Why the abuse?

[Crackle]

What did you say Bollo.

 

[magnatom]

Eh? I don't know enough about the use of CCTV etc, the use of personal material etc in general, to have a strong opinion. I know from talking to others (not FM) that this is a very complex subject. I thought I made it fairly clear that I am generally on the side of freedom of information, but I am happy to acknowledge the limits of my understanding of the subject. What is wrong with that (I also say this in my article that I published without input from anyone else).

As for wibbly at the knees, academically, I am probably in a similar position to FM although probably a bit more junior, however, I have a number of papers published, and am currently working on grants in excess of a million squid. So to suggest that I go wibbly is a bit of a stretch.

I am however, willing to admit that my knowledge on the subject of surveillance is significantly less than FM's. What's wrong with that?

As for road safety, especially with respect to cycling, I have a good knowledge set, however, even here I have a vast amount to learn. I have said this on numerous occasions, it's just that some people filter out what they don't want to see.

 

[bonj2]

I know that research has shown cyclists tend to earn more

starting another thread about this.
http://cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29881

 

[Crackle]

Can't you think of a better question, we know the answer to that one. Like ...............actually you have to think of it. Read FM's post for a clue.

 

[bonj2]

How and why do you think it has become a 'buzz-word' bonj? I'll tell you why. It is because people like me have been doing research for the last twenty years into exactly this and the media has finally started to take some notice.

It would help sometimes if you took account of more than your superficial reactions to things.

All I'm saying is I think that if you've got a problem with a particular instance of surveillance, you should deal with that on its own merits, rather than lumping it together with all the other surveillance into a general rant on 'the surveillance society' as a whole. I'm not saying you do that all the time, but you do sometimes, and I can appreciate it must be very tempting to do that. Therefore I personally think you would carry more credibility (possibly only with me, which probably doesn't matter to you, but possibly also with others) if you made a deliberate concerted effort to avoid tarring all surveillers with the same big fat tarry brush.
Have you in the course of your research come across any evidence that the tendency to initiate surveillance exhibits 'bandwagon' type behaviour, i.e. that organisations/people do it simply because 'it's the done thing now' or simply because the fact that others do it conveys a perception that there is a general need to do it? Do you think that's why magnatom does it?

 

[downfader]

Can't you think of a better question, we know the answer to that one. Like ...............actually you have to think of it. Read FM's post for a clue.
__________________


I thought I knew the answer, but now I'm not so sure.

"I'll admit, I probably don't know enough about the subject, to know which side I am on!" and "I'm always open to advice in this area from yourself and others."

It's like a rug of certainty has been pulled form under my feet!!!

You know you appear to have a real chip on your shoulder by the way you launch into your recent posts on here. Is THAT why you called yourself,maggot?

Seriously though. Dont be so facetious. It doesnt harm you or affect you in the long run and your exhibiting the same paranoia that people have shown me when I walk around with my SLR

 

[magnatom]

*So, you are unsure about the use of personal material in general regarding official and un-official surveillance, and it's posting on the internet. So are you right or wrong to do it?

*Honestly, jolly well done for being involved in a study worth over a million quid, thats great. Also I am glad to hear that you are academically the equal of FM, although somewhat junior.

*Of course there is nothing wrong with admitting your knowledge on FMs specialist subject is less than his.

All of this adoration of FM though, it worries me. What if he mulls it over and decides that what you do is a bad idea? Will you apologise to everyone you have filmed and dismantle the blog/website etc? Listen, forget about FM, and his huge surveillance brain, what do you think?

Do you think you are right to do what you do? Yes or No?

Let me make this simple for you.

I think what I am doing is right. Simple.

Now nothing is that simple of course. It is possible that encouraging others to use cameras might have an effect that I have not thought of. It is possible that people would misuse cameras for other means etc. So that is something I have to be mindful of and be willing to listen to those who I consider the experts. If it was simple do you think FM would have been working in this area for so long?

I mentioned my work and academic status to show that I have an understanding of the breadth and depth of work that goes on in academia. There is no way in the world that I could understand FM's subject as well as he does, just as there is no way in the world that FM would have more than a simple understanding of my work. So I expect when I talk about MRI on here (and I have) that FM would listen and pay me the respect I deserve, when I talk about a subject I know a lot about. The same goes for me, when FM talks about surveillance issues.

I am open minded, and shock horror, if new data information etc was to somehow show that what I am doing is wrong and bad, yes I would stop. Of course FM is just one such resaercher, and researchers disagree, so I would have to look at what FM said and balance that against other experts.

Does that clarify things for you? Does it all seem reasonable?


P.S. I am involved with a number of studies, not just one, totaling over a million squid.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Have you in the course of your research come across any evidence that the tendency to initiate surveillance exhibits 'bandwagon' type behaviour, i.e. that organisations/people do it simply because 'it's the done thing now' or simply because the fact that others do it conveys a perception that there is a general need to do it? Do you think that's why magnatom does it?

Now, that is a very good question, probably the best that's been asked here.

I think that we are seeing here (and in many cases like it) a kind of 'normalisation' of surveillance - the use of what used to be quite specialist technologies and unusual (even dubious) practices for normal, everyday interactions.

That doesn't mean it is wrong: social networking is simply technologically-mediated communication, and it doesn't become wrong because of the method. It should however make us question what kind of society we are making, and whether think we want that kind of society - where we are all watching each other through cameras instead of talking.

You seem pretty blase about it, and about your right to privacy, dignity etc. That is quite common amongst younger people, and teenagers in particular, the kinds of people who don't think much about consequences, or haven't yet done much that they would regard as private.

 

[bonj2]

Now, that is a very good question, probably the best that's been asked here.

I think that we are seeing here (and in many cases like it) a kind of 'normalisation' of surveillance - the use of what used to be quite specialist technologies and unusual (even dubious) practices for normal, everyday interactions.

If there is a normalisation, is that normalisation any more than coincidence?

And what's an example of "unusual/dubious practices for normal/everyday interactions" ? not saying there aren't any just wondered what you mean by this.

That doesn't mean it is wrong: social networking is simply technologically-mediated communication, and it doesn't become wrong because of the method. It should however make us question what kind of society we are making, and whether think we want that kind of society - where we are all watching each other through cameras instead of talking.

I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Which is fine, normally, but if you're claiming to be an expert on the subject and to have been researching it for 20 years or whatever then I would expect you not to use such sweeping, emotive generalisations. Are you impartial, or do you actually just front a campaign against use of surveillance?
I know there is a difference between what you would put in a report and what you would say on a cycle forum but it's clear that phrases like that just trip off the tongue with no qualms.
The issue is we clearly aren't ALL watching each other through cameras! I know you'll claim it's a figure of speech or whatever, but it to me displays an irrational viewpoint on the issue.

You seem pretty blase about it, and about your right to privacy, dignity etc. That is quite common amongst younger people, and teenagers in particular, the kinds of people who don't think much about consequences, or haven't yet done much that they would regard as private.

I don't think I do have a right to privacy, any more than I have a right to, say, a car, or leisure facilities, or to be served in a particular shop.
If I want a car, I'll buy one with my own money and get licensed to use it - but if I don't cough up the money, or aren't licensed, I can't expect to have a car. It's not my right.
If I want to use leisure facilities, or get served in a pub/shop, then as long as I'm civil I normally will be allowed to - but they don't have to serve me - it isn't my right either. But if i don't be civil, then I might be chucked out, and can't expect to exert any 'right' to be served.
If I want privacy, I'll go in my house and maybe shut the curtains. But if I don't do that, then I can't expect privacy - if i do something in the street, in full view of the public, then I can't expect to exert any 'right' to privacy.
People are far too obsessed with their 'rights' these days, and it isn't just chavs. As an example was watching road wars the other day and some fat bint in a people carrier got stopped, with about 3 toddler-age kids in the back and boyfriend in tow. She didn't seem to know much about why she should have a valid tax disc or insurance, but she seemed to know plenty about the officers' 'duty of care' towards her and her kids who were supposedly 10 miles from home. It pleased me when she was told where to get off, but there are plenty of cases where this isn't the case, and it just shows that in the same way that you're railing against what you see as 'the surveillance society' becoming ever prominent in today's day and age, what's more worrying to me is the trend in the development of a 'rights' based culture.
It's worrying the amount of education some organisations and people put out to people about what their rights are.
I wish people would think more along the lines of what can I DO for the world rather than what the world OWES me - people should be rewarded for thinking so.

 

[magnatom]

- where we are all watching each other through cameras instead of talking.

Actually, this is a very interesting point you have raised. One I don't agree with. Look at what my filming and posting has done, it has instigated talking. How many words have been typed or even talked on the back of my videoing? A lot. Sure, there is a lot of noise, but there is a signal within it.

By continuing to post videos hopefully people will continue to talk, and who knows maybe some of these conversations will lead to ideas/progress (oh, I've gone all hopelessly optimistic!)

 

[magnatom]

I wish people would think more along the lines of what can I DO for the world rather than what the world OWES me - people should be rewarded for thinking so.

Do I get an award then?

 

[bonj2]

Do I get an award then?

You should probably try and milk the press for one.

 

[magnatom]

You should probably try and milk the press for one.

Ahh, for my wonderful article in the CTC magazine. How do you apply for the Purlitzer?

 

[Watt-O]

Isn't is a bit sad and ego centric to film yourself and then publish the article for public consumption? Although, maybe not as sad as people who just watch them.


p.s where and how do your mount your handycam?

 

[magnatom]

Isn't is a bit sad and ego centric to film yourself and then publish the article for public consumption? Although, maybe not as sad as people who just watch them.


p.s where and how do your mount your handycam?

No. If I was sad and ego-centric I would have a second camera pointing at me filming my reactions. I could then do a little piece to the camera at the end of each incident.



Mmmm, can I afford another camera....

It's on my noggin!