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?"

38 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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 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...

    2. 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."
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the sky didn't fall!
    neither did crime

  7. 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!
  8. 1984! by rastakid · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. 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?

  13. 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.
  14. 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*

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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....

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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
  28. 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.

  29. 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.
  30. 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.