h a l f b a k e r yNaturally, seismology provides the answer.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
For this Idea, it is extremely important that the cameras not be
easily accessed. When one does get accessed, the accessing of it
must be both public and "formal" (kind of like a court order is a
formal thing).
We don't quite have the technology yet to make the camera
system needed by this
Idea --or at least make it cheaply enough
for extremely wide deployment.
First, the camera needs a protective box, with a bulletproof-or-
better viewport for the camera lens. There needs to be a fast-
acting filter in case someone shines a high-intensity laser beam at
the camera. It needs a battery and a radio transmitter, in case
someone cuts the external power supply, so that the interruption
can be investigated immediately. The battery needs to keep the
camera running while also powering the radio distress signal. And
while the system is designed as an "endless loop" recorder, the
loop needs to be large enough to store its video for at least a
month, before old data gets overwritten.
A particular camera's data should only need to be accessed if a
serious-enough crime is reported to have occurred such that the
particular camera might have recorded it.
There may be more things needed that I've not thought of. For
example, while the camera MUST NOT be connected to a network
(which would allow true/bad Orwellian surveillance), it could still
have a "network jack", so that when it is legally/publicly
accessed, the video data from a certain time-frame could be
requested. That would be superior to physically removing the
camera from its mounting, after which someone might have an
opportunity to scan all the data in secret.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote, "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny",
and so for this Idea, it is essential that secrecy be as impossible as
we can manage.
[link]
|
| |
We already have cameras everywhere, networked
and readable in realtime. Where is the incentive for
the state to switch to yours? |
|
| |
Not even England has cameras EVERYWHERE. This Idea
should allow that, while generally respecting privacy.
Simply because the camera data can only be accessed via
legal formalities. |
|
| |
Well, at least it's not in other: |
|
| |
This illustrates one of the great delusions of the security state. If something (a camera for instance) can be accessed by the 'good guys' then it can also be accessed by the 'bad guys'. The ability to access something is the very definition of a network (whether that be by physical or remote access). |
|
| |
The problem is that most of the mass surveillance
folks complain about was done with legally-
obtained warrants, but the warrants were issued by
a secret court. |
|
| |
The effect of this idea could be achieved by ensuring that
schools instil the concept of an all-seeing vengeful and
judgemental deity which will punish you with eternal
damnation for the slightest infraction of the law. |
|
| |
I think the crux of the issue is finding a formal distinction
between public and private. |
|
| |
I don't mind/care if the goodies or the baddies have
access to surveil over public spaces - using cameras is just
a cheap alternative to employing lots of agents keenly
noting things down in their little books - it's just a matter
of cost. |
|
| |
What I do object to is being surveilled whilst I believe I
am operating 'in private' - and I expect there to be a clear
distinction between what constitutes public vs private. |
|
| |
In public, I can expect others to see me, and in my home,
or in other particular situations/locations, I should
expect the law to be on my side regards my privacy. |
|
| |
To me that's where the issue lies, not in the technology
used to perform the surveillance. |
|
| |
Even if the government wanted to put a telescreen in my
home that had been strictly developed to the guidelines
above, I'd still say no - as I'd expect total privacy at home. |
|
| |
//Robert A. Heinlein wrote, "Secrecy is the beginning
of tyranny"//...but to strip secrecy away takes full-
fledged tyranny. |
|
| |