German activists start campaign to destroy surveillance cameras

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
good stuff...




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAstra
 


I liked the example you chose of a rich women in monaco and no crime there because of cameras !

yet take a scheme in glasgow or a scheme in manchester and you get cameras everywhere and loads of crime

that raises another issue poverty = crime



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


There are loads and loads of "tourists" in Monaco at any given time. Most of them aren't rich.
(Because the country is small - it's just one small town, really - most come for a day only.)
And I am sure not all come with the best intentions. But when they see the cameras they move on. It's hopeless.

But you are right, of course. An environment where poverty is rife will always be much trickier to manage in terms of safety.
Still, surveillance cameras can only help.

BTW, I also used a different example:




Just ask the mother of a child who was abducted but found a few hours later only because there were surveillance cameras on the parking lot what she thinks about it.


It really happened. More than once.

And if it weren't for cameras, those two bastards who killed Jamie Bulger would never have been found.


edit on 15-1-2013 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye

I, like most of you don't like the idea that someone could follow me everywhere by using cctv.


And I doubt anyone is. That seems to be a very common misconception: that there are actual people there watching every move of every single individual.
There's nobody there. There isn't even a "there".
In most cases, those tapes are only viewed when their evidence is needed. And boy, can they be helpful when that happens!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Good reason to buy a big bore air rifle. i bet there cameras can not stand up to too many holes in them and because a air gun sounds nothing like a regular firearm gun shot detectors will not track on them.
Paint ball guns work on surveillance cameras also.

You can buy empty paintballs and fill them with regular paint or glass etching compound.
www.rap4.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
It's like a cool new video game... You can choose to form a group, a partnership, or go it alone. You find new innovative ways of disabling or destroying the camera without allowing yourself to be seen or identified by the cameras or LEOs. There's a multitude of weapons to choose from. This could make a neat little game on the Android and iPhone platforms and spread awareness at the same time while warning kids not to try this at home XD hey its the new way of reaching people. Gotta find a way to get between them and their entertainment long enough to deliver some information... i was a developer or programmer or something. I have been playing video games to escape my reality for over 20 years straight. As far back as I can remember, they have brought me joy, and I have spent a great deal of time contemplating these games, and what makes them good, or bad. I saw a nonsmoking inspired game and liked the idea, but the game SUCKED!!! I could make an awesome nonsmoking game, and I smoke, so I could relate... I would focus the game on the big evil tobbacco execs and attacking their profit. I might make it more of an RPG. Or even a hidden object game... There are tons of images we associate with smoking that could be used as a backdrop, or the objects themselves, although I prefer a backdrop of cigarette related images with more randomized items you're supposed to find. Add in a few other types of puzzles and a storyline with some good characters and settings and you're halfway there. I would get into the science and the history of smoking. No lies or propoganda or fear, just facts. Maybe have an extras section with more info. Like a list of tobacco statistics and myths and a true simple explanation of why it does or does not make sense to smoke. A diagram showing the cost impact and how much money per week and month and year you spend...you can enter in how much you smoke and how much your smokes cost per pack, and push enter and it tells you. The game itself is still up in the air, but if it were my job to do this, I could sit down with a pad and paper and figure something out in 10 or 20 minutes, and spend however long ironing it all out. Programming for an app for a phone has to be quicker and easier than programming for a PC, right? Maybe I will learn to do this once and for all. I probably won't make the smoking game but I'll make some better games that will lead people to make better choices... Like the one about destroying cameras XD Perhaps I could include one level about cigarattes on one of my games... That could work. Or maybe a game where you play as your own body systems as they each fight against the chemicals in the cigarettes... You could have one level of the lungs, one of the heart, the throat, the teeth, skin, hair, eyes, kidney liver etc...

