connect the dots for you?

[Formless]

Name one place where I claimed that heavy public surveillance would lead to abuse.

Replace the w with a c and we have your whole argument.

Exactly. I never said it would yet both you and Wong seem think I did. I said that it is a possibility that you must consider when giving the government new powers. I'm not advocating a Slippery Slope, just caution based on what history has shown possible.

I only worry that if history has shown anything, the government cannot be trusted with this kind of blanket surveillance, that is all.

Amazing since this has never occured before in history. Care for an example?

Never before in history has there been the technology to do surveillance on the scale you suggested. But there has always been the possibility of spying with traditional methods, as well as unwarranted search and seizure as outlined by the constitution.

Samuel has yet to show any evidence that his idea would actually work in the real world or be used in the way he wants it to be used. He is just assuming that it will.

It works well enough that stores use them. So that is proof of concept there. As for using them how I want- to enforce the law of course. Do I need to provide evidence that is what the police generally do? Is this ask basic questions hour?

But the police don't actually have access to that information unless they actually need to gather evidence. That's a little bit different than government controlled cameras all over the place.

Let me put it this way. I want a system with accountability. The store is accountable to the law and to the government that upholds that law. But if the government is directly controlling the cameras, who are they held accountable to? The law? They uphold the law, so that kinda makes that point moot. The people? Well that's nice, they really do that a lot with everything else they do *cough*blue line of silence*cough*. 'Sides, the people are one of the forces that we want to keep our privacy secure from. To the government? Okay, we just went in a circle. Point is, unless I can be sure that the government can't abuse the law or the system set up, I can't trust that they won't do so at some point in time. If the potential for abuse is large enough, I start to worry and put that on the list of things the government shouldn't fuck around with. Privacy is one of those things.

And BTW, the reason I stress the concept of warrants and probable cause is because these both show that there is accountability in the system. Your camera scheme lacks this.

Of course, I will admit that it is already hard to avoid having your actions recorded by someone thanks to the proliferation of camera phones.

It is noticable and rare. People only use them when you are an idiot.

As it should be! That's when the police get involved anyway. Why add an extra layer of security (cameras) when you only want to catch incidents that happen a small percentage of the time in daily life for most people? As I see it, the system is already good enough in this field to need more surveillance and intell gathering.

However, I would like to point out that as the world works now, the rich and powerful get away with these kinds of things quite often anyway, even when they get caught. They are the ones that can get a hold of the high price lawyers, after all, to say nothing of the fact that they can better afford to pay for crime than most of us.

But it does reduce the social stigma and highlight the hypocricy.

Yeah, but is that going to actually stop hypocrisy? Hypocrites are hypocrites because they don't care.

And yet you seem to worry that anyone seeking to keep others out of their business is plotting to commit crimes. You are still avoiding the question, asshole. Why do you think that incident of crime is connected privacy rights?

Because people commit their crimes in public. Duh!

Only some of them. People do a lot of things in public, Sammy. It still doesn't mean its any one's business but theirs what they are doing.

Agreed. However, might I point out that the police and the FBI still resort to spying on criminals (with warrants, of course) so as to catch criminals conspiring to commit crimes. Oh, and you can also grow/make drugs in your home too, which is illegal. Huh... you know what? You still have no reason not to spy on peoples homes, yet you don't advocate spying on peoples homes. Did you just not think of those possibilities, or is there another reason still?

I don't believe the growth of certain drugs is wrong- not to mention the whole "sealed greenhouse with huge powerconsumption is a tip off. Additionally, we can see people gathering to conspire.

Okay, two things: 1) I agree that some drugs have been unfairly stigmatized, there are nevertheless some (like meth) that are a public safety hazard, and are rightfully criminalized. 2) people have a right to gather, and there is little to distinguish a harmless party from a mob meeting.

Oh, and do they really find drug makers by the power grid consumption? That seems like really weak as evidence.

You seem to think that the social climate of the country is going to remain stable. For all we know, if this kind of destabilization happens, the government might just look away. Or might be the ones doing the assaulting, such as through the police. Again, why would reality necessarily work the way you say it will?

Crimes against gays are still counted as crimes in the US. Why should this change?

Why do you think that it necessarily can't? That is the point I am making. I don't know why it would, but I cannot say that it won't as long as the society still contains a sizable bigoted community, which it currently does. And like I said before, it isn't just gays, there are other minorities out there, and who knows what kinds of class distinctions the future will create?

Er... I meant in the context of looking through a car window, not a house window. You know, if the police were following my car around. But I can run with this. How does your plan take into account the homeless?

If they are in public they will be on camera.

Yeah... that's kinda the point... They are homeless, they are never not going to be under surveillance in your system. Do you not care about the homeless?

The people who use this knowledge can physically harm me. The harm is indirect, but it is there. Yes, it might not happen, but it could. You seem to be in denial about this.

Or they could simply watch you normally. This doesn't require a camera system.

No, it doesn't. A camera system just makes it that much easier.

In some situations, and it is debatable if this is right or wrong, hence this thread.

We are debating morality. The government can legally do it.

That would be an argument to law, and I'm not arguing law. I'm arguing morality and ethics; very different beast.

Not without a warrant or cause to gather evidence.

Eminent Domain. Remember the whole fiasco recently when the Supreme Court said they could take your land for higher tax revenue and a bunch of states made laws to stop that?

... what are you talking about? As for Eminent Domain (if I understand what it is, I.E. an exception to warrant laws concerning when the evidence is out in the open?) then they still have justified the need to gather evidence. They aren't gathering evidence when nothing is happening. They aren't gathering evidence before the crime is committed.

The draft hasn't been around for a long time now, and if it returns I'm leaving the country. Frankly, nothing said that your fantasy is justified just because of how our government does things currently, because the way our government does things currently could be wrong. I'm not saying that it is, but that is faulty logic nonetheless.

We still have the selective service system set up. And forty years isn't "a long time".

Long enough. Besides, as long as I don't have to enter a war zone and be exposed to danger against my will, I can't see that as being as bad as the draft.

I'm pointing out the idea that this would lead to tyranny is wrong because the government already has greater power. How do you not get that.

I'm pointing out that that is a strawman to my argument. I'm saying that it is a matter of trust, and that the government cannot be trusted with this power due to its own nature, not the nature of surveillance. Big difference.

And that makes it right how? And why should we put up their system for them? Like I said, if you put up the system first, it becomes harder to argue against them abusing said system because you already consented to its use.

An emoticon is not an argument. It is, at best, Appealing to Ridicule. At best.

So?

Cameras are to be installed in all public areas... do I have to connect the dots for you?

And that justifies your plan because...?

[Darth Wong]

The problem is of the defining of undesirables, which is unfortunately a different discussion. I wouldn't want society to define undesirables in an unfair/unethical manner even if society is upholding that definition fairly. That doesn't make the situation any better than before, although I concede that it might make said situation rarer if the powerful decided it would only screw themselves. However, I would like to point out that as the world works now, the rich and powerful get away with these kinds of things quite often anyway, even when they get caught. They are the ones that can get a hold of the high price lawyers, after all, to say nothing of the fact that they can better afford to pay for crime than most of us.

This does nothing to address the basic criticism that the underlying scheme of allowing all these things as long as they're targeted at specific individuals is actually much more prone to abuse by the rich and powerful than an alternate scheme where the law is looser but the surveillance is more pervasive.

Current scheme:
- Laws are quite restrictive.
- Most people get away with minor lawbreaking because they are not under heavy surveillance.
- Those who the state deems undesirable can be targeted and singled out.

Proposed alternate scheme:
- Surveillance is made far more pervasive.
- Those who are now protected by power and privilege would be under the same surveillance as the undesirables.
- Laws will inevitably relax because even the rich and powerful will know they are under surveillance.

[Formless]

Okay, I see what you are saying. Now, as I said to Samuel, who can we hold accountable for the use of this surveillance? This is a general question of course, but it may provide insight to the flaws of the current scheme as well.

[Samuel]

Never before in history has there been the technology to do surveillance on the scale you suggested. But there has always been the possibility of spying with traditional methods, as well as unwarranted search and seizure as outlined by the constitution.

All those cases involve secret police- aka political crimes, not regular ones.

Let me put it this way. I want a system with accountability. The store is accountable to the law and to the government that upholds that law. But if the government is directly controlling the cameras, who are they held accountable to? The law? They uphold the law, so that kinda makes that point moot. The people? Well that's nice, they really do that a lot with everything else they do *cough*blue line of silence*cough*. 'Sides, the people are one of the forces that we want to keep our privacy secure from. To the government? Okay, we just went in a circle. Point is, unless I can be sure that the government can't abuse the law or the system set up, I can't trust that they won't do so at some point in time. If the potential for abuse is large enough, I start to worry and put that on the list of things the government shouldn't fuck around with. Privacy is one of those things.

And how on earth can they abuse it without changing the law.

And BTW, the reason I stress the concept of warrants and probable cause is because these both show that there is accountability in the system. Your camera scheme lacks this.

Just like the camera system it is run by the government. There is no difference.

As it should be! That's when the police get involved anyway. Why add an extra layer of security (cameras) when you only want to catch incidents that happen a small percentage of the time in daily life for most people? As I see it, the system is already good enough in this field to need more surveillance and intell gathering.

The same reason we fireproof homes even though most don't catch on fire- prevention and preparedness.

Yeah, but is that going to actually stop hypocrisy? Hypocrites are hypocrites because they don't care.

I find your lack of psych knowledge... disturbing. Hypocrites self-justify while seeing other people as wrong. They do care- they just think it is okay when the do it- that it is "too complicated" in their case.

2) people have a right to gather, and there is little to distinguish a harmless party from a mob meeting.

Except for the presence of mobsters.

Oh, and do they really find drug makers by the power grid consumption? That seems like really weak as evidence.

I don't know.

Yeah... that's kinda the point... They are homeless, they are never not going to be under surveillance in your system. Do you not care about the homeless?

No. Nor do I think of the children. Of course, it will prevent them from being victimized- you know, not having a steady support network makes it easier for people to pick on them.

No, it doesn't. A camera system just makes it that much easier.

Er, no. Want to watch 26 billion hours of tape?

... what are you talking about? As for Eminent Domain (if I understand what it is, I.E. an exception to warrant laws concerning when the evidence is out in the open?) then they still have justified the need to gather evidence. They aren't gathering evidence when nothing is happening. They aren't gathering evidence before the crime is committed.

Eminent Domain is the right of the government to take your property for the public good. 5th amendment. Recently a case went to the Supreme Court where a local government had used it to grab property so that they could build something that would generate higher tax revenue. The Supreme Court accepted that arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

Long enough. Besides, as long as I don't have to enter a war zone and be exposed to danger against my will, I can't see that as being as bad as the draft.

As female soldiers have learnt, the line is quite flexible. Especially against a competant and well supplied enemy.

An emoticon is not an argument. It is, at best, Appealing to Ridicule. At best.

I'm sorry, you were arguing that we can't argue against abuse because we approved the system in the first place. Which is sort of refuted by the last 8 years of Bush. Specifically the secret wire court where they got it and abused it and people called them on it.

And that justifies your plan because...?

How are you going to have secret backroom deals if they are on camera?

Okay, I see what you are saying. Now, as I said to Samuel, who can we hold accountable for the use of this surveillance? This is a general question of course, but it may provide insight to the flaws of the current scheme as well.

Probably the people who maintain and repair the cameras. It might be city maintanance or contracted out.

[Formless]

Never before in history has there been the technology to do surveillance on the scale you suggested. But there has always been the possibility of spying with traditional methods, as well as unwarranted search and seizure as outlined by the constitution.

All those cases involve secret police- aka political crimes, not regular ones.

Point being? IF they weren't political crimes, I wouldn't be worried.

Let me put it this way. I want a system with accountability. The store is accountable to the law and to the government that upholds that law. But if the government is directly controlling the cameras, who are they held accountable to? The law? They uphold the law, so that kinda makes that point moot. The people? Well that's nice, they really do that a lot with everything else they do *cough*blue line of silence*cough*. 'Sides, the people are one of the forces that we want to keep our privacy secure from. To the government? Okay, we just went in a circle. Point is, unless I can be sure that the government can't abuse the law or the system set up, I can't trust that they won't do so at some point in time. If the potential for abuse is large enough, I start to worry and put that on the list of things the government shouldn't fuck around with. Privacy is one of those things.

And how on earth can they abuse it without changing the law.

If they are going to abuse it, I'm pretty sure the law won't have anything to do with it. 'Sides, the law isn't static, so whats your point?

And BTW, the reason I stress the concept of warrants and probable cause is because these both show that there is accountability in the system. Your camera scheme lacks this.

Just like the camera system it is run by the government. There is no difference.

Accountability to the court (a part of the government) is still some kind of accountability. I will repeat, your system lacks this. If your evidence was gathered without a warrant under the current law, that evidence can be thrown out of court. But in your system, there is legal precedent for gathering whatever the fuck information you want whenever you want it, as long as it came from a government run camera. Get that through your thick skull.

As it should be! That's when the police get involved anyway. Why add an extra layer of security (cameras) when you only want to catch incidents that happen a small percentage of the time in daily life for most people? As I see it, the system is already good enough in this field to need more surveillance and intell gathering.

The same reason we fireproof homes even though most don't catch on fire- prevention and preparedness.

Your analogy is flawed. This is more like shooting all dogs you come across to preempt them from biting you. Sure, you tick off the owners, but at least you never contract rabies!

Yeah, but is that going to actually stop hypocrisy? Hypocrites are hypocrites because they don't care.

I find your lack of psych knowledge... disturbing. Hypocrites self-justify while seeing other people as wrong. They do care- they just think it is okay when the do it- that it is "too complicated" in their case.

Perhaps, but that affects my point how? It still sounds like merely pointing out hypocrisy won't put a stop to it.

2) people have a right to gather, and there is little to distinguish a harmless party from a mob meeting.

Except for the presence of mobsters.

And how are you, the authorities, supposed to figure that out? Oh, and mobsters can't have parties too?

Oh, and do they really find drug makers by the power grid consumption? That seems like really weak as evidence.

I don't know.

Yeah, I though so. In other words, you were bullshitting. AGAIN.

Yeah... that's kinda the point... They are homeless, they are never not going to be under surveillance in your system. Do you not care about the homeless?

No. Nor do I think of the children. Of course, it will prevent them from being victimized- you know, not having a steady support network makes it easier for people to pick on them.

Fair enough, you heartless bastard.

No, it doesn't. A camera system just makes it that much easier.

Er, no. Want to watch 26 billion hours of tape?

So you admit that your scheme is impractical/infeasible on the face of it?

... what are you talking about? As for Eminent Domain (if I understand what it is, I.E. an exception to warrant laws concerning when the evidence is out in the open?) then they still have justified the need to gather evidence. They aren't gathering evidence when nothing is happening. They aren't gathering evidence before the crime is committed.

Eminent Domain is the right of the government to take your property for the public good. 5th amendment. Recently a case went to the Supreme Court where a local government had used it to grab property so that they could build something that would generate higher tax revenue. The Supreme Court accepted that arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

Okay, so this "I can't believe its not theft" clause is relevant how?

Long enough. Besides, as long as I don't have to enter a war zone and be exposed to danger against my will, I can't see that as being as bad as the draft.

As female soldiers have learnt, the line is quite flexible. Especially against a competant and well supplied enemy.

Samuel, always the master at being completely irrelevant and pointless. Seriously, why did you even bother posting that? It isn't even tangentially related to what I was saying at all. *Edit*more to the point, I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.*/Edit*

An emoticon is not an argument. It is, at best, Appealing to Ridicule. At best.

I'm sorry, you were arguing that we can't argue against abuse because we approved the system in the first place. Which is sort of refuted by the last 8 years of Bush. Specifically the secret wire court where they got it and abused it and people called them on it.

Yay. Now, what does that have to do with anything? I was opposing your proposal, not Bush's bullshit when I said that we would be consenting to a system with precious little recourse for abuse. We haven't consented to anything yet, your proposal is, thankfully, still a hypothetical posted on a bulletin board.

And that justifies your plan because...?

How are you going to have secret backroom deals if they are on camera?

You invite the other guy to dinner, remembering that this proposal omits putting cameras in peoples homes. Or you do it by good old snail mail, which is protected by that pesky little "unwarranted search and seizure" thing. Its a felony to open someone else's mail, after all. Would you change this too?

Okay, I see what you are saying. Now, as I said to Samuel, who can we hold accountable for the use of this surveillance? This is a general question of course, but it may provide insight to the flaws of the current scheme as well.

Probably the people who maintain and repair the cameras. It might be city maintanance or contracted out.

Oooooh, bad idea. City maintenance isn't exactly made up of trustworthy people. And contractors? Yeah, they really have nothing to gain from that data, no sirree. Nope, there is no chance that they could make a quick buck selling videos to the highest bidder, no information leaking out of the system as long as it is in their hands! Or maybe, just maybe, you are an utter moron, Samuel. At least DW had a good point about the current system. You? The best you have are a string of red herrings and bullshit. Give it up.

[Broomstick]

Again, why does crime stem from privacy? Why should we revoke the right to privacy just to satisfy your apparent paranoia of criminals? Answer those questions rather than beating around the bush, fucknut. Also, your argument is inconsistent. You insist that privacy is not a right, yet you are reluctant to apply this philosophy to peoples homes. Why?

Yes, I have a pathological urge to not die. Just like every other living thing on the planet.

The desire to avoid death is not typically seen as "pathological". Based upon usage here, I don't think that word means what you think it does. Please take some remedial English, or at least consult a dictionary prior to posting.

As for why I don't put it in people's homes, isn't it obvious? They aren't going to be commiting crimes on their own property! The exception is abuse (bomb making would still require buying the ingredients), but there are more efficinet ways to detect that.

So you don't consider wife beating, child abuse, or setting a man's bed on fire in the middle of the night to be crimes? A person embezzling funds or running a scam on the PC in their bedroom isn't a crime?

A LOT of crime occurs inside homes. Few of it involves bombs.

And we are supposed to believe your Utopian values apply to real life... why? You still made a Black/White fallacy, own up to that fact.

Well, in the US, assulting a gay person still counts as assult. Which is a crime. You seem to think that the government will let people get away with it because they don't like gays... even though that hasn't been consistantly the case.

It hasn't been consistently the case they've done anything about crime committed against gays, either. I remember when not only did police routinely ignore crimes committed against gays, they were often the perpetrators of said crime (see 1969 Stonewall Riot). It's like saying that it's impossible to lynch a black man in the modern US because we're beyond all that racist bullshit. We're not. Neither are all people past deadly levels of homophobia. Yes, despite being straight and white I'm certain that there are people in government positions who would happily stand by while various minorities they don't like are abused or even killed, and would even happily pull the trigger if they thought they could get away with it.

We could virtually elminate crime by putting everyone under what is effectively house arrest so you couldn't leave your house without permission and strict surveillence and control.... but I think few would find it acceptable.

Unrealistic. The guards would abuse their power and make the situation worse.

Correct. What makes you think the people watching your surveillence cameras won't abuse THEIR power? The potential for blackmail is staggering: "Mr Senator - I don't care if you were at that gay bar to pick up your fruity queen of a son, if you don't send me $50K a week I'm going to publish this photo of you entering The Manhandler on the front page of the city paper. I'm sure your more religious supportors will be pleased to see that, don't you?"

As it is, there is no way to do something like that. Not to mention that extreme boredom would drive people to suicide, probably at a rate higher than the murders.

If you understand that, why is it inconceivable to you that some people would find constant surveillence equally stressful? Just because YOU don't mind being watched doesn't mean everyone else is happy with it.

Historically, people who commit genocide don't want their crimes recorded or on video- in fact, non-violent resistance requires an audience to work most effectively.

Right - that's why the Nazi's didn't ever document their crimes. Oh wait... they did. And plenty of governments don't give a fuck who's watching when they do what they feel is right.

The recognition by the US Supreme Court and US government of a right to privacy (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Privacy Act of 1974, Roe v. Wade, Katz v. United States, among others) is a little bit more than mere "tradition". There is also the portion of the 4th Amendment to the US constitution saying "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which has usually been held to protect, among other things, privacy.

You are right- it isn't old enough to be tradition. My parents are older that it is. Not that I am not violating a person's person, their home, their papers or their effects.

You dumbfuck - the point is that privacy is NOT just a tradition, it is legally recognized by the highest court in the US and has a basis in law. You will have to overturn all that to get your 24/7 surveillence society.

Samuel - provide EVIDENCE of your assertion that increased surveillence in public places either reduces crime or increases convictions. That is what he is asking for. It also what I am now asking for.

You want me to provide evidence for the assertion that having video evidence of a crime leads to convictions?

Not just me. Two of us have asked for it. You made a claim, you are now being asked to back this up. Please do so or concede the point as required in the board policies. So far, I have yet to call moderator into a discussion to enforce that policy, please do not be the first to make me do this. Or haul your ass up for censure.

So - you have conceeded that surveillence can be used in an oppressive manner. Adding additional cameras will not make this less oppressive.

The Boy Scouts can be used in an oppressive manner as junior spies. Should we ban them too?

Want to argue the point? OK, I'm up for it - start another thread with that as the topic and I'll join in.

[Broomstick]

Oh, and do they really find drug makers by the power grid consumption? That seems like really weak as evidence.

Operations that grow marijuana indoors, depending heavily on electrical power for plumbing needs and growlights, DOES consume notably more power than is typical for, say, a house that doesn't double as a pot factory. Power consumption can be a tip off to this sort of drug production.

Meth, on the other hand, is best located by the remarkable cat-box aroma generated, as well as the tendency for homemade labs to explode.

I should not that both such operations would typically be in a residential-type building and thus off Samuel's surveillence system.

... what are you talking about? As for Eminent Domain (if I understand what it is, I.E. an exception to warrant laws concerning when the evidence is out in the open?) then they still have justified the need to gather evidence. They aren't gathering evidence when nothing is happening. They aren't gathering evidence before the crime is committed.

I'm sorry, the phrase "eminent domain" does not mean what you think it does. It is the government confiscation of private property for the greater good. I will also point out that there is a legal process that must be gone through, including demonstration of benefit and mandatory compension of the property owner for his/her loss. Please note for future reference. Better yet, look up an even more formal definition and explanation of the process.

[Samuel]

Point being? IF they weren't political crimes, I wouldn't be worried.

All those organizations were formed specifically to ferret out political crimes. This is being formed to deal with normal crimes.

If they are going to abuse it, I'm pretty sure the law won't have anything to do with it. 'Sides, the law isn't static, so whats your point?

Than their actions are illegal and they can be held accountable for that.

Accountability to the court (a part of the government) is still some kind of accountability. I will repeat, your system lacks this. If your evidence was gathered without a warrant under the current law, that evidence can be thrown out of court. But in your system, there is legal precedent for gathering whatever the fuck information you want whenever you want it, as long as it came from a government run camera. Get that through your thick skull.

I'm not seeing how this is bad. Do you want a system where the government has to request camera access by showing a crime occured?

Your analogy is flawed. This is more like shooting all dogs you come across to preempt them from biting you. Sure, you tick off the owners, but at least you never contract rabies!

... notice all the counter examples you give involve physical harm, which doesn't appear in the camera network ONCE.

Perhaps, but that affects my point how? It still sounds like merely pointing out hypocrisy won't put a stop to it.

It won't stop hypocrites. However, other people might have their minds changed.

So you admit that your scheme is impractical/infeasible on the face of it?

I find your density disturbing. Watching everything is impractical until we get good enough AIs. As it is now we can call up tapes that recorded crimes happening. Which is what I have been arguing for. It sort of puts a crimp in your "secret police" fears- do you really think the government has enough employees to watch everything?

Okay, so this "I can't believe its not theft" clause is relevant how?

You have maintained watching people is a massive, nay totalitarian, expansion of government powers. Somehow taking people's property feels a bit more tyranical, especially on the grounds that it would increase revenues.

Samuel, always the master at being completely irrelevant and pointless. Seriously, why did you even bother posting that? It isn't even tangentially related to what I was saying at all. *Edit*more to the point, I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.*/Edit*

"Away from the combat zone" sounds fine except if you go up against a competant enemy, they move the combat zone. It happened a couple of times in the first Gulf War. I'm just pointing out that "well I'll be fine" isn't true. Not to mention that it can't be universally applied- some of the people drafted are going to be on the front lines and die. Once again, the power of life and death is a bit larger than being able to watch you.

Yay. Now, what does that have to do with anything? I was opposing your proposal, not Bush's bullshit when I said that we would be consenting to a system with precious little recourse for abuse. We haven't consented to anything yet, your proposal is, thankfully, still a hypothetical posted on a bulletin board.

You still haven't shown how any abuse could occur and be anything other than illegal. All you have shown are actions that are already illegal. So in order for there to be abuse, the law has to be broken. How many times do I need to repeat this?

You invite the other guy to dinner, remembering that this proposal omits putting cameras in peoples homes. Or you do it by good old snail mail, which is protected by that pesky little "unwarranted search and seizure" thing. Its a felony to open someone else's mail, after all. Would you change this too?

Don't tempt me.

Oooooh, bad idea. City maintenance isn't exactly made up of trustworthy people. And contractors? Yeah, they really have nothing to gain from that data, no sirree. Nope, there is no chance that they could make a quick buck selling videos to the highest bidder, no information leaking out of the system as long as it is in their hands! Or maybe, just maybe, you are an utter moron, Samuel. At least DW had a good point about the current system. You? The best you have are a string of red herrings and bullshit. Give it up.

I was refering to the people responsible for making sure the cameras worked. I have no doubt the actual data goes to the police.

The desire to avoid death is not typically seen as "pathological". Based upon usage here, I don't think that word means what you think it does. Please take some remedial English, or at least consult a dictionary prior to posting.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0&t=131255

So you don't consider wife beating, child abuse, or setting a man's bed on fire in the middle of the night to be crimes? A person embezzling funds or running a scam on the PC in their bedroom isn't a crime?

A LOT of crime occurs inside homes. Few of it involves bombs.

The first two can be determined by looking at the individuals. Arson can be determined by you going into the persons house and it catching on fire. The last can be determined by tracking them down in the internet- cameras wouldn't work for that anyway. How could you tell, just be looking at their screen, they were doing something illegal?

It hasn't been consistently the case they've done anything about crime committed against gays, either. I remember when not only did police routinely ignore crimes committed against gays, they were often the perpetrators of said crime (see 1969 Stonewall Riot). It's like saying that it's impossible to lynch a black man in the modern US because we're beyond all that racist bullshit. We're not. Neither are all people past deadly levels of homophobia. Yes, despite being straight and white I'm certain that there are people in government positions who would happily stand by while various minorities they don't like are abused or even killed, and would even happily pull the trigger if they thought they could get away with it.

That assumes the entire department is in on it. In which case you are screwed anyway. It means that even when confronted by concrete proof, none of the police officers would act.

Correct. What makes you think the people watching your surveillence cameras won't abuse THEIR power? The potential for blackmail is staggering: "Mr Senator - I don't care if you were at that gay bar to pick up your fruity queen of a son, if you don't send me $50K a week I'm going to publish this photo of you entering The Manhandler on the front page of the city paper. I'm sure your more religious supportors will be pleased to see that, don't you?"

How is that bad again? You catch hypocrites acting like hypocrites.

If you understand that, why is it inconceivable to you that some people would find constant surveillence equally stressful? Just because YOU don't mind being watched doesn't mean everyone else is happy with it.

Because people get used to new things. Why should this be any different? They stare at the beginning, get used to it, and eventually forget about it. It isn't like people get all paranoid about store cameras- why should this be any different?

Right - that's why the Nazi's didn't ever document their crimes. Oh wait... they did. And plenty of governments don't give a fuck who's watching when they do what they feel is right.

They hid them from the rest of the world. Remember the model concentration camps they set up to fool the Red Cross? Or killing the body handlers every few months? Or doing the euthenasia program in secret? The government didn't hid its actions from itself- it hid it from everyone else.

You dumbfuck - the point is that privacy is NOT just a tradition, it is legally recognized by the highest court in the US and has a basis in law. You will have to overturn all that to get your 24/7 surveillence society.

Except the cases you cite refer to privacy in an individual own home or their persons, not an all encompassing right that covers everything.

Not just me. Two of us have asked for it. You made a claim, you are now being asked to back this up. Please do so or concede the point as required in the board policies. So far, I have yet to call moderator into a discussion to enforce that policy, please do not be the first to make me do this. Or haul your ass up for censure.

First, that would be hilarious. Samuel has not provided proof that evidence is necesary for the workings of the criminal justice system! What is the alternative to evidence? Trial by ordeal?
Anyway, an example:
http://govtsecurity.com/state_local_sec ... _evidence/
Would you like a study or is proof of concept enough?

Want to argue the point? OK, I'm up for it - start another thread with that as the topic and I'll join in.

What is the topic? We have no evidence for how they would function that way- the closest the US had to secret police was in the first world war, before their founding. Given the scouts outdoor focus, they would probably be used more as a training group for anywould be facist state- opening mail doesn't seem very merit badge worthy, while crossing a frozen stream does.

[Formless]

Okay, I'm getting really fucking tired of this "debate". There are more important things I have to be doing than arguing with a stubborn fuckwit like Samuel. I'm fed up with his BS enough. So just a couple things and I'm probably leaving this thread:

All those organizations were formed specifically to ferret out political crimes. This is being formed to deal with normal crimes.

As usual, irrelevant. It can be used to deal with normal crimes, yes, but it doesn't have to be used this way. It can also be used for poilitical crimes, and there is no reason to think it wouldn't. Reality does not work by your say-so, idiot.

Than their actions are illegal and they can be held accountable for that.

And... they enforce the law. See a little problem with that? How do you think tyrannies work, that they are honor-bound to play nice? That they aren't allowed to change the law to suit their purposes? Do you even know what a fucking tyranny is?

I'm not seeing how this is bad. Do you want a system where the government has to request camera access by showing a crime occured?

I want a system with something, because otherwise no one is guarding the guards! You are setting up a system with no legal precedent for defending yourself against abuse of said system because there is no way of ensuring the data is being used responsibly. It doesn't necessarily have to be a warrant for every camera for every crime, but there has to be something. If you cannot see why this is important after all Broomstick and I have said, you are hopeless.

The same reason we fireproof homes even though most don't catch on fire- prevention and preparedness.

Your analogy is flawed. This is more like shooting all dogs you come across to preempt them from biting you. Sure, you tick off the owners, but at least you never contract rabies!

... notice all the counter examples you give involve physical harm, which doesn't appear in the camera network ONCE.

Nitpicking the analogy. It doesn't have to be the exact same fucking thing for the principal to be the same, dumbshit.

I find your density disturbing. Watching everything is impractical until we get good enough AIs. As it is now we can call up tapes that recorded crimes happening. Which is what I have been arguing for. It sort of puts a crimp in your "secret police" fears- do you really think the government has enough employees to watch everything?

Putting responsibility in the hands of super intelligent AI assumes that you can trust said AI, when there is no reason to think so. The simple fact that it can be reprogrammed to be malevolent by its creators means that nothing is any different than if it was watched by humans (assuming that such a thing were possible). Your trust in technology is horrendously naive. Such flaws come to mind as: 1)the AI would have to be intelligent enough to recognize a crime from any other ordinary event, which means it is intelligent enough to make (bad) judgments, including choosing to be malevolent. 2) The controllers get to program the AI to register the crimes they want to register. 3) The government can still request the AI to hand over whatever tapes it needs to look over, and abuse the system from there. In fact, it would have to be able to ask for whatever tapes it needs if you want to be proactive in preventing crime. 4) Any intelligent being with access to power can misuse that power, even an artificially intelligent one. And so on. Adding an AI to the system might make it achievable, but it does nothing to address the basic criticisms of the system. I mean, seriously, any serious Sci-fi fan could tell you that assuming an AI would necessarily be benevolent is bullshit. Get with the program!

You have maintained watching people is a massive, nay totalitarian, expansion of government powers. Somehow taking people's property feels a bit more tyranical, especially on the grounds that it would increase revenues.

Oh, never mind the fact that Eminent domain, as Broomstick pointed out (thank you for that, BTW), is decided on a case by case basis. This is not. You plan on setting up a system once that is watching us at all times in public without thinking about how it might actually be used or how to protect the people from abuse by it. The two are NOT comparable.

Besides, you are appealing to the law again. Your own wikipedia article points out that there is a debate as to whether or not Eminent Domain is itself justified (I don't know enough about the topic to pass judgment, but enough to cast doubt on the idea's validity). You cannot say "but we already have this power, therefore we have no reason not to have this power too!" For every power we give the government, it has to be justified on its own merits, not the existence of other powers, possibly totalitarian in their own right. Put that through enough iterations, and you will end up giving the government too much power.

You still haven't shown how any abuse could occur and be anything other than illegal. All you have shown are actions that are already illegal. So in order for there to be abuse, the law has to be broken. How many times do I need to repeat this?

Good fucking grief, you dense, illiterate fucking moron! Do you even read your own words? The fact that it is illegal is the whole goddamn point! Otherwise, there would be no reason to criticize it! Not to mention the fact that laws can be changed, meaning that the word illegal is the wrong one for this context. What kind of kool-aid are you drinking, Samuel?

Don't tempt me.

And here we have it-- this is exactly the kind of thinking that precedes the creation of tyrannical governments. See where this is going? If all you are after is the prevention of all crimes, you cannot justify only watching public spaces, even though the idea of watching people in their homes and opening their mail is so obviously tyrannical/corrupt as to contradict the original purpose. Think of how much blackmail material you put into the laps of whatever government officials are to be in charge of this mess. That by itself should be reason enough to consider this proposal morally and intellectually bankrupt. The Watchers could quite literally rule the world (or at least the country).

Until you eliminate the crime of corruption, you cannot justify this proposal. Human nature would suggest this to be a fantasy.

I was refering to the people responsible for making sure the cameras worked. I have no doubt the actual data goes to the police.

That's a little better, but I still wouldn't think that a good idea. Blue Line of Silence, anyone?

Correct. What makes you think the people watching your surveillence cameras won't abuse THEIR power? The potential for blackmail is staggering: "Mr Senator - I don't care if you were at that gay bar to pick up your fruity queen of a son, if you don't send me $50K a week I'm going to publish this photo of you entering The Manhandler on the front page of the city paper. I'm sure your more religious supportors will be pleased to see that, don't you?"

How is that bad again? You catch hypocrites acting like hypocrites.

The people who are watching the system have full control over who gets to see what videos. So you want to catch that guy in hypocrisy? He is obviously one of the people in control of the system. You gotta be one of the watchers yourself if you want to be sure the evidence of the blackmail doesn't "disappear".

First, that would be hilarious. Samuel has not provided proof that evidence is necesary for the workings of the criminal justice system! What is the alternative to evidence? Trial by ordeal?
Anyway, an example:
http://govtsecurity.com/state_local_sec ... _evidence/
Would you like a study or is proof of concept enough?

The question, dumbass, is whether or not increased surveillance will lead to more convictions and increase crime prevention. We know evidence is necessary to the court system, that was never in question. That article proves what we already knew, that evidence from video cameras can be used as evidence in investigations. No shit. Now, would increasing surveillance and evidence gathering of this type actually lead to more convictions? There are societies out there that you can look into (Britan immediately springs to mind). You are going to have to do better to prove your assertion, Samuel. This isn't that hard.

[Samuel]

As usual, irrelevant. It can be used to deal with normal crimes, yes, but it doesn't have to be used this way. It can also be used for poilitical crimes, and there is no reason to think it wouldn't. Reality does not work by your say-so, idiot.

All your examples of large scale invasion of priacy and oppression where of groups specifically formed for the task. Ask yourself why that is and why the regular police weren't used for that task.

As for "no reason to think it wouldn't", there is only the fact that currently the US doesn't try people for political crimes. So unless we get massive re-writing of the laws than it isn't "my say-so".

And... they enforce the law. See a little problem with that? How do you think tyrannies work, that they are honor-bound to play nice? That they aren't allowed to change the law to suit their purposes? Do you even know what a fucking tyranny is?

A tyranny is technically rule by a tyrant. It isn't bad as Athenian history has shown, but it is dependant on the tyrant. The most common usage is as a synonm for an authoritarian government.

As for "who watches the watchers" we have the exact same set up now. Ask KS how it works, because it does.

I want a system with something, because otherwise no one is guarding the guards! You are setting up a system with no legal precedent for defending yourself against abuse of said system because there is no way of ensuring the data is being used responsibly. It doesn't necessarily have to be a warrant for every camera for every crime, but there has to be something. If you cannot see why this is important after all Broomstick and I have said, you are hopeless.

What abuse? If it is action, it is illegal. Do you not understand that the police can't just go around and beat people up- the US is not a police state and merely adding cameras won't make it any more a police state.

Nitpicking the analogy. It doesn't have to be the exact same fucking thing for the principal to be the same, dumbshit.

It just has to be the same category. The abuse you keep on insisting will occur is actions which are already illegal. Why would this change?

Putting responsibility in the hands of super intelligent AI assumes that you can trust said AI, when there is no reason to think so.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear- I didn't mean a self aware AI, but a filtering program that could flag things and bring them up based on patterns.

1)the AI would have to be intelligent enough to recognize a crime from any other ordinary event, which means it is intelligent enough to make (bad) judgments, including choosing to be malevolent.

My laptop is smart enough to recognize patterns. It isn't self-aware by any stretch of the word. As for bad judgments, humans have to be in the loop because they will be acting on the information. The computer flags it, personal watch it and call in it, and officers respond. Like 911 calls.

Oh, never mind the fact that Eminent domain, as Broomstick pointed out (thank you for that, BTW), is decided on a case by case basis. This is not. You plan on setting up a system once that is watching us at all times in public without thinking about how it might actually be used or how to protect the people from abuse by it. The two are NOT comparable.

Nitpicking the analogy. It doesn't have to be the exact same fucking thing for the principal to be the same, dumbshit.

Your own wikipedia article points out that there is a debate as to whether or not Eminent Domain is itself justified

Note to self- never us wiki again. EVER.

Eminent Domain is a power the government MUST have if it is to be able to do things like building. It needs to be able to compel people to give up their property or else it will be unable to do any construction is there is just one dissenter. It is a necesary power like the ability to declare war. There is no question that the government needs it.

For every power we give the government, it has to be justified on its own merits, not the existence of other powers, possibly totalitarian in their own right. Put that through enough iterations, and you will end up giving the government too much power.

Well, lets look at US history, shall we? The government has massively expanded its power. It has also, on occasion, voluntarily given up the power it appropriated.

Good fucking grief, you dense, illiterate fucking moron! Do you even read your own words? The fact that it is illegal is the whole goddamn point! Otherwise, there would be no reason to criticize it! Not to mention the fact that laws can be changed, meaning that the word illegal is the wrong one for this context. What kind of kool-aid are you drinking, Samuel?

I was refering to the abuse you keep on bringing up, not my proposal.

And here we have it-- this is exactly the kind of thinking that precedes the creation of tyrannical governments.

No, generally they are created by ending the democratic process.

See where this is going? If all you are after is the prevention of all crimes, you cannot justify only watching public spaces, even though the idea of watching people in their homes and opening their mail is so obviously tyrannical/corrupt as to contradict the original purpose.

First off, it is neither tyrannical or corrupt. And if it reduces utility, than we don't do it.

Think of how much blackmail material you put into the laps of whatever government officials are to be in charge of this mess. That by itself should be reason enough to consider this proposal morally and intellectually bankrupt. The Watchers could quite literally rule the world (or at least the country).

Unless the entire country was the watchers. Not, it isn't a good idea, but it has been the subject of numberous books. Such an action would almost certainly cause what Darth Wong aims for, while watching people in public probably wouldn't due to "plausible deniability".

Until you eliminate the crime of corruption, you cannot justify this proposal. Human nature would suggest this to be a fantasy.

The same could be said of police. After all, some of them are bastards.

That's a little better, but I still wouldn't think that a good idea. Blue Line of Silence, anyone?

Unless they can delete the data, this isn't going to be a problem. Remember what last happened when a cop was caught on camera?

The people who are watching the system have full control over who gets to see what videos. So you want to catch that guy in hypocrisy? He is obviously one of the people in control of the system. You gotta be one of the watchers yourself if you want to be sure the evidence of the blackmail doesn't "disappear".

Politicians won't be running the system. That is the job of civil servants. And I don't see why there wouldn't be multiple databases to prevent this from happening. Of course, blackmailing is a crime and if it was dealt with in public than it would be on camera. In private and you would know the blackmailer. A more likely abuse is selling imagry to the tabloids or America's Funniest Videos. Firing is probably the best way to deal with that, as well as civil lawsuits.

The question, dumbass, is whether or not increased surveillance will lead to more convictions and increase crime prevention. We know evidence is necessary to the court system, that was never in question. That article proves what we already knew, that evidence from video cameras can be used as evidence in investigations. No shit. Now, would increasing surveillance and evidence gathering of this type actually lead to more convictions? There are societies out there that you can look into (Britan immediately springs to mind). You are going to have to do better to prove your assertion, Samuel. This isn't that hard.

It is called proof of concept. If it can be used in one case than, etc. As for seeing wheter or not England's crime rate has changed due to putting up cameras, there is several problems- the most obvious that they have also been adopting other measures like the anti-social behavior order which I oppose ironically on the same reasons you oppose this. Of course, given that the British camera system was put up to counter the IRA and that private companies put them in their premises implies some effect- I just have no idea how to measure it.

[Akkleptos]

Can we cash in if the recodings Big Brother makes of us are aired on TV? I wouldn't mind that. What a reality show that would make! No, and I wouldn't mind at all (as long as they keep the bathroom private).

[Formless]

Just going to pop back in for a second, since I have the time:

No, and I wouldn't mind at all (as long as they keep the bathroom private).

This leads to the rather obvious, but nevertheless important question: why the bathroom? Why not the bedroom, that's where all the intimate stuff goes on? Unless you really have a thing for bathrooms I wasn't aware of (and don't want to know about), it does not seem to be consistent to posit this particular exception and not others.

Edit: ah what the hey, this shits stupid enough I have no reason not to take one last stab at it:

It just has to be the same category. The abuse you keep on insisting will occur is actions which are already illegal. Why would this change?

You really need to look at the analogy again, because it was about the principal of preemptively getting information and comparing that to preemptively shooting all dogs on sight. NOT comparing the tyoes of abuse going on here. But, as we have already established that you are too stupid to live and illiterate to boot, good bye.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, I see what you are saying. Now, as I said to Samuel, who can we hold accountable for the use of this surveillance? This is a general question of course, but it may provide insight to the flaws of the current scheme as well.

I think you're missing the point here. How is surveillance typically misused? It is typically misused in order to unfairly target an "undesirable". Why is this possible? Because we have a ridiculous system set up where routine activities of 99% of the population are technically illegal. A cop, if he really wants to, can follow the average person around and it's pretty much inevitable that he'll eventually find something to charge him with. So to a large extent, we rely on shitty police surveillance in order to get away with routine low-level lawbreaking, and we trust that the police won't target us because we're good citizens. They'll target "undesirables" instead.

This system is downright perverse when you think about it. A pervasive surveillance system with Freedom of Information access would force radical changes in this entire approach. Laws which are routinely broken by 99% of the population would simply have to be changed, which would make the idea of "misusing" them null and void.

As I said, under the current system we fear "misuse" of surveillance because we all know that we all break the law on a regular basis. The laws are too restrictive. The police, lacking crime-fighting tools, made sure they would have lots of extra personal discretion powers, as if that is a reasonable substitute. And then we fear their use of those powers.

[Formless]

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Samuel never said anything about letting the information be free to access. In fact, when I started this exchange, I actually admitted that allowing the people access to that data would go a great distance towards making this system hard to abuse. For one thing, it would be, get this, a way of creating accountability because now its use is held accountable to the people. But if we let it all into the hands of one one group of people, and only one group of people as Samuel has implied throughout, that group becomes impossible to manage.