Slashdot Mirror


UK to lnstall Wireless Mics on London Streets

johnthorensen writes "Looks like parts of London may be seeing wireless microphones on the street sometime soon. At this point, they're looking to use them to monitor noise ordinance violations - if you call about a repeated disturbance, they'll mount one by your place to monitor noise levels for the next several days. The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs. The microphones apparently communicate via wireless Internet connection, although no real details are given as to the nature of said connection. Are London residents getting the boiled frog treatment?"

472 comments

  1. One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    "Boiled frog treatment"? Huh? Elaborate please, O limey one.

    1. Re:One question before we begin... by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 2

      As a Limey myself I have to admit I hadn't the faintest idea what that referred to, Google is similarly unhelpful on this topic.

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    2. Re:One question before we begin... by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah.. enlightenment :

      They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.
      But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
      The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    3. Re:One question before we begin... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think they're refering to the saying that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it'll leap out, but if you put it in cold water then gradually heat it won't try to escape and you'll boil it. It's the standard /. analogy when anything that could conceivably lead to an Orwellian society appears in the news.

      The process is actually more likely to work on a human than a frog, because the human body would do various things to try to cool down once things got a bit hot, whereas the frog could only regulate its temperature by getting out.

    4. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This isn't exclusive to frogs, it's a good way to cook humans too, just put them in a nice warm jacuzzi, then slowly turn up the heat until they pass out, boil for 45 minutes, salt to taste.

    5. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The process is actually more likely to work on a human than a frog, because the human body would do various things to try to cool down once things got a bit hot, whereas the frog could only regulate its temperature by getting out.

      On the contrary, the human body does various things including indicating to the brain that there's a problem that can be dealt with by climbing out. The frog never gets those indications. If the frog jumps out before it boils you simply heated the water too fast. A human won't be killed by this method unless he is physically prevented from leaving the water.

    6. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is what Snopes has to say about this, take it for you will.

    7. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the frog boiling thing is just BS.

    8. Re:One question before we begin... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Apparently this is a myth. Still, as an analogy, it works quite nicely.

    9. Re:One question before we begin... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

      As a frog can't regulate its own temperature it will always try to move to an environment at a suitable temperature, so it will notice the heating, no matter how slow it is (see Snopes). In contrast, a significant number of people have been killed by sitting in hot tubs and spas at high temperatures for too long:

      "There have been several deaths from extremely hot water (over 110F) in a spa. High temperatures can cause drowsiness, which may lead to unconsciousness, resulting in drowning. Raised body temperature can also lead to heat stroke and death."(From here)

    10. Re:One question before we begin... by Nicholas+Hill · · Score: 0

      The frog-analogy is actually wrong, according to snopes:

      http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.htm

      I guess you could try it yourself if you'd like, but I have more than an inkling that a frog will kick YOUR arse well before you get it to stay still.

    11. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and they found some fucker who'd actually tried it!

      boiling frogs as 'research'.

      "the physiological ecology of thermal relations of amphibians and reptiles to include determinations of the factors which influence lethal temperatures, critical thermal maxima and minima, thermal selection, and thermoregulatory behavior", my ass. the guy is a professional frog-boiler.

    12. Re:One question before we begin... by Yonatanz · · Score: 5, Informative

      When Google fails, Wikipedia Comes to the rescue!

    13. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down, Dahmer.

    14. Re:One question before we begin... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Boiling frogs is sport for little boys, but it's death for the frogs.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    15. Re:One question before we begin... by cortana · · Score: 1

      Here's the best bit:

      As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.

      It sounds like these researchers are lucky the animal rights loonies haven't burned down their houses, in order to see whether they could get out in time.

    16. Re:One question before we begin... by SkinnyPapa · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, if we duct tape Google and Wikipedia together, they're unstoppable!

      Plagiarised

    17. Re:One question before we begin... by alatesystems · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow! Could that ever happen? Well, ok, it already has. And of course, here's Dvorak's thoughts on it.

    18. Re:One question before we begin... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called "incrementalism". That principle, applied to people, has been responsible for some of the worst abuses in human history. People will react to a "crisis" (i.e., a "sudden change") and demand that "something be done" but will tend to gloss over lesser issues, particularly if they are properly sugar-coated. In fact, a well-handled "crisis" can be used to either a. justify another incremental step (i.e. the Patriot Act) or b. distract the population from what is really going on so that a much larger step can be taken (i.e. the Patriot Act.)

      A totalitarian state has no particular use for incrementalism because the people do as they're told or they get shot. Sometimes, even if they do what they're told they get shot. However, subverting a government such as the United States used to have requires a bit more subtlety. Little things slip under the radar, but over time they result in a significant loss of civil liberties, and an even more significant loss of control over the government in question. In fact, if you move slowly enough, you can create a legal climate more reflective of a police state than a republic, and many of those frogs, uh, citizens will cheer you on.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    19. Re:One question before we begin... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that once the frog is thrown into the boiling water, its skin would be scalded and its legs wouldn't work all that well. But maybe that's reading too much into it all.

    20. Re:One question before we begin... by Pinefresh · · Score: 1

      If the government of the United States were as bad as you seem to imply, then you would be posting anonymously out of fear. Assuming you are a citizen of the USA, if not, then You're buying into alarmist propaganda that people are spreading here. The direction Bush is leading us in is dangerous, but he hasn't won yet.

    21. Re:One question before we begin... by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think about it, if the government says you are a terrorist then you are, the second you start making decisions based on fear is the moment its all over. The only reason we arent in a police state is because its not going to be easy to put a police state on hundreds of millions of fearless American people. If Americans start to fear the government that makes it much easier.

    22. Re:One question before we begin... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say we had a police state, and frankly our government's recent activity should be alarming, and unless you consider the Patriot Act and similar abominations to be mere "propaganda" you have your head in the sand. In any event, I said that our government has created a legal climate that is very similar to police state: unconstitutional search-and-seizure and near-total lack of accountability by law enforcement should be enough to alarm anyone. And that's just for starters. The fact that the United States government hasn't yet chosen to fully exercise the powers it has arrogated to itself is no reason for complacency. Too many times our leaders have justified excessive powers, claiming that "oh, we'll never use them" or "we'll only use them to do good things" and my all-time favorite, "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Sure. And just as many times they've overstepped their bounds and people got hurt. Hell, it was Congress that reigned in the FBI under Hoover, but now Congress seems to have gone over to the Dark Side too.

      Ultimately, a government should only be allowed a minimum of power, just enough to achieve the goals laid down by its Constitution (or whatever document constitutes the supreme law of any particular country.) Our government is currently way beyond that point.

      And you never know ... I may live to regret posting on Slashdot. So may you. And if you really believe that posting A.C. means anything regarding actual anonymity you're fooling yourself some more. Truth is, under current U.S. law, if they want me they have me, and there isn't a God damned thing I can do about it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    23. Re:One question before we begin... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Oh Lord that's evil... but funny.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    24. Re:One question before we begin... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Some people are so hopelessly dependent upon the system that they will fight to the death to protect it.

      Proof of concept.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    25. Re:One question before we begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the frog keeps jumping out as you slowly increase the temperature, you forgot to put on the lid.

    26. Re:One question before we begin... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Funny, I've had a wireless Mac for years. But it's not really needed in southern california.

  2. Deus Ex anyone? by lxt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds familiar to the concept in Deus Ex - the use of microphones by police forces to pick up (gun) noise...albeit for slightly different purposes (noise management).

    1. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by SacredNaCl · · Score: 2, Informative

      the use of microphones by police forces to pick up (gun) noise...

      St Louis City already has a few of these up and operational for gun noise. They set them up in 3 different positions around hot spots to triangulate where the shot was fired from. It's mostly a deterrant to celebratory gunfire.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    2. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by spectrokid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it me, or does this say something about Europe vs USA: "My neighbour is playing loud music!" vs "My neighbour is shooting at me!"

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    3. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Curtman · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's mostly a deterrant to celebratory gunfire.

      I could see that. Nothing says I'm happy like firing a lethal weapon off gratuitously, and without regard for where the bullets might come down.

    4. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Europeans takes their noise pollution very serious. There's even a research institute dedicated to Accoustic Ecology.

      Although many of the articles also cover both cites in Canada and the USA.

      European cities with more than 250,000 residents are being required to install noise pollution monitors

      Europoean Union Says "Quiet" - The European Union is requiring all cities with populations over 250,000 to develop noise maps in an effort to reduce exposure to bothersome and harmful noise levels. Paris leads the way, with maps available online, allowing residents to zoom in and explore sound levels in their own neighborhoods. "It's been an exceptional success," said Paris Deputy Mayor Contassot. "We could doubtless halve the amount of noise. That, to me, seems to be an entirely realistic goal." A WHO report estimated that 40 percent of EU residents -- 150 million people -- are exposed to road traffic noise exceeding 55 decibels (the level that the WHO deems a "serious annoyance") and that over 30 percent suffer noise levels at night that disturb sleep. Brussels has already used its maps to identify people eligible for soundproofing subsidies because of excess traffic noise.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
      celebratory gunfire
      Huh?
      I would readily support a law revoking the Second Amendment rights of any <expletive> convicted of that crap from ever owning or operating a firearm.
      Irresponsibility such as that bears crushing.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    7. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by numbski · · Score: 1

      Um...where are you roughly? I work downtown, and I've never heard of this. I live out in Ballwin.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    8. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      Fuck this shit.
      People are starving to death, and this is how the EU money is spent?

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    9. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a story a while back about a microphone/camera combination that would listen for gun shots, figure out the source of the gun shot noise, and then have a camera zoom in on that source and take a picture?

    10. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Parasome · · Score: 1

      I played Deus Ex only after the WTC attacks, and - considering it came out in 2000 already! - I was struck with the parallels to reality, especially in the bulletin board news. It was eerie to compare the bulletins of the in-game "homeland security" agency (UNATCO) with the real thing, and find not much of a difference in the rhetoric to justify curfews, restriction of civil rights, calls to "watch thy neighbor" etc. It almost felt like playing through a prophetical satire... Anybody else felt this?

    11. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Fuck this shit.
      People are starving to death, and this is how the EU money is spent?

      Unfortunately, yes.

      And this is the reason why many the populations of many EU countries, are voting against further economic integration.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    12. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      every time i see a movie or tv show with a number of people firing in the air, i hope for a moment that the director will call realism onto the scene, and show us everyone being shot to bits as the lead comes down.

      no luck yet :/

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    13. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      Ah, but this is the common man's opportunity to make his voice heard. Or something.

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    14. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Pinefresh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it would matter, a lead slug isn't heavy enough for the terminal velocity to cause any serious damage to a person. I've seen someone get hit with a penny dropped off a tall building. He went "OUCH!" and got pissed off, but his head didn't implode or anything like that.

    15. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by broken · · Score: 1

      Tell that to these people:

      "During the 2-day period, 43 persons were injured by gunfire. Of these injuries, 28 (65%) were identified as unintentional; 19 (68%) of those met the case definition for probable celebratory gunfire injuries. Median age of the 19 persons injured from celebratory gunfire was 24 years (range: 4 months--82 years); 12 (63%) were male. Four (21%) persons were hospitalized, including one who died from a head injury. The most common body location for injury from celebratory gunfire was the head (36%), followed by foot (26%) and shoulder (16%)"

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2. htm

    16. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      This already happens.

      1. Fire guns into air.

      2. Get arrested for reckless endangerment (or reckless homicide if you kill somebody.)

      3. Receive felony conviction.

      4. Be prohibited by federal law from owning guns.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    17. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit that game kicks ass...where's my cd for it...ah, got it...well, there goes the work I had planned to complete this afternoon!

    18. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the murder rate in Europe is staggering. In the past 100 years, it exceeds the murder rate in the U.S. by over 50 million.

    19. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      I always preferred the Dragon Tooth sword anyway. Silent, stealthy, and deadly... :-)

      A suppressed pistol and sniper rifle came in handy often enough too though.

      DX, in terms of social commentary though, was an utterly *amazing* game. A confluence of conspiracy theories that (in the case of Echelon, at least) are slowly proving true, and modern technology that are increasingly coming into use -- just as in that dystopian game. Warren Spector is a genius. DX is easily one of my top 5 all-time favorite games, despite the fact that it crashed a bit more often than I would normally tolerate...

    20. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Actually, you might feel reassured to find out
      that Washington, DC (USA) already uses remote
      microphones in order to triangulate on loud
      noises such as gunfire.

      Of course, guns are completely illegal in the USA's
      capitol city unless you are a member of the police,
      a Federal law enforcement agency, or the iconic minority
      father of a law-breaking FBI agent son.

      The muggers, car-jackers, and violent street gangs
      of Washington, DC don't pay any attention to those
      particular laws anyway, so they don't count.

      It may be straight out of the pages of "1984", but
      so is the plethora of video cameras monitoring the
      comings and goings of the people. Still doesn't seem
      to have made much impact on street crime, but I guess
      it's really good for monitoring which politician is doing
      whatever to whomever. Just like London, you say?

    21. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by samjam · · Score: 1

      Make that: Fortunately yes.

      It is dumb to suspend all but the most urgent benficial actions; such a strategy would create more urgent needs and also reduce the capacity to address urgent needs.

      Shall I never have clean water while one person in africa is still in danger of river blindness?

      Shall my ability to provide for and educate my family be destroyed because noise control engineers (who are good at noise control) have all been SENT to africa (against their will) to do err... non-noise-control related things?

      If you were after first post I could understand your hasty ill-thought response.

      Many EU countries vote against further economic integration for entirely different reasons.

      Sam

    22. Re:Deus Ex anyone? by mikael · · Score: 1

      It is unfortunate that the EU wastes large amounts of money, although they don't have a monopoly in this (see the Millenium dome).

      I don't think it's a bad idea to control sound and other types of pollution in the cities (otherwise, people just leave for the suburbs and encourage sprawl), although common sense tells you that the loudest places are the main streets, while the quietest places are the backstreets and secluded garden areas.

      To setup a monitoring network to prove this seems rather wasteful, especially since the same task could be achieved simply by asking local residents or by having patrolling noise wardens

      Where I currently live, the major source of noise pollution is taxi drivers taking home drunk college students in the early hours of morning during final exam month. Aside from the constant shouting and screaming of residents struggling to get to their front door, the constant ticking over of automobile engines as the taxi drivers wait for the next call.

      Although, in other places, it is Laminated floorboards that cause the most noise.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  3. Tampering? by SteelV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How/where will these be located to avoid tampering?

    1. Re:Tampering? by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 1
      How/where will these be located to avoid tampering?

      Up on lamp posts and street signs, IIRC.

    2. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's good enough. What if some bar owner knows where it is and just puts some sound-wall on that side of his building to redirect sound elsewhere?

    3. Re:Tampering? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The UK authorities seem to manage placing speed cameras where they face minimal damage or tampering (and maximum fine production), Im sure they can provide suitable containers and locations for these things.

    4. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it doesn't really matter where these things are if they are using WEP. WEP keys can be cracked in minutes, I hope they are at least using AES/Rijndael or something similar.

    5. Re:Tampering? by Steve+Cox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hopefully in the same sort of places as these speed cameras :)

      Steve...

    6. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How well will the mic work when covered by a hunk of frozen snow? Pecked by birds, shitted on by pigeons.
      Will be great to climb up, attach or aim a directional speaker, and give the listeners something to really hear - say a few choice segments from a porno film. Don't believe everything you hear.

    7. Re:Tampering? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I hate annoying low speed limits, but beyond just wanting to be able to drive faster, perhaps some people on that side of the pond are getting fed up with government surveillence of their daily lives.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    8. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not video cameras just normal cameras set off by a radar gun

    9. Re:Tampering? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Whoever made that site fails to remember that maybe one shouldn't be driving over the speed limit to begin with.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    10. Re:Tampering? by Thwomp · · Score: 1

      Absolutely and every time some fuck vandalizes one it costs the tax-payers. Each Gatso costs between £20,000 - £40,000!

    11. Re:Tampering? by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whoever made that site fails to remember that maybe one shouldn't be driving over the speed limit to begin with.

      The problem with speed cameras is they disrupt traffic flow - everyone slams on the brakes as they see a camera which at worst case causes a pile-up, but usually just slows the traffic right down.

      There are some speed cameras in a 50mph zone near me - everyone does about 50mph down the road and then slams on the brakes as they see the camera and slow down to about 25mph because they're not 100% sure they're still in a 50mph zone and haven't missed some 30mph signs or something. The situation could be greatly improved if they actually painted the speed limit on the camera itself so you knew that you're definately within the limit.

      On my drive home from work there is a speed camera about 50 metres from my junction (in a 30mph limit). The speed camera causes such disruption, slowing the traffic down to about 20mph that everyone bunches up, increasing the risk of a pileup and meaning you can't change lane. Basically, if you didn't change into the left hand lane by about 700 metres before the junction you can forget anyone letting you change lane so you can make the turn - you'll be stuck on the road until the next junction 3 miles further on.

      Another problem which I guess is slightly more contraversial is that there are some stretches of road where you can lose your licence within about 5 miles if you cruise down there slightly over the limit since you'll trigger several cameras on the road - made worse by the fact that forward facing cameras don't even flash so they won't draw your attention to the fact you just passed a camera.

      I generally don't speed, but I still hate speed cameras coz of the disruption they cause. I also think there's a hell of a lot worse things to do than driving 5mph over the limit - like the drivers who I see every day who weave in and out of traffic cutting everyone up, or the idiots who blast down the motorway half a metre from the back of my car.

    12. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed limits are for people that can't handle vehicles. I refuse to be limited by a lowest common denominator.

    13. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One also shouldn't use fines as a tax method. If no one would be speeding I bet they would drop the speed limit or come up withother things to fine.

    14. Re:Tampering? by op00to · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If one side of his building faces a residential area, and the other side is a commercial area, then I guess he's just done some noise pollution managment, and the neighbors will love him.

    15. Re:Tampering? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Augh! Too much mixing of English and Metric units! :)

      BTW, if someone would just create a "turn signal ticket camera", ticket revenue would increase, people would actually be safer / less angry, and I'd be much less irritated at the gov't. In the quite rural area that I call home, the exact same roads that have 55MPH signs up now used to have 65MPH signs - back when cars were heavier, drum brakes were standard, and suspensions were designed for soft rides, not handling. The limit was reduced to improve fuel economy, not safety.

      Of course, last night, that teenage girl who passed me in a Dodge Stratus traveling right at 100MPH (I paced her at 100 for a few seconds before we got back into some traffic) while she had *both* hands off of the wheel fixing her hair in moderate traffic should have been ticketed. I should have been ticketed too, probably, but I had both hands on the steering wheel and I slowed down to [about] the 65MPH limit when we got close to other cars again. :)

    16. Re:Tampering? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Augh! Too much mixing of English and Metric units! :)

      Sorry :)
      Most people here in the UK (under about 30 years old) tend to use MPH for road speeds but metres for short distances.

    17. Re:Tampering? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Look at the "Revenue Generating" page. If the police were really concerned about public safety, and the real reasons for speed limits - they would be putting the cameras at bends, blind intersections, etc. to catch the people who speed when it is unsafe. Perhaps then people would respect the cameras more. Instead the cameras tend to get placed on straightaways, bottoms of hills, or at places where the speed limit suddenly drops - for the sole purpose of extracting money from people going 5-10 over where it is fairly safe.

    18. Re:Tampering? by TeleoMan · · Score: 0

      Well I don't know what state you're in but I'm guessin' you've never been to Normal, IL where there are cameras on *every* single intersection in town that has a traffic-control light. According to the rumor mill they are only used to "monitor traffic flow"...but I'm sure they've spotted more than one Civic that's failed Turn-Signal Usage 101.

      --
      $6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
    19. Re:Tampering? by donscarletti · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I looked at the "Revenue Generating" page. How about you look at my post again. Driving over the speed limit is against the road laws, you just shouldn't be doing it. Seriously, those speed limits are there to tell you how fast to drive for a reason, if you're driving over that limit it's your own problem. Just because you wouldn't have been caught before, doesn't mean that it is your right to do it, if you want to argue for liberalism in road rule interpretation then do that, but most developed countries have a system where you have to follow the rules to the letter and it tends to work. If the government wants to tax people who disregard its laws more than others fair enough, they've gotta get money somehow and if they want to get it from people who value velocity more than their wallet then so be it. Governments of democratic countries tend to be non-profit organisations that pay for schools, hospitals, police and look after the needy, it really is a good cause. Also it's something that you'd be contributing to anyway somehow if people wern't getting billed for their speed, so I don't see the issue.

      Stick to the rules and you won't get busted, it's as simple as that. If you do that then you will pay the same amount of tax as you did before the cameras while your government will give you better services because of the revinue from others.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    20. Re:Tampering? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      If you scroll down to the bottom of the "Revenue generating Gatsos" page you will see how speed cameras are marked where I live (they got onto a page in the UK since we have so many). They are marked with the speed here so my experience could be different to yours. Possibly those speed limit markings (usually 6 or more in the vicinity in country areas) somewhat lower the effect of this rapid breaking, although I did observe a little chaos when they were first brought in. Maybe you should write to your minister for transport asking for similar markings, citing concerns about dangerous overbreaking. Also, the cameras tend to have a margin of error around here and they don't go off unless you're 7 km/h over the limit or so, I'm not sure if it's like that in the UK, it probably should be.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    21. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, those speed limits are there to tell you how fast to drive for a reason

      Yeah. Revenue.

      Here's a clue for you: the "rules" (speed limits) are usually set by politicians who don't even have the wisdom gained by driving to work on the road in question, like you do. When the "rules" are set by qualified civil engineers, they tend to be a lot more reasonable.

    22. Re:Tampering? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Seriously, those speed limits are there to tell you how fast to drive for a reason,

      Some are and most aren't. You seem to have forgotten that the limits are set by politicos and inane city "officials" who could not explain to you the reason why they put a limit of 70km/hr right after 80km/hr if their life depended on it. The very few speed limits that make sense are set in areas where there are unexpected manouvers that have to be performed by drivers. Civil engineers are responsible for setting of those and few people would argue. The whole "speed limit" stupidity is the result of an inability to enforce basic rules of road (such as maintaining distance between vehicles appropriate to speed) and the fact that ... lower speed limits nation wide reduce oil imports. Now add to this a veritable bonanza from "speed cameras" (in my city some 20 cameras are now responsible for 30% increase in city revenue) and you got 100% political bullshit and 0% common sense.

      Stick to the rules and you won't get busted, it's as simple as that.

      Sticking to all "rules" just because they are "rules" and not because they make sense is the foundation of every sheep citizen/fascist government society that ever existed. It goes right along with "I dont care about this new law allowing idefinite detention in Guantanamo if you are 'uppity' because if you do nothing 'wrong' you have nothing to worry about!".

    23. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, and we all have the same abilities and the same limits, sure ... sigh

    24. Re:Tampering? by Type-R · · Score: 1

      if you want to argue for liberalism in road rule interpretation then do that, but most developed countries have a system where you have to follow the rules to the letter and it tends to work.

      Yeah, cause zero Tolerance policies work so well... Why bother treating any one like a human being when you can just blindly enforce laws. I mean really... there's never any middle ground in any argument, no leway, nothing that should ever be excepted, heck, who needs judges, lets just find a way of automating enforcement and punishment! (Okay, I'll stop before the sarcasam detector explodes!)
    25. Re:Tampering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving over the speed limit is against the road laws

      Yes, and we pay taxes because NOT paying taxes is against tax laws. We call that revenue generation.

      Now, interchange taxes with speeding and what do you get?

      Revenue generation.

      In my country a Premier even admitted it during a government speech, denouncing that they even have any other purpose (like safety) -- their absolute purpose is to make money. He very succinctly put it like this "It's a revenue generator, absolutely.". We even voted in a new government that promised to make photo radar [speed cameras] illegal (they did) [that was years ago, seems we need another wakeup call, as always].

    26. Re:Tampering? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I agree. Don't break the speed limit, and you should not have any trouble with the traffic cameras.

      The way I see it is somewhat of a philosophical discussion. The issue is the difference between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. The spirit of speed laws is to promote public safety. People should obviously not be allowed to drive whatever speed they feel like whenever and wherever they want. The letter of the law is simple, basically "you drive X or slower here, of face fines/jail/etc.".

      Now, if the idea behind the cameras was to enforce the spirit of the law and promote safety then they would put them in places that would best do that. Places like residential neighborhoods, school crossings, dangerous intersections. Furthermore, if they really want to promote safety, they would make the cameras highly visible (and even better, post the speed limit near the camera) in order to remind people to obey the speed limits in these locations.

      However, they often don't put cameras in those locations. Rather, they put them in locations where one could easily drive safely at speeds that exceed the speed limit, and nail people with the letter of the law. It seems that they will even set the speed limits low for the sole reason of catching drivers who aren't watching their speed carefully. Furthermore, they obscure these cameras hoping to catch even more people who don't even realize that they are being watched.

      So, the basic issue is that the cameras aren't being used as a deterrant in places where they are needed most, but they are being used to generate easy revenue for the people that run them. And that is what pisses people off.

    27. Re:Tampering? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1
      In Toledo, we have cameras monitoring the red lights. Since their installation, people running red lights has been down by about 6%, while rear end collisions are up by about 500%.

      Lovely, isn't it?

      --
      Fnord.
    28. Re:Tampering? by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      There's gotta be a new version of goodwins law that says that as a thread gets longer, the probibility of something being compared to Nazi Germany OR Republican America reaches one, and that's a good time to end the thread.

      Come on, I'm just talking about being fined for driving too fast, not being imprisoned for saying the wrong things.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    29. Re:Tampering? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Come on, I'm just talking about being fined for driving too fast, not being imprisoned for saying the wrong things.

      Actually both Goodwin's "law" and your sentiment are faulty. The reason that many threads end up mentioning totalitarian or would-be totalitarian societies is because for some inexplicable reason it appears we have today an endless supply of people who in completely oblivious manner espouse views essential to constructing totalitarianism. And when this lapse of reason is pointed out, the persons in question get even more irrational and attempt to end or mis-direct any further discussion by invoking inane concotions such as Goodwin's "law".

      Speaking of "just" being fined for driving too fast, that is a part of an ever-growing maze of suffocating "laws" and "rules" of staggering complexity and questionable validity which combined with ruthless and automated enforcement along with arguable motivation behind such selective emphasis on them is leading many to believe that we have lost control of the basic mechanisms of our society and instead a self-annointed, self-serving priesthood of lawyers, lawyers-cum-politicians and enforcement securocracy has taken over. Some of us find this situation unacceptable. The "speeding" cameras are just a particularly visible, in-your-face, aggrevating reminder of this situation, soon to be joined in Britain by automated microphones and, in what only seems as a logical next step, 24/7 computer assisted speech monitoring in public places. I am sure Homeland Security is salivating at the idea and can't wait to import it to the USA. Orwell might still have the last laugh in our lifetimes.

    30. Re:Tampering? by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      Oh, yes, and of cause the other thing that inevidably comes up is George Orwell. This is nothing like 1984, in 1984 they have thoughtcrime, this is a law about how fast you can drive. In 1984 they have two-way telescreens in private dwellings, this is about cameras in public places.

      Goodwins law is essential for internet debate because it prevents people from using the same dodgy rhetorical techniques time and time again. Every half-educated psudo-intelectual that knows fairly little about history still knows that Nazism is bad and that nobody is willing to defend any element of it. Thus, by forming an ever so tenuous link to the practice, ideology or history of the third reich, one could make somewhat of a point without ever actually having to argue the case in point.

      Speed cameras are not simply the next step in a gradual progression to totalitarianism. Speed cameras in public places simply are mechanical devices designed to do what police officers have done since the advent of roads. Wireless microphones in public places simply do what police have done ever since the advent of loud music. Street cameras in public places simply do what police officers have been doing since the advent of assult, theivery and rape. If allowed to go unchecked this trend will not have you on the next train to Dachau, the worst that will happen is possibly you might get fined next time you do something a little nauty.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    31. Re:Tampering? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Speed cameras are not simply the next step in a gradual progression to totalitarianism.

      Apparently thats where we differ. Mine and other's opinion is that if left unchecked and unopposed they will lead precisely to that. Yours is not. Only time will tell who was right.

      Speed cameras in public places simply are mechanical devices designed to do what police officers have done since the advent of roads.

      Some of the British street surveilance cameras are capable of pointing directly into windows of private residences, do explain the difference from the "tele-screens" again...

      Wireless microphones in public places simply do what police have done ever since the advent of loud music. Street cameras in public places simply do what police officers have been doing since the advent of assult, theivery and rape.

      The fundamental difference is twofold: a) it allows for total and automated surveilance, thus creating a ratio of "virtual" police to citizenry of 1:1 (or more) from which flows: b) With such surveilance and automation capability comes exponentially increased power. Power to automatically collect, archive and use minor infractions against anyone because we all commit them. This allows the "security" forces to pick and choose whose political views can be silenced or discredited. The term for such a situation is: "police state". In traditional, non-police-state societies it is explicitely forbidden to go on fishing expedition type surveilance missions targetted at juornalists and politicians. Automated, 24/7, "neutral" (but not neutrally interpreted), surveilance conveniently circum-navigates this restriction.

      If allowed to go unchecked this trend will not have you on the next train to Dachau, the worst that will happen is possibly you might get fined next time you do something a little nauty.

      And this is precisely the kind of intellectually dodgy and lazy rethorical technique you are accusing me of: the totalitarian societies of the future will not be carbon copies of the ones in the past. So while you or I might not catch the train to Dachau, we might instead end up politically powerless and terminally intimidated by vast, automated, unbeatable, always monitoring machinery of state run by "security contractors" and "security corporations" while sheepishly smiling anchors on 1200 TV channels blabber their newspeak nonsense about "liberty", "democracy" and "public safety". The techniques of would be opressors change as times change, but the end result they seek is still the same: a totalitarian society.

  4. 1984 by maelstrom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think its coincidence that George Orwell was British.

    --
    The more you know, the less you understand.
    1. Re:1984 by TummyX · · Score: 0, Troll

      OMFG that was the most fucking insightful comment I've ever read!!!"L@$$

      mod up! mod up!

      *sigh*

    2. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think its coincidence that George W Bush is American.

    3. Re:1984 by lxt · · Score: 0

      I don't think its coincidence that Hitler was German.

      Now mod me up insightful damn it!

    4. Re:1984 by Sweetshark · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think its coincidence that Hitler was German. Now mod me up insightful damn it!
      Nice try. But Hitler was not german.

    5. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. He was born mere kilometers from the border. That part of Austria may as well have been Germany -- in fact, it was frequently referred to on turn-of-the-century maps as part of "Greater Germany."

    6. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was born mere kilometers from the border. That part of Austria may as well have been Germany
      Do you accept the same rules on the US-mexican border? If you are born "close enough", you are a US citizen? I bet there will be lots of hospitals build right next to the border soon ...

    7. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think its coincidence that peanut butter was made from peanuts, rather than, say, cashews.

    8. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? His family was Autrian, going back generations - he was an inbred mountain man (his parents were cousins). Canada is near america. Does that make all canadians american? It used to be referred to as part of the states, by some people in a village in east india, I hear.

    9. Re:1984 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actzally no, Hitler was one of my fellow countrymen, he was Austrian born in Braunau upper austria. After surviving WW1 on the frontiers, he failed to become an artist in Vienna and ended up being homeless and moved the germany, the rest is dark and evil history.

    10. Re:1984 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      It was Austria nevertheless... I live near that part and believe me, if you live in Austria you always are close to some border. I live in a part where the tzech border is merely 30 minutes away, does that make me tzech although Tzechia was part of Austria for 700 years. No definitely not, although I have tzechian and german blood in me, I am definitely Austrian, being born there having most of my ancestors living in Austria. As much as I wished I could push Hitler to the germans, he definitely was Austrian, born in a part of the country which definitely belonged to Austria, having austrian parents (very likely a blend of german, tzechian or whatever nationality belonged to Austria, like every Austrian is) speaking german and going to school nearby where I live. I would love to call Hitler german, but he is not!

    11. Re:1984 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually if Hitler was inbred I dont know, but not all parts of Austria are mountains, and definitely not the Braunau area, where Hitler was born and lived the early parts of his life (he went to School in Linz/Leonding)

      Braunau is definitely not mountainous, it is sort of a rural hill area with lots of fields and farms, not the flatlants (which are close to Hungary in the east) but definitely not mountains which are 200 kilometers to the south.

    12. Re:1984 by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure he was. Hitler became a German citizen in 1932. (See w:Adolf Hitler)

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    13. Re:1984 by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice try. But Hitler was not german.

      I've heard someone say once that the two greatest achievements of Austria in history were to make the world think that Hitler was German, and that Mozart was Austrian.

      (Not that I agree, but it's a fun joke to make Austrians angry with)

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    14. Re:1984 by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      Hitler was Austrian, dear.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    15. Re:1984 by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Sure he was. Hitler became a German citizen in 1932.

      Right, so for US Americans who need a way to relate to this, Hitler was German (not Austrian) in the same sense the George W. Bush is a Texan (not a Connecticut Yankee).

    16. Re:1984 by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Is it a coincidence that President Bush's first name is 'George'?

    17. Re:1984 by fuck_this_shit · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what our motivation is to rather have Hitler being German instead of Austrian.

    18. Re:1984 by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

      Hitler was ethnically German. The difference is more or less "where you born in new york or virginia?" It's all America, and that's all Germanic territory.

    19. Re:1984 by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On a related note here .. the German police are just as bad . Most of the time i see them is not patroling but setting up rader traps or checking trafic violations. Infact the only time i ever see them outside of "road traffic accidents" is at the airport.

      The problem here , is some smart arse thought they could motivate the police to reduce the crimne-rate by giving them quotas . So instead of conducting there normal investigations they have to allocate a certain ammount of time to meeting those quotas . Violant crime and robbery take time to solve , Random drunks being a bit loud , speeders and dangerous drivers are like shooting fish in a barrel.

      Its the same in the UK , its the same in Germany and im fairly sure its true in most other EU nations (probably also true in the USA , Canada , Australia , newzeland... etc etc)

      On the issue of wireless mics , 90% of the recorded stuff (bar random noise ), will be pissed teenagers and 20 somethings Shouting "F**Ck off Pigs" directly at the mics which get found and are not in a position to vandalise .
      Its a waste of money and a waste of time .Not to mention the tin-foil hat arguments

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    20. Re:1984 by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      And it's no coincidence that George Bush is American.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    21. Re:1984 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      No real one except that Hitler is a huge stain on Austria as well... just as rememberance, another Austrian did also trigger the first worldwar, and another one living in Praque did trigger the 30 years war which basically was world war 0 :-(

    22. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be '...that Hitler was German and that Beethoven was Austrian'
      because Mozart really WAS Austrian (he was born in Salzburg and died in Vienna) whereas Beethoven was born in Bonn but lived in Vienna for a long time (and also died there) and is mistaken for Austrian by many people

    23. Re:1984 by Krusty_Klown · · Score: 1

      NOOOO He is Mexican. He was born a few kilometers away.

    24. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that was Beethoven, not Mozart.

  5. Good idea! by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is actually a really good idea. I've had the neighbors call the cops on me for noise violations several times. Nevermind the facts that I had a noise meter monitoring my speakers from a meter away the whole time and I not once broke the law. A little bit of objectivity could keep people from being screwed by prudish neighbors. As long as these microphones are technologically unsuitable to record conversations, this is a great thing.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
    1. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, part of it is a good idea, the part you mention. However, what is problematic imho is this part:

      "The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs. The microphones apparently communicate via wireless Internet connection, although no real details are given as to the nature of said connection."

      While this may also be justified if you want to meassure noise levels (and if there is a concrete issue), having to worry about things you talk about on the street being recorded by the authorities certainly isn't something we should take lightly.

    2. Re:Good idea! by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      While this may also be justified if you want to meassure noise levels (and if there is a concrete issue), having to worry about things you talk about on the street being recorded by the authorities certainly isn't something we should take lightly.

      I could be mistaken, but I believe they got John Gotti by wiring up all of the parking meters on the streets he walked with bugs.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    3. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why has everyone assumed these microphones will record everything they pick up? If you're monitoring noise levels, what good does it do? The only relevent data is the noise level. It could be reduced further; the only relevent data is if the noise limits have been breached, and by how much.

      I don't think GCHQ are interested in what some drunken twat thinks about Tony Bliar somehow.

    4. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why has everyone assumed these microphones will record everything they pick up? If you're monitoring noise levels, what good does it do?"

      I don't think everyone really assumed that. However, how do you know they won't be used for that or won't be used for that in the future?

      I think that is what got people worried here, they could be used for bad things and though you might be of the opinion that the benefits of this far outweighs the potential problems, however, you should at least aknowledge these problems and keep an eye on them.

    5. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, how do you know they won't be used for that or won't be used for that in the future?

      Because of they're physical design and construction. We don't know what that is yet, but once you know how these microphones are designed it's quite easy to work out what their current & future capabilities will be. It's the same as most CCTV cameras; they only record one low-res b&w frame every coupld of seconds and they're not currently capable of being used to record colour HDTV. If the design changes, I'll be slightly more concerned.

      you should at least aknowledge these problems

      Sure, I can imagine a theoretical time in the future when these microphones could be used to eavesdrop on political oponents, for example. However to do so would require a massive short-circuiting of current systems E.g. the Polic would suddenly have to start taking direct orders from a government ministry and not a single person involved in the command chain would ever question it. It;s so highly unlikly to happen, I think I can sleep pretty safe in my bed.

      Like I said, I don't think GCHQ are interested in what some drunken twat thinks about Tony Bliar somehow.

    6. Re:Good idea! by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I agree that the placing of the mics isn't something to be taken lightly..... I personally wouldn't have an issue with it if it was the same type of mics they use in spl, or db drag competitions. Those are only good for measuring sound levels.

      --
      Stop signs are only Suggestions
    7. Re:Good idea! by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

      omg ... can anyone be that stupid, or - is it troll ? ... dont you realize what impact will it make to freedom of speech?

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    8. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      broke what law?

      the sound at 1 meter from your speakers over air is irrelevant, maybe the bass is going through the joists right into your neghbour's flat.

    9. Re:Good idea! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      omg ... can anyone be that illiterate, or - is it troll ? dont you realize what I wrote regarding the functioning of the microphones? If these are more along the lines of noise level meters (which is how they're being described), then there is NO impact on freedom of speech. Not that there is any in England anyway.

      Besides, suppose some city in the US were to implement a plan like this. But contrary to what the English are (apparently) doing, we end up using highly sensitive microphones. Our constitution already gives us freedom of speech. This implies that the city government can't legally do anything to us because of what we say (modulo a million first amendment details) -- even if it's recorded. In short, microphones or not, the city is in the same position with regards to our freedom of speech. This is a privacy issue, not a freedom of speech issue. And you're a goddamned fool if you think you have any privacy in public. Now, let me rephrase my retort:

      omg ... can anyone be that illiterate, or - is it troll ? dont you realize what I wrote regarding the functioning of the microphones? If these are more along the lines of noise level meters (which is how they're being described), then there is NO impact on privacy.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    10. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like some kind of cunt. "The law allows me 90dB and I measure my music at 89.99 so the neighbours can't complain even if I am keeping them up all night."

    11. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "This is actually a really good idea. My sofa is brown...."

      Not a direct quote but about as relevant. Or are you advocating police install noise monitors in ever domicile because your neighbours are dicks?

    12. Re:Good idea! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      A licenced establishment (eg a pub, club or bar) can lose their licence if patrons regularly cause a nuisance to local residents. If they're too noisy leaving too often then this can happen.

      I suspect that the mics will be used to monitor the situation at places that the authorities have received sufficient complaints about, so that evidence can be collected while the problem exists, rather than reacting to a complaint and possibly missing it.

    13. Re:Good idea! by mpe · · Score: 1

      While this may also be justified if you want to meassure noise levels (and if there is a concrete issue),

      In which case you'd need a sound level meter. Most likely one using the A scale. Whilst such a device contains a microphone it does not act as a sound recorder. If the idea is to monitor "noise" then it might as well ignore anything under 65 dB.

    14. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think GCHQ are interested in what some drunken twat thinks about Tony Bliar somehow.

      It probably depends who said "drunken twat" is. If they are a Labour MP expect it to be leaked to the papers PBQ.

    15. Re:Good idea! by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Actually, so sorry, but it's not.

      1) You don't need a mike, just a db level sensor.
      2) It is an invasion of privacy.

      http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendme nt01/19.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    16. Re:Good idea! by aug24 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has it occurred to you that you can be legal and still an inconsiderate dick?

