Slashdot Mirror
Talking CCTV to Scold Offenders in UK
linumax writes "The most monitored nation of the world is getting an interesting new service. According to a BBC News story, "Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England.They are already used in Middlesbrough where people seen misbehaving can be told to stop via a loudspeaker, controlled by control centre staff."
People who brush off slipper-slope arguments can read this and eat a dick. Oh, but I'm sure big brother would never do anything that wasn't for our own good, right?
The blithe lack of concern by the British Public continually amazes me...
'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and -- one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency -- bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
demolitionmanreference
CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers
September 17, 2006.
How we know is more important than what we know.
who, while wearing bag over their head, publicly masturbates to one of the scolding cameras goes the contents of my Amazon Mechanical Turk account.
If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.
Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users. Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.
I recommend the following:
1. get rid of the crown. It's long over due. Join the post-medieval world.
2. GET A CONSTITUTION.
3. TAKE DOWN THE CAMERAS.
FITE DEM BACK!
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
1984 is/was taught in school so that kids would learn that things like that are bad, ie. a totalitarian system, government lies, etc. A big part of 1984 was how monitored people were, and one of the scariest moments for me was when the main character Smith had his own little secret corner of the room where none of the cameras could watch him, and he had his privacy albeit momentarily. The whole point was that this system was horrible!!!
Yet, somehow, this has morphed into a seemingly-large group of people believe that this is a GOOD thing. A doubleplus good thing. WTF went wrong??? Don't they realize they have become the EXACT thing that George Orwell was warning about??? What happened to the 60 years of knowledge that this book brought us about what life would be like living in a society like this?
Whatever. The actual day to day situation is a lot more important than the legal fiction that is used to support it(Or do you think that the U.S. Constitution has Harry Potter magic power and will protect us against those that would defile it?).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Unfortunatly, there has grown up a culture of yobbish behaviour amoung a small but significant minority of manily young people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to express their anti-social anti-establisment feelings at every opportunity. There is a TV program in the UK called "police Camera action" which is a little like America's 'worlds wildest police videos' (or whatever). This has led to an increace of car theft and speeding, wreckess driving etc. also the UK courts award "Anti-social behaviour" (ASBO) notices to yobs who wander the streets drunk or stoned carring out vandalism and other petty thefts. This has led to an increase in crime and the offenders wear these ASBOs as "badges of honour". The types of people whom the talking cameras are targeted at will react with a similar negativity. These yobs will deliberatly act anti-socially so that they can promp a response. Why is all this so? Well in the UK the law gives insufficient protection to the state and the law-abiding masses and too much to the criminals. Crazy eh?
2. Talking Camera: "Please fetch your can."
3. Talking Camera: "The bin is behind the phone box."
4. Talking Camera: "Thank you for using the bin."
5. Pedestrian comes back at 2am and beats Talking Camera to death with cricket bat, or other clubbing instrument of choice.
Karma police, arrest this man. He talks in math. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a detuned radio.
the loudspeakers are augmented, for the public good, with servo controlled sedative dart guns?
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Throw paintballs into the lense - wearing some disguise which can be changed quickly in a dead camera angle.
The cameras are probably high up and have a wide range.
Tough!
This just reads like a Monty Python sketch to me (sympathies to those who live in the UK and will have to live the joke) ...
An old man walks up to a street corner, looks around, sees no-one. Ever so slowly he reaches into his jacket and pulls out a cigarette and lighter. He puts the ciggie in his mouth, holds the light up to it, and:
CAMERA: Oi! You there! Do you really want to do that?
OLD MAN: What?! Who's there?
CAMERA: Look up, and a couple of metres to the right.
OLD MAN looks up and faces the camera.
CAMERA: You know smoking's bad for you right?
OLD MAN: I just wanted one, and I can't have them at home because the wife gives me grief.
CAMERA: Just one??! Just one you say??! You can't have just one, because once you start, you're hooked!
OLD MAN: I know that, I got hooked a long time ago.
CAMERA: Well you can get yourself unhooked right now. I won't have your type stinking up my town.
OLD MAN: I beg your pardon? I live here!
CAMERA: Not if I can help it! Now clear off before I send out the coppers!
OLD MAN makes a rude gesture at the camera.
CAMERA: Right! That's it! You've done it now!
OLD MAN: Done what? I haven't even got to have my smoke yet!
CAMERA: Don't play innocent with me, we've got the whole thing recorded.
Police siren blares.
OLD MAN: You bastard! All I wanted was a smoke and you call the bloody cops?!
Police arrive, old man runs off.
CAMERA: He went that way! After him!
--
Not funny? If only it were just a bad joke.
I work in a Japanese technology incubator, and one of our researchers has an image recognition program which can remove the human from this loop. The target market is convenience stores and the like, where the camera will watch everyone in the store and, if your movements look "shifty" (via comparison with a couple thousand tapes of people who were later determined to have shoplifted), the shelf will talk to you! Its like a loss-prevention Clippy! "Hello, it looks like you are trying to put that packet of razor blades in your pocket! Perhaps you meant to use the shopping basket, or would you like to speak to an employee?"
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
John Spartan, you are fined 10 credits for littering...
For once, I'd like to see news of a protest in Britain about all those friggin cameras.
One of the biggest issues I have:
Why are there so many people who don't know how to behave on their own? What are mothers teaching these days?
5. Pedestrian stops complaining about how filthy the beach is and why doesn't the goverment do anything about it.
Your argument sounds a lot like dog owners who complained about fines for letting their dogs crap on the sidewalk BUT also complained about crap on the sidewalk.
Is it really that hard to make sure your dog does NOT take a dump were everyone, including yourselve is walking? Is it that hard to drop your litter in a can?
You see, the problem for me, a middle aged white male, is that I see two choices. Talking camera's and security patrols (wich do not affect me) OR walking through areas littered with crap (affect the people who think the street is a garbage dump). Hmmm, what a choice to make eh. My convenience for your freedom to inconvenience me, yourselve and everyone else.
Sorry, you need to come up with a better example then the state repressing your freedom to litter.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
somebody farts into the mic at the "appropriate" times.
What?
One of the things that it screams at people is
"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
Arthur: Old Woman!
The peasant turns around, revealing that he is in fact a man.
Man: Man!
Arthur: Man, sorry.... What knight lives in that castle over there?
Man: I'm thirty-seven!
Arthur: (suprised) What?
Man: I'm thirty-seven! I'm not old--
Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man"...
Man: Well you could say "Dennis"--
Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis!
Man: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?!
Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind, you looked--
Man: Well I object to your...you automatically treat me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well I *am* king...
Man: Oh, king, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd you get that, eh?
(he reaches his destination and stops, dropping the cart)
By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
If there's ever going to be any progress,--
Woman: Dennis! There's some lovely filth down 'ere!
(noticing Arthur) Oh! 'Ow'd'ja do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose
castle is that?
Woman: King of the 'oo?
Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: 'Oo are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
Author: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship!
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
Heh. As an Australian I was particularly surprised to discover that I can be arrested for "brawling" in public in the UK even if the person I'm fighting has given me his consent. In Australia, the law is clear, if someone hits you, you can hit them back or you can have them arrested for assault, but not both. If someone invites you to hit them, "go on then, hit me!", you are free to do so. I believe this is the case in the US too. I don't really know.
What's more strange, I found, was that I never got into a fight in all my adult life until I went to the UK. There I got into a bunch of them. One caused by annoying people who wouldn't turn down their music while I was trying to sleep. (I politely asked them to turn down their music, one of them hit me). One caused by men at McDonalds rudely describing a female patron. (I politely asked them to watch their language, one of them hit me). One which I started after listening to a white guy call a guy I knew "niger" a bunch of times. My friend didn't want to get in trouble with the nearby security people.. but where I come from, that kind of talk earns you a broken nose.
Of course, a bunch of you reading this probably think this is terribly uncouth and that I am clearly an anti-social person. Call me Quentin Tarantino if you like, but I think there's a place for violence in our society.. it's a regulating force which every person has the power to exercise. Just look at how impolite some forums without violence can be.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This has to be the most stupid and ill-informed comment I've read on /. for a LONG time.
I reckon you could be charged with affray./ ca190082/s93c.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Metrocop: Pick up that can...
Open and blatant defiance of the law is the only effective way to effect change in a government system that is otherwise completely capable and motivated to ignore the plight and desires of those whom they supposedly serve.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
Way to go!
"CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England."
Will one of those be Buckingham Palace? "Oooi! Prince Harry! Put out that fatty!"
Follow a recent royal tradition "Pardon Guvnor! That lady most certainly is not your wife!"
Or "Horses *must* be housed in the stable! Oh sorry, 'Mam"
Realistically: One of the guards will leave the loudspeaker on:
"Cor Blimey! Check out the norks on that bird. Would love to get me some of that crumpet!"
How long until these English loudspeakers say:
"And from now on, stop playing with yourself."
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I just had a story submission that answered this very question: "Narcissist Technology: Did Mamma Lie?"
h as_myspace_contributed_to_gen_1.htmle b27,0,225486,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines8
Unfortunately it dribbled out of the Slashhot Firehose.
Fortunately you can still read about it elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2007/03/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-esteem27f
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=4005
In the UK, the camera stops you!
IANAL, but in the US you in pretty much all cases you are capable of responding with equal force (if I person punches you, you can punch them, however you can't nail them in the face with a hammer). In cases where there is a reasonable threat to your life you can respond with greater force, even to the point of maiming or death. What a reasonable threat is varies state to state, as I understand it. I know in some places they have upheld use of firearms against trespassers, and I've also heard in Texas firearms are allowed against someone defacing or vandalizing your property (though the way I've heard the Texas law is if you yell or warn the person and they stop their vandalism then shoot them it is considered retribution and you are open to criminal charges - so it is better to shoot first and ask questions later). My knowledge the Texas law is hearsay, and very well could be false, but from the time I've spent in Texas it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
From what I can tell, of the few people from Britain that I regularly talk to, is that they really don't care.
There is sort of an epidemic -- perceived or actual, I don't know, and it hardly matters -- of obnoxious, petty crime, mostly committed by youths, in many British cities. There's the whole "happy slapping" thing, but that's just really the tip of the iceberg, it's just a lot of vandalism, shoplifting, street crime, etc. It's the kind of thing that just really gets to people, because it directly degrades the quality of life when you walk around.
In some ways, I think it sort of mirrors feelings that people in the U.S. had back around 10-15 years ago, at the height of the violent crime wave in the inner cities, except in Britain it doesn't seem to really be violent crime. (In fact it seems to be the kind of shit that would probably get you shot by one of the more serious criminals here in America -- maybe we have some sort of natural selection in the ghettos here that keeps this stuff to a minimum? Or maybe everyone with the means to in the U.S. abandoned the inner cities so long ago that we just don't notice.)
But at any rate, the people who have influence -- mostly white, middle income and up -- aren't too bothered, because they're looking rather desperately for any way to knock the "yobs," "chavs," and other varieties of scum in line. There's a sort of (and again, this is just based on the people I've talked with) "well, nothing else has worked, so what the hell" attitude.
To be honest I can't really blame them. Here in the U.S., there were a lot of Generally Bad Ideas being tossed around back in the 90s before the crime wave crested and began to recede (and I don't think even now there's a clear consensus on why that happened -- some people, the authors of Freakonomics in particular, argue that it was actually the echo of Roe v. Wade from a generation earlier reducing the number of potential criminals; feel free to posit your own theory). If the tide hadn't turned when it did, we'd probably be looking at things like this all over the place right now.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
A clarification on one sentence:
But at any rate, the people who have influence -- mostly white, middle income and up -- aren't too bothered by the cameras and other "innovative" policing techniques...
The way I had it written, made it ambiguous as to whether I was saying that people with influence weren't bothered by the crime or the cameras. I meant the cameras.
The people I know, who are all over-30, middle- or upper-middle-class whites with families, seem a whole lot more annoyed by the speed cameras (which there seem to be a TON of, although I question their effectiveness because all the locals seem to know exactly where they are) than the whole surveillance issue.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
... the cameras were added to the loudspeakers.
Were you kidding, or do you really not understand the difference between "public" and "private"?
Way to be a man and have some balls.
That is, assuming you are a man. If not, just consider that a compliment.
...i'm fascinated by this place. They're all like supine weenies over here when it comes to speaking out - all except the yobs that is, which everyone is afraid of. There's discussions in the Parliament now about the dangers of 'lurching towards a surveillance society", but they were already in it long ago.
On the upside, there's hardly any cops on the streets or roads. I think I can count on one hand the number of patrol cars I've seen in the 8 months I've been living here...
Ideally the "control centre staff" would be outsourced to Bangalore, India. I'm sure unruly yobs would *love* being disciplined in Indian English :-)
Yeah yeah. That's all well and good, but if you start biffing on in public can the police drag you away in chains?
How we know is more important than what we know.
(4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
:)
Firmness? Does that mean that us jellybeans on Slashdot can't actually be charged with affray?
Dumb burglarhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=mim90zCi34Y/ camera says nothing, while the camera is on rofl n lmao procedure... 1. WTF...!!?? 2. LMAO...!!! 3. GO TO #1 4. Kick ass on sandwich. 5. Alert security breach 6. Warn the trasspasser. 7. If (line4.taskhasran()==true) then B.K is gay. //In south Korea only old people use talking security cameras to scare burglars
oh, so you think the ACLU has magic Harry Potter power.
They need to add a laser to the camera mount. Something with enough power to inflict a minor burn. Dump your trash on the street? ZAP!
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If I am sitting in the row in front of you at the MCG and you start a consensual brawl with the guy next to you I would want you both to be arrested.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Eddie Mair was talking to the Government's propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H antisocial behaviour spokeswoman yesterday on BBC Radio 4's PM programme, apologies I don't have a transcript but feel free to find it on listen again on here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
When the woman mentioned that litter costs the UK £0.5BN a year Mair stated that obesity cost the NHS over £1BN each year and perhaps the CCTV and loudspeakers should be used to stop fat people from eating crisps. A comment was declined.
We'll be asked to leave the establishment and if we fail to do so then we'll be arrested, yes. But in a public place, we're free to engage in whatever social activity we find appropriate to resolve our differences, so long as we're not endangering others. But hey, don't feel bad, you're opinion in the norm. You don't like X, you don't think people should be permitted to do X.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Doubleplusgood if big screens are placed near the CCTV cameras. Enjoy perpetual good news, motivational Ingsoc/Labour messages, and the 2 minutes hate of named thought criminals.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Where is the show of character that an administrative executive body also has judicial powers? Furthermore, what does the legislature write for the property their code(tm) is attached onto, or is the executive body stuck trying to extend/sell the code? This is the case of that DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and STATE OF CALIFORNIA corporations, whereby in the California Vehicle Code FORWARD document, they admit The Department of Motor Vehicles is to publish and sell the code.
:-)
Certainly, anyone that drops a peice of PROPERTY onto the ground is not yet abandoned it, but has only made a deposit; whereby in Negotiable Instruments, wherever he made the deposit there is a three-day negotiation or returned with a Refused For Cause administrative remedy by the privateer. The deposit is only a grant of property, not litter; it can only be determined as litter by whomever has a controlling interest in the property.
Cheers
without prejudice
I'm from Warrington, in Cheshire, and they have these in place already. People are starting to complain about them though.
The only one I've seen so far (at least, the only place I've seen it 'triggered') is in the outdoor centre bit of our local shopping center, where there is a pub and some construction work going on. A few friends and I came out of the pub a bit drunk and saw some "wet floor" type cones lying around... anyway, so yeah, we're messing with these cones in a non-destructive way (just putting them on our heads - hey, look, we were drunk, stfu) and then this booming yet completely intelligible voice starts talking to us telling us to put the cones down!
Over Christmas they had a fake ice rink there and they kept telling people to get off it at night.
We're not sure where the speaker itself is, but pretty much every place in town is covered by cameras. I'm pretty sure that's not the only place they cover with these things. Having read 1984, it's extremely disturbing.
That is entirely untrue. What a lot of Americans fail to realise is that the Queen has *no* power of any kind.
The scary thing is not having cameras in public places. The scary thing is people getting used to cameras and to a Voice From Above telling them what to do.
In 2015, someone will say: well, but what about the crimes that are committed at homes by cruel parents? What about terrorists making their bombs? Let's have homes monitored!
There will be an outrage. People will gather in the streets, screaming "Give our rights back". The cameras in those streets will tell them in a firm voice, "Stop yelling and go away". People will stop yelling and go away. So will their freedom.
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
Yup, that's exactly what it says in my passport - "This person is the property of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth".
Oh wait, no it doesn't, it calls me a "British Citizen".
Your friend could be brought up on charges for damaging the property of the crown.
Actually it would be assault, but if you refused to press charges I really can't see it making it to court - the police are far too busy to piss about with things like that.
(I know slashdot is getting worse all the time, but this is "Insightful"? Please.)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
That's absolute bollocks. Magna Carta in 1215 placed major limits on the crown, and effectively established the rights of men to self-determination (well, the land-owning ones anyway). Don't forget, we had a civil war a few hundred years later that killed off the power of the crown for good.
You also forget the European constitution on human rights is now UK law; it is effectively a bill of rights. The UK might have a few priorities in law different, such as a few tighter limits on free speech such as libel and hate speech, but we have broadly the same rights as US citizens. We're certainly not all chattels (or slaves) of the Crown!
Out of interest, how has the vaunted US system protected habeas corpus? How much good is freedom of the press when all the presses are owned by a few barons in league with the government? A piece of paper is only as powerful as the will of the people to hold their government accountable to it.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Oops that should be European Convention of Human Rights; the implementation into UK law, the Human Rights Act, is here. The relevant part would be articles 4 and 5. Article 3, prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment is also a good one...
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
You can do X if it is not a direct threat to me.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Does this remind anyone of Judge Dredd and the fine machines everywhere for swearing?
Being beaten up at night is not a right that I want preserving. Cameras have cut crime. and you know, I like my safe-feeling. I live in the UK but my only experience of mugging was Los Angeles and Paris. The British would get upset if someone tried to take away important rights. If some religion-inspired leader told us that we cannot buy alcohol until the age of 21. We'd say "What is this? Some kind of Police state?".
...I think there's a place for violence in our society.. it's a regulating force which every person has the power to exercise.
Basically everyone should act like a miniature version of judge, jury and executioner? So what happens if you hit someone that feels they've been unjustly targeted and they decide to stab you? What happens if people that have a very low tolerance for nuisances decide to use your 'justice system'? It seems quite easy for this to escalate, something which I think would be troublesome. It also seems to be difficult to judge who was actually morally correct in the situation - the effect seems to be simply this: might is right - reason be damned.
Just look at how impolite some forums without violence can be.
You're implying that impoliteness is worse than violence? It's worse to shout profanities at someone than it is to hit them? Or is it that simply that you think everyone should be forced to politeness, no matter the cost? In that case, perhaps a little bit of torture is quite acceptable if forces someone to smile and nod to people on the street?
I do not feel you're antisocial - you seem to be rational rather than impulsive, and you motive for violence seem to be forcing others to follow societal norms (rather than breaking them). I do, however, think that you're very misguided.
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
Way to go. People here (I'm English) are too afraid to say anything to the youths. That's why they feel they can get away with it.
Remember, remember the 5th of November...
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
We are subjects, not objects.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
it aint, no-one said it was. Look, maybe you missed something.
How we know is more important than what we know.
People are polite because of the potential repercussions of not. Sometimes those repercussions are as simple as people not wanting to be around you. When that's effective, it's the best response. But, sometimes, people are rude or racist to complete strangers. This not acceptable behaviour and it is not something the police should have to deal with. It would be lovely if we could get everyone's mother on the phone the minute they start acting like an asshole to complete strangers but unfortunately there isn't a "dial this jackass' Mum" on my telephone. As such, the nice punch in the face is about the only thing that will get through to some people.
Now if you want to pretend there's some kind of slippery slope here and that this isn't the way the world has worked for all time, go right ahead.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Mainly these systems are despised by people that have something to hide.
What you dont see in these sensationalist posts are some of the good things that have come out of these systems.
For example:-
There was a case about a year ago when a man attempted to abduct a girl and the CCTV systems cought it, summoned the police and then guided the police to where he had run off.
There have been murders solved by the ubiquitous CCTVs, simply wind the tapes back, study. We are not talking the odd anecdotal story here CCTV is a very major crime prevention and solution tool.
Talking cameras is already proven to but down on crime before it happens and free the hard working police force to concentrate more on where they are really needed. Besides they are only in public areas anyhow where anybody is free to watch in any case.
It disturbs me when people hark on about their privacy and how unfair it is to be snooped on constantly - the system is reducing crime and making the streets safer.
On the same vein we know have computerised vehicle licensing, insurance and MOT (road worthyness test) system - so the police can check your cars details in a fraction of a second - if it cuts down on car theft, joy runners and illegal uninusred vehicles then I cam all for it.
The UK has a very fast growing DNA database, its added to constantly by the police among others. So far it has solved numerous crimes, even when a perfect match is not found a close enough family match is generally found to help track down the perpatrator. Every few weeks there is a story about some decades old crime solved by modern techniques and the database.
ID cards will inevitably come into force in the near future - well if that cuts down on benefit fraud, illegal immigrants and helps catch wanted criminals then I am all for it.
My point is that people will get up on their soapbox and rant about the state of the nation, how crime is prevelant and people should do something about it, then refuse to allow technologies that are doing something effective about it.
I'm all for it, I have nothing to hide.
I'm thinking more of that Hermione Granger power.
Walking alone at night in Singapore or Zurich feels a truckload safer than London. In both those places you can see kids as young as 8 travel independently (without parents) to their friends and school and walk around in freedom - I wouldn't recommend that in London either.
:-)
Yet both those nations are not so nannied and camera infested as the UK - explain?
the only difference I can see straight away is that the police in those places is (a) very available and (b) doesn't take any BS. Oh, and public transport actually works there, but I digress.
Interesting observation that affecting a "right" to drink alcohol would provoke action. That's a fascinating take on human rights
Insert
I'm a Brit and I don't feel like I'm in the middle of a crime epidemic of any sort. People in the UK /DO/ very much care about rising CCTV camera numbers and various other issues. However, it's not clear what to do about these. The problem is that liberties are erroded so slowly that there's nothing to protest against.
/exactly/ where they are. This supposed to be for purposes of extracting motoring tolls.
The UK is obsessed with issues such as safety, anti-social behaviour, and crime. We are becoming a narrow-minded nation which has forgotten what common sense is and seeks to address perceieved social problems by combating the symptoms rather than understanding the causes. In many cases these problems don't really exist and in attempting to "combat them" we end up creating the problem we were seeking to avoid.
General examples:
-Safety:
a. I live in Oxford and on my way to work each morning I cycle through a field through which a river runs. The council has seen fit to destroy the landscape with several large signs saying "caution deep water." WTF? No shit.
b. My milk now has a sign on it saying "does not contain nuts"
-If you think CCTV is bad:
- We will soon have a network of cameras which can ID number plates and track vehicles.
- The government doesn't think that's enough so they want to add trackers to vehicles to know
- The police now have the power to grant a co-called anti-social behaviour order or ASBO. ASBOs are generally granted against teenagers. Key thing is that the order doesn't have to go through a crimimal court so is easy to apply. The idea is that the order places restrictions as to what a particular person can do. e.g. not allowing them to mix with certain friends. The killer is that breaching the ASBO becomes a criminal offence--so meeting your mates is now illegal. Depending on the circumstances, such a breach could see you in jail. ASBOs don't work. In fact, kids who don't have one feel left out if all their mates do and so they break the law in order to fit in. Kids who do have one often ignore it. Then they end up with a criminal record. These kids are learning to treat the state as their enemy not their ally. About a year ago we brought out the super ASBO to combat organised crime.
- All these things (e.g. CCTV and speakers) are related: in the UK our rights are being erroded in the name of "safety" and "cutting crime." It is motivated by goodwill, but the result is that the government is arrogantly accumulating power in a potentially dangerous way. There is a patronising "we know best" attitude which is justified by vilifying certain social groups and creating an artificial climate of fear (Iraq war, anyone)? People in the UK *DO* care about these issues.
Basically everyone should act like a miniature version of judge, jury and executioner? So what happens if you hit someone that feels they've been unjustly targeted and they decide to stab you? What happens if people that have a very low tolerance for nuisances decide to use your 'justice system'? It seems quite easy for this to escalate, something which I think would be troublesome. It also seems to be difficult to judge who was actually morally correct in the situation - the effect seems to be simply this: might is right - reason be damned.
My take is that law already takes this into account. You can't escalate with excess force. In the US, for example, you can inflict violence in order to stop violence. If someone is hitting you or a nearby stranger, you can exercise a similar level of force to stop the attack. You can't stab or shoot someone just because they hit you. In some places, you can stand your ground while in others if you can retreat from the conflict, then you must attempt to do so. The point is that people are permited to be minature versions of "judge, jury, and executioner" with very limited power.
You're implying that impoliteness is worse than violence? It's worse to shout profanities at someone than it is to hit them? Or is it that simply that you think everyone should be forced to politeness, no matter the cost? In that case, perhaps a little bit of torture is quite acceptable if forces someone to smile and nod to people on the street?
Maybe. The problem is that violence and impoliteness are both symptoms of breakdown in social cohesion and order. A lot of the reason for politeness is to reduce violence and to resolve minor conflicts. So where you have impoliteness you usually have more violence and petty conflict. Whether impoliteness is more harmful than violence depends on the degree, the potential harm, and number of people effected. I'd say that impolite (and dangerous) driving on highways is equivalent in harm to fist to fist violence. IMHO the US probably has as many people die from violence as from impolite (and reckless) driving. Even if you exclude for some reason impolite acts that are a danger to others, impoliteness effecting a lot more people than violence does can still waste a lot of other peoples' time and cause health damaging stress.
I do not feel you're antisocial - you seem to be rational rather than impulsive, and you motive for violence seem to be forcing others to follow societal norms (rather than breaking them). I do, however, think that you're very misguided.
Keep in mind that the other poster claims that he didn't initiate most of these fights and that the social norms in question should have been obvious. In fact, it's not clear to me that this person (with the exception of the "niger" name-calling incident) used violence (or the threat of violence) to force people to do anything. There's probably a lot that hasn't been said, so your interpretation may be correct.Nothing wrong with being arrested for brawling. If my quiet pint in a local pub is spoilt by two idiots throwing eachother around the room, I don't care who started it, I want them both out. They can argue about that in court. The person who didn't start it would most likely get away without charge. In fact, if my trip to a football match is ruined by 200 crazed hooligans without tickets smashing up the neighbourhood with eachother's heads, I'd appreciate it if something was done (in the case of football hooliganism, it's usually a lengthly ban from being in the vicinity of a football match, and in the most part, it's worked).
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
...of standing with my back to CCTV cameras, slightly bent over with my legs should-width apart, shaking about a bit while holding a bottle of water upside-down at waist height with both hands.
The same thing has happened here in the UK.
The Times = News Corporation Sky/ Sky News = News Corporation The Sun = News Corporation News of the World = News Corporation
So, the biggest tabloid and biggest broadsheet in Britain are owned by the same company :-).
Don't forget that the BBC is essentially a state owned television network. They spout out whatever they're told.
The BBC most certainly don't spout what they're told. Remember the "sexed up" incident? Remember when they used to dub Gerry Adams with that ridiculous voice to get around Thatcher's ban on IRA propaganda? The BBC has a legal mandate to be unbiased and informative, and have an entire department who's job it is to make this as realistic as possible. You could still argue from both the left and the right that they are biased, and every time they are seen to sway in either direction they get a beating. Except when employing pundits (who's job it is to be biased), the BBC does pretty well in simply reporting what happened without pandering to either side of a political debate, and all while being attacked by both the government and the opposition for being biased in favour of the other. Where is the centre anyway?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
CCTV has done nothing in my city (Brighton) to curb drunken street violence. Parts of the city are no-go areas after dark. This problem is getting worse irrespective of CCTV cameras.
I have never heard a single anecdote about a crime in Brighton being solved or prevented by our extensive on-street/beach CCTV cameras.
Linky:
BBC: "CCTV systems 'fail to cut crime'"
BBC: "CCTV 'not a crime deterrent'"
Really this is getting irritating now. I'm fed up with posts like "where did the UK go so wrong" and "omfg1984wtfroflcopter".
I live in the UK, very near to Middlesborough where the idea was piloted and I've seen (or rather heard) the things in action. I would argue with a lot of your beliefs that it is turning the UK into a place where privacy is not respected or that we are constantly monitored by the state as we are not. Never when I walk down the street do I feel as if I am constantly being watched even though there may well be a few CCTV cameras in most town centres.
CCTV monitors public places, if you are in a public place, almost by definition you have accepted the fact that someone is going to see you (whether it would be a person or a camera) and I'm not going to argue with that, having a camera there is nothing more than having a policeman stood there (with an exeptional memory, granted but still effectively the same) and everyone these days seems to want more "bobbies on the beat".
Now with speakers being connected to the cameras, everyone seems to be in uproar, yet again about privacy. But in reality I can not understand why. They still monitor public places, they dont follow you into your bathroom, they are the same cameras, connected to the same screens where the same policeman or woman sits and watches for signs of crime or antisocial behaviour (something that everyone would like less of) only now that policeman or woman can let an offender know what they are doing wrong and that they have been seen doing it... exactly the same thing a policeman would do if he was stood in the town center and witnessed it in person.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that just because it is a camera and not a policeman doesn't mean it encroaches on anyones rights any more than before it is simply technology allowing our policeforce to be more effective. Effective in a one policeman can cover more square-footage point of view and from the evidence gathering side of things.
Personally, I am against these cameras going country-wide for the sole reason that will cost the taxpayer a lot of money and that they do not fit well into every situation -in some cases nothing short of more cops will do. But for giving streched police forces a more efficient monitoring method -I'm all for it in selective cases.
Where can I get a weekly subscription to this comic book about tramps? It looks ace! http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42764000/jpg /_42764725_cctv_montage_203.jpg/
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
In the interests of destroying this ghastly idea to violate all of our civil liberties I propose a new sport to put the most unpleasent sectors of society to a sensible use. Split your teams of yobbos up into groups of 4/5 (ensure that hoddies are worn and identifying clothing etc.. is minimised) - team captains select a la football picks. Each team then has 30 minutes to cause the maximum amount of response from a speaking camera (each team can choose the camera), each sentence/command gets one point, each threat to call the police gets 3 points and if the police turn up then the team gets 10 points (but only if they evade capture in the following 2 days). The team with the most number of points wins whatever creative thing they can think of. After the camera's go we will release the snakes to get rid of the yobbos and then release the gorrillas to get rid of the snakes - the gorillas will obviously freeze to death in the winter and we will all be free
Having just returned from China a couple of days ago, I was puzzled when reading the headline, asking myself "Why would they use Chinese Central Television (CCTV) cameras for public surveillance". Of course it kinda makes sense, since you definitely get a closed circuit television feeling when watching the news on CCTV.
Although i dont like the idea of a streetlamp watching then yelling at me for littering, it is against the law to litter at least.
But telling me im a bad person due to some backroom algorithm or the words on my protest sign? no F-ing way would i stand for that if i was British.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I just had to comment on this. It really bothers me people being what to say, ignorant towards this whole surveillance trend that has been ongoing the past years in Britain.
The consensus that "if I'm a law abiding citizen, that means I've got nothing to fear" generally works well for a lot of people; those who have forgotten how easily democracies are overthrown and that their idealistic society might not exist forever. I mean, creating the perfect infrastructure for a totalistic government by placing cameras and loudspeakers everywhere just doesn't seem right for a presumably liberal government lead by Labour. It is my hopes that people will soon begin realizing that this is not the right way we're going.
In Denmark (neighbor to Great Britain) the government has just introduced an "Anti-Terror Act" giving the intelligence services and police exorbitant privileges in terms of tapping every phone in some general area without an approval of a judge. Also presumably all internet communication between privates (including email and such) are to be logged (someone must have a lot of storage to use on this one since this is a LOT of data).
My main point is, that the surveillance trend is not just something we see in Britain and that this is something I fear will not stop by itself when we're adequately watched.
If people believe in it like the Bible you have nothing to worry about.
Went there once on a 6 month contract...
Likely message from the cameras...
"Hey, you...What you doing climbing the camera pole..yes you in the football shirt (half of Middlesbrough turns around thinking it's them)..put down those bolt cutters...this is police property and...hey..what's that sound? Are you cutting my brackets...I'm warning you, there's a car on its way...stop that right now...don't you know these cameras are very hard to resell...we have the serial number&*£(...."
AT&ROFLMAO
The problem is where a civilized duel is treated as "brawling".
People love to be non-violent these days.. which really means they prefer to have other people do their violence for them.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the common consensus is that there is no distinction between government and society. Society is what you get from a large group of people with, typically, shared morales and cultures. It is everything that comes from a community, and can be broadly considered as the good side of large groups of people. Society seeks to grow and support its fellow members, such is the origin of national pride.
Government is formed from the exact opposite of this. Government is what deals with the bad aspects of society, the crime and punishment, the civil defense and communications with other societies. In effect,
Government is formed from the need to control the inevitable bad that a large group of people will present to itself. In essence, it is not an aspect of society, it is simply a method of control to limit the bad.
Society and Government are like Yin and Yang, neither can exist without the other, but they are almost complete polar opposites. Society seeks to thrive and grow, where government seeks to restrain and restrict. Happy freedom in society is defined by unhappy law and punishment in government. A balance is required between these two.
There is no longer a clear distinction between society and government in many places in the world, especially in the UK and in the EU. People have come to rely on government so heavily that there is no longer a clear memory of why the government is there in the first place. Government is now trying to control society, instead of simply being a servant to it, a tool to correct the problems to allow the good of society to grow.
There is no longer any balance in the UK... and since we lost our guns and gave away our right to defend ourselves by forming militia theres not much we can do to turn this tide.
You truly don't know what you've got until its gone.
I think there is no place for violence here,Citizen.t ml
You should try this virtual reality simulation if you like.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/penguinswing.h
What worries me isn't so much the invasion of privacy by CCTV, or being patronised by being told to pick up litter, but rather that this technology threatens to render CCTV ineffective.
CCTV is pervasive in British cities, but there are too many cameras and too few operatives for every camera to be monitored all the time. Criminals are deterred by the uncertainty of whether they are being watched. However, once CCTV becomes reactive, the absence of a verbal warning could be taken as confirmation that you are not being watched.
Suppose you're a would-be mugger in the centre of Midlesborough. You drop some litter and mess about with traffic cones, and if there's no verbal warning then you know there's a good chance that you're invisible to surveillance for the time being. Knowing you're relatively safe from being caught, you can now select your victim with impunity.
The trend in Britain is increasingly for things to be forbidden not because they are against any law, but because some government employee objects to them. This is the effect of anti social behaviour orders, and the reason why civil liberties organisations are uneasy about them. They make behaviour which is perfectly lawful in general unlawful for just me, just now.
This extends the concept in the direction of orders without any court intervention by an anonymous official. We now have a situation in which someone can be doing something perfectly lawful, but he/she is given an order by a voice which can belong to anyone at all. Doubtless it will be made unlawful to disobey it.
One understands the difficulty with anti social behaviour, which is a real problem. But the answer surely is licensing hours, laws to repress public drunkneness... education...
It cannot be this sort of thing can it?
No, but it certainly gives a good framework for a balance of power between three branches of government,
something I find sorely lacking in Britian's Parlimentary system. Just look at the imbalance of power that Tony Blair seems to have. It's almost like he has the power of a dictator from here because who in his party is going to oppose him.
I will admit that Bush is trying to expand the US presidency as much as possible. I suspect there will be a major cuttage of executive power (aka congress stopping the war in Iraq through budgetary means) because of his abuse.
Cheers
Ben
We do have CCTV in Stirling, but the control room only has enough operators for each set of eyes to look at 20 or so cameras - so, usually, the cameras are only used to see "what happened" when the crime has already been committed. they are useful during an incident where they can be trageted on an ongoing situation to gather evidence.
We also have a community warden programme where "real people" (tm) are paid to deal with anti-social crime (i.e. the stuff the police don't have time for) but they can also get the police when things are serious. They have a remit to engage with schools and young people and we get them involved so they know who the bad kids are and instead of beating them into submission in a "police vs us" scenario, they engage and build up a rapport and breed mutual respect. Most of the time it is just kids hanging out drinking buckfast and getting hopelessly pissed and causing a nuisance.
I would much rather have a high visability presence on the streets that can be identified as real people rather than a faceless camera operator to this sort of anti-social crime. interestingly (for our english neighbours) - street crime has reduced since the smoking ban - because there are always people around on the streets that keeps a natural order on friday and saturday nights.
rd
because Freedom is just a word.
People only want freedom to do what THEY want. They will claim that these cameras are there to prevent crime but the problem is, what becomes a crime later on that isn't now? What about smoking on a public street? Drinking? In some areas those are probably crimes to one extent or another.
We already have cameras in many public and private buildings. How long before someone government official gets the idea to link them all for the benefit of the public? and... since the government is recording this data the questions become...
1. how long is it retained.
2. who has access.
3. who can use the courts to gain access (for personal suits, etc)
I see crime being used as a great excuse to place these things where you would never suspect them, like hotel rooms and restrooms (of course only monitored by professionals). How long before they enter private homes? First for the monitoring of "known criminals", then possibly anyone getting government money or housing. Its all possible because people want freedom provided it keeps other people from being bad.
Isn't it amazing how much people want freedom and they when asked there are always exceptions? Like worship, sex, and drugs (legal and illegal).
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You might be getting irritated by this discussion. But what you overlook is that the state throws nothing away. Automatic Number Plate recognition records (ie where and when your car moved) will be kept for 5 years, to see if you associated with (ie traveled along the same road at the same time as) known criminals. Records of ID Card checks (eg every time you draw cash from the bank etc etc) will be kept until you are at least 100, even if you are dead by then. If truth be told there is no mechanism for deleting the state's data on you. DNA and full 10 fingerprints taken for every brush with the law, even if not charged and certainly without any need for a conviction. Automatic facial recognition will be a deployed reality in just a few years. Then every face will be noted and allocated it's National Identity number. YOU might not be scared by the state having all this information, but I am. I venture to suggest that your trust in the innate goodness of governments is severely misplaced.
I read in the paper (think it was the Metro on the bus, but I'm not totally sure) that they're going to to have pre-recorded messages for these camera's ('pick up your litter', 'stop pissing in that bush', etc) and that they're going to get children to record these messages as they believe that adults will be more shamed into behaving properly if they are being admonished by a child.
I work in McDonalds in the UK. I wont say exactly which town but its a town near Colchester in Essex. We are about to get them installed soon in our store. Apparently you press a button and it brings up the camera images in a control center which is located in Manchester. Then then people at the control center speak saying, get out or something and if they don't comply they then call the police. McDonalds are installing these cameras due to the amount of chavs (teenage delinquents), drunks and random crazy people we have had trouble with. This Monday we have had yet another broken window from chavs. Last month a guy came jump over the counter tipped over stuff in the front threatening to kill staff etc. We get stuff thrown at us all the time, and not just because of an irate customer complaining he is missing an apple pie. Staff have got into fights with chavs before, the list goes on but anyway would these talking cameras actually do anything. If they don't listen to a manager telling them to get out or they will call the police then what chance are they going to listen to a talking camera. Ill just have to wait and see how it goes.
Haha, very good! That was some +3 comedy not -1 troll.
A: "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care about being monitored?"
B: "If your citizens are supposed to have rights, why are you setting up an infrastructure capable of eliminating them?"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Sorry bastards can't even put up a fight against a third-rate navy of mohameddean pedophile persians.
WTB Mod points!
Couldn't agree with you more, being from England myself, CCTV camera's don't bother me in the slightest. Its hardly an invasion of privacy in a PUBLIC place now is it? If i want to do something i don't want other people to see i'll do it in the privacy of my own home(or at least where people can't see me).
.
Everything I wrote and then erased. I'll sum it up.
Living, Breathing Cop on the street != Camera. Even in a public place I have a expectation of privacy that some of you might not agree with. That is too bad and a sign to me that people have already gotten used to the idea.
Legal advice, fom an Australian. It's like the pope giving lectures on contraception.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
I believe this is the case in the US too. I don't really know.
Only for citizen-on-citizen altercations. If you are attacked by a policeman, you are charged with resisting arrest, as your face resisted the nightstick.
Dude. I'm moving to Australia.
You know, there are parts of the world where everyone is rude or racist to complete strangers (usually to specific ethnic/racial group, others are OK unless banding with former). In their mindset, they act justly by applying physical force to keep "that kind of people" out of their "own public" surroundings. You cannot let individuals decide on their "inner book of law" when it is justified to hurt others - it leads to a real war with real guns, believe me, I know. There is always someone stronger then you, who doesn't think you are right. Sometimes, the strongest one is against you and you lose in more then one way.
Unfortunately, trying to organize defense against bigots may earn you a stigma of being one yourself and then you end in a land of shit, robbed, raped, maimed, killed and no less but the only one guilty as well.
After what my people have been through, I can totally dig the philosophy of Amish: NEVER play others' games, don't cooperate in the show, like bulls do in corrida.
Instead, when under assault of the violent, sit down (or pick up your personal valuables and flee), turn the other cheek and pray that someone sees clearly and tells the world what is going on.
Correction, the world is useless. If the topmost top dog is not on your side, all you can do is fail and more so if you keep your stand. Pray that US public finds out the whole truth and sympathize with you, that is harder then you may think if US government doesn't have a favorable place for you in their "next big war" plans.
Unfortunately, none but them knows their exact plans in advance, so the best bet is on nonviolent avoidance of conflicts.
Live today, ask for justice in indefinite future, if ever.
Route around obstacles, never give up rebuilding, don't lose temper, live and travel light, gain real strength: perception, deduction and wordiness, not the muscles.
"but we have broadly the same rights as US citizens"
I'd love to see your assault rifle collection sometime. Mine is pretty sweet.
"Out of interest, how has the vaunted US system protected habeas corpus?"
The situation is still unfolding, but the system is working. The party responsible for degrading habeas corpus has lost most of its legislative power to the other party. Legislative oversight is now underway to roll back some of the more egregious losses of liberty ASAP. Simultaneously, cases are working their way through our judicial system to provide judicial oversight.
It's not a perfect system, it's not a fast system, but so far it's the best system in the world today.
People are polite because of the potential repercussions of not.
A cynic's perspective, and probably true of some people. Others are nice because it's the right thing to do.
But, sometimes, people are rude or racist to complete strangers. This not acceptable behavior and it is not something the police should have to deal with.
Racism is not acceptable behavior, and it certainly should have social repercussions. And illegalizing rudeness is certainly an absurd notion. But that's also pretty much where the line should be drawn (imho, of course - prejudiced speech is illegal in some places). A large part of the problem is your notion of self-regulating - that everyone can deem what is acceptable or not by any kind of precision. We accept the judgement of the courts because of the social contract. Why should a person accept the judgement of a complete stranger?
Now if you want to pretend there's some kind of slippery slope here and that this isn't the way the world has worked for all time, go right ahead.
I don't think this is simply a question of a slippery slope - it's wrong in and of itself. I was simply pointing out what I think would happen if a majority of the people followed your social code. I also do not think you put this policy into practice with any kind of regularity, or you're posting from prison.
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
deep booming voice mode: on
"This is the voice of the Mysterons..."
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
My take is that law already takes this into account.
It certainly does, and with good reason. The law also states that you cannot punch people for being rude. I was merely following the OP's train of thought, where every person was self-regulating in that respect.
Keep in mind that the other poster claims that he didn't initiate most of these fights and that the social norms in question should have been obvious.
I agree, and the OP's behavior in the scenes he (or she) describes is not wrong - it might even be considered admirable. The OP does however state that "that kind of talk earns you a broken nose" and "it's a regulating force which every person has the power to exercise". That is the reasoning I have a problem with. To me, it sounds juvenile, and if becomes a mainstream policy of adults, society has a problem.
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
I'm not an idiot ok? I don't just smack everyone who offends me. It has to be the right time and place. It's all about context.
So tell me, in your part of the world, is it usual for two men, after beating the shit out of each other, to go for a beer? Or at least shake hands?
How we know is more important than what we know.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Ok.. let me just say, in some parts of our society (i.e., the working class) this is exactly how things work. You don't give shit to someone you don't know. You never talk down to a lady in public, etc. As for the self regulating of society, yes, this is precisely the way the world works.. one of the primary reasons why the US is so fucked up is that they seem to have forget how to regulate themselves with civility. That's why they're all suing each other all the time.
How old are you? Are you a shutin? What kind of upbringing can you possibly have had if you've never seen the micro-application of violence in society?
Am I talking to a robot?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Actually, consent is a suitable defense to assault under Scots law, although I'm not sure about England. You definitely couldn't get convicted if your friend agreed to fight you (assuming nobody died, that's the exception) although whether you could get arrested for disturbing the peace is another question. Believe it or not, this "consent" defense arose as a result of BDSM.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Even neglecting the whole privacy issue, do they appreciate the utter waste of money this street-cleaner is? How many hundreds of full-time street sweepers could they have hired for the same cost as all those cameras, speakers, and police to watch these CCTVs all day and night? And worse, the use of this utterly wasteful experiment diminishes with time: when people learn to not litter, there really isn't any value of the system at all.
Yes, like most of you, I am shocked by the Big Brother-like overtones of this absurd experiment. But even those people who don't mind Big Brother should consider how damn expensive it is to keep Big Brother watching on salary (and how expensive the equipment is). At the end of the day, what do they get for that waste of tax dollars? cleaner streets!? What kind of people are in charge of spending our money?!
...This seems like a double plus ungood idea to me.
Next thing you tell me that you don't wear monocles and a black hat.
She has buckets and buckets of money...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I still remember when it used to be so when I was a kid... we used to fight for fun. Now it is long gone and it has been since, I dunno, eighties?. That is when knifing started. Later came guns, then war... then more guns and a new stuff - hand grenades. People die in fights (and violence generally) more then back then, but there is less fights. That shows the state of mind...
Actually, consent is a suitable defense to assault under Scots law, although I'm not sure about England. Believe it or not, this "consent" defense arose as a result of BDSM.
In England, consent is not an allowed defence unless the Judge thinks it is in the public interest. So in practice this means it's okay to beat each other senseless in the name of sport, but the sexuality of consenting adults in private is a no-no, and you can be convicted even if the "victim" doesn't press charges, and stands up in court saying "I wanted this". See the Spanner case - people were sent to prison for this.
Though oddly, there's only ever been this one case where people were found guilty AFAIK, and confusingly there was another case where it was ruled legal. There was the difference that they was married, and IIRC the Judge ruled that the private affairs between married couples were no business of the state.
"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply. "
Life needs more saving throws.
Instead of cameras every gentleman could take out his stick and beat the crap out of the petty criminal if he has cought him in place, and petty criminal could not do the opposite and claim that a gentleman stole that purse from that flower madame, because there was a notion of REPUTATION.
People of low reputation knew that they would be watched closer than people of higher reputation. I call for inequality, nonfraternity, and anti-liberty.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
That's what she wants you to believe.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
There are too many people for this attitude to be worth it(especially when you are the minority). I don't have a problem with someone punching a racist in the nose just because, but it simply isn't worth my time to do it; I might feel better after I do it, but the chances of the racist walking away less racist are about zero, so aggression against him is pretty much a waste of time. He already showed himself to be an ass, so it shouldn't be all that hard to choose between caring about what he says and not caring about what he says.
For the most part, people really aren't that rude to me, so go figure.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Sorry but we're not afraid to confront the youths at all. it's just that we're not prepared to go to jail when the courts and police go after us for standing up for our rights.
Ennglish law is currently really, really fucked up when it comes to self defence.
How many cameras are surrounding the estates of the wealthy who actually steal real money? I'd imagine if any exist, they point out at the hoi polloi, never in at the lives of the powerful, who never are monitored without their consent.
Not as such. It's just that, in the US, someone has to opt to press charges. If someone steals your car, but you decide not to press charges (presumably because they were friends/family), nothing illegal happened. Same goes for fighting, and other minor private disputes.
If someone invites you to hit them, or perhaps to use their car, then presses charges... well, judges and/or juries aren't stupid, so I wouldn't worry about it. Hopefully there will be a witness around.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
>Of course, a bunch of you reading this probably think this is terribly uncouth
On the contrary sir, your behaviour is that of a true English gentleman. It's just a shame our country has criminalised such gentlemanly acts.
Legalise sniper rifles to anyone who pays their council tax bill.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
She has buckets and buckets of money...
Only about £300M - not *that* much really. I mean, I know at least a couple of people with that much money. She's only something like 100th richest person in the UK.
Welcome home to the UK!
this will be the likely excuse, or an equivalent of it, that they are going to use to justify home spying in 2015. it is always something you cant object.
Read radical news here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TayWdhBbiPY
good news clip on the 'shouting' CCTV cameras.
arent you all actually legally and traditionally "subjects" of your beloved king/queen ?
if you agree to it, why did you mod parent down.
if you dont agree with it, why do you have still king&queens ?
Read radical news here
Yes, listen to the interview - it's as funny as hell.
Unfortunately, all to often the politicians just use weasel words to avoid answering the question, even when re-asked a dozen times.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It's nothing like having a policeman standing there, and you know that stupid. If you were attacked, what would help you most:
- policeman who can intervene
- CCTV which can just passively watch
Sure, the CCTV will be able to play what happened at court when your attackers were caught and charged with murder, but you're still dead. If there was a policeman there you'd probably still be alive.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
What you have to understand is that this is Britain, and here we like to do things by halfs. Why stand on a point of principal when you can have a half-arsed compromise that satisfies no-one?
The queen is still the monarch, and could in theory decide not to sign off on a new law, but in reality she has no power at all. She could never take on the government or even publicly object to anything they do.
Another good example is Sunday trading. Large shops used not to be allowed to open on Sundays, as it was the Christian day of rest. A lot did anyway, and most people were in favor of it. The government eventually found a pointless compromise - open but only for limited hours. Either it's right or wrong to allow Sunday trading... but as ever, we prefer to make everyone miserable.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
While I think the brawling claim is true its generally a catch all thing for the police to cover fights where neither clearly started it.
The law in the UK allows the use of reasonable force in defense of self, others or property and it leaves it for the courts to judge reasonable.
One example, I friend of mine was jumped (litterally from a 6' wall) by 2 guys trying to mug him at about 2 in the morning
30 seconds later he picked them up one on each shoulder, walked back round the corner he had just come from, into the police station and dropped them infront of the desk, politely informing the officer that they had tried to mug him. After giving a statement he left.
Ok not everone is 6'6 and a martial arts instructor but in general the police in the UK are pretty fair when it comes to reasonable force (and when they know the scum that you just gave a good kicking really deserved it have been known to turn a blind eye to unreasonable force)
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
I've seen it happen, certainly. But mostly among teenagers, where hormones flare and the issue of boundaries is a gray area. However, as you point out, it might be a cultural or class issue (I don't belong to the working class, and where I grew up, violence wasn't used as a means of persuading people to see your point of view). I still tend to view it as something of a fringe phenomenon - working class or not.
As for self-regulation - I do agree that society regulates itself, by people responding in different ways to different types of behavior. Using violence as a regulator is the alien part. For instance: a person being rude to a stranger is not very uncommon. This is usually regulated by that person being shunned in the immediate social context. I think it would be a far worse social offense to hit that person, for two reasons. One, the punishment outweighs the crime. Two, it's illegal - the police has monopoly on usage of violence in non-self defense situations.
And a final point: just because this is how the world works (in some places), doesn't make it right.
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
In most US states, "go on, hit me" is legally a challenge to a duel and thus a felony.
Self defense is not only legal, it's encouraged. But brawling will get you thrown in jail.
No, actually its why the NRA exists. Big Brother can ignore a court case. He has more trouble ignoring a Colt .45
I know nothing of UK culture except from what I read from slashdot and a few other places, but if these where ever put in the USA I would bet money this would happen:
What about the potential for advertisements? How long until they want to use these as a way to generate income? I bet they start off with saying its to supplement to cost of the new equipment.
"Hay there, man with the basketball. I noticed you are not wearing the latest Nike airpumps. Did you know the improved patented air cushions can help you jump 2 feet higher? Stop by the store on your left now and get up to 80% off!"
Is it just me, or do you ever get the feeling that Britian feels some sort of obligation to render the novel 1984 as accurate as possible? Like, their empire's dead, nobody eats their food, even the accent has lost most it's appeal since British music ceased being dominant. Is Orwell the only relevent thing they figure they've got going for them here in the age of Bush and Fox news?
I think they just need one famous person who isn't a pansy or comedian; so they can find something else to focus on other than bringing dystopic novels to life.
So pick someone at random from England, and we'll all pretend they're just really, really cool. Seriously, it's either that or we have to start watching soccer, or eating their food. Say no more (nudge, nudge).
Another example I saw mentioned was jaywalking. In a major city, thats just crazy. Everyone breaks those sorts of laws.
If you repress peoples rights to break minor laws, well thats what I would consider the begining of a police state. Strictly enforced, strictly monitored public spaces. How can you consider yourself "free" if you are constantly being monitored? Mounting an autocannon to the camera would also probably make prosecution of jaywalking "more effective".
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I'll have to dig out my law notes and read up on that, we were informed on the situation in England but I never revised it (ho-ho!). It's certainly a complex topic.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2713 Bumstead J.! Pick up that piece of bread!
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Left the UK in the late 90s, don't think I could go back.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
And rich is a relative term - they're not all in banking and I can see quite often that both parents have to work to support a family. Quite a lot of the smaller family businesses are suffering hardship because of the climate changes.
As I said to someone else, I was talking about feeling safe only - I am well aware of the rather extravagant consequences of littering in Singapore (although I couldn't help wondering what would happen if they catch someone who's actually into this sort of thing - but I digress :).
However, granted, Singapore was a couple of years back, and I can only speak from personal experience, not from statistics..
Hong Kong wasn't so bad either, but I only stayed there briefly (repeatedly :) so I don't feel I got the feel for the place.
Insert
All I can say is dratted 3 seashells strike again!
A condescending, sarcastic voice booms through the empty station, "Would the child stop playing on the escalator..."
Around 1993 I was coming home from university at 1 AM, waiting for the once-per-half-hour late train in one of the Edmonton underground LRT stations. Alone and lost in thought with algorithms homework, I was killing time by walking up the base of a down escalator, matching its speed, unaware I was being watched by some bored killjoy monitoring a CCTV camera.
Humiliated at the time, I've since spent years watching TV cameras erected in every imaginable place and imagined authoritarian assholes staring at banks of TV screens looking for any opportunity to power trip.
Cameras also don't help if you live in a rural area where the police can't be bothered to show up if you complained too often about people threatening to kill you. Granted, weakening staircases and generally turning the place into a death trap (and shooting someone in the back) is a little bit overkill (sarcastic understatement) but I can see how someone eventually got into that state.
And, of course, camera evidence will not stop innocent people being shot by the police because they really needed to shoot someone after the tube bombings. Makes you wonder who they're trying to protect..
Ah, no, I know - those people who fall into bed if they can actually find it whilst blind drunk - assuming they haven't slipped in their own vomit first and end up another load on a totally overstretched and underfunded emergency ward (assuming an ambulance is miraculously available and can actually find them instead of following a flawed GPS unit into nowhere). For a cultural centre like London (and it is) the fascination with drinking yourself into oblivion is a bit puzzling IMHO.
Yes, it may then be a bit harder to get up as early as the Swiss do (the flip side of 10pm), but at least they know what daylight looks like.
Switching the sarcasm off, there are pros and cons to every country, but I have actually LIVED in those places I mention - I didn't just Google my opinions and looked at statistics. That naturally means the observations are subject to my personal bias (they were, after all, my opinions) - you're free to believe whatever you feel like, but don't form an opinion of a country by reading the news and the web - live there.
IMHO the state of London is best reflected in the letters to the London Metro of retired Col. Buffy. He's spot on. Although not quite as totally OTT as Jeremy Clarkson the man sums it up with clarity - and should in my opinion have his own fan club..
Oh, and next time you moan that the Tube and trains don't work - well, enjoy anarchy.
Insert
Dude, they are *already* experimenting with facial recognition in airports... did you start protesting yet?
Of course not, and WHEN it will be widespread, you won't do a damn thing neither because you'll be used to it by then and rationalise it, and you know it.
I remember when the first radarcamera's were placed for cars there were the same complaints and counterarguments too. You had guys like you saying: "stop being so paranoid, it's just for cars that are speeding, it's not like they watch persons walking on the street."
Then they placed CCD camera's which weren't for cars, but to 'ensure safety' and watching people. Again you had people saying; "but it's for added security, it's because it's necessary and it's mighty effective! It's not like they can actually recognise an individual on it, and it's only in places where crime is rampant!"
And now they are placing them in immer more places, so more and more public places will be covered untill it's covered all, and they add loudspeakers to it, so they can order people around without having to show a human face, and they are even taking their first steps at face-recognition, and you go like: "You are being irrational, that's not going to happen at all; don't overreact! It's effective in combatting petty crime, and who knows what the future will bring!"
Point is, people like you never learn, and I mean, never. Every time the government takes another step, you claim the stepping-stone theory where privacy degrades more and more and the government becomes big brother is totally bogus, EVEN when that is *exactly* what is happening. Compare today with 40 years ago, and you can not *but* conclude the government is watching their citizens far more then they used to do, largely thanks to new technology and the apathy of most people - like you.
there is NO doubt they are going to expand the camera's, beecause they're already at it, and they already have established the rationale for it (safety and security); it's already accepted there, so why not here? More camera's, loudspeakers, facial-recognition systems, they can ALL be placed with the same arguments as the very first cameras were set.
You think 1984 arives in one sudden stroke, by a totalitarian regime that suddenly makes sweeping privacy invasions? No, my friend, it happens slowly, step by step, little by little... untill at the end, we arrive at exactly the same thing but without the protest, because people have accepted it. It's nothing more then the frog-in-the-pan syndrome; if, hypothetically, you had said, back in the time where speeding-car cameras were place at certain crossroads: "We're going to place camera's on every corner of the street with facial-recognition and loudspeakers", you would have heard an outcry. In ten years, you'll hardly get a shrug.
That's the mentality that you express.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Your Colt .45 isn't going to do any good when your being crushed under the treads of a M1A2 Abrams.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Neither is the ACLU.
The article says "Momma lied, you're not special, MySpace friends aren't really your friends and the people watching you on YouTube are laughing at you, not with you"
:-)
For some people, that's a rupture in the space-time fabric.
No wonder they would rather read something else
You are mis-understanding what is happening in the UK. These kids misbehave only when they think no-one is watching. When they think someone in authority is looking - they are as good as gold. The cameras really do solve the kid problem. It does not require police to intervene. It does not require investigation or follow up. Street crime is reduced BECAUSE of the cameras. These crappy kids see the cameras and just decide to behave themselves. When an assault occur, camera footage does improve detection rates. But more importantly it deters the crime from happening in the first place. Right wingers bang on about prison being a deterrent. But prison requires detection and detection requires evidence. Cameras gather evidence. And their effect is to deter. They deter even when they are not switched on. Consequently street crime is *prevented*. The numbers are clear and undeniable. And crime prevention is way better than the comical assertions of "harsher punishment". (Or the even more laughable notion that armed citizens drive down the likelihood of crime. That's as dumb as solving bullying in schools by giving the victims knives.) Yes. I agree that arming the police IS a bad thing. I said this already. Give a policeman a gun, and he will shoot your ass. Give a policeman a camcorder and he will shoot his girlfriend's ass and leave me alone. I have yet to hear what civil liberties are actually reduced by public cameras. Answers please. What is the alternative? The American model of mass-imprisonment clearly does not work. It is more expensive. Less effective. And I suspect the civil rights of the millions of detainees might have been curtailled by detention. If you are interested in facts - see the stats on how cameras actually reduce street crime. It's pretty clear. Undeniable in fact. The funny thing is, I am not a right-wing authoritarian nutcase. I see myself as a liberal. I have the whole compassion thing. Criminals are people too. etc. I just want them to not do so much bad stuff. So you people who are objecting to cameras are who? Exactly? ? Uber-liberals. Human rights fanatics. I don't think so. ? One of you guys thinks he can to solve crime by shooting the perps. I'd say he was right-of-center. ? Are you rapists? ? Graffiti Artists? ? Do you crave for a time when public floggings and hangings provided us with order? Who are you people? Do you have a deep-seated mis-trust of government? I do too. But like I say. A bobby with a 35milimeter is less threatening than a donut-eater with a .45.
You know, somehow I find that having very little impact on the lives of people who don't use chewing gum.
But the potential to be kidnapped and flown away to some far away prison outside any legal system is a risk we now all run (Gitmo and the flights to other places). Or being arrested in your own country for something that is only a crime in the US (DVD Jon) - shows a great respect for the sovereignty of nations and the rights of the individual vs. big commerce. And, of course, terrorism has been with us for a long time, not in the least because at some point that nation starting the war on terrorism was involved in some creative sponsorship - only now life feels a lot less safe so hurray for a 'democracy' where someone can start a war on a lie and stay in power, but lying about a blowjob can cost you the job. Does that feel RIGHT then?
I'm not defending Singapore's record (although, you try and create a nation out of nothing), but at least Singapore doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't.
Insert
But back to cameras. Give a policeman a camcorder and he will shoot his girlfriend's ass. Ah, really. And what about him shooting YOUR girlfriends' ass? Who are you going to call? Who watches the watchers (not exactly a modern concern, if I recall it's Cicero). Rather than giving you my arguments, let's turn to the words of a real authority in this field, Bruce Schneier, and his piece in Wired called The Eternal Value of Privacy. Oh, and cameras cost money. To buy, to install, to maintain, to watch, to preserve information of. That's your tax money at work.
Insert
I think I still have too much blood in my caffeine, no idea where I got Cicero from :-). The question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" was posed by Juvenal, but he was not the first to observe the essential problem, that was Plato when commenting on the ideal society as posed by Socrates.
I fear, however, that the noble lie Plato proposed has gone to the head of many..
Insert
We're drifting from the original point - do you really need cameras to enforce the law. Britain is uniquely saturated with cameras but the prisons are still bulging. And I can only see this stop trivial crime - another problem is that adding a camera means adding hay to the haystack making that needle you need so much harder to find. It's again technology trying to replace that most vital element of policing - the police.
No other nation has found the need to have that high a camera density, yet they haven't quite turned into complete cesspools of crime.
And as for dummies - it doesn't take long to find out which ones don't work if you add speech to them..
I remain unconvinced that cameras address the root problems - it strikes me as fighting symptoms, not causes.
Insert
You are right, except for the "could in theory decide not to sign off on a new law" part. There is no theoretical basis for that claim any more. The personal residual power has been in abeyance since the 1700s, and a statute extinguishing it has since become law (The Royal Assent Act, 1967). With respect to actions of the Crown, the modern monarch is entirely obliged to follow the advice of the government of the day. Moreover more and more of the activities the Queen performed personally but essentially as an automaton when much younger are now handled by the civil service as a bureaucratic function instead.
No reigning monarch since Victoria has personally been involved in the granting of a royal assent, and in her case the last time was in 1854.
That is: no monarch since then has indiciated through sign manual, affixation of the Great Seal, or even orally, indicated her or his assent to an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses of Parliament (or since the Parliament Act (1911 and 1949) the House of Commons alone in special circumstances. Although in theory (and law) the Queen may personally grant Royal Assent, in practice it is neither necessary nor likely to happen.
The Royal Assent Act (1967) and the Crown Office regulations (2000) set out a formula whereby an "equerry" in the Crown Office (notably The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who is an ordinary civil servant and who is also usually the Permanent Secretary to the Department of the Lord Chancellor) or a deputy (another civil servant) sends a form letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons (and since the latest round of changes to the other place) the Speaker of the House of Lords. The Palace and its staff are uninvolved in the process, and are politely notified by form letter, but probably only read about it in the Gazette.
Finally, as the Crown Office is part of the government, and is headed by a Cabinet Minister, the formality of advising the Monarch to grant, reserve or withhold assent to a bill is no longer necessary. This has been the case since at least 1967.
Since it is unusual for the UK House of Commons not to be controlled outright by the government (i.e., having more than half the seats), it is unlikely that the formulas for reserving or withholding assent to ordinary bills will ever be used. However, since it is possible that a government may find itself presented with an Act of Parliament duly passed, but which the government opposes, they remain as reserve powers of the government.
Formally, with the direction of the Minister for the Crown Office (usually the person who is also Lord Chancellor) and the agreement of the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery would write a letter to the Speaker (or Speakers, as appropriate) indicating that the monarch will take the bill under consideration before granting assent. This is a polite way of saying: "the government has unilaterally killed your bill".
More importantly, there is a tradition of the Prime Minister consulting with the Queen on a personal level before bills are introduced which affects her personally (title to her legally personal property, revenues, and rights, changes to her constitutional rights to particpate in Parliament, and so forth). This tradition is extended to other members of the immediate Royal Family as well, usually with respect to revenues and rules affecting e.g. Cornwall (the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Cornwall) or (also recently) his membership in the House of Lords.
The "consultation" is a politeness, since ultimately the Queen is obliged to follow the advice of the Prime Minister, notwithstanding her personal objections, those of the Price of Wales, etc. Ultimately, the Queen's Assent is a claim by the gov
The solution to drunk 'tiny-minded' people beating up innocent passers-by ought not necessarily be active (prosecuting these "idiots engaged in this kind of behaviour") but passive. Legalising ganja for instance.
I just don't believe that talking CCTV is a natural thing. I don't see even drunkness as natural, even though you can argue some animals do deliberately intoxicate themselves. My point is, this whole CCTV thing is solving of a consequence, not the cause. Solving consequences leads to NOT-solving of the causes, which produce more and/or stronger consequences, which are 'solved' more and more harshly...
And guess who benefits only?
My parser is a grammar nazi.