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."
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.
Then at least you could shoot into the cameras if they bothered you so much.
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.
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?
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.
An example of my point exactly - most people in the third world CAN'T read.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
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?
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...
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
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
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.
I'd prefer both, guns with cameras, like the sentry guns from Aliens.
"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)
:)
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?
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.)
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
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.
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
That's not a very considered attitude.
:-). The only reason organized crime would find it interesting, would be to examine police movements. And who owns the footage again? Oh yeah.
For a start, I'd take issue with your statement that the British police are "notoriously corrupt". That just doesn't wash, especially in contrast to the American police. But leaving that aside...
I don't think stalkers are a real force to worry about. That's a poor example. Stalkers just turn up and stare; they don't try and bribe police for CCTV footage.
As for organized crime: why would they be interested in me walking to the movies, or being sick behind a dumpster on a Saturday night (poor example, but hey
I'm not bothered at all by these cameras.
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
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
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?
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
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.
Do you mean this individual?
Find funky gifts
--
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.
--
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?
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 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?
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.
...I guess that's one way to interpret what I said.
I guess what I'm saying is that it would be very difficult for the citizenry to overthrow the US government. With the weapons we're allowed to keep, we'd have little hope against tanks, aircraft, etc.
However, at some level, each citizen may protect himself and his home. If things went all wacky, and we had soldiers going door to door collecting (insert ethnic or religious minority here) for shipment to gas chambers, individuals would have a chance at defending themselves.
So, in a way, it's an illusion. Nobody thinks they could lead a revolution against the state with shotguns and pistols. But at its core, it is a symbol, and as such, worth protecting.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
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.
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.
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
Emphasis added:
To date, that I know of, there hasn't been any abuse of the system.
Isn't that exactly the problem? You don't know how these cameras are being used.
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.
"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
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.
Homicide rate by firearms in the United States in 1997: 4.61 deaths per 100k citizens.
Homicide rate in the UK: 0.11 per 100k citizens.
So you suck.
Some people may be fine living in a society where the authorities know exactly where you are 24 hours a day, but personally I find it a little bit disturbing.
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)
So why haven't they caught the BBC bombers yet ? Surely with all these cameras around it should be dead easy.
Well, obviously we don't have enough, maybe we should install a few more. Sheeesh.
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
Forget the police, can you imagine if the BOFH got access to this ?
Wait, now that I think about it, he probably already does.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein