Poll: Privacy v Punishment
Poll Options
View poll results: Privacy v Punishment
Constant Surveillance
2 4%
Surveillance only in Public
19 41%
No Surveillance
25 54%
Voters: 46.
#1
Sup Pit,

If you could choose between the following scenarios that would be grand;

1) Having every single moment of your life, and every single place in the world being under surveillance so that criminals would have no safe haven from the law.

2) Having your privacy in your own home but having surveillance everywhere in public.

3) Having your privacy and having no surveillance at all, but criminals never being caught on camera.

Poll coming soon.
#3
I'm more for no surveillance, but surveillance by private property owners is up to them, so stores and shit would still be safe if the owner wanted to invest in cameras.
#5
LIBERTY, safety can suck a dick. i want freedom!
It's over simplified, So what!

Quote by eGraham
I'm going to be on top of what is called a knob
Quote by theguitarist
Big ones can be fun in some ways but generally, they are a pain in the ass.
Quote by Wolfinator-x
I don't know what is going on in this thread or why I have an erection.
#6
Somewhere between 2 and 3. The logical one is 2 as it gives people privacy, but helps prevent crime outside.

However, in reality, it's between 2 and 3.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#9
Quote by Banjocal
Somewhere between 2 and 3. The logical one is 2 as it gives people privacy, but helps prevent crime outside.

However, in reality, it's between 2 and 3.

This. But leaving it up to the owners of private property. If they want cameras, as long as they let me know I'm being monitored, it's all cool
RIP Gooze

cats
#10
Quote by Butt Rayge




An engadget version of the Cisco/Chongquing story has the following comment which made me lol:

Quote by some dude
Being shipped over to china? Aren't they being made there in the first place? Is this like when I ordered a laptop that was put together in California and it had to tour the continental united states before it could come to Washington? (thanks fedex)
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#11
Number three. It is the only logical choice in a free society.

No matter how much surveillance there is, "law enforcement" officials still beat and verbally abuse confessions out of innocent people.
#12
Just curious here, as I don't really mind being monitored at all. What are some reasons you guys wouldn't want to be monitored?
#13
Because why should my personal actions be under constant scrutiny? What kind of free society is that where my movements and actions are constantly monitored?

That's the very essence of "Big Brother."
#14
Quote by devourke
Just curious here, as I don't really mind being monitored at all. What are some reasons you guys wouldn't want to be monitored?


I wouldn't mind if God was watching me. CeilingGod watches as you mastrubate furiously, duh.

However, the entire experiment (life) changes when you add a [human] observer. You are adding energy to a system, which by its inherent observance changes the system and therefore invalidates the experiment. I want my experiment to be clean, goddamnit.

Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
Last edited by darkstar2466 at Oct 11, 2011,
#15
I went for number two.

I have no problem with public surveillance, it's helped to identify and prosecute the thugs who beat up our guitarist in the town centre so badly that he needed surgery on his face and a cast on his leg.
They've improved the area that I live in quite a lot too, they've made it much safer to walk through that area at night than it used to be, and muggings aren't the only thing affected by them, burgalries have gone down in the area too since they were fitted, and besides, I have nothing to hide from them.

I may like to smoke the odd joint occasionaly but it's not like I'm going to go walking down the street with a huge spliff in my mouth.

I see no difference between them and having regular police patrols that watched out for crime like we used to have, and after all, a public place is just that... 'public', carry out a crime in a public place and you run the risk of witnesses giving information to the police and possibly even photographs of you taken with their phones.
Of course, the problem with that is that members of the public can often be easily intimidated, they may turn a blind eye to crime, especially violent crime, because they really don't want to get involved. Surveillance cameras have no such qualms.

Quote by blake1221
What kind of free society is that where my movements and actions are constantly monitored?


You'd rather have the kind of 'free' society where muggers are 'free' to kick the crap out of you and take your possessions without fear of reprisal?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 11, 2011,
#16
I think No Surveillance
Last edited by megaduu at Oct 11, 2011,
#17
Quote by SlackerBabbath

You'd rather have the kind of 'free' society where muggers are 'free' to kick the crap out of you and take your possessions without fear of reprisal?


Well when you put it like that...

But seriously, I guess you just have to take the good with the bad. Given the choice between the two extremes, however, I would ultimately side with no surveillance.
#18
Quote by blake1221
Well when you put it like that...

But seriously, I guess you just have to take the good with the bad. Given the choice between the two extremes, however, I would ultimately side with no surveillance.


From the two extremes, all or nothing, yeah, I'd probably have to agree.
Of course, if anyone were to attempt to mug me in an unsurveillanced world, I'd be free to do anything I damn well like to them without fear of reprisal.

What I don't understand is that people are quick to complain about loss of security when a police presence is removed from an area yet the same people complain about losing privacy when the cameras go up. It's as if they don't realise that a police presence, with policemen walking or driving around and watching everyone in an area, naturaly affects their privacy too.
#19
I've noticed that too, and it's a very odd and tricky issue for people, myself included. But that's where the value of self defense comes in, and not to open a can of worms, but gun control and concealed carry licenses, which I avidly support.

I mean...no I don't.
#20
Quote by mulefish
This. But leaving it up to the owners of private property. If they want cameras, as long as they let me know I'm being monitored, it's all cool



Why do they have to let you know? Are you doing something you shouldn't be?
Check out my band Disturbed
#21
Quote by blake1221
I've noticed that too, and it's a very odd and tricky issue for people, myself included. But that's where the value of self defense comes in, and not to open a can of worms, but gun control and concealed carry licenses, which I avidly support.

I mean...no I don't.


The problem with self defence is that not everyone is capable of it, and even the most capable person at defending themselves (even if they carry a gun) is soon layed low by someone sneaking up behind them with a baseball bat (and any gun they may be carrying is also stolen too, probably to be used in a later violent crime)

People want security on the streets but they also want complete privacy, unfortunately you can't have both because privacy for the public also means privacy for the criminal too, so there has to be a compromise somewhere.
#22
Quote by blake1221
I'm more for no surveillance, but surveillance by private property owners is up to them, so stores and shit would still be safe if the owner wanted to invest in cameras.

This
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#23


Because we have the hardy boys. We need no surveillance, because they've got raging clues.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#25
Public surveillance, yes; ubiquitous surveillance? No thanks.

Cameras, police patrols, neighbourhood watch, however you call it, aid in the apprehension of criminals and in the prevention (through fear of reprisal) of further violence, crimes, whatnot. As Slacker said, CCTV offers a certain advantage in that it isn't subject to faults of memory, intimidation or active purjury 'for the greater good' in the way that a human authority or witness is.

As for constant observation, there's a point where 'more' ceases to be necessary (or even effective) for evidence gathering or crime prevention and simply becomes open to voyeurism and other abuses of power.

1984 or The Stainless Steel Rat, anyone?
He likes Keats but she's into Yeats - it's a matter of Romance

E-Mistress to UG's Finest Gentleman


Come away, oh human child,
To the waters and the wild
With a fairy hand in hand;
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.