Your cell phone is a dangerous weapon, cops say.

[eyeball]

Bobbiecams seems like a great idea, but then I imagine a situation where the cops refuse to release the recordings to the public. I can see the press release now, "the tapes are currently under review by our internal investigations division, so we cannot release them to the public at this time." Once the situation blows over and people stop asking for the recordings, they won't have to release them. The ideal situation is to allow the public to record encounters.

This is where a Permission to Classify Act as opposed to the ridiculously named Freedom of Information Act would be helpful.

The relationship between the governed and government seems completely ass backwards where it matters most to me.

[g_bambino]

I said as little secrecy as possible, not privacy. There is a huge difference that you're deliberately ignoring.

Sorry, can you explain how secrecy can exist without privacy? The whole point of your proposal is to provide an electronic witness to the actions of people in some yet to be accurately defined group; that witness invades the privacy needed to conduct business in secret.

[eyeball]

First of all this is about public business not private business.

Secrecy differs from privacy in that it implies shame and fear on the part of anyone who is deliberately trying to hide something. The fear is that anyone, the public in this context, that is negatively affected by the action(s) or decisions taken or made in secret, will want an accounting from the politicians, Ministers, deputy Ministers, senior bureaucrats, lobbyists etc who took/made them.

The difference in the context of your use of a toilet is that the public doesn't have any right to observe you using it. In the context of our government though, we every right to observe anything and everything within it that affects us. Clearly the government has an obligation to withhold some things that might compromise public safety if they were revealed but those should be relatively few and far between. A fairly robust Permission to Classify Act should adequately cover off anything of this nature. Everything else should be wide open.

Edited April 27, 2013 by eyeball

[kimmy]

I guess I was wrong about the viability of posting cell phone video to the internet in real time.

I can imagine some situations where that could endanger police. Perhaps an armed standoff where real time video would allow the suspect to assess where his best chances of escape were, or perhaps alerting the suspect of a sneak-attack and allowing the suspect to counter-attack. I think such circumstances would be extraordinarily rare, and that the suspect in such situations would have a lot of time to search the internet to see if he could find video of his particular altercation anyway.

I can agree that in some very specific situations, there would be good reasons why recording police actions would be negative.

However, I'm concerned with the attempts by police to punish people for recording them in very ordinary circumstances, like in the opening post. As someone mentioned earlier, there have been legislative attempts to outlaw recording of police. And there have been prosecutors who have attempted to assist police in suppressing video recordings by misusing wiretapping laws to try to punish those who would record police. And as the article indicated, this was not the first attempt to confiscate a cell phone using the ruse that it's potentially a deadly weapon, so one starts to suspect that this BS premise is another stratagem that they have devised. Perhaps the police have come up with this themselves and shared it on CopNetForums or something. Or maybe some prosecuting attorney came up with it. I dunno. But it's hard to see it as anything other than a part of an ongoing pattern.

I can understand why cops don't want people to see the stuff they do in real life. But I don't see why lawmakers and prosecutors should be so eager to help them.

-k

[eyeball]

I can understand why cops don't want people to see the stuff they do in real life. But I don't see why lawmakers and prosecutors should be so eager to help them.

-k

They can probably see the camera on the wall will one day be aimed at them.

[Guest Derek L]

I guess I was wrong about the viability of posting cell phone video to the internet in real time.

I can imagine some situations where that could endanger police. Perhaps an armed standoff where real time video would allow the suspect to assess where his best chances of escape were, or perhaps alerting the suspect of a sneak-attack and allowing the suspect to counter-attack. I think such circumstances would be extraordinarily rare, and that the suspect in such situations would have a lot of time to search the internet to see if he could find video of his particular altercation anyway.

I can agree that in some very specific situations, there would be good reasons why recording police actions would be negative.

I’m not wading into this debate fore or against ( I haven’t really given it that much thought), but military and typically Federal law enforcement agencies (Like say the RCMP or FBI HRT) have had cellular jammers since the 90s. Said jammers allow these agencies to restrict access to the public’s phones well not interfering with said agencies communications.

Also, a few years back, a GOP Congressmen introduced a bill (Safe Prisons Communications Act) that would allow State Governors to suspend a Federal law, dating back from the 1930s that prevented the authorities from interfering with public communications, with the idea that if said Governors saw fit, they could have cell-phone jammers installed around prisons to prevent inmates from using contraband phones. Said legislation never saw the light of day.

[g_bambino]

First of all this is about public business not private business.

Secrecy differs from privacy in that it implies shame and fear on the part of anyone who is deliberately trying to hide something. The fear is that anyone, the public in this context, that is negatively affected by the action(s) or decisions taken or made in secret, will want an accounting from the politicians, Ministers, deputy Ministers, senior bureaucrats, lobbyists etc who took/made them.

I'd swear you said earlier that this idea of yours should extend to business executives, as well (though, again, no details on whether that includes junior executives, vice-presidents, people in accounting...). Anyway, you didn't answer my request: How can secrecy exist without privacy? If you want to eliminate secrecy, privacy must go, too. If anywhere remains private--including bathrooms--that's where the secret deals will end up being carried out.

[eyeball]

Who said anything about eliminating secrecy?

How can secrecy exist without privacy?

With as much difficulty as necessary I suppose.

I'd leave the accountability of a corporation up to it's shareholders and boards of directors but of course I'd grant corporate charters at a far more regional level thereby imparting a degree of accountability that is currently unprecedented. I think also that limiting secrecy at the very top of the government would cause more decency and integrity to become concentrated there and it would trickle down through the rest, like wealth is supposed to and probably would if there wasn't so much secrecy diverting the flow.

I honestly doubt that if the most powerful people in society have to toe the line that they'll be loath to let anyone below them step over or bypass it.

By the way I notice you've completely ignored the idea of a Permission to Classify Act as opposed to a Freedom of Information Act. A little to galling maybe?

[g_bambino]

Who said anything about eliminating secrecy?

You did.

With as much difficulty as necessary I suppose.

That's right, it can't.

By the way I notice you've completely ignored the idea of a Permission to Classify Act as opposed to a Freedom of Information Act. A little to galling maybe?

One kooky idea at a time.

[cybercoma]

Relevant. UK context.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2013/apr/29/act-terror-arrest-filming-police-video

[eyeball]

You did.

I said as little as possible.

That's right, it can't.

Sure it can.

One kooky idea at a time.

Definitely too galling it is.

[g_bambino]

I said as little as possible.

Indeed. To achieve that, a certain amount of secrecy has to be eliminated.

Sure it can.

And round the loop back to the original question: how can it?

Definitely too galling it is.

Your fantasies are yours to cherish.

[eyeball]

Indeed. To achieve that, a certain amount of secrecy has to be eliminated.

How though? your usual prescription, keep using the system that's worked since the Magna Carta seems a little stale.

And round the loop back to the original question: how can it?

You sit down and figure out a regimen that eliminates opportunities to get around it. In my own case if holes in my digital monitoring record keep appearing during audits that cannot be explained, my rating goes down and I'm required to have a human observer.

Your fantasies are yours to cherish.

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. We have to look for the circumstances we want, and if we can't find them make them.

[g_bambino]

How though?

Okay, so you finally admit you want to eliminate secrecy.

In my own case if holes in my digital monitoring record keep appearing during audits that cannot be explained, my rating goes down and I'm required to have a human observer..

The question was: how can secrecy exist without privacy? You said it can. So, how?

[ed.: +]

Edited April 30, 2013 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

I've told you. Take your fingers out of your ears.

[g_bambino]

I've told you.

Where?

[eyeball]

4 posts up.

[g_bambino]

4 posts up.

And that was already addressed. But, then you subsequently begged the same question. You claim secrecy can exist without privacy: explain exactly how that can be; in what scenario can secrecy exist in the absence of privacy?

[cybercoma]

And that was already addressed. But, then you subsequently begged the same question. You claim secrecy can exist without privacy: explain exactly how that can be; in what scenario can secrecy exist in the absence of privacy?

People can be overwhelmed by too much information, not knowing what to believe and what not to believe, making it hard to distinguish truth from reality or to even notice things that are important over the noise. In this environment, it's possible to have no privacy, but secrecy. It's kind of the Huxley side of the Huxley vs Orwell thing.

Edited April 30, 2013 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

People can be overwhelmed by too much information, not knowing what to believe and what not to believe, making it hard to distinguish truth from reality or to even notice things that are important over the noise. In this environment, it's possible to have no privacy, but secrecy. It's kind of the Huxley side of the Huxley vs Orwell thing.

Intriguing. But, isn't the cacophony of extraneous noise and information providing privacy for the one message meant to be kept secret?

[ed.: sp]

Edited April 30, 2013 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Intriguing. But, isn't the cacophany of extraneous noise and information providing privacy for the one message meant to be kept secret?

I'm not sure what you mean because I haven't been following the thread. I just wanted to provide a possible explanation as to how things can be kept secret without privacy.

[g_bambino]

I'm not sure what you mean because I haven't been following the thread. I just wanted to provide a possible explanation as to how things can be kept secret without privacy.

Well, it's about eyeball's proposal to have *certain* people wear recording devices at all(?)/some(?)/most(?) times so as to eliminate secrecy as much as possible. I asked about what these individuals would do when using the toilet, to which eyeball responded the devices would be turned off at such a time; he said he wished for minimal secrecy, not minimal privacy. From there arose my question: how does secrecy exist without privacy? This was the start of my attempt to get him to get that privacy and secrecy go hand-in-hand; as soon as he allows for places where the recording devices are off for the sake of privacy, he's created places where things can go on in secret. If Cabinet meetings were to become wide open via every minister wearing a camera, the Cabinet room would shift to the privacy of the washroom; or, at least, any discussions that ministers wished to keep secret. You raised the good possibility of holding discussions in loud places so the recorders couldn't pick up the words. Cops could do the same or similar.

I'm just pointing out one of the many flaws with his proposal.

[ed.: +, sp]

Edited April 30, 2013 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

In a world where there is no privacy, everyone will be isolated.

Remember that quote. I want credit for it in the future, since that's the direction we're moving towards. It seems counterintuitive, but I believe this is exactly what will happen. Consider the new Google Glasses. What Google failed to consider was not the experience of the user, but the experience of all those around the user. Indeed, they're hoping that this new technology will sweep the market and eventually people won't notice that anyone that can see you can record you, either still pictures, video, or audio. How is this going to change social relationships? I imagine for some it will make things incredibly isolating. I would hate being in the company of others whom I knew could be recording me at any moment. And to what end would they use these recordings? The question is rhetorical. The effect on social relationships that this kind of thought process will induce is not. You take an aggregate of people reacting to these new technologies and I frankly believe that the loss of privacy will have everyone feeling even more isolated, as opposed to more connected. People will do odd things to maintain try and grab back any small bit of privacy that they can. Perhaps we'll see those medical masks becoming all the rage in North America now too. But wait the police have moved towards banning facemasks in public. The only other option is reclusiveness. Interacting with others through digital domains and virtual worlds. Baudrillard would have a field day with this stuff. People will be driven ever deeper into virtual worlds that where you can't escape marketing and corporate manipulation. Or take a look at it from Foucault's perspective and think about how individuals will internalize this kind of surveillance society. Do you even need a guard in the panopticon after awhile or do we just regulate ourselves? It's frankly a dystopian nightmare and I'm not looking forward to it.

On the bright side, people will actually have to adopt Google Glasses for them to take off and I think these forces will play against Google on this one. It will become socially unacceptable to wear Google Glasses in public and this will prevent them from being widely adopted.

[eyeball]

That won't prevent people from secretly wearing a Google button, broach, pin etc.

It'll be weird for a while but I think we'll find many of the individual and seemingly unique peccadilloes to which we attach the importance of privacy too are quite normal and even become mundane on the whole, soon enough it'll be the blank spots in the information that will stand out and attract attention because people will just know there must be someone trying to hide something there, something really weird maybe.

Officials determined to invade individual privacy will focus more attention on people in the shadows for whom data is limited or absent. People determined to invade official secrecy will look for the same.

As many people will become complete extroverts and even exhibitionist as isolated. There'll be just as many people competing to be seen as not. The poor state will be so swamped it won't know what to make of things.

Edited April 30, 2013 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

And that was already addressed. But, then you subsequently begged the same question. You claim secrecy can exist without privacy: explain exactly how that can be; in what scenario can secrecy exist in the absence of privacy?

Maybe what is meant when talking about privacy needs to be determined. In the sense of what the government deems private and what the public deems private.