The American police state

[del62]

Video footage rarely gets looked at unless a crime has taken place, such as in the Milly Dowler case in the UK, then the footage is peered over looking for clues as to who the killer was.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Video footage rarely gets looked at unless a crime has taken place, such as in the Milly Dowler case in the UK, then the footage is peered over looking for clues as to who the killer was.

This is, to my knowledge, a true statement. Nearly everything that occurs in public places is recorded in some way another, certainly anything that happens near government property, but that doesn't mean the all-seeing all-hearing malicious police technocracy is watching and listening to everything as it happens or even after it happens. Most surveillance footage is never looked at at all unless it might provide information regarding illegal activities that have already occurred.

I doubt most police departments have the resources to pay people to watch the cameras they have access to 24/7.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I guess you could call it a traffic police state

 

[luiz]

This is, to my knowledge, a true statement. Nearly everything that occurs in public places is recorded in some way another, certainly anything that happens near government property, but that doesn't mean the all-seeing all-hearing malicious police technocracy is watching and listening to everything as it happens or even after it happens. Most surveillance footage is never looked at at all unless it might provide information regarding illegal activities that have already occurred.

I doubt most police departments have the resources to pay people to watch the cameras they have access to 24/7.

While I'm sure what you wrote is true, doesnt it feel wrong that nearly every public place is being recorded? Do we need to surrender the right to privacy in order to be safe?

It's always worth remembering that we own the state, not the other way around.

 

[Neomega]

It also must be remembered that Rupert Murdoch was paying off police to hack citizens phones for salacious stories.

So do not think it would be above crooked people to also pay off the police to use their cameras for salacious stories and/or blackmail.

So you can say the footage is only looked at if a crime is committed, but
1. everything is illegal
and
2. It can also be used for political purposes. A representative sneaking around with his secretary, let's see if we can pay the police a few dollars, and see what juicy details we can get.

 

[Neomega]

So literally every other state in the world? There can only be one Police State at a time?

I named three countries. Convince me they are police states.

Using cameras to monitor crime makes you a police state? You know Los Angeles has high crime rates in many areas, right? I'd be happy to have security cameras installed in my neighborhood.

Of course you would, you have already outed yourself as a police state apologist. You would give up anything to make you feel safer against the big bad boogy-men that your news media tells you is a threat.

And what kind of crimes do you think they should be used for? Intent to feed the homeless? Illegal lemonade stands? Expired tabs? Jay-walking? Spitting on the sidewalk? Threatening to kill the president? Or is there some crimes the cameras should be used for, and others it should not be used for? Should they be used to make sure everyone drives exactly the speed limit?

I know, how about having the NSA start using it's data-mining to prosecute people who "share music" or lend copies of games to friends? You know, when you buy a game, you actually do not own it, you only have the right to use it yourself. If you lend the DVD the game is on to a friend, you are breaking the law.

What liberties would you not give up for the sake of security?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I named three countries. Convince me they are police states.

I cannot. By the definition you have offered, by definition there can only be on Police State at a time.

 

[Neomega]

I cannot. By the definition you have offered, by definition there can only be on Police State at a time.

pfft. Dodge. You lose.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wrong, I only lose if you hit me with the ball. Dodging merely stalemates the match, and I must catch the ball in order to win.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I have not outed myself as a police state apologist. You have.

Also, cameras are used to target speeders and people who run red lights. That's a traffic police state, which isn't exactly what you're making up.

And, game sharing isn't a liberty. If the company owns the game, I don't know what liberties you're breaking.

Do you just want a society where you get to do whatever you want without having your actions questioned?

 

[Neomega]

Also, cameras are used to target speeders and people who run red lights. That's a traffic police state, which isn't exactly what you're making up.

Are you replying to something I wrote? I already mentioned how these tools can be, and are, abused.

And, game sharing isn't a liberty. If the company owns the game, I don't know what liberties you're breaking.

You really love the law, no matter how absurd, don't you? If you buy a game, you should be allowed to let a friend borrow it. Let me guess, you have never let a friend borrow a game?

Do you just want a society where you get to do whatever you want without having your actions questioned?

Yeah, read my posts, and understand them, before replying to me. Garbage like this is a waste of my time. It's why I ignored you the first time you posted in this thread.

Then why did you write about it? So that you appear to be a rebel and say that everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the government?

Yeah, garbage. Now you know why I will not address anything you write on this topic anymore.

we need the police

Yeah. I know. I never said we didn't.

Moderator Action: Trolling

 

[ParkCungHee]

I will point out that, by your definition, only certain states in the United States fall under your rubric of a police state. In fact, only three states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma) beat out St. Kitts and Nevis. So really the problem is just kicking them out of the Union, and then St. Kitts is the police state.

 

[Save_Ferris]

You said how security cameras could be misused, but they haven't. And you never answered my question about why you even wrote this, but instead tried to dodge it by labeling it as "garbage".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Er, how? If they honestly believe they need to be prepared for those kinds of eventualities, there's nothing inherently dictatorial about it, just very paranoid.

They certainly can't be properly prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse unless they have the infrastructure already in place, or are planning to get it in the near future.

Don't you at least find it humorous that the police have no problem at all videotaping everything that goes on in public, but many of them will try to arrest you if you videotape them in public?


Link to video.


Link to video.

This is, to my knowledge, a true statement. Nearly everything that occurs in public places is recorded in some way another, certainly anything that happens near government property, but that doesn't mean the all-seeing all-hearing malicious police technocracy is watching and listening to everything as it happens or even after it happens. Most surveillance footage is never looked at at all unless it might provide information regarding illegal activities that have already occurred.

I doubt most police departments have the resources to pay people to watch the cameras they have access to 24/7.

That is because they simply don't have near enough people to properly monitor all the video feeds they already have. There was even a planned program for a while to get citizens to do it for them. There was a thread about it in this forum.

 

[Tee Kay]

I guess you could call it a traffic police state

Victoria is a bit like one.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Don't you at least find it humorous that the police have no problem at all videotaping everything that goes on in public, but many of them will try to arrest you if you videotape them in public?

Not as such, no. I would apply some form of benefit of the doubt to the police about videotaping them in public. Even if their reasons for considering it unlawful are "Well police business and stuff don't you know" I'm still willing to accept that with a grain of salt. Taping the police seems kind of like an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place.

That is because they simply don't have near enough people to properly monitor all the video feeds they already have. There was even a planned program for a while to get citizens to do it for them. There was a thread about it in this forum.

Fair enough, but even then you're looking at London-style surveillance, and that qualifies as some kind of invasion of privacy; I don't know if it's soldiers-in-the-streets-shooting-at-you or friends-and-relatives-disappearing-in-the-night police state invasion of privacy, however.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not as such, no. I would apply some form of benefit of the doubt to the police about videotaping them in public. Even if their reasons for considering it unlawful are "Well police business and stuff don't you know" I'm still willing to accept that with a grain of salt. Taping the police seems kind of like an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place.

Why isn't it "an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place" to do it to completely innocent people on a regular basis? Why shouldn't we be able to film the police any time we want when it is well known that the police typically do not prosecute themselves for their own crimes unless there is private video evidence? What makes them so special in a supposedly free and open society that isn't actually a police state that they should be immune from their own methods?

Fair enough, but even then you're looking at London-style surveillance, and that qualifies as some kind of invasion of privacy; I don't know if it's soldiers-in-the-streets-shooting-at-you or friends-and-relatives-disappearing-in-the-night police state invasion of privacy, however.

According to the amendments to the last defense appropriation bill, which wasn't vetoed but was protested by the President, the latter is exactly what the federal authorities can now do.

And I doubt there are less video cameras in Manhattan than there are in London, even though most of the former are still private.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Why isn't it "an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place" to do it to completely innocent people on a regular basis? Why shouldn't we be able to film them anytime we want when it is well known that the police typically do not prosecute themselves for their own crimes unless there is video evidence? What makes them so special in a supposedly free and open society that isn't actually a police state?

the same principle that resulted in executive privilege, "social contract", wherein we endow the government with various powers and rights that we as citizens do not have or do not possess to the same extent with the predication that government will use those powers to protect the citizens.

According to the amendments to the last defense appropriation bill, the latter is exactly what the federal authorities can now do. And I doubt there are less video cameras in Manhattan than there are in London, even those most of those are private.

That doesn't actually strike me as so incredibly sinister. If there was ever an occasion for an army to make an appearance in a city's streets, I expect the powers that be would send it there regardless of whether or not they had documents saying they could do so. I say that arguing not that creating such a document is a positive precedent, or not somewhat suspect, but that I don't necessarily believe it's indicative of the federal government conspiring to oppress and assault the citizens. The non-bolded section is functionally irrelevant; law enforcement officials wouldn't see the tapes on those cameras until after a crime was committed.

 

[Save_Ferris]

According to the amendments to the last defense appropriation bill, which wasn't vetoed but was protested by the President, the latter is exactly what the federal authorities can now do.

No one's disappeared, and people who are shot by the police are usually done so for a fair reason.

 

[classical_hero]

Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

There is just so much paranoia in this thread. It seems like whenever some bad thing happens it is automatically meaning we are living in a "police state". Do good and you are unlikely to be punished.