NationStates Jolt Archive

Now they have a camera that can see what's under your clothing. Of course, they reassure us that it's only used for explosives and weapons.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080309/tc_nm/security_britain_technology_dc)

LONDON (Reuters) - A British company has developed a camera that can detect weapons, drugs or explosives hidden under people's clothes from up to 25 meters away in what could be a breakthrough for the security industry.

The T5000 camera, created by a company called ThruVision, uses what it calls "passive imaging technology" to identify objects by the natural electromagnetic rays -- known as Terahertz or T-rays -- that they emit.

The high-powered camera can detect hidden objects from up to 80 feet away and is effective even when people are moving. It does not reveal physical body details and the screening is harmless, the company says.

The technology, which has military and civilian applications and could be used in crowded airports, shopping malls or sporting events, will be unveiled at a scientific development exhibition sponsored by Britain's Home Office on March 12-13.

"Acts of terrorism have shaken the world in recent years and security precautions have been tightened globally," said Clive Beattie, the chief executive of ThruVision.

"The ability to see both metallic and non-metallic items on people out to 25 meters is certainly a key capability that will enhance any comprehensive security system."

While the technology may enhance detection, it may also increase concerns that Britain is becoming a surveillance society, with hundreds of thousands of closed-circuit television cameras already monitoring people countrywide every day.

ThruVision came up with the technology for the T5000 in collaboration with the European Space Agency and from studying research by astronomers into dying stars.

The technology works on the basis that all people and objects emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Terahertz rays lie somewhere between infrared and microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum and travel through clouds and walls.

Depending on the material, the signature of the wave is different, so that explosives can be distinguished from a block of clay and cocaine is different from a bag of flour.

First they see how many bombs we have...next they try to take our children!

Aww, I liked the illusion that I was living in a free country, and you had to take that from me!

Britain advances further towards Police State
Reading slashdot, etc, it seems like these advances are a weekly occurrence. I give Britain less than a decade till its irreversible through the political process.

I think it's obvious that someone just wants to stop paying for his Playboy subscription.

Well given that how many of the brit cops are LEAVING their country because they are sick of being shot

That they are so willing to leave that they go to countries at the ass end of the world like New Zealand just to be safer

I think having safer standards is a step in the right direction, and any argument about it is a vote in favour of lawlessness

- face it, because modern democracy has let the scum come out to play, the government has nowhere to turn but tighter boundaries

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Well given that how many of the brit cops are LEAVING their country because they are sick of being shot

That they are so willing to leave that they go to countries at the ass end of the world like New Zealand just to be safer

I think having safer standards is a step in the right direction, and any argument about it is a vote in favour of lawlessness

- face it, because modern democracy has let the scum come out to play, the government has nowhere to turn but tighter boundaries

Reading slashdot, etc, it seems like these advances are a weekly occurrence. I give Britain less than a decade till its irreversible through the political process.
And the Archbishop is worried about Muslims...

Honestly, the terrorists HAVE won if this is what's being done.

And to think you people like to whine about the Patriot Act.

Well given that how many of the brit cops are LEAVING their country because they are sick of being shot... face it, because modern democracy has let the scum come out to play, the government has nowhere to turn but tighter boundaries
I suppose any actual evidence of the accusation, or even an explanation of who the ‘scum’ in society are, is out of the question?

I think having safer standards is a step in the right direction, and any argument about it is a vote in favour of lawlessness
Pish.

Questioning the government, especially over ‘security measures’, should be the default position.

And to think you people like to whine about the Patriot Act.
Your argument makes no sense, even excusing the asinine generalisations of 'you people' and 'whining':

"British citizens face draconian security measures, therefore they shouldn't object to draconian security measures being imposed on others."

Debate, please; don't just spout waffle.

well its the main flaw in a democratic society - the more freedom of choice you give the citizens, opens the door for them to be free to make many wrong decisions, resulting in specialist strict measures to try and patch up the cracks that form in the society

you've been perfectly happy living your sad life being content with the collapse of social order and tolerate the many small patch-ups that the government try to use to slow down the decay, but should the government actuallt decide to step in and introduce a hard-hitting solution, you start ranting because by your standards, real action is too facist

You may have a point. But if we go down this route, then our victory is for naught. We win the war, but the lose the very thing we set out to protect. Shall we win at any cost? Or must we keep sight of what we aim to save?

well its the main flaw in a democratic society–the more freedom of choice you give the citizens, opens the door for them to be free to make many wrong decisions
That is democracy. Power to the people.

you’ve been perfectly happy living your sad life being content with the collapse of social order and tolerate the many small patch-ups that the government try to use to slow down the decay, but should the government actuallt decide to step in and introduce a hard-hitting solution, you start ranting because by your standards, real action is too facist
So that’s one count of flaming, hyperbole throughout, two counts of strawman misrepresentation and assumption, and a false dilemma thrown in for good measure.

Plus, you still haven’t backed up your accusation.

Show me, without resorting to fallacies, why I should never question any government 'security measure'.

well its the main flaw in a democratic society - the more freedom of choice you give the citizens, opens the door for them to be free to make many wrong decisions, resulting in specialist strict measures to try and patch up the cracks that form in the society

you've been perfectly happy living your sad life being content with the collapse of social order and tolerate the many small patch-ups that the government try to use to slow down the decay, but should the government actuallt decide to step in and introduce a hard-hitting solution, you start ranting because by your standards, real action is too facist

And to think you people like to whine about the Patriot Act.
We do. We also whine about this sort of thing. The problem is that that's pretty much all we're doing.

It's about time we got our hands dirty, I think. Anyone else up for a coup d'etat of the Labour party?

erm...its intended to be used at airports and shopping malls (much like CCTV not in your homes or things like public parks) to check what you have under those clothes and to be honest I don't think I have ever hid something under my clothes for a reason I'd tell my mom :p

also I don't see how this involves the British government considering it was developed to view dying stars which are things that can't be taxed

It does not reveal physical body details

rats!

wait...so its a metal detector that works for plastic

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

he died 220 years ago I think its time you found a new boyfriend ;)

That they are so willing to leave that they go to countries at the ass end of the world like New Zealand just to be safer

no that would be Britain rebuilding the empire through a vast colonization movement

Spain shall be its capital :)

face it, because modern democracy has let the scum come out to play, the government has nowhere to turn but tighter boundaries

as opposed to Athenian or colonial democracy?

edit: it sucks making the bottom of the page

Chumbly, try living in a communist country for a while, when you return home you'll be thankful for just how much freedom you actually have and take for granted
Appreciating freedom does not mean disposing of it.

Chumbly, try living in a communist country for a while, when you return home you'll be thankful for just how much freedom you actually have and take for granted
So we shouldn't object the government until it turns into a "communist country"?
Strawman FTW.

Chumbly, try living in a communist country for a while, when you return home you'll be thankful for just how much freedom you actually have and take for granted

Just because there are shitty countries out there doesnt mean we should just sit there and let our country we live in do shitty things and think "Oh well, it could be worse."


That is laziness and a rather dangerous position to take.

Chumbly, try living in a communist country for a while, when you return home you’ll be thankful for just how much freedom you actually have and take for granted
‘Fraid not. That come-back was old 40 years ago.

Look, it’s not that hard; just try and post without reverting to some inane rhetoric. Tell me why I shouldn’t question governmental policy, instead of posting tripe.

Chumbly, try living in a communist country for a while, when you return home you'll be thankful for just how much freedom you actually have and take for granted

At least under a communist regime, if UK is CAPABLE of such order, then all those criminals will end up in nice forced labour camps like the clever russians still have and use with great effect


Indeed, human rights violations as a matter of government policy are great. Fuck justice.

plus WHY are you upset and the UK government adding security measures that shouldnt affect you - you dont carry guns or bombs so why cry.


Oooo the Stalin arguement.

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life

A) You assume we hate authority figures. False premise. Secondly, you assume we are all democracts. Also a blatantly false premise, as I dont even think Briton has a "Democrat" party.

B) You realize almost anyone whos created some sort of change in history for the better distrusted or faught authority? Did MLK Jr. hate authority figures and deserve scorn? Bad example because I can assume how you feel about MLK, but you get the messege.

At least under a communist regime, if UK is CAPABLE of such order, then all those criminals will end up in nice forced labour camps like the clever russians still have and use with great effect

plus WHY are you upset and the UK government adding security measures that shouldnt affect you - you dont carry guns or bombs so why cry.

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life

You're taking this whole "wrong" thing pretty hard, huh?

Ah well.

At least under a communist regime, if UK is CAPABLE of such order, then all those criminals will end up in nice forced labour camps like the clever russians still have and use with great effect
So do you support a Communist state after all?

plus WHY are you upset and the UK government adding security measures that shouldnt affect you–you dont carry guns or bombs so why cry.
Because I object to intelligence agencies, either state or private, from observing what I have under my clothes. I also object to the vast amounts of public money that would be spent on these devices, were the government to adopt them. Spending money on an almost relatively harmless threat seems rather wasteful to me.

Moreover, I also object to pathetic attempts to bully anyone through exploiting the mass-paranoia of some amorphous ‘terrorism’.

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life
:D I’m a what now?

You’re calling a citizen of the UK a ‘democrat’? Hilarious.

At least under a communist regime, if UK is CAPABLE of such order, then all those criminals will end up in nice forced labour camps like the clever russians still have and use with great effect

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life

whats with the criminal fascination? are you just pissed because the rude boyz from school are having fun (well okay its Sunday so sleeping) instead of posting on an Internet forum at Polish-o-clock in the morning?

and why on Earth are authority figures a good thing exactly?

plus WHY are you upset and the UK government adding security measures that shouldnt affect you - you dont carry guns or bombs so why cry.

because unlike stop and search it assumes everyone is guilty maybe

At least under a communist regime, if UK is CAPABLE of such order, then all those criminals will end up in nice forced labour camps like the clever russians still have and use with great effect

plus WHY are you upset and the UK government adding security measures that shouldnt affect you - you dont carry guns or bombs so why cry.

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life

OH NO, someone might see that you have a suicide bomb kit under your jacket.

Surveillance through means like this does not affect our liberties at all. I'd much rather be viewed through this thing than be blown up by a suicide bomber that had an easy pathway to kill people. When the government begins to start surveillance to see what your political beliefs are, then our liberties are in danger.

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life

Democrats as in those supporting democracy or the American political party?

Let's not overreact here. The technology itself is actually pretty useful. As someone else said, it's a metal detector for plastic and the like. It'll actually be able to help out in places where security is important.

What we should object to is policy, not the technology itself.

Only those in recent years.

Well, thats my point.

I’d much rather be viewed through this thing than be blown up by a suicide bomber that had an easy pathway to kill people.
And I’d much rather money be spent on such things as preventing heart disease, improving the NHS and education systems, and other actually worthy causes.

Plus, I’d much rather people stopped fearmongering; waving the threat of ‘terrorism’ or ‘suicide bombers’ in my face.

I don't really see a problem here...

THANK YOU COALLITION

finally a voice of reason

in all commomn sense, who is it hurting to passively search for concealed weapons - it would add an element of fear into those who want to do it, as raising the chances of being caught would deter a number of offenders

for the rest of us, all that might happen is a security guy walking up and checking a suspected offender for bombs and turning out that hes just a fat guy under his bulky jacket - [this did happen about a year back]

B) You realize almost anyone whos created some sort of change in history for the better distrusted or faught authority? Did MLK Jr. hate authority figures and deserve scorn? Bad example because I can assume how you feel about MLK, but you get the messege.

Only those in recent years.

And I’d much rather money be spent on such things as preventing heart disease, improving the NHS and education systems, and other actually worthy causes.

Plus, I’d much rather people stopped fearmongering; waving the threat of ‘terrorism’ or ‘suicide bombers’ in my face.

And defending the public from crime, foreign or otherwise is a must for any government.

