Slashdot Mirror
Oxford City Council Mandates CCTV Cameras In Taxies by 2015
First time accepted submitter Beowulf878 writes "In yet another data-collection feast by the government in the UK, a local council has proposed fitting at least one CCTV camera per taxi to record every conversation. Obviously the reason given is our own safety. Thoughts?"
Obviously we can't have a discussion without the summary all but telling us how we're supposed to react.
Thoughts?
bet you're missing them now, aren't you.
is its own.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
In a society where crime isn't really "punished", the only other deterrent must be a police state where there is no sanctuary.
As societies must include anyone who wants to do anything they like and must admit anyone from anywhere regardless of their culture, keeping order becomes more challenging because the only alternative to (vanishing) SELF-discipline is IMPOSED discipline.
This sucks, but is better than the Clockwork Orange world of no order at all.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Here in Ottawa, we've had cameras in taxis for a while. I have no idea if anything has come of it, other than the added expense for each taxi owner of a possibly useless camera. Seems to me like the camera supplier is in bed with the city councillor...
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Porn companies have been doing this for years.
CCTV cameras have been fitted to taxis in Sydney for several years now at the request of the drivers. The hope is that this deters robberies. Does it work? I have never seen any figures - does anyone else know? They have also been fitted in State Transit buses with newer buses having a least three. In this case while it does not deter theft or assault it does lead to convictions. Also some entertaining reality TV on the news each night.
It's none of their damn business.
Seriously, this sounds like a fishing expedition for footage of drunk couples groping each other in the back seat.
Just say no.
Are you living is the same world as I am? USA being a Free country??
Every cab/limo in NYC has a camera in it.
>>don't mind me, USA, just being the last free country on Gods greens earth.
LOL. At least we here in the states don't pretend all the cameras are for public security - they're for monetizing red lights. Oops, I mean, "improving traffic safety" (even though they don't).
Taxicab Confessions: Oxford Edition
"The Final Cut" will finally become a reality.
Seriously...if they have the power they would mandate every citizen to install one in their head because "only view footage relating to police matters would be reviewed."
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
We've been conditioned that the only time you can expect any privacy is inside your own home. And then, only to the extent that you can't happen to be observed through your windows. Or have GPS attached to your car in your home. Or via your telephones, computers, television usage, or other devices. Basically, in the rooms where you have no windows, doors, internet access, or telephones, you are afforded privacy. For everything else, it's "hey, you have no expectation of privacy in public places!". Of course, there's a difference between "expectation of privacy" and "expectation to not be listened in on, videotaped, indexed, and archived". I may be in a public space with, say, my sweetheart and still expect that my conversation (or that in a cab) stays with us and isn't being recorded or eavesdropped on.
So this is one city in the UK as compared to -
The whole of Australia already has this.
As does New Zealand
As do Toronto and Winnipeg
NYC requirees either a camera or a partition.
Yellow Cabs in houston also have them.
This is to stop cab drivers getting robbed and murdered, not to spy on who is going where.
Are you living is the same world as I am? USA being a Free country??
We are a free country. Just free your mind of all the crap you're choosing to listen to.
As for these cab cameras, the only thing I can see harmful is that it records audio. If you're being robbed, raped, murdered, whatever, I think the visual is more than enough to prove someone's guilt.
Then again, with the insane leaps in video editing technology, one would have to work double hard to manipulate voice waves.
And they are making a video... or someone is.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Lots of taxi companies use cameras in cabs, mainly for detecting driver errors, like not wearing seatbelts, or sudden stops or other "violent" movements. They are sometimes still cameras, but can also be video cameras, though they are usually off until something trips them.The driver can also trip them in emergency situations, like if he's being held up.
Adding them in an "always on" mode is kinda invasive, but as long as they are well-identified both inside and outside the cab, so you know beforehand what you're getting into when you get into the cab, I don't think it's a huge issue.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I'm from Blackpool and, back in the day, both main parties used to have their conferences here every other year. My parents operated a taxi so they always overheard lots of gossip from the MPs they were ferrying around.
Having the goings on in the back of a taxi being recorded by default would be staggering. No politician or business person could so much as have a phone conversation under those circumstances! I bet every pissant local government hack in Oxford will be trying to justify having a private driver, paid for by the council, when this comes into force.
Nick
Yes, just like how they have to monitor your phone calls and emails to stop people from being robbed and murdered, not to spy on you and abduct people who disagree with them - they'd NEVER do that.....
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
It never ceases to amaze me just how accurate George Orwell was about where England was going.
I'm not a fan of CCTV being over used but as it isn't normally available for access when used in a taxi the abuse potential is pretty small. We haven't had them long but they have already caught one scumbag http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764246 on video. Used in this limited fashion I support their use.
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
So I'm not a "Bash the editors" type at all. But . . . I certainly do pay the editors, if indirectly. This is a for-profit site. They monetize the time I spend here, the clicks on the ads etc. (And I don't ever turn off ads on slashdot just on principle to allow them to monetize me more successfully.) That said, they probably only get fractional pennies off me, so if they gave me a penny for my thoughts they're probably overpaying, which is why I feel obliged to provide my thoughts for free.
already used in Australia to catch fare evaders and people who assault and KILL taxi drivers. It's no different to a CCTV in any store.
They've been compulsorily fitted to taxis in New Zealand since August. Taxi companies fitted them at their own expense. Drivers are saying they feel safer, and the industry is claiming the amount of abuse against drivers have dropped and the cameras have directly led to arrests, including for several very serious incidents. Despite the camera systems costing upwards of $1000 per vehicle, the drivers are saying it's money well-spent.
So please ignore the cynicism of the Slashdot submitter & editor - they evidently do improve driver safety.
What, you don't think there are cameras in taxis in the US?
Fine by me as long as they sell the porn scenes on the open market.
(Of course, the drivers will have to play 70s hump music on the radio.)
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
That appears to be more of an American problem than British, AFAICT.
When someone says to you "I've got nothing to hide", ask them if they would be happy with the government putting a webcam in every room in their house. After all they have nothing to hide. Even the bedroom? Yes, the bedroom. Otherwise terrorists would just plot in their bedrooms. If they baulk, remind them of 911.
Of course if they are on Facebook they might say "Kewl! Can I stream it from my Homepage? [share]"
The NYPD has one of those "sound cannon" vehicles that emit ear splitting noise! Tune in to the live stream to watch Americas Tiananmen square!
http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc
I bet one of the driving factors for making cameras mandatory are the drivers who want the camera and the car owners, who don't drive themselves, who do not want to spend the money on them. I drove taxi for seven years and would have welcomed a camera and panic button. The fact that this equipment exists will deter crime against cab drivers. Most of these posts have concentrated on rates of robbery. There are other crime against taxi drivers including assault, kidnapping and murder. The fact that one can no longer have a private conversation in a cab must be weighted against the right of a cab driver not to be killed.
The privacy aspect is moot in that a cab is not a private place in which to have a private conversation. It is the mobile workplace of a vulnerable driver who has to drive stranger around. The driver is not allowed to pick his fares or destination and has no backup in the event he is attacked. Would you advocate removing CCTV cameras from convenience stores? In some cities cabs are treated like mobile ATMs where one uses a knife instead of a card.
I live in Victoria BC and all the cabs have CCTV cameras in them and stickers on the side warning of that fact.
The British don't have anything to protect them from their Government, I guess because their Government was set up to protect them from their King.
imprisoned in 2009 for a rape and murder of a woman in a taxi, bc he did not realize there was a CCTV camera installed in the car.
Taxi companies started installing them to help stave off a wave of robberies. Basically, a taxi driver at night is a lone guy with a wad of cash, who has to pick any company that waves a hand to them. Some people thought that was an easy wad of cash, and invented a couple of tricks to rob taxi drivers. After a rather large number of robberies that ended with anything from verbal assault to one or two murders, the companies began lobbying for cameras to protect the drivers. While there are obvious privacy issues, the issues of safety of the drivers seem quite legitimate.
I live just a few miles north of Oxford and whats more worrying to most is the fact that the camera will also record audio which seems to be a major shift in whats going to be held and who is will be accessible by.
Student discussions is one thing, but if conversations containing commercial or political (local or national) nature is being recorded inadvertantly and help who can get at this stuff - newpapers won't need to 'hack' voicemails anymore just give the taxi drivers a few quid!
I hope along with the cameras there are BIG signs reminding you that you are being recorded for video AND audio.
we've got people protesting that bankers make too much money. those very same protesters have never counted just how much of their own money they've paid to those same bankers.
if you don't want to be on camera, stop going to the cameras.
yeah, you'll lose the benefits of those services. of course. welcome to making choices. if it's important to you, you'll make it appropriately.
so stop complaining. start noticing that you've chosen to take the taxi with the camera. you've chosen to take the subway with the camera. you've chosen to purchase the car with the limiter. you could have walked, you could have cycled, and you coudl have built your own car.
make decisions; actively.
And if you are discussing secrets in a cab... then what about the cabby overhearing smartass? Or are cabbies in your world deaf dumb and blind like you?
Here is a hint, if you got secrets, don't discuss them in other peoples places.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
I'm pretty sure all three of /.'s paid subscribers would beg to differ.
This is not a new idea. It has been done in many other parts of the world for quite some time.
Why is this even a slashdot post?
Taxis in Finland have had them for years now, this is nothing new. As far as I am aware, the cameras record video only and are used to deter crime.
ur dum lol
After all, they're just there to distract you from the telescreens that have always been there. Big Brother Is Watching You!
Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
what could they possibly learn from all those conversations?
ah, wait, use a computer for that and (sarcasm) then it'll be much safer...
...points some people seem to be missing are:
* An ICO spokeswoman said the plans were "highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified". ...the scheme, which includes both black cabs and private-hire vehicles.
* A council spokeswoman said the "video and *audio* would run all the time within the vehicle".
*
So, it's likely that there will be a complaint from a civil liberties group to the Information Commissioner's Office, and the ICO is already regarding the plans as intrusive and unlikely to be justifiable. The plan is to include audio - which is unlike schemes in other towns and countries, which use video only. The scheme extends to black cabs, which have always (well, as long as I can remember...) partitioned the driver from the passenger(s).
This is a Slashdot post because this *is* a new idea, quite unlike CCTV in taxis in other parts of the world. It raises the bar for intrusive surveillance. It's likely that even the CCTV-friendly UK state is going to oppose the scheme.
There's a famous taxi driver murder case in Israel - two teenagers have shot the driver six times, and the taxi driver died on the spot.
The teenagers were caught, and sentenced to 16 years in prison. They got a vacation (I have no idea why prisoners may have vacations, but that's the way things are), and used it to rob a grocery store, for which they've got 5 additional years in prison.
One of them used another vacation (approved by the supreme court, in face of the prison system's protests), and used a fake passport to escape to Argentine, which has no extradition treat with Israel. He lives there as a free man - has a job, wife, and kids.
LOL!
Who made you think you were allowed to think for yourself?
But they don't need these in Britain. Guns are illegal, so criminals don't have guns. Knives are damn near impossible to own too. And assault is illegal as well. The drivers are perfectly safe; I'm surprised they even bother putting locks on the door.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I live in Oxford and the cab drivers hate this idea. It's going to cost them at least £460 each at time when most of them are struggling to survive. They're also convinced its about snooping on them and have all raised privacy concerns. The council has refused to say who will have access to the tapes or what protections there will be.
Most Oxford cab drivers are Asian and few can afford to live in Oxford itself and so drive in from surrounding towns. There are hordes of them demonstrating at the town hall before every council meeting but the councillors don't seem to care - whether their lack of local vote is causing that or not, I don't know. Every cab driver I've spoken to believes someone in the council is 'receiving inducements' for this - no idea if its true!
Oxford City Council is hardcore Labour / militant and seems to regard large sections of the public as the enemy. Its elected by a bunch of leftist academics who have little idea or connection about the real world. Remember it was the last Labour government that tried to introduce ID cards, 90 days detention without charge and seems to have been complicit in torture. CCTV in taxis seems like a logical development!
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2011/11/14/Oxford+news+(om_oxfordnews)/9361537.Taxi_CCTV_breaks__rights_to_privacy_/
This would be nice in Portugal, we get lots of violence and robberies in our TAXI's, this would be a great way to defend the customer.
Yes it's the other way around here, the customer's the victim!
Wish we had these cameras for some time here, I could have gotten quite a few taxi drivers fired and even arrested for the crap they do to customers.
I wasn't aware that the singular was "taxy".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I took a taxi a few months ago, from Seattle airport. It had a camera inside, pointing at me (and the driver), and a small note saying that everything's recorded "for safety".
Enjoy your imaginary freedom.
False.
Mostly true, despite your sarcasm.
False.
Yup, just like everyone in the US is armed, so nobody ever gets shot, right? And armed society is a polite society, right?
No need to lock your door in the USA....
I live close to Oxford; the next large town over; population 120,000.
There was a girl murdered in a taxi a few months back. Unheard of in this area. The taxi driver admitted to one other murder too.
It shocked everyone here. Scared all us parents shitless. I'd even met him ten years back.
A week after the murder, all taxis SMS you the car licence plate number, colour of the car and make as the taxi arrives.
CCTV seems like the next step. I welcome it.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Once everyone knows that the taxis have cameras (and I don't condone doing it or doing it covertly), who would bother discussing incriminating things in a taxi then? Who does it now anyway? Sure, no more sex talk with your mistress coz your wife might find out - especially in cases where you are a public figure of sorts - since ppl care in those cases. But beyond that, would a terrorist discuss plans in a taxi? Even if the taxi driver was one of them, he'd just disable the camera anyway. So, all this does is invade your privacy. Whether or not being in a taxi is considered private is a semantic discussion for lawyers - doesn't achieve anything real.
That's as may be in Helsinki for video surveillance. We've become rather accustomed to that in the UK.
The line that's being crossed here (not particularly well highlighted in the summary) is that they will be making *audio* recordings of the interior of the taxi too.
But there it's the taxi drivers that are getting tired of being accused of rape, and not the government. Actually, they're arguing against it.
This is blinging
Seems to be nearly the same thing there. The only difference is that they used a different excuse (we're currently using terrorism as an excuse). "Some people might get robbed. Therefore, these cameras are necessary!"
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Sounds to me like there's going to be a deluge of back-of-the-taxi pr0n hitting your favourite site come 2015...
It's amazing that, when I visit the US, I feel less free than when I'm at home, or in just about any other country.
Except, perhaps, the UK.
Especially in airports.
No, I don't believe the 'land of the free' is actually free any more. I think that a lot of people delude themselves, but have actually given up a lot of their freedoms in the name of better security. There is always a fine balance between freedom and security, and I feel the US is leaning, these days, more towards security than freedom.
Case in point - TSA.
Freedom means that you have a choice. With TSA, the choice is "we feel you up or put your in our under-your-clothes scanner, or you don't fly, even if you are a 5 year old".
Taxis around here have cameras, they were installed because of incidents with passengers assaulting drivers (e.g. to steal drivers takings). I think its a good thing as long as its clear that there is a camera before they get into the cab. Don't like it, don't take a cab, use another mode of transport.
This is the local council mandating CCTV, not the UK government. Two completely different things.
The taxi drivers don't like it because they cannot turn it off when they use their car for personal use (like taking their own family out for the day) and they don't want their personal private conversations recorded.
Council wants it because of a few idiot taxi drivers in the past that liked to rape / murder people.
Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Wrong solution.
I think GP was joking.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I go to Oxford quiet regulary and often there are stickers inside "Smile, you are on CCTV!" etc. The only difference would be, that it is not optional any more... trains have CCTV as well -.-
I visited the US recently, and I felt less free than at home in the UK. I've read /. too much, so I was partly expecting not to see CCTV cameras, and partly expecting lots of security. There seemed to be more government controlled CCTV cameras in the US than the UK, although perhaps fewer private ones (in shops, etc). Lots of them were outside every state and federal building, even a state museum looked like a 1984-esque fortified building. Maybe they're just more visible, but that made me more aware of being watched. On public transport, except Amtrak, there was CCTV, on vehicles and in stations. There were less cameras, but there were posters advertising this as a measure to increase safety (more or less like in the UK), so I think it just reflects the age of the vehicles. Older train carriages have none, one or two cameras, new ones manage six or eight at the same cost.
There was more overt security -- I often had my bag scanned going into museums. They seem to have stopped doing that in London, based on my experience going into two of the largest museums at the weekend to buy gifts. A couple of places inspected my ID, as if that somehow helped.
But, what I wasn't expecting was the profusion of signs proclaiming laws and ordinances, with big fines backing them up. I felt uncomfortable crossing the street -- was I jaywalking? Sometimes I wasn't sure. No drinking on the train -- does that include water? Am I allowed to give my unwanted travel pass to someone?
The value of the fines were rarely posted, but someone I asked said they would be around $200 "and a night in jail if the police don't like you". In the UK, where similar fines exist, the situation would be a verbal reprimand, and a £30 fine if the police don't like you (i.e. if you argue). But most things aren't enforced by law -- you can eat McDonalds on a bus, but it's impolite and most people wouldn't. There's no fine, you'll just be scowled at by other passengers.
I work in Oxford at the moment, and one thing is for sure, next time I get into a cab and the taxi driver wants to have a conversation I now have a very good reason to ignore him and exercise my right to silence.
When I was in LV, every taxi I took had a camera on the dash recording the passengers and the driver. It was not clear if that stream was fed to the LVPD, or if it was just for the taxi company to monitor their drivers and passengers in case something went wrong.
I'm not against the owner of a taxi recording what goes on inside his car. It's his property and he can do what he wants with it, and impose any conditions he wishes upon my use or occupation of it.
I'm sure they do actually improve driver safety. I just don't see how/why audio would help much. Where I live, there's CCTV everywhere, but they're not allowed to record audio. Take that out and it becomes much less intrusive, while still serving its purpose.
it is so they can bring back the Taxie cab confessions.... just now they don't have to tell them at the end of there ride it was recorded and consent to it.
This is an action by one local council, probably trying to make some sort of political statement. Councils of this level are very low-powered in this country and frequently full of jumped up jobsworths who want to be important.
It is highly unlikely this will come to anything: notice the comment in TFA by the Information Commissioner's Office that the plans are "highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified". (For those outside the UK: The ICO is our central, national-level oversight body for things like data protection and freedom of information.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The only reason you don't rape and murder is because you'd be punished if you did, right?
No, but the only reason I don't exceed the posted speed limit when I'm late is because I would be punished. The only reason I pay my income taxes is because I would be punished if I did not. The only reason the local pub owner kicks everyone out by 2:00 AM is because he would be punished.
In some cases, fear of punishment works. This is mostly true for violating laws that do not correlate directly to moral principles, as well as victimless crimes.
Aww.... it's so sweet that the American readers and the OP think that this is a grand sweeping conspiracy, evidence of malignant national government, the death of privacy, some communist master plan to yoke us, etc. Your paranoia is endearing.... really.
Seriously - this is Oxford City Council. I can't express how small-town and ineffectual they are. They can argue for weeks about reducing student parking on neighbourhood roads, issue regulations and then retract them. It's parochial to the extreme. Thinking of them as part of a grand conspiracy is entertaining because it is so absurd. I don't doubt that they are corrupt, but in ways that visiting Americans would find quaint.
Nothing to see here...
Are you HONESTLY trying to argue that cabbies don't get robbed and murdered pretty much constantly in this country? Because i can probably wallpaper this page with links of cabbies getting robbed or killed in just the past year. Cabbies, pizza delivery, and night convenience store clerks frankly should be allowed full body armor and an Uzi for all the attacks those professions suffer!
I'm right there with you on phones and emails, especially anything to do with the net as it seems the magic words to get around the fourth amendment is saying "On the Internet!" these days, but if there is ANY group in this country that deserves to have CC cameras with them 24/7 its the cabbies. Frankly I'm amazed they can even get anyone to take that job on the east coast anymore, i bet more of them get shot there than cops!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It never was "the land of the free". Check your history. The founding fathers of America weren't fleeing religious oppression, they were fleeing government restrictions on them being able to freely practice their religious oppression. It's always been about being able to control the masses, ever since day one, just like every government/kingdom/empire in the history of the world.
How is "improving traffic safety" not exactly the same excuse as "public security"?
Title says it
Presumably the CCTV isn't running 24/7, there must be a way to disable it, even a cabbie can work out if he's going to murder a fare he needs to shut off the camera first. Besides, a stupidly large number of people are still riding around in unlicensed cabs, no mandate can force them to install cameras (they're already breaking the law). So yet again a badly thought out law that will reduce the privacy of the vast majority while also failing to solve the problem it was introduced to deal with.
... it's the illegal cabs, who are far more likely to rob/rape/otherwise damage their rides than the black cabs. Who will of course not be using cameras.
Doubleplusbad, Brother.
You need re-education.
...and, in other news, some people still use the antiquated term, CCTV.
I, for one, applaud the town council for protecting their subjects. I live in fear every day of Dangerous Things, and I applaud the government's effort to protect us from them. I look forward to the day when they assign me a personal camera -- perhaps strapped to my forehead so that a split view is recorded of me and of whatever I am looking at -- so that the government can arrive and protect me whenever I encounter any of these Dangerous Things. After all, what is a government for?
The important issue here is not the camera as such; many cabs (and other transport) in the UK have had no-sound cameras for years and most people accept that they help deter assaults on Taxi Drivers or catch the culprits, and accept the relatively small intrusion.
The big issue here is sound recording; people often have very personal or business confidential conversations in the back of cabs and do not want them recorded; it sounds like the information commissioner agrees this is too intrusive and this will not be allowed.
the US is leaning, these days, more towards security THEATRE than freedom
TFTFY
It's about protecting the driver? Then why require a minimum period for saving the recording? Surely if something happened to the driver they wouldn't just assign a new driver, waiting some number of days while the camera keeps recording and recycling it's storage before they finally begin to investigate.
I don't know about the UK but in the US when there are laws like this it is more about busting pot smokers than anything else.
I know! They could make a nice "reality" show out of it. They could even ask, say, HBO to produce it.
I don't have a sig.
While they're at it, why not have these in police cars as well?
Twinstiq, game news
Nobody is more vulnerable than a cab driver. It is ultrahazardous work. I
OK, it could improve my safety if the taxi suddenly comes to life and starts devouring me, but then, we would need how to deal with such situation. We need first to capture some live taxis from the wild and research what kind of tranquilizers (If any) could be used on them. Failing that, we need to research ways to kill the taxi without damaging the pray in their digestive systems. Any suggestions about another approach or any taxi tranquilizers available? If there is none available, I have a friend with degrees in chemistry and zoology that is currently unemployed. I’m sure he could work as an advisor to the government in this delicate and important matter
"The state tells its people that the cameras are there for their benefit
and to prevent crime, but the crime they are preventing is
insurrection."
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Should this have been in reply to parent, Hazel Bergeron?
>>How is "improving traffic safety" not exactly the same excuse as "public security"?
Perhaps the phrase might mean something different in Jolly Old, but unless your passengers are going to be hijacking taxis at gunpoint, having cameras inside of the cabs are not going to improve traffic safety one bit.
I've yet to hear of a police officer assaulting a citizen who has offered no resistance at all, ESPECIALLY during the Occupy protests, although I have seen quite a few videos of the fine upstanding Occupy protesters trying to provoke an altercation.
Are you joking? You've never heard of a police officer assaulting someone without provocation? Not even at the Occupy protests?
Then you must be one ignorant, uninformed son of a bitch.
How the fuck am I supposed to get my freak on in the back?
Liberty.
:)
So is wearing a privacy-protecting mask/disguise going to be illegal in Big Brotheritain or is it already? Because of course if people take up a fashion of wearing camo-paint to break-up the outlines of facial features, so that everyone's doing it, and the makeup is let's say formulated with swirly patterns of reflective material so that it screws with cameras ability to record you, (i.e., causes moire patterns or super-bright-spots, etc.,) will they start mass-arresting the "perpetrators"?
Sci-Fi God Robert Heinlein once suggested (through a character in one of his books) that any society is too big the day it decides it needs to implement ID cards. What would Robert Heinlein/Lazarus Long have had to say about this fresh British Hell?
They are already implanting people's brains with neurotech that records all your conversations and neuorological processes, so who cares if they put cameras in taxis? We are supposed to get all scared and upset about this low-tech invasion of privacy, but meanwhile they can control people's nervous systems and mess with their minds 24/7 and no one cares.
Forget the technology angle. Be it a lace curtain, or a telephone or the Internet or a camera in the back of the taxi. This is British nature. They used to be really important in the world and controlled lots of dark skinned (and a couple of white skinned) races. Now that is all gone. There is nobody to boss around or control, colonial governors jobs go to Americans these days. So their neurosis grows.... They must manage and control something, so they do it to themselves. It's a nation of shopkeepers, curtain twitchers, and middle management. It will always be shit. Unless you have the money to buy space and privacy. The end.
was a reporter / announcer for the bbc , his work was not about communist russia, nothing new in her majesty's service i'm afraid
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?