In response to the earlier Slashdot article which argues that innovation has slowed down...there is now a risk of Skodas exceeding the speed limit. I'd call that progress.
In addition to the countless video cameras watching every moment of daily life, starting today, GPS units will be implanted in every infant born prior to handing the child over to the mother.
This is considered important in the fight agains crime as it will allow police to instantly know who was at a crime scene at any given moment. Scotland Yard said that the GPS units do not infringe on citizens' rights as the data will only be used for tracking down criminals. The average citizen who does not break th
Cameras in public aren't too threatening - after all, it's public, where expectations of privacy come only from one's incompetence at spotting voyeurs, or their incompetence at staring. Embedding spies in private vehicles is across that essential line, even if it starts out voluntary. Only rich people will be able to speed, or even just afford to avoid the surveillance. Until the "nondiscount" fees are unaffordable.
The real invasion of this system is that the raw data will be used not only to trigger a GPS speed limit. No, it will inevitably be used to halt cars driven speeders, then suspects of other crimes, then any "person of interest" to the police, or their political bosses. The stored records will be used to track people wherever they drive. The entire population will be tracked everywhere we go, and people's sense of privacy will go extinct.
Cameras in public are also nearly useless. They've only rarely, if ever, proven useful to catch a crime in progress, and are not particularly useful in court. They're a massive subsidy to the camera manufacturers, and that's about it.
In addition to reducing the number of people who run red lights, the red light cameras are very effective at two things:
(1) Generating revenue.
(2) Increasing rear end collisions at intersections because people are SO afraid of "running" a yellow light (and sometimes because the yellow light interval is conveniently short - to understand this, see point 1)
While I don't know for certain how effective red-light cameras are, the cameras to which I was referring are the cameras deployed around Britain and now some American cities in an attempt to either catch crimes as they happen or to provide evidence at a trial of the alleged crime.
However, I have been nailed by the cameras in the EZPass lanes. Those are quite effective.
They are pretty good, when the system behind them is working. In NJ, the system was so bad that for at least a whole month, no violation notices were sent out. This was after many people started receiving violations with a picture that was not their car. AFAIK, they've worked out most of the kinks (after hiring a new contractor and wasting millions).
The real invasion of this system is that the raw data will be used not only to trigger a GPS speed limit. No, it will inevitably be used to halt cars driven speeders, then suspects of other crimes, then any "person of interest" to the police, or their political bosses. The stored records will be used to track people wherever they drive. The entire population will be tracked everywhere we go, and people's sense of privacy will go extinct.
Last time I checked, GPS devices don't send a signal to the GPS sate
GPS terminals are only receivers, that's true. But installing them is the big hurdle in invading our privacy. Adding telemetry transmitters will be a much easier followup. Especially when they're bundled with "free" info services, like traffic directions.
Take off your fuzzy blinders - you're starting to boil, slowly, under the magnifying glass.
Since streets are added and speed limits changed with some regularity, it will obviously be necessary to have a way of updating the "in car map" w/o user intervention.
Thus, before the system is deployed, it seems likely that the boxes will accept data via some widely deployed wireless system. By adding a serial number to each box, a little software, and allowing the police to put a "set governor max speed to 0 kph and override the disable switch for device with serial # xxx for the next 2 hours" message in
Cameras in public aren't too threatening - after all, it's public, where expectations of privacy come only from one's incompetence at spotting voyeurs, or their incompetence at staring.
That is only true up to a point. It is not natural for all your movements through anywhere public to be logged in some centralised database for future reference.
The stored records will be used to track people wherever they drive. The entire population will be tracked everywhere we go, and people's sense of privacy w
We have yet to get to a watershed in our info society which forces the issue of info storage. There are lots of authentication checkpoints that don't threaten people's rights. But the persistence of that info, and its abuse, does threaten people's rights. Recent ID info debacles, where the exposed personal info was stored unnecessarily by authenticators beyond the authentication transaction, haven't yet caused unavoidable public pressure. So it'll have to be something really big, like hundreds of millions o
" after all, it's public, where expectations of privacy come only from one's incompetence at spotting voyeurs, or their incompetence at staring."
There are two kinds of privacy, and they're getting mixed up every time this issue comes up. There is a privacy that comes from not being seen or having one's presence otherwise perceived by fellow humans. You don't have this kind of privacy in a public place, granted. You only have it some kind of seclusion.
But there is another kind of privacy - that comes from not being monitored and/or identified. From not being *watched*. Unless you have police or a private eye tailing you, in a modern city you're almost perfectly anonymous, even as you're being seen by hundreds of people, likewise anonymous to you.
I would argue that the latter kind of privacy is far more important and it certainly is the kind we're losing. This is the kind of privacy you lose when being monitored by CCTV, spyware, cookies, RFID, whatever technology does these days. Even if it doesn't identify you by name, it identifies you by a number of characteristics that's sufficient for purpises of marketing, law-enforcement and, if anyone wants, invigilation.
The privacy of one's private property, like one's house, is much more important than any privacy in public. That's not to say that the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" isn't also important. Nor is the necessity of "due process", where "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause", or other evidence-based causes for state monitoring, as judged by a judge, documented for defense, and rescindable.
But public places are, as you mention, defined by witnesses. Being seen in public means one's action
I don't know who's watching me from behind those sunglasses on the subway, or crossing the street, either. I don't want them keeping recordings, or cross-referencing me without due process. But I don't appear in public under the delusion that I'm not watched, just because I'm not watching.
I have no inherent problem with speed limits (except that the stupid blanket 70mph limit [speedlimit.org.uk] was supposed to be *temporary* (yeah, right!)
Instead of tracking the whereabouts of every car (which is a gross intrustion of privacy IMHO) then why not have a speed limiter system built into cars that responds to local transponders (or digital maps + GPS). In this way, cars can't speed but neither will everyone's location be logged by our big brother state. Oh, I'm sorry is that a problem - safety-wise? I guess t
Cameras in public aren't too threateningTake that back NOW
They did not used to be threatening, but now they are used to spot people stopping on red routes. So long as you are not actually moving (eg stopped to shift a drink bottle from under the pedals), In London, they can and will take your picture and send you a £80 fine. If you pay within 7 days, you get to pay £40. If you argue its a minimum of £80. And since they dont accept your arguments. you might as well pay the £40.
Why would I take that back? It's the public, where you can be seen doing things. Any expectation of privacy in public (don't you hear the contradiction?) comes only from the relative competence of the observers, not the nature of the place. If they just put more police out, they'd catch you anyway - this way they multiply their force with cameras. If you don't like the law, change the law. Don't just rely on "they can't bust all of us", because they can. When bad laws are on the books, no one is safe. Inste
E911 services offer crude GPS, with a transmitter. And new calibrated signal parallax techniques allow further triangulation on the phone's radio signal. Plus they're mic'd. So those phones are perfect little spies.
This is why we need much more secure privacy laws. The Fourth Amendment clearly states our rights to be "secure" in our private posessions, but the government has safely ignored that more and more for generations. We need a new Amendment that states that our right to privacy is inviolable in our
I undestand your concern. I think that this is obviously going to result in a loss of individual privacy (not sure exactly how much).
The way I look at it, the benefits need to be weighed against the losses. Personally I would gladly trade part of my freedom/privacy if it would result in a significant reduction in road accidents/deaths, but I can understand that many people would not feel the same.
I think this plan would never be accepted in the USA, due to the emphasis that exists there on personal f
Why don't you move to a country, like Syria, which has traded its freedom for security? What keeps you in a country which foolishly values freedom more than auto safety?
I was trying to make a constructive comment and further the discussion. Clearly you are not. I am guessing that you are fom the USA and that you place a higher value on personal freedom than I do, which is fine. But there is no need to be cheeky about it. I am not going to abuse you about the 'freedoms' you enjoy in your own country (although it wouldn't be too difficult).
No, you are so defensive that you won't answer a legitimate question, preferring to treat it as rhetorical abuse. It's not abuse to call you on your own assertion.
Most people who want to change their country, and who are asked why they don't go to another country where that change is already in effect, can honestly answer that they want their own country to "get better", rather than leave. They point out that one feature of their country that they value is their freedom to change it, or the other freedoms
So I'd like to know what your reasons are for valuing your own country more than you'd value a country where freedoms are lowered, with consequently higher auto safety.
As far as I know there is no country (yet) which has lowered the freedoms of its people, resulting in 'higher auto safety'. Are you suggesting that Syria has 'higher auto safety' (whatever that is?) than the country in which I live?
But you explicitly value those freedoms lower than, say, auto safety
By "higher auto safety", I am referring to "a significant reduction in road accidents/deaths", that you say is worth "[trading] part of [your] freedom/privacy". It turns out that our entire disagreement is irrelevant. Less freedom does not correlate with higher traffic safety [faqs.org] (look for "data are all 1993"). So we don't have hard numbers on which to begin to debate whether "less freedom" of your country, possibly Belgium or France, would become more like Syria or more like Switzerland. I'd say that Syria (or
If you want to defend your assertions, you have to defend them
Not so, I seem to remember a bunch of American scientists who refused to enter into debate with a bunch of Bible bashing lunatics over the legitimacy of the theory of evolution by natural selection. An apt quote to express their feelings on the matter:
'don't argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who' - Jay-Z
Which is precisely what I intend to do in this case, because you clearly are a fool if you think
OK, after all your whining about how I "abuse" you when I ask you to back up your assertions, how I "goad" you, while I merely compete with your desire to give up your freedom so you can have better traffic safety, you finally whip out direct, irrelevant insults. Of me, of my country. While I continue to indulge in rational debate.
I won't call you a pussy cryptofascist surrender-coward asshole. Or compare your prized Swiss "neutrality" in WWII, playing banker to Hitler, to the complicity of the Bush family
Ooh you big tough American, I am in awe of your power! How wrong of me to dare to engage *you* in debate, either that, or maybe I realised that you are a vacuous idiot who can not accept that people have different philosophies, and won't even accept my reasonable points.
Until you get in the way, when you'll be exterminated
Are you going to exterminate me? I am so scared that a pseudo-nerd is going to exterminate me.
It is obvious (to me anyway) that I am nothing to you, and that you are nothing to m
"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers*
from it."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Skodas! (Score:5, Funny)
Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1, Funny)
This is considered important in the fight agains crime as it will allow police to instantly know who was at a crime scene at any given moment. Scotland Yard said that the GPS units do not infringe on citizens' rights as the data will only be used for tracking down criminals. The average citizen who does not break th
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:5, Insightful)
The real invasion of this system is that the raw data will be used not only to trigger a GPS speed limit. No, it will inevitably be used to halt cars driven speeders, then suspects of other crimes, then any "person of interest" to the police, or their political bosses. The stored records will be used to track people wherever they drive. The entire population will be tracked everywhere we go, and people's sense of privacy will go extinct.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
I've been under the impression that those were effective. Could be wrong, though.
However, I have been nailed by the cameras in the EZPass lanes. Those are quite effective.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
(1) Generating revenue.
(2) Increasing rear end collisions at intersections because people are SO afraid of "running" a yellow light (and sometimes because the yellow light interval is conveniently short - to understand this, see point 1)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
While I don't know for certain how effective red-light cameras are, the cameras to which I was referring are the cameras deployed around Britain and now some American cities in an attempt to either catch crimes as they happen or to provide evidence at a trial of the alleged crime.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
I prefer the traditional alternative - policemen on the streets.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
They are pretty good, when the system behind them is working. In NJ, the system was so bad that for at least a whole month, no violation notices were sent out. This was after many people started receiving violations with a picture that was not their car. AFAIK, they've worked out most of the kinks (after hiring a new contractor and wasting millions).
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
Last time I checked, GPS devices don't send a signal to the GPS sate
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2, Insightful)
Take off your fuzzy blinders - you're starting to boil, slowly, under the magnifying glass.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2, Interesting)
Thus, before the system is deployed, it seems likely that the boxes will accept data via some widely deployed wireless system. By adding a serial number to each box, a little software, and allowing the police to put a "set governor max speed to 0 kph and override the disable switch for device with serial # xxx for the next 2 hours" message in
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
That is only true up to a point. It is not natural for all your movements through anywhere public to be logged in some centralised database for future reference.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two kinds of privacy, and they're getting mixed up every time this issue comes up. There is a privacy that comes from not being seen or having one's presence otherwise perceived by fellow humans. You don't have this kind of privacy in a public place, granted. You only have it some kind of seclusion.
But there is another kind of privacy - that comes from not being monitored and/or identified. From not being *watched*. Unless you have police or a private eye tailing you, in a modern city you're almost perfectly anonymous, even as you're being seen by hundreds of people, likewise anonymous to you.
I would argue that the latter kind of privacy is far more important and it certainly is the kind we're losing. This is the kind of privacy you lose when being monitored by CCTV, spyware, cookies, RFID, whatever technology does these days. Even if it doesn't identify you by name, it identifies you by a number of characteristics that's sufficient for purpises of marketing, law-enforcement and, if anyone wants, invigilation.
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:3, Insightful)
But public places are, as you mention, defined by witnesses. Being seen in public means one's action
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
Only if you tolerate it.
Why not GPS set speed limitors (Score:1)
Instead of tracking the whereabouts of every car (which is a gross intrustion of privacy IMHO) then why not have a speed limiter system built into cars that responds to local transponders (or digital maps + GPS). In this way, cars can't speed but neither will everyone's location be logged by our big brother state. Oh, I'm sorry is that a problem - safety-wise? I guess t
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
They did not used to be threatening, but now they are used to spot people stopping on red routes. So long as you are not actually moving (eg stopped to shift a drink bottle from under the pedals), In London, they can and will take your picture and send you a £80 fine. If you pay within 7 days, you get to pay £40. If you argue its a minimum of £80. And since they dont accept your arguments. you might as well pay the £40.
The
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
Not nearly as precise as GPS for tracking your location but not bad either, with the added bonus of knowing who you're communicating with (and when).
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
This is why we need much more secure privacy laws. The Fourth Amendment clearly states our rights to be "secure" in our private posessions, but the government has safely ignored that more and more for generations. We need a new Amendment that states that our right to privacy is inviolable in our
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
I undestand your concern. I think that this is obviously going to result in a loss of individual privacy (not sure exactly how much).
The way I look at it, the benefits need to be weighed against the losses. Personally I would gladly trade part of my freedom/privacy if it would result in a significant reduction in road accidents/deaths, but I can understand that many people would not feel the same.
I think this plan would never be accepted in the USA, due to the emphasis that exists there on personal f
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
I was trying to make a constructive comment and further the discussion. Clearly you are not. I am guessing that you are fom the USA and that you place a higher value on personal freedom than I do, which is fine. But there is no need to be cheeky about it. I am not going to abuse you about the 'freedoms' you enjoy in your own country (although it wouldn't be too difficult).
Adieu, Doctor
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
Most people who want to change their country, and who are asked why they don't go to another country where that change is already in effect, can honestly answer that they want their own country to "get better", rather than leave. They point out that one feature of their country that they value is their freedom to change it, or the other freedoms
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
As far as I know there is no country (yet) which has lowered the freedoms of its people, resulting in 'higher auto safety'. Are you suggesting that Syria has 'higher auto safety' (whatever that is?) than the country in which I live?
Which freedoms are we talk
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
Not so, I seem to remember a bunch of American scientists who refused to enter into debate with a bunch of Bible bashing lunatics over the legitimacy of the theory of evolution by natural selection. An apt quote to express their feelings on the matter:
Which is precisely what I intend to do in this case, because you clearly are a fool if you think
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:2)
I won't call you a pussy cryptofascist surrender-coward asshole. Or compare your prized Swiss "neutrality" in WWII, playing banker to Hitler, to the complicity of the Bush family
Re:Up Next--GPS Implants (Score:1)
Ooh you big tough American, I am in awe of your power! How wrong of me to dare to engage *you* in debate, either that, or maybe I realised that you are a vacuous idiot who can not accept that people have different philosophies, and won't even accept my reasonable points.
Are you going to exterminate me? I am so scared that a pseudo-nerd is going to exterminate me.
It is obvious (to me anyway) that I am nothing to you, and that you are nothing to m