If we all go back to the tail between our legs strategy and ignore terrorism, we'll accomplish nothing and probably get payed back for our ignorance of "It's a small threat."

Of course, Chamberlain felt the same thing, didn't he...

if you choose to rant about these new cameras looking at you to make sure that you dont have weapons, then why arent you whining about the old cameras in shopping malls that look at you to make sure you dont shoplift?
I do.

Britain is one of the most surveilled societies on this planet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6110866.stm), with over £500m of public money spent on CCTV alone in the last decade.

Terrible.

Having a little camera pointed at you in a public place that checks you for concealed weapons is no different than some places having similar cameras on busy traffic intersections to grab the dicks who u-turn in busy traffic

if you choose to rant about these new cameras looking at you to make sure that you dont have weapons, then why arent you whining about the old cameras in shopping malls that look at you to make sure you dont shoplift?

then why arent you whining about the old cameras in shopping malls that look at you to make sure you dont shoplift?

Because those weren't funded by the public, used by the government or encroaching on freedoms in any way.

Sorry but three strikes, your analogy is out.

Ha, I combat analogies with more analogies!

well then, lets have you Scots take the place that your william wallace fought so hard for, and claim back your beloved nation from these british control freaks

If we all go back to the tail between our legs strategy and ignore terrorism, we’ll accomplish nothing and probably get payed back for our ignorance of “It’s a small threat.”
Care to show how it’s not a small threat? As opposed to, say, heart disease, car accidents or alcohol-related deaths.

Of course, Chamberlain felt the same thing, didn’t he...
Ooooh burn, my argument is refuted.

After all, if one man over 70 years ago was arguably wrong about taking an aggressive course of action, then no individual in the subsequent history of humanity will ever be right in advocating anything less than all-out war.

See how foolish it is to talk rubbish?

well then, lets have you Scots take the place that your william wallace fought so hard for, and claim back your beloved nation from these british control freaks
I do not think you understand my position.

But please, don’t stop with the nonsensical mashings of your keyboard, I’m sure some are amused by your wailing.

well its the main flaw in a democratic society - the more freedom of choice you give the citizens, opens the door for them to be free to make many wrong decisions, resulting in specialist strict measures to try and patch up the cracks that form in the society

you've been perfectly happy living your sad life being content with the collapse of social order and tolerate the many small patch-ups that the government try to use to slow down the decay, but should the government actuallt decide to step in and introduce a hard-hitting solution, you start ranting because by your standards, real action is too facist
I think it's more that we've become so obsessed with our "democracy" and think its the only way and forcibly impose it on other people, who then complain via terrorism.

Chumbly, try living in a communist country for a while, when you return home you'll be thankful for just how much freedom you actually have and take for granted
Communist is not a synonym for totalitarian.

plus WHY are you upset and the UK government adding security measures that shouldnt affect you - you dont carry guns or bombs so why cry.
If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

youre only pissed because like nearly all democrats, you hate authority figures anywhere in your life
I'm an independent, thank you.

OH NO, someone might see that you have a suicide bomb kit under your jacket.

Surveillance through means like this does not affect our liberties at all. I'd much rather be viewed through this thing than be blown up by a suicide bomber that had an easy pathway to kill people. When the government begins to start surveillance to see what your political beliefs are, then our liberties are in danger.
If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Terrorism is hardly a threat. The chance of dying from a terrorist attack is like one in a million or more.

Let's not overreact here. The technology itself is actually pretty useful. As someone else said, it's a metal detector for plastic and the like. It'll actually be able to help out in places where security is important.

What we should object to is policy, not the technology itself.
So technology that lets the police hear what goes on in your house from a truck outside is fine. But laws that authorize this and that only should be attacked.

And defending the public from crime, foreign or otherwise is a must for any government.

If we all go back to the tail between our legs strategy and ignore terrorism, we'll accomplish nothing and probably get payed back for our ignorance of "It's a small threat."

Of course, Chamberlain felt the same thing, didn't he...
Terrorism is a small threat. Like Hitler, we could avoid both by not fucking with other countries.

Having a little camera pointed at you in a public place that checks you for concealed weapons is no different than some places having similar cameras on busy traffic intersections to grab the dicks who u-turn in busy traffic

if you choose to rant about these new cameras looking at you to make sure that you dont have weapons, then why arent you whining about the old cameras in shopping malls that look at you to make sure you dont shoplift?
Honestly, I don't like those either. I don't want to be watched by people I can't see in a room.

You two are the type who say "Oh it's nothing." every time there's a new security method. What are you going to say when the government can remotely listen to what is said in your house from a truck outside.

so you want the government to ALWAYS pay to keep you safe, and want others to be almost completely free to carry ANYTHING the damned well choose into public places

So, what happens when the govt runs out of money to pay for everything to keep you safe and has to rasie the already high taxes to upgrade security, and in the meantime yet another bomb goes off in the heart of the UK
Steps to not sound a complete fool:
Read arguments, instead of assuming or just making them up.
Keep fallacies down to a minimum.
Prevent oneself from typing the first thing that comes into one’s head.

Again: any chance of a real argument from you?

well then, lets have you Scots take the place that your william wallace fought so hard for, and claim back your beloved nation from these british control freaks
But, secession is only allowed in third world countries...

so you want the government to ALWAYS pay to keep you safe, and want others to be almost completely free to carry ANYTHING the damned well choose into public places

So, what happens when the govt runs out of money to pay for everything to keep you safe and has to rasie the already high taxes to upgrade security, and in the meantime yet another bomb goes off in the heart of the UK
Who said they want the government to pay for security? We want them to not pay so much for so much security. You just defeated yourself by saying its a waste of money for more security.

That’s me awa to my bed.

Hopefully, by tomorrow this thread will have died or picked itself out of the mud.

so you want the government to ALWAYS pay to keep you safe, and want others to be almost completely free to carry ANYTHING the damned well choose into public places

So, what happens when the govt runs out of money to pay for everything to keep you safe and has to rasie the already high taxes to upgrade security, and in the meantime yet another bomb goes off in the heart of the UK

What happens when the government starts watching everything we do, they then start brainwashing us with drugs...Brave new world etcetera.

See how fun it is to make up ridiculous scenarios to support your points.

so you want the government to ALWAYS pay to keep you safe, and want others to be almost completely free to carry ANYTHING the damned well choose into public places

So, what happens when the govt runs out of money to pay for everything to keep you safe and has to rasie the already high taxes to upgrade security, and in the meantime yet another bomb goes off in the heart of the UK

Oh yeah
You liberals who cry for freedom take about as much notice of the need for precaution, as the american troops who went through the forests of vietnam, playing boom-boxes and wearing the aftershaves their girlfriends sent them



Erm? Source? Is all you know about Vietnam from watching movies?

Oh yeah
You liberals who cry for freedom take about as much notice of the need for precaution, as the american troops who went through the forests of vietnam, playing boom-boxes and wearing the aftershaves their girlfriends sent them

Pfft, we'll be okay as long as we think we will be

the power of your own little world can somehow influence this one

Oh come on, you're overreacting way too much...



Police States aren't that bad, the Liberal Media just wants you to think that. I mean, do you really need freedom and liberty?

Oh come on, you're overreacting way too much...



Police States aren't that bad, the Liberal Media just wants you to think that. I mean, do you really need freedom and liberty?


Nah, all you really need is Jesus.

So technology that lets the police hear what goes on in your house from a truck outside is fine. But laws that authorize this and that only should be attacked.


Right. It needs to be sensibly used, and the use proposed would not be sensible.

Right. It needs to be sensibly used, and the use proposed would not be sensible.

Attempting to stop a terrorist from carrying a bomb somewhere is not sensible?

If that is not sensible, then I ask, what is?

Oh yeah
You liberals who cry for freedom take about as much notice of the need for precaution, as the american troops who went through the forests of vietnam, playing boom-boxes and wearing the aftershaves their girlfriends sent them

Pfft, we'll be okay as long as we think we will be

the power of your own little world can somehow influence this one
Where you get this nonsense from. You keep spewing arguments that I have to read like three times just to understand what you are trying to say.

kind of would be funny to see UK turn police state, and have the whole set-up like out of V for Vendetta, where dissenters get rounded up and never seen again

just to see the UK turn into a movie hell would be worth a good laugh

You are plenty of comedic entertainment for me sir, and laughing at you does not require an entire nation to suffer a brutal regiem.

Liberty, i think any vietnamese who was back then could agree that the US troops were like elephants marching through the forest

Fristly, no, not always.

Secondly, not being as good in the jungle because it is not your home terf is different from carrying boom boxes through the jungle, which not many platoons did.

kind of would be funny to see UK turn police state, and have the whole set-up like out of V for Vendetta, where dissenters get rounded up and never seen again

just to see the UK turn into a movie hell would be worth a good laugh

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant and vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

kind of would be funny to see UK turn police state, and have the whole set-up like out of V for Vendetta, where dissenters get rounded up and never seen again

just to see the UK turn into a movie hell would be worth a good laugh

Liberty, i think any vietnamese who was back then could agree that the US troops were like elephants marching through the forest

Eh, this reminds me of the changes under Cromwell as the Lord Protectorate. I wouldn't worry about it. Within ten years everything will bounce back to the way it was. :)

Sel, please dont tell me you memorised all that, that would just be freaky

Liberty, i think any vietnamese who was back then could agree that the US troops were like elephants marching through the forest
I'm sure anyone could recognize people who aren't normally in that place as different. Be it by accent, dress, etc...

Sel, please dont tell me you memorised all that, that would just be freaky
Oh naw, I wish. Wouldn't be hard. I've memorized the final part of Give me liberty or give me death before.

Oh naw, I wish. Wouldn't be hard. I've memorized the final part of Give me liberty or give me death before.

Give me death?

How positive of you.. why not memorize the "give me liberty" part? :p

Give me death?

How positive of you.. why not memorize the "give me liberty" part? :p

"Give me liberty or give me... liberty!"

"Oh yeah, good thinking! That way they won't have a choice!"

I swear, people will give up just about anything so that they can be protected from the boogeymen the state conjures up, even if it gives the government more power to do them harm. (And the greatest irony is that the state, through its belligerent foreign policy, is the actual cause of terrorism and its perpetuator.)

I swear, people will give up just about anything so that they can be protected from the boogeymen the state conjures up, even if it gives the government more power to do them harm. (And the greatest irony is that the state, through its belligerent foreign policy, is the actual cause of terrorism and its perpetuator.)

Young man, go to the head of the class.

So technology that lets the police hear what goes on in your house from a truck outside is fine. But laws that authorize this and that only should be attacked.

Ban radio transmitters! :mad:

Attempting to stop a terrorist from carrying a bomb somewhere is not sensible?

If that is not sensible, then I ask, what is?

I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was that the way policy is currently proposed is not acceptable, since it would be, in essence, used to spy on far too many people in far too many places for no good reason.

The simple fact is that terrorism is not as prevelent as some would have us believe, and these constant security measures everywhere are simply not necessary. If intelligence is gathered that suggests something will happen in a certain point, then yeah it's okay, but otherwise doing this on a regular basis does not help and may, in fact, increase terrorism due to the possibility of giving the impression of oppression.

Let's not overreact here. The technology itself is actually pretty useful. As someone else said, it's a metal detector for plastic and the like. It'll actually be able to help out in places where security is important.

What we should object to is policy, not the technology itself.

Unless I missed something, the report never said that the government had decided to implement it, and the technology can be useful for areas when increased security is required (ie where you already have a metal detector in normal circumstances).

BUT this does not mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the politicians a see how they are implementing them. Security devices are not themselves evil, over-use of them is. Unfortunatly Labour seems to be quite good at over-using them (the idea of metal detectors in schools still gives me the chills)

BUT this does not mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the politicians a see how they are implementing them. Security devices are not themselves evil, over-use of them is. Unfortunatly Labour seems to be quite good at over-using them (the idea of metal detectors in schools still gives me the chills)
It chills me more because there are kids carrying weapons rather than the privacy aspect and to be honest, I think it's a reasonable response, unlike the idea of 'X-ray' cameras.

It chills me more because there are kids carrying weapons rather than the privacy aspect and to be honest, I think it's a reasonable response, unlike the idea of 'X-ray' cameras.

I have an issue with it for two reasons. 1) Kids shouldn't be carrying weapons to begin with but also because 2) what we really need to do to help disaffected and alienated youth* is to make them feel like coming into schools is like coming into a prison.



*No, not all our youth are that bad, but chances are, if there's a metal detector at the school then it's not a bed of roses either

Unless I missed something, the report never said that the government had decided to implement it, and the technology can be useful for areas when increased security is required (ie where you already have a metal detector in normal circumstances).

BUT this does not mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the politicians a see how they are implementing them. Security devices are not themselves evil, over-use of them is. Unfortunatly Labour seems to be quite good at over-using them (the idea of metal detectors in schools still gives me the chills)

Wait, you Brits are using metal detectors in your schools too? What for? At least here in the U.S. it makes sense to do it in inner city schools due to the overwhelming prevalence of firearms, but as far as I understand your society is mostly armless.

Wait, you Brits are using metal detectors in your schools too? What for? At least here in the U.S. it makes sense to do it in inner city schools due to the overwhelming prevalence of firearms, but as far as I understand your society is mostly armless.
Installation of metal detectors has recently been mooted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7201975.stm), but I've not heard of any actually being installed as yet. It's more for detection of knives than of guns, as I understand it, but I'm not convinced that that particular problem is as bad as the tabloids like to make out, either.

Not going to make the obvious joke re the "armless" descriptor... I'm not in that kind of mood.

OP and many other posters are guilty of some appalling sensationalism.

Meh.

By the Time Norfolk Police get hold of it and learn how to use it I'll be dead.

If you live in the UK, and don't want a police state, vote for someone who will remove the CCTV, the speed cameras, etc. Otherwise, be quiet.

Makes sense letting HMRC use this. Not the police though.

Now they have a camera that can see what's under your clothing. Of course, they reassure us that it's only used for explosives and weapons.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080309/tc_nm/security_britain_technology_dc)

Heh How I wonder does the tilte go with the story?

A camara has been developed that allows you to see explosives and weapons hidden under clothing, and all of a sudden Britian takes a step closer to a police state?


Naaa I don't see the link. How is this any differant from, xray luguage scanners at airports, or them bloody things you have to walk through that go beep also at airports?

Why does the OP assume that a device like this wont be sold around the world?

If you live in the UK, and don’t want a police state, vote for someone who will remove the CCTV, the speed cameras, etc. Otherwise, be quiet.
Ain’t representative democracy wonderful. :rolleyes:

Ain’t representative democracy wonderful. :rolleyes:

Call me old fashioned, but don't you need non-tampered with elections to be a democracy (see postal votes)?

OP and many other posters are guilty of some appalling sensationalism.

:rolleyes: another Bush supporter. Go back to Protest Warrior. This forum isnt a Bush cheerleading pulpit.

Call me old fashioned, but don’t you need non-tampered with elections to be a democracy (see postal votes)?
I doubt the postal vote fiasco swung the entire election, but yes, it’s disgraceful and hardly democratic.

But then, I also think it’s disgraceful and hardly democratic that a group of people can be put in charge of a nation with the support of less than 28% of the people in the country.

I doubt the postal vote fiasco swung the entire election, but yes, it’s disgraceful and hardly democratic.

But then, I also think it’s disgraceful and hardly democratic that a group of people can be put in charge of a nation with the support of less than 28% of the people in the country.

What about the fact that people are allowed to commit treason and Plot to remove the Queen and they're treated as Freedom Fighters by the Press?

:rolleyes: another Bush supporter. Go back to Protest Warrior. This forum isnt a Bush cheerleading pulpit.

I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, this is possibly one of the most retarded posts on NSG I have ever seen.

I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, this is possibly one of the most retarded posts on NSG I have ever seen.

Ignore Vaklavia. He assumes everyone who disagree's with him must somehow be a Bush supporter.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I might ask, what essential liberty is being given up in this instance? The right to put things made of plastic inside your clothes in public spaces?

I mean, yeah, I'm leery about some steps that have been taken in my country, but I really don't see how this changes all that much the situation. I don't see the link between a clothes penetrating camera, and the growing development of a police state.

I swear, people will give up just about anything so that they can be protected from the boogeymen the state conjures up, even if it gives the government more power to do them harm. (And the greatest irony is that the state, through its belligerent foreign policy, is the actual cause of terrorism and its perpetuator.)

While western foreign policy, and its belliegerency does play a role in sustaining the fervor of Islamic terrorist groups, the damage has already been done. The development of a sense of fraternal disenfranchisement, which developed through the age of Imperialism, and culminated with the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War One, has far more to do with the troubles in the Middle East, than do any current policies, with the exception of the continued existence (take note, I do not reference occupation, I reference the existence of the state at all) of Israel.

What about the fact that people are allowed to commit treason and Plot to remove the Queen and they’re treated as Freedom Fighters by the Press?
Who are you referring to?

Who are you referring to?

An Article in Today's EDP about plans to get children to swear loyalty to their Soverign Monarch which quoted an anti-monarchy group.

:sniper:

An Article in Today’s EDP about plans to get children to swear loyalty to their Soverign Monarch which quoted an anti-monarchy group.
I couldn’t find the story you mentioned on EDP‘s homepage (http://new.edp24.co.uk/), but I’d wager the anti-monarchy group aren’t committing ‘treason’. It’s not illegal to advocate the dissolution of the monarchy; nor should it be.

Give me death?

How positive of you.. why not memorize the "give me liberty" part? :p
No, the last paragraph or two.

Unless I missed something, the report never said that the government had decided to implement it, and the technology can be useful for areas when increased security is required (ie where you already have a metal detector in normal circumstances).

BUT this does not mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the politicians a see how they are implementing them. Security devices are not themselves evil, over-use of them is. Unfortunatly Labour seems to be quite good at over-using them (the idea of metal detectors in schools still gives me the chills)
If we don't start worrying now, we may not have the chance later.

I have an issue with it for two reasons. 1) Kids shouldn't be carrying weapons to begin with but also because 2) what we really need to do to help disaffected and alienated youth* is to make them feel like coming into schools is like coming into a prison.
You want kids to think they're coming to prison? I think that's what causes most shootings...

If you live in the UK, and don't want a police state, vote for someone who will remove the CCTV, the speed cameras, etc. Otherwise, be quiet.
And who would that be? (I'm American)

Heh How I wonder does the tilte go with the story?

A camara has been developed that allows you to see explosives and weapons hidden under clothing, and all of a sudden Britian takes a step closer to a police state?


Naaa I don't see the link. How is this any differant from, xray luguage scanners at airports, or them bloody things you have to walk through that go beep also at airports?

Why does the OP assume that a device like this wont be sold around the world?
Because Britain has been known to be way over-surveilled with its hundreds of thousands of cameras on such a small landmass. They also don't really have any guarantee of rights like the US does AFAIK.

OP and many other posters are guilty of some appalling sensationalism.
So are those who say terrorism is a grave and dangerous threat that will rip apart our freedom and democracy....It actually is, but not directly. The reaction to it does the ripping.

I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, this is possibly one of the most retarded posts on NSG I have ever seen.
You've been on a maximum of ten days...

I might ask, what essential liberty is being given up in this instance? The right to put things made of plastic inside your clothes in public spaces?

I mean, yeah, I'm leery about some steps that have been taken in my country, but I really don't see how this changes all that much the situation. I don't see the link between a clothes penetrating camera, and the growing development of a police state.
It's mainly a slippery slope thing. Also, if they can tune it to guns and explosives, they can obviously tune it to anything else.

But, it's little by little they add security layer by security layer until yu suddenly realize you can't escape and your name is Winston Smith.

While western foreign policy, and its belliegerency does play a role in sustaining the fervor of Islamic terrorist groups, the damage has already been done. The development of a sense of fraternal disenfranchisement, which developed through the age of Imperialism, and culminated with the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War One, has far more to do with the troubles in the Middle East, than do any current policies, with the exception of the continued existence (take note, I do not reference occupation, I reference the existence of the state at all) of Israel.
I guarantee you that as soon as there's a proper wealth redistribution in the Muslim nations, Al Qaeda and it's affiliates will be forced to dissolve. The people are in poverty, blame it on America and Israel and then turn to terrorist groups for help. Your family gets paid $100,000 to blow yourself up. How many people in a poor country wouldn't do that...

I remember we went to this children's museum a few months ago and had bags searched and handheld metal detectors scanned our persons. Honestly, who the bloody hell is going to shoot up or bomb a children's museum. It's all a master plan (not really a conspiracy consciously) to get us used to more and more security measures. They're not all working together to do this, but it's naturally moving to that.

Reading slashdot, etc, it seems like these advances are a weekly occurrence. I give Britain less than a decade till its irreversible through the political process.

Should we start stocking up on Guy Fawkes masks now then?

Should we start stocking up on Guy Fawkes masks now then?

I fucking want one of those. I tried to make one from printouts, but it was too complex.

I found some on eBay once, worth a look anyway.

I found some on eBay once, worth a look anyway.

I know. *doesn't have a credit card*

Oh man. That must suck. I don't either, but eBay accepts debit cards to sign up with paypal. Not sure if they'd still be there anyway, I think they were props from the movie.

I think the solution is fairly easy; just point the ThruVision at the Queen (or high ranking royal member) print, copy, and plaster all over England. Trun-about is fair play after all. However, this technology would be better suited for the curent battle front. Don't you think?

Other forms of protests: get tattoos on front and back (some on cheeks) with anti-big brother slogans, wear more layerd clothing, get use to wearing wet-suits, or wear fake body suits... I could see the tattoos being the most popular with slogans like "If you can read this you should be paying me." or the middle finger (if thats applicable in over there).

I think the solution is fairly easy; just point the ThruVision at the Queen (or high ranking royal member) print, copy, and plaster all over England. Trun-about is fair play after all. However, this technology would be better suited for the curent battle front. Don't you think?

Other forms of protests: get tattoos on front and back (some on cheeks) with anti-big brother slogans, wear more layerd clothing, get use to wearing wet-suits, or wear fake body suits... I could see the tattoos being the most popular with slogans like "If you can read this you should be paying me." or the middle finger (if thats applicable in over there).
I think aluminum foil might do the job and the middle finger was either invented by the English or the Romans, so it certainly is over there.

I think aluminum foil might do the job and the middle finger was either invented by the English or the Romans, so it certainly is over there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the finger understood almost universally?

I guarantee you that as soon as there's a proper wealth redistribution in the Muslim nations, Al Qaeda and it's affiliates will be forced to dissolve. The people are in poverty, blame it on America and Israel and then turn to terrorist groups for help. Your family gets paid $100,000 to blow yourself up. How many people in a poor country wouldn't do that...

Don't be so sure. Quite a few Islamic radicals who are willing to kill themselves or take up arms are middle class and educated.

This blows... I won't be able to carry my scrap-metal art carefully crafted into the shape of a gun concealed under my clothing anymore..

You and your Americentric views. :upyours:
Apparently this forum's smiley bank thinks it is, however, I believe the British equivalent is two fingers.

Americentric, eh? That's pretty interesting, given the finger's Greco-Roman heritage, no? :p

But I think the British have the standard "bird" in addition to the V-sign with the back of the hand to the recipient.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the finger understood almost universally?

You and your Americentric views. :upyours:
Apparently this forum's smiley bank thinks it is, however, I believe the British equivalent is two fingers.

Americentric, eh? That's pretty interesting, given the finger's Greco-Roman heritage, no? :p

But I think the British have the standard "bird" in addition to the V-sign with the back of the hand to the recipient.

*clears throat*
I am far too much of a gentleman to understand these matters. To be honest, I find it quite beneath me.

Should we start stocking up on Guy Fawkes masks now then?Yes, but purchase them in person, and with cash. I'm serious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the finger understood almost universally?
Either because of the Roman or American Empires...or both...

Don't be so sure. Quite a few Islamic radicals who are willing to kill themselves or take up arms are middle class and educated.
"a few" who would be drowned out by happy, prosperous others...how many terror attacks or terrorists does Sweden have...compare their economy ad wealth distribution to Muslim nations

Americentric, eh? That's pretty interesting, given the finger's Greco-Roman heritage, no? :p

But I think the British have the standard "bird" in addition to the V-sign with the back of the hand to the recipient.
You and your Americentric views. :upyours:
Apparently this forum's smiley bank thinks it is, however, I believe the British equivalent is two fingers.
It's debated whether the English invented it or the Romans. There could be two separate signs considering you bring up the two-finger salute, which supports the "fuck-you-french-we-still-have-our-bowstring-draw-fingers" theory.

Because Britain has been known to be way over-surveilled with its hundreds of thousands of cameras on such a small landmass. They also don’t really have any guarantee of rights like the US does AFAIK.
We do.

As well as rights guaranteed (yet arguably not always upheld) under UK law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom), Britain is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echr), which guarantees further rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg even rules on British laws; so if a citizen feels that his or her rights have been violated, even after their case has been turned down by the highest court in the UK, they can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. A bit like if a non-national court could rule the US Supreme Court's decision to be unconstitutional.

Just because the UK doesn’t have a codified constitution, like the US has, doesn’t mean all statutes are up in the air.

There could be two separate signs considering you bring up the two-finger salute, which supports the “fuck-you-french-we-still-have-our-bowstring-draw-fingers” theory.
That’s pretty much accepted to be pure nonsense. I don’t believe there’s any evidence for it whatsoever.

We do.

As well as rights guaranteed (yet arguably not always upheld) under UK law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom), Britain is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echr), which guarantees further rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg even rules on British laws; so if a citizen feels that his or her rights have been violated, even after their case has been turned down by the highest court in the UK, they can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. A bit like if a non-national court could rule the US Supreme Court's decision to be unconstitutional.

Just because the UK doesn’t have a codified constitution, like the US has, doesn’t mean all statutes are up in the air.
Ok, I'm not well versed in British or European law. It still helps to have a constitution. At the least it's an enormously powerful symbol.

That’s pretty much accepted to be pure nonsense. I don’t believe there’s any evidence for it whatsoever.
I think it does have some credibility that maybe enforced the existing symbol. It could just be coincidental...do Europeans use the middle finger?

Erm? Source? Is all you know about Vietnam from watching movies?

I've come to the conclusion that that and television shows are his source of knowledge about everything outside of Poland.

Wait, you Brits are using metal detectors in your schools too? What for? At least here in the U.S. it makes sense to do it in inner city schools due to the overwhelming prevalence of firearms, but as far as I understand your society is mostly armless.

That's where you are mistaken, most of the residents of the British Isles have arms.













The word you were looking for is 'unarmed'

Ok, I'm not well versed in British or European law. It still helps to have a constitution. At the least it's an enormously powerful symbol.
It helps because the government can repeal our membership of the Council of Europe or the Human Rights Act, our gurantors of rights, by simple legislation.

You want kids to think they're coming to prison? I think that's what causes most shootings...


Oops, did I forget my sarcasm quotes again (seriously, I sometimes forget issues with conveying tone of voice over the internet)? That was my point, that already there are a lot of elements around schools that make them feel like a prison, adding metal detectors only adds to that. All of which are counter-productive and liable to create self-fulfilling prophecies... i.e. if you treat a kid like they're going to be a delinquent, then they probably will be.

Oops, did I forget my sarcasm quotes again (seriously, I sometimes forget issues with conveying tone of voice over the internet)? That was my point, that already there are a lot of elements around schools that make them feel like a prison, adding metal detectors only adds to that. All of which are counter-productive and liable to create self-fulfilling prophecies... i.e. if you treat a kid like they're going to be a delinquent, then they probably will be.

Ah ok. Here, they are like prisons. And I go to a happy, suburban school with like 1 murder a decade...

Ah ok. Here, they are like prisons. And I go to a happy, suburban school with like 1 murder a decade...

Most of the school's I've seen around here aren't, but then York doesn't exactly have a high crime rate, the sixth form college I went to was like a small uni campus more than anything, but then being sixth form the students have a lot more freedom. I couldn't comment on inner city schools however.

Ironically, the school I've been to that felt most depressing, if not entierly prison like, was my local school in Belgium, but personally I think that's because all the buildings were concrete monstrosities from the 60s.

Alright, alright, before you guys all get your feathers in a bunch...this technology is most likely going to be used first to protect British and American troops in Iraq, where everyone in a crowd of people is potentially a suspect, and it would be impossible to check every one. Who could argue with the benefits of that? It would also be fantastically useful in Israel, where it could be used a checkpoints in order to decrease the wait times that Palestinians bitch and moan about so much.
And chill out on the civil liberties thing. They can see if you're carrying a gun or bomb (omg@11 wtf?!1 why would they do that?). i don't think they're going to give a flying fuck if it's really something so unimportant. you can call me naive, but i really believe that this is intended to be in the interest of safety.

you can call me naive, but i really believe that this is intended to be in the interest of safety.

OK, you're naive...

Yes, it is intended to be in the interest of safety, it is, however, IMO an intrusion into privacy.

security like this is great, only problem is publicizing it. if you had no clue what the cops knew about you you could continue to live your dumb happy life being dumb and happy. once they tell you what they know or can find out about you that is when you start to panic.

Most of the school's I've seen around here aren't, but then York doesn't exactly have a high crime rate, the sixth form college I went to was like a small uni campus more than anything, but then being sixth form the students have a lot more freedom. I couldn't comment on inner city schools however.

Ironically, the school I've been to that felt most depressing, if not entierly prison like, was my local school in Belgium, but personally I think that's because all the buildings were concrete monstrosities from the 60s.

I live in London, and not a nice part, yet I have not seen one school with metal detectors?

I live in London, and not a nice part, yet I have not seen one school with metal detectors?

That is good to hear, last I heard they were planning on it, but it's possible they've decided to quietly scrap the plan due to public opposition. Well, every so often you have to be optimistic.

Ok, I’m not well versed in British or European law. It still helps to have a constitution. At the least it’s an enormously powerful symbol.
Once again, the UK does have a constitution, it’s just not codified; i.e. it isn’t based on one piece of paper. The UK constitution is based upon multiple statutes and treaties, which stress the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Here’s a few of the most important/influential statutes in the British constitution, with links:

Magna Carta 1215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta)
Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679)
Act of Union 1707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707)
Act of Union 1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800)
Representation of the People Act 1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
Government of Ireland Act 1920 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920)
Human Rights Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998)
Scotland Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998)
Government of Wales Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Wales_Act_1998)
Northern Ireland Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Act_1998)
House of Lords Act 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999)
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000)
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005)

I think it does have some credibility that maybe enforced the existing symbol.
AFAIK, it’s just a wild tale. An amusing one, sure, but one with no basis in historical fact whatsoever. Mainly because the idea of archers having their fiingers cut off seems to be a myth as well.

It could just be coincidental...do Europeans use the middle finger?
Yup.

I’d say it’s considered more offensive than the ‘V-sign’.

It helps because the government can repeal our membership of the Council of Europe or the Human Rights Act, our gurantors of rights, by simple legislation.
‘Simple’, incredibly unpopular and wildly opposed legislation. One could say the same about amending a codified constitution in such-and-such a way.

That's where you are mistaken, most of the residents of the British Isles have arms.




Especially in the Countryside (see the nine-year old in Walsingham with a gun license!!!!!!!!!)

Alright, alright, before you guys all get your feathers in a bunch...this technology is most likely going to be used first to protect British and American troops in Iraq, where everyone in a crowd of people is potentially a suspect, and it would be impossible to check every one. Who could argue with the benefits of that? It would also be fantastically useful in Israel, where it could be used a checkpoints in order to decrease the wait times that Palestinians bitch and moan about so much.
NEWSFLASH: Everyone in the Middle East is armed with something. Why do you think they celebrate with gunfire?

And chill out on the civil liberties thing. They can see if you're carrying a gun or bomb (omg@11 wtf?!1 why would they do that?). i don't think they're going to give a flying fuck if it's really something so unimportant. you can call me naive, but i really believe that this is intended to be in the interest of safety.
Yes, of course, anything in the interest of safety is fine. Why don't we start sending sound-detection trucks to every neighborhood to catch murderers and terrorists planning their plans? Why don't we just bug every house? It would certainly make us safer.

Once again, the UK does have a constitution, it’s just not codified; i.e. it isn’t based on one piece of paper. The UK constitution is based upon multiple statutes and treaties, which stress the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Here’s a few of the most important/influential statutes in the British constitution, with links:

Magna Carta 1215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta)
Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679)
Act of Union 1707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707)
Act of Union 1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800)
Representation of the People Act 1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
Government of Ireland Act 1920 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920)
Human Rights Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998)
Scotland Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998)
Government of Wales Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Wales_Act_1998)
Northern Ireland Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Act_1998)
House of Lords Act 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999)
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000)
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005)

Ok then. I guess that works...


AFAIK, it’s just a wild tale. An amusing one, sure, but one with no basis in historical fact whatsoever. Mainly because the idea of archers having their fiingers cut off seems to be a myth as well.
Beheading was not uncommon in the Middle Ages, as well as the more gruesome hanging, drawing, and quartering. Why dismiss them from being able to chop off fingers if it would prevent them from ever shooting again?

Beheading was not uncommon in the Middle Ages, as well as the more gruesome hanging, drawing, and quartering. Why dismiss them from being able to chop off fingers if it would prevent them from ever shooting again?

I've been lectured about this by various history bigwigs (my college history teacher for one - Tudor history, so she knows what she's talking about) and this really is just one of those annoying, ever-present myths that has no basis in fact. I can't remember exactly what it means (probably much the same as a middle finger) but it certainly isn't 'oi Frenchie, come and cut my fingers off if you can'. She lectured me lengthily on the subject (pet hates, you know how they are) and trust me, it really isn't about bowmen, finger removal or anything of that ilk.

For one thing, the most conclusive evidence against that theory is the simple fact that English longbowmen (to whom it is mythically attributed - the Hundred Years War) didn't use those fingers to draw. The arrow was held and draw between the thumb and forefinger.

Sorry, I'd post something relevant and on topic, but all my points have been covered. For the record though, while this is a useful technology that could be well implemented, I have no doubt that the current government certainly, and any government probably, will use it to further invade privacy. So yeah. Bugger.

Ok then. I guess that works...
It kinda does. :p

It also tends to prevent the quasi-religious veneration of a nation’s laws (See the ‘Would you burn the US Constitution’ thread) that prevent law being relevent to the modern nation and citizens it represents.

Beheading was not uncommon in the Middle Ages, as well as the more gruesome hanging, drawing, and quartering. Why dismiss them from being able to chop off fingers if it would prevent them from ever shooting again?
Because there’s simply no evidence for it whatsoever. See Mooseica’s reply above.

For one thing, the most conclusive evidence against that theory is the simple fact that English longbowmen (to whom it is mythically attributed - the Hundred Years War) didn't use those fingers to draw. The arrow was held and draw between the thumb and forefinger.
Really? I didn't know they drew that way. I tried all different draw methods at camp this past summer. I believe that was one of the ones I liked better than the typical index and middle.

Well, it's always the one minor fact that pops a hole in any myth. It's interesting what the Romans did pass on to us.

And to think you people like to whine about the Patriot Act.

The best situation to have is a government that is powerful, only at the hands of the people. The government has a good amount of influence in daily life of citizens, but if it 'steps over the line' people should get pissed off and protest and use civil disobedience, etc.