'Big brother' lamp posts can hear, see and bark 'Obey!' at you

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


There's every reason in the world for a private citizen to expect privacy in private, (in their homes, on private property, in their cars) but when walking down a sidewalk, one is in public, anyone at any time can observe, and listen to what that person is doing or saying.

There's a difference between being in public, and being in private. Your privacy as far as your actions or words ends in public.

I would agree with you if they were to put one of these things in your home, car or on private property. I would completely agree that people have the right to privacy in those situations. In public, on the street however, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Cause your in public.

reply to post by HauntWok


There is no constitution that grants government any authority to declare that a person must be in a private setting in order to enjoy privacy. You've ignored law in order to reach your conclusions. That makes your conclusion, unlawful.

You, just the same as any government, have no authority to declare when and where people may enjoy their rights.

reply to post by HauntWok


I don't know, but I get hassled everytime I bring my SLR out to Toronto, hell even in the sub-urbs, for some reason people are under the impression, that if they're on public property they can tell others what they can take pictures of and what they can't. Personally all the cameras will never solve anything, and look on the bright side, the cops have to be aware when around one of these things. Other crime will still happen of course, but I mean drug dealers are creative, they'll figure something out.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Seriously, every action you do in public can be observed, every sound you make, can be heard. What, do you expect that when you walk down the road, people should gouge out their eyes and stab their eardrums cause you have privacy issues?

Sure, you have a right to some privacy in public. A cop can't just demand your identification for walking down the road. And I'm pretty sure they can't just slam you against a wall and search you for singing "I'm a little teapot".

But they sure can look at you in public, and they sure can listen to your rendition of "I'm a little teapot". And there's not much you can do about it because you are in public.

reply to post by HauntWok


It takes a disturbing disconnect with reality to declare that every action in public can be seen, or every sound heard. Even with barking lampposts this remains merely a fantasy of yours. Your histrionic declarations of gouging out eyeballs and stabbing eardrums pretends that this excuses barking lampposts. It does not, just because, if I pass you on a sidewalk, you can see me, and perhaps even hear my footsteps, this does not give government the lawful authority to plant cameras everywhere. You had to desperately run to gouging out eyeballs and stabbing eardrums in hopes people would forget this thread is about "Big Brother" lampposts. Not a good sign of a winning argument.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's just reality JPZ, sorry, but it's true. Your actions and words in public aren't private. Now again, if they were to put these in people's homes, or cars, or on private property, I would be with you, but on public property, well, it's public property, and so there is no inherent right to privacy.

SO I guess my gleefully looking forward to lamp posts being equipped with lasers to zap the crap out of people who jay walk and do it as slow as possible while staring you down is a BAD thing???

I have learned over the years that no one can reasonably expect privacy any more than we can expect civility and decorum anywhere at any time even when the situation demands it. We are watched much of the time and even in the sanctity of our homes. Your every move, purchase, "private" medical data... everything is known about you by someone(s). My only defense against raging paranoia is that I know IT guys.. there will never be a linked and cross referenced database about each of us individually due to incompetence.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It's just reality JPZ, sorry, but it's true. Your actions and words in public aren't private. Now again, if they were to put these in people's homes, or cars, or on private property, I would be with you, but on public property, well, it's public property, and so there is no inherent right to privacy.

Again, you are willfully ignoring law in order to make this determination. Here's the deal sport, if a government run camera catches a criminal in the act of committing a crime and that camera is a clear and present violation of that persons right to privacy, then a smart attorney will have the evidence the prosecution intends to use - the video footage of the crime - suppressed for being an unreasonable search. The camera accomplishes nothing but strike fear in the hearts of good people. That's reality, sport. Here's your reality sandwich: Act upon the unlawful opinions you are posting here and that becomes a crime. You do not have the right to invade other persons privacy, regardless of where they are.

Finally, the California State Constitution I posted say's you're wrong about "no inherent right to privacy". For good measure, let me repeat this because it bears repeating; violate the rights of others and you are acting unlawfully. You certainly have the right to speak your mind, that in fact is an inherent right, but for yor sake, do not act upon your belief that you can invade the privacy of private persons, you may find you've violated the rights of someone who knows the law.

I remember seeing a video of one of these talking Camera's in London .

.

I wouldn't worry, the vandalism children will just beat them down anyway.


You know they won't put with that.

Great chat guys. Loving your feedback and I will read the rest n add my replies to your statements when I get home.. Chhers!

reply to post by HauntWok

There's every reason in the world for a private citizen to expect privacy in private, (in their homes, on private property, in their cars) but when walking down a sidewalk, one is in public, anyone at any time can observe, and listen to what that person is doing or saying. There's a difference between being in public, and being in private. Your privacy as far as your actions or words ends in public.

You fail to understand the meaning of privacy. Privacy includes a whole list of things that go far beyond being listened to or photographed.

Of course, if people from the public are photographing or recording, that is not an invasion of privacy while in public. Because you are in the public domain with your equals.

However, if Government decides to do this, it is the same right that says they can stop you, search you and ask any question they want. Papers?

Originally posted by Manhater
I wouldn't worry, the vandalism children will just beat them down anyway.

You know they won't put with that.

I'm twenty four and I'm still a vandal of government surveillance property. Once I start seeing these around I'm going to have a field day lol.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I wonder how long until they start printing out fines like in "Demolition Man"?

not exactly as far off as people would imagine...

CCTV cameras 'listen for trouble'

Thursday, 12 February 2009

A Dutch company called Sound Intelligence carried out a two week long trial in a busy city centre street. They stress that their system, called Sigard, does not record conversations. It listens not to what is being said but how it is being said.

At the company's headquarters in the Dutch city of Amersfoort, Bram Kuipers explained that Sigard was listening for the changes that affect the human voice in an aggressive situation.

Sound Intelligence say Sigard is able to discriminate between the sound of aggression and other, everyday loud noises like passing trucks and car horns. Kuipers demonstrated this by clapping his hands. A display screen noted the sounds but took no action. Then he shouted aggressively. This time an alarm sounded and a CCTV camera spun round to look directly at the source of the shouting.

Such systems are already in everyday use on the streets of several Dutch towns and cities. The company said it also has uses in potential flashpoints like prisons and benefits offices. There are hopes eventually to sell Sigard in other markets...

+
Middleborough Police Chief Proposes $20 Fine For Swearing

April 30, 2012

Public swearing is so bad in Middleborough that they’re considering a plan to start enforcing a longstanding but rarely-used law.

Folks in town have had enough of kids and some adults who think it’s OK to drop high-volume obscenities in their otherwise bucolic downtown.

“It’s intimidating to my customers,” says business owner Paulette Lilla, “to the people who are out here downtown, and I think it’s a good thing that they’re doing something to try to curb it.”

Former Middleborough Selectwoman Mimi Duphily says, “I don’t think it will solve the problem but it will make them understand what is acceptable behavior and what is not.”

The town’s police chief has proposed to give $20 tickets to vulgar loudmouths as a deterrent to downtown air pollution.

+
www.marketwatch.com... lighting-and-network-control-system-2012-05-03

May 3, 2012

...

Operating effectively without cable installation, underground trenching or wire maintenance to set-up the control of the outdoor lighting, sound and video, SmartSite is a 24/7 area-wide system that offers architectural luminaire styles, a robust platform, digital wireless solutions, Wi-Fi capabilities, and a myriad of homeland security features. SmartSite also offers multimedia solutions that can upgrade an existing infrastructure to provide information, advertising, security and entertainment for public spaces with streetlights that automatically adjust the lighting to illuminate the area with the specific amount of light needed. The digital display banners, and synchronized sound from integrated speakers on each "Smart" light pole, will provide a seamless audience experience as well as generate a measurable revenue stream.

now our revenue collection agents can get even fatter...

Let us not forget how easily these things are hacked into.

rt.com...

The researcher adds that his team examined more than 1,000 closed-circuit TV cameras that had Internet capabilities and could also be hacked with just a little bit of the right know-how. Most of the major brands come with remote Internet access enabled by default, reports the website, and unless an administrator takes it upon his or herself to disable this service or make a different password, cracking into the system is as easy as making a few educated guesses.“

We find about 70 percent of the systems have not had the default passwords changed,” he says.

Often those default passwords aren’t very hard to crack either. He says that usually the administrator’s log-in is, predictably, “admin,” or, in some cases, “user.” Passwords are often easy-to-guess numerical codes, such as “1234” or “1111.”

“All the ones we found have remote access enabled by default,” Cacak says. “Not all the customers may be aware [of this]…. Because most people view these [video feeds] via console screens, they may not be aware that they can be remotely accessed.”

reply to post by boncho

However, if Government decides to do this, it is the same right that says they can stop you, search you and ask any question they want. Papers?

That's a giant leap there.

Are these things going to stop you? Are these things going to search you? Are these things going to card you?

Last time I checked, the police CAN ask you any question they want. Whether you answer them or not is up to you. Hell, they can even ask for your identification, doesn't mean you have to give it to them.

I do enjoy talking to the anarchy crowd. The people that think that they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want with absolutely no consequences at all. The same people that call police jerks for busting them for committing a crime.

"All I was doing was mugging someone, and this pig busted me for it, gah, why can't they just leave me alone, I wasn't doin anything wrong!"

I hear it all the time, people blaming the police for their own idiocy, blaming the government because people aren't allowed to be violent anti social psychopaths.

Are there laws requiring you to bring your IDs when you take a stroll down the street?

Sure, with all the Anti-Immigration bills that the states are passing they might expect it, but does it implicitly ask you to brink your government issued identification on a walk?

If a cop asks to see your ID, and you don't have one, how do they treat you? I've never run into that situation.

So am I going to be arrested for something when I give one of these poles barking orders at me the finger? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

reply to post by HauntWok

That's a giant leap there.

Are these things going to stop you? Are these things going to search you? Are these things going to card you?

Last time I checked, the police CAN ask you any question they want. Whether you answer them or not is up to you. Hell, they can even ask for your identification, doesn't mean you have to give it to them.

Privacy is privacy. If you give up one form of privacy you leave the door open for all of it to be taken. I'm not the "anarchy crowd", I just worry what type of world we will leave to our children, or what type of world they will create when they think it is "okay" to do things that have been protected for centuries.

---
A story from Toronto Canada:

Evidence presented in court showed Marji punched the driver in the face and slammed his head on a police cruiser. He also grabbed the driver twice by the testicles and squeezed so hard as to elicit screams of pain.

Marji is 5-foot-11 and weighs about 240 pounds.

The officer denied the assaults or that he grabbed the motorist’s testicles but did not deny that the search was aggressive.

Police suspected the victim of being involved in drug activity because he was carrying two cellphones when he was pulled over on Lawrence Ave. E., just west of Jane St., an area known for violent gang activity.

It was later learned that the victim, a 21-year-old university student, was a cellphone sales representative.

www.thestar.com...

This is not a dig at cops, it merely shows what can happen to an innocent person when we officials working for government act with prejudice. And in this case the officer was clearly wrong and prosecuted for it.

Obviously not all officers are like this.

Obviously not all people who have more than one cell phone are up to nefarious activities.

There is a reason government powers are supposed to be limited, to prevent the corruption of individuals who are assigned to enforce those powers.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Seriously, every action you do in public can be observed, every sound you make, can be heard. What, do you expect that when you walk down the road, people should gouge out their eyes and stab their eardrums cause you have privacy issues?
But they sure can look at you in public, and they sure can listen to your rendition of "I'm a little teapot". And there's not much you can do about it because you are in public.

OK yes, people can hear you and see you and you accept this when you're out in any public space - but tell me...how would you react if somebody just came up and took a picture of you on their camera?

And NO, I don't mean they were taking a photo of the street or the building behind you and you just happened to be part of the scene on public land - I mean they come up to YOU and take a close-up of YOU.

Or sidled up close to you and your significant-other on the park bench and started audio-recording you?

I suppose you'd be OK with that?

And of course, since you're OUT IN PUBLIC, it's OK if somebody just wants to audio-record your conversation or video-tape you, bcoz according to you, anything you do / say in public spaces is fair game and it's ok to not just take these in as PASSIVE SENSORY INPUT (hearing, seeing) but that it's OK to RECORD IT and STORE IT FOREVER & EVER & EVER??!!

OH and by the way, if the public doesn't want to be recorded (since they are the taxpaying lords & masters of the government, or at least that's how it should be), then public land or otherwise, these things shouldn't be getting installed. It's kind of like, the government is a new type of royalty - who decides what they want to do, then levy taxes on you to pay for it.