UK Has Become a "Surveillance Society"

cultrhetor writes "In a story released by the BBC, Richard Thomas, the information commissioner for Great Britain, says that fears of the nation's 'sleep-walk into a surveillance society' have become reality. Surveillance ranges from data monitoring (credit cards, mobiles, and loyalty card information), US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic, to key stroke logging at work. From the article, the report 'predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.' The report's co-author, Dr. David Murakami-Wood, told BBC News that, compared to other Western nations, Britain was the 'most surveilled country.' He goes on to note: 'We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us.'"

Comments

That's a whole lot of cameras

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

FTA

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.

With that many cameras one can imagine it must be fairly difficult to venture out in public without being "ON CAMERA".
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it might prevent some crime, on the other it certainly makes one feel like their privacy is in doubt. I guess it's only gonna be a real problem when they start installing them in your home.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[smallfries]

It doesn't matter how many cameras there are. We all feel safe because we know that Chairman Blair would never abuse the power.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[agentkgb1984]

1 for every 14? That's creepy no matter where they are.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

On the one hand it might prevent some crime, on the other it certainly makes one feel like their privacy is in doubt.

Yeah, if there's one place I'm concerned about privacy, it's when I'm out in public.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[MyLongNickName]

Chairman Brown
I hope you're being funny.

The "Chairman" would be the clue that, yes, he is being funny.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[nurb432]

In large US cities, its the same way.

Now currently they arent all interconnected, but it wouldnt be hard to take that 'extra step'.

And it doesnt really prevent crime. thats just marketing to get you to accept the invasion. It might help to id the person that mugged you later, but they wont stop just because it might be recorded.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[cruachan]

I think the important point is that all this CCTV is generally owned and monitored by a *lot* of different organisations. Shops, clubs, pubs, malls etc all monitor there own little bit. True there are a police and council cameras too, but they are limited to a small % of coverage in city centres and traffic cameras on main commuter routes. So although if you wander around a city centre you're probably on camera most of the time, in practice the monitoring is so widely spread that it's difficult to say you are actually being watched in any meaningful way.

This is reflected by the fact that when there is a major incident it takes days if not weeks for the police to assemble footage tracking those concerned from all the different sources and indeed they often end up appealing for people with CCTV footage to come forward - there's not even a central list of who hass the CCTV.

IMHO the danger point is not cameras but the central control and access to information.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[Hogwash McFly]

and Government (Charles de Menezes, for example).

Yeah, that worked really well.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[Firehed]

When you find a way to survive without ever leaving the house, let us know.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[pjt33]

I believe that statistics show that in the UK the presence of CCTV does in fact reduce crime in the surveilled area. However, rather than prevent it entirely it merely displaces it to places which don't have CCTV.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[mrogers]

Yeah, if there's one place I'm concerned about privacy, it's when I'm out in public.

So you wouldn't mind if a masked man followed you everywhere, every day, from the moment you left your house to the moment you returned, and made regular and detailed reports about your activities to unspecified people? Because personally I'd feel extremely intimidated and invaded by that situation. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that you're being treated that way by CCTV, because the cameras are relatively unobtrusive.

I'd like to see a law requiring every CCTV camera to have a large screen attached, displaying what the camera is picking up - can you imagine the result being anything less than a public backlash against cameras? And yet the cameras would still be providing the same 'protection' they're supposedly providing now.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[LordSnooty]

Yeah it is, and it's a figure I've thought about a lot since I keep seeing it in the news. I don't believe it's the number of CCTV cameras covering public spaces, the traditional 'Big Brother' depiction. Just how many of this 4.2m are on private ground - in office buildings, pointing at warehouse entrances, in newsagents... not under the direct control of the police or the council. I think it's a fair proportion. Wish I could find some hard figures though.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[mrogers]

So eventually there's going to be one dark doorway behind a skip in a narrow street in Chipping Sodbury where all the crime happens?

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[quiloeg]

The best thing to remember in an information society with lots of cameras: you're not that interesting. At least you and I hope you're not.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

So you wouldn't mind if a masked man followed you everywhere, every day, from the moment you left your house to the moment you returned, and made regular and detailed reports about your activities to unspecified people? Because personally I'd feel extremely intimidated and invaded by that situation. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that you're being treated that way by CCTV, because the cameras are relatively unobtrusive.

People are only being treated that way by CCTV if they're doing something suspicious. Like the article said, 1 camera for every 14 people. So the camera isn't focusing on each person and following them around everywhere making detailed reports, kinda nullifying your masked man comparison. To actually watch what every person was doing in a manner as detailed as you describe would require a staff of "watchers" and cameras equal to the population you are trying to watch.

The cameras focus on areas of the street and catch people walking in and out of their field of view. Prehaps if it appears something interesting is happening, the camera operator may pan or zoom to get a better view, and if the person is doing something really interesting, they'll follow them to the end of the camera's available range and pick up with another camera, ect.

Does that sound familiar? Yeah, it's exactly what other pedestrians do when you're walking around in public right now. They see you as you pass by, may turn to look if you're doing something interesting, and if they really want to, follow you for a bit if they wish.

Contrary to popular belief, people are not nearly as exciting as they believe themselves to be. So unless some new laws have been passed making it illegal to do lots of things that are incredibly normal, what has really changed here? If you're doing something you wouldn't want a camera to see, why would you do it in public where a cop walking along could see you?

-

And to deflect these responses now: No, this isn't the same as "if you have nothing to hide there shouldn't be any issue with us searching" arguements. Because a search of a vehicle, residence, or person is a search conducted on an individual body or private property. Walking around on the street is being out in public, which is shared space with no guarantees to privacy. A normal camera can see nothing more than the naked eye can when looking at you, and there's nothing illegal about that.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

Are you replying to me or the parent? I have no issues with going out in public, but then I don't have unrealistic expectations of privacy when I'm out, either.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[turgid]

The funny thing is, people are still being robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered here in Blighty.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[Tim C]

it must be fairly difficult to venture out in public without being "ON CAMERA"

Utterly trivial in rural areas, pretty easy even in the large cities - for example, I live in London (just), and there are no CCTV cameras in my area at all. Go 10 miles west, into the centre of London, and sure, there are loads; I used to pass about 14 on the 5 minute walk from the Tube station to my office (then the office moved, and the number dropped).

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[luder]

Exactly. In the same fashion, I'm totally free to take photos of strangers in a public space, even if they don't want me to, and do whatever I feel like doing with them, as long as the usage is permitted by law. If the person can't be recognized (no face showing, for instance), that includes virtually anything. Else, it would be needed a written agreement for certain uses, like commercial usage (advertisements, ...), but, still, the photos could be sold or published in magazines or newspapers.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

In the same fashion, I'm totally free to take photos of strangers in a public space, even if they don't want me to, and do whatever I feel like doing with them, as long as the usage is permitted by law.

I've got a funny story about just that.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[fredklein]

Does that sound familiar? Yeah, it's exactly what other pedestrians do when you're walking around in public right now. They see you as you pass by, may turn to look if you're doing something interesting, and if they really want to, follow you for a bit if they wish.


But they don't RECORD. No one gives a flying fuck if they are WATCHED in public- as they say, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But cameras are just SOOOOOO easy to record from. What happens to the recordings? How long are they kept? Who has access to them (legit or not)?

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[mrogers]

People are only being treated that way by CCTV if they're doing something suspicious.

That's your assumption, but in most cases you can't see what the camera's looking at. How would you feel about a camera operator watching your mother or sister for ten minutes because he found her attractive?

Like the article said, 1 camera for every 14 people.

On a crowded street, each camera captures more than 14 people at a time. Anyway, would you be happy to be followed by a masked man for one day every two weeks? Do you think you'd behave differently on that day?

Yeah, it's exactly what other pedestrians do when you're walking around in public right now. They see you as you pass by, may turn to look if you're doing something interesting, and if they really want to, follow you for a bit if they wish.

But if they choose to stare at me I can stare back. If they choose to follow me, everyone can see them doing it. On the other hand if a camera tracks me down the street, nobody's any the wiser. The symmetry of the relationship is broken.

If you're doing something you wouldn't want a camera to see, why would you do it in public where a cop walking along could see you?

You're missing the point: it's not about wanting to commit crimes without being caught, it's about wanting to have a symmetric power relationship with other members of society.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[Scrameustache]

it must be fairly difficult to venture out in public without being "ON CAMERA".
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it might prevent some crime

You are gravely mistaken if you think that people will shy away from criminal activity if they know they are on camera.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

But they don't RECORD. No one gives a flying fuck if they are WATCHED in public- as they say, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But cameras are just SOOOOOO easy to record from. What happens to the recordings? How long are they kept? Who has access to them (legit or not)?

So you don't remember what you saw last time you were at the grocery store? You coudn't write a description of the events you witnessed on paper, creating a record anyone could refrence if they wish?

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

That's your assumption, but in most cases you can't see what the camera's looking at. How would you feel about a camera operator watching your mother or sister for ten minutes because he found her attractive?

And the difference would be what exactly? Would you go up to the gawker and punch them? I didn't think so. You can be annoyed by them just as well whether they are 15 ft or 1500 miles away.

On a crowded street, each camera captures more than 14 people at a time. Anyway, would you be happy to be followed by a masked man for one day every two weeks? Do you think you'd behave differently on that day?

I don't know, I've never had that happen to me. But lets be clear that my change in behavior would be my own doing. People's reactions dictate it. It's not compulsory to act different just because someone is watching you. The porn industry proves that. The Government doesn't make you paranoid, YOU make yourself paranoid.

But if they choose to stare at me I can stare back. If they choose to follow me, everyone can see them doing it. On the other hand if a camera tracks me down the street, nobody's any the wiser.

I can see cameras zoom and pan when they operate, can't you? You can't tell when you're far away from the camera, but then, you can't tell if a person is looking at you if they are more than 10 feet or so away. They could be looking past you, watch you sidelong, ect.

The symmetry of the relationship is broken.

Your vocabulary word for today is Sousveillance. Try it, and you can both look rediculous.

You're missing the point: it's not about wanting to commit crimes without being caught, it's about wanting to have a symmetric power relationship with other members of society.

LOL, if you think you're ever going to have a symmetrical power relationship with the Power Elite, I have a bridge up East I'd like to sell you.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[56ker]

I'm sure there are high security locations with a higher ratio than that - prisons, military bases etc. Most public CCTV cameras are in areas with a history of disorder (eg outside pubs, places a lot of people gather etc).

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[mrogers]

Would you go up to the gawker and punch them? I didn't think so.

The gawker would feel social pressure from myself and others not to behave intrusively, and if they carried on following me without a good reason I might eventually call the police.

It's not compulsory to act different just because someone is watching you. The porn industry proves that.

The porn industry proves no such thing - do you think porn stars really behave that way 24 hours a day? They're acting for the camera.

As for whether it's compulsory to react to the presence of a camera, I think you have an unrealistic view about the power of the will to control emotional and instinctive reactions. But even if you're right, the same should apply to the masked man - you could just choose to go on about your daily business as if he wasn't there. Do you think you'd be able to do so? I don't - I think the knowledge that we're being watched and recorded affects our behaviour, even if we weren't doing anything illegal.

I can see cameras zoom and pan when they operate, can't you?

Many cameras are covered by dark plastic domes so you can't see which way they're pointing. Most of them are located above your normal eyeline so you wouldn't see them unless you're constantly looking around, and of course half the cameras that can see you will be behind you, on average.

Your vocabulary word for today is Sousveillance.

Thanks, yours in Condescension.

LOL, if you think you're ever going to have a symmetrical power relationship with the Power Elite, I have a bridge up East I'd like to sell you.

So there's no point trying to attain even a small amount of liberty, equality or autonomy? You're almost cynical enough to pass for British. ;-)

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

The gawker would feel social pressure from myself and others not to behave intrusively, and if they carried on following me without a good reason I might eventually call the police.

I wonder if the government ever feels pressure not to act intrusively. :-)

Yeah, calling the police is a nice plan until you try it and the person ducks off in the ten minutes or so before anyone comes by.

The porn industry proves no such thing - do you think porn stars really behave that way 24 hours a day? They're acting for the camera.

I was thinking more of amateur porn actually. My point is people can take even the most intimate area of our lives and have no inhibitions about doing it publicly by sheer will (or in the case of Girls Gone Wild - alcohol).

So there's no point trying to attain even a small amount of liberty, equality or autonomy? You're almost cynical enough to pass for British.

Yup, and the guy in the big house over here thinks he's a king, too. All we need to do is finish raising gas ahem- petrol prices a few more dollars, install more roundabouts, and begin discussing the colour of the Terror Threat Level more. :-)

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[jez9999]

So unless some new laws have been passed making it illegal to do lots of things that are incredibly normal

Like swearing?

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[SeaFox]

Laws against swearing are nothing new, and neither are fines for insulting police officers. In this case, the cops simply didn't believe him when he said he was gesturing to the camera and not to them.

Re:That's a whole lot of cameras

[Firehed]

I'm saying that being in public shouldn't be synonymous with constantly being watched by Big Brother. I can understand it when you're in stores that want to protect their merchandise, but unless the cameras are only there to prosecute drunk students stealing street signs (a government-property shoplifting of sorts), I find the idea quite objectionable. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that my every move isn't being monitored while I'm out and about - or, rather, it shouldn't be, despite that we're becoming a 1984-esque surveillance society.

What the future holds for Britain

[Mr_Toph]

Remember, Remember the Fifth of November... It's that time of year. Anyone remember the backstory from "V for Vendetta"?

Re:What the future holds for Britain

[b0s0z0ku]

Remember, Remember the Fifth of November... It's that time of year.

Ah yes, Guy (aka Guido) Fawkes, the only honest man to set foot in the Houses of Parliament... (He tried to blow them up in 1606.)

-b.

Re:What the future holds for Britain

[CmSpuD]

I personally quite like fireworks, and I'm far from being a child, though maybe a simpleton. Shiny colours and loud noises are brilliant, quit killing your inner child ;D

Re:What the future holds for Britain

[JcMorin]

This movie is not that far from the reality. Maybe 9/11 was just the "terrorism" they needed to enforce their laws!

Re:What the future holds for Britain

[LT7]

It's not always an evil government that's to blame. My experience of living in the UK is that people wont discuss things like adults; if they have a problem with something you are doing, they will just record it and denounce you to the authorities. This may not be the same for everyone in the UK but I am very disturbed about the amount of people I have come across that are constantly snooping on their neighbours. Admittedly this isn't helped by the government, who encourage it, but I don't think overthrowing it would neccessarily change things.

Hey Fark!

[ResidntGeek]

Can we borrow your "obvious" tag?

Funny

[Threni]

It doesn't feel any different. I know we've solved quite a few 20+ year old crimes using DNA, and we found out quite a lot about the July 7th bombers from CCTV. A friend whose car was damaged in a hit and run incident a few months ago managed to find out which insurance company to claim against because of cameras on the road - that wouldn't have been possible if she's just hoped the guy had decided to turn himself in.

Still, I'm sure there's a downside to this technology, otherwise why the fuck would people keep going on and on and on and on about it all the time, as if the presence of cameras somehow stops them from going about their lawful business.

Re:Funny

[joe 155]

I think that your viewpoint is pretty typical of people actually who are in the UK, I am and it doesn't really bother me. A lot of Americans (who will be modding you down right about now) cannot understand how anyone could be happy in this situation because they have a tradition of being suspicious of government and put the right to privacy above many other benifits which might come from this kind of thing...

I'm not saying that any one view is better than another, although for my own part I think that it might help reduce crime by increasing the probability of getting caught and thus changing the pay-off matrix for the criminals, and up to a point it doesn't bother me (which I don't belive we will end up in as the slippery slope arguement tells us)... I actually think that the level that it could go up to is pretty high and I wouldn't be that bothered.

Re:Funny

[weteko]

Word! It's not like I care if people are watching me - it might even be better than not being video recorded in the first place! Just think how all these big brothery gadgets will be to your own benefit when someone accuses you for a crime you actually did not commit. Just demand the video tape/credit card statement/whatever from [wherever you was] and go "I'm sorry. I did not kill that man. I was busy getting hammered at the pub. See?" . For all I care put all those cameras up as live web feeds.

Re:Funny

[badfish99]

No, the camers don't stop people going about their lawful business.

On the other hand, Britain is (yet again) running out of space in its jails. So either the cameras are not having any effect on the crime rate, or else a lot of people are being imprisoned for trivial offences for which they would not have been imprisoned in the past. In the first case they are a waste of money, and in the second case they are having the effect of criminalizing a large proportion of the population.

Re:Funny

[weteko]

In Malmö, Sweden they have been using cameras for 5 years now. The studies have shown that they have not helped to solve a single crime. All it has led to is a lil' privacy debate. I'd post a link if I could find an article that was not in swedish.

Re:Funny

[Poppler]

for my own part I think that it might help reduce crime by increasing the probability of getting caught and thus changing the pay-off matrix for the criminals

It doesn't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2192911.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/ 4294693.stm

Of coarse, it's your country, and it's none of my business that you let your government monitor you. Just don't let them fool you into thinking it's useful for deterring crime. Violent crime in particular is often not a rational act; most criminals are not putting the risk and reward through an algorithm to determine whether or not they should commit the crime.

Re:Funny

[flossie]

I think that your viewpoint is pretty typical of people actually who are in the UK, I am and it doesn't really bother me. A lot of Americans (who will be modding you down right about now) cannot understand how anyone could be happy in this situation because they have a tradition of being suspicious of government and put the right to privacy above many other benifits which might come from this kind of thing...

And similarly, if you talk to many Chinese people you will discover many of them see nothing wrong with their government censoring the internet and preventing freedom of speech for the good of the country.

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Isn't it just all so much easier just to go along with the wishes of those in power? I think so. I don't really have a problem with CCTV either.

Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against those!

Re:Funny

[quintessencesluglord]

I don't think that is a fair assessment. I could be a bit more tolerant of some types of monitoring if there was more transparency to those doing the monitoring. As it is, those in power demand secrecy for every minutia of their dealings under the guise of important business while demanding outrageous amounts of personal information from the public, and not even being held accountable for when they abuse or are careless with that information.

I don't think it is too much to ask to do a cost/benefit analysis before imposing on someone's privacy. And even then, the bigger question of why this is needed goes unanswered, and justifications are thrown out after-the-fact when they may not even be useful at all.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> And similarly, if you talk to many Chinese people you will discover many of them see nothing wrong with their government
> censoring the internet and preventing freedom of speech for the good of the country.

Sure. But in this case, there's no argument against CCTV cameras. It's not like they cause crime. You just hear about `surveillance society`, but if that means people can watch what you do in the street then that's true whether there's a camera there or not. So fucking what? Just get on with your life. If you're not breaking the law, what's it to you? It's just that with cameras (and, more importantly, storage of data captured by cameras) there's some chance to work backwards from a report of a crime to pictures of the people committing the crime. You could see, for instance, the registration number of a car involved in a bank robbery, and work backwards and see where the car came from.

So that's the upside of cameras. The only downside that I can see is you have to put up with people whinging about a `surveillance society` without defining what that is, and what's wrong with it.

> Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against those!

> Isn't it just all so much easier just to go along with the wishes of those in power?

CCTV isn't being imposed on people by `those in power` - or are you talking about China again? I'm not aware of a backlash against CCTV in the UK, other than by people who make complaining about the use of technology to solve crime something of a lifestyle choice. Didn't we get all this about fingerprints too?

> Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against
> those!

Why? Something to hide? Remind me of the downside again?

Re:Funny

[VJ42]

OK Mr "Nothing to hide" What's your full name and address, how much do you earn and how much tax do you pay on it? Post all that here on slashdot please, after all you've nothing to hide, right?

Also would you support mandatory CCTV and microphones placed in peoples houses; that'd make terrorist plots almost impossible to hatch at home, You won't mind a CCTV camera placed in your bathroom will you? You've got nothing to hide.

Re:Funny

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I'm not saying that any one view is better than another, although for my own part I think that it might help reduce crime by increasing the probability of getting caught and thus changing the pay-off matrix for the criminals

Here's another way to look at it, which it doesn't seem like anyone has really considered..

If the only way your populace obeys the law is because they know they might get caught.. what does that say about your society? What does a society really have to offer, that can only control its people through intimidation?

Despite my moniker, I am not actually making such a judgement about life in Britain - that is for you Brits to decide [I am American, and am equally dismayed by my own government's desire to now prohibit all travel except by the DHS's approval]. I merely think it valuable for you all to consider the thought.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> OK Mr "Nothing to hide" What's your full name and address, how much do you earn and how much tax do you pay on it? Post all that
> here on slashdot please, after all you've nothing to hide, right?

That's none of any Slashdot reader's business. I have the right to post it, but I choose not to, because I don't believe I can gain from doing so - I can only lose out. My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me. And if they get up in my face without good reason there are laws that can be employed to prevent/punish them. And CCTV cameras don't reveal that information to people watching me through them, so it's a pretty weak attempt at an analogy.

> Also would you support mandatory CCTV and microphones placed in peoples houses; that'd make terrorist plots almost impossible to
> hatch at home, You won't mind a CCTV camera placed in your bathroom will you? You've got nothing to hide.

What I do in my house is no-one's business but my own. There's no public interest for it to happen. I'm not sure about the US but in the EU we have the right to privacy and so on which would make such intrusions illegal. It's completely different once you step outside, because it's a public space. I don't believe people's phones should be tapped without good reason, but enough people seem to be not bothered sharing their phone conversations with people on buses, trains, pubs etc.

Re:Funny

[maxume]

Why weren't you at work on Tuesday Mr. Smith? What were you doing in that part of town? There are some very curious charges associated with your ident chip, is there some reason you are spending your money on those things? The problem is that it sets the stage for questions like that. Yeah, it's a slippery slope argument, but it simply isn't a slope that some people are interested in standing on -- they don't believe the benefits are worth the risks.

I don't really have anything to hide, but I'm *not* breaking the law, so you don't really have any reason to watch me.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> Just don't let them fool you into thinking it's useful for deterring crime. Violent crime in particular is often not a rational
> act; most criminals are not putting the risk and reward through an algorithm to determine whether or not they should commit the
> crime.

Violent crime is largely caused by people acting under the effect of alcohol. If the victim is also under the effects of alcohol, or didn't see the attacker coming, or is otherwise incapable of giving a good enough description etc then it's fairly unlikely the criminal will be caught. If it's all caught on camera then it's trivial to circulate a photo of him to police forces, local newspapers etc.

The thought processes of criminals is not very important to me, just that they have a much higher likelihood of getting caught if they commit a crime in front of a camera. So I'm not worried if it deters criminals - just that it makes detecting them much easier.

Re:Funny

[ElephanTS]

we found out quite a lot about the July 7th bombers from CCTV

The main evidence used to posthumously charge the 4 men was the Luton station still. This frame has been quite obviously photoshopped. I know I'll be modded into oblivion for questioning this but I feel I should point it out because it bothers me a great deal. The CCTV system of the bus that exploded in Tavistock Square was uncharacteristically not working that day too.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.htm l

Re:Funny

[flossie]

The only downside that I can see is you have to put up with people whinging about a `surveillance society` without defining what that is, and what's wrong with it.

"Surveillance Society" is defined in great detail in the report which led to the article which started this discussion: The Information Commissioner's "A Report on the Surveillance Society".

In this context, surveillance is not just about cameras. They are not even the most important aspect. Unfortunately they are the most visually obvious signs and so the media tend to concentrate on them rather than the underlying framework. The surveillance society is about the database state - the detailed picture of our lives that is assembled by the state, ostensibly in the name of efficiency and serving us better, but often acting in a manner that reduces personal privacy and basic freedoms.

Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against those!

Why? Something to hide? Remind me of the downside again?

The Identity Cards Act requires each of us to notify the authorities of our whereabouts on pain of a 1000 pound fine - why should this be necessary? Why should people escaping domestic violence have to update a central database, to which many thousands of people will have access, when they are trying to hide?

The National Identity Register will record every visit to a clinic. Why should petty officials be able to find out if their neighbour has had an abortion?

A DNA database could potentially allow those with access to know whether we are increased likelihood of suffering from particular diseases later in life, some of which we may not yet even know are genetic and from which you yourself might be at increased risk. There are no safeguards in place to prevent employers or insurance companies from discriminating against such bad risks. Once information is out in the open, there is no way to recover it.

It is extremely foolish to even consider collecting all this information into one central, vulnerable, database when there hasn't been even the slightest thought about who should have access and what rights individuals should retain over the processing of their data.

Re:Funny

[mrogers]

Lawful business... hmm, ever smoked a joint? Driven a bit fast? Bought alcohol when you were under 18? Attended a peaceful demonstration within 1 kilometer of Parliament?

Re:Funny

[VJ42]

My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me.

In that case I'll pay for a masked man with a digital video camera to follow you about 24hrs a day, recording you whilst you are out of your house.* After all that's effectively what CCTV cameras are, would you mind if I (as another citizen and resident of the UK) did that? How about if the government did that to everybody? would you mind then? Or is it the lack of a physical person and the ease with which we forget we are being watched that re-assures you?

And if they get up in my face without good reason there are laws that can be employed to prevent/punish them.

It seems perhaps you do mind if someone decided following you with a camera was a good idea. Why? I thought you had nothing to hide, did you not?

*Sounds a bit like the "minders" that many dictatorships use on foreigners in their country, only we can do it without the need for a person, by relying on technology that those countries cannot afford and to our own citizens.

Re:Funny

[gilgongo]

I actually think that the level that it could go up to is pretty high and I wouldn't be that bothered.

The deception's working rather well with you then, isn't it?

There are two big problems with the "reasonable" line of argument that you've swallowed (and please don't try to say it's your own independent conclusion - that would be too painful to watch). I mean the one that's ready to pile a few "theoretical" disadvantages against what are seen as the real advantage of lower crime rates. The problems are these:

1. By the time you reach the point at which you are saying "OK that's enough monitoring now, thankyou" the chances are very high that it will be too late to cut back. History shows pretty much EVERY time a society starts to monitor its population on the pretext of rooting out some problem like crime or terrorism, or whatever, it can't stop. A vicious circle is created whereby each increment seems "reasonable" - but control's dirty secret is that it is not a means to any practical end, it is only a means to more control. And in any case it doesn't permanently prevent crime (although I suppose it might in North Korea's case, but only because there will be nobody left to control in a few years time), and can actually make it worse (recall 30's alcohol prohibition or the current drug war if you need help on that point).

2. The perception of crime and disorder is just that: a perception. I'm assuming you are in your twenties and don't have any experience of the past worth having. What do you think it was like to live in Britain before CCTV, RFID, realtime ID checks and even fingerprint stores - let's say, oh, 1950, or even 1970? Was it complete anarchy? Was it unsafe to leave your house at night? Of course not. It was probably safer, or at least as safe, as it is now. What needs "fixing" about crime is not that it's getting worse (it's not), but that the perception of it is getting more acute through the activities of the media (who need stories to get ad revenue) and the fact that being "tough on crime" wins votes so no politician is going to want to paint a realistic picture because the truth isn't very interesting.

I want you to think about those two things a bit more, in some more ways, when you are saying to yourself "Ho hum, OK I'll give the nice man my iris prints. It's a reasonable thing to do since there are so many bad people around me. And after all - I have nothing to hide."

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> In that case I'll pay for a masked man with a digital video camera to follow you about 24hrs a day,
> recording you whilst you are out of your house.*

You'd be arrested under the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997".

> How about if the government did that to everybody? would you mind then? Or is it the lack of a
> physical person and the ease with which we forget we are being watched that re-assures you?

No, it's the slight difference between being 1) me being singled out and followed by a masked man and 2) cameras recording what happens in a public space. Has this difference somehow escaped your attention.

> It seems perhaps you do mind if someone decided following you with a camera was a good idea. Why? I
> thought you had nothing to hide, did you not?

I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to be followed by a masked man with a camera.

> *Sounds a bit like the "minders" that many dictatorships use on foreigners in their country

A camera is a bit like being followed by a person? I disagree.

What IS the problem with being filmed as you go about your lawful business? I don't get it.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> Why weren't you at work on Tuesday Mr. Smith?

1) Am I under arrest? If not, then I'll leave.
or
2) No comment.

> What were you doing in that part of town?

1) Going about my lawful business, officer.
2) Am I under arrest? If not, then I'll leave.
or
3) No comment.

> There are some very curious charges associated with your ident chip, is there some reason you are spending your money on those
> things?

No comment.

> The problem is that it sets the stage for questions like that.

Only your paranoia sets the stage for questions like that. They're just as likely to be asked now, once your the focus of their attention. And if `that part of town` is the car park near my house, which has been the scene of people fighting, spraying their name on my garage door, or stealing my car then yeah, I don't mind those questions being asked. Why wouldn't you have a good answer for being there. I do - I live there.

> Yeah, it's a slippery slope argument, but it simply isn't a slope that some people are interested in standing on -- they don't
> believe the benefits are worth the risks.

The benefits are obvious - I've already given one example of how a friend of mine has benefitted from them. I'm still waiting for an example of a risk, but I'm just getting 3rd rate Orwell/PK Dick nonsense.

Re:Funny

[evilviper]

as if the presence of cameras somehow stops them from going about their lawful business.

Absolutely right. No law abiding individual has SECRETS... NONE.

Surely law-abiding people don't mind that they're being videotaped by the government as they meet up with their homosexual lover, go get an abortion or visit the child they put up for adoption years ago. etc. After all, it's perfectly legal, why should you care there's videotape of it all?

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> In Malmö, Sweden they have been using cameras for 5 years now. The studies have shown that they have not helped to solve a single
> crime....I'd post a link if I could find an article that was not in swedish.

I find it hard to believe that not a single stolen car could be recovered, nor any perpetrators of theft/assaulted identified through the use of CCTV cameras over a five year period. Yes, I'd be interested in seeing that.

> All it has led to is a lil' privacy debate.

That doesn't surprise me. Were any sensible objections raised, or was it just more Orwell quotes?

Re:Funny

[VJ42]

me being singled out

And if I paid for all 60mn people in the UK to be followed, with a camera, whilst in public? Of course it'd be cheaper to just place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)

What IS the problem with being filmed as you go about your lawful business? I don't get it.

If you don't get it, than why do you mind me filming you do your "lawful business" but not mind a CCTV camera? To me, they are one and the same. The amount of times I'm caught on CCTV each day the state might as well be paying for a man to be following me (and everybody else) with a camera. And how long your particular business remains lawful is up to the whims of Tony "I'm a straight kinda guy" Blair and the IngSoc^W NuLabour government.

Re:Funny

[maxume]

Up until the point that they start putting people in jail for not answering questions...if you don't think that is a possibility, oh well.

You call me paranoid; how does it feel to be a spineless pantywaste? We can have a difference of opinion about the negative side of being watched, and we clearly do. Repetitively assertions about who is more right are pointless.

Re:Funny

[CompressedAir]

It may work out really well. Widespread CCTV may be the answer to the random crimes that have plagued the urban dweller for as long as there have been urban dwellers.

Just the same, I'm glad the theory is being tested in a country other than my own.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> And if I paid for all 60mn people in the UK to be followed, with a camera, whilst in public?

That's about the quality of the analogies/questions I've seen in this thread, and elsewhere.

> Of course it'd be cheaper to just
> place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)

Let me guess - another Orwell reference, right?

> And how long your particular business remains lawful is up to the whims of Tony "I'm a straight kinda guy" Blair and the IngSoc^W
> NuLabour government.

It's up to a democratically elected government, yes. People are free to vote for a party which will remove CCTV cameras, of course, but I'd like to see the arguments they'd use to argue that doing do would somehow reduce crime. Certainly, I've never seen any.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> Up until the point that they start putting people in jail for not answering questions...if you don't think that is a possibility,
> oh well.

It's a possibility regardless of whether or not there are CCTV cameras.

> You call me paranoid; how does it feel to be a spineless pantywaste?

It feels exactly how it usually feels when I read personal abuse in the absence of a logical argument.

> We can have a difference of opinion about the negative side of being watched, and we clearly do. Repetitively assertions about who
> is more right are pointless.

Which is why I've not made any assertions that I'm right, and have instead repeatedly asked for suggestions as to how CCTV cameras would cause law abiding citizens any unease.

Re:Funny

[badfish99]

I find it hard to believe that not a single stolen car could be recovered, nor any perpetrators of theft/assaulted identified

Of course individual cases get solved in this way. But the studues that have been done show that the overall rate of crime does not decrease. The effect of surveillance is simply to move the problem around, not to reduce it.

Were any sensible objections raised, or was it just more Orwell quotes?

The trouble with this sort of argument is that it just doesn't take ordinary human preferences into account. For some reason, people don't like to be watched all the time. If a stranger followed you around all day, and made notes on everything you did, you would become annoyed. Indeed, such "stalking" behaviour is regarded as a crime. so there must be some "sensible objection" to being watched all the time: the fact that we don't have a word in English to express what the objection is, does not mean that the objection does not exist.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> The main evidence used to posthumously charge the 4 men was the Luton station still. This frame has been quite obviously
> photoshopped.

It's not at all obvious to me.

> I know I'll be modded into oblivion for questioning this but I feel I should point it out because it bothers me a great deal.

Stick your proof on a webpage then, and I'll check it out.

> The CCTV system of the bus that exploded in Tavistock Square was uncharacteristically not working that day too.

A laughable assertion. It's not at all uncommon for CCTV to be not working on buses in London.

Re:Funny

[joe 155]

very interesting, and I am indeed in my twenties, but I would say that the conclusions which I have reached on this are largely my own as a result of some fairly serious (and largely academic) thought... OK, I know that you can use the infinite regression argument, to say for example that I've obviously fallen for the elites hegemony such as that my ideational preferences have been shaped and I can't come to any rational conclusion. But assuming that the structural power of the elites isn't that high (I don't want to go over the top or, even down the positivist route) but I would argue that where we ourselves are concerned we can know our own choices pretty well.

Now, when I say the conclusions are largely my own I mean that of all that I have read in political philosophy (a large number of the major works from Hobbes to Nozick) I find Hobbes's account of the state and the good society the most appealing. Basically (I'm not sure the extent to which you've read Leviathan) the argument goes that before organization of society we were in the state of nature where people can do whatever they "listeth to whomever [they] listeth"*. Now, in this state the life of man is "nasty, brutish and short" and there is largely no high or civil society, because the fruits of any labour can't be guaranteed. The argument goes that because this is so bad we need to give up our rights to all things (most of the problem in the first place) to a single sovereign who will maintain the power of the state of nature and will be able to force order on people with a natural propensity to violence. I mainly see greater monitoring as an extension of the ability of the sovereign to maintain this order, and so long as they can stop me from being killed we should accept it. If the possibility of being killed becomes too high then we no longer have this obligation. If this reduces the possibility of being killed, or at least make sure that the killers get caught quickly and punished effectively then I'm far better off than I was in the state of nature. The monitoring under this view can't really go too far, because pretty much no matter what is done we're still better off than we would be without it. The fear is always that if you give too much liberty you can undermine the project and society will break down, to use a couple of Hobbes' examples when people are far from the sovereigns police then they are more likely to commit a crime (so we should bring the police to all people) and in response to the argument that they are treating everyone like criminals he suggests that by locking our doors (or chests) we do the same to all of humanity anyway, so the sovereign doing it shouldn't be a problem.

I've not been able to get as much down as I would like defending a lack of "civil liberties", but it might give you some idea of the basis of some of my ideas, and I can recommend reading leviathan, or if you're not so much into the 16th century writing style then you could get a book on political philosophy (of course you might be already fully versed in it and just believe in hegemony, which is fine too)


*maybe a simplification, being overly cruel is a matter of debate, although Hobbes does point that it might still be rational to kill over a something as small as "a word" about the wrong thing...

Re:Funny

[weteko]

As far as I understand the use of these types of cameras in Malmö is far from as extensive as in the UK which is partly what the police is saying is the problem with them not working correctly. The report on them also has a lot of whining about how the cameras are not connected to the police central in a good enough fashion and apperently the cameras have very bad picture quality (can't make out if it is one person or a whole group). Personally I think that rings of bullcrap. In five years someone could have fixed these problems. Because of these problems they have not helped in solving a single crime, it is said. "But it has decrease crime because people are scared of the cameras", it goes on to say (without quoting statistics. All of Malmö knows very well that the crimes have just moved). Blaming failure on bad hardware after 5 years of operation. sheesh! And no, no sensible objections. Just the "oh noes! big brother!"

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> And do you know what 60%+of the time the CCTV watchers are watching? The cute girls (maybe even undersage schoolgirls: nobody's
> whatching THEM watching CCTV) in short skirts.
> You happy about that happening to your sister? Mum? Daughter?overflow

Am I happy with people looking at members of my family when they go outside? Well, if *they* weren't happy they presumably wouldn't go outside. But then, they're obviously not as paranoid as it seems some of the tin-foil hat wearers in this thread. I mean - anyone could be watching, couldn't they?!

Re:Funny

[VJ42]

> Of course it'd be cheaper to just > place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)
Let me guess - another Orwell reference, right?

No Orwell reference, just pointing out that placing cameras all around the country to watch people instead of paying someone to follow everyone individually sounds a lot like CCTV to me

It's up to a democratically elected government, yes.

Lots of Nasty regimes were democratically elected when they came to power; Robert Mugabe, for example was democratically elected. That aside, my point is that a democratic election doesn't guarantee a democratic government. Here in the UK, we currently have nothing less than an elected dictatorship with an out of check executive. Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected. At the last election the Conservative party won more votes in England than any other party, yet NuLabour got more seats, add to that the numerous Scots MPs (Mostly NuLabour) voting on issues that don't effect them due to devolution, and I'd say that the UK is seriously lacking in democracy department.

I'd like to see the arguments they'd use to argue that doing do would somehow reduce crime. Certainly, I've never seen any.

I'd like to see the evidence that keeping all those expensive CCTV cameras reduce crime. Certainly I've never seen any. In fact, our prisons are now full to overflowing.

Re:Funny

[mdwh2]

You'd be arrested under the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997".

So much for "My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me."

No, it's the slight difference between being 1) me being singled out and followed by a masked man and 2) cameras recording what happens in a public space. Has this difference somehow escaped your attention.

The difference between (1) A masked man recording what you do in a public space, and (2) cameras recording what everyone does in a public space? No, I don't see a relevant difference.

I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to be followed by a masked man with a camera.

Yes, that's what people say about CCTV. How does it change when the camera is held by a masked man?

I'm not hugely bothered by CCTV, but I don't follow your arguments here.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> Lots of Nasty regimes were democratically elected when they came to power; Robert Mugabe, for example was democratically
> elected.

That has nothing to do with CCTV cameras.

> Here in the UK, we currently have nothing less than an elected dictatorship with an out of check executive

"Dictatorship" and "elected" are mutually exclusive.

> Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected.

So would I. They had a huge majority in the first two of their three recent election wins - the largest in decades.

> At the last election the Conservative party won more votes in England than any other party, yet NuLabour got more seats

No they didn't - they lost on both votes and seats. Also, Labour (there's no such party as "NuLabour" in the UK) won under the same rules as all the other parties - if the Conservatives found the rules unfair they had ample opportunity to change them during their 18 years in power.

Re:Funny

[Stevecrox]

This "masked man" analogy is very lame, cameras are unobtrusive, and they may follow you they may not. Having a masked man follow you with a camera is harassment. If that man was stood on the pavement with a video camera, no one would care. I know this as do you it happens on the streets all the time, you might be indirectly caught in someone else photo, an amateur movie production might use a real location with the public in the vicinity. To try and salvage your 'masked man' analogy I'll ask: How would you feel if there was a masked man on every corner of the street with a video camera? Furthermore how would you feel if every one of those masked men were to follow you with the camera? But again a flawed question! Because there are only so many CCTV operators, you can have a CCTV operator watching dozens sometimes hundred of cameras at once. If someone is tagged as suspicious then they follow this person, but the fact remains unless you're doing something a little suspicious you're unlikely to be followed around. Then again CCTV operators are people and abuses will occur. But there is a point when we must trust the ones who protect us (I'm not saying oversight and accountability are important we need those too.) So I'll try again: How would you feel if there were cameras on tripods on every corner, and sometimes there would be a masked man behind one making it follow you? Well yes you'd be a little creeped out, but at the same token we live with this feeling already with CCTV cameras. You have to assume that there is always someone on the other end. You can deal with this in three ways: 1. Get used to them and ignore them (what everyone has done) 2. Act like you're always being watched in a public space (hrmm people being civil to each other, and less crime) 3. Freak out about your privacy This information isn't kept forever nor is it added to a dossier on you, they keep the tapes for a set time (so if a crime has happened they can use it to reconstruct events) then they use the tapes to record everything again. I think if the government did start keeping this information forever and creating secret portfolios of your every movement I'd be getting in contact with my local MP and making enquires about Guy Fawkes masks. They can do a lot of good the abuses (ignoring a totalitarian state because the UK isn't one even if it does make the occasional step that way) are minor. Get over yourself no one cares what shops you went into, or how your hair looked that day.

Re:Funny

[VJ42]

"Dictatorship" and "elected" are mutually exclusive.

No they are not, as I said in my previous post many dictators start by getting elected into power, then failing to give it up; hence my comment about Robert Mugabe, now widely considered a dictator, he first came to power through democratic elections. Another famous example would "Godwin" this thread. Secondarally, many dictators regularly hold elections; Saddam Hussain kept on getting 99.9% of the vote; the elections were always uncontested, but they were still elections.

> Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected.
So would I. They had a huge majority in the first two of their three recent election wins - the largest in decades.

This makes no sense; how is a large win undemocratic?

No they didn't - they lost on both votes and seats.

In England as opposed to the UK as a whole the Tory party won more votes (by about 60,000 but got 90 fewer seats.)

Also, Labour (there's no such party as "NuLabour" in the UK) won

"new" Labour then if you must.

if the Conservatives found the rules unfair they had ample opportunity to change them during their 18 years in power.

Just because the system suited them at the time, dosen't make it any less unfair, I support neither party (nor the lib-dems), and spoiled my ballot paper at the last election.

Re:Funny

[cmaxx]

Sure, under a relatively benign government, with relatively benign police this surveillance, and the laws that mandate it and hold no enforcable checks against abuses aren't hurting us much.

Yet.

It only takes a little more zeal or stupidity in these places to lead to genuine abuses. And then the lack of checks will become nasty.

And if we get a government which really distrusts its people, and has a strong leader, well, it's happened too many times before in too many places in too many ways to claim that we'll be immune.

We may have invented modern democracy, justice and liberty, but that won't stop us throwing it all away piece by tiny piece if we're not careful. And right now we're not being careful.

Re:Funny

[Sinbios]

>> And do you know what 60%+of the time the CCTV watchers are watching? The cute girls (maybe even undersage schoolgirls: nobody's >> whatching THEM watching CCTV) in short skirts.

Oh noes. And this is a problem for your average citizen how? I'm sure there are lots of people who enjoy looking at cute/underage girls in short skirts. Do you want all of them watched/arrested/tortured? Does this somehow offend your personal sensibilities? Well y'know what, it's not a crime.

>> You happy about that happening to your sister? Mum? Daughter?overflow

Now what does this have to do with anything? Do you have some kind of sister/mom/daughter complex or something? Oh noes, strangers are looking at my sister/mom/daughter on the street, I better make sure they're covered from head to toe so people can't look at them! I guess those guys in the Middle East we keep fighting against for "women's rights" had it right after all.

Re:Funny

[IamTheRealMike]

Erm, the stories you linked to both say that CCTV does reduce crime, however, it does not reduce it by as much as was thought in certain cases - one of which is violent crime. Both stories say CCTV has a big impact on vehicle crime, for instance, and there have been many instances were CCTV evidence was used to help catch criminals. So, you might be right, but the evidence you chose doesn't help your case much ...

Re:Funny

[Ledskof]

The problem with "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" means that you are trusting in the people who are monitoring you. That is the first problem with it in my opinion. I agree with what the AC said about having stuff to hide. Yes we do have stuff to hide, because our personal life is not the business of government. Unless someone is naieve enough to think that government officials have your best interest in mind, they should realize that citizens must always be wary of their government leaders trying to take too much control. As privacy is removed, so is control. Eventually, all citizen control will be removed and you know longer have anything even remotely resembling a democracy.

On the other hand, in light of the repeated corruption, racketeering, profiteering, scandals, bootlicking to lobby groups, lies, murders, pork politics, etc, it is clear that we have no reason to trust anyone legislating to reduce our privacy. In fact, I feel that we should be decreasing the privacy of government officials. When the same people are on the boards of multiple munitions companies, oil companies, military technology companies, militrary contract companies, AND in positions of government office (especially very high level government office), is it not clear that we need to decrease their privacy so we know what their personal agendas are? Because after all, you have to be a blind fool to not realize people in high levels of government are there for purely personal gain. Now consider that a person who not only affects/directs the decisions of the highest levels of government also makes a profit off of their oil/munition/construction/contract/etc company investments. Do you honestly want someone like that reducing your privacy? Do you honestly want someone like that enjoying an accelerated level of privacy?

Privacy is freedom.
Freedom is security. (For all you people who have lost your mind in the name of false security)
Becoming a government official should be a sacrifice of your freedom/privacy to serve the group. Not some kind of lordship where you can make personal profit at public cost.

Re:Funny

[deevnil]

I've worked in places with video cameras and I agree that you can 'forget' they exist, but it doesn't make them go away.

I could understand how this technology could be good and useful in the hands of a benevolent big brother... I think what the concern for most ppl is what happens when you go to war with Eurasia indefinitely and cannot effectively skip work to go see for yourself without getting red flagged for doing something out of the routine. I was reading an article describing the UK traffic cameras as being attached to a database(2 year storage). Some ppl don't seem overly concerned that all of these millions of cameras can be monitored effectively, but databases excel at this sort of thing. Operators need only monitor streams of 'interesting' video. Consider toll routes that you may subscribe to and recieve an rfid passport, if you miss a toll and do not leave the highway within a certain timeframe you and your respective cameras can be flagged 'motorist in limbo' and reviewed to determine if an accident or car trouble has delayed your signature from - theoretically. I don't know what they do with the database information, but as long as the system is in place and becomes accepted and embraced, then you can upgrade for maximum potential. That's when it will be a problem.

Re:Funny

[mikeb]

It may be of interest that 'no comment' can be used in British courts as a symptom of guilt. The right to silence still exists but it is now explicitly stated in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that courts and juries may draw inferences from a suspect's silence in custody or in court (Sections 34 to 39). http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/U kpga_19940033_en_4.htm#mdiv34

Re:Funny

[Jaseoldboss]

I think the increments are being targetted in schools these days. I suppose the reasoning is that if you grow up with total surviellance you won't have known any different. My kids have a 'helpful' library system where they can book out using their fingerprints. I was furious when I found out but by then it was too late.

War on drugs? lets test them! It's optional now and either the kid or the parent can decline but it doesn't say that they won't draw any conclusions.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> The Identity Cards Act requires each of us to notify the authorities of our whereabouts on pain of a 1000 pound fine - why should
> this be necessary?

ID cards is a different issue to CCTV. But I've spent a lot of time in Denmark, where they have ID cards, and I have to say that although I think it's unlikely that we're going to see an immediate increase in the attractiveness of the population of the UK, if we can get even a fraction of the peaceful nature of the Danes here, instead of this brutish, peasant subculture we appear to be incubating, then it can only be a good thing. If I'm stopped on my way to work and asked to show a piece of paper when the police want to know who I am, for whatever reason, then I don't see the problem. I've been stopped by the police several times in the past, and I've had to wait while they radio to somewhere else to get it confirmed. ID cards, if done properly, would make the process quicker. It would help with traffic crime - I've had friends hit by other peoples cars and fake insurance details given. They could be used to check peoples age and try and prevent chav scum from getting alcohol, getting drunk and breaking things.

> A DNA database could potentially allow those with access to know whether we are increased likelihood of suffering
> from particular diseases later in life, some of which we may not yet even know are genetic and from which you yourself might be
> at increased risk. There are no safeguards in place to prevent employers or insurance companies from discriminating against such
> bad risks.

Apart from the Human Tissue Act, you mean? Insurance companies have to work out whether or not someone is worth insuring. They're allowed to take peoples age into account, and existing illness etc. Otherwise how are they supposed to work out what to charge you? It's a business, yes? They exist to make money - you understand that, right? It's just a form of gambling - no-one is forcing you to have insurance. I don't have any.

> Once information is out in the open, there is no way to recover it.

You could make its use illegal, if you so desired. Or would insurance companies hire people and tell them to secretly use the illegal information? "If you tell anyone we're using this data, we're going to hunt you down and kill you!".

> The National Identity Register will record every visit to a clinic. Why should petty officials be able to find out if their
> neighbour has had an abortion?

What makes you think `petty officials` would have access to confidential medical records?

Re:Funny

[gilgongo]

Now, when I say the conclusions are largely my own I mean that of all that I have read in political philosophy (a large number of the major works from Hobbes to Nozick)

Hobbes and Leviathan. OK end of thread. It's too painful to watch.

If I had known you were an itellectual Christian (and let me guess, a fan of John Bunyan too), I would never have replied to your post. My apologies.

Note to self: Remember there are people like this in the civil liberties debate, and ignore them.

Re:Funny

[blackest_k]

The big word is if,
Theres plenty of places just out of view of CCTV camera's, numerous side streets, that are much better locations for a fight for example.

People are aware of CCTV and will avoid it when they can see it might lead to them being arrested. You probably do see a reduction in crime where CCTV camera's operate, but it doesnt make people more law abiding just displaces the criminal behaviour to other area's Other areas may be as close as a few metres from the cctv covered area.

Re:Funny

[Peter Cooper]

> Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against
> those!

Why? Something to hide? Remind me of the downside again?

Let's say you repair a walkie-talkie radio for someone. That walkie-talkie then gets sold on eBay and eventually ends up in the hands of a suicide bomber. Your DNA is then found at a crime scene. Enjoy the interrogation. (Yes, this has happened.)

Re:Funny

[Monsuco]

Still, I'm sure there's a downside to this technology, otherwise why the fuck would people keep going on and on and on and on about it all the time, as if the presence of cameras somehow stops them from going about their lawful business.

Because some people who are paranoid of "big brother" fear any kind of servalence and spread fud. Britain is still one of the least personally restrictive nations in the world. So is the US for that matter, yet both are blasted for trying to monitor their citizens.

Re:Funny

[dircha]

So in exchange for constant government monitoring and at a cost of 3/4 of the crime prevention budget, people see a reduction in vehicle crimes but no significant reduction in violent crimes.

Either the people of the UK really, really like their cars, of they do not value their privacy and freedom from government intrusion.

Well at least they get some benefit from it... in the U.S.A. we give up our freedoms in exchange for the "feeling" of being safe from terrorist attacks.

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

"Because some people who are paranoid of "big brother" fear any kind of servalence and spread fud. Britain is still one of the least personally restrictive nations in the world."

Ever wonder if these two things might be connected?

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

Not just americans will be modding you down, mate.

I'd just like to say this attitude isn't a US/UK difference - it's a "trusting the government and all governments who come after them" versus "not wanting to hand unnecessary power to a group which has been proven time and again to work primarily in their own (or their donors') best interestes, changes every 4-5 years and may not even be the group I voted for" thing.

Oh, and you'll find that the reson that so many of us UK citizens "don't care" about the changes is because we're simply not aware of them. Everyone knows who won X-Factor last night, but if you ask people about not being allowed to demonstrate within a mile of Parliament and being unable to exercise the time-honoured tradition of taking their grievances to Number 10 Downing Street, they don't know what you're talking about. The second they understand what's going on most people get at least slightly uncomfortable about it.

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

"> Lots of Nasty regimes were democratically elected when they came to power; Robert Mugabe, for example was democratically
> elected.

That has nothing to do with CCTV cameras."

Reading this thread form the beginning I'm starting to wonder if you're intentionally missing the point.

CCTV (and changes like it) hands an unprecedented amount of power to the government.

You support this (or at least don't see the problem with it) because you support the government, or at least the idea of an elected government.

Unfortunately you aren't just handing this power to the current UK Labour government - you're handing the power to every single government who ever comes after them, and trusting them to act exactly as you'd wish, too.

While you may support the decisions of the current government, is that reason to reduce your chance of opposing any government, at any point in the future?

It's not a case of "well, there's no reason not to have CCTV so we might as well have it". CCTV and methods like it centralise power. This removes power from the average man in the street. There should be good, compelling and essential reasons before we even think about increasing governmental control like this.

Mere unthinking apathy about the outcome is not a good reason.

""Dictatorship" and "elected" are mutually exclusive."

No they aren't. A dictator is an undemocratic leader. A democracy is one which democratically elects its leader. It's there are many examples (and if you bothered to read history you'd already know) throughout history of leaders who were democratically elected (past tense) but them remained in power through force or intimidation. Voila - a democratically-elected despot.

Was the OP strictly correct in calling the current UK government despotic? Not until they dissolve democratic elections and remain in power. Did your response to this exaggeration betray a complete lack of knowledge of the subject? Yep.

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

"> In that case I'll pay for a masked man with a digital video camera to follow you about 24hrs a day,
> recording you whilst you are out of your house.*

You'd be arrested under the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997"."

Why? I thought you had nothing to hide? If you have nothing to hide, why don't you want to be followed and filmed by a guy in a black mask all day every day?

Unless... y'know... you do have something to hide, just like everybody else, but aren't thoughtful enough to characterise it or honest enough to admit you were wrong.

"No, it's the slight difference between being 1) me being singled out and followed by a masked man and 2) cameras recording what happens in a public space. Has this difference somehow escaped your attention."

Why should the fact you're being singled out bother you? It's entirely possible to track a single person around an entire city-centre in many UK cities. I have a friend who works for the council monitoring their CCTV systems, and he does exactly this for a job - look for suspicious activity, watch, optionally report to the police then track the person to make sure they don't do anything else.

And who cares if you're being tracked by a masked man in a public place, or if you're being tracked remotely by a man sitting in a nice, comfy CCTV office... who may well be wearing a mask for all you know?

You haven't even tried to explain what the difference is, and that's because there isn't a significant one. Instead, when someone corners you you try to back out of the whole argument or change the subject.

Man up and admit your position doesn't make sense, or come back with some (any) sensible arguments in favour of it.

"I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to be followed by a masked man with a camera."

"What IS the problem with being filmed as you go about your lawful business? I don't get it."

And you don't see any inconsistency in this position?

Man, the cognitive dissonance you must be capable of withstanding would make my head explode. :-)

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

"ID cards is a different issue to CCTV. But I've spent a lot of time in Denmark, where they have ID cards"

ID cards, CCTV and the DNA database won't automatically and immediately spell the end of freedom and civil liberties in our society.

In other news, the penultimate chess move doesn't spell checkmate, but once you're in that position it's more or less impossible to escape the one that follows on.

"Insurance companies have to work out whether or not someone is worth insuring. They're allowed to take peoples age into account, and existing illness etc. Otherwise how are they supposed to work out what to charge you? It's a business, yes? They exist to make money - you understand that, right? It's just a form of gambling - no-one is forcing you to have insurance. I don't have any."

Good for you! You're fiscally irresponsible, and could leave your dependants destitute if you happened to fall under a bus tomorrow! Hooray for choice!

Now picture you're a fiscally responsible person with a family and kids who rely on you for income. Now imagine you try to get insurance, but a standard DNA screening shows you have a minute chance of developing Huntingdon's Syndrome. You have 20 years of degenerative physical and mental capability to look forward to, you'll need years of full-time care and any partner or carer will be highly unlikely to be able to work at the same time as caring for you.

The insurance company refuses to insure you. No other company will touch you either, because now you know you've got this possibility to look forward to. Even better, even if the other companies don't pick it up in their screening, when you try to make the claim they may well argue that you knew ahead of time and refuse to honour the claim.

Funnily enough, it's exactly this type of person who most needs insurance. Those of us who are fit, healthy and active until the far-future day we die, and leave behind a vast estate to benefit our dependants don't actually need insurance. Insurance only makes money from the people who don't actually need it. The people who need it aren't profitable. The more insurance companies are allowed to cherry-pick their customers the more profitable they get, and the less reason there is at all to have them.

Hypothetically, if an insurance company had the ability to watch the entire future course of your life and only chose to insure the people who would live very long lives, never be ill, and never get injured... what would be the point of having insurance companies?

"You could make its use illegal, if you so desired. Or would insurance companies hire people and tell them to secretly use the illegal information? "If you tell anyone we're using this data, we're going to hunt you down and kill you!"."

Riiiiiight. Because no big business is ever caught doing anything unethical or illegal.

What planet are you from?

"What makes you think `petty officials` would have access to confidential medical records?"

Because it's very rare that directors or companies or organisations are the ones changing backup tapes and doing low-level database admin work.

In fact, it's almost exactly as unlikely as a big, juicy government-organised IT project remaining secure and unhacked for the entire lifetime of the project.

You think ID theft is easy now? You want until one half-arsed lowest-bidding government IT contractor leaves a SQL injection hole open, and suddenly- SELECT * FROM IDCards WHERE NAME="Joe Bloggs" -your identity is for sale on the open market. In particular because everyone knows "the computer's never wrong".

Good luck with that.

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

Well, since the last poster was somewhat rude in his delivery, let me apologise for him.

To be clear, I don't dispute his opinion at all, merely his delivery of it.

"I find Hobbes's account of the state and the good society the most appealing. Basically... the argument goes that before organization of society we were in the state of nature where people can do whatever they "listeth to whomever [they] listeth"*. Now, in this state the life of man is "nasty, brutish and short" and there is largely no high or civil society, because the fruits of any labour can't be guaranteed."

That's Hobbes' view, sure. And on the other hand we have Rousseau, who believed that animals (including uncivilised man) was in a natural state of grace, and civilisation was a corrupting influence that could only be escaped by returning to nature.

Who says which ones right? I don't thing you'll find a successful, mainstream, respected philosopher that thinks either one of their over-simplified and poorly-argued positions is The Truth.

If you're judging your beliefs on which one "appeals to you more" you should really try getting a better metric, like "which one has the most support", "which one is most internally consistent", and "whether you can ever sensibly draw moral value judgements about amoral value-less aspects of the universe".

And here's a piece of advice - you might find it more interesting (but harder and lesscomfortable) if you consider that both society and nature have "good" and "bad" aspects. And that "good" and "bad" in this context are largely subjective and culturally-defined qualities.

With all due respect, you're obviously well up on the theory and you've obviously read a lot of Hobbes. Can I now recommend reading something that doesn't flatter your preconceptions (hey, even a diametric opposite like Rousseau) to get a bit of perspective on what you're read... and maybe consider that neither one extreme nor the other is as likely to be correct as a synthesis that combines some aspects of both?

Re:Funny

[joe 155]

I have read Roussea to some extent, I must admit, I did find some elements rather attractive within it. I like the notion of the General Will (and the notion that you can force someone to be free), I like his views on citizenship and how that fits into the ideas of the Roman city states. I dare even say that normatively it is an attractive theory, but I think that is about as far as it might go.

I think when application is concerned the theory would fail to be able to be manifested. Take one simple example, that if it is in the General Will that, say, Mr. X should die* he himself should be happy to do so - because if he refuses he is not being free and not following his own rules. I would argue that in reality people wouldn not accept this and would instead run off, leaving the law incapable of opperating effectively. There is also the issue about how long a law from the Gneral Will can last for, but this is more of an internal inconsistency...

So as a bit of a realist anyway I tend to feel that Hobbes' account fits far more into the intuitions which I have. As for a better metric for saying that one theory is "better" than another... I'm not sure that I have one. We could use something akin to the original possition (as per Rawls), in which I'm fairly sure that most people wouldn't chose Hobbes' society (unless they all went for extreme Maximax and hoped to be the soveriegn)... but then we could discount it from a realist stand as having too much abstraction and being a "covenant without the sword". Hobbes' arguement is internally consistent so long as you accept his reasoning on the nature of man (I know, it's pessimistic), although as for being more internally consistent than other theories (which I would say it is) could just be a function of the theory being rather limited in what it is proposing. Hobbes sets out what he thinks society will inevitably be like, why it is and why we shouldn't change it which takes far fewer steps than saying "society should be like this" and then trying to establish end states for all primary social goods.

But hey, I won't argue that good and bad are subjective - if values were just hanging around in the air they would be very queer things (to borrow a phrase). But I remain unconvinced that subjectivity of values actually damages the realist arguement; "sure this might be bad but it can't change", or at least won't, would seem to be the rallying call.

As for a synthesis of these views... maybe it might be better, I'm not too sure. I think we could easily create one which is far less liberal, maybe one day I'll give that a go - I have always fancied having a go at my own political theory, until then I think I'm sticking (largely) with Hobbes.


*I know that the law cannot stipulate a single person to be the object of a law (in Rousseau's terms), but the law could say all people with a specific disease must die and Mr. X could be the only person with that disease

Re:Funny

[slumberer]

OK so the cameras may not act well as a deterrent but at least it increases the likelyhood of someone being caught and punished which is the next best thing. Not ideal but better than nothing.

Re:Funny

[Threni]

> Now picture you're a fiscally responsible person with a family and kids who rely on you for income. Now imagine you try to get
> insurance, but a standard DNA screening shows you have a minute chance of developing Huntingdon's Syndrome. You have 20 years of
> degenerative physical and mental capability to look forward to, you'll need years of full-time care and any partner or carer will
> be highly unlikely to be able to work at the same time as caring for you.

Insurance companies have to make a decision as to how much cover, if any, to provide. There's no onus for them to insure someone with only months to live - that would be financial suicide. That's why they ask you to declare it on the form. If I choose to get insurance, I'd like to be sure that the company I get it from - to provide for my family and so on - will be in business long enough to pay out some/all/more than I pay in, which they won't be if they're not able to use information such as how long you're likely to remain healthy. A company would do better, on average, taking money from people with a minute chance of developing Huntingdon's Syndrome (or whatever) than by turning them all away - it would only make sense for them to exclude people for whom there's a probability that they'll lose them money.

Re:Funny

[Shaper_pmp]

"Insurance companies have to make a decision as to how much cover, if any, to provide. There's no onus for them to insure someone with only months to live - that would be financial suicide."

Fair point, but I never said "months to live" - if you read my post I specifically put a timeframe of around 20+ years on the example.

"A company would do better, on average, taking money from people with a minute chance of developing Huntingdon's Syndrome (or whatever) than by turning them all away - it would only make sense for them to exclude people for whom there's a probability that they'll lose them money."

No, on average the company would do better to refuse all applicants with even the slightest hint that they might later develop Huntingdon's - there are plenty of people out there with no significant "early warning" markers for anything. They can either refuse all potential sufferers and cream off the insurance payments from people who have almost no risk (barring accidents) of collecting, or they can take a punt on a potential future Huntingdon's sufferer, and risk having to lose hundreds of thousands (or even millions) supporting them if they contract the disease.

You're assuming there are enough people out there who run the risk of contracting rare degenerative disorders that insurance companies would effectively have no choice... but that's why they're rare disorders.

To bring it closer to home, how would you feel about paying twice the insurance premiums because you commute four hours a day and don't have time to go jogging? How would you feel if your insurance broker looked at your "lifestyle report" and basically told you to start jogging and stop going to pubs/clubs/bars or you wouldn't get insurance?

The free market is a wonderful thing, but it more or less ensures that the neediest and least-able are going to drop straight through the cracks, simply because it's not cost-effective enough to worry about them.

keylogging *shudder*

[arun_s]

key stroke information used to gauge work rates

All characters in this post painstakingly copy-pasted using mouse :(
God I hate draconian surveillance

Re:keylogging *shudder*

[mrogers]

sadlf aslkjf lksjaf alkj saf lkjsalfkjasf lkjsalfkjs flksajf laksj lfkasjf kjhds dsf
I'd really like to debate this issue with you but I'm too busy being productive.
akljshdf lkjdh fkjlfkajh lkjshd fljsh lkjsahd flkjas dhlkjhsad flkjhd flkjah sdf

Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[khasim]

Cameras merely make a record so that it is possible that the criminal may be identified later.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[hclyff]

Fear of being recorded and punished is sometimes prevention itself.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[b0s0z0ku]

Cameras merely make a record so that it is possible that the criminal may be identified later.

It's the record that is the problem. How long is it kept? If you're running for office 20 years down the line or applying for a job, would you want it to come out that you were speeding at 100mph/kissing a person of the wrong race or gender/talking to someone who ended up being arrested for terrorist 5 years later/etc? If there's a sunset law on the footage, that anything not involved in a criminal investigation is subject to mandatory destruction after three months, I'd have less of a problem with CCTV cameras. And no recording of voice - that's a bit too intrusive and creepy and isn't needed to detect crimes of violence for the most part.

-b.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[chris_eineke]

Sooo, lemme summarize:

1. You may not carry weapons or defend yourself properly.
2. A criminal assaults you and if he's in a bad mood, he'll kill you, too.
3. The police cleans up your body.
4. The crime's on camera, but you're still dead.

But, you say, criminals will be discouraged from committing crimes if they're monitored.

First an observation: they're not monitoring criminals, they're monitoring you. And you aren't a criminal, so why are they monitoring you?

1. Criminals commit crimes even if they're monitored. Popular example: watch C.O.P.S. and see how many criminals are "caught on tape" burglarizing a gas station or a convenience store.
2. Crimes will become more violent. If they have less time to elicit money from you, they will go faster for the kill.
3. Police will do a worse job, because "now the crime are on camera and will discourage criminals from committing crimes."
4. You're still dead.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[Conor Turton]

1. Yes you can defend yourself with reasonable force. There have been a few people who have shot burglars and not been charged. 2. Extremely rare. Certainly so rare that it still makes headline news.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[RealSurreal]

Wow! I can barely see the gaps in your logic. If only it had been recorded on CCTV so we could watch in slo-mo as you go completely off track.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[h2g2bob]

"You may not carry weapons." - well I'm glad about that. The UK has a long history of not having weapons in civilian life (even the police don't normally have weapons with them). I don't see that contries with weapons are safer.

On the issue of time, most CCTV footage is only arround for a few weeks, if that. Plus the camera has to work and have film in it, which seems to be a struggle for many camera operators.

The main reason for CCTV footage is to provide evidence that a crime was commited, rather than discoraging you from going on a killing spree. But a lot of the time this evidence is insufficient to prove something in court, so there's not a lot of point.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[Stormx2]

Its an entirely different situation in the UK. I mean, cameras DO help. The arguements "You're still dead" means nothing. Thats a horrible point to put across, because you are saying that no lessons can be learnt from murders. They can, and clearly they are being learnt. What theory do you put forward, why would we be putting cameras up if they didn't help catch criminals?

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[Virgil Tibbs]

cameras tend to be glorified webcams - crap resolution - 2fps

identifieing criminals from them tends to be a joke

they are generally used for being certain that a crime took place, who was witnesses, what clothes etc

from cctv it is very difficult to identify induvidual people unless you already have some idea who they are

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[SeaFox]

If you're running for office 20 years down the line or applying for a job, would you want it to come out that you were speeding at 100mph/kissing a person of the wrong race or gender/talking to someone who ended up being arrested for terrorist 5 years later/etc?

How is this any different than people taking pictures on the street on their own? A photographer for a newspaper for example? Should we have laws all microfilm records of newspapers be distroyed after a set amount of time? After all, we can't have it revealed that our leaders may have supported a view that while abhorred now, was quite popular at the time the photo was taken...

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[Bishop923]

How is this any different than people taking pictures on the street on their own?

Because depending on your local laws, it is either illegal or VERY bad form to use a photograph of someone without their permission. 99% of the time people don't care, or will purposely stand in front of the camera("Hey Mom!") but if someone takes your picture you can always go to the person and ask that they not use it. If they use it anyway, at the bare minimum you can sue them. You can't do the same thing with a state-controlled video camera.

We have absolutely NO idea:

• How long the video records are kept(1 month, 1 year, indefinite?)
• How they are stored(tape,optical disc, massive database connected to the internet with Diebold Election style security...?)
• If they have any notion of tamper-proofing (especially if there isn't an immutable hard copy this could be ripe for abuse)
• How they are indexed.(With the right kind of facial recognition can they run a search for anyone with a valid state issued photo ID and find out exactly where a person was and when?)
• When or if the video is disposed of
• The method of that disposal. (is that crate of DVD backups from the camera across from the AIDS clinic going to end up in a dumpster for anyone to pick up?)
• If the data is available to corporations. (I could see massive abuse by Insurance companies, retailers wanting more data on consumer habits, companies looking for a reason to void waranties, etc)
• The type of analysis done on the video. (Am I going to end up on a terroist watch list because I happen to have similar habits to a local sleeper cell member?)
• What other kind of information is stored with that video (Audio, Anomalous Substance detection... if you get a barium enema, are you subject to secret PATRIOT ACT sort of investigation because of a trace radiological signature?)

I admit that I am paranoid, but just the sheer number of unanswered questions and the lame "We will only use in emergencies or to get Terrorists" excuse should be enough to make anyone's "Spidey-Sense" tingle a little.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[Kesh]

The difference is, it's everywhere and in the hands of the current government. A challenger to that government could find themselves in a very awkward position if said government used those surveillance records against them, regardless of context. It's different from having one person photographed by a random reporter or citizen on the street, versus having cameras virtually everywhere you go automatically recording your actions.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[SeaFox]

Because depending on your local laws, it is either illegal or VERY bad form to use a photograph of someone without their permission.

I'm sorry, that is completely WRONG (unless you are citing UK law). There are generally no laws against taking pictures of someone in public. In fact, there are no laws against taking pictures of private property as long as you are standing on public property and the shot is in plain view.

Please review the Photographer's Right (PDF).

if someone takes your picture you can always go to the person and ask that they not use it. If they use it anyway, at the bare minimum you can sue them.

That's only if they are using it for commercial purposes.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[SeaFox]

The difference is, it's everywhere and in the hands of the current government. A challenger to that government could find themselves in a very awkward position if said government used those surveillance records against them, regardless of context.

Just like the photographs damning the current government can be posted online, photocopied, reprinted, emailed, or faxed making them equally umbiqitous. There is no inherent advantage to the government in this situation except that they are already in power and people will be more inclined to believe them depending on current public opinion. With the way photos and even video can be doctored now I wonder sometimes how anyone can consider "photographic evidence" to be anything close.

It's different from having one person photographed by a random reporter or citizen on the street, versus having cameras virtually everywhere you go automatically recording your actions.

Assuming said cameras really are that numerous and are actually focusing on you the whole time. Which is highly unlikely as I have repeatedly pointed out due to the sheer number difference between citizens vs. cameras, and compound that by cameras vs. operators watching them.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[rolfwind]

Um, because these cameras are on 24/7, 365 days a year, in the same spot continuously, in many many locations. A photographer can't and won't have that many opportunities. And a normal person has a chance not to be photographed by them.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[ultranova]

The arguements "You're still dead" means nothing. Thats a horrible point to put across, because you are saying that no lessons can be learnt from murders. They can, and clearly they are being learnt.

And you're still dead.

What theory do you put forward, why would we be putting cameras up if they didn't help catch criminals?

Presumably to better monitor law-abiding citizens and keep them under control.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[Stormx2]

So no lessons can be learnt from killings?

Keeping law-abiding citizens under control is the point though. Its keeping them law-abiding. If you do something stupid on a camera in the UK, the only people interested are gonna be the police, or some security body, like in a record shop. They aren't going to put it on "CAUGHT ON CCTV: MAN PICKS NOSE, LOSES JOB". People are law-abiding citizens till they commit a crime on CCTV. What if some woman got raped, and they caught they guy with CCTV? It does happen. I'm not fan of the current government but this is one policy they got right.

If you dare reply "And you're still dead", I hope no one ever has to listen to you again. It's just childish, this should be a discussion.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[teh kurisu]

First an observation: they're not monitoring criminals, they're monitoring you.

They're not? Do they black them out? That's remarkable.

This article makes it sound like every single camera in the country is sending images directly to 10 Downing Street, which is utter rubbish. Most cameras will be under the control of local police forces, and a significant proportion will be located on private property for security purposes. And the national government is in general not responsible for town centre cameras (local councils are), so I think it's a bit unfair that they're getting blamed for their use.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[fuzzybunny]

They aren't going to put it on "CAUGHT ON CCTV: MAN PICKS NOSE, LOSES JOB"

Actually, they do. The number of people caught doing embarrassing things on "XYZ country's stupidest CCTV videos" shows with cops laughing at them is pretty staggering. You've got to have a pretty short memory to forget about numerous incidents of police using various databases to stalk women they fancy, accidental "cross-pollination" of datasets containing sensitive information (one incident of AIDS patient info being fed to health insurers comes to mind) and general police abuse of surveillance powers to disregard this very real possibility.

Furthermore, define "crime". Who says what's a crime? Take a close look at what's covered by RIP, ASBOs and the PTA. As an American, I have a hard time right now lecturing anyone about concepts like habeas corpus and oversight of government agencies to ensure they only use their powers responsibly. Nonetheless, once the mechanisms for universal supervision and enforcement are in place, there's little to stop a government, even a well-meaning one, from incrementally selling totalitarianism to its people under the guise of protecting them for their own good.

The thing that bothers me about this discussion, if you read the article, is Graham Gerrard's quote at the end, which basically amounts to "well, it's legitimate because if it weren't we'd never do it." Trust us. Honest.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crimes.

[NickFitz]

Plus the camera has to work and have film in it, which seems to be a struggle for many camera operators.

The CCTV systems used to assist in keeping public order in British cities and towns don't use film; they are connected to (and recorded to either tape or digital media at) a central control room for the area, where operators keep an eye on things 24/7, with direct communication links to the emergency services (Police, Fire & Rescue, Ambulance/Paramedics, and presumably the Coastguard in relevant areas).

You may be thinking of older speed - sorry, road safety - cameras, which were often useless because of the month's film budget having been used up. But that problem (or solution ;-) has pretty much disappeared, as the vast majority of traffic-policing-related cameras are now also digital - which is why there's no longer any point blowing them up when you're caught speeding.

(And, for what it's worth, all cities and many towns in the UK also have a third, separate network of cameras used by Area Traffic Control, who then get the local radio station to tell you that you're stuck in a traffic jam.)

Won't be long...

[__aaclcg7560]

A back to nature movement will rise up to smash all those cameras so people can walk around naked in public again.

Re:Won't be long...

[chrisjbuck]

Slashdotters behold!

Go back to nature,
Go forth naked into the world thereby shattering the lenses of your oppressors!

So it is key-logged, so let it be done!

I wouldn't mind so much

[dettifoss]

...about the cameras if only I was a little more photogenic :(

The list of the countries

[eMago]

The "privacy rating" list of the 36 countries mentionted in the article can be found here: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2005 /phrtable.pdf

As it seems, the quite bureaucratic Germany has learned from its history (three police states in a century: the Second Empire with the Prussian secret police, Nazi Germany with the GESTAPO/SD/SS and socialist Eastern Germany with the STASI), however privacy is eroding there nearly as quickly as anywhere else.

Where will this (cultural?) trend in the western world lead to and where will it end? I think the older Germans know and perhaps some already prepare for the next autocracy/surveillance society.

Re:The list of the countries

[owlnation]

I have only anecdotal evidence to support this but...,

As a Brit living in Germany, I have to say that Germany feels far far more oppressive than the UK. While I may be on camera and my shopping may be monitored in the UK, I am free to live wherever I wish without state interference.

I cannot do that in Germany. Everytime I move house here I have to sit for hours in a miserable state office to inform them of where I now live. I am fined if I do not do so quick enough. I cannot leave the house in Germany without carrying my passport. I am stopped regularly in my car on on my bicycle and checked to see if lights etc are working correctly. Germany also has it's "pre-crime" law where the police can detain you for 24 hours when they think you might be about to commit a crime - this was frequently used during this year's World Cup.

All of this behaviour would, rightly, be completely unacceptable in the UK. So, while I certainly do have concerns about the cameras and the erosion of Privacy in the UK, I do feel that that society is not yet nearly as fascist as that of Germany.

Re:The list of the countries

[LubosD]

The list is very interesting.

For Czech Rep. I'd agree with the most of them except for ID cards and Biometrics (rated 2). I don't understand what is it based on: our country doesn't gather any biometric data (eye color at max, but I'm not even sure about that) and our ID cards don't contain more information that German ones (rated 4).

The table is also quite incomplete. I think that most countries with '-' in the Data sharing column would get 4 or 5.

Germany may be on the top just because it has *all* information filled in with *real* data...

Re:The list of the countries

[pafrusurewa]

I cannot leave the house in Germany without carrying my passport.

It's worse than that, as a British citizen you can't leave the UK without carrying your passport (or equivalent documents). Just like I have to carry my passport if I go to the UK. IOW, that's a really stupid complaint.

And if you want fascist, let's just say you don't want to enter the UK in a car on a ferry as a non-Brit. I've never had an experience like that entering any other country.

Re:The list of the countries

[Clod9]

I think you missed what was said. In Germany, you are required to carry your passport AT ALL TIMES, no matter who you are. This is not true in the UK or the US...there, you are NOT required to carry identification except when crossing borders. It's not a stupid complaint -- it means that, if you're not carrying ID, the police can arrest you regardless of where you are or what you're doing. It has happened to a friend of mine, too, it's not just a theoretical possibility. They were nice about it, but it was sure inconvenient.

I'll keep in mind what you said about ferries. I came across the Channel Tunnel once and I must say the British were a lot more friendly than the French were on the return. I guess capricious border guards are everywhere.

2006 and 2016

[Jeremy Erwin]

Two appendices purport to give glimpses into life in britain in 2006 and 2016. The 2016 scenario reminds me of the later simulations in A Mind Forever Voyaging

In residential areas, public area CCTV has almost entirely
become Open-Circuit Television (OCTV). All under 18s are currently barred from
entering or leaving the Estate from 6pm until 6am. For Sara, this means that to see
her best friend, Aleesha, outside school hours, one of them has to risk an encounter
with the estate's Community Wardens, who are armed with tazers and tend to shot
first and ask questions later.

Summary incorrect

[mustafap]

>Richard Thomas, the information commissioner for Great Britain, says that fears of the nation's 'sleep-walk into a surveillance society'

That is not true. I heard his comments, both last year and this year.

Last year he said

"I think we are sleep-walk into a surveillance society"

this year he said

"We have sleep-walked into a surveillance society"

He never said 'fear'

He wants a debate as to whether or not this is something we want.

Don't put words into his mouth to make your subjects sound interesting.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[b0s0z0ku]

Democracies do surveillance, perhaps more than they should or need.

Dictatorships do censorship, political prosecution and incarceration, banning, executions opponents etc.

So if you are being surveyed you can think of yourself as lucky.

No. Dictatorships do both. The STASI, for example, had some of the most extensive files on E. Germany's citizens of any agency. Secondly, a surveillance society sets up a framework and a culture (we're used to being spied upon) that can easily and quickly be abused by a dictatorship if it should come into power.

Lastly, there are different kinds of dictatorships. There's the hard kind that'll shoot you for any deviation from the rules. And there's the softly creeping matriarchal kind that will simply hit you with fines, send you to sensitivity training, and ban anything dangerous and exciting for your own good, of course. Governments learn from past mistakes, too, and the next dictatorship won't be like previous ones. It may even be gradually put in place with the best of intentions.

Cheers,

-b.

Terrorstorm DVD

[LM741N]

Search Amazon for the Terrorstorm DVD by Alex Jones. One section of the video has some excellent pictures of the camera systems in use in Britain. On a more general note about the video, it is an excellent documentary about the rise in state sponsored terrorism. Last I checked it was #21 in popularity for Amazon DVD's. Alternatively, you can find it on Google video or at www.infowars.com.

Re:Terrorstorm DVD

[evilviper]

One section of the video has some excellent pictures of the camera systems in use in Britain. On a more general note about the video, it is an excellent documentary about the rise in state sponsored terrorism.

NOTHING Alex Jones has ever done can possibly be called "excellent".

His format is taking select comments out of context, relying on typos, using unverified statements from completely random/anonymous individuals, etc.

But if you want to hear some baseless bullshit evidence about how HAARP is a weather machine designed to cause hurricanes and lightning... Alex Jones is your man.

Change

[42Penguins]

Why not try to make a change? Tomorrow is the 5th of November, after all.

Re:Change

[b0s0z0ku]

Why not try to make a change? Tomorrow is the 5th of November, after all.

Hear! Hear!

Re:Change

[Hogwash McFly]

They hear everything.

Re:Change

[Tim C]

And don't forget, would-be Conspirators, they don't even hang, draw and quarter people any more!

Re:Change

[tehcyder]

Why not try to make a change? Tomorrow is the 5th of November, after all.

Let me guess, if this was America, all the citizens would take up their constitutional right ro bear arms and overthrow the evil government, right?

One Englishmen I know maintains

[rolfwind]

that this all is very necessary to catch the bad guys and if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

He's planning to move to America next year because he can't take the high taxes and cost of living anymore, among other things. I wonder if he ever connected the two. (Remember all those new surcharges to fly these days after 9/11 to pay for the federalization of the security workforce and multiply that throughout an entire society.)

Re:One Englishmen I know maintains

[kinnell]

he can't take the high taxes and cost of living anymore, among other things. I wonder if he ever connected the two

In Germany they pay close to twice as much tax as Britain, yet the cost of living is considerably lower. What connection are you expecting him to make?

Re:One Englishmen I know maintains

[majutsu]

Since he knows noting of the German tax system, the answer would be: Not a damn thing!

crimes we didn't know existed

[Jeremy Erwin]

From the article:

Have Your Say...
  If it prevents criminal behaviour or improves its detection I'm all for it.
Mark Jones, Plymouth

Pretty spooky, but

[Stephen Tennant]

at the same time, the perfect place to go if you needed an alibi.

Excuse me, this already goes on in the U.S.

[BeeBeard]

This part of the article/summary caught my eye:

...and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.

I don't know if I'm helping to dismantle the vapid Orwellian scare tactics that the article has adopted or if I'm just adding to them by pointing this out. The work climate and employment laws in the U.K. may differ from those of the U.S., but in the United States, this already happens.

The Americans With Disabilities Act proscribes discrimination against disabled Americans and imposes a burden upon employers to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled. Now let's say I'm a very pragmatic employer, and I know that under workers' compensation schemes, if I hire an-already disabled worker and that person injures themselves further and gets even more disabled, then I'm really, really paying serious money because of it. For example, let's say I run a factory that presses steel girders, and I chance hiring Joe, who only has one eye. Well, Joe isn't a lucky guy. Three months down the line, he has an accident at my factory that costs him the only eye he has left. It's an injury to one eye--if I had hired someone who had two good eyes to start with, I'd be paying much, much less in workers compensation to that person than I would to Joe, who is now completely blind. So what I do is, despite the ADA, I just find every legal excuse in the world to not hire Joe.

That's just how we Yanks play the game. The U.K. was the home to the Industrial Revolution and probably has a far richer history of workers' compensation than the U.S. The rules of the hiring game and how it's played are undoubtedly the same. Don't want to burst anybody's fortune-telling bubble, but we already do most of what the article has predicted.

Re:Excuse me, this already goes on in the U.S.

[VJ42]

Similar legislation exists here in the UK, but we have the NHS in the UK, so paying for health care isn't an issue; discrimination still happens, but it's often to do with perceived problems with the disabled rather than real ones. And it's a problem that's being tackled, but like racist and sexist* based decisions it appears to be declining

*This is probably a bigger problem with lots of bosses reluctant to employ women of childbearing age due to costs of statutory regulations over maternity leave and pay. And yes, like you Americans employers will come up with all sorts of excuses not to hire young women.

Excellent!

[Durrok]

With Oceania allied with Eurasia we will be able to defeat Eastasia with ease! Quick, time for our two minutes of hate!

Slippery Slopes

[Jeremy Erwin]

To defend against allegations that one's policies will lead eventually to an untenable moral outrage, it is not enough to call these arguments "a slippery slope." Some slopes are slippery. A better tactic is to argue that there are in fact boundaries to your proposals-- bright lines that cannot accidentally be crossed by the unwary.

But this defense of surveillance does not give me any comfort.

Graham Gerrard from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said there were safeguards against the abuse of surveillance by officers.

"The police use of surveillance is probably the most regulated of any group in society," he told the BBC.

"Richard Thomas was particularly concerned about unseen, uncontrolled or excessive surveillance. Well, any of the police surveillance that is unseen is in fact controlled and has to be proportionate otherwise it would never get authorised."

"Proportionate" is a slippery slope.

Denied Jobs due to health risk.. just a start.

[nurb432]

Take that one step farther, and you might get denied purely due to your spending habits or your friends. "we dont approve of those books you buy" or "well, we see you have friends that live in the wrong side of town, and you visit them often"

Dont forget insurance rates going up "we see you drive often in a higher crime area then you live, so we will be rasing your rate to compensate"

Re:Denied Jobs due to health risk.. just a start.

[nurb432]

Good thing i dont use my real name on here, isnt it.

Re:Remember remember

[heinousjay]

Get the comic book, it's even cooler than the movie.

I've had toenail clippings that were even cooler than that movie.

School

[Stormx2]

"schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat". My school already does that. We were all given a card, which took about a day worth of lessons away getting all the pictures taken for "authentification". When we pay, the picture comes up on the brand new expensive tills.

Too bad it doesn't work. It means that people can't put their money together to buy a packet of crisps and share it, etc. But the big problem is if someone's forgotten their card and want to pay with someone elses. Well thats the point, there isn't a problem. I'd say about 75% of the time you go right through, no problem. And if not, you just go to another one of the staff.

They hold all the data but don't share it. Theres a £5 charge for a new card (Thats over $10, I think). This is from a school where we they can't afford good staff. It has got its head stuck up its own ass...

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[little1973]

You can even say that today, democracy is nothing more than a dictatorship where you can change the dictator in every four year. During that time you can't do anything against those who are in power. Unless they give up their power willingly you have to stage a revolution if you want a change. Simple protests are futile.

So, what do you call a system where you can't force those who are in power to leave without bloodshed? A dictatorship.

Re:Cultural Differences

[b0s0z0ku]

Sure, it's ironic given that the brits wrote 1984,

No: one Brit - George Orwell/Eric Blair - wrote 1984. Perhaps he knew his countrymen all too well and realized that a surveillance society was a possibility or inevitability in Britain.

-b.

What do people want?

[houghi]

On the one side there is an outcry from some that this attacks the privacy and on the other side people are uploading their most shamefule pictures and moviemoments to show the world.

One used to say: 'Give me freedom or give me death' Now people seem to say: 'I don't want to die, no matter how I am forced to live.'

Oh well, I am off watching Big Brother.

it's a slow but steady process

[n1ckgb]

What scares me is that we are in a slow process that is eroding our traditional freedoms and safeguards bit by bit, and most people don't notice. They also don't consider the long term implications of what is happening. Last year, the UK government wanted to pass a law that would allow "terror suspects" to be imprisoned indefinitely with the approval of the Home Secretary, without charge. The suspect would not have been entitled to legal representation, or to hear the evidence against him/her. In other words, a politician could theoretically lock someone up for ever. Fortunately, in this particular case, the measure was watered down significantly before it became law and there is now a time limit (maybe 1 month?). What is going to happen with all the data that will be available? All the data from number plate and facial recognition, credit cards purchases, web browsing history and phone records, travel arrangements etc. It will be too much for human staff at the security services to process and sort, so how long before the job is done by computer (if it isn't already)? How long for instance before certin individuals are selected for extra searchs every time they pass through an airport, because some pattern-matching software running at GCHQ decides they are a risk? Will there be any right to appeal, and indeed who will you appeal to?

Watching Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

The real point of CCTV and similiar Surveillance is not to monitor or provide evidence for investigation; it is to change behaviour.

When you think you are being watched, you watch yourself. You don't do things you might otherwise do.

To take a flippant example, say you were on an empty street. You might choose to skip down the street for fun, knowing there is noone else around to chatise you for silly behaviour.
If there is a camera on the street (which you can never know is in use or not), or even if you think there might be a camera on the street, you won't do it.

Take this principal and extrapolate it to all social behaviour; the result of all this surveillance is to produce an overwhelming conformity and predictability in the social behaviour of a population.
And never underestimate the importance of predictability to the powerful.

Re:Watching Yourself

[b0s0z0ku]

You might choose to skip down the street for fun, knowing there is noone else around to chatise you for silly behaviour.

If there is a camera on the street (which you can never know is in use or not), or even if you think there might be a camera on the street, you won't do it.

Right, I wouldn't skip down the street. I'd skip down the street towards the camera then break dance while wearing a giant latex penis on my head with a sign on my back - To The Watchers: This Is You... When the cameras are present, by all means perform for them. That's what they're there for.

-b.

Re:Watching Yourself

[kfg]

Take this principal and extrapolate it to all social behaviour; the result of all this surveillance is to produce an overwhelming conformity and predictability in the social behaviour of a population.
And never underestimate the importance of predictability to the powerful.

It means that anyone skipping down the street is not merely being silly, but "suspicious."

KFG

Re:Watching Yourself

[jimicus]

If there is a camera on the street (which you can never know is in use or not), or even if you think there might be a camera on the street, you won't do it.

You might. Because you're acting rationally.

But a lot (an awful lot) of crime isn't committed by people acting rationally. Attacked by someone for no reason? Well, if they were drunk then they probably weren't thinking "ooh, better not, there's a camera up there". (And with 4.2 million of them, it doesn't take long to forget that it exists in the first place).

Burgled? If all they pinched was the TV, let's face it, they're hardly hardened criminals making a living out of pinching someone's grotty old telly. Far more likely they're drug addicts hoping to get enough money for their next hit. Again, not exactly the most rational members of society.

Re:Watching Yourself

[tehcyder]

You might choose to skip down the street for fun[...} If there is a camera on the street (which you can never know is in use or not), or even if you think there might be a camera on the street, you won't do it.

If you really believe that, if you really think that anyone cares about you skipping in the street, and if you really would alter your behaviour like a drone, then you don't need fucking CCTV cameras to control you, your paranoid mind is doing it for you.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[boarder8925]

So if you are being surveyed you can think of yourself as lucky.

You're saying that we should be happy with having my public movements tracked by the government?

You, sir, are a dumbass. Thinking like that is what will eventually make the UK, U.S., and other once-half-free countries into fascist nations. The government just loves it when the citizenry goes along with their latest and greatest draconian measures.

You have privacy in public when anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if there's one place I'm concerned about privacy, it's when I'm out in public.

Your sentence may sound cute, but it's naive.

When we're out in public, we do still have a *large* amount of privacy through being anonymous, at least in medium size cities and up. You can walk into a lingerie shop and ask the salesgirl for kinky underwear saying "It's a present for my wife" without everyone looking at you because they know you're not married. It's a sort of "virtual privacy", and it holds with respect to the government too. Your life is still yours and not in the public eye.

That "virtual privacy" changes dramatically with regard to those in authority when there are cameras everywhere, and "odd behaviour" gets noted down on your file. You may think that that doesn't matter, since they're not going to pull you in for buying kinky underwear, but all these things add up. If they're looking for a serial killer of hookers who's trademark is a fondness for lingerie and who *might* live in your area, then all of a sudden you're on the suspects list.

Maybe you're just too young to know how the world works yet. Well, you'll wake up one day and discover just how nasty a place it can be when someone has power over you. And one of the few protections we have against that is our privacy.

Don't knock it.

Re:You have privacy in public when anonymous

[SeaFox]

When we're out in public, we do still have a *large* amount of privacy through being anonymous, at least in medium size cities and up. You can walk into a lingerie shop and ask the salesgirl for kinky underwear saying "It's a present for my wife" without everyone looking at you because they know you're not married. It's a sort of "virtual privacy", and it holds with respect to the government too. Your life is still yours and not in the public eye.

Unless the government is following you right out of your house, how does the camera tell them who you are? Oh, that's right, facial recognition technology. Giving a computer the same power recognize faces as ordinary human beings. Stores are private property, do you forsee many businesses allowing the government to install cameras inside their premesis? I don't. It would make labor and safety abuses a lot easier to catch. So how is the government to know you bought women's lingerie and not silk bikini briefs for yourself without cooperation from the store?

That "virtual privacy" changes dramatically with regard to those in authority when there are cameras everywhere, and "odd behaviour" gets noted down on your file. You may think that that doesn't matter, since they're not going to pull you in for buying kinky underwear, but all these things add up. If they're looking for a serial killer of hookers who's trademark is a fondness for lingerie and who *might* live in your area, then all of a sudden you're on the suspects list.

In a medium to large size city the number of people who would be interested in lingerie would be too large to make this a practical profile method. It's like when America's Most Wanted puts up a bulliten for a "white male age 25-30 with blonde hair and brown eyes", everyone ignores it because it describes at least three of their friends.

Also, you forgot that if the surveillance were that pervasive, it could actually work to you advantage. As you said, several things would "add up" about your behavior. So, lingerie fetish - check, was at scene of first murder on night in question? Nope, our CCTV cameras did not show you in the area of the park on the evening of June 21st, guess you're not him. Or, what about this other murder on Downy St? You live alone so your alibi you were at home at that time really doesn't hold well, but wait, our CCTV camera from your street recorded you going into your house at 8pm and you didn't emerge until ten the next morning.

you'll wake up one day and discover just how nasty a place it can be when someone has power over you. And one of the few protections we have against that is our privacy.

It's only power against us if there is a reason to do something and they take action. This would require laws. A threat of action through constant surveillance only works on people paranoid about the government to begin with and sure they are doing something wrong, whether it's true or not. Like FDR said: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

Every time one of these stories comes up I'm reminded of the privacy outcry over everyone having cameras in their cell phones. Oh noes! If I'm walking down the street someone could take my picture! But why would they want to?

Also, those promised technologies of scrambling built into digital cameras so your face gets blurred in photographs if you're wearing a badge that triggers the function in that camera. If privacy/security paranoia like this takes hold in mass what do you get? Everyone wearing face scramble badges. But why stop there? People photographing buildings already get the third degree from security guards. Better put out a scramble signal from the roof so anyone trying to photograph the building from outside is also stopped! Now imagine how the arts would suffer. If you tried to take a picture of the New York skyline or film a television show, you would have to get every business to shut off their "shield" or

Re:You have privacy in public when anonymous

[fredklein]

So how is the government to know you bought women's lingerie and not silk bikini briefs for yourself without cooperation from the store?

RFID. If things keep going the way they are going, soon everything you buy will have an RFID tag in it.

So, lingerie fetish - check, was at scene of first murder on night in question? Nope, our CCTV cameras did not show you in the area of the park on the evening of June 21st, guess you're not him.

CCTV cameras are useless for IDing someone. What if the murderer wears a baseball cap, and his face is in shadow? Anyone can wear a baseball cap...

Or, what about this other murder on Downy St? You live alone so your alibi you were at home at that time really doesn't hold well, but wait, our CCTV camera from your street recorded you going into your house at 8pm and you didn't emerge until ten the next morning.

1) See above. CCTV can't tell the difference between me and my neighbor.
2) I could have walked out the BACK DOOR. Or jumped out a window, for that matter.

It's only power against us if there is a reason to do something and they take action. This would require laws. A threat of action through constant surveillance only works on people paranoid about the government to begin with and sure they are doing something wrong, whether it's true or not.

There are different laws in different places. Even in the same place, there are different laws at different times. What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow. What 'todays government' may not care about, 'tomorrows government' may try to wipe out.

Re:You have privacy in public when anonymous

[SeaFox]

RFID. If things keep going the way they are going, soon everything you buy will have an RFID tag in it.

Which get disabled once you buy the item, are only effective in a limited range, and can be disabled by individuals with the correct equipment (which is getting smaller, too).

CCTV cameras are useless for IDing someone. What if the murderer wears a baseball cap, and his face is in shadow? Anyone can wear a baseball cap...

Didn't you just point out that the government is identifying my strange behavior of buying lingerie using CCTV? How do they know it was me they saw going into that stores?

Cuts both ways, doesn't it?

2) I could have walked out the BACK DOOR. Or jumped out a window, for that matter.

True, true. That would be a way around it. But you still have to get from your back door to the murder site without being seen by any of the cameras along the way.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[BalanceOfJudgement]

It may even be gradually put in place with the best of intentions.

And most likely with roaring cheers from an ebullient crowd.

By far, the most excellent quote

[Lactoso]

"We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us."

It's not often that the most excellent quote from the article is included in the /. summary of said article.

BTW, WTF is a 'London Oyster Card'?!

Re:By far, the most excellent quote

[dryriver]

"BTW, WTF is a 'London Oyster Card'?!" http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tickets/oyster/gen eral.asp it looks like a smartcard for public transport that sends your usage data into a database

Re:By far, the most excellent quote

[b0s0z0ku]

smartcard for public transport that sends your usage data into a database

You can still buy them with cash. Same with NYC and Wash, DC metro cards in the US. Why not ban paying with cash? Too many immigrants without credit cards or really any papers at all. Rights groups would protest, at least in the USA they would. One of the benefits of illegal immigration is that there's still a subculture of anonymity and no-questions-asked catering to the immigrants.

-b.

Re:By far, the most excellent quote

[Lactoso]

Okay, thanks for the info/link. Don't know why I didn't Google that myself.

Re:By far, the most excellent quote

[The Grassy Knoll]

You can only fill up Oyster cards for travel periods of up to a week without registering the card with your name, I believe. They tell you this is because longer period travelcards will have large amounts on them (say £100 for a monthly 1&2 zone pass), and it's therefore for your own good. However, with a registered card, "they" can obviously monitor your travel patterns. Presuming "they" would want to.

Anyway, I don't take the risk. I fill up my Oyster weekly, and pay in cash. Even if they could correlate my card number with me (say, through visual observation as I pass through a ticket barrier), I guess I've done as much as I can to make it hard for them.

Believe it or not, there ARE people in Britain who are concerned about the Surveillance Society, and are doing little bits and bobs to undermine it. See e.g today's Observer.

Anyone read V For Vendetta recently? :-)

.

Re:By far, the most excellent quote

[Petrushka]

It looks like there's a trend for cities to name public transport smartcards after seafood -- I'm thinking of the Hong Kong Octopus card, for example. Anyone know where this trend started coming from?

Re:By far, the most excellent quote

[tehcyder]

It looks like there's a trend for cities to name public transport smartcards after seafood -- I'm thinking of the Hong Kong Octopus card, for example. Anyone know where this trend started coming from?

My hunch is Zoidberg.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[cucucu]

I didn't say you should be happy with nothing, I just said your are lucky.
And I will explain why are you lucky.

I don't know where you live but if you live in the U.S. or U.K. then part of your tax money is being used by the government to pay to someone to read your slashdot post.
If you lived in China, Iran, or the countries mentioned in your previous post, your tax money would be used to imprison you without being granted the right to call your wife
That you are not taken from your bed at night for a post I called luck.
That your government could do more to respect your rights and privacy is probably right too.
That's all.

And please don't call me sir, specially if you are going to call me dumbass right afterwards.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[b0s0z0ku]

And most likely with roaring cheers from an ebullient crowd.

Sadly, yes. Fortunately, those same crowds will be cheering in another 20 years when we string up the dictators by their pinkie toes and set 'em on fire.

-b.

Its not likely to improve.

[frostilicus2]

I recently read this article stating how the UK government was considering implimenting a GPS (or Galileo) tracking system for road vehicles, in order to track their movement and tax the car according to the distance driven and where the location.

I know that my phone is monitored for keywords and randomly tapped (You think you have it bad in America) and I know my ISP is required to keep all my internet logs.
 
But this isn't just worrying, this is scary.

My movements are tracked by the government, in real time, with a spatial resolution of a few feet. Wherever I drive.

This is ridiculous. Given that there are few objections to the current UK taxing model, what is the motive for implementing this system?
In fact, recen

237paDfF%^&*HJN [NO CARRIER]

Re:Its not likely to improve.

[eipgam]

If you have a mobile phone you don't need to drive for the government to determine your location to within a few feet. This goes for any country with a mobile phone network.

Re:Its not likely to improve.

[fremsley471]

True story. England, 7 or 8 years ago. One Sunday afternoon, was chatting with a friend on landline phones. Conversation turned to Echelon and "how you've just got to say a few key words like, bomb, guns, Belfast" and the phone line went tap-tap-tap. We sat there in silence for a few seconds.

The coincidence of the words and the electronic noise is too much, even if friends point out that a proper covert system wouldn't have made any noise.

Re:Its not likely to improve.

[kfg]

. . . friends point out that a proper covert system wouldn't have made any noise.

Doesn't mean that the spooks listening to you don't get a giggle out messing with you.

KFG

Re:Its not likely to improve.

[Joker1980]

Its better than that. The reason they are pushing compulsory IDs so hard is that they will have a photo of everyone in the UK. Tie that to the facial recognition software they are having developed and its not just when your in the car. End result every citizen in this country can be tracked to within feet of their position both in your car and on foot in real time. Now thats scary.

Article lacking - Monitoring vs Crime statistics?

[TerraByte13]

The article says nothing about how all this increasing surveillance has affected crime in the UK. Has it not? Why was it not covered in the article?

Privacy is not a "right". It's a success strategie

[JoeZ99]

There's allways this way-of-talking which makes it sound like "privacy" was some "conquer" the "free world" made "for the sake of their citicens"
Well it's not like that
"Privacy" is not something you "deserve" "as long as" your country is "working good", as long as "there is no inminent danger of what-so-ever", something you have to "give away" in case of extreme danger for your country, it's not something "given to you" by your gov.
Privacy is -and that's what nobody seems to "catch"- a strategie for success, something that makes society works better, economics works better, and -of course- human quality of live works much better.
So, no matter how dark the terrorist are, privacy-limiting initiatives are allways the first thing to come to mind for the govts. (and most of us), and that only reflects this way of thinking of "privacy" as a "gift" "as long as it can be given"
No matter how dark the terrorism menace is, there is allways a way which is not related to privacy-limiting. And not only it's "a way" of achieving the same goal without privacy-limiting, It is probably a much better way

If you have nothing to complain about

[gelfling]

You have nothing to fear. Look, I'm sure it's all fine and we can trust our overlords with unlimited power. It always works out well.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[rbarreira]

I don't know where you live but if you live in the U.S. or U.K. then part of your tax money is being used by the government to pay to someone to read your slashdot post.

References please?

Your claim is worthless without pictures!

[Stoutlimb]

Come on, share!

a bit daft

[symes]

While there are certainly many many cameras in the UK watching the population go about it's day to day business no one seems to have noticed that there are very few operators watching the feed. Even in a busy police CCTV room there's only a couple of officers keeping an eye on potentially hundreds of live feeds. Yes, the number of cameras is increasing but, no, the level of surveillance has changed little. What is more, people might be surprised over how much surveillance is routinely recorded and, even when it is recorded often those tapes are reused after a couple of months.

Re:a bit daft

[Bobzibub]

About 10 years ago it came out that they used automated facial recognition technology in the city.
I believe that that information was banned in the UK. So the bobbies are in the dohnut shop.

no mentio to orwell yet ?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

so let's party like it's 1984

Re:Article lacking - Monitoring vs Crime statistic

[symes]

This may be because working out how CCTV affects crime is so very difficult. Some stats seem to suggest it reduces crime but others seem to suggest it pushes crime to places without CCTV. And there's more studies suggesting that it does sweet FA. It's pretty hard to implement the 'near perfect' study to assess the relationship - unfortunately.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[VJ42]

Though I disagree with much of his post, he's right about that part: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Echelon+proje ct&btnG=Google+Search

You forgot to log in Alex...

[BancBoy]

Posting as AC? Really now.

Re:U.S. not far behind

[kfg]

. . .other than going and living in the woods I'm not sure what else to do..

If you own the woods the building inspectors come in and tear down your hut for not meeting code, then tax you for it.

If you use the "public" woods they now have woods cops to hunt you down and throw you out, then tax you for it.

KFG

Torchwood

[bigbigbison]

The new Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood has been making great use of surveillance cameras. At first I was skeptical that they could track people by camera like that. Then I remembered they were in the UK and cameras really are everywhere. Sad when the creepiest feature of a sci-fi show is the one that already exists.

All your SciFi are belonging to us...

[fahrbot-bot]

From the article, the report 'predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.'

Nothing to see here. Just a minority report written by Guy Fawkes at Gattaca...

It's your fault

[smith6174]

because it's easier to cheat than study, because buying crappy merchandise is cheaper than buying quality goods, because stupid people NEED to be watched, because you already know who the stupid people are, but do nothing, because you blame your problems on a race, or ethnicity, and because the list goes on forever... YOU are to blame. Enough with the Orwell jokes and crybaby liberty stuff. Stop protesting, whining, talking, and "voting". Go out and make changes. If you don't like terrorists, kill some. If you don't like taxes, don't pay. If you don't want cameras everywhere, do your part to make sure there is nothing to see. You can't have it both ways.

Camera's are TOO Usefull

[Stevecrox]

Everyone keeps going on about the lack of privacy but, if you get any large group of people you start finding out how they have been used to help people. I've been helped by a CCTV camera with a speaker scaring off some chavs, a friend of mine had several attackers arrested as CCTV spotted him being beaten up (by them.) You do hear these stories when this ever comes up as a topic of conversation (which is almost never) for the most part you don't see these CCTV cameras and so you don't think about them. People can shout about Orwell all they like but unless the CCTV operations units start getting much bigger staffing budgets I'm not worried.

Re:REMEMBER, REMEMBER...the fifth of November

[Grishnakh]

Here in the US, someone like that would probably be considered a hero.

Australia: Being forced into self survellience

[syousef]

A copy of an email I wrote to my federal member of parliament. I don't have much faith that it will be acknowledged let alone acted upon.

***********
I am writing to you as my Federal representative on a matter that has caused me some concern and distress. Our household has been selected to take part in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey 2006, and we were informed of this in writing roughly two weeks ago. On Monday October 23rd, an ABS employee named OMITTED came to our house and asked
my partner questions for roughly 40 minutes, and left us with diaries which must be filled out on Sunday the 29th and Monday the 30th of October. I have no issue with providing the ABS with answers to questions which are of statistical significance, and taking the time
and effort to do so accurately, however the nature of these diaries are
extremely invasive.

The diaries require that we report, in five minute increments over the entire 48 hour period the following information (quoted from the diaries):
- What was your main activity?
- Who did you do this for?
- What else were you doing at the same time?
- Where were you?
- Who was at home, or with you away from home?

The two example pages provided are very detailed and list personal main activities like "Had shower" and "Toilet". While intimacy and love making aren't explicitly included in the examples they are certainly implied since the following more mundane family activities are also listed: "Said goodbye to partner", "Dressed children", "Got kids ready for bed", "Read children a story".

I understand that this survey is compulsory under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Section 14 provides penalties of $100 per day for refusing or failing to answer questions or fill out forms when requested to do so by the ABS unless one can cite religious beliefs. Section 10
specifically outlines the authority of the ABS to require that forms be filled out. Section 15 provides for penalties of $1000 for making false or misleading statements.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/to p.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000200.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000210.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000160.htm

I have also been reading documentation on the ABS web site that household surveys can be done anonymously and that I am not required to provide my name. Documentation we were provided with also states that we are not forced to give the ABS staff member our names, nor allow entry into our home. However the ABS staff member did ask for first names, and the diary my partner and I have been provided with clearly includes our first names on the front page. When I called the number listed on the Time Use Survey documentation and asked how I could remove my name, I was told that my only option was to scratch it out. I was also
explicitly told to leave all other information (which in connection with an address easily identifies me) in tact. Please see question 2 in the link below:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a25 6353001af3ed4b2562b760d9c9fca2571060079d60a!OpenDo cument

The information I have collected certainly seems to indicate that to
comply with the law those included in the survey must provide detailed information on a wide gamut of things of a very personal nature including intimate dealings with others. Until recently I had no idea that a citizen not convicted or su

Re:Australia: Being forced into self survellience

[petrus4]

I don't have much faith that it will be acknowledged let alone acted upon.

I am glad you at least have realistic expectations about what the response to this letter will likely be.

In response to some of my posts here a few days ago about George W Bush, I was called a crackpot and a raving moonbat. However I find myself wondering...What are the demoniacs inhabiting the halls of government in three countries (Australia, America, and England) going to have to do to us before we develop an appropriate sense of urgency?

What is it going to take before people acknowledge the threat that our governments are starting to pose to us? Are they going to have to literally start killing us in the streets before we take it seriously?

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
-- William O. Douglas

People can call me a moonbat as much as they want...but I'd rather be a moonbat than get to the point where the figurative equivalent of moon *rise* had occured without me noticing it, to follow on from the above analogy. The hour is later than most people here are comfortable with realising.

Re:Australia: Being forced into self survellience

[Builder]

I'd take a 48 hour nap :)

Irony?

[xirtap]

Am I the only one seeing the irony in this story being posted on fifth of november? Ps, remember remember the fifth of novemeber.

Re:Irony?

[manuel.flury]

Ok, I see now, thx wikipedia :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

Re:REMEMBER, REMEMBER...the fifth of November

[VJ42]

In recent years Guy Faukes reputation has somewhat been resurrected; it's often said that he's "The only man to ever enter parliament with honourable intentions."

Lack of Data Protection laws?

[DrScotsman]

From TFA

The report's co-writer Dr David Murakami-Wood told BBC News that, compared to other industrialised Western states, the UK was "the most surveilled country".

"We have more CCTV cameras and we have looser laws on privacy and data protection," he said.

What, the Data Protection Act 1998 is lose? Banks facing unlimited fines because some clerks can't be bothered to shred papers? I'm not saying they're bad laws, but they're a lot stricter than the US's. And how less loose can you get without completely destroying freedom of speech?

Re:Lack of Data Protection laws?

[jimicus]

Firstly, the DPA is seldom enforced that strongly. (Though it's often used as an excuse by businesses looking to avoid doing something, when the real reason is "we can't be bothered").

Second, the DPA was carefully written with enough loopholes (anything law-enforcement related is effectively exempt) that as far as the government is concerned, it's a non-issue.

Re:10 years later

[WilliamSChips]

Another 10 years:
YOU ARE INCOMPATIBLE. YOU WILL BE DELETED.
The lameness filter is INCOMPATIBLE.

ehr

[flok]

v for vendetta anyone?

Car tracking is already happening via ANPR

[UpnAtom]

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is a car tracking scheme already monitoring our movements in many parts of the UK. It works by recognising number plates through cameras similar to CCTV. The data is centrally collected and stored for at least a year. It will be linked to the National Identity Register (ID database) through compulsory disclosure of your driving license number - which is already linked to your vehicle registration on the DVLA database.

There are 130 such cameras in Bristol and Gloucester.

Yes, it's also possible to track our mobile phone movements.

Britain to leapfrog China in mass-surveillance

[UpnAtom]

Tony Blair has called for all innocent citizens to be forcibly DNA swabbed. Since the Govt stated they would link the police databases to the National Identity Register (pg 5), this would mean our DNA, our tax/benefits records and detailed tracking of our car movements via ANPR will be cross-indexed into a single surveillance dossier. Even without our DNA, this would be 10x more intrusive than any other country, China and North Korea included.

Linking medical, email, phone, bank & credit card records will be as simple as putting your new National Identity Registration number on those existing databases and allowing the Govt to query them.

Furthermore, you will be denied a new passport unless you give up this information, according to the ID Cards Act.

This comes two months after Gordon Brown was reported to be "planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases."
He described how "police could be alerted as soon as a wanted person used a biometric-enabled cash card or even entered a building via an iris-scan door."

More details of how the National Identity Register will be the hub of Britain's Surveillance State.

NO2ID is an increasingly successful campaign, which has helped mastermind the recent publicity. We are highly respected in both Parliament and the media. Join the monthly mailing list so that you can keep one step ahead of the Govt's attempts to snoop on you.

Unfortunately, this threat is very real. Stealth data collection through passport interviews is planned to start within 6 months - although there is still time to renew. Please forward this information on to anyone you think might like to keep Britain a free country.

Re:Britain to leapfrog China in mass-surveillance

[paedobear]

You seem to have the bizarrely mistaken ID that the British government can actually complete an IT project sucessfully - heroic incompentance is going to be the downfall of the National ID card system (that and noone is willing to offer a quote to be the contracters for the project as it's terrible PR)

Re:Britain to leapfrog China in mass-surveillance

[UpnAtom]

A fair point but when you look at the most expensive IT projects, they tend to have more billions thrown at them until they are completed. While I doubt that this will be in place in the next 10 years, the Govt have given themselves that sort of timescale to complete it.

Secondly, there is the Childrens' Index. There is the 2011 Census which demands to know your income and how many times you sleep with your partner.

Most Slashdotters could create workable versions of these databases in hours. If you get rid of the biometrics and ignore security, it's a relatively easy IT project.

Re:Britain to leapfrog China in mass-surveillance

[paedobear]

The British government has NEVER completed an IT project correctly - though a complete abandonment (like the London Ambulance System) is pretty rare. Even the "relatively easy IT projects" don't work.

Re:Britain to leapfrog China in mass-surveillance

[UpnAtom]

I agree they're astonishingly incompetent, except where it comes to deceiving the public and pushing through totalitarian legislation.

Depends on your definition of "correctly" tho. With the loose definition, you're saying the govt uses no IT systems.

What a sad day ...

[udippel]

When in school, less than two generations ago, UK was a great example for civil liberty with unarmed Bobbies, Speakers Corner, no need to carry an(y) IC with you. Habeas Corpus almost 1000 years in place; and so forth.
What a sad day !

As an aside, I personally don't mind the public CCTV cameras. If in doubt, I think these actually serve as deterrent against crime respectively help solving crime. If someone *actually* and *really* needs to know where I go when taking a walk, could in any case follow me.
But health records, keystroke loggers, RFIDs everywhere and so forth have not much to do with crime. These are blatent undertakings by the government, employers, industries, to capture behaviour for any other reason than crime prevention. Meaning, that crime prevention and 'terrorism' are only used as pretext to allow our privacy to be scaled down for the satisfaction of government and business.

Not again ...

[DestroyAllZombies]

I liked this story better the first time ... http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/02/15 13239

Re:REMEMBER, REMEMBER...the fifth of November

[Grishnakh]

No. 50% of the country would consider Ben Franklin a hero today. The other 50% would consider him a terrorist, and would clamor for a law giving the president absolute power to take away all our individual liberties in order to "protect" us from these terrorists.

pseudonym

[ChriSindri]

Is this Murakami-Wood guy so paranoid that he has to come up with a pseudonym under which to publish his studies? Hasn't anyone read "Norwegian Wood" by Haruki Murakami?

Trusting humans

[sinistre]

Humans simply cannot be trusted.

Time for another revolution

[GrahamCox]

Is anyone else really fucked off and angry about this? And the state of the world in general? How's it ever going to improve? We just keep voting in the same old same old retards who continue to take us all down the road of fascism and other unwanted miseries. Who wants this? Does it solve anything? Something is going to have to change, or we are just watching ourselves on a slow downhill spiral into a world where nothing benefits anybody, and no-one is happy. Why are we doing this to ourselves? It's an old adage that we get the governments we deserve, so for fuck's sake, let's start by changing that!

But longer-term, something completely new is needed. A whole new way of thinking about how humankind can take measures to actually improve things for ourselves, instead of half-assed stuff that ultimately has the opposite effect. A big new idealogy is needed; something that over the next 100-150 years will gather momentum until political parties and then governments can form around it. I only wish I knew what this might be. It sure isn't anything like what we have now, and it sure isn't anything like other big ideologies that have been tried in the past, and failed, like Marxism. We'd have a chance to formulate it if only we started to respect our society's intellectuals again, like they did back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Seems to me that everything that is crappy about the world today, from wars to terrorism to surveillance to the plight of the poor is entirely fixable, basically because on the whole (ignoring a few fanatics and morally bankrupt world leaders), nobody WANTS any of this stuff. The only reason it's perpetuated is because there isn't a coherent mass-movement saying: enough.

One of the reasons I emigrated from the UK to Australia is because I'd had enough of this sort of crap - Australia isn't as bad though it's heading in the same direction. Why? I don't know - nobody wants it here either, but it's still happening. "Sleepwalking" is exactly the right phrase. In some ways emigration is giving up on the problem, and to a degree I am happy just to opt out as far as possible. However, as a new dad I really would rather prefer to see the world taking steps for the better. We are capable of great things, just look at the eradication of disease and so forth (at least for the rich of the world), but overall the crap we propagate outweighs the good. Just watching the news the other night with my daughter made me realise that when I was a small child forty odd years ago, the news stories were EXACTLY THE SAME. Israel at war, terrorism, America at war, nuclear proliferation, religious bigotry, damaging the planet... is this just going to continue forever, or are we going to wake up, grow up, take control of our own destiny, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

Isn't it just cute?

[cicho]

That when the government commits a crime, CCTV in the area always turns up faulty. This, people, is the #1 reason to oppose CCTV. Because it is not there to prevent crime. It is there to intimidate normal people like you and me.

And who defines the law?

[cicho]

What's lawful is defined by the same people that install CCTV. So don't go around smugly pronouncing that you have nothing to fear as long as you don't break the law, it's the single most inane argument in debating surveillance - ever.

Re:how many crimes inside buildings? Offices, stor

[Hatta]

Damn, why do I never get mod points anymore.

Re:Time for another revolution,

[JoeZ99]

point one it's already happening. look at slashdot look at everything which is "moving" in the internet
the issue is: people who "lives" in internet, are not used to walk in demostrations, so you don't see them
but they're there

I saw this comming

[zenst]

I saw this article coming, but there again I live in the UK so it has become second nature :).

It's all irrelevant anyway

[OfNoAccount]

The thing people miss out is: Who's actually watching the stuff?

Something went missing from my workplace a while ago, and they had CCTV everywhere, but because I didn't know the exact time of the theft no-one would check the tapes. Too much manpower required apparently, but heck it was only an item worth 5000 GBP ;)

In reality all CCTV does is provide the illusion of safety to gullible people. Well, that and potential tracking for anyone with the manpower to use it - like, say, the government, or perhaps major corporations. Yet most people welcome it with open arms as improving "safety". *sigh*

I guess PT Barnum's competitor was right - there really is one born every minute...

Even more funny...

[MacDork]

I'm sure there's a downside to this technology

Well, the cameras do take all the sport out of hiding from the police when they're trying to put bullets in your head for no good reason... Just ask Jean Charles de Menezes. Oops, no answer, he's dead. Funny thing too... Those cameras always seem to be out of tape when the murders are wearing badges.

you have to ask if there's a downside?

[Scudsucker]

Permanent storage + facial regonition software + lip reading software = a privacy nightmare. We already have the former, and the latter two will improve, especially with better and better cameras. I'm not too knowledgeable on corrupt UK politicians, but imagine J. Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy being able to pull up the last ten years of conversations and movements of any citizen recorded by those cameras.

Re:REMEMBER, REMEMBER...the fifth of November

[tehcyder]

Here in the US, someone like that would probably be considered a hero.

What, a Roman Catholic trying to overthrow the protestant government and introduce a Spanish monarchy?

Interesting.

Re:REMEMBER, REMEMBER...the fifth of November

[Grishnakh]

No, just anyone attacking Congress for whatever reason. Everyone's pissed off at the federal government and our crappy congressmen right now.

Besides, Americans tend to be rather anti-authoritarian in general. Not like Britain where it seems everyone fully trusts their government, despite all evidence that they don't deserve such trust.

Re:Democracy vs. Absolutist state

[rbarreira]

Does anything on that page actually prove that someone is paid to do surveillance on slashdot by reading posts themselves?

same problem in the US

[Susceptor]

we have the same problem here in the US. Simply put, our laws are outdated. here is a quiz for you, which of the items bellow is information protected under our constitution absent probable cause and a warrant? (1) telephone conversations (2) address information on mail (3) emial messages (4) bank records (5) the trash outside your door The answer is none are protected, the government can look at your trash, get your bank records and read your email without any warrant or cause shown. This is all because sometime ago the supreme court of the US ruled that if information you passed went through a "3rd party", then there was no "reasonable expectation of privacy" and hence the 4th amendment did not apply. in this age of electronics however this takes on scarry proportions since virtually every communication goes through a 3rd party at this point. email, cell phone coversations, credit card transactions, everything you do from day to day leaves an electronic trail behind you, and according to current law none of that information is protected by the 4th amendment from government snooping.