Surveillance camers so powerful the are able to read your text messages

Apparently they aren't satisfied with programs that an read your keyboard strokes.

We are now getting into something, I don't remember if George Orwell thought them up in Big Brother.

Used properly it could help save lives I understand that, but to have that kind of power well nearly always corrupts and gets out of conrol.

I think sometimes that the past dictators of the world would've loved this time frame. Fortunate for us they didn't have this kind of technology,. Anyway its a kind of police state I don't think anyone would've thought of to keep abreast of the people's actlvltles.

This is downright spooky and scary. Let me know what do you think.

Daily Mail Reporter
Daily Mail Reporter[/url]

Surveillance cameras are now so powerful they are able to zoom in and read your text messages - leading to fears of further privacy intrusion by a 'Big Brother' style state.As well as being advanced enough to close in on an individual’s phone screen, security cameras will soon be able to pick up on raised voices and sniff out drugs too.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

We have cameras that can read a car tag from orbit and a camera that can read text messages from across the street and we still can not get better pictures of the moon ?

The daily mail should be taken with a pinch of salt.

However, its probably possible. Dont use your phone where they can see it. Not that it matters coz ALL texts are held for two years anyway.

reply to post by fixer1967


I just saw that other thread an was gona post what u just said

Oh boy, I hope they don't read me and my spouses messages to each other. That could get a little toasty.

With great technology comes great responsibility. I don't think we can advance as a race without all of this happening, it's how we decide to use it that dictates how long we will survive.

Well, it stands to reason that if they have satellites in outer space that can take a picture of an ant hill on earth and tell you how many ants are crawling on top of it, they'd have security cameras with the ability to zoom in on your computer screen. I don't know about these cameras, but the satellites that can do what I mentioned have been around for over a decade. We live in crazy times.

Originally posted by seeker11
With great technology comes great responsibility. I don't think we can advance as a race without all of this happening, it's how we decide to use it that dictates how long we will survive.

Yes, a responsibility that humanity is not mature enough to handle. Our technological evolution has far surpassed our biological evolution. That is part of humanity's problem.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by seeker11
With great technology comes great responsibility. I don't think we can advance as a race without all of this happening, it's how we decide to use it that dictates how long we will survive.

Yes, a responsibility that humanity is not mature enough to handle. Our technological evolution has far surpassed our biological evolution. That is part of humanity's problem.

Yes and no. How can we know whether or not we can handle it unless we have it in the first place? Yes we might completely destroy ourselves but we might learn to handle it before that happens. That's the beautiful thing about life and the ugly thing too. So much potential to triumph but just as much potential to utterly fail.

Sometimes responsibility can mature you really quickly, other times you may not be up to the challenge.

Like a new parent, you might be young and naive but when you have a kid you have no choice but to mature very quickly and if you don't...well there's always that possibility.

I'd like to be hopeful!

reply to post by 1loserel2


And they want us to believe that they can't take a really GOOD picture of the moon. or Mars? BS .. Oh I forgot .. we have already landed and sat up shop there.. ALSO they do not WANT pixs to prove that .. now do we?

Originally posted by hollwd
reply to post by 1loserel2

 

And they want us to believe that they can't take a really GOOD picture of the moon. or Mars? BS .. Oh I forgot .. we have already landed and sat up shop there.. ALSO they do not WANT pixs to prove that .. now do we?

That has always puzzled me.

Never quite made sense but perhaps I'm missing something.

Originally posted by fixer1967
We have cameras that can read a car tag from orbit ...
and we still can not get better pictures of the moon ?

Because its not true.
The best spy sats have a resolution of about 10 - 15 cm, meaning that the car plate will only be about 2 pixels in total.

You can calculate this for yourself right now, at home, if you wish.
Rather than me lead you to a misleading untrustworthy page, just google "how to calculate the angular resolution of a telescope" (or similar).

Post your results here.

reply to post by fixer1967


You're right there.

What about the DMV? I would think the moon pictures are on a higher level the pictures they take for a license or i.d.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by fixer1967
We have cameras that can read a car tag from orbit ...
and we still can not get better pictures of the moon ?

Because its not true.
The best spy sats have a resolution of about 10 - 15 cm, meaning that the car plate will only be about 2 pixels in total.

You can calculate this for yourself right now, at home, if you wish.
Rather than me lead you to a misleading untrustworthy page, just google "how to calculate the angular resolution of a telescope" (or similar).

Post your results here.

What about sending the rovers out and such? Wouldn't they be equipped with the best cameras?


I wish I was better educated on pixels & resolution etc.

Originally posted by seeker11
1) How can we know whether or not we can handle it unless we have it in the first place?

2) Yes we might completely destroy ourselves but we might learn to handle it before that happens. That's the beautiful thing about life and the ugly thing too. So much potential to triumph but just as much potential to utterly fail.

edit on 6-5-2012 by seeker11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2012 by seeker11 because: (no reason given)

1) It's called common sense and a lack of ego. Instinctively knowing what we can't handle and the lack of ego required to admit it to ourselves. If they made a car that went 300 mph, my instincts would tell me I'm not skilled enough to handle it, and my ego wouldn't tell me to try it anyway just for the sake of seeing if I can. Sounds like a pretty easy way to die to me.

Besides, they don't make this type of technology to see if our biological side can handle it. They don't care about such nonsense honey, it doesn't make them money. I know you know that.

2) That's a pretty scary proposition. If that's a risk you're willing to take, that's your prerogative, but by no means try to sell that idea to the public. By that reasoning, I take it you wouldn't be afraid of bungee jumping off a 700 foot high bridge with a rope made of material they hadn't tested yet? "How would I know if it doesn't work if I haven't tried it?"

Go for it sister, but remind me never to take you to bed with me.

I might not wake up.

reply to post by fixer1967


Priceless

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

Originally posted by seeker11
1) How can we know whether or not we can handle it unless we have it in the first place?

2) Yes we might completely destroy ourselves but we might learn to handle it before that happens. That's the beautiful thing about life and the ugly thing too. So much potential to triumph but just as much potential to utterly fail.

edit on 6-5-2012 by seeker11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2012 by seeker11 because: (no reason given)

1) It's called common sense and a lack of ego. Instinctively knowing what we can't handle and the lack of ego required to admit it to ourselves. If they made a car that went 300 mph, my instincts would tell me I'm not skilled enough to handle it, and my ego wouldn't tell me to try it anyway just for the sake of seeing if I can. Sounds like a pretty easy way to die to me.

Besides, they don't make this type of technology to see if our biological side can handle it. They don't care about such nonsense honey, it doesn't make them money. I know you know that.

2)

That's a pretty scary proposition. If that's a risk you're willing to take, that's your prerogative, but by no means try to sell that idea to the public. By that reasoning, I take it you wouldn't be afraid of bungee jumping off a 700 foot high bridge with a rope made of material they hadn't tested yet? "How would I know if it doesn't work if I haven't tried it?"

Go for it sister, but remind me never to take you to bed with me.

I might not wake up.

But how can we get anywhere great if we're not willing to take great risks?

I am hypothetically speaking of course about this stuff, but I do like pushing the boundaries in terms of thinking beyond this particular life. I'm not sure where the whole 700 foot high bridge with untested material came from haha I'm deathly afraid of heights so no, I would not do that. But anyways, isn't life totally trial and error anyways? There are always going to be things pushing the boundaries of what we find acceptable or comfortable, that's just part of evolution. I'm not trying to sound crass or unfeeling for the human race, actually if you knew me in real life you would see I am one of the most compassionate caring people, however I do have fun thinking in terms of what ifs. Also I like to think that we are all made of energy, and energy never dies it just changes form so in the end after I am long gone my energy will still be existing on in some way and everything really will be OK. I try not to get too terribly attached to this life, so if we blow ourselves up with a nuclear disaster that would definitely be a terrible thing, for our physical bodies, but our energies will continue to live on, and explore and change and create. (Of course I can't prove any of that, just what helps me sleep at night.)

Ah what the hell, I'll do it myself.

You want to read, from space, the plate on a car.

Lets assume then, that you need a resolution of about 5mm, from a distance of 350km.
Thats 8.185 x 10-7 degrees.
or 0.0029466 arcseconds.

Then...
Angular resolution formula:

a = 250000 x W / d, where:
a = angular resolution in arc seconds
W = wavelength in meters (lets just use 500nm)
d = telescope diameter in meters

so...
0.0029466 = 250000 x (500 × 10^-9) / D

is a space telescope with a diameter of 42 meters.

Do you know of any?
They'd be VERY easy to see from the ground at night.
By comparison, the Hubble telescope is only 2.4 meters.
You'd be talking about a space telescope with a mirror half the size of the ISS.

Doesnt exist.

so what happens when you use your phone like it is intended. actually talking to a live human being.

I think there may be something missing from your calcs.

As I understand it, it is active elements and optics.

So how many pixels you have and the optics. I think you are only working on the optics side / as if it were a human eye / which it is not.

P

reply to post by 1loserel2


Well, on the plus side, ECHELON was already reading them and storing them for future use.
So I don't guess it really matters if the cameras can read my texts at this point.

*big sigh*