NationStates Jolt Archive

[BBC story] (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm)

So wow, this is fairly alarming, no? In the past I probably would have made some defensive, excuse-atory argument justifying this, but I'm rather at a loss for words. I don't usually buy into the "Oh my god, we are turning into a 1984 world!!" arguments and dismiss them as needlessly alarmist, but...I really find this hard to believe.

The idea that there are thousands of CCTV cameras already is disturbing on its own. But now, they talk? If they "see" you doing something wrong, they will put you in your place?

(image from article :P) (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42764000/jpg/_42764725_cctv_montage_203.jpg)

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like this is just sliding down the slippery slope to massive government control over individuals' lives and ridiculous privacy intrusions. This really is a a valid time to ask, "What next?" It's fair that Mr. Brokenshire points out how carefully this needs to be approached, particularly when you're thinking of applying it more generally [expansion]. But if people just lay down and accept this, perhaps his words will be forgotten in piles of archaic information as more and more drastic measures get put in place.

What is the government going to do if the man in that picture ignores them? It doesn't make him a good man if he does, but what? Are they going to go after him? Under what pretext, that of not obeying what a talking camera is telling you to do?

*shiver*

The grim tales of future dystopia like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and such have always left me thinking, "But of course, society will never seriously come to this point. Right? How can human society possibly realistically fall into the vicious cycle they do in these exaggerated stories?"

But if people jump up and say, in response to the CCTV expansions that are being implemented, "Hey wait! It's actually OK!" ... maybe that question will get answered.

I don't know. Maybe I'm overreacting. :-P What do y'all think?

Eh as long as the cameras aren't behind my bathroom mirror I'm fine with it.

That's actually pretty cool. Of course, it would be better if it were RoboCop saying it, but this is fine too.

I doubt they can charge you for disobeying a camera speakerphone as it can't be recognized as a law enforcement entity like cop can. It's mostly just an annoyance.

I imagine they'd be like Moe Szyslak behind his bulletproof glass. "Go ahead, do your worst." "Ok." *takes money*

But if people just lay down and accept this, perhaps his words will be forgotten in piles of archaic information as more and more drastic measures get put in place.

[...]

The grim tales of future dystopia like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and such have always left me thinking, "But of course, society will never seriously come to this point. Right? How can human society possibly realistically fall into the vicious cycle they do in these exaggerated stories?"

But if people jump up and say, in response to the CCTV expansions that are being implemented, "Hey wait! It's actually OK!" ... maybe that question will get answered.

I don't know. Maybe I'm overreacting. :-P What do y'all think?I don't know. Maybe I'm overreacting. :-P What do y'all think?Nah, you're spot on.

Home Secretary John Reid told BBC News there would be some people, "in the minority who will be more concerned about what they claim are civil liberties intrusions".:rolleyes:

I find all of this a bit... freaky. Maybe a step too far, mmm?

There must be easier ways of getting mooning Chavs onto Youtube, surely?

Seriously, why would anybody actually obey one of these things? There's nothing the camera operator can do to them other than get irate at their impotence. It's not like they've got a tazer, gun, anything to make the criminals fear the camera ("You have littered. Put the litter in the bin. You have thirty seconds to comply."), so why bother?

Complete waste of time and effort, and the cameras (in the true spirit of CCTV) won't even be good enough to spy on innocent people going about their daily lives. I'd worry about the civil liberties problems with them, but 1) the cameras are already there, so the major problem is already there; 2) there are more important things to work against, like ID cards* and putting satellite-trackers in everybody's cars (no, really).

*Heard an interesting thing... Given ID cards, what's to stop them putting RFID readers in the cameras? Now there's a privacy invasion for you.

Oh, and as for dystopian novels; they make me laugh. It's going to wind up like that, and nobody cares. "The innocent have nothing to fear!", "Terrorism!", "Paedophiles!"... It's bloody funny. Schadenfreude is great, even when it's my misfortune too.

Are we allowed to have conversations with them?

Wasn't there a thread about this last year?

Wasn't there a thread about this last year?

Like we only ever do each thread once.

Originally they were just in one place (Middlesbrough?), now they're being rolled out to various other places.

Wasn't there a thread about this last year?

Can you remember that far back? :eek:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/whatareyoulookingat.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/whatareyoulookingat.jpg

Love it.

Also, how come you're online during the day so much lately? Shouldn't you be slaving over some files? Or has government bureaucracy already lived up to its reputation? ;)

Love it.

Also, how come you're online during the day so much lately? Shouldn't you be slaving over some files? Or has government bureaucracy already lived up to its reputation? ;)

Hey has holidays, evil bastard that he is.

i can hear it now in all the ladie's dressing rooms: take it off! take it off!

Hey has holidays, evil bastard that he is.Already?? He just started to work there!

Love it.

Also, how come you're online during the day so much lately? Shouldn't you be slaving over some files? Or has government bureaucracy already lived up to its reputation? ;)
Knew it would hit home here :p

Don't tell anyone, but it's Easter... So I'm on holiday :) We all are, most of the country has run into the mountains and won't come back untill tuesday :p

Taking a well-deserved break from the files laying in my office, one folder which dates back to 2003 - now that's bureaucracy for you!

Though we did get slammed (And rightly so!) in a court decision recently for one case that went on for eight - 8! - years.

Hey has holidays, evil bastard that he is.
Indeed... Indeed...

*Plots evilly*

I live near Middlesbrough and evidently they worked well there

I personally gave them 10 minutes before the local youths would uproot and burn them:)

I think it's a pretty good idea.

This is a legitimate concern.

Two reasons. First, some surveillance cameras are monitored live and their aim can actually be controlled remotely. How far do you trust the operator? Think he'll restrain himself if it catches a glimpse of an open window with something interesting inside? But that's small potatoes compared to:

The idea of people becoming used to having someone watching them all the time. Is crime surveillance cameras alone a big deal? Not really, but once people are used to them the door is open for a slightly bigger intrusion. Maybe cameras that are mounted in apartment hallways that are Government controlled. Next maybe they'll be pointed at specific units or houses. How long until they're mounted inside houses? Think about it. It's easy to justify at first. "Law enforcement will only monitor known criminals." Then it will become a progressively wider group. Think about fingerprints. That used to only be done to those who were arrested or convicted. Now there's been talk of an FBI database that would contain fingerprints on EVERYBODY in the name of national security.

And whenever a Government official says "The innocent have nothing to hide" it sends a chill down my spine because who defines "innocent?" The Government.

Already?? He just started to work there!

What are you, watching me? :eek: I feel like I'm on Grande Fratello all of a sudden!

:p

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Bigbrother.jpg

Knew it would hit home here :p

Don't tell anyone, but it's Easter... So I'm on holiday :) We all are, most of the country has run into the mountains and won't come back untill tuesday :p

Taking a well-deserved break from the files laying in my office, one folder which dates back to 2003 - now that's bureaucracy for you!

Though we did get slammed (And rightly so!) in a court decision recently for one case that went on for eight - 8! - years.Don't tell anyone, but it's Easter here too... Silly Gravlen! I just wasn't aware that Norway collectively takes off the whole week before Easter even starts.

*moves to Norway*

I am not going to worry until they start putting machine guns on the cameras as well.

I am not going to worry until they start putting machine guns on the cameras as well.

Oh come on. That would be awesome. *nod*

Don't tell anyone, but it's Easter here too... Silly Gravlen! I just wasn't aware that Norway collectively takes off the whole week before Easter even starts.

*moves to Norway*

Wait, if Gravlen's in Norway, why does he always dig up statistics for the US?

I thought he was there because of that... I'm confused (even moreso than usual) :(

What are you, watching me? :eek: I feel like I'm on Grande Fratello all of a sudden!

:p

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Bigbrother.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w107/Cookesland/xptdr.gif

very niiice...

Don't tell anyone, but it's Easter here too... Silly Gravlen! I just wasn't aware that Norway collectively takes off the whole week before Easter even starts.

*moves to Norway*

We don't officially, but since so many people take time off we might as well. You know, since everybody else is doing it? And we need some time to get up into the mountains, since everybody is going you can expect to spend one day stuck on the road behind a line of cars that goes on as far as the eye can see.

Do you ski, btw? It's a requirement, I believe :p

And what do you mean, they have Easter elsewhere? :eek:

[And whenever a Government official says "The innocent have nothing to hide" it sends a chill down my spine because who defines "innocent?" The Government.Yep. And honestly, even if it's just "society as a whole" doing the defining it's not exactly any more reassuring, esp. not in our paranoid times.

Maybe cameras that are mounted in apartment hallways that are Government controlled.Ugh, I remember the day I came home and there actually was a camera mounted in the hallway of my apartment building.

It turned out to be a non-working decoy to deter the teenagers that apparently had entered the building a couple times before and damaged the mail boxes (...) but I didn't know it was fake at the time and I was mad as fucking hell. I don't come across security cameras all that often (well, okay, there are a ton screening the entries to the federal government buildings but I don't exactly go there) so my dislike of them was rather academic and untested but actually seeing one stare at you in your own house was honestly one of the most infuriating moments I've had.

That's actually pretty cool. Of course, it would be better if it were RoboCop saying it, but this is fine too.

Troof.

Wait, if Gravlen's in Norway, why does he always dig up statistics for the US?

I thought he was there because of that... I'm confused (even moreso than usual) :(He's politically educated like that. ;)

We don't officially, but since so many people take time off we might as well. You know, since everybody else is doing it? And we need some time to get up into the mountains, since everybody is going you can expect to spend one day stuck on the road behind a line of cars that goes on as far as the eye can see.

Do you ski, btw? It's a requirement, I believe :p

And what do you mean, they have Easter elsewhere? :eek:So why are you posting here and not skiing? Methinks you're making this all up because you know I can't ski for shit and don't want me to come crash on your couch.
You hurt me. :(

Yep. And honestly, even if it's just "society as a whole" doing the defining it's not exactly any more reassuring, esp. not in our paranoid times.

Ugh, I remember the day I came home and there actually was a camera mounted in the hallway of my apartment building.

It turned out to be a non-working decoy to deter the teenagers that apparently had entered the building a couple times before and damaged the mail boxes (...) but I didn't know it was fake at the time and I was mad as fucking hell. I don't come across security cameras all that often (well, okay, there are a ton screening the entries to the federal government buildings but since I don't go there I don't really care) so my dislike of them was rather academic and untested but actually seeing one stare at you in your own house was honestly one of the most infuriating moments I've had.

No more walking round the hallways nekkid eh?

No more walking round the hallways nekkid eh?
Hallway of my apartment building, not hallway of my apartment!



So what I'm saying is, yeah, no more. :( :p

Hallway of my apartment building, not hallway of my apartment!



So what I'm saying is, yeah, no more. :( :p

I know the feeling, they put cameras in the hallways in my old school.

Frankly, I'm torn on the issue of cameras. Their presence may deter crime and provide good evidence in the case something criminal does happen. Those are good points.

But the idea of being observed at all times - and especially the "talking cameras" idea - is a bit worrysome. And there is also the fact that the presence of cameras may provide a false sense of security... There was a local case recently where a woman who was raped found some relief in the fact that a camera was watching the entire thing. (She struggled and moved in the direction of the camera to make sure evidence was gathered) Turned out that the camera was off and just acting as a decoy, so no evidence was collected.

So at least in the public places, I think I'm in favour of cameras. Ordinary ones, mind you.

Wait, if Gravlen's in Norway, why does he always dig up statistics for the US?

I thought he was there because of that... I'm confused (even moreso than usual) :(
Why shouldn't I? Someone has got to do it ;)

Besides, I doubt there would be many people interested in seeing norwegian statistics, they're not quite as juicy :p
He's politically educated like that. ;)
Indeed, that too :)

So why are you posting here and not skiing? Methinks you're making this all up because you know I can't ski for shit and don't want me to come crash on your couch.
You hurt me. :(
Pfft! I'm not that big on skiing myself anymore. I wouldn't mind taking a trip, but it's expensive and well, there isn't that much snow either. Nor is it that fun to cross a mountain together with a million people walking on a line. Slalom is fun though...

And I like the couch, it's a nice place to spend the vacation time - and you're welcome to try it sometime ;)

Nor is it that fun to cross a mountain together with a million people walking on a line. Slalom is fun though...[/SIZE]LOL, "skiing" in Norway = cross-country skiing? Awesome. *giggles* Here, "skiing" = downhill skiing.

I find all of this a bit... freaky. Maybe a step too far, mmm?

Heheh I don't see the problem really. I mean if we know that behind the majority of CCTV camereras is an operater, the only thing to change is now these operaters can speak to us.

It sort of enforces the idea that we are being watched, and in the examples given it does work. We are being watched anyway, so this is really nowt extra.

This is a legitimate concern.

Two reasons. First, some surveillance cameras are monitored live and their aim can actually be controlled remotely. How far do you trust the operator? Think he'll restrain himself if it catches a glimpse of an open window with something interesting inside? But that's small potatoes compared to:

The idea of people becoming used to having someone watching them all the time. Is crime surveillance cameras alone a big deal? Not really, but once people are used to them the door is open for a slightly bigger intrusion. Maybe cameras that are mounted in apartment hallways that are Government controlled. Next maybe they'll be pointed at specific units or houses. How long until they're mounted inside houses? Think about it. It's easy to justify at first. "Law enforcement will only monitor known criminals." Then it will become a progressively wider group. Think about fingerprints. That used to only be done to those who were arrested or convicted. Now there's been talk of an FBI database that would contain fingerprints on EVERYBODY in the name of national security.

And whenever a Government official says "The innocent have nothing to hide" it sends a chill down my spine because who defines "innocent?" The Government.
I agree completely. However, this can be counter-acted by making sure that the nation's laws always protect the legal right of the citizenry to tell a cop to go fuck himself if he doesn't have probable cause to justify speaking to us at all.

On a different note, once upon a time, I was strolling down 5th Avenue in NYC, and witnessed the following: Two attractive young women scooted across the street in the middle of the block (the way everyone does). Two male cops sitting in a parked patrol car, drinking coffee, observed them laughingly, and one turned on the car loudspeaker and announced in teasing, sing-song tones, "You're jaywalking, ladies."

So, my question is, how many incidents have there been so far in the UK of cops using the talking cameras to hit on women? ;)

To be honest, I don't mind being watched in live time, as much as I mind the idea of the government compiling permanent databases of the movements of non-criminals.

I think I'd rather live in a world where a cop will just tell a person to stop spitting on the street rather than just suddenly arrest him for it, or put him on a secret list somewhere without telling him.

But I see absolutely no reason why surveillance tapes should be saved if there are no criminal - preferably felony - incidents recorded on them. Perhaps the solution for civil liberties should be video files that are automatically deleted within 7 days (like voice mail messages) unless they are actively saved, or if actual tape is used, then some other system that would lead to regular erasing/destroying of tapes. The man hours required to actually review the tapes will ensure that non-offenses are not saved "just in case." There won't be time to obsess over every little thing to judge whether it's a sign of something else, maybe.

To be honest, I don't mind being watched in live time, as much as I mind the idea of the government compiling permanent databases of the movements of non-criminals.

I think I'd rather live in a world where a cop will just tell a person to stop spitting on the street rather than just suddenly arrest him for it, or put him on a secret list somewhere without telling him.

But I see absolutely no reason why surveillance tapes should be saved if there are no criminal - preferably felony - incidents recorded on them. Perhaps the solution for civil liberties should be video files that are automatically deleted within 7 days (like voice mail messages) unless they are actively saved, or if actual tape is used, then some other system that would lead to regular erasing/destroying of tapes. The man hours required to actually review the tapes will ensure that non-offenses are not saved "just in case." There won't be time to obsess over every little thing to judge whether it's a sign of something else, maybe.

Well, then you get into situations where the cops on the camera "woo hooed" you and commented on your asscheeks, and your complaint reached Internal Affairs after two weeks - one week after the tape was erased.

"You! Yes, you! behind the bikesheds, stand still laddie!"

Heheh I don't see the problem really. I mean if we know that behind the majority of CCTV camereras is an operater, the only thing to change is now these operaters can speak to us.

It sort of enforces the idea that we are being watched, and in the examples given it does work. We are being watched anyway, so this is really nowt extra.
The difference is being watched and being interacted with. I can live with cameras, I can forget that they're there. I acn't do that if they're talking to me. And besides, I really don't see the point of them talking to me either. Better to just have a siren to set of if the CCTV operator observes a real crime taking place - could for example scare off a would-be rapist...
LOL, "skiing" in Norway = cross-country skiing? Awesome. *giggles* Here, "skiing" = downhill skiing.
We're kinda like the eskimos really, we have a thousand words for skiing (that doesn't translate well to english). But basically, yes - skiing usually defaults to cross-country skiing in my vocabulary ;)

And you don't have to be good at skiing to ski downhill - after all, one way or another you're gonna get to the bottom :p

The difference is being watched and being interacted with. I can live with cameras, I can forget that they're there. I acn't do that if they're talking to me. And besides, I really don't see the point of them talking to me either. Better to just have a siren to set of if the CCTV operator observes a real crime taking place - could for example scare off a would-be rapist...

We're kinda like the eskimos really, we have a thousand words for skiing (that doesn't translate well to english). But basically, yes - skiing usually defaults to cross-country skiing in my vocabulary ;)

And you don't have to be good at skiing to ski downhill - after all, one way or another you're gonna get to the bottom :p

If you spit on the sidewalk, pretend to be deaf.

Well, then you get into situations where the cops on the camera "woo hooed" you and commented on your asscheeks, and your complaint reached Internal Affairs after two weeks - one week after the tape was erased.
Well, the 7 days was just a random number for the sake of finishing the sentence. Expand it to bureaucratic time, and the tapes could lay about for several months but then be destroyed. The idea is to prevent sidewalk spitters (as much as I hate them) from finding their way onto a secret list of undesirables held by some distant and hidden government office.

As for losing the opportunity to take action, well, hey, we already deal with that. It's called a statute of limitations, which dictates how much time one has to do something about an offense or lose the option. So if some cop manning a camera uses it to make lewd comments about women's asses, the offended women will have to know that they have a limited amount of time to file their complaints about it.

Of course, the cops must realize too, with these talking cameras, that their actions are not secret, and everyone can hear what they are getting up to when they're supposed to be working, maybe even their bosses. This is why I am much more comfortable with open, public surveillance than with secret surveillance.

Well, the 7 days was just a random number for the sake of finishing the sentence. Expand it to bureaucratic time, and the tapes could lay about for several months but then be destroyed. The idea is to prevent sidewalk spitters (as much as I hate them) from finding their way onto a secret list of undesirables held by some distant and hidden government office.

As for losing the opportunity to take action, well, hey, we already deal with that. It's called a statute of limitations, which dictates how much time one has to do something about an offense or lose the option. So if some cop manning a camera using it to make lewd comments about women's asses, the offended women will have to know that they have a limited amount of time to file their complaints about it.

Of course, the cops must realize too, with these talking cameras, that their actions are not secret, and everyone can hear what they are getting up to when they're supposed to be working, maybe even their bosses. This is why I am much more comfortable with open, public surveillance than with secret surveillance.

Oh, you mean files like this?

They're keeping them from when you're a child, until forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order

You don't have to do anything criminal to get one.

The level of evidence required to obtain is much lower than that of the standard of proof for criminal cases. Both hearsay evidence and anonymous testimony are admissible as evidence. This means an asbo is one of the only cases heard under civil law which can result in a criminal penalty - hearsay evidence and anonymous evidence can result in a custodial sentence.

The order may prohibit any behaviour.

Why shouldn't I? Someone has got to do it ;)

Besides, I doubt there would be many people interested in seeing norwegian statistics, they're not quite as juicy :p
Heh ;)

Well, I deliberately and maliciously give out UKanian statistics whenever possible, why shouldn't you do the same for Norway? And it'd probably make a change from all the doom and gloom that UK/US statistics show :)

The difference is being watched and being interacted with. I can live with cameras, I can forget that they're there. I acn't do that if they're talking to me. And besides, I really don't see the point of them talking to me either. Better to just have a siren to set of if the CCTV operator observes a real crime taking place - could for example scare off a would-be rapist...

We're kinda like the eskimos really, we have a thousand words for skiing (that doesn't translate well to english). But basically, yes - skiing usually defaults to cross-country skiing in my vocabulary ;)

And you don't have to be good at skiing to ski downhill - after all, one way or another you're gonna get to the bottom :p


Heh sooo in effect then the only real differance is as I said? People will be reminded that they are being watched.

This is tad scary, however, the possibility for fun controlling the cameras would be immense;

"You there, yes, you in the red shirt, stop looking at the tits next to you"

I think this would be incredibly fun for the guy controlling the camera.

Oh, you mean files like this?

They're keeping them from when you're a child, until forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order

You don't have to do anything criminal to get one.

Heh it gets better. in at least 2 states that I know of it's possible to be ordered to register as a sex offender without any criminal charges even being pressed. The mere suspicion of such behavior is enough for a judge to order it.

Don't believe me? I know someone it happened to. It was a messy divorce he was going through and the custody battle was particularly ugly. The wife decided to accuse him of molesting the child as a way of undermining his chances of winning custody. Of course there was no evidence, and no criminal charges came of it, but he's on the list now.

I blame a paranoid society and a Government composed of individuals who know that they can get re-elected by playing to the audience.

Heh ;)

Well, I deliberately and maliciously give out UKanian statistics whenever possible, why shouldn't you do the same for Norway? And it'd probably make a change from all the doom and gloom that UK/US statistics show :)
Doom and gloom sells - besides, this forum has a yankee bias ;), so I guess I figure that the other posters would want to see US statistics. But maybe I should use norwegian ones sometimes too. (I did when debating New Nordland, though)

33 murders in 2006! :eek: MY GODS!
...

It just doesn't have the same ring to it... :p
Heh sooo in effect then the only real differance is as I said? People will be reminded that they are being watched.

Also, they would be watched realtime, and not simply taped. I think that's a part too... Taping people is more acceptable than watching them, if you see what I mean.

they need to be equiped with tasers with a fairly good range.

Doom and gloom sells - besides, this forum has a yankee bias ;), so I guess I figure that the other posters would want to see US statistics. But maybe I should use norwegian ones sometimes too. (I did when debating New Nordland, though)
The yankee bias is why I use UKanian statistics ;)

33 murders in 2006! :eek: MY GODS!
...
It just doesn't have the same ring to it... :p
That's about half the murder rate of the UK... If we had the same population 60-70 murders per year probably wouldn't cause alarm ;)

Also, they would be watched realtime, and not simply taped. I think that's a part too... Taping people is more acceptable than watching them, if you see what I mean.
And probably more useful...

Also, they would be watched realtime, and not simply taped. I think that's a part too... Taping people is more acceptable than watching them, if you see what I mean.

We are already watched in real time. The cameras that they are talking about already have operaters, who already watch us.

We are already watched in real time. The cameras that they are talking about already have operaters, who already watch us.

Do these operators beat off a lot?

Of course, the cops must realize too, with these talking cameras, that their actions are not secret, and everyone can hear what they are getting up to when they're supposed to be working, maybe even their bosses. This is why I am much more comfortable with open, public surveillance than with secret surveillance.

That is what I think would be the optimal result. I would also prefer the increase in surveilance to allow for a greater laxity in some crimes as well.

Don't believe me? I know someone it happened to. It was a messy divorce he was going through and the custody battle was particularly ugly. The wife decided to accuse him of molesting the child as a way of undermining his chances of winning custody. Of course there was no evidence, and no criminal charges came of it, but he's on the list now.

Hence a greater amount ofsurveilance would result in a reduced amount of hearsay evidence being used.

Is that was a problem with some divorce cases, where the partner can accuse the other of something and it is accepted more than if it was in an actual criminal court case?

I blame a paranoid society and a Government composed of individuals who know that they can get re-elected by playing to the audience.

One of the most important parts of increasing surveilance is that the people in power are surveyed, to prevent greater corruption and (hopefully) less extensive fear mongering. Otherwise you end up like East Germany.

That being said, I don't really see the point of having talking cameras, it would be better to have link ups to the police for arrest a criminial in the process and having talking ones may increase the costs too much.

It sort of enforces the idea that we are being watched, and in the examples given it does work. We are being watched anyway, so this is really nowt extra.

There was some New Zealand police lot who made a fake police car and set it up in order to reduce people's speed in areas. It seemed to work.

The only problem with mass surveilance is how many of the cameras are pointed out and how much of the data is released for general population knowlege.

It should be the more cameras the more identifiable and the greater access to the info allowed.

*moves to Norway*

Don't go to Norway (more like snoreway), just go to Kenya! Where else can you find Lions and Tigers? *Hums tune*

Do these operators beat off a lot?

I recon so. There was a story in the news about two weeks ago, about one of these operaters being up on a charge of some sexual nature, due to his habit of zooming in on pretty woman and following then down the road.

We are already watched in real time. The cameras that they are talking about already have operaters, who already watch us.

And that's where the problem lies...

Oh, you mean files like this?

They're keeping them from when you're a child, until forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order

You don't have to do anything criminal to get one.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

That's absurd. Someone can call you anti-social, and from them on, the police think you're a criminal because your neighbors didn't like the things you said...

Funny, I take the opposite view. I think taping is creepier. Tapes end up in secret files for years and years, and sometimes they even get onto inappropriate internet sites or even youtube. I'd be much happier with just getting yelled at for dropping my personal mail into a public trash can at the moment that I do it than having that infraction come back to haunt me years later when I try to run for office for something.

Not to mention those TV shows that play the tape of you getting beaten by punks over and over again.

<snip>
Also, they would be watched realtime, and not simply taped. I think that's a part too... Taping people is more acceptable than watching them, if you see what I mean.

Funny, I take the opposite view. I think taping is creepier. Tapes end up in secret files for years and years, and sometimes they even get onto inappropriate internet sites or even youtube. I'd be much happier with just getting yelled at for dropping my personal mail into a public trash can at the moment that I do it than having that infraction come back to haunt me years later when I try to run for office for something.

Hence a greater amount ofsurveilance would result in a reduced amount of hearsay evidence being used.
Except in a case like this, where ot would all have been in a private residence anyway.


Is that was a problem with some divorce cases, where the partner can accuse the other of something and it is accepted more than if it was in an actual criminal court case?


Not a quirk of divorce cases per se. It's just that there's this sort of "think of the children" mentality that has people always wanting to "err on the side of caution" and justice or due process be damned.

That's absurd. Someone can call you anti-social, and from them on, the police think you're a criminal because your neighbors didn't like the things you said...
Right. And I'm saying that is a bad thing that should not be allowed. Those files = bad.

Except in a case like this, where ot would all have been in a private residence anyway.

*Hums whilst inevitable conclusion is realised*

Not a quirk of divorce cases per se. It's just that there's this sort of "think of the children" mentality that has people always wanting to "err on the side of caution" and justice or due process be damned.

More fear mongering. Gullible humans.

Funny, I take the opposite view. I think taping is creepier. Tapes end up in secret files for years and years, and sometimes they even get onto inappropriate internet sites or even youtube. I'd be much happier with just getting yelled at for dropping my personal mail into a public trash can at the moment that I do it than having that infraction come back to haunt me years later when I try to run for office for something.

Well, they do both here, don't they? Watch AND tape?

I don't have a solid view on this, as I've said, I'm a bit torn...

Well, they do both here, don't they? Watch AND tape?

I don't have a solid view on this, as I've said, I'm a bit torn...

The question is, who gets to see the tape.

If there were some modicum of privacy... but there isn't. If you want to end up on a show of "London's Funniest Nose Pickers" the police can hand your tape to the BBC.

Well, they do both here, don't they? Watch AND tape?

I don't have a solid view on this, as I've said, I'm a bit torn...

Just move to Kenya. You will be better off.

Originally Posted by Gravlen
Well, they do both here, don't they? Watch AND tape?

I don't have a solid view on this, as I've said, I'm a bit torn...

The question is, who gets to see the tape.

If there were some modicum of privacy... but there isn't. If you want to end up on a show of "London's Funniest Nose Pickers" the police can hand your tape to the BBC.
This is why I suggest some sort of mandatory, unavoidable, automatic system for destroying the tapes in a timely fashion. To avoid having embarrassing material that serves no legal purpose floating about, vulnerable to being misused by others.

The question is, who gets to see the tape.

If there were some modicum of privacy... but there isn't. If you want to end up on a show of "London's Funniest Nose Pickers" the police can hand your tape to the BBC.

This guy:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/sorry_maam_lrg.jpg

Wouldn't it be better to promote more openess and less restriction on some morals then? That would both allow the greater surveilance and retention of that information whilst making it harder to blackmail people.

Just move to Kenya. You will be better off.
Google "Come to norway" - I'd post the link here if it weren't from Albinoblacksheep... That site is a no-no here...
This is why I suggest some sort of mandatory, unavoidable, automatic system for destroying the tapes in a timely fashion. To avoid having embarrassing material that serves no legal purpose floating about, vulnerable to being misused by others.
A good idea. Except I think the police should have a possibility for judicial override so they could save evidence. But a court would have to agree...

Google "Come to norway" - I'd post the link here if it weren't from Albinoblacksheep... That site is a no-no here...

Already seen it. Could do with a little less treble as it went a bit screwy on my speakers....

I always found all those cameras everywhere in London to be creepy. I read once that the average londoner is on camera 200 times every day. The idea of people getting used to this kind of surveilance is quite scary

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8633/cctv2zf2.jpg

I always found all those cameras everywhere in London to be creepy. I read once that the average londoner is on camera 200 times every day. The idea of people getting used to this kind of surveilance is quite scary

Britain is supposed to be one of the largest surveyed countries in the world.

Why is it creepy/scary? It is only if they try to use it as a blackmail bargaining chip that it is scary.

i find it highly disturbing that the government would even consider this as an acceptable idea. it's insane. seriously, if this is ever implemented nationwide i'm taking out a can of insulation foam and spray paint whenever i go out and blocking up any camera/speaker combo that tells me what to do.

I always found all those cameras everywhere in London to be creepy. I read once that the average londoner is on camera 200 times every day. The idea of people getting used to this kind of surveilance is quite scary

I know you'll roll your eyes, but the innocent really *do* have nothing to fear.

And that's where the problem lies...

Ahhhh and that my friend is the point. The fact that now we are to have operaters speaking to us is sorta a non point. The fact that we are already observed, is the point.

Britain is supposed to be one of the largest surveyed countries in the world.

Why is it creepy/scary? It is only if they try to use it as a blackmail bargaining chip that it is scary.

I know you'll roll your eyes, but the innocent really *do* have nothing to fear.

What I don't like is the feeling of being watched at all times, that's what I find creepy. And I do find the idea of having no privacy scary.

I know you'll roll your eyes, but the innocent really *do* have nothing to fear.

that's not the point. the point is privacy. i'm not scared of being caught doing anything i shouldn't be, i'll do that anyway and hang the consequences. i object to my every movement, legitimate or not, being observed and recorded for who knows what uses.

Ahhhh and that my friend is the point. The fact that now we are to have operaters speaking to us is sorta a non point. The fact that we are already observed, is the point.
Yes, but the speaking-part makes the intrusion palpable and thus more creepy, I guess..

Already seen it. Could do with a little less treble as it went a bit screwy on my speakers....

It's not as good as the other one... But it has a point: There are a lot of skiis in Norway. :)

Yes, but the speaking-part makes the intrusion palpable and thus more creepy, I guess..


I'll be waiting for news of a deaf person getting arrested for not paying attention to what the camera is telling them.

I know you'll roll your eyes, but the innocent really *do* have nothing to fear.

Well, aside from getting arrested for something they didn't do...