The only downside that I can see is you have to put up with people whinging about a `surveillance society` without defining what that is, and what's wrong with it.
"Surveillance Society" is defined in great detail in the report which led to the article which started this discussion: The Information Commissioner's "A Report on the Surveillance Society".
In this context, surveillance is not just about cameras. They are not even the most important aspect. Unfortunately they are the most visually obvious signs and so the media tend to concentrate on them rather than the underlying framework. The surveillance society is about the database state - the detailed picture of our lives that is assembled by the state, ostensibly in the name of efficiency and serving us better, but often acting in a manner that reduces personal privacy and basic freedoms.
Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against those!
Why? Something to hide? Remind me of the downside again?
The Identity Cards Act requires each of us to notify the authorities of our whereabouts on pain of a 1000 pound fine - why should this be necessary? Why should people escaping domestic violence have to update a central database, to which many thousands of people will have access, when they are trying to hide?
The National Identity Register will record every visit to a clinic. Why should petty officials be able to find out if their neighbour has had an abortion?
A DNA database could potentially allow those with access to know whether we are increased likelihood of suffering from particular diseases later in life, some of which we may not yet even know are genetic and from which you yourself might be at increased risk. There are no safeguards in place to prevent employers or insurance companies from discriminating against such bad risks. Once information is out in the open, there is no way to recover it.
It is extremely foolish to even consider collecting all this information into one central, vulnerable, database when there hasn't been even the slightest thought about who should have access and what rights individuals should retain over the processing of their data.
I think that your viewpoint is pretty typical of people actually who are in the UK, I am and it doesn't really bother me. A lot of Americans (who will be modding you down right about now) cannot understand how anyone could be happy in this situation because they have a tradition of being suspicious of government and put the right to privacy above many other benifits which might come from this kind of thing...
And similarly, if you talk to many Chinese people you will discover many of them see nothing wrong with their government censoring the internet and preventing freedom of speech for the good of the country.
There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Isn't it just all so much easier just to go along with the wishes of those in power? I think so. I don't really have a problem with CCTV either.
Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against those!
He was arrested in the UK. IIRC it is now illegal to even say anything that could even be construed as "glorifying" terrorism, we are already slipping down that slope.
The UK on a slippery slope? Ridiculous! We tumbled and reached the bottom long ago. Now the government are just standing over us, pissing for enjoyment.
A peace campaigner has been convicted under a new law banning unauthorised protests from taking place within half a mile of Westminster.
She was arrested in October after reading out names of soldiers killed in Iraq at central London's Cenotaph.
A new Enabling Act will allow government ministers to alter any legislation at will, as long as the do not create any new offences which carry a penalty greater than 2 years imprisonment.
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes--
(a) reforming legislation;
(b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.
And just in case we haven't got the message yet, the government are going to create a vast database (like the Stasi one, but more frightening and much more expensive) and force everyone in the country to be photographed, fingerprinted, iris scanned and required to notify the authorities of their whereabouts. (Identity Cards Bill)
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame, All their attempts to bend thee down; Will but arouse thy generous flame, But work their woe, and thy renown.
The CIA factbook entry on the Nigerian economy starts "Oil-rich Nigeria,...". Companies such as Shell have been operating in Nigeria for a long time, but not everyone is happy about it.
I disagree with the term police state - although levels of trust in the UK police are falling within the country, it's still regarded as the best police force in the world
The term "police state" doesn't necessarily refer to your local constabulary. It refers more to the notion that the population is heavily policed by the state, i.e. placed under heavy surveillance with hefty punishments for those who are suspected of not complying with the wishes of the authorities.
Elimination of trial by jury and detention of suspects without charge or trial are clear indications of moves towards a "police state" but saying so has no bearing on the actual performance or behaviour of the police.
Even if we accept that every single police officer is absolutely honest and scrupulous about performing their job to the best of their abilities, with due regard for civil rights and trained as well as humanly possible with unlimited funds and powers, there will always be some people wrongly suspected or accused of committing crimes, either by the police or other agencies.
Removing defendents' protections from the criminal justice system always leads to injustice for some people who are wrongly convicted. I'm sure you don't need to be reminded about many of the high profile convictions that have been overturned in recent years; convictions which have lead to people spending most of their adult lives in prison. Our judicial system has developed over centuries to strike an appropriate balance between the power of the state and defendents. Our current government are seeking to shred these protections on the basis that those in authority tend to know best. They don't.
Perhaps tracking and logging all car journeys and internet activity will reduce crime (I don't believe so for a moment) but to do so is a massive infringement of privacy. If the government are to proceed with such measures, surely the least they could do would be to consult with the electorate or ask for a mandate by placing such proposals in an election manifesto. When were you ever asked if you want everyone to be continually monitored?
Similarly, when were the electorate ever asked if they wanted a national DNA database to be created? There are major implications for people's personal lives yet the government have embarked on the creation of such a database by stealth. 3 million people have their DNA recorded and retained by the police who now have the power to forcibly take from everyone who is arrested (whether or not they are subsequently charged). And the government have just made *all* offences arrestable; now if you are merely suspected of dropping litter, the police can take a DNA sample. Where was the consultation?
We are living in something that is very close to a police state and getting worse by the day.
Austria and Great Britain both have a very independent media, democratic systems and low levels of corruption. Just because the plot of 1984 made a big deal of video surveillance does not mean that it's the primary danger to people's liberty. I realise this is Slashdot, but try to get some perspective!
The UK government has recently tried to restrict the right to trial by jury; it has detained people without charge or trial in Belmarsh prison; it has placed control orders on people who have not been convicted of any offence; it has announced plans to track every car journey and record the details for 2 years; it has pushed through an EU data retention directive that will force ISPs and other telecoms providers to store logs for 2 years to allow security services to perform traffic analysis; it has allowed the creation of a massive police DNA database; it is attempting to introduce compulsory national ID cards with a central register which will record every occasion on which a card is used.
You are correct that video surveillance is not our primary danger, but independent media and democratic systems are doing nothing to prevent the UK from turning into a police state.
Why do you need a car anyway if you live in the centre of Glasgow?
As a Glasgow cyclist, I regularly encounter car drivers opening doors without looking, pulling out in front of me without looking, overtaking and then cutting me up when they want to turn into a junction...
When the average driver (perhaps you are an exception), encased in their armoured pollution-generating cage, oblivious to the niceties of human interaction and frustrated by being perpetually stuck in traffic, has so little regard for cyclists and either ignores their rights or (worse) doesn't even see them, don't be surprised that cyclists have little respect for motorists and ride aggressively - it is the safest way.
Two major assumptions hiding there within your "sarcasm" tags. People on both the left and right (whatever they mean nowadays) of the political spectrum were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Nor is it necessarily the case that everyone mixes only with those with whom they share political beliefs - discussions would be very boring if that were so.
The OP stated that "as a Brit, we all believed WMD exist". That statement is nonsense, unless it refers to the existence of known WMDs in the US, UK, Russia, Israel, etc. (which it was clearly not intended to do). I do not believe for a moment that a majority of British citizens believed that Iraq had WMDs. It was certainly not the case that we all believed that Iraq had them.
At least be honest. The millions that marched against the war did it because they tend to be anti-war. WMDs or not, they opposed the war.... He said "we all believed WMD exist", and most people did.
We all believed that WMDs had existed previously in the 1980s and early 1990s. Many people believed in the possibility that there were existing WMDs. However, immediately prior to the war the Iraqi government was claiming that the stocks had been destroyed and the weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of them.
The weapons inspectors were demanding more time to ascertain the truth of the Iraqi claims. Opponents to the war were demanding that the weapons inspectors be given that time. Not everyone was stupid enough just to believe everything that Blair said.
Actually speaking as a Brit, we all believed WMD exist
Except for the millions of us who marched against the war. And many of those who couldn't be bothered. And the media. In fact, far fewer than 50% of the people I spoke to before the war believed that Iraq posed a credible threat to the UK.
I would like one hundred four packs please; I would like one hundred five packs please; I would like one hundred six packs please; I would like one hundred seven packs please.
The use of six-pack as a unit breaks the sequence above. Furthermore, not everywhere sells alcohol; if you did not know that a place you were in sold beer, there would be potential for ambiguity. Admittedly, I cannot think of any serious problems that this would cause, but the lack of "and" in numbers has always jarred when I have been in the US.
US: I would like one hundred six packs please: 106 packs?
Brit: I would like one hundred six packs please: 100 six-packs.
Brit: I would like one hundred and six packs, please: 106 packs.
At a time when the Daily Mail, and hence many politicians, are getting worked up about illegal immigration and port security, suggesting a reduction in border controls is not likely to go down well.
aptitude is generally considered to make safer descions about upgrade order than apt-get
I have never had any problems with apt-get. I used to use aptitude but I have now given up on it and gone back to apt-get. For some unknown reason, aptitude occasionally decided to suggest uninstalling half of my system after I requested a package be updated. Unfortunately, there is no "undo" command and the only way of resetting aptitude seems to be to apt-get --purge and then reinstall it.
