Surveillance society

[BlueTrain]

As I've mentioned before, I think, I do a roughly two mile walk through the woods from out my back door everyday or two. It takes me through either what is called flood plain (essentially undeveloped land in the suburbs) or parkland (same woods). I do it for two reasons, maybe three. One is for, I guess, conditioning purposes, since I usually carry a pack. Another is for the view from the top of the dam. But mainly to see interesting things in the woods. Today I saw four deer, which is not unusual but I don't see them more than once every couple of weeks generally. I have seen a fox surprisingly often. Today I saw a game camera. I don't like seeing them.

The novel 1984 is about the government spying on people, so the idea of a game camera looking at me--fully clothed--is a little chilling. But they're apparently fairly common and hunting is actually allowed in these pockets of woods here and there, though only with a bow. It's hunters that put them up and I have to admit that I have the urge to take them down. But that would bound to mean trouble. Those are not places where I would hike nude, although I have actually gotten naked at least once. The place I'm referring to is a low area between developed areas from between 150 and 200 yards wide and thickly wooded. It seems narrower when the leaves are off the trees.

There weren't any there last year but the year before there were two. I curtailed my hiking there for a while. Are they used in other countries?

[Peter S]

They’ve been mentioned here before in other threads as being prevalent your side of the pond. I think they’re happening more and more over here too. I’ve had the impression, perhaps wrongly, that in the US they’re tied in with hunting (being called “game” cameras, which in English English would make them hunt-focussed). Over here they’re increasingly used to watch, monitor, record wildlife from an observational and conservation standpoint. Their results feature frequently in TV programmes.

I haven’t come across any myself, but then I haven’t been looking for them and part of their modus operandi is to be well camouflaged, anyway, so I probably wouldn’t. With the plethora of mini spy cams that are constantly advertised in internet pop-ups I fear we just have to accept that we are all going to be caught on someone’s camera somewhere sometime.

[BlueTrain]

They are definitely called game cameras over hear and that's clearly the intent in this case, since the patch of woods does have all sorts of animals, which is not to say you see them every time you wander through the woods. The ones I've noticed there are not camouflaged in any way, either. I suppose I have no right to feel resentful about them but now the woods are public spaces, in a sense. Of course, they aren't the deep, dark woods of our imaginations but merely the shallow, shady woods of our suburbs. In the small town where I grew up, there were no suburbs and besides, all the deer had been killed off decades ago.

In larger suburbs here and sometimes in big city parks, given the way that it's hilly and not every piece of land is suitable for building (at the moment anyway), these patches of woods connect to other patches of woods by way of narrow pieces of land where the creeks flow. So the deer can move around the county a lot and never leave the woods, although there are always some that manage to get run down on the highways. Several years ago, one wound up on our property on the side of the house with two broken hips. Animal control came and shot it with a .22 rifle and left it there. I don't think the smaller animals move around so much but some of them don't make it across the road either. I am still astonished at the number of times I've seen a fox or foxes here.

[jbeegoode]

Near the border, they have their political game reasons. They are also used for wildlife management. That's how we found out that the endangered illegal Mexican jaguars were back in the neighborhood.

I have to resent the cameras. I go for privacy, solitude, and naturism. Without that, I'm at war with anyone who tries to take those rights away. Camera owners be warned, no sneaky pics.

I could see myself taking one home for the yard...the only place anyone has a right to bug. Do those transfer without a passcode?
Jbee

[ric]

im not sure how the law views game cameras in the uk.    on normal domestic cctv its illegal to aim the camera outside your own premises and warning signs have to be erected.... not sure who supposed to enforce transgressions, probably someone at the local council.

[BlueTrain]

As I said before, I, too, feel a little resentful about the game cameras, although I suppose I shouldn't but I certainly have that right. There might be some question as to how much privacy I have a right to or a right to expect, since, strictly speaking, it is a public space. I think privacy might be a fairly modern concept which evolved at the same time that all our modern gadgets, which in turn gave rise to things like wiretapping and so on. But for everyone out there who is seriously worried about their privacy, there is also an exhibitionist--and a voyeur with a camera.

On the other hand, for someone with a license to kill game, setting up a game camera is pretty tame stuff. All the same, we may worry about the government but it's your neighbors you have to watch out for. If you have neighbors.

[jbeegoode]

It goes back to the revolution, the principles of the Bill of Rights. The empire was stopping in indiscriminately, searching people's papers, doing whatever to decide if you were for 'em or agin' 'em. Any remark, association, opinion could take your freedom, your life, humiliate you, intimidate you. Thus, we are secure in our papers, our home's without a specific warrant, fifth amendment, we can speak when we see need, and differences are to be respected and protected, etc. This applies to the government.

These safeguards are no longer true. Something that you wrote in an email letter today may be used to build a case in ten or twenty years, because the NSA has collected it. The private industries that actually run the government and dictate policy are doing anything that they want. The result, these rights are not protected.

A game camera is an entity that tracts and records my personal behavior, in a space that should be free. It follows that I have every right to dismantle and end any intrusion along any trail that restricts my use, my "privacy" not so new a concept and very important. Particularly, if my government refuses to protect my rights. If a cop isn't there when I need a cop, I have the right to protect myself, my rights and belongings, to have an equalizer. Civil law is an option. Game cameras, drones, etc. are fair game, when they are actively tracking me.

It is a duty to resist all internet incursions on privacy and data. I am not having "my experience enhanced." I am being raped and restricted in my free speech, because, it may be used at a future date by an even more fascist government to be used against me. I'm angry about all of this. If I see a game camera out in the woods, I flash right to that scene in the flix"1984" when they get busted in the woods. Your property just got a hatchet job.

Something precious is being taken from me by a game camera.

I did come across one a couple of years back. It was obvious, it was pointed at petrogylphs, it was probably for art. I let it be. It was not sneaky and I wasn't likely to be seen by it.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

I never would have taken you for a conservative.

[jbeegoode]

These things aren't conservative, nor liberal. These are Rights, American values that we all grew up with.
Jbee

[John P]

No no, he's being a rebel. Sticking it to the Man.

[BlueTrain]

Start the revolution without me then.

Concerning that game camera, it belongs to the county and it's on county land. I have no more right to complain about it than I do about the sign that says 'Closed at dark' and 'no swimming' in the pond. We actually have almost no rights; only privileges. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Wasn't true when it was written. Why should it be true now? The only right we have, after a fashion, is to complain and complain we do.

All revolutions, successful and unsuccessful, increase the power of government. It is true that the revolution was not fought with registered firearms but it is also true that it was not fought with privately owned firearms.

[jbeegoode]

The revolution never ended.

"In order to form a more perfect union." Defines as a work in progress and imperfections. Wasn't true then, doesn't apply.

The county, doesn't own. It is public land, commons, not a dictate.

"All' is a pretty big blanket, especially when no clear definition of "revolution" is established.

It was fought with what was available, and in many different ways of war. There were garrisons set in a more traditional fashion of war. There were more common firearms. There were a favorite weapon, sometimes a hunting tool that was used, for example, Swamp Fox. There were my ancestors coming out of French and Indian Wars and there were those standing in mass on an open field. The common ground and principle is what is common all over the world, when government takes away the peoples weapons and participation, tyranny happens.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

We have our differences. But we have some things in common and that's what we should be talking about.

[jbeegoode]

You'll need to be more specific, Bluetrain. I'm conversing about a surveillance state, privacy and the principles as they apply.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

When it comes to surveillance, otherwise known as voyeurism, it's the private individual you have to watch out for. I do worry about the national government but that isn't one of the reasons. In fact, I worry about it a lot. Maybe we should dissolve the federal government and start all over. Might be kind of fun.