Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Weird - the offending word seems to be "c asino"

[neoplacebo]

Question for the "Big Brother" people: If you go to a c a s i n o and pay attention, you'll find that there are hundreds of cameras, plus live humans monitoring everything that happens in the playing area. If you are in the c a s i n o, you can be assured that nothing you do is missed. If you're staying at the c a s i n o hotel (or actually most any hotel) you'll notice cameras in all the hallways, elevators, and parking lots. Surveillance is constant and universal, excluding only b a t h r o o m stalls (maybe) and hotel rooms (maybe). Why do you suppose the c a s i n o s do this?

There was a story tonight on WLOS that an 84 year old man was found dead in the creek that runs behind the cassino today. The story noted that he was recorded falling into the creek about 4am but not found until about 9am. Either they don't watch the creek very much, or there's a five hour window of opportunity in there.

[O Really]

Yes, that's where the case and slime are and they've got the cash to protect it. That is, to some degree, correct. But with a lot of money to protect, and a gazillion dollars to spend on security, and a well-founded belief that some significant percentage of the gambling population is going to try to rip them off (or rip off a fellow gambler), upon the advice of some of the top security experts in the world, they believe that looking at everyone everywhere all the time is the best base point of an effective security process.

[O Really]

There is nothing they won't do if they think they can get away with it. What makes you think otherwise?

Red scare, J. Edgar, yada...goes back a long time and the wrongs are attributable to a lot of different people. Not to defend them specifically.

But exactly is the "they" to whom you refer?

[O Really]

"some significant percentage of the gambling population" and their own employees. Yes, I've heard that police states are very safe places, except from the police.

'Zactly - but that's the point. Security is security in principle, but private organizations have more latitude in creating a "police state" than the government does. But the issue is in where the government's limit is - that is, at what point do legitimate efforts at security become unconstitutionally intrusive. There is a point somewhere, of course, but I'm not so sure it has been found yet.

[O Really]

I read the thread about rejections. My post had no embedded links or anything. With the term (masked) "c asino" the post goes through. With the term "c asino" un-disguised, it gets rejected. So what is it with "cas-ino" that gets kicked back?

Ironic that happens on a thread discussing fed intrusion and "Big Brother" issues.

[O Really]

...] Odd, I thought I listed some quite recent examples. Oh, they're back now.

Yes, it does go back a long time and with little changing is my point. When does a decades-old series of "aberrations" merit being called the norm?[/color]

But exactly is the "they" to whom you refer?

The national security state, however it manifests at a given time. It's not a cabal of individuals, it's a self-sustaining structure limited only by the amount of our money thrown at it and the systemic controls we demand.[/quote]
You did give recent examples. And I generally oppose the examples - old and recent - you offered. But look at it like this: the US has a strong military force. One can argue whether it is used in the best interest of the country, or whether it could be managed better, but it's hard to argue that the US should not have a strong military force. I see intelligence gathering in the same way - one can argue about whether it's managed properly or is always used in the best interest of the country, but I see no place for argument that the US shouldn't have extensive and top line intelligence gathering capability.

The real problem here isn't the individuals who run NSA, etc. It's that the US is a violent, imperialistic, jingoistic country that supports such tactics. Remember, Joe McCarthy wasn't an outlaw, he was an elected and widely respected member of Congress. "We have met the enemy and he is us"

[O Really]

casino

[O Really]

And the one above...It was originally rejected, and I didn't re-submit. When I tried to make this comment as a response to that use of the awful word meaning a place where bets are made and money is tossed away like down a drain, it rejected the response. What is the deal with c asino? And if it's so smart, what doesn't it know we're making fun of it by spelling it "c asino"?

[O Really]

It seems these board has turned into a conversation between Vrede and O Really with occasional stupid comments from Ombudsmen.

Feel free to participate if you have anything literate to say. But the quality of a discussion is measured not by the number of participants, but by the quality of the participants' thought. I've looked at a lot of forums, and I'll take Vrede over most anybody else when it comes to actual brain power. Ombudsman may have an abrasive style, but s/he's far from stupid. Maybe we're starting to see a reason you don't feel comfortable with this group.

[Sometime Lefty]

casino

[Sometime Lefty]

More then just c asino forbidden.

[O Really]

Must not like the lawyer accent.

Probably. This lawyer accent is, most of the time, pretty much standard American, with no regional identification. A few extra glasses of wine, however, turns up vestiges of Philadelphia, New York and (gasp) Floridish. But why a reference to a c asino is forbidden is beyond me. (damn, I tried to sneak it through, and it jammed me at door. How am I going to lose any money if I can't even go to the cas-ino?)

[neoplacebo]

I tried to post just the word and also inserted it into my list of suggestions for the name of the royal baby just born; both ways were "forbidden." By the way, my favorite names for the royal kid (assuming he'll be King one day) are "Coal" "Cotton" and "Hell." Of course, there would be a Roman numeral I as a suffix to any of them. I'm partial to Hell myself. King Hell.

[O Really]

That's my point. It's no shady conspiracy where a few gather to plot abuses. It's a system in which the rewards are weighted far too heavily to "security" over rights or even economic health. Like a large corporation, the players are interchangeable. Real reform only happens if the external costs and benefits are adjusted.

OK, if you want to argue that emphasis on "security" is overdone, and particularly since 9/11; and that people use "security" as a scare tactic to get what they might not otherwise get; and that a large part of the US population has become afraid of its own shadow... I'll go along with you. But it's not only (and maybe not even mostly) the government. Watch TV news - any channel, any location - the formula for presenting, ummm, "information" is "something awful happened in Boondock, OK - stay tuned to learn how to keep your family safe."

I would have no idea how to even start to change that.

[O Really]

Me neither. Michael Moore advanced the theory in Bowling for Columbine that America's biggest problem is the extreme fear held by its citizens and promoted across the media.

That is a big issue. Frightened people do strange and sometimes unpredictable things. If most citizens go around frightened all the time, we can only expect more craziness. On topic but with a lighter tone, can you think of all the things people, and especially kids did when we were kids that would be unthinkable now? F'rinstance, I rode a city bus to school in the first grade. On weekends, I took off on my bike with the only real instruction to "be home before dark." Playgrounds had equipment you could break an arm or leg on or chip a tooth. Neighborhood dogs ran loose (not that that's a good thing, but still...) We sometimes practiced baseball skills by trying to hit a rock with a stick. Catchers didn't always have a mask, and nobody had a batters' helmet. I'm sure everyone has some to add.

Point being, safety is important, and safety equipment is a good thing. But not if it's spurred by an ever-encroaching fear of being alive.

[Troll Patrol]

Me neither. Michael Moore advanced the theory in Bowling for Columbine that America's biggest problem is the extreme fear held by its citizens and promoted across the media.

That is a big issue. Frightened people do strange and sometimes unpredictable things. If most citizens go around frightened all the time, we can only expect more craziness. On topic but with a lighter tone, can you think of all the things people, and especially kids did when we were kids that would be unthinkable now? F'rinstance, I rode a city bus to school in the first grade. On weekends, I took off on my bike with the only real instruction to "be home before dark." Playgrounds had equipment you could break an arm or leg on or chip a tooth. Neighborhood dogs ran loose (not that that's a good thing, but still...) We sometimes practiced baseball skills by trying to hit a rock with a stick. Catchers didn't always have a mask, and nobody had a batters' helmet. I'm sure everyone has some to add.

Point being, safety is important, and safety equipment is a good thing. But not if it's spurred by an ever-encroaching fear of being alive.

Personal responsibility does wonders for self-preservation.

[O Really]

"Troll" says "Personal responsibility does wonders for self-preservation."
Yes, but only on the individual level. You or I can accept as much personal responsibility as possible, but that doesn't change the current widespread climate of fear in the US. It's like you and I can eat healthy and exercise, but we haven't changed anything about the increasingly obese society we live in. Care to comment on how to change the overall fear level?

[O Really]

This woman has a great blog/column... Free Range Kids
http://www.freerangekids.com/

[neoplacebo]

Me neither. Michael Moore advanced the theory in Bowling for Columbine that America's biggest problem is the extreme fear held by its citizens and promoted across the media.

That is a big issue. Frightened people do strange and sometimes unpredictable things. If most citizens go around frightened all the time, we can only expect more craziness. On topic but with a lighter tone, can you think of all the things people, and especially kids did when we were kids that would be unthinkable now? F'rinstance, I rode a city bus to school in the first grade. On weekends, I took off on my bike with the only real instruction to "be home before dark." Playgrounds had equipment you could break an arm or leg on or chip a tooth. Neighborhood dogs ran loose (not that that's a good thing, but still...) We sometimes practiced baseball skills by trying to hit a rock with a stick. Catchers didn't always have a mask, and nobody had a batters' helmet. I'm sure everyone has some to add.

Point being, safety is important, and safety equipment is a good thing. But not if it's spurred by an ever-encroaching fear of being alive.

Heh, I was once in a bicycle wreck in which I and my bicycle did a complete (almost) 360 degree flip, but I ended up landing on my face and most of the rest of the front of my body. This happened when I was about 13 years old, I'd say, but I remember it well. There were lots of common dangers back then that would be considered folly these days. I have always been against fear of living, sometimes to my own detriment. And I can remember hitting rocks with a baseball bat in random directions, shooting at birds with a bb gun, fooling around with fire......it was quite exhilirating at the time. Let the good times roll, I say. Where's my bicycle?