INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Parts on November 10, 2012, 10:42:14 AM
-
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q131/parts67/001-74.jpg)
Here's another to stir up some debate.
I took this today when I was walking by the harbor in a neighboring city which has 100's of them they say to stop crime. I can see putting one in your convenience store to deter robberies and such but they blanket the entire town with coverage and it doesn't seem to have slowed crime what so ever. When I see them they don't give me any sort of feeling of protection but rather the creepy feeling I am being watched by a stalker type.
-
I support surveillance cameras. I dunno how they are used in the US, but they have prevented some crimes here, and they have helped catch/identify people LOTS of times.
If you're in public, you're in public. Therefore I don't see how people can view it as an invasion of privacy. It's never bothered me, having cctv around
-
:orly:
According to several major UK news outlets, an internal Metropolitan Police report was released last week that admitted less than 1 crime was solved per year for every 1000 CCTV cameras in London. This comes as a major blow to the UK police who spent £500 million between 1996 and 2006 installing 4 million cameras nationwide, with 1 million in London alone. Despite claims that each citizen might be seen on 300 cameras a day, perhaps half of all CCTV camera footage is unsuitable to convict criminals in court.
Link (http://singularityhub.com/2009/09/01/londons-surveillance-fails-only-1-crime-solved-per-1000-cameras/)
Funny one of the things that made me think about this today when I saw the cam was this which I read the other day. Seems a piss poor payback IMO
-
I don't think that's that surprising or that low when you think about it. Of course you have to have a hell of a lot of them in order for it to work. If you only have a few, then you're counting on crimes happening where they are. That;s also not that much money over a decade, when you think how much money is spent elsewhere and overall
Those crimes that are solved or prevented, and those criminals that are caught... surely that's enough to justify it. What do you expect in order to justify it, a virtually crime-free society?
-
Also the real figures are higher than the official figures. You have to take into account how often CCTV footage is used at all. Not just how many crimes are solved solely by CCTV. Anyone in the UK here who has seen Crimewatch will know what I mean
-
I don't think that's that surprising or that low when you think about it. Of course you have to have a hell of a lot of them in order for it to work. If you only have a few, then you're counting on crimes happening where they are. That;s also not that much money over a decade, when you think how much money is spent elsewhere and overall
Those crimes that are solved or prevented, and those criminals that are caught... surely that's enough to justify it. What do you expect in order to justify it, a virtually crime-free society?
Allowing law-abiding Brits to own and carry guns in public would have a much greater effect. The scum wouldn't dare to attack people in the first place. What good is it for you if you are killed and the murderer is caught on a cam and convicted? You are still dead.
That goes for all countries that don't allow law-abiding people their right to own and carry guns in self-defense, of course.
-
We will never have a crime free society no matter what they spend and £500m is a tremendous amount for very little return.
-
We will never have a crime free society no matter what they spend and £500m is a tremendous amount for very little return.
:agreed:
-
I can't tell you how many times i've flashed those goddamn things my dick, or flipped them off. Nobody has ever summoned me to court, i've never had a phone call about it. What the hell are they even used for?
-
I don't think that's that surprising or that low when you think about it. Of course you have to have a hell of a lot of them in order for it to work. If you only have a few, then you're counting on crimes happening where they are. That;s also not that much money over a decade, when you think how much money is spent elsewhere and overall
Those crimes that are solved or prevented, and those criminals that are caught... surely that's enough to justify it. What do you expect in order to justify it, a virtually crime-free society?
Allowing law-abiding Brits to own and carry guns in public would have a much greater effect. The scum wouldn't dare to attack people in the first place. What good is it for you if you are killed and the murderer is caught on a cam and convicted? You are still dead.
That goes for all countries that don't allow law-abiding people their right to own and carry guns in self-defense, of course.
In all honesty and truth, you would not have trusted me with a gun, although I am a law abiding person. If someone had 11 items (9 cans of cat food + a head of lettuce + a loaf of bread = 12 items) in the 10 item checkout, or was blocking the intersection, well, the world would be less populous. Yes, I know these aren't crimes. but I had serious anger issues. At least now I'm much more likely to shrug it off and get on with my life.
-
What good is it for you if you are killed and the murderer is caught on a cam and convicted? You are still dead.
Um, it gets that person off the streets. Possible saves numerous others frm the same thing. And no. I don't want guns allowed in this country thanks
-
:tard:
-
I can't tell you how many times i've flashed those goddamn things my dick, or flipped them off. Nobody has ever summoned me to court, i've never had a phone call about it. What the hell are they even used for?
Selling footage of all those flashing people is how they hope to earn the money back they spent on all the surveillance systems. You now are famous. It's also being used at company parties, to bring up morale.
:pervert:
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
-
I think it's great with people like Adam, who are in favour of surveillance cameras that are almost useless but not in favour of law-abiding people being able to defend themselvess legally ::)
-
1984, that is all.
-
1984, that is all.
Reading suggestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_%28Anthony_Burgess_novel%29)
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
How are you entitled to privacy in public?
-
1984, that is all.
Reading suggestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_%28Anthony_Burgess_novel%29)
More reading suggestion (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20174.msg922175.html#msg922175)
-
Just because it's caught on camera does not mean they are going to catch and put away the person committing the crime. I looked at Crimewatch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/appeals/cctv.shtml) where they are asking for help, some of the stuff was caught on cams and they still don't have the people in custody. I might also add some of the photos were kinda shitty for the amount they spent I would have figured they had better cams.
CCTV increases people's sense of anxiety
Caretakers and community workers are the way to improve safety in deprived communities, not more technology
Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/30/cctv-increases-peoples-sense-anxiety?newsfeed=true)
This is another article I read and I think this would be a better way to go. With the amount of money they spent on the cams think if they had put it toward this, sure it's not flashy new high tech stuff but it works.
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
How are you entitled to privacy in public?
OK, lets state it different, in public, I can be seen, by people who I should be able to see too. So, if I want a moment, just for me, I can know where to go, and sit on my own on a bench, or at the stairs of a building or so. A camera is not a mutual thing.
Maybe I would find it less hard if there was a display next to every camera, showing the people watching the images.
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
How are you entitled to privacy in public?
How are you not? Who has decided that?
-
1984, that is all.
Reading suggestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_%28Anthony_Burgess_novel%29)
More reading suggestion (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20174.msg922175.html#msg922175)
Hey, write a book first, before advertising your own writings. :squiddy:
-
Adam needs to be more :viking:
-
Just because it's caught on camera does not mean they are going to catch and put away the person committing the crime. I looked at Crimewatch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/appeals/cctv.shtml) where they are asking for help, some of the stuff was caught on cams and they still don't have the people in custody. I might also add some of the photos were kinda shitty for the amount they spent I would have figured they had better cams.
Again, what do you expect? They're not gonna catch everybody. The point is that they catch A LOT
Hyke - People seem to think there's someone on the other end of the camera zooming in on them and them only. It really isn;t like that. You can go and have your quiet time alone on a bench. They're not gonna be zooming in watching you intently. That's not how it works.
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
How are you entitled to privacy in public?
How are you not? Who has decided that?
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Privacy - in - public ?
How can you have privacy in public ffs?
-
Adam needs to be more :viking:
How, by being a pussy about CCTV cameras seeing me walking down the street?
Funny how so many of you are more scared of cameras than of guns.
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
How are you entitled to privacy in public?
How are you not? Who has decided that?
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Privacy - in - public ?
How can you have privacy in public ffs?
But who has decided that it should be recorded? I can't remember voting about that.
-
But who has decided that it should be recorded? I can't remember voting about that.
I dunno about Sweden, but in the UK we don't hold a referendum for everything the government does.
What's the big deal? I went into town. I'm sure some CCTV cameras spotted me getting off the bus, walking down the street, going into a store, coming back out, walkign down another street... etc etc. Do I care? No.
-
But who has decided that it should be recorded? I can't remember voting about that.
I dunno about Sweden, but in the UK we don't hold a referendum for everything the government does.
What's the big deal? I went into town. I'm sure some CCTV cameras spotted me getting off the bus, walking down the street, going into a store, coming back out, walkign down another street... etc etc. Do I care? No.
We don't in Sweden either. That's only one of the ten thousand things that are wrong with the concept of a state.
If some private citizen follows you and catches you on video, will that also be OK?
-
If some private citizen follows you and catches you on video, will that also be OK?
FOLLOWS you on video? No. That would be harrassment if you're following someone around with a camera in their face. Recording in public is legal though. I can take my camera out and film people walking down the street if I like. Obviously focusing on one person would be creepy though. CCTV is there to film the area in general. Not the same thing at all.
-
Don't feel any safer with cameras around. Do feel watched, and, I just don't like it. I am entitled to some privacy outside too.
In shops they do make sense.
How are you entitled to privacy in public?
How are you not? Who has decided that?
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Privacy - in - public ?
How can you have privacy in public ffs?
Adam, for a lot of people being outside is where they get their privacy. Not the privacy from all of the world, but, yes, the privacy of not being asked, bothered and called (some people do switch of their phone, and are without any contact when outside). I have cherished my privacy like that when it was my only option.
And, when it comes to safety, I think people in the street work better than cameras. And for footage, when something happens there are plenty of people wanting to film it on their phone. People aren't filming all the time, only when there is action to be filmed.
-
Just because it's caught on camera does not mean they are going to catch and put away the person committing the crime. I looked at Crimewatch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/appeals/cctv.shtml) where they are asking for help, some of the stuff was caught on cams and they still don't have the people in custody. I might also add some of the photos were kinda shitty for the amount they spent I would have figured they had better cams.
Again, what do you expect? They're not gonna catch everybody. The point is that they catch A LOT
Hyke - People seem to think there's someone on the other end of the camera zooming in on them and them only. It really isn;t like that. You can go and have your quiet time alone on a bench. They're not gonna be zooming in watching you intently. That's not how it works.
Just how many is a lot it seems most studies don't consider the numbers to be a lot or they would have not reached the conclusions they did.
As for not zooming in :zoinks:
Two council CCTV camera operators have been jailed for spying on a naked woman in her own home.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4609746.stm) I have read about it happening other places also but this was the easiest link to find
-
1984, that is all.
Reading suggestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_%28Anthony_Burgess_novel%29)
More reading suggestion (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20174.msg922175.html#msg922175)
Hyke, yes, a few of the events depicted in 1985 are happening in the UK, such as immigration from the Middle East. The Trade Union thing, I don't see it.
Adam: wat?
-
Adam needs to be BRAVE! :arrr:
-
Hyke - that is not privacy though, is it? That's getting away from people so they can't contact you and pester you. People can still see you though if they're out too.
And as for other people being around to film things - that's not usually the case in crimes is it? Most crimes are not committed in full view of everyone
parts I don't know what you would consider "enough" crimes solved or criminals caught to justify CCTV. To me, any is enough. The only thing to take into account is the cost of it. I think the whole "privacy" argument 6yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyt FFS my cat just typed that. I think the whole privacy argument is fucking retarded
-
Surveying with cameras makes it anonymous. Lots of things in society are getting more and more anonymous, yet, also with the right to know everything of people.
So, the right of privacy is disappearing on the one hand. Things are hardly personal. On the other hand, people are more and more treated as a number, and answered by systems, in stead of interacting on a human level. And yes, that does bother me. Surveillance cameras are just a part of that.
And privacy? There just has been passed a new law here. People on an unemployment income, or benefit can be raided without a warrant, to get everything looked through, when there is just a possible (not reasonable, but, possible) suspicion of fraud.
So, officially, I am not having a right for privacy at my home either. A possible suspicion can be there all the time. Where the fuck will I have privacy.
And, of course, that raiding will not happen a lot. But, the right to raid is there.
I hate all the fear playing, leading to raids, surveillance cameras, searching because of being in certain city areas. And, I don't think it will make this world any safer or fairer. It will enhance anxiety in society though. Because that is what it thrives on.
-
---
And privacy? There just has been passed a new law here. People on an unemployment income, or benefit can be raided without a warrant, to get everything looked through, when there is just a possible (not reasonable, but, possible) suspicion of fraud.
---
What the hell? I thought your country was a liberal one. Such a law would even be impossible in Sweden (yet) :thumbdn:
-
---
And privacy? There just has been passed a new law here. People on an unemployment income, or benefit can be raided without a warrant, to get everything looked through, when there is just a possible (not reasonable, but, possible) suspicion of fraud.
---
What the hell? I thought your country was a liberal one. Such a law would even be impossible in Sweden (yet) :thumbdn:
Yup, somehow it got validated by the senators without anyone noticing, during the election time. Elections were a nice distraction I guess.
-
To me, any is enough.
That leads down a very dark and depressing road that has and could be used to justify just about anything.
-
To me, any is enough.
That leads down a very dark and depressing road that has and could be used to justify just about anything.
Indeed. And it will not be you and me deciding what is justified and what not.
-
Adam shows his naïveté again and again :facepalm2:
-
Surveying with cameras makes it anonymous. Lots of things in society are getting more and more anonymous, yet, also with the right to know everything of people.
So, the right of privacy is disappearing on the one hand. Things are hardly personal. On the other hand, people are more and more treated as a number, and answered by systems, in stead of interacting on a human level. And yes, that does bother me. Surveillance cameras are just a part of that.
And privacy? There just has been passed a new law here. People on an unemployment income, or benefit can be raided without a warrant, to get everything looked through, when there is just a possible (not reasonable, but, possible) suspicion of fraud.
So, officially, I am not having a right for privacy at my home either. A possible suspicion can be there all the time. Where the fuck will I have privacy.
And, of course, that raiding will not happen a lot. But, the right to raid is there.
I hate all the fear playing, leading to raids, surveillance cameras, searching because of being in certain city areas. And, I don't think it will make this world any safer or fairer. It will enhance anxiety in society though. Because that is what it thrives on.
If they can do it they will. It might not happen a lot at first but soon it will become the norm. I am shocked they passed that law there, I don't think they would ever be able to get it to pass here.
-
Still many of you are saying that I am extreme, when I'm warning for the encroachment the state is up to.
-
If they can do it they will. It might not happen a lot at first but soon it will become the norm. I am shocked they passed that law there, I don't think they would ever be able to get it to pass here.
I would have thought it impossible a few weeks ago too.
It was a liberal parliament who designed the legislation too. :facepalm2:
-
The "liberals" in Europe are traitors. It was a "liberal" government passing through Sweden's original gun law in 1927 too :thumbdn:
-
If they can do it they will. It might not happen a lot at first but soon it will become the norm. I am shocked they passed that law there, I don't think they would ever be able to get it to pass here.
I would have thought it impossible a few weeks ago too.
It was a liberal parliament who designed the legislation too. :facepalm2:
If it had been the conservatives they probably would have wanted body cavity searches too :green:
-
If they can do it they will. It might not happen a lot at first but soon it will become the norm. I am shocked they passed that law there, I don't think they would ever be able to get it to pass here.
I would have thought it impossible a few weeks ago too.
It was a liberal parliament who designed the legislation too. :facepalm2:
If it had been the conservatives they probably would have wanted body cavity searches too :green:
Liberals here are mainly right wing.
Cavity searches still are not allowed at random, not even when in risk areas. That would make things "interesting" with cameras around. :P
-
To me, any is enough.
That leads down a very dark and depressing road that has and could be used to justify just about anything.
Um, if I was using it as a blanket justification for anything, then yes. I'm not though. I'm using it to justify cameras in public areas
Hyke - you seem to think I don't value privacy, or that I'm not concerned about government invading privacy. That couldn't be further from the truth, especially given the situation I am in myself. However I don't view CCTV cameras in PUBLIC as a privacy issue
Adam shows his naïveté again and again :facepalm2:
How? We may disagree (clearly we do), but I dont see how that makes me naive
-
It's the depersonalisation, combined with entering privacy, that bothers me. It is not just about surveillance cameras. It is about the right to see everything from a civilian.
All the money used for that, it would have much more effect if that same money was used to make streets, alleys, and such a thing people saw as something that is theirs, and, their responsibility too. A sense of community would prevent more crimes than lots and lots of cameras ever will.
In shopping grounds with vandalism, cameras will not work that much. Addressing the vandals, giving them schooling, and jobs, in the same shopping ground, would give them self-respect, they learn, they earn, and, they would take care of the place they work and live. The costs might be just as high, the benefits way and way bigger.
(That shopping ground experiment has been done somewhere in Rotterdam, IIRC. It worked well both for the vandalising drop-outs as for the shopkeepers and the whole centre)
An FB X-party in Haren, getting out of hand completely got lots of footage on cameras, phone cameras. There were no massive amounts of surveillance cameras. Despite that, there is a huge amount of footage.
-
We've had this discussion before, I think. I still don't like them and I remain doubtful of their usefulness. As parts' links show, they don't solve that many crimes and they can be (and often are) abused by Big Brother.
-
Big Brother is NOT a friend of the people. The state, by its very nature, craves control over people, and will stoop to all manner of abuses in order to hang onto power, and of course, they always 'need' this, that, or the other new form of authority, something else to enforce/or to better enforce some existing regulations.
The plague of CCTV cameras is hardly a deterrent to criminals, solve few crimes, and in general, those 'innovations' that give the pork, and big brother yet more of the power they so greedily crave, are not good things to be used in the spirit of benevolence. Much more often, they are, or wind up being, used to create and maintain a state of fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst us 'common people'
Or as one (now former) govt. minister over here in the UK so charmingly put it 'plebs'
And I for one, don't take to the idea of being watched, nearly everywhere I go if its in a public, urban/city place, it just doesn't sit well with my private, and introvert nature.
Thank hades that the infestation hasn't reached the places I feel most 'at home' and at peace, out in the woods.
-
The thing about CCTV cameras is control, just as the nekkid X-ray machines at airports. They do love power, those already in power.
-
Um, my 50 pence worth?
In the centre of this small city there are over 30 cameras hanging on 'strategic' points. Føckers (police) here use them for other things than solving or preventing crime also though.
An example, and I remember more than one, but.. I once was 'spotted', riding my bicycle back to home in the evening.. without lights (albeit small but that's a violation of the law here). Just bought some groceries in the downtown supermarket and they saw, via their camera network, where I was heading and they called their street collegaes and I was given a ticket (of €50) there and then.
Føckers also tracked me down via my old cell phone. I was riding my moped in a rural area a little up north from this city and out of the blue a helicopter popped up above me and for the sake of.. what? Well, fuck it started following me. So I went off-road onto forest paths (trees in full 'plumage'), switched off my phone and did 'me old' 270° trick. And got rid of them.
Don't like paranoid thinking (don't care about that stuff/not to be scared off by unethical fear-mongery) but this city, powers that be, crossed some quite thickly drawn lines and some are total scum of the earth. Irresponsibly and mega-stupid.
-
The thing about CCTV cameras is control, just as the nekkid X-ray machines at airports. They do love power, those already in power.
And you still want to be ruled by psychopaths like that? Strange.
-
The thing about CCTV cameras is control, just as the nekkid X-ray machines at airports. They do love power, those already in power.
And you still want to be ruled by psychopaths like that? Strange.
Your way would result in basically the same problem, only worse. Power corrupts, regardless of the underlying ideology.
-
Here is some logical flaw. "My" way would mean that everyone had equal power. How could anyone be oppressed if everybody had equal power?
Anarchy doesn't mean that you do what you want but that the laws/rules have the consent of everyone they are concerning.
It is this system with lies, laws forced upon people against their will and monopoly on violence that makes it possible to oppress people to start with.
-
Here is some logical flaw. "My" way would mean that everyone had equal power. How could anyone be oppressed if everybody had equal power?
Anarchy doesn't mean that you do what you want but that the laws/rules have the consent of everyone they are concerning.
It is this system with lies, laws forced upon people against their will and monopoly on violence that makes it possible to oppress people to start with.
OK, I'll bite.
How do you enforce "equal power"?
How do you create laws with "everyone's consent"? How do you ever get everyone to agree about anything?
How is the current system "against our will" when the vast majority of us are consenting? We are all too dumb to know our own will?
-
OK, I'll bite.
How do you enforce "equal power"?
Very simple. No monopoly on violence. Every decision is made through a referendum, and the democracy isn't a forcing one, like the one we have now. If you find the decision of the majority unbearable, you are free to leave the society, although as long as you don't commit crimes, you don't have to move physically.
Say that you refuse to pay tax. In the current society, the IRS and the cops come and take your money and/or property. If you resist violently enough, you get killed. In an anarchist society nothing would happen to you (if there was anything like tax at all), except that you would be denied social services paid by the tax.
How do you create laws with "everyone's consent"? How do you ever get everyone to agree about anything?
See above.
How is the current system "against our will" when the vast majority of us are consenting? We are all too dumb to know our own will?
Nothing is easier to corrupt than the will of the people. Most people don't want to get killed. Despite that "democracies" usually don't have more problems to get people to fight wars than dictatorships have.
-
Sounds like it would only work at the level of a village or small town.
-
Yes, it certainly isn't for national states with millions of inhabitants.
-
Here is some logical flaw. "My" way would mean that everyone had equal power. How could anyone be oppressed if everybody had equal power?
Anarchy doesn't mean that you do what you want but that the laws/rules have the consent of everyone they are concerning.
It is this system with lies, laws forced upon people against their will and monopoly on violence that makes it possible to oppress people to start with.
Here's the flaw in your thinking: you assume everyone would have equal power. Not gonna happen.
-
Sounds like it would only work at the level of a village or small town.
It wouldn't work then either. Maybe a small village with two or three people. Maybe.
-
Wrong. It did actually work in Modern Times around 1850.
-
It was a very small community and didn't last. AFAIK it took only a few new citizens to break it.
-
IMO when govts lie, and get caught at it,they need to face punishment.
Here in the UK, only the most flagrant, blatant, in extremis cases, such as the money-thieving MPs got it in the neck over their misdeeds. Pretty much anything else, and they might just be told 'naughty boy, don't do it again'
Things such as lying, they need to face consequences when caught doing it, or else what is going to happen? they learn its acceptable, and keep on doing it.
Such as when we were promised a referendum on europe, as a manifesto promise, only to be told, after the govt. in question attained their power fix 'sorry, we changed our minds, you peasants aren't getting one'
Things like that really piss me off, that our political class seem to have a license to act as they bloody well please, without the slightest comeback.
Lol...as they say 'whats the point of voting? no matter who you vote for, the govt. always gets in' :autism:
-
I also think that a smallish village will not work in a (-n/more) anarchistic setting, I'm afraid. Wish it could work with nil 'hierarchy', for yeah, I share that hatred for it too, but I consider it to be unrealistic to become such nowadays. It will not happen, in reality, never ever, I'm pretty sure.
Reclusion, not caring much about political BS/political correctness, doing what you like/love, is my halfway solution up to now.
Is there a place on this planet where one is (guaranteed to be) left alone?
-
Um, my 50 pence worth?
In the centre of this small city there are over 30 cameras hanging on 'strategic' points. Føckers (police) here use them for other things than solving or preventing crime also though.
An example, and I remember more than one, but.. I once was 'spotted', riding my bicycle back to home in the evening.. without lights (albeit small but that's a violation of the law here). Just bought some groceries in the downtown supermarket and they saw, via their camera network, where I was heading and they called their street collegaes and I was given a ticket (of €50) there and then.
Føckers also tracked me down via my old cell phone. I was riding my moped in a rural area a little up north from this city and out of the blue a helicopter popped up above me and for the sake of.. what? Well, fuck it started following me. So I went off-road onto forest paths (trees in full 'plumage'), switched off my phone and did 'me old' 270° trick. And got rid of them.
Don't like paranoid thinking (don't care about that stuff/not to be scared off by unethical fear-mongery) but this city, powers that be, crossed some quite thickly drawn lines and some are total scum of the earth. Irresponsibly and mega-stupid.
No lights on your bike at night holy shit, you got off easy with just a ticket for a serious crime such as that you should have done jail time. I sleep easier now knowing they installed those cams to catch serious offenders such as yourself. :M
-
A good cop is a dead cop :thumbdn:
-
Riding a bike without lights at night can cause an accident
-
Riding a bike without lights at night can cause an accident
:facepalm2:
-
Riding a bike without lights at night can cause an accident
Spoons cause obesity, alcohol causes DUI, and guns kill people. :fp:
-
What a fucking retarded response
There are road safety laws. Stick to them, or stay off the roads
-
And yes, guns do kill people. What else do you think they're for? Substitute dildos?
-
I will only support CCTV if they stop the nonsense campaign of preventing photographers taking pictures in public, otherwise it's double standards to me.
-
Big Brother is NOT a friend of the people. The state, by its very nature, craves control over people, and will stoop to all manner of abuses in order to hang onto power, and of course, they always 'need' this, that, or the other new form of authority, something else to enforce/or to better enforce some existing regulations.
The plague of CCTV cameras is hardly a deterrent to criminals, solve few crimes, and in general, those 'innovations' that give the pork, and big brother yet more of the power they so greedily crave, are not good things to be used in the spirit of benevolence. Much more often, they are, or wind up being, used to create and maintain a state of fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst us 'common people'
Or as one (now former) govt. minister over here in the UK so charmingly put it 'plebs'
And I for one, don't take to the idea of being watched, nearly everywhere I go if its in a public, urban/city place, it just doesn't sit well with my private, and introvert nature.
Thank hades that the infestation hasn't reached the places I feel most 'at home' and at peace, out in the woods.
Even without CCTV, being out in public means NO privacy. None. Zilch. Even in the woods.
If I was entitled to privacy in the public, I could have a wank in the streets and not have to worry about consequence.
-
I don't know about that. I generally get to be alone, when I go out on my mushroom forays, at least, if I want to. Easy enough to find somewhere comfortable and take a nap halfway through if I want without being disturbed.
-
And yes, guns do kill people. What else do you think they're for? Substitute dildos?
If you do substitute a gun for a dildo, be real careful. You could really do a bang up job on your orgasm.
-
could we ditch the cameras, hire some artists, sit them on top of the light poles and have them sketch the relevant scenes? That would help some of the employment problem.
-
And yes, guns do kill people. What else do you think they're for? Substitute dildos?
:LMAO:
Do you actually think an inanimate object can do harm on its own, whether it is a gun, spoon, or a bottle of booze?
-
Of course not, idiot. But guns are DESIGNED to kill people. What else are they for?
-
Of course not, idiot. But guns are DESIGNED to kill people. What else are they for?
Duuuuuuuuuuuh. :yawn:
Your point?
I guess spoons cause obesity as well.
-
Of course not, idiot. But guns are DESIGNED to kill people. What else are they for?
kill animals and put holes in targets
-
Of course not, idiot. But guns are DESIGNED to kill people. What else are they for?
Duuuuuuuuuuuh. :yawn:
Your point?
I guess spoons cause obesity as well.
No. Becuase spoons are there to EAT with. Not to make yourself obese with. Guns are there to shoot people with. Shooting people isn't a side effect
Anyway, this "debate" is boring now. We've had it numerous times already and neither of us are going to change our minds. Im not gonna sit here discussing guns with some redneck on the internet.
-
Of course not, idiot. But guns are DESIGNED to kill people. What else are they for?
Duuuuuuuuuuuh. :yawn:
Your point?
I guess spoons cause obesity as well.
No. Becuase spoons are there to EAT with. Not to make yourself obese with. Guns are there to shoot people with. Shooting people isn't a side effect
Anyway, this "debate" is boring now. We've had it numerous times already and neither of us are going to change our minds. Im not gonna sit here discussing guns with some redneck on the internet.
Who said we were discussing guns? That was simply the example you choose for your retort. :M
I'm done here.
-
And yes, guns do kill people. What else do you think they're for? Substitute dildos?
Why are you such a whiner? It's nothing wrong if the good guys kill the bad guys with guns. And the gun won't kill anyone on its own. The gun law wasn't made to protect you in the first place. It was made to protect your lords and other arseholes ruling Britain from you!
Suits you right that you live in the cunty UK with a camera in every corner.
-
I will only support CCTV if they stop the nonsense campaign of preventing photographers taking pictures in public, otherwise it's double standards to me.
There is such a campaign? :facepalm:
-
More or less, yes. The UK government for example campaigned that people report anyone taking photographs, in case it's a "terrorist threat" or along the lines. Here's a poster from that campaign:
(http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/imageBank/p/police%20warning.jpg)
Also, the police and private security firms are harassing photographers for pretty much no reason, trying to get their equipment confiscated or their images deleted. There is also the recent surge of photographer = pervert mentality of people, which is not helped by bias in the press, especially tabloid newspapers.
It leads me to think that they often forget that the "real" terrorists will most likely not use DSLRs and such in public to document their nefarious plans, but use compact or mobile phone cameras due to being easy to conceal. Same with paedophiles, perverts and other deviants. You often see people take pictures with their phones or compact cameras without consequence in not only the public, but in private areas where photography is strictly forbidden. That in itself is a double standard, and that any potential terrorists will pretty much get away with it.
That said, a line has to drawn when it comes to someone using photography to intentionally harass someone. You will always get people who take it too far. However, I do not think it warrants a ban of public photography/videography etc.
-
I think I should stop complaining about Sweden. It's pretty liberal here compared with the UK and even with the Netherlands :-\
-
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
-
That's a bit unsettling.
-
I carry a camera around alot. :zombiefuck:
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
Yep....I'm fucked. :zombiefuck:
-
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
I saw an ad like that on an airport.
-
That is just creepy.
And any really determined terrorist could get past all that, benzos, a beta blocker and shades or dark glasses
-
I carry a camera around alot. :zombiefuck:
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
Yep....I'm fucked. :zombiefuck:
I never got hassled over my camera yet, apart from a few strangers who didn't take kindly to getting their photos taken. Fair enough, some people will be touchy regardless. Still nervous when doing street photography though. I usually ask people to be polite, but sometimes catching them unaware yields more natural, interesting results. Shows the human condition off more, IMO.
Here's an example, these two were completely unaware:
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5178/5433728463_e5f580f751_z.jpg)
If I went up and asked them, I most likely will not have got such a result. People stop being natural when they're aware of any observation.
-
That is just creepy.
And any really determined terrorist could get past all that, benzos, a beta blocker and shades or dark glasses
Never matters what the question is. Even the answer to getting caught committing terrorism is "more drugs".
-
I carry a camera around alot. :zombiefuck:
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
Yep....I'm fucked. :zombiefuck:
I never got hassled over my camera yet, apart from a few strangers who didn't take kindly to getting their photos taken. Fair enough, some people will be touchy regardless. Still nervous when doing street photography though. I usually ask people to be polite, but sometimes catching them unaware yields more natural, interesting results. Shows the human condition off more, IMO.
Here's an example, these two were completely unaware:
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5178/5433728463_e5f580f751_z.jpg)
If I went up and asked them, I most likely will not have got such a result. People stop being natural when they're aware of any observation.
Are you familiar with HONY?
http://www.humansofnewyork.com/ (http://www.humansofnewyork.com/)
-
Didn't know about it. I only brush on street photography from time to time, I'm more into macro/abstract stuff.
-
You should do more of it though. That's a really good shot. :thumbup:
-
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
Eek. Hope they don't start doing that here. Although I have already had a run-in with the police for being "out of place".
-
I carry a camera around alot. :zombiefuck:
They have adds about things like that down toward NYC, they also more disturbingly have adds about reporting people who look nervous, out of place or avoid eye contact.
Yep....I'm fucked. :zombiefuck:
And, that dear children, is why we always have to have your disability card at hand. :GA: :facepalm2: