Slashdot Mirror


UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that it seems the UK is trying make up for their judicious use of surveillance cameras that, according to recent research, do not actually deter crime, by using the surveillance network to prosecute petty crimes. "Conjuring up the bogeymen of terrorists, online pedophiles and cybercriminals, the U.K. passed a comprehensive surveillance law, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, in 2000. The law allows 'the interception of communications, carrying out of surveillance, and the use of covert human intelligence sources' to help prevent crime, including terrorism. Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations."

22 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Slippery Slopes by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NOW do you believe us?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Slippery Slopes by FinchWorld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope more incidents like this happen, maybe it will piss off the rest of the UK population enough so that they might just take notice.

      --
      "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    2. Re:Slippery Slopes by Kugrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      maybe it will piss off the rest of the UK population enough so that they might just take notice.


      And do what about it?
    3. Re:Slippery Slopes by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it sucks but what am I going to do?

      First, sign a petition like the reply before me has suggested. Then give the CCTV cameras the same treatment as speed cameras are getting. Prove to the government that the presence of CCTV actually increases crime, mostly arson.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Slippery Slopes by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1973!

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Slippery Slopes by fredklein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people standing around ignoring the kids trying to pull the door off of the phone booth were trying not to become involved because they feared they would be attacked...and with good reason.

      ::whoosh::

      That's the sound of the point flying far, far, over your head.

      It is certainly true that if JUST ONE person stands up asgainst a gang of hooligans, they risk getting beat/killed.

      But if ALL the people stand up against them, it is the gang that would be outnumbered, and would risk getting beat (possibly killed, depending) if they start something. But for that to happen, each individual in the crowd needs to make the decision to stand up to them.

      With people like you saying "Your solution, while noble, is not an option...", that has a low probability of happening.

  2. Finally a use I can get behind by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate it when dogs piss and poop right in the middle of the sidewalk.

    By the way, the summary is wrong - that study the other day did not say the crimes didn't deter crime... only that they don't help much in SOLVING street robberies. Big difference, that.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Is anyone surprised by this ? by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who is surprised by this doesn't understand either the police, or politics.

  4. Re:Yay by Knave75 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it stops inconsiderate bastards leaving their dog's shit on the pavement, I'm all for it.

    I guess it depends on where you feel public resources should be allocated. Dog poop certainly annoys me, but I do not want millions of taxpayers dollars to be used dealing with that problem. I'd rather they spend it on free breakfasts for schoolchildren or going after drunk drivers.

    The point is, there are finite dollars to throw at a relatively large number of potential issues, and every dollar spent enforcing dog poop laws is one less dollar that will be spent on some other public good.

    Oh, and using terrorism to justify spending any large amount of money is also annoying. But that is another issue.
  5. Re:Petty crimes? by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its not about dog poo. its about private citizens being spied on with the assumption they are guilty and the loss of reasonable privacy.

    I bet you buy the 'its for the children' nonsence too.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  6. Actually.. by wellingtonsteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually I'm all for executing* people who don't clear their dog poop :-) As a dog owner I'm fed up of being tarred with the same brush..

    *For those with a sense of humour failure, this is a "joke" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

  7. Re:Yay by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, good sir, refuse to sell my liberty for a shit-free sidewalk.

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  8. Re:May not deter crime, but... by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please send me all of your important info including passport, etc so that I might make sure that you are safe and nothing bad happens. I promise not to abuse it.

  9. I miss the days by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I could sit in front of my computer and feel smug when this happened in other countries.
    Hopefully when Bush and his cronies are out of office we can repair the damage and I can once again feel a smug attitude about my country.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Whoa by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How's the koolaid these days?

    Since when is suspending habeas corpus, destroying congressional oversight, and wiretapping phones without permission from any legal authority constitute freedom?

    Or is this the crazy part of American culture where abortion is murder and war is heroic?

  11. Re:Yay by SMS_Design · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Man, civil rights sure do go cheap these days.

  12. Re:Petty crimes? by iamwithstupid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pavement

  13. Poor summary, poor submission by MLCT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations "everything but" - well no, actually, that is tabloid style summary hyperbole - in fact it isn't even hyperbole, just plan rubbish.

    The submitter should familiarise themselves with (off the top of my head) three ongoing terrorist trials where CCTV evidence is important to gaining a possible conviction. One in particular, that of the prosecution of associates of the 7th of July London bombers who travelled with them to London in advance to case targets, relies heavily on CCTV to link these people to the bombers, and will help obtain convictions (should that be what the jury decides).

    That is just an ongoing trial, and is publicly known, "terrorism investigations" covers a multitude of unknown (to the public) current investigations - monitoring people who have warranted the attention of the intelligence community.

    But god forbid the truth should get in the way of a hyperactive slashdot submission - desperate for 500 comments of "1984", "slippery slope" and every other cliché under the sun. There may be (and indeed I would personally say, are) valid criticisms of CCTV and how people are monitored in public places - but that debate is entirely short circuited and debased with juvenile submissions like this that are not interested in facts, only hyperbole.
  14. Re:Yay by johnlcallaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I got pulled over in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago for not fully stopping at a stop sign. They had two motorcycle police officers monitoring the intersection.

    Some may think 'what a waste of tax payer money, pulling people over for not making a complete stop at the stop sign'. But I decided instead of whining to talk to the police officer. Know what I found out??

    They were there BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD COMPLAINED PEOPLE WERE SPEEDING DOWN THE STREET. In other words, they were doing exactly what the citizens who pay taxes asked for. Just not the ones that were speeding down the street.

    Why did I not stop fully?? Because there were several kids hanging around the street and I was paying more attention to them than the stop sign. My fault, I paid the ticket.

    But the police were hoping to slow people down so that none of these kids get hit because some moron is speeding down the street.

    So .. the next time you think police have something better to do, the answer is yes. And if everyone would obey the 'not important' laws, like speeding or stopping at stop signs or not letting their dogs poop on the sidewalk, maybe they would have more time to do it.

    All laws have to be enforced (or eliminated), otherwise people learn very quickly which ones they can get away with. When people learn they don't get stopped for speeding, they start to go faster. When they learn they can let their dogs poop anywhere, they will do that to.

    So ... shut up, pick up your poop, and let the police officers get back to important work instead of having to babysit your ass.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  15. Re:Yay by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree. I'm not a dog owner currently but I have nothing against dogs and if I did own one I would up my dog's shit because it pisses me off to no end as well.

    But I still believe in due process and privacy and small government and limiting government's power over people's lives. I'm not a doom sayer conspiracy theorist who thinks that the British or Canadian government turning into Nazi Germany in my life time is a likely scenario (sorry for the Godwin) but there are still a lot of bullshit laws that IMO do more harm than good and democracy has this one downside where the majority (some times a rather large group of people which was demonstrated in the last 2 US presidential elections) gets consistently screwed over.

    Government is force even when they are democratic and are doing their job and serving the will of the people. They exist solely for the purpose of exercising force. They can take away your freedom, your property. They can send you to your death. The control and moderate and arbitrate. They are force and authority by it's very definition. So while CCTV has some positive uses I don't favour it because I don't like giving force more force. I don't like the idea of living in a world where everyone is considerate just because they're afraid. I don't like being afraid of being caught on camera walking into an adult bookstore. I don't trust the government to keep data safe and I realize the same can be said about passports and census data etc. but the way I see it the less there is to be abused or breached the better.

    While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public I think that you *should*. To a much lesser extent then on your private property obviously but people need to know that they're not being followed and recorded everywhere they go and having everything they do stored to some hard drive that can be accessed later and used against them.

    I'm not crying Orwell or Hitler and I'm not even saying "slippery slope". I just don't want video footage of me when I'm out and going about my personal affairs. I'm a private person who doesn't even like his picture being taken in family portraits. My worst nightmare would be for me to be a celebrity. Video surveillance makes me feel like one.

  16. Metaironic by hacksoncode · · Score: 5, Insightful
    People have skirted around this, but I find it interesting to note that the crimes which the UK appears to *actually* be these CCTV cameras against are, in fact, bigger problems for the citizenry than the terrorists and pedophiles which were used to sell it.

    We need a new word for something that's ironic because it is designed to seem ironic but really isn't.

    The meta-irony here comes through in the point that terrorists aren't really a danger to normal people (statistically speaking), and in fact are probably less of a hazard than slipping on dog poop on the sidewalk. But you can get CCTVs pushed through based on the former and not the latter because almost all people have extraordinarily poor risk assessment skills.

    1. Re:Metaironic by startled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The meta-irony here comes through in the point that terrorists aren't really a danger to normal people (statistically speaking), and in fact are probably less of a hazard than slipping on dog poop on the sidewalk.

      Are you really making the case that most people in the UK are more likely to be killed by sidewalk dog poop than acts of terrorism? I understand that the likelihood of either is quite low, but I'm still going to have to see a few cases of death by sidewalk poo before I believe they occur with any frequency.