Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

More and more and more f*n surveillance

 
Old 04-28-2012, 11:18 AM
  #1  
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,455
Total Cats: 82
Default More and more and more f*n surveillance

JasonC SBB is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:30 AM
  #2  
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,455
Total Cats: 82
Default

The same surveillance technology, putting video cameras in cellphones, allows citizens to watch the watchmen:

Filming cops:
http://www.copblock.org/tag/filming-police/

Cop tackles cyclist, almost 3M hits:


City council bans videotaping:
http://ozarkgateway.kait8.com/news/n...er-videotaping

On Filming city councils:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/6935.cfm



You know the bastards are dirty when they don't want their activities and decisions videotaped and placed on youtube.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 04-28-2012 at 11:54 AM.
JasonC SBB is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:47 AM
  #3  
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,101
Total Cats: 368
Default

The link on the GPS stuff in cars has bothered me ever since I had a student with a CTSV and the car shut down on track because OnStar thought there was a crash. This is yet another reason I will always drive old-*** cars.
hustler is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:01 PM
  #4  
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,101
Total Cats: 368
Default

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-6411323.html
I love the vid on the cop that wrecks the cyclist. In this article, the terminated cop claims he tackled the man because he was shouting with his hands off the bike and "attempting to disrupt traffic". I'm surprised the cyclist is suing the cop and not the PD all together.
hustler is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 01:34 PM
  #5  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,676
Total Cats: 120
Default

All data on the net is already captured and analyzed. Done deal.
Faeflora is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:01 PM
  #6  
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The non-murder part.)
Posts: 29,308
Total Cats: 2,914
Default

Electronic surveillance has existed pretty much since the invention of electronics. It is used by criminals, law enforcement, and everyone in between.

As the cost, size and ease-of-use of any given technology move in favorable directions, the extent to which that technology is employed by all users will increase. This is as immutable as Newton's laws of motion.

You can't turn back time.

Attached Thumbnails More and more and more f*n surveillance-wabis.gif  
Joe Perez is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:21 PM
  #7  
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (24)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,151
Total Cats: 257
Default

That ---- with the guy on the bike is ------- ridiculous.
viperormiata is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:39 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London,OH
Posts: 1,124
Total Cats: 13
Default

if they ever mandate older cars getting that stupid ------- black box, im gonna have a pile of fines for A. not haiving one B. non functioning one or my personal favorite C. telling them to go ---- themselves when they come to install it.
redturbomiata is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #9  
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The non-murder part.)
Posts: 29,308
Total Cats: 2,914
Default

Originally Posted by redturbomiata View Post
if they ever mandate older cars getting that stupid ------- black box, i
Relax, it's just hysterical nonsense.

We will undoubtedly start to see more insurance companies adopt the Progressive model by offering their customers the opportunity to voluntarily use such as system in exchange for lowered insurance premiums on 1996 and newer vehicles, but in terms of the government mandating a retrofit of all existing vehicles for the purpose of surveillance? That will never happen.
Joe Perez is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:59 PM
  #10  
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,117
Total Cats: 839
Default

How are they possibly going to know if it's non-functional, except maybe at inspection time? Remove antenna, and plug back in once a year.
rleete is online now  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:14 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London,OH
Posts: 1,124
Total Cats: 13
Default

Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Relax, it's just hysterical nonsense.

We will undoubtedly start to see more insurance companies adopt the Progressive model by offering their customers the opportunity to voluntarily use such as system in exchange for lowered insurance premiums on 1996 and newer vehicles, but in terms of the government mandating a retrofit of all existing vehicles for the purpose of surveillance? That will never happen.
very true, and its not like they cant tap your cell phones gps to see your speed if they wanted too.
redturbomiata is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:15 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London,OH
Posts: 1,124
Total Cats: 13
Default

Originally Posted by rleete View Post
How are they possibly going to know if it's non-functional, except maybe at inspection time? Remove antenna, and plug back in once a year.
well if it is to work anything like onstar, they will let you know when there is a malfunction.
redturbomiata is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:59 PM
  #13  
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The non-murder part.)
Posts: 29,308
Total Cats: 2,914
Default

