Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Instant Replay

Posted 1 year ago on April 5, 2013, 9:06 p.m. EST by windyacres (1002)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I recently proposed on this forum that cameras be installed in all government offices. I expect many people to feel this is unnecessary because the quality of people working in these offices would make this an unnecessary expense, not to mention of, "hurrying", Big Brother privacy concerns. These concerns of yours are reality for a significant percentage of Americans already and have been for years. There could be agreed upon rare exceptions for national security matters. The judgement of a higher class of people not needing to be watched is absurd when we all believe massive corruption is taking place. Forget the expense argument, we can cover the costs.

It's time to insure our private lives have some privacy, and will have future privacy, so we need to have transparency over surveillance in some way.

Why do we believe our government is corrupt, but doesn't need Instant Replay to help us see who is responsible?

31 Comments

31 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I thought that most government buildings had camera systems. I could be wrong.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I feel sure government buildings have cameras, but not necessarily to hold employees accountable, just for security purposes. They're already there to record the public, but not themselves.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that they do, but what I don't think that they are capable of doing is nailing the backroom deals. How do you nail that?

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Elect only candidates willing to be on camera when working for the people. What do they have to hide? We should laugh in their face if they claim they are upstanding enough that cameras aren't needed. We should assure them and ourselves that privacy in non public spaces will be protected.

Only geniune national security matters should be secretive.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I was watching C-Span cover a debate in congress and I thought oh, this is going to be great. 'Cept they turned the sound off.

I think there needs to be sound.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I agree there should also be sound. We might start with video with the only motive being to insure accountability. I don't see how they could act insulted or convince us that some things need to be secret. We are worried about the secrets, and imagine all kinds of shenanigans, why not have proof of the truth.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

Hell, at this point I would settle for .............proof that they actually read a piece of legislation. Read it out loud, with sound operating, and indicate that you understand.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

You're right! We know there are last minute deals that take place, and they're intentionally secret.

Stop the rampant speculation about what's happening. Shine the cameras on it so we can know the truth. Ideally it will be usually very boring to watch, and usually unnecessary to watch. Having the ability to go back on the cameras at a later date to understand something is a wonderful power for those seeking the truth.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I'd watch it. Hell, I was willing to watch C-Span for the 2 or so hours until I realized that they deliberately turned the sound off and all you could see were people running back and forth and talking.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

You should be able to watch it whenever you want, even after the event. Even if there is no sound, there should be a record of anything significant that happens. Playback the video of a certain time period and see who is talking to who, who's doing the significant actions, and why. Compare the video to the records.

I have watched many hours of video from 16 different cameras, with the ability to fast forward or slow down the activities. It is very boring....usually.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I'm going to need some sound with that. I'll take the boring parts.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Sound could be arranged, just not as simply as video.

When I realized the power the cameras gave me at my store, it was not boring to watch at first. Many hours of watching and it became very boring to watch people work. I had work to do myself and only used the cameras after a problem occured to see proof of the truth. Very powerful.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

Ya, but this store is a wee bit different.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I understand. Let's have a national debate on the pros and cons anyway.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont think the type of corruption we are dealing with would really be helped with cameras. I mean, its not like they have people coming into their offices with envelopes filled with cash or something.

100% transparent email accounts could be a start, but honestly, if the people arent able to create their own politicians, and just choose from a rotten bunch, then theres not too much point in all of it.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I believe emails have gotten too many people in trouble. I doubt they use them any more.

Why do we accept the fact that Congressmen are able to go into back rooms and secretly negotiate earmarks to attach to bills? Why wouldn't they agree to be held accountable for their actions? I assure you there is nothing more boring than watching people work. If, however, a lobbyist were to make a pitch for their cause, why can't we know the details of their motive? Why can't we account for who is responsible for something we learn later was not right?

This would be a radical change, but why not? It wouldn't be difficult other than people that wouldn't want the scrutiny.

We can't create our own politicians and know they're trustworthy. Why are they above the many americans that work under supervision? If they know the cameras are present, they will be free to do their job correctly without temptations.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its worth a shot. At this point, why not, right?

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

At this point, it seems to be a legitimate necessity. It shouldn't even be difficult!

Let's try it.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I didn't understand how video recordings could be such a wonderful, powerful, tool for proof of the truth, without having to "catch them in the act". It only takes a few seconds to find and playback video recordings of a certain time and place.

Isn't that exactly what we need? Who is against this and why?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34858) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You R into 1984??? How sad.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

My point is that a significant number of Americans work under camera systems. Should cameras be considered for other problem areas, such as corrupt governments?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34858) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U fail to understand. Government will keep track of the people - but will not allow the people to keep track of it.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

You're exactly right and we need to make sure what you said doesn't happen! How can they not allow us to keep track of government?

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I'm floating ideas. Prevent fascism was last night.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34858) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U also into - Fahrenheit 451 ?

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Don't know enough to comment about it.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13707) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

for a goddamned repelican you sure are anxious to find new ways to spend government money. mutherfuker

you really are s.i.c.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I believe there will be many more cameras in the sky and certain public spaces in the near future. I am disappointed because I expected you to get it, and you think I'm sick.

Do you have any reason to worry about being recorded by cameras in public? I don't believe you do, so you should help concerning the cause of gauranteed privacy anywhere in the future.

It's inevitable that the cameras will be part of the future! Let's recognize that and insist on transparency.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13707) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

don't get me wrong, I'm tempted to mount a camera in my stone wall myself - just so I can keep track of the fukers conducting surveillance in the neighborhood - since we don't have any criminals living on this dead end road it isn't likely law enforcement.

YEt there have been two strangers I've noted this week. So, sure, I'd like to have their picture, why not.

But mounting cameras in the workplace - to spy on government employees in particular - it just seems wrong.

any growth in the surveillance industrial complex just seems wrong - until we have identified the specific causes of that growth in detail, we have no idea where necessity lies and graft begins.

Since you want to spend tax payer dollars I suggest the examination be quite public - and it may as well answer some questions that remain over

[-] 0 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I'm not for the surveillance industrial complex, I just see it as inevitable. The disaster would be for the cameras to be secret, instead of transparent so, "they", are also recorded on the cameras.

[-] 0 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

You ought to check out a 4 camera system. Not expensive. They have motion detectors so they aren't recording during times when nothing is happening. If you leave the house for a while and come back to find something different, what happened will be on your cameras.