The only thing they can't do is watch you sleep - for now. The Government's eye is on you.

Undercover

New member
Jul 19, 2009
553
0
0
Dark Templar said:
PedroSteckecilo said:
Dark Templar said:
I live in America.

*points at you* HA HA HA HA HA

But no seriously, I love freedom.
Considering your country enacted a law that enables Arrest/Imprisonment Without Charges or Trial I wouldn't be so pleased with yourself.
Link it.

So I know which one you are talking about and why you are blowing it out of proportion.
Have you even read the patriot act? Yeah I didn't think so. Don't worry though, neither did Congress.
 

oppp7

New member
Aug 29, 2009
7,045
0
0
...So? Just don't post your plans to bomb stuff on the internet.
OT: Although this seems like a waste of resources (satillites that take videos of everything would be better), I don't really see much of a problem with this. I don't really say anything that bad on the internet, so maybe that's why...
 

Eldarion

New member
Sep 30, 2009
1,887
0
0
Undercover said:
Dark Templar said:
PedroSteckecilo said:
Dark Templar said:
I live in America.

*points at you* HA HA HA HA HA

But no seriously, I love freedom.
Considering your country enacted a law that enables Arrest/Imprisonment Without Charges or Trial I wouldn't be so pleased with yourself.
Link it.

So I know which one you are talking about and why you are blowing it out of proportion.
Have you even read the patriot act? Yeah I didn't think so. Don't worry though, neither did Congress.
That thing?

I have read that, pffft.

I'll type something up later on that subject.
 

Ekonk

New member
Apr 21, 2009
3,120
0
0
Bring on the Two Minutes Hate - oh wait, Osama Bin Laden. Right.

Fuck you, Orwell. Fuck you for being so goddamn right.
 

Monocle Man

New member
Apr 14, 2009
631
0
0
I'm perfectly fine with such means of obtaining information, to be honest. In the same way I'm completely fine and for the idea of monitoring every square centimetre of public space (as long as none of the cameras can look into private homes, hospital rooms (halls in hospitals are okay, though) and the likes it's good.

What they do with it, that is something that should be limited.

They should not be able to look at recordings, emails, text-messages, etc. for no or personal reason
A man of the law should not be able to open the email-archives of his wife because he suspects her to cheat on him, for example.

They should not be able to view the archives of someone who they believe to be a terrorist, either. They should, however, be allowed to look into those archives if there is solid proof the person is involved in such practises.

On the subject of cameras on every public location:
The recordings may not be viewed for plain sightseeing.
They may be used however to solve crimes:
- A man stole a woman's purse ==> The woman gives the location and time of the event ==> the recording is searched ==> thief is revealed ==> thief will be followed to his current location and will be caught.

One should remember that justice and politics are separated, so politicians have no business within those archives. Only certain people from the law should have access, but only when there's enough evidence to already pin-point a certain individual, or for things like in my examples.
-Person got lost and they've got the last known location: follow that person through public places to his/her current location.
-Someone got murdered in a house: Go to the recordings of the area around the house at the time of the murder and identify all individuals leaving the house.

Additionally, a new and separate party should arise to monitor the rightful use of those archives. That party should not be allowed to see the archives, mind you.
At 11/08/2013, 15:32:14 officer X looked into the email archives of Y. Reason: Y is linked to terrorist activities (illegal guns and explosives in possession and member of the notorious Kryaohoshalala, a group who have claimed to be behind numerous bombings) ==> Rightful use

At 02/10/2014, 20:51:52 officer Z looked into the recordings of location W. Reason: Miss U's purse got stolen at blahblah ==> The archives of reported incidents do not hold this entry ==> No access granted.

Solving crimes would become much easier if the information was used properly.
 

MGlBlaze

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,079
0
0
Monocle Man said:
Solving crimes would become much easier if the information was used properly.
This is true, but think about human nature. I can guarantee you that the information will NOT be used proprtly. 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. And the sad thing is, that saying is painfully true.

They're going to monitor all online actions? Are they serious? I feel violated. I understand that it could maybe be useful for preventing maybe... one terrorist attack a year or something, but if they start taking actions on things that aren't direct threats to national security, and could threaten A LOT of lives, then I think everyone has a right to be pissed.

I bet this is the first steps towards a Ninteen-Eighty-Four situation...

While you gentlemen start blowing up Scotland with haggis and cows, I'll construct a massive plasma neutrino railgun and fire it at Parliament. A co-ordinated attack will be even more effective. I'll work on making Replicators a reality too, they're bound to wreak some havoc.=0

Okay, seriously, stop watching what we do, you voyeuristic freaks.
 

DayDark

New member
Oct 31, 2007
657
0
0
Doesn't sound particularly life controlling or threatening. Unless one is a terrorist though, I guess that would make it pretty controlling and threatening.

EDIT:

Monocle Man said:
I'm perfectly fine with such means of obtaining information, to be honest. In the same way I'm completely fine and for the idea of monitoring every square centimetre of public space (as long as none of the cameras can look into private homes, hospital rooms (halls in hospitals are okay, though) and the likes it's good.

What they do with it, that is something that should be limited.

They should not be able to look at recordings, emails, text-messages, etc. for no or personal reason
A man of the law should not be able to open the email-archives of his wife because he suspects her to cheat on him, for example.

They should not be able to view the archives of someone who they believe to be a terrorist, either. They should, however, be allowed to look into those archives if there is solid proof the person is involved in such practises.

On the subject of cameras on every public location:
The recordings may not be viewed for plain sightseeing.
They may be used however to solve crimes:
- A man stole a woman's purse ==> The woman gives the location and time of the event ==> the recording is searched ==> thief is revealed ==> thief will be followed to his current location and will be caught.

One should remember that justice and politics are separated, so politicians have no business within those archives. Only certain people from the law should have access, but only when there's enough evidence to already pin-point a certain individual, or for things like in my examples.
-Person got lost and they've got the last known location: follow that person through public places to his/her current location.
-Someone got murdered in a house: Go to the recordings of the area around the house at the time of the murder and identify all individuals leaving the house.

Additionally, a new and separate party should arise to monitor the rightful use of those archives. That party should not be allowed to see the archives, mind you.
At 11/08/2013, 15:32:14 officer X looked into the email archives of Y. Reason: Y is linked to terrorist activities (illegal guns and explosives in possession and member of the notorious Kryaohoshalala, a group who have claimed to be behind numerous bombings) ==> Rightful use

At 02/10/2014, 20:51:52 officer Z looked into the recordings of location W. Reason: Miss U's purse got stolen at blahblah ==> The archives of reported incidents do not hold this entry ==> No access granted.

Solving crimes would become much easier if the information was used properly.
Actually I guess it is kind of controlling, if it can be misused for personal gain. (the wife thing).

Some interesting thoughts, but as you say, proper use will make it a great security.
 

Icedshot

New member
Jul 13, 2009
98
0
0
Who thinks we should make a thread entitled "Lets blow up parliament" and see if we get any response? :p
 

MGlBlaze

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,079
0
0
Icedshot said:
Who thinks we should make a thread entitled "Lets blow up parliament" and see if we get any response? :p
Semi-ninja'd you. Check out my post. =P Well... okay, maybe not quite, but still.

But yes, do it, for the lulz!
 

Jedoro

New member
Jun 28, 2009
5,393
0
0
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I <3 you, Ben Franklin.
 

Monocle Man

New member
Apr 14, 2009
631
0
0
MGlBlaze said:
Monocle Man said:
Solving crimes would become much easier if the information was used properly.
This is true, but think about human nature. I can guarantee you that the information will NOT be used proprtly. 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. And the sad thing is, that saying is painfully true.

They're going to monitor all online actions? Are they serious? I feel violated. I understand that it could maybe be useful for preventing maybe... one terrorist attack a year or something, but if they start taking actions on things that aren't direct threats to national security, and could threaten A LOT of lives, then I think everyone has a right to be pissed.

I bet this is the first steps towards a Ninteen-Eighty-Four situation...
Then just don't give away absolute power.

You should not stop all research to create an almighty death-ray just because "It's human nature to blow everything up without reason" or "It's in the human nature to threaten others with it for greater fortune". You just continue the research, test it out on nearby mountains after doing many calculations so you're not going to blow up the world and lock the functioning death-ray in a great fortress in case of alien attacks.

Law uses the recordings --- People for human privacy make sure the recordings aren't misused.
 

messy

New member
Dec 3, 2008
2,057
0
0
Macksheath said:
Welcome to the modern world.

George Orwell would be spinning in his grave.
No I think you'll find history says he never existed; let a lone has a grave
 

effilctar

New member
Jul 24, 2009
1,495
0
0
Maybe it's an algorithm type of thing like if you say bomb or infidel too many times it alerts them. I intend to go out of my way to mention these over and over.
 

GeekFury

New member
Aug 20, 2009
347
0
0
Are they monitiring MSN too? If so, man they're gonna have ALOT of cyber sex stuff to get through and about 40% of it might be mine! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Enjoy that MPs!
 

SomeBritishDude

New member
Nov 1, 2007
5,081
0
0
pete240 said:
they're going to far now!
They've been going too far for too long.

Usually on these kinds of threads I'd say "I need a bigger tin foil hat" and leave at that. But you can't be light hearted about this anymore. We are living in a big brother society, a world with out real free will. It's the fear of terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, that is causing the greatest problem in modern the world.

The fact is though that this has been happening for a very, very long time, much longer than the goverment cares to admit. You may call me a conspiracy nut and leave it at that, but there is real evidence that the goverment have been tapping into out phone lines as far back as the 70's, maybe earlier. My Mum and Dad both took part in a lot of anti nuclear arms marches in there youth. In that time all the calls my Dad made sounded strange and fuzzy. Call it paranoier, or look at that facts. We can't let the goverment pull the wool over our eyes.