surveillance, its proponents and its opponents
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare. The immigrant amnesty groups certainly got under Obama's skin by calling him the "deporter in chief;" is it not time to call him the "voyeur in chief?" --dan
On Dec 3, 2014, at 8:21 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare.
I think the idea of accountability is a grand one, really. Unfortunately, no doubt the camera will be the ‘end all be all’ of evidential proof, and as we know, footage will be able to be modified, at a cost, when the need arises. The low end of this is perhaps blaming the ‘lack’ of recording of an event as a technological failure, no doubt to be seen in the wild, if only for scapegoating and quieting the nay-sayers of footage validity — Ie. If it were not real, why would we go through the work to edit it, when instead it’d be far easier to blame on a technological issue/battery/blahblahblah. It’s in fact not true accountability at all; it’s accountability in veil — A supporter of whatever agenda ‘they’ wish to pursue. Speaking of “Obamacare”, I have zero intentions of playing along. I wish most felt the same way. If no one ‘subscribed’, succumbed to the threats (oh oh, sorry, ‘tax’) of not having insurance, the system wouldn’t work, wouldn’t exist. People would find a way to make enough money ‘under the table’ to cover the ‘tax’ for not having such required insurance. ‘Taxable’ incomes would drop, decently, or significantly, not only for the ‘rich’ (they do this to avoid taxes, obviously) but for the average working layman as well. What a glorious day for society when we slowly start to starve the state. -Benjamin
On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare.
The immigrant amnesty groups certainly got under Obama's skin by calling him the "deporter in chief;" is it not time to call him the "voyeur in chief?"
--dan
There are trade-offs between privacy and accountability. In the interest of social justice, there must be accountability for those who possess authority and power. That does entail reduced privacy, but that's just a cost of having authority and power. The degree of accountability (and loss of privacy) should be proportionate to the authority and power possessed. Conversely, those without particular authority and power deserve maximal privacy, except in areas where they are accountable. Common examples include driving vehicles and parenting children.
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 05:30:07PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare.
The immigrant amnesty groups certainly got under Obama's skin by calling him the "deporter in chief;" is it not time to call him the "voyeur in chief?"
--dan
There are trade-offs between privacy and accountability. In the interest of social justice, there must be accountability for those who possess authority and power. That does entail reduced privacy, but that's just a cost of having authority and power. The degree of accountability (and loss of privacy) should be proportionate to the authority and power possessed.
Conversely, those without particular authority and power deserve maximal privacy, except in areas where they are accountable. Common examples include driving vehicles and parenting children.
Accountability will be zero if the police body cams are reviewed and paid for by the police. This is already the case as you have a case documented *on video* which was ruled a homicide by the coroner. But police have great protections and latitude on what they are allowed to do, which may or may not be a mistake. Only more awareness and debate will answer that. What happens to the police body camera footage is far more important. If it is immediately posted via bittorrent or multicast IP on public access wireless mesh networks, it will become a great tool for the police, for social justice, and for accountability. The cost, however, is a loss of privacy. As it is now, all I need to do is buy my privacy by providing forensic data analysis services to the police to give them whatever answer the prosecutor or campaign contributors would like to see. I would trade my privacy for the freedom and liberty that would come from an open and transparent society that calls all it's members to account for their actions, rather than only calling the lower classes to account. What happens next depends on how many would trade in privacy for an upgraded society. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed.org 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:30:07 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare.
The immigrant amnesty groups certainly got under Obama's skin by calling him the "deporter in chief;" is it not time to call him the "voyeur in chief?"
--dan
There are trade-offs between privacy and accountability. In the interest of social justice,
what is that?
there must be accountability for those who possess authority and power. That does entail reduced privacy, but that's just a cost of having authority and power. The degree of accountability (and loss of privacy) should be proportionate to the authority and power possessed.
that sounds good - but royally miss the point - which is to get rid of people who have authority and power.
Conversely, those without particular authority and power deserve maximal privacy, except in areas where they are accountable. Common examples include driving vehicles and parenting children.
lol it's for the children!!!
On 12/04/2014 02:08 PM, Juan wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:30:07 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare.
The immigrant amnesty groups certainly got under Obama's skin by calling him the "deporter in chief;" is it not time to call him the "voyeur in chief?"
--dan
There are trade-offs between privacy and accountability. In the interest of social justice,
what is that?
How about <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice>? I could also have said "protecting human rights".
there must be accountability for those who possess authority and power. That does entail reduced privacy, but that's just a cost of having authority and power. The degree of accountability (and loss of privacy) should be proportionate to the authority and power possessed.
that sounds good - but royally miss the point - which is to get rid of people who have authority and power.
Even in egalitarian human societies, some will always possess role-specific authority and power. I do agree on the need to minimize authority and power, and to ensure that it's truly legitimate.
Conversely, those without particular authority and power deserve maximal privacy, except in areas where they are accountable. Common examples include driving vehicles and parenting children.
lol
it's for the children!!!
Read _Foundations of Psychohistory_ by Lloyd DeMause.
participants (5)
-
bbrewer -
dan＠geer.org -
Juan -
Mirimir -
Troy Benjegerdes