What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
191 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8> If you don't break the law, then you don't have anything to worry about it. That's why
> I don't worry about it when the cops are following me or there are cameras around,
> because I don't break the law.
Reminds me of the time that I purchased an RX-7 in CA and drove out to MO where I was working at the time. Driving down one of those long, vast stretches of iron-rod straight highways that litter that particular state, I was followed (tailgated, really) by a highway patrol car for over 50 miles. Doing the speed limit on those roads SUCKS! He eventually got pissed that I wasn't going to break any laws that would allow him to escalate the situation into "probable cause" and went away (to bust up some real crime, hopefully).
Never did register the car in MO and never bothered with getting a state-side drivers license (and, interestingly, the only difference it ever made was that I got pulled over a hell of a lot more than other drivers... with CA plates, they just assume that you're muling product from one coast to the next). Spend some time squarely in a profile zone and you will learn just how far your civil liberties actually go (essentially, they don't exist). - sethanon87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If you don't break the law, then you don't have anything to worry about it. That's why I don't worry about it when the cops are following me or there are cameras around, because I don't break the law. They are just trying to make things safer for us, when someone does a hit and run, you'll appreciate it."
If you are a law abiding citizen you should be just as up in arms about this as anyone else, In effect they are treating you as a 'potential' criminal taking away our right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Its the same argument with ID cards they are able to store a large amount of data on your rfid tag that would be implanted and instantly know your history, your health history etc it takes away our right to privacy. Also The cost of implementing a system, even if using existing CCTV cameras, storing this amount of data is going to require a lot of money, and why go off on a venture such as this when we already have ill-funded things like the NHS which could do with this sort of money? Did you know that the new ID cards where going to cost around £85 each that would come out of our own pockets, and then we would of had to pay for the renewal, and from our tax money £5.5 billion would be taken for the government to actually fund it in the first place? this is the kind of system we would be facing. - 808kick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You should care because it becomes a slippery slope, people who say stuff like "It doesn't affect me!" are wrong. If you need an example read up on the Gestapo.
Orwell's 1984 and More's Utopia were not intended as manuals of operation... - AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"If you don't break the law, then you don't have anything to worry about it. That's why I don't worry about it when the cops are following me or there are cameras around, because I don't break the law. They are just trying to make things safer for us, when someone does a hit and run, you'll appreciate it."
idiots think like this , and are the reson hitler came to power. wait till the day everything is illegal then youll rethink that comment - Beautyon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I don't see a problem with it. You will appreciate it when someone steals your car and this system is used to track it down. As far as I can see it, if it helps to keep law and order how is it a bad thing?"
You don't see a problem with it because you are blind. Or very very young.
The police never use the CCTV system to track down crimes against the individual. They don't have the incentive or the resources. These systems are being installed soley to facilitate the automatic taxation and penalizing of drivers.
In the future, you will not be able to drive a car without having a direct debit account from which your fines can be taken automagically. The system will monitor your every move and also, how fast you move. If you drive from London to Edinburgh in under 5 hours, you will have certainly been speeding. Fine issued, money deducted. If you go from Bath to Clapham in too short a time. Fine issued, money deducted. If your direct debit account reaches zero, you will be picked up immediately, because not having funds available for paying a fine will be made illegal, and of course, they will have access to your bank account to do this by law.
Then will come the inevitable face recognition systems to control the streets. Its already illegal to wear a mask / disguise in public in many countries....now why do you think that is?
Anyone who doesn't see this as a bad thing doesn't understand how systems can be integrated, and frankly is suffering from a lack of imagination.
And even if the police did use the system to get your burnt out wreck of a car back, this will not help prevent crime in the first instance, it will only help detecting it after the damage is done. The police are already good at detecting crime. They do not need this OTT/CCTV system. Period.
What is astonishing about this is that they have started putting the system together without any debate, no oversight, no new legislation, they just decided to do it, and to take posession of everyone's streets for their own purposes. That is an ourtrage to any decent person with one working brain cell. - DannyMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This isn't to stop crime but increase revenue and criminalising the mass public.
If they track every journey they can tell when you are speeding. Passing two cameras points faster than the speed limit allows flags up on the computer system sends you a £60 fine and three point on your license. - acontorer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4jkfan87 unwisely said: 'All the stupid ***** idiots who say "Well, in theory it is not evil, but you know that some time in the distant future 500 years from now, there will be a tiny chance that a small lopphole will be discovered that will allow it to be used for evil" PLEAEs tell me ONE time this came true.'
