British the Most Spied-On People in Western World

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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:

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

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.

Quote:

---

paediatrician (medic specialising in feet)

---

are you sure? :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

are you sure? :book:

---

a paediatrician is a childrens doctor.

A Podiatrist looks after feet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Quote:

---

paediatrician (medic specialising in feet)

---

are you sure? :book:

---

a paediatrician is a childrens doctor.

A Podiatrist looks after feet

Edit: balls!! sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

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

Quote:

---

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...