In the UK next year will be 1984

[JPaul]

Let use a different example: There's a camera on a particular street corner and some asshole punches another in the face. The person who did the assault can't claim his privacy was violated.

From a surveillance point of view it wan't and even if it were it doesn't matter. Right to privacy is not an absolute right, it can be breached if the circumstances are correct, see my earlier.

An example of an absolute right is the right to life.

[GepperRankins]

i'd love to read back but i can't really be bothered.


the point is, it's pretty much useless for what it's supposed to do. but when the systems up and running they'll quietly use it to monitor speed and reep unfair revenue.

[Busyman]

My point is your chip example is simply off the mark.

How exactly?

If you say that when you are in public, you can be monitered by cameras because it will help combat crime, why not stop being half-assed and put a chip on people and do it right.

The chip, is just like the cameras. The data goes to a file which is not accessed without due process. So no-one is personally monitering you, as such. But if you commit a crime your footsteps can be retraced by opening the proper data file. Just like the movements of your vehicle around town can be retraced, just better.

It is the next logical step.

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

[Busyman]

Let use a different example: There's a camera on a particular street corner and some asshole punches another in the face. The person who did the assault can't claim his privacy was violated.

From a surveillance point of view it wan't and even if it were it doesn't matter. Right to privacy is not an absolute right, it can be breached if the circumstances are correct, see my earlier.

An example of an absolute right is the right to life.

Mmk. Nothing new there.

[JPaul]

the point is, it's pretty much useless for what it's supposed to do.

:nob:

[JPaul]

From a surveillance point of view it wan't and even if it were it doesn't matter. Right to privacy is not an absolute right, it can be breached if the circumstances are correct, see my earlier.

An example of an absolute right is the right to life.

Mmk. Nothing new there.

Hardly surprising really when you come up with a different example which still demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

[Busyman]

Mmk. Nothing new there.

Hardly surprising really when you come up with a different example which still demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

Good lord....I got everything you said. It ain't a stretch ya know. We actually are on the same page...but you don't know it....or acting like you don't.

For instance, when I mentioned watching an area you quickly brought up it's about the people. It's like no shit. Like it has to be spelled for you or something.

If I wrote...."I ma Buysanm" would you

1. Really wonder wtf I meant or

2. Know what I meant but play smartass.

Either way I'm pretty much done with you in this thread. You're starting to bore me and this is supposed to be entertainment.

[hobbes]

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

When we are talking concepts, implementation is irrelevant. The chip was an example. You know what an example is don't you. Rather than spend the entire day creating a working model of a physically non-invasive personal monitering device, I took the "chip" for convenience.

Think "concept" not "concrete".

Concept = what level of monitering is too much for your personal comfort.

Cops are there to enforce laws, not to moniter people. They don't take pictures of me and store them.

Cops are placed in certain location in relation to expected crime. There field presence helps to expediate enforncement. Just like taxi cabs and ambulances, they form a network, and the ones closest to the "action", respond to the call.

[JPaul]

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

When we are talking concepts, implementation is irrelevant. The chip was an example. You know what an example is don't you. Rather than spend the entire day creating a working model of a physically non-invasive personal monitering device, I took the "chip" for convenience.

Think "concept" not "concrete".

Concept = what level of monitering is too much for your personal comfort.

Cops are there to enforce laws, not to moniter people. They don't take pictures of me and store them.

Cops are placed in certain location in relation to expected crime. There field presence helps to expediate enforncement. Just like taxi cabs and ambulances, they form a network, and the ones closest to the "action", respond to the call.

It boils down to proportionality.

The use of cameras is a proportionate response to a problem, provided their use is controlled properly, as outlined earlier.

Placing a tracking device in, or even on your entire population is not.

The latter is indeed a more effective solution, particularly if they are in the person. However it is disproportionate to what it seeks to achieve.

I think it was j2 (or maybe you) who quite rightly pointed out that we could practically do away with death on the roads by making the speed limit 5mph. However it would not be a proportionate response to the problem.

[Busyman]

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

When we are talking concepts, implementation is irrelevant. The chip was an example. You know what an example is don't you. Rather than spend the entire day creating a working model of a physically non-invasive personal monitering device, I took the "chip" for convenience.

Think "concept" not "concrete".

Concept = what level of monitering is too much for your personal comfort.

Cops are there to enforce laws, not to moniter people. They don't take pictures of me and store them.

Cops are placed in certain location in relation to expected crime. There field presence helps to expediate enforncement. Just like taxi cabs and ambulances, they form a network, and the ones closest to the "action", respond to the call.

Huh? Your convenience concept is over the top. It actually introduces another concept...invasion of one's body. That's where your concept gets muddled and detracts from what you are saying.

I like the better example of how maybe your job can get hold of the records but chip implantation is ridiculous.

I wonder is it that people are afraid of this surveillance falling into the wrong hands or that they want to be able to break the law. I know in the case of speed cameras, people just don't like getting caught.
The even goes for filesharing. Any copy protection scheme would have cries of foul by folks who want to be able to copy illegally. People want to be able to keep stealing and even if there was a way of demonstrating "fair use" would be upheld. Those cries will still heard.

The mere concept of the law "seeing" you on the street should not be an issue. If you were being followed around for purposes of harrasment or stalking, that's different.