This is kind of an interesting (if somewhat hokey) patent application:

http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/20090063201/overview

Excerpt:
Intoxication can be determined from measuring braking force, accelerator use and proximity to nearby cars. A “nonintrusive load monitor” algorithm can figure out if a driver is intoxicated, even if different drivers use the car.
I'm pretty sure that such a system would determine that every single member of this forum consumes an entire handle of cheap whiskey every single time we get into our cars.
Joe Perez is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 05:14 PM
  #14  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,464
Total Cats: 885
Default

I'm still hoping the single manned taxi pod on a high speed rail will come before this gets passed.
triple88a is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:25 PM
  #15  
Newb
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 16
Total Cats: 0
Default

Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
The same surveillance technology, putting video cameras in cellphones, allows citizens to watch the watchmen:

Filming cops:
http://www.copblock.org/tag/filming-police/

Cop tackles cyclist, almost 3M hits:


City council bans videotaping:
http://ozarkgateway.kait8.com/news/n...er-videotaping

On Filming city councils:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/6935.cfm



You know the bastards are dirty when they don't want their activities and decisions videotaped and placed on youtube.
Fug da polic
jh321 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:27 PM
  #16  
Newb
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 16
Total Cats: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Relax, it's just hysterical nonsense.

We will undoubtedly start to see more insurance companies adopt the Progressive model by offering their customers the opportunity to voluntarily use such as system in exchange for lowered insurance premiums on 1996 and newer vehicles, but in terms of the government mandating a retrofit of all existing vehicles for the purpose of surveillance? That will never happen.
You never know with the government. People years ago would have thought some things would never be mandatory but know they are...
jh321 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:35 PM
  #17  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SFL
Posts: 375
Total Cats: 3
Default

Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Relax, it's just hysterical nonsense.

We will undoubtedly start to see more insurance companies adopt the Progressive model by offering their customers the opportunity to voluntarily use such as system in exchange for lowered insurance premiums on 1996 and newer vehicles, but in terms of the government mandating a retrofit of all existing vehicles for the purpose of surveillance? That will never happen.
While I generally agree that its still at this time a bit of a far fetch. I think it will happen first as an insurance backed lobby effort "to improve safety and cut litigation costs of he said she said accidents", and then much like cellphone GPS become an avenue for abuse by police.
MD323 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:30 PM
  #18  
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The non-murder part.)
Posts: 29,308
Total Cats: 2,914
Default

Don't get me wrong; I absolutely believe that in-car surveillance of both location and operating parameters will become universal very soon, most likely as a de-facto standard by the manufacturers themselves. We already have "black box" EDR capability in the majority of new cars for recording the last few seconds leading up to an airbag deployment. This is, in part, how Toyota recently managed to vindicate themselves from all the morons who didn't realize that the brake pedal was the bigger one on the left.

I'm just saying that the idea of being forced to go back and retrofit old cars with tracking devices by government mandate is completely absurd, and the mention of such is strong evidence of an author whose mindset is one of fear and hysteria.

Such a retrofit has never occurred for any reason. Hydraulic brakes, electric turn signals, seat belts, laminated windshields, third brake lights, catalytic converters, charcoal canisters, airbags... These things are all mandatory on new cars today, but no car owner was ever forced to go back and retrofit this technology onto their older vehicles.

There has never been a single instance of any western government commanding that all existing vehicles on the road shall be upgraded with some newly-designed technology. I suspect that it's never happened at all, though of course data on such matters in the former USSR and its related protectorates is probably hard to come by.
Joe Perez is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:43 PM
  #19  
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,455
Total Cats: 82
Default

Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
This is kind of an interesting (if somewhat hokey) patent application:

http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/20090063201/overview

Excerpt:
Intoxication can be determined from measuring braking force, accelerator use and proximity to nearby cars. A “nonintrusive load monitor” algorithm can figure out if a driver is intoxicated, even if different drivers use the car.
I'm pretty sure that such a system would determine that every single member of this forum consumes an entire handle of cheap whiskey every single time we get into our cars.
There was an auto journalist that tried the voluntary Progressive system. They told him that they saw a strong correlation between frequency of hard braking events and crash rates. Well, IIRC in a few days he burned through a month's budget of "hard braking events" and didn't qualify for the discount.
JasonC SBB is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:17 AM
  #20  
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,243
Total Cats: 180
Default

All this technology would be great if everyone was honest. Greed will be the death of us all.
FRT_Fun is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: More and more and more f*n surveillance


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.