Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Drones and inconsistency...
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Drones and inconsistency...  (Read 794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NathanS

  • Guest
Drones and inconsistency...
« on: January 24, 2010, 05:32:43 AM »

The case against drones on the show tonight was particularly weak.

IMO a private police driven system would have more cameras than our current one.  When certain actors (generally police) are given preferential treatment in courts there is little need for cameras to prove cases and prevent violations.  There is nothing to prevent private police from throwing up their own drones to help prevent violations of their clients rights, and it would probably be more necessary as arbitration would not assume a position of authority between a defendant and an officer.

What we saw today on FTL was a mistake often made by statist.  One government failure, making pot illegal, justifies banning infared cameras?  This does not logically follow.

What if private road owners chose to put drones overhead to monitor drivers and ban them or charge them extra for future use?  There is still no coherent case against drone monitoring by the current police departments.

If the host would like to get technical I believe the emission of EM rights onto others property could be considered a violation of their property rights, but until you can prove harm, you have no case for restitution.  Similarly, I can sue you for releasing mercury into the water table, but not emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because proving damage from carbon emissions is significantly harder than form mercury.

There is a cacophony of research that shows private police have done far more to make us safe in the last 30 years than any state mechanism.  Private protection revolves around cameras and unarmed watchmen.  Monitoring DOES reduce crime, particularly property crimes, while the opposite point was repeatedly stated by the host.  I encourage the host to read Bruce Benson's "To Serve and Protect."

Also, the comment that "enchance" is magical is incorrect.  By using multiple frames you can indeed improve the resolution of single images, and grainy video can still give fairly good information when fed into neural network software and computer systems.

Any thoughts?
Logged

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: Drones and inconsistency...
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2010, 06:29:36 AM »

I'm a big fan of privately-owned cameras, as well as the need to network them together to get high-quality, real-time, fraud-proof, hyper-tagged, 4D+ images of all places that are "open for public" (or otherwise), which would resemble the open source software movement of the present day.  For example, it would be difficult to use closed-circuit video as evidence because video can be faked, but if the camera streams its content live to the Internet then faking it would be next to impossible, especially if there are Googlebot-like spidering bots peeking in on all feeds all the time.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Drones and inconsistency...

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 29 queries.