Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the let-this-be-a-lesson dept.

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."

11 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 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?
    2. Re:Slippery Slopes by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1973!

      --
      What?
    3. 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. 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.
  4. 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 ----
  5. 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

  6. 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.
  7. Re:Petty crimes? by iamwithstupid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pavement

  8. 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.