I was reading <u>an article</u> regarding the Greek Olympics and the last few paragraphs caught me off guard:
The article discusses the tight network of cameras, sensors, and microphones designed to centralize security surrounding the games, as well as all electronic communication to and from the area.
Six human rights groups protested the security for fear that these measures will have a negative impact on basic human rights.
My initial reaction was "You have the basic human right to get your fuckin' ass blown to kingdom come when a fuckin' car bomber runs your ass over...." but where exactly IS that line?
Is it okay that the CIA can read all of the email you send and receive if they like? Common sense would say the only protestors would be those who have something to hide... but if the FCC is any indication of what the Government believes to be "Acceptable", then most of this board's members are facing jail time. [img]wink.gif[/img]
What are your thoughts?
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ August 11, 2004 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Baimun ]</font>
Considering they already found like 4 bombs, I think they should be damn grateful all that security is there.
Oh, and as for privacy in general, people can know whatever the fuck they want about me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
<font color="#cd6600"><font size="1">[ August 11, 2004 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Peter Hoffman ]</font></font>
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ August 11, 2004 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Peter Hoffman ]</font>
My opinion is that if I wanted your opinion I would have beaten it out of you [img]wink.gif[/img]
In reality - I am used to the cmaeras since I hae spent a large amount of time overseas in Asia and Europe, and it has worked there to reduce incidents in *** area the cameras are. Although it does just push the activity out to the areas that don't have the same level of survailance.
Only those that have nothing better to do / think the gov't is out to get them and those that have something to hide have issues with this.
I for one would be more than happy to have the cameras in public places to reduce the chances of something happening and not being able to 1) detect it, or 2) track down those that did (and this statement is meant toward normal criminal activity as well as high level activity that can be listed as terrorism). For us, there is no right to privacy when you are out in public, and as long as the cameras stay in the public and don't intrude into the private areas of life, I don't see where anyone should have an issue with it.
Although I am curious as to what our resident legal council hads to say on the matter.....
Yup, as soon as you're in the public, you have no privacy rights. They're kind of, you know, complete opposites.
I tend to agree that there really isn't any "privacy" in public.... when I worked for Sprint I would tell people "If it isn't something you would say out loud in a restaraunt, don't say it on a cell phone."
I like to draw a DEEEEP line in the sand and am all for cameras on the highways or reasonable security in public places.... but when I get home, I should be able to watch what I want and listen to what I want without some suit determining whether it's acceptable for me or my children.
I don't know what kind of checklist the FCC and MPA have, but there are MANY PG-13 movies that I would be uncomfortable with my kids seeing without me, yet "Almost Famous" is an "R" rated movie that I'd recommend to any teen.
Peter - agree and that is pretty much what most people use as an excuse to be against the cameras "They are an invasion of my privacy". The last time I heard someone say that, I mentioned to them that they were in public and all rights to privacy are non-withstanding.
Still didn't catch with them.
Baimun - my wife and I agree on the inside the house. Granted, we don't have any children to contend with, nor will we, but we do take issue with what the FCC is doing of late. They are making decisions for us that we don't want them to make, and I can see where it biols down to they think they need to make the decisions for parents on what their kids should and shouldn't watch, because unlike you, Andyman, and the other parents here that I think are doing an excellent job in ensuring their children are protected, but also living a full life of experience and education; the majority of parents are leaving the rasing of children to the television and thin the gov't sould decide how their children are to be reaised.
But back to the issue at hand. I think if these people fight and the cameras are removed, and then if something happens, they are going to be the first ones to be crying "why the hell didn't you do something to prevent this???"
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd have said almost exactly what you did if you hadn't already typed it..... so I'll just quote it! [img]wink.gif[/img]Originally posted by -megalithanod:
Although I am curious as to what our resident legal council hads to say on the matter.....
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How far the gov't should be allowed to go to prevent crime/terrorism though is of course both a matter of degree and personal opinion. To use Baimun's example, I don't want anyone reading my mail and it's not because I have anything to hide. It's because it is my private mail. On the other hand, I have no problem with the mail being subject to non-intrusive things such as x-ray or drug detection devices.Originally posted by -megalithanod:
I for one would be more than happy to have the cameras in public places to reduce the chances of something happening and not being able to 1) detect it, or 2) track down those that did (and this statement is meant toward normal criminal activity as well as high level activity that can be listed as terrorism). For us, there is no right to privacy when you are out in public, and as long as the cameras stay in the public and don't intrude into the private areas of life, I don't see where anyone should have an issue with it.
The whole "you shouldn't care if you have nothing to hide" concept is a tricky one. Personally, though I agree with it in large part on an emotional level, I have to strongly disagree with it from a legal perspective. IMO that ("this intrusion shouldn't bother you if you have nothing to hide") is a very slippery slope to get started down.
Someone watched Enemy of the State last night on FX.
Well, I'm actually for the laxed rating system, in some cases. There are many unnecessary taboos in North America, particularily those associated with language and sexuality. Sex is part of our lives, and language is just words, and language evolves. Now, obviously there's a certain degree that is appropriate. A child obviously should be seeing vulgar sexuality or anything of the sort.
The key is to look at ratings as guidelines. They're not etched in stone, as ratings in Canada are usually one below what a movie is rated in the states. What needs to happen is parents need to take care of their own children and teach them what is ok to watch and what isn't. When I was a kid, my parents didn't let me watch certain types of movies, and when they weren't around, I still knew that I shouldn't watch such movies. In hindsight, I think they were a bit too uptight about it, but I'm grateful that they were looking out for me.
So I don't really know what my point is or how it relates to what you said, just felt like expressing my opinion on that subject of ratings. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Oh, on a side note, there's a rental chain here that outlines every possible offensive thing in a movie. They describe if there is any drug use, drinking, any sexual talk whatsoever, and there is actually a count of the number of swear words in the movie. At my age, it seems kind of ridiculous, but I guess it may be handy for parents with young children.
if you arent doing anything wrong...then you have nothing to hide.
ths World has made the mistake of letting people form their own opinions of what rights really are.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks