Mass surveillance of cars

[Bootless]

Yet, #3 is collapsing under its own weight. People aren't buying it anymore. Growth has slowed; the beast has begun cannibalizing itself. So, Mr Trump has a nice big #2 to drop on everyone. Hey, didn't he make a video about that?

Are you sure you guys don't like fascism? The alternative is to keep gaslighting you and drugging away your cognitive dissonance, you know.

I can't believe that nobody has mentioned Minority Report yet.


Minority Report - Personal Advertising in the Future
That's what #3 without the direct feed to law enforcement would look like.

Just imagine the feed happening. John Anderton would get picked up immediately, anywhere. That's sort of where we are.

I'll just stay in my room with no car and no cell phone and read pdf files of old stories like P.K. Dick's Minority Report; without drugs.

[covent]

Yes it is. The thing is, the term "crime" includes two things: "potential harm to the people", and "potential harm to the government".

Now, one of those the government enforces to the extent that it is necessary, the other is enforced to every extent possible. Guess which is which?

No, that is the massive bs justification for ever burgeoning encroachment on the impoverishment, rights and privacy of the individual.

The govt-megacorp tandem, working to disempower. As we have seen in UK, expressing wrong-view, is a custodial crime. It could be said, surveillance apparatus creates crime, tracking cars and capturing information forms a small element of the here and now mass surveillance regime, that  can and is, used as 'evidence' in unrelated cases, to criminalise, to build massive and lucrative data resources, including fingerprint and DNA information.

It is not about crime, it is about power and control and the income streams to fund it. It is about economic control, market control, social control, political control.

It is Mussolini's prophetic wet dream come true. ("The Doctrine of Fascism", Gentile & Mussolini, 1932)

[UltraBudgie]

It is not about crime, it is about power and control and the income streams to fund it. It is about economic control, market control, social control, political control.

Yes. And so it has always been. There is nothing new under the sun.

[chr0naut]

Yes it is. The thing is, the term "crime" includes two things: "potential harm to the people", and "potential harm to the government".

Now, one of those the government enforces to the extent that it is necessary, the other is enforced to every extent possible. Guess which is which?

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, proclaimed as a right and overriding other law - Federal and State, specifically enables citizens to cause potential harm to the government.

[chr0naut]

Yeah that all sounds great. But there is just one little problem. If all that works so well. Why do we still have massive amounts of crime and massive amounts of drugs?

Because crime fighting agencies and the judiciary require funding and funding requires validation that the agencies are fighting crime and the judiciary are prosecuting it. So there has to be continuous crime for everyone to draw a wage...

It's the old Batman dilemma. The harder you fight crime, pretending that criminals aren't us, the worse crime becomes in response.

To reduce crime, you have to change our motivations, so we don't want to commit crime. So it is not profitable. So it has no rewards. Because while ever there is some advantage in it, people will do crimes, and drugs. They just do.

And, perhaps, we could also face it that historically, policing hasn't been the best and most effective solution?

An example would be in regard to drugs of dependence - Imagine that just anyone could go to their doctor or a proper medical clinic and get these drugs. Clean, uncut, in a safe maintenance dose, hygienically administered, and for a reasonable price, with Narcan or whatever might be required, on hand. The criminals are completely cut out of the picture, they can't make any money out of it, and the doctor/clinic nurse could work towards a program weaning users off the drugs and providing medical support for any issues arising. Even if the patients were suicidal, there could be support at hand.

[Maxmars]

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, proclaimed as a right, overriding other law Federal and State, specifically enables citizens to cause potential harm to the government.

I would elaborate even further... it (in my opinion) validates the actual need for it.

Even they knew... ultimately, government is a matter of public trust...
and any government of the people cannot simultaneously stand against the people.

Being trustworthy of intent and dispassion in governance is one thing...

but now it's all a PR media job.... "Appearances."

A major hazard of being led by 'undeclared' 'unchecked' 'clubs of celebrities.'

[argentus]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrews...-powerful/
(archive link if that's paywalled for you) https://archive.ph/Rf65d

Someone was mentioning that we live in a police state, and that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is true if you look at how much surveillance there is of the general public, as compared to the past.

Does anyone know what these are being used for?

Here is a map where you can see some of the ALRPs (Automatic License Plate Readers) near you:
https://deflock.me/map

The majority of this nonsense happens in the cities.    The  gentle, heavily armed, peaceful, hard working folk that make up the middle of the U.S.  don't have time for strife or violence;  they are too busy earning a living to pay off all their obligations.  Outside of the cities, mostly it is calm.  People in such places couldn't give even a tiny shit if their license plate was being scanned.

[Maxmars]

I was pondering these points... 

If this data is comprised of undifferentiated people, en masse, at the expense of the public to both gather and house... it should be "their" property to access freely.

Trust goes both ways.

[Unknownparadox]

To reduce crime, you have to change our motivations, so we don't want to commit crime. So it is not profitable. So it has no rewards. Because while ever there is some advantage in it, people will do crimes, and drugs. They just do.

And, perhaps, we could also face it that historically, policing hasn't been the best and most effective solution?

An example would be in regard to drugs of dependence - Imagine that just anyone could go to their doctor or a proper medical clinic and get these drugs. Clean, uncut, in a safe maintenance dose, hygienically administered, and for a reasonable price, with Narcan or whatever might be required, on hand. The criminals are completely cut out of the picture, they can't make any money out of it, and the doctor/clinic nurse could work towards a program weaning users off the drugs and providing medical support for any issues arising. Even if the patients were suicidal, there could be support at hand.

You can't stop people from wanting to take short cut to wealth. Even if everyone had really good jobs. That isn't going to stop some from wanting more, and wanting to take the quick and easy route to riches. Not to mention capitalism requires poor people. If everyone had really good jobs. Your happy meal would cost 75-100 bucks. Pretty much nullifying the good job. Capitalism requires the poor so a few can be wealthy. And the 80/20 rule says it works that way in every economy. And the poor are generally the majority of drug addicts. Since it provides a temporary relief from their shit lives.  

No one can afford healthcare now. 25 bucks worth of meth would cost 250 bucks at the clinic. And the clinic isn't going to let you get plastered. Which is generally the objective of doing drugs. And if you give people a job of administering drugs, to drug addicts. their job ends when you cure the addicts. So not a lot of incentive to cure them. Since all the clinics would close. But they would never get off the ground, because no one is going to finance it.

They surveillance isn't to stop drug runners/criminals.

[Wild Bill]

Because crime fighting agencies and the judiciary require funding and funding requires validation that the agencies are fighting crime and the judiciary are prosecuting it. So there has to be continuous crime for everyone to draw a wage...

It's the old Batman dilemma. The harder you fight crime, pretending that criminals aren't us, the worse crime becomes in response.

To reduce crime, you have to change our motivations, so we don't want to commit crime. So it is not profitable. So it has no rewards. Because while ever there is some advantage in it, people will do crimes, and drugs. They just do.

And, perhaps, we could also face it that historically, policing hasn't been the best and most effective solution?

An example would be in regard to drugs of dependence - Imagine that just anyone could go to their doctor or a proper medical clinic and get these drugs. Clean, uncut, in a safe maintenance dose, hygienically administered, and for a reasonable price, with Narcan or whatever might be required, on hand. The criminals are completely cut out of the picture, they can't make any money out of it, and the doctor/clinic nurse could work towards a program weaning users off the drugs and providing medical support for any issues arising. Even if the patients were suicidal, there could be support at hand.

Chaos is good for business,  all that out of work lawyers and judges and empty courthouses ànd social workers with nothing to do, if they didn't want drugs in the country there would be none guaranteed bar what people could grow themselves.

It's the Mr Bigs at the top of the supply chain that are interesting in their professions ???