Thread: Mass video surveillance to change Australia

Originally Posted by Eevo

no no. not what i mean.

the quote is: "if you have done nothing wrong..."
wrong is not determined by the individual.
its determined by the authorities and the individual has no say in this.
the jews had done nothing wrong, but "wrong" was determined by the govt, not the individual.


I wasnt alluding to racial profiling, even if it is effective.

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.

Originally Posted by Classic88

Not trying to skew it at all. I just wouldn't trust a computer or an AI to make the right call more accurately than a copper.

Governments forget that they are supposed to be watched by, and held accountable to, us, not the other way round.

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 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.

hows that working out for the same sex marriage individuals?

i struggle to see a reason for the govts need for mass surveillance other than control.

Originally Posted by Tombie

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...

and how would the govt keep my dna safe?
who's accountable when my dns is stolen from the govt and used to frame me? dont laugh, its happened before.

i cant trust the govt to keep the lights on, let alone keep my data safe.

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...

Dead right it's a slippery slope. If the US had a DNA database would you trust Trump not to use it to identify and expelled people of Mexican origin, claiming that their ancestors came here illegally even if they themselves were legal citizens?

Or the government to sell it to health insurers so they could see if you were at greater risk of a serious illness and jack up your premiums even though you are healthy?

Originally Posted by Eevo

and how would the govt keep my dna safe?
who's accountable when my dns is stolen from the govt and used to frame me? dont laugh, its happened before.

i cant trust the govt to keep the lights on, let alone keep my data safe.

Your DNA is hardly safe

Can be collected without issue, and the system only needs the data to be effective, to set you up someone would be committed to synthesising DNA, and planting it...

Agree completely that security is paramount in this context...

But imagine the number of solved crimes vs unsolved... consider the potential reduction in violent crimes as the perpetrator can be identified quickly...

Nobody (even remotely sensible) commits a crime when they can be identified and found quickly.. they commit crimes where they expect to get away with it..

What would have to be weighed up by the people is whether or not they were willing to take the risk with the data being on file.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Your DNA is hardly safe

Can be collected without issue, and the system only needs the data to be effective, to set you up someone would be committed to synthesising DNA, and planting it...

Agree completely that security is paramount in this context...

But imagine the number of solved crimes vs unsolved... consider the potential reduction in violent crimes as the perpetrator can be identified quickly...

Nobody (even remotely sensible) commits a crime when they can be identified and found quickly.. they commit crimes where they expect to get away with it..

What would have to be weighed up by the people is whether or not they were willing to take the risk with the data being on file.

You cannot make an omelette without first breaking a few eggs

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.

i'll need to check the history books but i think the jews lost their right to vote too.