A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 15th 04, 09:31 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>


No, not at all.

> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident.


Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is evidence of
what actually happened.

Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes from
airplanes.

So, have you bothered to ever READ the 4th and 5th amendments?

> Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation?


No, not during a collision. But before one, yes. If someone smacks into
another car it would be useful to know if they were speeding.

> Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>


Modern computers, even cheap ones, can sample far quicker than what
is needed.

> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>


Yes and no. A lot of this really depends on the court case.

Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian. The
driver argues that he was going the speed limit, and the pedestrian
jumped out in front of him. Two witnesses to the accident state
the driver was speeding and the pedestrian didn't jump out in
front.

In this case the DA has no choice but to file charges of manslaughter
and let the subsequent court case sort it out.

If the driver had a black box in the car, and was positive that he
wasn't speeding, he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
and let the DA examine the black box. If the black box said that the driver
wasn't speeding, the DA would know that even if he pressed
manslaughter charges, he would lose the case, and so he wouldn't
press charges, thus saving the driver a lot of grief, and the court
system a lot of money.

If the driver had a black box in the car and WASN'T positive
he was speeding, he would simply refuse to allow it to be
searched. In that case the DA can still search it - and use the
evidence to decide to file manslaughter charges - but the evidence
wouldn't be admissible in the following trial, and the driver would
have the same chance of getting off as without a black box. And
if the DA were to mention it during trial, that would be an immediate
mistrial and the DA could be disbarred.

> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>


OK let's give airplane pilots that right too.

The real issue though is this.

YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you, I
and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you to drive
on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have a data recorder
that you can't shut off. My right to require you to have a data
recorder is equal to your right to not have to have one. So where
does that leave us?

Well, let me explain it. First, read the 5th amendment. To put it
simply, a black box in a vehicle that YOU are driving is collecting
evidence, AKA witness, on YOUR behalf. Legally it is exactly
the same as if you were writing down all that data into a notebook
that you have next to you, at very high speed. After all you own
the black box, not the owners of the airplane.

In a court case, if I demand you hand over the black box data
and you know for a fact that that black box data is incriminating
against yourself, then your lawyer will call for a trial halt, demand
the jury leave, and when they have filed out you can simply invoke
the Fifth Amendment and that is the end of it. When the jury comes
back the judge will simply state that the black box data is unavailable.

In fact if you had a really good lawyer, he might not even bother to
do that, but simply say that we are sorry but there is no data
available from the black box, then refuse to answer any further
questions along those lines. Legally it would be correct for him
to say that even though it would give the impression to the jury
that the black box was smashed, which is a lie.

In any case, this kind of thing is generally handled pre-trial when
each side requests evidence from the other.

Ted


Ads
  #12  
Old November 15th 04, 05:47 PM
MoPar Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self
> > incrimination, combined with illegal search and seizure.

>
> No, not at all.


What rules do the police follow at an accident scene?

What procedures are followed to insure that the "black box" is not
commandeered, examined, and data extracted by police while the owners
are unaware of what is happening to the remains of their vehicles?
What can, and what can't, the police do to a vehicle that they
impound?

> > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use
> > as evidence against a driver in an accident.

>
> Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is
> evidence of what actually happened.


If the police love to do one thing, its to lay charges. As many as
they think they can prove - and even some they know they can't. Any
new toy, gizmo, device, method, or power given to them will be used
just for that purpose. Heat-sensitive cameras that they can point at
houses to see if they're growing pot inside.

The law may treat you as innocent until proven guilty, but the police
will always treat you as guilty and let the courts prove otherwise.
The police will go to great lengths, even criminal or negligent
lengths, to pursue you as a suspect if the initial evidence points to
you.

> Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes
> from airplanes.


From a black-box point of view, airplanes are different from cars for
at least 3 reasons:

1) The vast majority of airplanes with a full set of data recorders
are used in a commercial capacity to carry passengers or cargo.
Private vehicles are, naturally, not used in a fee-for-transport
capacity. The operator of a commercial vehicle does not necessarily
have the expectation of privacy while on the job.

2) An incident (accident) with a car will almost always result in the
complete recovery of all components of a car, and the relatively low
speeds involved means that there is little chance of total
disintegration of any critical component. Therefore complete analysis
of the car's remains is almost always possible. The very opposite is
almost always the case for a plane incident. There will also usually
be no witnesses to a plane incident.

3) The data recorder on a plane serves a much different purpose than
in a car. Cars incidents rarely result from structural or control
systems failure. However, planes (and I mean your typical passenger
jet) is much more vulnerable to those types of failure. It is
critical to identify such a failure (frequently only possible from
black-box data) in order to apply corrective measures to all similar
aircraft operating world-wide.

If you want to compare the "validity" (or reasons) of using black box
data recorders in cars with something already in place, then you must
choose something other than a commercial vehicle being operated by
paid employees.

For example, the gov't could "decree" that all watches sold in the USA
starting next year must have data and proximity recording capability.
That means your watch will record your blood pressure, heart rate, and
proximity to other watches being worn by others in your vicinity. In
the case of a crime, the data in your watch would either exonerate you
or convict you. The extension of the data recording car to the data
recording watch is not very large.

> Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian.


Was the pedestrian using a cross-walk or crossing at a intersection?
Did the pedestrian have the right-of-way? The speed of the car will
be the last factor to be examined (if indeed it ever would be).

Being hit by a car going the speed limit (30 mph) vs one that is
speeding (45 mph) makes no difference. Someone has the right-of-way
in that case, and someone violated it.

> ... he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
> and let the DA examine the black box.


What exactly are the procedural rules for the handling of black-box
data? Who can guarantee that some over-enthusiastic cop won't hook up
a data terminal right to the computer's access port while it's still
sitting at the accident scene? They do drive around with them, you
know. They've gotten them from third-party manufacturers and even
dealerships.

> The real issue though is this.
>
> YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you,
> I and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you
> to drive on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have
> a data recorder that you can't shut off.


What's the difference between the streets, the sidewalks, the parks?

What's next - will pedestrians be required to wear data recorders too?

Streets, sidewalks, parks, etc, are public places. Vehicles operated
in public places must conform to mechanical and operational (pollution
control) standards. People that operate these vehicles must be
licensed. Beyond that, you are really going to take a toll on
individual's rights to privacy if you want to implement more
surveillance and data recording systems.

50 years ago, we could be having this argument, and it would be
theoretical because the technology wasn't there to implement this data
recording form of surveillance.

Black box data recorders in private vehicles is probably the first
implementation of what could be called obligatory personal
surveillance. In 10 years, the technology will be here to provide a
low-cost, low-interference way to keep a surveillance record on
practically all forms of individual human activity. Where do you want
it to end? Do you want it to end?
  #13  
Old November 15th 04, 05:47 PM
MoPar Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self
> > incrimination, combined with illegal search and seizure.

>
> No, not at all.


What rules do the police follow at an accident scene?

What procedures are followed to insure that the "black box" is not
commandeered, examined, and data extracted by police while the owners
are unaware of what is happening to the remains of their vehicles?
What can, and what can't, the police do to a vehicle that they
impound?

> > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use
> > as evidence against a driver in an accident.

>
> Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is
> evidence of what actually happened.


If the police love to do one thing, its to lay charges. As many as
they think they can prove - and even some they know they can't. Any
new toy, gizmo, device, method, or power given to them will be used
just for that purpose. Heat-sensitive cameras that they can point at
houses to see if they're growing pot inside.

The law may treat you as innocent until proven guilty, but the police
will always treat you as guilty and let the courts prove otherwise.
The police will go to great lengths, even criminal or negligent
lengths, to pursue you as a suspect if the initial evidence points to
you.

> Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes
> from airplanes.


From a black-box point of view, airplanes are different from cars for
at least 3 reasons:

1) The vast majority of airplanes with a full set of data recorders
are used in a commercial capacity to carry passengers or cargo.
Private vehicles are, naturally, not used in a fee-for-transport
capacity. The operator of a commercial vehicle does not necessarily
have the expectation of privacy while on the job.

2) An incident (accident) with a car will almost always result in the
complete recovery of all components of a car, and the relatively low
speeds involved means that there is little chance of total
disintegration of any critical component. Therefore complete analysis
of the car's remains is almost always possible. The very opposite is
almost always the case for a plane incident. There will also usually
be no witnesses to a plane incident.

3) The data recorder on a plane serves a much different purpose than
in a car. Cars incidents rarely result from structural or control
systems failure. However, planes (and I mean your typical passenger
jet) is much more vulnerable to those types of failure. It is
critical to identify such a failure (frequently only possible from
black-box data) in order to apply corrective measures to all similar
aircraft operating world-wide.

If you want to compare the "validity" (or reasons) of using black box
data recorders in cars with something already in place, then you must
choose something other than a commercial vehicle being operated by
paid employees.

For example, the gov't could "decree" that all watches sold in the USA
starting next year must have data and proximity recording capability.
That means your watch will record your blood pressure, heart rate, and
proximity to other watches being worn by others in your vicinity. In
the case of a crime, the data in your watch would either exonerate you
or convict you. The extension of the data recording car to the data
recording watch is not very large.

> Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian.


Was the pedestrian using a cross-walk or crossing at a intersection?
Did the pedestrian have the right-of-way? The speed of the car will
be the last factor to be examined (if indeed it ever would be).

Being hit by a car going the speed limit (30 mph) vs one that is
speeding (45 mph) makes no difference. Someone has the right-of-way
in that case, and someone violated it.

> ... he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
> and let the DA examine the black box.


What exactly are the procedural rules for the handling of black-box
data? Who can guarantee that some over-enthusiastic cop won't hook up
a data terminal right to the computer's access port while it's still
sitting at the accident scene? They do drive around with them, you
know. They've gotten them from third-party manufacturers and even
dealerships.

> The real issue though is this.
>
> YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you,
> I and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you
> to drive on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have
> a data recorder that you can't shut off.


What's the difference between the streets, the sidewalks, the parks?

What's next - will pedestrians be required to wear data recorders too?

Streets, sidewalks, parks, etc, are public places. Vehicles operated
in public places must conform to mechanical and operational (pollution
control) standards. People that operate these vehicles must be
licensed. Beyond that, you are really going to take a toll on
individual's rights to privacy if you want to implement more
surveillance and data recording systems.

50 years ago, we could be having this argument, and it would be
theoretical because the technology wasn't there to implement this data
recording form of surveillance.

Black box data recorders in private vehicles is probably the first
implementation of what could be called obligatory personal
surveillance. In 10 years, the technology will be here to provide a
low-cost, low-interference way to keep a surveillance record on
practically all forms of individual human activity. Where do you want
it to end? Do you want it to end?
  #14  
Old November 15th 04, 06:55 PM
Art
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes will
be used in a manner to get to the truth.


"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self
>> > incrimination, combined with illegal search and seizure.

>>
>> No, not at all.

>
> What rules do the police follow at an accident scene?
>
> What procedures are followed to insure that the "black box" is not
> commandeered, examined, and data extracted by police while the owners
> are unaware of what is happening to the remains of their vehicles?
> What can, and what can't, the police do to a vehicle that they
> impound?
>
>> > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use
>> > as evidence against a driver in an accident.

>>
>> Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is
>> evidence of what actually happened.

>
> If the police love to do one thing, its to lay charges. As many as
> they think they can prove - and even some they know they can't. Any
> new toy, gizmo, device, method, or power given to them will be used
> just for that purpose. Heat-sensitive cameras that they can point at
> houses to see if they're growing pot inside.
>
> The law may treat you as innocent until proven guilty, but the police
> will always treat you as guilty and let the courts prove otherwise.
> The police will go to great lengths, even criminal or negligent
> lengths, to pursue you as a suspect if the initial evidence points to
> you.
>
>> Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes
>> from airplanes.

>
> From a black-box point of view, airplanes are different from cars for
> at least 3 reasons:
>
> 1) The vast majority of airplanes with a full set of data recorders
> are used in a commercial capacity to carry passengers or cargo.
> Private vehicles are, naturally, not used in a fee-for-transport
> capacity. The operator of a commercial vehicle does not necessarily
> have the expectation of privacy while on the job.
>
> 2) An incident (accident) with a car will almost always result in the
> complete recovery of all components of a car, and the relatively low
> speeds involved means that there is little chance of total
> disintegration of any critical component. Therefore complete analysis
> of the car's remains is almost always possible. The very opposite is
> almost always the case for a plane incident. There will also usually
> be no witnesses to a plane incident.
>
> 3) The data recorder on a plane serves a much different purpose than
> in a car. Cars incidents rarely result from structural or control
> systems failure. However, planes (and I mean your typical passenger
> jet) is much more vulnerable to those types of failure. It is
> critical to identify such a failure (frequently only possible from
> black-box data) in order to apply corrective measures to all similar
> aircraft operating world-wide.
>
> If you want to compare the "validity" (or reasons) of using black box
> data recorders in cars with something already in place, then you must
> choose something other than a commercial vehicle being operated by
> paid employees.
>
> For example, the gov't could "decree" that all watches sold in the USA
> starting next year must have data and proximity recording capability.
> That means your watch will record your blood pressure, heart rate, and
> proximity to other watches being worn by others in your vicinity. In
> the case of a crime, the data in your watch would either exonerate you
> or convict you. The extension of the data recording car to the data
> recording watch is not very large.
>
>> Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian.

>
> Was the pedestrian using a cross-walk or crossing at a intersection?
> Did the pedestrian have the right-of-way? The speed of the car will
> be the last factor to be examined (if indeed it ever would be).
>
> Being hit by a car going the speed limit (30 mph) vs one that is
> speeding (45 mph) makes no difference. Someone has the right-of-way
> in that case, and someone violated it.
>
>> ... he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
>> and let the DA examine the black box.

>
> What exactly are the procedural rules for the handling of black-box
> data? Who can guarantee that some over-enthusiastic cop won't hook up
> a data terminal right to the computer's access port while it's still
> sitting at the accident scene? They do drive around with them, you
> know. They've gotten them from third-party manufacturers and even
> dealerships.
>
>> The real issue though is this.
>>
>> YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you,
>> I and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you
>> to drive on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have
>> a data recorder that you can't shut off.

>
> What's the difference between the streets, the sidewalks, the parks?
>
> What's next - will pedestrians be required to wear data recorders too?
>
> Streets, sidewalks, parks, etc, are public places. Vehicles operated
> in public places must conform to mechanical and operational (pollution
> control) standards. People that operate these vehicles must be
> licensed. Beyond that, you are really going to take a toll on
> individual's rights to privacy if you want to implement more
> surveillance and data recording systems.
>
> 50 years ago, we could be having this argument, and it would be
> theoretical because the technology wasn't there to implement this data
> recording form of surveillance.
>
> Black box data recorders in private vehicles is probably the first
> implementation of what could be called obligatory personal
> surveillance. In 10 years, the technology will be here to provide a
> low-cost, low-interference way to keep a surveillance record on
> practically all forms of individual human activity. Where do you want
> it to end? Do you want it to end?



  #15  
Old November 15th 04, 06:55 PM
Art
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes will
be used in a manner to get to the truth.


"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self
>> > incrimination, combined with illegal search and seizure.

>>
>> No, not at all.

>
> What rules do the police follow at an accident scene?
>
> What procedures are followed to insure that the "black box" is not
> commandeered, examined, and data extracted by police while the owners
> are unaware of what is happening to the remains of their vehicles?
> What can, and what can't, the police do to a vehicle that they
> impound?
>
>> > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use
>> > as evidence against a driver in an accident.

>>
>> Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is
>> evidence of what actually happened.

>
> If the police love to do one thing, its to lay charges. As many as
> they think they can prove - and even some they know they can't. Any
> new toy, gizmo, device, method, or power given to them will be used
> just for that purpose. Heat-sensitive cameras that they can point at
> houses to see if they're growing pot inside.
>
> The law may treat you as innocent until proven guilty, but the police
> will always treat you as guilty and let the courts prove otherwise.
> The police will go to great lengths, even criminal or negligent
> lengths, to pursue you as a suspect if the initial evidence points to
> you.
>
>> Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes
>> from airplanes.

>
> From a black-box point of view, airplanes are different from cars for
> at least 3 reasons:
>
> 1) The vast majority of airplanes with a full set of data recorders
> are used in a commercial capacity to carry passengers or cargo.
> Private vehicles are, naturally, not used in a fee-for-transport
> capacity. The operator of a commercial vehicle does not necessarily
> have the expectation of privacy while on the job.
>
> 2) An incident (accident) with a car will almost always result in the
> complete recovery of all components of a car, and the relatively low
> speeds involved means that there is little chance of total
> disintegration of any critical component. Therefore complete analysis
> of the car's remains is almost always possible. The very opposite is
> almost always the case for a plane incident. There will also usually
> be no witnesses to a plane incident.
>
> 3) The data recorder on a plane serves a much different purpose than
> in a car. Cars incidents rarely result from structural or control
> systems failure. However, planes (and I mean your typical passenger
> jet) is much more vulnerable to those types of failure. It is
> critical to identify such a failure (frequently only possible from
> black-box data) in order to apply corrective measures to all similar
> aircraft operating world-wide.
>
> If you want to compare the "validity" (or reasons) of using black box
> data recorders in cars with something already in place, then you must
> choose something other than a commercial vehicle being operated by
> paid employees.
>
> For example, the gov't could "decree" that all watches sold in the USA
> starting next year must have data and proximity recording capability.
> That means your watch will record your blood pressure, heart rate, and
> proximity to other watches being worn by others in your vicinity. In
> the case of a crime, the data in your watch would either exonerate you
> or convict you. The extension of the data recording car to the data
> recording watch is not very large.
>
>> Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian.

>
> Was the pedestrian using a cross-walk or crossing at a intersection?
> Did the pedestrian have the right-of-way? The speed of the car will
> be the last factor to be examined (if indeed it ever would be).
>
> Being hit by a car going the speed limit (30 mph) vs one that is
> speeding (45 mph) makes no difference. Someone has the right-of-way
> in that case, and someone violated it.
>
>> ... he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
>> and let the DA examine the black box.

>
> What exactly are the procedural rules for the handling of black-box
> data? Who can guarantee that some over-enthusiastic cop won't hook up
> a data terminal right to the computer's access port while it's still
> sitting at the accident scene? They do drive around with them, you
> know. They've gotten them from third-party manufacturers and even
> dealerships.
>
>> The real issue though is this.
>>
>> YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you,
>> I and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you
>> to drive on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have
>> a data recorder that you can't shut off.

>
> What's the difference between the streets, the sidewalks, the parks?
>
> What's next - will pedestrians be required to wear data recorders too?
>
> Streets, sidewalks, parks, etc, are public places. Vehicles operated
> in public places must conform to mechanical and operational (pollution
> control) standards. People that operate these vehicles must be
> licensed. Beyond that, you are really going to take a toll on
> individual's rights to privacy if you want to implement more
> surveillance and data recording systems.
>
> 50 years ago, we could be having this argument, and it would be
> theoretical because the technology wasn't there to implement this data
> recording form of surveillance.
>
> Black box data recorders in private vehicles is probably the first
> implementation of what could be called obligatory personal
> surveillance. In 10 years, the technology will be here to provide a
> low-cost, low-interference way to keep a surveillance record on
> practically all forms of individual human activity. Where do you want
> it to end? Do you want it to end?



  #16  
Old November 16th 04, 12:56 AM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Art wrote:

> I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
> indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes will
> be used in a manner to get to the truth.


Even if it tells your wife where you REALLY went last Saturday night? :-)


Matt

  #17  
Old November 16th 04, 12:56 AM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Art wrote:

> I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
> indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes will
> be used in a manner to get to the truth.


Even if it tells your wife where you REALLY went last Saturday night? :-)


Matt

  #18  
Old November 16th 04, 02:41 AM
Art
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Art wrote:
>
>> I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
>> indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes
>> will be used in a manner to get to the truth.

>
> Even if it tells your wife where you REALLY went last Saturday night? :-)
>
>

I live a pretty boring life. My wife was probably with me.
>



  #19  
Old November 16th 04, 02:41 AM
Art
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Art wrote:
>
>> I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
>> indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes
>> will be used in a manner to get to the truth.

>
> Even if it tells your wife where you REALLY went last Saturday night? :-)
>
>

I live a pretty boring life. My wife was probably with me.
>



  #20  
Old November 16th 04, 04:08 PM
Dori A Schmetterling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What does and doesn't work is difficult to predict. A nearer example is the
former GDR (communist East Germany). They collected huge amounts of info on
the population through informers and the like, and many (most) people had a
Stasi file. In the end they could not do much with it because there was too
much, including recording where people went shopping and the like.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> Eventually you got so many cameras that it is impossible for any
> government agency to track it and the surveillance becomes completely
> worthless - unless a crime is committed and the survelliance has been
> [...]


> What people like you don't seem to understand is that 1984 was a real
> crock of **** when it came to the bugs in people's rooms. If a
> government,
> totalitarian or not, wants to spy on it's citizens it does so by getting
> other
> citizens to do the spying work.
>
> Nazi Germany knew this well. They didn't have all this high tech
> survelliance
> camera crap. What they did is simply control the media and propagandize
> the populace into doing their spying for them. And this is happening
> today.

[...]


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.