when you're being watched and recorded

technology is a good thing in the right hands !!
imagine being born and having a chip put in your body
everybody knows where you are. thieves cant rob you the police know where they are and where they should be! kids cant be kidnaped crimes solved in minutes if there are any. if your hurt or injured in an accident help is on its way, yes that's a good thing- but in whose hands should this access be, the government, the police, you, me? do I really want this control over my personal info? today your e-mail and internet is being monitored, don't think so?? ever search for an item on a web page then notice when you go to another page there is the same item on sale! coincidence? really? think about it how much monitoring do I really want

In our current society, I have come to the conclusion we are always being watched by big brother at all times and I act accordingly.

Surveillance has solved many crimes. I'm cool with that.

I have no problem with Big Brother always watching..... but sometimes I feel like " Mom" should be watching Big Brother to make sure he's doing the right thing.

In Rochester NY (just recently) the police used pictures from a RLC to nab a hit and run driver who left the scene of an accident. In short, a driver side swiped a car, hit the driver standing next to hit. The suspect fleeing tripped a RLC. This allowed the Police to track the person down. That, in combination with damage to the vehicle, and parts of the vehicle left at the scene allowed the police to arrest the person.
The other driver, unfortunately, died.

So, in essence, being watched, does some good.

my aluminum foil hat protects me.

Larry

...you'll love this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12...

Because you have no clue about this:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-noth...

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...

and for the more studious types:
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/07Michael.html

As for the OP, your kids are gonna love that approach. Always wanting to be able to check up on them really shows them how much you care. ...Almost like a "big brother."

P.S: What ever happened to the POI Factory being about POI-related topics?

That's why Welcome/ Open Talk exists. For things other than GPS's.

that those that have no problem video tape surveillance also have no problem with RLC's. It would be interesting to see how many of those that have no problem with video surveillance use the RLC files from here at POIFactory to avoid getting a ticket from such surveillance.

Just a thought.

Plenty of places to talk GPS here at the factory, you happened into the Node called Open Talk.

Winston Smith weeps.

Do NOT watch the tv show "Person of Interest -- it will disturb you.

Why would Winston weep? In the end, he learned that he LOVED Big Brother.

I feel like you do, BobDee. I'm disappointed that so many people don't mind this country slipping into the world of Big Brother.

Phil

Many of those that do complain loudly about video surveillance have no issue with using social media and apps that allow their location to be tracked, swiping their loyalty cards and so many other activities that are much more invasive than the cameras seeing what is happening.

My feeling is that Big Brother is not Uncle Sam but Brother Free Enterprise who is making money on what he knows about us.

Thank you.

I don't use social media and fight off as much as possible when it comes to PC logs or apps that comb through contacts etc. My Dad many years ago was an atty and sued people for invasion of privacy. Now it seems to be accepted in exchange for convenience. I know most of it relates to a newer marketing model for companies but big brother uses it too. Like anything, it can be helpful one way and hurtful in another.

I've been meaning to watch this Robin Williams sci fi film again. The wife hasn't seen it.

Think you are being recorded now?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/

We talk about all these freedoms, but how free are you at work, to not follow the co. guidelines?

My wife's job requires fingerprinting, NCIC checking, licensing, and reporting any future employment whether it be in or outside of the industry. imho you're glad she has to do all that, as well as all of her colleagues. Because when you don't have any requirements or compliance, somehow, your money goes vamoose.

A long time ago, my friend's old man worked with bearer bonds, they had to paper clip their pockets open when leaving the facility. What changed? We don't generally deal with bearer bonds anymore, everything is registered electronically. People still steal, it's just a lot harder to do so.

imho mistaking compliance for big brother is common on this forum. Imagine what happened in 2009--all of us lost on paper 30-60% of our retirements, due to market factors. How would it feel if it were due to Bernie Madoff?

Am I for cameras in public restrooms? H*** no, that would be crazy. Fingerprinting employees, dvr'ing their activity, recording their phone conversations, and tracking their movements? You bet. I live it every day. lol

Why? Why allow any safe haven for potential criminal activity to go unmonitored? Why have any limit? Why not continue the trend, and end up with something a lot like the society depicted in "Minority Report." Look at all the cool toys they had. That must have been a much better life, right?

Well, little frog, let's just keep the water near the boiling point and see how far it goes. That's how the slow form of mission creep happens. The one described in "Minority Report" had made the leap to not just solving crimes actually committed, but to preventing them. In this country there are already many well-established entrapment schemes running every day that do just about the same thing, along with other schemes designed to prevent crimes to terrible to be allowed. The reasoning is that if a few innocent people get swept up by mistake, that's a price everyone else is willing for THEM to pay. What could be wrong with that, as long as it's not you, right?

No? Not quite ready for that yet?

So you see, even you admit there should be a limit.

The only disagreement is over where that limit should be. I'm sure there are some people who are so "security conscious" that they think YOU'RE nuts for objecting to cameras anywhere.

The founders made it clear where that was supposed to be. People who ignore their advice will also eventually suffer the consequences. But of course they will also be the same ones who think "bad things" can't happen here as a result of the things accepted out of naïveté.

Mistaking compliance for security, or safety, or whatever warm fuzzy feeling you seek is also naïve.

But of course you won't ever understands that. You are too young to have seen what a total compliance mentality does to a society. I have. It's not a good thing, and it should not happen here, either.

Be interested in the cites from either
1. Constitution
or
2. The Bill Of Rights

Just those please. I know you could cite lots of blogs, etc but please stick to the "founders" documents.

I love history and continuously read history books. I find it interesting that as events get older people try to rewrite history to satisfy their version.
My best example is the the Alamo and Texas. How many of you have looked up how many Mexicans died at the Alamo "For a free Texas" and how many were brought in from the US?. Just count the men from Tennessee to make Texas a slave state.
How many of you know that Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be changed about every 18 years because future generations should not be held hostage to past believes.
John Adams was strict and did not want change and went as far to imprison people who disagreed with him while President under the Sedition Act.
The right of privacy in public question was settled a while ago by the Supreme Court and you have none. Stores, Banks, parks, beeches or any other place has the right to photograph you while you are in public view.
This means that if you are driving through Des Moines Iowa on I235 and have a crash, the police will be on their way before you can call because of the cameras observing you throughout the route and some condemn cameras.
I like cameras for I would not break the law and my wife and my sister were both hit by persons running red lights.
For those fools citing rear end collisions because of those cameras I have to remind them that the crashes were caused by tailgating.

Society is heading to be controlled by machines. Machines don`t sleep, the pressure is intense, and the motivation is enormous to keep us safe. It is sad when society is manipulated, discouraged and fulled in accepting orders from people that promote one thing and do other.

How many here have security camera's in and around their homes? I do.

Although a bit late, 1984 is truly here now....

People have been saying that since, um, 1984.

Some people don't mind of the constant surveillance by government as well as businesses. Others do mind. There are good points and bad points. But the bottom line for me is, I'd rather not have my every move monitored. Nobody's business. But it doesn't matter at this point. There is nothing anyone can do about it now. The government deems that it is legal for national security or whatever, cities deem it's legal for monitoring traffic (check out the cameras on top of the stoplights in many cities, speed cameras, RLC, etc.), Walmart parking lots, shopping center parking lots, inside stores, banks, schools, your place of employment. It's a done deal. No getting rid of them now. So really, complaining about it is a total waste of good air.

... "and this is the way democracy ends: to the cheers & applause of the masses."

Wait until the end of the year when Google Glass is released. I can't even imagine the kinds of things that are going to show up on the internet!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass

http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/

Winston weeps because there was no Victory Knob Creek, only gin.

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause"

Yes, my life is tiny AND pathetic.

Those who have extreme views, I often wonder if they even go to work, because so much that is considered normal, everyday stuff, is fodder for more rhetoric from them, that is more theoretical than practical.

Because how do you go through life refusing to submit to a random drug test, to being fingerprinted, to having your NCIC checked, to being dvr'd as you pull into your parking space at work. Say you shun income verification, how do you pay for your home? Most need to be employed to do basic things such as putting food on the table for their families. Or maybe as they say, it's the big bad internet and they're actually normal people at work. Or shut-ins. Who knows.

True, but much closer now than it was then is all....

I think there is a difference in surviellance by a private company on private property, and that done by the government.

It is not so much the act of video-taping, but what is done with the information.
The biggest problem is the power implicit to those who do the deciding.

Everyone will soon be a criminal. There was a time when you did not have to buckle your seatbelt. Then the seatbelt law was a secondary offense, now it is a primary offense.

And now drone surviellance is legal. Hop in your car, turn it on, and the drone sees you did not buckle up fast enough and you get a $250.00 ticket in the mail. It's for your safety, after all. If it saves just one child....

Who gets to decide the limits?
Let's think about that pesky Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They were written to put strict limits on Government, not citizens.
Today, Gov't power is ever increasing, and citizens rights are un-endingly reduced.

It is an undeniable truth that unlimited government is far, far more dangerous than a hit-and-run driver or even a crazy person with an assault rifle and lots of big clips.

+1

....I'm starting to think a double layer may be warranted!

Ron

I could not have said it better. Of course, there are others here at the factory who believe that the government knows what's best for us and it's our duty to blindly agree.

Phil

I have heard that at the Philadelphia Convention there was a short discussion regarding biometrics, specifically excluding biometrics from being used to incriminate anyone. Some present at the Convention were particularly adamant about it and it was agreed to discuss it further at some future time.
Unfortunately Madison was not present at the time, so the discussion is not included in his famous Notes of Debate.

However, apparently some notes were put together and written up as a proposal for future inclusion in the final document. Madison never admitted that any such discussion took place. Some have theorized that he seized all copies of the proposal and hid them. They eventually got burned when the British set fire to the White House.

Although the original documents have been lost, a secret Xerox copy is supposed to still exist. The Supreme Court of the US has never mentioned this document.

Similarly the carbon copies of the original documents have never been acknowledged as having any validity.

The only protection to the accused lies in the Fifth Amendment. However, the taking of fingerprints from a criminal defendant raises no Fifth Amendment concerns. Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no person may be compelled to be a compulsory witness against himself or herself. However, this provision generally applies only to involuntary confessions and forced testimony. A person suspected of a crime does not have the right to be free from the taking of fingerprints. Criminal suspects may also be required to surrender other personal information, such as physical appearance and measurements, handwriting and voice samples, teeth bites, normal walking gait, and normal standing posture..

I am wondering about the source of some of your statements, and also confused about what point you were trying to make

The Philadelphia Convention (aka the Constitutional Convention) was held in 1787.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. According to Wikipedia, "The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment."

You indicate that some notes were made of conversations about biometrics that took place at the convention while Madison was not present. These notes were made into a proposal for inclusion in the final document (which document I assume to be the Constitution - although you make reference to the Fifth Amendment and titled your post "Bill of Rights"). Madison was theorized to have seized all copies of the proposal. These copies were supposedly burned when the British set fire to the White House. I do not know whether the "original" (the initial proposal itself) was supposed to be included in the documents that Madison seized.

The burning of the White House took place during the War of 1812.

Assuming that the "proposal" was made at the time of the convention, then all "copies" would in fact have been originals in the sense that rewriting a document was the way that "copies" were made because carbon paper was believed to have been invented in the early 1800s.

In you post you said:

As I interpret this, an "original" document was supposed to have existed sometime around 1960 because this is the time of the "Zerox" machine.

What points of interest to this discussion might have been contained in the notes/proposal which Madison seized?

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."
--Padmé Amidala

EDIT: Someone beat me to it.

Big Brother also watching this forum 24/7.

If you're asked for your fingerprints at your first day of work, and you go to a lab and pee in a cup, your NCIC is pulled and you have to report your place of employment for 10 yrs. after you leave your job, how is that the government? That's an employer. The alternative is to try to make the same amount of salary somewhere else. Most likely, it's not going to happen (or, why would anyone be subjected to it).

What does the above have to do with Philadelphia? It has more to do with an employer or industry.

I was amused by an earlier post and your response, specifically

We both know that the US Constitution does not really cover anyone’s rights. However, the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) does. Only the IV and V amendments have any relevance to the subject under discussion

Obviously neither of these amendments refer to biometrics nor to the types of surveillance made possible by today’s technology. However, they do permit the limited equivalents of biometrics and surveillance available in the 18th century. The conclusion is that the Founders did NOT make it clear and that no such citations are available.

I thought I’d have some fun and make up a conspiracy theory, describing how the specific citations requested had been deliberately suppressed.

I apologize and regret that my dry Welsh sense of humour misled you. I hoped that my comments regarding Xerox copies and carbon copies would expose my post as a parody.

Maybe something like this would have helped.

(facetious) text (/facetious)

Ironic! Now we have all become POIs. And there must be a real treasure trove of data to be mined

Larry

To give someone freedom you must have total control so nobody violates that freedom.

We are born with the right of freedom, then it's taken away in varying degrees by people who think they know better ... for our best interest, of course

You did that so well that I could not be sure.

Well said!

It's funny how some people seem to forget that we're always being watched from the day we're born until the day we die, and it isn't by anybody's brother.

ML