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?"

72 of 472 comments (clear)

  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: 5, Informative

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

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

      When Google fails, Wikipedia Comes to the rescue!

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

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

      Plagiarised

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
  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
  3. Tampering? by SteelV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How/where will these be located to avoid tampering?

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

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

      Steve...

    2. 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???
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
  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 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  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...

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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 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?
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the sky didn't fall!
    neither did crime

  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 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".

  13. 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.

  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
  15. 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...

  16. "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 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.

    2. 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
  17. 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?

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

    Are they asking for drunken serenades?

    Because it sure seems like they are.

  19. 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...

  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. ..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/

  26. 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 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
  27. 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.

  28. 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....

  29. 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?
  30. 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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