 sj |
||
|
||
Surveillance: a slippery slope?
|
|
|
Subject: Obit: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST,PMB Date: 18 Jul 07 - 04:10 AM When London's congestion charge was introduced, the public were assured that the cameras would only be used for charge enforcement, unless circumstances were completely exceptional. Today it is reported that to combat terrorism the police will be allowed live access to the cameras. Since the struggle against terrorism is expected to last many years, it is now normal, not exceptional. And it can only be expected that the police will incrementally extend their access to the images. After all, if a policeman happens to notice, say, the car being sought in a child abduction case, are they going to ignore it? Or a car fleeing an armed robbery where someone has been killed? Or a hit-and-run driver? And as extend the remit, checking car numbers against the police computer, how long before traffic offences pop up? Are they going to ignore them? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear- except for MPs of course, who voted to keep the details of their expenses secret... Or is the war on terror being used as a convenient excuse to extend 24 hour surveillance? |
|
Subject: RE: Obit: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST,PMB Date: 18 Jul 07 - 04:11 AM By the way, that was meant to be BS, not obit , though it could be obit: western values. Please shift down below. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: skipy Date: 18 Jul 07 - 04:21 AM So where is the problem? Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 18 Jul 07 - 04:34 AM I can see how useful a tool the Congestion Charge cameras could be - a visual record of every vehicle and its numberplate (license plate), timed and located - to law enforcement agencies, but I can also see there is a huge problem with those who feel uncomfortable with the thought of being watched 24/7 regardless of guilt or innocence. If someone has broken the law, they should be made to pay. If using a system already in place will help to apprehend lawbreakers, without further cost to the public, then I have no problem with it being used. It probably won't be a police officer looking at the screens. It will be a support officer or civilian support. If someone is unhappy at the thought of being watched, bear this in mind: The two men who probably murdered a 15yr old boy, 100yds from my front door, were captured on CCTV twice. They still haven't been caught. When it's your daughter or son in the kidnap/getaway vehicle, you'll think differently. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: skipy Date: 18 Jul 07 - 05:01 AM If you have problem with being watched, destroy you mobile phone, your computer, your store cards & your bank card NOW! Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 18 Jul 07 - 05:54 AM Does anyone have a problem with having a microchip inserted into their skull to record their conversations and locations 24/7? Or CCTV cameras installed in each room of their house to monitor their every movement? (Remember - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear). That's the way we are going, folks, until people start to say NO. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: manitas_at_work Date: 18 Jul 07 - 06:32 AM Yes, mine aren't working properly. I've complained but they just tell me to take the tin-foil lining out of my hat but if I do that I can't get Radio 4 any more. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 18 Jul 07 - 07:00 AM Because you've got MY tinfoil!!! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST,Darowyn Date: 18 Jul 07 - 08:19 AM One of my songs "Watch What You Do In The Night" refers to the growth of surveillance, and I have noticed an increasing response to the intro phrase "Does anyone say 'It's a free country' any more? Does anyone still believe it?" I'd say that resistance is growing. Anyway, all that stuff about tinfoil is rubbish. You are not really thinking that at all. They are making you think that by sending mind control rays through the walls, as eny fule kno. Cheers Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jul 07 - 12:00 PM The vital thing about a government is its intentions. If its intentions are to establish a police state, then what is happening with all this heightened surveillance is very dangerous, because the means will be there. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Peace Date: 18 Jul 07 - 12:08 PM Governments work for me, NOT the other way 'round. As to this surveillance shit, NO FU#KIN' WAY! That said, I expect at least fifty cameras have a pic of me saluting with the political finger. Bastards. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jul 07 - 12:23 PM Governments work for you, Peace????? Holy shit, man, you are some idealist, aren't you? My impression of government, like virtually all organizations, is that very soon after its inception (usually launched with great idealism) it settles down to working for one basic purpose: to maintain and enlarge the organization and its powers. It becomes its own reason for existence. All else is subordinated to that. In other words, governments (like business enterprises or religions) have a life of their own, and like any living thing they attempt to sustain themselves, enlarge themselves and their holdings, and prosper. They vigorously attack anyone and anything which appears to be an impediment to those purposes. That's why we have wars. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Jul 07 - 07:52 PM "destroy you mobile phone, your computer, your store cards & your bank card NOW!" Better yet, give them to me - I'll save you! "In other words, governments (like business enterprises or religions) have a life of their own," 'Growth creates structure: Structure inhibits growth.' |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:05 PM How can you expect privacy in a public place? Look around you and see the cameras: in shops, in schools, in offices. Now if they are placing cameras in a private place, such as your home, without a warrant -- that's a whole different story. The answer to that is to find the cameras and avoid them. Here's a true story you might find enlightening: Generals Model and von Rundstedt, especially the latter, had a distrust of radio and Ultra. Hence the planning for the Ardennes Campaign in 1944 (Battle of the Bulge, as the Allies called it) was planned in total secrecy, in almost total radio silence. Although Ultra, the Allies' reading of secret German radio messages, suggested a possible German offensive, and the US Third Army predicted a major German offensive, the attack still achieved surprise. The degree of surprise achieved was compounded by the Allies' overconfidence, their preoccupation with their own offensive plans, poor aerial reconnaissance, and the relative lack of combat contact in the area by the U.S. 1st Army. Almost complete surprise against a weak section of the Allies' line was achieved during heavy overcast, when the Allies' strong air forces would be grounded. The attack failed, but was the single bloodiest battle the Americans fought in Europe -- and it was a near thing all the way around. My point is that the German high command used runners, not radio; written messages on paper and not Ultra. It is possible even today to avoid cameras. It is simple to avoid even night vision equipment -- and the military not only knows it but knows how. If you're worried about surveillance, there are ways. Learn them. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:06 PM Related info? New UK surveillance: head-mounted video cameras for police Published: 07.14.07, 00:08 / Israel News The British Home Office has allocated 3 million pounds ($6 million) to fund new surveillance devices for Britain's 42 police forces - video cameras strapped to police officers' heads. The sum is enough to buy more than 2,000 cameras. Advocates say the devices will cut down on paperwork and supply the nation's justice system with footage of victims, witnesses and suspects. Minister for Security Tony McNulty said Thursday that judges and jurors trying a case would be able to "see and hear the incident through the eyes and ears of the officer at the scene." (AP) OK, so it's a little odd for a source, but it was concise enough to quote. More info at: U.K. OKs Head-Mounted Video Police Cams MSNBC had the story up a couple of days ago, but it's evidently no longer news, as it's disappeared from their website. John |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM The Prisoner all over, again? |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Peace Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:10 AM "Holy shit, man, you are some idealist, aren't you?" Yeah, LH. I figure once we give up ideals we may as well give the fu#kers the whole world. Bastards will get it, but it's gonna cost them. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 19 Jul 07 - 02:00 AM 1. I remember the Cold War. I remember that one of the crucial reasons for it, for spending all that money on arms was that we in the West were FREE, and did NOT want to live in a society where everyone was being spied on. WE didn't want to live in a Big Brither society THEN. Oh no. We were free, wanted freedom. (And, whisper it, some in the West, even today, want the government off their back.) Whar we doing, of course, was projecting, projecting our own preparedness to spy and be unfree onto the Soviets. Now that the Cold War is over, some of us have suddenly discovered that not only is mutual spying not a sign of the enemy; we've discovered it's A GOOD THING. 2. This will get worse while the war on terror continues. No-one can say how we will know when that war is won. There are are no criteria to tell. 3. Our ideas on how to win the war appear to guarantee that the war can have no end. So we can expect the misbegotten methods like surveillance to get bigger, deeper, more unpleasant. That's the free, rational, enlightened West for you. Reeesult. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Bill D Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:46 AM I see the mostly successful installation of cameras in public places in England, and the wider use of them as red-light cameras in my area near Wash DC, and I am pleased that there is one more way to help identify folks who treat law as a hinderence to their lifestyle. Slippery slope? Is having police officers walking a beat, and obcerving what is going on, a slippery slope? A camera is cheaper & doesn't take coffee breaks. It is not hard to define what is public and what is private, and I will resist as hard as anyone intrusions which cross the line, but if that kid decides NOT to mug me, because he knows cameras are up there, then I don't care if it catches me scratching my butt in a doorway. (17 paragraphs of disclaimers and codas left off) |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST,PMB Date: 20 Jul 07 - 03:50 AM Well it was worth bringing this up, if only to understand that most British people are inured to the idea of 24 hour surveillance that so horrified George Orwell. People deserve the freedom they work for, and no other. It's also pleasing, I suppose, that people trust their governments so totally, despite or because of Messrs Blair, Blunket, Mandelson and so on. Big Brother is just a TV program now. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Peace Date: 20 Jul 07 - 03:53 AM Welcome to the real-life Truman Show. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:51 AM People fought and died for the freedoms we used to hold so dear. It's just such a god-awful shame that they can be simply swept away at the stroke of a politician's pen. And what's even more worrying is that so few people seem to care. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM It's been achieved in part by our very wonderful governments and broadcast outlets, and Press managing to scare most of the population witless, along with some terrorists, of course. Which/who has "made" us more frightened is debateable (tho' rarely? debated,) And we Brits at least are masochist enough to enjoy a load of being cowed into acceptance. A recent bon mot, to a well-known tune, "If you're happy and you know it, rattle your chains." Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Rapparee Date: 20 Jul 07 - 12:04 PM How is having a camera in, say, a public park different from having a cop standing there? |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST,petr Date: 20 Jul 07 - 01:17 PM a couple of months ago in a hit& run someone drove over a 3year old boy in Vancouver leaving him clinging to life.. Id say that if you could use traffic cameras in the vicinity to identify possible suspects all the better for it. by the way I spent the first part of my life in a communist dictatorship, you dont need cameras to spy on people, you just use other people, its more insidious when you have to be careful what you say in front of your friends. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Peace Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:56 PM Expect that within the next ten years GPS locators will be mandatory in all new cars. Much of the new stuff is way beyond any government's 'right to know' or concern for its citizens. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:34 PM Imagine how bare our Saturday night TV viewing would be without CCTVs and such like... where would our 'Cops chasing stupid & bad people' programmes end up? How would we know the bloke from maintenance pees in the coffee jug every morning? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:40 PM The slipperiest slope of all is the one that's layered in banana peels! But, hey! The thing I don't like about all these dang cameras is...who's gonna need a private eye any longer? Who's gonna need a cop on the beat? They are takin' people's jobs away, that's what they're doin'. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 04:18 AM Watched a documentary piece on CNN last night about the failed bomb plot in London on 21/7/2006. Down in great part to the surveillance cameras all four would-be "bombers" were all in custody and charged within eight days. I have no problems with that. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 05:48 AM The last few posts show very clearly that while some are dead against this deprivation of liberty and right to privacy and fear-inducement by our own governments, others have no wish to address such matters at all, complete avoidance, some point to undoubted benefits and totally ignore all that's wrong about it, and the avoidance method of still others is to trivialise the matter. So we all have laid out before us a pretty full picture. My big objection to the 'look-we've-caught-'em-thanks-to-the-cameras' argument, is that, as well as being a partial picture, it does sweet f.a. about going to the root of the problem of terrorism. On the afternoon of 11/9, i thought about the disaster and said to a friend,"Unless and until we work out why there are terrorists AT ALL - you're not one, neither am i,yet terrorists exist, why? - that until that fundamental question gets answered, then this will go on without end. And until we get to the bottom of it, then journalists, politicians, the police, the armed forces etc. have guaranteed jobs for life.(And unto their children's children.)" As Bill D might say, that's what I came up with then, and 6 years on, I stand by it. Cameras, wars, laws, propaganda - the kinds of response that the best of our public life come up with - none are the answer to the basic problem (however much they deal with bits and pieces). I say again, none. And I do know from my experiences in psychotherapy (of a tremendously deep variety) how incredibly resistant we are to getting to the bottom of things. Oddly, the resistance is often not to any reality, but to our imaginings. We resist what we assume more than anything else. We should be treating our difficulties like a quality car mechanic. It's no good dealing with symptoms. better we get to the place where we can say,as he does "There you are, mate. THAT'S yr problem."(i.e.the cause) There was I thinking the car was finished or I just needed to beat it up like in Fawlty Towers, and it was just a bit of moisture/leaf in the wrong place. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 07:01 AM As yet I have seen no indication that the elected Governments in any of the countries in which I have lived intend establishing "a police state", and I cannot for the life of me see any reason why they should, or would. Have my "rights" been erroded - not as far as I am aware. To "GUEST, Sminky", who asked the following on 18 Jul 07 - 05:54 AM "Does anyone have a problem with having a microchip inserted into their skull to record their conversations and locations 24/7?" I would refer Guest Sminky to the parents of Madeleine McCann and ask them if they would have a problem with it. I would not be surprised at the answer that he would get. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 11:10 AM Alas, we can prove anything we like from one example. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 22 Jul 07 - 05:44 AM More on the "Chip anybody?" thread. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Bill D Date: 22 Jul 07 - 03:33 PM "As Bill D might say, that's what I came up with then, and 6 years on, I stand by it." Oh? He might NOT say any such thing, too. I have absolutely no notion that a bunch of cameras are going to solve the terrorist problem...or stop crime in its tracks. Cameras are one more tool, like fingerprints, DNA tests, and police walking beats; that might help head off some crimes and help solve them when they do occur. We ARE talking about 'public' cameras, still, aren't we? No...you may NOT bug my house...I don't care if there a camera on the lamp post in front of my house- maybe I'll find out who throws the beer cans in my lawn as they round the curve. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 22 Jul 07 - 03:58 PM Bill, I just meant that you might say that about a view of your own, not about a view of mine. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 23 Jul 07 - 05:52 AM I would refer Guest Sminky to the parents of Madeleine McCann and ask them if they would have a problem with it. I would not be surprised at the answer that he would get. No Teribus, neither would I. But that is still not a sufficient justification for inflicting it on everyone. And then ask yourself this - if microchips could enable the police authorities to track the location of a young girl, what would happen if that technology fell into the wrong hands? (And believe me - it will). |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: SINSULL Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM The debate has been going on for years in the US. In 2005 a federal law was passed mandating federally approved IDs for US citizens. Each state has until 2008 to comply. Some states, including Maine and New Hampshire, are close to vetoing the mandate. BUT now there is talk of requiring a US Passport to travel by plane between states. Innocuous? A safety measure? We have always travelled between states with no need for an ID. Plus there is research being done on inserting radio chips into the Passports. Colonel Klink! I am a citizen! I have papers! |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:41 AM do we not remember The Prisoner? "I am not a number. I am a (free?) man." Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 06:37 PM Like the intention of introducing a "police state"; like the errosion of my "civil rights and liberties"; none have happened just like the introduction of a "chip" to record /transmit location and conversations. Fear-mongering myths to keep the Socialist Workers Party faithful chattering - odd though, most places in the world that had regimes and governments almost exactly as you describe in your most graphic nightmares have all been - wait for it - Socialist Peoples Republics of one sort or another. Guest Sminky, if you are going to spend your life worrying about all the bad things that might happen, best take a long walk off a short pier now and get it all over with. By the Bye, if you want to know what it is like to live in a "police state" PM Guest petr, I dare say that he could provide you information based on real life experience. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 24 Jul 07 - 02:35 PM Where's the right to privacy? I had it here somewhere. No. Can't find it. Must be somewhere. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Jul 07 - 08:47 PM "most places in the world that had regimes and governments almost exactly as you describe in your most graphic nightmares have all been - wait for it - Socialist Peoples Republics of one sort or another." I agree - most, except for the Right Wing Fascist ones.... |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 25 Jul 07 - 07:27 AM Guest Sminky, if you are going to spend your life worrying about all the bad things that might happen, best take a long walk off a short pier now and get it all over with. Thanks for the kind offer, but I'll think I'll stick around and worry about the bad things that arehappening (no right to silence, no trial by jury in certain cases, no automatic right to protest, internment without charge [about to increase to 56 days by all accounts] etc etc etc). Or did I just make those up? |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Teribus Date: 25 Jul 07 - 12:08 PM So you haven't had a chat to Guest petr, Sminky? Foulestroupe should as well, he'd tell you at which end of the political spectrum the regime he lived under espoused to. I also believe that even some of the Right Wing Fascist ones also called themselves National Socialists. **The Formal Caution: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." This caution must be given before any questioning of someone who is suspected of committing an offence about his or her involvement in the offence. You should normally be cautioned on arrest and before any interviewing or continuation of an interview. If you are charged, you should be cautioned in the same way, but if you are questioned after charge, the caution is simply that anything you say may be used in evidence but that you do not have to say anything. This is because there is no provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act for inferences to be drawn from silence after charge. These restrictions, which have been introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, have been reviewed many times by the courts. The European Court of Human Rights regards any inroads into the right of silence very seriously under Article 6 - the right to a fair trial - and there are many challenges to the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act pending. You cannot be convicted of an offence solely on the basis of your failure or refusal to answer questions or furnish information. Because the rules are complicated it is of crucial importance that legal advice is sought before answering questions.** Now Sminky what does the sentence - "You do not have to say anything." Imply to you? Clue - If someone does not say anything they are said to be ......? (Hint it begins with an 's') |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:06 PM Yeah, now move to the next sentence: "But it may harm your defence...". What does that imply to you? (Hint - it begins with 'g'). And then explain why we've managed for centuries with the right to silence without its 'harming your defence'. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 07 - 11:01 AM Just to recap Sminks: I do not live in a police state and no-one in the elected Government, Civil Service, Armed Forces or Police are making even the most feeble attempt at introducing one. My civil liberties and human rights have still not been erroded. No-one has proposed that I, or other member of the public, be fitted with a "chip" inorder to record and monitor my conversations and whereabouts. Still keep on reading all that Socialist Workers clap-trap, after all everybody should have a hobby. |
|
Subject: RE: Surveillance: a slippery slope? From: autolycus Date: 26 Jul 07 - 05:10 PM Alternatively, just to recap, 21st July 05.48 a.m. Ivor |
| Share Thread: |
