How many times will you have your picture taken today?

[m_stephens]

<p>The issue is not fighting crime, or terrorism. At the risk of sounding un-humorous and offending all the standup comics here, it is about <em>dissent</em> and nothing else.</p>

<p>The most useful strategy the population has to maintain a free, open and just society is dissent. Without effect dissent, the state will always drift into authoritarianism. I think that goes without saying, really.</p>

<p>If the state had the tools in 1963 that they have today, there would be no Civil Rights Act of 1964. As it was they hounded, harassed and jailed every dissident they could. With today's super-surveillance, many of those dissidents would have been sent to prison on a host of charges aided by the ideas in the NDAA, Patriot Act and more. Even then there was COINTELPRO - a non-humorous operation if ever there was one.</p>

<p>It is already happening today. People and groups in the occupy movement (for one) were infiltrated, monitored and frustrated in their attempts to build dissent of the kind we had in the anti-war years of the 1960s and 70s and the civil rights movement. It was trivial for the FBI and other authorities to wiretap, snoop, invade privacy, illegally search, and then act on it.</p>

<p>The state's goal is always to shut down dissent. To infiltrate and destroy movements before they gain steam. The security apparatus always grows to that end. Our current administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than anyone could ever have imagined. Now they are going after investigative journalism. But hey, let's have a good laugh and say that anyone who is troubled by this needlessly paranoid and must be wearing a tin hat.</p>

<p>It is true that at any moment in time the majority is happy with the status quo and will not give a thought to the future as long as they currently aren't in jail or being tortured. The defenders of an open and just society are always a scarce tiny minority with the courage to "break the law" in civil disobedience - or more. That's what frightens the state. And that's what all this fuss is about.</p>

<p>As it stand today, the ability to mount an effective response to drone wars, loss of habeas rights, torture, or prosecution of whistleblowers, is already severely compromised by the existing surveillance apparatus, and it is only getting worse by the day. There is a tipping point where the phrase "resistance is futile" becomes operational. I hope we don't reach it.</p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I don't know, Sanford, old sport. So I will think on it as I put out the green waste can . (As he scratches groin contemplatively, philosophical- wise..). A better query is simply thus: Like when are we going to see more members' mugshots right here on PN bio page? Don't be shy. Be visible. Say cheese. Aloha.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>I wonder. .<br>

how many of the people who are in favor of (or nonplussed by) all these law & order/public spy cams are dead set against sharing any information with the gov'mint when they buy firearms? Just wondering . . </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Those that think that they are invisible...well, they may be if they stay home. If you go somewhere, the apt complex will catch your photo, the gym cams will...as you are driving, the traffic camera/s, and so on and so forth. If you don't want to be photoed, go to secluded beach, but don't take the ferry...or you will be on the tape.</p>

<p>Soo, whether you care or you don't...you're still going to be photographed...at some point. I suggest you get over it and get some rest....so you'll be bright and fresh for the cameras :>). If the cams are really getting to you, start blowing kisses at every cam you encounter...that may have some unexpected results.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[dan_south]

I knew that I should have shaved this morning!

 

By the way, 'the state' doesn't own or control most of the security cameras that we encounter. Private businesses do: stores, banks, ATMs. 'The state' can request access to content via subpoena in extraordinary circumstances such as the Boston Marathon bombing. And hey, guess what! Thanks to the abundance of security cameras in the area of the bombing, they actually caught the perpetrators before they could strike again.

 

It's interesting to think that security cameras bother photographers. Have you ever taken a photo of someone without their knowledge or consent? Does that act other you as well?

[dan_south]

The definition of irony - discussing electronic privacy concerns on a public Internet forum.

[m_stephens]

<p>"It's interesting to think that security cameras bother photographers. Have you ever taken a photo of someone without their knowledge or consent? Does that act other you as well?"<br>

=====<br>

No. Because photographers can not (and have no intention to) assemble reams of tracking information in an effort to stymie my future activities. I think this rationale is entirely bogus and is overused. It doesn't even begin to address the fundamental problems of the surveillance state. </p>

<p>The fact that most cameras are "private" and not government is meaningless. The "National Security Letter" to name the most common tool, is all that is needed to gain access even permanently to this kind of collected imaging. </p>

<p>As for catching a few criminals or terrorists it's sloppy reasoning to conclude that any such anecdotal example justifies creation of a security state. There is a price to be paid. And if the price is greater than the benefit, it is too high. The basic premise of society is this: Living in an open and free society has risk. If you attempt to remove all risk, you have removed all openness and freedom. </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I sense confusion between the meaning of a surveillance <em>photograph</em>, and the meaning of <em>information</em>. The essence of security camera isn't the photograph it snaps, it's the information it gathers. e.g. Joe Blow was at the ATM at 6:23PM on Main and Elm and took out $300. At 6:32 Joe Blow's car, license number XCGT 562 crossed the Big River Bridge. At 6:43 Joe Blow at IP 99.876.111 sent the following email to Mary Jones. AHA! This looks like Joe is giving money to Mary's anti-war group, who we <em>think</em> has "association and ties to" Al Qaeda!</p>

<p>There's a significant number of people who think that's a beautiful future. Quite likely, it's even a majority, I am not sure. But I think that's a pretty nasty future which portends a dead society committed to following the yellow line from waking to sleep.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I just happened upon this story, which forcefully demonstrates why dissent is precious and must be preserved at all cost. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-us-turned-three-pacifists-multiple-felony-saboteurs?page=0%2C0</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>m. stephens you are dead right. Having read discussions on the subject in this forum since some time, I'm somewhat convinced, that most wouldn't care, what so ever : <em>they have nothing to hide</em> !!! Furthermore, they would not move a finger for supporting those, who believe we all have something to hide from Big Brother in the name of freedom, privacy and free expression. <br>

Keep smiling to the cameras and keep your tongue to protect yourself from evil checkers.<br>

If George Orwell had written his novel about Big Brother today, he would have called it "2001".</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>RE M. Stephens nuke plant link:<br>

The outcome of the nuke plant incident turned out as it should have in a free society. The pacifists broke the law and faced justice. They're getting it. The nuke guys' incompetence was exposed. They will face penalties.<br>

I agree with you -- we <em>free</em> people need more and better security.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Alan,<br>

I think they expected to face "justice." That's not what happened. They instead faced a brutal regime of repression seeking to intimidate other dissenters through absurdly aggressive charges and prison terms. Please don't make a laughing stock out of the meaning of "justice." </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Anders,<br>

This has always been true about dissent. It's not unique to now, or unique to America. The mass public in any society leans to authoritarianism because it seeks security - a basic human need. What they don't see is what is behind the security - the eventual end point which is nasty, brutal and quite insecure. This is a failure of human nature. </p>

<p>Reformers, dissenters, objectors, protestors are always a tiny fraction - a miniscule number - of the public. That's why they are so easy to stomp out. If you look at the story I linked to, these are the rare birds and look how easy it is to smash them to smithereens by an oppressive state structure. Who will come behind them? Well, after seeing them get a 15 year prison sentence, probably no one. </p>

<p>Protecting dissent then is a very difficult task. Those who say, "Smile if you have nothing to hide," are of course helping to kill off the few rare birds who might save them in the future, but they can't see it that way. Human nature is flawed in the direction of security. It's a fact. </p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with you -- we <em>free</em> people need more and better security.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can I assume you meant that as a joke? You surely know that <em>freedom</em> and <em>security</em> are at opposite poles, right? (big smiley here)</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, they would not move a finger for supporting those, who believe we all have something to hide from Big Brother in the name of freedom, privacy and free expression.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anders,<br>

You can't allow yourself to become frustrated by popular sentiment. What you are experiencing is human nature. It's the reformer (read "rebel") who is the "unnatural" element in society - the oddball, the rarity, the extremist. Let me demonstrate. </p>

<p>In the USA where culture is negotiated on TV, there are hundreds of TV channels, and there are many dozens of TV hosts, news anchors, pundits, celebrities and caretakers of these shows and channels. And in all of this, there is not one self-described socialist. That is, a show host who can say on TV, "Well, as a socialist, I believe we should......" None. Now, as a leftist, I consider a socialist to be a moderate, certainly not a radical. But in this culture, a socialist would be so entirely radical, dangerous and outrageous that they are not allowed on TV. </p>

<p>So, imagine a culture where there is supposed to be a modicum of democracy, and yet there is not a single socialist allowed on the forum that negotiates all cultural norms! What remains? What remains is that the entire political spectrum in a nation of 300M people is from center to far right - if you use the global political spectrum as a measure. </p>

<p>So, if a moderately liberal socialist doesn't have a voice in the culture, try to imagine a rebel voice! A real reformer. Let's say, an anti-capitalist, humanist for example. Forget it. You are relegated to crawling around dark alleys on the web. </p>

<p>With a political spectrum running from center to far right, there is only one direction the nation can pursue over time. And we can easily see that, track it, describe it, and project it into the future. It's trivial to plot the progress of the corporate authoritarianism over time. Imagine that the penalty for making a copy of a stupid movie is 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine! I mean just to demonstrate the absurdity of where we are. In another thread a guy wants to put a photographer in Rykers Prison for taking some mundane photographs of people in their glass house. This is not the uncommon view, it is the normative view. It comes about because the culture at large has no access to competing ideas. Where would a person ever be exposed to the ideas of a free society when the entire culture is wrapped in authoritarian thought process?</p>

<p>Try not to be frustrated. Just do what you can, when you can. </p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>In the USA where culture is negotiated on TV, there are hundreds of TV channels, and there are many dozens of TV hosts, news anchors, pundits, celebrities and caretakers of these shows and channels. <strong>And in all of this, there is not one self-described socialist. That is, a show host who can say on TV, "Well, as a socialist, I believe we should......" None.</strong> Now, as a leftist, I consider a socialist to be a moderate, certainly not a radical. But in this culture, a socialist would be so entirely radical, dangerous and outrageous that they are not allowed on TV.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Err.... Ask your cable provider to get MSNBC. Watch Lawrence O'Donnell.</p>

<p>

<p>As to the rest of the thread? Lighten up guys. If you aren't doing anything you have nothing to worry about. You carry a cell phone. Guess what? That thing tracks your movements. You buy anything with plastic (debit or credit). You are tracked. You fly. You are tracked.</p>

<p>What keeps everyone safe is there is such a deluge of data there are simply not enough people that care to go through it all. The NSA is so overwhelmed with the data they currently have they don't have time to go to the local 7-11 to get their tapes from the last week prior to them being recorded over before anyone even looks at them.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Err.... Ask your cable provider to get MSNBC. Watch Lawrence O'Donnell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And? Lawrence O'Donnell is a Democrat, not a socialist. And MSNBC is a Democratic party outlet, not a voice of the left, or a voice of reform. My point was that TV is an artificially created conflict between two parties who have no meaningful differences. The theater of Democrat v. Republican isn't a political spectrum, it's a political monopoly. </p>

<p>I wonder if people would recognize a set of leftist principles if they heard them? I somewhat doubt it. But Lawrence O. and Rachel Maddow are not espousing those principles. They are simply party cheerleaders. </p>

[robert_k1]

<p>http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147158n</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>m stephens:<br>

The people got busted in order to make a point. They didn't expect special treatment. The start point , total foo-pa, was the first step in a justice <em>system. </em>They made their point because we have for the most part a good system that can work in a way that allows descent.<br>

The point of civil disobedience is partly to shine a light on lapses in the system.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I hope you saw the face recognition piece on 60 Minutes last night - 5/19. (SEE R.K. above) My take-away was "Were Doomed!" <br /> We are so far past the privacy tipping point the only thing to do is accept human evolution to an "intelligent" machine. It/we knows all about it/we now and can make it/we <em>think</em> as it wishes. Other kinds of recognition will be added to <em>face</em>. I think s<em>mell</em> is a good bet. Try not to smell! <br /> To continue living on this planet you have already been opted-in.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>They didn't expect special treatment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no part of this discussion that was about "special treatment." The people expected to be arrested and prosecuted in a just system. Justice for this act doesn't include "15 years in prison" - an outrageous sentencing prospect for breaking through a fence and spray painting some flowers. The point here, is that the system is crushing dissent through outrageously aggressive policing and prosecution. I used one example out of many that I could list which are as bad or worse. So please, don't divert or obfuscate by suggesting "special treatment."</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<blockquote>

<h1 >How many times will you have your picture taken today?</h1>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>By security cams...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For my self today, hundreds to thousands of times. Many times from several angles at the same time. I work in a very secure facility with critical infrastructure.</p>

<p>The cameras will both show I am doing my job correctly, they will show if there are intruders and/or people with ill intent. These cameras could prove someone innocent of crime.</p>

<p>I have no problem with businesses, parking lots, stores, bus stations, airports and train stations having security cameras.</p>

<p>Camera's helped identify the Boston Bombers. Cameras aid in identifying many individuals who committed crimes. They also helped many people not be wrongly accused of crimes.</p>

<p>As long as they leave them out of rest rooms, changing/dressing rooms, or my house, I'm OK with it.</p>

<p>Until they put one in my TV that watches and listens to every thing I say and do in my house, I think we are still a far cry from an Orwellian society. I can still turn the channel or turn off the TV. We aren't there yet. Relax, they aren't out to get you. Are they? :-)</p>

<p>We don't have to feel warm and fuzzy about security cameras, but they aren't out to get us, well maybe those Red Light cameras are. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<p>Orwell and the present "distopian" craze in films and books is not so much predictive as it is cautionary. Nobody really believes <em>Minority Report</em> might come true. It just means that…<br>

Oh S*** ! I just got another pop-up in my glasses! </p>

[anton_kratz]

<p>I live in Japan for many years now. What pisses me off here: often when I am in a public space like certain shopping malls or events everything is plastered with "No Photo!" signs, or even guys holding "No Photo!" signs up at events, yet <em>at the same time</em> I am photographed and video'd by surveillance cameras from eight different angles.<br>

<br /> So it's okay for them to take pictures of me, but not for me to take pictures of them.</p>