Big Brother UK getting bigger... and bigger...

[Blodrast]

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2200019/uk-phone-calls-logged-one-year

UK phone calls to be logged for one year

Civil liberty groups and opposition parties express outrage
Ian Williams, vnunet.com 01 Oct 2007
ADVERTISEMENT

Information about every call from the UK's mobile phones and landlines will have to be logged by operators for one year under an extension to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The Home Office has stressed that only information about the calls and texts, including the location in the case of mobile calls, will be logged and not the content.

The information will be made available to 652 public bodies, including the Food Standards Agency, district and county councils and the Gaming Board, on request to a senior police official.

Tony McNulty, the UK's minister for security and counter-terrorism, explained in an interview with BBC Radio 4 that the data will be made available on three distinct levels.

"Say some old lady has got difficulties with someone who's repaired the gas in her house and has a mobile phone [number] for somebody who's clearly dodgy. The local authorities can just get the subscriber information next to that number," he said.

"The second level of data is not simply the subscriber, but the calls made by that phone.

"And the third level, which is purely for the security forces and police, is not just the subscriber information and the calls made, but the calls coming in and location data about where the calls are made from."

The new regulations have come under heavy fire from opposition parties and civil liberties groups.

"Once again this government has been caught red handed creating new surveillance state powers with no meaningful public or parliamentary debate," said Nick Clegg, home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.

A spokesman for civil liberties group Liberty said: "A recent poll suggests that 75 per cent believe we live in a surveillance society. It's high time the authorities did something to win back our trust."

A Home Office spokesman defended the move, maintaining that it followed a directive from the European Union.

''We are not intruding into people's private lives," he said. "Imposing requirements on phone service providers to retain data is part of the difficult balance between protecting people from terrorism and serious crime, and respecting human rights."

The new law was signed off by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in July.



Only 652 public bodies will have access to that information ! With such a small number, I'm sure that it's unlikely for any abuse or (Heaven forbid!) misuse of such information to take place.

Wait, there's more!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071001-uk-can-now-demand-data-decryption-on-penalty-of-jail-time.html

UK can now demand data decryption on penalty of jail time

By Ken Fisher | Published: October 01, 2007 - 10:20PM CT

New laws going into effect today in the United Kingdom make it a crime to refuse to decrypt almost any encrypted data requested by authorities as part of a criminal or terror investigation. Individuals who are believed to have the cryptographic keys necessary for such decryption will face up to 5 years in prison for failing to comply with police or military orders to hand over either the cryptographic keys, or the data in a decrypted form.

Part 3, Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) includes provisions for the decryption requirements, which are applied differently based on the kind of investigation underway. As we reported last year, the five-year imprisonment penalty is reserved for cases involving anti-terrorism efforts. All other failures to comply can be met with a maximum two-year sentence.

The law can only be applied to data residing in the UK, hosted on UK servers, or stored on devices located within the UK. The law does not authorize the UK government to intercept encrypted materials in transit on the Internet via the UK and to attempt to have them decrypted under the auspices of the jail time penalty.
The keys to the (United) Kingdom

The law has been criticized for the power its gives investigators, which is seen as dangerously broad. Authorities tracking the movement of terrorist funds could demand the encryption keys used by a financial institution, for instance, thereby laying bare that bank's files on everything from financial transactions to user data.

Cambridge University security expert Richard Clayton said in May of 2006 that such laws would only encourage businesses to house their cryptography operations out of the reach of UK investigators, potentially harming the country's economy. "The controversy here [lies in] seizing keys, not in forcing people to decrypt. The power to seize encryption keys is spooking big business," Clayton said.

"The notion that international bankers would be wary of bringing master keys into UK if they could be seized as part of legitimate police operations, or by a corrupt chief constable, has quite a lot of traction," he added. "With the appropriate paperwork, keys can be seized. If you're an international banker you'll plonk your headquarters in Zurich."

The law also allows authorities to compel individuals targeted in such investigation to keep silent about their role in decrypting data. Though this will be handled on a case-by-case basis, it's another worrisome facet of a law that has been widely criticized for years. While RIPA was originally passed in 2000, the provisions detailing the handover of cryptographic keys and/or the force decryption of protected content has not been tapped by the UK Home Office—the division of the British government which oversees national security, the justice system, immigration, and the police forces of England and Wales. As we reported last year, the Home Office was slowly building its case to activate Part 3, Section 49.

The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals—all parties which the UK government contends are rather adept at using encryption to cover up their activities.

Yet the law, in a strange way, almost gives criminals an "out," in that those caught potentially committing serious crimes may opt to refuse to decrypt incriminating data. A pedophile with a 2GB collection of encrypted kiddie porn may find it easier to do two years in the slammer than expose what he's been up to.



I don't know about you guys, but I get really turned off by the fact that there's been a deluge of such laws all over the world in the last few years, leading more and more towards reducing the privacy and rights of people, and creating environments more and more similar to police states.

[lancelot]

Thats what I love about democracy...giving a select few carte blanche to do what the hell they like...

Is anyone (read- Labour Party supporters) else getting wise to the fact that Labour seems kinda fascist in the way in conducts state affairs. Another thing we can add to the Labour tally of worrying acts...

I could probably be convinced to support legislation like this but I frakking hate it when it is slid through the back door without so much as a by you leave. :furious3:

[The Wizard]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/Odomaris/watchful-eyes.jpg

'Nuff said.

[Moros]

Labour party is becomming Norsefire?

[drone]

And here I was thinking that a British reality show was starting the new season with exceedingly well-endowed women. :inquisitive:

[Ironside]

And here I was thinking that a British reality show was starting the new season with exceedingly well-endowed women. :inquisitive:

The goverment thought it was a too small reality show so they decided to do it on the entire population instead. :book:

[caravel]

More and more laws and as a result more and more crimes, but still no real impact on actual crimes, in particular violent crime and robbery.

[Tribesman]

''We are not intruding into people's private lives," he said. "Imposing requirements on phone service providers to retain data is part of the difficult balance between protecting people from terrorism and serious crime, and respecting human rights."

Why do they need the phone service providers to keep tabs on British phone calls ? Is Cheltenham no longer able to keep up with the workload .

[Crazed Rabbit]

What makes it all the funnier is that apparently all those cameras watching your every move are no good for solving crime:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras,+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do


London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.

But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.

The bad thing is the terrible ideas are infecting the US, starting with NYC.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

The bad thing is the terrible ideas are infecting the US, starting with NYC.Well, if one government develops an expensive, invasive boondoggle to spy on their citizens, it's only natural that other governments would be eager to emulate it. :yes:

[Blodrast]

What makes it all the funnier is that apparently all those cameras watching your every move are no good for solving crime:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras,+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do



The bad thing is the terrible ideas are infecting the US, starting with NYC.

Crazed Rabbit

Rabbit, yes, good post - I was aware of that article, read it, and I toyed with the idea to post it myself, but then my brain started adding more and more examples of similar articles (referring to laws and/or analyses of their effects), so I thought I should pace myself.
But yes, very good to post that.

Baba Ga'on, I'll assume that poster is actually real, not a joke or sarcasm got from the web... If so, it's truly scary, and, frankly, shocking (because it looks _just_ like some poster you'd read about or see in books/movies about oppressive regimes and such: ridiculous in its claims, but serious enough to make you realize that this is for real, and not just a funny joke).

I understand the three "tiers" thingie, but why on earth do so many hundred entities need to know about my calls ?! I can understand the gov't (I don't agree with that, but that's a different matter), but six friggin hundred ??!

As for the other one, crypto-related, people pointed out so many ways it could be abused, it's not even funny.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As a note to Baba Ga'on's post, I have seen that image before and believe it to be 'real'.

You know what made V for Vendetta so fantastic (as in not real)? That the population of Britain would stand up to their government. Individuals, sure, but a great segment of the populace in open defiance? If they accept a poster like that and all it means, then I simply don't think it's possible.

CR

[Tribesman]

What makes it all the funnier is that apparently all those cameras watching your every move are no good for solving crime:

Wasn't it CCTV in London that identified the neo nazi nailbomber and the July trainbombers ?
Then again they were people who didn't like their government and stood up .:dizzy2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

And here I was thinking that a British reality show was starting the new season with exceedingly well-endowed women. :inquisitive:Well that does pretty much sum up Britain at large. :idea2:

Both the most CCTV's and largest breasts in the world:

BRITISH women have the biggest breasts in Europe, a survey revealed yesterday.

The poll for bra maker Triumph found that only in this country did more than half the women need a D cup or larger.Link (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007070249,00.html)

[Blodrast]

Wasn't it CCTV in London that identified the neo nazi nailbomber and the July trainbombers ?
Then again they were people who didn't like their government and stood up .:dizzy2:

Tribesy, I don't think anybody (here) claimed there can possibly be no benefit from them, ever, under any circumstances; one can find some silver lining even in genocide (uhm, I dunno, less pollution, more resources for the rest of us, whatever).
I think the point is that 1) the price we pay for having those is not worth the (quite unproved, so far) results/benefits; and 2) the official reason for setting those up was that they would reduce crime, etc. Apparently, they don't, so then if they don't do what the gov't claimed they would be useful for, then what's the point in having them ?


I'd like to point out that the crypto thing is not as irrelevant as it may seem. What's more interesting about it, and very much different from your run-of-the-mill law, is the fact that the burden of proof is NOT on the authorities this time (*); it's on you.
More precisely, a reasonable belief on their side that you do have the key is sufficient for them to charge you, UNLESS you can prove that you do not have it.
In other words: if you cannot prove that you do not have the key, you're screwed - they can put you in jail, and they don't have to prove anything - just have a reasonable belief that you do in fact have the key.
If you can prove that you do not have the key, then yes, they are required to actually prove the contrary before they can charge you with anything.


So, let's say you literally forgot your encryption key: too bad; you can end up in jail, because not providing it to the authorities is illegal now.

Some of the more obvious (and unbelievably ridiculous) effects/exploits are that if someone sends you something encrypted with a key and you don't actually know the key, you could get in trouble unless you can prove that you cannot possible have a key for that.

Also, other people pointed out that criminals get a very nice cop-out in this case, since if you're actually guilty of something, you can just refuse to turn over your key to the authorities and only spend up to 5 years in jail, whereas if you had handed over the key and they had decrypted your data (and found out that you're a terrorist/pedophile), you'd have faced a much worse sentence.

So, very very ironically, the law actually benefits PRECISELY the kind of people it claims it is aimed against.

[Tribesman]

Tribesy, I don't think anybody (here) claimed there can possibly be no benefit from them, ever, under any circumstances;
If they are "apperently no good for solving crime" thats a pretty definate claim isn't it .

Though what I find surprising is that people are raising the subject that the UK government have publicly announced the telephone thing yet don't seem to realise that they have been doing it for decades .
Bloody hell the even delayed the launch of the european communications satellites solely because Britian wanted to fit more monitoring equipment .

Though whats really funny is the criticism by people who supported domestic surveilance in their own country .

[Geoffrey S]

Well, if one government develops an expensive, invasive boondoggle to spy on their citizens, it's only natural that other governments would be eager to emulate it. :yes:
...especially if said citizens swallow it whole... :shame:

[Blodrast]

If they are "apperently no good for solving crime" thats a pretty definate claim isn't it .

Well, frankly, I don't really wanna go into semantics, but from what I remember from the article, the findings didn't necessarily point either way: in other words, the findings didn't indicate that the cameras help solve crime, but didn't indicate that they don't, either.

However, like I said, this is just semantics; as far as *I*'m concerned, if they can't prove that the damned things help solving crime (i.e., in my eyes, the burden of proof is on *them* to show that the cameras are helpful), then there is no reason for having the cameras.

Also, on semantics, what I meant by my previous post was that because of the laws of statistics, I'm absolutely convinced that there may be cases when they end up being useful. But if those cases are not statistically relevant, and/or if the benefit of solving those few cases is not greater than the negative consequences of having the cameras in place, then, again, the cameras are not justified.
That's what I was trying to say in my previous post. I'm not sure if I'd managed to express that clearly and coherently enough.



Though what I find surprising is that people are raising the subject that the UK government have publicly announced the telephone thing yet don't seem to realise that they have been doing it for decades .
Bloody hell the even delayed the launch of the european communications satellites solely because Britian wanted to fit more monitoring equipment .


Well, I guess this makes it worse because it kinda enshrines it into law. I mean, sure, everybody is aware that your phone calls aren't really yours, and they weren't private for many years now, but, up to now, you know, they needed a court order, they needed to jump through some hoops, and/or it wasn't even legal to do so. But now, it's out in the open - and I think that's the difference. And it is much worse, in my eyes, because now they can practice it on a larger scale and without worries about whistleblowers and the legislative giving them a hard time about it when they overstepped their bounds too much and made a booboo.

[Pannonian]

Well, frankly, I don't really wanna go into semantics, but from what I remember from the article, the findings didn't necessarily point either way: in other words, the findings didn't indicate that the cameras help solve crime, but didn't indicate that they don't, either.

However, like I said, this is just semantics; as far as *I*'m concerned, if they can't prove that the damned things help solving crime (i.e., in my eyes, the burden of proof is on *them* to show that the cameras are helpful), then there is no reason for having the cameras.

There is masses and masses of proof that cameras help solve crime. Where there is doubt, is whether or not cameras help deter crime. Nearly all the cameras that are installed are done so to try and do the latter. What they mostly end up doing, is doing the former.

One thing that doesn't seem to be in doubt is that cameras make most people feel safer. There is the contradiction between steadily falling crime rates and the steadily rising fear of crime. Cameras help address the latter, but there is considerable doubt whether or not they are responsible for the former.

[Papewaio]

Both the most CCTV's and largest breasts in the world:

What is the corresponding size of the counter balance?

[Tribesman]

Well, I guess this makes it worse because it kinda enshrines it into law. I mean, sure, everybody is aware that your phone calls aren't really yours, and they weren't private for many years now, but, up to now, you know, they needed a court order, they needed to jump through some hoops, and/or it wasn't even legal to do so. But now, it's out in the open - and I think that's the difference. And it is much worse, in my eyes, because now they can practice it on a larger scale and without worries about whistleblowers and the legislative giving them a hard time about it when they overstepped their bounds too much and made a booboo.

They had no worries about whistleblowers anyway , they changed that years ago under Thatcher when they had a small problem with somene blowing a whistle .

[InsaneApache]

Clive Ponting? :inquisitive:

[The Wizard]

On that image: that's a picture taken in front of a bus stop, looks like, so it's probably real. I've also seen a similar one from DC private entity, also with obvious fascist undertones.

[naut]

:daisy:'s. Kinda glad I don't live in the police state anymore.

[caravel]

The poster is a London Transport one, CCTV was widely installed on public transport back in the 90's, primarily to crack down on vandalism. Despite this, vandalism is actually a bigger problem than ever.

It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the phone calls logging issue.

[The Wizard]

No shiznat, buddy, but it just serves as a handy tool for illustrating some real dangerous tendencies prevalent amongst the world's democracies these days.

[HoreTore]

Are you all forgetting that this is FOR OUR OWN SAFETY!?!?!

And the people doing this only wants us to be safe!!

[Watchman]

Feel safe, you mean. AFAIK the primary benefit for the citizen is an illusion of security.

[HoreTore]

With your nick, Watchman, you should be supporting this btw...

[Watchman]

With my real name I should be landing in southern Britain at the head of an army...

[AntiochusIII]

With my real name I should be landing in southern Britain at the head of an army...Mr. Hardråde!?

Question to our British patrons: Considering the amount of opposition British Orgahs display against this -continuous- increase of government policing power, how come they haven't stopped doing that yet? Is the general public supportive of these measures?

Love the poster by the way. ~;)

[Watchman]

Harold landed in central/northern Britain AFAIK. Nah, my first name comes from the same root as William, or Guillaume as they render it in French. For some reason that seemed to amuse a fair few French teachers in the past.

[Pannonian]

Mr. Hardråde!?

Question to our British patrons: Considering the amount of opposition British Orgahs display against this -continuous- increase of government policing power, how come they haven't stopped doing that yet? Is the general public supportive of these measures?

Love the poster by the way. ~;)
The Daily Mail crowd loves authoritarianism, they can't get enough of it. Lefties realistically have nowhere else to go, so if Labour secures the centre-right, they can keep themselves in power.

[econ21]

Question to our British patrons: Considering the amount of opposition British Orgahs display against this -continuous- increase of government policing power, how come they haven't stopped doing that yet? Is the general public supportive of these measures?

Maybe they are supportive. I suspect supporters of these measures, like me, can't be bothered to shout about them.

I mean - what is the big deal about cameras? Now if it were mounted machine guns, I might object. But cameras? What's the fuss? I can only see good coming from them.

Ditto DNA databases, phone tapping, ID cards etc.

They should help catch criminals and are no bother at all to ordinary citizens.

Now - where is my Daily Mail? I want to do the Sudoku...

:coffeenews:

[HoreTore]

Reading that made me very scared, Econ...

I shouldn't have come here for bedtime stories.

[Lord Winter]

The problem with Cameras is: One they take away a citizens right to privacy and all other realitve things, there may be things that are legal but you still don't want people to see and makes you look bad or there always is the chance for errors or what not with these things that can still let Criminals get away with there crimes. I guess my point is if there's a want there's away for Criminals to get around these things. Secondly what about scencerios were these cameras can be abused, I won't go into the Orwellian 1984 type situation (though somewhat vallid). But what if you get someone down the road that well use that to say pick up dirt on their oppenets? Help indenfy nigh sayers for "special treatment". Personly I think the negitives in this case far outway the postives.

[Pannonian]

The problem with Cameras is: One they take away a citizens right to privacy and all other realitve things, there may be things that are legal but you still don't want people to see and makes you look bad or there always is the chance for errors or what not with these things that can still let Criminals get away with there crimes. I guess my point is if there's a want there's away for Criminals to get around these things. Secondly what about scencerios were these cameras can be abused, I won't go into the Orwellian 1984 type situation (though somewhat vallid). But what if you get someone down the road that well use that to say pick up dirt on their oppenets? Help indenfy nigh sayers for "special treatment". Personly I think the negitives in this case far outway the postives.
So what do you expect the government to do? Ban people from installing cameras on their own property? Remember the majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned, and the government only has access to the data they collect if their owners volunteer it. Government installed cameras watch over public spaces, where there is no right to privacy anyway.

[econ21]

One they take away a citizens right to privacy ...

Walking down a street or through a shopping mall is an exercise in privacy? These are public places - cameras or no, there are loads of people who may be watching you. If anyone really bothers (no offence, but 99% of what we do is of zero interest to any strangers with or without cameras).


.... there may be things that are legal but you still don't want people to see and makes you look bad ...

Like what? I'm genuinely puzzled what you will be doing on a street or a shopping mall that is so shameful you are concerned a security guard or someone might be watching.


...or there always is the chance for errors ...

I think the chance of errors and injustices is far worse if it is just one person's word against another. There's a reason police cars (and polic interview rooms) nowadays have video recorders - it makes the court cases go so much easier. I did jury service a few years back and the case was benefit fraud. The defense collapsed as soon as the prosecution produced a video of the supposed invalid patrolling his workplace in a sprightly fashion.


But what if you get someone down the road that well use that to say pick up dirt on their oppenets? Help indenfy nigh sayers for "special treatment". .

But how likely is that, compared with the tens of thousands of car robberies, muggings, vandalism, thuggery and other street criminality we endure every day?


Personly I think the negitives in this case far outway the postives

Clearly you are not alone. But I just find it mindblowing that you see the balance of probabilities that way. I'd rate it 1 negative to 100,000 positives. :shrug:


Reading that made me very scared

Well, I live in a big city with a lot of gun crime (for the UK anyway). We have the odd camera around and I - and everyone else - never gives it another look. They are not scarey; I'm not scarey. The street crime is a little more scarey. Still too rare to lose sleep over. But some poor innocents get hit by it. And if the cameras contribute, even if only a very little, to convicting the low lifes who commit it, then yes, I'll be supportive of such measures.

[Watchman]

Ah, how the extraordinary becomes ordinary...

I think the main point here is that it should be possible enough to run the society without turning it into a panopticon, which is just plain inherently disturbing.
Doubly so if and when it is not only regarded as normal, but welcome.
'S a principle thing. Nevermind now I don't particularly have anything to hide, I still don't like being watched.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Equating being watched by cameras with being watched by security guards is a fallacy.

Security guards and other humans cannot record with perfect memory every detail of a scene for eternity. When you live your whole life on camera, then any moment of it can be called up for review years later. And what if certain actions or opinions become 'frowned upon' by the government in the future?

CR

[Lord Winter]

Like what? I'm genuinely puzzled what you will be doing on a street or a shopping mall that is so shameful you are concerned a security guard or someone might be watching.

I can't think of any sepfic activities, i'm just against the idea of my day to day actions going into some Government Archive. CR makes a very good point in his last post.


Call me paroniod, but cameras already set a framework for a corrupt government to use. Would you trust it in the hands of Bush, your worst enemy? Or even worse Hitler or Stalin. Although the chances are unlikely there always the chance that someone can cross the Rubicon and find an aid to keep power in the cameras or use it to get to power.

[InsaneApache]

Maybe they are supportive. I suspect supporters of these measures, like me, can't be bothered to shout about them.

I mean - what is the big deal about cameras? Now if it were mounted machine guns, I might object. But cameras? What's the fuss? I can only see good coming from them.

Ditto DNA databases, phone tapping, ID cards etc.

They should help catch criminals and are no bother at all to ordinary citizens.

Now - where is my Daily Mail? I want to do the Sudoku...

:coffeenews:

Are you serious? :inquisitive:

You must be one of the 'if you have nothing to hide, then why are you concerned ?' brigade. The left seems to think that 1984 was a manifesto.

[HoreTore]

The left seems to think that 1984 was a manifesto.

The stalinists and "new labour" guys maybe, but we other lefties are way to paranoid to support such things.

[Husar]

Well, they have cameras in the subway stations here so I won't pick my nose there or make it more comfortable for little husi in my trousers or something like that. :beam: ~;)

So yeah, little husi is really concerned about thi but he's happy that there aren't cameras everywhere. For some reason I always felt like they had cameras in the dressing room of the gym, though there aren't any. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

I had a patient in the other day. He was suffering from severe depression.

Basically his household had been plagued by some young teens. Smashing windows, threatening his kids, slashing tires. Police did nothing more than "make a note of it".

Things escalated until his son got into a fight with their leader. By this point it had been going on for about 18 months.

In the fight the antagonist was punched and broke his jaw. So he's suing for GBH. The father of the accused was understandably upset by this. He was then assaulted by the police and arrested for breaking the peace.

So now his son is bieng done for GBH, the rest of the gang are putting out death threats to his children (they turned up once with knives and bats) and the police are still doing nothing useful.

If they could get DNA from the scene, or catch them on CCTV I'd be pleased. If I get caught minding my own business I can live with that.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't just beat an intruder these days, you kill him and feed him to animals. Some people never get it. :no:

[econ21]

Are you serious? :inquisitive:

You must be one of the 'if you have nothing to hide, then why are you concerned ?' brigade. The left seems to think that 1984 was a manifesto.

Of course I am serious. The libertarian American fantasy about fighting their evil big government means zilch to me. Ditto 1984 scenarios. I have no fear of the British government turning on me and if they did, whether there is a CCTV camera in my shopping centre would have zero bearing on it.


When you live your whole life on camera, then any moment of it can be called up for review years later. And what if certain actions or opinions become 'frowned upon' by the government in the future?

Again - what actions? In future years, the government is going to criminalise me picking my nose or what? It's all so hypothetical and nebulous as to be bizarre. What "opinions" is a CCTV camera in a shopping mall going to catch? If I go on a political demonstration, the police will probably video me already. The CCTVs don't make much difference. If they help pin down some crimes like the London tube bombings or deterr muggers from riding the subway, great.


I think the main point here is that it should be possible enough to run the society without turning it into a panopticon, which is just plain inherently disturbing.

It should be possible, but we (or I) live in a society where around 16% of young men are the victims of crime each year. Doing something to reduce that is far more important to me than avoiding a panopticon, which frankly does not bother me at all. I would rather like it if there was blanket satellite/CCTV coverage and a complete DNA database on all citizens. Why the heck should some rapist or thug escape justice because of nebulous fears of a DNA database or of CCTV cameras in a tube station?

The issue reminds me of the debates about seat belts or smoking in years gone by. You are trading off real lives ruined with trivial "freedoms". And the debate will probably similarly shift against the paranoid libertarians as the technology improves.

[rory_20_uk]

A 15 year old got shot by another child on a bike recently. There are CCTV pictures, but you'd be hard pressed to match it to a person.

From that I feel that CCTV needs upgrading - with higher resolution cameras possibly black and white to maximise detail. Some decent optics would be good too.

Better murderers go free than the innocent get taped, yeah? :wall:

~:smoking:

[Husar]

They should make a TV show of the best scenes as well.

"The best of CCTV

See people falling, running against lanterns or get robbed as well as other hilarious material from all those idiots roaming our streets.

Tune in next Monday at eight pm on xxx."

:2thumbsup:

[Blodrast]

I had a patient in the other day. He was suffering from severe depression.

Basically his household had been plagued by some young teens. Smashing windows, threatening his kids, slashing tires. Police did nothing more than "make a note of it".

Things escalated until his son got into a fight with their leader. By this point it had been going on for about 18 months.

In the fight the antagonist was punched and broke his jaw. So he's suing for GBH. The father of the accused was understandably upset by this. He was then assaulted by the police and arrested for breaking the peace.

So now his son is bieng done for GBH, the rest of the gang are putting out death threats to his children (they turned up once with knives and bats) and the police are still doing nothing useful.

If they could get DNA from the scene, or catch them on CCTV I'd be pleased. If I get caught minding my own business I can live with that.

~:smoking:

rory, you're just having a knee-jerk reaction. Think about it a little bit: how would have CCTV cameras helped in this case ?

What would they give you ? Proof that the teens were at the site ? The police already has proof they were on the site: the guy's testimony, his family's testimony, and, what's more, it's obvious they were at the site since the guy broke the punk's jaw! He couldn't have broken his jaw unless the punks were there!

Another aspect: did the term "hoodie" exist in the common vocabulary in the UK 10, 15 years ago ? It became mainstream, and used as it is today, since the proliferation of CCTV cameras. You are aware, I hope, that most of these yobs are also called hoodie for a good reason, yes ? Because most of them wear friggin' hoods - and why do you think they do that ?

So, let's say for the sake of the argument that there were indeed cameras at the scene. And all the teens were wearing hoods. So your "proof" would be that a bunch of faceless people were at the scene. Wow, that's clearly gonna help the police ! :dizzy2:

Furthermore, rory, come on. You're a very intelligent person, and you also keep up with the news. You're aware of the systemic problems the police is facing in the UK - and has been facing, for the last several years.
Even here, in the backroom, we discussed several times how the police catch criminals and set them free, or they get mild sentences with suspension, because the jails are full, because their hands are tied by stupid laws, by red tape, and so on.
Recognize this for what it is: a systemic problem with the law, and the law enforcement. For various reasons (which can, and should be fixed), the police cannot, and are not willing to, go about this the sensible way.

Putting _more_ cameras in place won't change a damn thing with these problems. You're treating the symptom, not the disease.

Besides, I believe that both you and econ21 have decided for some reason to turn a blind eye to the article posted in this thread, which makes it pretty clear that the huge amount of cameras you have right now is not helping reducing crime !
How can you believe that putting in place even more cameras is gonna make a difference ?!

[Blodrast]

econ21: who are you and what have you done with econ21?

Look, there are several aspects of the problem.

First, as I pointed out in my previous post (my reply to rory), putting cameras will NOT solve most of these problems.
Also, please read the article that shows that there has been NO reduction in crime since the placing of these cameras.

Secondly, Rabbit has made a very valid point. You're asking the wrong question. You should not ask "Why not put the cameras in place ?". The question is why should the gov't be allowed to place them in the first place ?! The question you're asking is equivalent to "Well, I'm not really using this right I have, so I'm ok with giving it up, and it's ok for the gov't to take it away from me.". But no, it's not okay.

Also, as Rabbit has pointed out, there's a HUGE and fundamental difference between some guy seeing you on the street and forgetting your face in the next second, and your presence being tagged and logged for the entire duration you're outside of your house, and the records stored and available indefinitely. I hope the difference is clear.

As for how that system can be abused, oh, where do I even begin.
Are you aware that the illegal tapping of phone conversations in the US have been used to listen to senators that are opposed to the party in power ? And that's only the cases that have surfaced to light, but if they've done that, there's no reason to believe they haven't done that in other cases, which we simply haven't found out about yet.
And don't even try to tell me that that's in the US: gov'ts are the same everywhere, because they're all about the same thing: power and control.

Furthermore, since you seem to be an adept of the "think of the children" party, let's elaborate on that aspect. A lot of child abuse, varying from sexual molestation to physical violent abuse, takes place indoors. Since clearly you're willing to place cameras everywhere to prevent these from happening, then I'm sure you'll be glad to allow the gov't to install them in your own house. And everybody else's house, naturally. I mean, we don't want any children to be harmed, do we ?
And if these cameras prevent even one kid from being harmed, then our society only has to gain, right ?
So we'll place these cameras in your bathroom, and in your bedroom. I'm sure you and your wife won't have a problem with that. After all, think of the children. They deserve everything we can do to protect them.

And it's not about picking your nose and being caught on camera.
Basically you're saying "I don't see how this will bother me, so it's okay".
You want me to give you scenarios where this can be abused in ways that WILL bother you? Ok.

Scenario 1.
It's summer, nice weather, warm outside (ok, I know, this is the UK; well, relatively speaking then). Your wife/daughter is walking on the street wearing some relatively transparent/revealing clothes.
The guy operating/watching the CCTV's is bored as hell, and why not focus the cameras on this hottie, and follow her around for a couple of blocks ? He can also switch from camera to camera whenever she goes out of the range of one given camera. And maybe he can zoom in as much as possible, you know, to see some more "detail".

If a guy on the street did that, people/cops/you would react to that, and those guys can be dumped, one of several ways. But with the ubiquitousness of cameras, ont only can she not get rid of the electronic stalker, she won't even know.
But I'm sure you're perfectly comfortable with some prick zooming in on the girly bits of your wife/daughter, and maybe spanking the monkey a little bit while he's at it. It really is a boring job, staring at those screens all day long, believe me.

Scenario 2.
Say your son/daughter has an important football game/theater play/whatever important event, and you know your boss won't let you take the day off so you can join them.
So you lie and call in sick, but your boss is a paranoid bastard and he gets access to the CCTV system and manages to find recordings of you walking happily outside somewhere on the street. So you lied to him, and you're getting the boot.

And before you say that this is a stretch, and the boss would never get access to that in the first place, please consider a few things:
a) There are 652 (yes, six hundred and fifty two) institutions who will have access to the phone tapping info (see one of my articles in the first post). This number will not go down, it will only increase.
b) In the beginning I agree that the system may not support such complex operations as searching through the records for a given face and doing pattern-matching. But soon it will, now that there's an increased interest in these technologies.

Scenario 3.
Burglars. Right now, if you wanna rob somebody, but don't want to get into more trouble (such as an encounter with the house owner), they need to watch that house. So, for every house that they might be interested in, you need one burglar to watch it. But with a nice CCTV system, one guy can watch a whole bunch of houses, and knows _exactly_ when you leave and when you come back. Not to mention that they can follow you around for a few days and figure out what your daily pattern is - and, again, they can do this for a bunch of houses in parallel.

And the difference from the same burglar watching you from across the street to get the same information is that you might actually see him, if the same guy sits in a car parked outside your house for 2 weeks in a row... but with the beautiful support of advanced technology, you won't know a thing.
And since I can foresee a question along the lines of "How would the burglar have access to the CCTV system ?" Oh, please. Please, what beautiful society is that where there are no corrupt cops and/or security guards ? Forget about the fact that they could hack into the CCTV system, let's just assume we have a dumb, non-techie burglar, who can just bribe the CCTV operator to let him spend some time there studying his prospective victims. But this could never possibly happen, because corrupt people don't exist, and CCTV operators who have a crappy, mind-numbing job, that pays peanuts, would never succumb to a few easy bucks.


If you don't see any problem with your entire life outdoors being practically recorded and stored indefinitely for random bastards to have a look at it, then I think there are more serious issues here.

As for DNA databases, oh boy, it's orders of magnitude worse.
How about your health insurance company tripling your payments because they detected some genetic predisposition to some particular disease ? Or perhaps you not being able to get a job with health benefits, because your prospective employer can also find out about that predisposition ? Or perhaps they can ask you for your ID when you go to the liquor store, and they run it through their database and see that you have alcohol problems/some genetic disorder that makes it risky for you to buy alcohol. Well, then, perhaps they can refuse to sell it to you, or charge you a premium, since you're a greater risk.

Or what about errors ? You do know that there can be identical DNA codes, right ? So they do indeed find "your" DNA at the scene, but unfortunately for you, it's not yours. However, this is "indisputable" proof, so you get sentenced. Right now the odds of finding two identical DNAs are low, because they only have relatively few records. If everybody is catalogued then of course this can, and will, happen.

Or perhaps your son/daughter won't be able to obtain a certain job, because their employer doesn't like their genetic code, and they only want to hire "perfect" people, or people that are above some threshold as far as genetic variations in the DNA code go.


Do you still believe these are all hypothetical and will never happen, and even if they do, it doesn't bother you and it's all good 'cause it's for the kids ?
And believe me, I can come up with a lot more scenarios, but if nothing that I've said has had any impact, I doubt that anything I can come up with will.

[econ21]

First, as I pointed out in my previous post (my reply to rory), putting cameras will NOT solve most of these problems.
Also, please read the article that shows that there has been NO reduction in crime since the placing of these cameras.

Sure, no body is saying cameras will right society. All I am saying is that they will have some small benefit for essentially zero cost. On the article, we are probably talking marginal changes and starting to hit diminishing returns. I suspect some cameras deter crime - especially on buses and the underground. But the main effect should be in solving crime - getting the evidence to convict.


Secondly, Rabbit has made a very valid point. You're asking the wrong question. You should not ask "Why not put the cameras in place ?". The question is why should the gov't be allowed to place them in the first place ?!

Indeed - why should the government be allowed to put up zebra crossings and traffic lights, create a police force that could - shock horror - arrest me, check on my income and employment etc etc. Sticking a CCTV camera in a public place is a trivial exercise in state power. Big deal.


Also, as Rabbit has pointed out, there's a HUGE and fundamental difference between some guy seeing you on the street and forgetting your face in the next second, and your presence being tagged and logged for the entire duration you're outside of your house, and the records stored and available indefinitely. I hope the difference is clear.

Not really. It doesn't bother me. But I thought most camera tapes are wiped after a few weeks due to space issues. Maybe the technology has got better and they are kept for a longer duration. Which is a good thing. I don't believe in a statute of a limitations.


Are you aware that the illegal tapping of phone conversations in the US have been used to listen to senators that are opposed to the party in power ?

Yes indeed, as a US Senator who regularly uses sign language in front of a CCTV camera outside my chip shop, I am very concerned of this potential abuse.


Furthermore, since you seem to be an adept of the "think of the children" party, let's elaborate on that aspect. A lot of child abuse, varying from sexual molestation to physical violent abuse, takes place indoors. Since clearly you're willing to place cameras everywhere to prevent these from happening, then I'm sure you'll be glad to allow the gov't to install them in your own house. And everybody else's house, naturally. I mean, we don't want any children to be harmed, do we ?

I think we are talking about CCTVs in public places. Hospitals do sometimes plant cameras in cases where parents are suspected of abuse. Some of the results are horrifying. But for the sake of argument, no, I would not object at all if the police did that in someone's home, provided they had good grounds for suspicion.


Scenario 1. ... some prick zooming in on the girly bits of your wife/daughter, ...

Oh give me a break, you don't need a CCTV camera to oggle a woman, just a pair of eyes. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Scenario 2.Say your son/daughter has an important football game/theater play/whatever important event, and you know your boss won't let you take the day off so you can join them.

Sounds hugely implausible, but again no big deal - you cheat, you risk getting caught.


Scenario 3. Burglars.

Of course, there is a risk of corruption. You could use that argument against having any police or security at all (who guards the guardians?). Better to have us all on our lonesome hiding behind the curtains (or is it in our bunkers?) with our shotguns ready to blast each other's heads off as the paranoid libertarians fantasise about. But really, if a burglar wants to case a joint, there are easier ways of doing it than infiltrating a CCTV network.

And how many such cases of burglars using CCTV have there been? Compare that with how many cases have used CCTV evidence to get a conviction. I'm guessing we are talking 1: 1 million.


As for DNA databases, ...

Let's not go there, there's no way we will agree.


...if nothing that I've said has had any impact, I doubt that anything I can come up with will.

I am sorry for being so argumentative, but the scenarios have absolutely zero impact. I really don't see what the fuss is about. :shrug:

[Blodrast]

Well, I could continue to refute some of your points, but, as I said before, I don't think that's gonna take us anywhere. I continue to strongly disagree with your views (and not just on a matter of principle, I _do_ have arguments to support my claims), but I don't see any benefit for anybody to turn this thread into an exchange of arguments between the two of us.

The most unfortunate thing is that it wouldn't bother me in the least if _you_ lived in such a society, as long as I could _not_ live in it. But unfortunately, when the cameras are in place, they won't magically not record me, as well as you. So I'll have to bear the effects even though I was against the whole thing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

nm

edit: this is why you should limit your drunken posts to the drunkards thread, kids.