DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Sleedyhex** · 07-06-2010, 06:05 AM

Umm... that speculation had absolutely nothing to do with surveillance. If you find something there about cameras, please show me... cause I certainly didn't write it.

I said he didn't want to go through with it because that was my impression, given the haphazard way this was done, and the panicked escape attempt during which he left behinds mounds of evidence. The guy didn't appear to be stupid. He was a well-educated financial analyst.

I was referring to your overall sentiment in this thread which I've already addressed. 1. illogically grouping all terrorists w/ incompetence 2. downplaying the threats and 3.the dozens of comments you've written on survellience in this thread.

you even stated your motivation here:

Of course I am downplaying it. What else can I do? I don't want to be afraid, and likewise don't feel like living in a total surveillance state for the sake of a marginal yield in security. That's exactly what I was referring to. It's pretty clear you are interpreting all of this through the lens of opposition to survellience. What myself and others are saying, is: what about when a competent terrorist comes along? I kind of agree with your about Big Brother, but I think you take it waay to far. For example:

Surveillance of public spaces by government is not about crime or terrorism prevention - any security expert knows it will do neither. It's about power - power of THEM over US.

In the highly technological world, total surveillance = absolute power comments like this, you take it way to far. I honestly don't believe most government officials that want survellence do so as an "Orwellian power grab" most do so with good intent. The thing about survellience and high tech like this, there needs to be a "Bill of Rights" enacted, to put some checks and balances in place. Also, you can "prove" almost anything with ideologically motivated studies and statistics, but it's just basic common sense, absolutely survellence deters crime. One need not look further than your local dept store..For example, It reduces shoplifting. There is no arguing that. Also, there have been plenty of studies in the UK and Europe where neighboorhood camera systems lower the crime rate.

07-06-2010, 06:05 AM	#77
Sleedyhex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 396 Senior Member	Umm... that speculation had absolutely nothing to do with surveillance. If you find something there about cameras, please show me... cause I certainly didn't write it. I said he didn't want to go through with it because that was my impression, given the haphazard way this was done, and the panicked escape attempt during which he left behinds mounds of evidence. The guy didn't appear to be stupid. He was a well-educated financial analyst. I was referring to your overall sentiment in this thread which I've already addressed. 1. illogically grouping all terrorists w/ incompetence 2. downplaying the threats and 3.the dozens of comments you've written on survellience in this thread. you even stated your motivation here: Of course I am downplaying it. What else can I do? I don't want to be afraid, and likewise don't feel like living in a total surveillance state for the sake of a marginal yield in security. That's exactly what I was referring to. It's pretty clear you are interpreting all of this through the lens of opposition to survellience. What myself and others are saying, is: what about when a competent terrorist comes along? I kind of agree with your about Big Brother, but I think you take it waay to far. For example: Surveillance of public spaces by government is not about crime or terrorism prevention - any security expert knows it will do neither. It's about power - power of THEM over US. In the highly technological world, total surveillance = absolute power comments like this, you take it way to far. I honestly don't believe most government officials that want survellence do so as an "Orwellian power grab" most do so with good intent. The thing about survellience and high tech like this, there needs to be a "Bill of Rights" enacted, to put some checks and balances in place. Also, you can "prove" almost anything with ideologically motivated studies and statistics, but it's just basic common sense, absolutely survellence deters crime. One need not look further than your local dept store..For example, It reduces shoplifting. There is no arguing that. Also, there have been plenty of studies in the UK and Europe where neighboorhood camera systems lower the crime rate.
	Quote