Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-04-2006, 08:12 AM   #1
DarkIce
 
DarkIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 311
Question Surveillance cameras

What´s your opinion on surveillance cams? More and more public places are equipped with them, but do they really help to prevent anything from happening? Do we need to film innocent people just to pick out a bad guy every then and now? How much money is one avoided crime act worth? Do you feel safer if there´s a camera above your head, watching you take a piss or something?

Here in my hometown the following video was made by the local public transportation services company - with the help of a couple of surveillance cams. I bet the original quality of the video is much much better. Just imagine you would be there, cheating on your girlfriend and she later views that video and sees you flirting with another girl...

And to top it off - did the surveillance cams prevent the car to enter the tunnel? Could it be that this technique is just for monitoring (innocent people) and not primarily to avoid criminal acts and stupid behaviour? And why did this video make it out of the building where they story the videos for at least 48 hours?

Watch the crazy video!

And how wired is the guy who posted the video? Perhaps now there are a few stupid guys who will try to shoot their own videos? How fu**ing crazy - just think what could happen if the car hits some passer-by?

This is all just ridiculous and makes me angry... *Grrrr*
__________________
"Jump off roofs with me"
DarkIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 09:31 AM   #2
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
They try that shite in West Belfast every summer. Putting up surviellence cams, then thinkin' we don't notice. They have gotten better though - installing them in the ground in the middle of the road, but we always find 'em. And 'disable' them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1XInyp_w2c

-S
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 09:36 AM   #3
angel_dark_demon_bright
 
angel_dark_demon_bright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan. middle of f**ing nowhere.
Posts: 175
Ok, well that was completly pointless. Im so glad i spent the last half-hour waiting for it to down load.
angel_dark_demon_bright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 10:36 AM   #4
DarkIce
 
DarkIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 311
ADDB: Guess you refer to Sternn´s video? ;-)

Hmmm. Well Sternn, thanks for showing us how to get rid of these cams. But then doing so - that turns you into a criminal, doesn´t it??!
So where´s the point?
__________________
"Jump off roofs with me"
DarkIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 10:45 AM   #5
angel_dark_demon_bright
 
angel_dark_demon_bright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan. middle of f**ing nowhere.
Posts: 175
The video failed to incite any unrest in me. I dont know if multiple video cameras are something new in europe but here in the states they've been doing it for years. We just find new ways to get away with stuff.

I guess to make them spend precious time and money trying to fix these. They cant catch everyone.
angel_dark_demon_bright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 11:01 AM   #6
Pathogen.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, California.
Posts: 392
Sure surveillance cameras document instances of crime as they're happening but at the same time, they're also an instrument that invades people's private moments. What if a couple decides to kiss or make out in private at a bus stop or subway corridor? How are you going to pull that off if there's a captive audience watching them? The captive audience in this instance being a fucking surveillance camera. Best way to deal with that situation: Take a Louisville Slugger or a crowbar & bash the hell out of it. Or for a less destructive way, apply black spray paint to the front camera lens.
Pathogen. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 11:09 AM   #7
Pathogen.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, California.
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xnguela
So at the risk of sounding Sternnish, just because they've been "doing it for years", does that mean we should just sit back & accept it?
XNG: Hell no! That's why I suggested small little actions on surveillance cameras like my last post here stated.
Pathogen. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 11:20 AM   #8
angel_dark_demon_bright
 
angel_dark_demon_bright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan. middle of f**ing nowhere.
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xnguela
So at the risk of sounding Sternnish, just because they've been "doing it for years", does that mean we should just sit back & accept it?
No not at all. But most of the time there is nobody watching. They only play the tapes back if they know a crime has been committed. Otherwise the tapes are usually erased and/or recorded over after a few days or weeks. Only in such places as supermarkets, trainstations/airports, or hotels are the cameras manned the entire time. They arent allowed to put cameras in bathrooms, hotel rooms, etc, because that is an invasion of privacy. If you feel the need to suddeny have to make out with your er, uh, attractive other person there are usually always blindspots in the camera's view.

The cameras are only put in very public places so odds are someone can already see you other than through a camera lens. But if you decide it to important to move to these spots or to just wait until you're somewhere more private.
angel_dark_demon_bright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 11:24 AM   #9
angel_dark_demon_bright
 
angel_dark_demon_bright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan. middle of f**ing nowhere.
Posts: 175
And who'd want to make out in grocery store anyways?
angel_dark_demon_bright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 01:17 PM   #10
Queenofdarkness57
 
Queenofdarkness57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wonderland/BarbieWorld
Posts: 847
Quote:
You know that many dressing rooms now have cameras? That's not public.
Shouldn't that be illegal? No one has the right to watch people undress.
Quote:
Do we need to film innocent people
Quote:
Just imagine you would be there, cheating on your girlfriend and she later views that video and sees you flirting with another girl...
That's not innocent, in my opinion.
On one hand, surveillance cameras are very essential, since they solve various crimes. I don't think they violate any privacy at all. Who cares if people are making out(for example), that's not why those cameras were placed in public places. That's silly, since you don't mind kissing in front of everyone passing by, but the few workers who are responsible for the cameras seem to bother you a lot. On the other hand, cameras can not possibly be places such as dressing rooms, or in toilets. That is way too private, and unacceptable.
__________________
Everytime you masturbate, God kills a kitten!
So, DON'T DO IT!!!!
Queenofdarkness57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 06:32 PM   #11
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
I just think it's funny the way all this points to a 1984 senario, cameras everywhere, wiretaps wherever the government deems them nessesary, the whole 'pease through war', and detentions without trials, etc. but yet whenever anyone makes the 1984 comparison people say 'thats outrageous - it will never happen' where as over half the stuff the book mentioned that wasn't there back in the 60's and 70's is now not only there, but in place and a current tool of government(s) and in use.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 07:22 PM   #12
Sobeh
 
Sobeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: couch-surfer
Posts: 598
A totally administered society is one of three potential alternative futures referred to in Critical Theory; the other two are a world of constant wars and military rule, and the third, the one we likely want to see occur, is the reconciled society. Reconciled, because the more than 50 antagonisms present in society now achieve some sort of closure.

Anyway, one of those antagonisms is Us vs. Them, as in anytime a group of people band together with a common identity against some perceived significant difference in others. One way this is seen is in a dichotomy between Law-Abiders and Criminals. This debate goes on and on, but in the end, each criminal is also a person, and a certain level of recognition of that is missing when people accept camera's all over the place. The thought goes Well, those are for the criminals, and since I'm not one I've nothing to fear, only the criminals do. Well, we're all people, as I mentioned - all that it takes to make you a criminal is not some ethical shadow or maladaptive social action, merely a law change. You aren't as far away from being a 'criminal' as you might think you are.

A totally administered society means you no longer have the ability to voice what you think should and should not be a law - that power is in the hands of others. Cameras everywhere are a step towards that alternative future.

My two cents.
__________________
The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must---" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change cliches and others like them, when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.
Sobeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 07:48 PM   #13
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
Isn't complaining about cameras a little too paranoid?
Sure, you might not like cameras in, let's use a previous example, a grocery store; but if you were the owner of that store, would you rather let some horny teenagers make out in the ice cream aisle, or see if no one is stealing from you?
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 08:00 PM   #14
Sobeh
 
Sobeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: couch-surfer
Posts: 598
When critiquing policies like surveillance cameras, it doesn't do to simply ask if you receive a benefit; you ought to ask, who is receiving the greatest benefit?

In the store example, sure the grocer wants to make sure no one shoplifts, and if they do that they are indentifiable. So then a library makes the claim but with books instead of bananas, and suddenly the issue is slightly different, because it benefits you and I and the library administrators, but then it also has the potential to benefit a sinister government willing to spy on its own people... such as the United States circa 2006.

You can make the example clear by extremizing it: "Yeah maybe food manufacturers don't have to tell me what ingredients are in their products, but I get a monthly coupon circular!" This is it, in a nutshell.
__________________
The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must---" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change cliches and others like them, when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.
Sobeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 08:25 PM   #15
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
That's one hard-to-understand nutshell
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 08:52 PM   #16
Sobeh
 
Sobeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: couch-surfer
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sobeh
and if they do that they are indentifiable.
What the hell.....

"Identifiable" - they, meaning the shoplifters. Gawd that was awful.
__________________
The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must---" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change cliches and others like them, when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.
Sobeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 09:37 PM   #17
emeraldlonewoulf
 
emeraldlonewoulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 750 mi north of AZ equivalent to Derry, Maine
Posts: 673
We should not tolerate cameras in public places, but hell, we don't really have to. Satellite technology has progressed to the point that 10-40 degree angles of view are possible, instead of just "straight down". This doesn't sound like much....... until you think 'movie' instead of 'map'. The thing is, these images are increasingly used at even local levels of government. Think county assesor and property taxes. If someone wants to see you, it really isn't that hard.

All that being said, I take it as a personal offense that these governmental, corporate, and/or private entities have access to such technology. Viewing crimes while they are being committed doesn't prevent or discourage them. And considering such "evidence" in many cases is considered irrefutable, but is easily tampered with, I think they are more a detriment and hinderance to justice than they are a help.

Perhaps not right now, but surely people can see the potential?! It is much easier to claim someone is guilty if their is video evidence, whether it is factual or not. How many times has someone been convicted of a crime because a "well-meaning" or angry cop "found" evidence on them? Is it really that far a stretch to think someone would tamper with a bit of digital film if they are "sure" someone is guilty?
__________________
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with catsup." - unknown



question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death
(shouts) WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??!!?
answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows
Because some people are dicks. And not everyone else is gay.
emeraldlonewoulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2006, 12:44 AM   #18
DarkIce
 
DarkIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian
Isn't complaining about cameras a little too paranoid?
Sure, you might not like cameras in, let's use a previous example, a grocery store; but if you were the owner of that store, would you rather let some horny teenagers make out in the ice cream aisle, or see if no one is stealing from you?
Well, if I was the owner of a grocery store - I certainly would love to film those 2 (how about 3, or even 4?) gothic(?) teenagers making out in the ice cream aisle and to post the video here on Gnet *har-har*

Just imagine - after 8-10 hrs work you have to scan through 8-10 hrs of film just to be sure you didn´t overlook the cherry poping in the hardware (metal) aisle ;-)
That´s only 4 hrs sleep per night *giggling*
__________________
"Jump off roofs with me"
DarkIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2006, 12:53 AM   #19
DarkIce
 
DarkIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf
We should not tolerate cameras in public places, but hell, we don't really have to. Satellite technology has progressed ...
We´ve got that McD´s in town - and they have (maybe had) a camera in the men´s toilet. Reason for me not to take a piss there!

But one thing for sure - it costs a huge amount of money to build, install and to operate/navigate a satellite. Mucho moooore than to install some tiny surveillance cams for 10-20 Euro.

So satellites are not the threat, but the thousands of other cams.
__________________
"Jump off roofs with me"
DarkIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2006, 01:04 AM   #20
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
The biggest surveillence technique these days that most people forget about is mobile phones. ALL have GPS tracking systems in them.

I know of multiple cases you can google for where drug dealers are being arrested based on mobile phone evidence. Also, recent parolees from the US prison systems are being tracked, and if their signal (which can be traced to within 3-10 feet depending on the area) goes into certain neighborhoods deemed off limits, their parole can be revoked based on mere satellite evidence.

That's better than outfitting every person with an ID chip - everyone is outfitting themselves and paying to do so.

In Northern Irleand during a bomb trial, they tried 3 men as conspirators based on the mobile phone signals - the one person who they claimed made the bomb had a signal that was next to 3 other 'suspects'. The only 'evidence' they had was mobile phone signals to the one person they had evidence on.

Also, under the US Patriot act and other current acts, mobile phone carriers have to retain yer records there for up to 10 years. This also goes along with yer GPS info, meaning they can go back 10 years to see where you were when. Will they use it in court? That all depends on what else they can 'produce' to use against you. You can bet if thats all they have and they want you, a grainy camera video and yer mobile phone records will be the next best thing to fingerprints, or at least thats what the government wants you to believe.

And once again, all it takes is a person with access to the records (read in: dozens of people) to change one digit, and yer gone.

But hey, don't take my word, google it.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
School officials continue dodging questions about webcam surveillance Deadmanwalking_05 Spooky News 0 02-24-2010 09:16 AM
Arizona speed cameras incite a mini revolt Deadmanwalking_05 Spooky News 0 02-19-2010 11:21 PM
1984 – w/out any surveillance, please Utho Literature 18 12-20-2008 03:12 PM
Big Brother @ Work CptSternn Politics 17 12-29-2007 02:24 AM
Political Corruption CptSternn Politics 46 12-05-2007 05:29 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM.