Big Brother?

[Kuja]

How far do you think we should go into the Big Brother style society?

1) We all ready have too much monitoring with cameras on some street corners. No cameras. No monitoring.

2) Current security. Random cameras and criminals can be tagged.

3) More watching. All people are tagged so police know where we are. This would eliminate the need for many investigations, but we wouldnt have cameras and satellites watching exactly what we are doing.

4) All of our movements and actions are known. Whereas option 3 would allow for police to know where we are, they would not know what we are doing. With cameras in every room in every houshold and on every street corner, none would be able to do anything without Big Brother knowing.

[Chickensoupcheese]

The more advanced technology that we use, the more primitive in our actions we become. You have to remember that, regardless of all of these la-di-dah camera breakthroughs and security whatnots, we're only human. We look for faults in others, and we enjoy it. If we can get proof, then that's a bonus. If we had this type of society, then it would probably be counter-productive: although people may not commit crimes, they wouldn't commit to much else, either, in fear of commiting a crime. Ambition would fade away. Which is a bad thing in my opinion.

[Sanovarak]

Just current situation. The Big Brother thing can make some peoples nervous, and 3rd option is too secure. Have we tell to police: "I'm going to toilet, so I don't do any crimes"? Silly.

[Maxy]

Crime has always existed in society since humans first established civilisation, where there were rules that could be broken. Crime will never disappear, since it is part of human nature. No matter what people tell themselves the human race IS barbaric. Humans will wrong others to improve their own situation. We cannot change human nature over night, but we can do everything possible to protect potential victims. An increase in security is necessary, and would be implimented if the police had the funding to do so. I believe all public areas should be monitored, by cameras. I think having people tagged to know where they are is a pointless endeavour, since that tells you practically nothing. It would only be useful after a crime, so you could go back to see who was at the scene. To do this you'd need one hell of a computer to store all this data and some sort of mega-satellite to send it the data. It is completely unfeasible.

Surveillance should be restricted to public environments only and privacy should be respected in people's homes.

[Shiguru Wazzat]

Ditto.

I think it would be impossible to have cameras put in peoples homes, because if that was made legal there would be a public outcry - always being watched ... you'd be afraid to do anything.

However, more cameras in public places could be helpful, but I don't think that there is enough money to supply cameras in public places for the whole of a country.

[devilmaycare150]

..Keep it the way it is, we can never truly stop crime, like Maxy said, so it would just inconvience people more than neccesarry if we put more camera's around the place..

There's a thin line between privacy...and crime..or..darnit! Can't think of a better word for it..

[Laralon the Mad Looter]

Taggy taggy. Has it occurred to any of you that the "au-tag system" could help track down runaways or kidnapped children as well as public enemies? It's not like there's this big scary camera bearing down on you 24/7. The only reason a person might say that this system is too strict, too restraining, and absolutely unneccessary is if they were a criminal.

[Pat]

I say that when you are born they put a small chip somewhere in the body that has a tracking divise in it along with all of youre personal information.

[Maxy]

Putting a small chip in your body is a severe infringment on human rights. Having more cameras in public areas would be acceptable, would perhaps cause a few mumours of concern amongst the public, but to actually implant new-born children with some sort of electronical device is just too much. Besides, tagging will never work. If you wanted to avoid capture you'd simply untag yourself. The only people who would be caught then would be the poor and stupid criminals who cannot afford to have any chips removed, or just don't consider the consequences. These are the sort of people who get caught anyway.

[Laralon the Mad Looter]

Yo, remember the lost little lambs?

[Nuno]

Its fine the way it is... Bush atacked an entire country and nobody did anything, so thats not just a matter of cameras.

[devilmaycare150]

Morphine said:

Taggy taggy. Has it occurred to any of you that the "au-tag system" could help track down runaways or kidnapped children as well as public enemies? It's not like there's this big scary camera bearing down on you 24/7. The only reason a person might say that this system is too strict, too restraining, and absolutely unneccessary is if they were a criminal.

They wouldn't have to worry about that; they'd just kill them..easily done. So, instead of kidnapping's, and having the chance of getting the kid back, they'll kill them instead..I don't like that tradeoff..


...Geez, isn't Maxy the smart one..?

[Kuja]

Well if everyone was tagged in the first place, why would anynoe be kidnapped. The kidnapper would surely know that after kidnapping they would either have to kill the abductee or be caught and so would not be able to hold them to ransom anywhere. Therefore why would they kidnapp them when there is no way to make money.

[Laralon the Mad Looter]

*scratches head* Kuja's got a good point. Oh, and the kidnappers may be using the children for...um...stuff. Think over that.

[Varzael]

I will agree with Maxy that crime has always existed in human societies no matter how advanced they are.However,advanced societies deal with crime in a logical,humanistically acceptable and effective way(advanced in other words).

The reason for why crfime exists lies in the refuse of a minority of society's members to advance and become better humans.All the rest strive through their self-discipline and respect to the laws to become better persons.The ''crime-doers'' let's say refuse to do that for many a different reason individually.

So the aim of the society and the State should be to bring up and create such people that will not resort to this kind of behavior out of inner respect for laws.

The system of public cameras and surveilance messes real bad with the above as it does not strive to make really balanced and law obedient people(good people in other words) but makes everyone to obey the laws in order to not be punished.Obedience to laws should come as a result of a deep understanding of them and after a well-organized and thought education that makes you want to become a better person for yourself and the community around you.

Imagine this:a city surveilancewd all day long by many cameras.Crime is close to zero,everyone is acting and talking in a way that will not put them in a suspect list or at the wrong side of the law.Then onbe day ''something'' happens(electricity blackout)and the cameras switch off.What happens then to this ''well organized'' city and her responsible and law obedient citizens?

After all camera surveilance is a pry to your privacy and if not can surely be used as such.Personally I fear the day that we will not care for the sovereignity of our privacy.

I would also like to point out that Aristotelis(or Aristotle in English I think)in his work ''ÐïëéôéêÜ'' or ''About Cities/Citizens'' draws the line between well organized and bad organized by how good they can make good citizens and not by how good they can deal with bad citizens.

I voted for 1 and think that cameras should only be used where it is absolutely nesecarry and harms the least of everyone's rights to privacy.And nice to meet you guys,I'm new here