when you're being watched and recorded

 

It's suprising how many aren't used to the notion that all of your actions are videoed, everything you say recorded, and your actions tracked. So what, technology makes it so?!

For example, when I visit a vendor, my pic is taken, my index finger is scanned, and I'm asked if I'm a US Citizen. If any of the above is not done, then I will not gain entry.

We travel through various man traps, have to swipe a badge and place our index finger on a reader, and there is no tailgating. Tailgate, and you get booted.

Now if we can endure the above in working environments, why should it be any different with our cars?

Again, this is the here and now, technology makes it possible. No more are there situations like in the 1990's where the video tape ran out, so footage of a robbery is missing. imho technology should be embraced if it improves society and its actions.

<<Page 2

Not for Atheists

Mike L. wrote:

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. wink

ML

Indeed smile

--
erweb

At least we are

Not living in a communist country where you are watch all the time. No one is knocking at my door for using a GPS.

--
3790LMT; 2595LMT; 3590LMT, 60LMTHD

Consider these limits on citizens

grtlake wrote:

...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.

...

When people invoke the “founding fathers” or the “framers of the constitution”, one has to ask exactly what the invokers know and mean. Were the "founders" so wise that what they instituted should never be altered?

Were there really no strict limits on citizens?

First,think about the appalling treatment of native Americans. They were here first and were not citizens.

Then, consider this:
In 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants citizenship to blacks.

In 1868, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution gives black men (but not any women) the right to vote.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution gives women the right to vote.

Then consider this:
In 1954, the Supreme Court declares school segregation unconstitutional

In 1965, the Supreme Court strikes down laws banning contraception

In 1971, the Supreme Court bans sex discrimination in hiring

Looking over the above, one can ask of those founding fathers “What were they thinking?”.

The "government" does not know best and aren't we glad that citizens have not blindly agreed. However, we need to remember that "that pesky constitution" written by the "founding fathers" limited full voting rights to white men with land or sufficient wealth.

Watched and Recorded

Knowing that we are being watched in so many places, it's hard to realize how many dishonest acts are done knowing they could be recorded.

--
Alan-Garmin c340

Increases hoodie sales too

David King wrote:

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

Don't know how many crimes have been solved by cameras, but they've surely been good to the hoodie business.

I guess some people believe they have nothing to hide

Although I think this guy might have taken it a bit too far.

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/man-protests-tsa-strips-naked-...

Big Brother

Scott_dog wrote:

You wear Counter-surveillance Clothing:smile

___________________________________________

No I don't, but where can I get some of that stuff. smile

I was joking a bit but not all together. I'm retired now, but in my old place of employment, everyone was always under surveillance from the time you set foot on the property till you left.

--
Dudlee

Rights

grtlake wrote:

......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...

Well, that's not the whole truth. They were written to put strict limits on the Federal govt. Rights not given to the Feds were to reside with the individual states.
Very few rights were given to the people. In fact, huge numbers of people were actually not included at all... women, slaves, indians etc. Surprisingly, the documents make no mention of the right to vote. It was up to each state to determine how it wished to elect its Federal representatives.

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

Thanks jgermann

I'm glad we are back on the same page.

Sometimes i get irked when Americans don't know their own Constitution etc.

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

And thanks to you

Not2Bright wrote:

I'm glad we are back on the same page.

Sometimes i get irked when Americans don't know their own Constitution etc.

We have a great system, but I too get dismayed at some people's lack of knowledge. So, every now and then, I have to comment when someone invokes an idealized picture of the Founding Fathers in trying to justify some point.

(No subject)

smile

--
A GPS can take you where You want to go but never where you WANT to be.

very nice!

Mike L. wrote:

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. wink

ML

Agreed! mrgreen

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

In 1887, under the context of his opposition to the doctrine of papal infallibility, Lord Action made the quote for which he is so well known: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A bold statement to be sure, one retroactively applied to tyrants of the past as well as those of the present. But what was Lord Action actually saying, and does it still hold true today?

Here's what he said.
"But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do agree thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science."
--John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (aka Lord Acton), Letter to Mandell Creighton, April 1887

While Lord Acton was speaking about the papacy and using kings and queens of England as examples, his viewpoint is a simple one: all men are fallible and all should be held to the same standard as those whom they serve. This is a direct contrast to Creighton, who believed that those in positions of power should be held to a different standard, separate from those they serve. Lord Acton's reasoning behind this was given form in France in the late 18th Century, when the French monarchy had fallen into corruption and decadence by the concept that the sovereign's power was handed to him by God and thus subject to no eartly authority (cf. Divine Right of Kings). A more topical example from today is the abuse of boys by priests - a scandal which rocked the Catholic church and more than likely played a large part in Benedict XVI becoming Pope Emeritus.

The point of this little diatribe is this: throughout history people in positions of power have proven themselves to be concerned only with the preservation or enhancement of the power they have been given, using whatever tools they may have at their disposal. In today's society, that means red light cameras, surveillance drones, warrantless wiretapping (with indemnity for the companies who comply), strip searches at airports and more. In earlier days it was much simpler. You simply bashed the door down and let yourself in to search the premises.

Lord Acton's words, even today, still ring true. Abuses of power occur everywhere, from the police officer arresting you for filming them on your property[1], to Congress attempting to authorize indefinite detention of American citizens without due process[2], to the practice of turning signing statements into a de facto line item veto[3]. The only problem? I'm not sure there are enough people out there to force the change we so desperately need.

Unfortunately for us, a French critic from Lord Acton's time by the name of Jean-Baptiste Alphonese Karr said it best when he said, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose", usually translated as "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

[1] Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From her Own Front Yard - Huffington Post, June 22, 2011
[2] Wikipedia - NDAA 2012
[3] Wikipedia - Signing Statement

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

.

Damn well said!

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

No

rthibodaux wrote:

At least we are... Not living in a communist country where you are watch all the time. No one is knocking at my door for using a GPS.

Not yet, anyway. grin

True

But I can imagine times when a GPS will be factory installed in all cars...

--
erweb

Who Decides?

grtlake wrote:

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.

Is not the decision as to who decides that of the voters?

Ron

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
Adolf Hitler

No longer really true.

RonJS wrote:

...

Is not the decision as to who decides that of the voters?

Ron
...

Actually, this too is less and less the case. Redistricting comes to mind. Or ask people in cities taken over by an appointed administrator --- not much different from when some towns were controlled by cattle barons when you think of it wink

Scary!

Not for me though. I have enough trouble trying to get along with Ford/Microsoft Sync...
*

(hmmm, lost the thread. I was referencing Google Glasses.)

--
phlatlander

Right to Vote

Nothing in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, gives you the right to vote.

RonJS wrote:
grtlake wrote:

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.

Is not the decision as to who decides that of the voters?

Ron

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
Adolf Hitler

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

15th Amendment?

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When you say "Nothing in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, gives you the right to vote.", is it because the Constitution says you cannot be DENIED the right to vote on account of the 3 reasons above, as oppoesed to giving you the right to voter

Not2Bright wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, gives you the right to vote.

RonJS wrote:
grtlake wrote:

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.

Is not the decision as to who decides that of the voters?

Ron

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
Adolf Hitler

Let's put this in order

Many posts back

grtlake wrote:

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.

Then

RonJS wrote:

Is not the decision as to who decides that of the voters?
Ron ...

to response to which

Not2Bright wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, gives you the right to vote.

Then

ericruby wrote:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When you say "Nothing in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, gives you the right to vote.", is it because the Constitution says you cannot be DENIED the right to vote on account of the 3 reasons above, as oppoesed to giving you the right to voter

This is interesting to me because so many people firmly believe that our "Founding Fathers" got it exactly right when they first approved the Constitution in 1787 (ratified in 1789). Of course, they did not have it right - otherwise, there would have been no need for the "Bill of Rights" which were ratified in 1791. (note they wanted 12 amendments but only 10 were ratified by the states).

So Not2Bright made a correct observation and ericruby, in fact, did not go far enough in response. It was the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote, the 24th Amendment that did away with conditioning the right to vote based on "poll taxes". Then, after World War 2, the voting age was established as 18 by the 26th Amendment.

There are so many thing that people have forgotten from their Civics class at school. Our rights as US citizens were not established "correctly" way back when the "Founding Fathers" lived. They have evolved over time.

So, I disagree with grtlake because there were, indeed, many limits on citizens (including allowing slavery).

Think about this - expanding the right to vote allow us to put limits on what the government can do. Whether we are smart about exercising our right is up to us (remember that the great philosopher, "Pogo", said "We have met the enemy and he is us.").

Shifting back to this thread's topic, the "government" does much less watching and recording of our actions than do the combination of credit bureaus, the credit card companies, the cellphone companies, our internet providers, the retailers we shop at, Google street view, etc. Information is swapped and sold and kept.

Indeed, there should be more fear of our neighbors using drones to watch us than some government agency doing so. Watching will start out as a lark but might quickly take a bad turn.

Right to Vote.

Thanks jgermann, your answer needs no further clarification.

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

Well..

johnnatash4 wrote:

It's suprising how many aren't used to the notion that all of your actions are videoed, everything you say recorded, and your actions tracked. So what, technology makes it so?!

There is an inevitability about this and it would be more pervasive as the years roll by. Some countries in Europe have reached that point (and would get worse/better, depending on your viewpoint). The US has laid the foundation for it, and with drone technology advancing at a rapid rate, there is no place to hide.
The question then is: Who guards the guardians?

That's easy.

bak276 wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

It's suprising how many aren't used to the notion that all of your actions are videoed, everything you say recorded, and your actions tracked. So what, technology makes it so?!

There is an inevitability about this and it would be more pervasive as the years roll by. Some countries in Europe have reached that point (and would get worse/better, depending on your viewpoint). The US has laid the foundation for it, and with drone technology advancing at a rapid rate, there is no place to hide.
The question then is: Who guards the guardians?

Easy to crack the first layer. Who's in the background manipulating the data etc.?

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

And in Yesteryear?

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

The point of this little diatribe is this: throughout history people in positions of power have proven themselves to be concerned only with the preservation or enhancement of the power they have been given, using whatever tools they may have at their disposal. In today's society, that means red light cameras, surveillance drones, warrantless wiretapping (with indemnity for the companies who comply), strip searches at airports and more. In earlier days it was much simpler. You simply bashed the door down and let yourself in to search the premises.

Lord Acton's words, even today, still ring true. Abuses of power occur everywhere, from the police officer arresting you for filming them on your property[1], to Congress attempting to authorize indefinite detention of American citizens without due process[2], to the practice of turning signing statements into a de facto line item veto[3]. The only problem? I'm not sure there are enough people out there to force the change we so desperately need.

Unfortunately for us, a French critic from Lord Acton's time by the name of Jean-Baptiste Alphonese Karr said it best when he said, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose", usually translated as "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were totally devoid of the power causing corruption syndrome?

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

No one is above corruption,

No one is above corruption, but you missed the point. This is a cyclical thing that has repeatedly occurred throughout history. The Roman Republic transitioning into the Roman Empire is an obvious example of corruption and decay of a system that worked. The French monarchy transitioned from helping their citizens to helping themselves. There are countless other examples. Inevitably, governments of all kinds will pay the price for their misdeeds, more often than not in blood.

It's simply a matter of time before it happens here. I won't be alive to see it happen, but it will happen.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

big brothers eyes are always

big brothers eyes are always open

--
A GPS can take you where You want to go but never where you WANT to be.

Profiling

Box Car wrote:

swiping their loyalty cards and so many other activities that are much more invasive than the cameras seeing what is happening.

As far as loyalty cards go, the few that I use had a checkbox on the back you had to tick to tell them you didn't want to be tracked or marketed to. They all seem to spend more time profiling us than they do delivering lower prices. A lot of web sites do this too-I'd recommend installing Ghotery in Firefox-you'll be horrified when you see web sites with 20 trackers on a single page.

RE: Ghostery

nrbovee wrote:

I'd recommend installing Ghotery in Firefox-you'll be horrified when you see web sites with 20 trackers on a single page.

That's Ghostery. Thanks for the tip!

I'm with ya...and...

jale wrote:
RonJS wrote:

...

Is not the decision as to who decides that of the voters?

Ron
...

Actually, this too is less and less the case. Redistricting comes to mind. Or ask people in cities taken over by an appointed administrator --- not much different from when some towns were controlled by cattle barons when you think of it wink

I'm thinking the folks who shell out the $ to get politicians re-elected are the only real voters...

Ron

"There is nothing in the dark that isn't there when the lights are on."
Rod Serling

Now what?

First I will correct the statement attributed to Hitler about repeating a lie for it was his propaganda minister Gobbels that said it.
Now that it has been divulged in the news reports that the two Boston bombers were tracked when the man whose car was highjacked when jumping out of the car left his phone in the car and the police used its GPS to track them and stop them before they could get to NYC to set off more bombs.
Surveillance has a lot of critics but it sometimes can do good.

YouTube: PRIVACY IS DEAD - GET OVER IT Pt 01, with Steve Rambam.

Related videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsxxsrn2Tfs

that is the first of many.

Frequent speaker at H.O.P.E. conferences.

Voting

It's not who votes that counts.

It's who counts the votes. cool

There are No Secrets

Anything you say or do can be in the public domain. To remain safe go on the assumption that there are no secrets.

--
romanviking

the stuff ya never know

the stuff ya never know about until its too late!

<<Page 2