License Plate Scans Show Where You've Been

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It's scary that, with a simple public records request, anyone can get their hands on the same data the police are storing on 1.1 million cars. :eek:

“Where someone goes can reveal a great deal about how he chooses to live his life," Catherine Crump, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told Ars. "Do they park regularly outside the Lighthouse Mosque during times of worship? They’re probably Muslim. Can a car be found outside Beer Revolution a great number of times? May be a craft beer enthusiast—although possibly with a drinking problem."
 
On the one hand, you want transparency so you can see what information the government is collecting.

On the other hand, how wonderful that someone you piss off at work can track your movements.

And for the record, I'm just stopping after work for the Mexican restaurant, not the "Nine Inch Males" bar adjacent... purely coincidence!
 
On one side of it, I don't mind license plate readers, as long as all the information is destroyed completely after verifying that no infractions belong to the person who the car is registered to at the time of the scan, not 1 week later, or 1 month later or 1 year later, but the instant it is scanned there should be a database of license plates to compare to, no match, then throw it out.

But since that is NOT what happens, then fuck them spying mother fuckers, next time the police force asks for money, tell the union to go the fuck on a strike because they wasted money on equipment to become spies on every single citizen who drives a car instead of something actually useful.
 
On the one hand, you want transparency so you can see what information the government is collecting.

On the other hand, how wonderful that someone you piss off at work can track your movements.

And for the record, I'm just stopping after work for the Mexican restaurant, not the "Nine Inch Males" bar adjacent... purely coincidence!

I am a bit scared to search for this Nine Inch Males bar. Sounds too macho for me
 
On one side of it, I don't mind license plate readers, as long as all the information is destroyed completely after verifying that no infractions belong to the person who the car is registered to at the time of the scan, not 1 week later, or 1 month later or 1 year later, but the instant it is scanned there should be a database of license plates to compare to, no match, then throw it out.

But since that is NOT what happens, then fuck them spying mother fuckers, next time the police force asks for money, tell the union to go the fuck on a strike because they wasted money on equipment to become spies on every single citizen who drives a car instead of something actually useful.

Too bad, they ALMOST found your stolen car, but unfortunately at the time it was scanned parked just outside the chop shop, you hadn't reported it stolen yet :D
 
I had to do it sfsuphysics, just couldn't resist given your vehement response.

No, mostly I agree. Use of the data should have a purpose and the time limit should be linked to that purpose. I'd call it something like;

Data unrelated to an open criminal case is deleted within 60 Days.
Data related to a crime can be held for as long as it's relevant to prosecution and or court appeals, so a long time.
Data that was collected prior to a crime, (sic. in the case of a stolen car), can be held only for as long as it is directly relevant to an ongoing investigation and if not directly related must be quarantined for 90 days and deleted if not authorized for access by Judicial Review and deleted on the 91st Day. So if the prosecution or defense decides there must be something important that has bearing on the case in the quarantined data a Judge can order it opened, otherwise it stays offline and is deleted at the 90 day mark.

Now this is more an example of reasonable policy and not the letter of a perfect solution.
 
No worries, you could have just as easily using the Amber Alert example which is honestly what a lot of these LEAs do, "If we can save just one child, we believe this makes it all worth it" and the answer I have is "no it doesn't"
 
It doesn't matter how a free man chooses to live his life, period.

Aside from being a guy-centrically narrow perspective, you're right that it doesn't matter. However, I think it's also worth keeping an eye on what everyone is doing so we can see signs that they're planning to hurt someone else and stop them from that to not only prevent crime, but make a positive difference in the would-be criminal's life. Like if we could automatically disable someone's car after an image recognition system sees them getting into it while carrying a gun could prevent a lot of crazy people from doing the school shooting thing.
 
This has been a problem for years in Los Angeles and the position the PD is taking is that all scans are part of an open investigation. When pressed on it, it is an open investigation (unsaid but felt from the attitude "Go F*** yourself we don't care about privacy or citizen rights. We've found a legal fiction that covers our ass and will continue to do it.")
 
This has been a problem for years in Los Angeles and the position the PD is taking is that all scans are part of an open investigation. When pressed on it, it is an open investigation (unsaid but felt from the attitude "Go F*** yourself we don't care about privacy or citizen rights. We've found a legal fiction that covers our ass and will continue to do it.")

Well, they police are correct. If you're using public facilites that are funded by tax moolah like roads, you don't deserve any privacy. Now if you're on private property, you have a reasonable expectation for it...like a mall parking lot or whatever is even reasonable.
 
No worries, you could have just as easily using the Amber Alert example which is honestly what a lot of these LEAs do, "If we can save just one child, we believe this makes it all worth it" and the answer I have is "no it doesn't"

I think there is nothing wrong with the readers like both of us said. I also think that deleting the scan as soon as it comes up negative is a waste. You have to look at reality and reality says the highest probability for the scan to do any good is within X number of hours after the criminal act and it also takes a little time for the crime to be reported. If your going to delete a miss immediately you might as well just save the tax payers a lot of money and can the whole thing. At the same time, data unrelated to a crime doesn't need to be hoarded, there needs to be a reasonable time limit placed on keeping the data and old data that is being kept because it might be needed in relation to crime, needs to be sealed away under a Legal Lock and inaccessible without a Judge's key.
 
poop post..

I'm just glad that your opinion is so far off the norm that (almost) no one agrees with you in the world. You're something... so just keep petting your cat while you scribble about cats. Being called narrow minded from a person that wants full government surveillance on everyone, at all times, for everything. What a world....what a world...
 
Aside from being a guy-centrically narrow perspective, you're right that it doesn't matter. However, I think it's also worth keeping an eye on what everyone is doing so we can see signs that they're planning to hurt someone else and stop them from that to not only prevent crime, but make a positive difference in the would-be criminal's life. Like if we could automatically disable someone's car after an image recognition system sees them getting into it while carrying a gun could prevent a lot of crazy people from doing the school shooting thing.

Going to the shooting range would make for a short trip as well :D


LOL, In AZ any person who is not a prohibited possessor or otherwise not legally allowed to own a firearm can keep one in their car, on their person, concealed or otherwise, no special permit required, no gun registration involved. If you can legally buy it, you can carry it. It's like a right you just get when you turn that age, 21, and you can just start packin' if you feel like it. Been this way for a few years now, it will be interesting to see the crime statistics over the next few years.
 
Going to the shooting range would make for a short trip as well :D


LOL, In AZ any person who is not a prohibited possessor or otherwise not legally allowed to own a firearm can keep one in their car, on their person, concealed or otherwise, no special permit required, no gun registration involved. If you can legally buy it, you can carry it. It's like a right you just get when you turn that age, 21, and you can just start packin' if you feel like it. Been this way for a few years now, it will be interesting to see the crime statistics over the next few years.

I guess the only way around that, since the whole gun-owning thing is important for a lot of guys to feel safe or empowered, is to broaden monitoring so that abberations in a person's routine or risk factors like divorce, car and house debt, and gender can be used to measure the potential criminal risk factors of each person. A system that tracked all those factors would then be smart enough to alert law enforcement, marriage counsellers, or an ambulance automatically when something looked amiss or there were enough risk factors to cross a certain limit. It'd be kinda complicated to design, but Google and Facebook already have most of that data. We just need to enforce full federal, state, and local access to business data warehouses and then put up some more inconspicious cameras around to keep an eye on stuff.
 
Well, they police are correct. If you're using public facilites that are funded by tax moolah like roads, you don't deserve any privacy. Now if you're on private property, you have a reasonable expectation for it...like a mall parking lot or whatever is even reasonable.

The problem is when someone pushes for why am I under investigation they side step, ignore requests, etc. If you are going to abuse the law that way at least try to play by some of the other rules/laws you are required to.
 
Aside from being a guy-centrically narrow perspective, you're right that it doesn't matter. However, I think it's also worth keeping an eye on what everyone is doing so we can see signs that they're planning to hurt someone else and stop them from that to not only prevent crime, but make a positive difference in the would-be criminal's life. Like if we could automatically disable someone's car after an image recognition system sees them getting into it while carrying a gun could prevent a lot of crazy people from doing the school shooting thing.

You could also have the system disable the car if they are late on their phone bill or whatever you want right? It doesn't matter the reason when you are dealing with slaves amirite?
 
The problem is when someone pushes for why am I under investigation they side step, ignore requests, etc. If you are going to abuse the law that way at least try to play by some of the other rules/laws you are required to.

I think it's like incidental data collection moreso than an investigation. Besides, if someone is being investigated, I think that person is the absolute last one who should be entitled to know so they start to get clever about the stuff they're doing wrong. They should only know about it when they're being arrested so they can prepare a defense at their trial.

You could also have the system disable the car if they are late on their phone bill or whatever you want right? It doesn't matter the reason when you are dealing with slaves amirite?

Phone bills are a civil thing and not directly criminal acts. While I think people ought to be a lot more responsible with their money, if they wanna get a stupid Android they can't afford, that's between them and the company that gave it to them. It's not enslavement for a customer to willingly enter into a service contract either so the slavery argument doesn't seem to make sense in this case.
 
I guess the only way around that, since the whole gun-owning thing is important for a lot of guys to feel safe or empowered, is to broaden monitoring so that abberations in a person's routine or risk factors like divorce, car and house debt, and gender can be used to measure the potential criminal risk factors of each person. A system that tracked all those factors would then be smart enough to alert law enforcement, marriage counsellers, or an ambulance automatically when something looked amiss or there were enough risk factors to cross a certain limit. It'd be kinda complicated to design, but Google and Facebook already have most of that data. We just need to enforce full federal, state, and local access to business data warehouses and then put up some more inconspicious cameras around to keep an eye on stuff.

Never fly, see, you can't disabuse people based on statistics or a propensity or a trend. In the simplest terms, your not a criminal until you are a criminal.
 
The problem is when someone pushes for why am I under investigation they side step, ignore requests, etc. If you are going to abuse the law that way at least try to play by some of the other rules/laws you are required to.

Croaker, you're under an investigation?
 
Never fly, see, you can't disabuse people based on statistics or a propensity or a trend. In the simplest terms, your not a criminal until you are a criminal.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm thinking that a system that's smart enough to oversee people's actions would be able to prevent bad things from happening. The person being stopped is not at all a criminal then and can get help while still being able to productively contribute to society. I think that we can all pretty much agree that preventing murders is lots better than letting them happen and then arresting someone after the fact.
 
Just put a fake plate on that says PULME4R Pull me Over for Real Plate. :)
 
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm thinking that a system that's smart enough to oversee people's actions would be able to prevent bad things from happening. The person being stopped is not at all a criminal then and can get help while still being able to productively contribute to society. I think that we can all pretty much agree that preventing murders is lots better than letting them happen and then arresting someone after the fact.

You can't just simply "prevent" crime because preventing crime does all but preventing crime. Crime happens for a lot of reasons alot of them mostly have to do with poverty and desperation. If you want to prevent crime then do it though education and oppertunities. But I guess as a society we don't care about the people below us do we?

Allowing such a system take place allows for abuse to take place; not to mention what a slippery slope it is. What happens when the government decides that X will now be illegal and enforced like female genitile mutilation in the UK? Apparently alot of women have piercings there and now that will make them all criminals.

I think it is sad when you want to move away from education and rather have enforcement over everything in one's life.

And no, preventing murder though these means would not be better. Because when someone is mad they might angrily say "I am going to kill ____", now suddenly that is a crime even though no action came of it. I thought as adults we are responsible for the actions we do and not the actions we do not do.

When did people move away from logic and decide emotion is the best course of action?:(
 
You can't just simply "prevent" crime because preventing crime does all but preventing crime. Crime happens for a lot of reasons alot of them mostly have to do with poverty and desperation. If you want to prevent crime then do it though education and oppertunities. But I guess as a society we don't care about the people below us do we?

Allowing such a system take place allows for abuse to take place; not to mention what a slippery slope it is. What happens when the government decides that X will now be illegal and enforced like female genitile mutilation in the UK? Apparently alot of women have piercings there and now that will make them all criminals.

I think it is sad when you want to move away from education and rather have enforcement over everything in one's life.

And no, preventing murder though these means would not be better. Because when someone is mad they might angrily say "I am going to kill ____", now suddenly that is a crime even though no action came of it. I thought as adults we are responsible for the actions we do and not the actions we do not do.

When did people move away from logic and decide emotion is the best course of action?:(

I think you kinda missed the point. Ideally, when someone shows a lot of risk factors, the system could alert people and start the process of human intervention before an actual criminal act has happened. This doesn't make that person a criminal, but it might get them some help that they need to stop a crime or at least put them in restraint until they stop thinking about doing those kinds or things. Maybe we could even medicate them when they show signs of bad thoughts which would not only keep them from being as active, but also grow the economy by increasing the demand for labor in medicine production which is a win-win for the planet.
 
Meh. Pretty soon everyone will be walking around with Google Glass recording everything that happens in public.
 
I think you kinda missed the point. Ideally, when someone shows a lot of risk factors, the system could alert people and start the process of human intervention before an actual criminal act has happened. This doesn't make that person a criminal, but it might get them some help that they need to stop a crime or at least put them in restraint until they stop thinking about doing those kinds or things. Maybe we could even medicate them when they show signs of bad thoughts which would not only keep them from being as active, but also grow the economy by increasing the demand for labor in medicine production which is a win-win for the planet.

"Risk" in your mind is anything you are not familiar with. You seemed to like to mention guns. So guy gets in his car with a gun, just like hundreds of thousands of people a day. So they get flagged even though they did nothing wrong? What you are suggesting is thought policing, and that is a very very dangerous thing.

Honestly I can't tell if youre serious or you just want to play the devils advocate.

Your first solution to "problematic" thinking is to quickly medicate them. No let us not deal with the actual issue but lets just marginialize people and tuck them in this corner. While creating dependancy on medicines and not dealing with real problems.

Do you live by the quote "It's fine, it is not like I have anything to hide."?

However I would like to address the biggest flaw, which would be the concept of thought policing. This allows people in power to make the rules on a fly, and back it up with statements like Goebbels would make. "Why do you resist, you don't have anything to hide do you?" Instead of dealing with issues you can just turn the entire population into criminals. Quickly since everyone else is a criminal you can pass a law to remove gays, jews or anything else you want. Well it is the path of least resistance I suppose.

Must be nice to hold that kind of dominion over everyone else huh? Because remember history has plenty of examples where power doesn't become corrupted.;)

What happens when someone thinks the way you think is now "problematic" and then decides to medicate you for having a different opinion than yourself?

Police forces currently use tactics to prevent crime, it is called patrol and show of force. Too bad they don't actually prevent crime. A lot of police wont even accept a call in areas that they know a crime has been commited, not to mention they are not required to respond to calls. That is some prevention.
 
"Risk" in your mind is anything you are not familiar with. You seemed to like to mention guns. So guy gets in his car with a gun, just like hundreds of thousands of people a day. So they get flagged even though they did nothing wrong? What you are suggesting is thought policing, and that is a very very dangerous thing.

I was just responding to the discussion about guns and I do admit that I linked them to crime since they're really popular for that kinda thing. I don't wanna start a gun debate since that's really far off the license plate thing, but a lot of people purchase them with home defense (translation - shooting people) in mind which really does qualify as pre-meditated.

Honestly I can't tell if youre serious or you just want to play the devils advocate.

Your first solution to "problematic" thinking is to quickly medicate them. No let us not deal with the actual issue but lets just marginialize people and tuck them in this corner. While creating dependancy on medicines and not dealing with real problems.

Medications don't marginalize people. I know a lot of people who have been given a prescription for whatever reason like a knee injury or after a c-section or for cancer treatment and those people are doing work routines, exercising, and living happy lives. As long as it's prescribed by a physician and used properly, I don't see why there should be some big stigma attached to it.

Do you live by the quote "It's fine, it is not like I have anything to hide."?

Yes.

However I would like to address the biggest flaw, which would be the concept of thought policing. This allows people in power to make the rules on a fly, and back it up with statements like Goebbels would make. "Why do you resist, you don't have anything to hide do you?" Instead of dealing with issues you can just turn the entire population into criminals. Quickly since everyone else is a criminal you can pass a law to remove gays, jews or anything else you want. Well it is the path of least resistance I suppose.

Must be nice to hold that kind of dominion over everyone else huh? Because remember history has plenty of examples where power doesn't become corrupted.;)

What happens when someone thinks the way you think is now "problematic" and then decides to medicate you for having a different opinion than yourself?

I'd be okay with taking a prescription. In fact, I did once when I had oral surgery and I broke one of my fingers playing volleyball on a beach like a couple years ago. It's not a big deal so seriously, stop freaking out about it. As for the rest of that...

This isn't thought policing (which isn't really a bad thing anyway since we already do it by normalizing people to live in our society when we raise them a certain way to think certain things are bad). It's just the analysis of actions and risk factors that lets the right people get involved with someone before they do something unacceptable to society. And yup, what society thinks is and isn't okay will change over time. That's normal too so expect morals to be different at different points in time.

Police forces currently use tactics to prevent crime, it is called patrol and show of force. Too bad they don't actually prevent crime. A lot of police wont even accept a call in areas that they know a crime has been commited, not to mention they are not required to respond to calls. That is some prevention.

Well, police are overstressed and we don't have enough of them to respond to everything that goes wrong so they have to pick when and where to focus their attention which means that they would naturally support parts of the community where they're needed most. For instance, when a house in an upper class neighborhood is getting robbed, there's a higher value of property that's stolen which is a bigger crime and needs priority treatment versus someone's hand-me-down sofa being taken from off the porch in front of their trailer.

Besides that, this isn't all about police, it's about getting other agencies like social services, child welfare, grief and crisis intervention and a bunch of other groups involved. Sometimes, the best thing for a person thinking about doing something harmful to society or themselves is to have a trained professional to talk with that will help them sort out their feelings. Police aren't always the right people so try not to get to brain-locked on them alone as the first responders to a person who needs help.
 
I was just responding to the discussion about guns and I do admit that I linked them to crime since they're really popular for that kinda thing. I don't wanna start a gun debate since that's really far off the license plate thing, but a lot of people purchase them with home defense (translation - shooting people) in mind which really does qualify as pre-meditated..

Right now there are more guns in america than people. Guess how many get used in crimes even if you count home defense. Less than 1%


Medications don't marginalize people. I know a lot of people who have been given a prescription for whatever reason like a knee injury or after a c-section or for cancer treatment and those people are doing work routines, exercising, and living happy lives. As long as it's prescribed by a physician and used properly, I don't see why there should be some big stigma attached to it..

Medical malpractice is the #1 leading death in america, far above guns. But before you wernt mentioning using this correctly. You said "oh if someones thinking bad thoughts lets drug them". That doesn't solve the issue of the problem, it just creates more problems such as abusing drugs and creation of more drugs to deal with the new problems. It is a self fufulling prophecy.
Example is there are more and more people depressed today, given drugs to deal with it. Amazing how people delt with it back in the day huh?



You are willfully quoting Goebbels. I can't even.

I'd be okay with taking a prescription. In fact, I did once when I had oral surgery and I broke one of my fingers playing volleyball on a beach like a couple years ago. It's not a big deal so seriously, stop freaking out about it. As for the rest of that...
Congradulations. You luckly didn't get screwed over, or had the wrong medication; or wern't a victim of medical malpractice. But seriously good for you.

This isn't thought policing (which isn't really a bad thing anyway since we already do it by normalizing people to live in our society when we raise them a certain way to think certain things are bad). It's just the analysis of actions and risk factors that lets the right people get involved with someone before they do something unacceptable to society. And yup, what society thinks is and isn't okay will change over time. That's normal too so expect morals to be different at different points in time.
So deciding if someone is a criminal or not because they don't fall into the same thought process of you and turning them into a criminal because of it is not thought policing? You seriously believe that if someone said "i was gay" and others go "deviant! quick drug him and put him in an insane asylum" is not thought policing? Hell homosexuality was considered a mental disease. Imagine what happens if you had total control over such a system.

If you want to remove all the risk why not get rid of humanity all together? Then there is not any risk! But seriously, risk doesn't mean anything unless something happens. Which is why there is a justice system. Which is why we take people to court "after" they did something. Because then and only then they commited a crime, that actually affected someone else.

Well, police are overstressed and we don't have enough of them to respond to everything that goes wrong so they have to pick when and where to focus their attention which means that they would naturally support parts of the community where they're needed most. For instance, when a house in an upper class neighborhood is getting robbed, there's a higher value of property that's stolen which is a bigger crime and needs priority treatment versus someone's hand-me-down sofa being taken from off the porch in front of their trailer.

Besides that, this isn't all about police, it's about getting other agencies like social services, child welfare, grief and crisis intervention and a bunch of other groups involved. Sometimes, the best thing for a person thinking about doing something harmful to society or themselves is to have a trained professional to talk with that will help them sort out their feelings. Police aren't always the right people so try not to get to brain-locked on them alone as the first responders to a person who needs help.

"For instance, when a house in an upper class neighborhood is getting robbed, there's a higher value of property that's stolen which is a bigger crime and needs priority treatment versus someone's hand-me-down sofa being taken from off the porch in front of their trailer.
" Because rich people > poor people. Crime is crime and should be delt with the crime that it is. Cops don't respond to murders in dangerious areas. Why? Because they don't have to. They don't have to because they legally don't have to because all the officer has to do is say "it was to dangerous for me." Police are not held responsible for their actions which is why they can get away with abuse, most of the time anyways.

While I do agree with you that getting help when you need it is a good idea, along with education and opertunity. However the one thing I can not agree with you is forcing people against their will to do something. People should have the education and knowledge that there is places to get help, and not because you demand them to.

