h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
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,
|
|
|
| |
Or just wait a couple of years, and start documenting the areas which arent covered. |
|
| |
There is no single "big brother" that would be able to throw a fit or "have the page shut down". Grow up. |
|
| |
Many users of surveillance cameras are quite upfront about them and are hoping for them to deter as well as to help solve crime. |
|
| |
Indoor camera location can't be confirmed via GPS, since GPS doesn't work indoors. Doesn't really matter for convenience stores; does matter for department stores, casinos, etc. Oh well. |
|
| |
This would be a neat tool if some of the cameras were actually web accessible. You could have a third layer on mapquest and similar sites - maps, areal photograph, and current surveillance footage for a close-up view. |
|
| |
Yes. "To subject to surveillance". |
|
| |
Jutta is right, at least some of the new car lots around here have cameras with blinking orange lights on them to call attention to them. Me, I'd put about half of those as fakes, and some that DON'T call attention to themselves hidden elsewhere. |
|
| |
Always wanted to get a rifle and lower the numbers of cameras...Things like new car lots or parking lots is one thing, but in Tampa, there are cameras that apparently watch just to see if you match someone that might be in their files. |
|
| |
StarChaser--they also have cameras watching the cameras in some places.
===================
Jutta: You might not know who Big Brother is. Some of us do. You are correct that there is no single entity; however, there are sufficient intrusive and nosy government agencies and persons to allow a blanket descriptor to be used. |
|
| |
If the Discordians don't exist, somebody should invent them, too. |
|
| |
//there are sufficient intrusive and nosy government agencies and persons to allow a blanket descriptor to be used// |
|
| |
I dunno, boris. Postulate: Inefficiency of an organization with number of inefficient members X rises as the square of X, countered by the sum of efficient members Y. My perception is that USian guvvermint agencies have at least as many inefficient members as efficient ones, and since agency staffing is typically very large, overall efficiency is << optimal. |
|
| |
In other words, I just don't believe the CIA-FBI-DEA could pull off a vast clandestine surviellance scheme without getting outed by their own mistakes (or, more likely, by ethical whistleblowers within the organizations). But there is lots of 'flying pig proof' for such schemes (CIA man: "We must act quickly!Invisible communist flying pigs are invading the White House!" Reporter: "How do you know that?" CIA man: "I can't tell you that, the source is confidential. But we must act quickly!") |
|
| |
Same goes for the alledged Echelon thingy. Not likely. |
|
| |