It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Riviera
In My Desert Eagle and Shotgun I trust.
I guess it's time to tear apart my TV's just to check lol
Originally posted by Perseus Apex
the hand which holds the spear a willing participant? Is the alternative found post-humously?
Have your kaleidoscopal 'messages' of 'course' been encrypted as to their compass and to the benefit of whom? ref: CS-US (Pavlov)
May we blissfully walk the abysmal crator of chaos?
Have faith that, In the End, we bear witness to a better world.
Will you bear witness?
Originally posted by thrashee
First off, thank you for posting the citations for these figures. I always like to get the "facts" first before continuing.
Ok....again, what's happening in the UK is happening in public places, so there is still no correlation to invading and spying on people in the privacy of their homes. You're assuming that this type of monitoring is nefarious to begin with, and extrapolating from this assumption to assume that home surveillance will be next. People tend to get paranoid about the idea of being recorded....which I understand to some degree, but there's a point where you really have to ask yourself, so what? Are you worried that some state official may see you picking your nose or pulling out a wedgie? Do you really think the government is that interested in your personal life? Or might it be more likely that such surveillance is meant to be both a deterrent for crime, and a potential source of evidence should a crime occur?
Incidentally, you willingly take this chance every time you step into virtually any store today. It's really no different.
Now let's turn to the reasoning behind "what's happening in other countries will be implemented here". Do you have any concrete reason to believe this, or are you extrapolating (making assumptions) again? I doubt very much, from a technological perspective, that there is anything about what the UK is doing that the US cannot already do right now. So again, just because the UK is doing it doesn't mean the US will. There is no causal support for this whatsoever.
Originally posted by wintermarches
You're welcome, and that's understandable. However, sometimes I get irritated by the tone of demands for proofs from debunkers/skeptics, regarding things that are nowhere near implausible considering the political climate and the history of such matters.
I have to ask myself when people demand proof, whether they sincerely need convincing or whether they are just trying to discredit and cause interference in a productive conversation. Besides, this is a thread, not a debate.
I do think you're naive if you assume video cameras are not nefarious. That's your prerogative to think the government is all warm fuzzies and isn't in the business of controlling people. We could argue about that one all day. I also think your thinking is a bit narrow or concrete in that you want specific proof for everything OP discussed possibly happening.
In any case, extrapolation is a method of coming to conclusions based on trends in existing data. No "assuming" about it. Assume implies that there is no proof. Maybe posters here are extrapolating, and not from assumptions but from previous data about the surveillance behavior of government and a host of other data about government modus operandi.
So, in the same vein, why would they want to know what we say and do in the privacy of our home? Same reasons. It will fall under the "war on terrorism". The more info they can get, the better, as far as they are concerned. It's all there in the Patriot Act and companion laws.
Do you know about Fusion Centers? Look that one up. The government continues to look for ways to make information as efficient and connected as they can. Fusion Centers is one example. And why should the government watch me pick my nose or pull out a wedgie, as you say? No, I don't want strangers peeking in my house while I do that or anything else.
I know people who censor what they say on the telephone out of awareness that we're never truly alone on the phone. This isn't about anything illegal, but simply talking about government or NWO or whatever it is we know they don't approve of us discussing.
Quelling dissent and keeping control are some reasons that come to mind.
If you don't value privacy, then I guess you will be one of the ones who have no problem if it ever gets to the government peering in on your private home activities.
There are things that must be put in place, and a population that needs to be made more submissive before more control can be imposed with greater chance of success. As for concrete reasons, I'm not going to spin myself in circles digging them up for you. I simply notice trends and I'm done proving everything I say tonight.
Your presentation of rigid thinking would have us deciding one or the other right now. I prefer to be flexible in my thinking, so I can be prepared for things that are likely to happen while understanding that none of what any conspiracy theorist (or mainstream thinker) may happen the way they think it will.
Anyway, I think the burden of proof is really on you to prove these wild assertions of your own.