5 ms·

'Surveilled' by who is the bigger question, and what public access and rights do we have around the data produced, and is it being fed to some sort of Stasi sty

'Surveilled' by who is the bigger question, and what public access and rights do we have around the data produced, and is it being fed to some sort of Stasi style panopticon? It's remarkable to me the lack of public surveillance video produced after major events - the Epstein NY 'suicide' is the latest example, the 2017 UK London Bridge event another. (The latter had video from a mile away filmed with 90's technology as the main news story). I feel we are very overdue in the free world for legislation around citizen rights and access to video, and licensing for any entity or people who want to install surveillance, much like the recent drone FAA registration.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
There are plenty of surveillance (and other) videos of the London Bridge attack. The question is rather why would they publicise videos of people being stabbed to death or run over in HD gory details?
- olivermarks 7y ago
  who is 'they'? There are vey few surveillance videos of that incident publicly available. I was thinking of this one when I wrote the above https://youtu.be/BR1s7az-f-k https://youtu.be/BR1s7az-f-k
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    > There are vey few surveillance videos of that incident publicly available. Indeed. That's what I wrote. I think it's a good thing.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Why would you want to be less informed? Such information shouldn't be sensationalized or exploited for profit, but nor should it be suppressed. If you choose to kept in the dark - which is not the same thing as choosing not to look - then you are inviting deception and exploitation.
      - olivermarks 7y ago
        The lack of presented evidence feeds theories and ideas about what actually happened, strengthens local anecdotal witness word of mouth stories. Epstein is a good example of this, more questions than answers and a sudden silence from the corporate media
        cameronh90 7y ago
        There are no remotely mainstream conspiracy theories about the London Bridge attacks. There is enough trust in our police, government, legal and justice systems and journalists to assume they aren't making this up...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Because people want to know what happened and how. Otherwise liberty, accountability, and self-determination go out the window.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    We are fully informed of what happened and how, including through detailed accounts, not least because, under UK law, a public inquest took place. But, as said, I don't see the point of publicising videos of people being slaughtered.
    - a_tractor 7y ago
      What are "detailed accounts"? Do you mean witnesses? How many? Was it all of them? How do you know? What information did the public inquest provide? Did it exclude anything? Did it exclude the camera footage? What else did they not provide? Define "fully" because I am pretty sure it is quite "partial." Or do you mean "fully" in the Orwellian sense which only ever means "all you are allowed to know?" >But, as said, I don't see the point of publicising videos of people being slaughtered. So you don't see the point in allowing the public to fully inform themselves, if they so choose, by providing the entirety of known information surrounding this event, which would necessarily include all camera footage? Well, lets just hope they didn't fabricate those detailed accounts, wouldn't want to have to watch people getting slaughtered, the graphic nature of which we will have to take at the Government's word. Verifying the truth of Government statements, even as they use these events to justify vast expansions of power and broad limitations for civil liberties, is just not worth it. >Nothing to see here, folks!
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      There are numerous examples of public inquiries failing to provide a full picture of the truth which then came out many years later, eg in Northern Ireland. There's a documentary running on the BBC right now about the Troubles featuring lots of photographs and footage that were suppressed at the time. I don't care whether you see the point; if I wish to investigate a matter of public or historic interest, why should I be bound by your preferences?
hatchershoes 7y ago
Surveilled by who: everyone. Have you considered how many corporations "work with the government"? The DMV itself sells your data. Everyone is spying, hacking, and selling your data. They're watching, identifying, tabulating, and tracking. You are not free to move around without your government knowing about it. What rights do we have? None. 9/11. Terror. How many buildings fell that day? Panopticon: We've been talking about the NSA, evidence in hand, since 2013, after Clapper lied, under oath, on public television. Epstein 'suicide': the people who work behind the scenes are beholden to nobody except on paper. "Intelligence" is a free pass to do anything you want. Overdue for legislation around citizen rights: Of course, in a "free world". Do you expect anything to change? What happens when our cities are covered in drones? One for each person maybe. The CIA had dragonfly drones in the 1970s. In the last five years, we have erected surveillance cameras and tracking sensors absolutely everywhere, in plain sight, and most people somehow simply aren't aware. Others ignore or make excuses. We call politicians "public servants" but government doesn't work "for the people". Government works for government, and it get bigger every day, its budget gets bigger every day, and its power increases because its eyes see farther. Soon there will be no private space left, and people will accept it. It will be suspicious to desire privacy. We still hear a chorus of out-of-touch masses bellowing the programmed refrain "Well, I have nothing to hide". We are reminded that "If you see something, say something". Report anything that does not conform to your idea of normalcy. Get a doorbell cam and connect it with the police. Trust your government. We are entering the end of the road.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

There are plenty of surveillance (and other) videos of the London Bridge attack. The question is rather why would they publicise videos of people being stabbed to death or run over in HD gory details?

olivermarks 7y ago
who is 'they'? There are vey few surveillance videos of that incident publicly available. I was thinking of this one when I wrote the above https://youtu.be/BR1s7az-f-k https://youtu.be/BR1s7az-f-k
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > There are vey few surveillance videos of that incident publicly available. Indeed. That's what I wrote. I think it's a good thing.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Why would you want to be less informed? Such information shouldn't be sensationalized or exploited for profit, but nor should it be suppressed. If you choose to kept in the dark - which is not the same thing as choosing not to look - then you are inviting deception and exploitation.
    - olivermarks 7y ago
      The lack of presented evidence feeds theories and ideas about what actually happened, strengthens local anecdotal witness word of mouth stories. Epstein is a good example of this, more questions than answers and a sudden silence from the corporate media
      - cameronh90 7y ago
        There are no remotely mainstream conspiracy theories about the London Bridge attacks. There is enough trust in our police, government, legal and justice systems and journalists to assume they aren't making this up...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
anigbrowl 7y ago
Because people want to know what happened and how. Otherwise liberty, accountability, and self-determination go out the window.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  We are fully informed of what happened and how, including through detailed accounts, not least because, under UK law, a public inquest took place. But, as said, I don't see the point of publicising videos of people being slaughtered.
  - a_tractor 7y ago
    What are "detailed accounts"? Do you mean witnesses? How many? Was it all of them? How do you know? What information did the public inquest provide? Did it exclude anything? Did it exclude the camera footage? What else did they not provide? Define "fully" because I am pretty sure it is quite "partial." Or do you mean "fully" in the Orwellian sense which only ever means "all you are allowed to know?" >But, as said, I don't see the point of publicising videos of people being slaughtered. So you don't see the point in allowing the public to fully inform themselves, if they so choose, by providing the entirety of known information surrounding this event, which would necessarily include all camera footage? Well, lets just hope they didn't fabricate those detailed accounts, wouldn't want to have to watch people getting slaughtered, the graphic nature of which we will have to take at the Government's word. Verifying the truth of Government statements, even as they use these events to justify vast expansions of power and broad limitations for civil liberties, is just not worth it. >Nothing to see here, folks!
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    There are numerous examples of public inquiries failing to provide a full picture of the truth which then came out many years later, eg in Northern Ireland. There's a documentary running on the BBC right now about the Troubles featuring lots of photographs and footage that were suppressed at the time. I don't care whether you see the point; if I wish to investigate a matter of public or historic interest, why should I be bound by your preferences?

hatchershoes 7y ago

Surveilled by who: everyone. Have you considered how many corporations "work with the government"? The DMV itself sells your data. Everyone is spying, hacking, and selling your data. They're watching, identifying, tabulating, and tracking. You are not free to move around without your government knowing about it. What rights do we have? None. 9/11. Terror. How many buildings fell that day? Panopticon: We've been talking about the NSA, evidence in hand, since 2013, after Clapper lied, under oath, on public television. Epstein 'suicide': the people who work behind the scenes are beholden to nobody except on paper. "Intelligence" is a free pass to do anything you want. Overdue for legislation around citizen rights: Of course, in a "free world". Do you expect anything to change? What happens when our cities are covered in drones? One for each person maybe. The CIA had dragonfly drones in the 1970s. In the last five years, we have erected surveillance cameras and tracking sensors absolutely everywhere, in plain sight, and most people somehow simply aren't aware. Others ignore or make excuses. We call politicians "public servants" but government doesn't work "for the people". Government works for government, and it get bigger every day, its budget gets bigger every day, and its power increases because its eyes see farther. Soon there will be no private space left, and people will accept it. It will be suspicious to desire privacy. We still hear a chorus of out-of-touch masses bellowing the programmed refrain "Well, I have nothing to hide". We are reminded that "If you see something, say something". Report anything that does not conform to your idea of normalcy. Get a doorbell cam and connect it with the police. Trust your government. We are entering the end of the road.