In a game about destroying cameras an FPS seems the obvious choice... Or maybe top down? Or RPG? I'm not sure if 3D rendering is the best way to go since I'm assuming we would be on a budget. Unless we find wealthy investors! There could be different levels of cameras. For example, traffic cameras only take a picture when they detect a car running a red light. You don't even really need a mask for these ones...unless your shooting out the window of a car while running a red light. But at the beginning you might not have a car yet. Then some cameras you need a mask because they are constantly recording from a remote location. But a mask cost money... Some cameras have someone actively watching from the other side at all times. So a mask is not sufficient. You need to disable it without it seeing you... Or get out of there immediately after you disable one. But that won't work if you have multiple cameras you need to disable on a single mission and some of them are not very close together. In some cases you may have to find a way to destroy more than one camera simultaneously, since the deactivation of one camera will bring a security guard to investigate the premises. Unless you time and coordinate your pathway to your escape route, keeping in mind the blueprints to the building and the location of the security video booth where guards reside so that you can avoid them in your pathway. Imagine a 2D platformer. I'm thinking giant levels, big buildings, elevators, groups of buildings. Slingshots, baseball bats, paintball guns, wire cutters, pellet guns, m80 firecrackers, crowbars... Hacksaw. Laser pointer, mirror, rice grains, mini emp blast, a bit of parkour a la Marc Ecco... Hurdles, backflips, trapeze, prancing like a ballerina across multidimensional landscapes of lazerbeams reflecting every which way as you lenter the building and bypass its security. Going Chuck Norris on the first pedestrian you see because they could know too much... Are you still reading this? Why? I went off the deep end a loooong time ago. Come on... Video games about cigarettes? Who would believe such nonsense?? Seriously, get a life... It's too late for me... Save... Yourself.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
My nephew works in one of those cctv observation rooms. It keeps the wolves from his door while he is training hard for a career in mma competitions and I'm sure if he ever spotted someone trying to sabotage a cctv camera while he is off duty, he would swiftly choke them out and continue merrily on his way.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Briles1207
Great Idea, until they are attacked and there is no evidence because they have trashed all the cameras.

Security cameras are there to protect us.

If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried who is watching?


yes, but the camera did not stop you being attacked, did it?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff

Originally posted by Briles1207
Great Idea, until they are attacked and there is no evidence because they have trashed all the cameras.

Security cameras are there to protect us.

If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried who is watching?


yes, but the camera did not stop you being attacked, did it?

Actually, they do prevent people from attacking you..
you don't think a camera prevents people from mugging people in the streets?
You don't think cameras prevent people from shoplifting?

Cities are already bad. I can't imagine what it'd be like with no cameras anywhere.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
This accomplishes nothing other than more tax dollars being spent repairing broken cameras and a better long term argument for more cameras and surveillance overall... you could almost say this is self-defeatist behaviour.

Rather than attacking inanimate objects (cameras), they should be attacking the policies, control and uses of the surveillance.

Regardless of how they kick and scream, a monitored society is fairly inevitable. Everything has some form of "sensor" or "monitoring" in it these days, cameras are some of the most simple (heat, movement, sound, infrared, facial recognition... all sensors...)... even your windshield "senses" when it is raining and turns the wipers on for you, or your house "senses" who you are and adjusts the environment to your preferences.

There are enormous benefits to monitoring and controlling data... Sat Nav anyone?... among many other current and emerging benefits.

I say monitor it all... but make all of the data fully public, and change privacy, copyright and intellectual property laws to make the individual the complete owner of all information pertaining to themselves, with strict laws against information abuse. For instance... if someone takes a photo/video of me and posts to facebook, I own "me" in that media. This would allow me to "edit" myself out using automated software programs, of any image that I haven't given permission to be used (this is only a tiny example).

The total public nature of all data would make it so authorities would find it very hard to abuse data against an individual without intense public scrutiny.

Governments and organisations often talk about "transparency" in their business and politics... I agree, but lets actually make it a reality.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAstra
 


Yes I remember the bulgar case well when I was in school , what really shocked me is that because they were minors they were given new identities and allowed to continue their lives elsewhere !

hardly learning from their mistakes are they !

Agreed though the camera footage in most cases is needed in delivering justice , yet in some cases it never gets reviewed unless its really a high profile case ! I think because its data protection it will cost the courts money to request a legal notice to gather this evidence . In small cases this already adds to the cost and length of time given on the case ! I can only imagine its a cost benefit analysis for those smaller criminal cases !

Living in glasgow however I have seen plenty of crimes taking place in the streets at night in the most heavily watched streets in glasgow and in most cases the police dont even do anything .

Whether the evidence is used later on I have no idea.

I still believe that the cameras are there primarily to protect business interests , they sell it to the public as our protection when we question it



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


Way to kill entire genre of photography. That would be ridicilous.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Don't get me started on the treatment those two got....
It's one thing to prosecute minors more leniently for misdemeanors, thefts and such - even involuntary manslaughter.
But sadistically killing a tiny tot just because, for thrills?
There's no excuse for that, and their being children themselves at the time makes it even more chilling. There's no way creatures like that will go on to live a life of loving kindness. Some people really are "born killers", and they should be treated accordingly: imprisoned for life. It may be an unpopular opinion, but that's how I feel.

But that's a different story, so I'll leave it at that.




edit on 16-1-2013 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


What would be ridiculous?Having complete ownership/control of all media/data related to oneself? I'd like that...

Or being able to edit images?

It won't destroy photography at all, plus it's already happening. Do you think there are any images you see in magazines or media that aren't heavily edited? When do you think the last time was that you saw a real car in a car ad... you most likely don't realise, but it's been almost a decade since car ads had real cars in them?

I even have a bunch of macros in photoshop for batch editing, that automatically touches up many aspects of my images in seconds (1000's of images edited at the touch of a button).

The nature of perceptive reality is changing rapidly with technology, both increasing and limiting our perceptions of what is real. It's not good or bad, just something we have to be aware of.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
 


What would be ridiculous?Having complete ownership/control of all media/data related to oneself? I'd like that...


That would be completely ridicilous. Would kill street photography totally. Also impossible to enforce.
I'm a photographer by profession so I am well aware of editing aspects in media. We actually had one commercial editor who showed us how one car add was made from something like 20 pictures + 3D model of the car.
edit on 16/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I don't think it would kill street photography at all. People like being seen, and so most wouldn't opt out of having their photos posted, but technology does allow for the option. It really isn't any different than current laws... if my image or copyright material is used without my permission, I can request its removal or even sue. It is just extending that idea to the virtual world en masse.

This image comes to mind as one of the most abused uses of a persons image:
(img src: 3.bp.blogspot.com...)
... she didn't know for years, and wasn't exactly happy when she found out that her image had been used to make lots of people money without her knowledge.

My biggest fear is governments/organisations "owning", footage images or data of me, without me knowing what that info is.

I once had the pleasure of dealing with GM on a finance deal for a product... and they refused me. I wasn't allowed to know why, and they wouldn't divulge information about me to me... through much prying I found out that I wasn't a big enough risk for them... so I bought the product out of my savings... crazy.

Surveillance or my image being captured in something like street photography isn't anything to be afraid of, but it should be a persons' choice about how their image is stored or used.

PS. I love trying to pick how car ads are pieced together. ;-j



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
There's a difference between your image and copyrighted material which is exactly the point. You do not own the copyright to your likeness. Using someones copyrighted material without permission online or offline is and has been illegal for ages.
Also when it comes to that particular image there was no such thing as abuse. The photographer owned the rights to that image.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Whatever comes from yoUR pSYChE...
is yoURS...
Noone can take that from you!
Your mind is yours/free



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


I agree , but what do we do when we realise that we all share the same greater consciousness !



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by TheJourney
 


I agree , but what do we do when we realise that we all share the same greater consciousness !


Then wE have a new REALity...
I call this...
the DREAM





top topics
 
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join