Topic: You can go to jail for making fun of the police.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #10,292
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/08/04/death-freedom-speech-warrant-issued-creating-video-parody-mocking-police-49601/
So, will the entire cast of Saturday Night Live go to jail? No, of course not, they make money,
So, will the entire cast of Saturday Night Live go to jail? No, of course not, they make money,
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #182,965
Welcome to America, a fuckin' police state.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,967
I don't suppose now I can beg for a European Minichanner to fly me out of here?
Breakfast of Champions !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,971
> BAAAAAAAW
nimj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,974
no you can't
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,976
@182,965 (Ks !KansasxqvM)this, it hasnt gone full blown police state but just watch as it transforms slowly, pic related
AT LEAST WE DONT HAVE CCTV YET
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,982
@previous (E)
Hahaha
@182,971 (Breakfast of Champions !!snnYcROO9)
So you see nothing wrong with this?
Hahaha
@182,971 (Breakfast of Champions !!snnYcROO9)
So you see nothing wrong with this?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,991
Yes, what the police did to this man was very wrong.
However, I did find the writer's tone a bit jarring. He's very quick to brand America as being a facist nation, which is quite laughable.
@182,976 (E)
Nah, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with CCTV itself.
However, I did find the writer's tone a bit jarring. He's very quick to brand America as being a facist nation, which is quite laughable.
@182,976 (E)
Nah, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with CCTV itself.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,997
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
General, non-specific information aggregation has shown itself to be an enabler for fascism. CCTV furthers this problem, bud.
General, non-specific information aggregation has shown itself to be an enabler for fascism. CCTV furthers this problem, bud.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #182,998
Breakfast of Champions !!snnYcROO9 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #183,000
Breakfast of Champions !!snnYcROO9 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #183,002
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #183,006
@182,997 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
The UK has had it for years and yet we're quite mild politically. CCTV helps catch criminals and is no different than somebody else in public looking at you.
I don't think that CCTV on its own leads to facism.
@182,998 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's nowhere near as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
The UK has had it for years and yet we're quite mild politically. CCTV helps catch criminals and is no different than somebody else in public looking at you.
I don't think that CCTV on its own leads to facism.
@182,998 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's nowhere near as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,009
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Oh, absolutely. Monitoring and information collection unto themselves are not fascism. This is America, though, bud. We don’t have gentlemanly restraint.
Oh, absolutely. Monitoring and information collection unto themselves are not fascism. This is America, though, bud. We don’t have gentlemanly restraint.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,012
When people say Britain is a "police state", I'll just point them to this. Thanks OP!
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,013
@183,006 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> CCTV helps catch criminals and is no different than somebody else in public looking at you.
Fewer than one crime is solved by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. I'd rather have my privacy.
> CCTV helps catch criminals and is no different than somebody else in public looking at you.
Fewer than one crime is solved by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. I'd rather have my privacy.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,017
@previous (H)
> > CCTV helps catch criminals and is no different than somebody else in public looking at you.
> Fewer than one crime is solved by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. I'd rather have my privacy.
Shiiiiiiiiiit.
> > CCTV helps catch criminals and is no different than somebody else in public looking at you.
> Fewer than one crime is solved by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. I'd rather have my privacy.
Shiiiiiiiiiit.
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,018
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,020
@183,013 (H)
Those are still crimes being solved.
Would you like other people to wear blindfolds in public places too?
Those are still crimes being solved.
Would you like other people to wear blindfolds in public places too?
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,024
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Those are still crimes being solved.
That doesn't justify it. I'm sure if every single letter/email/communication was monitored, we might solve more crimes too. Does that make it OK? No.
> Would you like other people to wear blindfolds in public places too?
CCTV isn't limited to large cities and urban areas. I wouldn't be bothered with that, in fact it makes me feel safer.
> Those are still crimes being solved.
That doesn't justify it. I'm sure if every single letter/email/communication was monitored, we might solve more crimes too. Does that make it OK? No.
> Would you like other people to wear blindfolds in public places too?
CCTV isn't limited to large cities and urban areas. I wouldn't be bothered with that, in fact it makes me feel safer.
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,025
@183,018 (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)
Your town is a giant council estate. Shut up. du arg?
Your town is a giant council estate. Shut up. du arg?
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,026
ITT: angry british people
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,027
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,028
FUKN RAIT M8Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #183,055
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,069
@183,024 (H)
> That doesn't justify it. I'm sure if every single letter/email/communication was monitored, we might solve more crimes too. Does that make it OK? No.
That's not the same thing. Monitoring people's private communications is wrong, so it wouldn't be done in the first place. CCTV only monitors people in public places. Again, no different than a person looking at you in public.
> CCTV isn't limited to large cities and urban areas. I wouldn't be bothered with that, in fact it makes me feel safer.
I agree that it's not really necessary in non-urban areas. Only if the area had abnormally high crime rates for a non-urban area.
> That doesn't justify it. I'm sure if every single letter/email/communication was monitored, we might solve more crimes too. Does that make it OK? No.
That's not the same thing. Monitoring people's private communications is wrong, so it wouldn't be done in the first place. CCTV only monitors people in public places. Again, no different than a person looking at you in public.
> CCTV isn't limited to large cities and urban areas. I wouldn't be bothered with that, in fact it makes me feel safer.
I agree that it's not really necessary in non-urban areas. Only if the area had abnormally high crime rates for a non-urban area.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,091
I like CCTV. I have set several up inside people's houses without their permission and sometimes like to watch them.
It's like a non-interactive version of The Sims.
It's like a non-interactive version of The Sims.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,119
@183,069 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> CCTV only monitors people in public places. Again, no different than a person looking at you in public.
Lolno. If you live in a city (or not; like I said CCTV cameras are everywhere nowadays, no longer confined to just large cities) it's likely there's a camera around capable of seeing inside your home. There's not much you can do to stop that either. There's more than a few cases of people abusing CCTV (lol) as well.
> CCTV only monitors people in public places. Again, no different than a person looking at you in public.
Lolno. If you live in a city (or not; like I said CCTV cameras are everywhere nowadays, no longer confined to just large cities) it's likely there's a camera around capable of seeing inside your home. There's not much you can do to stop that either. There's more than a few cases of people abusing CCTV (lol) as well.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,124
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,127
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,133
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,134
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
So everyone has to stay indoors and never open their curtains or windows for fear of being watched 24/7?
So everyone has to stay indoors and never open their curtains or windows for fear of being watched 24/7?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,136
@183,119 (H)
> it's likely there's a camera around capable of seeing inside your home
If somebody is concerned about somebody outside seeing them, I would recommend that they close their curtains.
> There's more than a few cases of people abusing CCTV (lol).
You're going to get bad people in all monitoring systems, and indeed all professions, it's inevitable. The professions of banking, medicine, airport security, ect. have all had people who have abused their power over others. And hey, those guys were were caught.
> it's likely there's a camera around capable of seeing inside your home
If somebody is concerned about somebody outside seeing them, I would recommend that they close their curtains.
> There's more than a few cases of people abusing CCTV (lol).
You're going to get bad people in all monitoring systems, and indeed all professions, it's inevitable. The professions of banking, medicine, airport security, ect. have all had people who have abused their power over others. And hey, those guys were were caught.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,137
@183,134 (H)
Nope, only silly faggots who are scared of being watched 24/7 (implying that somebody is actually watching the cameras 24/7)
Nope, only silly faggots who are scared of being watched 24/7 (implying that somebody is actually watching the cameras 24/7)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,153
@183,136 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> If somebody is concerned about somebody outside seeing them, I would recommend that they close their curtains.
Why doesn't the government just put cameras in people's houses, then? If somebody is troubled by the prospect of being monitored, they can just stay under the covers or not leave there bedroom. My point is people shouldn't have to shut themselves in their home in order to retain some privacy.
And "somebody seeing" them != being recorded and monitored 24/7.
> You're going to get bad people in all monitoring systems
Only in monitoring systems that are so easily open to abuse.
> And hey, those guys were were caught.
Those are only the cases we know of. It's extremely likely thousands more incidents that have never been discovered.
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
> (implying that somebody is actually watching the cameras 24/7)
In cities and areas with large populations, yes they are. Never been to a control room?
> If somebody is concerned about somebody outside seeing them, I would recommend that they close their curtains.
Why doesn't the government just put cameras in people's houses, then? If somebody is troubled by the prospect of being monitored, they can just stay under the covers or not leave there bedroom. My point is people shouldn't have to shut themselves in their home in order to retain some privacy.
And "somebody seeing" them != being recorded and monitored 24/7.
> You're going to get bad people in all monitoring systems
Only in monitoring systems that are so easily open to abuse.
> And hey, those guys were were caught.
Those are only the cases we know of. It's extremely likely thousands more incidents that have never been discovered.
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
> (implying that somebody is actually watching the cameras 24/7)
In cities and areas with large populations, yes they are. Never been to a control room?
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,159
@previous (H)
> Why doesn't the government just put cameras in people's houses, then?
Good question. I think they should.
> Why doesn't the government just put cameras in people's houses, then?
Good question. I think they should.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,162
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)Pic related; what a camera in your house/flat would see almost all day.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,166
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,169
@183,153 (H)
> Why doesn't the government just put cameras in people's houses, then?
Again, not the same thing. How is a camera that can get a in a lot of cases awkward or obscured view into your house any different that a person? I think you're demonising the people who operate these things a bit. I doubt that they're all voyeurs who are on a mission to spy on you.
> Only in monitoring systems that are so easily open to abuse.
How would you go about combating abuse, then?
> Those are only the cases we know of. It's extremely likely thousands more incidents that have never been discovered.
I think you're exagerating a bit.
> Why doesn't the government just put cameras in people's houses, then?
Again, not the same thing. How is a camera that can get a in a lot of cases awkward or obscured view into your house any different that a person? I think you're demonising the people who operate these things a bit. I doubt that they're all voyeurs who are on a mission to spy on you.
> Only in monitoring systems that are so easily open to abuse.
How would you go about combating abuse, then?
> Those are only the cases we know of. It's extremely likely thousands more incidents that have never been discovered.
I think you're exagerating a bit.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,170
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,171
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,172
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,191
@183,169 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Again, not the same thing. How is a camera that can get a in a lot of cases awkward or obscured view into your house any different that a person?
If a person put up a ladder and sat on the top, looking into my home 24/7 then I would call the police. :D
> I think you're demonising the people who operate these things a bit. I doubt that they're all voyeurs who are on a mission to spy on you.
The people that watch cameras get bored as hell. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't fuck around a lot. I'm not paranoid about cameras, like I said I don't mind them in city centres and other such places.
> How would you go about combating abuse, then?
Not having cameras directly facing people's homes, where possible of course. Or limiting pan/zoom if the cameras aren't in a fixed position, like many already are.
Hundreds of cameras are not necessary in low-crime areas with fairly small populations; they are pointless, expensive, and unnecessarily intrusive.
> I think you're exagerating a bit.
If you watched the staff in any large control room for a week or so, you wouldn't think I was exaggerating. If a particular camera can be used abusively, it probably already has been.
> Again, not the same thing. How is a camera that can get a in a lot of cases awkward or obscured view into your house any different that a person?
If a person put up a ladder and sat on the top, looking into my home 24/7 then I would call the police. :D
> I think you're demonising the people who operate these things a bit. I doubt that they're all voyeurs who are on a mission to spy on you.
The people that watch cameras get bored as hell. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't fuck around a lot. I'm not paranoid about cameras, like I said I don't mind them in city centres and other such places.
> How would you go about combating abuse, then?
Not having cameras directly facing people's homes, where possible of course. Or limiting pan/zoom if the cameras aren't in a fixed position, like many already are.
Hundreds of cameras are not necessary in low-crime areas with fairly small populations; they are pointless, expensive, and unnecessarily intrusive.
> I think you're exagerating a bit.
If you watched the staff in any large control room for a week or so, you wouldn't think I was exaggerating. If a particular camera can be used abusively, it probably already has been.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,194
If CCTV aren't effective then they are a massive waste of money, resources and time. Really no reason to defend them...
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #183,199
@183,191 (H)
> If a person put up a ladder and sat on the top, looking into my home 24/7 then I would call the police. :D
So you should! But I'd argue that the cameras themselves aren't specifically intended to spy on you, whereas our hypothetical ladder man wants to do just that. It's only in the rare instance of a bad guy in the monitoring room that it becomes a problem.
I more or less agree with your last three points. CCTV in itself isn't bad, but it could certainly be implemented better. If a camera isn't looking into a person's house in the first place then it can't really be in any sense abused.
> If a person put up a ladder and sat on the top, looking into my home 24/7 then I would call the police. :D
So you should! But I'd argue that the cameras themselves aren't specifically intended to spy on you, whereas our hypothetical ladder man wants to do just that. It's only in the rare instance of a bad guy in the monitoring room that it becomes a problem.
I more or less agree with your last three points. CCTV in itself isn't bad, but it could certainly be implemented better. If a camera isn't looking into a person's house in the first place then it can't really be in any sense abused.