Re: [videoblogging] Re: The camera is the new gun.
- Original Message - From: Tony Since I know most digital camcorders can see infrared just fine I'm building an IR illumination device to use with my Xacti. It'll do pretty much the same function. I'm taking photos and some video of the build. I'll probably put it up on Instructables when I'm done. Rather than build one ... check out the Sony HVL-IRM .. I have one .. it works fine. $40 from BH Photo http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=HVL-IRMci=0sb=pspn=1sq=descInitialSearch=yesO=catalog.jspA=searchQ=*bhs=t Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The camera is the new gun.
Here's one to add to The Camera is the new gun list: http://tinyurl.com/6r9xwm Men with 'highly sensitive' cameras arrested at airport Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes My Demo Reels Blog http://1timstreet.com On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Since we've gotten political, wanted to bring the newest Lawrence Lessig project to the fore. Lessig, the same fellow who brought you the Creative Commons. Yeah. This new project is http://change-congress.org : This non-partisan movement invites members of Congress to agree to: 1) Support public financing of elections 2) Support banning earmarks 3) Swear off taking money from Lobbyiests and PAC's 4) Support transparency If the legislator agrees, Change-Congress will have a digital army ready - pledged - to send $X.00 campaign dollars their way. Don't agree? No money. http://change-congress.org/about/ Carrots, baby. Money talks. Jan On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well yes the trend towards laws that crackdown on this sort of stuff is alarming, and does not bode well. Frankly I expected even worse by now, recalling that in the first few years after 9/11, there were stories about how seemingly innocent video of tourist attractions was actually fiendish terrorist planning videos. So the London police camera posters fill me with despair but the satirical treatment of them gives me some small hope. Even without a war on terror moron error, Im not someone who feels too comfortable waving a camera round in public, as I know some humans feel it is invasive. I dont know about the USA but in Britain the internet is commonly mentioned on TV news debate shows in a negative light, paedophiles terrorists, so I just roll my eyes when I see similar tactics in the newspapers too. Anyway you know I have speculated in the past as to what future our governments may be planning for, although its also possible that there are more basic motives at work. The police usually want as much power as they can get, more laws to be on their side, new weapons and evidence gathering devices. Some corporations make the technology that suits this paranoid surveillance game, so theres the basic profit motive potential to corrupt government there. As for this not arguing anymore, in order for that to work you possibly shouldnt mention most of the points argued about, or goading those that 'defend the corporate agenda' to respond. Where does my position fit into that narrow representation? Because you hopefully know that I believe government imposed restrictions that affect vlogging are already here in some countries, and remain a real possibility at any time in the future. Restriction of such things is one of the first things governments tend to do when they feel under threat, and even in tines of relative security, its the sort of right that ebbs away unless continually fought for. But this would happen in a counry without corporations too. And you know I scoff at the idea that corporations have an agenda to crush independent media. Mostly because they dont need to. Corporations strengths over small business, indies, individuals, is part of their design, business as usual assures their dominance, they dont need to take extra measures to crush. Now over the course of a generation the whole game could change because of the internet, but its by no means a cert, and its entirely possible they could dominate the net without taking any special measures or doing any deliberate crushing. I mean really, I am hardly a fan of corporations, I read lots of stuff about bad things they do, just as i know small business and government also cause bad, as do individuals. Due to their scale, governments and corporations can do the harm on a far larger scale, and we have greater expectations about what good they should be doing instead. And yeah, humans appear to be too hypocritical and corrupt to save the world. Some think that if we can only harness the sorts of thinking that can happen in war, but in the struggle against climate change and resource depletion in a time of peace, we might stand a chance. I fear that it will be harnessed through actual war. Can anybody imagine the global internet existing as we know it if there ws a non-nuclear war on the scale of world war 2 in future? And that would also be an end the the complexities of debates about free speech, rights to photograph, gossip, whistleblow be a real journalist or citizen? 'Theres a war on' will be the justification for everything, and the grumbling will have to be more low-key than we have become used to. Now as much as the war on terror effect has been used to bring in lots of
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The camera is the new gun.
Since we've gotten political, wanted to bring the newest Lawrence Lessig project to the fore. Lessig, the same fellow who brought you the Creative Commons. Yeah. This new project is http://change-congress.org : This non-partisan movement invites members of Congress to agree to: 1) Support public financing of elections 2) Support banning earmarks 3) Swear off taking money from Lobbyiests and PAC's 4) Support transparency If the legislator agrees, Change-Congress will have a digital army ready - pledged - to send $X.00 campaign dollars their way. Don't agree? No money. http://change-congress.org/about/ Carrots, baby. Money talks. Jan On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well yes the trend towards laws that crackdown on this sort of stuff is alarming, and does not bode well. Frankly I expected even worse by now, recalling that in the first few years after 9/11, there were stories about how seemingly innocent video of tourist attractions was actually fiendish terrorist planning videos. So the London police camera posters fill me with despair but the satirical treatment of them gives me some small hope. Even without a war on terror moron error, Im not someone who feels too comfortable waving a camera round in public, as I know some humans feel it is invasive. I dont know about the USA but in Britain the internet is commonly mentioned on TV news debate shows in a negative light, paedophiles terrorists, so I just roll my eyes when I see similar tactics in the newspapers too. Anyway you know I have speculated in the past as to what future our governments may be planning for, although its also possible that there are more basic motives at work. The police usually want as much power as they can get, more laws to be on their side, new weapons and evidence gathering devices. Some corporations make the technology that suits this paranoid surveillance game, so theres the basic profit motive potential to corrupt government there. As for this not arguing anymore, in order for that to work you possibly shouldnt mention most of the points argued about, or goading those that 'defend the corporate agenda' to respond. Where does my position fit into that narrow representation? Because you hopefully know that I believe government imposed restrictions that affect vlogging are already here in some countries, and remain a real possibility at any time in the future. Restriction of such things is one of the first things governments tend to do when they feel under threat, and even in tines of relative security, its the sort of right that ebbs away unless continually fought for. But this would happen in a counry without corporations too. And you know I scoff at the idea that corporations have an agenda to crush independent media. Mostly because they dont need to. Corporations strengths over small business, indies, individuals, is part of their design, business as usual assures their dominance, they dont need to take extra measures to crush. Now over the course of a generation the whole game could change because of the internet, but its by no means a cert, and its entirely possible they could dominate the net without taking any special measures or doing any deliberate crushing. I mean really, I am hardly a fan of corporations, I read lots of stuff about bad things they do, just as i know small business and government also cause bad, as do individuals. Due to their scale, governments and corporations can do the harm on a far larger scale, and we have greater expectations about what good they should be doing instead. And yeah, humans appear to be too hypocritical and corrupt to save the world. Some think that if we can only harness the sorts of thinking that can happen in war, but in the struggle against climate change and resource depletion in a time of peace, we might stand a chance. I fear that it will be harnessed through actual war. Can anybody imagine the global internet existing as we know it if there ws a non-nuclear war on the scale of world war 2 in future? And that would also be an end the the complexities of debates about free speech, rights to photograph, gossip, whistleblow be a real journalist or citizen? 'Theres a war on' will be the justification for everything, and the grumbling will have to be more low-key than we have become used to. Now as much as the war on terror effect has been used to bring in lots of legislation, and fight a few regionalized wars, and although it did cause a lot of critical debate to fall silent for several years in the USA, it has not had the huge impact that a real world war would actually have on all these issues. So whats my message here, 'this is as good as it gets?', 'you aint seen nothing yet?'. Hope not. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a strange new world, eh? So interesting...
