1984 light?

[Tagaziel]

How does one tell apart a member of society in a totalitarian state and an average citizen in the western world, by those instructions?

My folks actually lived in a totalitarian state and that was the norm - be honest only when sure no one can listen, always be honest in hiding.

Speaking out in the open, speaking freely could get you killed or at least imprisoned.

From your quote i get the mental image of a member of the resistance in a totalitarian state, not a contemporary free western man.

Because you're incredibly biased and prejudiced towards the modern western world? What I say is simple advice that's been true ever since humans learned to talk. Since information is much, much more available nowadays, we should be extra careful what we publish and where. Not because TEHGOVERNMENTZ IS GUNNA PUT US IN CAMPS, but because it might put us in harms way, eg. posting about our holidays may give a clue to robbers as to when our house is empty, images of our car and twitter updates about broken car alarms may make it a prime target for auto theft, while "funny" images taken at work might make the potential employer think you're a person who can't be trusted with confidential data, as you photograph your workplace "for the lulz".

The government doesn't care much, until you start breaking the law: stealing money, hurting people etc. Then, the freely available information is of great help in identifying you and tracking you down. However, from what I read, it's all secondary to field ops, namely getting to you through your friends and family in order to determine whether you did commit the crime you're suspected of or not.

Of course, you can consider modern, lawful democratic states to be oppressive regimes because of that, but then you pretty much can't be satisfied unless you move to Somalia, where there's no surveillance; and no law at all.

I myself don't much like this movement towards even more surveillance, it assumes that everyone is guilty until proven otherwise in my mind. Wether it's speedtraps or just plain video surveillance I'm against it, the only time I can accept videosurveillance is in criminal cases when they are brought before a court. And that has to come with proof of suspicion or however you phrase it.

Video surveillance isn't based on presumption of guilt. It's a method to ever so slightly improve public security. Opposing it in principle is silly. There's been stabbings, robberies, car thefts etc. countered with the essential aid of video cameras in public spaces. Speedtraps help reduce the likelihood of traffic collisions (and they do, trust a driver). The overall benefit is worth much more than the neglible loss of privacy in PUBLIC spaces.

 

[Lexx]

Heh, this reminds me of the cameras in metro stations, which replaced guard personel. They don't prevent any crime- yea, they might help to catch the evil dudes afterwards, but if you got beaten up half-dead, you wish there would be a police officer and not a camera, because the camera doesn't help you when you are in need of help.

 

[Tagaziel]

Heh, this reminds me of the cameras in metro stations, which replaced guard personel. They don't prevent any crime- yea, they might help to catch the evil dudes afterwards, but if you got beaten up half-dead, you wish there would be a police officer and not a camera, because the camera doesn't help you when you are in need of help.

It's kind of hard to have a cop at every street corner.

 

[Sub-Human]

Unless we live in a totalitarian state, that is.

 

[Lexx]

There is a difference between having security personell at some stations and none at any.

 

[Mettle]

Video surveillance isn't based on presumption of guilt. It's a method to ever so slightly improve public security. Opposing it in principle is silly. There's been stabbings, robberies, car thefts etc. countered with the essential aid of video cameras in public spaces. Speedtraps help reduce the likelihood of traffic collisions (and they do, trust a driver). The overall benefit is worth much more than the neglible loss of privacy in PUBLIC spaces.

Yes it is, on the subject of speedtraps, a policeman on patrol would have to make a judgement call based on available information and then check if you might be speeding or not. A speedtrap always checks your speed and takes a picture of you and your car for good measure. That is presumption of guilt to me.

And as a fellow driver, they don't reduce the likelyhood of collisions, it makes most people just focus on their speedo so that they don't get a ticket more than the rest of the traffic. And when it's people that live along a stretch of road with speedtraps they just speed up after they've passed the trap and then slow down just before the next one.
Love those dudes that go around wrecking those cameras, I'd hug them if I knew who they were.

The method of every so slightly improving security by assuming that everyone on that street is a possible criminal, yes. If they did'nt assume that people on that street might be criminals they would'nt put up those cameras there.
In the case of cameras it's not so much about privacy as it is a matter of personal integrity.

Not to mention cameras and speedtraps are good for nothing once a crime is being perpetrated, they're not much good as actual policeofficers. I've noticed that in places where there are alot of cameras here, you rarely if ever see an actual policeman/woman.

 

[TheWesDude]

cameras help catch those responsible for breaking the law after-the-action.

actual protection force people help prevent law breaking before-the-action.


while it may bring some emotional satisfaction knowing the person who murders your father/mother was caught, i am pretty sure everyone can agree it would be better if there was a law enforcement official there/nearby when it was actually happening to prevent the actual murder in the first place.


apprehension is nice, prevention is better.

 

[mobucks]

Please never use that word again.

You've never heard the phrase "people are sheep"? Wrong connotation for whom? Non-farangs? Get over it. Big Brother is watching you.

 

[Sabirah]

Please never use that word again.

You've never heard the phrase "people are sheep"? Wrong connotation for whom? Non-farangs? Get over it. Big Brother is watching you.

People are not sheep. And using that phrase make you sound like an elitist jerk whom thinks they are better than everyone else.

also it's "Firang" not Farang. I'm Indian, not Taiwanese

 

[Crni Vuk]

Heh, this reminds me of the cameras in metro stations, which replaced guard personel. They don't prevent any crime- yea, they might help to catch the evil dudes afterwards, but if you got beaten up half-dead, you wish there would be a police officer and not a camera, because the camera doesn't help you when you are in need of help.

It's kind of hard to have a cop at every street corner.

Well it seems to work every time we get this "terror warning!" where they used to patrol around with machinepistols on the train station I used every morning to get to work. How ridiculous. Like if they could stop me if I had a bomb in my backpack with the target to kill everyone. Dunno I mean at least this train station was never really a source of "violance" or anything like that. I am sure there are better places where patroling officers would be of better use. But at least they have wasted some money ...

 

[Token-not-found]

Please never use that word again.

You've never heard the phrase "people are sheep"? Wrong connotation for whom? Non-farangs? Get over it. Big Brother is watching you.

People are not sheep. And using that phrase make you sound like an elitist jerk whom thinks they are better than everyone else.

also it's "Firang" not Farang. I'm Indian, not Taiwanese

That's just a shameless lie.

Without most people being the same (or varying within a very small parameter) our society could not function the way it does.

People who are genuinely different are usually pathologized.

Also no human related sciences could function on the premise that people are , how does the propaganda say it: unique and special ?

The aggregated solidary regularities stand at the basis of social sciences like sociology and psycology.

And i'd appreciate not using the race card in a possible answer to my post.

There is irrefutable proof that most people are the same: every central purpose pool out there, the very concept of control group- every control group used in every human related science- all and many more show proof most people are the same.

Propaganda does bad things for my stomach.

 

[Ilosar]

That's just a shameless lie.

Without most people being the same (or varying within a very small parameter) our society could not function the way it does.

People who are genuinely different are usually pathologized.

Also no human related sciences could function on the premise that people are , how does the propaganda say it: unique and special ?

The aggregated solidary regularities stand at the basis of social sciences like sociology and psycology.

And i'd appreciate not using the race card in a possible answer to my post.

There is irrefutable proof that most people are the same: every central purpose pool out there, the very concept of control group- every control group used in every human related science- all and many more show proof most people are the same.

Propaganda does bad things for my stomach.

Your grasp of rhetoric is inspiring, but I figure the point was more that ''sheep'' has a negative connotation and makes the one who uses it look like somebody who thinks he is so much above it all only HE can figure out the rest are pathetic, mewling sheeps.

And anyway, you do realize the point of control groups is to have a given, defined population that's useful for you experiment, specifically because people are different from each other in various ways. Sociology exists because there are key differences between generations. Psychology functions on the very basis that the individual mind is not a simple thing and must be observed in details. Your examples seem inappropriate from where I stand.

If by ''genuinely different'' you mean those with physical or mental handicaps, then I don't know what to say. It's not like we just leave them to rot and die because of what they are. Trust me, I know.

 

[Sabirah]

That's just a shameless lie.

Without most people being the same (or varying within a very small parameter) our society could not function the way it does.

How so?

People who are genuinely different are usually pathologized.

That depends on your definition of "different". I can see why somebody who was different because say they were fond of murdering kittens would be excluded

Also no human related sciences could function on the premise that people are , how does the propaganda say it: unique and special ?

The aggregated solidary regularities stand at the basis of social sciences like sociology and psycology.

You have rather hard to read writing. If you are asking for an example then my whole life is one. I didn't adapt to American culture (well the bits I found unsavory) and I backed out of my arranged marriage. If I was some sheep I'd be either in florida stuck in a kitchen or dressed like a ho in public.

And i'd appreciate not using the race card in a possible answer to my post.

Listen token, I realize you (might) be a neo nazi, but that doesn't mean you have to get rude.

There is irrefutable proof that most people are the same: every central purpose pool out there, the very concept of control group- every control group used in every human related science- all and many more show proof most people are the same.

Propaganda does bad things for my stomach.

What "propaganda"? My mother in law and husband work for the government. Trust me they can barely balance the books at the end of the year. They aren't running anything

 

[mobucks]

To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes it is, on the subject of speedtraps, a policeman on patrol would have to make a judgement call based on available information and then check if you might be speeding or not. A speedtrap always checks your speed and takes a picture of you and your car for good measure. That is presumption of guilt to me.

And if you had a legitimate reason to go over the speed limit, then you respond to the ticket with a letter explaining the reason for breaking the law and attaching proof (such as an admission form for a wounded person you were driving to the hospital).

Speed limits are in place for a reason. I cannot sympathise with anyone bitching about speedtraps.

And as a fellow driver, they don't reduce the likelyhood of collisions, it makes most people just focus on their speedo so that they don't get a ticket more than the rest of the traffic. And when it's people that live along a stretch of road with speedtraps they just speed up after they've passed the trap and then slow down just before the next one.

Morons will be morons. That's why you educate people on the principles of ecodriving and why it's bad to frogleap your way to the destination.

