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.

 

Spy tech that 'monitors conversations' being launched in Europe: report

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
how does this work..is it just a piece of software linked up to cameras and microphones on the streets?

if it is...how is this legal?




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


The way I'm reading this is cameras and microphones are placed at strategic points which will monitor people and pick up conversation in that area. The audio/video feed will be fed to a central computer where software will analyze the tone of the person's voice. If that tone is normal, nothing happens. If a person's tone of voice is stressed or elevated, I'm guessing LEO's would be dispatched to your location and further questioning would ensue.

I'm thinking that if you are one of those people who become very passionate about a subject, or even talk with your hands, that you would be speaking with an awful lot of LEO's.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
In 2004 at the athens olympic games i was involved in the c4i. In a nut shell it had cameras and mics as posted above positioned in and around athens. The ability to here a person whisper from a distance of 100 meters was real as its directional mic not bigger than your average lighter were and are still being used. Although some have been taken offline and removed but the surveillance around the embassy is still online and has been upgraded.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Was there ever a better reason to get out of town?

Living in urban areas is going to get worse; not better, as time goes on.

Live simple, in small towns or out in the "boonies".


Most of what I learned in first year psychology at university turned out to be totally bogus, and just plain wrong. So the technocrats keep inventing new machines that the politicians, police forces and city administrators keep gobbling up. In the end its a total waste of taxpayer's money and city resources.

But it aint gonna stop. They will keep buying into this malarky as they prostrate themselves before the gizmo inventors. Secrecy, as in maintaining some sense of personal privacy is the new bugaboo. It won't be allowed.

I think the ancient practice of asceticism and escaping to the wilds is looking more and more attractive all the time.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Why do things like this always get met with so much resistance?

If someone wants to have computers monitor conversations and alert a human when there is a potential problem, what's the harm?

You'll be OK as long as you're not planning something nefarious. Is everyone here planning on doing something bad and that's why you don't want these things?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayson
Why do things like this always get met with so much resistance?

If someone wants to have computers monitor conversations and alert a human when there is a potential problem, what's the harm?

You'll be OK as long as you're not planning something nefarious. Is everyone here planning on doing something bad and that's why you don't want these things?



Why should there be an automatic assumption that everyone is planning something bad? In spite of what you see on the news, I believe most people really are good and want whats best for themselves and for others. OK, don't believe it, but its true.

The need to spy on people and their conversations is bogus, made-up, and an unnecessary waste of money (yours and mine). It is not needed, so why should we pay for it? Why should we have our every conversation monitored? Even if I am only discussing the weather with a friend, that is still a private conversation and no need to share it with anyone else.

What is so hard to understand about that?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
[edit on 7-7-2010 by Big Raging Loner]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno

Originally posted by Mayson
Why do things like this always get met with so much resistance?

If someone wants to have computers monitor conversations and alert a human when there is a potential problem, what's the harm?

You'll be OK as long as you're not planning something nefarious. Is everyone here planning on doing something bad and that's why you don't want these things?



Why should there be an automatic assumption that everyone is planning something bad? In spite of what you see on the news, I believe most people really are good and want whats best for themselves and for others. OK, don't believe it, but its true.

The need to spy on people and their conversations is bogus, made-up, and an unnecessary waste of money (yours and mine). It is not needed, so why should we pay for it? Why should we have our every conversation monitored? Even if I am only discussing the weather with a friend, that is still a private conversation and no need to share it with anyone else.

What is so hard to understand about that?


This I can understand.

Why pay for something that someone feels is unnecessary.

Now that the technology exists, I think the government is forced to implement it.

Do you remember the outcry that happened after the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed? After the flood walls collapsed in New Orleans after Katrina? People blamed the government for not taking steps to prevent these things from happening.

Traditionally the government, probably in the interest of saving a few dollars, has been reactive; only fixing something when it becomes a problem. In this case, the government should be applauded for being proactive for once.

Can you imagine the outcry if there were another terrorist attack on the order of 9/11 that the government could have prevented, but didn't in order to save a few dollars?

Is it necessary? I have no idea. It's not up to me, but up to what the group mind decides. If the past is any indicator, they'll hate it for being a waste of money but would have hated it had it not been implemented. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 


What country do you live in? If its the US, please emigrate to the UK.

Lets try to collect up all the people who want a nanny state for their own safety, and let them have it. Since the UK has a big head start on the Big Brother technology, maybe we should use it. We can do an exchange program, the non-'fraidy cats can come live here, and all of our citizens who are willing to give up all their freedoms to save their own sorry gonna-die-anyway-someday tail ends from the boogey men can go live over there.

Sheesh. I cant believe you guys say stuff like this in public and arent ashamed of your selves.

Edit to add,

And by your logic, "Well once its invented we kinda HAVE to use it," apply that to nukes and biological weapons please.

And comparing spying technology designed to be used in public areas to technology used to prevent detect bridges in danger of collapsing is, well, unintelligent.

The question you should be asking is why we are developing all this technology to spy on citizens, control the movements of citizen when we have a gaping southern border that everyone and their cousin is coming across.

Face it, this isnt about security for the citizens, this is about controlling the citizens, and security for the people who are exploiting this country on the off chance any of the millions of zombies walking around suddenly wake up and realize there is a problem here.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 

This is for the good of the people. Just think how many lives this will save. Get over your antiquated doctrine of a right to privacy. The safety of the people shall be maintained at all cost. We need this as a deterrent. When people know the government can hear every word they say, then they will only say (and think) what the government allows them say (and think).

Do you have something to hide? If not then why would this bother you?
----------
This is sarcasm but watch how many people actually fall in line and defend this invasive garbage.

Peace



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FearNoEvil
 


Whew!
You had me worried for a second.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Great find Sir.

Another slip step on the slippy slope..... to losing our freedoms.

I have to admit. I am glad I am at the age I am now. I got to see the good USA-AS I want it to be--- to what it fast becoming. I will be dead before these freaks get total control.

But if not, I am sure I speak for many in saying: Give me liberty or give me Death!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 


Originally posted by Mayson

Originally posted by wayno

Originally posted by Mayson
Why do things like this always get met with so much resistance?

If someone wants to have computers monitor conversations and alert a human when there is a potential problem, what's the harm?

You'll be OK as long as you're not planning something nefarious. Is everyone here planning on doing something bad and that's why you don't want these things?



Why should there be an automatic assumption that everyone is planning something bad? In spite of what you see on the news, I believe most people really are good and want whats best for themselves and for others. OK, don't believe it, but its true.

The need to spy on people and their conversations is bogus, made-up, and an unnecessary waste of money (yours and mine). It is not needed, so why should we pay for it? Why should we have our every conversation monitored? Even if I am only discussing the weather with a friend, that is still a private conversation and no need to share it with anyone else.

What is so hard to understand about that?


This I can understand.

Why pay for something that someone feels is unnecessary.

Now that the technology exists, I think the government is forced to implement it.

Do you remember the outcry that happened after the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed? After the flood walls collapsed in New Orleans after Katrina? People blamed the government for not taking steps to prevent these things from happening.

Traditionally the government, probably in the interest of saving a few dollars, has been reactive; only fixing something when it becomes a problem. In this case, the government should be applauded for being proactive for once.

Can you imagine the outcry if there were another terrorist attack on the order of 9/11 that the government could have prevented, but didn't in order to save a few dollars?

Is it necessary? I have no idea. It's not up to me, but up to what the group mind decides. If the past is any indicator, they'll hate it for being a waste of money but would have hated it had it not been implemented. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.


So if they could implant a device in you that could transmit your speech, physical condition and location to a government monitor - would you get in line for it?

This would prevent crime so it's only logical that you would want this.

Right?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join