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?"

14 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 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. 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
  4. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the sky didn't fall!
    neither did crime

  5. 1984! by rastakid · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. 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?

  10. 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

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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