And before you bitch, with ecodriving I spent less than half a tank (20-25 l) of gas on a 450 km trip between Poznan and Krakow using a gas guzzler.

Love those dudes that go around wrecking those cameras, I'd hug them if I knew who they were.

Yeah, let's support criminal activities. Somalia FTW.

The method of every so slightly improving security by assuming that everyone on that street is a possible criminal, yes. If they did'nt assume that people on that street might be criminals they would'nt put up those cameras there.

In a fairy fantasy dream world streets are perfectly safe and there are no criminals in society. But in the real world, you're probably passing a convicted felon, a pedophile and a rapist-to-be on your way to and from work.

Not to mention cameras and speedtraps are good for nothing once a crime is being perpetrated, they're not much good as actual policeofficers. I've noticed that in places where there are alot of cameras here, you rarely if ever see an actual policeman/woman.

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/

Maybe that's because they're generally reducing the likelihood of a crime being commited?

 

[Sub-Human]

Wish we'd have speedtraps installed back in Russia too, otherwise we'll continue to have morons ride the streets. Or at least they'd stop acting like morons and get a life...

 

[Tagaziel]

Well it seems to work every time we get this "terror warning!" where they used to patrol around with machinepistols on the train station I used every morning to get to work. How ridiculous. Like if they could stop me if I had a bomb in my backpack with the target to kill everyone. Dunno I mean at least this train station was never really a source of "violance" or anything like that. I am sure there are better places where patroling officers would be of better use. But at least they have wasted some money ...

Didn't notice your reply.

The point of counter-terrorist intelligence is to prevent you from even getting your hands on the bomb and causing harm, because it's extremely hard to stop a terrorist attack already in progress. I'm not saying it's impossible, but stopping a person who has a bomb in his backpack and a detonator in hand is quite difficult.

 

[Token-not-found]

Well it seems to work every time we get this "terror warning!" where they used to patrol around with machinepistols on the train station I used every morning to get to work. How ridiculous. Like if they could stop me if I had a bomb in my backpack with the target to kill everyone. Dunno I mean at least this train station was never really a source of "violance" or anything like that. I am sure there are better places where patroling officers would be of better use. But at least they have wasted some money ...

Didn't notice your reply.

The point of counter-terrorist intelligence is to prevent you from even getting your hands on the bomb and causing harm, because it's extremely hard to stop a terrorist attack already in progress. I'm not saying it's impossible, but stopping a person who has a bomb in his backpack and a detonator in hand is quite difficult.

I think the real question here is - is it worth sacrificing some rights and liberties of millions to try to prevent things that very rarely happen and are very hard to anticipate or prevent even with sacrficing those rights and liberties of millions.

I mean even with near total control and survailance- those acts are still gonna happen - human ingenuity.

 

[Tagaziel]

I think the real question here is - is it worth sacrificing some rights and liberties of millions to try to prevent things that very rarely happen and are very hard to anticipate or prevent even with sacrficing those rights and liberties of millions.

I mean even with near total control and survailance- those acts are still gonna happen - human ingenuity.

They rarely happen BECAUSE we have an effective network of intelligence and surveillance agencies in the West. Without them, we'd be much more vulnerable to terror attacks both from within and without. Sure, some cases occassionally slip through the net and cause loss of human life, but the alternative is far worse.

Civil liberties aren't an end into themselves, they're the means to ensure human happiness. But in order to enjoy their happiness, humans need to be alive. So the real question is "How to organize surveillance and intelligence efforts to curtail crime and terrorism while preserving privacy and liberties as far as possible?"

 

[Token-not-found]

I think the real question here is - is it worth sacrificing some rights and liberties of millions to try to prevent things that very rarely happen and are very hard to anticipate or prevent even with sacrficing those rights and liberties of millions.

I mean even with near total control and survailance- those acts are still gonna happen - human ingenuity.

They rarely happen BECAUSE we have an effective network of intelligence and surveillance agencies in the West. Without them, we'd be much more vulnerable to terror attacks both from within and without. Sure, some cases occassionally slip through the net and cause loss of human life, but the alternative is far worse.

Civil liberties aren't an end into themselves, they're the means to ensure human happiness. But in order to enjoy their happiness, humans need to be alive. So the real question is "How to organize surveillance and intelligence efforts to curtail crime and terrorism while preserving privacy and liberties as far as possible?"

You can't really probe the likelihood of attacks with evidence.

There are too many variables and no proof.

If you ban a chemical in an airplane, they will use a laptop battery, if you ban laptop batteries , they will use faces and medicine and a candle , if you ban those- they will use other things.

Logically speaking i'm inclined to agree with you that these measures somewhat reduce frequency, but in the capitalist cost/benefit frame, i have to ask by how much? That question is very important.

Is it worth diverting and stopping 2 terrorist attacks per year at the cost of less freedom for millions and mass survailance ?

There are many western countries with very poor security terrorwise and they seem to be doing great- no terror attacks from within (i'm not gonna argue about outside ones because they are not as politically implicated in some issues as the USA for example)