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    17. Re:Good idea! by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I love his line:

      ...from being screwed by prudish neighbors.

      He should be embarassed and ashamed. Not all neighbours are reasonable, but FFS, he's puting his stereo over the well being of his neighbour. What the hell is the matter with this righteous prick?

      It's no wonder people move into gated communities.

    18. Re:Good idea! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      1) You should try RTFA. If you read the article carefully, they're describing sound level meters.

      2) This isn't in America.

      3) Even in America, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    19. Re:Good idea! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      FFS, please, tell me more of what I should feel. Since you're obviously a busybody, I'll tell you the whole story:

      Portland city ordinances allow for 50 dB at the property line after 10 pm. (I believe it's 55 dB before 10 pm). I didn't break 50 dB. The neighbor simply called 911 (!) on me without complaining. At 9:55 pm.

      To put this in perspective, 50 dB is the volume of a normal conversation. It is very unreasonable to expect your neighbors not to converse after 10 pm. By transitivity of loudness, it's unreasonable to call 911 on your neighbors for playing music below that threshhold.

      A few days later, I sent my neighbor a polite letter stating what I just told you. And telling her how the cops just railroaded me. She agreed that she was being unreasonable and apologized. Unfortunately, she did not offer to pay for the fine. Though she did promise to complain to me instead of calling the police in the future. Now, please, tell me more of what you think I should feel.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    20. Re:Good idea! by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      I read the article, my response was made in regards to the parent comment. Did you read that?

      Furthermore, everyone has the right to expect privacy. Even when in public, and in every culture I'm aware of, people expect a measure of privacy. In fact, the more public the place, the more private we become. See? As well, just because some societies have not gained or have lost that right, does not make it any less of a right.

      Oh, and by the way, I wasn't actually writing from America, nor was I writing only to Americans. Perhaps you're overly sensitive in this regard?

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    21. Re:Good idea! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I didn't just read the parent, I wrote the parent. I suggest you read it more carefully. In particular, the line that reads As long as these microphones are technologically unsuitable to record conversations, this is a great thing.

      I submit that you are conflating privacy and anonymity. You, by definition, have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Your actions can be monitored by anyone with an interest in them. The fact that no one does is a consequence of the fact that you are anonymous. No one cares what you do or say because you're just not important enough. A celebrity, for instance, would very likely be monitored by reporters in public. Moreover, if a reporter records a celebrity breaking the law, the recording will be admissible evidence in all jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

      Now consider a case where you are in a football stadium and you tell a friend that your genital warts are getting worse. Suppose, moreover, that a friend of your S.O. whom you don't know overhears this and tells your S.O. about your conversation. You would be a fool to expect privacy in such a situation, for you are in public.

      Now, you might have two complaints. The first is that your S.O.'s friend was not an agent of the state. As a matter of empirical fact, however, undercover police officers are sanctioned in the US, and I suspect most other countries. The second might be that you, as a matter of empirical fact, wouldn't say anything incriminating with untrusted people around. You would have a defacto private conversation, even in a public space. Unfortunately, the technology to circumvent that has existed for several decades. Moreover, it is legal for private citizens to use -- cf. the celebrity case above vis a vis telephoto lenses and parabolic reflector microphones.

      All in all, you might have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in public -- especially if you're a nobody. And anonymity might lead to privacy in certain circumstances. In fact, it usually does. But that does not translate into having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    22. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, some people never learn.... dude if you say "this is a great thing" when "666" comes around well... all i can say is if you take the mark (666) your going to have a long "hot" eternity to regret it.

    23. Re:Good idea! by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      There's a good reason to immediately involve the police. Some people get vengeful. If you go over and say "hello, I'm your neighbour from next door, I have a busy day tomorrow and I would like it if you could keep it down" you might just -- and quite often this is the case -- get a response of: "Fuck you get the hell off my property, come back and I'll kick your a&&" followed by the stereo turned up even louder, spit on your doorknobs, dog s(*# and garbage on your lawn for the next three years, nails in your car tires, and other miscellaneous crap.

      Oh and every anonymous complaint from other neighbours will be attributd to you followed by letters threatening lawsuits for harassment.

      From experience, I'd say it's better to be anonymous if you don't know the neighbour. The police shouldn't be pricks about it though... but that's why I mention gated communities.

    24. Re:Good idea! by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Sigh. No actually, I'm not confusing the two. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this topic, eavesdropping is not acceptable in public.

      When you need to stretch so much, you only serve to weaken your own position.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    25. Re:Good idea! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      When you need to stretch so much, you only serve to weaken your own position.

      Good use of rhetoric. Too bad that's all it is.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  6. Westminster wireless network by stevewrd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Westminster council is implementing a wireless network to cover the area, see http://www.etmag.com/publication/magazine/2004-10/ 62.htm. Noise pollution in cities is considered a major problem in the UK and measures such as this to prevent a minority making life unpleasant for a majority should be welcomed. If you want loud noise, just wear a pair of headphones...

    1. Re:Westminster wireless network by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. We couldn't careless in general.

      The problem with the UK is asshole kids whow on't fuck off and die or grow up. They just make alotof noise so it's easy to report for that.

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Westminster wireless network by Clansman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I had to move out of a flat I liked simply cos the neighbours played happy house 24 hours a day except when they were actually out clubbing. You dreaded the silence that occurred at 10pm of a Friday because it meant you had until 4am to get some sleep before they came in for another session at home.

      Thing is that the sound wasn't amazingly loud just incredibly persistant and resonated throughout the flat. You7 couldn't sleep through it but you weren't drowned out by it if you know what I mean.

      Psychological torture!

  7. Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. Just like it did when they installed surveillance cameras. Oh wait... the sky didn't fall!

    1. Re:Chicken Little by maelstrom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not crying slippery slope, but at what point do you stand up and say this isn't right?

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    2. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the sky didn't fall!
      neither did crime

    3. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, but that was nevertheless the intent - it wasn't a secret plan to oppress people's rights.

      (Of course, arguing from the uselessness point of view is the correct approach...)

    4. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at what point do you stand up and say this isn't right?

      Maybe when they start putting listening devices or cameras in your private homes. Do you have any expectation of privacy in a public place such as on the streets?

    5. Re:Chicken Little by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes I do. I guess its just not a reasonable expectation.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Chicken Little by arose · · Score: 1

      There is however a reasonable expectation not everyone will be watched every step.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    7. Re:Chicken Little by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Maybe when they start putting listening devices or cameras in your private homes. Do you have any expectation of privacy in a public place such as on the streets?

      In 1984, the surveillence cameras and microphones in public places caused almost as much stress as the ones in apartments and offices. They provided the claustrophobic atmosphere because they always knew exactly where you were no matter where you went. If you just removed the private surveillance, they could still always know exactly where you are and who you are with, and they would have a pretty good idea of exactly what you're doing.

      Whether you can comprehend it or not, people do have an expection of privacy in public places: they expect that their movements and activities aren't being constantly recorded and logged into a database. If you can't see the difference between a few private eyes or government agents tracking a handful of select suspects at great effort and expense vs. a mass-spying system that tracks and records every activity by every person all the time, then you're a pretty dim bulb.

    8. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But these things never lower crime but they still continue with them. Why? They know it doesn't lower crime, so why do they do it? Makes you question what the fuck they're up to.

    9. Re:Chicken Little by lousyd · · Score: 1
      the sky didn't fall!
      neither did crime

      That was pretty damned witty.

      --
      If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
  8. I'm a London resident... by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and to be honest I can't get too worked up about this.

    Public streets are just that: public. You don't get to veto who's watching and/or listening to you. If you want to discuss insurrection or your new water-fuelled-engine invention, go somewhere private.

    Besides, excessive noise is an infringement of privacy too, in my opinion.

    1. Re:I'm a London resident... by rshoger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      in public space you do assume some level of public time, in that when a moment comes it passes un recorded. The time may be recorded by individuals in whatever medium, but the use of the information gathered about that moment isn't going to be databased under your name and accessible to high level officials and beauracratic institutions. Lists of just names in the hands of political entities is a dangerous thing; politics are volatile and information once benign can come back and do powerful things at later dates. I think it would be important to share the hardware capabilities of these mics. If they aren't sampling at a high enough rate to capture inteligible language, than the fear that these devices will be used in a malicious way is somewhat removed.

    2. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is bunk, though. In much of Europe there is a culture of playing music in the street that simply doesn't exist in the US or the UK. Instead we protect our "right" to go around in miserable silence, and make ridiculous claims like "excessive noise infringes my privacy" (which it doesn't by even the most hardcore privacy advocate's defition of the word.) I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA had something to do with it too.

      To turn you quote back at you, public streets are just that: public. You shouldn't get to inflict your "I don't like to hear music" position on the rest of the world.

    3. Re:I'm a London resident... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      If they aren't sampling at a high enough rate to capture inteligible language,

      Initially. Then a year or so later, change a parameter.

    4. Re:I'm a London resident... by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      If they aren't sampling at a high enough rate to capture inteligible language, than the fear that these devices will be used in a malicious way is somewhat removed.

      Good point; recording statistical data rather than actual samples ought to address the alleged intent perfectly well.

      I did wonder while typing my original post whether the framerate on street CCTV was sufficient to allow lip-reading, in which case the privacy arguments become rather moot.

    5. Re:I'm a London resident... by rshoger · · Score: 1

      That's why I feel it is important that the hardware be built in such a way to avoid this and the technical sheets released to the public to ensure this. Releasing the schematics of course brings in the worry of the units being hacked... but I would rather the unit be hacked and the result understood by everyone than a group of 4 people with the teck

    6. Re:I'm a London resident... by rshoger · · Score: 1

      It might come in at that rate, but I doubt it would be recorded at that rate because of the storage requirements. But really I doubt it even comes out of the cameras at high enough rates to lip read because that would be a huge amount of bandwith.

    7. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Once you've developed your fabulous new invention that stops noise directly at the boundary of my property please get back to me. Until that time, kindly think a little bit more. Noise doesn't stay in one place, and it sure as fuck doesn't stay in public places only.

    8. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When you've invented your fabulous invention to stop noise directly at the boundary of your property you'll have the ability and right to live in complete silence. Until then, you don't. Get over it. Air is a shared resource, and it vibrates.

    9. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..you'll have the..right to live in complete silence. Until then, you don't.

      Actually, I do. Because we have these things called "laws" which mean I, and everyone else, do have the right to complain about excessive noise levels and the police and enviromental health department do have the right, backed by law, to seieze the property of anyone creating excesive noise.

      You now have the right to shut the fuck up.

    10. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These "laws" allow to live in complete silence do they? Do they also allow you to infer meaning from sentences without reading them?

      I think you'd better shut the fuck up, moron, before you start claiming that you have the right not to have photons enter your property.

    11. Re:I'm a London resident... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      I think you just missed the entire "boiling frog" point.

    12. Re:I'm a London resident... by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Although I do seem to have missed the point where disagreeing with an editorial comment became "missing the point". Was there a memo?

      I'm not wild about universal public surveillance, but as I wrote in another post I think it's a technological inevitability, and we're better off legislating around the usage of surveillance data.

    13. Re:I'm a London resident... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Once you've developed your fabulous new invention that stops noise directly at the boundary of my property please get back to me.

      Dude, it's called a wall.

    14. Re:I'm a London resident... by dustmite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is that with each new step (e.g. first cameras, now microphones, next .. ?) the concept of being "watched all the time" becomes normalised amongst the public (and you, regardless of whether you think you are immune to this effect). Thus each new step taken is approved by the public because it only marginally increases the amount of surveillance currently in place, which, whatever the level, is considered 'perfectly normal' because it's already there. Each marginal increment is very soon normalised too.

      Maybe you personally are able to draw the line somewhere (e.g. public vs. private spaces), but I promise you, 99% of the other humans around you are not - they have not even thought about this at all, and do not have a 'line' that they will draw that cannot be crossed - as a result, there IS no upper limit to how omnipresent surveillance will become. It's not a matter of if the line between public/private surveillance is crossed, it's only a matter of when, and people will accept it because most people don't even think about these things like you do. For them, it will already be normal to be watched all the time, so it'll just be an extension of the same thing. It will start, of course, with spaces that are somewhere between public and private, e.g. shopping malls, restaurants.

      The technological capability of universal surveillance may be inevitable, however socially and politically it is most certainly not an inevitability. If people protested it strongly enough it would never actually happen. It is only "inevitable" so long as people believe it is an inevitability, and thus simply accept it. You are doing precisely this. You will never be able to effectively legislate surveillance in a world where everyone regards surveillance as normal. The only way to prevent it is to evangalise and 'normalise' the idea that surveillance itself should be balked at, anytime. This is tricky though due to the positive practical purposes that surveillance can serve, e.g. lowering the crime rate.

    15. Re:I'm a London resident... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Put another way: regardless of your own opinions, can you be so certain that the 'boiling frog' analogy would not apply to the majority of the public?

      Because if it would, then your viewpoint is "irrelevant" to what kind of legislation is going to end up being enacted. You have to work 'within the system' - you can't make progress if you assume an idealistic world where everyone else also will also understand what you understand.

    16. Re:I'm a London resident... by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      they have not even thought about this at all, and do not have a 'line' that they will draw that cannot be crossed

      Yes, they do: the home. As in, "an Englishman's". As in, "his castle". I'll grant that restaurants etc are a grey area, but I don't believe people will accept governmental surveillance inside the home. It triggers a territorial instinct which I suspect is rooted pretty deeply in human psychology, and is not as malleable as you seem to think.

      The technological capability of universal surveillance may be inevitable, however socially and politically it is most certainly not an inevitability.

      I can't think of many cases where the two haven't gone together. Your assertion feels awfully like the MPAA/RIAA's belief that they can stop filesharing, or the Catholic church's belief that they could stop printed lay-language Bibles. Even if you could prevent governments using the tech, that wouldn't stop less-than-ethical private interests (e.g. credit rating agencies), or flagrantly criminal organizations like the CIA. If the tech is useful and readily available, it will be used.

      Found the Brin stuff I mentioned, by the way; his views sound much like mine. Here's the first chapter of his book 'The Transparent Society'.

    17. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, excessive noise is an infringement of privacy too, in my opinion.

      That's a play on words. "Privacy" has multiple meanings. In one case it's "not being spied upon" and in the other it's "not being annoyed."

    18. Re:I'm a London resident... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      How thick do these walls have to be? Because I've certainly heard other people's music through mine late at night in the past.

      I don't care what you do out of sight or earshot of me; I only potentially have a problem with it if I can see or hear it. You have no right to impose your choice of music on those around you.

    19. Re:I'm a London resident... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I think you'd better shut the fuck up, moron, before you start claiming that you have the right not to have photons enter your property.

      Actually, if you have an excessively bright light on too late at night, you'll likely end up in trouble for that, too.

      I don't think anyone is trying to claim that they have a right to absolute silence. However, legally speaking we do have the right not to be subjected to noise (or light) at too high a level. It would be far preferable if people were considerate enough to not make it a problem in the first place, of course, but unfortunately that's not always the case.

    20. Re:I'm a London resident... by mpe · · Score: 1

      The technological capability of universal surveillance may be inevitable, however socially and politically it is most certainly not an inevitability.

      One of the most important social factors is the issue of who is doing the watching. At one extreme you "Big Brother", where a minority (who are themselves unwatched) watching the majority. At the other extreme you have David Brin's "Transparent Society", where everyone can watch everyone.
      In practice the latter would mean that the average person would have a high degree of privacy. Since the majority would be too busy watching celebrities, politicans, police, etc.

    21. Re:I'm a London resident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But IIRC only after around 11pm and before 7am. Before or after these times i should have thought the police will tell you to put up with it. They have better things to do that tell your neighbors to be quieter.

  9. a little late: by 3.09+a+hour · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " if you call about a repeated disturbance, they'll mount one by your place to monitor noise levels for the next several days." Saturday night: End all party (the forth this month to end all) file a noise complaint Monday: Technition installs mic (if your LUCKY, and he installs it on the first workday) Tues-Thurs: nothing recorded on mic Compaired to: Saturday: Police come to noise complaint, tell people to shut it off and go home *note* im a firm beliver in just going over there myself before anyone gets called, its faster than waiting for the police anyway you look at it.

    --
    Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
    1. Re:a little late: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its better just to join the party

    2. Re:a little late: by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      That's why it says "repeated" disturbance. Most noise pollution issues are not one-offs or few and far between. Most involve people living in close quarters (apartment blocks, tenements, terraced houses, etc) and having to put up with endless racket on a daily basis.

    3. Re:a little late: by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > im a firm beliver in just going over there myself before anyone gets called

      That might work if you happen to be a 300 lb gorilla. Most people reading slashdot would get beat up if they tried that.

    4. Re:a little late: by 3.09+a+hour · · Score: 1

      What if i am a gorilla? No really as long as your nice about it most of the time it works.

      --
      Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
  10. 1984 here we come by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first thing this reminded me of was the book 1984, where people are worried that hidden microphones may pick up their anti Big Brother conversations.

    Having said that, it might be okay as long as actual sounds are not transmitted, but rather just sound levels (properly encrypted of course). Somehow, I don't have much faith though.

    The UK is slowly moving towards a survalance nation. We have more CCTV per person than anyone else in Europe. Of course, violent crime is actually on the rise.

    Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:1984 here we come by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.

      You're contradicting yourself, fear of justice makes people less likely to commit crimes so you imply that support such cameras. Also, safety and privacy are exclusive in numerous regards.

    2. Re:1984 here we come by Tjoppen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, sound is just sound levels sampled at a higher rate.
      So after a while they could just go rate = 44.1kHz...

    3. Re:1984 here we come by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      [quote]Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.[/quote]
      If attackers were usually caught and brought to justice, it'd make you feel safer and reduce the risk of you being mugged in the first place.

    4. Re:1984 here we come by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      i do feel more safe if there is CCTV.

      Like on the bus going through peckham when groups of youths from the local youth detention center "enquired" about what type of phone i had. Also outside clubs where fights regularly break out.

      I'm not saying we don't need more police or anything like that and i hate the whole ID card scheme but I actually quite like CCTV and brighter lights.

    5. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "brought to justice". Ha.

      Remember the quote "Police, they're never around when you need them". Microphones will be useless for preventing muggings, but a network of them will be great for spying on people the government doesn't like or wants to get rid of. Dr David Kelly, what happened to him? Oh, he's dead before he could talk...

    6. Re:1984 here we come by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The first thing this reminded me of was the book 1984, where people are worried that hidden microphones may pick up their anti Big Brother conversations."

      Erm. I have some problems with that scenario:

      1.) The more that is recorded, the more that has to be sifted through and turned useful. Even with decent voice recognition, this is a hell of a lot of work requiring a LOT of processing power (assuming it's even automatic), lots of bandwidth, and LOTs of mics all over the place to actually catch anybody.

      2.) There would need to be a LOT of man power to actually follow up on the percieved threats. This wouldn't be so bad except it's very difficult to imagine there wouldn't be far too many false hits.

      3.) Once aware of it, would anybody really be dumb enough to say the wrong thing near one of these mics?

      Maybe one day Orwellian Big Brother will be feasible in some form, but I really do think it's a lot farther away than installing wireless mics all over the place. This is why I don't get these images in my mind when Slashdot posts stories like this. Oppressive governments have a history of not being easy to maintain. (not to mention that the benefactors of that sort of power aren't pre-disposed to living a long worry-free life.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:1984 here we come by arevos · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.
      This seems a curious thing to say. I take it you believe that jail is not an effective deterrent against crime? What would you suggest in its place?
    8. Re:1984 here we come by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "This seems a curious thing to say. I take it you believe that jail is not an effective deterrent against crime? What would you suggest in its place?"

      Look at it this way, we now have more CCTV than ever, and more voilent crime than ever. That would seem to suggest that CCTV is not a deterrant to voilent crime.

      Consider this. Voilent crime has risen. For some reason, people are not more inclined to commit voilent crimes. Some people would suggest that this is because punishment is not as harsh as it used to be (hard labour, death penalty). I would suggest that it is because our society is becomming more disfunctional.

      I'm not saying the past was great. However, class divides have gotten bigger. The poor are even more disenfanchised than they used to be. Also, commercialism has made people desire things they don't really need, and they feel very strongly when they can't get them. Thatcherism has also made people selfish. Many Brits also seem to drink too much. Where did the idea of going out to drink, rather than just socialise come from?

      Other countries have less crime (of all kinds) than us without having more police, CCTV or microphones.

      Privacy is important to. If I put a camera in every room of your house, I could guaruntee that no crime would go unpunished on your property. I bet you wouldn't be too pleased about it though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you rather have more police around to actually stop crime instead of a camera to film you getting your head kicked in?

    10. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're contradicting yourself, fear of justice makes people less likely to commit crimes so you imply that support such cameras."

      It's only a contradiction if what you say is true. You are in fact, begging the question because it is a statement that is not proven.

    11. Re:1984 here we come by arevos · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Look at it this way, we now have more CCTV than ever, and more voilent crime than ever. That would seem to suggest that CCTV is not a deterrant to voilent crime.
      I doubt it's as black and white as that. It could be that violent crime would rise at a more rapid pace without all of the cameras, to play devil's advocate to your argument.
      I would suggest that it is because our society is becomming more disfunctional.
      Another factor to consider is that as the technology of security increases, humans become the weak links in the chain.

      There was a story a few months back about an expensive car that was designed to be opened by the thumbprint of the owner. In past decades the thieves might have hotwired it, stolen the car without the owner knowing. But with the car so secure, the easiest option for the thieves was to attack the owner and chop off his thumb. A vicious assault that would not have taken place was the security of the car less.

      However, I do agree that the youth of today is growing up more 'disfunctional' if you like, than in times past. Children aren't taught responsibility and maturity, but seem to be increasingly left to their own devices.
      However, class divides have gotten bigger. The poor are even more disenfanchised than they used to be.
      Mm, I disagree here. The class divides of times past were far more strict than today. People's backgrounds don't matter so much as how they act in the present.
      Privacy is important to. If I put a camera in every room of your house, I could guaruntee that no crime would go unpunished on your property. I bet you wouldn't be too pleased about it though.
      Oh, I never said it wasn't. But on a public street you give up some rights to privacy. Privacy wise, what's the difference between people watching you do something live in the street, or on a tape from a CCTV camera?
    12. Re:1984 here we come by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      A country is only as good as its people and if there are people who want to murder and rape then they will, the only thing a death penalty or more cameras will do is scare them a bit and MAYBE if your lucky, scare them enough not to kidnap some school girl and dump her in a ditch, what it certainly DOES NOT do is turn said person into some sort of angel, cured of whatever mental illness or anger they had before, they are still a loose cannon and a danger and know one will ever know until its too late. The only deterrent to violent crime is to raise a decent society - if murder was taken off the law books tomorrow and the police were dis-banded, would you go and kill someone? no because you're a good person (i hope). All these tools can do is help catch people or make them move to an area without cameras (and there will always be an area without cameras) catching criminals is only half the solution and deterrents are never a cure no matter how harsh they are, the only way forward is to educate a decent society and to accept that there will always be one or two crazies.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    13. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The UK is slowly moving towards a survalance nation.

      My surveillance tells me that the UK is moving towards a nation of illiteracy.

    14. Re:1984 here we come by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Thankyou, somebody with some intelligence on thesee boards.

    15. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.

      People against CCTV are always quick to point out statistics that prove that violent crime remained the same in areas after CCTV was introduced. They are also quick to complain that CCTV is being used as an excuse to lower the number of bobbies on the street.

      Put these two facts together, and you will see that CCTV is effective, and you would be seeing a drop in violent crime if it wasn't for the fact that there are less police on the street.

      The 1984 characters were afraid of being overheard in their own home, BTW. I don't see the goverment installing CCTV and microphones in peoples houses.

    16. Re:1984 here we come by Legion303 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "My surveillance tells me that the UK is moving towards a nation of illiteracy."

      I thought continental drift was moving it AWAY from America.

    17. Re:1984 here we come by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about if budget was no issue, and there were enough polite, trained Bobbies to stand at every street corner, 24x7, db-meter in hand? Same (even better) net effect, and the bonus of being a deterrent to all sorts of other petty (and not so petty) crime.

      But that's completely ridiculous, money-wise, so you have to lean on technology to increase manpower, just like we do in so many other ways. The capacity to do something Orwellian doesn't mean that's the policy or the intent. But being able to address serious quality of life issues, like sidewalks outside certain clubs that never cease to be obnoxiously loud, isn't privacy invasion, and definately is exactly the sort of thing that you'd hope a municipal government would take seriously.

      They can't throw manpower at it, but they can leverage tools like this. Persistent, especially night-time, noise levels are one of the main reasons that a lot of people can't stand living in denser urban settings, and that fuels suburban sprawl, fuel consumption, wasted commuting hours and a thousand other inefficiencies. Making Urban Hive Life less miserable by enforcing noise ordinances (along with trash cleanup and vandalism prosecution) seems like an eminently useful thing to do. There are too many freakin' people in the world, and if we have to live packed together so we can afford to live, then the least we can do is find speedy, low man-hour ways to deal with that small percentage of us that insist on making a goddamn 100db racket at 2:00AM. Society seems to frown on me actually dealing with it personally (since polite requests will go ignored by people that don't already understand they're being jerks, and I'm not legally empowered to engage in any other form of pursuasion), so this type of solution seems to make sense - it allows LEOs to respond, over time, to more complaints, and to better weigh who's making reasonable complaints.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:1984 here we come by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      All good points. I just want to add that the 9/11 commission (sorry for the reference, but it really is relevant) determined that the FBI/CIA/etc. had enough information to stop the terrorist attacks. Moreover, they had too much information. And they were only collecting information about a small subset of the population. If they were to start collecting information about everyone, they'd be swamped.

      But this is not to say that an Orwellian nightmare couldn't happen right now. In fact, it's quite easy to set one up. And it would be far more arbitrary than the "standard," centralized model. Easy peasy: just set up a network of informants. Have atleast one per block. Make it a law that everyone must snitch on a neighbor if they're planning anything subversive. If a person doesn't snitch on a neighbor, the informant should arrange for the person to be interrogated. Deal with them with severity if they do not satisfy you. Now, this sort of arrangement works at the local level. Set up a hierarchy of such informants, each keeping any eye on those immediately below. This is precisely what the Nazis and Soviets did. The Cubans are still doing it.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    19. Re:1984 here we come by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      Well I would like more police about yes.

      But if it was a choice between one police man on one out of every 1000 bus trips or a CCTV on every bus, i'd focus on CCTV first. Cos you can be damn sure i won't be robbed on that one lucky bus trip with the cop.

    20. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! Come on! You should really be au fait with Slashdot group think on matters like this by now. Don't even try to argue with them. You will just end up with wet feet like King Canute.

    21. Re:1984 here we come by apoc.famine · · Score: 1
      In addition, if you want to hide your mic, you don't use wireless. A wireless mic will have to emit a fairly powerful, distinct signal for it to be of any use at all. It would be trivial to bulid something to detect this transmission. You might not be able to break the encryption, but you could definitly walk around and figure out where the mics are located.

      This, combined with the massive amount of processing power needed to sift through audio data, means you are unlikely to catch any moderately intelligent criminals. (The dumb ones you would catch eventually anyway.) Leaving these good for....monitoring noise.

      Stealth Pistol Represent!
      </dues ex>
      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    22. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I read posts like this and despair we'll ever turn back from the precipice. Are you really so ignorant of mankind's history, do you really trust this will never be abused. Why? On what evidence can you possibly base such a position? I can't think of a single entity of any consequence that didn't in time grow more tyranical with assumed power; government or church. The result became a living nightmare for millions each time. For any of them universal monitoring of the public space was an unattainable dream and here you delight in just handing it over.

      More and more I become convinced future generations will revile us for letting it happen.

    23. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While listening devices in the streets does sound rather "Orwellian", I think the literary connection is closer to Zamyatin's We http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel). Great book and generally credited as a source of inspiration for 1984.

      Just a little quote:
      "[..] these membranes, elegantly decorated, are now on all the avenues and record street conversations for the Bureau of Guardians."

    24. Re:1984 here we come by plumby · · Score: 1
      Mm, I disagree here. The class divides of times past were far more strict than today. People's backgrounds don't matter so much as how they act in the present.

      It's true that it's now significantly easier for the poor to move up through society than it was 100 years ago, but it's still very difficult, and this is at least part of the problem.

      100 years ago, you 'knew your place' and most poor people probably didn't have any realistic dreams of ever having a different life, whereas today there's expectations that anyone could 'make it' (whether through working hard, the lottery, or crime), but most poor people will end up with the same level of poverty that they started, and this creates an awful lot of frustration and resentment. As Charlie Brown said - "I don't mind the despair, it's the hope I can't take."

      Privacy wise, what's the difference between people watching you do something live in the street, or on a tape from a CCTV camera?

      Apart from being recorded, not a great deal. The issue is more between random passers-by accidentally overhearing snippets of your conversation and someone deliberately, actively eavesdropping on whatever you happen to be talking about.

      I'd be annoyed if I was having a chat with a mate in the streets and a stranger stood right next to us to listen to the conversation (whatever I was talking about). Wouldn't you?

    25. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What and evolution hasn't been proven either?

    26. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oppressive governments have a history of not being easy to maintain. (not to mention that the benefactors of that sort of power aren't pre-disposed to living a long worry-free life.)

      Castro has outlived how many US presidents?

    27. Re:1984 here we come by hedora · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forget the whole point of 1984, and systems like the panopticon or RIAA lawsuits here in the US.

      The point of implementing one of these systems is not to spy on/catch everyone on earth. (As many people have pointed out, that is infeasible and counterproductive.) Instead, they are designed to change the population's behavior by introducing the possibility that the authorities may be watching.

      So, if you go by point (3), and stop 'saying the wrong thing' in public, you've given up your freedom of speech, and the system is working as intended.

      That's not to say that these wireless mics are being installed in a way that violates privacy, or is designed to limit political speech; I have no idea.

      However, if the UK starts to arrest political dissidents on a regular basis, it might make sense to start thinking about the microphones in a different way.

      Personally, when it comes to applying surveliance systems to the general population, I think it is better to err on the side of caution. The damage these systems could cause if abused is often much greater than any benefit they could provide. Therefore, it makes sense to minimize the potential for abuse.

    28. Re:1984 here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Governments around the world have always managed to get away with creating and testing exciting new ways of killing people (http://cryptome.org/bio-attack.htm
      http://cryptome.org/bio-attack.htm) so I really think you're missing the point with this microphone paranoia!

    29. Re:1984 here we come by tmortn · · Score: 1

      How to deal with shift work ?

      Working all hours of the day personally I think there is a major issue here of how to deal with people working none prime hours. 2am is roughly lunchtime for a lot of people and 7am miller time.

      Noise ordinances are pretty sticky things to enforce when you start encountering things like this. Living in an apartment I used to not be able to play my stero above a wisper on my days off if I kept to my night shift routine.... yet people didn't think anything about blasting away during the day when I was trying to sleep even when they knew about my schedule. Then there are things like grounds crew running weed whackers outside my damn window.

      Still have the lawn machine problem now that I live in a house but at least I can watch movies with the sound cranked a little now at odd hours.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    30. Re:1984 here we come by MicroBerto · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should let good, intelligent citizens carry guns. Then idiots will think twice before performing violent crimes.

      --
      Berto
    31. Re:1984 here we come by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are now more police officers in the UK as well. Sure, perhaps they are not all out on the beat, but just wondering around isn't always the best way to detect crimes.

      Also, your logic is broken. Just having more bobbies on the streets wouldn't make CCTV more effective. It would just make the police more effective.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:1984 here we come by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      However, I do agree that the youth of today is growing up more 'disfunctional' if you like, than in times past. Children aren't taught responsibility and maturity, but seem to be increasingly left to their own devices.

      I think a lot of it is down to falling standards in parenting, and weaker family ties. Also, these days it's hard for some families where only one parent works to earn enough money, so both work and child care is a secondary concern. The idea that it should be easier for parents to offload their kids at playschool for more hours of the day, especially in their early formative years, is quite disturbing to me.

      Mm, I disagree here. The class divides of times past were far more strict than today.

      Ah, but it's all a lie born out of Thatcherism. It's a bit like the American Dream (tm), the idea that anyone can make it. Sure, some do, but the reality is that 99.999% do not. However, everyone aspires to be in the 0.001% who do, and won't rock the boat too much just in case their chance comes.

      Okay, I'll grant things are better now than 100 years ago, but not 40 years ago. In 1965, the head of the company might earn 20x that of the lowest worker. Now it's more like 200x or more.

      Besides, I don't think life is about being rich. It's about being happy. People have lost sight of that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then, when they've kicked out all the Pakis and Jews and removed Britain from the EU, then what?

    Thank God for natural selection....

  12. Oh, SUPER! by NickFortune · · Score: 2, Insightful
    We already rejoice in the most pervasive video surveilance in the world. Now they're going to have the whole bloody island wired for sound as well.

    At least they're not touting this as an anti-terrorist measure. I guess that's no longer as credible as it used to be.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    1. Re:Oh, SUPER! by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1
      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:Oh, SUPER! by goldmeer · · Score: 3, Funny
      Now they're going to have the whole bloody island wired for sound

      You missed the wireless part of "wireless microphones".

    3. Re:Oh, SUPER! by grolschie · · Score: 1

      ...wired for sound...

      Cliff? Is that you?

    4. Re:Oh, SUPER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear, you just reminded me of the video for that damn song.

      Cliff Richard roller skating along with some chicks and some very fruity looking men in skin-tight spandex type outfits.

    5. Re:Oh, SUPER! by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      heheheh. I don't really have to explain that it's a figure of speech, do I?

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    6. Re:Oh, SUPER! by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Glad that britain is still an island, it still is time to seal off the canal and close the tunnel, you guys definitely need a good quarantine to come to your senses.

    7. Re:Oh, SUPER! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      People are always complaining that the government never listens to them. Now that the government is actually doing something about it so that their voice will be heard, they're complaining. Typical!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Oh, SUPER! by goldmeer · · Score: 1
      Not at all. It was a cheap shot, but I am not ashamed of it.

      I find it interesting that you defend a "figure of speech" when the serious conversation over this article is about the government possibly recording said speech.

      Ironic? not at all. Interesting, yep. It is quite possibly the best harbinger on this topic possible.

    9. Re:Oh, SUPER! by ctid · · Score: 1
      Glad that britain is still an island, it still is time to seal off the canal and close the tunnel, you guys definitely need a good quarantine to come to your senses.

      I presume you've heard of aeroplanes?

      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
    10. Re:Oh, SUPER! by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      Harbinger is the word all right.

      You know, the UK parliament has a nasty habit of trying out new laws with possibly unforseen consequences on Scotland before they inflict them on the rest of us. So the scots got the poll tax first, and they also got 24 hour boozing. They have a separate legal system which makes it possible to do this, you see.

      So given that Blair his cronies are so thoroughly under the thumb of Bush and Co., do you ever wonder who might be using the UK as a test case?

      I'll just go and put my tin foil hat omn...

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    11. Re:Oh, SUPER! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "At least they're not touting this as an anti-terrorist measure. I guess that's no longer as credible as it used to be."

      Yeah, all those cameras present seemed to prevent that "attack" at the British consulate recently in New York. I wonder if they caught the people responsible yet.... Of course, maybe the camera coverage is better in the UK :)

    12. Re:Oh, SUPER! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I presume you've heard of cluster bombs?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Oh, SUPER! by Pantheraleo2k3 · · Score: 1
      I presume you've heard of aeroplanes?

      I presume you've heard of surface-to-air missiles?
    14. Re:Oh, SUPER! by grolschie · · Score: 1

      arggghhhhhh!!!! My minds eye!!!!!!

    15. Re:Oh, SUPER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But are those wireless microphones wired for *power*?? Then technically, yes, the system is wired for the sake of sound.

  13. 1984! by rastakid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Orwell was right! He was only 21 years ahead of his time.

    1. Re:1984! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I comlpetely agree: a lot more people should have read (and understood) 1984. this initiative brings many subtle problems:
      1) what guarantiees are given about the use of the recorded sounds by the police? for example could they be used as an evidence in different crimes? do we really want to live in a world where all of our images and sounds are monitored?

      2) if a citizen asks the police to install a mick in order to capture people doing noise, it means that this is very frequent. Consequently why it is not sufficient to put a policemen hidden around? only few days would be necessary: after people see that when they disturb they are fined, they will stop doing it.

      3) if the objective is to find when noises are produced, microphones are overkill: it is only necessary an instrument measuring the intensity of the noises. I suspect instead that this is only the first step: they want to get people used to get sound-monitored.

      Francesco

    2. Re:1984! by aussie_a · · Score: 1


      I comlpetely agree: a lot more people should have read (and understood) 1984.


      Such as understanding that he wasn't talking about the future, but in fact the present (1948)? 1984 wasn't an attempt at prediction, but was instead talking about the issues that were relevant to Orwell's time period (and may still be relevant in our own).

    3. Re:1984! by rastakid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, Orwell was talking about where life could lead to if things would continue like they were in 1948. In 1948 there was no real big brother, but there was the big government. Orwell thought that by 1984 there would be a real big brother and all the other things like microphones.

    4. Re:1984! by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      if a citizen asks the police to install a mick in order to capture people doing noise
      How does that work, then: "Oh, to be sure to be sure, dere was music blarin' out, so there was, an all an all. Whoi don't yer go book the gobshoite now, officer, da noisy fecker"?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    5. Re:1984! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it does not work this way of course.
      suppose you are bothered every day by people doing noises, for example groups of guys meeting in the evenings and playing with high volume radios and similar stuff. You simply say that to the police and they wait hidden the next day, at the times the crowd usually forms; perhaps they will not find the same people which bothered you the day before, but still they will find and fine someone. This will be a strong deterrent and others will think twice before to do noises again.

      Francesco

    6. Re:1984! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone catch the altitude of that joke which totally and comically flew over this guy's head???

      Signed,
      Not GP.

    7. Re:1984! by FLEB · · Score: 1

      The joke called. Would you like to reschedule your appointment?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
  14. WiFi squatters? by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One big question about the deployment of such mics: how will they interoperate with other WiFi networks?

    If they will interfere or occupy the wrong frequency bands it's a big help to those who have all to fear from the technical achievements of WiFi.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    1. Re:WiFi squatters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably they'll just use your WiFi network to send in your noise levels.

    2. Re:WiFi squatters? by ink_13 · · Score: 1

      Avoiding a really narrow section of frequency band should be easy enough. Furthermore, I doubt that 2.4GHz signals have quite the range they'll be needing.

  15. London by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Move away. I just did.

    Less noise, less pollution, less traffic, less crime, less intrusion, less stress, less expense.

    London is a great place to visit for a week. It's a horrible place to live and work, though it's still better than Manchester.

    --
    Deleted
  16. As usual... by CrackedButter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the majority of the slashdot crowd over react say how bad this could be. "Oh no my rights"! Then click refresh.

  17. Westminster is only a little bit of London by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    There are many boroughs in London, Westminster is but one of them.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Westminster is only a little bit of London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is a geography lesson for Americans, perhaps you should start with the assetion that England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom aren't just London, too. And some hint as to where Europe is.

    2. Re:Westminster is only a little bit of London by freerecords · · Score: 1

      Westminster is a city of its own.

      --
      tim
  18. Not London resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    London residents are called "Londoners". Just a little FYI there, move on.

    1. Re:Not London resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe it's because I'm a London resident,
      that I live in London.

    2. Re:Not London resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oi!

      'Ang on, I'll get me spoons!

  19. I'm a Londoner as well by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and I have to disagree.

    There's a difference between between "public" as in "you can't complain if someone stands next to you in the tube and overhears all of your conversation" and "public" as in "you never know who's watching and listening". London is already tightly packed with CCTV (although I have to object to the "CC". I fail to see what's so closed circuit about wireless cameras that present their pictures on the net, like this one, very close to where I live). Nevertheless, whenever the police publishes pictures of an "unidentified" mugger, you see that it is actually impossible to identify an unknown person on the pictures. What is possible, however, is to follow certain persons around town as they do their daily work.

    To cut it short: London is already quite Orwellian (the Royal Opera is right...). We definitely do not need microphones eavesdropping on us. I can already see the first headlines in the metro: "Drug dealers arrested after being overheard by micros!" And everyone will cheer...

    1. Re:I'm a Londoner as well by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      That's a perfectly reasonable point of view.

      Part of where I'm coming from - ever since reading Bob Shaw's Other Days, Other Eyes I've been convinced that attempts to hold back the spread of surveillance devices are Canute-like in the extreme. (I think David Brin has also written on the same subject.) Once they're tiny, disposable, wirelessly-networked, absurdly cheap and plausibly deniable, they WILL be everywhere.

      Rather than fighting a losing battle against technological inevitability, I think we'd be better off addressing the other end of the issue - let people monitor whatever they like, since there's no way to stop them, but restrict what use can be made of information gained in this way. Make it inadmissible as evidence in court, for example.

      It's not an ideal situation, in that the potential for more subtle abuse (employment discrimination, for example) will still exist, but it may be the best we can do.

    2. Re:I'm a Londoner as well by cortana · · Score: 1

      > restrict what use can be made of information gained in this way. Make it
      > inadmissible as evidence in court, for example.

      This only works as long as trials are public, and defendants (and their counsel) are allowed to see the evidence against them.

    3. Re:I'm a Londoner as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      The governments need for a "secret police" is gone, replaced by technology that never has pangs of conscience about what it's doing.

    4. Re:I'm a Londoner as well by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, the microphones are to measure general noise levels following a complaint - not so that the sinister cabal known as Westminster Council can monitor conversations and feed them to Shirley Porter's underground monitoring centre in Israel or something. Come on, with microphones being so easy to conceal, if there is any bugging of London's streets by it will not be publicly announced.

      I for one welcome our new microphone-wielding noise hotline overlords. The single biggest thing spoiling quality of life in London is scum living nearby blasting out music day and night. It doesn't work very well for noise enforcement teams to come round only after each complaint. If they can actively monitor noise levels and then instantly send round heavies with baseball bats, I'm all for it.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    5. Re:I'm a Londoner as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe I just observed YOU standing by the "Underground" sign picking your nose!
      (How embarassing is THAT!)

  20. london is quiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i've lived in central london and central new york - and let me tell you, new york is far far noisier.
    and it never goes quiet. at least in London theres that 'dead zone' between 3am and 5am

  21. "Minimal damage"? Really? by lxt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't know about you, but where I live every single speed camera has been subject to repeat arson by people throwing burning tires over them. So, the speed camera authority responded by creating speed cameras which couldn't have said burning rubber thrown on to them.

    However, they severly underestimated the talent and intelligence of drunken men - I swear one night I saw a group of people standing on their shoulders, rotating a speed camera around 90 degrees. Nobody in the police actually realised it had been rotated for a few months...

    1. Re:"Minimal damage"? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered whether you british chaps have this thing we call here on the other side of the pond "duct tape"

      Seems to me that a suitable application of this revolutionary material would render speed cameras somewhat ineffective.

      If needed, there's also epoxy, as well as cyanoacrylate glue, (aka superglue)

      and of course there's also causing just enough error in the camera to create a legally doubtful situation, such that a "5" appears like an "s"

    2. Re:"Minimal damage"? Really? by myc_lykaon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The 'necklace burning' that is described has an additional effect that the duct tape doesn't. It fries the film inside the camera that is already exposed with images of ner-do-wells who triggered it already (Every 2-3 weeks the film is replaced in Gatsos).

      In addition, some cameras are accused of being revenue generation devices and not safety devices (I can name one Truvelo in Nottighamshire hidden behind a bridge supoport post before Markham on the A1 on a 3 km stretch of straight road). The burning makes them uneconomic at 20,000UKP a pop.

    3. Re:"Minimal damage"? Really? by wfberg · · Score: 3, Funny

      I swear one night I saw a group of people standing on their shoulders, rotating a speed camera around 90 degrees. Nobody in the police actually realised it had been rotated for a few months...

      I presume they were tipped off by the Royal AirForce's complaints about their jets being ticketed for speeding.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    4. Re:"Minimal damage"? Really? by Caseyscrib · · Score: 1

      They should just hang photographs of the road in front of the cameras.

    5. Re:"Minimal damage"? Really? by Le_Batleur · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be Bristol, Avon, by any chance? The Monitron twisted to point at a house, by any chance?

      I *wondered* what the hell it was supposed to be photgraphing!

  22. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by arevos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I take it you're not British. Might I ask if you have any experience living in Britain, or if you're just basing your opinion on second-hand information?

  23. well... by fender_rock · · Score: 1

    microphones seem to be a good idea in detecting when the noise becomes too loud, but how does a microphone tell you whos making all the noise?

    1. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but how does a microphone tell you whos making all the noise?
      It can't, but for poor bastards like Chris Tucker they are going to know who's speaking...
    2. Re:well... by mrjb · · Score: 1

      Match the noise with the camera pictures?

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    3. Re:well... by Reverberant · · Score: 1
      microphones seem to be a good idea in detecting when the noise becomes too loud, but how does a microphone tell you whos making all the noise?

      It doesn't. There are three approaches you can take to determine the source measured by a single microphone (arrays are another matter, but require significant amounts of processing):

      1. Use judgment and experience to determine the source based on graphs of the sound level time history. If you've worked in noise control for long enough, you tend to learn how to pick out sources based on the shape of the event in the graphical time history of the event. For example, a locomotive-led train is easy to pick out since it looks like a blob with a large peak followed by a smaller blob.
      2. Use computer algorithms to determine the the source. There are several noise monitoring systems sold today that can distinguish between aircraft noise and other noise based on the time and frequency characteristics of the event. It's quite possible that someone has extended this system to recognize other sources.
      3. Simply record the sound, and let a human make the final decision.

      I work in noise control, and I typically use method 1 (in combination of logs generated during brief periods of attendance) to determine the noise source.

      Lately I've gotten into some disputes regarding the accuracy of my source determinations, so I've started using long-term calibrated sound recordings in place of long-term sound level meter measurements. The recordings have removed all doubts about the sound source, and I wouldn't be surprised if the UK authorities try using sound recordings if they find that the sound measurements are being disputed on a regular basis.

  24. In Russia .. by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 0

    If you want to discuss your new water-fuelled-engine invention, go somewhere private.

    Well, I heard the Russian embassy offers these private rooms which are protected by all known countermeasures against eavesdropping. Maybe that is what you mean?
    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  25. To rephrase the parent ... by ggvaidya · · Score: 1, Troll

    Ah, George Orwell was British! A coincidence? I think not!!!

    James Joyce was Irish ... a coincidence? Ah, that's what you think!

  26. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup .. not British. I actually have a house in the UK and an appartment in the US and live in both countries on and off so I am in a very good position to compare.

    I am very fond of the UK and like many Americans love the British people. They are a warm and caring people with a good sense of justice.

    But IMHO they are far too trusting of a governemnt which snips away at their freedom and also creates a very low standard of living. Every Brit knows that goods are over priced. They even call their own country "Rip-Off-Britain", but they just accept the situation and do not question it further.

    Let me give an example. They just ran an election where neither party even mentioned the very high cost of gas (petrol). This one tax significantly affects the standard of living of lower income people.

    Why would this not be an election issue? Because neither party is prepared to give up the revenue it generates.

    Again - nobody seems to care.

    Boiled frog.

  27. Eh? by ickypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are they asking for drunken serenades?

    Because it sure seems like they are.

    1. Re:Eh? by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

      parent is absolutly hilarious. If I had the points, they'd get a +1 funny from me.

      --
      Stop signs are only Suggestions
  28. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am British.
    The above poster (American) has got it right.

  29. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by denominateur · · Score: 1

    I moved to Britain 8 months ago to study physics. While I must say that the universities are rightly among the best in the world, I and many others feel exactly like the parent poster about Britain, it sucks!

  30. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by travellerjohn · · Score: 1

    This got to be a Troll...

    The UK government hasnt got around to setting retail prices quite yet...

    and they havent introduced anything as oppresive as the Patriot Act either.

  31. Demolition Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

  32. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm British, well, English, this is spot on.

    I reckon it's the morons up North that continue to vote in governments like Labour with such Nazis as Blunkett causing all the trouble. Well, it is, just look at the visualisation things they have for which way constiuencies went.

  33. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average Britain's freedom??? You mean there's more than one Britain?!?!

  34. In UK only the law-abiding fear the law by Surur · · Score: 1


    Law enforcement by the judicial system is very weak in the UK. This is more likely to catch the person throwing a once off birthday party than the neighbor across the street with 20 ASBO's against him already, who drives around in a car with false number plates and lives in a council flat on Disability Living Allowance.

    Surur

    --
    Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
    1. Re:In UK only the law-abiding fear the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ASBOs, for those who do not live in the UK, are Anti-Social Behavior Orders. This is somehing the police put against someone who they cannot actually chare with a crime. Usually they're pretty broad, so if you violate them, you can be charged with a crime.

      And yes, that's another Orwellian sounding thing. "You are guilty of Anti-Social Behavior."

      I wonder what will happen when these anti-noise ordinances run up against another thing dear to Labour: "diversity." Muzzeins in mosques nowadays go for volume, with =ear-spliting calls to prayer. This is as true in the UK as it is in Cairo. (A stock figure in the US, the screaming street preacher caterwauling about Jayzuz!, has as his UK equivalent the screaming street imam caterwaulign about Allah. There's one who stakes out his territory in Piccadilly Circus, for instance.)

      In recent years, conflicts like these have been common. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett's proposed national ID card was going to let Muslim women take pictures wearing abayas or burqas, for intance, and the whole Brouhaha over the restoration of the Florentine Boar, when you had some local Muslim leaders arguing that restoring the boar would be an insult to Muslims. (The net result of this has been increased racial, religious and ethnic tension.)

      The UK is an ineffectual police state (well, ineffectual at dealing with crime, but maybe all these things are not intended to deal with crime, but with poltiical opponents) governed by an elected dictatorship. I've lived there, and it just impresses me as a society on the slide. But at least the locals can sneer at the antics of George Bush to console themselves. (Nevermind that the last two Home Secretaries have made Bush look like a civil libertarian, with full backing from the PM and the PM's likely successor, Gordon Brown.)

    2. Re:In UK only the law-abiding fear the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what will happen when these anti-noise ordinances run up against another thing dear to Labour: "diversity." Muzzeins in mosques nowadays go for volume, with =ear-spliting calls to prayer. This is as true in the UK as it is in Cairo. (A stock figure in the US, the screaming street preacher caterwauling about Jayzuz!, has as his UK equivalent the screaming street imam caterwaulign about Allah. There's one who stakes out his territory in Piccadilly Circus, for instance.)


      I would strongly suspect that as long as there is a religion behind it, then the normal rules don't apply. If a law/rule conflicts with a religious teaching, the government will cave-in to avoid offending these deluded people.
  35. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost of goods in shops is nothing to do with the government. Or are you suggesting a mandate for more government interference in the free market, to "correct" the problem? That's pretty hypocritical of you.

  36. Mods, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How on earth can the parent be a troll because he is asking a question that I'm sure quite a lot of people wanted to ask?

    And lo and behold, the direct answer to the apparently trollish question has been modded +5Informative. So, what gives?

    Seriously, I sometimes get the impression that the lower your IQ the more mod points you get on /....

  37. Big Brother ... by PGC · · Score: 1

    is not only watching you ; from now on he can hear you also .

    --
    The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    1. Re:Big Brother ... by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

      "The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean."

      Your sig reminds me. A pub I used to drink in was taken over bye a couple of dykes. It worked. They stopped decent beer from getting into the pub.

      On a more serious note, Amstel Gold beer is great.

      --
      My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
    2. Re:Big Brother ... by PGC · · Score: 1

      It's Dutch , what did you expect ;)

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
  38. Balancing of rights and another example by iritant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While Londoners are using Microphones to handle noise violations, the people of East Palo Alto, California used them for accoustic analysis to determine from which direction the bullets were flying in a particularly gang-ridden neighborhood, and it was reported to have worked. Very few residents complained about their rights being violated.

    Now, on the other hand, if London started recording conversations, that would make for a more interesting - and invasive- use. At that point we're heading right for 1984. Of course, London already uses cameras in public places for use as evidence, so their networking infrastructure is already there...

    1. Re:Balancing of rights and another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also didnt hurt that the property value in East Palo Alto, like the rest of the Bay Area skyrocketed. This fact is independent of their policing in the city. It is nearly impossible to find a house in the Bay Area for under $500K (selling price NOT asking price).

      Most slum lords have found it more worth while to sell their piece of the ghetto and buy somewhere else (I hear that Fresno and Las Vegas are very good places to buy rental units now).

      Those that were held hostage to bad neighborhoods and stayed are now refinancing and fixing their homes to look nice... and stay nice.

    2. Re:Balancing of rights and another example by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
      Very few residents complained about their rights being violated.

      Well, would YOU complain if the microphones were listening?

  39. Here's a better idea... by Xarius · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    While this is all well and good, it's useless while our justice system is a pathetic case of slapping on the wrist. People simply aren't afraid of British Prisons. My step-father is a prison officer, and these people have PLAYSTATION TWO's in their cells. Most prisoners will repeat offend without any fear whatsoever of going to prison.

    Cut the crap, and make prison the hell-hole it's meant to be, and extend sentences.

    --
    C17H21NO4
    1. Re:Here's a better idea... by grolschie · · Score: 1

      and these people have PLAYSTATION TWO's in their cells

      That should be punishment enough. ;-)

      But seriously, I saw a doco of a guy in some scandinavian country in "prison" for murder. His "prison cell" was an almost-zero-security stylish modern self-contained flat with comfy furniture, tv, PS2, microwave, etc. A better lifestyle than many brits have indeed. It appears that US typical hell-hole type prisons with daily beatings and prison-sex are not fundamental to a prisoner's rehabilitation and reformation.

    2. Re:Here's a better idea... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Wow, you want to send people to a "hell hole prison" for playing thier music too loud? That ought to learn-em huh, but since (as you say) they will reoffend, perhaps we should poke sharp sticks in thier ears and smash thier stereos instead. Oh fuck it, why not shoot-em all and let God sort it out, (starting with self-righteous morons like you).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  40. Security? by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

    My first thoughts of this were "how secure would it be?" Would be a crackers dream land if they were high-quality... I can't really warm up to the idea of microphones on the street, regardless of their technical capability; there's just something a little chilling about having people listening to make sure you don't make too much noise.

    --
    Anonymous Coward
  41. Are we getting a fucking boiled frog treatment?!? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    You bet we are!
    All I can do is hope these new systems arn't being abused, the data protection applies to CCTV etc as well as personal records so you have a legal right to see the data they have on you and know what it will be used for. The congestion charge ring for example (Ken Shitface Livingstone) scans every license plate entering the city as basically a toll gate, using it for any other purpose would be illegal IMHO so if they get found using it for anything else I hope some prision time is in order, fortunately the camera network is designed only for cars, the high-res cameras are fixed at the point in the road where the number will go past so they cant just add software to automatically track faces, it would have to be done with another CCTV camera.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  42. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've never heard the expression "put up or shut up"?

  43. Here's to hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that one day you'll also get to enjoy the apparent comfort of the british prison system.

    And who apart from some anal neo-fascists said prison is supposed to be a hell-hole?

    P.S.: Required reading:
    Foucault: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014013722 X/ref=pd_sim_b_dp_3/202-7423959-8052618

  44. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuel is only $6.5 a gallon because the dollar is still so weak. We pay a lot of tax on fuel and more sales tax than most states, too. Do you know what we get in return? The socialist safety net. Yes, the UK is a socialist country. We choose to pay more taxes in return for having a lot of services provided to us efficiently. As a result our standard of living is among the best in the world.

    Let's compare that to the US, shall we? Oh, well, I guess you're OK, though, so the average US lifestyle isn't important.

    You see, it's important to us. That's what socialism is all about.

  45. god damn not having freedom by zug82 · · Score: 1

    ok, judging by the response to the article your a bunch of geeks who dont have a clue about how the rest of the world works. Our government isnt trying to invade our privacy, they are trying to uphold the rights of other people in our nation. Personally i think its a good thing, violent crimes are on the decrease, I actually feel safe to some degree whilst walking through a cctv area. Note i said cctv AREA. its not like they have cameras on every street, just the trouble spots. Maybe if you stopped being worried about your independance and freedom, and started being more considerate, you'd have less violent crimes. but, no, you want to be able to shoot people. you want to be able to run a guy down and drive away with nothing to take down your number plate. you want to be kept up all night by your teenage neighbours kickin' tunes. maybe if you left your own little world once in a while you'd realise america's freedom isnt all its made out to be. end of rant.

    1. Re:god damn not having freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note i said cctv AREA. its not like they have cameras on every street, just the trouble spots.

      Not where I live. They are on every street except for the suburban areas. Yes, this is in the UK.
      Interestingly enough, most of the CCTV cameras are hidden or camouflaged. I have a friend in the police who has shown me a map of all the CCTV cameras around the city. It's *really* scary. There are thousands and thousands.

      Oh, and violent crime is increasing, not decreasing.

      Oh, and can you trust the people monitoring the CCTV footage? Do you even know who they are? Do you assume that they've been background checked?
      They haven't. Assume they're police? They're not.

      Oh, and (AMAZINGLY ENOUGH) being in a FREE society means making small sacrifices. My next door neighbour plays his Metal very loud. I can't say it's not annoying - but I don't call the police or order an ASBO. Do you know why? Because he's enjoying himself and the amount to which he is enjoying himself is GREATER than my discomfort.

      Understand that freedom means tolerance and responsibility. It does not mean surveillence.

  46. Did anyone notice there is a typo in the topic? by llwang · · Score: 1

    It said lnstall instead of Install...

  47. The irony is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that the brits have screwed over pretty much every nation they've had dealings with since history began (e.g. Scotland, Ireland, India, etc, and many before them no doubt). Seems ironic that they are now doing it to themselves these days. Only in the last 50 years has the USA taken the crown from the brits in screwing over so many nations.

    1. Re:The irony is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that they were screwed by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, French(Normans), ...

    2. Re:The irony is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, not quite, because we are now Romans, Saxons, Normans etc.

      except for the weirdos skulking in the corners of the country, like the Welsh.

    3. Re:The irony is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans. All the real English were killed before modern history began.

    4. Re:The irony is..... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Well, the Darth US did a good job to learn from their evil ancestors... Dunno if you sum everything up which country has been worse over time, the US or Britain, I think the crown if you just count the last 50 years definitely goes to the US (but you have to count in the crimes which have been done by US corporations under the hood)

    5. Re:The irony is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean the Britons?

    6. Re:The irony is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seesh.. What are you? European? Do you know what happens in countries like China, North Korea, old Soviet republics, Iran, Syria, Sudan, most of Africa. Not having cable T.V. isn't a infringment of your rights.

  48. Well... by kirun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It all depends if the microphones are linked to equipment which is simply measuring the volume, or recording the actual sounds.

    Having lived in a flat very close to a nightclub, I'd support measures to fight their noise nuisance. If you were plotting to overthrow the government, you'd have no worries about the microphone picking it up - the relentless thud, thud, thud would drown you out.

    --
    I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
  49. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by grolschie · · Score: 1

    You've never heard the expression "put up or shut up"?

    That attitude is exactly why things are so bad in the UK.

  50. Whats a noise violation? by kafka47 · · Score: 1

    Is a 'noise violation' the decibel level of the sound, or the character of the sound?

    Cue fart jokes here.

    /Kafka

  51. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Err, except for tax on goods, tax on fuel used to move the goods, property taxes on the places used to sell the goods, income taxes on the employees who have to be paid to sell the goods, rates to pay the police forces used to protect the goods from theft, ...

  52. Frequency response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, fine if the neighbours are in the habit of playing Beethoven at full blast at 2am. To my mind, the most hellish of noises is that low-frequency thud-thud-thudding bass particularly featured in rap/r&b tracks. Ear plugs are useless; you don't so much 'hear' the sound as 'feel' it. No general-purpose all-weather outdoor microphone is going to pick up frequencies that low. Nope, nice try but the local council will still have to send someone over to sort it all out. Pointless, really.

    1. Re:Frequency response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus the fact that R&B is often a moving target since it's often being played on a car stereo owned by a twat who has installed ludicrious sub woofers. For the complete mental image, imagine home-made blacked out windows and the spoiler that is as aerodynamically useful as the driver shaving their legs.

      There is a car I've seen around here that actually has speakers on the outside. Maybe the owner thought this was a way they could annoy people without making their own ears bleed.

    2. Re:Frequency response by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

      Bay Bridge, San Francisco. We were in a car about to cross the bridge, when the ground beneath us started to shake. It wasn't a quake. It was the MF in the car behind us playing thumpa-thumpa-thumpa noise into a massive bass speaker system.

      Every time I hear that noise, I think of MILAN.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILAN

      --
      My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
    3. Re:Frequency response by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The thump-thump is the worst of all, I find it goes slightly faster than my heartbeat when lying in bed and slightly slower that the pounding of my fist on thier face when visit a second time at 3am.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Frequency response by Reverberant · · Score: 1
      To my mind, the most hellish of noises is that low-frequency thud-thud-thudding bass particularly featured in rap/r&b tracks. Ear plugs are useless; you don't so much 'hear' the sound as 'feel' it. No general-purpose all-weather outdoor microphone is going to pick up frequencies that low.

      If the authorities are going to use microphones to determine sound violations, they will be using microphones that meet IEC/ANSI standards for sound measurement equipment. That means mics from companies like Bruel and Kjaer, GRAS, Norsonic, ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, etc.

      These mics will definitely measure down to 20 Hz (most "boom car" bass is around 50 or 60 Hz), and some will even get down to 1 Hz.

      By the way, classical music generally has much lower bass than hip-hop/r&b/pop/dance music. Seriously.

  53. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all of which are lower in Britain than the rest of western europe, except fuel tax.

  54. Invasion of privacy by bridgey655 · · Score: 1

    Oh fer crying out loud. We're already the most watched country on the planet, now they want to listen to everything too?!

  55. VE Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It saddens me that us british (on the whole) are content to sit idly by and allow such infringements on our freedom.

    Think about all those who died in the past two world wars to protect it; we should value our freedom highly.

    Of course, knowing people (as a gestalt entity) nothing will be done until the time comes when it costs lives to regain said freedom.

    I wait now for the first life taken by such invasions; the first poorly secured ID card to be forged, the first nun to be jailed due to an error in finger print recognition (and of course the system is never wrong is it).

    *places tinfoil hat firmly on head*

    1. Re:VE Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about all those who died in the past two world wars to protect it; we should value our freedom highly.

      I like your post.
      I think about that a lot. I'm very proud of all four of my grandparents who fought in the war against the Nazis. War is shit, and so is killing, but some things ARE worth fighting for. As creeping fascism emerges in the USA and to a lesser extent here in England I wonder at what point my grandparents have been proud of ME for going out and shooting a few blackshirts. The time is not yet, but when it comes I will not dissapoint them. The apathetic and stupid comfortable population may let themselves become slaves, just as in 1930s Germany they will go along with everything out of fear until it is too late. I intend to start fighting a long time before it gets to this.

    2. Re:VE Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1st AC, not the one who replied)

      Thankee, however the lives I refer to being lost are not those lost due to violence and not lost in the sence of death. I refer to lives ruined by mistakes in the system. Little mistakes which end up with some innocent 12 year old girl being mistaken for a serial rapist.

      For those who nay-say this happening: at least 30% of major IT projects fail (google it and see). Many more will have faults which are not detected. Thus any vital IT system cannot be trusted to be completely secure, or even correct.

      I believe that no real action will be taken until such flaws in the system have already caused enough damage to be visible to the public.

      Having said that I don't believe violence is the answer. Such action would only serve to provide more of an excuse for privacy invading measures.

      I just think that perhaps it is time to get the libdems in, or perhaps (and now i'm dreaming) get a party that shows some common sense.

      - AC1

    3. Re:VE Day by Aldric · · Score: 1

      Well said. I'm absolutely positive that that there will be need for a rebellian in the UK within my lifetime.

  56. Previous poster 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am a Brit. I have lived in several other countries. I have visited many, many more.
    The previous poster is exactly right. Most english people do not care about things like this. From ID cards to constant surveillence, most people are not even aware that they exist.
    Should they be aware then the standard response is "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    Govt gone to war against Iraq? "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    Civil liberties being removed? "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    Schools and hospitals taken over by unaccountable (by law!) private enterprise? "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    People criminalised for walking about naked in their own homes? (Seriously, some of the recent ASBOs are really stupid) "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    Women gang-raped by Army officers? "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    Until, finally, we'll have immigrants and 'possible terrorists' being sent for 'showers' and 'relocation' and STILL the response will come: "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"

    I am living in a country of ignorant, apathetic asshats. Frankly, the UK deserves everything it gets. I beg all terrorists reading this post to come and detonate a series of massive dirty bombs up and down the country - put the world and all english people out of our misery. Please. We're too stupid to be allowed to live.

    1. Re:Previous poster 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that people in the UK seem to have an amazing indifference to the crap their government hands out (at least, when it's a Labour government: we're still hearing British artists, musicians and Labour backbenchers decrying the horrors of Thatcher over ten years after she left office. Alan Moore can't seem to shut up about her, but at least he also criticizes Blair).

      But I liked the UK. And horrific terrorist atrocities being visited on the people there won't change the government's actions one bit. Heck, they'll probably lead to David Blunkett becoming Home secretary (or *shudder*, PM) again.

      Barring a Labour loss at the polls (and a Conservative party whose platform isn't "we're for 90% of the stuff Labour is for, but Tony liiieedddd!"), nothing will change that. And given their past record, the Conservatives will probably be just as bad. Wish I had any confidence in the Lib Dems, but Paddy Ashdown's career as the Viceroy of Bosnia has convinced me that they're hypocrites, too.

      I just hope that Britons seeking to flee the increasing oppressiveness of their state will have soemwhere to go, as it looks to me like we Yanks are on the same path. (We're just farther back on it, but headed the same way.)

    2. Re:Previous poster 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In my country it is no different. I guess today most people are basically satisfied and well-fed. The problems ongoing every day sound very distant and unrelated to their lives. The problem with this apathy is that government doesn't improve by itself. On the contrary, it accumulates errors and bad choices until it falls apart. The only way this dysfunctional situation can be sustained is if corporations, not government, assume more and more responsibilities. I foresee two possible scenarios:
      1. We are now at the end-state of western democracy.
      2. Governments, realising that they can't manage themselves, will devolve into purely decorative demagoguery, leaving executive management (from prisons to hospitals to waging war) to the faceless corporations.
    3. Re:Previous poster 100% correct by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Well, what makes you think that you Brits take
      the prize for citizen apathy, anyway?

      I'm an American, and I take umbrage with your
      obviously false presumption that Brits make more
      apathetic citizens. We switched from a dope-
      smoking "centerist" Democratic president that
      perpetrated the Waco, TX massacre of men, women,
      and children, traded away American jobs for
      Mexican government stability (NAFTA), and got
      caught with his zipper down, to a former coke-
      toting born again "compassionate conservative"
      Nazi trying to turn the USA into an old-Europe-
      style feudal society, who stole two elections by
      hook-or-crook, and parleyed an ignored terrorist
      threat into his own worldwide reign of oil war terror.

      So, there!

  57. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by arevos · · Score: 2, Informative
    From your previous post:
    The state is permitted to levy extremely high taxes and nobody cares
    This seems a little odd to me. As far as I'm aware, the British government isn't any more inefficient and bureaucratic than your average democracy. The higher taxes go to pay for services that people in the UK seem to want, like the NHS. The US has lower taxes because it has less public services.

    The UK also spends proportionally much less than the US when it comes to military spending. Even though I'd pay less taxes in US, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that a far larger proportion of my money would go into the military.
  58. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current government, you mean? The one that wants biometric National ID cards tied to passports?

    I don't see how you can claim that the Blair government hasn't introduced anything as oppressive as the Patriot Act when the Civil Contingencies Act exists, along with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, which, unlike the original Patriot Act, does not contain sunset provisions (provisions which the Bush administration may convince Congress to overturn, unfortunately). And which, since the government has been returned, is unlikely to be changed or repealed, even if Tony Blair is tossed on his behind and replaced by Gordon Brown.

    Heck, maybe you can give this a read, and see if you can find anything that the author asserts which isn't true.

    I lived in the UK for a bit under a year, finishing out my military service. It was incredible to me to hear Brits aghast abotu the evils of the Patriot Act when they were under far more draconian laws, with cameras on every street corner, an Official Secrets Act (which exists to protect Officials, not secrets, as they said in Yes, Prime Minister), police taking DNA samples from anyone arrested and a Home Secretary who seemed to be trying very hard to make the Bush administration seem reasonable and protective of civil liberties.

    Of course, if you point this out, you're purveying anti-British propaganda. Just like anyone who criticizes the Bush admin hates America.

    The UK is just ahead of us in the US in the turn back to totalitarianism. We Yanks should look at the UK if we want to see what our future will look like.

    And, for those who don't think the Brits love being screwed by their government, that government was returned this week. With a reduced majority because of Iraq (not civil liberties, Iraq) and anger among hardcore Labour supporters that Tony Blair isn't socialist enough.

  59. you are 100% correct, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but there's not a lot you can do about is there, no point in grumbling.

  60. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see, it's important to us. That's what socialism is all about.

    Ah, yes, that's exactly right. Knowing what's best for everybody else and speaking for everybody else. You nailed it there alright!

    (I'm not British, I live in the socialist-corporativist de-facto-one-party-state of Sweden. You gave me a sickening feeling of familiarity.)

  61. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    No, he is suggesting a reduction of government taxes and red tape so that the shops can do their thing without the dreaded VAT, the insane TV Licensing system, and their sky-high petrol taxes. Over here is sunny Hawaii, gas is about $2.50 a gallon and we have the highest gas taxes in the US.

    We understand that more than half of your $6.50 is tax anyways.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  62. Re:Petrol tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Petrol is highly taxed in the UK for similar reasons to the high cigarette taxes - to discourage people from unnecessary driving which pollutes and congests and requires covering large amounts of our available land area in tarmac.
    The reason no party campaigns on the issue is that prices have to keep going up, and it's a damn good thing that they will. Any politician promising to cut those taxes will get excoriated in the press by environmentalists, it's not worth picking up the votes from the motorheads.

  63. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

    Right, they monitor your actions in public with no court order or warrant neccessary. You have lots more freedom in the UK than I could ever dream of in my country.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  64. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by taskforce · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whereas the ever-proactive Americans fight valiently against the PATRIOT act...

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
  65. Americans fell for the "freedom bait & switch" by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...from the very start, Americans have been brainwashed/duped by fancy words. In the 1770s, most working-class Americans did not even WANT a revolution to get away from England. THey mistrusted and hated the American elite just as much as the Brits. And rightfully so.

    But the American elite went on a propaganda spree in order to sell them on the Revolution. Of course for elites like jefferson, washington, Madison, Morris, et al., the Revolution was really all about making more money for themselves.

    So Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they used that bit of flowery "freedom, brotherhood, and liberty" language the help sell the Revolution. Of course there were other things that helped sell the revolution, like the Brit soldiers coming in and taking up all the jobs, that and some other things. But Jefferson's propaganda set up the Bait and Switch.

    So, then once the elites had some grassroots support, they got down to the dirty work of writing a Constitution that was designed to make sure that the lower classes really had little power. The American working classes fell for the Bait and Switch, all right. They bought into the whole freedon-liberty propaganda thing. THe Constitution, as James Madison, the principal writer of the Constitution wrote, was meant to establish a framework from within which the elite could hardly be reached by the masses. And Madison sure did do a good job of creating a government that was very hard to change. He sure did a good job "protecting the opulent minority from the majority," as he put it himself.

    The working people had thought they were going to get a fair and representative govt, with just an assembly that mathematically represented the people and whose members could be easily voted out. But instead they got a Constitutional framework that had a president and a Senate elected for long periods of time, and no one was subject to recall.

    Whoa, did that piss off the people. THey were a lot more politically aware back then then we are now. They knew that with a president and a senate, elected for such long periods of time, and not even directly elected, that the working people would have little chance of getting true representations. Once the workers got wind of how the actual constitution was goign to differ from what the Declaration of Independence promised, they tried to rush the buildings where the elite were gathering in order to set up the USA as a republic; they tried to kill them several times. But the elites had too many bodyguards.

    So, as a result, the elites got what they wanted.

    Americans just do not have any idea of a government that actually is on their side. THe American Constitution set up a government that is easily manipulable by the elite. Of course, almost every other western nation is now run much more for the people and less for the elite than is America. So this is one reason why American slashdotters moan and groan about this mikes in the UK. Of course, they don't even know why this thread is present in their culture. That history is not taught in the schools (surprise surprise!)

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  66. As a citizen... by abulafia · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I reserve the right to mumble incoherently at the mic, at loud (but not peace disturbing) volume, early and often. I have a lot to say about urgent matters that should worry the police, and they ignore me at their peril. We're talking about public noise, yes? So they have no complaint about interference.

    Hell, directional speakers might be really neat here, until they ban the use.

    "When noise makers are outlawed, only outlaws... &etc."

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
    1. Re:As a citizen... by PigleT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, give 'em some noise to be wondering about, by all means.

      Now, if it's basically wifi connection of some sort, what say folks get out there with their wifi sniffers and intercept the signal, see what it really is transmitting?

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
  67. Idiot. by abulafia · · Score: 1

    Read up on the times. "Mere kilometers" means a lot, at certain {time, place} points. If you believe they don't, well, the US has lots of people in a place called Texas born "mere kilometers" from Mexico. And don't get me started on Ohio... Damn Canadian subversives...

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
    1. Re:Idiot. by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Well the distinction between the Germans and Austrians is somewhat between the distinction between the US And Mexico and the US and Canada. It is not as stron as the one between the US and mexico, but definitely sharper than the US and Canada. Although the borders nowadays are almost non existent and we have strong family ties to germany, the Austrian people take pride in being not German and having a sort of different past and different development (Keep in mind, that Germany was under Austrian control for almost 700 years and Austria under german control after 1200 only for short periods of time, the final split came during the Napoleon wars and only was fortified in 1866 with the Prussian-Austrian war) The third Reich was just a short period of something which nowadays nobody even would think of. A German Austrian unification (although we have open borders and sort of are united over the EU) is more unlikely nowadays than a Canadian - US one under Bush as president would be.

    2. Re:Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very fluent, Austrians would be strongly offended by being taken for a Prussian but for example Bavarians are more similar to Austrians then to Prussians. I'd imagine it's probably pretty much the same in the USA with people living in some of the northern states being actually more Canadians then Americans.

    3. Re:Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get you started on...Ohio? Not only do we have a very large lake protecting us from speaking stupidly, but we elected George Bush. No Canadians here.

    4. Re:Idiot. by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Not only do we have a very large lake protecting us from speaking stupidly, but we elected George Bush.


      So that large lake then isn't doing such a good job?

      And excuse me Mr Hick, but "we" didn't elect george bush, YOU elected george bush.

    5. Re:Idiot. by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      No the ties are much closer and diversive as well, given the history those countries have which range back 2000 years. Some of those ties can even be rooted back into the tribal days of the roman empire. As you said the Austrian Bavarian ties are a perfect example of this. Bavaria and Salzburg basically have the same tribal roots, hence there always have been close connections between those parts of both countries. Also add to that the fact that Bavaria was for a long time a self ruling state and up today still has more rights in self government than many other german states. The ties of Bavaria to Austria are much tighter for historical and tribal reasons than the one of Bavaria to the rest of germany. (Add to that the fact that Bavaria is predominantly Catholic while many states north of Bavaria are predominantly Lutheran.)

  68. ..Already in Australia by Archon-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was exploring a disused cinema in Brisbane, Australia, in the UBD.

    I made my way to the rooftop, and on an awning pointing toward the street was a large protective case, padlocked and covered with council stencils, with a large mic pointing toward the street, and an antenna.

    The stickers on the case drew mention to ambient noise monitoring..

    I guess the UK isn't the first place to have this/

  69. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by drsquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're right, it would be better if we followed the Southern middle-classes and voted Tory. Bring back Michael Scumbag Howard, just what we need. Put Widdecome in charge of policies in drugs and personal freedoms.

    The Tories would be a massive step back for Britain. Anti-rights, anti-drugs, pro-religion, anti-Europe, run by the rich for the rich. No thanks. The Tories are dead and buried. On Thursday they didn't gain any votes, Labour lost them.

  70. Britain -- major nanny state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live in the UK, and it's no joke.

    The police here don't actually do hard stuff like going after burglars and muggers, it's too much work and it's not sexy and it may be dangerous to them.

    Instead, they spend their time hanging out on motorways fining speeders despite modern cars running like on rails at our speed limit.

    And of course, CCTV cameras are going up everywhere so that they can do even more of a bugger all. And now microphones.

    The whole system of "law enforcement" here sucks, because it does nothing to stop hard crime. The police end up monitoring the ordinary fairly civil person instead, while the real criminal is totally unhindered.

    1984 is definitely relevant.

    1. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably wouldn't bother you so much if you carried a gun.

    2. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by BigTom · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its so bad that most crime has dropped by thirty percent or so over the last 10 years.

      http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.as p

    3. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by mikael · · Score: 1

      According to the latest crime statistics, more prisoners are in jail for driving offences, than for burglary, mugging, or other violent crimes.

      http://www.cronaca.com/archives/001982.html

      Harbon's story, although extreme, is not as unusual as one might think. Last Sunday Martin Narey, the head of the prison service, admitted that jails are now overwhelmed by motorists locked up for minor violations. . .

      Underlining his point, it emerged last week that in 2002 15,059 people were jailed for motoring offences, compared with 10,184 for burglary.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tha's precisely the point. If you look into the figures you'll find that violent crime has increased during that time. (Apparently, according to our esteemed liar of a PM, it's because people didn't report these crimes in the past. And 36% of people who voted were stupid enough to vote for him, *sigh*).

    5. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The crew of top-gear demoed the new UK roadside cameras. In one car they placed a stereo-typical grand-ma. She went 5 over the limit and she was cited. The lead member of the cast did the same, and was cited via post. One other member of the production team drove the speed limit with an AK-47 on the dash and a RPG-7 in the bed of his truck (both TV props, but they look quite real.) The guy with the AK-47 on the dash was never noticed by or contacted by law enforcement regarding his posession of what are illegal weapons in the UK.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
    6. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      The police here don't actually do hard stuff like going after burglars and muggers, it's too much work and it's not sexy and it may be dangerous to them.

      Instead, they spend their time hanging out on motorways fining speeders despite modern cars running like on rails at our speed limit.

      Wow. Has the US been outsourcing our cops? That sounds pretty familiar...

    7. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait till "666" comes roling around. it`s what were all being set up for.

    8. Re:Britain -- major nanny state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot more speeding offences than burglaries. Drivers kill 3500 people a year in Britain, more than 4 times the number of murders.

  71. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not for want of trying.

    How about the attempts at legislating things such as 'put people from countries in jail indefinitely without trial if we say they are terrorists' ? or 'put people in jail indefinitely without public trial if a politician (the home sec) says they are terrorists' ?. Thank god the House of Lord's has been fighting them on issues like these, and also weakened the RIP bill for us, or things could be worse.

    It's amazing how little idea some people have of how our government has been slowly erroding our freedoms since 9/11 (a far worse crime than the deaths imho ).

    Not that I'm accusing you of this, but surely you must be worried about the above mentioned legislation and things such as the biometric identity card ideas, increased police stop-and-search powers and that stupid 'inciting religious hatred' bill constraining our freedom to express our opinion ?

    For a "socialist" government, they have been rather extereme with their legislation, all created with the excuse that it is in our best interest, or to help fight terrorism.

    Not that any of the other parties are much better, I'm pretty much resigned to be mis-represented for another 4 years, whoever I voted for..

  72. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
    that government was returned this week. With a reduced majority because of Iraq (not civil liberties, Iraq)

    Wow, I must have missed the box on the polling form that said "Reasons for voting".

  73. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by drsquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We choose to pay more taxes

    We don't choose to pay more taxes, the taxes are forced on us. How many people do you think like the petrol taxes and other such regressive taxes? How many people choose council tax which is not even based on ability to pay? And even when you do pay the binmen rarely bother emptying your bins, the streets are full of traffic wardens giving people tickets because the council want even more money to waste.

    In Britain we seem to have the worst of capitalism and socialism. We pay extortionate taxes, but the services are awful. Hospitals are filthy, inefficient, beaurocratic and disease-ridden, schools are disorderly and full of crime and drugs, roads are falling apart despite motorists being taxed to the hilt, the police care more about the criminals than the victims. Most people don't even get dentists, yet have to pay taxes towards them for other people.

  74. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds like "love it or leave it". I wonder where i have heard that...maybe at Mcdonald's or something.

  75. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by executioner · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Boiled frog is an excellent analogy. The average Britain's freedom is being whittled away one small step at a time and nobody seems to care.

    this may be true but it also true on the other side of the pond.

    post 9-11 american's freedom's / rights are slowly being eroded and not many people seem to care much.

    most americans today are more worried about their safety then there freedom's / rights then they where pre 9-11.

    just my .02 worth

    --
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  76. This looks like a job for MR MICROPHONE! by grumling · · Score: 1
    Hey kids! Why watch TV when you can be on the radio!

    (Stud to hot chicks) "Hey good lookin' We'll be back to pick you up later!" (family gathering) "We got a mighty convoy 'cross the USA! Convoy!"

    (announcer) Just tune your radio to an unused AM station and speak into the lamp post. Fun for all ages!

    Seriously, isn't New York and LA already using something like this for detecting gunshots?

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  77. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by arevos · · Score: 1

    Less government taxes mean less public services. The NHS sucks up a lot of tax-payer money, and the general feeling in the UK seems to be that people would rather have better healthcare than lower taxes (up to a point).

    Likewise, I don't really have too much of a problem with the TV Licensing system, so long as the BBC keep up the good work. The idea of putting all past content online is something that appeals greatly to me. Especially since they were talking about opening up old content to be remixed by modern day artists. So long as the BBC keep their promises, the licensing fee seems worth it.

    As for fuel taxes, don't you think that high fuel prices increase demand for efficient engines? I suspect the average car found in the UK has a greater efficiency than the average car found in the US.

  78. Re:That's right by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Then they have to start the empire all over... wait, that is not possible anymore. The empire was built upon ruthelessness and a defintive military advantage.

  79. Stop crying foul by freerecords · · Score: 1

    How many of you have things that need to be discussed in the street, at a level loud enough to be picked up by these microphones that you would not want the government listening to? (Assuming they even recorded sounds, rather than levels). If you have the need to discuss somethings private - you don't do it in a public place or in a voice loud enough to hear outside your house. Take your IP to your meeting rooms at work - not to the street outside your house. As a London resident, I very much welcome this - it will stop my neighbour who puts speakers on her doorstep all through the summer and plays insanely loud music till 3-4am. Tim

    --
    tim
    1. Re:Stop crying foul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey "Tim"

      Why don't you move to North Korea?
      I hear its great there (according to their government's information). I'm sure you won't be bothered by pesky parties over there. Off you go...

      P.S. Have you ever thought of actually talking to your neighbour? Or if she doesn't respond, you can actually call the police and complain. Are you scared of her? We don't need a network of microphones you fool.

  80. Speaking of the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait till you get taxed for having a broadband connection. If there's any reason to get those fuckers off the high moral ground on license fees, that will be it.

    1. Re:Speaking of the BBC by stevewrd · · Score: 1

      The license fee for the BBC is a small price to pay for high quality programming (including news, web content and radio) and it's advert-free.

    2. Re:Speaking of the BBC by arevos · · Score: 1

      Surely it depends on what's being offered and what it costs. For instance, if the BBC were to put all of its archived content online, DRM free, put up podcasts of all its media shows (in ogg ;) and declared that anyone in Britain could rip'n'mix old BBC shows together without restriction, then I'd be all for it.

      Imagine being able to edit and compile new shows from old BBC material :). Mmm... Copyleft.

      The BBC is nice because commercial interests isn't the primary concern. This in turn raises the bar for commercial media in the UK. If the BBC seems to be faltering from its task, then I'd be the first to complain. But if it manages to pull off what it has promised, I'm all for it.

  81. Animal vocalization sound engineer wanted by brightdayof1969 · · Score: 1

    It's the damn bird watchers. Im telling you

    --
    An expert is someone that knows more and more about less and less.
  82. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Well the tax on goods is lower european average, the funny thing is, that Britain still is much more expensive with many goods being calculated from one Euro towards one Pound. But that has less to do with the government, more with simple greed by the vendors and the stupidity of the british people of not using the only really good thing of the EU, the free trade for goods by starting to import the more expensive stuff themselves from France or Holland. (Probably the language barrier is the cause, while many people in continental Europe at least speak two languages very well and a third at least to some basic knowledge most british never got out of their we only speak english high horse)

  83. Probably not microphones by rsmeds · · Score: 1

    If this system is going to be used for monitoring noise levels, then they're probably going to install some kind of decibel-meters, not actual microphones which could be used for listening to people.

    So perhaps all this paranoia is quite unwarranted.

  84. Directional by JustOK · · Score: 1

    I wanna get those directional speakers some guy invented a short while ago. You could have lotsa fun with those and these mics.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  85. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and just how is this off topic?

  86. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Cryofan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It ain't offtopic. Slashdot's moderation system is broken and is being abused by the rightwingers and so-called "libertarians".

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  87. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by dustmite · · Score: 1

    What? No, the government of every modern economy these days (including the US) "interferes" (as you put it) to control the price of goods in shops by tweaking interest rates and various other factors (including levies on petrol/gas but also e.g. a.o. exchange rate controls by buying/selling other currencies) in order to do ONE THING: control inflation. It is now widely accepted that this is a very good idea, and surprise, it is happening every day in most countries. By tweaking interest rate vs. inflation, and e.g. exchange rates, governments can "steer" the economy in different directions, providing some loose control over borrowing vs. saving behaviour, investment, imports/exports, manufacturing, trade deficits etc.

  88. Orwellian by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "conceivably lead to an Orwellian society?"

    Just because you stick your head in the sand doesnt mean the rest of us want too.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  89. I was thinking that too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course, all we need is some scary incurable transmittable disease and the scene is complete....

    of course, it's just a game isn't it

  90. Austrians!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The austrians would tear indeed anybody apart for asociating them too closely with germans, being the jealous older-brother-whose-career-spiralled-down that they are... ;)

    When you meet one, comment on their accent, it'll boil them on a low flame. Similar as the swiss, a german with fairly high standard pronounciation will feel barriers when talking to someone who (sub-)conciously thinks his "accent" was regarded substandard. (Failing to realize how many accents we have in Germany, and that hardly anybody speaks the Hanover-area "Hochdeutsch".
    Some linguists in austria try hard to define german as a "poly-centric" language so they get the lead research in that language, and they collect many funny terms to prove that.

    But as others have noted, the austrian culture is pretty much a melting pot of the former empire, I for my person could not reference vegetable in the supermarket with the respective name-labelled button on the scale-weight (some places trust you to weight your purchases). These are mostly hungarian names actually.

    This history makes Vienna an excellent gateway to the new members states of the EU.

    Besides all that, it is fairly irrelevant which passport you hold when committing murder. But wait, how did we get here? ;)

  91. Re:Probably not microphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe how far down these comments I had to read before someone pointed out the obvious. Nowhere in TFA does it say these are going to be used for recording sound. AFAIK these will the same decibel monitoring equipment routinely used by local councils for monitoring noise complaints, the only difference being that these will wirelessly transmit the results to HQ rather than waiting for someone to come out and check it.

  92. The Reality of Liberalism in GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Its so funny to watch you screwballs vote Labor, then complain about what happens afterwards.

    Think about your taxes.

    Think about the snooping

    In short, you have what you asked for.

    1. Re:The Reality of Liberalism in GB by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

      That about sums it up, unfortunately.

      "Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"

      "When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away"

      The notebooks of Lazarus Long - Robert A Heinlein.

      --
      My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
    2. Re:The Reality of Liberalism in GB by OAB · · Score: 1

      "Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"

      We should be safe then, Labour didn't get a majority of the votes, just the seats.

    3. Re:The Reality of Liberalism in GB by m50d · · Score: 1

      I and around 64% of the country didn't vote labour, so they should only be able to pass laws they can get at least one other party to agree on. Sadly our broken election system means this is not the case. And don't call new labour liberal, because they're far from it.

      --
      I am trolling
  93. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    most americans today are more worried about their safety then there freedom's / rights then they where pre 9-11.
    English translation:

    Most Americans today are more worried about their safety than their freedoms/rights than they were pre 9-11.
  94. 'Long pig' is very salty compared to most meats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    requiring accomodation when applying recipes developed for other meats.

    Darn amateur cooks!

  95. Riiight ... so ..... by Tim+Ward · · Score: 1

    ....... if your car is stolen, and the congestion charge system knows exactly where it is, you really really don't want to be told, and if somebody does get your car back for you then you want them to go to prison. What an odd chap.

    1. Re:Riiight ... so ..... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      No, if your car is stolen, _you_ personally have a right to know if it was logged entering/leaving the city because that is your personal data.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Riiight ... so ..... by Tim+Ward · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's the thief's personal data.

  96. A Londoner here. by tezza · · Score: 1
    I would like them to put these in. Really I would. Because then there will be some discussion. We just scraped through without ID cards. Now Blair is back in.

    But anyways. Coming soon is mainstream Optical Fibre Microphone technology [example link only]. The most sensitive yet made,yada yada. It works by the expansion and contraction of fiber optics. The ones I've heard about are best looped around large objects. Around the perimeter of a large evil skyscraper would be perfect. With signal processing, you get a very detailed audio monitor which can trilocate all occuring conversations concurrently within its very large range.

    So what will stop non-governmental bodies erecting such microphones? I think the best way would be the government trying this sort of ploy, stirring up public interest, and then the government legislating that this sort of surveillance is illegal. Currently as far as I understand it, private bodies can video the public environs as much as they like. The new possibilities of these microphones need to be addressed.

    --
    [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  97. Re:That's right by zug82 · · Score: 1

    unlike the liberation of 2 eastern countries lately, please just stfu

  98. london paid video perverts need sound too... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I recall reading some research on the video camera london installed on its streets. They found that operators/human monitors of the feeds spent most of their time focused on the sexual activities of people on the street. They also found some of the people on the street, playing to the cameras.

    Well I guess London is getting into the amature candid porn business....

    1. Re:london paid video perverts need sound too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I remember that too..

      Anyone know where I can get a free feed?

    2. Re:london paid video perverts need sound too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They found that operators/human monitors of the feeds spent most of their time focused on the sexual activities of people on the street.

      And the story says that a focus of placement will be outside nightclubs and bars?

      Hmm...

    3. Re:london paid video perverts need sound too... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      And the story says that a focus of placement will be outside nightclubs and bars?

      Well that is where the murders and assaults tend to take place.

  99. Copyright violations & more... by zotz · · Score: 1

    "The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs."

    Now, these microphones will be outside of nightclubs. If there is a DJ inside playing copyrighted songs, they are going to pick up the songs and broadcast them? (wifi?)

    If there is a live band, the mic will pick up their performance and broadcast it? So, can the general public put similar mics wherever they want in a public space and do the same thing?

    Why would they need mics for the stated purpose anyway? Wouldn't sound level meters do the trick just as well without the privacy issues?

    all the best,

    drew

    (dnrtajts)

    --
    FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    1. Re:Copyright violations & more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I've read a couple of these ones so far. This is supposed to be for geeks and nerds, right? Ok, so here it comes. A SOUND LEVEL METER IS A BLOODY MICROPHONE!

      The only difference is that instead of a speaker or headphones you get an AC volt meter at the output. And now comes the bit we won't hear about. And that's the question if they do the signal treatment bit at the pick up point or centralised? If the level extraction is done at the pick up point then only the level information is centrally available. But if they keep it cheap and simple its probably easier to just send the audio and do processing centrally. And if that's the case then audio is obviously available for recording. Actually thinking a bit about that, if the signal treatment at the pick up point is done in software instead of old fasioned hardware there isn't any difference at all.

      And we're left with just the promise that it won't be done....for now anyway....which is where the frog reference comes in....not boiling yet...probably not even close to simmering....

    2. Re:Copyright violations & more... by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Ok, so here it comes. A SOUND LEVEL METER IS A BLOODY MICROPHONE!"

      Sure.

      "But if they keep it cheap and simple its probably easier to just send the audio and do processing centrally."

      Perhaps, but at the cost of bandwidth and privacy issues. In other words, if it really is about noise ordinances, put a sound level meter on location and send only sound level data over the no-cat or over the cat. If they want to send the audio, my take is they want to do something more.

      "which is where the frog reference comes in"

      Oh, I get the frog reference. I was not fooled into thinking it was about the British attitude towards the French.

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  100. Re:Probably not microphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, but...
    PATRIOT act is designed to catch only 'terrorists'. DMCA is there only for 'protection of IP', etc. The GROUNDWORK is laid - the INFRASTRUCTURE is set up - wifi nets for noise transmission. What if out of 100 good mics 1 is located in key area where anti-Big Brothers gather? the network as it is designed will support it. period.
    I am aware my post is a bit on a slippery slope and match stick man(or whatever), but the price for freedom is eternal vigilance, isn't it?

  101. English & Frogs by mikeage · · Score: 2, Funny

    I dunno -- I always thought of the French as the ones getting the frogs...

    --
    -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
  102. A Law We Can Live With by Zappabrox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where I live, Indiana, they recently began an sign campaign for our mandatory seatbelt law - "A Law we can live with." Sure its an impingement on my basic freedom to do to my own body what I wish, but its so minor that I won't bother to protest it. This IS the boiling frog - since the founding of America, its citizens have been slowly succombing to the raping of their fundamental freedoms with this very attitude. If you beLIEve that these mikes won't be abused by those in power, you live in a fantasy world. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The end.

    1. Re:A Law We Can Live With by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in PA: "Buckle up. It's not your call; it's the law."

    2. Re:A Law We Can Live With by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Shout outs from Columbus matey ;)

      Yeah. I remember when here in Indiana was a 2'nd degree penalty fro seatbelt violations. In other words, they only could get you with something more serious. O'Bannon needed the money, so it was made mandatory.

      At least the speed limit raising law passed ;) Legal 70 MPH on I65 (means I go 80 hehehe).

      --
    3. Re:A Law We Can Live With by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sure its an impingement on my basic freedom to do to my own body what I wish, but its so minor that I won't bother to protest it."

      I used to feel this way too until a drivers ed teacher explained why its not just about you. Not only is a seat belt a device to stop you from going through the winshield, it also keeps you behind the wheel and in control. Violent maneuvers can knock you from your seat and make you lose control, causing a general hazard not only to you, but everyone on the road.

      With that said, I still think that it should only be a secondary offense. While I think the above is a good justification fort a seat belt law, it willl rarely be needed that way. I'd put wearing seatbelts in the same category as being required to have an functioning emergency brake.

  103. Must disagree, Big Brother=Stalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post Spanish civil war, he was disenchanted with military dictatorship in a left wing fig leaf.

  104. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps you've missed the pervasive press coverage which focused on that as the main factor why Labour had trouble. This being merely one of many such examples.

    Heck, why do you think George Galloway is back in Parliament? Without Iraq, and attacks on Blair personally, he had nothing to campaign on. (He's keeping up the attacks on Blair since winning election.)

    If Tony Blair had not participated in Iraq, he woudl be having no troubles at the polls whatsovere, as the backbenchers and Labour activists still mad at him for getting rid of Caluse IV/a. wouldn't have something else to abtter him.

    The average British voter doesn't care about Clause IV, but they did care about Iraq, as is blatanly obvious to anyone who paid the slightest attention to this election campaign.

  105. will they colour clash with all the Camera's by zenst · · Score: 1

    Given we have more survalance camera's per head than other countries, seemes logical next orwellian step to make :/

  106. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by cortana · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the British version of "Love it or leave it!". What are you, Ruth Kelly?

  107. I Fear Searchability by hburch · · Score: 1
    Privacy wise, what's the difference between people watching you do something live in the street, or on a tape from a CCTV camera?

    Searchability. I do not worry that the people will remember in 2 years, while the camera can. Thus, if open-source advocates have been labeled "terrorists", the people will not recall that I was wearing a shirt with Tux on it two years ago, but the police can do an image search on all their cameras for Tux to imprison all the "OSS terrorists" (more timely is searching for pro-Muslim speech/shirts).

    Bumper sticker seen recently that I enjoyed: "I love my country but fear my government".

  108. You Missed The Real Point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The re-broadcast is not a copyright violation as it's being done by the government under an ennabling law. It has been held in the past that such action provides them with governmental immunity.

    BUT...

    Now the recording industry can pursue previously de minimus violations of copyright performance laws.

    Thus the setup of microphones outside of clubs. They want their performance royalties.

  109. You seem to have missed the information age... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize, I hope, that it's becoming easier and easier -- probably trivial, in a few years -- to permanently record everyone's actions in public.

    It's not even paranoid anymore to expect this to be the normal state of affairs. You'll go outside, and from the moment you leave your home to the moment you enter other private property, every movement of your eyes, every word from your mouth, and every friend you meet will be recorded by a government agency.

    To do this with current technology is quite simple on a limited basis; in a few years, it will be quite simple on a widespread basis as well.

    Can you see the problem with this sort of world? Information about you is power over you. Do you really think that those with such complete power over you will refrain from exercising it?

  110. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    ... and that's the story of how King George (Washington) the First became our first beloved Monarch. Which brings us to King George (W. Bush) the Third, leading us on our holy crusade to enlighten the savages in the sandy wastelands of the Middle East.

    If you liked this, you may enjoy other 'Alternate History' fiction, such as the 'Alvin Maker' series by Orson Scott Card, or 'Roma Eterna' by Robert Silverberg.

    Reading is Fundemental!

  111. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    hell, people here in Washington (the state) voted against taxing themselves for the 'Medic One' program. AKA public ambulances. Thankfully, the legislature got it reworded, and back on the next ballot before service stopped.

  112. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Cryofan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And one more thing:

    THe Constitution that Madison and his fellow elites wrote did indeed have a system of checks and balances that so many brainwashed Americans are so proud to tell you about. But what they don't know is that this system of checks and balances (wherein you get a sort of gridlock between the different branches of gov't) was specifically designed to thwart the will of the people and maintain the status quo. Remember at the time that the status quo was that the VAST majority of wealth in the colonies was held by just a few people, who for the most part earned fabulous amounts of money by enslaving other human beings (both black and white) all the while drinking, feasting and partying their asses off.

    So, the system of checks and balances worked very well to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, and dependent on whatever crumbs the rich might throw them. The middle class of colonial America did however expand, and the standard of living did improve, mostly thanks to the ever-growing accumulation of written scientific knowledge (which has little to do with maintaing the status quo).

    So, I always find it sadly ironic that so many working class Americans are constantly prattling on about our vaunted system of checks and balances, when all along it was meant to keep down those same working class Americans. It's kinda like the cattle bragging about how swiftly the hammers are swung on the slaughterhouse killing floors.

    And we now see some results of this vaunted system of Constitutional checks and balances: while western European nations have stronger welfare states, universal healthcare, longer life expectancy, taller children, work about 20% fewer hours per year, America is falling behind. All because our government was constructed via the Constitution to preserve the status quo of a slave nation ruled by cruel, predatory and parasitic elites....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  113. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Cryofan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You wanna dispute the facts? Dispute them.

    I however refer interested readers to the following books:

    Howard Zinn's _A People's History of the USA_ (probably available on p2p)

    Jerry Fresia's _Toward An American Revolution_ available online here.

    Both authors have PHDs (History and Political Science).

    Now put up or shut up.....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  114. Re:Petrol tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "to discourage people from unnecessary driving"
    To say that taxes are high in order to obtain some positive effect sounds like a forced explanation to me. Nothing more than toxic fumes of popular economics to dull the masses. Sure, it discourages consumption. But it also creates vast amounts of pork that, from a politicians point of view, comes from heaven. Once set in place, taxes are difficult to repel.

  115. Old news by Hairy+Dude · · Score: 1

    There are already devices which just monitor the volume of noise, rather than the actual sounds. EHOs in Portsmouth have been deploying these for years on the back of noise nuisance complaints, simply to gather evidence. All they log is the noise levels, so there's no privacy concern.

  116. ATTN: SLASHDOT 1984 PROPONENTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen we all know Orwells 1984 is the only book you've ever read and articles like this give you a chance to hoard karma like scared illiterate squirrels but please for the love of god shut it.

    Mods can you please mod these people down redundant. It's all we ever hear on these threads is about Orwell. Allow me to clarify why you should shut it:

    1. Orwell had a point especially about groupthink. Any article that comes up with rights or surveillance will automatically have comments about Orwell that get modded up. That's groupthink and Orwell would be rolling in his grave that you guys are espousing it.

    2. Here's a serious question: What fuckin' rights have been taken away from you? Seriously. All I ever hear is /.'ers talk about their rights being taken away yet NO ONE can tell how it SPECIFICALLY applies to THEIR OWN LIFE. Once again: WHAT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU.

    3. It's technology. You /.'ers are enamoured with technology. Here's a wakeup call: Technology isn't that shit hot, in fact technology causes more problems and more often than not adds to the complexity of human situations.

    1. Re:ATTN: SLASHDOT 1984 PROPONENTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groupthink results when individual thought process ceases and a system of thought that promotes the stability and conformance to group values replaces it. I see none of this, all of the posts comparing this to 1984 are totally accurate and spot on here.

      This isn't an issue about rights per se, its an issue of the Government vs. its people.

      Orwell spins in his grave becuase of you and your support of big brother-esque policies and failed attempts to make the people who love freedom and individuality seem like the very people Orwell said they werent.

  117. This rocks! by neo · · Score: 1

    "The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs."

    Guy1: Dude, did you get that girls phone number?

    Guy2: No, she totally blew me off.

    Guy1: What do you mean?

    Guy2: Well I heard her telling that other guy her phone number.

    Guy1: Do you want me to hack the wireless mike and get her number for you?

    Guy2: Oh yeah! Great idea!

  118. Calibration and localization. by OgGreeb · · Score: 1
    Apart from morality/ethical concerns, I'd like to know
    1. By what standards the London authorities will be calibrating the microphones to
    2. Whether they will be using a pair of microphones to localize sound emissions
    3. How they will handle multiple simultaneous loud sources, and
    4. (Since the system will be wireless) How long before private companies produce anti-listening and threshold detecting devices (similar to car radar detectors)?
    --
    -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
  119. we elected George Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you work for Diebold?

  120. Ah, london. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A camera on every corner, a microphone in every street lamp.

    WAR IS PEACE!
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
    BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! (And now he's listening too!)

    The really scary part is that this is only giving US law enforcement ideas. Mark my words. In 20 years nobody is going to be able to go anywhere in England, or do anything without the government watching over his or her shoulder. I give the US 30 years.

  121. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK actually has one of the lowest tax rates in Europe. The knee-jerk reaction of many people in this country is one of the main reasons why public services are so poor. You can't have it both ways!

  122. Austria by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    it was frequently referred to on turn-of-the-century maps as part of "Greater Germany."
    Hmmmm ... along with Poland and Czeckoslavakia no doubt. Wasn't that the whole problem?
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  123. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Tim+C · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Either that, or someone's finger slipped when they were aiming for Troll or Flamebait. (Not that I'm saying that this was either)

    Other than that, I agree - many aspects of slashdot are broken imho, especially the whole friends/foes thing and the ability to effectively ignore foes and give strong preference to friends. Talk about encouraging group think.

  124. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    the government of every modern economy these days (including the US) "interferes" (as you put it) to control the price of goods in shops by tweaking interest rates

    No, interest rates are set by the Bank of England, which is independent of the government. Other than that, you're right.

  125. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    the dreaded VAT

    Don't you guys have sales tax? Isn't that essentially the same thing? (In fact, at least with VAT it's included in the sticker price, and some items are exempt (food, (children's?) clothes, etc)

    the insane TV Licensing system

    It's about £10/month (roughly $16); I spend more than that each month on beer, and I'm hardly a heavy drinker. It really is insignificant for all but the poorest people (and they all have Sky or cable as well anyway!)

    sky-high petrol taxes

    Well, I own a car and I support high petrol taxes, congestion charges and anything else that serves to reduce car usage. I may well be in a minority on this one, though.

  126. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    You know, if I'm not going to save a truly significant amount of money, I really can't be arsed to go to all the trouble of importing stuff. It's not stupidity, it's laziness and lack of thought (in my case at least)

    most british never got out of their we only speak english high horse

    Culturally there isn't the emphasis on being able to speak more than one language that there is in most of continental Europe. Part of that is to do with the aforementioned Little England attitude, but it's also partly because even going to France is still mostly seen as a major trip. That's changing slowly, but for hundreds of years it was difficult, expensive, time-consuming and even dangerous to travel even just as far as France. That's no excuse now, but it does build up a sort of collective unconscious attitude that you don't get in countries with direct land connections to other countries.

  127. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Pure Democracy is a terrible system of government, it's basically glorified mob rule, tending towards the opression of minorities. Also, having a public vote on every single matter would be an enormous waste of time and resources.

    A representative government allows the people to select people to do that work for them; while an overriding constitution prevents them from abusing their power excessivly.

    A consistant head of state, such as a President is needed for diplomatic reasons, and as a finalizer of decisions. Imagine having to send a congressional sub-commitee to Russia to discuss nuclear weapons; or having congressmen decide which of the required 51% signs a bill into law first or last? (I suppose having the house/senate physically sign bill might help some things)

    The Diplomatic head of state also needs to be in command of the Military, otherwise when negotiating with other heads of state, he could never be sure that his army will back him up. (The only thing worse than a civilian in charge of the military, would be the military in charge of itself.)

    You also can't change President willy-nilly, nor can he be subject to recall at a whim; at that rate we would be having a presidental election each month; and nothing would get done because any sitting president would be to busy trying to hang on to actually accomplish anything. Imagine the recent election problems occuring every single month! recount the recall! recall the recount!

    Yes, origionally only Free Land Owning Males Over 21 could vote; it was the best comprimise they could accomplish; if you think about those days, there was no internet, no TV, and in fact, very little literacy. Your employer and landlord was a White Male Landowner; just being seen with a revolutionary terrorist could get you fired. and no welfare or unemployment; but there is Debtors Prisons. They were in charge, and they wouldn't give up their power without a fight.

    The 'Founding Fathers' needed the support of the Landowners because they could control everyone else; this revolution was against English Rule, not the landowners, anglo-saxons, or freedom from slavery; "No taxation without representation"; hell, if England had granted the colonys seats in the House of Commons, maybe we'd be calling 'Truck's 'Lorry's.

    But, the english industrialists didn't want to compete with cheap american/other goods, and so they wanted extra taxes, such that even if tea was shipped directly from India to America, it would still have British taxes applied. -- Kinda how americans today don't want to have to compete with cheap international outsourced labor.

    In any case, how we got here is unimportant. I bet most people don't give a damn if Canadian wheat is 10 cents a ton cheaper than American wheat; or even if their car is made in the US. We elect people who we think a) has a chance of winning, and b) we don't disagree with to badly. Usually, eighter the Democrats or Republicans manage to feild such candidates so one or the other gets elected, and proceeds to make some of these boring decisions for us. We lose some resources to corruption, But it's more than made up for by someone doing that work for us.

    Sometimes even the majority disagrees with a decision they made, but you're welcome to run for office yourself, if you think you can do a better job.

    Around 1:21 presidents have been killed in office; while around 1:100 US soliders sent to Iraq have been killed (can't find exact numbers), who's more in harms way? Who's house did the 9/11 attackers try to hit? (hint: it's white)

    I believe that Bush lied to the american people in order to start a war in Iraq; but I guess the majority of adult, non-felon americans are ok with that, so off to war we go. I think that's pretty stupid, but at least I'm free to express that I think it's stupid, and try to convince others that it's wrong, without having to resort to violence to impose the will of the minority on the majority.

  128. I'm a Web user... by Urusai · · Score: 1

    ...and to be honest I can't get too worked up about cookies and Flash information caching.

    Public websites are just that: public. You don't get to veto who's tracking and/or spamming you. If you want to discuss insurrection or your new Gecko-powered browser, go somewhere private.

    Beside, a lack of torrents is an infringement of piracy too, in my opinion. :/

  129. Re:Celebratory gunfire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use of the word "convicted" in GP implies arrest and fair trial. Quality flamebait, though.

  130. Just bring a portable Whitenoise generator with yo by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    When you go out, just bring a radio tuned to static/whitenoise. Since it covers a lot of frequencies in the vocal range, it should cover up conversations quite nicely.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  131. Dungeon. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    Given that technology always reliable, what they should do is pass a law that makes it illegal to make noise. If you make noise, a police car will suddenly screech to a halt, jumping the curb, and two police officers will jump out, grab you, and take you to some dungeon, where you will spend the rest of your life.

  132. Not Orwell by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Wow, this whole big brother thing is out of control. The math doesn't add up.

    Everyone has seemed to be getting along fine with the traffic cameras, including the ones that catch you running a red light. As long as the technology to assist the constabulary is marked as such, and advertised, such as would be the case with a cop car sitting on the corner, there is no 'big brother' conspiratorial effort to remove your rights in any form.

    Using technology to reduce redundant efforts by the police so that they can be doing something that is more important than noise abatement is a damn good thing. Its no different than the window watcher down the street using her video camera to record a bunch of drunks raising hell on the corner and giving the cops the tape.

    The people that might have issue with this probably would have more of an issue if there were cops on every corner just so they could handle things like simple noise abatement and jay walking. It really does come down to the fact that if you are doing nothing wrong, no harm no foul.

    Just the same, such technology should not be used without oversight. Yes, sure, a policeman on the corner doesn't have to report all that they hear, but technology will hear more, and record more, and like was mentioned, if the system is hacked, it becomes a tool for the bad guys too!

    Not to mention those here that will think the bad guys are the ones putting the mics on the street. I still have this general problem with the balance of evidence on conspiracies. If big brother is so effective at spying, why do we still have spam? Why haven't they caught Bin Laden? Why is there still kiddie porn on the Internet? and a whole long list of things that they should have gotten rid of if big brother really was effective in this respect. Witness one dying 'carnivore' program.

    I can just see some poor developer now,

    MANAGER: "Can you build a database like that?"
    DEV: "Huh?"
    MANAGER: "but... but..."
    DEV: "You need to put the crack pipe down! There is no way that I can take $65k/year and build a database to log and analyze 1700 hours of voice / noise audio per day!"
    MANAGER: "but we've got Linux.... and there is that 'spintronics' thing?"
    DEV: silence.....

    1. Re:Not Orwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no way that most people would get paid $40,000 USD to go to war and possibly get killed... but people do.

      no way that i would go digging through trash cans to get $25,000 USD worth of aluminum cans every year... but people do.

      no way that you can pay me money to pump shit from septic tanks... but people do.

      no way that you can have me look between the legs of Suzy Rotten Crotch all day everyday... but people do.

      dont assume that because you are in such a lofty place that there isnt another person that will accomplish a task for their own reasons.

  133. On we march towards Ghost in the Shell... by suitepotato · · Score: 0

    It seems like over time, we are getting more and more wound up in an us vs. them (whoever we or they actually are at the moment) battle every day. The biggest ongoing one is the one of the people at large vs. the government which is inextricably tied to the people at large by blood and friendship, neighborhood and planet.

    Government is in all cases mob rule. Whether the mob is leashed by a king in a monarchy or stumbling like a mass of drunken sailors on shore leave in a democracy. Mobs don't think well. It's a testament to our perseverance and dedication to what's best in and for ourselves that the democratic republics we in the west live under work as well as they do. So I have to take that as a bright note of hope for the future.

    Nevertheless, not thinking well, government fears o'ermuch as they once said, and overreacts. So we ratchet up the infringements as much as the courts will let them get away with and the people fight a subversive war both against the unnecessary intrusions of the government and their misbehaving brethren whom the government is overreacting about in the first place. It can get so bad we wonder if the cure isn't worth the disease and the law enforcement worse than the criminals.

    That being said, we still make it work somehow so I am not worried about incrementalism taking us to the world of 1984. We're not given to simple jingoistic rhetoric and propaganda, being increasingly disaffected, estranged, and cynical by turns. And we the people at large are somewhat given to superstitious overreaction and propaganda amongst ourselves as well. Our governments are in the end reflection of our own natures. Given that we continuously put into power a succession of people that cold logic and experience tells us flatly will be not the best and brightest, we easily override our intellect and vote with our emotions, largely those based on the idea of "what have you done for me lately?".

    And so it goes...

    I would just add that acoustic scramblers have been used for point to point phone communications for years by businesses and governments long before the digital age. So will we fear so much as to fit such things into face-masks and be only intelligible to those with proper headsets we choose to give the codes to? I wonder how the governments we put in power will overreact to our overreaction...

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  134. Re:That's right by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    I would call Iraq hardly a libaration and hardly a victory of the brits...

  135. Re:Just bring a portable Whitenoise generator with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True. And this excellent masking will make your conversations completely inaudable to the person you're talking to.

  136. London residents getting boiled frog ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, English haute cuisine.

  137. "They say" is right by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    This is actualy false. If you put a frog in water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog will eventualy jump out.

    On the other hand, if you actualy do throw a frog in boiling water, they will die instantly.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  138. Intresting by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    I take it the signs are still labled in MPH then?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Intresting by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I take it the signs are still labled in MPH then?

      Yes - no idea when this will change, although Ireland recently changed all their road signs to Km/h.

      ATM, schools teach metric fairly exclusively so everyone learns metric and are only really exposed to imprial measurements when using the roads (since they are still signed in miles).

  139. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?

    Most of your points are not substantiated at all. You give no detail to even explain why our democracy is weak. And surely, the average colonist would be hard pressed to complain about our version of democracy after having a King. Since we had one of the most advanced democracies at the time, how exactly were they to know that a long senate term with no recall would support the elite.

    And, indeed, how does it? would a recall keep money out? No. Is four years too long for a president - hardly.

    You, sir, sound like a troll.

  140. Wha? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    What kind of motor offenses land you in Jail? Here in Iowa (in the US) only Drunk Driving will put you in jail, and usualy only for multiple offenses.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Wha? by mikael · · Score: 1

      What kind of motor offenses land you in Jail? Here in Iowa (in the US) only Drunk Driving will put you in jail, and usualy only for multiple offenses.

      Speeding

      Refusing to pay a Speeding ticket

      Causing Death by Dangerous Driving through drinking

      and usually to escape being identified by police officers and manslaughter

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  141. Man, they pumped your ass so full of propaganda by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Man, they pumped your ass so full of propaganda that you squeak when you walk, and now the shit's coming out your ears and leaking onto your keyboard (and onto Slashdot!).

    First, there have NEVER been "mob rule" (ooohhh!!!) in any western nation. THe rich make sure of that. But if we did have "mob rule", we might have horrors like we have in countries where the percent of citizen voting is really high, like say Denmark or Australia, where they have horrors like "Free College" (ewwww!) and "universal healthcare"! (please save us!)

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:Man, they pumped your ass so full of propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends what is meant by "mob". If mob means the masses, then mob rule is more or less what the democracy idea tries to be about. On the other hand if mob means organized crime, well, heh... who is gonna say that has been completely kept out of Western governments?? Governments tend to be a mix of different people with different interests.

  142. Re:Just bring a portable Whitenoise generator with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't he say that was the intended effect?

  143. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by m50d · · Score: 1

    WRT council tax at least, the ~77% of the electorate who didn't vote liberal, since the liberals had pledged to abolish it.

    --
    I am trolling
  144. Great by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm sure this will work out just fine... until the first joker locates one of these mics and commissions a punk rock band to sing/shout "Anarchy In The UK" into it 24/7.

  145. Re: Different strokes for different folks.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think the burden should be placed on the individual demanding to hear a very low level of outside noise to properly soundproof his/her dwelling to achieve the desired effect.

    If a "gated community" meets their needs, teriffic. Move there then!

    I know myself, I live in a house next to a neighbor who happens to enjoy loud music, and also enjoys repairing old stereo equipment and speakers that other people threw away. He's got quite a collection of recent and vintage speakers, amps, receivers, tape decks, and so forth -- all of which he successfully repaired with no formal electronics knowledge. (He simply takes them apart carefully looking for burnt spots on the boards, and matches up the burnt parts with identical replacements from Radio Shack or whatever, and solders them back in.)

    Sure, once in a while, I might be a little annoyed that I hear his stereo cranked up loud enough so I can tell what he's listening to from my own bedroom at night. But my solution is simply to turn on some music of my own that I'd prefer to listen to, and drown his out. Problem solved.

    I'm actually really happy I have this type of neighbor, rather than the nit-picky tattle-tale types who dial 911 as soon as they hear your TV set or stereo in any way, shape or form. If I feel like throwing a party and it gets loud, at least I feel confident I won't have my neighbor ruining all the fun....

    Everything has limits, but IMHO, the vast majority of noise complaints generated are from people expecting an unreasonable level of quiet, or simply those who enjoy getting someone else in trouble. The military aircraft that occasionally fly over my house are FAR more annoying, noise-wise, than my neighbor's music.

  146. 1984 WAS 21 years ago. by DerekJ212 · · Score: 0

    This is scary. As a 19 year old, we read about a book whos ideas sounded so off the wall that it made it science fiction. But honestly, every day i read about these things, i cannot imagine how this can happen. A MICROPHONE outside of my house for several days? Are you kidding me? Why can the police officers not handle the complaint, is that not what they are there for? Please, i do not want to be under total government control in 10 years. /rant

  147. Free College and Universal Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Surrender 60% of your income to receive your Free College and Universal Healthcare, please.

  148. dumbasses, microphones + wireless != recording. by evilmousse · · Score: 1


    they specifically said noise levels, and no mention of recording was made. i have no reason, according to this article to beleive there's any privacy issue here.

    when my family returned from england, they had some nightmare stories about the craziness that went on in the street outside their hotel at 3am, so i'm inclined to beleive there's a problem.

    noise levels people, simple, cheap hardware that you DON'T need to pay some unlucky schmuck an hourly wage to sift through for illegalities.

  149. pay 60% if you make $100K by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    But if you make $25-45K, like the majority of earners, you pay much much less. I have collected statements from people who have worked in both the european welfare AND the USA, and they say that the income taxes were similar in both countries for them....

    That is why they call it a PROGRESSIVE tax....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:pay 60% if you make $100K by evanism · · Score: 0

      I would say, friend, that this relates to your progressively increasing tax rate as you earn, not progression against the USA, if you could call it that.... As an Ausssie, I feel pretty *repressed*, not *progressed*. Just meat for the tax grinder!

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
  150. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by kraut · · Score: 1

    > Fuel is $6.5 a gal
    Yes, but mainly because the $ is worth bugger all the at moment. /ducks

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  151. Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

    And there was me thinking the election campaigns were run by politicians, not the voters. Maybe I'm not the only one not paying attention.

  152. Ah, INGSOC! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    Do Brits have a fascination with the surveillance state or what? Do Brits think an Orwellian society will really make them better off? Did every Brit in parliament read "1984" and exclaim "hey, that's a bloody good idea!"?

    Cameras up everybody's asses, mics on the walls, their main news source being the 1 government-run news agency (BBC)... if the U.S. weren't increasingly-similar (except w.r.t. news sources), I'd point and laugh...

  153. Re:Probably not microphones by tepples · · Score: 1

    What if out of 100 good mics 1 is located in key area where anti-Big Brothers gather? the network as it is designed will support it.

    Even if the microphone's transmitter relays only the average sound power over a 5 second span? I'd love to see them try to reconstruct a conversation from that.

  154. A pithy quote... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

    ... because I'm too lazy to write up an actual opinion.

    "The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms."
    - the Morpheus AI, "Deus Ex"

  155. Lemme get this straight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are proposing to fine dogs over barking too loud?

  156. 1984.. by bsquizzato · · Score: 1

    First the national ID cards scanned electronically for the US, now the microphones in London? Sounds like a few more steps are being taken to put us even closer to the world depicted in George Orwell's 1984 :o

    The book just never leaves my mind.

  157. Austrian Diplomacy Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, Austria is just a little mountain country now, and we all think of them as such. But the old Austrian Empire was one of the big players in several centuries of European history.

    When it comes to "great achievements" of Austrian history, I think we have to include the diplomatic trick where they got the Russians to pull out after WWII instead of making them into another part of the Warsaw Pact.

    The Russians had occupied the better half of what is now Austria, including Vienna, and yet they uncharacteristically pulled back. Rumor has it that Austrian diplomats somehow convinced Stalin that the US had promised to give him a bigger slice of Germany in exchange.

    Or maybe that really is what happened. After all, a lot of people in Germany who originally thought they were in the Western section did suddenly wake up one morning in Russian-held territory.

  158. Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1
    1. Moderators! If you disagree with a post, don't moderate it down, respond to it! Idiots.
    2. The problem with all these "hidden deliberate conspiracy by a small number of people" theories is that in order for them to work they have to be actively pushed by these people for the time period involved without one person outside the conspiracy getting wind of it. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the American system of government is flawed in a lot of fundamental ways, but that does mean that I disagree as to how it came to be that way.

    -:sigma.SB

    --
    WARN
    THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
  159. I dunno, but... by http101 · · Score: 1

    is it ironic that suddenly a dutch-auction of 1000 wireless mics ended up on eBay?

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!