<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kgj0VZnoq0Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Some people are ok with this, others are not. My concern is Americans tend to think bad things don't happen to developed and powerful countries, and these things can't slip between the cracks into the wrong hands. If things are looking more oligarchic, you can kind of see where this can head and how it can be bad. OTOH, as the dude in the video states, you would probably not question this stuff if you have had a bad experience or when you think about something bad happening to someone you love. I've lived in a country with literally thousands of times more active surveillance technology and investment and again literally hundreds of times fewer people and space. I've seen the depths of this thing like perhaps no other person has ever seen in history. What do you envision as the line which can't be crossed? You live in the only country where a large majority of people are paranoid about having a national ID. How is this not a worse form of that? Are people really ok with this or do people just not know how deep it is? What happens in a country where, say, Donald Trump has been president for a few years and naturally attempts to expand his power over your democracy? Will the weaker limbs of the democracy hold up? I would really like to know, for you, how far is too far? Describe a situation where you would become actively resistant to the surveillance.
When you are in public, people can see you. This includes law enforcement. Everybody. When you post public messages, people can see those too. You wouldn't believe how many morons go down because they post incriminating nonsense on facebook (like felons posting pictures of themselves holding guns). I have no problem with the police surveilling the public areas of a city, that is their job. It is when they start to invade privacy that there is a problem, but that isn't what is being talked about here.
Yeah that's obvious to everyone. It's the nuance that's important. Surveilling what you do in public is different than surveilling every single thing you ever do in public and assigning you a score based on some algorithm which may put you in harm's way if you, for example, call the police. When the discussion about public/private life happened and positions similar to yours were developed, the definition of public life and the ability to consume your public behavior was RADICALLY different. When you buy a ball and you take it home and play at home, the system automatically assumes you're playing ball at home and will treat you as such in whatever you do. That's different. That's new to this generation of humans. You used to be able to buy a ball and that was that because balls are not dangerous. Now, every ball you buy is logged and used to make an assessment about you. Now, you may still be ok with that and that's fine obviously. I'm just noting that it's not as simplistic as you make it seem. What I'm understanding from you is that you have no problem with how surveillance of your public life is used - regardless of how far it may go, or how fast the technology may be developing and sometimes it develops faster than you reasonably be asked to keep up with. Essentially, for you, there is no line you have an issue with as long as under the currently abused definitions of privacy you can do what you want, correct? That's virtually nothing nowadays btw considering all the licenses you agree to on your electronic devices.
Nothing to see here - just Allah's little helper trying to stir up fear in the civilized world. Everyone knows the government see's what you do in public. Meanwhile, back in the country where Mathloom needs a proxy to view CNN. http://www.newsweek.com/under-surveillance-abu-dhabi-reporters-saga-being-followed-bribed-and-317627 This is the level of surveillance that should cause a nation to worry. Unless you're muslim, and you see it as the only way to preserve the purity of your religion. /thread
If you are in public space, it's open game. I feel that the only ones that are worried are people who have plans on doing something illegal. Traffic accidents, crimes, etc is more cut and dry if you have video instead of relying on eye witness or he/she said type testimony. Contending a traffic violation will be a thing of the past when you have video evidence. If you are a religious person, the idea of an entity hovering over your every action 24x7 shouldn't bother you.
You're one of those naive people who do not believe politicians and people in power would not abuse their power. "Big Brother" drives fear into people. Who wants to live their life in constant fear of being exposed everytime they make a mistake. I understand the concept that ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, but if we were reprimanded for every mistake we made, we would be nice little sheep being led to the slaughter. There comes a point where its too much.
Or counter to economic and political interests of official or large institutions, and have unconventional enough private habits or choices that a coordinated and well-edited exposure of them could entail either public downfall, or probable cause for some kind of arrest.
the "government only sees public information so it's A-OK" is an utterly bulls**t argument for, among many reasons, it's simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-md-ci-stingray-challenge-20150904-story.html
I do believe that power corrupts a lot of people. Hmmmm, how do religious people cope up with the thought of being judged for ever single action they do including what's in their thought? That doesn't seem to bother majority of Americans since most are "God fearing", yet when it comes to MAN monitoring our public streets....oh hells to the no.
Do what? Are you really comparing religious brainwashing to a police state? This isn't some middle eastern country that is ruled by religious law. Even if a majority of the country has some type of religious moral compass (which clearly isnt the case), nobody is throwing them in jail or punishing them if they should break whatever moral code they may believe in.
This is a really ridiculous argument, for lack of a more polite word. In the context of what those religious people believe, the entity watching them is perfect and they believe that 100%. A totally perfect being whose every single move is ethical. We are talking in this thread about not only an imperfect entity, but entities that have a long pattern of developing, using and abusing surveillance technology secretly. What we know about these things is just what whistleblowers have told us and what small part of it some companies are forced to disclose by law. What we know about surveillance technology is what was used in secret for years, then expanded, then discovered, then managed. By the time you or I find out about any of these things, a more advanced version of it is typically in use. Just based on what I actually know is purchased by other governments from programs which develop technology primarily for YOUR government I can tell you the technology discussed here is really just the baseline which came into use almost a decade ago. This technology - whose current development is achieving an extremely marginal benefit for public safety while consuming hoards of investment money - is growing extremely rapidly and not in our field of view. From inception in a laboratory to use on the public, it must take something like 15 years. And just to re-emphasize, the definitions of public and private have never been so different than they are right now. If you wear a smartwatch, you agree to share certain data with the tech company even in the privacy of your own home. That data is then shared and combined with your public profile based on requests which are almost automatically approved by the supervisors of the program and the tech companies. That data includes your private life, as you know the watch can know your vital signs, location, it can feel, see, hear everything. Even when you agree to the tech companies' terms and services, it is not reasonable to expect average people to comprehend dozens of pages of complex legal rhetoric. The chance of abuse is perhaps lower in your country, but what about the chances that the information gets stolen by another government or some hacktivist? The mantra of people who are ok with total surveillance always seems to be "well don't do anything wrong." Have you ever considered: 1) Who decides how to interpret "wrong" or illegal?; and 2) Who the F doesn't ever do anything illegal which can never be held against them? You've never illegally smoked a J? You've never said out loud in a fit of rage that you want to kill your annoying neighbor because he took your newspaper or something stupid like that? What about if your roommate is doing hard drugs and you call the police and they come to your house on full attack mode because they think it's gang related? Come on.
