Slashdot Mirror
Even More Surveillance Cameras For England
An unidentified reader writes that a "new type of camera to allow the police to monitor from a laptop has been developed. Cheaper, and with G3 about to come in, faster data transmission," and points to this story in the UK Sunday Times. Unnamed experts in that story say that in Britain "an individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day."
You don't get it do you? The UK *is* more free than the good old US of A from what I have read on this internet.
You live in a country where your government uses even more propaganda than the UKs, where business methods and thought processes can be taken out of the public domain, where abusive monopolies are not just tolerated but plain supported and in addition you fudged those statistics.
If the USA were to introduce similar laws to the UK w/regard to guns, it might not bring down the deaths to the same level, but let's for a minute pretend it did.
3.5 less deaths per one hundred thousand citizens. And incidentally thats is the ANNUAL not lifetime rate.
I believe there are approx 300 million people in the USA, which means approximately 10 THOUSAND five hundred less people dying per year.
I think perhaps that *yes* your twisted ideals of what freedom really is are worth changing in order to allow these people to live their life.
What about the right to live your life without being brutally killed?
It's simple really, some rights are more sacred than others, nothing comes for free and *everything* is a compromise, I really think the USA gov has its priorities wrong.
In my young lifetime (22 yrs) that figure being murdered per year equates to 230,000 people being killed unnecessarily. A million people in my expected lifetime.
A million people murdered, just so a few groups of rednecks and gun freaks are free to carry their weapons around and shoot at signposts.
Wake up America, it's time to take your rights (rights, not freedoms) back before the rest of the world is infected with your governments twisted ideas of right and wrong.
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
Do you know that for a fact??
Here in Germany we thought that too. A recent news report showed this to be a misconception. Shoppingcenters use cameras to monitor customers and employees, hotels put cameras in bathrooms and bedrooms. There have been instances of such footage of people undressing or having sex being sold on the net as porn material without their consent.
The problem is that most European countries do not have any clear regualtions about this. The bottom line is that there used to be a time you could shag your girlfriend behind a tree in a park without half a dosen perverts in uniform watching on a monitor. And selling it to a pornmongerer
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Homicide rate in the UK: 0.11 per 100k citizens.
So you suck.
You're suggesting it's worthwhile to sacrifice freedom to save 3 people's lives per 100,000?
I'm not posting this as flamebait, but honestly, give me the freedom rather than the safety, please!
This is an issue my European friends just can't grok... that we understand the cost of our freedoms and accept it (well, some of us do). Unfortunately, more and more of us just see the statistics and would rather live under an iron fist if it meant their kids were safer....
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
And again in English, please.
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
But what would scare me is if digital cameras with good recognition software was installed everywhere. Currently, the camera situation is a bit like scanning emails - too much film to search unless there is a pressing need to do so.
If some dude could search for my image on all of London's cameras just by clicking a mouse, then it gets too easy to abuse the situation. The more accessible and searchable information is, the more it has the potential to get abused.
Great Windows SFTP Server!
Then at least you could shoot into the cameras if they bothered you so much.
I've watched a notoriously rough area a couple of miles away from where I live go from serious rioting in the streets about ten years ago to being a relatively safe (albeit poor) place to live today. Part of that is due to the CCTV cameras which make it difficult to commit crime without being caught, but a larger part of it is due to the efforts of social workers in the area. They provide a youth centre, drugs counselling groups, excursions for the elderly and disabled, computer literacy training, advice and support, and much more. Just one example of where the welfare state really does benefit the people.
But I do agree... I'd rather be photographed in the UK than go to a US school
But it's British schools that have the reputation for brutality. I think they're the archetype, with headmasters doling out caning and all that. Look at "The Wall" -- that illustrates it pretty well.
American schools have long had a reputation for cliquishness, but American society is much less burdended by the social stratifications that burden the British system.
Yeah, so maybe they had a good reason for not wanting to go home? Maybe they were safer on the streets, especially if the streets are so safe with all those cameras?
You wouldn't be in the CU building by any chance? Where'd you do lunch - or post-work drinks?
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
>> We Britons find it offensive
> No offence, but please, don't presume to speak
> for the whole of the population of Britain.
WE BRITONS - apart from a few idiots then!
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
How the hell can you compare New York City mugging rates with New York State mugging rates?!? Mugging is an urban crime, criminals of this sort are drawn to crowds of people (cause its easy to disappear) and big cities (lots of victims). Its not like you're going to have someone hanging around Chappaqua waiting to mug someone... Please! PS Guns only allow things to get really violent really fast. Id rather risk a broken nose in a fist fight than a gun battle and death.
Yea, and when did GB or UK == England?
It's probably not even harassmant (the individual would be none-the-wiser), and therefore it would be a miuse of resources that's applicable.
Better the pride that resides in a Citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colourful rag is unfurled
Without touching on the miserably boring history of the English, lets see how we are different today.
Boring of course, as in having a lot of it. As opposed to America.
ISPs and newspapers routinely bend over for big business in the UK, its 10 times worse than over here.
ISPs certainly do, but newspapers aren't so likely to buckle, especially the larger broadsheets.
Guns. The citizenry dont defend themselves. The crown watches over its subjects. Guns are for the hunting of waterfowl on one's estate and the military. End of story.
For a start we're citizens, not subjects. Nice try there though. And as for guns, feel free to keep them and your murder rate.
Privacy. The crown is watching over you and will decide what is good for you. Give us your passwords and don't talk back peasant! Witness the RIP act and numerous other things more recently passed or in the process of passing. Forced handing over of private keys, etc etc etc.
True to an extent, but all Governments enjoy passing draconian legislation that they know will get struck down in the courts - for example several of the attempts made in USia for online decency laws. A lot of RIP is likely to fall foul of the Human Rights Act.
Cars. The brits have an insane traffic and speed system that is designed to a)inconvenience car owners and b) generate revenue with speed cameras. This is part "Green" legislation, part greed, part stupidity.
How is it insane? Because... *gasp*... we drive on the other side of the road???! Anyway, USia is quite happily installing as many speed cameras as possible, we're just ahead of the game.
I could go on for years about all the things that are differnet about the UK, but I havent been there in a while and I think ive made my point anyway.
I think you have made your point quite clearly.
Whether it was the point you were intending to make is something different though. Maybe you should try and find out about things before spouting off like a fool.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
A healthy society should have neither.
Well, it depends.
If somebody catches you in a photo they're taking on the street, people generally agree that you don't have any right to complain.
But what if they follow you around all day shooting everything you do?
Glancing in your window as I pass by on the street is one thing. Sitting out on the sidewalk with a pair of binoculars looking into your house is another.
These things are abuses of privacy, which Louis Brandeis defined as the "right to be left alone." Meeting people as you and they go about their business is one thing, personally targetted surveillance is quite another.
Like many issues involving technology, the novelty of the technology is something of a distraction. I don't think that morally the technology comes into play at all. It's what can be done with it. Putting a camera in a location is no different than stationing a copper there. Following somebody through a network of cameras is the same as tailing them with the secret police.
When you put technology like this in place, you have to ask how can it be used, and how can it be abused? It really could be a tremendous step towards making ubiquitous, constant and silent surveillance practical and affordable. The degree to which this is a good thing depends on the degree to which government and its agents are subject to superior law and accountable to the people. Thus this would be an utter disaster in China or Iran, but maybe not so disastrous in Britain.
But it is dangerous.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What's more to say, really?
An example of my point exactly - most people in the third world CAN'T read.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
The way cultures evolve generally provide ample opportunities to get stuck in cul-de-sacs. We can't simply flip a switch and have a gun-free society, even if 95% of the population favors it.
While it is fun to speculate about how the world or a society might be different if we could change any one particular thing, using this as a basis to throw bricks at Americans is a pointless exercise.
In particular, I think you overestimate the extent that americans even notice or care about the state of any other society. Granted, when this does happen, the level of ignorance displayed is generally appalling.
An expatriate USian living in Britain.
Hey, cool spot ! 3 minutes from the Hobgoblin, 5 from the Fridge Bar, 10 from Coldharbour Lane and the Prince Albert.
:(
Too bad Brixton has become a trendy place to go clubbing in. Shit, even the 414 has crowd barriers in front of the door and a big sign over the door now.
Oh well, it was still good while I was there.
Compared to what? At least everyone in UK is allowed to say what they think of the goverment. The above statement would be enough to get you jailed in some countries. In UK, the people have some rights after all. In many countries, the idea of 'citizen' is not even understood. In many post-soviet countries of the Eastern Europe it is still thought that citizens are not allowed to critisise the laws or try to change them.
Perhaps 'Everything you say can be used against you' should be said to newborn babies.
Where I heard that, I don't know.. I have no problem with monitoring of public spaces - there's some trial work being done here in Canada, IIRC - the only thing is that I want to be able to watch the same thing that the police are watching. After all, it is public money and my taxes that are paying for it - so I should be able to watch, too. This can easily be done via broadband internet or even cable.. and would be most interesting :). I like the reality channel.. heh heh.
The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(
People still buy drugs on the street? :)
..don't panic
But most people forgot this book was written from a British perspective, the later film is clearly situated in southern England.
Many western politicians used the books tale as a warning against communist totalitarianism, yet it was not written from that perspective...
The old Soviet block has collapsed since 1989, when it still existed it was probably the best defence we had against government (Big Brother) tactics as described in the book.
The Soviets are gone and cynically (or was it predicted?) the British are furthest on the unholy path of total surveillance.
A quote: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
Britain is a strange society, until recent there was no photo on a driving licence due to fears of invasion of privacy, traffic police can STILL not do random alcohol tests on motorists, again a privacy issue, yet the camera's (telescreens maybe?) are absolutely everywhere!
PS, I support the fight against crime, but not with dubious means.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I'd rather be a human under a gunsight than a brit under a microscope.
It's much safer under a microscope, and you can criticise the person using it. Most of us tend to be fairly quiet when guns are pointed at us. Intelligent people with guns are pretty quiet when the other guy has a gun too!
Guns are undemocratic. Guess who said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." He was not really into fair elections was he?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
This is an issue my European friends just can't grok... that we understand the cost of our freedoms and accept it (well, some of us do). Unfortunately, more and more of us just see the statistics and would rather live under an iron fist if it meant their kids were safer....
I hear this again and again, and I still don't get it. Don't take this as flamebait, but just how is the US freer than anywhere else? And I'm not talking about what the Constitution says, I'm talking about what actually happens in America?
In a country with no-knock searches, Carnivore, mandatory minimum sentances and widespread censorship where is this freedom? And bare in mind that what may be true for you does not hold for the average American.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
You think they don't consider this? They are mounted so that they don't look into your house, and if they do you can call your local council and get them altered so that they don't.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
True, many of them can't, but at least they stand a chance when the text is in their own language.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Where's that? I'm on St Mary Axe overlooking the site of the old Baltic Exchange which was destroyed by an IRA bomb. They are currently laying the foundations for the 'Erotic Gherkin' and this building is ~vibrating~.
Well, when society loses any semblance of structure, someone has to take up the slack from individuals who have given up the responsibility of self-regulation.
The British have nothing but contempt for their police force that is more and more pussy-whipped every day. Last week in London there was a drunk man shouting abuse at the cops. And the stupid sods were trying to calm the man down !
Anywhere else in the world, this man would have been picked up in 5 minutes flat and thrown in a cell to sober up. Not in Britain, those cops were probably worried the guy would sue them for mental anguish.
On a side note, there's nothing I enjoy more than seeing a drunken Brit in Amsterdam where I now live start getting cocky with a local cop. The Brit will get hauled away and locked up for the night. The cops here are quite professional but there's an understated and accepted understanding that if you screw with them, they'll screw with you. And you won't come out on top. They're dressed in no uncertain terms : leather jackets, peaked caps, flash badge and *gun*.
Back to the topic. When a castrated British police force can't do its job for fear of its members being sued left right and centre, they resort to distancing themselves from the population and trying to monitor everything from afar.
The population refuses to acknowledge the fact we *need* a police force ? Fine, let the muggings and robberies happen (preventive policing is regarded as fascist) and just sit back hoping the crimes can be caught on tape.
The British public has brought this on themselves.
How do you feel about these cameras? Is all this surveillance actually wanted by the citizens, or is it being shoved down your throats by the Evil Empire? Does it effect your daily lives? Any stories of when the surveillance goes wrong, or is used for something especially good?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
When you've only got five black people in the entire country, yes, racism is low.
Did you know that by 2010 whites will comprise less than 50% of the population in Leicester? And by 2050 whites will comprise less than half the population in London, which is around the 10 million mark?
So that's hardly "five black people" is it? The white population in Britain is falling due to declining birth rates, whereas those of other cultures are rising.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
Or, as a wag once put it. . .
I'll also note the upswing in violent crime, and armed crime, in both the UK and Australia, since guns were confiscated. It's sooooo much safer now...
In the US, they are using infrared cameras to look into people's homes. War on Drugs and all that.
Oracle and unix guy.
It depends on how you define a "constitution" of course. Its certainly true that we do not have a document that we praise above all others, and use to demonstrate jingoistically how wonderful our democracy is.
The key point about the US constitution though its that its harder to change than other laws because it requires a bigger majority. I guess in a sense the human rights legislation that we have can be said to fulfil the same function. Whilst the UK law could be removed by parliament, the European law could not be, and that still applies.
Of course whilst the European law is admirable in its intent and aims, it suffers from one big problem, which is that the European structures of government suffer badly from a democratic deficit nearly as bad as the house of lords. Appointed by democratic representatives, is not the same thing as directly elected.
Phil
For all you Johny-Foreigners out there... England is part of the United Kingdom (along with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and some other bits). Actually it's even more complicated than this but the net effect is the same.
Cameras cause a criminal to think "Hey, if I'm caught on film, the police might have an easier time catching me". Guns cause a criminal to think "Hey, my intended victim may cause me grave bodily harm." The consequence of the gun being used on the criminal is potentially much more serious, and more importantly, more immediate.
Actually, reducing the fear of crime is a useful thing; the levels of fear of crime in this country bear little relation to where the actual risk of crime is. There is also a reduction of the level of crime, but the main thing is that people were so worried about going where these cameras are put they are staying home / going to that big mall on the outskirts of town rather than supporting businesses / generally doing things that affect their quality of life through fear.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Yeah it started getting trendy three or four years back when the Ritzy & Fridge Bar opened up... and then the Hope (which was admittedly shite) became a Babushka. Then the White Horse got a make over... now there's only a couple of places that do lock-ins / after hours drinking...
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
um. NO.
His idea is sound. Nothing written anywhere there says that you couldn't stage a skit in front of one of these cameras and request the footage. He's suggesting something akin to going into a local convenience store or bank, putting on a show for the camera there, then requesting the footage of the show to submit to the contest. If it was a news cameraperson and you were jumping in the background and putting ears on folks, you could be denied the footage, since it was their camera for media use; but in the case of the security camera, the footage is still publicly available.
I think you just got confused as to which cameras he was referring to.
-- there is no point in pulling the pud... if you do it right.
I wrote a story a while back called Block, Copy, or Destroy. The premise was: what if a corporation could film you anytime? What would they do with it? Probably try to sell you footage from your own life, much like those people who film you at amusement parks and other tourist attractions. I was not aware, however, that people were already doing this. OK, they're doing it to be in compliance with the law, and not as a for-profit venture, but yikes. One assumes it's only a matter of time before somebody tries it.
--
Tweet, tweet.
The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(
That's the only negative thing you can think of?
Here, let me add a few more...
1) If you are willing to let the cops film you, you are giving up your civil rights to walk around freely without someone monitoring you. This is possibly the very definition of freedom. If you give that up, you don't have a lot left...
2) Police states DO have lower rates of crime. Nobody disputes that. Saudi Arabia and Singapore monitor practically everything you do, and there's almost no crime. There's almost no innovation, art, or human expression of any kind either. If you want that kind of society, you're welcome to it.
3) Software is a global market. People don't realise it, but $$$ aren't the only thing that programmers, scientists and engineers look at. I can work in Singapore any time I want to, but I don't ever want to go back there because the only thing I remember is clean streets and deadly dull govt. propaganda on TV. The only free expression I encountered was hastily written on restroom walls.
4) You can't have the govt. surgically monitor the "bad guys" and let the "good guys" run around happily inventing things.
5) Britain already has a really bad image - an inbred monarchy, a racist class driven society, slow technology, foot-and-mouth-disease, and mad cow disease. Trust me, surveillance cameras aren't going to make anyone want to go there.
6) If the cops monitor you, who monitors the cops? Abuse is inevitable.
Britain is already leading the charge towards a monitored society, and satisfying bureaucratic deadweights. In contrast, libertarian places such as California are attracting all the talent. It's your choice.
w/m
> Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
> Cracker: Type of savoury biscuit eaten with cheese
Hacker - someone who does inventive things with computers.
Cracker - A criminal who breaks into computer systems.
Plonker - Someone who thinks that all people who break into computer systems illegally are hackers.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
That's when I was there.
:)
The last really great place (Brady's) closed some time back. The Junction opened along the road at Loughborough (sp?) Junction so a lot of people who used to go to the DogStar migrated over there. I haven't been back to the Junction since I left London.
The *BEST* place was summer of 96, the Duke of Edinburgh, on sundays. Beutiful weather all summer long and the day was called "Sundaze". Banging house inside the shuttered down pub and chilled out stuff in the huge beerg arden.
Bloody drug-fest, I couldn't quite understand how the cops never turned up to close the whole thing down. Had a great time !
Aaaahhh memories !
Wold you like one in every room of your house?
Watched by the police.
My house is not a public area. Diferent thing.
Or how about instead of mounting them on poles in the street they were carried by a policeman on foot and as you walked down the street there he was pointing it in your face.
Sure, why not? It's exactly the same thing. It would be good to see more Police on the streets too.
Or there were some in your car, one pointing at the speedo, one at the road, and one at your face - with sound so they could monitor what you say too.
See "House" above. My car is not a Public area. Although Buses are, and guess what? Thats right, they have cameras on them! Guess what? Violent crime (GBH, ABH, Assualt) on buses, especially at night on the way back from the nightclub, has droped.
1. Swearing in public.
You what? This is not illegal. I'd love to see you backup that one.
2. Illegal gathering : more than 2 poeple stood together (I kid you not - Public Order Act 1985 - enacted in 24hours to strengthen the police during the miners strike).
You do kid us. Go back and check on that law, I dare ya! As far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for gathering more than two people together. (Hey, I saw three police officers walking the beat together the other day. Sack them!)
3. Public consumption of alcohol (geographically dependent)
Wow, you've found one! Yup, it can be a bylaw in some cities (Bath for example). So what? It's a fair law, drink in the pub.
4. Playing soccer (Scotland only).
Oh dear, I don't think so. Anyone from Scotland know more on this? I'd love to hear of someone being prosecuted for playing football you know.
So, basically, remind us what your argument was again?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Need I say more? You've gotta entertain the robots that watch these cameras.
I was thinking about this the other day after I finished reading All Tomorrow's Parties. I bet you could come up with an interesting movie about someone if you could cobble together all the footage all these cameras take of one person. A year in the life.... or whatever. Bet you could hem up some important people cheating on their wives, getting drunk after that AA meeting, etc. Possibilities are limitless. Maybe sometime all this random footage will be behind some IIS servers that get haxored and hit the public domain.
Can I just say (as someone who lives in the UK and was born here) that your view of us is complete drivel? Lets take the 'little vertical movement' bit.. how many of our current government are from the 'upper classes'? Or for that matter how many of our millionaires or big business people? Precious few. Secondly your bit about 'freedom of speech'. Complete rubbish. Sueing someone here is more expensive and less likely to produce a big payout than in the US (and anyone that tried to sue McD becasue the coffee was too hot would get laughed out of court!) Guns - most people don't want them available. It's called democracy. Privacy - 'The crown'? Do you mean the Government? We actually have tighter privacy laws than the US - for example you can sue newspapers for breach of privacy if they intrude into your private life. The only *bad* breach (and that still requires a court order) is the RIP bill. Cars - You try to pack 65 million people into somewhere the size of the UK (with 65% in the bottom 80 miles or so!) and see how well your road system works... It has its flaws (doesn't everything!) but to say 'insane and speed system' without any qualification is nonsense. Maybe you ought to come over here and drive for a while. (Oh and BTW - anywhere outside of the big cities has very little problem with traffic..) I think your closing point about not having been here for a while is a telling one. You obviously have an impression left by a fleeting visit without bothering to find out really what it is like here. As to freedom - which one would you prefer? A plutocratic system that devalues people except as bargaining chips or a socially responsible system that recognised that (sometimes) the individual is not the most important thing in society?. Both have the same end-result of disabling some people!
"The argument "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is pointless, with the same reasoning you could be required to leave a copy of all your keys, send a copy of all your (e-)mail, notify about visitors and leave a DNA sample to the authorities. Looks like George Orwell was absolutely right to set 1984 in Britain."
Err, the UK cameras are only watching you when you're out in public places like shopping centres etc, not in your own home. So its actually like being required to accept the idea of a bunch of policemen being able to see you walk down the street. BIG scare, huh? Ooh, that cop's video camera saw that I didn't break into someones car when I was walking past it. I feel so invaded...
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Well police regulations and laws are different in Scotland/England, and I'd presume this one only applies to England & Wales - so it's not the UK.
> British schools that have the reputation for brutality
You are talking absolute rubbish. The brutality that people on your side of the pond are thinking of is what you may have heard of from the British Public School system, and that information is 50 to 100 years plus out of date.
Public School is not one that is owned by the state, it is one that is generally paid for by the parents and portrayed as elitist by politicians.
Normal British schools are not particularly brutal. Guns are almost unknown in them and knives are a reason for a very quick expulsion.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Hey, even the police get pissed off about getting caught by cameras! Mod this link up: union-trib story about red-light cameras
Oracle and unix guy.
Has anybody seen the episode of Reboot where Megabyte has actually gotten some power? This may sound off-topic, but bear with me. Megabyte decided that the best way to keep his "people" (read slaves) under control, would be to have cameras everywhere and barcode them all? Is this what the UK is coming to? Maybe try to watch some re-runs of the show, and you'll get lucky and see the one I'm talking about... I guarantee it's not a pretty picture, and it seems to me that that's where the UK (and then the rest of the World) is going towards... I don't like it one bit!
A surveillance guard interviewed on British TV once said that he would not mind if a camera was checking his garden when he was not in it to avoid burglaries, but he would not like to be filmed when he's having a BBQ with some friends.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Here in Australia:
* Nobody has cameras
* Nobody has guns
People respect each other's privacy. And they respect each others right not to be killed.
It's a weird concept to a lot of people, but the rate of monitoring and the rate of homicide are both very, very low.
(Obviously, this is a statistical social phenomenon, there are some murders, and there are some abuses of surveillance, but compared to the US and britain, there are almost no guns and no cameras. And people like it that way, call them crazy....)
Wrong. Actually there was CCTV footage of the players and their targets until just before the incident, and of the players moving away afterwards
Why is that wrong ? The court case is relying on the eye-witness evidence, not the cameras -- because the cameras have proven to be useless at actually solving this sort of crime. It took place nearby to a camera, yet even then this piece of expensive and intrusive hardware hasn't achieved a conviction.
>if you're walking down a public street, you can expect to be seen by anyone. If you're on someone else's property, you can expect to be seen by them.
I expect to be able to scratch my balls when nobody's looking!!!!!
I'd prefer both, guns with cameras, like the sentry guns from Aliens.
Chicago already do this.. of course its usually aimes at major Highways and dangerous intersections, for the purpose of catching traffic violations. The point is that all of you out there who scream that you wont stand to have yourself recorded, you probably already are ....
BAH! Wave of Paw
"Cameras don't film people - people film people."
What you're forgetting is that Britain is ruled by the likes Rupert Murdoch, not Tony Blair. If Europe ran us at least we'd be run by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who don't like power-crazed corporations at all and would cut Murdoch down to size. Why do you think all the Murdoch papers oppose the Euro and the European superstate - because all the political clout that Murdoch has in the UK would be stripped from him. There may be disadvantages to Europe but don't let the newspaper owners' political agendas blind you to the good points.
The answer is simple. Get a Cellphone jammer, and you can walk around undetected.
If the picture on the site is anything to go by, the cameras are lowish quality, and look mosly down, and thus can not see people at long distances.
Just call me MR invisible.
They will have to outlaw jammers if they want to succeed.
(But I do agree... I'd rather be photographed in the UK than go to a US school)
:)
BTW. You know that the UK is the ONLY country that explicitly prohibits stalking, don't you? In every other country the stalker is free to go on as long as he doesn't hurt the victim phisically.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Um ... we have an offense called being "drunk and disorderly" for which you can get locked up overnight to sober up.
The weird thing is we seem to prefer people to go home at night and sleep it off. Locking people up for having a bit too much to drink is a bit too police state for us.
With regards to the police uniform. One of the design specifications was for it to look as unmilitaristic as possible. That's one of the things I find weird about my new place of residence (Sweden) - the police all look like soldiers, even down to the combat pants.
In Britain they don't try to get law and order by scaring the shit out of the citizens. Maybe it doesn't work quite as well, but at least no-one looks concerned and is disturbed wjen an armed person looking like a member of the military walks into a cafe. This my main argument against privately owned guns. Gun owners say "we have a right to defend myself". I say "I have a right as a non-gun owner and law-abider not to be scared shitless constantly by all the people carrying guns".
While I generally agree with your comments, and with the usage of camera in general, there's a couple of points I have to take you up on.
feel safer for having [cameras] around.
Fine, but don't step out of the field of view. Cameras just move the problem around. Recorded violent street crime and public disorder offences are at an all time high in England and Wales, despite attempts to fudge the figures to the contrary. Also, AFAIK, cameras only deter property theft, not violence, so they don't really enhance your personal safety.
whilst at the same time causing no further decrease in our freedom or privacy.
That's a strange ol' definition of privacy you have there. What does privacy mean to you? It's easy to say that this extends the existing tools/powers of the police just a little, but where will you draw the line?
Specifically, face recognition. When a violent criminal face that happens to look a lot like yours goes on the list, how many times will you be prepared to be stopped or violently set upon and made to prove your identity and innocence, before you start wondering if this amazing new technology is worth the occasional "unfortunate incident". Bear in mind that there's already been a successful legal defence of "pepper spray first, ask questions later" policing in England. Ponder the situation when Joe Copper gets radioed that there's a violent and probably armed criminal standing right behind him. Dixon of Dock green approach, or Dirty Harry with a pepper spray: which will it be today?
I'm not knocking the technology per se, or the potential benefits, I'm just wondering what the cost will be in "unfortunate incidents" and a shifting in the burden of proof.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
> Considering that the police already have access to all of the footage, it's
> hardly going to change much for them to be able to access it on the move.
> Rather, it will enable them to respond more quickly to criminal acts,
> and hopefully mean they can be stopped quicker
Bullshit. I have a nice mark on my criminal record because the police in Wolverhampton couldn't be arsed to pull out a copy of the recording from in the middle of the city centre which proved that I didn't hit someone (to tell the truth I was so pissed I'd have fallen over trying!) before the court hearing.
Well, that's the version I'd LIKE to believe, but I was actually taken into custody by a policeman friend of the guy that beat me shitless which naturally leads me to other conclusions...
Some results are expected -- like men are more likely to be involved. Others are unexpected -- suicide makes up for more than half of the deaths rather than murder.
"Or, just imagine that you get filmed, where being with your girl/boy friend - maybe you will not like to be looked by the police"
Fundamentally, this comes down to this. If you don't want anyone seeing you, don't do it in public. These cameras shouldn't be watching your own home (and in one event where a camera was accidentally set up in such a way that it could see in someones bedroom window at its full rotation the camera was subsequently altered to stop this being possible), so if you don't want the police watching you getting jiggy outside the nightclub wait until you're back to hers.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Unless the car was stolen!
It's a well known fact that in places where gun ownership is mandatory, there is less crime. You pale faced BSE infected inbred gits might not be able to get that through your thick skulls but leave the rest of the world out of it.
Of course, and the six times as high murder rate in the US proves your point I'm sure. And go, on pull out the Swiss example, please. Just because they all own guns (hint: they don't) doesn't mean they're not controlled.
And while we're on the topic, it seems like you can't even criticize your own government without fearing retribution. So piss off, you tosser.
Strawman. He was an employee of the EU at the time, hardly just a private citizen. Besides which, the EU is not Britain, despite what some people seem to think.
Nice troll though. Made two classic mistakes from the list of erroneous arguments linked to in the troll HOWTO.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
"how about the freedom from persecution?"
This is an important freedom, but if you have a bad law we should fight it by stopping the introduction of persecution, rather than stopping the police from being able to enforce it. Besides, if your hypothetical British Taliban came along, I doubt they could be persuaded to go "well, we never had overuse of surveillance before, we better not start now".
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Reading the plates may be unrealistic, but what about using the camera footage to track the car? You would, most likely, get a rough make/model/color and the direction the car was headed. Even better, you're likely to get the car on other cameras further along. While I would be hesitant to treat it as conclusive evidence if the car were to pass through an unmonitored gap, it would probably be sufficient to track the suspected car to wherever it stops. Hit-and-run should leave enough physical evidence that finding the car rapidly could help secure a conviction. If I'm not mistaken, this is how the generally try and find hit-and-run drivers over here (US), where we don't have cameras and where the witnesses didn't get the plates; they take the make/model/color and then do lots of tedious foot-work.
Of course, personally, I still dislike the idea of cameras everywhere. But I won't argue that they aren't useful. It's just a question of whether or not it's worth sacrificing some privacy for some safety. (And yes, despite them being used in public places, it is an issue of privacy. "Public" may mean that there's a reasonable expectation of other people knowing where you are, but doesn't cover a reasonable expectation of someone tracking your every single move outside of private property.)
Drug -fest? I couldn't possibly comment. But *cough* summer in the Canning beer garden gets rather ... untidy ;)
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
A bit further along, No.33. A small world, indeed.
Re the cameras in the UK. I am astounded that they cost £3000 each. Why not use £20 Taiwanland CCD cameras with zoom function & build them into street lights? The data can be carried by the mains. Put them everywhere. Then grant unlimited public access to all cameras via the web. This way the Public is Big Brother, & recent TV show indicates that the public love it. The Police get far less work. Criminals get caught. The scheme costs peanuts. himself@321.org.uk
With CCTV, allegations of brutality can be more easily verified and rascist / thuggish cops thrown in jail, where they belong.
You'd certainly think that, but US precedent seem to say otherwise. Much as I hate Black Helicopter paranoia, it does seem as though we're now at the stage where riot cops are habitually wearing masks and anonymising ponchos and administering punishment beatings and gassings seemingly without fear of consequence. But then, that's always been the case - all they have to do is to marginalise the victims. Terrorists, eco freaks, militant gays, commie beatnick puppets, and Rodney King spring to mind.
When the US marines start mass marketing their nice clean invisible media safe maser scorchers, protesting is going to become a very painful business indeed.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The cost of this would be pretty prohibative, though, and it may aide in crime, because with good planning, a criminal can sit at home and plan a robbery using the very cameras that are supposed to protect.
-no broken link
That the Fourth is one of the most gutted amendments in America, what with no-knock searches, thermal imaging cameras being allowed as a basis for warrants, drug checkpoints, asset forfieture laws and the like... I think when you say you tried something different, you mean you tried and failed :(
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
Considering that the CCTV cameras in the UK can automatically scan people's faces and match them against a database of suspects, I think reading 7 figures off of a plate will actually be pretty damn easy.
Europe doesn't lack democracy, it has regular elections for MEPs. The unelected commissioners are chosen by the elected MEPs.
How do you remove Murdoch from his position of power? Only the government or large institutional investors can do that and they have too much at stake.
However a European parliament composed of some of the staunchest defenders of real freedom of speech would neuter his enormous political clout. Why do you think Murdoch doesn't own anything in, say, Denmark. Because his megalomania would not be tolerated, and his ego couldn't stand that.
A system such as this has a massive potential for abuse. Is there any guarantee that the video won't fall into the hands of the wrong people?
The police (particularly the British police) are notoriously corrupt. Even though a surveillance system may have expressed goals of reducing crime does not mean it couldn't be adapted to more personal ends.
It would be a great boon to organized crime and stalkers to have information such as will be provided by these cameras. How much (or little) will this information cost them?
- qpt
--
Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
That's fair - he shouldn't presume to speak for everyone but most people do not mind CCTV cameras as they're not falling into the paranoia trap.
I have been assaulted three times in my life, thanks.
I'd rather be assaulted once a MONTH than shot once in my lifetime - because I would guess that most people who are shot, only need to be shot once.
Assault and burglary (in particular non violent burglary) are not the end of the world, a murder *is* for that person who is murdered. Please try not to get so personal in your post it appears really childish, especially when I mentioned early in my comment that my figures would not be accurate, but merely speculative.
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
> If the fuckin' limeys butted-out of Northern Ireland, there'd be no trouble there
Maybe you're forgetting the fact that 60% of Northern Ireland's population is Unionist, not Nationalist. Most people consider themselves a part of the UK. Suggesting that the 'limeys' leave is sortof like suggesting that the USA should give California to Mexico. In addition, if the 'limeys' were to leave, do you think the loyalist terrorist groups would just sit and watch? So much for 'no trouble there'.
I don't quite follow your agument about Kuwait either.The only problem Kuwait has is the robber living next door in Baghdad, and I can't quite see how that's the UK's fault. Care to enlighten us?
Who moderated this guy up anyway?
Yeah, it worked really well back in 1776, didn't it? Dang authoritarian governments restricting civil liberties...good thing some folks had some guns to do something about it.
If you won't even consider the possibility of abuse by the authorities, then abuse is inevitable. What if the police do start abusing their power? You have no recourse, no means to defend yourself and your family. Nazi Germany disarmed their population, too, BTW. And fat lot of good a camera is going to do if a criminal with an illegal gun breaks into your house and shoots you dead. Sure, he'll be caught, but it's a little too late by then for you law-abiding non-gun-owning citizens, isn't it?
More kids are killed in car accidents every year in the US than in gun accidents. A nut driving down kids in a school parking lot gets no media attention, but a nut with a gun in school gets every major network. Don't tell me there's not an attack on our freedoms.
Flamebait != Disagree
Constitutionally Correct
"Guns don't kill people - the government does."
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
By then the brits will have had enough cameras in place to make a difference. The question will be whether street crime has dropped dramatically and whether there have been abuses of civil liberties of non-criminals.
I can certainly see how this could cut down on gang violence but I also know that police and companies can't resist the opportunity to get in your mess. So, lets hold off for a year and see what shakes out.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
"An individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day, according to expert"
...
Is that's true, they will need to design software agents.
I Think it's not possible nowadays.
How many will they need in order to watch such amount of *bulk* information?
The more might not be the better
http://arhuaco.org/
If you're not a criminal then you've probably got nothing to worry about. Still, this combined with a technique I saw on the TV news the other week where they can get a computer to scan a picture of a face (from a video for example) and determine their identity - it's maybe getting a little out of hand. Sure its good for stopping crime, but having big bro watching you whenever you step outside isn't a nice thought.... 300? nah, couldn't be! more like 50 maybe?
If CCTV is so inneffective then it can't be covering everything, so surely this is either a case for putting up more OR it's good news for those who don't want to be filmed everywhere.
There was no way a CCTV camera could have stopped the death of James Bulger because CCTV cameras aren't equipped with stun grenades and nets.
If you want a good example then look at the case of the Brixton pub bombing.
I should have said: "than other European governments are."
Perhaps 'Everything you say can be used against you' should be said to newborn babies.
Try tattooing that to the inside of their eyelids in luminescent ink. It's good advice.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If the surveillance cameras are a result of the IRA bombing campaign, then it is clear to me that the IRA has won. The whole point of terrorism is to instill fear and destroy a way of life, and if they truly are a major cause behind these cameras then they have succeeded amazingly.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Unnamed experts in that story say that in Britain "an individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day."
That individual must be pretty pissed off. Unless they're talking about Carol Vorderman who's filmed by more cameras than that on an average day (Note for the non-British on Slashdot: Carol Vorderman is constantly on British TV).
DILBERT: But what about my poem?
Whatever your take on CCTV and the whole privacy issue, Mark Thomas' (British comic, bit like Michael Moore for all you State-side folks) recent take on the issue was interesting.
Seems CCTV footage is now covered by the UK Data Protection Act, which means that, for a nominal fee (ten pounds in most cases) the owners/operators of the cameras have to release any footage they might have of you.
Mark's taken this to the obvious conclusion by hosting a competition for the most creative short film captured via CCTV and obtained via the DPA. Details here.
As to whether CCTV is a good thing or not, I'm still sitting on the fence on the issue I must admit. Key point seems to be how the use/availability of any captured film is regulated and policed, but you're probably looking at cases on a site by site basis, which naturally makes it very hard to administrate.
I choose no cameras (even though I don't especially respect gun nuts)
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Yeah.. they'll never find you if you're dressed like that :)
This is a standard Soviet response - if you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?
By your rationale, the govt. should be allowed to view your email or any internet communication. This is not hypothetical, the Russian govt. already has a policy in place based precisely this argument.
Just because they can use it, doesn't mean you should allow it...you're still a free citizen. Oppose it while you can.
The homicide rates both before and after the British govt. outlawed guns are lower than the US homicide rates. What's your point again?
1. What's your source?
2. I didn't ask for homicide rates, I asked for crime rates.
3. You can take the snide "What's your point again" and shove it straight up your ass. If you don't care to listen to what I have to say, then don't bother joining the debate.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Why doesn't anyone ever bring up Switzerland (every male over the age of 18 is *required* to have a gun, and there are little or no shootings)? Aren't there other developed countries that have high gun ownership besides the US? Also, what about the crimes that are *prevented* by citizens with guns?
That's news to me.
From the article:
"Our plan is not to tackle crime as such but to reduce the fear of crime - and to that end this system was ideal," said PC Harry Wilkinson, crime prevention officer in Hexham.
So in other words, they make white people feel safe, but they don't really lower the actual crime rate.
On an unrelated note, in the US, the fine line between legal and illegal surveilance has to do with 'expectations of pricavy' (eg in the recent florida - superbowl thing, florida's argument was that people going to a public sporting event could have no expectation of privacy, and therefore could legally be recorded without notification) , so if video cams became this prevalent in the US, would we ever have any "expectation of privacy"? What I mean is, could increased surveillance support its own legality?
If I am law abiding, then they have no business watching me. This is one of my fundamental problems with cameras: you start off assuming *everyone* is guilty. The other problem, of course, is that it gives yet more power to the government. Oh, and I've seen several shows on TV using footage of people obtained from CCTV cameras. Did they ask all the people in the videos for permission?
I'm not too crazy about wireless and its insecurities, nevertheless I guess its possibly the only means to have this work while the cops are out on patrol.
Out here in New York City there was mention of "secretive" cameras around the city area which did the same and there was a slight uproar from privy groups.
Sounds to me like Britain is or has become(ing) a police state. I can see the "want" for authorities to have these cameras but are so many neccessary, and the way the article is written, "struggling to maintain patrol levels", one would think Britain is filled with dark-ages-like criminals roaming everywhere.
Ouch I know I'm going to be bitched at for saying this but it sounds to me like British officials are flat out saying "ALL YOUR PRIVACY ARE BELONG TO US" (I had to so sue me)
Why look here
Ok so this post was off base what can I say, its 4am do you know where your privacy is?
Protecting the privacy of (l)users worldwide
360 degrees of Karma
I have no problem with everyone (ie, the public) having cameras. It's the government having cameras that worries me.
the US is repeatedly mopping the brains of their schoolchildren off the floor.
Oh yes, it happens at least 3 times a day in every medium-to-large city! (rolls eyes)
"In Britain they don't try to get law and order by scaring the shit out of the citizens" Right, I'm not denying this. Unfortunately it's the other extreme that's the rule now. The people see the police as a complete joke. What you saw in Sweden is what I see in the Netherlands and what everyone else in the world sees in their country : the cops are dressed to impress. And then the Brits have the nerve to call their Police "the pigs". Ha ! What a laugh, they don't have a clue. There's such a thing has a happy medium.
'Criminal' is in the vast majority of cases the unwillingness not inability to respect the discern between "Mine and Thine", be it life or goods.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Sure we have a hell of a lot of cameras over here, but just making the film easier to view isn't going to further "erode" the rights of UK citizens. As the article says, CCTV cameras are already everywhere in the UK, and you can't walk through a major urban metropolis without being caught every 50 yards or so.
This is a good thing, because it has worked in keeping levels of crime in our cities down, and making them safer for people to walk late at night. CCTV footage has led to convictions for many people committing acts of violence, and I, and many other UK citizens feel safer for having them around.
Considering that the police already have access to all of the footage, it's hardly going to change much for them to be able to access it on the move. Rather, it will enable them to respond more quickly to criminal acts, and hopefully mean they can be stopped quicker. By piping them through a computer, face and car number plate recognition technology can be used to further aid identification of criminals and their vehicles.
The police need every bit of help they can get in their fight against crime. This development is something that can help, whilst at the same time causing no further decrease in our freedom or privacy.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
The other reason I'm in favour is that Brixton (in South London) has a bad (but deserved) reputation for aggro between the police and the local black population, going back beyond the riots in 1981 (that's the London police's site, by the way - more realistic stuff here.) With CCTV, allegations of brutality can be more easily verified and rascist / thuggish cops thrown in jail, where they belong.
The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
CCTV is a useful tool in crime fighting, but it is not a panacea or the best use of funds in every case. The authorities should be subject to the same data protection laws as individuals and coroporations.
"What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."
Hereditary peers - oh those 92 people in that chamber of 500-odd who can get overridden by the House of Commons whenever they get too annoying?
We have written human rights that are as good as anyone's and we're not doing too badly. When we need to lok at are the practical issues which really make a difference not the theoretical stuff.
I'm no-one's subject.
Potential for abuse - so what] Film me - so what Watch me doing sfa - so what Ohh , my rights are violated - so what whatever I feel precious about I'll call a right - so what I feel I'm justified in my angst - so what I like to feel intellectual - so what But it's the nasty government - so what But I don't understand - so what But it's my right to steal - so what But they might see me - so what etc etc etc ....so what.
There are lots of surveillance cameras everywhere in the US, often coupled to various forms of recording devices: in convenience stores, supermarkets, shopping malls, highways, toll plazas, parking lots, etc. US prosecutors can and will track down these cameras and use them as evidence in court. So, I'm not convinced that the situation in the UK is really all that different from the US when it comes to surveillance cameras and their uses by the police.
In fact, because surveillance cameras in the US are mostly private, they probably are subject to less scrutiny and regulations. Keep in mind that Europe's privacy laws are pretty strong and restrict what companies can do quite severely.
The police, prosecutorial, and court system in the UK is also quite different from the US. In the UK, prosecutors are not rewarded for cases they win in the same way they are in the US; they actually have much less of an incentive to try to convict people if there is some doubt.
Funny you mention that. Katie Couric was just interviewing Charlton Heston this morning, and cited a fact that more American kids are killed by guns that the next top 12 (or 25? I forget) industrialized countries combined. She then proceeded to ask if Heston really thought that American kids were just 12 times more fscked up than everybody else in the world, or perhaps could the availability of guns be a factor. He said the former, that American kids were indeed more screwed up. While this may be true, I find it hard to deny the fact that *guns* certainly have something to do with deaths by *guns*. The NRA's bible (or perhaps their second bible at least), is the 2nd Amendment. They take it without even questioning it. If the founding fathers had said everybody has the right to drive around downtown in pink elephants, well, I guess that would be beyond reproach then. It seems to me that (as with most of the constitution) the second amendment has to be viewed in the context of the time. Now I'm not getting nambsy pambsy cultural-relativist here. In 1776, it was feasible that an armed citizenry could conquer oppression by the government (whatever government). But this in this day and age, what the hell use is a gun, short of hunting (and short of the protect-your-self-from-gun-toters vicious tragedy of the commons cycle)? If Bush annoints himself king, are all righteous gun-toters going to march and re-take the government? Fat chance. Perhaps the 2nd amendment should be reworded to include artillery, apache helicopters, jet fighters, tanks, and ICBMs? The simple fact is that you are plainly open to screwage from your government. Doesn't matter if you think you are rambo with your little .38 or hunting rifle.
Given that firearms will do absolutely squat (technical term) against an oppressive government (or at least MY government, the US), what exactly *is* the ethical justification (besides that founding fathers sprung from Zeus's head and they only speak the truth)? No matter how "good" people are, if they are trained correctly, have been brought up to respect guns, etc...bad stupid accidents will always happen. Except these days, it doesn't take five minutes to clean, load, and fire a 20 pound gun.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Um, it's already illegal to "give them guns". I'm not aware of any school shooters who were in legal possession of the weapon(s) they used. So maybe we should blame the idiotic parents instead?
Please do not assume that all Christians are so ignorant as to call evolution crap! In fact I suspect most of us won't even use the word. Personally I prefer "c**p" as my description of the attitudes that forbid its utterance in so much of US state schooling.
I am quite happy to think that the theory of evolution contains a good way of explaining, in modern educated concepts, how The Lord may have done some of His creation.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
What makes you think that more gun laws will make me less likely to be brutally killed? The people doing the brutal killings are doing it with illegal guns anyway! You don't get it
Not only that, but attempts to show a correlation between gun laws and crime have consistently failed. Why does the rural state of VT have the most permissive gun laws in the area, yet the least violent crime?
A million people murdered, just so a few groups of rednecks and gun freaks are free to carry their weapons around and shoot at signposts.
Your bigotry is showing here. This isn't about "rednecks and signposts," or "freaks." This is about freedom. The foundation of the US is that the people have the power and right to replace their government, through the use of force if ncessary, when the government is corrupt. If you take away the guns, you take away the last illusion that this right still exists.
It's simple really, some rights are more sacred than others, nothing comes for free and *everything* is a compromise, I really think the USA gov has its priorities wrong
You're entitled to that opinion. Everyone has a scale which shows how much freedom they are willing to sacrifice in exchange for security. Some folks would consent to mandatory daily strip searches in their schools, if it meant one less murder a year. Some want to outlaw tobacco. Others would like to see all drugs legalized, and no gun laws. Most of us fall in the middle somewhere.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Have all those cameras reduced the number of IRA bombings at all?
Yes they have. Every now and again they catch the dirtbags that blow up our civilians - men, women and children alike. These dirtbags then spend some time in jail not blowing up someone else.
Whose brains are you mopping off the floor?
Certainly not very often the brains of our children off the floors of our homes and schoolyards!
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Just needs to be pointed out - Britain consists of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, plus outlying islands. Too many bloody foreigners (including the poster of the original article) consider Britain to consist of England alone.
Super Awesome Broadband
European Convention on Human Rights, part of British law since October 2000 (Scotland actualy may have had it earlier) will stop any such persecution.
The very very very unlikely scenario of an extremist party coming to power would see them in serious trouble if they tried to pass any laws like that. Not they they would because thank god we have a tradtion of moderation in our political leanings. We didn't want Foot and we don't want Hague.
Surely you exagerate.
Do you really think people live with that constant fear? I don't think that when going out it's ever once occurred to me that by doing so I might get my brains blown out.
--
>What about the right to live your life without >being brutally killed?
I'll refer your limey ass to the Boston Massacre and the resulting dust-up as proof that owning a gun can protect your right to live without being brutally killed...
The Bill of Rights enumerates basic rights of humanity, and none is more or less important.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
If you're walking down a public street, you can expect to be seen by anyone.
Wrong.
If I am walking down a public street, then I can expect to be seen by anyone who has me in line of sight! I do not expect to be seen by someone on the other side of a building or hill, and I certainly do not expect to be seen by someone who is over the horizon.
Surveillance cameras change all of this. Now when I go out, I must contend with the fact that (potentially) someone on the other side of the world can see me!
This is a Bad Thing(tm) and is a violation of my patent on Evil(R). All criminal enforcement organizations are herby ordered to cease and desist all use of all technologies that infringe on my Personal Privacy(tm).
Eris
UK has the highest public surveillance (stress: NOT COVERT) due to a high profile and sustained terrorist bombing campaign in England & Ireland. Largest majority of cameras are in shops=private property. We are capitalists, so theft of merchandise is bad! Other cameras are speed cameras on roads - nothing to fear if you are law abiding. I admit I don't like the cameras, but that's only because they may witness me/people like me transgressing the archaic laws that contravene my personal liberty. That is what Liberty and similar groups should be targetting. With the greatest respect, the invasions of privacy people on all sides of the Atlantic could do with checking their priorities. As someone who was minutes away from the biggest carbomb in England, I can see the use of surveillance.
Don't bother, he's not worth it...
I don't know about England but here in Germany it's bad. The police cameras are every ware. I don't know how many really do work but there are a lot of boxes. I don't know how effective are the photos, I heard that some people wait 2-3 months for the ticket in the mail, But I got one in a week. Also I have been flashed a few times and never heard about them (could be in the mail).
I think that we are moving into a point in age where privacy is no longer available. One thing is that the surveillance technology is still a bit primitive, until OCR, speech recognition and photo recognition becomes better then we will worry. The NSA already has entire centers that monitor phone conversations. Say boom 3 times and a human will listen on. Now when computers will be able to take the place of expensive humans it will get ugly. Ever wonder how sometimes the police finds a terrorist far away a few days later?
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
In the UK we have a television programme called the Mark Thomas Comedy Product that made a very interesting and funny point. In the UK we have something called the data protection act, which gives us the right to access any data held about us from any company (with the exception of MI5/6,etc) for an administrative fee of ~£25.
This includes digital CCTV footage.
He gave us several examples of himself on various CCTV cameras (including the police, and several other government organisations), he's now running a competition for the best short film recorded on CCTV and obtained by the data protection act.
He has a website www.mtp2001.co.uk but it's a bit thin, does anyone know of any better links. This Guardian link explains some of his other escapades (scroll down to the bottom) Guardian Unlimited
Better get filming - Sam
If you take away the guns, you take away the last illusion that this right still exists.
Oh Christ that's good - so you're saying it's worth keeping guns just to stop people realising they can't overthrow the Government?
Mwahahaha!! Can I use that as a .sig please?
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
The fact that, despite that they can CHANGE their corrupt government by democratic, that is, non-violent means, that they haven't done it, means that the american people have lost the right to even have arms, because they won't use the peaceful means they have at their disposal.
--
re: Canada
you are quite simply wrong
the Bill of Rights and the more comprehensive Charter of Rights and Freedoms are parts of the Canadian Constitution of 1982 which replaced British North America Act (BNA)
the Canadian Constitution simply *cannot* be overridden by a simple act of Parliament
check out the "Amending Formula" to the constitution
some changes require consent of Parliament and at least two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50 per cent of the population - other changes would require the unanimous consent of Parliament and all 10 provincial legislative assemblies
If you'd followed any Canadian political news of the past 20 years you would have noticed several attempts to amend the Constitution - all of which failed due to the difficulty in getting so many people to agree. If the parliament could change it or revoke it at will these multi-year long struggles would never have occured.
The Constitution cannot be overridden by parliament. It supercedes the laws passed by the parliament and indeed laws that are deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional have been struck down numerous times in the past 20 years.
Canada's parliament no longer enjoys the same omnipotent power that the UK's does. IMO, a good thing.
If you are saying that constitutional law in Canada is based on additional things beyond the single document of the Constitution Act (tradition of English law and the Napoleonic Code etc), well then that's different. You are quite correct. (But this is the case in the USA as well!)
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
This is a good thing, because it has worked in keeping levels of crime in our cities down,
Which cities are those ?
Have you visited an urban sink-estate lately ? Not the posh shopping centre of town, but the poor end, where there's no budget for cameras. Friday night violence has certainly moved, but it's not reduced. Seen Newport, or much of South Yorkshire, when the pubs close ?
CCTV footage has led to convictions for many people committing acts of violence,
Examples please. James Bulger ? Filmed on video being led away for murder, but it didn't stop it. The current case, where a number of (apparently) famous footballers severely beat and kicked one man, yet the witnesses in court are all eye-witnesses, not camera opearators.
Thank you for the clarification re Canada. I stand corrected.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
I live in the UK, in central London, and between now and the end of the day will probably be on a good forty cameras. This is in no way a limit on my rights or freedoms. In fact it increases them:
I don't have a right to steal, or break the law in any way, so I'm not losing any rights if I'm filming doing so. But I do have a right to Freedom From other people breaking the law with me as the victim. The CCTVs around here have certainly cut down on street crime, and petty violence, and for that increase in my own personal freedom I am thankful.
Actually, the concept of positive and negative freedoms is one most slashdotters should know. Life isn't just made of Freedom To. Many people - the RIAA for one (uh oh, asbestos trousers on) - also quite like Freedom From.
Have all those cameras reduced the number of IRA bombings at all? Whose brains are you mopping off the floor?
Did having an armed populace stop the Unabomber from planting numerous bombs? No. In fact, none of the bomb attacks America has had have been stopped by people with guns have they?
How on Earth are people with guns supposed to stop someone quietly walking into a building and leaving a bag containing a bomb? Do guns make you psychic? Give you X-ray vision? Well?
Lay off the gun propagranda. If you were really interested in making a case for gun ownership you wouldn't spout off like a moron.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
Don't hold your breath. The technology already exists to see you in your home from the outside.
Another point this brings up is that of the anti-terrorist act. While I agree that at the time this was necessary, the original plan was to have this repealed when there was no longer a pressing need for it, as it's a somewhat draconian law. Unfortuantely it's actually being extended, interestingly enough to add hacking as an act of terrorism!
Must admit to being a little disappointed at a legislature who sneak laws in by the backdoor while people don't fully understand the impact it'll have.
I've read posts suggesting that CCTV is OK as long as your not shoplifting, etc. Sounds reasonable, while we have a reasonable government (I'm in the UK).
However, the problem arises when your government is not reasonable. I'm thinking of China or Afghanistan, for example. And to all those that think we could never end up with opressive regimes in the west, well, all I need to say is DMCA.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Good God! Where do I begin? You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what you're talking about. I spent eight years in Britain and lived in various parts of the country and it's the safest and cleanest place in the world. I'm in Canada right now and it's OK so but in terms of the "community feel factor" it's not even in the same league as the UK. Just go there and see for yourself you uneducated, brainwashed propaganda fed armchair politician. Go to Edinburgh and see how people can go out and enjoy themselves anytime they want without living in the constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out. As for being inventive I don't think britons have much to be ashamed of (you know what nationality Stephen Hawking is, for example?).
If the cops monitor you, who monitors the cops? Abuse is inevitable.
That's just ridiculous. Would you rather have the American system where citizens take law (read guns) into their own hands? Excellent idea we've already seen how well this american model works.
Trust me, surveillance cameras aren't going to make anyone want to go there.
They don't seem to complain about the lack of people wanting to come there. As far as I know they're struggling to control the influx of all kinds of refugees and economic migrants there.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
They have the same powers as any other Federal law enforcement agent, with one important exception:
They are legally entitled to search any persons or objects entering the US, routinely. That's right, routinely. No probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion required.
The legal theory behind this power is that a customs search is not a criminal justice matter, but an administrative search for limited purposes to which the searched person had consented.
Hmmm, that sounds kind strange, but it's fine by me if they want to do that. Find a pink elephant and "drive around", by all means...
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
In Brisbane, where I live, we have quite a large network of cameras in the city centre that are monitored by police. There is also a network of cameras at all the train stations as well as on the trains.
They have overwhelmingly been accepted. They where installed as a deterrent to the 'rising crime rate', but, have proven to be very effective in reducing crime in the areas that are monitored . To date, that I know of, there hasn't been any abuse of the system.
Sometimes I do think that people can overreact when it comes to this type of surveillance. It's not like every monitor has some zealot steadfastly examining ever person looking for the slightest indiscretion. There is not much else you can do with this sort of monitoring other then watch out for the sort of crime your trying to stop.
Seems like an ok system to me.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
You are so full of shit, your local health department should be warned.
Stalking is a felony in Colorado. All it takes is for the victim to be alarmed or annoyed, or caused to fear for his own life. No bodily injury required. Our stalking statute, IIRC, also falls under our mandatory violent crimes sentencing.
Violation of a restraining order is admittedly only a misdemeanor, but it carries a mandatory arrest. Responding officers are REQUIRED to take the offender into custody upon developing probable cause. No discretion. No summons-and-release at the scene. Someone caught breaking a restraining order, his ass is spending some quality time in the county jail.
There's no US-wide law on the matter for a very good reason: The Federal government doesn't get involved in ordinary intra-state criminal justice matters, and thank god: no situation is so bad the FBI couldn't make it worse.
Plenty of people think that camaeras are ok and that it's only the guilty who should be scared.
.oO0Oo.
Wold you like one in every room of your house?
Watched by the police.
Or how about instead of mounting them on poles in the street they were carried by a policeman on foot and as you walked down the street there he was pointing it in your face.
Or there were some in your car, one pointing at the speedo, one at the road, and one at your face - with sound so they could monitor what you say too.
When people say "the innocent have nothing to fear" what they are referring to is that "the innocent will not be prosecuted" which is clearly not the same as not being in fear. There are enough law in the UK for most people to break them during the course of most days.
Here's some examples :
1. Swearing in public.
2. Illegal gathering : more than 2 poeple stood together (I kid you not - Public Order Act 1985 - enacted in 24hours to strengthen the police during the miners strike).
3. Public consumption of alcohol (geographically dependent)
4. Playing soccer (Scotland only).
It's the erosion of autonomy that we fear not the prosecution for our so called crimes. CCTV street cameras were introduced "to combat street crime" and they are heralded as a success because street crime does fall.
The 300 cameras per day figure is very reasonable for a day out shopping. Big stores must have about 20 each, they are spaced out every 100 yards or so by the police in the city, speed cameras to and from town are every 500 yards, they are omunted in traffic police cars of which you will see at least two during your journey.
Where would you like this to go? One per person?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Um, dope as in hash...
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
That's nothing new. The people I work for (Trakonic) already have software for streaming video to Palm Pilots and visors. We sell all sorts of security related stuff, we can broadcast video to web clients (live or recorded), to a specific client, or just record. The video also has software motion detection, and can trigger devices upon motion being detected. All from a single server that handles 8 cameras (16 soon). It's not slow either, over network we get 30fps with two cameras, and 20fps per camers with four. Laptops aren't a big deal, but if they can do better than streaming video to wireless palm pilots, then I'm interested. ;)
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
So where the hell do all these shite "Police's funniest home videos" programmes they show on Sky come from?
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
The man was caught, and thanks to the fact that the whole event was captured on camera the court will be able to prosecuted with the least amount of problem.
We are told by police that the man is suffering from a mental disorder, but the presence cameras on the streets of London is a huge positive as far as most citizens are concerned. Certainly everyone in my company is grateful for their existence. Especially now.
You are using bad statistics. Not all gun deaths are murder. Some are justifiable (shooting an intruder) and some are suicide (in case you didn't know, the lack of guns does not reduce suicides - look at Japan).
I've said this before, the British can shut the fsck up about our guns. We had a little discussion over two hundred years ago regarding this topic. You lost.
Besides, I'd rather be a citizen in the dangerous U.S.A. than a subject in the U.K. (bloody peasants!).
-- Will program for bandwidth
> A healthy society should have neither.
What, no cameras at all?
"All right, Mr. Jones. Put the Nikon down
and back away *slowly*..."
Chris Mattern
I can guarentee you that I am not forgetting this. Whilst I was at school and later at university my dad was continually worried about the state of his job. He was a printer. Murdoch had taken over his company.
"If Europe ran us at least we'd be run by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who don't like power-crazed corporations at all and would cut Murdoch down to size."
I am not convinced by this. Faceless bureaucrats, and power-crazed individuals are a problem whether they operate through Europe, or through a multinational.
"There may be disadvantages to Europe but don't let the newspaper owners' political agendas blind you to the good points."
It is certainly true that if we are to maintain our democracy at its current (distressingly low) level, then our democratic institutions must grow or they will become irrelevant compared to the multi-nationals. But at the moment the organisation of Europe involves government growing, and not democracy.
This leaves me in the difficult situation with respect to Europe. Is it a good thing? No it is not, because it lacks democracy. But not having Europe might be worse because multi-nationals also lack democracy.
So should I support Europe or not? The answer is simple, I should not support Europe as it is, I should attempt to change it for the better. A hard task, but harder the longer we leave it.
Phil
A policeman (as well as other people on the street)
All of this, however, is already possible with CCTV.
And you don't know what the camera is connected to.
Claus
G3? Is this yet another new, hyped up, mobile data transfer technology? Who's specifying it? Why haven't we heard of it? Is this Ericsson's revenge?
Customs officials in many countries have powers that far exceed that of the police forces i.e search without a warrant etc.
Any countries where their rights are limited ? What are their powers in the US ?
In the UK, we're not citizens. We are subjects of the throne. The UK is a monarchy. We have people making laws that have been given that right just because some great-great ancestor happened to be a very useful thug on a battlefield (the House of Lords, hereditary peers).
Also the UK doesn't have a written constitution. Any English or Scots lawyers care to make a comment on this point?
For my part, I have mixed feelings about the fact that Britain has something like the highest density of CCTV cameras in the world. Yes, they reduce crime in some areas. But there is the other theory that they just push it elsewhere.
In the big cities you're filmed a lot. I'd feel a lot happier if there was a degree of accountability. There are private as well as public bodies filming, and while I assume there is some sort of legislation controlling the public bodies filming me (anybody care to give me a URL?) I am a lot less happy about how private security companies are held to account.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Good God! Where do I begin? You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what you're talking about. I spent eight years in Britain and lived in various parts of the country and it's the safest and cleanest place in the world.
What a nice opinion! Here's one of my own: London is a dirty, disgusting rat trap and its inhabitants are ruder than any Frenchman I've ever met. Do you see now how opinions prove nothing?
Now, what are the crime statistics for England? I'm particularly interested in seeing the crime statistics before and after the British government outlawed (a la Pot Pot, Mau Tse Tung, and Adolf Hitler) private ownership of guns.
Go to Edinburgh and see how people can go out and enjoy themselves anytime they want without living in the constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out.
Because no one in England has guns, right? Not even the criminals, who, by definition, don't obey laws?
I live in the US. Guess what? Neither I nor anyone I know or have even met lives in "constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out." I have many friends and coworkers who have dozens of guns. Am I afraid that any of them are going to blow my brains out? No. I have a shotgun at home. Have I blown anyone's brains out? No. Your paranoid rants are exactly that: paranoid rants.
That's just ridiculous. Would you rather have the American system where citizens take law (read guns) into their own hands? Excellent idea we've already seen how well this american model works.
The US model works better than you think it does. Answer me this: How often does it happen in the US where a citizen uses a gun to prevent a crime? Do you think you'd be interested in the answer to that question?
They don't seem to complain about the lack of people wanting to come there. As far as I know they're struggling to control the influx of all kinds of refugees and economic migrants there.
And you manage to throw in a xenophobic argument of your own.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'd be interested in hearing what the Brits think about this issue them selves.
This system can be a bused and it has been. There have been instances of the people opereating it selling tapes with "amusing highlights" on the internet. Another point is that this system can be used to monitor people and keep track of them. Be it for governmental business or just because you like to keep track of your hated neighbour so that you can spread nasty rumours about him/her.
On the other hand it was also camaras like these who solved the Bulger case. If it was not for them the Police would never have hit on him being murdered by a couple of ten year olds and would still be looking for an adault murderer.
So are these cameras more trouble they are worth?
The British government certainly seems more bent on monitoring its subjects than other governments are. Last I knew they were also testing systems that scans peoples passports when they enter/exit the UK and logs their travelstatistics in a database. Another intersting development is a system of cameras on Highway bridges that scan liscence plates and can be used to keep track of certain cars by simply entering the possible liscense plate numbers into a database. These systems are useful for their intended function of finding terrorists and keeping track of stolen cars. But also offer some "interesting" possibilities for abuse.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I can't wait to hear what happens when the first bobby is nabbed for using this system to follow his wife around all day...or to stalk that girl down the street.
The question is: would he get in trouble for stalking, or would he get in trouble for misusing resources (i.e. costing money)?
With what I've heard from the UK, I'd guess it'd be the latter.
Oh yeah, a minority group of people rebelling over taxation they didn't like. The American Revolution was hardly a glorious break for freedom, and some of the things done to British loyalists were hardly pretty.
The English were people who thought that they had the right to colonize (read: enslave) any country they saw fit, plunder their resources, destroy their people's culture, and eradicate their people's language. You're hardly qualified to comment on "freedom."
What if the police start abusing their power? That's why we have regulatory systems, it's all part of living in a democracy.
Can you guarantee that police will always be punished appropriately if they abuse their power? Furthermore, if the police abuse their power and life or property is destroyed as a result, then what kind of regulation can rectify those damages?
And don't give me all that crap about defying a totalitarian government - I'd like to see you try and face down the US Army.
The same US army that saved England's snobby ass? And I'd like to see how you argue that the US is a totalitarian government.
Of course in America it'll most likely be a SWAT team breaking your door down because they've been tipped off by some crack-addled informant they've been paying your tax dollars to that you are dealing drugs.
You didn't answer his question. Instead you changed the subject. I agree with you: the Drug War is a pointless and insane waste of money and should end immediately. It does no good and plenty of harm, including the erosion of freedom (which you outlined).
But since you failed to answer his question, I'll ask it again: And fat lot of good a camera is going to do if a criminal with an illegal gun breaks into your house and shoots you dead. Sure, he'll be caught, but it's a little too late by then for you law-abiding non-gun-owning citizens, isn't it?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I've lived in britain for the last 20 years, watching with more than a little concern as these things have been introduced.
The British government's (Jack Straw) rational behind installing so many cameras (and believe me they really are everywhere) is to reduce the cost of policing. This is all too visible by the complete lack of the 'bobby on the beat' that used to be so much a part of the landscape. The irony of course is that this aproach is doing nothing to reduce the cime figures.
Apart from the civil liberty infringements (a whole topic in itself), nobody can argue that they are in any way effective at crime prevention. Instead what you have is a way of POSSIBLY finding and punishing criminals AFTER the event, thus filling already crammed prisons even more yet still not doing very much to PREVENT the crime happening in the first place.
If I'm walking down a street at night and I see some threatening guys coming towards me, I would be much happier knowing that there was a policeman nearby than a camera to watch me being mugged.
Police state? I can't remember the last time I saw a policeman. Attack the problem at its core, don't try and paper over the cracks.
orlando...
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
...the fscking helicopters! Christ!!! LA was like Cu Chi in '68-'69.
Helicopters everywhere with Nightsuns and loudspeakers. It was like Apocalypse Now in the 1st Cav sub-plot!
Now, I read that LA and Orange Counties are buying BLIMPS fer chrissakes!!!
Sheeple!
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
Hold on a second...
When I walk down the street, yes, I can assume that several dozens of people see me...
However, do I also have to assume that they will know me?
Do I have to assume that later, they will all be called in to testify, that without a doubt, they did see me walking down the street, with a certain look on my face, and walking a little faster than a stroll?
I am pretty sure they are also drafted into the militia. Not the kind of run around in the woods and drink beer militia like we have in montana either.
Most countries have extrememly stringent gun ownership rights (except of course places like afghanistan, iran, israel etc where war in one form or another has been waging for centuries).
War is necrophilia.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics....
Just because a higher percentage of the population is armed, and there is a lower incidence of crime does NOT PROVE that one has caused the other. I could just as easily show with similar figures that violent crime has increased due to a (corresponding) rise in the number of people owning (for example) SUVs.
For example, the oft quoted "guns were banned in the UK and violent crime has INCREASED!!" Well, I can also show that the number of Ford Mondeos (UK model) has increased and there has been a rise in the incidence of violent crime.
One could also point out that an increase in the armed populace in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Liberia etc. has lead to an INCREASE in violent crime.
Remember, what works in one country/culture may not work in another. Banning guns in the US may never have any significant, beneficial impact. Likewise, introducing them into the UK is not likely to improve things either
People in the suburbs are richer they have no need to commit crimes (except crimes of passion perhaps).
People in the suburbs are white and police almost never brutilize white (or even almost white) people.
People in the suburbs have enough room to breathe and get privacy. Crowded people are more on the edge.
The ratio of people to cops is greater in crowded areas which makes for more opportunity.
It's easier to get away in a crowded scene. In the suburbs you have to drive a car which could be tracked by helicopters but in the city all you gotta do is outrun some fat cop for a block or two.
I am sure there are tons of other reasons too these seem most likely to me.
War is necrophilia.
Unless the cameras are focusing on a particular vehicle, I doubt you'll be able to read plates. That is, unless an operator is attending a camera nearby at the time, your friend would still go unavenged.
That is, unless you take the model in Demolition man and apply it -- lo-jack everyone, and then when there's a Murder-Death-Kill detected, every camera in 50 blocks can focus in on the perp, and the unqualified cops can respond, and then they'll have to unfreeze Syvester Stallone to catch him and he'll team up with Sandra Bullock...oops, got sidetracked there.
"If you'll recall, the USSR got their asses kicked by Afghanistan. The US got their asses kicked by the Vietnamese. We also pulled out of Somalia due to a fairly small number of losses by people who almost are already in the Stone Age, and the Balkans have been a nightmare for ages."
Perhaps a two year old reading history books might come to this conclusion but adults realize that without the stinger missles sold to the afghans by the good old U.S of A also helped quite a bit. Same with viet nam you don't really believe that the vietnamese were able to repel the US armed forces without help from the russians and the chinese do you?
I'll give a more recent example. David Koresh was armed to the teeth but he could do nothing to stave off the ATF and the FBI. How about the Militia of Montana? they too were armed but eventually could not get along without their TV and surrendered. Show me one instance in the united states where an armed citizenry was able to repel the armed forces and the police. Even the civil war was lost and that was the most stark evidence of people fighting their own government.
War is necrophilia.
London, 2084. MicroCop(tm) software is scanning the city, detecting crimes and filing them.
Crimes are also displayed on-screen at the local police station.
On screen, a man is stabbed to death.
MicroCop(tm) status is "orange"
Copper 1: Ouch! That really must hurt.
Copper 2: I'm getting tired of this. Switch the channel.
The screen shows a pickpocket
MicroCop(tm) status drops to "yellow"
Copper 1: Sheesh, this is not even a real crime.
Copper 2: Next channel, please.
On the screen, a young girl is getting raped.
MicroCop status is "orange" Copper 1 (Drools)
Copper 2 (to coppers 3-8): Hey, guys, look at this!
A few minutes later the MicorCop(tm) lauches the "red alert sequence".
On another channel, it has detected a "real" crime: UNLICENSED SOFTWARE
Copper 2 (picks his gun): Damn!
Copper 1: Lets beat the shit out of 'em.
There's something to be learned here - overbugging does little good. From a purely physical standpoint, there are limits both to how much one camera can capture and to how densely they can be packed. If you have enough cameras, all anybody does is stand around watching each other...QCIC indeed.
Cameras as used in Britain play to people's longing for a sense of security. The security that was once provided by strong family and community ties, honest work, and common decency is now sought from government. Big shocker there...you want freedom, accept the diminished security. It's not a simple tradeoff, of course, get it right and you maximize both simultaneously. Take the approach people in most countries take today, and you end up with none of either. Scared little mice scurrying around in search of a few crumbs left behind by the cat and praying to a God they forgot long ago that said cat doesn't come around and kill them all.
Are you kidding? Firearms work great.
See, when George the 2nd wants to take over the US, even assuming that he has the full backing of the military (in truth, he wouldn't: they quite seriously take oaths to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic - both sides would have a wide range of arms and soldiers) he has to establish certain Rules of Engagement for the military.
In such a scenario, it would be pointless to simply kill everyone. Then what the hell is he ruling? No, what he would want would be to assume power. This means not killing people, just making sure that they know who's the boss. It doesn't work well, against an armed populace.
If you'll recall, the USSR got their asses kicked by Afghanistan. The US got their asses kicked by the Vietnamese. We also pulled out of Somalia due to a fairly small number of losses by people who almost are already in the Stone Age, and the Balkans have been a nightmare for ages.
Nearly any attempt at conquering a country is much more similar to a 'police action' or 'peacekeeping' in that the military is highly constrained as to what they can do, because not exercising force is their goal. Guerilla movements thrive under such circumstances. And militaries suffer.
Sure, they could nuke everyone, but there's really no chance of it. Hitler was the last really big lunatic who would have tried to do something like what you describe, expecting to reseed the empty, conquered lands with Germans. Pretty much everyone else during and since has been content just aiming to control the conquered people and their lands and industries.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Why doesn't anyone ever bring up Switzerland
(every male over the age of 18 is *required* to have a gun, and there are little or no shootings)?
That's for Swiss Army soldiers(pretty much every male). They're also forbidden to use it except in combat or training.
John McPhee wrote an excellent book on the Swiss Army called La Place de la Concorde Suisse
Aren't there other developed countries that have high gun ownership besides the US?
None that have anywhere near the number of firearms as the US. I suppose Lebanon and Afghanistan - but neither is really civilized.
FWIW, I live in the US and am an NRA supporter.
Life is a psychology experiment gone awry.
I read some of your comments from several articles... you can't be serious.. Claude Shannon = sinister??? You love banner ads and blocking them is stealing content? The worst comment (or best, if you're joking): SOLAR SAILS ARE NON-POLLUTING!!?? Do you have any idea how toxic space is? We couldn't pollute it any more if sent all the chemicals and radiation we possibly could into space! Not to mention that the size... oh why do I bother... SPACE IS PRETTY BIG, polluting it is a non-issue. Dude, you're insane!
I'm not aware of any studies that have proven a link between a greater number of CCTV camera and lower, or slowing crime rates. I am aware of a number of studies that have shown CCTV camera to have no appreciable effect on crime rates, and some where there appears to be links between CCTV cameras and higher crime rates! *
Yes, I know it sounds hard to believe. How can CCTV cameras lead to higher crime rates? Simple. CCTV cameras are treated as surrogate policemen. Everyone in Britain knows we've been having a hard time recruiting enough police-officers - well now we don't need to!
It's quite easy.. Stick a load of CCTV camera everywhere and what's the point in having all those policemen wandering about to keep an eye on things (and act as a deterant).
Umm.. no.. CCTV cameras are crap. CCTV footage is inadmissable in court as identification. In many cases the footage in the cameras isn't kept long enough to be used anyway. Better hope the police get around to retrieving the footage before it gets taped over in the next 24 hour cycle. And they make rubbish deterents. What would stop you - seeing a policemen or some half-arsed camera ontop a pole that may or may not actually have some film in, that may or may not be kept, that can't be used to identify you in a court of law, all with a good chance that the police who's supposed to monitoring it is has nipped out for more donuts/a piss/a cigarette? Bear in mind, that if you'll about to commit a voilent crime you'll probably to drunk to care about the cameras anyway...
It is quite simply all a con. The government seems completely incapable of scrapping together enough policemen to stop the rising crime rates so they stick a load of CCTV cameras everywhere and try and get kudos for it. What a load of bollocks....
If you want to get the crime rates down you need better policing with more policemen. No some poor grainy footage of crime that's already taken place. That's not exactly prevention.
(*Unfortunately, I don't have links to hand - try searching the GreenParty's website, they should have a few)
(Amusing aside: A town in Devon had a spaite of robberies that all coincided with the shift change at the CCTV monitoring centre. They never did catch them...)
By sheer coincidence, William Safire has a column on the invasion of privacy through relentless monitoring in the NYT.
h tml
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/12/opinion/12SAFI.
I'm a Canadian living in London - I found seeing cameras around odd for the first little while, but soon learned to appreciate them. I can't see how this is a privacy issue at all...
The thing that really changed my mind were a few violent crimes that made the newspaper. Shortly afterwards the police could release pictures of the people they thought were involved. This right away struck me as a wonderful thing. In Canada all we would get would be a description along the lines of "White male, 5'9" wearing a red jacket"... Eye witnesses would then report if they saw someone like that in the area...
Basically, I'd much rather have to refer to a picture on an impartial camera than the generally biased/impressionable eyewitness account.
How quickly can a black person be remembered as hispanic when the only person in the area was hispanic? Cameras won't make that kind of a mistake.
This is a common mistake made by people, but it's simply not true. We are in fact British citizens, and seeing as no legislation at all relating to nationality existed before the British Nationality & Status of Aliens Act of 1914, the term "subject" is simply a holdover from when the monarchy wielded real power.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
1) Your wife goes to a departments store.
2) She goes into a dressing cabin to try on a new dress.
3) She unknowingly gets caught on a camera in the dressing cabin installed there to prevent shoplifting.
4) The camera operator gets a boner and saves the tape for his collection.
5) Camera operator needs cash and sells his private coolection to porn-mongerer.
6) You accidentally walk in on a colleague in the men's room at work. And find that he is wankinig him self off over a vidcap of your wife's naked tittes that he downloaded from www.amateur-sluts.com.
Hahaha funny? Or maybe not!
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Doh, just saw other posts... I know its redundant. Don't bother modding it...
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
The important phrase is
CCTV cameras are not owned/operated by the "broadcast media", and so are not covered this clause.
This clause is intended to prevent some smart-arse using the DPA to demand a copy of "Brideshead Revisited" for a tenner.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Why cant we have both? And why does only the goverment get to use the cameras? If they are broadcasting anyway, why not publish everything on the web in realtime? Let the citizens use them to search the city- Find your missing child, report a crime in progress, see that cop getting a blow from that hooker. Hey you werent supposed to see that... hehehe give the camera back.
On the other hand, whats wrong with everyone having a gun? NYC has no guns, there are muggers everywhere AND the cops are fascists that routinely brutalize or kill non-criminals. Outside of NYC, EVERYONE in new york state has a gun, most have multiple guns. Guess how many muggers there are? Guess how much police brutality there is? Sure, there are a few burglars and car thieves, but they dont last long. An armed citizenry keeps down crime. Armed citizens keep the boot of goverment and corporations from stomping on the face of humanity too harshly. If Winston Smith can shoot you, you dont spy on him or oppress him too harshly because its not worth the trouble.
As a further disclaimer, most of the harm that I have seen from guns comes from drunken retards who go hunting completely sloshed and end up shooting one another. There are some minor accidents with gun cleaning and stupidity (fill in the blanks here), but these are not really tradgedies in any sense of the word. The "child playing with daddy's guns" stories are pretty rare because most parents know that guns are dangerous and its practically the first thing they teach their kids. Every kid I ever met that grew up around guns was well adjusted and normal except that they could handle guns. Not a bad skill to have, I might add.
And the Revolutionary War required assistance from France. (as well as a fair number of individuals from all over Europe) If it got down to the point where Americans are fighting Americans, some kind of aid by other powers is not entirely unlikely. (though it would probably also be fairly deniable, in case their side lost....) As for the Civil War, that was, at times, a very close thing. If the South had had more aid from the UK or France, or the Union had screwed up a bit more, there probably would still be a CSA. Don't kid yourself, kid. It was not a cakewalk.
Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that small pockets of resistance are sufficient to overthrow an entire country. Certainly not if everyone else is more or less happy. But if George the 2nd tried to take over everyone, as Hard_Code suggested, I suspect that the number of people unwilling to tolerate it would be enough. Hell, if he literally did proclaim himself King, I doubt that anyone would even bother fighting on his side. Which is good. But if I had to fight against an oppressive government, I would. They wouldn't be my government, after all, and it is everyone's duty to stand up to and beat back oppressive government.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
A piece of draft legislation prepared by the UK Government supposedly for Social Security, has in version 1 para 59 and version 2 para 61 unlimited powers for the Secretary of State for Social security to have complete and unlimited access to ALL MEDICAL RECORDS of everyone in the UK without any safeguards. This in effect means that every department of government has access to every medical record whether on paper or digital media. Just imagine how much the pharma' industry would pay for such valuable info and not just the UK pharmasutical industry - to have a whole nations complete medical history and DNA profile would be priceless, especially to the insurance industry! Privacy and the CCTV cameras in public places pales into insignificance.
So, which is it! Engerland or UK? :S
P.
"an individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day."
Anybody who really knows what's going on out there doesn't ever step outside!
Even if I lived in Britian (which I don't of course!), and even if I did go out side (which I don't of course!) they still wouldn't be able to get a good look at me because of my Groucho Marx glasses, full-body ape suit, and leather overcoat!
They can put up all the cameras they want! They will NEVER find me!
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
As a deterent to crime, which would you prefer:
We Britons find it offensive that the US criticises us for having too many cameras whilst at the same time the US is repeatedly mopping the brains of their schoolchildren off the floor.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Those UK's citizens who not dare of those cameras simply assume their government is law full good. ...
But sometimes it isn't.
Thats why cameras are dangerous, yes, how high can you trust someone for who, e.g., you don't vote ?
And if your gov' turn to become facist. Spying you in order to know your dates with other syndicalists
You have not to be criminal to suffer from it.
Have I missed something or did u just mean 3G?
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)
If you're walking down a public street, you can expect to be seen by anyone. If you're on someone else's property, you can expect to be seen by them.
If the police started recording me in my home, that would be different. But no-one would stand for that. In fact, such evidence isn't even admissible in court.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
Also these guys , the surveillance camera players.
Do you think you might tell me how? Did someone protect himself with a gun? Being a 'limey' I wouldn't know a great deal about this event, like you probably would not know a great deal about the Hungerford Massacre.
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
Yes I do show some bigotry, my apologies. The rural state of VT may have the lowest crime rates - perhaps because it is rural?
In the cities, crime is more prevelant - and yes, this is not the fault of merely guns, but the fact remains that the proliferation of guns in the USA facilitates easier murders when someone wishes to do so without their bare hands.
A killing with a gun needs a motive and a weapon - taking away the weapon is far easier than taking away the motive, and perhaps is best in the short term, until we work through the motives and eliminate them too?
Once that is done, there will be no need for guns anyway, so your argument is self defeating.
Guns = easier to kill someone.
*how* can this be good?
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
One thing that disturbs me a little is the underlying assumption of all these "big brother in the UK" articles. There seems to be a general impression that UK and the USA are very much the same, and that what happens in one country is sure to follow quickly in the other. This could not be further from the truth. Despite our shared language and our shared hatred of the french and germans (joking of course, haha), we are very different people. I will draw upon my experiences as a person of English descent with many english relatives.
The english have a long history as a strictly hierarchical society with very little vertical movement permitted to its citizenry. This is mostly due to the fact that they were once a monarchy (the queen is mostly window dressing these days). As anyone who has watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail will tell you, the Brits are very different from us. Without touching on the miserably boring history of the English, lets see how we are different today.
-Freedom of speech is curtailed by very restrictive libel and slander laws. The burden of proof is on the producer of the speech. If you say GM makes shitty cars over here, they have to prove you wrong. If you say "British Telecom is ripping off consumers... again" they can sue you and easily win. ISPs and newspapers routinely bend over for big business in the UK, its 10 times worse than over here. Moral: dont step out of line
-Guns. The citizenry dont defend themselves. The crown watches over its subjects. Guns are for the hunting of waterfowl on one's estate and the military. End of story.
-Privacy. The crown is watching over you and will decide what is good for you. Give us your passwords and don't talk back peasant! Witness the RIP act and numerous other things more recently passed or in the process of passing. Forced handing over of private keys, etc etc etc.
-Cars. The brits have an insane traffic and speed system that is designed to a)inconvenience car owners and b) generate revenue with speed cameras. This is part "Green" legislation, part greed, part stupidity.
I could go on for years about all the things that are differnet about the UK, but I havent been there in a while and I think ive made my point anyway. The british arent moving closer to 1984, they are just making well-intentioned mistakes that place freedom last (what would they do with it if they had it?). I think that eventually they will wise up. A good portion of the populace doesnt think any higher of these things than you and I, they are just outnumbered right now.
... we can track you with those cameras, and an automatic face detection system as introduced by the Frauenhofer Institute at the CeBIT .
You think it is 2001, but in fact we are near to 1984.
BTW: in east germany we also had a lot of cameras. They served the STASI. Now there are new cameras - I wonder who is watching us now.
With cameras you do not fight crime, it only moves to other places.
The DPA specifically excludes creative works. Any camera owner can refuse to hand over footage of creative works.
From the DPA CCTV guidelines (Introduction), actually linked from the Mark Thomas website (for fuck's sake, he obviously hasn't even bothered to read the DPA guidelines linked from his own site):
It is not intended that the contents of this Code should apply to: -
...
Use of cameras and similar equipment by the broadcast media for the purposes of journalism, or for artistic or literary purposes.
Document is here (MS Word) and is linked from this page on Mark's own site about a third of the way down, link entitled "CCTV Code of Practice guidelines".
Mark Thomas' journalism is purile schoolboy smart-arse childishness of the most pathetic kind. He constantly claims to be fighting The Man but invariably his shows revolve around taking the piss out of some poor doorman, security guard or receptionist on minimum wage. Mark just makes easy jokes about headlines and never actually bothers to read the small print, as this cock-up demonstrates.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
In the UK you have the right to demand a copy of any surveillance tape made of you.
I.e. if you see that you are being recorded in a department store, you are within your rights to demand a copy of that tape!
(see Mark Thomas Comedy Product for more info)
Obvious uses for this would be to get videos of youself getting it on with a hot chick at a christmas party...
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
Refers to USE BY not OWNERSHIP OF.
And the Mark Thomas Comedy Product definitely counts as use by the broadcast media.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
by owning a gun I can defend myself, my family, and my property from criminals
No, you can't. By owning a gun you can shoot someone else. There are no inherent defensive capabilities in a gun. It is not a shield it is an entirely offensive device. The obvious exception is that you can use it to deflect bullets, if you are Wonder Woman.
Many of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights implicitly assume a basic right to privacy
I have a right to privacy in my own home. I do not have the right to privacy in a public place. That is what the word public means. If I do not want to be in a public place I stay at home. If anyone wants to know what I do when I walk to work, let them. If you don't, either stay at home or buy a paper bag and put it over your head. You never know, it may be a fashion statement in a few years.
a gov't without morals will ultimately fail
That is exactly what the US government was setup to be. The church is there for morals, the government is there to govern. Except you cannot govern without morals. I agree that a government needs to be moral, and whose moral compass they use is what elections are all about. The issue is that the US was setup with separation of church and state, it is illegal to promote religions within schools, yet each morning, every kid must pledge allegiance to a flag and recognise a nation "under God". I am sorry, but this is f*cked. I know that after the War of Independence (which was the right thing to do, probably) there was only about a third of the population who actually supported the new government. They had to build a nationalistic feeling so indoctrinated it into the schools. But it is no longer needed. It has worked so well, that people beleive the bullshit they are fed at school. Schools only teach American history. What most people learn in one or two semesters you take 10 years to teach (sorry, kneejerk reaction, no more digs, I promise).
To get to the end in a very roundabout way, what you, as an American, expect is very different from what most Brits expect. Yes, Britain is a class ridden society, yes America is full of gun toting nuts. Most people in Britain would prefer to lose a little freedom than be shot full of holes. I don't care about the cameras, most Britons don't care about the cameras, only the yanks seem to care about the cameras, and you don't live here (Thank God, oops, couldn't resist it). There, my tuppence-worth.
Moderation is done at your own risk.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Perhaps the reason is that cars are made to transport people places, they only kill people accidentally most of the time. Guns are made to kill people, they serve no other purpose. We can teach our kids to stay off the road, we can educate drivers about slowing down in residential neighbourhoods.
We make people learn to drive and get a licence, for which they ned to pass a test. Any schmo can buy a gun. Nobody asks why someone wants a gun, nobody does a test to see if you are emotionally stable. Nobody checks to see if you have nutcase kids with a penchant for shooting their classmates.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Everybody sounds like CCTV cameras are a precursor to Big Brother and 1984.
Let's be realistic here people. Your privacy is not threatened by having cameras dotted around the streets. Think of each camera as a policeman, keeping guard on your street/corner all day and night without breaks. This is a good thing!! This means that our Police Forces can do so much more with their time and training.
You can have all the privacy you want, but the second you get violated by crime or terrorism, you will wish that there had been a camera on your attacker...
Besides, its not like you have one in your living room/bathroom/bedroom...
Get Real! You do not have a right to commit crimes!
rrrrrrrr....
The UK has been an abusive police state since the days of their own Reagan impersonator, Thatcher. And abuse of the public by the police goes back even further - your chances of being harassed, beaten up and then arrested for not co-operating in your beating are extremely high if you're not white or not English (i.e. Scottish or Irish). They also have a long history of suppressing protest as does the US.
I wonder though how easy it would be to damage or interfere with these cameras without actually touching them directly?