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 BO XIAN
reply to post by TheIceQueen
The usual "reasons" . . . .
--Labeling as part of an OUT-GROUP preparatory to
--herding into camps and
Check history . . . always the same.
Minority Report for 2014
The most insidious aspect of general surveillance is not illegal privacy invasion. It is even not the full personal history that enables indefinite retroactive incrimination.
The biggest danger lies from exclusive access to large data sets unavailable to others. Mining this data may provide novel actionable inferences, existence of which is out of grasp of the general public.
Just as hypothetical example, there may be a correlation between higher ratio of electronic contacts with close friends compared to other contacts, and number of people rallying on streets week later. Another artificial example would be stronger than random correlation between using certain words together in messages and anti-government sentiment developing several months later. Inferences like these would give government peek into possible futures and opportunity to proactively intervene before anything happens. It would be very hard for the general public to match such precog machinery.
This sounds like sci-fi, but data mining in newly available data sets does more often than not result in major discoveries. The first part of the discovery is observed causality. The actual mechanism may be discovered later or never, but that doesn't stop you from using the learned causality to your advantage. Insurance companies make real money from actuarial tables.
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
as far as i know, there is only one reason why people want information on other people in this fashion, in order to have it in case they want to use it against them.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
They've been monitoring for years and years and years. When are they going to exterminate us already?
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Let's say a man, a very bad man, likes raping little boys. He has done it once, and has been to prison and done his time. Now he's out, and moves to your neighborhood, where you have a little boy. You have seen him sitting on his front porch, watching your little boy play with other little boys in your front yard. Sitting on one's porch is not against the law, correct?
Let's say this man has a previous M.O. of getting on kid's social websites before he moves on to the next step of going after a little boy. He doesn't do anything illegal on these websites - he just looks. But it gets him excited enough to move on to the next step. Would you want the government to monitor what he looks at on the internet, so they can see if he is starting to look at those websites? Do you want your little boy to be raped first before any action is taken? How do you think this situation should be handled if it were your little boy that he's watching? I know how I would like it to be handled if it were my little boy. I want the authorities to be watching every move he makes, including online. If he starts going on those kid's social websites, I want him gone.
Yes, I am responsible for my kid, but I don't want my innocent child to be kept in a virtual prison in order to make sure that guy doesn't hurt him. Why should my kid - who hasn't done anything - be the one locked away to be kept safe?