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."

3 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Slippery Slopes by turgid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Have you seen the advert for Purina dog food with the dogs in 0-g in that space station? Could you imagine the poop? Yeuch.

  2. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    I was a cat owner, and I was happy!

    http://german.about.com/library/media/sound/Deutschlandlied.mp3

    Felines, felines
    Over everything
    Over every dog and rat
    They're much cuter
    And more cuddleable
    And we don't know where they've shat!
    They shit in private!
    And they bury it!
    We love them very much for that!
    They shit in private!
    And they bury it!
    Can any stupid dog do that?

  3. Re:Finally a use I can get behind by _KiTA_ · · Score: 0, Redundant

    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. The difference being, of course, that you can actually measure the rate of solving street robberies, whereas determent rate is about as quantifiable as the atomic weight of angel farts.

    What are they going to do, walk around with surveys asking anyone they think might commit crime if they decided not to because of the cameras?