I'm watching some naff summary of the noughties programme on TV right now (yeah, not much on) and its really hitting me how unmemorable the past decade has been.
In people's mind clear images of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s exist.
The 80s are all tackyness and shoulder pads. Yuppies. New wave. Perms.
70s are all sparkly and discoy. Long hair and flairs. (with some punk on the side)
The 60s were swinging. A very distinctive fashion. And the Beatles and all that sort of music.
The 50s were teddy boys and Elvis and all that sort of thing.
Thats just a quick summary by me, of course there's more than that but I'm sure you'd agree that there is definatly a image for those decades- the 70s and 60s at least, the 80s most likely too with the 50s being the only borderline one (they were sort of a lead in to the 60s and were too busy with the emergence of youth culture to have a well developed pop culture).
But the 90s?
,...err....yeah.
What were the 90s?
We had rave but they hardly defined the entire decade. Not even a year or two.
Britpop dominated music in the mid 90s but fashion wise there wasn't much special and distinctive there.
I guess lad culture could be seen as one specially 90s thing but.... its not much.
The 00s were even worse.
I can't think of any defining features at all.
The best music was a revival of the sort of thing we saw circa 1980.
Maybe bling and all that tacky rap crap? But this stuff was hardly as prevalent as certain fashions in earlier decades.
Maybe computer graphics? Whilst the 90s had awful virtual reality as a brief fad the 00s had computer graphics wanking becoming all important in film and TV. But again, not too big a decade definer.
Easy jet and ryan air? They have changed the way we live our lives quite a bit I suppose.
The 90s- grunge, Miramax, runaway tech stocks
The oughts- mainstream hiphop, reality tv, global war on terror
As for fashion, I don't pay attention to that shit.
Young people have sucked both decades.
The rise of global terrorism is kinda defining of the 00s. Unless you are only looking at music and fashion, which is kinda limiting.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 24, 2009, 05:35:02 PM
The rise of global terrorism is kinda defining of the 00s.
This is what I was thinking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 24, 2009, 05:46:35 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 24, 2009, 05:35:02 PM
The rise of global terrorism is kinda defining of the 00s.
This is what I was thinking.
Odd since the US has spent a great deal fighting a war against it you'd think it should be declining.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 24, 2009, 05:35:02 PM
The rise of global terrorism is kinda defining of the 00s.
Really? What about Munich, Lockerbie etc etc etc?
What has been defining the 00s is more a serious effort to fight global terrorism IMHO.
90s was Britpop?
I remember Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Nine Inch Nails.
A handful of bible beating towelheads do not define a decade.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 06:09:35 PM
90s was Britpop?
I remember Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Nine Inch Nails.
His post seems 100% British-centric.
The 90's definitely had it's own fashion, and cringeworthy one as well. See early seasons of Friends.
Quote from: Sahib on December 24, 2009, 06:47:45 PM
The 90's definitely had it's own fashion, and cringeworthy one as well. See early seasons of Friends.
There was a stretch there when *every single* girl under the age of 30 had Jennifer Aniston's hairdo.
90s to me is tech bubble, 3 button suits, and hipsterbots.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 24, 2009, 07:12:10 PM
Quote from: Sahib on December 24, 2009, 06:47:45 PM
The 90's definitely had it's own fashion, and cringeworthy one as well. See early seasons of Friends.
There was a stretch there when *every single* girl under the age of 30 had Jennifer Aniston's hairdo.
90s to me is tech bubble, 3 button suits, and hipsterbots.
To me it's period from grade 3 to my graduation or so.
The 90s was the dawn of the internet, and elementary through middle school.
Quote from: Tyr on December 24, 2009, 04:48:52 PM
I'm watching some naff summary of the noughties
I'll tell you what the last decade wasn't, the noughties, that's for fucking sure. Friggin Englishmen <_< :x
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 24, 2009, 07:12:10 PM
90s to me is tech bubble, 3 button suits, and hipsterbots.
Grunge, rave, britpop, girl power. Diadora tracksuit T-shirts and poppers. Lad and Ladette culture, with a bit of cool Britannia. New Labour, Clinton's blow job.
Personally in terms of pop culture I remember tracksuits, Blur, Father Ted, being confused by and scared of the Spice Girls.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 06:09:35 PM
90s was Britpop?
I remember Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Nine Inch Nails.
Those, but also Blur, Pulp, Oasis. In Germany we had grunge, britpop, hard rock/metal and *sigh* techno/dance pop.
The 90s were also the heyday of the boy groups.
On the other hand we didn't have much RnB or hip hop (which was a reason I didn't care much for watching U.S. video charts on MTV at the time - UK was much better).
I think that if there is one word that defines the nineties, it's "complacency". It was the decade of the "end of history", where all wars have been finished and won, and any military conflicts that were fought (Iraq I, Serbia, Somalia) were pretty much about keeping the stragglers of the New World Order in line, rather than anything that was vitally important for the West. Communism fell in Russia, the world was on the right track, the economy would continue to grow without problems, the progress was happening all over the place. The disco kids of the eighties put on suits, but didn't stop snorting coke - they also thought they won the cultural revolution so there was no point in trying anymore. This kind of carefree attitude of our own belle epoque was, I guess, best exemplified by the Clinton Era and the triumph of the New Labour.
And then we had 911, the Bush era, neoconservatism, the raise of the religious right, and all of it went to hell in a handbasket.
The Religious Right have been fighting a rearguard action their entire existence(which began in the 70s).
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2009, 03:46:54 AM
And then we had 911, the Bush era, neoconservatism, the raise of the religious right, and all of it went to hell in a handbasket.
Just to be clear this is a 100% honest question, I am not looking to flame, troll or instigate anything. :)
Everything you mention there seems to be very American-centric, yet they are how you will remember the '00's? Why is that? I understand that the
War on TerrorTM affects most of the world, indirectly, which would include 9/11, Bush and I suppose neo-conservatism but what about the religious right? Is that completely about gay rights issues? Again I am not trying to take the piss here, I am just curious why a Polish citizen's memories of the decade seems so American-centric. :)
Quote from: sbr on December 25, 2009, 04:08:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2009, 03:46:54 AM
And then we had 911, the Bush era, neoconservatism, the raise of the religious right, and all of it went to hell in a handbasket.
Just to be clear this is a 100% honest question, I am not looking to flame, troll or instigate anything. :)
Everything you mention there seems to be very American-centric, yet they are how you will remember the '00's? Why is that? I understand that the War on TerrorTM affects most of the world, indirectly, which would include 9/11, Bush and I suppose neo-conservatism but what about the religious right? Is that completely about gay rights issues? Again I am not trying to take the piss here, I am just curious why a Polish citizen's memories of the decade seems so American-centric. :)
Because this board in American-centric. I could come up with a lot of Poland-specific stuff but that wouldn't mean anything to anyone except Sahib.
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2009, 04:13:53 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 25, 2009, 04:08:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2009, 03:46:54 AM
And then we had 911, the Bush era, neoconservatism, the raise of the religious right, and all of it went to hell in a handbasket.
Just to be clear this is a 100% honest question, I am not looking to flame, troll or instigate anything. :)
Everything you mention there seems to be very American-centric, yet they are how you will remember the '00's? Why is that? I understand that the War on TerrorTM affects most of the world, indirectly, which would include 9/11, Bush and I suppose neo-conservatism but what about the religious right? Is that completely about gay rights issues? Again I am not trying to take the piss here, I am just curious why a Polish citizen's memories of the decade seems so American-centric. :)
Because this board in American-centric. I could come up with a lot of Poland-specific stuff but that wouldn't mean anything to anyone except Sahib.
That works. That was going to be another option but I realized I was too drunk to continue and cut my post short. Off to bed now for me, before Santa shows up.
American imperialism doesn't exactly let us have our own decades.
And let's face it, the entire world is looking at you, while you're busy looking at your navel.
The End of Days mood light has certainly defined the oughties with disaster piled on disaster.
Marty makes a good summary, I think. Aside from thinking the resurgence of the religious right is a bad thing.
No, Marty. The resurgence of the religious right is what will shine a light in this tunnel of darkness and will usher us into the next decade with a feeling of HOPE and FAITH.
WE WILL PREVAIL.
You will burn in hell.
This blighted New World Order will be defeated just like we defeated the Injuns and the Jews.
Quote from: The Brain on December 25, 2009, 04:18:49 AM
American imperialism doesn't exactly let us have our own decades.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fsmilie_flag_USA.gif&hash=276fba38219618596de74216ad9cc1604dfd2923)
U-S-A, U-S-A
Quote from: sbr on December 25, 2009, 04:21:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 25, 2009, 04:18:49 AM
American imperialism doesn't exactly let us have our own decades.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fsmilie_flag_USA.gif&hash=276fba38219618596de74216ad9cc1604dfd2923)
U-S-A, U-S-A
We need this smily!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 24, 2009, 10:23:20 PM
The 90s was the dawn of the internet, and elementary through middle school.
Aha, that gives me a good one for the 00s. The ineternet infiltrating all aspects of life.
In the 90s the internet remained a precious commodity but for a few years now it has just been there and utterly taken for granted, its hard to imagine using my computer without the internet.
QuoteThe Religious Right have been fighting a rearguard action their entire existence(which began in the 70s).
Such is the job of the right in general really.
QuoteBecause this board in American-centric. I could come up with a lot of Poland-specific stuff but that wouldn't mean anything to anyone except Sahib.
Would be interesting to read anyway. I'd imagine the 90s are pretty damn memorable and important in eastern Europe.
If I may offer a dissenting opinion. I think it's impossible to define the 2000s while we're still in them. While 9/11 did shatter a lot of the hopes and dreams, in terms of world politics it didn't "change everything". It provided a propitious moment for a certain strand of US foreign policy but did not itself alter the fundamental balance of power. The rise of China will in my opinion be far more important. In a way, the 1990s and 2000s are the decades when we pretended great power politics did not exist.
It is also worth remembering that a staggering number of people were lifted out of poverty this decade, and that until 2008 it was, economically, good times in the west. Given the response to the global recession the downturn is a lot less worse than feared so I think in a few years it won't dominate opinions of the decade.
It terms of fashion, it did not lend itself to crude characterisation that other decades suffer. But that's probably because the defining film of 2000s culture hasn't been made. For the 1990s though there are plenty.
If I had to bet though, I think the 2000s will be remembered as the decade the Intenet and wireless communications matured. On a day to day basis that affects more of us, whether in London or Mogadishu, than most events hailed as epoch defining.
I shall ignore the 1990s :D
This chap has written an article which sums up what I regard as the most important change in Britain in the past decade :
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7869/
Quote from: Warspite on December 25, 2009, 06:47:28 AM
It is also worth remembering that a staggering number of people were lifted out of poverty this decade, and that until 2008 it was, economically, good times in the west. Given the response to the global recession the downturn is a lot less worse than feared so I think in a few years it won't dominate opinions of the decade.
At least in the US the economy was certainly medicore through 2008. Not what I would call a prosperous decade, especially when I compared with the 90s.
Quote from: The Brain on December 25, 2009, 04:18:49 AM
American imperialism doesn't exactly let us have our own decades.
:yeah:
Quote from: Sahib on December 24, 2009, 06:47:45 PM
His post seems 100% British-centric.
Consider the source.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2009, 07:03:17 AM
I shall ignore the 1990s :D
This chap has written an article which sums up what I regard as the most important change in Britain in the past decade :
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7869/
That they start with the old 'CCTV is bad' line doesn't really endear them to me. As always I find this fuss about the government becoming all totalitarian and restricting liberty pretty overblown.
QuoteHis post seems 100% British-centric.
Consider the source.
Well of course. How am I to know what the decade was like in other countries?
You should stick to what you know.
Quote from: Warspite on December 25, 2009, 06:47:28 AM
If I may offer a dissenting opinion. I think it's impossible to define the 2000s while we're still in them. While 9/11 did shatter a lot of the hopes and dreams, in terms of world politics it didn't "change everything".
I would contend that it did. Europe has certainly increasingly felt the echoes of 9/11 as anti-muslim sentiment has risen everywhere and right-wing governments have risen even in traditional bastions of social democracy such as Scandiweenia.
As for the 90s, in Eastern Europe and Russia the fall of communism and various hopes and disappointments associated with that are certainly defining.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 25, 2009, 07:24:39 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 25, 2009, 06:47:28 AM
It is also worth remembering that a staggering number of people were lifted out of poverty this decade, and that until 2008 it was, economically, good times in the west. Given the response to the global recession the downturn is a lot less worse than feared so I think in a few years it won't dominate opinions of the decade.
At least in the US the economy was certainly medicore through 2008. Not what I would call a prosperous decade, especially when I compared with the 90s.
The income of the average American fell about 1,000 bucks over the decade. It was a sort of a gilded age where it looked good from the outside but not much of real value on the inside. It seems the economy was driven heavily by borrowing. Historians will likely look at as the 1980's part II: Blood, Debt and Fear.
ýou shit me.
The 90's and the 00's were the first decades of Globalization. Of cheap/free everything. The democratization of Information and Culture. The Decades were one can't really be labeled.
Well in the US we had Democracy and Culture and Information a little bit earlier then 1990.
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2009, 07:03:17 AM
I shall ignore the 1990s :D
This chap has written an article which sums up what I regard as the most important change in Britain in the past decade :
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7869/
That they start with the old 'CCTV is bad' line doesn't really endear them to me. As always I find this fuss about the government becoming all totalitarian and restricting liberty pretty overblown.
Very sad to see anyone on Languish take that line, even someone like you.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2009, 05:33:19 PM
Well in the US we had Democracy and Culture and Information a little bit earlier then 1990.
re-read. Democratization of: Culture and Information.
It's diferent.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2009, 07:03:17 AM
I shall ignore the 1990s :D
This chap has written an article which sums up what I regard as the most important change in Britain in the past decade :
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7869/
Not in UK, but fitting nonetheless.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffriendsofirony.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2F129059031436335642.jpg&hash=d4539b5b7c3c7f1c9e2ce778428dc867e9eee178)
:(
Wonderful picture Syt :lol:
Tim, I'm glad you appreciate the nature of the problem, it's bloody depressing when young people dismiss it. Clearly it is not yet the Soviet Union here, but the direction of travel is disturbing and needs to be reversed. I don't want my kids to live in a society where citizens have been replaced with mere good little consumers.
I think that the 90s can't be defined as easily by trends is ironically one of the most defining things about it:
90s: The ADD Decade. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 25, 2009, 08:17:40 PM
Very sad to see anyone on Languish take that line, even someone like you.
Whats wrong with CCTV?
I for one certainly feel a lot safer if I'm walking home at 3 o'clock in the morning and there are a bunch of cctv cameras in the area than if there'd be none.
The local paper shop had a camera installed outside it a few months ago, after a month or so of it being there they noticed that a lot more old people seemed to come to buy things after dark than they had before. They felt a lot less scared of the kids hanging around outside with a camera watching them.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 26, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
I think that the 90s can't be defined as easily by trends is ironically one of the most defining things about it:
90s: The ADD Decade. :contract:
Nonsense. We just can't define a decade we lived through so recently. I bet people living in the 1960s felt the same way about 1950s etc. The narrative gets written only about 2-3 decades afterwards and is as much about what happened during the given decade as it is about what happened during the following 2-3 decades.
Wiki to the rescue!
QuoteDespite the well known saying that "All wine improves with age", only a few wines will actually have the ability to significantly improve with age. Master of Wine Jancis Robinson notes that only around the top 10% of all red wine and top 5% of all white wines can improve significantly enough with age to make drinking more enjoyable at 5 years of age than at 1 year of age. Additionally, Robinson estimates, only the top 1% of all wine has the ability to improve significantly after more than a decade. It is her belief that more wine is consumed too old, rather than too young, and that the great majority of wines start to lose appeal and fruitiness after 6 months in the bottle.[2]
In general, wines with a low pH (such as Pinot noir and Sangiovese) have a greater capability of aging. With red wines, a high level of flavor compounds, such as phenolics (most notably tannins), will increase the likelihood that a wine will be able to age. Wines with high levels of phenols include Cabernet Sauvignon, Nebbiolo and Syrah.[1] The white wines with the longest aging potential tends to be those with a high amount of extract and acidity. The acidity in white wines plays a similar role that tannins have with red wines in acting as a preservative. The process of making white wines, which include little to no skin contact, means that white wines have a significantly fewer amounts of phenolic compounds (though barrel fermentation and oak aging can impart some phenols). Similarly, the minimal skin contact with rosé wine limits their aging potential.[2]
After aging at the winery most wood-aged Ports, Sherries, Vins doux naturels, Vins de liqueur, basic level Ice wines and sparkling wines are bottled when the producer feels that they are ready to be consumed. These wines are ready to drink upon release and will not benefit much from aging. Vintage Ports and other bottled-aged Ports & Sherries will benefit from some additional aging, as can vintage Champagne.[1] In 2009, a 184-year-old bottle of Perrier-Jouët was opened and tasted, still drinkable, with notes of "truffles and caramel", according to the experts.[3]
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 10:36:23 AM
Wiki to the rescue!
QuoteDespite the well known saying that "All wine improves with age", only a few wines will actually have the ability to significantly improve with age. Master of Wine Jancis Robinson notes that only around the top 10% of all red wine and top 5% of all white wines can improve significantly enough with age to make drinking more enjoyable at 5 years of age than at 1 year of age. Additionally, Robinson estimates, only the top 1% of all wine has the ability to improve significantly after more than a decade. It is her belief that more wine is consumed too old, rather than too young, and that the great majority of wines start to lose appeal and fruitiness after 6 months in the bottle.[2]
In general, wines with a low pH (such as Pinot noir and Sangiovese) have a greater capability of aging. With red wines, a high level of flavor compounds, such as phenolics (most notably tannins), will increase the likelihood that a wine will be able to age. Wines with high levels of phenols include Cabernet Sauvignon, Nebbiolo and Syrah.[1] The white wines with the longest aging potential tends to be those with a high amount of extract and acidity. The acidity in white wines plays a similar role that tannins have with red wines in acting as a preservative. The process of making white wines, which include little to no skin contact, means that white wines have a significantly fewer amounts of phenolic compounds (though barrel fermentation and oak aging can impart some phenols). Similarly, the minimal skin contact with rosé wine limits their aging potential.[2]
After aging at the winery most wood-aged Ports, Sherries, Vins doux naturels, Vins de liqueur, basic level Ice wines and sparkling wines are bottled when the producer feels that they are ready to be consumed. These wines are ready to drink upon release and will not benefit much from aging. Vintage Ports and other bottled-aged Ports & Sherries will benefit from some additional aging, as can vintage Champagne.[1] In 2009, a 184-year-old bottle of Perrier-Jouët was opened and tasted, still drinkable, with notes of "truffles and caramel", according to the experts.[3]
lol.
:sleep:
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2009, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 25, 2009, 08:17:40 PM
Very sad to see anyone on Languish take that line, even someone like you.
Whats wrong with CCTV?
I for one certainly feel a lot safer if I'm walking home at 3 o'clock in the morning and there are a bunch of cctv cameras in the area than if there'd be none.
The local paper shop had a camera installed outside it a few months ago, after a month or so of it being there they noticed that a lot more old people seemed to come to buy things after dark than they had before. They felt a lot less scared of the kids hanging around outside with a camera watching them.
A private property owner putting cameras on his property to ensure the safety of his property and or customers is fine, in my book. A governmental big brother putting cameras on every corner for the purpose of watching the general citizenry is not. I would hope one could see the difference.
It being too early to define the 90s:
That is what has brought this up for me. That has long been the excuse for there being nothing stereotypically 90s about. But the 90s were 10 years ago now. We've had 80s nostalgia since the 90s so we've had more than enough time for the 90s to be the past.
Quote from: sbr on December 26, 2009, 11:33:07 AM
A private property owner putting cameras on his property to ensure the safety of his property and or customers is fine, in my book. A governmental big brother putting cameras on every corner for the purpose of watching the general citizenry is not. I would hope one could see the difference.
It was a government camera.
Strange you make that distinction, I trust government cameras far more than private ones. With private ones the footage could easily be lost or the camera be conveniently looking the wrong way when the owner wants to break a law, e.g. the infamous Las Vegas beating up rooms you see in movies.
A camera on every corner is the impossible dream.
Quote from: sbr on December 26, 2009, 11:33:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2009, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 25, 2009, 08:17:40 PM
Very sad to see anyone on Languish take that line, even someone like you.
Whats wrong with CCTV?
I for one certainly feel a lot safer if I'm walking home at 3 o'clock in the morning and there are a bunch of cctv cameras in the area than if there'd be none.
The local paper shop had a camera installed outside it a few months ago, after a month or so of it being there they noticed that a lot more old people seemed to come to buy things after dark than they had before. They felt a lot less scared of the kids hanging around outside with a camera watching them.
A private property owner putting cameras on his property to ensure the safety of his property and or customers is fine, in my book. A governmental big brother putting cameras on every corner for the purpose of watching the general citizenry is not. I would hope one could see the difference.
What's the difference between putting a police officer on the corner of the street, and a CCTV camera?
A salary, healthcare plan, and a pension.
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Yeah. Whats weird is a lot of this 'CCTV, gragh! 1984!' stuff comes from the same sectors of the media who also like to bitch about there not being enough bobbies on the beat and crime being out of control these days.
Police officers objectively favor the white man. Cameras are race neutral, therefore are worse than Communism.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
If you want, I can rant against red light cameras.
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2009, 01:48:00 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Yeah. Whats weird is a lot of this 'CCTV, gragh! 1984!' stuff comes from the same sectors of the media who also like to bitch about there not being enough bobbies on the beat and crime being out of control these days.
I think many people (me included) are more comfortable with someone surveilling a street in person (though having three cops on every corner would be equally eery) than an anonymous piece of tech equipment.
It's a psychological thing. Besides, if someone mugs you a cop can step in right away. With a camera the perp could be long gone by the time the footage is looked at by authorities - in the case of a city like Vienna that'd mean he could be two countries away.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
I dunno, a police officer on every corner would be kind of creepy.
Quote from: Syt on December 26, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
I think many people (me included) are more comfortable with someone surveilling a street in person (though having three cops on every corner would be equally eery) than an anonymous piece of tech equipment.
It's a psychological thing. Besides, if someone mugs you a cop can step in right away. With a camera the perp could be long gone by the time the footage is looked at by authorities - in the case of a city like Vienna that'd mean he could be two countries away.
Oh yeah, a camera is no substitute for a policeman but the cops can't be everywhere at once. Its a good stand in.
I think they work best as a deterrant rather than a catcher. As you say the guy could be long gone before the police show up and face detection software isn't good enough yet to pick him out of the crowd as he walks down the street a few days later. But still, that there could be this clear evidence of him commiting a crime and a bit of paranoia about just how effective the police response would be, helps work as a deterrant.
I can recall one time where some guy was looking to start a fight with me on the street and I pointed the camera out to him which made him back down (and likely go look for someone else who wasn't right in camera shot)
I wonder if that would have saved Dguller. Or Spellus from the third graders.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2009, 02:19:23 PM
I wonder if that would have saved Dguller. Or Spellus from the third graders.
Wasn't guller at an ATM? :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
I can recall one time where some guy was looking to start a fight with me on the street and I pointed the camera out to him which made him back down (and likely go look for someone else who wasn't right in camera shot)
How many times have to been randomly attacked or chased through the streets?
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Besides the fact that it is simply not feasible to put a constable on every corner, whereas it is possible to do so with a camera, a camera recording provides a lasting material that could be used for different purposes, including blackmail.
For example, let's imagine someone (the government) wanted to blackmail me or destroy my credibility (e.g. if I was a dissident or an opposition politician) because I'm gay. In a situation like this having a bobby say "Uh, I saw that guy kissing another guy in the middle of the night in the street" would have a much less potency than having a tape they could show on the five o'clock news.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Besides the fact that it is simply not feasible to put a constable on every corner, whereas it is possible to do so with a camera, a camera recording provides a lasting material that could be used for different purposes, including blackmail.
For example, let's imagine someone (the government) wanted to blackmail me or destroy my credibility (e.g. if I was a dissident or an opposition politician) because I'm gay. In a situation like this having a bobby say "Uh, I saw that guy kissing another guy in the middle of the night in the street" would have a much less potency than having a tape they could show on the five o'clock news.
So a police officer is better because he or she is less effective?
Wow, are you retarded? My point is that a CCTV tape can be used to blackmail people for performing legal but embarrassing etc. stuff - something a police officer shouldn't be AT ALL effective at because it is not his or her job.
You wanted to get one example where a usage of CCTV can be problematic compared to the same situation being witnessed by a cop - I gave you one.
So yes, a police officer is LESS EFFECTIVE than a CCTV camera in collecting dirt on law abiding people.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored? After all, we could put a constable with a notepad and capable of writing in shorthand, every 5 metres, in a grid covering all public space.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Besides the fact that it is simply not feasible to put a constable on every corner, whereas it is possible to do so with a camera, a camera recording provides a lasting material that could be used for different purposes, including blackmail.
For example, let's imagine someone (the government) wanted to blackmail me or destroy my credibility (e.g. if I was a dissident or an opposition politician) because I'm gay. In a situation like this having a bobby say "Uh, I saw that guy kissing another guy in the middle of the night in the street" would have a much less potency than having a tape they could show on the five o'clock news.
The problem there is not with CCTV, but with an illiberal society and laws that does not tolerate gays.
But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.
So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored? After all, we could put a constable with a notepad and capable of writing in shorthand, every 5 metres, in a grid covering all public space.
No more of an objection that I could muster than for other people eavesdropping on my conversations. Telephone conversations are however considered occuring in private space, are they not? hence tapping requires special dispensation.
It's not really the way it's used so much as the principle behind it. What's the point in pursuing justice if you use unjust or unscrupulous methods in that pursuit?
Tyr has successfully derailed the discussion into a strawman debate on the merits or otherwise of CCTV, which was not the principal argument in the article I posted.
Let's look at another interesting aspect of modern Britain, stop and search in London under section 44 of the terrorism act. There were more than 170,000 of these in 2008 alone :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8034315.stm
Incidentally, this :
"The Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Metropolitan Police were all unable to say whether anyone had successfully been charged or convicted for terror offences as a direct result of section 44."
........almost certainly means that nobody has been successfully charged or convicted for terror offences as a direct result of section 44.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.
So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.
I think that's an excellent point. Every point and stop in the criminal justice system, from police to prosecutors to judges, have the potential to be corrupt and misused. The potential for something to be misused is rarely, by itself, grounds to not use something. You should look at the history of something being misused, the safeguards in place to prevent it, and the potential for catching and prosecuting such misuses.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 26, 2009, 02:29:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2009, 02:19:23 PM
I wonder if that would have saved Dguller. Or Spellus from the third graders.
Wasn't guller at an ATM? :huh:
Haven't heard anything about that, or anything else, since that day. Wouldn't be surprised if police didn't even bother getting the footage.
Back to the original topic, I think that this decade can be called the lost decade. It started with an economic clusterfuck, and it'll end with an economic clusterfuck, and with the interlude proving to be largely a mirage.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
The problem there is not with CCTV, but with an illiberal society and laws that does not tolerate gays.
You are missing the point. It's not about illiberal societies - it's about things we all do in "public" that while legal may be embarrassing or hurtful for various reasons and than can be later used as a blackmail material.
If you, a student, takes a barf in the street because you got sick from drinking and a cop walks by, he at best would give you a ticket or wag his finger at you. If on the other hand this goes on a CCTV, the video may resurface in 20 years when you are an influential politician and the powers that be want you to vote in a specific way or the video goes public, undermining your chances of reelection etc. This is but one example how it could be used - even against people who, at the time the video was taken - were nobodies and thus would not cause the cop in question to run to the Daily Mail to sell the story for example.
It's like putting all citizens on a DNA database - it gives the authorities a powerful tool that could be used in ways that have nothing to do with fighting crimes.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Wow. Just wow. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.
So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.
I think that's an excellent point. Every point and stop in the criminal justice system, from police to prosecutors to judges, have the potential to be corrupt and misused. The potential for something to be misused is rarely, by itself, grounds to not use something. You should look at the history of something being misused, the safeguards in place to prevent it, and the potential for catching and prosecuting such misuses.
The problem is there are no safeguards that could be put in place to prevent the misuse I quoted, and any independent oversight would be impossible. The government is already incapable of preventing leaks of the little information it is allowed to collect.
Seriously, you can be such a authoritarian tool, I'm surprised you didn't go back to Ukraine. I bet you would shine under Stalin.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:27:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Wow. Just wow. :huh:
That's not really a response Marty.
As TMZ has shown us there is absolutely no privacy when you are in public places. People have a very mistaken view that what they do on the street is private. It isn't. So given how everything that happens in public is, well, public, I would be interested if you could provide a "coherent objection" to such actions being recorded.
I understand people seem to have a visceral reaction against it, but there's no logical basis for that reaction that I can see.
Although perhaps it's something you get more comfortable with living in a small centre. In big cities you can have the illusion of being "lost in the crowd". In a small town I have already come to the realization that nobody where I go someone I know is likely to see me. There is no privacy for me going into a bar, movie, restaurant, etc.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.
And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? :huh:
Liberal societies do not stay liberal because people who live in them are nice - the price of freedom is constant vigilance.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:35:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.
So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.
I think that's an excellent point. Every point and stop in the criminal justice system, from police to prosecutors to judges, have the potential to be corrupt and misused. The potential for something to be misused is rarely, by itself, grounds to not use something. You should look at the history of something being misused, the safeguards in place to prevent it, and the potential for catching and prosecuting such misuses.
The problem is there are no safeguards that could be put in place to prevent the misuse I quoted, and any independent oversight would be impossible. The government is already incapable of preventing leaks of the little information it is allowed to collect.
Seriously, you can be such a authoritarian tool, I'm surprised you didn't go back to Ukraine. I bet you would shine under Stalin.
I'm so glad you decided to discuss this calmly and rationally, and not resort to
ad hom attacks. I know you find it funny and part of your
schtick, but I find they really detract from any otherwise interesting discussion.
I'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras. Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?
I would certainly be in favour of putting some safeguards with respect to the use of such recordings. Off the top of my head restrict who has access to such recordings, limit the time that it the recordings are kept, and probably criminalize the misuse of such recordings.
Marty - if such safeguards were put in place would you support the idea of CCTV cameras in public places? It seems to me (although feel free to correct me) that your objection is not based on the lack of safeguards, but around the entire concept.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:38:23 PM
Liberal societies do not stay liberal because people who live in them are nice - the price of freedom is constant vigilance.
Is that what the CCTV is for then?
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:38:23 PM
And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? :huh:
I think you have entirely mischaracterized Arky's comment. He certainly did not say that court supervision is unnecessary.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2009, 05:41:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:38:23 PM
Liberal societies do not stay liberal because people who live in them are nice - the price of freedom is constant vigilance.
Is that what the CCTV is for then?
Your comment was meant as a joke, but you're quite right. The prevalent use of cell phone videos have on numerous occasions provided proof of police and official misconduct that otherwise would have gone undetected. Prevalent video recording does not only aid the agents of the state.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 05:39:52 PM
I'm so glad you decided to discuss this calmly and rationally, and not resort to ad hom attacks. I know you find it funny and part of your schtick, but I find they really detract from any otherwise interesting discussion.
I'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras. Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?
I would certainly be in favour of putting some safeguards with respect to the use of such recordings. Off the top of my head restrict who has access to such recordings, limit the time that it the recordings are kept, and probably criminalize the misuse of such recordings.
Marty - if such safeguards were put in place would you support the idea of CCTV cameras in public places? It seems to me (although feel free to correct me) that your objection is not based on the lack of safeguards, but around the entire concept.
My point was (which I thought I made clear, but I guess I didn't, judging from your post) that considering the sheer scope of information stored on CCTV records, and the type of misuse I gave as an example, it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise safeguards preventing against that kind of misuse. Don't try to dodge the question by saying there
must be some safeguards in place (your faith in the crown you are serving is remarkable but I do not share it), tell me what safeguards can reasonably be put in place that would address the concerns I raised.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 05:41:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:38:23 PM
And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? :huh:
I think you have entirely mischaracterized Arky's comment. He certainly did not say that court supervision is unnecessary.
Well, that was the gist of his argument. He argued against my concern that CCTV is at risk of a gross misuse by saying that court-supervised investigation and search is also capable of being misused. If that argument was to have any relevant and sense, clearly he must consider both situations to be equivalent.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:43:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 05:39:52 PM
I'm so glad you decided to discuss this calmly and rationally, and not resort to ad hom attacks. I know you find it funny and part of your schtick, but I find they really detract from any otherwise interesting discussion.
I'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras. Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?
I would certainly be in favour of putting some safeguards with respect to the use of such recordings. Off the top of my head restrict who has access to such recordings, limit the time that it the recordings are kept, and probably criminalize the misuse of such recordings.
Marty - if such safeguards were put in place would you support the idea of CCTV cameras in public places? It seems to me (although feel free to correct me) that your objection is not based on the lack of safeguards, but around the entire concept.
My point was (which I thought I made clear, but I guess I didn't, judging from your post) that considering the sheer scope of information stored on CCTV records, and the type of misuse I gave as an example, it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise safeguards preventing against that kind of misuse. Don't try to dodge the question by saying there must be some safeguards in place (your faith in the crown you are serving is remarkable but I do not share it), tell me what safeguards can reasonably be put in place that would address the concerns I raised.
How can you say it is impossible to put safeguards into place? That's quite a remarkable statement. Can you back it up.
I didn't say there must be such safeguards. I said as (as you so kindly quoted) that I'd be surprised if there weren't safeguards, but invited people with greater knowledge than I to chime in.
As for what safeguards could be put in place? I know this might sound crazy, but you might want to re-read my post that you so kindly posted... :hug:
I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:46:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 05:41:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:38:23 PM
And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? :huh:
I think you have entirely mischaracterized Arky's comment. He certainly did not say that court supervision is unnecessary.
Well, that was the gist of his argument. He argued against my concern that CCTV is at risk of a gross misuse by saying that court-supervised investigation and search is also capable of being misused. If that argument was to have any relevant and sense, clearly he must consider both situations to be equivalent.
Again, that does summary does not in any way follow from:
Quote from: warspiteThe problem there is not with CCTV, but with an illiberal society and laws that does not tolerate gays.
But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.
So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:50:02 PM
I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.
Barrister is from Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 05:36:05 PM
As TMZ has shown us there is absolutely no privacy when you are in public places.
I thought about it and I think this is the crux of our disagreement - I think your statement is simply wrong.
There are varying degrees of privacy one can expect in different places, that is true, but in the absence of technology allowing that, our civilization has developed certain expectations of privacy, including in public places, which admittedly rely on the failing nature of human perception and ability to process data. However, your argument - that as technology develops, this expectation of privacy (and privacy itself) will shrink is what I find abhorrent and unacceptable. If we go your route, there will be no privacy left soon whatsoever - after all it is already possible to use a technological device to overheard a conversation happening inside a building from outside - so why not say there is no privacy there either?
My argument is that as technology develops, restrictions should be put on technology to maintain the same level of privacy that we have always enjoyed - and not vice versa, to restrict the sphere of privacy to accommodate new technology.
I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2009, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:50:02 PM
I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.
Barrister is from Canada.
He has strong cultural ties to Ukraine and its narrative, which informs his views e.g. about Stalin and communism. So in this sense he "comes from Ukraine" even if he hasn't been there himself.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 05:50:02 PM
I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.
Although I'm quite proud of Ukrainian heritage, given how I'm 5th generation Canadian and my ancestors fled either Austria-Hungary or Tsarist Russia, I'm not sure how it's relevant. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 06:08:57 PM
There are varying degrees of privacy one can expect in different places, that is true, but in the absence of technology allowing that, our civilization has developed certain expectations of privacy, including in public places, which admittedly rely on the failing nature of human perception and ability to process data.
Actually the concept of privacy while outside of the home is incredibly new (and I believe a mirage). Try living in any kind of small community (either an actually small town, or in a smaller portion of an overall population, such as the Warsaw legal community or the Polish gay community). You'll find there is very little privacy, and what you do within that community is frequently reported to others within that community.
And why do you characterize my view as supporting "a government operating without a de facto supervision"? I in fact argued the opposite. :huh: That governments can be trusted, but only with proper supervision and other controls.
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 06:08:57 PM
I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.
You're quite free to withdraw from the discussion. But given how you did nothing but launch personal attacks, mischaracterize some of my points, and then ignore others, you'll find me unperturbed that you find my philosophy 'absolutely terrifying'. You've shown no interest in learning what my philosophy is, and prefer to attack what you think it is.
I don't find Barrister's views terrifying or even that strange. I don't think I'd care for CCTV cameras everywhere though in the end I wouldn't care that much. I mean they are on private property all the time. Anytime you walk into a store you are being filmed. At least when the government does it there is some kind of oversight.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 06:20:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 06:08:57 PM
I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.
You're quite free to withdraw from the discussion. But given how you did nothing but launch personal attacks, mischaracterize some of my points, and then ignore others, you'll find me unperturbed that you find my philosophy 'absolutely terrifying'. You've shown no interest in learning what my philosophy is, and prefer to attack what you think it is.
He'll claim he was being shrill on purpose later.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 26, 2009, 06:43:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 06:20:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 06:08:57 PM
I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.
You're quite free to withdraw from the discussion. But given how you did nothing but launch personal attacks, mischaracterize some of my points, and then ignore others, you'll find me unperturbed that you find my philosophy 'absolutely terrifying'. You've shown no interest in learning what my philosophy is, and prefer to attack what you think it is.
He'll claim he was being shrill on purpose later.
I expect so.
I find Beeb terrifying, based on his Steve Jobs ball sucking.
That Star Trek episode where they came to a planet where you got executed instantly if you broke the law (by walking on the grass for instance) suggests that a Whitehorseesque police state can work quite well.
As for CCTV on every corner, I don't have a major problem with it. Common crime is nowhere near those low levels where privacy in the city trumps fighting it.
I think it's important to persecute homosexuals, and if technology can help us out and persecute gay people in public life, all the better.
Quote from: The Brain on December 26, 2009, 07:34:35 PM
That Star Trek episode where they came to a planet where you got executed instantly if you broke the law (by walking on the grass for instance) suggests that a Whitehorseesque police state can work quite well.
While through federal government grants (and a crime rate that puts Detroit and Baltimore to shame) Whitehorse does have a police per capita rate that is the envy (or nightmare) of most places, we have nowhere near the population density to make public CCTV cameras worthwhile. :(
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Are you serious? :bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 06:08:57 PM
My argument is that as technology develops, restrictions should be put on technology to maintain the same level of privacy that we have always enjoyed - and not vice versa, to restrict the sphere of privacy to accommodate new technology.
Marty makes a good point. Just because our privacy in public is not protected doesn't mean that we had no privacy in public. If we wind up having privacy only where our privacy is protected, it would be a huge step backwards.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Are you serious? :bleeding:
Very serious. Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.
Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. :(
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Are you serious? :bleeding:
Very serious. Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.
You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be guarded in no other way.
Fate, he couldn't be a Democrat either with a position like that. The career of any prosecutor in America would be crippled after saying something like that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.
Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.
You are correct. In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion. But you have put the cart before the horse. What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?
Edit: at least you are correct in a Canadian constitutional analysis, where we have s. 1 of the Charter. Any infringement of a Charter right can be justified if it can be shown to be consistent with the values of a free and democratic society.
A free society is a thing of the past. Quite frankly, I'm glad to see it go.
Quote from: Fate on December 26, 2009, 09:09:54 PM
Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. :(
Since I've never been a Republican, but only a member of the Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Allaince -> Conservative Party of Canada, I am content with my political allegiance.
I generally agree with BBoy on this and on the CCTV.
Though I also agree with RH's general dissatisfaction at the illiberal Home Secretaries we've had since Michael Howard. What annoys me most, though, is the erosion of little freedoms and differences, and in councils the sort of hesitance and ungenerousness that a fear of litigation produces.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:44:54 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 26, 2009, 09:09:54 PM
Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. :(
Since I've never been a Republican, but only a member of the Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Allaince -> Conservative Party of Canada, I am content with my political allegiance.
Is the Reform Party of Canada anything like the Reform party in the US?
The government exists to serve its people. There is no good reason that could justify the need for such cameras. They would be expensive to implement and maintain, and would have a negligible effect on crime. In short, it would punish the innocent.
Quote from: Syt on December 26, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
It's a psychological thing. Besides, if someone mugs you a cop can step in right away. With a camera the perp could be long gone by the time the footage is looked at by authorities - in the case of a city like Vienna that'd mean he could be two countries away.
Yeah the cameras, especially private ones are less useful. There were three cameras (from three clubs/bars that were next to each other) that were in the area when my friend was bottled in the face. None of them saw her attacker because they were dirty :bleeding:
I think the DNA database is far more problematic which is why it's being addressed by the ECHR while the cameras aren't.
But also we don't actually know how many CCTV cameras there are, it's not been made public. But my suspicion would be that the vast majority are private.
QuoteIf you, a student, takes a barf in the street because you got sick from drinking and a cop walks by, he at best would give you a ticket or wag his finger at you. If on the other hand this goes on a CCTV, the video may resurface in 20 years when you are an influential politician and the powers that be want you to vote in a specific way or the video goes public, undermining your chances of reelection etc. This is but one example how it could be used - even against people who, at the time the video was taken - were nobodies and thus would not cause the cop in question to run to the Daily Mail to sell the story for example.
Again I think this is about illiberal or intolerant societies. No-one would hold a public vomit against a drunk student - on that rock did Prince Harry build his popularity - certainly not 20 years after the event. Far more dangerous than CCTV, for what you're talking about, is the omnipresence of digital cameras and things like Facebook.
But you know Cameron's been plagued all the way through by allegations that he did coke at Uni - I don't think people care. George Osborne did do coke at Oxford and was close friends with a call girl - again no-one cares. What you did 20 years ago is generally your own business. In this country it makes good copy but it doesn't destroy careers.
QuoteI'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras. Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?
Apparently they come under the Data Protection Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998
They seem to have to report to the Information Commissioner. The last one actually wrote a few articles about how Britain was sleepwalking into a surveillance state and that people needed to be made aware of the potential cost to their civil liberties.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2009, 11:43:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:44:54 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 26, 2009, 09:09:54 PM
Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. :(
Since I've never been a Republican, but only a member of the Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Allaince -> Conservative Party of Canada, I am content with my political allegiance.
Is the Reform Party of Canada anything like the Reform party in the US?
Very very loosely "like" it. I can't say they have nothing in common, but since one party dissolved into irrelevance and the other party merged with a second party and is now the government the similarities are somewhat vague.
Although I still :wub: H. Ross Perot in 1992 before he backed out the first time.
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Are you serious? :bleeding:
Very serious. Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.
Because recorded conversations can be editted and bits and pieces used out of context. True, a witness who overhears a conversation might only hear part of it and miss the context (many set-ups in sit-coms use this) or might remember it incorrect (or even deliberately lie about it) but at least you can cross-examine a witness. I think it would be easier to convince a jury that a witness misheard, remembered incorrectly, or was lying; than it would be to convince them that recorded evidence was true, even if the recording had in fact been altered.
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:07:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Are you serious? :bleeding:
Very serious. Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.
Because recorded conversations can be editted and bits and pieces used out of context. True, a witness who overhears a conversation might only hear part of it and miss the context (many set-ups in sit-coms use this) or might remember it incorrect (or even deliberately lie about it) but at least you can cross-examine a witness. I think it would be easier to convince a jury that a witness misheard, remembered incorrectly, or was lying; than it would be to convince them that recorded evidence was true, even if the recording had in fact been altered.
Again you are falling into the Martinesque "it's bad because it could be misused".
What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?
In particular your example that a recording could be altered. We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls. Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue. Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Martinus: if you could design some regime (and what that regime is up for discussion) that would protect the general privacy of those observed, and would protect from deliberate tampering of the data, would you withdraw your objection? Or are you opposed on a more emotional level, no matter what safeguards might be put in place?
Weirdly we're, I believe, the only country where wiretap and intercept evidence is wholly inadmissible in Court, though it can be used in gathering intelligence. Bizarrely, though, if the evidence comes from a bug then it is admissible. I believe the reason is that under British law you would have to store all of the conversations and e-mails reported so that the defence would have access to that, which makes it unfeasible. Every phonecall and e-mail would have to be stored, saved, catalogued and transcribed which for each case would be crippling. Also it would require that the police and intelligence services to reveal how they gathered the evidence, which they don't want to do.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:12:37 AM
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:07:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.
Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?
I can't. Can you?
Are you serious? :bleeding:
Very serious. Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.
Because recorded conversations can be editted and bits and pieces used out of context. True, a witness who overhears a conversation might only hear part of it and miss the context (many set-ups in sit-coms use this) or might remember it incorrect (or even deliberately lie about it) but at least you can cross-examine a witness. I think it would be easier to convince a jury that a witness misheard, remembered incorrectly, or was lying; than it would be to convince them that recorded evidence was true, even if the recording had in fact been altered.
Again you are falling into the Martinesque "it's bad because it could be misused".
What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?
In particular your example that a recording could be altered. We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls. Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue. Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Martinus: if you could design some regime (and what that regime is up for discussion) that would protect the general privacy of those observed, and would protect from deliberate tampering of the data, would you withdraw your objection? Or are you opposed on a more emotional level, no matter what safeguards might be put in place?
I'm an American; we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.
CROP YOUR FUCKING QUOTES
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:27:30 AM
I'm an American; we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.
The question as posed is a question of domestic policy. :huh:
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:27:30 AM
I'm an American; we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.
Yup, that's the Polish way as well. BB is brainwashed into "serving the Crown" though.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:27:30 AM
I'm an American; we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.
Yup, that's the Polish way as well. BB is brainwashed into "serving the Crown" though.
Again with the
ad hominem attacks Martinus. :(
You again didn't address a single thing I said, and instead chose to attack my employer.
Withdraw from the debate if you feel you must. But don't just stand there attacking me personally without commenting on the substance of my comments.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2009, 11:40:55 PM
Though I also agree with RH's general dissatisfaction at the illiberal Home Secretaries we've had since Michael Howard. What annoys me most, though, is the erosion of little freedoms and differences, and in councils the sort of hesitance and ungenerousness that a fear of litigation produces.
I would group these together, throw in the OTT "child protection" policies and we are engaged on a course of significant social change.
A very bad change IMO, hence my grumpiness on these issues :(
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 02:44:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:27:30 AM
I'm an American; we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.
Yup, that's the Polish way as well. BB is brainwashed into "serving the Crown" though.
Again with the ad hominem attacks Martinus. :(
You again didn't address a single thing I said, and instead chose to attack my employer.
Withdraw from the debate if you feel you must. But don't just stand there attacking me personally without commenting on the substance of my comments.
I gave you my concerns. You dismissed them as irrelevant. There isn't much more to it, really. It's simply a difference of principles, not a difference of logical argument. Either you get it or you don't - the concerns I (and others) voiced apparently don't exist for you.
Besides, it is funny BB, that for someone who does not believe in social change when it comes to fundamental rights of people such as is the case with gay marriage (wasn't your argument once that while you cannot come up with a single coherent argument why allowing gay marriage is bad, the burden of proving its benefits is on the people who advocate it, since it involves social change?), you would usher in a massive social change that would follow from this continuing erosion of privacy, without a second thought.
I don't know where you got the idea that you are a conservative from. You are a statist, pure and simple.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:12:37 AM
What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?
In particular your example that a recording could be altered. We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls. Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue. Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.
safeguards can and will fail, laws can be changed, data can go corrupt...
Better be careful with the idea that it's okay to be watched all the time, we've had a few societies during the 20th century where it was actually tried.
BB, and other Anglosaxon lawyers - could I ask you something, btw? This is not a troll or an ad hom - just an honest question and I'd appreciate if it was answered in the same vein. My question comes from the observation that often we do not exactly see eye to eye when it comes to constitutional and civil rights issues, and perhaps this is somehow based in different education basics we received.
So the question goes: did your legal education (especially when it comes to the concept or "theory" of law) stress the following message:
"One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, and one of the chief differences between rights of an individual and powers of the state, is that individuals are permitted to do anything that is not expressly prohibited and the state is prohibited from doing anything that it is not expressly permitted to do"?
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.
Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.
You are correct. In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion. But you have put the cart before the horse. What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?
Why are you talking about CCTV when the question was about recording conversations?
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 04:47:34 AM
BB, and other Anglosaxon lawyers - could I ask you something, btw? This is not a troll or an ad hom - just an honest question and I'd appreciate if it was answered in the same vein.
So by implication everything else you've said in this thread is a troll and/or an ad hom?
Quote from: Martinus
My question comes from the observation that often we do not exactly see eye to eye when it comes to constitutional and civil rights issues, and perhaps this is somehow based in different education basics we received.
So the question goes: did your legal education (especially when it comes to the concept or "theory" of law) stress the following message:
"One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, and one of the chief differences between rights of an individual and powers of the state, is that individuals are permitted to do anything that is not expressly prohibited and the state is prohibited from doing anything that it is not expressly permitted to do"?
No, and that wouldn't be a legal principle recognized in a Westminster-style democracy.
The first part is correct - people can do anything unless expressly prohibited.
However the second part isn't. "The state" can do anything unless prohibited by the constitution.
Edit: and in the UK of course there is no constitution. The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 27, 2009, 04:38:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:12:37 AM
What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?
In particular your example that a recording could be altered. We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls. Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue. Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.
safeguards can and will fail, laws can be changed, data can go corrupt...
Better be careful with the idea that it's okay to be watched all the time, we've had a few societies during the 20th century where it was actually tried.
So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records? Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks? Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?
I'm sorry, that's an extremely simplistic answer.
The government already has extremely detailed information on you, your activities, your behaviours, etc. I am amazed how much information I can sometimes gather on a person as a part of my job. Now I (and the entire government) take the privacy concerns very seriously (and we're constantly in fear of running afoul of privacy laws), but the information is there.
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 04:28:46 AM
I gave you my concerns. You dismissed them as irrelevant. There isn't much more to it, really. It's simply a difference of principles, not a difference of logical argument. Either you get it or you don't - the concerns I (and others) voiced apparently don't exist for you.
I've gone back through the thread. While it's hard for me to find any argument put forward by you in between all the ad homs, all I've seen you say is that you don't like CCTVs and you somehow believe that what happens on a public street should be private.
The concern about that kind of data being misused is real and safeguards and protocols should be put in place, but I still haven't seen any philosophical argument that makes CCTV cameras as inherently wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:43:00 AM
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 01:27:30 AM
I'm an American; we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.
The question as posed is a question of domestic policy. :huh:
Meant to say except when it comes to foreign policy. :blush:
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 04:47:34 AM
"One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, and one of the chief differences between rights of an individual and powers of the state, is that individuals are permitted to do anything that is not expressly prohibited and the state is prohibited from doing anything that it is not expressly permitted to do"?
No, and that wouldn't be a legal principle recognized in a Westminster-style democracy.
The first part is correct - people can do anything unless expressly prohibited.
However the second part isn't. "The state" can do anything unless prohibited by the constitution.
Edit: and in the UK of course there is no constitution. The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).
From a U.S. perspective, the Federal government is supposed to only have the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution but the courts have often interpreted those powers so broadly that I'm not sure that it means anything.
The individual states, however, aren't bound to expressly granted powers even in theory.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:48:35 AM
The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).
Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2009, 10:12:55 AMFrom a U.S. perspective, the Federal government is supposed to only have the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution but the courts have often interpreted those powers so broadly that I'm not sure that it means anything.
The individual states, however, aren't bound to expressly granted powers even in theory.
Where do the powers of the states come from?
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:53:59 AM
[
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.
irrelevant as the issue is that no institution, be it government or private, should have all that data on people.
As far as I see it the position you're taking could be taken just as easily to install a STASI-system. After all, the safeguards are there.
Quote from: The Brain on December 27, 2009, 04:58:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.
Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.
You are correct. In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion. But you have put the cart before the horse. What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?
Why are you talking about CCTV when the question was about recording conversations?
I love the fact that BB ignored this question.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:53:59 AM
So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records? Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks? Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.
With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:36:41 AM
With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.
Why do you wish to retard public order?
Quote from: Jaron on December 26, 2009, 11:45:20 PM
The government exists to serve its people. There is no good reason that could justify the need for such cameras. They would be expensive to implement and maintain, and would have a negligible effect on crime. In short, it would punish the innocent.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of the discussion without reading much but I call BULLSHIT on this idea.
We use CCTV on a regular basis in the City of Rochester to monitor criminal activity. They are not expensive to implement and maintain. They have a tremendous impact on crime. They force criminals away from specific areas while also allowing the capture of those idiots dumb enough to continue their activities in view of the cameras. I also have yet to hear of a single incident where someone
innocent was punished. Several murders and rapes have been resolved because of them but John Q Public hasn't been Big Brother'd yet.
We also have a Gunshot Triangulation System (not sure official name of it) in the city that allows law enforcement to respond faster to shootings. There are going to start adding Red Light Cameras but I am not too thrilled about that one because it will cut down on the number I can run.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 27, 2009, 04:58:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 26, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 26, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.
Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.
You are correct. In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion. But you have put the cart before the horse. What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?
Why are you talking about CCTV when the question was about recording conversations?
I love the fact that BB ignored this question.
I answered about 5 questions in a row, and you're criticizing me for not answering one post? That's delicious since you already avoided a bunch of my questions by saying you weren't going to debate me any further, only to jump in again a few hours later.
What various governments have put in place (didn't know Rochester, thanks Strix) is putting CCTV cameras. Conceptually there's no difference between recording sounds and recording images that take place in a public area, although the cost/benefit analysis might be somewhat different.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 10:35:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:48:35 AM
The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).
Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?
Parliament (and the government) can do anything. You said there is some list of enumerated powers that government can't go beyond. There isn't.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:53:59 AM
So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records? Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks? Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.
With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.
That's not how it works at present. Fingerprints are retained of anyone who is merely arrested. All police notes are maintained, whether there are charges laid or not.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:53:59 AM
So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records? Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks? Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.
With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.
That's not how it works at present. Fingerprints are retained of anyone who is merely arrested. All police notes are maintained, whether there are charges laid or not.
And if they weren't, Tim would snivel about that, too.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 10:35:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:48:35 AM
The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).
Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?
Parliament (and the government) can do anything. You said there is some list of enumerated powers that government can't go beyond. There isn't.
You do not recognize a difference between the "sovereign" and the "government"? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 10:35:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:48:35 AM
The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).
Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?
Parliament (and the government) can do anything. You said there is some list of enumerated powers that government can't go beyond. There isn't.
You do not recognize a difference between the "sovereign" and the "government"? :huh:
And what point do you think you're making?
I understand the theoretical distinction between them (although they are often used synonymously), and I can't understand what distinction means in this context.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 10:35:12 AM
Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?
In the UK, in theory, Parliament can make any law regarding anything. No Parliament is bound by its predecessors and cannot bind its successors to anything. And, so far as I know, no court can invalidate an act of Parliament - this may have changed with the creation of a Supreme Court, but I'm not sure. But that's just the theory.
I'm also not sure if the people are 'sovereign' in the UK. I was always taught that Parliament (meaning the elected representatives, the Peers and the Monarch) are 'sovereign' in our system.
Darlin'(Sheilbh) - either Parliament is bound by its predecessors, or it cannot bind its successors, but not both.
Quote from: ulmont on December 27, 2009, 04:37:44 PM
Darlin'(Sheilbh) - either Parliament is bound by its predecessors, or it cannot bind its successors, but not both.
Read Sheibh again - he said "No Parliament is bound by its predecessors and cannot bind its successors to anything. "
I made this point before but it went ignored:
you guys are forgetting how technology like this can be used to protect against excessive or illegal actions by government agents. I don't know how many of you have followed the Canadian story of the Polish immigrant that was tasered and died while in RCMP custody. The RCMP officers claimed he was highly aggressive and assaulted them. The security video showed a very different story and has caused a lot of questioning of the RCMP.
Hard to say that video cameras are a fascist instrument in such circumstances.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
I made this point before but it went ignored:
you guys are forgetting how technology like this can be used to protect against excessive or illegal actions by government agents. I don't know how many of you have followed the Canadian story of the Polish immigrant that was tasered and died while in RCMP custody. The RCMP officers claimed he was highly aggressive and assaulted them. The security video showed a very different story and has caused a lot of questioning of the RCMP.
Hard to say that video cameras are a fascist instrument in such circumstances.
I believe people are arguing over a specific use of video cameras (i.e. government surveillance of public spaces) rather than the existence of the technology itself....
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
I don't know how many of you have followed the Canadian story of the Polish immigrant that was tasered and died while in RCMP custody. The RCMP officers claimed he was highly aggressive and assaulted them. The security video showed a very different story and has caused a lot of questioning of the RCMP.
Sounds like a hero to me.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 27, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
I made this point before but it went ignored:
you guys are forgetting how technology like this can be used to protect against excessive or illegal actions by government agents. I don't know how many of you have followed the Canadian story of the Polish immigrant that was tasered and died while in RCMP custody. The RCMP officers claimed he was highly aggressive and assaulted them. The security video showed a very different story and has caused a lot of questioning of the RCMP.
Hard to say that video cameras are a fascist instrument in such circumstances.
I believe people are arguing over a specific use of video cameras (i.e. government surveillance of public spaces) rather than the existence of the technology itself....
BUt I was pointing out that video cameras in public spaces would help to protect against any allegations of police violence. Which is still an alleged problem in several areas.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 09:53:59 AM
So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records? Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks? Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.
With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.
That's not how it works at present. Fingerprints are retained of anyone who is merely arrested. All police notes are maintained, whether there are charges laid or not.
I didn't say that's how it works, I said that's how it should work.
Though I was referring to the DNA and fingerprints, notes seem okay to me.
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 26, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
I think many people (me included) are more comfortable with someone surveilling a street in person (though having three cops on every corner would be equally eery) than an anonymous piece of tech equipment.
It's a psychological thing. Besides, if someone mugs you a cop can step in right away. With a camera the perp could be long gone by the time the footage is looked at by authorities - in the case of a city like Vienna that'd mean he could be two countries away.
Oh yeah, a camera is no substitute for a policeman but the cops can't be everywhere at once. Its a good stand in.
I think they work best as a deterrant rather than a catcher. As you say the guy could be long gone before the police show up and face detection software isn't good enough yet to pick him out of the crowd as he walks down the street a few days later. But still, that there could be this clear evidence of him commiting a crime and a bit of paranoia about just how effective the police response would be, helps work as a deterrant.
I can recall one time where some guy was looking to start a fight with me on the street and I pointed the camera out to him which made him back down (and likely go look for someone else who wasn't right in camera shot)
I think the thing we're missing is why have our societies come to a point where people fear, get attacked, and crime has become bad enough to where we have a need for cameras, or a lot more police. Is it due to changes in societal attitudes where more people feel alienated, what ever, to where they commit more and worse crimes? What's causing it? Or, are things not all that bad as before, just more reported? If we look at the US in the 20s and 30s we certainly had a lot of organized crime, sensationalized stories, or so it seems.
Quote from: KRonn on December 28, 2009, 08:55:31 AM
I think the thing we're missing is why have our societies come to a point where people fear, get attacked, and crime has become bad enough to where we have a need for cameras, or a lot more police. Is it due to changes in societal attitudes where more people feel alienated, what ever, to where they commit more and worse crimes? What's causing it? Or, are things not all that bad as before, just more reported? If we look at the US in the 20s and 30s we certainly had a lot of organized crime, sensationalized stories, or so it seems.
Drugs, probably. That, and people value their lives much more these days. Crime and terrorism doesn't seem that scary when you lose 400,000 people a pop in a war, and actually are considered to have gotten off easy.
Quote from: KRonn on December 28, 2009, 08:55:31 AM
I think the thing we're missing is why have our societies come to a point where people fear, get attacked, and crime has become bad enough to where we have a need for cameras, or a lot more police. Is it due to changes in societal attitudes where more people feel alienated, what ever, to where they commit more and worse crimes? What's causing it? Or, are things not all that bad as before, just more reported? If we look at the US in the 20s and 30s we certainly had a lot of organized crime, sensationalized stories, or so it seems.
People don't actually believe in anything anymore. They don't believe in god and they don't believe in the nation. They are left with nothing larger than themselves. Of course, there were always people who felt that way, but these days everybody does.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
I made this point before but it went ignored:
you guys are forgetting how technology like this can be used to protect against excessive or illegal actions by government agents. I don't know how many of you have followed the Canadian story of the Polish immigrant that was tasered and died while in RCMP custody. The RCMP officers claimed he was highly aggressive and assaulted them. The security video showed a very different story and has caused a lot of questioning of the RCMP.
Hard to say that video cameras are a fascist instrument in such circumstances.
If he's dead, it's hard to say that the cameras did anything to protect him, either.
QuoteHow many times have to been randomly attacked or chased through the streets?
A few.
Quote from: KRonn on December 28, 2009, 08:55:31 AM
I think the thing we're missing is why have our societies come to a point where people fear, get attacked, and crime has become bad enough to where we have a need for cameras, or a lot more police. Is it due to changes in societal attitudes where more people feel alienated, what ever, to where they commit more and worse crimes? What's causing it? Or, are things not all that bad as before, just more reported? If we look at the US in the 20s and 30s we certainly had a lot of organized crime, sensationalized stories, or so it seems.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.morethings.com%2Fimages%2Fmargaret_thatcher%2Fmargaret-thatcher-5000.jpg&hash=0fa01d26ac79877c19824cdda9c3fa1491e01b31)
Quote from: Neil on December 28, 2009, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 28, 2009, 08:55:31 AM
I think the thing we're missing is why have our societies come to a point where people fear, get attacked, and crime has become bad enough to where we have a need for cameras, or a lot more police. Is it due to changes in societal attitudes where more people feel alienated, what ever, to where they commit more and worse crimes? What's causing it? Or, are things not all that bad as before, just more reported? If we look at the US in the 20s and 30s we certainly had a lot of organized crime, sensationalized stories, or so it seems.
People don't actually believe in anything anymore. They don't believe in god and they don't believe in the nation. They are left with nothing larger than themselves. Of course, there were always people who felt that way, but these days everybody does.
I believe in freedom and justice for all, and the destruction of the patriarchal society rooted in the lethal superstition of religion.
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2009, 09:51:55 AM
QuoteHow many times have to been randomly attacked or chased through the streets?
A few.
hilarious.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2009, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2009, 09:51:55 AM
QuoteHow many times have to been randomly attacked or chased through the streets?
A few.
hilarious.
Never succesfully :P
Still hilarious.