Free Range Naturism

Naturism => General Naturism Discussion => Topic started by: BlueTrain on September 19, 2019, 08:45:55 PM

Title: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 19, 2019, 08:45:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: Peter S on September 20, 2019, 09:07:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 20, 2019, 11:30:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 21, 2019, 07:18:21 AM
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?
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: ric on September 21, 2019, 10:49:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 21, 2019, 11:56:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 22, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 23, 2019, 12:51:53 AM
I never would have taken you for a conservative.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 23, 2019, 03:02:04 AM
These things aren't conservative, nor liberal. These are Rights, American values that we all grew up with.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: John P on September 23, 2019, 05:27:17 AM
No no, he's being a rebel. Sticking it to the Man.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 23, 2019, 02:14:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 23, 2019, 10:56:35 PM
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.

Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 23, 2019, 11:38:54 PM
We have our differences. But we have some things in common and that's what we should be talking about.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 23, 2019, 11:57:16 PM
You'll need to be more specific, Bluetrain. I'm conversing about a surveillance state, privacy and the principles as they apply.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 24, 2019, 01:14:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 24, 2019, 10:26:53 PM
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical," Thomas Jefferson

Dissolving the Feds? I need my retirement and Medicare. The rich would steal it, claiming that that that would make me stronger and give me more dignity.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 24, 2019, 10:46:03 PM
I would disagree with Jefferson over a few things and he was never in a fight. It's probably a good thing he wasn't around when the Constitution was being written.

Double-check your bug out bag and have your revolting revolution. It's the stuff of murder, pain, death and terror. Hope you make it through to the other side to the green fields beyond. The so-called primitive peoples of the world don't do stuff like that. Be careful what you wish for.

On the other hand, I have long admired Thoreau and most of what he wrote. It was so well-written, it sounds like it was written yesterday. Poe, who has the lead in movies based on his stories, is comparatively difficult to read. Even more so is Shakespeare, who probably has even more movies based on his plays. But one day I realized that I had lived almost 30 years longer than Thoreau did and so I don't think as much of him as I used to. That may not be a good reason to discount Thoreau, though. I've never published the first book. One of my wife's cousins has published three or four, a good supply of which is in the bedroom at his home. Thoreau said the same thing about his books, too.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 25, 2019, 07:23:40 PM
Oh dear...You'll need to check out a couple of history books, and also check on the definitions of. "rebellion" and "revolution."

He stayed out of fights and roamed heavily armed as he traveled, smart guy. He was integral to setting up checks and balances to make government work, change and not get stagnate as is the tendency. He is integral to the Bill of rights. He always was concerned about the ignorant passions of masses and the Rights of the minority. He knew French Revolution, brutality and all of that nasty stuff, the before, the during and after. I've read a ton of Jefferson, including nearly all of his personal stuff.

This is about surveillance state issues.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 25, 2019, 07:47:07 PM
I know he supposedly went armed. I've seen his little pocket pistol. He may have been worried about a slave rebellion. He owned a few. As for rebellion and revolution, you can't define it out of being bloody affairs. Jefferson was overseas when the constitution was written. Madison, although a friend of TJ, disagreed with him on his idea of frequent bloodletting. If you're in favor of a revolution, now would be as good a time as any. Of all the things I'm worried about state surveillance is not one of them. I know they probably did a pretty good background check on me before I went to the CIA headquarters a few years ago for a ceremony.

Among the founding fathers, we admire Washington and Mason. My wife is related to both of them and is a direct descendent of Mason (which means she's related to Paris Hilton). I'm not descended from anybody. Anybody worth mentioning, that is, although one relative supposedly started the gun fight at the Carroll County (Virginia) Courthouse several decades ago. But my father never mentioned it.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: Peter S on September 25, 2019, 11:21:07 PM
I recently read a book about the history of English rebels. The author handily defined the difference between revolution and rebellion - a revolution succeeds, a rebellion doesn’t.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 25, 2019, 11:55:10 PM
You say that he was out of town, like he had no influence in the drafting of the Constitution, nor Bill of Rights. That's absurd. Like I said before, go read some history. Franklin was abroad, too. You are ignoring the history. Jefferson was your benefactor, Constitutional architect and founding father.

This racist bias that has been put out since his Black lover became news is quite thickly dope. It is high and mighty garbage, judging people outside of the context of their time and place. People, founding fathers, carried lots of weapons to protect themselves on the road, particularly when they became outlaws and traitors to the King. The slave rebellion crack is a rude low cut, playing racism on one of THE most important influences upon your freedoms. It was Jefferson that allows you to make such a slimy mean spirited cut to his character. That doesn't mean that such behavior is okay, or below the dignity of this forum.

What difference does it make where your wife's bloodline came from? My ancestry has two revolutionary officers personally commissioned by George Washington, based on their proven service getting his butt back from the French and Indian Wars. They were rewarded with a farm after the revolution, which was lost, because their Quaker background compelled them to free their slaves, which was very unpopular in those days in Virginia. You have no place to judge Thomas Jefferson in his personal context, or how he handled his love affair, particularly to make rude race cuts.

I've had a family member participate in every major war since, until wars were fought for just oil. Other than the Native American branch, my family began coming here in 1645 from Edinburgh, all arriving for religious freedoms. Can you tell me what that has to do with anything surveillance state oriented, or is it just rambling on? Just get a grip on it...please.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 26, 2019, 12:06:54 AM
 Revolution Definition:
: a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm the Copernican revolution
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology the computer revolution the foreign car revolution

This ain't 1969 and there ain't no John Lennon in 1789.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: John P on September 26, 2019, 07:47:23 AM
There was no John Lennon in 1789, and there's no John Lennon now. That's because a certain document from that earlier date said that ordinary citizens need to have weapons available.

You say you want a revolution--well, you know. Who are the people with minds that hate?
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 26, 2019, 01:13:28 PM
If you want absurdity, just imagine a bunch of slave owners getting together to talk about freedom. Clearly the American Revolution was not about freedom; it was about independence. I am surprised that I am so frequently asked if I have a website. I do not, because I value my privacy, aside from the simple fact that I have no idea what I would post on a personal website. I don't have a cellphone, don't wear a watch and I have no website. I am about as free range as possible, at least for someone who is married and owns a home. Being married may cancel everything mentioned so far.

If Jefferson wanted frequent revolution, he should be happy with the perpetual wars we've been engaged in for the last thirty years if he were alive today.
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 26, 2019, 11:28:00 PM
Jefferson would have equated the wars of the last thirty years with many of the wars of his era, give or take a 100 years, or more. Governments controlled by elitist oligarchies called royalty, fought for profit, politics and ego with no regard for freedom, or the welfare of the people. In other words, Just another poor boy off to fight a rich man's war:

The revolution was not just about independence. It was a coalition and diverse situation. Thanks to Jefferson in particular and some other learned men with foresight, a constitution was set with a Bill of Rights, that had everything to do with freedom. There were many conflicting influences and practical social matters making it difficult to hold things together, in the context of those times. When people look back at history, they tend to project their values, and current truths, to pass judgement onto people who were doing their best with what they lived in.

Slavery was acceptable, inferiority was a wide spread belief, women were not free, many people believed that kings were an act of God, and Lord knows the plethora of silly religions. You set your slaves free and the entire region, (the one that Bluetrain lives in today) turns against and crushes your farm's viability. That's only one example. It took one hundred years and a civil war to just begin change and begin justice. I think that it takes a lot of gall and ignorance to sit and judge the men who framed the Constitution. Especially to attempt to diminish them. Some were as you say, but certainly Jefferson and Franklin do not fit your simplistic stereotypes, nor deserve the underlying angry racist resentments that the small men of today wish to bundle them up in.

Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 29, 2019, 05:28:32 PM
That certainly describes our recent wars and foreign adventures. My son did his part, though.

Regarding your third paragraph, I am not diminishing the founding fathers, but I feel no obligation to agree with everything they did or said. Obviously neither did other people or else there would be no amendments after the Bill of Rights. We always have the freedom to disagree, whether or not we can do anything about it. They were necessarily men of their times and did what they did with certain relatively recent historical events in mind, including the religious wars of the previous century. So you are correct in that we see that past in the context of our own values and experiences as well as failing to appreciate the context in which the revolution was fought and the constitution was written. I am certainly not diminishing or belittling anything about them, otherwise we wouldn't be so proud of my wife's ancestry. As I mentioned already, I have no such ancestors myself. But far from being disrespectful, these and others you're probably never heard of are practically worshiped at our house. I call it ancestor worship but I'm not the first to say that.

One of the faults commonly made when considering historical events is to compress time. In this case, we forget that the U.S. operated for years before constitutional convention, under the Articles of Confederation. So even they changed their mind about how we should be doing things. It goes without say that not everyone then agreed with what they did. They had varying attitudes about slavery but they all grew up with it and they would have gotten nowhere if they'd tried to do anything about it. As it happened, I think, slavery became even more important economically later. Some attitudes about slavery linger. Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

I guess I have gall to spare. And that trail camera is still there but I go a different way now. And to think I actually went to a lot of work to clear out a little space in the woods, in one of the few level spots around, where I could just set and drink coffee. That's what really bothered me. I'll have to go to plan B now. Or rather location B. Or maybe another place, since I think location B might be visible to the camera (another spot I had cleared off in the woods with a tree just right for leaning against).  If you're ever out this way again...
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 30, 2019, 07:45:33 PM
Oh that camera would be so much toast!

We went out into the borderlands yesterday. Nobody but us nudes in the war zone. There is a wall out in the distance, but still it is teaming with surveillance for miles inward. Border patrol trucks and binoculars, cell towers with dishes and military style pill boxes. These are not commercial, probably hookups to hundreds of surveillance cameras. We got out and took some pics, got back in and it just felt creepy. We're in the middle of nowhere and it felt creepy. You just don't know what is out there. No sheriffs, just these hundreds of white trucks with green bars. We go to the tourist lookout and there's a truck and a guy watching from the vantage point. I've got nothing to hide, but I certainly have something to protect. I shouldn't be feeling watched. 1984.

When Nixon put up road blocks in 1970, he was stuck down by Constitutional law. Now we have road blocks, surveillance, and a military all along the border for miles. Increments. It is creeping north. Then there are the overly powerful private entities in the game. The incursion doesn't end, unless a line is drawn. That works both ways from without and within, foreign and domestic.

The above sounds political, but then why do people who wouldn't mind being seen by others freely nude feel creeped-out, if there isn't something more to it? Is there a moral issue? Is there more to Big Brother than control for political ends? Why is privacy an issue?
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: BlueTrain on September 30, 2019, 09:03:16 PM
There may be more than one thing involved. Chief among them is probably the fact that the area you're visiting is near the border. It's clearly a sensitive issue these days, as you well know, probably more than it's ever been. And I think the reason is because a certain president as managed to make it a national issue by making people afraid. Much conservative thought is fear-based. But you probably know that. And you also probably know that many people who call themselves conservative aren't conservative at all but instead, are radical or reactionary.

The family used to own a cottage on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. My wife and I, when we were younger, used to sometimes go to the less visited parts of the National Seashore so we could be nude on the beach. But in recent years signs have appeared that specifically prohibited nudity on the beach. I have no idea what caused those signs to be put there but I could make so guesses. Most likely, some highly vocal (loud voices are the ones that are heard) and local individual decided they didn't want naked people on 'their' beach and did something about it. Of course, on the other hand, there are always those who push the envelope, sometimes unwisely, but who knows.

Ironically, I think there might be more legal nude beaches in the U.S. than ever and more public nude 'happenings,' to use an old word. The naked bike rides, body painting festivals, things like that. They don't happen in a lot of places but just the same, some attitudes are changing. But in the meantime, the extreme right is worried about illegal immigrants. Why let in legal immigrants, then? Who knows what we're supposed to be afraid of tomorrow?
Title: Re: Surveillance society
Post by: jbeegoode on September 30, 2019, 11:17:46 PM
"Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs"

Down at Verde Hotsprings a couple of weeks ago, I saw a steel sign erected that said "Nudity Prohibited." In between in thick black letters was painted, "NOT." The place has been nude friendly and impossible to enforce for the five decades that I have been showing up. Look outs were placed in earlier days to keep the campgrounds free. There is similar reaction Redington Pass with some signage.

People resist injustice and the oppression of a few. I'd make those signs go away over and over again, if they meant that there would be no fair warning about local authority's attitudes and free beaches. Civil disobedience is an old tradition. It stopped prohibition.