Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Security quotes of the week
Posted May 2, 2013 14:26 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
It's actually a remarkably good _predictor_ in many cases. If it wasn't then Huffman coding would be ineffective as a compression technique.
Almost twenty years ago when I bought my first mobile telephone the fearmongers were telling people that although they couldn't see any health effects in the human population _yet_ in ten years we'd be looking at a catastrophic cancer rate and regretting our incautious adoption of this (to them) clearly hazardous technology.
And they're still parroting roughly the same line. Sure, the fearmongers say, all our _past_ predictions were wrong, but why don't you believe us _now_ ?
Posted May 2, 2013 23:31 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
The "oh it's not been used maliciously so it probably won't" isn't IMO a safe assumption, because someone somewhere sometime in the future, is going to abuse that system and it's going to hurt people. It's not worth it.
Posted May 2, 2013 23:36 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
So it's all justified, and stuff.
Posted May 3, 2013 9:43 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
So it makes a lot more sense for us to consider how policies will affect the real world, where political leaders are flawed human beings not supervillains bent on mayhem. If I had to list the major threats our society faces I don't think "bad guys using London CCTV cameras to set up a tyrannical dictatorship" will come close to the top thousand. It's certainly lower on my list than "huge meteorite strikes central London" for example, in advance of which we have done (and plan to do) precisely nothing whatsoever.
Posted May 3, 2013 9:58 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)
Posted May 4, 2013 18:28 UTC (Sat) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205)
You can use this argument to oppose any policy which gives a government more power that it has now. And it doesn't assume a Hollywood-style villain but a human-style animal, who will have a natural tendency to become corrupted by any power.
Posted May 4, 2013 18:51 UTC (Sat) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
Posted May 4, 2013 19:54 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Posted May 14, 2013 13:26 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576)
That doesn't make any sense at all - how can that be your argument in favour of disallowing private individuals or organisations from placing cameras in public places?
I dislike the surveillance society as much as the next guy, but the only way you can prevent it would be to add *extra* bureaucracy prohibiting people from exercising what many people (not unreasonably) consider to be their right.
Posted May 3, 2013 11:26 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
As to the camera assisted law enforcements against the nut who put a cat in a wheelie bin round the corner from me (news of which went global a couple of years ago), and more seriously the Boston bombers, these were the results of private cams and distributed cooperation of citizens in charge of our own cams, as opposed to the kind of centralised surveillance network envisaged by Orwell.
Posted May 4, 2013 9:20 UTC (Sat) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988)
Posted May 3, 2013 9:33 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds