'if it prevents one crime its worth it' ***NOW WITH POLL****

[gigapet]

'if it prevents one crime its worth it'

to what extent would you be willing to go with this statement.....

24/7 camera monitoring of your home?
24/7 monitoring of all your communications(echelon is already in place)
Computer chips iimplanted in your skin
Declaration of a Police state for clarification marshall law...military control of our communities i.e. living in iraq right now
Curfews
Random Search and Seizures
Being held without charges being pressed and without access to attourneys



at what point does Preventing a crime not justify the privacy violation? or is that not an issue if your innocent?

 

[jfall]

/grabs popcorn

 

[StageLeft]

I have no problem with pervasive monitoring of the public world. This would, obviously, not include anything in my home. But, anything I do in public I should not expect to have privacy, because it's in public.

There is a cost benefit to everything. The minimal cost in slowing down and saying hi to a cop who is looking for liqour is worth the benefit of him stopping somebody from killing a family because he was boozed up. It has to be on a case by case.

 

[Eli]

All of the above are far too much.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gigapet
'if it prevents one crime its worth it'

to what extent would you be willing to go with this statement.....

24/7 camera monitoring of your home?
24/7 monitoring of all your communications(echelon is already in place)
Computer chips iimplanted in your skin
Declaration of a Police state
Curfews
Random Search and Seizures
Being held without charges being pressed and without access to attourneys



at what point does Preventing a crime not justify the privacy violation? or is that not an issue if your innocent?

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No

Our constitution is being shreded by both the nanny-state and the law and order types.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[MrChad]

24/7 camera monitoring of your home?

No.

24/7 monitoring of all your communications(echelon is already in place)

No.

Computer chips iimplanted in your skin

No.

Declaration of a Police state

No.

Curfews

No.

Random Search and Seizures

No.

Being held without charges being pressed and without access to attourneys

No.

 

[Pathogen03]

24/7 camera monitoring.. im my area they just tripled the number of traffic
cameras, for red lights and such. These new ones dont need a flash, so they are all sneaky
its not cool.

24/7 monitoring of my communications... well if they really want to hear what i say on the phone
i guess its ok.. I have no secret recipies to hide.. maybe it can be disabled for pr0n?

Comp chips in your skin... Very very shaky. Id say yes, as long as they were severely
limited. I dont care about them knowing where i am, and for ordering food and stuff
its a lot easier than having multiple credit cards and such, and you cant get mugged.

declaration of a police state.. why? I dont get that one

Curfews -- maybe for drunk rednecks, but otherwise.. hells no.

random search and seizure.. It would depend entirely on the type of search. Im against it, but
I can understand some situations

Beind held without charges.. for 24 hours max, non repeatable im fine with.
I dont know why they would need to hold me, but maybe for some special ops thing where they need
no witnesses or something..



Im on the "evil" side for the whole "kill a child to end disease" philosophical argument, and it better
prevent a lot of henious crimes if they are gonna implement any of this majorly.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: jfall
/grabs popcorn

/taps keg

- M4H

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
'if it prevents one crime its worth it'

to what extent would you be willing to go with this statement.....

24/7 camera monitoring of your home?
24/7 monitoring of all your communications(echelon is already in place)
Computer chips iimplanted in your skin
Declaration of a Police state
Curfews
Random Search and Seizures
Being held without charges being pressed and without access to attourneys



at what point does Preventing a crime not justify the privacy violation? or is that not an issue if your innocent?

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No

Our constitution is being shreded by both the nanny-state and the law and order types.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[gigapet]

What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

 

[Deadtrees]

I see that you're a type of a person who likes to exaggerate.
I guess you'd die if I pinch you.

 

[Pathogen03]

it might bring local peace, which isnt worth it.

But hell, ill all for nuking the middle east and letting the peoples respective gods work it out.

Damn nuclear winter, always getting in my way.

---edit--
hehe, i think thats gonna be my new quote.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

I would get a laugh because what you listed wouldn't end wars or terrorism nor promote
world peace. As long as there are men and women breathing that's not going to happen.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

Heavy handed government s can reduce crime, but unfortunately most HH govs are in countries that are too poor and sh*ty to live without crime anyway. Take a nation like Singapore. It's not a place where you want to be in court defending yourself against drug trafficking. They are harsh with criminals there. The country also has a very low crime rate.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pathogen03
it might bring local peace, which isnt worth it.

But hell, ill all for nuking the middle east and letting the peoples respective gods work it out.

Damn nuclear winter, always getting in my way.

---edit--
hehe, i think thats gonna be my new quote.

You could destroy the ME with nukes and not cause "Nuclear winter."

But the fall out would be devastating for much of the East and Southern Europe.

It would destroy Israel.

It would also make the natural resources of the area untouchable for quite some time.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

with all those security measures in place it would be quite easy to remove all those who did not cooperate from society so it would work.

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
I see that you're a type of a person who likes to exaggerate.
I guess you'd die if I pinch you.

Try it

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have no problem with pervasive monitoring of the public world. This would, obviously, not include anything in my home. But, anything I do in public I should not expect to have privacy, because it's in public.

There is a cost benefit to everything. The minimal cost in slowing down and saying hi to a cop who is looking for liqour is worth the benefit of him stopping somebody from killing a family because he was boozed up. It has to be on a case by case.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

Heavy handed government s can reduce crime, but unfortunately most HH govs are in countries that are too poor and sh*ty to live without crime anyway. Take a nation like Singapore. It's not a place where you want to be in court defending yourself against drug trafficking. They are harsh with criminals there. The country also has a very low crime rate.

You know, Skoorb, you're scaring me with this support for fascism/totalitarianism.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
'if it prevents one crime its worth it'

to what extent would you be willing to go with this statement.....

24/7 camera monitoring of your home?
24/7 monitoring of all your communications(echelon is already in place)
Computer chips iimplanted in your skin
Declaration of a Police state
Curfews
Random Search and Seizures
Being held without charges being pressed and without access to attourneys



at what point does Preventing a crime not justify the privacy violation? or is that not an issue if your innocent?

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No

Our constitution is being shreded by both the nanny-state and the law and order types.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Ding Ding Ding we have teh winnar! I was going to type out a reply to this thread but you did it for me. Good work.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

Heavy handed government s can reduce crime, but unfortunately most HH govs are in countries that are too poor and sh*ty to live without crime anyway. Take a nation like Singapore. It's not a place where you want to be in court defending yourself against drug trafficking. They are harsh with criminals there. The country also has a very low crime rate.

You know, Skoorb, you're scaring me with this support for fascism/totalitarianism.

I was merely illustrating that a heavy handed government can reduce crime...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

with all those security measures in place it would be quite easy to remove all those who did not cooperate from society so it would work.

No, it wouldn't. Even the most oppressive countries on Earth have had, and still have crime problems.

Not to mention there WILL be civil unrest. You can only oppress the people so long before they rise up and put an end to it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

Heavy handed government s can reduce crime, but unfortunately most HH govs are in countries that are too poor and sh*ty to live without crime anyway. Take a nation like Singapore. It's not a place where you want to be in court defending yourself against drug trafficking. They are harsh with criminals there. The country also has a very low crime rate.

You know, Skoorb, you're scaring me with this support for fascism/totalitarianism.

I was merely illustrating that a heavy handed government can reduce crime...

So can free countries. There is no reason to throw away individual rights to reduce crime.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gigapet
What if they tried to justify it by saying that it would end wars/terrorism and bring world peace?

The problem is, police states and an end to civil liberties do not bring peace. They do not stop crime.

We have history and current affairs to prove this.

Heavy handed government s can reduce crime, but unfortunately most HH govs are in countries that are too poor and sh*ty to live without crime anyway. Take a nation like Singapore. It's not a place where you want to be in court defending yourself against drug trafficking. They are harsh with criminals there. The country also has a very low crime rate.

You know, Skoorb, you're scaring me with this support for fascism/totalitarianism.

I was merely illustrating that a heavy handed government can reduce crime...

So can free countries. There is no reason to throw away individual rights to reduce crime.

Every one of gigapet's submittals were over the top. I'd answer no to all of them as well.