Excess surveillance is not alright. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean that I'm prepared to submit to it. It's an infringement on my privacy. More importantly, it's an infringement on my security:
-/ Once the infrastructure to watch me all the time is in place, and should it become valuable, there's no earthly way it can be prevented from getting into the hands of people who can exploit it.
-/ Governments and businesses are always interested in controlling and coercing the public. The trend here is towards increasing amounts of control, and surveillance is a handy part of that.
-/ Increased surveillance doesn't increase security. Whereas, for example, not becoming involved in illegal wars does.
C'mon now, don't you think you're being just a little bit alarmist here? Slippery slope arguments hold no water for me. You can "what if" until the cows come home, but it hasn't happened, and it likely won't either.
- The "infrastructure to watch you all the time" already exists in the UK (as the article already said). You don't see a huge black market for that information exploding over there. The same stuff that all this "new" surveillance will capture is the same stuff that a lowly PI can capture now. If you're out in public, you're legally viewable (the see-through-clothes part is debatable, but the fact that you can be seen at all is not). How much or how little is irrelevant. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially out in public, more surveillance is not an invasion of privacy. There has been no discussion of surveillance inside your house, or in your bathroom, or any other place in which you have any sort of expectation of privacy.
- Governments already have the means to watch you 24x7, without installing new cameras. Space-based imaging can read the newspaper over your shoulder while you sit on your patio. Again, there is no black market for satellite imagery of you. The ratio of satellites to people makes that sort of information prohibitively costly, and re-tasking a military satellite takes an act of God and Congress. Nice try, but it ain't all about you.
- Besides completely ignoring your retarded "war" comment, increased surveillance does indeed mean increased safety and security. If you knew you were being watched 24x7 in public, would you be *more likely*, or *less likely* to commit a crime? Get real. As everyone has said, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got no reason to worry. The Bill of Rights is still a part of the Constitution, last time I checked.
Not to mention, you *completely* missed the point of the article, which was talking about perv cams, to present your innane conspiracy theory-laden babble to an audience who is wondering why you didn't talk about the camera that can see through clothes, and where we can sign up to get that job.
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Excess surveillance is not alright. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean that I'm prepared to submit to it. It's an infringement on my privacy. More importantly, it's an infringement on my security:
-/ Once the infrastructure to watch me all the time is in place, and should it become valuable, there's no earthly way it can be prevented from getting into the hands of people who can exploit it.
-/ Governments and businesses are always interested in controlling and coercing the public. The trend here is towards increasing amounts of control, and surveillance is a handy part of that.
-/ Increased surveillance doesn't increase security. Whereas, for example, not becoming involved in illegal wars does.
C'mon now, don't you think you're being just a little bit alarmist here? Slippery slope arguments hold no water for me. You can "what if" until the cows come home, but it hasn't happened, and it likely won't either.
- The "infrastructure to watch you all the time" already exists in the UK (as the article already said). You don't see a huge black market for that information exploding over there. The same stuff that all this "new" surveillance will capture is the same stuff that a lowly PI can capture now. If you're out in public, you're legally viewable (the see-through-clothes part is debatable, but the fact that you can be seen at all is not). How much or how little is irrelevant. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially out in public, more surveillance is not an invasion of privacy. There has been no discussion of surveillance inside your house, or in your bathroom, or any other place in which you have any sort of expectation of privacy.
- Governments already have the means to watch you 24x7, without installing new cameras. Space-based imaging can read the newspaper over your shoulder while you sit on your patio. Again, there is no black market for satellite imagery of you. The ratio of satellites to people makes that sort of information prohibitively costly, and re-tasking a military satellite takes an act of God and Congress. Nice try, but it ain't all about you.
- Besides completely ignoring your retarded "war" comment, increased surveillance does indeed mean increased safety and security. If you knew you were being watched 24x7 in public, would you be *more likely*, or *less likely* to commit a crime? Get real. As everyone has said, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got no reason to worry. The Bill of Rights is still a part of the Constitution, last time I checked.
Not to mention, you *completely* missed the point of the article, which was talking about perv cams, to present your innane conspiracy theory-laden babble to an audience who is wondering why you didn't talk about the camera that can see through clothes, and where we can sign up to get that job.