Britain is the World's Surveillance Leader

hax0r_par writes "It seems that in Britain, surveillance on the general public is happening and being recorded 24/7. They are playing the angle that this is allowing for criminal surveillance, which seems justified by the article. But it really is something to take into paranoid consideration now that we've got the technology to make this possible."

Comments

Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pete (big-pete)]

I would welcome rather than fear more cameras on the streets in the UK. There is one thing that privacy advocates are forgetting, for there to be an impact on your privacy there needs to be either a person at the other end of the camera, or an automated consequence.

With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all, only the ones that are really relevent - where a crime or suspicious behaviour has already been reported. After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

-- Pete.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Armchair Dissident]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges [wikipedia.org] (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

With respect, this is the same government that introduced the RIP act. When they later attempted to expand the act, they were forced to back down due to popular protest. They later expanded it anyway.

This is the same government that last year suggested the idea of "Voluntary entitlement cards" and stated categorically that they were not going to be compulsory identity cards. The consultation headed by "Millenium Dome" Falconer discarded all responses that were sent via the faxyoump service, despite clear assurances that they would be recognised and claimed that the voluntary card was accepted by the public. This year we learnt that the government was bare-faced lying and intended to introduce the cards as compulsory identity cards all along (it's laid out in bold font in the legislation proposal). Blair defended this position by stating that the Falconer consultation supported compulsory id cards. Even though the consultation was for a voluntary system, and even though it demonstrated the lack of support for it.

This is the government that attempted to stop a group of train crash survivors from getting a public investigation into the crash by hiring private investigators to determine what the political affiliations of the survivors were.

This is first government since the 1970's to introduce internment, which worked so wonderfully badly last time. This is also the government that sought to limit the right to trial by dury, and has seriously considered reducing the burden of proof for serious offences to "balance of probabilities".

I'm glad you trust this government, but their record is not an honest one that merits trust.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

I lived in S. Kensington, Earls court and Hammersmith (went to uni in S. Ken). I cycled a lot there, and have been hit by one car, one moped and a pedestrian - who ran across the road straight into me from the side. While on foot I've been hit by one car that decided reversing back across a pedestrian crossing full of people was a good idea. Fortunately I've never had anything worse than nasty bruises and cuts to show for them, although that was pure luck. The moped, for example, caught my handlebars and dragged me along behind it for 20 metres down the middle of a six lane road full of traffic before I eventually fell off.

The worst places for accidents were Fulham Palace road and High Street Kensington. Mostly motorcyclists and bicyclists - I've seen one in which the guy died, although mostly it looks like broken bones and cuts.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[SgtChaireBourne]

If a crime happens somewhere close to where you are, and you match the vauge description given by witnesses to that crime? Then you are guilty. At very least, you'll be explaining why you were there, and trying to explain that you didn't do the crime.

The initial suspect in last years assasination of Sweden's Foreign Minsister, Anna Lindh, is a good example of how that can happen even on camera. The press and police caught hold of the first kook running a double life that they could catch on CCTV and hung him out to dry. Granted the character is question wasn't the best character, but pretty much every mistake or failure in his life was trotted out by the media. If his life wasn't ruined before, that did it for sure. Oh. And it turned out that it was actually someone else they saw on the tape.

CCTV is a waste of time and money. The resolution is so bad that it's hard to impossible to recognize even acquantances, except by gait or clothing. I've used CCTV as a guard. I also know some small business owners who use CCTV, despite constantly wondering who has entered the premises. Quite often the potential customer has time to walk back out.

My take on the whole CCTV thing is that it's just the latest scheme to sell expensive things which waste more time and resources.

Cameras

[azbot]

Having just moved to London From New Zealand, I found the amount of CCTV cameras a little surreal. They are everywhere. But non-the-less; it is nice to know that perhaps even if just a placebo, they cameras tend to make things a bit safer. However, as my flatmate found out, cameras don't protect your household.

The streets may be safer, but your possesions still arent - Perhaps thats is why insureance is so high over here.

Actually there are checks in GB

[Space cowboy]

You are entitled to see any footage recorded of you at any time - not that this is (yet) commonly done, but there was a politically/comedy-orientated issues show (forget the name, could have been Gorman) where a host filmed his attempts to get the camera footage that he knew he was caught on.

You can't just walk into the records office and say "I want all camera footage of me at any time in any place", but you can obtain footage if you're more specific - how specific I don't know. Perhaps if more people did this (and then sued if the footage wasn't forthcoming) the authorities would be less likely to be so keen on them...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way I'll be happy with continual surveillance of such overwhelming magnitude is if *all* the footage from *all* the cameras are available online - the average MP is going to be a lot less happy about cameras being used left, right, and centre if he knows he'll be caught speeding at 4:00am by some anorak

That said, the vast majority are in London (which visitors to the country think is typical - it couldn't be farther from the truth!), and a huge percentage of the headline figure are the CCTV cameras in shops that point at the counter, all privately owned and I don't have a problem with them if they help prevent robbery.

Simon

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[BenjyD]

It was Mark Thomas, political comedy genius.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[irn_bru]

The Comedian was Mark Thomas, a sort-of British Michael More, albeit with (usually) more reasoned arguements. His website still includes helpful information about your rights to see CCTV footabge that has been taken of you.

Re:Echelon System

[piquadratCH]

Correction: Echelon is the name of NSA's communication surveillance system. It has nothing to do with the British government or cameras.

tin foil

[Frogg]

I live in the UK, and a good sensible measure that I've taken to recently is to line not only my hat with tin foil, but my shoes, socks, trousers, shirt and jacket too. As far as I can tell, it seems to stop the cameras from looking at me.

Ok.. UK Data Protection Act states that fixed cameras are ok, but if they can zoom or move, then you must comply with the act. To comply with the act you must have a nominated data-protection manager in your company (responsible for cycling tapes, answering public enquiries, etc), you must not place cameras where you shouldn't (toilets/etc), you must display the necessary signs (you are not (meant to be) allowed to record anyone without their knowledge) with contact details as to who is responsible for the cameras and who the 'data-protection manager' is, and if you operate cameras of a non-fixed kind any member of the public is entitled to make an enquiry, and providing they give reasonable information (time, location, description of appearance, what you were doing, who else was present, etc), and pay a handling fee of no more than £15(?) then you must either invite that person in to the company to inspect the footage, or (and?), make it available on standard playable video cassette -- and they have to block out the distinguishing features (black strips, mosaic fuzziness, etc) of anyone else who was present in the footage, but not immediately involved with the person in question.

I might've missed something, but I think that pretty much covers it. You can get advice and template letters for making such enquiries from a variety of places on the net, including (i think) from the UK government's DPA website.

It's all fairly serious stuff, lots of businesses (particularly night-clubs and restaurants) don't fully comply with the act (no visible signs in recording areas), and I'd be certain that they'd be unable to produce the required video footage if it were requested.

It sucks really.

Shit -- must dash, some of my tinfoil is more than 24hrs old, and needs replacing.......

Re:1984

[lxt]

No it wasn't. It was set in Oceania. Great Britain does not exist in the novel. It's set in London, in the country of Oceania. Not Great Britain. Easy, see? So, yes, when the entire of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and Great Britain become one massive superpower, the book will become more relevant.

Guns in Britain - I live here

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

Handguns were banned in Britain after a middle-aged hand-gun enthusiast walked into a school and shot most of the kids. At the time handguns were incredibly rare, mainly owned by handgun sporting enthusiasts, olympic competitors, etc. I don't have the figures but I would reckon one houshold in a thousand had one. Hardly a deterrent to burglars. It has nothing to do with the recent rise in gun crime which is being caused by hand guns illegally smuggled in from the Carribean by drugslords. The rise in gun crime is nearly all crimnal-on-criminal killing. I've not heard of a gun being used in a house burglary.