A Balancing Force to Mass Surveilance? 150
moerty asks: "The advent and application of video surveillance by governments on its peoples has been a worrying trend in western society. The recent incident with the use of tasers on a UCLA student has highlighted a shift of power where surveillance in the hands of civilians can be used as an equalizing tool against government oppression. What are the best optic/sound capture devices for such a situation? A plus is having a device that is inconspicuous, since photographers are usually targeted due to the visibility of their cameras. What about off-site storage and the hosting of such videos? As a follow-up, what organizations exist that encourage the use of the camera as an equalizing tool?"
I support cameras. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have videotaped local law enforcement a few times in the past year as I've been working on a "free" viral documentary I've been hoping to put on YouTube to gain some support for both citizen surveillance of the State, as well as the ridiculousness of the State most of the time. I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor. You can't beat that. But the fourth time I was actually questioned for a full 20 minutes by the officer (or a radio'd in backup) as to what exactly I was doing.
I explained that the officer was on private property (usually a parking lot), as was I. Just as the officer didn't ask for prior approval, neither had I, but I would happily leave if the owner of the property told me to (or posted signs to the effect of telling me I can't be there). Since neither occurred, I felt I had ever reason to watch the police who watch us. The officer said I could be arrested for trespass and for violating the officer's privacy. I explained to the near-arresting officer that no one has privacy of transport in public as long as they're on public property or on someone else's private property. I do believe you have the "right" to privacy within your home (close the shades), but the minute you leave your property, you're on someone's land, and that person has the right to dictate what can be done on their property. That didn't jive with the officer, but he let me go (as if he ever really had me in custody). Unbelievable.
I feel we should be watching ourselves more closely. I had a rear-camera on my old truck to back it up easier, and I'd happily use it to record if I felt I needed to. I've even come out supporting the idea of the State IF and ONLY IF everyone who works for the State had to be under constant surveillance -- constant. Public IP cameras in the mayor's office and car. Public IP cameras in the DMV. Public IP cameras following the President. Let amateurs watch them, if they wish, and tag them and bookmark them and watch those watching us. If the public official has a lot of power, they should be watched even on their private time -- no bribery, no scandals, no cheating, no lying. Get them in their kitchen, get them in their meetings. The public should have privacy, but the public official should have none. Zero. They're our employees, right? They have the power to tax/steal from us, right? They have the power to imprison/enslave us, right? We should know what they're doing -- all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I agreed with you on this until jdavidb reminded me that as an anarcho-capitalist that is also a Christian, violence towards another is absolutely not the answer. Jesus was very specific about living by the sword, turning the other cheek to our enemies, and loving all even those who don't love us. Self-defense really has no weight for me anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, definitely not. I am insured against as many crimes as possible, so why would it matter if the "evil doer" was caught or not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, definitely not. I am insured against as many crimes as possible, so why would it matter if the "evil doer" was caught or not?
Re: (Score:2)
I for one have been stomped on so hard by not aggressively protecting myself (not with guns per se.) that I refuse to be an absolute pacifist. I understand your philosophy and I genuinely wish you the best of luck.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
"If he has no sword, he should sell his cloak and buy one."
As a Christian who carries a gun every day, I understand that being a peaceful person does not mean giving up my own right to life.
Prophecy misread. (Score:2)
That is one that a lot of Christians are confused on, IMHO. Christ was telling them these things in order to fulfill prophecy -- the prophecy that he would reside among criminals. Also remember that he told his followers to steal a purse, too. Do you use scripture to promote theft? Read it for what it is -- fulfillent of prophecy, not the right to harm another.
It doesn't surprise me that the Christian Right is so wrong -- they seem to have read
Re: (Score:2)
Hi!
Could you give me pointers to that sword and purse? I wish to read it for myself. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, sorry for not getting this. What is "self moderation"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I support cameras. (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh*
Someday... someday...
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:3, Interesting)
It drives me crazy the people that advocate a single solution (their own personal form of extremism) to the problems of the world. "Passive resistance worked for Ghandi, it must always work!." Or "War worked for the American Revolution, it must always work!". Or "Capitalism works to lower the price of tube socks to $2 a dozen, it must always work!".
Re: (Score:2)
What? You think I'm being sarcastic?
I'm not talking about your bland version of capitalist exploitation evil. I'm talking about mass graves, piles of heads, pools of blood evil, like the good old days with Lenin and Hitler.
Ahhhh, those were good times.
Now get back to work convincing people to be meek sheep, I can only wait so long...
Re: (Score:2)
Not a Christian myself, but I think that he may be OK for leaving the sword and getting a FAL, G3, or similar...
Re:I support cameras. (Score:4, Insightful)
Matthew 10:34: (Jesus instructs his followers) Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 26:51-54 (Judas betrays Jesus to the high preists) Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?"
It is certainly plausible based on the second passage quoted that Jesus had no problem with his followers carrying swords, but didn't want them using them in that particular circumstance. The first quote above is general doctrine the second is regarding the specific circumstances of his arrest. Then again, one can plausibly interpret the first quote allegorically, but then you're on that slippery slope that leads all to quickly to "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" territory. After all, any Inquisitor would tell you with a straight face and pure heart that torturing heretics until they repented was an act of love, because the heretic's immortal soul was being saved from eternal damnation.
So it would be wrong to think that Jesus was very clear on the matter of swords and violence. There is very, very little in the Bible that is clear and unambiguous, and believing there is clarity in the Bible is a sure sign one is at risk of becoming a danger to oneself and others.
WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod this whole meta-judeochristian-philisophical-wtfbbqry down. Including this post.
BOMBS AWAY. Make sure to use all five of your points. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The New Age/Convenant revolves around a few new thoughts: peace to all, love to all, sharing when asked for,
Vicious Morays (Score:3, Funny)
>against one who's morays are not in line with the west, well I'll take a .45
Yeah, those damn eels are nasty bastards, what with those teeth and big jaw muscles. I usually don't carry my .45 underwater even though it's stainless. Your dive knife is good enough for most problems, but a bang stick can be handy. Just keep your hands out of the holes, and you'll be OK.
Or, were you talking about "mores"?
So you know the difference (Score:2)
And an Eel bites your knee,
That's a morey.
When our habits are strange
And our customs deranged
That's our mores.
A New Zealander man
with a permanent tan,
That's a Maori.
Thanks Spider, I'd never have known the difference without ya!
Re: (Score:2)
Not to nit-pick, but Islam no more teaches violence and martyrdom than Christianity does.
Some governments and clerics in Mulsim countries do, but then Christian Pro-Life demonstrators murder abortion clinic workers, fundamentalist televangelists openly preach assassination of world leaders, and nominally christ
Chasing out the money changers (Score:2)
As for why He told people to leave the temple, there IS a debate as to whether or not He was doing it
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say that he whipped the moneychangers.
Re: (Score:2)
You can reject the initiation of force while reserving the right to defense.
Sure, except you cannot defend yourself with a gun --- they're purely offensive weapons. You can defend yourself with a sword against another sword, or a knife (if you're good) against another knife, but with a gun your only options are (a) to try to shoot someone (and therefore risk killing them) and (b) to not try to shoot them.
You can use a gun as a deterrent, but that's a drastically different thing, and frequently not a v
Re: (Score:2)
1. To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
Shooting someone who is trying to hurt you certainly qualifies.
Self Defense (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a strange way of thinking. I think you have an incomplete understanding of "defense."
You say you can defend yourself with a sword against another sword. Typical of the gun banner
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're more likely to get shot.
Maybe, if
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's really not.
Ther
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've fought a guy with a knife before; and I do it in practice all the time. An untrained idiot with a knife can get lucky, but is not as dangerous as most martial artists would have you believe. The trick is to disarm them before they can close to grappling range, (or knife-fighting range, I suppose), because grappling with a knife is luck of the draw.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'm not going to play my dick's bigger than yours is. You are obviously confident of your abilities, yet what you say tells me that your experience and perception is built primarily upon tr
Re: (Score:2)
That's entirely my point. A knife, unlike a gun, does not drastically change the paradigm of hand to hand combat. I would even go so far as to argue that most people with knives 'aren't h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's silly. When dealing with a knife, it is vastly easier for any given attack to cause serious injury or death. Moreover, it requires far less force to do damage of whatever level, and therefore attacks can be faster, less committed, and carried out by someone smaller and physically weaker with the same effects.
A gun, in contrast, makes almost no difference to "hand-to-hand" combat. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
defend /dfnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-fend]
-verb (used with object)
1. to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually fol. by from or against): The sentry defended the gate against sudden attack.
So, the phrase "I defended myself from the knife wielding maniac, who was hell-bent on stabbing me, by shooting him with my gun." is a completely correct usage of the word defend.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a self-perpetuating cycle. As the police become more willing to use force, their opponents will be more willing to use force, thus allowing the police to justify using even more force, and so on and so f
Re: (Score:2)
It's a self-perpetuating cycle. As the police become more willing to use force, their opponents will be more willing to use force, thus allowing the police to justify using even more force, and so on and so forth.
Yup. This is one of the reasons why the British police are so strongly against the idea of arming policemen on the beat. (And it's the beat policemen who feel this way, not the managers.) As soon as policemen become armed, they become more dangerous, which means that criminals have to respond by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would look really good with a decent camera instead of an elderly camcorder.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor.
Are you implying that if the officers were not trying to catch speeders they would have been able to prevent a "real" crime
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is my worst fear about cameras: people seem to be assuming everyone is a criminal unless there is eveidence to the contrary now. If a camera didn't see you do it, it must be because you were hiding from it. How else can you prove your innocence?
Not necessarily (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing for you to see here, please move along.
Government oppression is alive and well, apparently.
In all seriousness, miniaturization of surveillance technology is a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, we can have cell-phone cameras that can record police brutality. However, the government gets access to the same technology, allowing them to monitor us more easily as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is well-taken. However, this stuff is much more dangerous in the hands of a government. The insidious thing about surveillance in public isn't so much the surveillance itself -- after all, anyone can see you walking down the street already -- it's the systematic collection and analysis of such material, and the conclusions drawn and implications made as a result. Governments have the resources to do that to individuals, and must be stopped from abusing this at all costs. Individuals, by their nat
best device (Score:3, Interesting)
even if you miss it, you can keep the last 30 seconds....
where to buy (Score:2)
You can't offset systematic surveillance with luck (Score:5, Insightful)
However, nobody who argues that we should chuck privacy argues that we should chuck it for everyone. They're really more interested in turning privacy from a right into a commodity, that some people can buy and others have to go without.
Sure, sometimes you can catch a bad cop in the act. Good. But you can't catch the people you really need to watch; the people who control the surveillance network.
Re:You can't offset systematic surveillance with l (Score:2)
No, but you can make them liable for it. For instance, when a cop covers up their dashboard cam (or just turns it off in places where they're allowed to) and something happens, or when all of the footage in the subway station where the cops just shot some Brazilian guy mysteriously disappears, the people who were responsible for that should immediately and irrevocably lose their jobs. Sure, you might g
Ad-Hoc has some value (Score:5, Interesting)
I can give an example from personal experience:
Back in 1994, I was asked to go along with some logging protesters to video the protest. I called this 'safety video' because the intention was to visibly document the protest to discourage loggers from engaging in vigilante violence. We never considered the possibility of violence on the part of the police.
There were actually two of us doing video. Two people had chained themselves into cement barrels, and a couple of other people. Apparently there was a 3 year old injunction discouraging people from blocking the logging, so the cops showed up with the rep from the logging company and held us on the bridge while the logging company guy read the injunction to us and handed us copies. The second video guy was actually eager to get off the bridge and left as soon as the police allowed him to. I moved a bit more slowly (dealing with power problems on my camera).
As I got off of the bridge, I heard a disturbance behind me. It turns out that the RCMP had arrested the other camera guy as he was leaving the bridge. I turned around to film him being stuffed into a police car as he protested "but I was trying to leave!". The lead officer (Sgt. Bruce Waite) turned around, saw me filming and challenged me "I thought I told you to to leave!".
"OK", I said. I shrugged, put down my camera (but did not turn it off) and turned to walk further down the road. As I was walking away, he ordered another police officer to arrest me. I turned around and protested that I was (a) off of the bridge and off the road, and (b) walking away, but after he insisted (3 or 4 times) that the other officer arrest me, I was finally arrested.
I was charged with contempt of court (violating an injunction). In his papers to the judge, the Seargent claimed that I had refused to leave the bridge. If I hadn't kept my camera running, I probably would have been convicted (his word against mine). Faced with my video, charges against me were dropped.
After me and the other cameraman were arrested, and out of the way, the Seargent Waite ) turned around and assaulted the two people who were chained into barrels. It turns out that he had a history of being sued for assaulting prisoners (mostly natives).
If it hadn't been for my video to put Sgt. Waite's testimony into question, the whole case would have probably turned out a whole lot different.
Re: (Score:2)
Carry a taser (Score:2)
Sounds like a nice way to get shot. (Score:2)
Imagine if another student had tasered the rent-a-cop to get them to stop tasering the student over and over.
I think the video camera was a far more effective weapon. Tasering the cop would have only resulting in the other cops either all tasering the guy dumb enough to taser cop #1, or more likely the other cops shooting and killing the student with the taser. The cops would then just claim the whole thing was in self defense, and without video of the incident they'd probbably get away with it. (Courts
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or use mace then. My point is everyone stood around picking their noses instead of helping the student.
I saw the video too, and that's not exactly true. There were several students asking for badge numbers, obviously one guy taping the whole thing (which later got submitted to youtube).
You seem to think the only problem is the immediate one of a student being tasered. That's obviously horrible, but I see the main problem as the police tasering people un-necessarily. There's probbably not a lot anyone cou
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I guess you are right. Hopefully those cops and their families will be plunged into financial ruin defending themselves in court and the kid who got tasered will be able to retire wealthy before he graduates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the difference between the two would be:
The cop tasering the student was RIGHT, but the student tasering the cop would be WRONG.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
This is such a duh, obvious cut and dry case that anyone who thinking the student DIDNT deserve to get tasered multiple times must be delusional.
The rule is: if you want to be in the computer lab, you have to have ID. That's the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, he wasn't asked to leave by the cops, he was asked to leave by a librarian.
Second. He was on his way out when the cops (LAPD) did show up and they grabbed him.
Third. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to stand up after repeatedly being tasered? Not 10 minutes later, not 1 minute later, not even 30 seconds later.
Go ahead... be happy with your authoritarian friends. Maybe I'll just look the other way when you're being tortured.
-metric
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not authoritarian at all. When the police really do abuse their power, I'm just as mad as anyone. Fortunately, this wasn't such a case. Post a slashdot article when someone really gets abused and I'm all about it. A whiny little bitch learning that the earth doesn't revolve around him doesn't make me particularly angry.
Re: (Score:2)
The police officer has ZERO authority to dole out punishment. That is completely in the realm of the courts. The job of the officer is subduction of the criminal. Any officer that doesn't understand this, yourself included, has no business wearing that badge you hide behind.
Civil police officers hold a very sacred place in society. We give you a measure of authority as our civil servants to perform the vigilant duty of preventing c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no lasting motor disruption.
Tell that to all the people that have DIED because of being tased along with other illnesses unknown to a taser-happy cop. A cop who thinks there is no lasting motor disruption.
-metric
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. Their job is to investigate crimes, arrest suspects, and deliver them to trial. The courts take care of deciding guilt or innocence and handing out appropriate punishment. The taser is a less-than-lethal weapon should be used to subdue suspects, not to punish them.
The kid they tasered was no
Re: (Score:2)
not at all! It's no more the cops job to give someone "what they deserve" than it is a bus driver's job to give a jaywalker "what he deserves."
HOWEVER, if you step in front of a bus, you're going to get what you deserve, and I'm not going to feel sorry for you.
Well, I mean, if you didn't see the bus that'd be one thing, but if you just think you're special and traffic needs to stop for you, then fuck you, fuck you right in the
Re: (Score:2)
These cops could have stopped or chosen some other course of action. They should be held responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you bother to type that if you weren't going to provide an example of what the cops could do? It sounds like you don't want to have a discussion, you just want to argue.
If you have a suggestion then please post it.
1. obviously talking to the guy didn't work
2. obviously they had trouble carrying him
Re: (Score:2)
From where do you infer this? Every source i have read says they never tried to carry him and he took no violent or threatening action.
Carry him is exactly the suggestion i would have made. It's so obvious that even you figured it out. Stop creating excuses for the cops.
You're joking, right? (Score:2)
Re:Carry a taser (Score:4, Informative)
1) The student didn't forget his ID. He refused to show it, because it's a stupid rule and because he felt he was being singled out for his ethnicity.
2) The police didn't ask to see his ID. A librarian did. By the time the police got there, the student was heading out the door, but the cop couldn't resist putting a hand on him. That's no way to treat someone who is already complying with your requests, because it escalates the situation. The cops escalated the situation repeatedly.
3) The students surrounding the cops seemed far less concerned about their term papers than about the flagrant abuse the cops were inflicting on an unresisting student who posed no threat to them.
4) You say that after the first tazering, he still didn't "grow up." In fact, the problem was that he didn't *get* up, which is hard to do after being hit with a stun gun, and even harder after three or four blasts. Of course, at this point he was already handcuffed, and couldn't pose any threat to anything except for the
5) The cop in question was actually the reason the UCLA cops were carrying tasers in the first place. He'd previously been suspended for three months after fatally shooting a homeless man. I'm sure the guy gave the cop lip, though. So he obviously deserved it.
I'm amazed that you're more concerned with a student being "a whiny bitch" than a cop denigrating his own profession and abusing a citizen. But given how you recount the events with such utter relish, my amazement is tempered by the realization that you're basically an idiot, and your opinion doesn't count for much.
Re: (Score:2)
true, but what he did was not for any higher purpose. He wasn't a protestor. He was just another student. The only difference was, he forgot his ID. If he had behaved like an adult and treated others with respect none of that would have happened to him.
In any case, it's not OK to back up procedural rules like this with violence.
ok then, enlighten me, fill in the blank:
cop: excuse me sir, may I see your ID
kid: leave
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to comprehend that the officers' choice was not simply:
A) taser
B) walk away
There were many other options that involved resolving the situation with less disruption and less violence. Getting tasered is not the inescapable consequence of not showing your ID when an officer ask
Re: (Score:2)
There were plenty of officers there to carry him out. There was no need to use "pain compliance," because there was no real need for the student's immediate compliance, so long as he wasn't physically violent. Anyone who can't handle getting yelled at without breaking out the painstick is a... how should I put this? A wuss. As is anyone who gets a rag
TMobile MDA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The image lag you get is awful, the shutter speed (for stills) means that you pretty much have to set it on a stationary object, or it's going to be blurry. And don't even think about using it without plenty of light.
I haven't mess with video all that much, but it doesn't seem too much better. And you can't get more than 30 seconds out of it without registry hack
Re: (Score:2)
Direct cell-to-youtube uploads? (Score:2)
Of course by off-site hosting the poster presumably means getting the video persisted somewhere off the re
Video away... (Score:2)
Witness.org (Score:4, Informative)
The Panopticon Flourishes (Score:3, Informative)
He predicted that, as technology increased, the panopticon would become ever more pervasive and ever more invasive. That was a few decades ago. Sure enough!
The trick is, as others have mentioned,that as technology becomes more and more advanced, that people who were traditionally in the position of "guards" are now safely monitored in their own panopticon. Case in point, the nanny-cam.
I say let it roll! I say let's get every politician, police officer, judge, corporate CEO, etc. wired for audio and video and have it stream to the internet 24/7! If we can't hide, then neither can they.
No, people stop for two reasons: (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, they stop because they're aware of their fallibility. Just because it's three o'clock in the morning and they didn't notice any headlights on the cross street while they were approaching the intersection doesn't mean that there's no oncoming traffic.
I've been surprised by supposedly intelligent people I ride with who don't use their signals when changing lanes. The rationale is frequently "I already looked and there's nobody there, so I don't need to signal." My response is invariably the same "Haven't you ever started to change lanes and then seen someone you didn't realize was in your blind spot? That person has no way of knowing you're about to clobber them if you don't signal." The response is usually a non sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I say let it roll! I say let's get every politician, police officer, judge, corporate CEO, etc. wired for audio and video and have it stream to the internet 24/7! If we can't hide, then neither can they.
That would be the panspectrum then...which in comparison to the panopticum doesn't just 'suggest' that you could be being watched, but watches you constantly, or more precisely just records everything you or anyone else does 24/7.
But a question I need to ask, even if everything would get recorded (and in today's world a lot already does!), who cares?
What are the consequences? And more importantly, do all those cameras not make peaple forget their obligation to react when they see injustice?
The UCLA-inciden
Quis custodiet custodiens? (Score:2)
People should have equal access to cameras. And in the face of criminal charges, the accused does have the right of subpoena and full access to any and all exculpatory evidence. When the Persecutor isn't being malfeasant, as they frequently are on TV.
Cellphone cams (Score:2)
I'm not sure 100% how the video works, but I'd be very pleased if providers offered
David Brin - Credit Where It's Due (Score:2)
Brin (Score:3, Informative)
Any way to continuously upload images/video? (Score:2)
Best way to get our government to change course... (Score:2)
Surveil our senators, department secretaries, everyone. At all times.
After a quarter of them gets caught with hookers, the whole surveillance thing will go tits up RIGHT quick
Limited Offer! (Score:2)
near infinite audio recording (Score:2)
1 audacity software package = $0
1 felony for secret recording = 2-4 in fed pen, thousands in fines
A clear audio recording your soon to be ex-wife telling you that she wants
you to have no access to your children = priceless
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:2)
at the point maybe
wetube
(mod redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
They were fine to eject him from the building. A tazer is an incapacitation device, it is not a cattle prod for students. They should have carried him out of there after the first taze and called it a day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
-nB