| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2008 03:44:26 PM |
| Object: |
OT Big Brother Is Watching |
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
connected to their own loudspeaker system and, through Norwich City
Council's 33-screen, £500,000 CCTV control room, the voice of a camera
operator will boom out across each park to tell off those causing a
nuisance, committing low level crime and anti-social behaviour.
Norwich City Councillor Bert Bremner, responsible for community safety
and cohesion, said: It is a really positive thing for the city.
Waterloo Park has had its problems with attacks, graffiti and arson,
especially at night-time, and we want to leave these places open for
people to enjoy all the time.
These will be ways of embarrassing people and reminding them. Someone
being told off for dropping litter will respond in a reasonable way,
and I believe most people will say sorry and do something about it.
There will be some that won't and, if the matter is serious, the
police will follow it up.
http://tinyurl.com/yu8ssc
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
31 Jan 2008 04:10:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <> wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras. The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
31 Jan 2008 09:47:01 PM |
|
|
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <>
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
31 Jan 2008 10:27:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <>
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 12:29:35 AM |
|
|
In article <jo75q3ljqlv3edh9gupnvdlpd477bmb7ei@4ax.com>, raven1 says...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <>
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
The current regime in Washington is a frigging parable on that theme.
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
mail to X-reply-to
want a free or premium posting account with Teranews?
https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=1089312943
&action=Create+New+Account&vendor=teranews
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 01:00:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <>
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever the
government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like unnecessary
and dangerous political protest, or saying things about the government
in what they thought were private conversations.
But the people would learn to adapt and only talk about certain things
in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to draw
from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
02 Feb 2008 06:44:36 PM |
|
|
On Feb 1, 2:00=A0am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <=
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the=
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras=
..
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me=
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever the
government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like unnecessary
and dangerous political protest, or saying things about the government
in what they thought were private conversations.
But the people would learn to adapt and only talk about certain things
in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to draw
from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554- Hide quoted text -
You know, I'm as paranoid of government as anybody.
But I'm wondering if a city adding 100 more beat police officers to
wander
around keeping an eye on things would inspire the same response here.
It would be the same *effect*, and in either case, what they'd be
enforcing
would be generally approved rules of social order. With a corrupt
government,
either can be tools of oppression. When the government is at least
moderately
reflective of the generally-agreed upon rules of conduct, in
conformity with the constitution,
what's the diff?
So would 100 additional beat officers be acceptable? And if not, why
not?
If not, then should we get rid of all beat officers?
And if so, then what's the difference between that and cameras and
loudspeakers?
I thought about how I felt about cameras everywhere a while back. The
most reasonable
comment I heard about whether it was an invasion of privacy was, I
think, when Britain
pointed out that people walking down a crowded public street do not
have, in that circumstance,
a reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, it ain't private
in public (which was so obvious
I could have smacked myself).
Sunny
finally able to get a message to send
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
02 Feb 2008 07:10:50 PM |
|
|
<stillsunny1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0fde75c-def0-465a-88a1-646b3cbf7bd4@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 2:00 am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600,
<>
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance
cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever the
government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like unnecessary
and dangerous political protest, or saying things about the government
in what they thought were private conversations.
But the people would learn to adapt and only talk about certain things
in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to draw
from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554- Hide quoted text -
You know, I'm as paranoid of government as anybody.
But I'm wondering if a city adding 100 more beat police officers to
wander
around keeping an eye on things would inspire the same response here.
It would be the same *effect*, and in either case, what they'd be
enforcing
would be generally approved rules of social order. With a corrupt
government,
either can be tools of oppression. When the government is at least
moderately
reflective of the generally-agreed upon rules of conduct, in
conformity with the constitution,
what's the diff?
So would 100 additional beat officers be acceptable? And if not, why
not?
If not, then should we get rid of all beat officers?
And if so, then what's the difference between that and cameras and
loudspeakers?
I thought about how I felt about cameras everywhere a while back. The
most reasonable
comment I heard about whether it was an invasion of privacy was, I
think, when Britain
pointed out that people walking down a crowded public street do not
have, in that circumstance,
a reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, it ain't private
in public (which was so obvious
I could have smacked myself).
Sunny
finally able to get a message to send
Agreed.
When walking down a public street there may be witnesses to anything you do,
even to the fact that you are there.
The camera is just another witness.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
03 Feb 2008 10:01:59 AM |
|
|
"stillsunny1@yahoo.com" <stillsunny1@yahoo.com>
news:f0fde75c-def0-465a-88a1-646b3cbf7bd4@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
On Feb 1, 2:00 am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600,
<
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks
with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance
cameras
.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial
patern recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have
reduced shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street
crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever the
government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like unnecessary
and dangerous political protest, or saying things about the
government in what they thought were private conversations.
But the people would learn to adapt and only talk about certain
things in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to draw
from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554- Hide quoted text -
snip
Sunny
This part.
finally able to get a message to send
So, got the newsreader blues then?
send me a message @
abuse
at
baawa
& of course
Net.
I may have found some relief for that syndrome, or at least it works for
me.
walksalone who is a member in good standing of the What The Hell's Wrong
With This Damn <Censored, not for delicate ears> Thing Now Rodeo.
From the Hymn of Osiris [who apparently was real, in his human form. A
king no less]
Thy fear is set in all the lands by reason of thy perfect love, and they
cry out to thy name making it the first of names, and all people make
offerings to thee. Thou art the lord who art commemorated in heaven and
upon earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
03 Feb 2008 12:29:04 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 11:01=A0am, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com" <stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:f0fde75c-def0-465a-88a=
1-646b3cbf7bd4@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
On Feb 1, 2:00=A0am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600,
<
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks
with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance
cameras
.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial
patern recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have
reduced shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street
crime, allowing me
=A0to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever the
government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like unnecessary
and dangerous political protest, or saying things about the
government in what they thought were private conversations.
But the people would learn to adapt and only talk about certain
things in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to draw
from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554- Hide quoted text -
snip
Sunny
This part.
finally able to get a message to send
So, got the newsreader blues then?
send me a message @
abuse
at
baawa
& of course
Net.
I may have found some relief for that syndrome, or at least it works for
me.
What is it about seeing your moniker that has me grinning like a
Cheshire cat?
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty for
lemonade :-)
I'm posting from Google, actually. I dismantled my newsreader a long
time ago,
when life got too busy to play online so much.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
03 Feb 2008 10:23:36 PM |
|
|
"stillsunny1@yahoo.com" <stillsunny1@yahoo.com>
news:402cf6f5-dc89-47e6-ba7b-d89503ab5978@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
On Feb 3, 11:01 am, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:f0fde75c-def0-465a-88a
1-646b3cbf7bd4@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
On Feb 1, 2:00 am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600,
<
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks
with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance
cameras
.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial
patern recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have
reduced shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street
crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and
has the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse
is overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever
the government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like
unnecessary and dangerous political protest, or saying things
about the government in what they thought were private
conversations. But the people would learn to adapt and only talk
about certain things in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to
draw from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554- Hide quoted text -
snip
Sunny
This part.
finally able to get a message to send
So, got the newsreader blues then?
send me a message @
abuse
at
baawa
& of course
Net.
I may have found some relief for that syndrome, or at least it works
for me.
What is it about seeing your moniker that has me grinning like a
Cheshire cat?
You need practice with you're smiteing stick.
You just ran off a new batch of cold medicine and need a victim to try it
out on.
You're easily amused.
This is too easy.
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty for
lemonade :-)
You know where to find it. Might be a little dust on a pitcher, but
that's your fault.
I'm posting from Google, actually. I dismantled my newsreader a long
time ago,
when life got too busy to play online so much.
There are some newsreaders that permits you to decrease the volume of
noise you get when you return to visit Usenet. I cannot recommend the
one I'm using right now because it is overkill. However there are
several that are small, easy use, and portable. If you really want to
set up strictly for your convenience, get some NNTP server software and
restrict the volume of obnoxious individuals you see. Combine that with
some decent newsreader software and you don't have to stay on Usenet all
that often. How do you think I saw your message in all the noise. It's
because I cheated. If you want to know how, drop a line. If you just
want to drop a line, go and do it. You're always welcome wherever I am
on the net.
And that might be where you get the urge to grin like the Cheshire cat,
you know you are welcome.
Sunny
walksalone who allows it's been at least two or three weeks since I last
chatted with sunny. But then she has a real-life and I don't. Staying
busy is not the same thing as staying in a responsible position where
others count on you. I knew I would not miss that when I retired, and I
don't. Well I do miss my dog, he ran away. Come to think of it, my last
wife went missing as well. What can I say, life improves all the time.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9
When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons;
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
04 Feb 2008 12:04:54 AM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 11:23=A0pm, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com" <stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:402cf6f5-dc89-47e6-ba7=
b-d89503ab5978@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
<big old snip>
What is it about seeing your moniker that has me grinning like a
Cheshire cat?
You need practice with you're smiteing stick.
You just ran off a new batch of cold medicine and need a victim to try it
out on.
You're easily amused.
This is too easy.
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty for
lemonade =A0:-)
You know where to find it. =A0Might be a little dust on a pitcher, but
that's your fault.
Yeah, it is my fault. Real life and all that. It's all good, though.
<snip>
And that might be where you get the urge to grin like the Cheshire cat,
you know you are welcome.
I think that's it. Yours are the best kind of conversations. I know
you'll give me
hell, *and* give me lemonade. And I'll give you hell back (only a
little bit), *and* brew you cough
medicine. And if you ever made it to the far northern reaches of SC,
I'd fry you a
chicken that would make you cry in gratitude to the hen that birthed
it, with cucumber salad
and rice and gravy and home grown tomatoes.
Those are the best kind of conversations, and for me, the only ones
that make Usenet
worthwhile at all.
Sorry to hear about your dog.
But you've had plenty of wives :-)
Sunny
.
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 07:09:17 AM |
|
|
"stillsunny1@yahoo.com" <stillsunny1@yahoo.com>
news:d4503ef6-b7e3-4c7a-a026-43569e998c54@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
On Feb 3, 11:23 pm, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:402cf6f5-dc89-47e6-ba7
b-d89503ab5978@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
teensy weensy snip
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty for
lemonade :-)
You know where to find it. Might be a little dust on a pitcher, but
that's your fault.
Yeah, it is my fault. Real life and all that. It's all good, though.
It's strange how that works, expect life to be good and generally it is.
<snip>
And that might be where you get the urge to grin like the Cheshire
cat, you know you are welcome.
I think that's it. Yours are the best kind of conversations. I know
you'll give me
hell, *and* give me lemonade. And I'll give you hell back (only a
You're married, it would be unseemly to give you perfume and flowers.
little bit), *and* brew you cough
You don't think I'll be foolish enough to drink that stuff do you?
medicine. And if you ever made it to the far northern reaches of SC,
I'd fry you a
chicken that would make you cry in gratitude to the hen that birthed
it, with cucumber salad
and rice and gravy and home grown tomatoes.
Barnyard buzzard, only if I sit down and it's on the plate
Those are the best kind of conversations, and for me, the only ones
that make Usenet
worthwhile at all.
There are many conversations that make usenet worthwhile, those where we
learn, those where we pay attention to see how not to act, those on
subjects that hold our interest by people that know what they're talking
about. They are worthwhile, but not much fun. & if you can't grin, you
don't need to be around me. I'm going to enjoy life, and I suspect you
have learned to do that as well.
Sorry to hear about your dog.
That's all right, he too is entitled to be free.
But you've had plenty of wives :-)
Three too many. And we're still friends.
Sunny
walksalone who suspects that this could turn into a fun conversation if
either of us had the time, but I'm still enjoying it. And not saying a
damn thing worth listing to.
From the Ballad of Soulful Sam by RW Service
Was I killed, do you ask? Oh no, boys. Why am I sittin' 'ere
Gazin' with mournful vision at a mug long empty of beer?
With a throat as dry as a, oh, thanky! I don't much mind if I do.
Beer with a dash of 'ollands, that's my particular brew.
Yes, that was a terrible moment. It 'ammered me 'ard o'er the 'eart;
It bowled me down like a nine-pin, and I looked for the gore to start;
And I saw in the flash of a moment, in that thunder of hate and strife,
Me wretched past like a pitchur, the sins of a gambler's life.
For I 'ad no tracts to save me, to thwart that mad missile's doom;
I 'ad no pious pamphlets to 'elp me to cheat the tomb;
I 'ad no 'oly leaflets to baffle a bullet's aim;
I'd only, a deck of cards, boys, but
.. . IT SEEMED TO DO JUST THE SAME.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 01:39:36 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 8:09=A0am, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com" <stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:d4503ef6-b7e3-4c7a-a02=
6-43569e998c54@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
On Feb 3, 11:23=A0pm, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:402cf6f5-dc89-47e6-ba7
b-d89503ab5...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
teensy weensy snip
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty for
lemonade =A0:-)
You know where to find it. =A0Might be a little dust on a pitcher, but
that's your fault.
Yeah, it is my fault. =A0Real life and all that. =A0It's all good, thoug=
h.
It's strange how that works, expect life to be good and generally it is.
And it's February 5, and so warm I have all my doors open, and there
were four lizards on my white shed just a minute ago.
And a cardinal.
I think that's it. =A0Yours are the best kind of conversations. =A0I kno=
w
you'll give me
hell, *and* give me lemonade. =A0And I'll give you hell back (only a
You're married, it would be unseemly to give you perfume and flowers.
And you're not, so it would be unseemly to accept them even if you
did.
little bit), *and* brew you cough
You don't think I'll be foolish enough to drink that stuff do you?
Yes, you have been my toughest customer. You're not nearly gullible
enough
to just believe me when I say it's delicious, and every time I try to
hold you down
and pinch your nose shut, you shape shift and I'm left with a handful
of fur.
Those are the best kind of conversations, and for me, the only ones
that make Usenet
worthwhile at all.
There are many conversations that make usenet worthwhile, those where we
learn, those where we pay attention to see how not to act, those on
subjects that hold our interest by people that know what they're talking
about. =A0They are worthwhile, but not much fun. =A0& if you can't grin, y=
ou
don't need to be around me. =A0I'm going to enjoy life, and I suspect you
have learned to do that as well.
I can't help it. Life is just darn funny most of the time. I'm a
pure hazard at
funerals, because I laugh inappropriately when some surreal thing
catches
my attention. The worst one was a dear friend of mine, and after two
preachers
got through having a duel over exactly which one of them had led him
to Jesus,
they tried to cue up a song from the soundtrack of "The Big Chill."
They missed the
one they wanted, and in the middle of this terribly sad occasion,
"Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog!" blared
out over the loudspeakers. How could you *not* laugh?
walksalone who suspects that this could turn into a fun conversation if
either of us had the time, but I'm still enjoying it. =A0And not saying a
damn thing worth listing to.
Yeah, but it's always a treat.
And I just got a call and my work load increased exponentially
(a big job that I wasn't going to have to do, now I do, and fast), so
I'm going
to bid you a *very* fond farewell for now, and hope you won't mind if
I save that email address.
Sunny
The Darkling Thrush
by Thomas Hardy
I leant upon a coppice gate
When Frost was spectre-gray,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
Had sought their household fires.
The land's sharp features seemed to be
The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
Seemed fervourless as I.
At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.
So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
And I was unaware.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 08:02:25 PM |
|
|
<stillsunny1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a78fb85-dc55-4f7c-8049-2a6d6aa94818@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 8:09 am, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:d4503ef6-b7e3-4c7a-a026-43569e998c54@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
On Feb 3, 11:23 pm, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:402cf6f5-dc89-47e6-ba7
b-d89503ab5...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
teensy weensy snip
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty for
lemonade :-)
You know where to find it. Might be a little dust on a pitcher, but
that's your fault.
Yeah, it is my fault. Real life and all that. It's all good, though.
It's strange how that works, expect life to be good and generally it is.
And it's February 5, and so warm I have all my doors open, and there
were four lizards on my white shed just a minute ago.
And a cardinal.
++Those bloody Catholic priests get everywhere!
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 02:00:24 PM |
|
|
In article <8a78fb85-dc55-4f7c-8049-2a6d6aa94818@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.c=
om>,=20
stillsunny1@yahoo.com says...
On Feb 5, 8:09=A0am, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com" <stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:d4503ef6-b7e3-4c7a-=
a026-43569e998c54@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
On Feb 3, 11:23=A0pm, walksalone <walksal...@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
"stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<stillsun...@yahoo.com>news:402cf6f5-dc89-47e6-ba7
b-d89503ab5...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
teensy weensy snip
I'm extraordinarily glad to see you, and oddly suddenly thirsty fo=
r
lemonade =A0:-)
You know where to find it. =A0Might be a little dust on a pitcher, b=
ut
that's your fault.
Yeah, it is my fault. =A0Real life and all that. =A0It's all good, th=
ough.
It's strange how that works, expect life to be good and generally it is=
..
=20
And it's February 5, and so warm I have all my doors open, and there
were four lizards on my white shed just a minute ago.
That's some kind of folksy euphemism, isn't it?
And a cardinal.
--=20
Apostate a.a. #1931
BAAWA Knife-thrower and SMASH adept
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
mail to X-reply-to
want a free or premium posting account with Teranews?
https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=3D=
1089312943
&action=3DCreate+New+Account&vendor=3Dteranews
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 02:38:19 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 3:00=A0pm, Apostate <godless.bast...@yeehaw.org.invalid>
wrote:
In article <8a78fb85-dc55-4f7c-8049-2a6d6aa94...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
com>,
stillsun...@yahoo.com says...
And it's February 5, and so warm I have all my doors open, and there
were four lizards on my white shed just a minute ago.
That's some kind of folksy euphemism, isn't it?
LOL!
If it is, I'm not aware of it.
There were literally four lizards in bold relief, sitting in the
sunshine on my white shed.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 03:10:04 PM |
|
|
In article <7f3d26b3-3b0b-429d-81c6-3211ae5cd042@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.co=
m>,=20
stillsunny1@yahoo.com says...
On Feb 5, 3:00=A0pm, Apostate <godless.bast...@yeehaw.org.invalid>
wrote:
In article <8a78fb85-dc55-4f7c-8049-2a6d6aa94...@j78g2000hsd.googlegrou=
ps.com>,
stillsun...@yahoo.com says...
And it's February 5, and so warm I have all my doors open, and there
were four lizards on my white shed just a minute ago.
That's some kind of folksy euphemism, isn't it?
=20
LOL!
=20
If it is, I'm not aware of it.
There were literally four lizards in bold relief, sitting in the
sunshine on my white shed.
Oh! Well, that's nice too. :-)
Indian Summer (unless I have the season wrong) is great stuff.
=20
Sunny
=20
--=20
Apostate a.a. #1931
BAAWA Knife-thrower and SMASH adept
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
mail to X-reply-to
want a free or premium posting account with Teranews?
https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=3D=
1089312943
&action=3DCreate+New+Account&vendor=3Dteranews
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
05 Feb 2008 03:37:18 PM |
|
|
walksalone <walksalone@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
It's strange how that works, expect life to be good
and generally it is.
You think so? You don't think it's just looking for the
good parts, so that's what you see?
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make
their loins continually to shake." - Psalms 69:23
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
03 Feb 2008 06:44:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:44:36 -0800 (PST), "stillsunny1@yahoo.com"
<stillsunny1@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 1, 2:00 am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:27:17 -0500, raven1
<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq4hrh.cpa.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, <>
wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
And when the law changes and things you never thought they would
forbid are forbidden?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Yes they are.
What happens when a less benevolent government is in power, and has
the same apparatus available to it? The potential for abuse is
overwhelming.
Why they would be obligated to protect the public from whatever the
government in power considers to be "anti-social behaviour."
Like disturbing the public peace with silly things like unnecessary
and dangerous political protest, or saying things about the government
in what they thought were private conversations.
But the people would learn to adapt and only talk about certain things
in whispers in dark alleys.
Or be afraid to speak at all.
We have a wealth of historical information regarding tyranny to draw
from.
Some of us *know* where it will lead.
atheist@home#1554- Hide quoted text -
You know, I'm as paranoid of government as anybody.
But I'm wondering if a city adding 100 more beat police officers to
wander
around keeping an eye on things would inspire the same response here.
It would be the same *effect*, and in either case, what they'd be
enforcing
would be generally approved rules of social order. With a corrupt
government,
either can be tools of oppression. When the government is at least
moderately
reflective of the generally-agreed upon rules of conduct, in
conformity with the constitution,
what's the diff?
Oh...Do we still have a constitution?
I wasn't aware of that.
Don't tell the U.S. government, they don't seem to be aware of it
either and if they find out Lord alone knows what they will do about
it.
So would 100 additional beat officers be acceptable? And if not, why
not?
If not, then should we get rid of all beat officers?
And if so, then what's the difference between that and cameras and
loudspeakers?
A few of things.
First the beat officers conduct their business face to face and as
such are usually forced to deal with citizens as human beings within
the confines of socially restrictive behavior as well as department
rules and local and federal laws.
The cameras on the other hand are impersonal and those being monitored
are just faces in the crowd.
Hiring more beat officers costs far more money than placing and
manning cameras and having one observer do the job of several
officers.
And that cost being prohibitively high limits the amount, type and
degree of scrutiny the citizen is subjected to.
The beat officer in general is also limited in his concerns to the
type of behavior and action that more serious infractions require and
is not usually interested in general conversations and what on the
surface appear to be innocuous behaviors among citizens.
Human nature being what it is, those manning cameras and finding
themselves bored by the job or feeling a sense of power might be
tempted to listen in on conversations that are not of a nature that
requires monitoring by the police and to look for simple violations
that a beat officer as a matter of convenience might ignore.
<It would only be reasonable that any system allowing monitors to
speak to a subject would allow for two way communications...and do
citizens really want their every act observed by the police and to be
targeted for harmless behavior that has a limited effect on society?>
I thought about how I felt about cameras everywhere a while back. The
most reasonable
comment I heard about whether it was an invasion of privacy was, I
think, when Britain
pointed out that people walking down a crowded public street do not
have, in that circumstance,
a reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, it ain't private
in public (which was so obvious
I could have smacked myself).
I disagree with that and with the U.S. Supreme Deities who apparently
hold the same view.
And Britain lately is one of the last nations I would refer to as a
nation of laws and public policies favorable to freedom
Most citizens are forced to leave their homes for a number of reasons
and shouldn't be required to relinquish all privacy when they do so.
If you are standing on a corner having what you believe to be a
private conversation regarding private matters do you have a right to
do so without police surveillance of the conversation?
By that reasoning you do not.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure.
"The right of the people to be secure *in their persons* houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated."
If we do not have a right to privacy in public how can we be secure in
our persons, papers and effects?
And if you are a member of a certain group will police focus on you
and listen in on your conversations whether its your end of a cell
phone conversation or face to face and watch your behavior more
closely than others because it doesn't require a warrant to do so?
Its just another mangling of reason for the convenience of the state
to do what it will, when it will.
Each little infringment done in the name of the "safety of the people"
and the creation of a "more orderly society" is a danger to us all.
It places more power in hands of the state and every law passed is by
necessity an infringment upon freedom and each law demands enforcement
at the point of a gun if necessary.
Besides which...it's not nice to stare at people even if we are using
a camera to do so ;)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
03 Feb 2008 07:54:10 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 7:44=A0pm, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:44:36 -0800 (PST), "stillsun...@yahoo.com"
<random snippage>
You know, I'm as paranoid of government as anybody.
But I'm wondering if a city adding 100 more beat police officers to
wander
around keeping an eye on things would inspire the same response here.
It would be the same *effect*, and in either case, what they'd be
enforcing
would be generally approved rules of social order. =A0With a corrupt
government,
either can be tools of oppression. =A0When the government is at least
moderately
reflective of the generally-agreed upon rules of conduct, in
conformity with the constitution,
what's the diff?
Oh...Do we still have a constitution?
I thought I laid it over there, but ...
Well, it'll turn up :-)
I wasn't aware of that.
Don't tell the U.S. government, they don't seem to be aware of it
either and if they find out Lord alone knows what they will do about
it.
You know what? Just because we might not agree with some recent
interpretations
of it, or might disagree with what we see as fairly egregious
violations of it, doesn't mean
it doesn't exist any more than it stopped existing when Lincoln
suspended the writ of habeas.
So would 100 additional beat officers be acceptable? =A0And if not, why
not?
If not, then should we get rid of all beat officers?
And if so, then what's the difference between that and cameras and
loudspeakers?
A few of things.
First the beat officers conduct their business face to face and as
such are usually forced to deal with citizens as human beings within
the confines of socially restrictive behavior as well as department
rules and local and federal laws.
The cameras on the other hand are impersonal and those being monitored
are just faces in the crowd.
Hiring more beat officers costs far more money than placing and
manning cameras and having one observer do the job of several
officers.
And that cost being prohibitively high limits the amount, type and
degree of scrutiny the citizen is subjected to.
The beat officer in general is also limited in his concerns to the
type of behavior and action that more serious infractions require and
is not usually interested in general conversations and what on the
surface appear to be innocuous behaviors among citizens.
Human nature being what it is, those manning cameras and finding
themselves bored by the job or feeling a sense of power might be
tempted to listen in on conversations that are not of a nature that
requires monitoring by the police and to look for simple violations
that a beat officer as a matter of convenience might ignore.
<It would only be reasonable that any system allowing monitors to
speak to a subject would allow for two way communications...and do
citizens really want their every act observed by the police and to be
targeted for harmless behavior that has a limited effect on society?>
Okay.
Ya really didn't answer the question, though -- and pretending money
is no
object, so the salaries of said officers isn't a question.
Would 100 extra beat officers be acceptable in terms of privacy?
I'm more inclined to believe that like every other damn thing, cameras
in public
places can and probably will be abused, just as the relative secrecy
*lacking*
cameras is abused sometimes by our men in blue (and I'll just say
right now, I
think most police officers are decent folks)
So it's sort of a trade-off.
A beat officer is face to face, and more human (which I like, just
like I prefer to go
into a bank than through the drive through), but is expensive and just
as likely to
be corrupt or venal or just plain mean as the person sitting in front
of the camera.
Additionally, ain't nobody watching the police officer, but if we're
filming, the whole
thing is available for scrutiny.
Someone elsewhere on this thread mentioned police officers sneaking
people off
and beating them up -- which is far less likely if there's cameras
there, right?
I thought about how I felt about cameras everywhere a while back. =A0The
most reasonable
comment I heard about whether it was an invasion of privacy was, I
think, when Britain
pointed out that people walking down a crowded public street do not
have, in that circumstance,
a reasonable expectation of privacy. =A0In other words, it ain't private
in public (which was so obvious
I could have smacked myself).
I disagree with that and with the U.S. Supreme Deities who apparently
hold the same view.
And Britain lately is one of the last nations I would refer to as a
nation of laws and public policies favorable to freedom
So? It still makes sense that it isn't private in public.
Most citizens are forced to leave their homes for a number of reasons
and shouldn't be required to relinquish all privacy when they do so.
If you are standing on a corner having what you believe to be a
private conversation regarding private matters do you have a right to
do so without police surveillance of the conversation?
You're extrapolating video surveillance to look out for litterers to a
much more
intensive and high tech surveillance -- and you're *still* talking
about a public area.
I think it's probably going to be like everything else -- it will be
boring, and most people
will be anonymous by sheer monotony of watching, unless they're doing
something to
draw attention to themselves.
By that reasoning you do not.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure.
"The right of the people to be secure *in their persons* houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated."
I doubt the video cameras are going to be equipped for full cavity
searches.
Should beat officers cover their ears if they pass people whispering
feverishly on a
street corner?
If we do not have a right to privacy in public how can we be secure in
our persons, papers and effects?
And if you are a member of a certain group will police focus on you
and listen in on your conversations whether its your end of a cell
phone conversation or face to face and watch your behavior more
closely than others because it doesn't require a warrant to do so?
Big whoop. If you're a suspicious looking character, that same beat
officer
is going to give you a bit more scrutiny than the average Joe in the
corner.
Its just another mangling of reason for the convenience of the state
to do what it will, when it will.
Each little infringment done in the name of the "safety of the people"
and the creation of a "more orderly society" is a danger to us all.
It places more power in hands of the state and every law passed is by
necessity an infringment upon freedom and each law demands enforcement
at the point of a gun if necessary.
Besides which...it's not nice to stare at people even if we are using
a camera to do so ;)
I just don't agree with you, Ray.
To me, there's not all that much difference between a person watching
you from
ten feet away in a public place and a person watching you in a public
place from a
video camera. Every abuse of that system you can think of I'll agree
probably will
be a problem from time to time -- but I can point to equal abuses
created by the ladies and gentlemen
we entrust to _personally_ enforce our rules. The alternative to
either of them is trusting
in the innate goodness of humanity to stay off the grass, refrain from
snatching purses,
and color between the lines. You pays your money, and you takes your
choice.
Put it another way.
In the event of a wildly rogue government, either police or cameras
are going to be potential enemies.
In the event of reasonably civil government, either police or cameras
are usually going to just help
keep things sane, and _sometimes_ be a problem in and of themselves.
The upside is, if there's a
problem now it's on tape, which is a pretty darned good way to verify
one story or another, no matter
who's telling it.
I don't really love the notion of being taped all over the place,
either. But I don't think it's an invasion of my
privacy, so long as it's not in my home, and I really can't imagine
that someone is going to focus on me to the point of discomfort any
more than probably sometime, somewhere in public someone has watched
me for a bit for whatever reason.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
31 Jan 2008 10:05:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Or attend a political group that are unpopular with the ruling party.
Nah. Govt. never spies on law abiding citizens. What have they to fear?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 06:58:00 PM |
|
|
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq56js.u59.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Or attend a political group that are unpopular with the ruling party.
You don't you live in a democracy?
You know. The type of State where the government is chosen by the people,
for the people and is answerable to the people. Where the 'ruling party' are
there, only by the consent of the people and are the 'servants' of the
people.
I don't understand why Americans are so fearful of THEIR goverments (of any
hue).
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
02 Feb 2008 03:02:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:58:00 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq56js.u59.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Or attend a political group that are unpopular with the ruling party.
You don't you live in a democracy?
You know. The type of State where the government is chosen by the people,
for the people and is answerable to the people. Where the 'ruling party' are
there, only by the consent of the people and are the 'servants' of the
people.
I don't understand why Americans are so fearful of THEIR goverments (of any
hue).
Since the founding of the nation its been a constant battle between
the people and the U.S. government to limit as far as possible
infringements upon our rights and freedoms.
President John Adams, one of the founders violated the Constitution he
supported by signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798
Jefferson, another founder, knowingly and admittedly violated it with
the Louisana Purchase, Lincoln ignored it at will and future
presidents violated it or attempted to violate it when ever they felt
it necessary.
And in modern times the Clinton administration attempted to violate it
by promoting unwarranted searches of public housing by police officers
looking for drugs and illegal weapons as well as unwarranted wiretaps
on citizens, the current administration <Whatever ones stance on the
war in Iraq> by strict intrepretation violated it by invading a
sovereign nation that was not a direct threat to attack our shores or
those of an ally and did so without a formal declaration of war.
It was the American government that not only allowed and protected
slavery but also violated treaties with native Americans, turned a
blind eye and deaf ear to Jim Crow for too long and recently gave us
Ruby Ridge and Waco.
There is hardly anything that an American citizen can do anymore that
doesn't come under the scrutiny of the U.S. government be it the
Congress or the federal courts and that isn't covered under some
federal law or rule carrying the weight of law that was created by
unelected bureaucrats.
And again, whatever one feels about the current administration there
are dangers there that those who protest certain acts have reason to
fear.
As long as politicians are involved in and running government that
government should not be trusted to respect the people, their rights
or their freedoms.
That of course leaves us only one choice as far as trust and comfort.
atheist@home#1554
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 08:28:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:58:00 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq56js.u59.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:47:01 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
BTW. They're coming soon to a city near you!
Or attend a political group that are unpopular with the ruling party.
You don't you live in a democracy?
No I don't and I doubt you do either. The U.S. is a republic. I don't vote on
every issue of government. I elect officials to do it for me. In the U.S.,
there are two rulling parties that have a stranglehold on government as great as
any organized crime family.
You know. The type of State where the government is chosen by the people,
for the people and is answerable to the people. Where the 'ruling party' are
there, only by the consent of the people and are the 'servants' of the
people.
I don't understand why Americans are so fearful of THEIR goverments (of any
hue).
Thin edge of the wedge.
I don't have to stand in a fire to know it is deadly. Do you? Must the
government become a east german style tyranny before you give a *****?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
31 Jan 2008 10:18:51 PM |
|
|
Smiler wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
That is a childish comment. Valuing privacy does not equate to criminal
intent.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 07:00:04 PM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:1p2qco2j9uzx8$.1ad6wc9w39is6$.dlg@40tude.net...
Smiler wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
That is a childish comment. Valuing privacy does not equate to criminal
intent.
In the street, a public place, where's your privacy?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 08:29:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:00:04 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:1p2qco2j9uzx8$.1ad6wc9w39is6$.dlg@40tude.net...
Smiler wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
That is a childish comment. Valuing privacy does not equate to criminal
intent.
In the street, a public place, where's your privacy?
Lovely. Stay the ***** home and never leave. Don't communicate with
anybody via any means and you'll be OK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
02 Feb 2008 07:07:07 PM |
|
|
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfq7lc1.e74.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:00:04 GMT, Smiler <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:1p2qco2j9uzx8$.1ad6wc9w39is6$.dlg@40tude.net...
Smiler wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance
cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing
me
to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
That is a childish comment. Valuing privacy does not equate to criminal
intent.
In the street, a public place, where's your privacy?
Lovely. Stay the ***** home and never leave. Don't communicate with
anybody via any means and you'll be OK.
When you're in the street, cameras or not, do you really have any privacy?
It's a public place. There may be witnesses to anything you do.
How is that private?
The camera is just another witness.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
01 Feb 2008 06:36:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:18:51 -0600, L. Raymond <badaddress@> wrote:
Smiler wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote
Be glad you don't live in London with their million survelance cameras.
The
average londoneer gets recorded 300 times a day.
Add to that the recent ability for computers to perform facial patern
recognition ...
What are you afraid of?
As a law abiding citizen of London, I'm grateful that they have reduced
shoplifting, keeping prices lower, and reduced street crime, allowing me to
walk in safety in my city without the fear of being robbed.
Unless you're a criminal?
That is a childish comment. Valuing privacy does not equate to criminal
intent.
It is not only childish, but incredibly naive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Big Brother Is Watching |
31 Jan 2008 05:28:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0600, wrote:
Talking CCTV cameras tell off yobs
MICHAEL BAILEY
30 January 2008 16:23
Talking CCTV cameras have been installed at two Norwich parks with the
aim of slashing anti-social behaviour.
Eight cameras at Waterloo Park and one at Eaton Park have been
connected to their own loudspeaker system and, through Norwich City
Council's 33-screen, £500,000 CCTV control room, the voice of a camera
operator will boom out across each park to tell off those causing a
nuisance, committing low level crime and anti-social behaviour.
Norwich City Councillor Bert Bremner, responsible for community safety
and cohesion, said: It is a really positive thing for the city.
Waterloo Park has had its problems with attacks, graffiti and arson,
especially at night-time, and we want to leave these places open for
people to enjoy all the time.
These will be ways of embarrassing people and reminding them. Someone
being told off for dropping litter will respond in a reasonable way,
and I believe most people will say sorry and do something about it.
There will be some that won't and, if the matter is serious, the
police will f | |
