See, you are being made ignorant by fear. The technology was not available during that time for passive monitoring, and McCarthyism was the result of active persecution, not passive monitoring. Two different scenarios. Your fear makes you illogical.
As eskim already pointed out, little in our nation's history leads anyone even remotely familiar with it as well as human nature to believe that a system will be used solely for preventing crime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008080803603.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-...-Americans-phone-calls
you're forgetting that people say or do rash things in the heat of the moment. should I get in trouble just because I intemperately verbalized some sort of threat against my parents?
making thoughts or intent a crime is not only contrary to our legal system (repeat after me: innocent until proven guilty)
the other thing that bothers me about such widespread and indiscriminate surveillance is that it appears to be more vulnerable to exploitation. just a week or two ago someone in off-topic posted a thread about swatting in which people could take advantage of 911's system to falsely report on random people.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2273321
apparently you can't even trust the accuracy of records....while this is not related to surveillance, this article is disturbing considering how important credit card reports are for say, background checks:
http://www.smartmoney.com/Spen...s-Cannot-Get-it-Right/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008080803603.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-...-Americans-phone-calls
you're forgetting that people say or do rash things in the heat of the moment. should I get in trouble just because I intemperately verbalized some sort of threat against my parents?
making thoughts or intent a crime is not only contrary to our legal system (repeat after me: innocent until proven guilty)
the other thing that bothers me about such widespread and indiscriminate surveillance is that it appears to be more vulnerable to exploitation. just a week or two ago someone in off-topic posted a thread about swatting in which people could take advantage of 911's system to falsely report on random people.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2273321
apparently you can't even trust the accuracy of records....while this is not related to surveillance, this article is disturbing considering how important credit card reports are for say, background checks:
http://www.smartmoney.com/Spen...s-Cannot-Get-it-Right/
[/quote]
Obviously mistakes would happen, and those mistakes would be an ever growing process in the pursuit of perfection in this system.
I addressed your concern earlier about "heat of the moment" which would involve passive intervention type techniques before an arrest is made ect. I think it is better if say we let you know we heard you making threats to someone, so you know we know, and you go on your merry way in life. Chances are if people *knew* that the government knew about there plans they would not follow through on there ideas.
A system based on punishment is barbaric.
and how does technology invalidate the argument about surveillance? 
it doesn't matter if someone ran into a bank and made off like a bandit with wads of dollar bills or ran a ponzi scheme like Bernard Madoff is alleged to have done, or embezzled money from a company or organization....it's STILL stealing money from people and unjustly enriching oneself.
the same thing is true whether or not computers remotely monitor public/private space or have informants/snitches (which happened in pre-technology days I bet) in police states; the practice and distrust or paranoia that resulted is the same thing.
it doesn't matter if someone ran into a bank and made off like a bandit with wads of dollar bills or ran a ponzi scheme like Bernard Madoff is alleged to have done, or embezzled money from a company or organization....it's STILL stealing money from people and unjustly enriching oneself.
the same thing is true whether or not computers remotely monitor public/private space or have informants/snitches (which happened in pre-technology days I bet) in police states; the practice and distrust or paranoia that resulted is the same thing.
Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
and how does technology invalidate the argument about surveillance?
it doesn't matter if someone ran into a bank and made off like a bandit with wads of dollar bills or ran a ponzi scheme like Bernard Madoff is alleged to have done, or embezzled money from a company or organization....it's STILL stealing money from people and unjustly enriching oneself.
the same thing is true whether or not computers remotely monitor public/private space or have informants/snitches (which happened in pre-technology days I bet) in police states; the practice and distrust or paranoia that resulted is the same thing.
Simply the technology used for surveillance would make automation the system of monitoring. No longer would humans be focused on blacks, rich, poor, republicans, communist, democrats ect. The system would search for specific signs of criminal activity through voice, video, electronic monitoring and with cross referencing would be able too indiscriminately focus on targets.
The idea of racial profiling, the black boots beating you because you wrote a book the wrong way, the indiscriminate way we put trust in law enforcement today to be objective would be history. We would instead have in place a system that would streamline law enforcement without the barbaric practices of the past.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,038
- 12,637
- 136
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
and how does technology invalidate the argument about surveillance?
it doesn't matter if someone ran into a bank and made off like a bandit with wads of dollar bills or ran a ponzi scheme like Bernard Madoff is alleged to have done, or embezzled money from a company or organization....it's STILL stealing money from people and unjustly enriching oneself.
the same thing is true whether or not computers remotely monitor public/private space or have informants/snitches (which happened in pre-technology days I bet) in police states; the practice and distrust or paranoia that resulted is the same thing.
Simply the technology used for surveillance would make automation the system of monitoring. No longer would humans be focused on blacks, rich, poor, republicans, communist, democrats ect. The system would search for specific signs of criminal activity through voice, video, electronic monitoring and with cross referencing would be able too indiscriminately focus on targets.
The idea of racial profiling, the black boots beating you because you wrote a book the wrong way, the indiscriminate way we put trust in law enforcement today to be objective would be history. We would instead have in place a system that would streamline law enforcement without the barbaric practices of the past.
Someone still has to program this system. Who decides what is and isn't okay to say?
What's wrong with just getting a warrant?
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
and how does technology invalidate the argument about surveillance?
it doesn't matter if someone ran into a bank and made off like a bandit with wads of dollar bills or ran a ponzi scheme like Bernard Madoff is alleged to have done, or embezzled money from a company or organization....it's STILL stealing money from people and unjustly enriching oneself.
the same thing is true whether or not computers remotely monitor public/private space or have informants/snitches (which happened in pre-technology days I bet) in police states; the practice and distrust or paranoia that resulted is the same thing.
Simply the technology used for surveillance would make automation the system of monitoring. No longer would humans be focused on blacks, rich, poor, republicans, communist, democrats ect. The system would search for specific signs of criminal activity through voice, video, electronic monitoring and with cross referencing would be able too indiscriminately focus on targets.
The idea of racial profiling, the black boots beating you because you wrote a book the wrong way, the indiscriminate way we put trust in law enforcement today to be objective would be history. We would instead have in place a system that would streamline law enforcement without the barbaric practices of the past.
Someone still has to program this system. Who decides what is and isn't okay to say?
What's wrong with just getting a warrant?
The same checks and balances we have now would decide what is ok and what is not.
Warrants are reactive to human intervention and still susceptible to individuals not being completely objective. A automatic system that monitors completely would be the same more or less as a warrant.
Any suggestions I have seen regarding this idea though do have judges who review the information gained from the system before issuing a call for pro-active activity. Intervention methods obviously (my example of the system contacting someone who had verbally expressed desire to commit a crime) or anything extremely time sensitive might have to be left to the system, but the warrant issue would still be present at first to ensure the continuing perfection of the system. Though once the system is more or less perfected we could discard the time consuming process of a warrant and allow the courts to decide if the evidence the system gained was incorrect.
The checks and balances currently in place would still apply, you could still say fuck the government, you could still write long tirades about how you hate the NSA, as long as your activities do not circumvent the law the automatic system would never take notice of you.
A further note, the idea of a system that brings the cases for a warrants directly to a judge also eliminates any perceived biases that police officers, prosecutors and detectives might have and would result in a more fair system.
I cannot believe this thread is still going on. RichardE, stop it. You don't know what you're talking about. You are arguing for some sort of system you believe to be perfectible despite no such system ever having existed throughout all of mankind's history. When and if you come up with this magical system, please submit it to society at large for review and we'll check it out. I won't hold my breath.
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with prosecutors being biased, etc. Our system is adversarial on purpose.
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with prosecutors being biased, etc. Our system is adversarial on purpose.
For someone who enjoys his rights I didn't think a law system that was purposefully biased would fit into those views. You call me confused.
The system I am visioned and is a topic among those in security policies, research ect is one of a potential system that *will* come. At some point we will be monitored completely, that is just a natural progression, what system we embrace will be decided in the next few decades of policy. Your policy of ignoring the ever changing system that is already being brought towards a system of complete surveillance is akin to sticking your head in the sand.
Though, for someone who thinks the law should be biased, I am starting to understand.
Your concept of the total surveillance system, like I said, it's a pipe dream.
The law should not be biased, prosecutors should be. Our system is adversarial on purpose.
Any biasesness in the law is a fault not a strength. It's appalling you think that at any point in our system that would be ok.
The system is far from a pipe dream and with a few technologies that are being developed, once they are, the computing power as well as the actual technology of surveillance will be easily within reach. I look forward to that.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
I'd like to make my opinion on privacy.
We can expect a reasonably private existence if we make efforts to keep our affairs private. You can't go into a crowded mall and claim everyone there is walking on your right to privacy. Similarly, posting something on the internet, which is the world's best way of making information public, can have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In my opinion, privacy can only be infringed if someone makes a deliberate attempt to uncover something intended to be private.
Also, security trumps privacy, just like it does any right. A right is worth nothing if the state can't secure and enforce it. This means we have to place some trust in the state authority, which is understandably nerve-wracking.
We can expect a reasonably private existence if we make efforts to keep our affairs private. You can't go into a crowded mall and claim everyone there is walking on your right to privacy. Similarly, posting something on the internet, which is the world's best way of making information public, can have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In my opinion, privacy can only be infringed if someone makes a deliberate attempt to uncover something intended to be private.
Also, security trumps privacy, just like it does any right. A right is worth nothing if the state can't secure and enforce it. This means we have to place some trust in the state authority, which is understandably nerve-wracking.
I don't understand why obvious baiting and nonsensical answers are allowed here.
In reality I am a more radical person in my behavior and views than 95% of the people here. Yet, I take my views seriously and would never play devil's advocate just for attention on forums. I could understand really believing something that is unpopular, but this just stinks of attention mongering.
In reality I am a more radical person in my behavior and views than 95% of the people here. Yet, I take my views seriously and would never play devil's advocate just for attention on forums. I could understand really believing something that is unpopular, but this just stinks of attention mongering.
Yet again, you have failed to understand my simple point. The law is not biased, but the prosecutors are. An adversarial legal system such as ours is the most fair and least biased system yet developed, but it relies on biased actors for both the prosecution and defense in order to be so. I would love for you to explain what an 'unbiased' system would look like though.
Your vague claims that someday soon technology will increase and we'll have this fabulous system that you can neither describe nor provide any plans to implement is a joke. "Oh, everything will work out soon" is a cop out and you know it. Your idea is once again extremely naive.
to focus more on the hypothetical surveillance premise/foundations:
all automation/computer programs are susceptible to the same flaw: human error/biases. if you took any statistics class I bet a good instructor will have made the caveat that your results (output) can only come from your data (input). it's no surprise to find out, then, that in the subprime mortgage crisis "geniuses" believed that sub-prime mortgages were not risky and financial ticking time bombs, but were as "solid" as standard mortgages (even though they're not the same thing)...and the basis for their premise was using data of standard mortgages (which is comparing apples to oranges). more than fifteen years ago, more "geniuses" at long-term capital management made disastrous bets on the basis of their data, causing their hedge fund to collapse and was so dire that the Federal Reserve stepped in and forced the leading banks to lend money to the hedge fund.
this leads me to a related point: even *IF* we could somehow guarantee that the data, the analysis, and the results were genuine, at the end of the day it's still up to HUMANS to make use of the data. it's reasonable to assume that people have biases such as dreading bad news (in the old days some messengers of woe were beheaded or such by the king), and hardly a month or year can go by without hearing news of another security breech (just rencently Heartland announced a break-in that iirc wasn't discovered for MONTHS!)
all automation/computer programs are susceptible to the same flaw: human error/biases. if you took any statistics class I bet a good instructor will have made the caveat that your results (output) can only come from your data (input). it's no surprise to find out, then, that in the subprime mortgage crisis "geniuses" believed that sub-prime mortgages were not risky and financial ticking time bombs, but were as "solid" as standard mortgages (even though they're not the same thing)...and the basis for their premise was using data of standard mortgages (which is comparing apples to oranges). more than fifteen years ago, more "geniuses" at long-term capital management made disastrous bets on the basis of their data, causing their hedge fund to collapse and was so dire that the Federal Reserve stepped in and forced the leading banks to lend money to the hedge fund.
this leads me to a related point: even *IF* we could somehow guarantee that the data, the analysis, and the results were genuine, at the end of the day it's still up to HUMANS to make use of the data. it's reasonable to assume that people have biases such as dreading bad news (in the old days some messengers of woe were beheaded or such by the king), and hardly a month or year can go by without hearing news of another security breech (just rencently Heartland announced a break-in that iirc wasn't discovered for MONTHS!)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter