UK Government Plans 10-Year Database of Citizens' Travel

moderators_are_w*nke writes "The UK government is planning yet another database to track its citizens, this time keeping track of their movements in and out of the country for ten years. Just like all their other databases, this one 'is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and [of course] terrorism.'" I'd be very surprised if the US is not already doing this, and just not making a point to let anyone know.

Comments

Police State

[Blue Stone]

I'm sick of hearing that we, here in the UK, are 'marching toward' a Police State (I think we essentially have one, it's just being applied in a low-key and selective manner at the moment). May I make an appeal that we can all agree that the bunch of ex-communist sympathisers who rule the country at the moment, at least WANT a police state?

Then perhaps we can move forward instead of repeating the self-defeating 'walking toward' mantra.

Re:Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

If Wikipedia's definition of a police state is accurate, the fact it's applied "in a low-key and selective manner" really does mean "marching toward" rather than "having arrived".

We can only hope that the western world, having known freedom, will revolt while they still have enough of that freedom left to effectively do so. Not saying that time is now, but if the governments keep heading in the direction they are, it's only a matter of time.

Ideally, one would vote the nations out of these issues instead. But if all the parties are caught up in the hysteria, what's there left to do.

Re:Police State

[Nursie]

How's that working out for you?

The US already does much of the stuff the UK does. You have free speech zones, warrantless wiretaps, your homeland security theatre...

The US public is too complacent to revolt, and too "patriotic".

Re:Police State

[Bertie]

The police generally can't carry guns. And the whole reason why they neither have them nor want them is because that would give them powers that ordinary people don't have. There are armed response units which are called out for firearms-related incidents, but these guys spend most of their days sitting around doing nothing.

And of course, ordinary people can have guns if they want them. It's just strictly controlled.

Re:Police State

[hobbit]

If this law to track citizens' movement were passed in America, we would exercise our second amendment rights

I hear this sort of thing a lot from Americans, but it really isn't borne out by the evidence.

Re:Police State

[quickOnTheUptake]

If this law to track citizens' movement were passed in America, we would exercise our second amendment rights. We would tell our parliamentarians: Real this law or die. Government is there to SERVE the people, not to be a master. Politicians who desire to be masters need to be "fired" by their employers, the People.

I wish Americans had the testicular fortitude to do this. Unfortunately since, idk, the civil war we have been pretty trusting of government (even if we talk a lot of smack about Washington and politics). In fact, not only are we not willing to give an ultimatum to the Federal government, we keep electing politicians who ensure more of the same (albeit in different trappings sometimes). The only way something like this would ever happen is if the economy when to complete shit and you had large numbers of people (> say 30%) unemployed and the rest unable to live in any sort of comfort. Americans are just too comfortable to make real change.

Re:Police State

[commodore64_love]

The eastern Europeans stormed their capitals in 1990-91, and in the face of an armed communist military, and yet they still managed to reclaim their freedom.

Re:Police State

[evilandi]

When on earth is it illegal for the British government to spy on us?

(Assuming us = British citizens located in the UK:)

* When you are a British government agency engaged in national security work whose terms of service expressly forbids spying on British Citizens located in the UK (IIRC this includes the SIS/MI6)

* When you are doing so ostensibly under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act but are failing to observe those regulations.

* When you are not covered by RIPA nor national security regulations, and are failing in your responsibilities under the Data Protection Act.

I don't actually have a problem with people monitoring me, so long as I have a right to check all records about me and correct any incorrect ones. That's pretty much what the Data Protection Act says. If it's an issue of national security, then, well duh, all governments are in the same boat and the UK is no different.

The loophole, if there is one, is the rather stupidly wide-ranging Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which allows you to be monitored without your knowledge or right of reply if they suspect you of a variety of minor crimes such as dumping an old tyre in a hedge. The problem there is that these investigations are so common, that they are done by poorly trained local council staff who frequently mistake identities, and you have no right to become aware of the problem, nor correct it. Indeed, under most situations it is illegal to inform someone that they are being monitored under RIPA.

The root problem, therefore, is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which needs to be significantly re-written.

Re:Police State

[Shakrai]

warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls

Fixed that for you.

The US public is too complacent to revolt, and too "patriotic".

Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?

Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.

Re:Police State

[tolgyesi]

People are sheep. They revolt when someone makes it the craze/fashion/whatever, but then let the country become the same crap as in the west. Here in Hungary we can choose between two similarly corrupt parties, just like everywhere else I see.

I have seen some good ideas to change things. For example to allow voters to say yes to more than one candidate - so they can vote for the third or fourth party and can still have a say in the fight between the two strongest. Here is one such site: http://www.rangevoting.org/

Re:Police State

[Shakrai]

You might need that to do certain things, and do them by the book, but it seems to me that you can get away with what you like so long as you cover it up for a bit and then grant retrospective immunity to everyone involved. And if you think your government, with all it's DHA, TSA and other such stuff isn't keeping a record of everywhere you go, well... I disagree!

Keeping a record of everywhere I go doesn't violate my rights. I question why the government needs such a record but if you think this started with TSA you are sadly mistaken.

Surely the last government proved to you that the US executive can and will do whatever they like?

Actually, SCOTUS shot down several policies of the US executive so I think my underlying point still stands. The worst problem of the last eight years wasn't Bush (every single President since Washington has tried to expand executive power) but the manner in which the Congress rubber-stamped his policies for the first six years.

Also, who cares whether the calls were made to/from overseas places?

Historically the Government has had broader powers at the border and some of your rights may not apply when crossing that border. That doesn't mean I support all of those powers (if the call is between two Americans I don't think they have any right to be listening) but claiming that this is something new shows that you haven't really researched the topic as throughly as you should.

"Shouldna bin talkin' to them furr-ners anyway"?

Yes, any American that might see the historical basis for this kind of policy is automatically the stereotypical xenophobe and can be dismissed as such.

Re:Police State

[Shakrai]

Maybe because keeping and bearing arms was seen more like a stupid idea than a dear time-honored right?

That whooshing sound is the point flying right over your head. If sensibilities can evolve towards considering that right to be a "stupid idea" and taking it away then they can evolve towards considering other rights to be a stupid idea.

I think we should take away free speech because organizations like the KKK use it for bad things. Phrase it like that and watch the sheep line up to surrender their rights.

Re:Police State

[mdwh2]

Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights.

Yes, but that's a property of the US Constitution, and not the fact that you have guns.

The OP's point wasn't to say that the US was worse than the UK. The point is that everytime there's an article like this about the UK, we get the inevitable "If only you had guns". The fact that similar things happen in the US, despite your guns, suggest that the point is irrelevant.

Re:Police State

[guruevi]

The only way to get a revolution (almost anywhere) is by hitting people directly in their pockets. American Civil War: slaves were a cheap workforce and not having them or having to pay them was bad for a lot of people's business. Thus they revolted. Same goes for the Soviets. They went along as long as they weren't affected. As soon as people started disappearing on large scales and the whole 'communist' thing meant that they were working but weren't getting food but the big wigs in the Party did get all the perks of the communist idea they started revolting. Same for the French: As long as they had it fairly good they went along. But then when the government started raising taxes to the point of famine they started revolting. African nations the same: as long as they are fed they will be fine with whatever ruler comes along, have 1 group/tribe/area excluded from food and that group is larger than a village, that group will start a rebel movement or a civil war. Israel-Palestine is trickier because they will kill each other because they hate each other but the same goes there: having 2 states is all fine and well even with the occasional bombing but one side starts to close borders and rationing food/gas/supplies and you'll have a revolt.

Re:Police State

[Nursie]

Whist tracking down tax avoidance is good, I can't help feeling they could save us a buttload more money by getting rid of all their surveillance crap and cutting deeply into public spending.

Make the UK a genuinely low-taxed capitalist country (as it damn well should be, even with the NHS) and the rich won't feel as much need to evade.

Re:Police State

[slashdotlurker]

Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?

As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence. Its at best a palliative that gives us a false sense of security. As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.

Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.

Nice in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Frighten the congressmen/women enough, fool the people enough and you can make them dance any which way you want. Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security, or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.

The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment. Whether its CNN's love affair with the Democrats or Fox's marriage to the Republicans, an ignorant, naturally insular populace such as ours is ripe pickings for these charlatans who call themselves our leaders. We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.

Re:Police State

[Shakrai]

And that certainly helped you during the 8 years with W didn't it.

It did if you were paying attention. SCOTUS reined in a lot of his policies. Some of the states stood up and flipped Washington off over Real ID. Just because the system doesn't work overnight doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

Re:Police State

[Shakrai]

As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence.

Well I would dispute that notion (it would matter if the Feds decided to SWAT a whole bunch of people out of existence) but that wasn't the underlying point I was trying to make. My underlying point was that the people of the UK sheepishly agreed to surrender a right that they had held for hundreds of years. That's a pretty dangerous precedent to set, IMHO, and why should we believe that any of the other rights will be respected if that one wasn't?

As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.

The difference between someone captured on the battlefield and someone captured within the United States should be plain to everybody. Do you also think that we lost the right to trial by jury because we didn't afford it to the POWs we captured in the Civil War/Spanish-American War/WW1/WW2/Korea or Vietnam?

Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security

I opposed the Iraq War but you should at least acknowledge that it was the stated policy of our country since the 90s to change the regime in Iraq. It's not like Bush picked a random country off to map to invade and bullied Congress into letting him do it.

or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.

Well, I oppose that too, but it's interesting that you are bringing up pork in a discussion about civil liberties. Which civil liberties do I lose if Congress decides to fight STDs? My right to keep and bear chlamydia? ;)

The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment.

The media has it's own agenda -- selling copy. I would dispute that you can make a blanket statement that 'the media' is part of 'the establishment'. 'The media' is a pretty broad term. Slashdot is part of the media. Is Slashdot part of the establishment? How about 2600? They part of the establishment?

We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.

I disagree. The fact that several states stood up and told Washington to fuck off with regards to Real ID tells me that we are far ahead of the Brits.

Re:Police State

[scruffy]

warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls

You must have missed this story:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/nsa-whistleblower-says-journos-were-targeted.ars

"The NSA had access to all Americans' communications: faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," said Tice. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas in the middle of the country and you never made any foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."

Re:Police State

[commodore64_love]

Voters don't even know how to punch-out a chad*, how on earth would they handle a scoring system??? I don't think that would work. Maybe we could get away with Australian ballots, where you assign 1 for your favorite (McCain), 2 for your second favorite (Harry Browne), and so on, but that's about it.

*
*I think it was less stupidity, and more laziness. The instructions said to verify the holes were punched out of your ballot, prior to handing it in, but like a typical school student, SOME of the voters were too lazy to do that. If they care so little about their vote, why should the rest of us care?

Re:Police State

[sumdumass]

Exactly.

It's a one step forward and two steps back. Take the DC gun ban for instance. They had been attempting to take guns away for a while and finally the Supreme court took the case up and made the anti-gun people take 10 steps back. The former President wanted to take habeas corpus away from prisoners held at club gitmo, the court made them take a few steps back.

We won't be free of people, however innocently intentioned they think they are, who will attempt to take rights away from the people. However, because it is so difficult to do so, we end up with a document which gives the government directions for all the power it can derive from the people and being enforced by the supreme court of the land who steps in eventually and puts a stop to it. There is no higher legal authority in England where the courts can say "stop doing that because the constitution doesn't allow it". There is nothing others then rights that can be easily legislated away. It's especially easier to do so when the government has no fear of reprisal from the people. Taking the right to defend yourself from not only a criminal but a tyrannical and/or oppressive government away from the people only makes it easier for the government to becomes tyranical and oppresive when it takes other rights away. Perhaps you right to vote against them, or you right to free speech (which shouldn't be confused as a right to deny others their speech and some seem to think) or to speak against them will be next.

Stephen Fry...

[Goffee71]

...is going straight to jail(the new Morcambe Bay maximum security anti-terror gulag!)Look at all those dodgy Twitter posts - America, Australia, America, Luxembourg - the chap is a one-man axis of evil!

No big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have had this for years. The government holds your travel records for the last 30 years, then they are moved to the national archives where they are public domain. They are often used when you apply for dual citizenship.

superficial and ineffective

[petes_PoV]

Oh goody, more security theatre.

If the plan is to see how many baddies go to "suspect" countries (obviously with nefarious intent - not simply because they might have family there, or like traveling), then it's easily negated by traveling to a "friendly" country and booking onwards from there. As usual with govt. hare-brained schemes, this will track the millions of holidaymakers and completely miss any people who have half an interest in concealing their true intentions. Meantime, we are all tracked, tested, tagged, followed and surveilled to an even greater extent. All this does is add to the general sense of oppression in the country, and adds to the sheer volume of innocous data collected - while leaving those with both the motivation and the organisation free to carry on as they wish, safe int he knowledge that the "intelligence" services are snowed under in an avalanche of useless data.

The real surprise is...

[Malc]

... that they're not already doing this.

I believe Canada does it. When I returned to Canada last year from one of my trips, the guy at the border swiped my passport, looked at the computer screen, and commented on how much I travel. He hadn't even looked at all the visas and stamps in passport.

The US has definitely been keeping track of everything for years. When I went for the final interview for enrolment in the Nexus programme, the US immigration guy swiped my Canadian passport. After a while he asked me what happened at Detroit in Oct 2000. I'd been refused entry whilst travelling on my British passport, before I had Canadian permanent residency and long before citizenship, but he'd connected my two passports.

Re:The real surprise is...

[MarkRose]

Canada has been for years, yes. The only time I have not had my ID scanned when returning to Canada was on a tour bus where the guard just looked at my passport. The US guards are particularly anal. Last time I crossed into the US, the guard accused me of trying to move there because I had crossed a week earlier. Although there is one crossing where I've never had trouble -- because there is no guard.

Re:Very sad

[DreamsAreOkToo]

It's sad that people actually think even the UK is a police state, they obviously have not read much about what being in a real police state is like, or travelled to some truly controlled parts of the world (like Zimbabwe, which I have been to)

SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument? I see it a lot on Slashdot, and everywhere else I go!

It goes like this:
"X is bad."
"Y is worse than X, X isn't bad at all."

The fallacy here is that somehow, you could be the 2nd worse and that isn't a bad thing at all! While it might be true that the UK doesn't make people disappear (yet) it is also true that the UK is creating very powerful policing tools, and that once they do start making people disappear, it will be all too late, as George Orwell has warned us.

And don't even think for a second that our leaders are benevolent and immune to corruption.

Re:Very sad

[sakdoctor]

I disagree.

People seem notoriously unable to recognise a police state when they are immersed in one.

On the other hand, I don't think there is a photofit image of a police state for easy identification. It's fallaciously to say, "Oh look, we aren't as bad as China/Iran/Zimbabwe, so we can't be a police state, every thing's fine."

More security

[retech]

Somehow just does not make me feel more secure.

Re:Immigrants

[Malc]

Great attitude dickhead. Perhaps other countries should take the same attitude towards expat Britons too. You realised 1 in 10 Britons live overseas? How about we start with the 761,000 (2006 numbers) who live in Spain, and send them home? That will surely help, or at least in Spain. Australia has 1.3 million, many of whom are retired and screwed by the British government on their pensions and so costing the Aussie taxpayers a lot of money... I'm sure Gordon Brown will be happy to raise taxes or government debt further to provide for them.

Re:Very sad

[Anonymous Coward]

rather, people don't disappear in large numbers, yet. There are the occasionally reported cases of people being detained for periods of time widely considered unreasonable for criminal investigations.
Likewise, people aren't assaulted in large numbers. That doesn't mean the police limit themselves to levels of force widely held to be acceptable.

And then there's the participation in rendition programs that do nothing other than make people disappear.

Re:Very sad

[thermian]

It's sad that people actually think even the UK is a police state, they obviously have not read much about what being in a real police state is like, or travelled to some truly controlled parts of the world (like Zimbabwe, which I have been to).

It cheapens the term when you abuse it like that.

Agreed

I live in the UK, and I'm rather appalled that people talk of our being or becoming a police state.

It seems to me some people are desperate to prove a police state exists in a nice safe (and entirely free) country so they can get all annoyed about it and not have to deal with the real ones, or the potential dangers of protesting an actual police state.

Last I checked people weren't being dragged from their beds in the night and improsioned/shot/beaten, and we have a legal system which apportions everyone legal rights that the police cannot avoid. I can't be bothered to refute this any more though, its too nonsensical for that.

police state? - been there!

[petes_PoV]

Yup, I've been to iron-curtain countries (when there was still a "proper" iron curtain). Most citizens were wary of the police and would scatter whenever they showed up, even if they had done nothing wrong themselves. Otherwise they would keep their noses clean and do whatever they could to keep out of the way of the law. Foreigners (like me) were basically told to do the same - be calm & courteous, offer documents and ID whenever approached and otherwise keep out of their way. Oh, yes: don't go around photographing official buildings or people - you'll get arrested.

This is exactly the same position that law-abiding UK citizens face every day, in their own country. If that isn't a measure of a police (run) state, then I can't say what is. Taking extreme examples of a failed state (e.g. Zimbabwe) as an example does not represent the everyday situation.

We're there already guys. It just crept up on us, slowly, and no-one noticed.

Re:police state? - been there!

[Smuttley]

You run away from the Police when they show up? Do you get arrested for photographing offical buildings or people?

I've not been in the UK for just over a year but things must have changed an awful lot.

Re:police state? - been there!

[damburger]

Depends on how you are dressed. If you have the temerity to wear a hoodie, a baseball cap, or the wrong colour skin, you are VERY wary around the police. The UK police are undermanned and under great pressure to produce 'results' - i.e. convictions - so they go for easy collars. Often this involves intimidating someone from a poor background into doing something, however minor, that could constitute resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, and stomping on them for it - despite the fact that the individual would've commited no crime were it not for being approached by the police.

Watch the film 'taking liberties' by the way - it shows two older ladies being accosted by the police for standing on a hill near a military base, with a camera crew.

Re:police state? - been there!

[Bertie]

Fear of the police? Not yet. Just the other day I read this in the Guardian:

"On the canal bridge just behind Kings Cross, a policeman took a huge snowball full in the face and - I couldn't quite believe this was happening - giggled delightedly (it must have really hurt). His three colleagues gathered snowballs and pelted the mob of school boys and girls, quite sensibly avoiding head shots (think of the lawsuits). But they were outnumbered and outgunned. And anyway, they were easy targets, these coppers in their fluorescent jackets. And the school children, those alleged dysfunctional products of our greed-obsessed, low-serotonin, broken-homed, intolerably lardy, TV-ruined society, were in a snowy wonderland where there was no school, no rules and nothing to worry about. I've never seen London secondary school kids look filled to the brim with such girlish glee. "See if you can knock his helmet off," I yelled at one girl (which probably made me an accessory to something but I don't care: the delirium is infectious) and she pitched a curve ball that would have hit had the copper not ducked."

Now, while I, like any right-thinking British citizen, am extremely worried about our government's incessant control-freakery, there is a huge amount of goodwill towards the police in this country, who for the most part have a history of being decent and even-handed. This is because they're an implement of the people, not of the state, and have always been operationally independent from the judiciary and the government. From time to time certain factions of society have their run-ins with them, but by and large they're seen as being "on our side". Sadly this is being steadily eroded by the current government, and at this rate it won't be long before people turn on them completely.

Re:police state? - been there!

[JohnBailey]

Oh how I wish this had any basis in reality.

Oh how I wish it hadn't.

Re:police state? - been there!

[lxs]

The fact that an instance of policemen acting like human beings is so exceptional that it warrants an article in a national newspaper says enough for me.

Open Project To Track ALL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS

[itsybitsy]

An project open to the public is hereby initiated to track and publish the movements of ALL GOVERNMENT STAFF from ALL branches and departments of ALL governments in ALL countries around the world. No government business is to be carried out unless all participants are video recorded and broadcast LIVE to the public around the world. No business of the public is valid unless it's public! Track all government officials, staff, employees. Record when they are with you and publish on the web. Develop and design tracking systems to monitor all communications of all government operatives anywhere and anywhen, anyhow. Their work is not valid public business unless it's fully PUBLIC!

Little Brothers Unite Against the Oppressive Big Brothers.

Re:Very sad

[interkin3tic]

SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument? I see it a lot on Slashdot, and everywhere else I go!

It goes like this:
"X is bad."
"Y is worse than X, X isn't bad at all."

His argument was actually "It's not a police state, calling it that weakens the criticism." Which I think is valid. Saying "The government keeps a log of when I leave the country... POLICE STATE BIG BROTHER!!!" is somewhat overstating it. I know I roll my eyes when I hear that term, because it gets thrown around so often. It immediately reduced my interest in this issue.

It seems to just be cynicism trying to pass itself off as wisdom. "I knew this would happen, after all, we do live in a police state." It just sounds like arrogance to me. I'm not impressed, we don't live in a police state, quit being overly dramatic. There is work to be done, but not on /.

You demean those who have suffered before

[SuperKendall]

SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument?

I don't "buy into" anything. I merely mean to protect the meaning of a phrase.

You see, literally millions of people have died in real police states. Not been inconvenienced, or had some privacy stripped from them (though that of course happened to). I am talking about actual lives lost.

That's pretty much where I draw the line. As much as you might not like the governments attempt to keep a travel journal for you, it's hardly anything like a "Police State" Wake me when you are not in fact allowed to leave your own country, or your Slashdot post whining about the police state from your cozy home is met with imprisonment.

I am not saying some things that are being done should not be reversed, and are not good ideas. What I am saying is that to equate your "suffering" with those that have truly suffered at the hands of a police state is obscene, and you belittle them all.

I'm sorry if you can't see that, but if you keep watering down the word people will not realize when REAL problems occur as they'll have no way to describe them, just like the boy who cried wolf.

Re:You demean those who have suffered before

[Xiph]

People don't die as long as they play along.

The fact that people play along, doesn't change whether or not it's an orwellian police state.

Right now, we can at least agree that governments in Europe are quickly installing all the tools required for creating and maintining a police state/totalitarian dictatorship.

I think we should stop making more hammers, before the average citizens starts looking like nails.
I'm looking forward to when the EU gain the power, to declare a union wide state of emergency. When they get that power, it won't take many years before it's used.

Re:You demean those who have suffered before

[mdwh2]

I don't see that it demeans the phrase. If people are murdered in a "police state", I don't say "They lived in a police state" if I want to convey the gravity, I say "They were murdered".

No, I don't think that we are in a police state. But the term is not some magical phrase that is only reserved for the absolute worse case possible - that demeans the phrase. You are wrong to equate police state with "very bad things like murder" in the first place. The term is a phrase describing how things are run in a country, and not what necessarily takes place in such a country. It's also not a case that one either is or isn't - a country typically has many different systems, and it's rather simplistic to catgorise all countries as either being a police state, or not being one. You could have countries that were generally okay, but where they gave judicial powers to the police. OTOH, you could have regimes where people were murdered by the state, but which wasn't a police state at all, because it was still a democratic country with oversight by the courts.

I'm sorry if you can't see that, but if you keep watering down the word people will not realize when REAL problems occur as they'll have no way to describe them, just like the boy who cried wolf.

The only one watering down phrases is you, by mistaking a term describing how things are done in a country, with how many people are murdered in such a country. By your reasoning, a state where millions of people were imprisoned by the choice of the police wouldn't be a police state, so long as they were simply "inconvenienced" and not murdered.

Give an example

[SuperKendall]

People seem notoriously unable to recognise a police state when they are immersed in one.

Please give an example?

Through history it's been pretty clear when the police state arrives, because that's when the cleansing begins and freedom truly ends.

It's absurd to the look at the UK and say "those poor buggers are just like Zimbabwe or old Russia". It's offensive to those actually suffering day to day in those regimes.

And it's even more sad that I am being attacked because I have the temerity to point this out, that people think because I dislike the use of the term "Police State" I must of course agree with the concept of the government keeping secret records and so on. Well I don't, it's just that I have seen real suffering and dislike people pretending they are under the same thumb or even close. You can't claim that *I claim* that everything is fine simply because I object to you normalizing references to any oppressive government from Zimbabwe to the UK under the same umbrella. Everything is not fine, but you can't take away the ability to see just where you are on the scale either.

You know not of what you speak

[SuperKendall]

Zimbabwe is no more a "police state" than anywhere else.

I've been there asshole.

You can't take currency out of the country (illegal, you can be arrested). The protesters we take for granted here in the US would all be dead by now in Zimbabwe as speaking against the government there is not healthy. The price of basics like bred is controlled by the state (meaning of course there is none) and you will be arrested if you try to circumvent that.

Then of course there are the random armed checkpoints with soldiers set up to question you...

Try going there and then post your ignorant relativistic bullshit.

Re:You know not of what you speak

[damburger]

This is a futile discussion - classifying all nations into 'police state' and 'not a police state' is oversimplifying a complex issue.

So you have seen Zimbabwe with your own eyes. Have you seen the UK also? If so, could you gauge in your own opinion how far from true freedom the UK is in the direction of Zimbabwe, and if it is truly headed for such a state.

Re:You know not of what you speak

[Eivind]

You're right. Some places really truly are worse than other places. Relativism is bullshit.

But I'm not sure where your argument is headed; Are you truly saying we shouldn't be concerned about the policies and the development in the UK, because there exists worse places on this planet ?

It sorta sounds like it, and that makes no sense at all.

If something is bad, then it remains BAD even if you can point to one (or many!) examples of things which are WORSE.

and just like the other UK gov. databases...

[damburger]

...it is going to be left on a train by some retard in the civil service.

I don't know what is worse - totalitarian government collecting information on us all or totalitarian collecting information on us all and then fucking losing it.

Writing this, I do feel perhaps I am exaggerating a bit with the word totalitarian, considering some of the other regimes that have been described as such. So I would be interested to get some perspective from someone who lived in Eastern Europe under communism (was it really 20 years ago? fuck I am getting old) and now lives in the UK - on a scale of 1 to Glorious Peoples Republic Knows What Is Best For All, how buggared are we at the moment?

Re:Immigrants

[BiggerIsBetter]

They need to concentrate on the non-citizens who are coming into the country, not the citizens who are traveling abroad. Just last week there were strikes because too many people are coming into the UK. The UK is already overcrowded and the government seems to be able to do very little to control the borders effectively. Allowing Workers to freely migrate within the EU was a big mistake and will drive wages down.

You lose your freedom but you complain about money.

Re:Very sad

[damburger]

Muslims do get raided like that, although it is not widespread yet. These things happen in degrees - we are not at totalitarianism yet but we are displaying some characteristics of it, and that in itself is wrong.

Downloading publicly available data

[captainpanic]

Using facebook, twitter and all that crap, we practially give away our privacy... so why blame the government for just downloading what is publicly available?

We all notice what is going on. And we all care... for about 5 seconds. And then we're distracted again.

I'm sure I care about my privacy... but I just don't spend enough time on it to really get involved in any revolt against the police state. Unless you can really revolt using twitter or facebook. I fear that a proper revolt is still done with barricades and burning trashcans, not with facebook and blogging.

So, will there be an end to the loss of privacy? Will people care? Yes.
Will they do something about it? Not a chance.

DDOS

[giafly]

If you live in Eire or Northern Ireland, near the border, please could you spend a few minutes stepping from one to the other.

Not only will this improve your aerobic fitness, but all your "journeys in and out of the UK" could help overload this stupid system

Cool...

[OneSmartFellow]

... this can only lead to one thing. A huge project costing many hundreds of millions, which will then run over budget by at least a multiple of two, as well as be delivered years late, and finally be scrapped when it can't handle anywhere near the number of records it was designed to handle; as well as having no meaning querying facility.

I just love it when the government wastes my money like this. It's so much more interesting to watch than when they build stuff that's actually needed like clean waste disposal sites, fresh water reserviours, and public transportation infrastructure. That stuff is usually completed on time, under budget, and works as advertised - how boring.

Immigration jobs must be utterly brain dead boring

[cheekyboy]

Considering 99.9999% of people traveling are legit, it must be sooo brain dead boring asking the same questions, quizing people, interogating people, and finding out most are legit, and very very very few are crims/baddasses.

How sad it must be to go home and say, "F*CK, I screened 8200 people, and only 1 hit!!!, what a dull day!"

That must really make them eager to bust people, be over zealous and find the most minute thing to detain people on.

Re:Immigrants

[Nursie]

Bullcrap

Loads of britons work abroad, many more than the few contractors that this idiotic furore broke over.

This is just the working class braying for protectionism, again, and turning to xenophobia as a way to shift the blame off themselves or to admit that the wider economy is screwed.

Whilst border control *is* an issue, it's not as big of one as you think. And the workers in question are EU citizens. By all means let's kick them out, then rehouse and re-employ the million or so brits that get kicked out of other EU nations and deal with economic isolation as the EU either kicks us out or disintegrates. Because clearly that would be best for all of us, to restrict international trade and screw up Britons' ability to work abroad.

Great plan.

the gravy train is over

[speedtux]

Allowing Workers to freely migrate within the EU was a big mistake and will drive wages down.

Wages in the UK and EU are going down because there is lots of cheap labor available overseas.

Closing the borders to people or goods makes the situation worse, not better. If you stop people from coming, the same people are going to work elsewhere for less.

If you stop good from coming, then people will need to buy UK goods for more money and their money will be worth less.

Face it, the prosperity of the late 20th century is over. The UK has little competitive advantage over India or China, and hence its standard of living is going to equalize. Protectionists measures only make things worse. And the same is true for the US and Europe.

Re:Immigrants

[haggisbrain]

Ok, I'll bite. I'm Scottish and have lived in 3 Countries outside of the UK, 2 of these are in the EU.

The UK is already overcrowded

I think you mean

The World is already overcrowded

Allowing Workers to freely migrate within the EU was a big mistake and will drive wages down.

I read this argument all the time but I've always received above average wages when working in another Country. Part of the reason I like to work in other Countries is because I want to compete and see how I can cut in in another economy. How does my Scottish education match up to others? Can I be better than I am? Can I learn new skills/methods?
Are you afraid to compete? Would you prefer a handout from the Government? How about a job for life and never having to better yourself?
Part of the reason the UK and other Countries allow/need this immigration is due to the constant need for growth in our economy. How can reducing the overall headcount help this?

Re:Very sad

[Richard_at_work]

"Muslims" do not, as a group, get "raided". Just because the vast majority of current high level suspects, or "persons of interest" are from that group does not extend the treatment to the entire group.

"UK doesn't make people disappear"

[longusername]

Under present laws, eg. Terrorism Act 2000, people can be held incognito for up to 30 days. In other words, you just disappear. People think you are dead. They would most likely call the police. This only happens to terrorists, of course. Right?

Well, actually it happened to me. 36 hours inside. For two nights my girlfriend thought I was dead. She was indescribably upset about it. This is how it goes. What did I do? I took some photographs in the centre (yes, this is the correct way of spelling "center") of town with my mobile phone and some dork behind one of those ridiculous cameras thought I was taking a picture of a manhole cover which could be used for terrorist activities.

I'm not making this up: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1213934526/bctid5172505001

Re:"UK doesn't make people disappear"

[Kamineko]

Would you have a link to a text version or transcript of that page?

Re:"UK doesn't make people disappear"

[longusername]

If you are being held on suspicion of the preparation, instigation or commission of a terrorist act [note: no terrorist act need have taken place] under section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 the police can waive your right to a phone call to prevent you from alerting your fellow terrorists who may then be able to take evasive action of some kind. At least that was my understanding from what the police said.

UK borders already extremely well-protected

[gqgreg]

I am a US Citizen and my partner is English. A lot of people may not know this, but when you fly into the UK and you are not a citizen, you are subjected to extremely close scrutiny. You are required to provide proof of onward travel. Every time I go there now, I am very nervous because I may be accused of overstaying my visa -- not necessarily in UK, but elsewhere, like Europe -- anything that may cast doubt on my tourist status while in UK. True, my partner is English and we are not married, but I am basically unable to travel to UK at the moment, because I have more UK and Europe stamps in my passport than US stamps. I will have to legitimize residency in Europe by getting employed or marrying my partner, before I can ever travel into the UK again.

This further tightening of travel restrictions for the UK only portends darker days to come. I always imagine the UK to be a very friendly, open society. But there are some really shady 1984-style things happening in the government there.

Re:Very sad

[mdwh2]

I entirely agree. Saying "But but, it's not as bad as [insert some very bad country]" is not exactly a ringing endorsement!

What happened to striving towards a country that values freedom? Now instead, it's okay to strive towards countries like Zimbabwe, just so long as things don't get as bad as them? This trend in itself is worrying.

nope

[scientus]

warrentless wiretaps of ALL calls, domestic and international.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/first-interview-nsa-whistleblower

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=297abdd5-d0dc-4617-a6c9-c482fa316b59

They copied EVERYTHING, INDISCRIMINATELY, FROM EVERYBOSY, and then passed a 'law' giving the telecoms retroactive immunity.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/countdown-12209-fmr-nsa-agent-communications-rights-ignored/2733120647/descr

Breaking news

[bugs2squash]

This just in, the Home secretary announces that the database will be hosted on a laptop left on the passenger seat of a car.