Sean Rose, Charleston, US: It's sad to see a room full of Dell computers here. I read the BBC news because I generally think it's smarter and less biased than it's American counterparts. I would think that enlightened individuals in media publishing would know the value of using Macs - at least some!
Well the kit seems OK for the journalists clattering away in our content production system - but the designers in the room next door all have Macs. OK?
Well just in case you are wondering, as a Brit who watches about 1 hour of TV a week, I am quite happy to pay the licence fee. That 1 hour is quality programming. The radio programme that I usually wake up to is informative and interesting. The news that I get from the BBC (via the web) is by far the best source of news that I have come across. I really came to realise how much respect I have for the BBC when I lived in the US for a few years. Admittedly, the US has better rock radio stations, but that is about the only broadcasting that is superior to what the BBC offers.
Slashdot Mirror
In this context, surveillance is not just about cameras. They are not even the most important aspect. Unfortunately they are the most visually obvious signs and so the media tend to concentrate on them rather than the underlying framework. The surveillance society is about the database state - the detailed picture of our lives that is assembled by the state, ostensibly in the name of efficiency and serving us better, but often acting in a manner that reduces personal privacy and basic freedoms.
The Identity Cards Act requires each of us to notify the authorities of our whereabouts on pain of a 1000 pound fine - why should this be necessary? Why should people escaping domestic violence have to update a central database, to which many thousands of people will have access, when they are trying to hide?
The National Identity Register will record every visit to a clinic. Why should petty officials be able to find out if their neighbour has had an abortion?
A DNA database could potentially allow those with access to know whether we are increased likelihood of suffering from particular diseases later in life, some of which we may not yet even know are genetic and from which you yourself might be at increased risk. There are no safeguards in place to prevent employers or insurance companies from discriminating against such bad risks. Once information is out in the open, there is no way to recover it.
It is extremely foolish to even consider collecting all this information into one central, vulnerable, database when there hasn't been even the slightest thought about who should have access and what rights individuals should retain over the processing of their data.
And similarly, if you talk to many Chinese people you will discover many of them see nothing wrong with their government censoring the internet and preventing freedom of speech for the good of the country.
There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Isn't it just all so much easier just to go along with the wishes of those in power? I think so. I don't really have a problem with CCTV either.
Now the National Identity Register and National DNA Database - they scare me. I'll fight against those!
3. no Norwegians
120 years ago, Norway's declared independence from Sweden was still not recognised.
The UK on a slippery slope? Ridiculous! We tumbled and reached the bottom long ago. Now the government are just standing over us, pissing for enjoyment.
(Activist convicted under demo law)A new Enabling Act will allow government ministers to alter any legislation at will, as long as the do not create any new offences which carry a penalty greater than 2 years imprisonment.
(Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill)And just in case we haven't got the message yet, the government are going to create a vast database (like the Stasi one, but more frightening and much more expensive) and force everyone in the country to be photographed, fingerprinted, iris scanned and required to notify the authorities of their whereabouts. (Identity Cards Bill)
How wrong we were.None whatsoever. The university should have ignored it.
The CIA factbook entry on the Nigerian economy starts "Oil-rich Nigeria, ...". Companies such as Shell have been operating in Nigeria for a long time, but not everyone is happy about it.
The term "police state" doesn't necessarily refer to your local constabulary. It refers more to the notion that the population is heavily policed by the state, i.e. placed under heavy surveillance with hefty punishments for those who are suspected of not complying with the wishes of the authorities.
Elimination of trial by jury and detention of suspects without charge or trial are clear indications of moves towards a "police state" but saying so has no bearing on the actual performance or behaviour of the police.
Even if we accept that every single police officer is absolutely honest and scrupulous about performing their job to the best of their abilities, with due regard for civil rights and trained as well as humanly possible with unlimited funds and powers, there will always be some people wrongly suspected or accused of committing crimes, either by the police or other agencies.
Removing defendents' protections from the criminal justice system always leads to injustice for some people who are wrongly convicted. I'm sure you don't need to be reminded about many of the high profile convictions that have been overturned in recent years; convictions which have lead to people spending most of their adult lives in prison. Our judicial system has developed over centuries to strike an appropriate balance between the power of the state and defendents. Our current government are seeking to shred these protections on the basis that those in authority tend to know best. They don't.
Perhaps tracking and logging all car journeys and internet activity will reduce crime (I don't believe so for a moment) but to do so is a massive infringement of privacy. If the government are to proceed with such measures, surely the least they could do would be to consult with the electorate or ask for a mandate by placing such proposals in an election manifesto. When were you ever asked if you want everyone to be continually monitored?
Similarly, when were the electorate ever asked if they wanted a national DNA database to be created? There are major implications for people's personal lives yet the government have embarked on the creation of such a database by stealth. 3 million people have their DNA recorded and retained by the police who now have the power to forcibly take from everyone who is arrested (whether or not they are subsequently charged). And the government have just made *all* offences arrestable; now if you are merely suspected of dropping litter, the police can take a DNA sample. Where was the consultation?
We are living in something that is very close to a police state and getting worse by the day.
The UK government has recently tried to restrict the right to trial by jury; it has detained people without charge or trial in Belmarsh prison; it has placed control orders on people who have not been convicted of any offence; it has announced plans to track every car journey and record the details for 2 years; it has pushed through an EU data retention directive that will force ISPs and other telecoms providers to store logs for 2 years to allow security services to perform traffic analysis; it has allowed the creation of a massive police DNA database; it is attempting to introduce compulsory national ID cards with a central register which will record every occasion on which a card is used.
You are correct that video surveillance is not our primary danger, but independent media and democratic systems are doing nothing to prevent the UK from turning into a police state.
As a Glasgow cyclist, I regularly encounter car drivers opening doors without looking, pulling out in front of me without looking, overtaking and then cutting me up when they want to turn into a junction ...
When the average driver (perhaps you are an exception), encased in their armoured pollution-generating cage, oblivious to the niceties of human interaction and frustrated by being perpetually stuck in traffic, has so little regard for cyclists and either ignores their rights or (worse) doesn't even see them, don't be surprised that cyclists have little respect for motorists and ride aggressively - it is the safest way.
The OP stated that "as a Brit, we all believed WMD exist". That statement is nonsense, unless it refers to the existence of known WMDs in the US, UK, Russia, Israel, etc. (which it was clearly not intended to do). I do not believe for a moment that a majority of British citizens believed that Iraq had WMDs. It was certainly not the case that we all believed that Iraq had them.
We all believed that WMDs had existed previously in the 1980s and early 1990s. Many people believed in the possibility that there were existing WMDs. However, immediately prior to the war the Iraqi government was claiming that the stocks had been destroyed and the weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of them.
The weapons inspectors were demanding more time to ascertain the truth of the Iraqi claims. Opponents to the war were demanding that the weapons inspectors be given that time. Not everyone was stupid enough just to believe everything that Blair said.
Here in Britain we also have the right to wear T-shirts.
Except for the millions of us who marched against the war. And many of those who couldn't be bothered. And the media. In fact, far fewer than 50% of the people I spoke to before the war believed that Iraq posed a credible threat to the UK.
The use of six-pack as a unit breaks the sequence above. Furthermore, not everywhere sells alcohol; if you did not know that a place you were in sold beer, there would be potential for ambiguity. Admittedly, I cannot think of any serious problems that this would cause, but the lack of "and" in numbers has always jarred when I have been in the US.
US: I would like one hundred six packs please: 106 packs?
Brit: I would like one hundred six packs please: 100 six-packs.
Brit: I would like one hundred and six packs, please: 106 packs.
At a time when the Daily Mail, and hence many politicians, are getting worked up about illegal immigration and port security, suggesting a reduction in border controls is not likely to go down well.
If you are a UK academic, the Athens toolbar is well worth having.
Whatever else Indonesia may be, it is not a small country. Indonesia is the world's largest archipelagic state. ... Area - comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas
Genius! That makes perfect sense. In fact, I seem to recall that there was a lot of gnome stuff amongst the packages that it often wanted to delete.
Thank you. I might have another look at aptitude then.
I have never had any problems with apt-get. I used to use aptitude but I have now given up on it and gone back to apt-get. For some unknown reason, aptitude occasionally decided to suggest uninstalling half of my system after I requested a package be updated. Unfortunately, there is no "undo" command and the only way of resetting aptitude seems to be to apt-get --purge and then reinstall it.
Well just in case you are wondering, as a Brit who watches about 1 hour of TV a week, I am quite happy to pay the licence fee. That 1 hour is quality programming. The radio programme that I usually wake up to is informative and interesting. The news that I get from the BBC (via the web) is by far the best source of news that I have come across. I really came to realise how much respect I have for the BBC when I lived in the US for a few years. Admittedly, the US has better rock radio stations, but that is about the only broadcasting that is superior to what the BBC offers.
Same deal with the credit card details, right?
Someone doesn't have a very high opinion of /.ers!