Thread: Mass video surveillance to change Australia

Originally Posted by Eevo

and the number of innocent people who got put in jail who were release later after dna evidence was found to be wrong.

Yep... and the system statistically works

Innocent people have been incarcerated since the beginning of time, whilst many guilty people remain free..

What’s your solution? Anarchy? If so, no more discussion into the Gun debate should be entered into...

At that time “Tribal” law comes into play; society fractures into groups of like minded individuals and fighting between factions takes place.. hmmm Suni and Shai anyone? Perhaps Northern Ireland vs.... well, you get the picture.

Or the “Wild West” - there were Sheriffs, who kept the peace at gun point... but a duel/shoot out wasn’t illegal if “justified”....

A system of law and governance or Anarchy...
Perhaps a more sensible approach is to declare a continent (don’t ask me which one) an Anarchy zone.. those who think they can relate can all go there... oh, nope, that is segregation and we can’t have that...

Originally Posted by Tombie

Yet AI is more accurate, and to use a portion of your link “doesn’t need to pee” leading to an incorrect identification.

So the AI monitors, it doesn’t pull the trigger, just flags potential persons, whereby a human (Copper in your example) then is required to verify.

Right down to the last second before somebody pulls a trigger a human has a decision, not a camera that says “this person has the facial features of a person of interest”.

Yes; governments are accountable to “us”, having been charged with protecting the majority (in a democracy there will always be those unhappy with the choice - also known as a minority).

The majority expect to be safe, wherever, whenever, and expect their government to act accordingly. Not by restricting movement; but by less intrusive (hmm) methods that don’t appear to impact upon their lives.

A prime example I can think of....
IF (IF) it was done ethically, securely, positively, and with restriction on use... then I see no issue with DNA registering all persons at birth...

Imagine a rape case where the rapist is identified by DNA in hours.
Imagine a mugging, where the mugger is identified quickly and accurately.

Where it can go wrong - is when the data is used for malicious intent... it’s a very fine line for sure and a slippery slope...

Originally Posted by Tombie

Trump could attempt to mandate that anyway (place of birth is on certificates after all, and green cards)...

[Trump... the Reductio ad Hitlerum of modern discussion]

Who did you last show your drivers licence to?
(If the answer is a Police Officer go back to the time before that)...

Did you use it to prove who you are? At say a bank? Or a pub?

If so you misused your Drivers Licence- curious we allow such a breach

I have a British license which is accepted for identification purposes. The British government tried to introduce compulsory ID after 9/11 and were told to get ****ed by the populace.

Originally Posted by trout1105

In Most civilised countries people live by the rule of law which is determined by a government that is elected by the people So in reality the individual Does have a say in what is right and what is wrong by using their Vote to determine who governs and implements the laws of the land.
What happened in Germany was appalling But the German people voted to put Hitler in power in the first place.

How could have voting changed the outcome of a likely bipartisan decision made without public consultation or consent? I don't recall voting for yet more surveillance and a ridiculously disproportionate response to statistically extremely unlikely event.
Same situation in Nazi Germany - governments making unilateral decisions without open public discussion or their informed consent.

Of course facial recognition could be used to target racial groups. You only have to watch American cop shows to see the patrols focussing on black people.
In Melbourne they are already focussing on Sudanese males, following a scare campaign stirred by white male commentators.
Who will be next to be targeted?
Are we just passive sheeple?
Privacy is dying.

Originally Posted by Classic88

I have a British license which is accepted for identification purposes. The British government tried to introduce compulsory ID after 9/11 and were told to get ****ed by the populace.

And how has the UK gone since then??

Multiple attacks, multiple deaths of innocents, butchering of people in the street.

And entire regions completely unsafe for “original” Poms to even pass through...

The UK has enormous amounts of intolerance - and security challenges...


And yet we take the **** out of the Yanks!!!
Who don’t even have to identify themselves IF they aren’t committing any breach of law...
Poms and Skips are required to identify by law...

So who is oppressed? Well, doesn’t that go full circle....

Freedoms and rights.... Surveillance... Gun control.... Rights to privacy...

Thats the thing about rights - you have the right to say/do whatever you want as long as you don’t infringe my rights... so who sets the rules of the game?

Rights are an agreed set of behaviours that society will tolerate.. nothing more.

Speaking of dear Adolf, when he got in, he put out his famous proclamation saying he was pretty much renegging a bunch of promises and instituting a bunch of other measures ‘for the good of the nation’. It didn’t really have much effect on ‘average Joe citizen’ till much later. I have the translation kicking around in one of my books somewhere.

Originally Posted by akula

How could have voting changed the outcome on a likely bipartisan decision made without public consultation or consent?
Same situation in Nazi Germany - governments making unilateral decisions without open public discussion or their informed consent.

When a party is voted in (abridged version) - one could argue that the majority has “authorised” the selected group to operate the nation as they see fit on behalf of the people.

Can you imagine if every decision was voted upon? The country would be broke and going backwards fast. Let’s consider that certain things ‘must’ go to the vote... what things? Somebody will always be upset.


As for mad blokes with moustaches- from a lot of reading, much of the population of Prussia did follow and agree with him (in the beginning)...

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Of course facial recognition could be used to target racial groups. You only have to watch American cop shows to see the patrols focussing on black people.
In Melbourne they are already focussing on Sudanese males, following a scare campaign stirred by white male commentators.
Who will be next to be targeted?
Are we just passive sheeple?
Privacy is dying.

Several of my interactions with Sudanese have not been pleasant... my Mother-In-Law has a property rented to several Sudanese groups over several years.

The younger males - often rude, aggressive, threatening...

The ones I’ve come across in Adelaide just walking along the street are often in gangs/groups and abusive and aggressive...


Does this mean they all are? Of course not....
But there is a good reason for Stereotyping and Profiling.

But DiscoMick - YOUR post is profiling.... “White Male Commentators”...

Statistically; significant portion of people are “white” in Australia. Odds of being attacked or assaulted and being “white” is quite high...