Slashdot Mirror
CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers
An anonymous reader writes, "Big Brother is another step closer in the UK where the ever ubiquitous CCTV cameras are being fitted with loudspeakers so that camera operators who spot activities deemed 'anti-social' can berate the citizens below. In January 2004 there were more than 4,285,000 CCTV cameras in the UK (roughly 1 for every 4 households). No data about the number of CCTV cameras now in use in the UK is available."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Banu
Can they play the 1812 overture?
Billy, this is your mother! I see you in that alley young man! You get that tongue of yours out of that girl's mouth right now or you're in big trouble! That is all.
In soviet Russia, you don't tell the government what to do, it tells YOU! Oh....wait....crap
Curiosity killed the cat, but cats have 9 lives.
i can't see any disadvantage to this, they're only adding loudspeakers to already existing CCTV cameras. they're not breaching your privacy anymore than before
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
I live in the UK, and whilst I see lots of cameras, they certainly aren't on every street corner - however the closer to the city centre you go, the more there are.
Is it based on sensor sales, does it include webcams, how about mobile phone cams?
Its always bugged me how they come up with grand figures like they have.
liqbase
Someone in Parliament has watched V for Vendetta one too many times.
"Afterwards she said: 'It's quite scary to realise that your every move could be monitored - it really is like Big Brother. 'But Middlesbrough does have a big problem with anti-social behaviour, so it is very reassuring.' " And this is why it is truly Airstrip One.
The Daily Mail, voice of petty-minded, intolerant, closet racist Little England, is usually in favour of these sorts of things.
>You reap what you sow, as it were.
Stick Men
" You are the dead ", said an iron voice behind them. ...
...
" Now they can see us ", said Julia.
" Now we can see you ", said the voice. " Stand out in the middle of the room. Stand back to back. Clasp your hands behind your heads. Do not touch one another. "
He heard Julia snap her teeth together. " I suppose we may as well say good-bye ", she said.
" You may as well say good-bye ", said the voice. And then another quite different voice, a thin, cultivated voice which Winston had the impression of having heard before, struck in; " And by the way, while we are on the subject, Here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head ! "
This is actually a pretty good idea. A camera with a loudspeaker is not actually more of an encroachment on your privacy (to the extent where there can be privacy in a *public* place) than one without, and it can mean the difference between the camera operators being able to prevent a crime, or just having to watch and grit their teeth waiting for the police to turn up.
Honestly, I'm fairly bored with the "The UK is turning into 1984" recurrent Slashdot meme.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
In January 2004 there were more than 4,285,000 CCTV cameras in the UK
Every time I hear statistics along those lines I wonder why a population would allow such a thing. General apathy? The good (attempting to prevent crime) really outweighs the bad (loss of privacy, abuse of power by government)?
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
They aren't even close to being as ubiquitous as they shall be in the not too distant future. They will be linked to your driver's photo, your credit cards, you name it. People will pay money to live in the country side behind gates, with guards, but no cameras. Only the poor and middle class will have to live under this great experiment in voyeurism. The criminals will find ways around detection. The rest of us will lose more and more of our privacy rights. Kids born today will be numb and accustomed to the lack of freedom, just as our overlords want.
---
When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--
Group of guys are out hanging about, drinking some beer when suddenly over the speakers they hear, "Warning - Your behaviour is being monitored by CCTV. It is being recorded and the police are attending."
One of the guys looks up and says, "Sure. No problem. But bring your own beer."
Stand STILL Woggy!
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!
"Come on now, that enough of that you two, get a room! And young lady, cover up a bit!"
I retrained myself from imagining what a seedy operator might say but 'go on, give her one for us lot, we are watching'
or, the fun, shouting out 'give me your wallet', or 'I am watching you, yes... muahaha... you'. Or basic wolf whistling and 'nice tits love'.
Bastards. Luckily I got all the deviant behaviour out of my system before I started dosing.
Not without incident.
*slash* applies for a job as a camera operator
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Maybe the Brits are going for a live action sequel. Have no fear.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The next step is an automated Counter Fire System. Fire a gun, and within seconds, you're taking heavy fire.
The U.S. Army has had that for almost two decades with the Fire Finder radar system, but that's for heavy artillery. Now DARPA is downsizing the technology to the counter-sniper level.
Well, just because it may be boring to you, does not mean it doesn't exist. We are rushing headlong into an age of massive amounts of ability to violate privacy due to the ability to store the data, and the medium to create it. We are not having a true debate in society about how to balance safety and privacy. It's a pity it bores you, but for some of us, we can at least make an attempt to have some dialogue about the issue before we jump into the abyss.
---
When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--
So I guess at least it's in keeping with the source of the article...
If you RTFA, you'll find that 7 (or 148) cameras in one town (Middlesbrough) are having loud speakers fitted as part of an experiment. While the headline isn't entirely inaccurate, it's definitely misleading as it implies that this is a general thing.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Man, a lot of people come down on the USA, however I don't think anything in the USA approaches big-brother-ness like what is going on in the UK.
Why aren't the people of the UK fighting back? To me this crosses the line for what a a government should be allowed to do. Where is the line drawn on what is "anti-social"? Who gets to draw the "anti-social" line? Is kissing your loved one in public "anti-social"? If not now, what is stopping the government from continually adding more and more things to what is "anti-social"?
Was Orwell a profit or did he just get real lucky with his 1984 story? I find the similarities of 1984 and things that "modern" governments are trying to do to be amazing.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No-one has a right to privacy in a public area. It's not as if the CCTV cameras are in people's homes. I don't get why everyone screams "big brother!" and gets upset - unless you don't like people looking at you in the streets, and go everywhere with a bag on your head. These cameras do nothing a poiceman couldn't do, they just do it in a far more cost-effective fashion. May I suggest if you don't want people to know where you are, don't go out in public. :)
While I agree with much of your sentiment, it is worth keeping in mind that 'anti-social' is a classic example of the British art of understatement. While there have been a few crazy cases, most 'anti-social' behaviour actually has existing laws to deal with it. An example of anti-social behaviousr might be hurling abuse at people as you go down the street, or mock punching people. Or large gangs of individuals hanging around on the street corner consuming alchol and obstructing the highway. While the collective term might anti-social, the first and second are, infact, assault, the last obstructing the public highway, and loitering.
As far as being to the far left of the US, the whole of Europe is more to the left economically than the US. Many states are also socially to the left of the US. The former looks certain to stay that way, unless you count artificially rigging the deck to generate barrier to entry via things like the copyright or patent system, then include corporate entities in the 'government'. However the latter is gradually being undone, and at an alarmingly faster rate than in Europe.
The question is, at what point does CCTV become an invasion of privacy? I think one answer might be, when it looks into a location where one might reasonably expect privacy. I expect privacy from the police on my own property. I don't expect it walking in a town center, because I might reasonably expect to encounter a police officer. Of course there is one final problem, that of making it reasonably possible to achieve insurrection through popular uprising. A state which truely aims to protect the peoples rights should ensure that no agent of government could reasonably prevent an uprising by a majority of the population. I do not know at which point CCTV begins to undermine that aim.
... Demolition Man
<cash machine swallows my cash>
Me: Fucking piece of shit!
CCTV: Eurgh! You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code.
Me: What the f-
CCTV: Eurgh! You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code.
Me: Goddamnit!
CCTV: Eurgh! You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code.
As the street was next to a very popular Chinese Restaurant the number of people setting it off was huge - just for using a public footpath! People complained enough for it to be removed (I guess) but it showed me how hard it is to argue against CCTV.
FTFA: Mr Bonner said:
'It would appear that the offenders are the only ones who find the audio cameras intrusive. The vast majority of people welcome these cameras.
'Put it this way, we never have requests to remove them.'
They present these things as though if you complain your clearly one of them.
The UK can not stand for this anymore - we need to find a voice, and a way to complain, that does not make us look like criminals.
P.S. I think it's a salient point that the example used in the article is a man being shouted at to not ride his bicycle - not a mugging, not a rape, not a murder - a bicycle.
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
has just been created.
I wonder what shall be broadcast first.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
"Stop, or I'll yell stop again!"
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
As far as I am aware you can still request any footage of yourself captured via CCTV in the UK. You used to be able to siply right a letter to the camera owner / operator stating you name, what you look like and when you were filmed. They *had* to find the footage of you and return it within 30 days, and were only allowed to charge you a maximum of £30. The legendary Mark Thomas covered it a while ago. I hope it still holds true... Oh the fun you could have.
This has got to be a gimmick, with the way anti social behaviour is in the UK at the minute, the only thing a speaking CCTV camera will get is more attention from those who are comitting acts within it's range. So not only would berating those committing the crimes bring more attention to the camera itself (eventually leading to it being vandalised), it would also just act as a way for some of these yobs to think they are being the big men and getting recognition for their action. I wouldn't be suprised if a camera talked to some groups committing crimes, they would only take their actions further to "show off" to whoever is watching. I think the best thing to do is have the camera operators have police officers on alert in nearby areas that they can call in easily to arrest those who are making trouble, instead of telling them off.
Business Voyeur
http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/hsvzclubbie /?action=view¤t=Attack_Chopperwmv.flv
Privacy is terrorism.
Will they also be equiped with microphones so that the operator can hear the abuse that comes back. Or will we have to make do with gestures?
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Number of residents in my town: 120,000
Number of shops in my area: 20
Number of houses in my area: 4,000
Number of new graffiti tags sprayed last night in my area: 3
Number of shop windows smashed over the weekend in my area: 2
Number of rubbish bags stolen from the front of my house in the last month: 6
Number of dog-shits on my drive in the past month: 5
Number of CCTV cameras pointed at public places in my area: 0
Yeah, the UK is just covered with CCTV cameras. I can't step outside my front door without being captured. Go to www.look-through-my-front-window.co.uk and you'll see me waving.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
I build networked CCTV equipment as my day job. According the people who install our stuff the best way to get a potential thief or vandal to stop what they are doing is to say "Stop immediately and stay where you are the police have been notified". They usually turn and flee straight away...which is really the best option (at least for private property) where preventing too much damage is usually more important than apprehending the culprit. Sad but true.
I understand why people are wary of CCTV but there is a lot of very unnecessary negative feeling towards it. It could be used for bad but it is used for a lot of good. There are a lot of crimes carried out against people which just could not be solved without the CCTV evidence or leads obtained from CCTV. CCTV really does make the world a safer place (if it didn't I wouldn't be working in the industry trust me).
I can't believe you labeled 'hurling abuse' as assault. I'm assuming you mean verbal abuse.. and if that's the case, you lot are much more thin-skinned than I thought.
It's my right -- nay, my priviledge! -- as an American to walk down the street and be told I'm a motherfucker, and to respond in kind.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I think one aspect of this that people seem to be over-reacting to is that many of these cameras are not government cameras out to spy on people, they are cameras attached to the outsides of warehouses in industrial estates. The number of cameras attached to the outside of private buildings, purely with the intention of catching a thief in the act, is very high. I would propose that a huge proportion of cameras in Britain are such cameras, and as such cannot be used nefariously very easily by anybody as they are not networked together.
The victims here are the citizens. They ran away out of fear of being observed and commanded, not from shame of their actions or fear of retribution. I would run too, no matter what i had done, and if there was no where to run, like any rat, I would fight
It is total propaganda to attribute their fear as creating an almost religious moral awakening in them.
By increasing peoples stress levels, isn't it more likely that the rate of serious violent incidents would escalate, rather than decrease? It could become a compulsively violent society because they just can't handle the increasing stresses of our "civilization".. Or is that why they put the cameras up in the first place?
The constant privacy concerns on slashdot ( which, btw, I tend to agree with ) are, in this case, focused on the wrong end. The important issue is not the number of public cameras ( as at least one poster has noted, they are in a public area where you could have no expectation of privacy anyway ), but who has access to the other end.
A public webcam, which anybody can look at on the net, is very different from a public cam which only the cops get to look at. The people who control the data get to control the facts.
Rather than bemoaning the number of cameras and now their accompaning audio, you should be complaining about the fact that you don't have access to them.
Public crime is like bugs: if there are enough eyeballs, the problem will be fixed.
In the UK, if a CCTV system comprises of more than fixed cameras with a general overview (as found in small shops etc...), it is covered by the Data Protection Act.
If a camera-system can Pan & Zoom or is concentrated on a specific person's activities then
In addition, even if only fixed cameras are used, the above provisions apply if the images are not being used for law-enforcement alone.
The Information Commissioner can order that any non-compliance be rectified, and since not complying with an enforcement notices is a criminal offence, the Information Commissioner can take the company to court - the fine is unlimited. If harm or distress was caused, they can also order compensation be paid.
If a camera overlooks property not normally visible from the street (back gardens, house interiors, or anywhere you could reasonably expect privacy), the camera owner MUST receive permission to film from the current residents - including tenants, or must ensure the system cannot film these areas. This includes Landlords filming tenants inside the house...
Just to put people in the know - the Data Protection legislation does cover CCTV, and reasonable expectation of privacy is included in the provisions.
I wonder, what is the social awareness of these CCTV cameras? I mean, what do UK citizens know about them? Are they fine with them? If not, why don't they step ahead and call for them to be removed? Isn't there any way to make a referendum in the UK?
What utter bullshit.
Why aren't the USians fighting back when Bush rape their liberties? They have guns, right? What are they supposed to do with them, EXACTLY? Shoot the president? No? Then what?
You're either not very intelligent, or you need to be modded as a troll. Read my post again and think about what you just said. Here, I'll even quote it for you:
The Brits feel trapped. The UK has already taken away their guns, and (surprise) crime runs out of control through their cities. Most of the Brits have gotten used to the idea that they'll never be allowed to own a gun for personal protection, and thus see this as something that can make their lives safer. It is the best brainwashing the government has ever pulled off.
So, am I abdacating presidential assassintation? Looks to me that my post states the following very clearly: Brits have gotten used to the idea that they'll never be allowed to own a gun for personal protection... So, unless the president is mugging them in the street for their wallets, then no, I'm not suggesting presidential assassintation.
Obviously english is not your first language. If I need to further explain what my post means, I would suggest enrollment into the 3nd grade, as I believe that is where you'll learn about the topic, "reading comprehension."
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
I live in Middlesbrough and remember reading a few months ago that the CCTV operators in the town centre had been able to stop a young woman being mugged. He spotted what was going to go on and was able to tell the woman someone was behind her via the loud speaker system in the shopping centre. This has to be a good thing.
"Left" and "right" are insufficient designations to indicate likelihood of totalitarianism. The two-dimensional political compass (with separate social and economic axes) is a bit better, though still a gross oversimplification. Their examples are Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union -- both were totalitarian, but economically Germany leaned to the right and the USSR to the left.
It's entirely possible to have a leftist totalitarian state or a rightist totalitarian state. I think the only political leanings that can't be twisted to totalitarianism would be anarchism and some of the more minarchist libertarian philosophies.
Joking aside, many of us who were alive before and during WWII do see the parallels of today's Western society to that of Soviet Russia. I was 12 when World War II started in Europe. At that time we didn't know it as 'World War II', as the future magnitude of the conflict was yet unknown to us.
Unlike most young students today, in Wales we were expected to keep up to date on world affairs as part of our studies. Every day we'd read from papers like the Daily Herald and The Manchester Guardian, and from The Economist weekly. We knew of the world around us, and we knew of what went on in the Soviet Union.
Many years later, in the mid 1990s, I was lucky enough to get to work alongside people from nations like Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, and even Georgia. It was very interesting to hear them tell of their lives in the Soviet Union. In many respects, what they said mirrors the social situation we have today.
They'd tell of fearmongering from the government and the media (which itself was government-run). This fearmongering was used to turn the people against other nations and peoples, and even against certain ideals.
A result of this fearmongering was a sense in insecurity between individuals. Few people would trust one another to any extent. People knew they were being watched at all times, but they never knew by who.
We seem to have much the same today. Many people in our society today share the same paranoia about others, hyped on by the efforts of the mass media. The media itself is guilty of extreme self-censorship, and won't challenge the government to any extent. It thus becomes what is essentially "government-run", even if the government isn't directing day-to-day operations and selecting what stories are printed.
Today, as evident by this article, we are all being constantly watched by shadowy figures within various governments. The level of security is extensive, as is the cost. And what's worse, there is little to show but extreme inconvenience for law-abiding citizenry. Some are even shot dead, as we saw in London a year-and-a-half ago.
Those of us who lived in the Soviet Union, and those of us who were even just alive during that time period, we all agree: Western society is beginning to severely duplicate the Soviet experience.
It's eliminated all crime.
Sorry this sounds like a LOT of hyperbole. Where does this figure of 4,285,00 cameras come from - not the article itself.
And, indeed, even if that figure is correct - that isn't one vast all encompassing government controlled camera network.
It will surely include the cameras that are 'government' controlled (local councils, traffic authorities, police cameras) but many, many more that belong to private companies - in-store cameras, cashpoints (ATM's for our American cousins) run by banks, petrol station forecourts etc. etc.
These cameras are their to protect these companies assets.
Big Brother is NOT watching your every activity. He's not bloody interested.
Yes, I'm also sure that MI5 would/could and can gather all sources of independent CCTV footage to trace the path of people whom they are interested in. But there is no vast single Ministry Of Truth storing all this information somewhere, keeping an eye on each and every citizen.
We're talking about a government here, people. Mostly harmless, most of the time, and downright incompetent the rest of the time!
I'm not stating I consider it assault. I was pointing out that it is already illegal, since it falls under the legal definition of assault.
We can debate if individuals are allowed to verbally abuse eachother if you like. I would suggest that as long as if you react violently I can kill you no questions asked, then we are entitled to hurl as much abuse at eachother as we like. Of course the problem is that I wont be able to kill you, because you will probably be armed if you are hurling abuse at me, and with a collection of your fellow gang members. Not to mention that if I do kill you, the aforementioned will probably come after me.
You see the problem with allowing people to aggresively verbally abuse eachother is that it inherently favours the useless over the useful, because there are inherent risks associated with responding to verbal abuse. The intelligent and capable are essentially ruled, when they leave their front door, by the ignorant and the useless because the latter have less to lose than the former, and no comprehension to realise what they have to lose in the first placce. If we had a legal system which inherently favoured more useful members of society then perhaps this situation could be addressed, and then everyone could enjoy the right to free speech that you claim you have.
I suggest if you wish to test your hypothesis that you have the right to walk down the street calling someone a motherfucker, then you try walking in Harlem and call the first tough looking black gentleman you see a 'worthless nigger'. You may have the technical 'right' to say it (although that wouldn't stop me being disgusted by it), but try telling that to those individuals around you.
Now in the UK, those initiating this type of behaviour are genuinely worthless (as, if you actually undertook the suggested above behaviour you would be too). A right is not a right if it only a priviledge of the violent few. The only genuine source of authority is the capacity to do violence, and in this case, that authority is not wielded by all the people, nor by representatives of the people, but by a violent subset of the population.
But please, feel free to continue deluding yourself that you have this right if you wish.
As an American, yes. Most European countries implement legislation that allows fines for insults.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Is a medium caliber handgun in the woman's purse. If crooks knew that a certain percentage of the time, the person they were about to mug was armed, there'd be a lot less mugging going on. At the very least, muggers would have to work in teams, reducing their overall effectiveness and making them easier to spot.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I agree, a voice over a loudspeaker doesn't make things more secure.
It reminds me of the comedy routine where the guy goes:
Having police sitting in front of cameras and shouting over loudspeakers instead of being on the ground would have been a recipe for disaster at the recent Dawson College shooting. The death toll would have been much higher. We'd have had it all on hard disk, but that's cold consolation.
And so perhaps someone will explain to me how this has anything at all to do with "online"?
It's a _great_ excuse for spurious Orwell quotes and some slashdot-quality Brit-bashing, though!
I say, nothing like a cliche in chase of a slur, what!
Look into the root cause of the problem instead of merely deterring current behavior. What is causing crime to be this bad that you need 100% saturation of CCTV?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
This might be a good opportunity to mention the documentary America: from Freedom to Fascism. I found it very relevant to this topic.
Brilliant! Now if there is no audio response to planned anti-social activities during specific times theives will know when specific cameras are being monitored. But then, there isn't any organized crime in the UK so why worry. Anyone... cough... a hit of this?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
"You... Yes, you behind the bike shed... stand still laddy!"
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Sweet, so when those speakers get ubiquitous, people can finally get a soundtrack of their life piped in the background all the time!
Have your favourite love song as you propose...
Have Die Walkure playing when you're pissed off and stomping around in the rain...
Have Bolero playing when you're getting it on in public...
The opportunities are endless! A new revenue stream for RIAA members!
In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
I'm not familiar with UK law: Are private citizens also allowed to do this? Can they set up a camera in a public place and leave it there? So long as it doesn't violate civil disturbance laws, can they have the camera say things to passerby?
What you say is undeniably true -- there is a fair amount of data out there that supports your thesis -- but there are side-effects to having a society where virtually everyone is armed. It's true that under normal circumstances, people are far more polite and well behaved -- no one wants to start shit if there's a good chance the person you're thinking of upsetting is armed.
The problem is that especially in today's society, it is relatively common for people to get stressed out and freak out. Think "road rage" and other stress-related phenomena. Think drunk people coming out of the pub late at night.
It's worth noting that it's not like the society you're proposing has never existed. In the Old West of the US, everyone basically carried. Mugging might not have been a tremendous problem, but gunfights were frequent, and people dying under such circumstances was routine.
It's also worth noting that while guns do a lot to level the playing field, there is skill involved in operating a gun effectively, and those that have the time and talent to practice their gunmanship will always have the upper hand in societies that revolve around gun ownership. This was certainly true in the old west and would be just as true today.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that a bullet that doesn't meet its intended target does not stop. If everyone had guns, friendly fire deaths would also be more common.
There are pros and cons to widespread adoption of any tool, obviously. Consider the automobile: in most of Europe and the certainly in the USA, almost everyone has one. These were not designed with killing as their primary function, and yet consider how many people are killed in accidents every year. We as a society take that risk because of the convenience that having a car offers: we've come to terms with the issues. There's no doubt that eliminating cars would reduce (eliminate) car related deaths, but the benefits outweigh the problems.
With guns, the equation is similar: if everyone were armed, there would be obvious and tangible benefits, and a drastic reduction in violent crime would certainly be one of them. But there would also be tangible drawbacks. In the USA at least, we apparently decided as a society that dealing with the drawbacks mitigated the benefits of an armed society. Consider that in the west, everyone used to strap, but now very few people do. This is not because of anti-gun laws or anything else, it's because having everyone be armed resulted in a "wild wild west" society that people of the time decided finally that they didn't want to live in anymore.
That was my attitude when I was fresh out of college prior to 9/11. I've had 21 years of "land of the free & home of the brave" rah rah rah. I would read what was happening in the UK and thought that our Constutition and especially the Bill of Rights would prevent all of that from happening. Little did I know that there was already an increase in the seizing of our freedoms - 2nd Amendment via "gun control", 4th Amendment via "war on drugs", etc. And all it took was 9/11 to throw the majority of Americans into a fear-stricken "we must give up our liberties for security" attitude. And our politicians were more than willing to pander to it. The money from Homeland Security for the major cities has gone for more CCTVs to monitor the public. Police rave about how they can put more "virtual" cops on the beat to "fight crime." Citizens say they have nothing to hide because they aren't doing anything wrong and are glad they are now "safe" by being monitored 24/7.
I have since come to accept that whatever Big Brother mess we see start in the UK will eventually make its way into the US. "Land of the free, home of the brave"???
Because the majority of people in the U.S. are fucking idiots, that's why. As long as they get their daily update on the antics of Paris Hilton, football on tv, etc... they don't care. You can park a fucking tank on every street corner, and they wouldn't care.
If it doesn't personally and immediately effect them, they couldn't give a flying fuck about what is going on. It's wide spread apathy in the populace. The only ones that do care are ex-military, and the tin foil hat squad. I live in the U.S., and even I say fuck them, they get what they deserve. One of these days something else will happen that will give them their wake up bitch slap, and they'll look around bewildered and ask what the hell happened.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
If I yelled "motherfucker" to someone while passing them in the street it wouldn't be assault. But if I'd walk menacingly towards someone yelling motherfucker at them and clenching my fist it could be, unless I was doing it towards someone who obviously would have nothing to fear from me.
Because Afghanistan and Somalia are just such examples of successful societies when people are polite to one another and the crime rate is low. And Congo...
Pining for the fjords
That depends a lot on your definitions of "left" and "right". USSR had an economical system that was close to feudal - the party elite had effective if not legal control of the economy, just as in nazi Germany, and citizens were cared for because they were effectively state resources. The main real difference was where the legal ownership of industry was (i.e. the state in USSR or a small elite of private industrialists in nazi Germany) and the symbols use. Socially, they both maintained systems that focused on the collective and on the state as caretaker and the individual as subordinate to the nation, but neither did anything to reduce the differences between the economic elite and the rest.
Both economically and socially both the USSR and nazi Germany to some extent fit into what Marx' called "reactionary socialism" (in other words right wing) - systems that use some socialist principles of government to avoid changing the overall structure of society rather than promoting it, thereby maintaining an economic elite rather than redistributing wealth.
where are my mod points when I need 'em :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
YOU! You behind the grandstand! Stand still, laddy!
The truth is that "left" and "right" both encompass very different forms of freedom and equality, but when you converge at no freedom and no equality, there really isn't much difference between the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right but history and rhetoric.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That you enjoy living in a police state. Just don't be one of those people that pretends it's anything less than that.
at yale in the mid 90's someone discovered how to make calls to all the call boxes they have scattered around campus (which were normally for outgoing calls only). you could sit in your dorm room during parent's weekend, watch someone's dad walk by a callbox in the quad, call it up and say "Hey Mr. Smith! You're last tuition check for Jane bounced! Do you expect us to educate her for free, when she shows up to all her classes drunk? Are you on the dole Mr. Smith? Those are mighty fine bermuda shorts for someone who's on the dole. Mighty fine kneecaps you have there too. Would be a shame if something happened to them." The poor guy would apologize and then you'd tell him to "move along and don't make us come find you".
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
I can't see how this impacts on civil liberties but I can see how this would reduce crime.
Your civil liberties are only the intersection of what the government doesn't consider a crime and what they can't effectively enforce into law. Anything else is just legal fiction that may or may not free you from jail or let you get some payback if you get a trial, but any damage or time lost to prison is still done.
Out of curiosity, would you be more or less likely to protest government malfeansce if you knew that the government would be recording the whole event and identifying "troublemakers" to be watched later? How do you think your friends and family would feel about protesting in that kind of situation?
Honestly, this sort of servile "please protect me from the bad, scary criminals" attitude is why the masses are often called sheep. You're just asking to be herded. Sorry, to be fair you're just asking for them to be herded expecting to never feel the hook around your neck. Personally, I think that's even more damning.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I've looked through everything (maybe I missed it) but I can't believe that with all this talk of Britain and surveillance cameras and speakers that no one has referenced Patrick McGoohan or "The Prisoner" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061287/) or "Number Six" yet...
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about!
Your analogy of talking shit to someone in Harlem who will immediately retaliate physically is totally bogus. The point was, in the US, you won't be arrested or charged with any wrongdoing by the police whereas in the UK it sounds like you would. The US seems more free in this sense, because the only time your public comments will get you punished is if someone outside of "the law" takes it upon themselves to, most likely illegally, retaliate against you. In the US, you can call every person that walks by "a motherfucker" except for those who look like they might beat your ass for saying so, and you'll be fine. In the UK it wouldn't matter who you say it to, because the words themselves are considered antisocial/abusive and legally punishable.
What sucks about the UK system is, if the "verbal abuse" is merely you saying something that would not ordinarily rile people up, the government can still silence you in the name of the law. Whereas in the US, nothing would happen to you.
It's really disturbing because "verbal abuse" could one day be extended to include verbally promoting one's political beliefs on a street corner, etc. Taking away freedom is a slippery slope. Don't think I'm defending my home country (US) as being free either; we started sliding down that slope quite some time ago as well.
That's what freedom is supposed to mean.
Fuck finding a voice, fuck "not looking like criminals". Go watch "V for Vendetta."
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Riot in the streets, do whatever you want, just make sure there are enough people with you that you make a point.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Smile and wave, boys... smile and wave.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
and
Are not at all the same thing. You realize this, right?
I don't know that I trust those figures for the top three, particularly if you're going on pure number of murders, which isn't at all representative of the overall percentage rate.
For the most part I was happy with those facilities for more than forty years, or until I got to take London's "tube" for about two weeks.
I remember standing on the platform waiting for my train and saw a billboard that I found amusing. I raised my camera to take a picture and in less than a second, a booming voice suitable for a remake of "The Ten Commandments," boomed, "PUT DOWN THE CAMERA. CAMERAS ARE PROHIBITED IN THE TUBE. YOU WILL BE DETAINED AND FINED IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY."
At first, I was shaken. Then, a little depressed. (Looking back, I can understand the comments to this post comparing Britain's surveillance to Soviet and early Vietnamese forms of oppression.)
But then, I felt reassured. There have been many times in my life when I took the subway in Philadelphia and New York in the middle of the night and felt fearful for my safety the entire trip. But after the warning, I never gave my safety another anxious thought while in London.
Later, I saw a sign with a picture of a long screwdriver. The sign reminded passengers that such objects were considered weapons in London and that violators could be arrested. I almost giggled. Where I come from, almost anyone you meet could be carrying a concealed weapon, licensed or not [and when I use the word weapon, I mean some type of gun]. (While many Americans feel safer with lots of armed people, I do not dispute the fact that Britain's murder rate is less than one tenth of ours. In 1996, police-recorded murders totaled 19,650 in the United States and 681 in England.)
Based on my experience, the effect of adding more speakers to the existing cameras might serve as a preventative measure and further reduce crime. Cameras might be great tools for solving crimes, but using the speakers can prevent crime in some cases.
I would be in favor of adding both camera and speakers in the US, espeically in our major cities and especially in areas of public transportation.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
in that order. or are the purchase of those items regulated now, too?
:)
it's that simple, if your government unacceptably monitors you, then destroy the monitors again and again until they get the idea.
just uh, don't get caught
...... and yet when the police shoot someone there is no footage. Weird coincidence.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
you mean "crimes" like drug possession/sale, prostitution, posessing a means of self defense? enjoy your nanny state and coming totalitarian regime.
I live in Middlesbrough, and as a testament to why cameras do not work: One night during my 'lunch' break (I was on a late shift at work) myself and two friends were walking around the town centre looking for any restaurant still open to get some food. Anyway cut to the chase, we were approaching McDonalds (only thing open) when some guy came up to me and asked for a cigarette. While I reach into my pocket he approaches me and headbutts me hard. For the rest of the night I couldn't remember anything beyond two minutes, as in I would forget where I was and for what reason every two minutes.
This is where the camers come in: This particular place where I was headbutted had not one, not two, but THREE cameras pointing at the Smackdonalds, three different angles, all supposedly watching for any criminal activity.
A cop came the next day to my place of work to take a statement as to what happened. I asked if they caught it on CCTV. They said no. Thats all they said, not that it was too grainy to tell, or the cameras were at the wrong angle etc. Just that they didn't catch it on camera.
So the one thing that these cameras are supposedly useful for; solving crimes; it does sweet fuck-all. I actually was happy when they started installing cameras eveywhere in the town centre as several times I had been started on by groups of chavs totally unprovoked. However they obviously have done nothing but act as a supposed 'deterrent'.
Fuck cameras, fuck the police, but most importantly, fuck Chavs and the cunt that headbutted me that night.
Yet if I don't react violently, it's not OK?
What if I were to simply act violently with no verbal pretense? You know, in that case, here in the US, it's entirely legal for you to kill them. Self-defense and all.
Flawed argument. Responding to others is a CHOICE -- you are essentially making the claim that the 'intelligent and capable' are at a disadvantage, because they lose more when they respond to verbal abuse. If they're so intelligent and capable one would certainly hope that they're not so fucking stupid as to get into a fight because someone called their mother a whore. Seriously. That's childish. How can you consider some sort of frivolous law forbidding me from SAYING something SUPERIOR, when in fact your entire argument is based upon the opinion that the subjects of the UK have so little self-control that they cannot help but start a fight when insulted and must be protected from their own uncontrollable violent reactions?
That's funny. You apparently live in a country of brainless knuckle-dragging hooligans. Who'd have thought?
FYI, I KNOW I have the right to go outside and insult people if I want. It's not without exception -- disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, slander (though that's a civil matter not subject to arrest). If they respond violently, that is THEIR problem. And good thing, too. Punish those idiots who are so juvenile they simply cannot ignore that which upsets them.
To prove my point: Bunch of thin-skinned bloody limeys. Buncha chavs the lot of ya. Ya git. Ya wanna fight about it?
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Now the old grouchy grandpa doesn't even have to get up to tell you to get off his lawn.
On a more serious note, how much crime is this going to stop? How many thieves are going to stop because they hear a voice saying "You there, yes you, stop stealing!! I see you"
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
As it stands, cameras are easy to forget about in day-to-day life, but hearing the voice of authority booming down from on high is sure to raise some alarm. Hopefully we will finally see some kind of backlash!
No, it would be better if your government were taking cameras down, not spending money on making them more effective. Once you have lost and the loudspeakers are up, you need to find a way to prove they are invasive and abused. Having a voice "on high" might help you in creating an incident if you are creative enough, but it will probably work against you.
The way forward is to expose the invasiveness and uselessness. Studies have already shown they don't fight crime. Print the results and tack them up at busy intersections. People live and die in front of government spies. You need to find ways of making very private events public. The victim has already lost their dignity and privacy, so you won't actually make it worse for them. Mostly, you need a whistle blower like the US has for wire taps. The extent to which the system is being used to monitor and harass political groups, students and other innocents should be published. You will have to infiltrate the system to see it, but it requires so many people that should be easy. Sooner or later, someone on the inside will turn against this monstrosity. Good luck.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A large part of the UK population of 60,000,000 (sixty million)
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
the raspy over-modulated voice from the camera starts saying things like
Jay-walking is not permitted! Illegal! Illegal! Illegal! Illegal! Law broken! Law broken! EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE!!!
Not that I am terribly afraid of a plumber's helper stuck on a rolling dustbi advhndsjfhn
+++ NO CARRIER
Sig for hire.
You miss the point, if individuals on the street can, without fear of reprisal enact violence upon another individual, and outside of their rights, then they are the defacto government. I am pointing out that the defacto government on the street are the worthless and ignorant. This is true in both our countries. I am pointing out that you are no more free than I am. Your defacto government opresses you just as much as mine does. Government is not merely those who are elected.
There was an article about this a year and a half ago on El Reg. Surely there have been updates in that time, but this has also clearly been in the works for a long time.
I don't understand why people are so bothered by cameras OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC. People say they're losing their privacy, but... uh... What privacy is there to lose when you're OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC?
The only time I expect to have privacy is when I'm in my home. Other than that, even when I'm in a restroom or changing room, I make the assumption that anything I do could potentially be recorded because... I AM OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
If people are really so concerned about their privacy, then they should stay inside, and not go OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
As for the speakers, as long as they don't spew propaganda or bullshit messages and stay limited to stuff like "Hey, asshole, we see you spraypainting that wall" or whatever, I don't really care. Heck, I'd probably have some fun with friends, pretending to choke one of them or something under the camera's gaze.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Like that big alien from that episode of the Venture Bros...
"Just because you're eloquent doesn't mean you aren't a fucking crackpot." -Wavebreak
The cameras currently just make it easy to record crime and catch criminals. The loudspeakers mean they'll now be able to inform a criminal that they are being recorded. That could be the difference between maintaining the life of an assualt victim and merely picking up the body afterward. Given that the cameras are already there, this is a useful addition - it might actually reduce crime.
/. is truely sad.
The paranoia level on
"John Spartan, you're fined two credits for violation of the verbal-morality statute."
I work in a Marina in London which has CCTV for security. The area is fairly smart but but has an estate ( projects to Americans ) down the road housing a number of lowlifes. Crime is not endemic but happens fairly often. Two Women were mugged 50 yards from the Marina office a couple of weeks ago, unfortunately not where we have cameras.
I've seen that cameras combined with loudspeakers can be very effective in crime prevention
There is a lifting road bridge controlled by the Marina which has a loudspeaker to warn when the road barriers are to be closed. Late at night this can be very effective for crime prevention. The startled reaction and swift exit I've seen from thieves attempting to break into a car when a very loud voice from 30 ft up and only 40 ft away announces "Smile, you're on camera" is highly amusing. I call it " The Voice of God ".(Though I'm agnostic.)
I am as worried as anyone about government snooping. But cameras are put up by local authorities and organisations to prevent crime so why not blame the criminals for the invasion of our privacy?
I'm a Uni student in Middlesbrough, and tbh, I openly accept this. The fact is, in the last 4 months, there have been 3-4 stabbings in well lit, generally public areas, and I often hear from other students about them being mugged. Hell, its pretty much ASBO central in the Town Centre. Granted CCTV is already there, but this way we know the operator wasn't on the lav or getting a coffee when a guy starts approaching me with a knife, and the operator yelling at the assailant, which is likely to scare them off as there is DEFINITLY someone watching, is a far quicker response time than waiting for someone to get from the station to wherever I am.
Am I the first to say that? Slashdot, you disappoint me!
There's one of these new CCTVs on the street corner near my house. I was woken up one night by it telling some drunk people to stay off the road. The reaction of the drunks to "big brother" talking to them was hilarious - they had no idea where the voice was coming from!!
Or more likely, they'd shoot first and mug second.
"In Soviet Britain, Britannia waives the rules,
Britons ever ever shall be slaves to fools"
1. Consider that all the non-terrorists on the 4 planes on 9/11 had obeyed security rules and abandoned their personal safety to the lack-of-guarantees of the gov't. It was the security procedures themselves that assured the terrorists that they would not have trouble controlling the entire passenger list of a jumbo jet with just 4 or 5 bad guys. They didn't try to blow up some other spot with concentrated populace because they couldn't be sure no one was carrying.
2. The govt that has taken away citizen's guns does not take on the responsibility of protecting the citizens. Specifically, if the cops know of a threat to your life in particular, they're not obligated to protect you. In fact, they're not really obligated to investigate your murder (there's no consequence for failing to arrest/convict). They're not gonna, and you can't - so who's gonna protect you?
3. If the law suddenly changed to allow people to carry guns, chaos would result. People have forgotten how to be careful, because everything dangerous is taken away from us.
4. Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. The problems there (and here) are not to be solved by instantaneously changing one variable. Things must shift slowly, as they shifted to get to the mess they're in now. Just looking at one variable and saying it's the solution or it's the problem is not realistic.
Allowing citizens to take care of themselves is a good place to start. It's called freedom; sometimes democracy is mistaken for freedom. And the first thing that a person needs, and will provide for him/her self (if allowed) is personal safety and security.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I'm sorry, but people insulting and shouting profanity at me are in no way a de facto government. They can say whatever the hell they want. I'm not going to listen to them, because they're just a bunch of loudmouthed assholes.
If they're going to act violently against me, I have the right to defend myself with due force. I've also got the law on my side, if indeed they act violently against me. They CAN'T enact violence upon me or any other individual without fear of reprisal.
But just shouting shit? Hey, maybe you're scared by someone shouting random crap at you from down the block, but honestly.. grow up. They are not oppressing you. Words are not violent. There is no need to punish someone for talking big. You ignore it. Simple.
If it transgresses beyond words -- then the law has been broken. You're free to call for the police, or to defend yourself via whatever means may be legal in your particular locale.
Seriously, if the crazy guy on the corner covered in shit that keeps yelling "AH'M GANNA EAT YOOSE! BARBEQUE BABIES AND CATROLLS!" is somehow limiting your freedom and controlling you.. then I'll take up collection to send your poor nation two four-foot-diameter spheres of solid brass. Because it sounds like you all could use 'em -- two huge brass balls.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
That'd be Russell Peters. He's awesome
That's the one ... I can never remember his last name, but he's a real comic genius!
I live about 15 minutes away from Middlesbrough and work there. Let me describe the area I live in to give you an idea of how bad it's getting and by all accounts Middlesbrough is worse.
The immediate area is surrounded by heavy industrial works, they stretch out to the horizon. On one side is what used to be British Steel, the other ICI(C&P whatever). Cooling towers and flame stacks dot the scenery. Sulphur and worse smells drift past regularly, air raid sirens sound occasionally when the plants test the you're all gonna die alarm (or occasionally they sound for real). Keeping the outside of your house clean is a battle easier surrendered than fought. The vents around my windows have a black smudge running off them (on the inside) if I don't wipe them off once or twice a week. At night it's not uncommon to be able to read in my garden by the light of the columns of flame from ICI flare stacks, not that I'd want to be caught reading you understand, people might get the wrong idea.
You know the nice pans across the city in Bladerunner? That's what my backyard looks like at night. Ridley Scott is a local lad.
There have been, er, "travellers" camped nearby. From the smell of it they cook over burning tires.
I no longer regard the people that live nearby as human, it's easier to think of them as some sort of ape-men. They could be human if they tried but can't be arsed. Their children/babboon creatures run free in the streets, light fires not 100m from their own homes, attack people unafraid of being punished. When I say children I mean as young as 5.
Public transport is sort of safe to use, unless you drive it. Recently I saw a driver get hit in the face with spit from a kid, maybe 12yrs old, he did this on his way off the bus. Rocks and other missiles get hurled at the windows. God forbid you have to get on a bus at school letting out time.
Unlicensed vehicles, usually trail bikes or quads are driven on public footpaths. Groups of children will walk in the middle of roads slowing traffic and harrasing drivers. They'll lurk around local shops, not practising their urban fucking folkways and having break dancing/rap competitions as you might expect but getting pissed on cheap booze and menacing/attacking actual humans. Or, in a interesting recent development, getting high on heroin(or speedballs as the local radio informed me recently. Heroin+crack=JOY!).
On the grangetown estate cameras were installed to keep down local crime and anti social behaviour. They stole the cameras.
You can enjoy the nightlife, if running the risk of getting stabbed is your thing. I find it adds spice to the night.
You may have heard the expression, it's grim up north, they weren't fucking kidding. We think this state of affairs is normal.
These subhumans are not disadvantaged, your address does not dictate the schooling you will receive, the welfare state takes reasonable care of it's citizens in the UK (A 2 parent family with one child will pull in excess of £200pw in benefits), segregation of the haves and have nots is just not practical here. We have 1/5th your population in an area less than half the size of Texas.
Bring on the cameras, lay on more speed cameras too. Try children as adults and bring back the fucking birch. Blame the parents, the government and the schools. The whole rotten mess is getting worse day by day.
Excuse the incoherent rambling above, it's late and I'm depressed.
That has to be the most clear and concise description of the current situation that I have read in a very long time.
You, Yes You!!!
Stand Still Laddie!!
Huh?
Illiteracy is not a crime. Nor are many of the things that people find "objectionable" or "anti-social", but that's what these cameras are allegedly going to prevent.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
These loud speakers will be cranking out "Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall"? Sweet!
And here I was thinking it was a bad thing, I hope they also do "Wish You Were Here", and perhaps change it up with some Bowie!
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
They'd tell of fearmongering from the government and the media (which itself was government-run). This fearmongering was used to turn the people against other nations and peoples, and even against certain ideals.
Very interesting parallel.
Except in the 'western world' of today the media isn't government run; its the other way around.
The government is *media* run.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
My first thought on reading the story was "And have a nice day, Number Six!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
for at least the last 10 years.
Seriously, who gives a shit about cameras and speakers. The real issue here is: what's with the chocolate rations?
Free as in mason.
What right does adding speakers to CCTV cameras erode? The right to walk down a road in peaceful quietness? Now, if it was microphones, that would be a different story. Still, as long as it's all kept in public places, and not hidden from plain sight, I don't have a problem with it.
The multimillion pond CCTV system can be defeated by a hood/basbeall cap. We predict that every citizen in the UK will be wearing on by next week. Today's share price $0.01. Predicted price next week $10000.
No sig today...
nice soundbite. ever been mugged?
What if in the future, once people are desensitized to loudspeakers with cameras watching them, the Big Brother starts to "upgrade" the normal loudspeakers with more effective people controlling Sonic Weaponry?
You have obviously never been to the UK. Or if you have, then you have been lucky enough not to be the victim of a crime. Crimes go unpunished here, unless of course someone dies, or there are drugs involved, or an honest citizen has the stupidity to wait at the scene of a 'crime'. If someone abuses me in this country and I respond, then there are two possibilities.
1) They beat me shitless. And then get away with it, because the police don't care.
2) I beat them shitless, and I get arrested and charged because if there is one thing the police cant stand, it's someone taking the law into their own hands.
This is why your statement:
"If they're going to act violently against me, I have the right to defend myself with due force. I've also got the law on my side, if indeed they act violently against me. They CAN'T enact violence upon me or any other individual without fear of reprisal."
Is simply not true. In this country the ignorant have a monopoly on violence because decent people are not protected by the law.
I live in Bath, moderately quiet city, full of tourists (damn tourists, get off my lawn!). Last night the alarm went off at the shop next door - I was working late, and was astounded to see no fewer than 2 vans *full* of police appear... Maybe Whistles (women's fashion chain) is a secret bullion store. There are cameras everywhere here, vans with bubbles all over their sides and roofs driving around all day and night, filming, and observing.
You can always judge the future direction of a country by the demeanor of the staff on its public transport.
/Ramble over
To be fair, it's not quite as bad as it sounds. Verbally abusing someone is only a technical assault under the law if they had reason to believe that they were under threat of physical violence. I also believe (though it's been a while since I studied this, so I may be wrong), that there is a requirement that the threat be of imminent violence. So someone saying they're going to break into your house tonight and kill you in your sleep wouldn't be assault, someone threatening to hit you right now - IF you had reason to believe they meant it - could be assault.
For the most part, you are totally correct, people should be thick skinned enough to take some verbal abuse. There are obvious exceptions, if you're old and incapable of defending yourself then it's easier to prove a case of abuse against a gang of youngsters shouting you down outside your house. Likewise a lone, single woman walking home in the dark may find it easier to prove assault by a gang of youths threatening to rape her. These are common sense exceptions and I think most people would agree they're necessary to protect people who are more vulnerable or find themselves in a vulnerable position.
Having said that, we do seem to have an atmosphere of fear at the moment. Gangs of youths loiter about the streets abusing people for no good reason, and the press plays on the fact that citizens are powerless to do anything and the police are ineffective. Maybe if a few more people spoke up and put these youths in their place things would change, but who wants to be the first to try when you're pretty much singling yourself out for a spate of verbal abuse and vandalism against your property?
Every single person that has a sixth-grade education and
has paid some attention to some of the history classes can
read and understand the comic.
</patronizing>
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
For that, anywhere you like. We don't care about your manners. That's your mothers problem. It would be nice if you didn't wipe it on someone else though.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I wonder if an Internet flash mob at some point is going to be setup across London, whose purpose will be to destroy as many of those cameras as possible (whatever the means of destruction, hopefully bombs.)
You can't handle the truth.
Next question: assuming we have some idea of the cause, how do we go about addressing it?
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
...you can't have any pudding.
I always thought it sounded like he was saying, "E! Yes, E!" Maybe the E! channel should use that song.
Find out who I am
You are the one in handcuffs. Assault someone here and that would happen.
it helps against "normal people" who have a more or less stable life
If the police release you without prosecuting. The Health Service will do a private prosecution. Your family life may not be so normal then
If someone wanted by the police comes in, does not cause a fuss and gives false details, how would we know?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Because the majority of people in the U.S. are fucking idiots, that's why. As long as they get their daily update on the antics of Paris Hilton, football on tv, etc... they don't care. You can park a fucking tank on every street corner, and they wouldn't care.
Well, in Arkansas we'd atleast demand to be able to drive the tanks around abit... To have some fun with. O.k. Maybe just cameras would be safer.
"John Spartan you are fined 100 credits for the use of foul language".
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Relativity, the atom bomb, and (more important) the laser. ... even if people don't know about them. It's a matter of paying attention ONLY, IMHO. I know that _I_ know why and how the Russian Revolution impacts my day-to-day life (my country had a CIA-backed military coup in the 1960's, with the Commies as escapegoats)
Russian Revolution --> yes, the thing that generated the Cold War (and possibly WWII).
9/11, the intifada...
Anyone who pays atention to the fifth-to-eigth grade history classes knows that some events are important in the lives of everyone for centuries on
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'
Hmm, seems we may have been operating on different assumptions of what was being said.
If the language is actually threatening -- "I'm going to kill you", "Just wait till you go home, I'll be waiting with a bat" -- that falls under 'terroristic threats' here in the States. Which is illegal. Something like simply shouting "Hey you, you ugly motherfucker! What the hell is wrong with you, are you deformed AND retarded? The circus tell you you're too weird to stay with them?".. that's A-OK material right there.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Unfotunately there is no addressing it. I've tried in my own micro-addressing way, but people just don't care. They'll continue to vote straight Republican, straight Democrat, and ignore the issues at hand. The only way it could get worse is if we only had one political party such as the old Soviet Union had, but, then again, it is like having schitzophrenic(sp) political party anway.
You can show them why things are screwed up, you can show them a list of illegal actions their representatives take with sources and proof, and they still won't care. The apathy is infuriating, to put it lightly.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM