kbordson 8 #1 October 25, 2009 Britons Weary of Surveillance in Minor Cases QuotePOOLE, England — It has become commonplace to call Britain a “surveillance society,” a place where security cameras lurk at every corner, giant databases keep track of intimate personal details and the government has extraordinary powers to intrude into citizens’ lives. This isn't an attack on England... it's just where the story came from. This could have happened in so many other places.... so lets not take this to a U.S. v. England Instead I am wondering about the discussion of what Privacy and Freedom should we have from Government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 October 25, 2009 The idea that the government is tracking an average person's every move or listening and reading every communication is simply ridiculous. While it's true that computers may do this on a gross level, there is simply too much data for anyone to possibly give a shit about the average person as an individual. True, if you consistently made calls to the wrong people and had a lot of communication with them about certain topics; yeah, you'd be put under additional scrutiny and the government really would start to take a personal interest in your every move and they more than have the capabilities to do that 24/7/365. However, there is simply not a rats chance in hell the government cares all that much about the average individual nor could they. Even with tons of computer help, they simply don't have the man power to sift through the data of 300 million people's lives and give a shit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #3 October 25, 2009 Were you able to read that article in the NYTimes, or was my link blocked? The story was about a single individual and how she had been personally targeted. She didn't call the wrong person. She didn't communicate to anyone about any 007 secrets. She just enrolled her daughter in school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 October 25, 2009 Oft voiced ..... QuoteIf you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear Of course. this is complete bollocks, but is the standard propaganda outpouring. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #5 October 25, 2009 Quote .... This isn't an attack on England... it's just where the story came from. This could have happened in so many other places.... so lets not take this to a U.S. v. England Instead I am wondering about the discussion of what Privacy and Freedom should we have from Government. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13145 Germany too is not covering itself with glory on that matter OTOH: Supervision up to a certain degree is justified these days, I do accept that. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 October 25, 2009 QuoteWere you able to read that article in the NYTimes, or was my link blocked? The story was about a single individual and how she had been personally targeted. She didn't call the wrong person. She didn't communicate to anyone about any 007 secrets. She just enrolled her daughter in school. I read the article. I thought you were talking about the US and in general though and not the specific case. I can't really speak to the issues in GB and this specific case. They may have some other weird crap going on in this specific case as well we're not privy to, like maybe it' a matter of mistaken identity / people with the same name ect. Any time there is a huge program involving humans there will occasionally be errors. My guess was the woman's case is a mistake and the article just latches on to it to pump up the anti-government paranoia, which is a great way to sell papers.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #7 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteWere you able to read that article in the NYTimes, or was my link blocked? The story was about a single individual and how she had been personally targeted. She didn't call the wrong person. She didn't communicate to anyone about any 007 secrets. She just enrolled her daughter in school. I read the article. I thought you were talking about the US and in general though and not the specific case. I can't really speak to the issues in GB and this specific case. They may have some other weird crap going on in this specific case as well we're not privy to, like maybe it' a matter of mistaken identity / people with the same name ect. Any time there is a huge program involving humans there will occasionally be errors. My guess was the woman's case is a mistake and the article just latches on to it to pump up the anti-government paranoia, which is a great way to sell papers. I wasn't specifically trying to just justify or attack this case, but when you commented that "there is simply not a rats chance in hell the government cares all that much about the average individual", then I didn't know if you had been about to read about this "rats chance." But, you are right. I didn't just want to make it about this case, but in general, should the government be ALLOWED to spy on people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 October 25, 2009 Quote, should the government be ALLOWED to spy on people? That's a good question but not all of the cameras in the U.K are government owned or operated..... and that's really scary. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuote, should the government be ALLOWED to spy on people? That's a good question but not all of the cameras in the U.K are government owned or operated..... and that's really scary. Agreed. You have FAR more to worry about from "Little Brother" down the street or in your work place, than "Big Brother" in your nation's capitol.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #10 October 25, 2009 but it's sympomatic of a bigger problem ..... My data s MINE... be that my location, medical records or what every.. I don't want Big or little brother accessing that ...,. especially without my consent or even knowledge. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 October 25, 2009 Quote You have FAR more to worry about from "Little Brother" down the street or in your work place, than "Big Brother" in your nation's capitol. I disagree. Little Brother can take steps to damage your reputation. Big Brother can do far more, can he not? What makes you think that Big Brother is only in the nation's capitol? I myself can think of several other brothers in Sacramento. As well as Fresno County and the City. These brothers can all do things little brother cannot. Erin Andrews was publicly embarrassed by little brother. Perhaps little brother is a snitch to big brother - there's the big possible problem. Little brother cannot imprison me. Big brothers can. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 October 26, 2009 Quote However, there is simply not a rats chance in hell the government cares all that much about the average individual nor could they. Even with tons of computer help, they simply don't have the man power to sift through the data of 300 million people's lives and give a shit. The recent development in facial recognition technology threatens this thought. The storage costs would preclude going back in time far, but we're not far from being able to automatically track people through a network of cameras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 53 #13 October 26, 2009 Anyone interested in this needs to watch The Last Enemy, a British "Masterpiece Theater" type mini-series. It is excellent and thought provoking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuote You have FAR more to worry about from "Little Brother" down the street or in your work place, than "Big Brother" in your nation's capitol. I disagree. Little Brother can take steps to damage your reputation. Big Brother can do far more, can he not? What makes you think that Big Brother is only in the nation's capitol? I myself can think of several other brothers in Sacramento. As well as Fresno County and the City. These brothers can all do things little brother cannot. Erin Andrews was publicly embarrassed by little brother. Perhaps little brother is a snitch to big brother - there's the big possible problem. Little brother cannot imprison me. Big brothers can. Yeah, but Big Brother doesn't have a reason and Little Brother can be a major asshole just because he's bored.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #15 October 26, 2009 Quote Anyone interested in this needs to watch The Last Enemy, a British "Masterpiece Theater" type mini-series. It is excellent and thought provoking. This is interesting; The entire episodes are available on YouTube. Here is the first one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kbqCKe8Ymo"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #16 October 26, 2009 All I have to say is ... telescreens."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 October 26, 2009 Here's an article that reinforces exactly why I have no fear of Big Brother. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BITV600&show_article=1 And that's stuff they NEED to care about. Analyzing the information coming to them is like trying to take sips from a fire hose.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #18 October 26, 2009 >Analyzing the information coming to them is like trying to take sips from >a fire hose. Indeed. But the devices that take sips from that firehose are getting faster and larger all the time. Betting that computing power and bandwidth will never be up to a given task is a poor bet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #19 October 26, 2009 Unless the government starts using an army of robots working 24/7 to arrest people, I'm not too worried. All the information for minor crimes played out in our daily lives still would swamp the availability of manpower to enforce and arrest. I guess we could eventually have a system where computers start giving tickets like red light cameras, but I doubt the population would put up with that for very long and all everyone would have to do is refuse to pay which again would force human enforcement back into the equation.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #20 October 26, 2009 >All the information for minor crimes played out in our daily lives still >would swamp the availability of manpower to enforce and arrest. Agreed. But it would not swamp the ability of computers to collect and analyze that information - and that is something we should guard against. Hoping that the ability never arises is a poor strategy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #21 October 26, 2009 QuoteThe idea that the government is tracking an average person's every move or listening and reading every communication is simply ridiculous. While it's true that computers may do this on a gross level, there is simply too much data for anyone to possibly give a shit about the average person as an individual. So, if the smallest details of your personal life are recorded by the government, you're ok with that, because there's so much data that no one will actually give a shit?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #22 October 26, 2009 QuoteHere's an article that reinforces exactly why I have no fear of Big Brother. Well, ok then, since they're incompetent, having them wantonly violate our rights is all okey-dokey, right?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #23 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteHere's an article that reinforces exactly why I have no fear of Big Brother. Well, ok then, since they're incompetent, having them wantonly violate our rights is all okey-dokey, right? I don't think they're incompetent. I think they're understaffed for the big tasks at hand and it's impossible for them to give a shit about something as far down the chain as me.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #24 October 26, 2009 QuoteThey may have some other weird crap going on in this specific case as well we're not privy to, like maybe it' a matter of mistaken identity / people with the same name ect. Yeah. They confused her with the other person who had applied to enroll their kid at that school, and whom it would have been totally reasonable to tail for three weeks. Sure. That's it.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #25 October 26, 2009 Quote I think they're understaffed for the big tasks at hand and it's impossible for them to give a shit about something as far down the chain as me. And that makes it all ok? That's like saying it's ok to invade Mexico, because our army is so busy in Iraq and Afghanistan that it won't do much damage in Mexico anyway.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites