The State Of Surveillance

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Aug 1, 2005.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Lost in the recent London bombings, along with innocent lives, was any illusion that today's surveillance technology can save us from evildoers. Britain has 4 million video cameras monitoring streets, parks, and government buildings, more than any other country. London alone has 500,000 cameras watching for signs of illicit activity. Studying camera footage helped link the July 7 bombings with four men -- but only after the fact. The disaster drove home some painful reminders: Fanatics bent on suicide aren't fazed by cameras. And even if they are known terrorists, most video surveillance software won't pick them out anyway.

    Tomorrow's surveillance technology may be considerably more effective. But each uptick in protection will typically come at the cost of more intrusion into the privacy of ordinary people. For now, the public seems to find that trade-off acceptable, so scientists around the world have intensified efforts to perfect the art of surveillance, hoping to catch villains before they strike.

    Research laboratories envision tools that could identify and track just about every person, anywhere -- and sound alarms when the systems encounter hazardous objects or chemical compounds. Many such ideas seem to leap from the pages of science fiction: An artificial nose in doorways and corridors sniffs out faint traces of explosives on someone's hair. Tiny sensors floating in reservoirs detect a deadly microbe and radio a warning. Smart cameras ID people at a distance by the way they walk or the shape of their ears. And a little chemical lab analyzes the sweat, body odor, and skin flakes in the human thermal plume -- the halo of heat that surrounds each person.

    SOURCE
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    We need the anti-anonymity laws.
    When you are in a public place (like the
    highway or subway or airways) you do
    NOT have the right to be anonymous.

    The anti-anonymity laws are required
    by the consititution. The consititution
    of the USofA says that i have the right
    to face my accusers. How can i face my
    accusers if they are anonymous?

    BTW, one is never anonymous in one's own
    home. There is always some finincial arangement
    for the home, so one is not anonymous
    in there home. The only constitutional
    requiremnt is that one be secure in their home.

    If a person carries the identifying papers
    (which are mostly plastic now), of more than
    one person, this should be made a felony.

    -Ed,
    another victim of 9/11/2001 and OKC 4/19/1995.
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Ann Coulter told Drudge on radio that she had no objection to a camera where there could be a policeman if we could afford one. The Libertarian Drudge really had no answer for that and still doesn't. The cameras proved their worth when the London would-be bombers were rounded up quickly. They are also being tried in Chicago. I hope that we get them downtown Indianapolis.
     
  4. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    They will be fought tooth and nail, just like profiling. Political correctness is a huge enemy of our nation, and will greatly contribute to it's downfall.
     
  5. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Racial profiling is what we PC advocates abhor, while criminal profiling gets the [​IMG] from us.

    Anti-anonymity laws are fine as long as we can trust our government to be benevolent - but I don't think that would be for very long. I think it will be too tempting for politicians to use available, deeply private information for political gain - or against those they perceive as enemies (remember Nixon's list).

    The "camera where there could be a policeman if we could afford one" seems like a reasonable step. Does anyone have a good agrument against it?
     
  6. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Daisy, Are you for NOT PROFILING Middle Eastern Men between the ages of 18-35?
     
  7. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardsheller, if that is the full extent of the "profile", then it is so absurdly broad as to be worthless (while, at the same time, does nothing about, say, female or Indonesian, Bangladeshi or all-American converts as potential terrorists). I see no difference in that and profiling drug dealers as Afro-American Men between the ages of 18-35, as some New Jersey troopers had done.
     
  8. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite the contrary Daisy. It is not only sufficiently narrow as to be very effective but it stands the scrutiny of being rational. Something like 98% of all terrorist actions in the last 45 years have been commited by
    M. Eastern men between 18 and 35.

    Even if the N. Jersey police got flack for profiling the blacks in Jersey, ask yourself what the reason for it was. Could it be that the 18 to 35 year old blacks were committing the most crime?
    I bet they were.

    The PC crowd through distortion of facts has become a very destructive force for evil.
     

Share This Page

Loading...