Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Disturbing  
User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 701 times:

The Associated Press
Sunday, July 1, 2001; 5:22 p.m. EDT

TAMPA, Fla. –– Tampa is using high-tech security cameras to scan the city's streets for people wanted for crimes, a law enforcement tactic that some liken to Big Brother.

A computer software program linked to 36 cameras began scanning crowds Friday in Tampa's nightlife district, Ybor City, matching results against a database of mug shots of people with outstanding arrest warrants.

European cities and U.S government offices, casinos and banks are already using the so-called face-printing system, but Tampa is the first American city to install a permanent system along public streets, The Tampa Tribune reported Sunday.

A similar system was used at Super Bowl XXXV, which was held in Tampa last January.

"Tampa is really leading the pack here," said Frances Zelazny, a spokeswoman for Visionics Corp., which produces the "FaceIt" software.

The software has raised concerns over privacy, ethics and government intrusion.

"This is Big Brother actually implemented," said Jack Walters of the Tampa chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think this just opens the door to it being everywhere."

But Tampa Detective Bill Todd says FaceIt is no different than having a police officer standing on a street holding a mug shot.

At the Super Bowl, a Visionics competitor, Graphco Technologies, wired cameras around Raymond James Stadium and in Ybor City.

The computer spotted 19 people at the crowded stadium with outstanding warrants, all for minor offenses. But no arrests were made.

"During the Super Bowl, we got overwhelmed," Todd said. "That's the other thing: When you get a match, how quickly can you get to these people?"

Business owners have mixed emotions about the new technology.

"I don't know if I like it," said Vicki Doble, who owns The Brew Pub. "It may be a bit too much."

Don Barco, owner of King Corona Cigars Bar & Cafe, approves of the cameras but says they may not be as effective as the city hopes.

"Sometimes these high-tech toys, they tend to give a little too much credence to what they do," he said.

© Copyright 2001 The Associated Press

----------------------------------------



Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 641 times:

This was all over the talk shows today and I agree: it is very disturbing. This is the same thing they use in Europe (I saw a documentary about this being used in England) and I think it is downright scary. With this technology, individuals can be tracked and located and innocent civilians can be taken into custody by accident.

I heard stories of innocent people being arrested and spending the night in jail after being mistaken by one of these cameras.

This may very well be unconstitutional, but we'll see what happens.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 626 times:

This is just awful!
The media will tell you that this is good to catch murders child molesters and other unpopular criminals to get public support. Next thing you know it's another one of our freedoms lost. My question is if this blatant mis-use of technology is put to use, which communities will be targeted? I doubt law enforcement agents will be scanning the large estates in the suburbs. They are going to target areas with poor people who can't afford lawyers that can buy them justice.
There has been many corporate prisons that have been constructed at least here in California that will need more prisoners to fill to keep these corporate 'gulags' running.

Technology is being used to hurt mankind more than help mankind.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 601 times:

I agree, Superfly... absolutely nothing good can come of this.

Reminds me of the Ben Franklin quote:

"They that would give up liberty for some temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."


User currently offlineTransactoid From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 584 times:

I think it's a great idea. I've done nothing wrong - so what if some cameras are watching me?


People get falsely arrested as it is, without the cameras.


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 582 times:

FBI could even be tracking these forums for all we know. I'd say that about 99.99999999999999999999% of American citizens, or any person for that matter, value their own privacy. I don't want to be watched when I have not done anything wrong.

User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 570 times:

>I think it's a great idea. I've done nothing wrong - so what if some cameras are watching me?

Did you not see the quote in my last post? This situation is a perfect example of what Ben Franklin warned of.

Your philosophy is that if it doesn't affect you, the government can do anything they like, no matter the implications. And you are the type to say that conservatives are selfish....

We all know that the left, behind their facade of care for the lower class, is nothing more than a selfish and greedy group of fascists that would like to turn our Great Republic into one of their socialist utopias.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 563 times:

N400QX:
I guess you didn't fully comprehend my last post.
I stated;"? I doubt law enforcement agents will be scanning the large estates in the suburbs. They are going to target areas with poor people who can't afford lawyers that can buy them justice."

That is a very leftist view point on this issue that I hold.
You go on to say;"We all know that the left, behind their facade of care for the lower class, is nothing more than a selfish and greedy group of fascists that would like to turn our Great Republic into one of their socialist utopias".

You're contradicting yourself. I am a little confused. I think it's the moderate -->right who are stripping our freedoms away.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineTransactoid From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 553 times:

Selfish? How is it selfish? If you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to fear from the government?

Think of it this way: everybody complains about how the government doesn't care about the average person. Well, this is a situation where that is a good thing. Do you really think the big ol' government is gonna care what some no-name body is doing on some street in Anywhereville U.S.A?


I'm not going to get into the whole left-vs-right debate. It's been done enough.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 552 times:

Transactoid.....

The reason why you don't have a problem with this is that you seem to have faith in the government and the law-enforcement agencies that act on it's behalf.

I am not that optimistic. Look at all the wrongfully accused issues that have come up lately.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 549 times:

If it allows the apprehension of one violent criminal who would otherwise walk by unnoticed, and later kill someone, I think it has some value.

All the system does is beep the attending officer when it has a possible match. That officer looks at the two pictures, and may decide that it's worth pursuing, or that it's probably a false match. And again, if the person is taken because of this system, there are still human officers who match the identity.

All it is is a technology to help police find criminals who have otherwise managed to evade them. I have a hard time figuring why people have a problem with this.

>I doubt law enforcement agents will be scanning the large estates in the suburbs. They are going to target areas with poor people who can't afford lawyers that can buy them justice<

Well, that's where most criminals live. You don't go fishing in the bathtub, do you?

Charles


User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 545 times:

We've got these everywhere in the UK. I think they're fine when used properly, as they have managed to track several criminals before. Still, this type of scheme is always open to misuse, and I'm not keen on the idea of 'Big Brother' looking at me all the time.


I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 543 times:

I agree with Ryanb741.

In Newcastle a child (3 yrs) was murdered in the entrance to the Manors metro station.

They caught the murderer........because of CCTV.



That's Closed Circuit TV cameras if you don't know.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 542 times:

>Well, that's where most criminals live. You don't go fishing in the bathtub, do you?

-Yet another foolish comment by Cfalk.
Man you are on an all time low.  Sad



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 540 times:

Superfly,

Do I have my facts wrong? Why is it foolish, because I'm not PC?

Charles


User currently offlineTransactoid From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 531 times:

Have to agree with Cfalk here. Though I will rephrase it slightly.

The cameras should be but in areas with high crime rates. If most of these areas turn out to be poorer areas of the city, so be it. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

L-188 argues that he doesn't trust the government as a law enforcement agency because of all the wrongful convictions we hear about. Just out of curiosity, are you pro or anti death penalty? Unless you're a hypocrite, I'll assume you're anti death penalty.

I will restate it once again: Unless you're up to no good, you have nothing to worry about.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 511 times:

Last time I checked, a search warrant was required to search/enter someone’s home. This is a violation of our individual rights! If a suspect gets away because of the incompetence of law enforcement officials, so be it! If we are expecting citizens to be law abiding, then law enforcement needs to be law abiding as well.

I also see the word 'criminal' being thrown around loosely here. What is your definition of a criminal?
According to the law, it's one who has been 'convicted' in a Court of Law!
I am pretty sure N400QX can back that up.  Big grin

As far as this 'PC' stuff, you’re the only one shooting off your mouth about PC! I never made any claims to being PC! But go right ahead talking foolishly.
 Smile



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 507 times:

Who said anything about putting those cameras on private property? They are to be placed in public places, which are, by definition, not private. There is nothing illegal about the police monitoring public places. In fact that is their job.

Criminal, suspect, whoever the police is looking for, call it whatever you want - it makes no effective difference, as long as they are nailed.

Charles


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 502 times:

As usual, I echo the sentiment of N400QX.

User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 469 times:

>What is your definition of a criminal?
According to the law, it's one who has been 'convicted' in a Court of Law!
I am pretty sure N400QX can back that up.

No, sorry... a convict is one who has been convicted in a court of law. A criminal is one who has committed a crime. (although a double meaning is one who has been convicted of a crime). Note the same root words. Now I'm wondering where this issue came from...


And to further argue the point that these cameras are used "for our own safety" etc., I submit an excerpt from Dave Shiflett's article in NRO, Don't Snoop on Me.


With the mind so occupied, it is easy to pass through the first blushes of a red light, and at some intersections that can result in a camera-produced ticket. Reports say these fines are always cheaper than the cost of appearing in court, signaling that yet one more shakedown is underway. The price is apparently rising. "Montgomery County, Maryland, has issued 54,000 camera citations since 1999 and county leaders now want to raise the fine for running a red light to $250 from $75," the Wall Street Journal tells us.

But the problem is much greater than a fine. Surveillance cameras are creating what an enterprising shyster might call a "hostile living environment." The snooping isn't restricted to stoplight surveillance, after all. In Tampa, authorities have set up cameras in public places to track criminals. Everyone who wanders into the targeted area is under surveillance. When you add the innumerable cameras placed by private companies and individuals at homes and businesses, it's reasonable to say that it is getting difficult to go places in America that aren't under the electronic eye.

All of which is nearly enough to create sympathy for those poor fools who worry continuously about the presence of microwaves in the atmosphere. That brand of maniac, as we know, worries that those waves interfere with the natural operation of his brain. The presence of surveillance cameras constitutes an interference with the natural mobility of free people. After all, how free are you if The Man is always looking over your shoulder?

Unfortunately, one fears that a growing number of Americans don't mind being snooped upon in this fashion. These individuals (term loosely applied) have succumbed to the view that government is there to take care of them, and that almost anything done that may stretch out their years is commendable and worthy of support. A county commissioner of Palm Beach County, Florida, put it this way: "If Big Brother saves lives, then I'm happy to be Big Brother."

That, of course, is a deeply malignant point of view. It holds that "public safety" is justification for nearly any excess, intrigue, and prohibition. That commissioner needs a good flogging, though higher office is probably the more likely reward.

Cameras, to be sure, don't have quite the shock value of posting a human snoop at every stoplight and around town squares. Like most people, I have often wished a cop were nearby when someone roars through a ripe red light. But the fact is, no sane person wants a cop on every corner — or indeed wants all the laws enforced, to the letter or otherwise. Many of us break laws all the time. If we were pegged for each offense we commit (the list of possibilities is no doubt quite long), our fines might easily match our mortgages.

To name a few: It has been pointed out the if using cameras to catch speeders and light-runners is acceptable, then so should it be allowable to post cameras to catch smokers in areas (towns, cities) where smoking is prohibited. I would add that in some places, cursing has been outlawed, making it acceptable to place cameras and microphones about to catch offenders. With the zero-tolerance movement in full fester, the level of surveillance of young people could easily reach saturation stage, with horrendously unfair judgments and punishments rendered against those who spoke in a way authorities deem threatening.

Moralists tell us that once inner restraints are lost, the only way to control people is through outside forces. Hanging cameras is one way of asserting control, and America is increasingly and frightfully well hung.


User currently offlineTransactoid From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 467 times:

To name a few: It has been pointed out the if using cameras to catch speeders and light-runners is acceptable, then so should it be allowable to post cameras to catch smokers in areas (towns, cities) where smoking is prohibited. I would add that in some places, cursing has been outlawed, making it acceptable to place cameras and microphones about to catch offenders. With the zero-tolerance movement in full fester, the level of surveillance of young people could easily reach saturation stage, with horrendously unfair judgments and punishments rendered against those who spoke in a way authorities deem threatening.

This illustrates my point.....if they're smoking where they shouldn't be, they should be charged. If cursing is outlawed and you curse, you should be charged.


User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 462 times:

The WHOLE article illustrates MY point, Transactoid. Please read this next couple of paragraphs a couple of times over:

Unfortunately, one fears that a growing number of Americans don't mind being snooped upon in this fashion. These individuals (term loosely applied) have succumbed to the view that government is there to take care of them, and that almost anything done that may stretch out their years is commendable and worthy of support. A county commissioner of Palm Beach County, Florida, put it this way: "If Big Brother saves lives, then I'm happy to be Big Brother."

That, of course, is a deeply malignant point of view. It holds that "public safety" is justification for nearly any excess, intrigue, and prohibition. That commissioner needs a good flogging, though higher office is probably the more likely reward.



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Very Disturbing, Shocking Event On Greyhound Bus posted Thu Jul 31 2008 05:17:13 by HOONS90
Disturbing Animal Love Website posted Fri Jun 1 2007 19:26:32 by EK20
The Most Disturbing Video You'll Ever See posted Wed Mar 14 2007 09:12:44 by ConcordeBoy
Junior Ghetto Fight...Disturbing posted Tue Nov 14 2006 20:35:28 by Mdsh00
Most Disturbing Film You've Ever Seen posted Tue Jun 27 2006 21:14:59 by Gilligan
Friday's Disturbing Stats... posted Fri Apr 28 2006 14:25:05 by Cadet57
Do You Think These Movies Are Disturbing? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 00:37:54 by Sovietjet
Disturbing Animal Abuse Incident - The Trial posted Tue Feb 28 2006 04:59:26 by JoKeR
Disturbing Animal Abuse Incident posted Mon Feb 20 2006 09:42:13 by JoKeR
Saw Something Very Disturbing Today posted Fri Feb 17 2006 03:56:46 by Afconcorde1