"like social services, child welfare, grief and crisis intervention and a bunch of other groups involved"
But the funny thing is it isn't about first responders or which program it is. Child services and other government agencies are extreamly bias. My neighbor had his kids taken away from them and given to their abusive mother. The children told the DSS what the mother did to them. The response was "men are incapable of taking care of children." So the children get to suffer not only though the devorce but the abuse of their mother.

The problem lies in that people honestly don't care about others. You've even shown it by quoting Goebbels, saying that its okay for me so it is okay that you should spy on everyone else.Showing that rich>poor and marginalizing people that don't fit into your perfect little world are other prime examples of this.

I mean you support spying on people because it "prevents" crime. I use prevents in quotes because theres no actual statistic to promote this. And that it is okay to do something about a problem that hasn't happened. At least though your thought policing policy of "we can medicate people have bad thinking."

I love how you changed your arguments midway though. " Maybe we could even medicate them when they show signs of bad thoughts which would not only keep them from being as active, but also grow the economy by increasing the demand for labor in medicine production which is a win-win for the planet. " to "I know a lot of people who have been given a prescription for whatever reason like a knee injury or after a c-section or for cancer treatment and those people are doing work routines, exercising, and living happy lives."
How are bad thoughts and knee injuries related? You said medication doesn't margininzlize people however the way you suggest it does. "We know what is better for you, take this or else future criminal."

It's sad that you support such emotional arguments, and even sadder to see that people like this actually exist. I take it you live in a shelted area where everything is perfect and you don't have to go out and see the real world, but can completely cast judgement and for the sake of emotion you know what is best.

Honestly, I can't take you seriously, from moving the goalposts, emotional arguments without any basis and circular reasoning. No, that isn't it. The fact you are willfully quoting Goebbels is the real issue here.
 
Right now there are more guns in america than people. Guess how many get used in crimes even if you count home defense. Less than 1%

I don't think the stats are that important to someone who has like a family member get hurt by someone with a gun.

Medical malpractice is the #1 leading death in america, far above guns. But before you wernt mentioning using this correctly. You said "oh if someones thinking bad thoughts lets drug them". That doesn't solve the issue of the problem, it just creates more problems such as abusing drugs and creation of more drugs to deal with the new problems. It is a self fufulling prophecy.
Example is there are more and more people depressed today, given drugs to deal with it. Amazing how people delt with it back in the day huh?

I don't think medical malpractice is at all the leading cause of death. Here's a linky which makes the rest of that argument not make sense:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

You are willfully quoting Goebbels. I can't even.

I dunno who or what that is, but I quoted your post, not whatever that is.

Congradulations. You luckly didn't get screwed over, or had the wrong medication; or wern't a victim of medical malpractice. But seriously good for you.

I already posted a link thing-y above so this is also part of that thing which isn't really an argument based in any kinda facts.

So deciding if someone is a criminal or not because they don't fall into the same thought process of you and turning them into a criminal because of it is not thought policing? You seriously believe that if someone said "i was gay" and others go "deviant! quick drug him and put him in an insane asylum" is not thought policing? Hell homosexuality was considered a mental disease. Imagine what happens if you had total control over such a system.

Well, laws are based on morals and norms of a society and as they change, various things will become legal and other things will become illegal. I'm not gonna argue the particulars of that because...

-Like I said before, this is about preventing crime, not reacting to things after they become criminal acts.

-The particulars of your example aren't relevant or important in relationship to the shifting morality of a specific culture. How you or I feel about something isn't as significant as how the collective of a given civilization feels about something because laws are a collectively created thing-y, not a CreepyUncleGoogle or a whateveryourname is thingy.

If you want to remove all the risk why not get rid of humanity all together? Then there is not any risk! But seriously, risk doesn't mean anything unless something happens. Which is why there is a justice system. Which is why we take people to court "after" they did something. Because then and only then they commited a crime, that actually affected someone else.

You're still intentionally ignoring how this isn't about crime, but about helping people and preventing crime. You're doing that to justify your weird-o arguments and being upset with me, but you really should stop to think about why you're upset first and then focus on reading my posts for comprehension instead of for a thing to counter-argue about.

"For instance, when a house in an upper class neighborhood is getting robbed, there's a higher value of property that's stolen which is a bigger crime and needs priority treatment versus someone's hand-me-down sofa being taken from off the porch in front of their trailer.
" Because rich people > poor people. Crime is crime and should be delt with the crime that it is. Cops don't respond to murders in dangerious areas. Why? Because they don't have to. They don't have to because they legally don't have to because all the officer has to do is say "it was to dangerous for me." Police are not held responsible for their actions which is why they can get away with abuse, most of the time anyways.

The value of property involved in a theft is relevant in a court when considering punishment. The same is true of lots of other crimes. It's not about rich and poor people as much as it is about how the justice system handles punishments and treats significance. If you don't like it, then advocate for more police enforcement or advocate technology-based solutions like mine that would help get the right people to the right place to prevent crime and reduce police burden so they can respond to less significant crimes as well as more significant ones.

While I do agree with you that getting help when you need it is a good idea, along with education and opertunity. However the one thing I can not agree with you is forcing people against their will to do something. People should have the education and knowledge that there is places to get help, and not because you demand them to.

"like social services, child welfare, grief and crisis intervention and a bunch of other groups involved"
But the funny thing is it isn't about first responders or which program it is. Child services and other government agencies are extreamly bias. My neighbor had his kids taken away from them and given to their abusive mother. The children told the DSS what the mother did to them. The response was "men are incapable of taking care of children." So the children get to suffer not only though the devorce but the abuse of their mother.

I don't think an overseer system rules out also using education before and in response to criminal acts or a set of increased risk factors. Humans are all biased. You'll get used to it eventually.

The problem lies in that people honestly don't care about others. You've even shown it by quoting Goebbels, saying that its okay for me so it is okay that you should spy on everyone else.Showing that rich>poor and marginalizing people that don't fit into your perfect little world are other prime examples of this.

I still haven't quoted whatever that is you're taking about and yes, no one cares, but we offer incentives for people to do a job by paying them. That's just how the world works and will always work. It's something else you'll get used to or can be upset about...whatever.

I mean you support spying on people because it "prevents" crime. I use prevents in quotes because theres no actual statistic to promote this. And that it is okay to do something about a problem that hasn't happened. At least though your thought policing policy of "we can medicate people have bad thinking."

Yeah, we need to implement it on a small scale so we can gather stats about whether or not it works as well as improve the overseer detection engine with refinements over time.

I love how you changed your arguments midway though. " Maybe we could even medicate them when they show signs of bad thoughts which would not only keep them from being as active, but also grow the economy by increasing the demand for labor in medicine production which is a win-win for the planet. " to "I know a lot of people who have been given a prescription for whatever reason like a knee injury or after a c-section or for cancer treatment and those people are doing work routines, exercising, and living happy lives."
How are bad thoughts and knee injuries related? You said medication doesn't margininzlize people however the way you suggest it does. "We know what is better for you, take this or else future criminal."

It was in response to stuff you brought up. If you don't wanna have me talk about different stuff, then focus on one issue at a time, please. Otherwise, be upset at your post for being all over the place, not mine for addressing your concerns.

It's sad that you support such emotional arguments, and even sadder to see that people like this actually exist. I take it you live in a shelted area where everything is perfect and you don't have to go out and see the real world, but can completely cast judgement and for the sake of emotion you know what is best.

I have a nice place and a nice kitty to hug so yeah, I do. And all arguments are rooted in emotions. There are none that aren't a part of someone's feelings. :)

Honestly, I can't take you seriously, from moving the goalposts, emotional arguments without any basis and circular reasoning. No, that isn't it. The fact you are willfully quoting Goebbels is the real issue here.

You really shouldn't take me seriously or anything else you read online. It's totally a not-smart thing to do. And yeah, I still didn't quote that Gobble-thing of yours. Maybe you did and I quoted your post, but that's about it. :p
 
There is a tremendous amount of information associated with your license tag. Back in the 90's I had a job to work on the computer at a strip club. The Manager was a licensed bails bondman and he brought up what was available to him with my tag number. It not only brought up every car I had ever owned it also brought up every car my Dad had ever owned. It listed under known associates two kids I was involved with in a fight at a school bus stop twenty five years before. Every address I had ever lived at was included. It took at least 15 minutes to read through everything.

It was a real eye-opener as to how private my life was not...
 
I never thought I'd agree with ICPiper but his proposed solution seems to make the most sense ITT.
 
You really shouldn't take me seriously or anything else you read online. It's totally a not-smart thing to do. And yeah, I still didn't quote that Gobble-thing of yours. Maybe you did and I quoted your post, but that's about it. :p

I think the issue is that you are suggesting things that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbles suggested were solutions for making Germany a world power in 1933-1945. Which means you are promoting Nazi ideas. I don't think you understand how millions of innocent (by today's standards) people died because of what you are suggesting. That's all.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle is making me cringe once again. I had to stop reading halfway through the second page because I couldn't take it anymore.
 
I think the issue is that you are suggesting things that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbles suggested were solutions for making Germany a world power in 1933-1945. Which means you are promoting Nazi ideas. I don't think you understand how millions of innocent (by today's standards) people died because of what you are suggesting. That's all.

How is helping preventing crime and helping people get better limited to only Nazis? Don't lots of other cultures both past and present also promote the same things? Does that make them somehow bad because they're supposedly promoting Nazi ideas?

Like, take giving everyone identification cards. I mean, the Nazis did that so clearly issuing photo identification or other personally identifying paperwork that people can carry is evil and those Department of Transportation people are all just the most sinister people ever.
 
lol good old CreepyUncleGoogle, living up to that name again.

No, Billy, the very concept of pre-crime is incompatible with a free people. What you are talking about is the very reason that veterans don't call suicide helplines - because they'll be "helped" into subservience.

Humans act a lot of different ways for a lot of different reasons, and not all of that can be boiled down to a algorithm or a series of if/then statements. Just because they operate outside of your defined optimal parameters does not make them a criminal, nor should it subject them to the whims of the State. The State exists to guarantee freedom and liberty, not to curtail it.
 
lol good old CreepyUncleGoogle, living up to that name again.

No, Billy, the very concept of pre-crime is incompatible with a free people. What you are talking about is the very reason that veterans don't call suicide helplines - because they'll be "helped" into subservience.

Humans act a lot of different ways for a lot of different reasons, and not all of that can be boiled down to a algorithm or a series of if/then statements. Just because they operate outside of your defined optimal parameters does not make them a criminal, nor should it subject them to the whims of the State. The State exists to guarantee freedom and liberty, not to curtail it.

That's totally true and I don't at all disagree with the idea that a system can't predict everything that they'll do. That's why I think the overseer computers would just notify actual people (like I said before) and have them go like check stuff out to make sure everything is okay. Also, if someone is trying to kill themselves, we already consider them a danger to themselves if we find out and take them to people who can help them regardless of how they feel. That doesn't make them subservient or whatever even though they might feel like that's the case. No one wants to keep them in like a place that can help them forever. They're there to get better and then go back to being productive members of the collective society.

As for liberty and that idealized stuff, yeah that's exactly what the system would help make happen. By preventing crime and doing the intervention thing, it can help citizens that would otherwise be hurt by someone else not be and also help prevent self-inflicted harm. That fits perfectly with their role of protecting someone's freedom.
 
How is helping preventing crime and helping people get better limited to only Nazis? Don't lots of other cultures both past and present also promote the same things? Does that make them somehow bad because they're supposedly promoting Nazi ideas?

Like, take giving everyone identification cards. I mean, the Nazis did that so clearly issuing photo identification or other personally identifying paperwork that people can carry is evil and those Department of Transportation people are all just the most sinister people ever.

Nazi Germany required everyone to get identify the Jewish population so they could annihilate them. Please read about the "Final Solution".

Once the government has an easy to access database, there isn't a lot stopping Congress, Senate, and whoever the President is at the time to pass a law that uses that information to persecute the population by the information in that database.

We've seen it time and time again that Congress/Senate/the President pass some law over time and it took years and years for the Judicial Branch to say, "oh wait, you can't do that." And often, that's far too late.
 
Never fly, see, you can't disabuse people based on statistics or a propensity or a trend. In the simplest terms, your not a criminal until you are a criminal.

Heh, thats funny. Try shopping with a black person in an expensive clothing store and see how much of criminal the person following you around every damned corner makes you feel like, lol.

In all seriousness, this is terrifying, and anyone who doesnt see the slippery slope needs to keep the cipher rolling on that dank.
 
Nazi Germany required everyone to get identify the Jewish population so they could annihilate them. Please read about the "Final Solution".

Once the government has an easy to access database, there isn't a lot stopping Congress, Senate, and whoever the President is at the time to pass a law that uses that information to persecute the population by the information in that database.

We've seen it time and time again that Congress/Senate/the President pass some law over time and it took years and years for the Judicial Branch to say, "oh wait, you can't do that." And often, that's far too late.

Exactly. How can he not understand the inherent flaws with a totalitarian/authoritarian system like the one he's proposing? I'm thinking he either he flunked history/social studies/politics or he's just an elaborate troll. My guess is the latter.
 
Back
Top