It’s clearly a display of paternal behaviour, protecting the child at the top of the picture.
I thought it was a safe about to drop on her and the cameras just happened to spot the moment before impact.
I thought it looked like a boxy entity with 2 eyes
So many people seem to hate surveillance cameras, I am surprised that more people don’t destroy them. One person walking about their normal business with a laser on their hat could probably take out dozens of cameras per day with relative ease. They could certainly be burned out more quickly than they could be replaced.
I dont suppose this laser is the commonly available varieties, is it?
Nah. It doesn’t have “100 Tons” painted in big white letters on it.
Laser of sufficient intensity to actually damage the sensor chip will be pretty eye-unsafe.
I’d suggest paintballs filled with acetone and some gelling agent (to keep the solvent in place until it does its job); paint would stain the building and do collateral damage due to splash or miss. The camera domes are made of plastic. Won’t damage the most expensive parts, but still requires dispatching a technician to replace the dome. The balls can be also dispatched using a slingshot, so not even a paintball gun is required.
Not to most people, I imagine. @shaddack probably has three already.
I don’t know, I haven’t tried. It would take some experimenting. I doubt it would take much power.
New York City is BEGGING for Big Brother. Suing for it, as a matter of fact:
And half of you guys demand that cops wear video cameras. Why don’t you make up your minds? Tell us the exact level of 1984 you want.
I thought it looked like a Banksy boxy entity with 2 eyes!
You don’t get it do you? I the idea for cops with cameras is to police the police. General surveillance cameras are there to police everybody.
It’s quite simple.
The more power you have, the more you should be monitored. What we have today leans in the other direction - The less power you have, the more you are monitored.
Cops having video is an example of the first, the picture above is an example of the second.
Sure, but the current practices of hierarchal monitoring are basically a pyramid scheme of accountability. Surveillance everywhere can be democratic and just, provided that anyone can access it. Why aren’t regular citizens encouraged and enabled to see the streams from cameras on parks and roadways? How can public areas be “secret” information with privileged access?
I too think that the pyramid is upside-down, but not for the same reason. Governments and police have less power than citizens, because they are constrained to serve. Whatever power they may have is conditional, and can and should be revoked easily.
“The more power you have, the more you should be monitored” I’m sure that you’ll feel that way, until it’s decided that you have “too much power”.
Did you guys even LOOK at the article that I linked to? It’s the City that’s being sued for NOT putting in security cameras by the general public.
No one wants security cameras until they don’t feel safe.
Since you feel that some people should have to wear cameras, how about people who have committed crimes? Why not force child molesters, wife beaters, drug dealers, murders and violent felons to wear cameras for the rest of their lives? I’m sure that their victims felt powerless. Wouldn’t that qualify as “having more power”?
Maybe the most “fair” thing would be if everyone had to wear video cameras 24/7, livestreamed to the world. Privacy be damned! (Yes, I am being sarcastic).
Actually, I would hope that people watch me if I have any power over them.
Yes, security cameras would have helped during the year where I endured constant homophobic and transphobic abuse, and assaulted on a regular basis.
Wait, there were cameras, and they made fuck all difference. There was even an attempt by one abusive fucker who tried to have me charged with ABH for breaking his finger on my face. He only dropped his charges when I dropped mine. Surely a security camera would have seen the reality if they worked!
Security cameras are there to protect property. Everything else is security theatre. This can be changed.
I’m stopping now because of PTSD. I don’t want any luck dragon attracting arguements.
Yup. By putting cameras on the fuckers, and holding them accountable.
What you should be smart enough to figure out is that we (as far as my own we goes) want 1984 for the forces of 1984, and the rest of us left more or less alone. I’m personally not too exercised about video cameras and phone trackers for the public space, but they shouldn’t come before sunshine on the forces that would abuse and profit from this information. When the public corporations and institutions who run the surveillance state have open financial disclosure, respond to democratic processes, and gather live audio and video as they go about their work, then we can say to the privacy advocates “But the people actually want this. Yes, they even want it in public spaces.”
The corrupt assholes in public-private security have been successful at making this upside-down situation seem normal to someone like you, but the situation isn’t any less stupid for your acceptance of it.
I’m tired. Let me know when you find a way to fix the world. Make sure that everyone agrees with you first. No pressure.
By the way, not one person has commented “there should be no cameras”. Every comment has been pretty much “the cameras should be trained on what I think they should be”.