Okay, how about that harmless listing of everyone born Jewish in Germany before, surprise, some crazies came to power and decided people of Jewish ancestry should be killed?
Something more modest? How about the American guy whose wife divorced him after her lawyer got copies of the tollbooth scanner records, and found out he was not driving where he said he was.
Something in between? How about cellphones that are required to have a persistent ID number. Recently a US satellite detected a cellphone call from a terrorist in Yemen, based on the phone's ID, and the CIA promptly ordered a Predator airplane to blow up the car around that phone with a Hellfire missile. Everyone in it died. I guess the guy didn't realize that his cellphone ID could be detected from hundreds of miles away and used to kill him.
Do I really have to go on? Sheesh. - benspicer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49/11 changed everything, it gave governments an excuse to do anything and call it an anti terrorism measure. sure..
- JulianMorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem isn't even the future potential for abuse, because that would wrongly imply it's OK along as it isn't abused. Not so. The problem is the flipped master-servant relationship. The state, if it's to do any good at all, is meant to serve the people, who are sovereign. This is the root of "innocent until proven guilty" - the state must make its case that a crime is being commited BEFORE it may intrude upon an individual. But here we see the state intrude upon everyone, preemptively. Ergo, it has taken the role of master, not servant, and has already crossed the line into tyrannical behaviour.
There needs to be a serious grassroots movement to smash these cameras - all of them, because we can no longer know which are networked. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Movements of all cars in Britain to be monitored by evil sytem."
Oh, so... Well, it's nice to know that you're looking at this with an open mind. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5> 9/11 changed everything,
Bingo... Where's that blank check?
>it gave governments an excuse to do anything and call it an anti terrorism measure. sure..
People seem to forget that the Brits had a nasty problem with "domestic" terrorism straight up through the late 80s due to their position on Ireland. ***** that would *NEVER* fly in the US is standard practice in the UK... but it's coming our way unless we realize that:
1 - while we have troops in harms way, we are not at war (at least not in a traditional sense of the word)
2 - we don't need to sacrifice our core liberties for "protection" from some nebulous infrequent threat
3 - politicians elected into office who disrespect the Constitution and all that is stands for are more dangerous than "terrorists".
Unfortunately the demographics point to a path down which the UK has already blazed a trail. The US is going embrace restrictions on their personal freedoms and universal surveillance like a toothless pensioner slurping up morning pourge. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, i guess you should look into what I think was called the 'colored armband experiment', or the Stanford Prison Experiment. Those show just how easy it is to fall in line with 'nazi' thinking of what we consider a 'modern' society.
DONT FOR ONE SECOND think this cant happen in the UK or the US. All that needs to happen are just a few small things, and a public 'who doesnt mind' because they think it wont effect them. You say that 'people wont let this happen' well I am not going to let that happen, thats why I am fighting it right now, but you seem to be content with letting it happen. This constant desire of the state to want to monitor and watch us, all for 'our safety' is rediculous. A free society always has a threat of terrorism, its not going to go away, same can even be said of a 'safe' society. A police state cant even get rid of terorism. Sure, it may be less, but you have lost your freedom. So which do you want, a free society with terrorism, or a police state with terrorism?
You should also take note that NO government has EVER given back power they have taken or given (by 'consent' of the people). - DannyMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How about a camera inside every room of your house so that the government can check to make sure your not committing a crime.
If you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4> Orwell's 1984 and More's Utopia were not intended as manuals of operation...
Yes... they were just drafts. The final manual is in the process of being (re)written. - FourtyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If you are a law abiding citizen you should be just as up in arms about this as anyone else, In effect they are treating you as a 'potential' criminal taking away our right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Its the same argument with ID cards they are able to store a large amount of data on your rfid tag that would be implanted and instantly know your history, your health history etc it takes away our right to privacy. Also The cost of implementing a system, even if using existing CCTV cameras, storing this amount of data is going to require a lot of money, and why go off on a venture such as this when we already have ill-funded things like the NHS which could do with this sort of money? Did you know that the new ID cards where going to cost around £85 each that would come out of our own pockets, and then we would of had to pay for the renewal, and from our tax money £5.5 billion would be taken for the government to actually fund it in the first place? this is the kind of system we would be facing"
Exactly!!
People these is not tin foil hat conspiracy theories this is an assault on liberty. Wise up - vannyx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First Everyone Breaks the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. Second you cant detour a terrorist, so a deterant system is useless to stop a terrorist, If a guy can walk into a crowded restaurant blow up himself and his wife their isnt much you can put up or do to detour him. The only way to stop a terror attack is just that to stop it before it happens. Trying to catch it on camera 5 minutes or 5 hours before it happens might not be enough. The person must be stopped at least 24 hours before. This system is designed to make money and to automate the process. If officers dont actually have to see you and stop you and ticket you then they are free to go monitor other areas that are not in the system to produce revenue from fines.
Ive seen a few people with the response , if you dont break the law you have nothing to worry about. Well i am sure you cant always go 50 miles an hour exactly so at some point you will break the law and this is a zero tolerance system so if you were going 52 miles an hour in a 50 zone your not getting any slack even if it was just for 2.5 seconds. " judge you see i was going down a hill and couldnt slow down quickly enough."
Sometimes breaking the law and doing something wrong is 2 different things and whats legal today can be illegal tomarrow. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here's to all the eurotrash who have been making snide remarks about the US while pretending their society is clearly superior in every possible way.
Thanks, guys! - kola_kidd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Another country off my list to visit... And I was looking forward to seeing the motherland...
- FourtyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But we're not in 1945 Germany, one of the reasons the communist regime in the USSR collapsed was due to increased communications."
You are right we are not in 1945 Germany...unfortunately human nature has not changed since then. Look at world history...Governments want to control it citizens over time. Also, the USSR did not fail because of increased communications it failed because it went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US military industrial complex. - Brewno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But we're not in 1945 Germany, one of the reasons the communist regime in the USSR collapsed was due to increased communications thus not only did the inhabitants know what was happening outside their country, but outside knew what was happening in. We live in an age in which there are many safeguards against such a seizing of power, especially in the UK. The Army are instructed to act separately from the Government in the case of a single man seizing power, the EU would also be obliged to intervene. But one of the core reasons this worked for Hitler was the continual persuasion and sheltering manner in which he kept his people, as soon as something like this happens here, many many articles would be written by disapproving authors from other countries in almost any journal (who would be keen to jump on this), and the inhabitants of the UK would get a fair and well-rounded view of what their government is doing.
- northernmonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Real Terrorists use B-roads" - from http://forums.lugradio.org/viewtopic.php?t=1545
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Driving isnt a right, it's a privilege...."
Living in the far suburbs or rural area and being able to work, isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Having some form of alternative transportation when natural disasters come, isn't a right, it's a privilege.
That BS statement works for the 2% of people who are lawbreakers. But for many parts of modern societies, cars are an integral part of getting things done, and can't simply be removed from society any more than gasoline or fiat currency can be. Sinces cars/motorcycles are a part of society that can't be done away with, that means this is unavoidable government intrusion. - synagence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its only a minor technological leap from knowing when a car was and when to calculating the minimum time it would take between 2 cameras based on limits and enforcing speed limits....
They are trying to control our lives in the UK....i hate it....we are rapidly becoming a nanny state...things like this never work to prevent those it is intended to stop.....criminals won't be bothered by knowing their stolen car with false plates on is getting snapped .... - Ekstra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe the problem is one of 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. History has shown that ANY SYSTEM that collects information on people will eventually be abused in ways not originally intended. Anyone who reads the news even occasionally must know that governments, companies, and individuals have exploited monitoring systems with enthusiasm at every opportunity.
Information without explicit controls on its uses WILL be abused, often in unpredictable and creative ways.
Perhaps one day you will be in an accident which you don't think is your fault, but some lawyer will request your car info to show that you missed a car tuneup and were therefore likely driving an unsafe vehicle (low tire pressure, hydrolics, brakes etc).
Perhaps there is a pileup on a bridge or in a tunnel which results in the death of one or more motorists. When the new database is pulled up, it is found that most people exceed the speed limit on that bridge. Prosecutors decide to indict every speeder in the vicinity on charges of manslaughter, whether or not they actually hit anyone. "These speeding motorists were there, they were driving unsafely, and therefore contributed significantly to dangerous conditions in the area."
Perhaps people with access to the data begin to leak the whereabouts of important individuals. For example, Steve Jobs (Mr. Ipod) comes to England to visit a few companies with regards to teaming agreements. I imagine the information on his movements would be very valuable to investors, competitors, and even the other companies he is visiting.
These are only a few undesirable uses of the information that one person can think of in a few minutes. Give a few hundred people access, and a couple of years to experiment and think about it, and I'm sure we'll all be stunned and dismayed by the results of their creativity.
As you get older, you get more exposure to the creative nastiness of people with access to information.
High resolution cameras were installed at my company about 5 years ago. After a car theft the tapes were reviewed and it was found that the night security officer had been using the cameras to zoom in on people undressing in the hotel across the road for months. Presumably all of those people can be found nude on the internet now.
At another company where a friend was working, security cameras installed to prevent theft or unauthorized access to a building were then used by management to watch and listen to employees during lunch hour.
I believe I recently read a story here on Digg about a student who got a visit from the FBI after requesting Mao's little red book from the digitized inventory of a local library system.
In my opinion, any government or corporate monitoring of individuals is simply a ticking time bomb waiting to be exploited by someone. It WILL happen, even if nobody can say today how it will be done. Even if you won't fight against this insidious trend to monitor the innocent, do yourself the favor of at least disapproving. - Skizzot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All I know, is that if it was the US doing this, there would be a lot more ***** talking.
- psikorsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Although I abhor such intrusive, big-brother measures, if I trusted the authorities to use this just for catching dangerous criminals and terrorists, I would support it, albeit with some reservations. The problem here is that I simply don't trust government to use such tools sparingly. Drivers are already screwed over left, right and center in Britain. I fear that the barrage of tickets, fines and other idiotic taxes would increase under such a system.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."
- General Douglas MacArthur - acontorer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is the beginning of the permanent end of all privacy.
Suppose this doesn't get built; will that help you? Not for long. Consider a (near) future in which wireless webcams cost, say, a dollar, and Internet-accessible disk storage for a year of images, another dollar. Now even children, let alone police, are going to stick cameras absolutely everywhere. Add some recognition software (license plates, faces, whatever you like to track) and index the heck out of it. Now anyone on earth can name anyone else on earth and see a complete, photographic log of nearly everywhere they've gone during the past couple of years.
Unless technological trends show a surprising change, this WILL happen. Even if England's insane government doesn't do it, it it will still happen.
Want to be more scared? Fast forward 20 more years, to when those cameras cost one cent and are the size of a grain of sand. Buy a thousand and scatter them all around someone's home, maybe tossing them in the window or tracking them in on your shoes, or on a fly. You can see where this is going. - Monnik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nice balance of power here. The state may detain you without charges, backtrace your physical movements for years, your phone calls, your e-mail, your browsing etcetera. At the same time it is allowed to outright lie to you about their intentions of going to war and no you are not allowed to see those secret documents about it thank you very much for asking. And us technical people are supposed to help them! Not ten years ago I would have thought this article a prank, but in the present it actually seems to be true.
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This system + the inevitable security holes + one tech-savvy stalker = bad things.
- gadgetjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Our government is spending £24m of *our* money on equipment which will ultimately be used to extract more money from us. Brilliant!
Sure, this will be dressed us as some *****, like they are doing us all a favor, but it's all about money! There is no way this would happen for any other reason.
(I guess they have to make up for all the tax they no longer get on cigarettes, now that everyone seems to be giving up! Please keep smoking and dying younger, it keeps my tax down) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"All you liberals should be shot. I swear, all you do is fret about this and that. This is GOOD for the people as a WHOLE. Who cares if a few mistakes are made. Overall it will be GOOD for society."
with a comment like this, it makes me wonder what type of political persuasion this person is under. it is "paleo-conservatives", not liberals, who desire more privacy. conservatives like smaller government and less intrusion of "big brother". they are more individualistic and not victims of group-think. i believe this individual is what some would call today as a neo-con, pro big government, big business, and all on a global scale. this type of thinking goes far beyond liberal vs. conservative, red vs. blue, it moves more towards slave(government) vs. master(people) and our roles are rapidly changing.
but to bring my comments back down, even convicted felons only get parole after they are released. so what crime did i commit to get questioned and watched all the time?
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” ~ Benjamin Franklin - g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The whole "liberal/conservative" thing is a load of crap. It's us versus them. We the people versus the scumbags who manipulated their way into government power. The scumbags who profit off of "protecting" our freedoms by taking them away. They own voting machines and oil companies.
- ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1for all those commenters talking about orwell and 1984... check out this:
http://lapin.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/163232/12
it's a good take on how orwell was probably a bit off and how huxley was closer with his "Brave New World"
I'll crib from Neil Postman for my synopsis so you don't have to go read it all (which is a bit ironic)
"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. ...Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance." - hammerikaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What will be left ouf our basic humanity if this kind of technology is followed to its natural end?
As in, when we all only have narrow paths that we can walk, in ever more closely-define legal activities that are enforced proactively rather than retroactively... don't we all just become cogs in a large machine?
Anything that turns a human being into a means rather than an end is evil. Anything that prevents a human being from making a choice as to whether to follow the law or not strips one of his or her humanity.
For all you people who think this will make you safer, consider this simple thought experiment:
You could make yourself completely safe by sealing yourself in a concrete box three hundred meters underground, with clean water and fresh food being brought to you by some mechanism (say, from a secured storehouse) three times a day.
You are entirely safe, and you can continue living until you die of old age. But are you happy? Are you human?
Is the pursuit of safety worth the cost of our very souls as individuals and as societies? - skydive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The people who are for this system, let's take it a little further...
Would you have a problem if there were government cameras all over your street and some pointed directly at your house? This wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable? Sure it's a public street, and maybe it would prevent your car from ever being stolen. Every time you play with your kids in the yard, or mow the lawn, all of your movements all recorded; forever. Every time your daughter changes clothes and doesn't close the blinds all the way, it's recorded, for all time.
This is lazy. It doesn't remove the circumstances from society that lead people to believe they're better off staying outside the law than within. Instead, it just makes us all cast of the Truman Show. I would like to think we can strike a better deal between advancing technology and civil liberties than this.
What about an anal exam? I mean, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Just bend over. Oh wait, you already have. - Rahimc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The argument 'you don't have to worry about it if you've done nothing wrong' simply doesn't wash. You go under the assumption that innocent people are never sent down for anything! Better 1,000 criminals go free than 1 innocent goes to jail.
You can't trust the govt for anything. Look at the the illegal war. Look at the US now admitting they have 100s of illegal phone taps for so called 'anti-terrorist' purposes.
Indeed I think this will reduce crime, but at what cost? People have died in their millions to get the type of freedom we have today, lets not throw it away just because of scaremongering by the govt.
Ultimately, I don't think we can stop this. The paranoia sweeping the globe is being used by govts to push their own agenda (i.e. war in Iraq). If we are going to have this system in place it must NOT be controlled by the police but some independent authority over which the police or executive has no sway. - dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So doesn't this just mean the terrorists will either A) use imported vechicles (or ones they bring over themselves) B) Use older used cars without the functionality they are describing C) Disable the system, D) Steal a car, murder the owner so they can't report it, and then have a free ride?
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"BTW the Constitution usurps the FISA laws. The courts have found over and over that the president and all presidents have had the authority to do this. There's never been any ruling that's gone otherwise. So the so called police state that everyone's been dramatically kicking and screaming about has gained no new powers. Aww, doesn't fit into your McBushHitler line, does it?"
This is almost word for word trumpeting Limbaugh/Oreilly style reasoning for giving up freedom and liberty. What happened to the small government conservatives? When did the right become a bunch of blind cult members parroting the party line? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1in school here we have cameras to prevent drug dealing.. now you know exactly where to find the dealers.. as they are the ones standing directly under the cams, in the small space where he cant be seen.but the good news is the cams are great at looking down the shirts of female students.
here in my state kids are going to split a 2million dollar judgment after a drug raid on their school where people rounded up people for nothing.. held barking dogs inches from their faces.. and found a total of zero drugs, zero guns..they were acting suspcious in fron tof the cams but they weren't doing anything wrong and not one student was arrested.. and despite the shear fear of having a barking dog inches from their face.. they should let it go after all the good that would have been done by getting just one dealer off campus.. or just one gun out of the locker.
I don't really car as they aren't my kids and i am out of high school. - dfwiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The consitution was made over 200 years ago by a bunch of losers wearing wigs. It's time we burned that dusty old POS and let Bush go after any and every terrorist. If it wasn't for Bush you'd all be nuked by Iraq right now!
- danski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone who wanted to circumvent this system could easily do so. How, for example, would it handle me driving into a garage and driving out in a different car? What about parking, walking through a building and taking off on a train? What about rural routes? What about off-road routes? The only people it will successfully track are people who don't know any better.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> ere in the Bay Area, a local pediatrician was missing for 6 weeks before they had
> located her vehicle in the bay, she had driven down a road directly into a boat ramp
> while lost in bad weather.
I believe...
I believe in god....
I believe in the god of natural selection...
Explain to me *EXACTLY* how this would have saved her life?
I believe that you're so stupid that I'll have another beer just so that we can talk on the same intellectual level. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Liberals love to play the civil liberties card, but in reality this system will deter criminal activity (including terrorism). If it makes life safer and more secure for the law-abiding people like myself, I say bring it to America. Let them videotape me, I could give a *****."
What is your stance on registering guns? - lampy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, I remember a time when Republicans were the ones who wanted lower taxes, a smaller government, and thus a less intrusive one in BOTH our lives and businesses. I thought it were those Liberal hippies that wanted huge taxes to pay for a giant government that becomes so intrusive in businesses and people's lives that they are no longer free? Conservatives were suppose to be about smaller governmental powers and liberals about more governmental powers, while trying to protect personal freedoms. Exactly, when did conservatives flip-flop to the other side of the debate? If anything, Bush has acted like a 1960's liberal more than a conservative in his presidency. Hey guess what everyone, Neo-Conservatives in political terms are considered Classical Liberals.
- wrinkles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Power is always abused. When the civil confiscation laws were passed in the 80s to allow police to confiscate property of "suspected drug dealers", the local police and DA had a field day siezing, auctioning, and splitting the loot.
Case in point: University of Iowa alumni bought a bus for traveling/tailgating for the football games. Cops claimed they were "bootlegging alcohol", confiscated the bus, then dropped the charges. Since it was a civil action, all the rights you would expect are not there to support you. The cops stuck to mostly cars and boats, because they knew the court actions to retrieve confiscated properties could be expensive, and figured you could not afford it and wrote off the loss.
This happens all the time. With respect to domestic spying, it's not the average joe that has to worry (yet). It's the 3rd-party politicians, businesses, and political activists whose actions could run afoul of government plans.
For God's sake Watergate wasn't that long ago, was it? - campbeltonian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This isn't to stop crime but increase revenue and criminalising the mass public. If they track every journey they can tell when you are speeding." - DannyMurphy
Speed cameras don't criminalise speeders, the fact that there is a speed limit (and has been for some time) does. If you have a problem with keeping to the speed limit, it's the law you should complain about, not the method of enforcement. - Skyfire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12+2=5
I'm ready. - wavesmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Better get my James Bond license plate flipper out.
- sambearpoet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm completely agnostic as to whether such a system, which would be taking in huge amounts of information on a regular basis, would actually be worth anything in the long run. The signal-to-noise ratio would be horrendous - and that's *if* things don't constantly break down and the system doesn't properly scale for heavy traffic or other adverse conditions. Would it be useful for real-time surveillance? Absolutely not. Would it be useful for picking up the pieces, following the trail months and months after the deed? Maybe.
Technology is not the universal panacea for law enforcement. - skippy2057, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I also used to be in the "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why would I care" camp. However, the older I get (and my teeth are pretty long at this point) I find myself more on the other side. I guess I've seen more instances where the "slippery slope" effect comes into play. My faith in the basic goodness or integrity of indivduals is considerable less than it was.
I understand the UK's move on some level; I was born in Scotland, but now live in the US. The UK has a surprising amount of street crime (muggings, etc) in some areas and a pretty major car theft problem. The ubiquitous CCTV cameras and this proposed vehicle tracking system were probably thought up to try and combat these problems, or at least that may have been the original intention.
Unfortunately, as some of the previously posted comments have suggested, these things do tend to get used for other less noble purposes over time. Sad, but demonstrably true. -
Show 51 - 100 of 191 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is