Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Cooperation (Score 1) 237

In my opinion, the solution is not opening up space to private profiteering. It is a coordinated effort by a multi-national space cooperation. Let different countries vie for funding on their design of launch vehicle, space suit and engines. That's fine. But IMHO we need to get real, an understand that space exploration and development benefits everyone, and so everyone should participate in making it happen.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 39

This is true. However, I would add that the name Republic of China is the name of the KMT government, and was brought from the mainland when they withdrew to Taiwan. At least half of the population of Taiwan has lived there for generations, arriving long before there ever was a Republic of China. In Chinese, aside from official statements, most Taiwanese people refer to their country simply as 'Taiwan'. (Yes, there is more to it that this.)

However, Taiwan is never referred to as simply "China".

Comment Re:Paranoia People (Score 1) 160

Why is it that people who have such a problem with security cameras in public, seem to extrapolate to unrelated things?

Serious questions. Considering you feel no expectation of privacy in public, would you...

1. accept mandatory personal ID & tracking for every site you visit on the internet (which is arguably "public space")?

No. The internet isn't public. It is the internet, wherein the descriptor 'public' only applies to posts you actually make, or material you provide which anyone has access to. Besides, the fact that it would easily circumvented kind of suggests it isn't the kind of public space we are talking about. You are suggesting something like mandatory wire tapping of phone lines. That kind of thing certainly isn't ok, is it?

2. accept mandatory wearing of armbands in public, identifying your religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and income?

What does this have to do with CCTV cameras? Even if the government was able to obtain this information (which, in almost every case, can be obtained by other means such as census data, public registries, and so on). But let me put this to you: if you sit down in a public park and start to pray, do you think you have an expectation that no one is allowed to know your religion? Or if you drive around in an expensive sports car, do you thin you have the right for people not to know how much you make?

3. answer questions about your public activities (clubs you go to, items you buy, web sites you visit) when you apply for a job?

Again, what does applying for a job have to do with the government possibly storing data about persons based on what they do in public? If you are going to argue that 'evil corporations are going to obtain this information', isn't that a problem with your government and not with the CCTV cameras? Also, doesn't google et al already have most of this information already, based on your searching habits?

4. be ok with all your public activity being brought up in court, used as "character evidence" when, say, applying for adoption, divorce or fighting for custody of your child?

Yes. I'm fine with this. Why? I did something in public. I shouldn't expect people didn't see me. Say I'm going through a divorce. My wife brings in a video of me physically abusing her in a car park. I certainly think that evidence should be used against me. Why would you expect anything else?

Or do you now understand that the expectation of privacy in public is, in fact, a cornerstone of democracy and law?

No. I think the ability to select your government by popular vote is the cornerstone of democracy, and said government and other officials following and adhering to the law, as written, is the cornerstone of law. Public places never have been, and never will be, private in any meaning of the word. Where is private? Your own head. Your own house. Etc.

Comment Re:Paranoia People (Score 1) 160

Of course I'm downplaying it you dolt. But I'd love to hear your (oh great AC one) concerns on what, specifically, the government might infer, and how it will affect your life. Remember, this is only from the cameras, and only from things you do in a public setting. More to the point, try to only mention things which cannot already be obtained quite easily (say, if you are a person of interest) using more traditional methods, such as following you, photographing you as you go about the city, or more invasive methods such as wire taps, bugs, following your cellphone usage, credit card usage, etc.

Comment Re:'Public'? (Score 1) 160

See, this is pretty much where I disagree with you.

Maybe it simply comes down to me not being American. I don't naturally distrust my government, because they are, for the most part, ineffective at doing much of anything. If I lived in a totalitarian state, then I might agree with you. But I would hazard to suggest that none of the people reading this post live in such a state.

Comment Re:Paranoia People (Score 1) 160

Long post, I'll reply to selected parts.

Even if they were, what could they really find out about me by watching some cameras? The places I visit? That I pick my nose and scratch my balls while walking down the street? All of this is obtainable in other ways.

You're trying to make a mockery of it but combining who you are from e.g. cell phone records and how you looked and dressed at the time for example. If you want the tinfoil hat version it's also the visual fallback system for when you aren't carrying your radio buoy aka cell phone, without the effort of having an undercover officer following you. If you leave the house with a blue cardigan, you'll be auto-flagged as a suspect because someone across town was raped by a person wearing a blue cardigan.

And? If someone was raped by someone in a blue cardigan, I think it's fair enough that "the system" (are we talking Skynet here? Because I'm pretty sure no actual CCTV system is nearly this sophisticated) watches me to see if I am, in fact, that rapist. Won't this help catch the rapist sooner?

People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. (...)

You should take a clue from the military, they are quite concerned that if you can systematically collect and process unclassified data you might infer information of a sensitive nature. Who and how many people work at a military facility may be secret, but if you count the comings and goings and track them home, you've inferred something the government doesn't want you to know. Likewise if you systematically collect enough public information, you can infer private information.

Military is built on paranoia. What, exactly, about knowing where I work, what I like to eat for dinner on the way home, and which park I take my kids to on the weekend, should I worry about? It's exactly as you say: If I'm a person of interest (say suspected of a crime), then the government can already find out all of this information by other means. Because, as I keep saying, all of this is happening out in the public. There is no privacy in public. Cameras do not suddenly change this.

Do I worry about being spied on? No, why would I?

I think you've missed the primary reason totalitarian regimes spy on their citizens, it's not really about finding red flags and dealing with them it's about intimidating people from doing anything that might cause a red flag or associating with people that might cause a red flag. Let's go back to McCarthyism and even though you've done nothing wrong, would you really like that database to fill up with lots of light associations to events or groups that are communist-friendly or to people who are communist-friendly? The point is guilt by association and if they want you to be guilty, chances are that somewhere in that mass of data there's something we can nail you for. There will always be idealists and dissidents, the point is to make the silent majority disassociate themselves from them.

I couldn't care less if my government thinks I'm a communist or not. I think I'm beginning to see the problem you, and a lot of others here on slashdot, have. I'm going to make the assumption that you are American. I've noticed Americans tend to naturally distrust their government, think they are only one step away from being like North Korea, and that they are evil and waiting to take you away and send you to the Gulag.

I'm not American. I don't distrust my government. I, like most I know, think my government would have a hard time spying their way out of a wet paper bag. They are too busy getting their cocks sucked, and fighting amongst themselves, to do very much in parliament, let alone become the next Nazi Government.

Comment Re:'Public'? (Score 1) 160

I understand your sentiment, however your specific example is one of police corruption and/or abuse of power, not a problem with the cameras. In fact, the police telling you that no cameras recorded the shooting leads to the same result as if there were no cameras there in the first place. However, if the police had less power and/or were unable to remove evidence of their conduct in the way they have, the cameras would certainly be a good thing, wouldn't they?

Further, I put it to you that the cameras provide no more information than is available by many other means about the plans and movements of people. Phones can be tapped, police can stake out and bug your house, your garbage can be gone through, you can be photographed or followed anywhere you go outside of your own home, and if you are doing something the government doesn't like (say, for example, protesting) then they may use any and all of these methods to stop you. This seems more of a problem of the government, and not the cameras, doesn't it?

I'll say again: my main reason I don't care about all of these cameras is that they are all in public places I have no expectation of privacy already.

Comment Re:Paranoia People (Score 2) 160

Fair point.

Put it this way: When I say there is plenty of petty theft, I mean there is plenty of petty theft that is caught. Sure, maybe only 1% of all the crime committed is actually solved by the cameras, but that is still 1% more than would be if there were no cameras.

I agree with you that cameras do not prevent crime, or at least, there doesn't seem to be any reliable statistics to support that it does. I can tell you, though, that it certain does help solve crimes, and catch criminals. That's better than nothing, isn't it? Especially when the only downside is maybe your government decides to know where you buy your coffee.

Comment Paranoia People (Score 5, Insightful) 160

I know people aren't going to see this, and it'll never be modded up, but whatever.

I live in a country that has a high number of CCTV cameras (actually, mostly traffic cameras and webcams and security cameras that the police are allowed to access). I feel they are nothing but good.

Every day the news is full of crimes being shown on camera, and the criminals apprehended. While there isn't a lot of serious violent crime, there is plenty of petty theft and the like here, and the cameras help a lot in catching the perpetrators.

Do I worry about being spied on? No, why would I? The cameras are only in public places, somewhere anyone could film me without my knowledge anyway. I live in a fairly large city, why would anyone be interested in me specifically unless I commit a crime? Even if they were, what could they really find out about me by watching some cameras? The places I visit? That I pick my nose and scratch my balls while walking down the street? All of this is obtainable in other ways.

People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. The government isn't installing cameras in your shower. They aren't bugging your house. They are putting up cameras to record crimes and help catch criminals. All in public areas where you don't have any privacy anyway.

Comment Re:There is - far less (Score 1) 433

People must be F'in cheap if they aren't willing to spend 99 cents. If I see a Kindle book for 99 cents I just grab it; I'm not wasting time trying to find a free pirate version. (shrug). So much for the "We would buy your product if it were cheap enough" excuse. It's been officially debunked.

I can't buy apps in my country. Only free ones are available here. Not everyone pirates because they are too cheap.

I love apps that have in-app purchases to enable the full app. These actually work here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next door. -- Martin Amis, _Money_