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 lazy_nihilist · · Score: 5, Funny

      First they came for the communists,
      Then they..

      Damn, they got me with this. I didn't expect them to come after me First.

    2. Re:Slippery Slopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      2001!

      What are we playing?

    3. Re:Slippery Slopes by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      2001!

      What are we playing? That's Numberwang!
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. 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?
    5. Re:Slippery Slopes by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1973!

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Slippery Slopes by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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."

      Yes, lets hope the people rise up and smite them. Then we can all walk the footpaths of this great nation free from the fear of canine landmines.

      As an aside I drove around the UK a couple of years ago and got to play crocidile dundee with some local vandals. Near Cambridge I was waiting in the car for the missus to come out of a shop when I noticed half a dozen 13-15yro kids around a telephone box. One of them started trying to rip the door off with all his might and was putting in quite a bit of time and effort. It was in broard daylight, there were people nearby pretending it wasn't happening.

      Now I'm a rather large, middle-aged Aussie so I dragged my arse out of the car and walked up to within a meter or so of the kid bashing the door, folded my arms across my chest and waited till he turned around and caught my eye.

      He and his mates froze, the converstaion went something like...
      Me: "Is that yours?"
      Kid:"No".
      Me: "Then I suggest you fuck off now because I might want to use it."

      I stayed in position waiting in silence for a few seconds. Some of them moved away faster than the others who were trying there best to stay composed. I can understand a woman or even a man on his own not wanting to takle half a dozen teenage kids but the shopping strip was packed and nobody was batting an eyelid!!!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. 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.
    1. Re:Finally a use I can get behind by the+99th+penguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Speaking of which (cameras deterring crime), here is an interesting article from SFGate

      From the article:

      Using a complicated method, researchers were able to come up with an average daily crime rate at each location broken out by type of crime and distance from the cameras. They then compared it with the average daily crime rate from the period before the cameras were installed.

      They looked at seven types of crime: larcenies, burglaries, motor vehicle theft, assault, robbery, homicide and forcible sex offenses.

      The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected -- except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.

      Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
  3. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then they came for the dog owners,
    And I didn't speak up because I was not a dog owner.

  4. Re:1984 by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

    Yes, it was set in London. And you can still see the building that suggested the Ministry of Truth to Orwell, just off Tottenham Court Road at UCL (University College London). During World War II it was the Ministry of Propaganda, and Orwell worked there.

  5. 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.
  6. 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 ----
  7. 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

  8. 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.
  9. Re:I miss the days by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my current job, I've met over 50 Republican members of Congress and leaders of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," all the way back to the source of it all -- Richard Viguerie.

    I remember being a kid and watching Ruby Ridge, Waco, et cetera. I remember going to gunshows with my dad and stocking up on stuff, coming home and watching Red Dawn. I remember hating Bill Clinton and Janet Reno with a passion.

    I most certainly did not feel SMUG about being an American before Bush -- but I can tell you, I did feel PROUD.

    That is now long gone. Between the antics of Bush et al, and the bullshit, lies, half-truths and innuendos I have to endure at work, I am now perhaps the least "conservative" person I deal with on a daily basis anymore.

    I am leaving my job and leaving Washington to go back to school for mechanical engineering (I had started out as a comp sci and bio double the first time, ended coming out with a BA in English 'cause my heart wasn't in it at the time) and doing school right this time.

    I now hate politics with a passion and I can pretty much guarantee that I hate those in power now more than you ever will. I wanted to buy what they were selling before, but now not only do I want my money back, I want to sue for damages.

    I used to be a Ron Paul fan, but even in the last few months I've become so fed up that frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with any of those "let the market sort it out" people who only care what happens to you until you're born, then throw you to the wolves.

    Oh, by the way, they're the wolves.

    The corner stone of the whole operation, the lynch pin, the original vampire, is the National Right to Work foundation. They operate front groups, pimp fake economic numbers, et cetera.

    They're the ones that need to go down first, because they're the ones that have been pushing this crap since the 60s.

    Anyway... sorry for the rant. It's been a long week.

  10. Privacy VS. Security by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's interesting how attitudes differ. People (including in the UK) seem to think the CCTV there is a terrible violation of privacy and the justifications for it, even if true, would be weak. In South Africa, CCTV is profligating faster than that and our tech is actually MORE advanced now. Here, it has gotten nothing but praise. People just don't care about privacy. There is a twofold reason for that I think. The first is that just a generation ago we were living under what was little less than a military dictatorship. A dictatorship that had propaganda SO effective that some people to this day yearn for their rule ! What's worse, people here seem to chaos and order as a black/white thing. Either everybody does what they are told all the time, nothing more, nothing less- or you have complete chaos. The idea of a free society in between those extremes, where the individual's rights matter is basically non-existent. Throw in a massive crime wave, and putting up CCTV will get you hailed as heroes, with nobody wondering if it may be abused. It is scary to see the same thing happening in the UK though - because it removes from the rest of us yet another example of liberty being respected - if the UK with their relatively small crime problems lose it... how will we with a crime wave possibly convince people that the little extra security you may or may not get out of CCTV may not be worth the incredible price we are paying ? We already live in a country where it is now a crime for teenagers under the age of 16 to HUG OR KISS. How long before we have teenagers arrested for making out - and CCTV used to find them/as evidence ? It's no less of a minor crime than dogpoop (of course, the kissing should never have been a crime at all but at least it's classified as minor). The biggest irony of all is, even in South Africa the camera's have not actually had a real positive effect, the criminals simply moved to other neighbourhoods. So the cycle ends up with every street everywhere being under surveillance in the end. 1984 Was not so far fetched.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  11. Re:Petty crimes? by iamwithstupid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pavement

  12. Remember by houghi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember, remember
    the 5th of November.
    The gunpowder, treason, and plot.
    I know of no reason
    why the gunpowder treason
    should ever be forgot.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. 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.

  14. Re:9/11! not in UK by teh+kurisu · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was so nice of the 7th of July London bombers to blow themselves up on a date that we could all agree on.