And this is scary

[JAG]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6524495.stm


"Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England.

I don't know about most, but the thought of talking CCTV cameras ordering people to do things, ordered by faceless people who can see everywhere you go and do, but cannot be talked to themselves, is possibly the most police state - type action taken by this government. Who is behind the cameras ordering us to do things, who has given them the power and why should they tell me to do things? I have the right aslong as I am not hurting others to do exactly what I want to do and I do not want some big brother - type faceless mass telling me otherwise.

It is cases such as this, which are so important in keeping civil liberties, which make the Daily Mail screaming about baa baa black sheep so ridiculous and so stupid on the Daily Mail's part. Because of their insessant screaming about a 'police state' and 'politically correct', real and dangerous infringes on our liberties are able to be brought in. That is as shameful as the proposal in itself.

Now even if these talking CCTV cameras stop some forms of anti-social behaviour like loud music, gangs shouting and pushing their weight about etc, do we really think that this is either the right way to deal with this or that it will do anything other that breed resentment and push the activities to areas where there are not these cameras? Does this mean we need cameras like these everywhere, and where does it end? Do we end police on the street and rely on talking CCTV cameras which can zap you if you disobey? This is big brother in reality and the fact it has not garnered significant news time is worrying.

And we all know that the only way to deal with anti-social behaviour and to fix it, is not by these overbearing authoritarian measures, but by sorting out the root causes of the behaviour in the first place.

[InsaneApache]

Well it's taken you some time to catch up mate, but hey, better late than never. I've been saying for years how draconian this government is. The only saving grace is that the government are such incompetent nincompoops that couldn't run a whelk stall, never mind an administration.

The faster we dump these idiots the better. Gordon for PM, just to finish the bastards off for another two decades.

Well done JAG you've turned the first corner. :2thumbsup:

Edit:for spelling

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmmm. I appear to agree with you. :inquisitive:

A question: are you opposed to omnipresent CCTV camera's that don't talk to people?


And we all know that the only way to deal with anti-social behaviour and to fix it, is not by these overbearing authoritarian measures, but by sorting out the root causes of the behaviour in the first place.

I think the 'root cause' of littering might just be...laziness.

Crazed Rabbit

[Devastatin Dave]

Wow, its good to see you JAG!!

How's out little Che doing?

[Adrian II]

Heh, the JAG'ster is back...

Good rant, bro' :thumbsup:

[rory_20_uk]

Any solutions to the problems that they're trying to prevent? Homeopathy? Ear massage? Classes to try to group hug these cheeky little scamps with their high spirits until they don't smash property for laughs? I know it's not their fault, so just tell me who to blame - please!!!

I feel we need Trotsky back. He knew how to bring law and order to the masses.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

I was going to post something very similar Rory, but then I thought I'd leave it for someone else.

As an ex-paper pusher I can tell you this. I had a budget of £350, 000 pa to run the establishment I was the manager of, (well it was 20 odd years ago) and over 75% of it went on admin! Sound familiar? :inquisitive:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I have the right aslong as I am not hurting others to do exactly what I want to do and I do not want some big brother - type faceless mass telling me otherwise.

I'm generally not in favour of these cameras as I imagine it will cost a huge amount and no-one will listen to them anyway, but this statement seems somewhat erroneous. You're right, you do have the right to do what you want as long as it's not hurting others, but
dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour don't seem to fall under that particular umbrella.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Any solutions to the problems that they're trying to prevent? Homeopathy? Ear massage? Classes to try to group hug these cheeky little scamps with their high spirits until they don't smash property for laughs? I know it's not their fault, so just tell me who to blame - please!!!

I feel we need Trotsky back. He knew how to bring law and order to the masses.

I have an alternative solution.

Compulsory national service from 16 to 20 - not including military service, as a conscript army is worse than useless, but certainly including marching the unrepentant up and down hills in the rain for long periods of time. For the more constructive, lots of socially supportive jobs in the community - like litter picking. There would be options to join the regular armed services in the same manner as now (i.e. as professionals) or the nursing profession and suchlike. Training in literacy, numeracy and other essential skills would be important, and hard working people could earn the right to apprentice positions alongside the community work. University would not be an option until completion and satisfactory discharge.

It's about time more young people learned about societal responsibilities. There should be a parallel option for older people who haven't as yet got the message, focussed through the courts and benefit system.

Surveillance of the general citizenry is useless and dangerous for democracy. It creates a society of secrecy, mistrust and paranoia, rather than one of community and shared responsibilities.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that is an excellent plan. I wuold still put it under the control of the Armed Forces though, and allow those that want to choose a career in the armed forces to do so ASAP. As such it would be as pleasant or as miserable as the persons make it.

~:smoking:

[KafirChobee]

Talking spy cameras are going to get "the bird" shown to them more often than a positive response - like picking up a disgarded candy wrapper.

The fear of terrorist activity seems (for the moment) to outweigh the majority of peoples' fear of the decline in their freedoms. Expect more evasive policies into the lives of democratic citizenry - and expect the majority of them to accept it as a necessity. After all, if one is doing nothing wrong - what do they have to hide? Beside their freedom to privacy - and that has always been a myth anyway.
:balloon2:

[Ironside]

I'm generally not in favour of these cameras as I imagine it will cost a huge amount and no-one will listen to them anyway, but this statement seems somewhat erroneous. You're right, you do have the right to do what you want as long as it's not hurting others, but don't seem to fall under that particular umbrella.

Doesn't make it less of an police state. :bobby2: :helmet:

Makes a difference on the oppressive scale though.



as a conscript army is worse than useless

Now you got me curious.

Think were I live and 15+ years back and you might get my curiousity

[Duke of Gloucester]

BG has a professional soldier's disdain for "amateur" conscripts. It seems to be based on common sense. At the moment the British Army can select the best from the applicants who want to join. Conscription means you have to take almost everyone and many of them will be hostile and others will be useless. The fighting efficiency of the armed services would be diluted. Add to this the fact that the army would be much bigger so they would be nothing like as well equipped and you have a strong argument against military conscription.

However the history of the 20th century suggests that conscript armies are far from "worse than useless." After all they won two world wars.

Most young people are sensible and responsible. They do not need four years of compulsory bossing around and quasi military treatment to make them useful members of society. In fact this is more oppressive than survelance cameras. Some teenagers are troubled (and hence troublesome) but faux sergeant majors calling them horrible little men (or women) and forcing them to do jobs that many adults believe to be demeaning will not make them better - probably the reverse. You also have the severe fiscal difficulties with the scheme. The conscripts would need to be paid, people already carrying out these roles would be redundant. Many 18 to 20-year-olds are economically active and their contribution would to the economy would be lost.

There is a problem with over indulgence in alcohol, but the solution to this lies in more careful planning of the nature and position of licensed premises. If you think that it is only people between 16 and 20 who drop litter then you need to open your eyes next time you are out. The best way to reduce litter is to cut down on the amount of packaging associated with purchases.

Yes, cameras bossing you around is a terrible idea (and I hope KC is right about people's reaction to this) but compulsory community service for four years is much worse. If you really want to see civil disobedience try telling me that my children have to waste four years of their lives to make them useful members of society rather than allowing them to get on with their education and training.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

It is ironic how George Orwell was writing specifically about England (1984/Animal Farm) and now England is hell bent on proving him right.

[_Martyr_]

I agree that a certain amount of National Service could be a good idea. I disagree however about the proposed length, and the content. A year is long enough, as far as I know that is what Germany has. There, an entrant must chose between either a Military service (boot camp), or a Civil service (old folks homes, hospitals, youth worker), unless they have some medical excuse. IMO this should be compulsory for ALL youths, male, female, well educated and poorly educated. I know many guys my age from very privileged backgrounds who would have benefited from a scheme like this enormously. Im about the least nationalistic person you're likely to meet, but I do think that it would have a very positive effect on society through the combined individual improvements it would have on the youth, and the actual good works that would come about through their direct involvement (Hospitals, old folks homes etc...).

[Duke of Gloucester]

Of course we already force children to go to school for 11 years (in the UK). If this community service is such a good idea then it should be done during that time rather than adding another year of compulsion. In my experience young people, when given the opportunity, fall over themselves to get involved especially when the activities involve working helping people. (They are not so keen to pick up litter or clear weeds from parks). Give these activities GCSE equivalent points and all schools will want to join in.

If you are talking about military service as the solution, just think about the proplem first: drinking and fighting. Soldiers never do either, of course.

[Lord Winter]

*thanks the founders for having the wisdom of including the fourth addmendment.*


what do they have to hide? If they're not doing anything wrong of course they should be okay with it. I mean who wouldn't want a camera watching ever single waking hour of your life, from the harmless to the most embaracing. For that matter these cameras are great idea for national security too. Just think of how many "terrorist" we could catch. While were at it why don't we also to use it to help find those giving comfort to the terrorist by spewing these lies that disgrace our troops on the ground. Any sense of disagreement with the government should be considered an crime. Great now we can fainilly stop this spread of lies about the possiable failings of our perfect government.
[/sarcasm]

On a more serious note, let us consult the words of Benjamen Franklin:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[rory_20_uk]

So, Franklin was agianst all laws then? Every law cedes some liberty.

Cameras pointing at public areas isn not intruding into every area of people's life. People can choose not to go into the areas, and therefore not get recorded. Of course, you might prefer the added safety of no cameras on buses as this is of course such a personal and embarassing activity to be undertaking.

In fact, thinking about it, Air traffic Control records the position and height of every plane! What an intrusion! Best scrap it - after all we all now know Franklin's quote. :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It's an overused quote, but I'm happy you're happy with your police state.

These kind of actions strike me as the natural outcome of a growing central government, the kind that is naturally socialist. If you are busy looking over your citizen's shoulders to make sure they are doing financially OK, it isn't too much to keep looking over their shoulders for other things.

I'd point and laugh more at you UKers, but this is probably ten to twenty years down the line for us.

And welcome back, JAG. ~;p

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, you're right. How's the Patriot act, by the way? Oh, and I hope that they're not "accidentally" doing any more illegal wire tapping...

Personally I prefer the cameras. At lease we can generally see them as opposed to the police bugging whoever they choose and only apologising if they're caught.

~:smoking:

[Mooks]

I dont see how they would keep the cameras up and running. I dont know about england, but here in america kids destroy public property for fun, those cameras wouldnt last a day here.

[naut]

Viva le Police State!

:bobby2::stop::bobby2:

[Lord Winter]

So, Franklin was agianst all laws then? Every law cedes some liberty.

Yes, but is a fine ballance. We cede very minor freedoms for the greater and more important ones. Freedom dose not mean you can do anything. It means you have the right to express your views and live without infringing on others natural rights.


Cameras pointing at public areas isn not intruding into every area of people's life. People can choose not to go into the areas, and therefore not get recorded. Of course, you might prefer the added safety of no cameras on buses as this is of course such a personal and embarassing activity to be undertaking.
My post was hyberbole. I have no problems with cameras in public places with past recoreds of (fairly major) crime. But blanketing downtown with them is a little to much. Are you telling me their isn't a better less intrusive way, not to mention cost effective, the government could do this?


In fact, thinking about it, Air traffic Control records the position and height of every plane! What an intrusion! Best scrap it - after all we all now know Franklin's quote.

Their are safty benfits to this. It also dosn't infrinage any major personal freedoms.

[Cha]

I hope they don't install this in the work area. I'd rather have some privacy and recieve commands in person.

[rory_20_uk]

So, in essence the quote is fundimentally wrong. Laws are fine as long as the benefits outweigh the cons - and that itself is down to individual view on the subject.

If you're flying a private plane you might feel that having your every movement tracked is a major breach of your liberties.

~:smoking:

[Lord Winter]

So, in essence the quote is fundimentally wrong. Laws are fine as long as the benefits outweigh the cons - and that itself is down to individual view on the subject.
Not quite. I think benjemen franklin was basing his comments on a larger scale when he wrote the quote. I've interpted that any laws taking away fundmental national rights such as those we've stated in the constitution to deal with some threat is wrong. However even Locke (who the founders relied heavily on) that man was governed by certain natural rules or morals. Governments when considering laws should always aim for those that gurrentee the most rights.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So, in essence the quote is fundimentally wrong. Laws are fine as long as the benefits outweigh the cons - and that itself is down to individual view on the subject.

If you're flying a private plane you might feel that having your every movement tracked is a major breach of your liberties.

~:smoking:

Nope. You're wrong in your usual attempts to defend your apathetic attitude towards infringing laws.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

CR

[Beirut]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

CR

Oh, that's good. I'm stealing that. :yes:

[Kralizec]

Silly people. A police state is a SAFE state.

[rory_20_uk]

And as most acts do not have a definite effect on the liberties of others, but have a probability of doing so makes this far from clear cut, however the statement is written.

I fail to see how this shows my example is "wrong". Transponders on private planes infringes the rights of those on board whilst the lack of one does not cause the infringement of the rights of others.

And this of course neglects where the right of one's free speech falls foul of others not wanting to hear / see evidence of this.

That your country can have a war to prevent states leaving the Union shows how often this is referred to.

~:smoking:

[JAG]

It's an overused quote, but I'm happy you're happy with your police state.

These kind of actions strike me as the natural outcome of a growing central government, the kind that is naturally socialist. If you are busy looking over your citizen's shoulders to make sure they are doing financially OK, it isn't too much to keep looking over their shoulders for other things.

I'd point and laugh more at you UKers, but this is probably ten to twenty years down the line for us.

And welcome back, JAG. ~;p

Actually I think it is quite the opposite, rather than coming about because of a socialist state this has come about because of a free market state and an extreme free market state, at that.

Socialism is anything but a police state.

[Mooks]

How come noone even remotely responded to my previous post? It raises the question on how could the goverment keep the cameras up in the first place?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually I think it is quite the opposite, rather than coming about because of a socialist state this has come about because of a free market state and an extreme free market state, at that.

Socialism is anything but a police state.

How is this a free market cause? Free markets are based on economic freedom, which usually goes in hand with more, not less freedoms.

And perhaps Utopian socialism is not a police state, but it seems that that's not the case in practice.

Glad to have ya back, JAG.

CR

[Ice]

Socialism is anything but a police state.

Pure gold.

In theory, you would be correct. In reality, I'd have to disagree.

[rory_20_uk]

So... Free Market is ovbiously a police state; socialism is of course not. NO argument given as usual.

In the UK there are already loads of cameras, and generally they're not destroyed. Dunno why.

~:smoking: