View Full Version : British the Most Spied-On People in Western World
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- what's with you wacky Brits (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-2426874,00.html)? How did you lose all of your "ancient liberties"? Wha'happen?
British the most spied-on people in western world
Lois Rogers
BRITISH people are now more spied upon by their political leaders than any other population in the free world, according to an official report.
The linkage of databases and surveillance systems mean people are now having their movements tracked, habits profiled and photograph taken hundreds of times a day. The findings, in a report compiled on behalf of Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, raised concerns that Britain is “waking up in a surveillance society”.
Thomas said: “Many of these schemes are public sector driven, and the individual has no choice over whether or not to take part. People are being scrutinised and having their lives tracked, and are not even aware of it.
“They don’t know, for instance, that a record is kept of every internet site they visit. They don’t realise that when identity cards come in, there will be a record of their movements and every time they have engaged with any public service.”
He also revealed that his office is investigating allegations of lax security at the Post Office, HSBC, NatWest and the Royal Bank of Scotland. The banks may face unlimited fines over claims that they dumped sensitive details of customers’ accounts on the streets.
The report, compiled by surveillance experts and academics, points out that a typical Briton will be caught on camera up to 300 times a day. Britain now has 4.2m public CCTV cameras, or one for every 14 people, more than any other country.
Other examples of surveillance highlighted by the report include the growing use of automatic number plate recognition to track people’s journeys and the long-term retention of logs detailing the websites people visit at home.
“It’s not just unwarranted intrusions into privacy, it’s also the dangers of inaccurate information, of mistakes being made, of information being held for too long,” Thomas said. He cited an example of a schoolgirl whose playground banter resulted in her father being refused work because he had been classed as a suspected paedophile. “The little girl was overheard saying, ‘My dad bonked me last night’. A dinner lady heard this and reported it to the school authorities,” Thomas said. Social services discovered that the girl was referring to her father tapping her playfully on the head with an inflatable hammer. The file was closed, but five years later the father discovered he was still a suspected sex offender.
CrossLOPER
10-29-2006, 18:58
I think everyone should be a suspected sex offender.
Blodrast
10-29-2006, 21:18
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Wha'happen?
Somebody set them up the bomb!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-29-2006, 21:20
We've told you before. We're subjects, not citizens.
If HM Government wants they can evict everyone in the Esat End and build Tony a Castle.
We have no rights and no constitution.
This isn't good at all.
My user title is definitely changing.
lancelot
10-29-2006, 21:40
I do despair over the state of the country sometimes...the 'Great' has definitely been taken out of Great Britain...
Even the most basic of homes are fast becoming ludicrously expensive...the average age of a first time buyer is now in the 30s IIRC!!!???!!! Buying (and even renting a place in some cases) on your own is now not far short of impossible.
NHS is a joke in many areas. You have to make an appointment at least a week in advance to see a GP.
Especially near/in London it costs a fortune to move around. Worse still, every year fares go up without no discernable improvement in facilities. London motorists are quite unfairly made to contribute to this fund in addition to a annual road tax...
Immigration control is a soft touch (the words of an immigration dept employee, no less)
We have a 'Labour' government that has so far tried to ban protests within 100 yards of Parliament, banned protest outside of a conference under the guise of 'public safety', students fees are skyrocketing at each review of education costs (despite the government who enacted this change had the benefit of free education if needed) and pretty much instituted a charge/fare/tax to attempt to solve every problem it faces.
In short... :help:
On the plus side there is just so much spying going on you'll probably be lost in the insane mass of information. Can't see the wood for the trees etc.
Hopefully we'll get a competant government sooner or later too! You can but hope.
rory_20_uk
10-30-2006, 00:10
The density of our population does assist with data gathering. Although as has been said, so what, there's data. Who's doing what with it?
We are Great Britain as opposed to Brittany.
Immigration may mean it's easy to get in, but the rules are draconian against those that are merely working and not in the EU. Nurses are now not having contracts renewed, and will be deported unless they've been here 5 years (a new law increased it from 4, and was then postdated... nice).
~:smoking:
CrossLOPER
10-30-2006, 01:19
Somebody set them up the bomb!
All your base are belong to us.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- what's with you wacky Brits (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-2426874,00.html)? How did you lose all of your "ancient liberties"? Wha'happen?Why do you hate freedom? :no:
Incongruous
10-30-2006, 01:57
It's times like these that we remeber the Gloriuos Revolution, so gloriuos in-fact that most of the population has been conned into a conpletley perverse system of government. It's times like these that the word Republic and
C(r)ommonwealth spring to mind.
hehe, my little nod to history.
King Ragnar
10-30-2006, 18:04
I blame muslims ( the ones that want to blow us up of course the ones that hold up sign saying kill the pope are fine)
professorspatula
10-30-2006, 19:31
Britain may 4.2 million CCTV cameras, but from what I've seen whilst watching Crimewatch UK, only about 4 of them are capable of capturing anything more than an indistinctive fuzzy moving blob. The average criminal's face seems to consist of nothing more than about 6 pixels.
Vladimir
10-30-2006, 20:10
I blame muslims ( the ones that want to blow us up of course the ones that hold up sign saying kill the pope are fine)
Weren't so many of those cameras in London installed to catch people driving who hadn't properly paid their taxes? The "Muslim problem" has only recently come to light and can't possibly account for such a large domestic surveillance system.
How come no one talks about MI5?
Crazed Rabbit
10-30-2006, 20:11
Gah, I think Ragnar's a bit off the deep end.
I think Britain is very useful- as an example of what a country should not do.
CR
Gah, I think Ragnar's a bit off the deep end.
I think Britain is very useful- as an example of what a country should not do.
CR
It's not that bad. Seriously.
Now, our crappy current government, they are a good example of what to avoid.
Crazed Rabbit
10-30-2006, 20:31
Well, not yet. But they continue to delve fearlessly into some kind of Orwellian police state. Hopefully this could be solved with a change of the government.
CR
I am starting to think that the Labour government is secretly communist! It's strange that they have managed to stay in power so long with Tony Blair at it's head. The words "corrupt voting system" suddenly to mind...
~:joker: This was a joke!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-30-2006, 20:43
No, the phrase you are actually looking for is "apathetic non-voters."
Labour was electedby 18% of the general populace. That is why I'm in favour of compolsory voting.
lancelot
10-30-2006, 20:59
I am starting to think that the Labour government is secretly communist! It's strange that they have managed to stay in power so long with Tony Blair at it's head. The words "corrupt voting system" suddenly to mind...
Considering clause 4 left the manifesto of the Labour Party faster than some bullets leave guns, Communist is hardly a word Id choose to describe our beloved Furher Tory...sorry - Tony...
No, the phrase you are actually looking for is "apathetic non-voters."
Labour was electedby 18% of the general populace. That is why I'm in favour of compolsory voting.
Id put it down to the voting system regarding the last election. If 'first past the post' had been booted out the Torys would be in. (although ironically enough the Torys have probably been the staunchest supporters of this voting system)
No, the phrase you are actually looking for is "apathetic non-voters."
Labour was electedby 18% of the general populace. That is why I'm in favour of compolsory voting.
That's never a good solution. All that gets you is a big flock of uninformed voters that either vote randomly or by some ridiculous criteria such as who's prettier or who has a nicer name, ect.
Worse still, these new mandatory voters would dillute the voting power of those who actually care enough to follow the issues and come out to vote of their own free will. I'll never be in favor of any sort of mandatory voting- if someone can't be bothered to come out and exercise their voting power, we're better off without them.
New Labour aren't communists. Look at how much the divide between the rich and poor has grown in the last few years. It's just horrific.
That's never a good solution. All that gets you is a big flock of uninformed voters that either vote randomly or by some ridiculous criteria such as who's prettier or who has a nicer name, ect.
wow, you mean im not supposed to vote for the candidate with the nicest voice? :oops: (actually i can't vote, but meh) :2thumbsup:
I agree that compulsory voting is a bad idea, but maybe a public holiday on the day of election would encourage voters
King Ragnar
10-30-2006, 22:45
Gah, I think Ragnar's a bit off the deep end.
I think Britain is very useful- as an example of what a country should not do.
CR
What is this deep end you speak off? :help:
Crazed Rabbit
10-31-2006, 00:58
Ragnar:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/22/ec/3b64225b9da00611c7bcb010.L.jpg
New Labour aren't communists. Look at how much the divide between the rich and poor has grown in the last few years. It's just horrific.
And what happened in the USSR? What was the gap there between politburo and peasant?
Crazed Rabbit
Papewaio
10-31-2006, 03:26
That's never a good solution. All that gets you is a big flock of uninformed voters that either vote randomly or by some ridiculous criteria such as who's prettier or who has a nicer name, ect.
Worse still, these new mandatory voters would dillute the voting power of those who actually care enough to follow the issues and come out to vote of their own free will. I'll never be in favor of any sort of mandatory voting- if someone can't be bothered to come out and exercise their voting power, we're better off without them.
Or because they have to turn up or face a fine they will bother to do some research and make a contribution. It also stops employers blocking employees from voting too. Of course once they turn up they can either not vote, do a donkey vote, or actually vote properly as they so choose.
Just look at the wonderful coalition of the willing.
Torture and total lack of rights for non-citizens, welling to relocate the Berlin Wall and put it along the southern border (I bet they would have out the wall along California too if they could get away with it).
Most spied upon western country in the world.
And the third has compulsory voting and one of the largest kick backs to Saddam Hussein.
And those three are supposed to be the "good guys" :wall:
Crazed Rabbit
10-31-2006, 04:11
Trying to actually make a secure border is setting up another 'Berlin Wall'?! That's cheap and out of character Pape, as is your gross implification and misstatement of 'torture and no rights for non-citizens'.
A cursory examination shows the Berlin wall was built to keep people in, any walls on our souther border are to keep people out.
None of that has anything to do with the topic.
CR
Papewaio
10-31-2006, 04:25
It is the USA that is making laws to allow torture on non-US citizens. Check.
It is the USA that wishes to build a wall between itself and Mexico to stop illegal immigration. The only difference with the Berlin Wall is the direction of flow, one was to keep peope in, while the new one is to keep people out. "Give us your poor..." is no longer a true statement and "Truth, Justice and the American Way" is no longer a superflous statement.
Britain as mentioned by the article is the most spied upon people by their own government. That may not be totally true, they are the most spied upon that their government tells them that they are doing so, other governments may be a bit more carnivorous I mean cautious in declaring how much they follow their citizens.
Australia has compulsory voting (which some think is an assualt on the right to say no) and is responsible for one of the biggest oil for food kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. Add to it the reputation of being very harsh on people who try and enter Australia via sea illegally (those who land by air and overstay don't have the SAS knocking down their doors) and other relatively harsh measures.
So in short these 3 don't look like beacons of justice, truth and fairplay.
All 3 of them are guilty of using fear to push through laws that reduce liberty for increased security. All 3 are failing to uphold what their forefathers achieved.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Crazed Rabbit
10-31-2006, 04:36
It is the USA that is making laws to allow torture on non-US citizens. Check.
Perhaps you need to read the actual law.
It is the USA that wishes to build a wall between itself and Mexico to stop illegal immigration. The only difference with the Berlin Wall is the direction of flow, one was to keep peope in, while the new one is to keep people out. "Give us your poor..." is no longer a true statement and "Truth, Justice and the American Way" is no longer a superflous statement.
"Give us your poor was never an official policy and we've always had limits on immigration. And yes, a wall to protect your country has no relation whatsoever to a wall designed to keep people in. What site did you get your 'is no longer a superflous statement' bit from?
Australia has compulsory voting (which some think is an assualt on the right to say no) and is responsible for one of the biggest oil for food kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. Add to it the reputation of being very harsh on people who try and enter Australia via sea illegally (those who land by air and overstay don't have the SAS knocking down their doors) and other relatively harsh measures.
A second ago you were supporting compulsory voting.
Get a grip Pape. No country is perfect, but you probably listed some of the best countries in the world right there. A few flaws do not make us evil; they do not remove us from being good and right, they do not force a passive acceptance of morale neutrality between us and our enemies, nor do they make our enemies better.
Compared to the other countries of the world, the USA is a beacon.
Crazed Rabbit
CrossLOPER
10-31-2006, 04:42
"Give us your poor..." is no longer a true statement
Sorry Pape, have to hit you here.
The poor are welcome, but they must give back as much as they recieve. Paying dues would be a start.
Papewaio
10-31-2006, 04:44
a) I do support compulsory voting and enforcing boundaries of countries. Others see them as unfair restraints on freedom. I don't think building a wall and feeding on the moronic fear of racial supremacy groups for votes is a good thing.
b) The beacon has fallen a few rungs on the international pecking order for freedoms and cannot be construed as number one.
c) It was one of the US founders that made the quote about those giving up liberties for freedoms deserve neither.
Crazed Rabbit
10-31-2006, 04:55
a) I do support compulsory voting and enforcing boundaries of countries. Others see them as unfair restraints on freedom. I don't think building a wall and feeding on the moronic fear of racial supremacy groups for votes is a good thing.
Which is it then? Secure borders or having the liberals feel warm and fuzzy?
b) The beacon has fallen a few rungs on the international pecking order for freedoms and cannot be construed as number one.
Not so.
c) It was one of the US founders that made the quote about those giving up liberties for freedoms deserve neither.
Funny you say that, since I believe you support the destruction of what the founders considered the foremost right- to be armed and be able to bear arms.
CR
IRONxMortlock
10-31-2006, 05:48
Funny you say that, since I believe you support the destruction of what the founders considered the foremost right- to be armed and be able to bear arms.CR
What Pape believes doesn't change anything. It doesn't alter Franklin's quote or ideas.
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
I don't like the word "deserve" in the quote as I don't believe anyone deserves to live without liberty or security. However he is correct in saying that when you throw away your liberties in the aim of feeling safer you'll end up with neither.
Back on topic,
I have to say that I find the level of survelliance on the civilian population in the UK to be extreme. I read this article today which is relevant to this thread.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1934370,00.html
The way the police treat us verges on the criminal
Guilty until proven innocent now seems to be the watchword of a government that increasingly treats its law-abiding citizens with absolute contempt
Henry Porter
Sunday October 29, 2006
The Observer
A father and his eight-year-old son got off a train at Blackpool on a Friday evening two weeks ago to be confronted by a number of police officers moving passengers towards a scanner. There was a mildly threatening manner about them and it was clear that they expected everyone to pass through the scanner, which they said was being used to search for knives.
The man, whose name is Danny, quietly told the police that unless they had a very good reason, he would not be searched. One or two passengers hesitated, then joined him in refusing to go through the scanner. The police were clearly disgruntled, but couldn't do anything because Danny was right: they had to have reasonable grounds for suspecting he was carrying a knife in order to search him. 'I am not some rabid left winger or civil libertarian,' he wrote in an email to me. 'It just seems we are allowing a police state to be developed without an argument.' On the phone, he seemed to modify this by saying that the police behaviour had been oppressive.
Thank God there are still people like Danny who know the law and understand that part of its fragile essence is the respect for the rights of the innocent citizen when confronted with authority. The British Transport Police may insist that its Operation Shield, as this random trawl is known, is for the common good in that it fights knife crime, but think twice about the attitude it betrays and you realise that it is another small erosion in the esteem for the individual. Such behaviour makes everyone a suspect.
Tony Blair talks incessantly about respect, yet there are few who have done more to degrade authority's respect for the public. Nowhere is that better seen than in the behaviour of the police, which gradually becomes more coercive and imbued with the idea that we are all bad hats until we prove otherwise. We now live in a country where the idea of wrongful arrest has become a historic curiosity and where anyone can be arrested for the slightest offence and compelled to become part of the government's DNA database.
We live in a country where young boys - one was just seven - are taken aside and questioned for trying to knock conkers out of chestnut trees on public ground. Where a grandmother whose neighbour accused her of not returning a ball kicked into her garden was arrested, fingerprinted and required to give her DNA. The police went through every room in her house, even her daughter's drawers, before letting her go without charge or caution.
Where two sisters can be arrested after a peaceful protest about climate change, held in solitary confinement for 36 hours without being allowed to make a phone call, then told not to talk to each other as a condition of their bail. As this paper reported, their money, keys, computers, discs and phones were confiscated, their homes searched.
There is much more, all of it enabled by Blair's laws and encouraged by a vindictive and erroneous contention that defendants' rights must be reduced in the pursuit of more and quicker prosecutions. Our prisons are full, problem teenagers are, by default, exiled to a kind of outlawry and every citizen becomes the subject of an almost hysterical need by the authorities to check up on and chivvy them.
The government regards us not just as wedded to too many regrettable vices - smoking, speeding, drinking too much, eating unhealthy food and taking no exercise - but also as innately prone to law-breaking. Perhaps with good reason, since, according to the Liberal Democrat homes affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, some 3,000 criminal offences have been created by Labour. The more crimes there are, the more criminals there will be.
Mass surveillance has begun on our motorways and in our town centres. Metropolitan drivers increasingly find themselves pressed into numberplate-recognition camera traps on the same principle that inspires Operation Shield. Everyone has something to hide unless they can prove otherwise, which is why the police also enthusiastically pursue samples for the DNA database. (Incidentally, by next year, the total number of profiles will rise to three million, one in five of which will belong to black people.)
The police are in their very own heaven and demand more and more powers of instant justice, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. These will allow them to crush people's cars, issue more on-the-spot fines and ban 'undesirables' from any area they choose without having to go to court. Even parish councils are to become part of this culture of minatory bossiness. Instead of having to apply to central government to introduce new bylaws, they are to be given powers by Ruth Kelly, the Communities and Local Government Minister, to levy instant £100 fines for skateboarding, not cleaning up dog mess, busking and, no doubt, scrumping for apples and playing Pooh sticks. How will it end - with CCTV cameras watching small boys for inappropriate behaviour in the vicinity of horse chestnuts?
In his frantic terminality, Blair plans the sinister information-sharing index, otherwise known as the universal child register, and last week was musing that we should all have our DNA stored on the national base. Link this to his earlier remarks about identifying problem children who might grow up to be a menace to society by intervening before they were born and you begin to feel the chill of the technology-driven authoritarianism.
What runs through all this seems to be a rather surprising dislike of the British people. It was once possible to believe the government's unusual attention to law, order and behaviour was benevolent yet ill-conceived. Now it looks more like the result of late-onset sociopathy, influenced by a long period in power and the degenerate entanglement between Downing Street and the seething red-top newspapers.
The prevailing account of Britain in the current political establishment has become deeply pessimistic and, to my mind, wrong. Yes, we have problems with home-grown terrorism, loutishness, a swelling underclass, unintegrating minorities, but there is another story. Britain is also a success and it should occur to one of our political leaders to defy the orthodoxy of decline and compliment the nation on its adaptability and deep reserves of virtue and toleration.
Think of the charitable activity in this country, of the level of public debate that wells up in BBC programmes such as Any Questions, the deep interest in history, the eagerness of the audiences at arts festivals all over Britain, the humour and generosity of spirit, the commitment to local communities, to understanding each other's needs and of the array of passions and hobbies which absorb so many millions of people whose quiet, law-abiding fulfilment as Britons goes undescribed by the furious negativity of the moment. It is these people, with their stored-up virtue and unself-conscious decency, who the government seeks to turn into suspects and infantilise by its morbid intrusion.
It is not the government's business to encroach on our experience as individuals in a democracy, to threaten us with so much oppressive legislation and always to assume our guilt. But there is another reason and that is because we are soon going to have to have the debate about individual liberty in the context of rapid climate change. That will only work if the government treats us like adults and says: 'Look, this is potentially the greatest crisis civilisation has ever faced and we need your help.' The resulting contract must be between equals - the people and the state - and in a relationship where respect flows both ways.That, ultimately, is what this nagging and suspicious government threatens.
henry.porter@observer.co.uk
This seems to be becoming the norm in other Western countries also. Some how we need to turn this trend around!
Papewaio
10-31-2006, 06:30
Nuance.
Which is it then? Secure borders or having the liberals feel warm and fuzzy?
Unless at war and with against a tech less then gunpowder I don't think a physical fence is either useful nor the best dollar value. If it is to be more then a deterrent it will have to be manned along its length.
Not so.
It is more of a somatics statistical slice and dice... and ultimately a stir. It has fallen in the relative amount of freedoms by comparison with the most important country to itself... its former self. Its not so much the amount of freedoms that worries me it is the direction it is now heading in. Imagine an egotistical president with all the worst qualities of the last twenty presidents (horing, lying, forgetting, 'thyroid'/irrational etc) with none of the redeeming qualities who wins like Chirac did (ie the lesser of two evils) and then turns around and uses the new laws to the letter.
Funny you say that, since I believe you support the destruction of what the founders considered the foremost right- to be armed and be able to bear arms.
CR
Nope, I prefer the idea that it is a well maintained and regulated militia that is there for the security of the state (more like a self equipped national guard) rather then individuals arming themselves without regulation, training nor for the security of the community.
=][= Edit.
I'd like to see school kids trained in proper use of firearms and individuals then having firearms licensed much like car licences with easier access to assault arms if they belong to a militia that is ratified by the local state or community.
AntiochusIII
10-31-2006, 07:38
What Pape believes doesn't change anything. It doesn't alter Franklin's quote or ideas.Not Franklin, per se; the statesman-diplomat was never that much of an "extremist" (in that time's sense of word) to give out such quotes. He'd rather be busy in Paris or London building allies and lobbying His Majesty Government for better rights of the colonists than to incite upon the colonists themselves the flames of revolutionary thoughts.
The man you seek is Patrick Henry, a "radical" of the Revolutionary Generation. The oft-quoted passage is his.
CR: I think your assertion that the Founding Fathers find "gun rights" to be the foremost Right is quite ridiculous; unless the image of Jefferson as a gun-toting terminator fits him well...not.
The Second Amendment is intentionally vague, and never clearly defined. Not to mention it had its historical uses different from today, much like the Fourth. The First Amendment is, I think, first for a reason.
On the topic: Somehow I think all those cameras aren't cheap. Who pays for them?
Oh wait, don't answer it. I think I know.
Moreover, the governments' obsession with statistics is, to me, ridiculous.
Perhaps you need to read the actual law.
You're right, of course ... the law allows the torture of US citizens, too.
There was a thread on it, perhaps it might be worth reading.
IRONxMortlock
10-31-2006, 07:56
Not Franklin, per se; the statesman-diplomat was never that much of an "extremist" (in that time's sense of word) to give out such quotes. He'd rather be busy in Paris or London building allies and lobbying His Majesty Government for better rights of the colonists than to incite upon the colonists themselves the flames of revolutionary thoughts.
The man you seek is Patrick Henry, a "radical" of the Revolutionary Generation. The oft-quoted passage is his.
Sorry about that, my mistake. I've just always seen that quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
e.g.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benjamin_franklin.html
http://www.fen.net/quotes/freedom.shtml
http://www.unionwriters.org/home/writers-quotations.php
http://www.bradclarke.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?pagename=Main.NotableQuotes
Patrick Henry was the guy who said "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't he? Kind of different to the Bush supporter's mantra of "Take my liberty and keep me safe." (courtesy of digg.com)
Just for anybody that took my post seriously it was mostly a joke.
Now to what I truly think:
In the EU isn't there laws against this sort of thing? I find this issue quite disturbing to find that you are being watched every single day by many CCTV cameras without even knowing it. It is in truth a complete invasion of privacy. And what would happen if the information system was to get corrupted and the data was to fall into the hands of criminal fraudsters. The fraudsters would know your habits, know what restaurant you like the best, which banks you visit, where you work and even where you live. From this information the fraudster could build up information about your personality (and your family) and steal it. They could then guess things such as your pin number (from when your grandson came round and their were ballons outside), your alarm code (from which bus you catch to get to work), your bank transfer password (from the colour of your livingroom), your computer password (from the name of your house) and worst of all fellow peoples of the Org they could work out your Org password from the information they have about your life. That is a little drastic, but it could happen if a criminal mastermind was to get his filthy hands on CCTV tapes. Do we really want to fall into the society of the George Orwell's book "Nineteen Eighty-Four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)". Do we want a society in which we are all watched and monitored by not just the government, but by criminals as well. I presume that the answer to that question is a clear NO!
AntiochusIII
10-31-2006, 08:37
Patrick Henry was the guy who said "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't he? Kind of different to the Bush supporter's mantra of "Take my liberty and keep me safe." (courtesy of digg.com)You're right in that Franklin was the person Pape quoted. I was just thinking Patrick Henry would fit your theme more. :bow:
Avlvs Britannicus: Sadly, it already happens to a certain extent. The amount of spam mails people receive can be staggeringly pathetic in the Western World considering they had no contact with such businesses before.
Just ask anyone in the USA if a sudden change in his or her credit rating would bring in quite a few shady bank credit card offers. I doubt credit rating is that voluntary in all practicality.
IRONxMortlock
10-31-2006, 11:06
You're right in that Franklin was the person Pape quoted. I was just thinking Patrick Henry would fit your theme more. :bow:
Just out of curiosity, what "theme" do you think I'm going for here?
Just ask anyone in the USA if a sudden change in his or her credit rating would bring in quite a few shady bank credit card offers. I doubt credit rating is that voluntary in all practicality.
You realize this is because the federal government relaxed one of the conditions required for credit granting agencies to pull your credit reports.
No longer does a credit company need your signature or request to pull your credit rating.....
Avlvs Britannicus: Sadly, it already happens to a certain extent. The amount of spam mails people receive can be staggeringly pathetic in the Western World considering they had no contact with such businesses before.
I know. I got twelve lots of spam mail in the post this morning. One from some catalogue company offering me a set of free oven gloves if I buy some pots and pans from them, one offering me a new credit card, one offering me a price fix on my gas bill till 2008 (even though I don't have gas in my area), one offering me cheap Sky TV etc. What makes this sound even worse is that I only got two pieces of wanted mail! The good thing is, however, that they don't get your address from criminals or from CCTV tapes; they instead buy your address of other companies who already have your details. Sadly some companies sell your details to criminals who will then proceed to steal your identity.
Although identity theft is already possible through buying details off companies, CCTV and identity cards can make the process of stealing an individual‘s identity terrifyingly easier.
Comon brits, have a good ol revolution :laugh4:
Incongruous
11-01-2006, 04:55
We've had one before and it wasn't pretty, I belive Dr. Simon Schama put it rather well when he said "Eden had become Gamorah".
But I do think a jolly old constitution and the public humiliation of Tony, Gordon and few others is in order.
We've had one before and it wasn't pretty, I belive Dr. Simon Schama put it rather well when he said "Eden had become Gamorah".
But I do think a jolly old constitution and the public humiliation of Tony, Gordon and few others is in order.
Definately. Shame though. Seems so un-British...
Then again if they're foistering identity cards, high taxes and constant surveillence on us, it's all gone wrong anyway.
IRONxMortlock
11-02-2006, 02:27
It's good to see that some folks in the government at least recognise that this excessive survellance is something to be concerned about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm
Britain is 'surveillance society'
CCTV camera
There could be up to 4.2 million UK CCTV cameras, the report says
Britain is "waking up to a surveillance society that is already all around us," the government's Information Commissioner has said.
Richard Thomas spoke after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored.
The Surveillance Studies Network report says there are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras - about one for every 14 people.
Other techniques are used to record people's work rate, buying habits and travel movements.
Surveillance will increase in the next decade, the report adds.
Mr Thomas called for a debate about the risks if information gathered is wrong or falls into the wrong hands.
Mistakes can also easily be made with serious consequences
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas
The research says surveillance ranges from the US national security agency monitoring all telecommunications traffic passing through Britain to key stroke information used to gauge work rates and global positioning satellite information tracking company vehicles.
The report also highlights "dataveillance" - the combination of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information for marketing purposes.
"Today I fear that we are in fact waking up to a surveillance society that is already all around us," Mr Thomas said.
Inaccurate
But while surveillance could help fight terrorism and crime, it could "intrude into our private space", he added.
"Mistakes can also easily be made with serious consequences - false matches and other cases of mistaken identity, inaccurate facts or inferences, suspicions taken as reality and breaches of security."
The report will be presented to the 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners' Conference in London on Thursday, hosted by the Information Commissioner's Office.
The office is an independent body established to promote access to official data and to protect personal details.
Pannonian
11-02-2006, 02:44
Definately. Shame though. Seems so un-British...
Then again if they're foistering identity cards, high taxes and constant surveillence on us, it's all gone wrong anyway.
Are the CCTV cameras government or privately operated?
IRONxMortlock
11-02-2006, 03:01
Are the CCTV cameras government or privately operated?
Both I believe.
Both I believe.
Yes, and all run and controlled by different agencies/companies. There's not the big conspiracy thing going on. Plus most of them won't even be recorded properly.
In other news, Britain has the worst behaved/drunkest/most sexed up teenagers in Europe. So clearly all this CCTV doesn't put people off...
V for Vendetta is looking less like SciFi and more like reality.
In other news, Britain has the worst behaved/drunkest/most sexed up teenagers in Europe. So clearly all this CCTV doesn't put people off...
I wonder if curfews would help? I think I might actually write to Tony and tell him. Labour could probably knock some big percentages off that survey by keeping teens at home. It would also solve some Asbo problems as well.
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-02-2006, 14:55
no constitution.
I was always under the impression that we do have a constitution, it's just not codified into a single document like the US's is. Is that incorrect?
V for Vendetta is looking less like SciFi and more like reality.
I wonder if curfews would help? I think I might actually write to Tony and tell him. Labour could probably knock some big percentages off that survey by keeping teens at home. It would also solve some Asbo problems as well.
They can't be enforced. The people who would follow them aren't causing issues anyway. No one cares if rich, middle class kids get high/drunk/whatever. It's all done in private, and it's safe in that the families can afford to deal with the consequences. It's when it happens on the street and the public gets the bill and sees it that issues arise.
There's a real class divide in Britain again now. It's not good.
I was always under the impression that we do have a constitution, it's just not codified into a single document like the US's is. Is that incorrect?
I don't think we do. Just convention.
Banquo's Ghost
11-02-2006, 15:01
I was always under the impression that we do have a constitution, it's just not codified into a single document like the US's is. Is that incorrect?
Yes, you do have a constitution, but not a formal written document. In essence, the British Constitution is based on precedent and occasional written agreements such as Magna Carta.
Walter Bagehot's book (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4351) is still one of the best explanations of how it works, though I'm sure someone more versed in constitutional law will have more recent references.
They can't be enforced. The people who would follow them aren't causing issues anyway. No one cares if rich, middle class kids get high/drunk/whatever. It's all done in private, and it's safe in that the families can afford to deal with the consequences. It's when it happens on the street and the public gets the bill and sees it that issues arise.
There's a real class divide in Britain again now. It's not good.
The curfew bit was a joke. I think that the ones who tend to get pissed and coked up the most are middle class kids with a few quid to spend on going out. Their families may have money but it doesn't mean they are anymore controlled than someone from a working class background.
I blame Thatcher for this whole slide.
The curfew bit was a joke. I think that the ones who tend to get pissed and coked up the most are middle class kids with a few quid to spend on going out. Their families may have money but it doesn't mean they are anymore controlled than someone from a working class background.
I blame Thatcher for this whole slide.
Oh undoubtably. But it happens out of the public eye. And then they go to university and get jobs.
rory_20_uk
11-02-2006, 16:46
I was under the impression that Thatcher gave Britain some feeling of self respect. Several companies encompassed British into their name due to this.
The swipe at middle class kids. Based on evidence, anecdotal evidence, or simple bias?
Alcohol is very cheap from supermarkets, so I imagine that anyone has teh money to get wasted.
If people get wasted at home, I don't care. Ditto drugs. It's when this happens on the streets that it becomes something that needs to be dealt with.
So, the poor have such small housees they can't get drunk in them? Give me a break. If they had the ability to get drunk there, there'd be far less of a problem. Blaming the middle class for having some self restraint is not the way forward.
~:smoking:
Pannonian
11-02-2006, 17:10
I was under the impression that Thatcher gave Britain some feeling of self respect. Several companies encompassed British into their name due to this.
Thatcher encouraged the me-me-me now-now-now culture that overrode British social traditions of restraint (liberalism versus conservatism/socialism). The Jam built a career on commenting on the change.
She is also directly attributable to the breakdown of society. In her own words she didn't think there was a society, only individuals and families. But society is the very thing that keeps individuals and families together. The whole "chav" scene started up in the 80's because of a move towards privatisation which bread workingclass unemployment and a worship of money and power. Instead of sticking together, people slit each others throats to get ahead. A distain for those who didn't rise in this new meritocratic society recreated class tensions.
That is the issue here. The Great British public is almost a thing of the past.
I also have to note that in that BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108302.stm), they said that British teens place greater value and status on branded goods than American teens. Brand worship and staus envy is hardly the makings of a Great British future.
And what happened in the USSR? What was the gap there between politburo and peasant?
Crazed Rabbit
You're just shooting from the hip here. Stick to topics you understand.
CCTV - we love it in this country. We have the strange idea that we can have massive disparities between rich and poor, poor public services, massive prison populations, large amounts of homelessness, drug and alcohol problems and we can keep a lid on it all with police in helicopters watching CCTV footage.
I was always under the impression that we do have a constitution, it's just not codified into a single document like the US's is. Is that incorrect?
In essence yes, but, and there's always a but, it is based on laws and ingrained democratic culture and tradition.
Unlike constitutions, however, here a simple parliamentary majority (as opposed to the usual two thirds majority, or even the absolute majority used for organic laws) can change any law and tradition, thus, making the system a more vulnerable one. So far, Britain has been lucky and the tradition of democracy was far too ingrained in the minds of the politicians to change.
Are the CCTV cameras government or privately operated?
The vast majority are cameras around private property, warehouses, shops, etc. There are a fair number on trains and buses too.
The police have a fair number in most town centres
http://static.flickr.com/46/146086739_c6821c7b9a_m.jpg
I think that the police suppose that they can save money on patrols by having them and that they will reduce crime. All the evidence suggesting otherwise doesn't seem to diminish this enthusiasm for the things.
rory_20_uk
11-02-2006, 18:03
They're High Tech, and as such surprass things such as mere evidence. You can show dignitaries around the "nerve centre" of the local camera control room and show how it can read a newspaper at 200 metres and everone goes "oooooh".
You can't really do the same with 20 new Community Support Officers - who unsurprisingly have made a great difference, even though the police were so set against them. Yes, they can effectively patrol areas and reduce crime cheaper than full blown plods.
We have had worse problems with alcohol in the past, so bad the Gin Laws were introduced.
~:smoking:
KukriKhan
11-02-2006, 18:10
So, have the "bad guys" figured out ways to get around being survielled?
And have the recordings made by these cameras actually been used as evidence in prosecutions?
Or, are they (the cameras) merely mounted as a deterrent - a threatened watching, not an actual one? I'm trying to imagine being a camera-watcher guy, keeping tabs on what - 6 street corners, 7? What a job.
GiantMonkeyMan
11-02-2006, 18:41
i think cameras are there so that when a person commits a crime it can easily be backed up by video evidence, most cameras are owned privatly for security reasons i think although there are some good quality ones in well known fighting areas i believe...
the thing that gets me the most is how it is possible to track people by the area that their mobile phone is transmitting from, i believe that this was used as evidence against a man accussed of raping a girl but said that he was miles away only they could tell that he was not telling the truth because his phone had been transmitting from right near the attack location... however i heard that they are supposedly thinking about using this tracking system to detect how fast you move between zones while on motorways therefore detecting speeding cars
so since i won't be commiting any crimes in the near future then i am not really bothered about all the surveillance, i doubt many people really care
macsen rufus
11-02-2006, 18:48
I'm trying to imagine being a camera-watcher guy....... What a job.
There have been cases of these guys losing their jobs for focussing more on bedroom windows than on the streets outside :oops:
Edit: oh, and
So, have the "bad guys" figured out ways to get around being survielled?
It's called a "hoodie" - although of course it's "just a fashion statement, we ain't dun nuffink"
Pannonian
11-02-2006, 22:04
i think cameras are there so that when a person commits a crime it can easily be backed up by video evidence, most cameras are owned privatly for security reasons i think although there are some good quality ones in well known fighting areas i believe...
Indeed. All the surveillance is merely used for evidence gathering for post-event prosecution - there is much, much too much data to be used in any reasonably current operation. A typical example is the reconstruction of the story of the London bombers. Typically, after an event like that, the public get all worked up about how the government failed to stop it, and demand yet more surveillance, while not actually tolerating the infringement of liberties that would make a real difference. So the government spends some money putting up some cameras that are of little practical use, and on the quiet set up some social initiatives to tackle the problem at root (and which take years to mature). It's a well-known routine, and we never tire of it.
Can be useful. One girl at my school got her passport stolen when using it as ID in town. All the pubs are covered... Didn't help though as it was pointing at a different one at the time.
She still got it posted back to her though with a note saying "thanks for the ID!".
Where I live gives me a headache.
Kralizec
11-02-2006, 22:47
so since i won't be commiting any crimes in the near future then i am not really bothered about all the surveillance, i doubt many people really care
I wouldn't be nearly as bothered about far reaching public surveilance* if I was confident that my government would excercise care and moderation in using it. Just look at the original post, a guy was labeled a suspected sex offender based on very shaky grounds, and five years after it turned out he didn't do anything remotely wrong he's still on the list, preventing him from getting any work.
*phone tapping and e-mail screening is a different issue.
Pannonian
11-03-2006, 05:00
I wouldn't be nearly as bothered about far reaching public surveilance* if I was confident that my government would excercise care and moderation in using it. Just look at the original post, a guy was labeled a suspected sex offender based on very shaky grounds, and five years after it turned out he didn't do anything remotely wrong he's still on the list, preventing him from getting any work.
*phone tapping and e-mail screening is a different issue.
The population is, on the whole, more authoritarian and lynch-happy than the government (any government). In the paedophile scare a few years ago, a paediatrician (medic specialising in feet) had his door defaced by illiterate vigilantes. Of the small percentage of surveillance that is carried out by the government. most of it is done to please the voters while knowing they are of little actual use, while they scratch their heads and try to think of something more effective. Then something else happens and the Mail mob ask why the government allowed it to happen, and a bit more surveillance is added to appease them.
The government of whatever party is forever finding a balance between authoritarianism, which the electorate generally favours, and libertarianism, which the government favours. If nothing else, a police state costs a heck of a lot of money, which ministers would rather spend in other areas. Hence the annual round of Home Office initiatives that cost little additional money but place additional burdens on the civil service (which have to be paid for anyway, whatever the government does), and blunders made by those inadequately funded and organised initiatives which were never meant to work in the first place.
KukriKhan
11-03-2006, 05:43
Can be useful. One girl at my school got her passport stolen when using it as ID in town. All the pubs are covered... Didn't help though as it was pointing at a different one at the time.
She still got it posted back to her though with a note saying "thanks for the ID!".
Polite thieves. god I love the Brits. :)
Why would you need one camara for every 14 brits, they aren't even very pretty.
Weird.
macsen rufus
11-03-2006, 13:07
paediatrician (medic specialising in feet)
are you sure? :book:
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-03-2006, 13:58
Can be useful. One girl at my school got her passport stolen when using it as ID in town. All the pubs are covered... Didn't help though as it was pointing at a different one at the time.
She still got it posted back to her though with a note saying "thanks for the ID!".
Where I live gives me a headache.
I can go one better than this. A friend of mine had her bag stolen in a pub. A couple of days later, she got sent all of the stuff that was inside it that the thieves obviously had no use for-driver's licence, uni id cards, etc.
It was bizarre.
are you sure? :book:
a paediatrician is a childrens doctor.
A Podiatrist looks after feet
paediatrician (medic specialising in feet)
are you sure? :book:
a paediatrician is a childrens doctor.
A Podiatrist looks after feet
Edit: balls!! sorry
Pannonian
11-03-2006, 16:18
a paediatrician is a childrens doctor.
A Podiatrist looks after feet
Edit: balls!! sorry
So I got the definition wrong. Oops. Here's the story, for anyone interested.
Paediatrician mistaken for paedophile (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_49785.html)
macsen rufus
11-04-2006, 14:40
So I got the definition wrong. Oops.
I was trying to be gentle :2thumbsup: It's when the lynch-mob gets the definitions wrong that things turn ugly...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.