Big Brother

Is it too late? Has technology become too prevalent in our society? Has technology (specifically pertaining to cameras) become so small and wide spread that there is no turning back.

I just read this article in my local newspaper.....
I knew cameras are widely being used, and I also heard that any “normal” everyday citizen would be extremely shocked, to say the least, if they/we knew how many cameras and satellites were watching us in any given day, but still!!

I don’t really know how I feel about this. I mean it is good if I get robbed or my car is stolen, there could be the possibility of catching the criminal if he/she was caught on tape; but I am also somewhat of a traditionalist and cringe a little at how much technology has completely changed our lives….and not for the better in my opinion. I have no problem with change, but enough is enough!! How safe does everything around us have to get? How safe does saran wrap have to get? Now they are making it without the “unsafe” metal cutting edge on the side of the box.

I just feel that large corporations are so afraid of lawsuits that they make everything so safe, among other things. I could only imagine how different things are now than they were when the “older” guys here were kids; how much less work you actually have to do because everything is being done for you.

Erm, I didn't get much of that :confused:
Ill re-read it again in a few hours and see what I think then :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by: crazywolfI have no problem with change, but enough is enough!! How safe does everything around us have to get?

??? I am much to the confused as to your qualms with technology allowing you, for instance, to live a longer life.

Nikki Barnett, 31, of Burtonsville, Md., stopped showcasing her "happy dance" in elevators after learning many of them are monitored by cameras. "I stopped doing silly things," she said. "I don't want to portray myself in a certain light."

That cracked me up.

I enjoy how she's changing WHO SHE IS because she doesn't want people to know that she sometimes enjoys being silly. It isn't that technology's bad, it's that people are stupid and petty.

Please refer to the song "1000 eyes" by Death.

No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras.

If someone would like to monitor how often I leave the house or make silly faces at my bathroom mirror,then go ahead and spy away.

I think constant satellite imaging and random privacy invasion is a bit far fetched and has little effect on the average persons life if at all.

so surveillance cams see me buy snickers bars and crap...whatever.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartNo,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras.

What if they catch the mugging on camera? Wouldn't that help identify the perpetrator?

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonWhat if they catch the mugging on camera? Wouldn't that help identify the perpetrator?

It would,but most people arn't mugged on camera...your thinking of convenient stores.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartIt would,but most people arn't mugged on camera...your thinking of convenient stores.

I'm thinking of street corners and alleyways where these new cameras would go, actually.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartNo,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras.

Simply not true; installing security cameras on certain streets has cut down crime DRAMATICALLY in New Orleans, specifically on those streets.

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovSimply not true; installing security cameras on certain streets has cut down crime DRAMATICALLY in New Orleans, specifically on those streets.

WHA CHA!!!! Technology prevails!

Pfft...so they have more incentive to take more drastic measures.A ski mask wouldn't cross thier minds would it?Great,the corner of 4th street is saved :rolleyes:

Those cameras don't suture stab wounds and stop bullets...its still better to know how to recognize and eliminate a violent attack.

Thats my main disagreement(not that anyone brought it up)...that a person should feel they have no need to be aware of anything because cameras will deter any threats.

Originally Posted by: AkiraYeah, but they make the guy with the knife or with the gun think twice about stabbing/shotting someone.

well thats the problem,such people don't care.No surveillance will stop all attacks or crimes.I'm simply saying,you shouldn't trust your saftey to cameras..unless there are turret guns on the camera's that shoot offenders once a threat is percieved by the internal CPU... then you should just run(but that might be assessed as threatening movment).

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartPfft...so they have more incentive to take more drastic measures.A ski mask wouldn't cross thier minds would it?[/quote]
You know, there's a lot of things you can wear the Quarter and nobody will bat an eye at you, but a ski mask is not one of those things.

If somebody is knocking over a 7-11, they can drive up, bail out of the car, do their business, jump back in the car and (hypothetically) make their escape and still successfully hide their identity.

However, in a lot of urban centers (especially, say the French Quarter of New Orleans), you can't do that. You have to park, you have to walk to your target/victim and and if you're walking around in 90+° weather wearing a ski mask, you're GOING to call attention to yourself, so scratch that idea.

So, why not find a victim, put on the ski mask, mug them, get away, take off the ski mask and then make your escape? Well, you can do that but the problem is that you're on OTHER cameras while you're not wearing the mask and you're just as busted just as soon as the police match your clothing to the dude in the ski mask.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartGreat,the corner of 4th street is saved :rolleyes:[/quote]
And the net effect is lower crime rates in the city without violating anybody's privacy as they are watching PUBLIC areas.



[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]Those cameras don't suture stab wounds and stop bullets...

Neither do well-lit areas nor most crowds, but both somehow manage to discourage attacks.



[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]Thats my main disagreement(not that anyone brought it up)...that a person should feel they have no need to be aware of anything because cameras will deter any threats.

So we should steer away from doing things that make potential criminals say "ahh, screw it" because if we feel safer by virtue of being safer, then we're not as safe as we were when crime rates were higher?

Originally Posted by: Raskolnikov...the problem is that you're on OTHER cameras while you're not wearing the mask and you're just as busted just as soon as the police match your clothing to the dude in the ski mask.

From what ive read,it seems these cameras are in statistical 'hot spots'.They arn't exactly in every nook and cranny...yet.

...And the net effect is lower crime rates in the city without violating anybody's privacy as they are watching PUBLIC areas.

The net effect looks great on paper.Only those 'hot spots' are somewhat safer.

...Neither do well-lit areas nor most crowds, but both somehow manage to discourage attacks.

How much would you bank on such things to keep you safe from threats?

So we should steer away from doing things that make potential criminals say "ahh, screw it" because if we feel safer by virtue of being safer, then we're not as safe as we were when crime rates were higher?

Cameras monitoring statistically high crime areas are fine.Every little bit helps(those areas).It just simply isn't good enough to walk around unaware and ignorant of potential attacks,even if they are 'reduced'.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheart

Originally Posted by: Raskolnikov...the problem is that you're on OTHER cameras while you're not wearing the mask and you're just as busted just as soon as the police match your clothing to the dude in the ski mask.[/QUOTE]
From what ive read,it seems these cameras are in statistical 'hot spots'.They arn't exactly in every nook and cranny...yet.[/quote]
And?

Are you saying we should spend our crime-fighting dollars where crimes aren't being committed?

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheart

...And the net effect is lower crime rates in the city without violating anybody's privacy as they are watching PUBLIC areas.

The net effect looks great on paper.Only those 'hot spots' are somewhat safer.

Hot spots tend to be hot spots and cold spots tend to be cold spots for reasons; namely the hot spots are usually easier and more rewarding to operate in. If you can cut back crime in those areas, you can often make a dramatic impact upon crime rates in the whole city.

Say a bad neighborhood accounts for 90% of the crime in a given city, reducing crime only 25% in just that one 'hood is a 22.5% reduction for the whole city which is substantial. If you cut it in half, that's a 45% reduction for the whole city.



[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]

...Neither do well-lit areas nor most crowds, but both somehow manage to discourage attacks.

How much would you bank on such things to keep you safe from threats?

More than I would if I were stopping for gas in "Ghost Town" (in Baton Rouge).



[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]

So we should steer away from doing things that make potential criminals say "ahh, screw it" because if we feel safer by virtue of being safer, then we're not as safe as we were when crime rates were higher?

Cameras monitoring statistically high crime areas are fine.Every little bit helps(those areas).It just simply isn't good enough to walk around unaware and ignorant of potential attacks,even if they are 'reduced'.

Look, everybody can't be martial arts experts, crack shots, fully trained EMTs and ready to break muggers in half at the drop of a hat -- nothing (outside of the crushing of muggers) would ever get done.

Nothing ever totally gets rid of crime, but cameras have been proven to discourage (and often aid in the prosecution of) everything from traffic violations to violent felonies. If there is less crime then we are safer.

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovAnd?

Are you saying we should spend our crime-fighting dollars where crimes aren't being committed?

Not at all...i'm simply saying your average street/corner is not monitored and they will never be...they are your 'average' street/corner because its not very troublesome compared to those that are,but your more likely to get attacked/mugged/killed on an average street/corner(obviously depends how much time you spend walking them).

Hot spots tend to be hot spots and cold spots tend to be cold spots for reasons; namely the hot spots are usually easier and more rewarding to operate in. If you can cut back crime in those areas, you can often make a dramatic impact upon crime rates in the whole city.

Say a bad neighborhood accounts for 90% of the crime in a given city, reducing crime only 25% in just that one 'hood is a 22.5% reduction for the whole city which is substantial. If you cut it in half, that's a 45% reduction for the whole city.

Like I said,it looks great on paper/statistics,but the criminal activity is still only reduced in those areas that are monitored and those numbers are ridiculous(yes,your just making a point I know).

More than I would if I were stopping for gas in "Ghost Town" (in Baton Rouge).

Never been to batten rouge...is it a ghost town?What are the crime rates for places considerd to be "boon docks"?Would you feel safer walking at 2:00 A.M in "Upton" Massachusetts(where a fender bender is the talk of the town) or 8:00 P.M in Boston within lights and crowds?

Look, everybody can't be martial arts experts, crack shots, fully trained EMTs and ready to break muggers in half at the drop of a hat -- nothing (outside of the crushing of muggers) would ever get done.

Nothing ever totally gets rid of crime, but cameras have been proven to discourage (and often aid in the prosecution of) everything from traffic violations to violent felonies. If there is less crime then we are safer.

My point is,people shouldn't find a false sense of absolute security just because a camera is in place.It can and does help deter the probability of an encounter,but is no replacement for good judgment and awarness...I didn't say martial arts.Thats the last thing I would recommend to anyone in a confrontation.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartNot at all...i'm simply saying your average street/corner is not monitored and they will never be...they are your 'average' street/corner because its not very troublesome compared to those that are,but your more likely to get attacked/mugged/killed on an average street/corner(obviously depends how much time you spend walking them).

what???? So your more likely to get mugged and killed on your average street/corner than on streets/corners where crime rates are higher?
That doesn't make any sense.

Like I said,it looks great on paper/statistics,but the criminal activity is still only reduced in those areas that are monitored and those numbers are ridiculous(yes,your just making a point I know).

A minute ago you were saying criminal activity isn't reduced by presence of cameras now your saying it's reduced only where cameras are. Well, if the use of cameras becomes more widespread, wouldn't that lower crime rates in more and more places, especially on your "average streets/corners" where these new cameras are going?

If criminal activity is reduced in areas that cameras monitor, then you've LOST the argument as to whether or not cameras reduce crime rates. Clearly they DO. If the use of cameras is expanded (the SUBJECT of this thread), it would lower the crime rate, period, end of discussion.

Never been to batten rouge...is it a ghost town?What are the crime rates for places considerd to be "boon docks"?Would you feel safer walking at 2:00 A.M in "Upton" Massachusetts(where a fender bender is the talk of the town) or 8:00 P.M in Boston within lights and crowds?

This doesn't really have to do with anything, but since you brought it up: Lights and crowds are a crime deterent just like cameras, so tell me again why cameras wouldn't deter violent crime if lights and crowds do?

My point is,people shouldn't find a false sense of absolute security just because a camera is in place.It can and does help deter the probability of an encounter,but is no replacement for good judgment and awarness...I didn't say martial arts.Thats the last thing I would recommend to anyone in a confrontation.

What are you talking about? Nobody's going to say: "Oh, there's a camera, so I can be an idiot and walk down the street at three am blindfolded with four hundred-dollar bills hanging out of my pocket."

My point is: Why would cameras reduce awareness? This, as opposed to crime reduction, is not statistically proven, nor does it make much sense.

I hate light pollution, being a stargazer, so consider this perspective.

International Dark Sky stance

Originally Posted by: PonyOnemy point is, you step up security in one area, the crime doesn't go away; it goes elsewhere. to truly prevent crime takes a lot more than putting in cameras and increasing beat cops; it requires better social services and better education.

What about the fact that these cameras are statistically lowering overall crime rate for the cities in which they've been placed? Perhaps if the United States justice system were a tad less lenient, than overall incentive would be reduced. For example:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/02/milwaukee.beating/index.html

Now, I will concede that some of the assailants were minors, and that the child of 10 could not be held as responsible for his own actions in as much as the other perpetrators of this crime. Sadly, this article does not mention any information on sentencing. However, I happen to know that the longest sentence given to those who were proven guilty (ALL of the accused), was seven years. A few members of this group were 18 and legal adults.

"The group caught him on the porch of a nearby house where they beat him with baseball bats, shovels, broom handles, a tree limb, a folding chair, a plastic milk crate and a rake, Jones said."

"The beating was so severe that blood was spattered onto the high porch ceiling. Young tried to get in the door of the home, Jones said, but the boys pulled him back and beat him again."

Seven years for the brutal murder of a human being. Is this the price we put on a man's life? Was Charlie Young so worthless as to give the legal adults of 18 a mere slap on the wrist? Yes, Mr. Young should not have taken matters into his own hands when the egg was thrown at him, but if that's just cause for a gang beating/murder, then the world has come to an end. It's COOL to go to prison thanks to gangster rap, especially for murder and drugs. These sick bastards probably think themselves heroic vigilantes. If the American justice system calls seven year sentences for first-degree, cold-blooded murder appropriate, than it's small wonder we need to lower the crime rate.

Even if you don't believe in the death penalty, the price for horribly, horribly taking a life should be LIFE in prison at the very least. Criminals need retribution, potential criminals need role models, not gangster rappers.
Education is about knowledge, not about humane behavior. Yes, education will reduce crime rate if you can get kids to pay attention in school. Tell me, though, which of the following appeals more to today's youth:

1. Get an education and be something.

2. Get a gun, join a gang, sell drugs and listen to gangster rap.

Unfortunately, option 2 appeals more today because there's no such thing as a "good role model." It's popular to be a criminal, and until that changes, no amount of algebra and French II is going to inspire the youth to be something more than what they see on MTV, even though education ultimately leads to a lower crime rate. I hate to use cliches, but "where there's a will, there's a way" also works in reverse. If no will exists, there's no way something like a lower crime rate can be acheived.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonwhat???? So your more likely to get mugged and killed on your average street/corner than on streets/corners where crime rates are higher?
That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense...average streets/corners are abundant and plentiful.You spend more time on them.You have less a chance to fall off walking 5 feet of really thin rope than 5 miles of really thick(please don't over anylyze that analogy).

A minute ago you were saying criminal activity isn't reduced by presence of cameras now your saying it's reduced only where cameras are. Well, if the use of cameras becomes more widespread, wouldn't that lower crime rates in more and more places, especially on your "average streets/corners" where these new cameras are going?

eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced.Heres what I said:quote "No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras."How will the camera save you?Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd,but it won't stop an attack hence "your not safer".And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase,but the camera dosn't deserve a pat on the lens.Life isn't a "world's most shocking video's" show where every crook is identified and caught by surveillance cameras and everything ends well.Mabey this was misunderstood some posts ago?

If criminal activity is reduced in areas that cameras monitor, then you've LOST the argument as to whether or not cameras reduce crime rates. Clearly they DO. If the use of cameras are expanded (the SUBJECT of this thread), it would lower the crime rate, period, end of discussion.

There is no argument that they reduce crime rates.The SUBJECT(which seems to change in threads if you notice)will never come to pass(that being your average street/corner nook and cranny being monitored).Why?Because they are 'average'.

This doesn't really have to do with anything, but since you brought it up: Lights and crowds are a crime deterent just like cameras, so tell me again why cameras wouldn't deter violent crime if lights and crowds do?

Your right,it has nothing to do with anything.Again,I never said cameras don't deter crime.

What are you talking about? Nobody's going to say: "Oh, there's a camera, so I can be an idiot and walk down the street at three am blindfolded with four hundred-dollar bills hanging out of my pocket."

My point is: Why would cameras reduce awareness? This, as opposed to crime reduction, is not statistically proven, nor does it make much sense.

hmmm..in what case would someone do that :confused: (mabey extremely drunk..?)

Your point is:Why would cameras reduce awareness?Because they promote a false sense of security.I personally,will not rely on a 'reduced chance' of being attacked and be unaware of my surroundings,possible threats e.c.t."Oh my GAWD,i'm shocked that something like that could happen.I don't believe it!There was a camera there!" :eek: