backtop

Print 41 comment(s) - last by watchingbigbro.. on Aug 14 at 6:53 PM
The Chinese government installs 20,000 new cameras with face tracking to control populace of Shenzhen

New York City is currently installing a camera system in subways and we have much greater security in our nation’s airports.  However, the U.S. isn't the only country taking closed-camera surveillance seriously.

Economic Chinese boomtown Shenzhen will be the next Mecca for digital surveillance. The local police will install at least 20,000 security cameras. The computer network behind those cameras features software from a U.S. company that enables face tracking.

Most of Shenzhen’s 12.4 million residents will receive ID cards that contain computer chips inside. These cards, coupled with the new security camera network, existing public and private cameras, will allow Chinese authorities to track and monitor citizens. The police have the right to link to an additional 180,000 cameras in the city as well.

A Florida-based company provides the software that will allow this system to operate -- China Public Security. Investment funds based in Plano, Texas, provide financing for the project.

“We have a very good relationship with U.S. companies like I.B.M., Cisco, H.P., Dell,” said Robin Huang, the chief operating officer of China Public Security. “All of these U.S. companies work with us to build our system together.”

In addition to simply allowing the tracking of residents within the city, the cards will also hold personal information about the citizens such as work history, education, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Personal reproductive history will also be on the card to help enforce the law limiting one child per couple. Also being planned for is the addition of credit history, subway travel permit and small purchases to the card.

“If they do not get the permanent card, they cannot live here, they cannot get government benefits, and that is a way for the government to control the population in the future,” said Michael Lin, the vice president for investor relations at China Public Security Technology, the company providing the technology.

Lin went on to say he had refrained from some transactions with the Chinese government because he is the chief executive of a company incorporated in the United States. “Of course our projects could be used by the military, but because it’s politically sensitive, I don’t want to do it,” he said.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Scary
By danskmacabre on 8/13/2007 2:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
But a sign of things to come I'm afraid.
coming to a city near you soon I bet.




RE: Scary
By lompocus on 8/13/2007 2:54:40 AM , Rating: 3
Only in China.

Made in China.

:)

Now, before the flames start pouring in, let me do my best at midnight to defend my country under 'ignorant' Euros on the state of US affairs in our country:

There are not CCTV or whatever you call them cameras in every city monitoring every action you make. We have a lot in California. We place them at major intersections, say, where a highway meets a city, or where you have a 5 or six way intersection, or a very crowded and congested 4 way intersection. Their current purpose is to help monitor speed and road violations and, in conjunction with the increase of little signs on the road that measure and display your current speed on a large 4' by 4' screen as you pass by, to reduce speeding and car related accidents.

Many of you have the impression we're under some crazy a** regime hellbent on creating a 1984-like scenario in the US. I can point you to China and the UK for that. It's not exactly 1984, but they have little surveillance drones everywhere, alongside the statistic for 1 camera per 10 British Citizens and these new 20k cameras being placed in China.

Here, we have little cameras being used to keep us from kiling ourselves (lol).

Wiretapping? Searching our E-Mails? Stalking? Why gosh, I'm pretty darn sure we don't have enough people in the government to be tracking 376 million people's calls*10-100 emails a day + multiple cell phones per person + forum posts + tracking internet access + large business transactions in the petabytes of data transferred each day. No, I'm sure there is no supercomputer in the world that is currently free up to do that. If you need technical proof, imagine the amount of bandwidth necessary to relay all of that information to a supercomputer. If you need other proof, imagine the Great Firewall of China. No, the US does not have a population large enough to set up such a Firewall.

So why the fuss? The media, but you all are intelligent enough to realize how bad and biased all media (yes, even BBC) is. Take Vietnam for example. We literally slaughtered the North Vietnamese SOLDIERS. Then some bad things came along. Agent Orange and a picture of a heavily wounded marine. The media super exaggerated these, alongside that last battle in which I'm sure several ten thousand VC were killed, at the expense of a very small number of US casualties, not to mention the elimination of the VC as a competent military force. Then the media began spreading around 'bring our boys home, they're doing their job but they shouldn't be doing it'. The same is happening now with big names like CNN and MSNBC and, at times, even FOX spreading around wiretapping and darfur and such that it suddenly happens everywhere, all the time. Yea. Right.

