Police State Downtown.

[Shwaz]

What is your full name and address?

Like I said before my posts/ actions on this forum are just public as my walking down any video surveillanced street downtown. Even with so called "face recognition technology" my identity still wouldn't register. My "actions" would be recorded JUST AS THEY ARE ON THIS FORUM.

I have posted my full name, address and phone# on other forums when necessary… for in person meetings, or for packages to be delivered etc. My facebook is open to public viewing and I have my picture plastered all over 40ozmaltliquor.com.

You're welcome to go after that info - just as the police are welcome to come after me if I’m caught on camera committing any crimes.

[Johnny]

Public space is not private space, like the roads your family owns.

Therefore, public = no privacy... no?

Also, as already mentioned, the camera's being installed does not force us to wear name tags with our information on them (yet). Actual police work would be required to determine who's face it is that belongs to the person committing the crime, same as with finding out who ANY person on this forum is, including yourself because it is simply a screen name and who knows if you are really Stephen Dare. I know at one time there was a Mayor Peyton on this thread, but it was quite obvious that was not John Peyton.

Above, I mentioned 'yet' in regards to the requirement of having our info displayed. Do I think eventually we will be getting to that stage? Yes. Do I think these cameras can be used in a way I do not agree with? Yes. I think by that time, it won't matter what our opinion is though, as long as we do not voice them. That will be the government we live with. We have already given them too much power, they already run the show, not the people.

Your whole argument about streets, I think that is where you are confused. You believe the street belongs to us. In a round about way, they should as we should also own the government. They are here for us. Truth is, that is not the case. The government is it's own entity and it runs the show and owns the street, not the other way around. Just like Shwaz said, you could sell it or destroy it or paint it to make it more attractive. You cannot do any of this and if you try to change it, the government will penalize you for it. Because, they own it, which is why they clean it and maintain it.

[Shwaz]

...and I disagree with your idea of "public privacy".

You don't even have my screen name correct  

[Johnny]

Public: pronounced Pub-Lick - adjective, definition

open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public

[Johnny]

Well, that's not exactly what we were talking about. In fact, that's kind of my point, since I'm neither for or against it until I have all of the facts.

The point is, you are bringing in opinions and what-if scenarios. My whole argument stems from your original statement about them spying on your privacy, which you've pointed to repeatedly. Privacy in public does not exist, that's a factual statement. So is the point that cameras can help catch a criminal.

I'm still waiting to hear the costs for the monitoring of the system.

[Shwaz]

However did retail stores prevent / catch shoplifters?

If you're worried about a lovers quarrel in public it's because of being surrounded by other people… not some donut muncher behind 32 TV monitors.

The only people who have a problem with this is government conspiracy theorist and criminals.



Quote from: Shwaz on Today at 05:02:12 PM
...and I disagree with your idea of "public privacy".

You don't even have my screen name correct  


well are you a government conspiracy theorist or a criminal shwaz?

Why so shy?

Neither. I'm not shy like I said (again) my info is out there for the finding. It's not hard at all. I would challenge you but any monkey with a pc and quick read of this thread could find it in minutes... and the best part is it doesn't scare me.

Long after you are dead, the record of your chancest actions will be available to be edited or changed or simply left as is, to use against you or flatter you beyond your control

Statements like that let me know exactly which one you are though. I don't believe surveillance cameras lead to sub dermal micro chips.

[Johnny]

Privacy in public does not exist, that's a factual statement. So is the point that cameras can help catch a criminal.  - my statement from above

simply restating your position and then calling it a fact does not make it a fact. - your statement


hmm...

So, just to make sure I understand you... PRIVACY does exist in a PUBLIC space?

[gatorback]

It is a police state.  Yup.  Do the camera's do any good?  Again, I'm for them personally--see prior post; however, I am for you not wanting them. I can see how you have a problem with them and I'm sorry for that.  I think what Stephen said sums it up most.  "It's bullshit."  I think constitutionally,   they're legal.  Think of them as high tech. "guns."  City has a right to use them.  If you don't want them, well, let's just say they...they could start to... well you know, nuf said.

[Johnny]

And Im not the one relying on a screen name to protect my identity.


How do we know that?

[Shwaz]

Shwaz thinks he can evade capture by looking away from the cameras.

This argument has become laughable and you're losing ground by trying to twist opposing words.

I just flat out disagree that private companies holding the tapes are going to use the images maliciously for slander, a frame up or any other crazy conspiracy notion.

[gatorback]

Don't kid yourself Shwaz. You think for one second that shady people don't work for the big companies....how about Stan in operations catching you with that new bimbo you picked up at the Centerfold.  Extorts money from you because he knows who you are.  I'm sure this has happened before. Lemme googlesome.

[gatorback]

Pefect.  Jett Travolt.

You got maggots like this with access to those video tapes...

While it is OK to sit from afar and question the impact of Scientology practices and dogma on the death of John Travolta's son Jett, trying to profit from it is wrong and unethical. It appears that Bahamian "ambulance driver" Tarino Lightbourne and Bahamian Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe (not to be confused with Obi Wankanobe) tried to extort $20 million to keep a cell phone image of the dead teen (taken by Lightbourne) from being released to the public.

[Shwaz]

Well sure it does, Johnny.  Would it be ok to strip you of your clothes because someone objected to not being able to see your genitals?

Even if you were in public?

Another blown out comparison... that's like saying the new camera's are piggy backed with a law that requires you to put on a 30 minute variety show when visiting downtown public spaces.... with celebrity guests included.

[Shwaz]

shwaz stop clowning.

do you think you arent entitled to this basic privacy while in public or don't you?

Steve, I'm being completely in honest when I say it doesn't bother me. I've never felt a strong feeling of privacy when on any downtown street here or abroad. I don't think "they're out to get me or you".
If it makes people feel safe / stops or solves even one serious crime, I think it's worth it.

Pefect.  Jett Travolt.

You got maggots like this with access to those video tapes...


Quote
While it is OK to sit from afar and question the impact of Scientology practices and dogma on the death of John Travolta's son Jett, trying to profit from it is wrong and unethical. It appears that Bahamian "ambulance driver" Tarino Lightbourne and Bahamian Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe (not to be confused with Obi Wankanobe) tried to extort $20 million to keep a cell phone image of the dead teen (taken by Lightbourne) from being released to the public.

Is it a perfect example as this maggot now face criminal charges for extortion? Just as one of these private companies holding the tapes would if they tried something similar.

[BridgeTroll]

Seems to me privately made video is more susceptible to misuse than video recorded by the government.  Could not safegaurds for the information not be put into place?