It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guilty by Association except...

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: shredderofsouls
a reply to: BrianFlanders

What really needs to be done is to treat everyone as an individual not to consider them to be part of a group.

The left is just as guilty, but I find the right is more so.



But you need to narrow down your search to that individual first. The way to do that is with profiling. You ever heard a news report about the police looking for someone that committed a crime"?

No, they say it's a "race, gender, approximate age, wears this type of clothing, this height, this weight, has this accent, right/left handed, this hair color, etc, etc, etc, etc"




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

For instance it is wrong to say "all white men are possible shooters" because a few have done it and it just as wrong to label all Muslims as possible terrorists.

We need to stop labeling all groups as guilty by association because of the few bad apples. It is extremely hypocritical to place the "guilt by association" label on some and not others. Either do it for all or do it for none.

The Orlando shooter was one(possibly) of a group of Americans or immigrants and we should not let fear dictate our actions and stop letting ISIS win. They win we when begin labeling and stereotyping Muslims and gain recruits the more we turn to hate and fear.
edit on 21-6-2016 by shredderofsouls because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: shredderofsouls
a reply to: BrianFlanders

What really needs to be done is to treat everyone as an individual not to consider them to be part of a group.

The left is just as guilty, but I find the right is more so.



But you need to narrow down your search to that individual first. The way to do that is with profiling. You ever heard a news report about the police looking for someone that committed a crime"?

No, they say it's a "race, gender, approximate age, wears this type of clothing, this height, this weight, has this accent, right/left handed, this hair color, etc, etc, etc, etc"


And that is for an individual not for a group. Out for night or week..never know..

edit on 21-6-2016 by shredderofsouls because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: shredderofsouls

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: shredderofsouls
a reply to: BrianFlanders

What really needs to be done is to treat everyone as an individual not to consider them to be part of a group.

The left is just as guilty, but I find the right is more so.



But you need to narrow down your search to that individual first. The way to do that is with profiling. You ever heard a news report about the police looking for someone that committed a crime"?

No, they say it's a "race, gender, approximate age, wears this type of clothing, this height, this weight, has this accent, right/left handed, this hair color, etc, etc, etc, etc"


And that is for an individual not for a group. Out for night or week..never know..


And you're going to look for that individual in a group if you need to

If you know they are a Muslim, and their dialect is from a certain area, you're going to look at Muslims in that area to find the person you're looking for.

Of course the profiling that agencies like the FBI/CIA uses is much more in depth than that, it is simply how you find people.

Again, you aren't going to find white males by looking for black women.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: shredderofsouls
a reply to: BrianFlanders

What really needs to be done is to treat everyone as an individual not to consider them to be part of a group.

The left is just as guilty, but I find the right is more so.



But you need to narrow down your search to that individual first. The way to do that is with profiling. You ever heard a news report about the police looking for someone that committed a crime"?

No, they say it's a "race, gender, approximate age, wears this type of clothing, this height, this weight, has this accent, right/left handed, this hair color, etc, etc, etc, etc"


Well, yeah. They'll say something like "We're looking for a white male about 25 years old wearing jeans and a black shirt with brown hair. Approximately 5' 10" around 160 pounds.

Yeah. OK. They just described half the male population. Which comes back to what I said about literally treating everyone like a suspect.

You see. The difference between what we're talking about here and a situation where the cops are looking for a specific person who has committed a crime is that NOW they're looking for someone who MIGHT commit a crime. Which is just impossible. I mean, yes. If they're only looking for people who appear Arabic, that narrows it down a lot but it also casts such a wide net that it isn't really fair to people who look Arabic but aren't doing anything but buying their groceries.

And of course, the first time the authorities miss the next mass shooter because they're only watching Muslims, the media is gonna jump right on it and force them to widen the net. Before you know it, it's gonna be everyone. You won't need to fit any general profile other than "behaving suspiciously" (whatever that means). And of course it will eventually mean "anything that seems out of the ordinary". Which gets stupid after a while because when you think about it, there are a lot of things completely innocent people do that might seem "out of the ordinary" to someone who sees "suspicious activity" everywhere.

So you see. Soon if you're walking down the street and some AI profiling software decides that you have an "angry facial expression" you'll be flagged as a "suspicious person". Not necessarily out of any kind of malice. But because they're so desperate to prevent even the slightest incident they can't afford to miss anything.

And that was my point. There are certain people who have been wanting this kind of mass surveillance for ages. In the past, they may not have been able to come up with a plausible excuse. But the real barrier was always technology. Now, the technology exists.

I have a little $30 webcam that follows my face when I tell it to. It's amazing. To someone my age to see that for $30 I know that the technology exists to create something worse than 1984. If it doesn't exist now it will very soon. Try to step back from the drama and look at the facts. What are they trying to sell us? I believe the phase where they seem to only be wanting to profile certain people is going to be temporary. It's to steer us in a certain direction so they can move on and put more people on the "suspicious characters" list.
edit on 21-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Boys take it easy...you all should be profiled. I'll write for you...fat, middle aged old grump looking for a fight but can't get his fat fingers off the key board.

Ok...officer...you got me cold!
Cheers




top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join