So who receives wiretapping? People who commit suspicious acts or who have been recently removed/released from a high security prison. Plus, if you ARE getting wiretapped and some government agent overhears you talking dirty with your girlfriend, what's so bad? They're going to imprison you because you're talking in an indecent manner? Suuuuure...

Now lets bring up the recent Bush announcement that was around a bit ago. All anti-Iraq protestors will be in jail.
Ok. Why is it that CNN still has 'This Week At War' on 24 hours a day? It targets violent protestors ONLY. Which means, unless me or you go outside and threaten soldiers with death or severe injury (which I doubt will ever happen), we got nothing to worry about.

So ya. There you go. If there's anything I missed feel free to bring it up. I'll be nice unless you begin with the America Bashing.


RE: Scary
By IronReda on 8/13/2007 4:55:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why gosh, I'm pretty darn sure we don't have enough people in the government to be tracking 376 million people's calls*10-100 emails a day + multiple cell phones per person + forum posts + tracking internet access + large business transactions in the petabytes of data transferred each day.


Why gosh, I'm pretty darn sure you haven't seen the Simpsons Movie


RE: Scary
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/13/2007 6:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to get real scared start using Google Alerts.


RE: Scary
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/13/2007 7:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Check out this tutorial on the things. This bad boy is scary.
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/11/google-alerts-t...


RE: Scary
By lompocus on 8/13/2007 10:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of news blogs? I mean, now the competition is who gets E-Mail the single milisecond faster to get that single extra hit to get just 1 spot over its competition on google search xD.


RE: Scary
By Sartori42 on 8/13/2007 4:58:10 AM , Rating: 1
My goodness. What an energetic diatribe. You might want to consider a little less caffeine in your diet... :-)

Two quick comments from a "fellow American" living amongst those "ignorant Euros". One... They aren't as ignorant as you think. Have you ever lived in Europe? Met and talked to any significant numbers of Europeans? I doubt it. While our values may be different, they're just as clever as the average American. So, I suggest you lay off the judgements until you have more actual experience with the things you talk about. Second... The UK doesn't have surveillance drones "everywhere". I've lived here for many years and have yet to see one. America, however, has many UAVs around the world watching people. We're the surveillance kings. Not that it's a bad thing, because we're the GOOD guys, right? :-)


RE: Scary
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2007 8:23:50 AM , Rating: 3
We have UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe in a few other countries there's military operations going on. But we do not have UAVs flying around the US or other friendly countries keeping track of people.

If we need to keep tabs on someone in a friendly country, we use spy satellites and things like the FBI, CIA, or NSA. Same as every other government in the world.


RE: Scary
By redbone75 on 8/13/2007 5:03:58 AM , Rating: 1
As a U.S. citizen there are few places I would rather live; however, I can't help but often feel that ours is a nation of political hypocrisy. Our politicians, our elected leaders, are quick to decry the seemingly apparent disregard for human rights that China displays towards its people, yet we allow our companies to sell technology that would further enable that oppression. Yes, in the dollar we do trust.
quote:
Many of you have the impression we're under some crazy a** regime hellbent on creating a 1984-like scenario in the US. I can point you to China and the UK for that.

No, we're not yet at Orwell's depiction, but do a simple search of the net for demonstrations that show riot police armed with cameras and you'll find you can't help but get creeped out. Our government watches who, what, and when it wants to watch and it doesn't need a why. We're more like the U.K. and China than you'd care to admit.
quote:
I'll be nice unless you begin with the America Bashing.

Like I already said, I'm an American, and a proud one at that. I am proud of what the country was founded on and what our constitution represents. It is, however sad, quite easy to bash America at times because it quite deserves it. Case in point: this wonderful, fully justified war of ours that can't possibly have any ulterior motives for a certain president and vice president. Especially since the whole world was on our side to invade Iraq from the very beginning. But hey, it's all about stamping out evil wherever it exists, right? It's okay to defend the honor of your country, but don't be blind in your anger towards any negative comments directed at it. Instead, listen to the reasons those comments are negative, then focus your anger on the politicians that allowed the situations in the first place and vote them out of office.


RE: Scary
By Sartori42 on 8/13/2007 5:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
A well-considered reply, but you're sure opening a big can of worms on this forum. I'm sure we could debate politics forever here; some of it well-thought out, but mostly just emotional nonsense.

I agree with some of your statements, but would ask you to point out a political system that works better than ours. From my experience, almost all politicians are elected because they promise to be something better than the other person, or the way things have been done in the past. But, in the end, things just seem to plod along, the same but different. I mean, politicians usually enter into that "profession" so they can make things better. So, what happens to them along the way that changes that? Whether you agree with the President or not, do you really think he's doing anything he thinks is wrong? I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right things for America. And only history will judge the effects of his decisions.

The bottom line here is that life is complex. The government is made up of people, in most ways people just like you and I. They feel they have a mandate because they were elected to represent us. But, due to the complexities of the world, they can't represent everyone. So, they do their best with the information they have... and usually run into trouble. They're flawed, because they're people.

Governments make decisions because they think they know better than the masses what's good for them. I'm sure the government of China does that it thinks is best for China. The real question is what is "China". Is it the government, or the people? That's a fundamental difference between us and them. But, a government "of the people" is a complex system.


RE: Scary
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 1:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yet we allow our companies to sell technology


That's because we were founded on the principle of freedom and liberty -- that being the freedom and liberty of the individual to decide what to do with their private property. The key role of the government is, essentially, to do nothing but the protection of an individuals private property (that includes the body, so health protection and the police to defend the body and our posessions). Given that a company is, or should be, in principle no different than owning an oven in your home, if you (or co-owners, such as shareholders) want to make a billion widgets and then destroy them, then that's not the governments business. If, on the other hand, one wants to make a billion widgets and sell them abroad, again, none of the business of the government -- unless it imperils national security or infringes upon the rights of other Americans.

Not the job of the American government, however, to police the human rights of the Chinese people, and not the intended role of government to intervene in the operation of private enterprise.


RE: Scary
By wordsworm on 8/13/2007 5:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

So ya. There you go. If there's anything I missed feel free to bring it up. I'll be nice unless you begin with the America Bashing.


I think you've bashed yourself enough that I don't feel a need to further bruise your ego. In any case, unless you're good at speaking cryptically, then there are computers that are perfectly good at crawling the web for certain keywords that may initiate something.

Yes, America did slaughter an awful lot of North Vietnamese. Many women and children 'soldiers' were napalmed out of existence. The Vietnamese were far from finished. They weren't ready to back down. It's ironic that the Americans thought they could show the French up by demolishing the Vietnamese after the French had pretty much given up. What a surprise - the US couldn't do it either. I guess those Vietnamese are worthy warriors, worthy of respect.


RE: Scary
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/13/2007 7:53:52 AM , Rating: 5
Not really. In reality, politics got in the way and the military had it's hands tied behind it's back. If they wanted to win the war and wipe out the VC, it could have been done. But instead they wanted to play the political game and we lost the war.

Politics are starting to creep into the Iraq conflict. Civilian congress trying to cut and run and trying to make decisions on something none of them have the faintest idea of grasping. Here's a new idea, let the military do it's job and don't tell them how to do it. They are trained and highly compatent, let them do what they do best.


RE: Scary
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2007 8:32:38 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly.

To me thats why the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Politicians should not be making decisions about wars. They care about their careers and the money. Not about making sure the job gets done with the fewest casualties possible. Once our forces are there, their only job should be to provide funding. We have military generals for a reason. Let them run the war. Not fat guys who sit around in their mansions smoking cigars who don't have the faintest idea of what its like to be in combat. I'm not the military either but I also wouldn't try to tell a Marine how to do his job.

I'm all for our boys coming home when the job is finished. If we pull out now we're just repeating the mistakes of the past. A lot of people in Iraq and the Middle East in general hated us because we left. We told them to rise up and stand against Saddam and we'd support them. They did. Then we left and they got slaughtered.


RE: Scary
By Christopher1 on 8/13/2007 11:58:52 AM , Rating: 1
Guys, politics have always been part of wars, and the President is NOT above politics, not one WHIT above politics.

Politics have always been part of wars, and that is not what is creeping into the Iraq conflict. What is starting to creep into the Iraq conflict is the disgust of American, like myself, with a government that cannot seem to rebuild Iraq after they basically totally destroyed it and a government that cannot stop civilians murders and terrorist bombings over there, which our mere PRESENCE seems to cause!

The military is NOT highly trained and competent, I would say they are UNDER-trained and UNDER-competent, plus the thing that they say "Any civilian causalties are fine as long as our troops aren't harmed!" That is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE VIEW, and it's time to simply say "Period and done with, no more wars unless we are attacked first by a COUNTRY, not a terrorist group who had NO CONNECTION WITH THE PREVIOUS IRAQI GOVERNMENT, TO THE POINT OF THEM HATING EACH OTHER!"


RE: Scary
By smitty3268 on 8/13/2007 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
They're extremely well-trained and competent at destroying the enemy. The past few years have shown that they aren't very good at nation building and keeping the peace, which isn't really much of a surprise given that the military hasn't trained for that in a long time and considered it very low priority. A lot of the problems over there have been caused by people at the top, though, with policies that have backfired on us.

What really bothers me about Iraq wasn't the invasion itself, but the sheer hypocrisy. Over half the 9/11 hijackers, over half the foreign fighters in Iraq, most of the radical madrassas around the world and the terrorists money, it all comes from Saudi Arabia. Yet they're still our best friends and if a single person comes from one of our not-so-friendly countries it is depicted as a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top of their government which must be trying to kill all of us.


RE: Scary
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 1:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
I can't debate they come from Saudi Arabia, but the question is what can be done?

The government is allied with us, sure enough. The people? Not so much. What can do we that we haven't already done with them? If we push them too hard, anger its populace too badly, then we could wake up one day and hear the entire Saudi royal family has been massacred, the country in chaos or in the hands of a strong-man. Pakistan, same thing, except the stakes are even higher! If the President there is elected out of office, or assasinated, who has the keys to the nuclear weapons? The military, probably, but whose side are they on? What if the civilian government ends up being sympathetic to terrorists and asks the military to slip them a nuke? Not inconceivable at all. Both countries present a moral problem; support dictatorship that's friendly to our security or support democracy knowing that it'll put people in power who wish for our destruction?

Other countries, though, like Iran, have governments that directly and willingly support terrorism. That's entirely different, though you try to paint it as if it werent. Those governments we can put pressure on as they're guilty of it themselves.


RE: Scary
By smitty3268 on 8/13/2007 5:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
I see Pakistan as an exception - it's a powder keg waiting to explode, with nuclear weapons and a fairly significant portion of the population that would like them to be used. (Not a majority, but enough to be very worrying) On the other hand, Saudi Arabia just has a ton of oil we want.

quote:
Other countries, though, like Iran, have governments that directly and willingly support terrorism. That's entirely different

How so? I'm not so sure Iran is directly supporting these terrorists any more than Saudi Arabia. Well, besides Hezbollah. But in Iraq/Afghanistan, how is their official "we're not doing anything bad, but we can't police the entire border to keep our citizens out" any different than what Saudi Arabia is saying? Whether directly or not, they're clearly unwilling or unable to stop their citizens from directly supporting terrorists, and we ignore it.


RE: Scary
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 1:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Any civilian causalties are fine as long as our troops aren't harmed!"


Do you even *know* anyone in the Army or Marine corps? Have you ever asked someone, particularly from a background such that they didnt have to join, why they joined or why they've gone back, or even why they've re-enlisted?

Anyway, you're wrong on the politics part. Vietnam, and subsequent wars, have seen much more intervention then before. Roosevelt and Lincoln both enjoyed a Congress and Senate happy to essentially rubber-stamp war related bills. Lincoln had it even better; they rubber-stamped everything. And if you think Bush has undue power and influence, no, Lincoln and Roosevelt essentially were two benevolent American dictators, setting aside the Constitution temporarily in order to save it.

The idea then was that the President and the military were intended by the founders to take the reigns during a complex conflict or outright emergency with 'executive perogative'; Congress (even the Supreme Court) would (and did) largely rubber-stamp most things until the emergency has passed, but once the smoke cleared scrutiny returned, laws revoked and the Constitution restored.

This crap about a civilian Congress trying to micro-manage a war is entirely new. Many politicians during the Civil War had military experience, while most Democrats in Congress do not, and they allowed Lincoln to do his thing. Do modern Democrats think themselves better than those of old? A Democrat, I think the 3rd ranked guy in the House, got caught saying the victory in Iraq is defeat for Democrats. That was a stroke of honesty. They've made the Iraq war a domestic political football that has nothing to do with Iraq itself.


RE: Scary
By lompocus on 8/13/2007 5:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
First off, by the america bashing I mean bringing up completely separate topics to bash america, as is being done.

I tried to keep the 'debate' ,if you could even call it that, on the side of technology being used to keep an eye on the population, and I knew that anti-american comments were imminent, as the other post, half a page down, exemplefies.

I used the Vietnam war as an example when the media overexxagerates things. Two examples:

1) Many people, as shown on the bottom, think the US is a complete evil dictatorial regime. Like China
2) Many people, like me, think, from the media, the UK is as in bad shape as China. Apparently it is.

I don't think that quote was mine, but I'll defend whoever that was. My whole family has been in the military. I haven't. I'm going to use what the family has built up so far and further build up upon it. My dad was in the SF, cousins in the army, rangers, and marines, and aunts and uncles in government work, mainly police and firefighting and stuff like that.

So it was right for Congress to condemn many, many Vietnamese people and waste American lives in Vietnam by forcing a pullout? By starting with this 'bring our troops home'? I'm not quite as heartless as you. We aren't he world police, but if we have the opportunity to liberate a country, we will. Iraq is one. And, I bet you, and mark my words, if a democrat is somehow elected to office, you'll see us out of Iraq and into what the Euros want us in so much: Darfur.

Bush is the prime example of why presidents should have military experience. War is not some thing to be tossed around. It's serious business where thousands die. Bush delays the war to enrich his own oil business. That's wrong. However, at least the Iraqi people don't have missiles shot back into their cities by Saddam, and at least the money is going to the right place: Iraqis.

Call them dictators if you want. You can't deny the fact that they acted rightly in the situation of a war. Iraq is a war. In my opinion, all war, big or small, deserves complete attention and complete devotion of resources to end it as quickly and decisively as possible, with minimal harm to the population.

That's enough for now. Would you enjoy going back to the topic of the media and its relation to survelliance?


RE: Scary
By smitty3268 on 8/13/2007 5:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is that back then wars were largely fought and won. These days the administration is asking for those powers indefinitely, as the war on terror can never be completely won. I mean, hello, you can't defeat a tactic.
quote:
Many politicians during the Civil War had military experience, while most Democrats in Congress do not, and they allowed Lincoln to do his thing.

I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I will say that many of the most aggressive anti-war Democrats these days do have military experience. They seem to be less cowed as it is harder to pin a weak on security attack on them. Very few of the Republicans these days have war experience either.
quote:
They've made the Iraq war a domestic political football that has nothing to do with Iraq itself.

You're right about that much. Both the Republicans and Democrats have made Iraq into a political battle which they don't think they can afford to lose, regardless of the consequences overseas. However, instead of just assuming Democrats want defeat how about you look at what they actually are saying: that they want victory but no longer believe that it is possible and that every soldier who dies is another victory for AQ. After all, Bin Laden spelled out exactly how he wanted to defeat us and everything has gone exactly as he said so far - a spectacular attack would get us to react and send troops over to their home turf, which would allow them to recruit people and win a war of attrition against us, bleeding us dry. Why keep playing their game when it doesn't look like things are going to get any better than they are now? On the other hand, maybe you do think things will get better. That's certainly possible but not very likely IMO. If we could keep the surge going for years, maybe, but the army is going to run out of troops in the spring and at that point the surge will end one way or the other. I just don't see any real progress being made by that point, so what is the point in continuing to waste lives until then?


RE: Scary
By smitty3268 on 8/13/2007 12:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Reports out of the Nixon administration state that in their opinion there was no way to win the war, regardless of the political situation. Unless they wanted to go nuclear, of course. The "we could have won if only the liberals had a backbone" story was made up by conservatives to score political points, and isn't much based in reality.


RE: Scary
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 2:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
Of course a Nixon report would say that. It was indeed lost by then.

The Tet offensive was spectacular in two ways; a spectacular military victory for America (we decimated them, despite being caught with our pants down) and a spectacular PR victory for the NLF. Like a flurry of punches in boxing that land on the arms, it looks killer but does very little; that sums up the Tet Offensive. Westmoreland made unfortunate comments just before it began that made it look even worse.

Had Westmoreland had the extra 200k he wanted, and was given a totally free hand, I personally think he'd of got the job done with quick, brutal effectiveness, just as MacArthur would've taken all of Korea if not for political influence reaching out from D.C. stopping him from bombing the bridge over which thousands of Chinese troops were flooding.

But you're right. A Nixon report would say it couldn't be won. Too little, too late.


RE: Scary
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/13/2007 4:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was 10 cameras for every 1 British citizen? :P Or is that just for London?


Standards
By MikeO on 8/13/2007 6:06:07 AM , Rating: 5
When US does it, it's "security".

When China does it, it's "big brother".




RE: Standards
By AggressorPrime on 8/13/2007 7:39:10 AM , Rating: 1
That is because when the US does it, it is to catch terrorists. When China does it, it limits the rights of their citizens such as making sure they only have one child (which is an insane rule).


RE: Standards
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2007 8:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
It's not insane. They have over 1 billion people in their country. They're trying to control the size of their population to ensure they can feed and care for everyone.

That doesn't make it right. But it does make it understandable. The US tries to limit its population too by limiting immigration. Thats why the illegal immigration problem is so severe. For every family that comes here illegally, in a few generations (which is 50 years or so considering how quickly the women in that group start having kids), we've added 10-20 people to the population. And there's 10-15 million illegal immigrants here. In 20 years our population will have exploded, our public programs will be unable to cope, and those people will be living off the system while barely contributing to it.

But hey we're the US. We're obligated to make your life better at the expense of our own citizens. Even if you come here illegally, ignore our laws, ignore our language, and try to make us convert to your culture to make things easier for you.


RE: Standards
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 2:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, we *need* immigrants in the US, though it's vastly preferable that they be legal.

Our birth rate amongst native born Americans hovers right around the replacement level. Replacement is okay, much better to have it increasing, but if it becomes negative it becomes a huge problem. Italy, at the rate it's going, could cease to be a viable country, and Japan has massive economic storms ahead with it's rapidly shrinking population. That's the trend in developed countries and the US is an anomaly in that we havent yet had the problem.

Unlike China, which does have quite a few mouths to feed, we still need to be growing and ought to be encouraging the women who have become educated and career oriented not to return to the home full time but encourage them to have more of a balance.

Immigrants help us avoid the problem but it's not a long term solution. Nothing can replace good, old-fashioned sex. (Thank god)

Just nit-picking the population part. I feel the same way about them as you do.


RE: Standards
By Misty Dingos on 8/13/2007 8:56:23 AM , Rating: 1
Yes China is a repressive communist country. Not going to change anytime soon either. And their response to overpopulation and exploding population growth was and is draconian. But theirs is one of the few populations in Asia that is declining (if I am not mistaken). So given this set of benchmark behaviors by the Chinese government, why would anyone be surprised if the decided to put a million cameras in the country and one in every house? I would not be. So 20K in one city! Big deal. Make some money on it I say. If the Chinese people want to be oppressed by their government then they get to be oppressed by the best technology available. After all this is just patterned after England.


Only 20,000?
By Combatcolin on 8/13/2007 7:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
In the UK we have 20,000 cameras in each town!




RE: Only 20,000?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 8/13/2007 8:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
In Soviet Russia, you watch camera!

Saying the camera watches you didn't sound as funny.

Anyway, I don't understand the U.S. public surveillance phobia. Putting up a purely visible spectrum system, I make the distinction because some IR systems can see through walls, is a perfectly acceptable idea to me. I don't understand people's need to have privacy in public. Are people afraid that some guy getting paid minimum wage will see them on a CCTV picking their nose on their lunch break?

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who are against this live in small towns. I live in a major metropolitan area, and one more person watching me, be it in person or through a camera, isn't going to bother me. Why do you ask? Well for starters I'm not doing anything wrong, and if they're keeping me safe well then why should I complain?


RE: Only 20,000?
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2007 9:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
In Orlando, FL the police wanted to start putting up cameras at stop lights to photograph people running red lights. And only at major intersections.

People started whining about it and it never really happened. People claimed their privacy was being invaded and civil rights people said that they were trying to spy on people.

I want to smack people who think like that. I wish more things would happen that are good for society but not necessarily popular. The only person it affects are people who run red lights. And the only people surveillance affects are people who commit crimes. What is the harm here?

Yes, there is always the risk of someone using it for other reasons like to track someone. But theres that risk without it being there. Someone can tail you on foot just as easily as on cameras. The benefits of such a system far outweigh the bad. People are less likely to commit crimes if someone is watching.

And I have no problem with cameras that I likely won't even notice watching me, to keep me safe. I don't see anyone complaining about the cameras in shopping malls and other stores that guard against shoplifters. How are cameras being out on streets any different than those?


RE: Only 20,000?
By Christopher1 on 8/13/2007 11:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it doesn't just effect speeders. Those cameras, if they are calibrated and aimed incorrectly, could catch someone making out with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend. Ooooh...... There's a count of public indecency that they can get you on!

Things like that happening are what I am worried about, and things should NOT be done just because they benefit society. I am a strict individualist who believes that government should NOT be monitoring everything in everyone's lives at all, and that we would be safer with less laws and less surveillance, not more.


RE: Only 20,000?
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am a strict individualist who believes that government should NOT be monitoring everything in everyone's lives at all, and that we would be safer with less laws and less surveillance, not more.


A true libertarian speaks! In a different era, I'd of agreed, but for the same reason Neal Boortz has a hard time throwing his hat with the Libertarian Party (their lack of desire to effectively fight terrorism), I'd have to disagree and say we have to have balance.

Of course, by letting the government have that incremental additional power, we have to keep a closer eye on them.

I for one welcome the red light camera's here in Orlando. We need them.


Ineffective?
By timmiser on 8/13/2007 4:29:48 AM , Rating: 3
What good will cameras do in China?

They all look the same to me.

:)




RE: Ineffective?
By IronReda on 8/13/2007 5:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
lawl,

but seriously, it just depends on how many orientals you come into contact with on a daily basis.

Over here (University of Waterloo campus), Asians are thriving and anyone who spends a decent amount of time here can tell the difference between Vietnamese, japanese, chinese, etc.


RE: Ineffective?
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 10:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think hes getting at all chinese people look the same, not all asians..(i'm sure asians could make the same argument about white/black/brown people) but this aside, even if people look alike face recognition software would still work. Things such as facial shape, distance between eyes, mouth size, nose size, ear size.. you get the point ;).. having that many people looking a like would probably just give you more than one result initially, but theres nothing saying there isnt other criteria to figure out who someone is ;)


RE: Ineffective?
By Yongsta on 8/13/2007 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
What good wil cameras do period then? They all look the same to one's own perspective when it's not their race involved.


hmm
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/13/2007 4:18:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
... the cards will also hold personal information about the citizens such as work history, education, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number.

OK, insurance and police record I can understand -- but religion? education? How could that possibly be useful except for nefarious deeds!




RE: hmm
By Sartori42 on 8/13/2007 5:06:45 AM , Rating: 3
Useful? To whom? You can bet that tracking their citizen's movements and business dealings is useful to the government there. It helps to keep the masses in line, knowing that the govenment is tracking their every move.

However, I could envision a whole cottage industry springing up for hacking their ID cards. I think history has shown that data can be manipulated, if you want to bad enough.

Cheers.


By watchingbigbrother on 8/14/2007 6:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Now I'm the last one to like stuff like this, but 20,000 cameras all depending on someone to remember carrying an ID CARD on them? Seems like a unrealistic concept that would work only with law-abiding citizens. It's bad still, but consider how much more invasive it'd be if they used other surveillance software options out there like this one... www.brslabs.com

But I think we're heading in that direction regardless.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007









botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki