Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on December 26, 2005, 12:33:45 pm
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
Seriously, what is wrong with you people?!
****ing North Korea doesn't have this. China doesn't. Cuba doesn't. This is perhaps the most egregious case of nanny-statism I have ever seen.
-
Yeah, the original lie was that it was to charge tolls on the Roads, but, surprise surprise, the government turned into a 1984 thing.
It's sickening, but far from certain despite the way it's worded in that article. The AA, our main automobile users association is absolutely livid about the plan, and they carry a fair amount of weight.
-
As well they should by now. I'm suprised that society at large hasn't risen up against our current government. They've already gotten away with far more than they should.
-
Yeah. Gatso II. Heard about this ages ago. This is the second time the government has tried it. I very much doubt it will work. At best is will cause levels of civil disobedience equivalent to the poll tax.
The only reason it's even gotten this far is because most people haven't heard about it.
Anyway. More details here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/vehicle_movement_database/).
-
In my mind, any government who has even the intention of implementing such a Stalinist system is robbed of legitimacy and can not be allowed to stay on. Regardless of whether it works, if the will exists within the government to so blatantly violate the right to privacy among its citizen - I mean, it's like when somene tries to kill you. Just because they don't necessarily succeed doesn't mean you should keep on giving them the keys to your house. They obviously want to kill you, and if something stopped them this time, that's no guarantee for the future.
I'm interested to hear what the Limey public at large thinks of this. Almost every Net comment I've read has been thoroughly negative, yet somehow the idea lives on in what is supposedly a thouroughly democratic state.
The other question is, if the government of Britain rolls this out, and it goes through, how long before other places start doing it as well? If a democratically elected government can get away with it, every tyrant and strong-man in the world will take their cue and implement something similar at home. Doesn't the EU have a Human Rights Court that is supposed to deal with this sort of stuff, when the national government start acting nuts? I can't imagine how this could possibly stand up in court as regards a person's right to privacy.
-
Blair is a **** who's only interested in amassing enough power in a short enough time to force Britain to keep him on as leader.
-
In my mind, any government who has even the intention of implementing such a Stalinist system is robbed of legitimacy and can not be allowed to stay on.
I agree 100%
I'm interested to hear what the Limey public at large thinks of this. Almost every Net comment I've read has been thoroughly negative, yet somehow the idea lives on in what is supposedly a thouroughly democratic state.
As I've said before people don't know about this. The government is trying to keep it quiet. When the public do find out about it they'll be bigger complaints than about the 90 day detention thing. This is basically going to be used to prevent any speeding on motorways. Seeing as how about 30-40% of the population speeds on motorways you've got a huge demographic there without the civil liberties thing.
People will protest far harder for something when it's a matter or principle AND will hurt them financially than they will just for principle alone.
-
"Using a network of cameras"
That's where this will fall down - as soon as they start putting cameras on poles into unspoilt Cotswold villages, people will be out at night with chainsaws cutting them down. Urban dwellers probably won't notice as there's so much 'street furniture' crap lying around already.
Now, as for the principle of the thing, it is a step too far and should be resisted by any means possible. :mad2:
-
and you guys were freaking out over ****ing ID cards!?!
thi et ssesss whapt...... what the ****! I mean _what_ _the_ _fhow could you let this happen?! this is just... just... this is insane!
-
And while the Home Office flagged the success of mobile ANPR unit trials earlier this year, claiming increases in arrest rates of up to 1,000 per cent, it failed to mention that the same trial exposed major flaws in the DVLA's existing databases.
This is what bothers me about Big Brother stuff...when the goal is to arrest people.
-
That's where this will fall down - as soon as they start putting cameras on poles into unspoilt Cotswold villages, people will be out at night with chainsaws cutting them down. Urban dwellers probably won't notice as there's so much 'street furniture' crap lying around already.
Problem is that most of them will go up on the motorways first. The idea is that if you snap someone at one camera, then snap them 70 miles down the road before an hour has passed they must have been speeding and therefore can be fined.
But even if you believe that explaination this doesn't explain why they want to store the data for years. It's just about infringing privacy in an attempt to claim that increases security. Of course we all know that's nonsense.
-
Christ, it's not like this...this disgrace is new. I remember just a few months ago the government was mooting (road) taxation based on the roads used, how busy they were, etc. In other words, a satellite tracker in every car; and the press totally ignored it. Rictor is exactly right - this is nothing but an invitation for organized surveillance and oppression, something any totalitarian regime would love to have at their fingertips.
Democracy is failing in this country, no doubt; we have a government with an overall majority yet 36% of the vote. A government that went to war against the express wishes of the majority of the people, and has attempted to bring in trial without jury, identity cards, that has sought to raise the period of detention without trial, and that has jailed immigrants without trial or legal representation (holding them on the excuse that to deport them to their home country would expose them to torture). 1984 was only 20 years too early.
-
Once again those commiting minor infringements are gonna get nailed while the "big" crimes are gonna get worse. Still, given how most big Goverment projects go it'll probably cost a huge amount of money but still never work.
-
Once again those commiting minor infringements are gonna get nailed while the "big" crimes are gonna get worse. Still, given how most big Goverment projects go it'll probably cost a huge amount of money but still never work.
About the only thing that saves us from government totalitarianism is their incredible incompetency. Still, I think I may be better off moving to Ireland* or something.
*nearest English speaking country that appears fairly normal
-
And don't get me started on TB and his handling of the Rebate and CAP.
Anyone else in the UK tired of being shafted by France/EU (and our Goverment allowing it) ?
-
Meh...cammeras on the freeways and busy streets are nothing new...
But why the hell keep the data for two years? A month would be more than enough. :wtf:
-
Because logs are kept on plane and train and coach tickets, so the only way for someone to move around the country without some tangible source of tracking them is by car. This is allegedly aimed at monitoring all traffic and cross referencing a license plate with the DVLA registry to identfity who is driving where. Unfortunately, this works on the extremely shaky preposition that the DVLA database is, in any sense of the word, organised.
-
And keeping track of people's movements about is supposesdly a legitimate exercise of state power? In all honestly, I don't see people taking to the streets to tear down the cameras and whatnot. They'll sign a petition, no problem, but once it comes to actually going up against the law in a direct way - ain't gonna happen. I seem to recall there are alrady over a million CCTV cameras in London alone, and people don't seem to care much.
My only hope now is that this is some sort of temporary lunacy on behalf of the British government, as opposed to a widespread trend among Western nations to promote the "security" apparatus to such insane levels. If this crap starts progressing instead of regressing, we're all up **** creek.
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
Seriously, what is wrong with you people?!
****ing North Korea doesn't have this. China doesn't. Cuba doesn't. This is perhaps the most egregious case of nanny-statism I have ever seen.
On the other hand North Korea and Cuba don't exactly have many cars. :p
I seriously doubt that the intentions behind this kind of thing are anything but BAD.
EDIT: Editted word choice to reflect my actual beliefs. What can I say? I had a little bit to drink last night. :p
-
The road to Oceania is paved with good intentions.
-
Well, Blair wen't past good intentions a long time ago..
The War was good intentions...
The ID Cards were good intentions...
The new powers for Police were good intentions...
So many intentions, so little good...
-
I seriously doubt that the intentions behind this kind of thing are anything but good.
Stop watching Chinese TV now. There are obviously subliminial messages included in the transmissions. :p
Are you seriously telling me that you think the governments choice to keep track on the movements of the entire population and store the result for 2 years is for the good of the people? Next you'll be telling me that you thought the 90 day detentions without charging were a good idea.
In all honestly, I don't see people taking to the streets to tear down the cameras and whatnot. They'll sign a petition, no problem, but once it comes to actually going up against the law in a direct way - ain't gonna happen. I seem to recall there are alrady over a million CCTV cameras in London alone, and people don't seem to care much.
You never saw the poll tax riots did you? When it hits them in the pocket and is deemed as unfair the British can show just as much civil disobedience as anyone else. And the poll tax was actually a lot fairer than this is.
-
Though, curiously, they are also talking about putting up council tax to pay for unifying the Police forces into one force.
Can you say 'Private Army?'
-
Stop watching Chinese TV now. There are obviously subliminial messages included in the transmissions.
Are you seriously telling me that you think the governments choice to keep track on the movements of the entire population and store the result for 2 years is for the good of the people? Next you'll be telling me that you thought the 90 day detentions without charging were a good idea.
I meant to type "bad" but for some reason I typed good. It's because I was kind of distracted by other things when I wrote that.
Distracted by things like alchohol. :p
EDIT: And I haven't watched TV in more than a month. You should know by now that I seriously don't believe that.
-
Though, curiously, they are also talking about putting up council tax to pay for unifying the Police forces into one force.
Can you say 'Private Army?'
Interesting to note that the Police forces are heavily set against it, too; http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?go.x=&tab=news&go.y=&go=go&q=clarke%20police&scope=all&uri=%2Fhome%2Fd%2Findex.live.shtml
EDIT; I'm just waiting for the next budget to include funding for the Mobile Oppression Palace, myself.
-
I seriously doubt that the intentions behind this kind of thing are anything but good.
Stop watching Chinese TV now. There are obviously subliminial messages included in the transmissions. :p
Are you seriously telling me that you think the governments choice to keep track on the movements of the entire population and store the result for 2 years is for the good of the people? Next you'll be telling me that you thought the 90 day detentions without charging were a good idea.
Wait, so what is the intention? Even I see the incredible benefits of such a system. If someone steals a car, you can instantly track them. If they speed you have video footage. Same goes for DUI. Just because it's on my mind - take the situation in the movie Fargo. Carl and Gaear could've been tracked almost as soon as the three murders were discovered.
The system provides exactly what people are clamoring for - better security, which is what the majority of people seem to want.
-
I seriously doubt that the intentions behind this kind of thing are anything but good.
Stop watching Chinese TV now. There are obviously subliminial messages included in the transmissions. :p
Are you seriously telling me that you think the governments choice to keep track on the movements of the entire population and store the result for 2 years is for the good of the people? Next you'll be telling me that you thought the 90 day detentions without charging were a good idea.
Wait, so what is the intention? Even I see the incredible benefits of such a system. If someone steals a car, you can instantly track them. If they speed you have video footage. Same goes for DUI. Just because it's on my mind - take the situation in the movie Fargo. Carl and Gaear could've been tracked almost as soon as the three murders were discovered.
The system provides exactly what people are clamoring for - better security, which is what the majority of people seem to want.
The intention is to store the movements, by car, of every single individual in the UK for a period of 2 years (possibly more). Not stolen cars, not known criminals, but everyone in case of the possibility it may be used against them if charged (a very big if) with a crime. If you changed it to face recognition via a national blanket of CCTV, there would be an outcry. The issue is the danger of such a system; even if the government says it's only to charge criminals, etc, there's a gigantic possibility for misuse - even if not directly by the government, by the likes of the security services. If you provide a tool for, well, oppression such as this, it's almost inevitable it will be used in that way; perhaps by 'augmenting' it over a long time, as totalitarianism doesn't have to be quick and bloody - just look at Hitlers subversion of the German democratic system.
Think of, for example, someone who leaked a press document from the government to the media. Nowadays it'd be hard to find them; conceivably, this system could be used to match civil servant travel patterns to those of the journalists at the paper that broke that story.
-
If you want greater security why not fingerprint and take everyone's DNA at birth? Why not allow the police to lock up people they know are guilty even if they can't prove it? Why not dump all those technicalities that let people get out of jail like unreasonable searches or police brutality when extracting a confession?
Sure the people will be more secure. The kind of secure you are in a maximum security jail.
**** what the majority of the people want. The majority of the people are ****ing idiots who would cheerfully give away their freedoms with a massive grin on their stupid fat faces in the name of security and only complain about it later when the police dissappeared their families.
-
I say again - Meh
People have been watching too many movies, thinking that the government is consipeing againts them and is going to send them in jail on some bogus charges or something.
This system does provide better securitiy and like everyting else - it's a tool. Unlike a gun, this one doesn't have the potential to do so much harm. In fact, if you're innocent it can very well serve to prove it (see there on that tape - I was driving at that time. you got the wrong guy..sorry:D )
-
It is to our great shame as a civilization that law enforcement and litigation have had to replace simple courtesy and common sense.
-
It also means that if someone from the Defence agency wants to report the MoD's plans to store weapons-grade plutonium under a childrens playgroup to a national newspaper, the government will be moments away from finding out who in the section has been in the same area as the reporter that broke the story... an extreme example, but you get my point ;)
-
I say again - Meh
People have been watching too many movies, thinking that the government is consipeing againts them and is going to send them in jail on some bogus charges or something.
This system does provide better securitiy and like everyting else - it's a tool. Unlike a gun, this one doesn't have the potential to do so much harm. In fact, if you're innocent it can very well serve to prove it (see there on that tape - I was driving at that time. you got the wrong guy..sorry:D )
Right, so the ability to track the movements of individuals and archive, analyse them is completely harmless and could not ever lead to any abuse, ever. You're displaying the sort of naive attitude that had people in 1950s Russia writing letters to Uncle Joe, thinking he couldn't possibly know of the gulags. If you make it easy for someone to abuse their position and gain power, they will. It's simple human nature, and we've seen it so many times it begs belief you're not even aware of the danger.
-
I'd have expected someone who grew up in a former communist country to be the one who understood the dangers of letting the government have too much power :rolleyes:
-
If you want greater security why not fingerprint and take everyone's DNA at birth?
erm, last time I asked that, kode said that in Sweden they do, and that got me good and depressed so I shut up.
Yeah, I know, it's sad.
-
If you want greater security why not fingerprint and take everyone's DNA at birth?
erm, last time I asked that, kode said that in Sweden they do, and that got me good and depressed so I shut up.
Yeah, I know, it's sad.
What?
-
Apparently in Sweden they record everyone's DNA and fingerprints at birth. Kinda surprising they don't do a scan for a genetic predisposition to crime while they're at it. :rolleyes:
-
Might not be such a bad thing, assuming it could be cured.
-
Might not be such a bad thing, assuming it could be cured.
If you're not being sarcastic let me say...
wow... :blah:
-
Sarcastic? No, not at all. Obviously one of the best techniques for fighting crime is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Find someone who's wired to do such things (assuming that is the case, which I do not believe it is) and 'fix' them.
However, it's unrealistic. Yes, you may find 'some' criminals who do what they do because they are insane. The rest are fully aware of their actions and do it anyway. You can't genetically screen for that, nor can you cure it. If I thought that genetic purification I would work, I'd volinteer. It won't, so there you are.
I've got a slightly different attitude tword the common man now after the Superdome incident following Hurricane Katrina. So much for my sorely-misguided faith in humanity.
-
You do know that the whole "armed gangs going around raping and pillaging" bit was was overblown, right? As always, the media sensationalized things because, hell, that's how they make their money and later it came out that things weren't as bad as previously reported.
In any case, allowing crime to happen (not preventing it) does have certain benefits for society. Many great reformers were in their time considered to be dangerous fanatics, in fact probably most were, and if the capability had existed to prevent all crimes, it's questionable many would have been locked up or executed. I am not so arrogant as to think that we will ever perfect the law to such a degree that breaking it could not possibly be good or necessary in some instance.
-
You do know that the whole "armed gangs going around raping and pillaging" bit was was overblown, right? As always, the media sensationalized things because, hell, that's how they make their money and later it came out that things weren't as bad as previously reported.
There was, however, some very crazy **** going on (to paraphrase). Offhand, I know at least one medical helicopter was forced to turn back after being fired at.... that incident alone is quite incredible; I've never heard of anything like that happening in a disaster area before (with the caveat, of course, that it was an exceptionally well documented and media-covered disaster).
-
Don't you mean "...I've never heard of anything like that happening in a Western disaster area before..."?
The Asian tsunami hit Aceh province, where the government was an is fighting a guerilla war, which seriously slowed the flow of emergency aid. Same thing in Kashmir: the place is crawling with militants, from both sides. And I'm sure that any place in Africa that is eligible for humanitarian aid is probably not far from a warzone. The world is not fundamentally a safe place. General chaos follows any sort of natural disaster, and the only question is how much. Certainly, the aftermath of Katrina could have been handled better, but it wasn't anything the world (well, the world excluding the West) is not accustomed to.
-
Right, so the ability to track the movements of individuals and archive, analyse them is completely harmless and could not ever lead to any abuse, ever. You're displaying the sort of naive attitude that had people in 1950s Russia writing letters to Uncle Joe, thinking he couldn't possibly know of the gulags. If you make it easy for someone to abuse their position and gain power, they will. It's simple human nature, and we've seen it so many times it begs belief you're not even aware of the danger.
Anything can be misused..but security cameras are not as likely to be and don't do as much harm. There many other things that are far more dangrous for your freedom out there..
And security cameras would be a bad thing in a totalitarian regime, but last time I checked your country wasn't one of those.
-
I'm not all that worried about CCTV's at stations, shopping malls, parks etc, though I do think that the paranoia that led to them was somewhat encouraged, however, the problem that I find with it all is not so much the fact that these may be installed, whatever the intention behind it, my concern is this. No matter what happens in the future, no matter which party, which leader, no matter what their beliefs on public monitoring and control, they will have access to these facilities. It's like leaving a gun on a table, it might be the property of one responsible person right now, but what about the next person that walks in the room?
-
And security cameras would be a bad thing in a totalitarian regime, but last time I checked your country wasn't one of those.
:rolleyes: And do you know what stops it becoming one? Speaking out against draconian measures like these ones.
Dictators don't seize power. They are given it through the inaction of the people. All it takes is for the population to spend enough time looking elsewhere or blaming someone else for their problems.
-
I'd have expected someone who grew up in a former communist country to be the one who understood the dangers of letting the government have too much power :rolleyes:
And exactly becouse I know what a totalitarian regime is and how it works am I in the perfect position to comment on this.
CCTV won't bring you any step closer to such a regime. As long as you have freedom of speech and press, as long as the public keeps na eye at what the leadership is doing it's not totalitarian..not by a longshot.
and look at it this way - what do you fear more - the CCTV system or the corrupt police or military? Should we then disband them?
-
I'd have expected someone who grew up in a former communist country to be the one who understood the dangers of letting the government have too much power :rolleyes:
And exactly becouse I know what a totalitarian regime is and how it works am I in the perfect position to comment on this.
CCTV won't bring you any step closer to such a regime. As long as you have freedom of speech and press, as long as the public keeps na eye at what the leadership is doing it's not totalitarian..not by a longshot.
and look at it this way - what do you fear more - the CCTV system or the corrupt police or military? Should we then disband them?
Your...naievety astounds me. You really think totalitarianism and dictatorship just hop in overnight? That it's safe to erode any and all civil liberties so long as it's done slowly? That freedom of speech and press is immutable (hell, just look at the Hutton report for that one)? Are you perfectly ok with the concept of having your very single move tracked and recorded (as will be possible with linked CCTV and facial recognition software, as is under development)? Do you think that's a good thing, for the state to be able to follow your entire life from place to place, who you meet, talk to, etc - and that there is no chance whatsoever that could ever be misued against you?
And your comparison..... it's insane. We're not talking about limited, on-the-minute surveillance of small public areas (the equivalent of having proper police patrols, if well implemented). We're talking about a system expressly designed to record the private journeys of individuals by cars, for no reason beyond it being of possible use in trial, for a tiny minority of individuals being monitored. And it's a system being placed with far less balances, less morality (because it's composed of technology, not individuals with such concepts of right, wrong, democracy) than any police or army service ever has been, or is, created with. There is no major net benefit overwhelming the possible risks as we have for the public services - just a huge infringement upon the right to anonymity and freedom of travel.
-
Naive? No..maby you are.
Of course such things don't happen over night, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and frankly, this is not it.
So the government can track any movement of mine with my car..so what? That info is as usefull to the government as my OLD toilet paper. You know how many people drive around on the roads? The government may store the info, but it won't look at that info unless it has to. Why? Becosue there simply isn't enough resources to constatly track millions of drivers.
You might have them stored on a tape for a period of time, but who is gonna review them? Tehre will be a limited number of those who will do that and there are thousands of tapes and millions of pople..so they'll have to restrict viewing/tracking actually those who they really should..simply becouse it's too time consuming, impractical and expensive to track anyone.
So the only time anyone would view your tape is only if they are tracking someone else and you happen to appear on that tape for a split second or if you are actualyl suspected/acused of something.
And no, the comparison isn't insane if you think about it.
A police officer can be very well corrupt and beat the s*** out of you and you can't do nothing.
Military is fiercly loyal to the government in most cases (brainwashing)
Cameras are neutral. And it may werry well prove that cop X bet you up for nothing.
And while tapes can be doctored, it can allso be proven that they were tampered with..
-
Cameras are neutral.
Maybe, but the people looking THROUGH those cameras are often not neutral.
-
Naive? No..maby you are.
Of course such things don't happen over night, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and frankly, this is not it.
So the government can track any movement of mine with my car..so what? That info is as usefull to the government as my OLD toilet paper. You know how many people drive around on the roads? The government may store the info, but it won't look at that info unless it has to. Why? Becosue there simply isn't enough resources to constatly track millions of drivers.
You might have them stored on a tape for a period of time, but who is gonna review them? Tehre will be a limited number of those who will do that and there are thousands of tapes and millions of pople..so they'll have to restrict viewing/tracking actually those who they really should..simply becouse it's too time consuming, impractical and expensive to track anyone.
So the only time anyone would view your tape is only if they are tracking someone else and you happen to appear on that tape for a split second or if you are actualyl suspected/acused of something.
And no, the comparison isn't insane if you think about it.
A police officer can be very well corrupt and beat the s*** out of you and you can't do nothing.
Military is fiercly loyal to the government in most cases (brainwashing)
Cameras are neutral. And it may werry well prove that cop X bet you up for nothing.
And while tapes can be doctored, it can allso be proven that they were tampered with..
Have you ever heard of those strange devices called "computers"?
What do you think is being used to record and store this data - eyes and notepaper?
This is perfect for computer analysis (raw data in digitisable form; unique identifiers for cars as digitised from the numberplates + easily definable to-from-via journeys). If you bothered reading even the summary of the article, it describes how the system is designed to store every journey, by every car, for a period of 2 years (or over) - using computers! And once that data is there, it's actually pretty trivial (more a question of processing time than actual difficulty) to run a pattern matching algorithm - perhaps tracking people whose cars have made journeys to regions coinciding with political protests or meetings. Alongside cars, you have the capacity for individual recognition - various governments and businesses are investigating the use of individual biometric identification (using infra red IIRC - we each have a unique vein system forming our faces that can be used as the identifier).
Hell, one of the reasons I said it was dangerous was because there's a vastly reduced need for human interaction. Another point I made was that a system built to be inherently 'neutral' can be much more easily turned to 'bad' than the police or army, which have built in human checks alongside the various rules and legislation.
And there is recourse to police corruption - namely the internal investigations entities of the police force itself, and the independent legal system (I think it's the IPC who operate as an indepent investigative force to monitor the police). With the army, there are immutable international as well as national laws upon the conduct of individual soldiers (including a responsibility to never follow an illegal order), and soldiers are also accountable to the legal system of the country in which they are operating (within certain restrictions with regards to war, where IIRC they are held accountable to British law rather than the law of a hostile nation). These systems, as such, both provide a degree legislative recource which is absent from a system - in particular a hidden one - such as CCTV or this particular GATSO 2 scheme.
Tell me, what is 'the line', then? Universal surveillance (which is what this is) obviously is ok by you. In the context of UK we can have detention without trial (which can be effectively indefinate for foreign nationals, 28 days IIRC for British), and possibly even rendition to foreign countries if it's decided to 'ghost' people. The 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act gives the Home Secretary the right to place control orders upon individuals, suspending parts of the Human Rights Act - i.e. a minister can now place anyone under house arrest, and does not need to give a reason or justification to the courts.
So we're looking at a situation where the private movements of anyone by private vehicle can be monitored, stored for 2+ years, analysed by any number of government agencies, and where an elected politician can opt to place that person under (amongst other restrictions) house arrest or tagging, without any need to inform that person of the evidence against them.
Isn't that close enough to 'the line'?
-
I think the point being missed here is that our own priviledges (such as privacy) are abused. The old argument still stands: If you aren't doing anything wrong, then what do you care who is watching?
-
I think the point being missed here is that our own priviledges (such as privacy) are abused. The old argument still stands: If you aren't doing anything wrong, then what do you care who is watching?
Because then it's the watcher who decides what is wrong or right, not you. And the more power that watcher gets, the more at risk you become - we (the UK, but also other nations) are progressing towards a stage where said watcher is capable to act 'invisibly', protected from scrutiny in deciding that. The risk we take is that by assuming we are not at risk from this, we sleepwalk our way into a stage where we have surrendered all the power and rights we had to prevent that situation. It's very easy to wake up one day and realise you're freedom and rights are gone - it seems to be much harder for this country to wake up and realise they're being slowly taken. It doesn't matter whether the current administration genuinely has good intentions, because we don't know who the next government will be - or the one after that - the very reason we have these - supposedly - immutable and universal rights (such as habeas corpus) is because of that risk. And the risk of such a government, is only heightened by the fear mongering and paranoia inspiring tactics of the likes of Blair and Bush (not wishing to invoke Godwins law, but look at how the minority Nazi party was, amongst other things, able to exploit fear of communism in Germany in the 30s).
Plus, if you were being - for this specific example - followed throughout your car journeys by an individual (say a stalker or a private investigator who always remains hands off, yet records your every move), then surely you'd be upset?
-
That's not an arguement...at least, not a very good one. Privacy is a form of protection from power, both state power and private power. There is reason for suspicion and distrust of power, in and of itself. This is something the founding fathers of the US realized, and something which I think has been proven time and again through history.
Like I said, it is for the good of society that none of its laws, no matter how righteous they seem, be unbreakable, because we will never create laws just enough that breaking them will not be warranted in some cases.
It's really a matter of trust. Give your government the means be implement tyranny, and hope that they don't? Or refuse to give them the means, because you know that sonner or later they will. It's like giving someone a loaded gun and trusting them not to use it. Certainly, if you trust them, there is absolutely no reason to fear. But I don't have that much faith in anyone, especially not those who dedicate their lives to accumulating and exercising power over the population.
-
I don't consider taping you as you drive around an infrigment of privacy. After all, it's in an open, public area. The government (or any individual) can just as easily put a private eye after you who wil lrecord you every move..and that isn't ilegal. The difererence is the method and limitation - those cammeras can only tape you on the street. P.I:'s can follow you practicly everywhere.
And failsafes? Police has internal control, so set up an internal control for CCTV. Problem solved. This system is no more corruptable or abusable than the police.
and someone mentioned it was an infringment of our freedom of travel??? I don't see how as no one is stopping you.
B.t.w. - I really think people are shouting the word "freedoms" and "rights" waay too much. I gues you can call me conservative, but that's only becosue I've seen what too much liberalism can do...
-
I don't consider taping you as you drive around an infrigment of privacy. After all, it's in an open, public area. The government (or any individual) can just as easily put a private eye after you who wil lrecord you every move..and that isn't ilegal. The difererence is the method and limitation - those cammeras can only tape you on the street. P.I:'s can follow you practicly everywhere.
!? :jaw:
So you would be perfectly happy to have every person observed in every movement they make across a public space, whether by technological or individual means? You would be content to be followed, monitored and your movements be stored for possible use against you? I mean, we are talking the tip of the iceberg here. Once we have a legal framework that permits this monitoring of travel, then it's inevitable that the erosion of privacy will extend to CCTV-based biometric tracking across public areas, combined with ID card tracking (specifically, tracking the 'accesses' made to digitally check the card and the location from where they occur), and those systems will be combined to erode any sense of freedom of privacy in public (and perhaps beyond).
Furthermore, it would appear that you would be happy with any form of invasive monitoring so long as it was seen as 'public'. Presumably you have no object to the men in dark overcoats with guns, si so long as you are seen to be loyal enough to be left alone. Very Citizen Smith.
And failsafes? Police has internal control, so set up an internal control for CCTV. Problem solved. This system is no more corruptable or abusable than the police.
It's an automated, computer based system; the technological basics of it mean that it becomes much easier to subvert the system. Additionally, the very concept of the system itself is such that the only controls that could prevent the risk it poses, would be ones that removed the system itself; this system is designed to be intrusive and invasive (as a tracking system), and designed to be used by state entities with a capacity for misuse. As I said twice before, the simple fact that the police - and army - is comprised of individuals (and a large number of them), brings in it's own oversight of simple, human conscience.
But tell me, how would you set up oversight for an automated system such as this? One with the expressed design to store where everyone has driven over the last 2+ years?
and someone mentioned it was an infringment of our freedom of travel??? I don't see how as no one is stopping you.
Because your movements can be used against you (especially in the case where the system is 'established', and hence can be believed even if altered to suit the prosecution). If your every word was taped for potential use in 2+ years (in a court case, at the very least), then that would impinge your ability to speak freely.
Moreso, you can be punished (i.e. based on these movements) without any form or ability to offer recourse. Because virtually no-one will keep a record of every journey they've made over the last 2 years - let alone proof - and yet the states digitised (i.e. numbers, not - for example - visual photographic evidence) evidence will be seen as incontestible.
B.t.w. - I really think people are shouting the word "freedoms" and "rights" waay too much. I gues you can call me conservative, but that's only becosue I've seen what too much liberalism can do...
Do you know what 'liberal' means, pray tell? It means (for example (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3A+liberal&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)) "tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition". Do the same search for conservatism. Neither claim to stand for the erosion of individual human rights or freedoms in the name of greater state security. I believe the general term for that is something like 'totalitarian' or 'authoritarian'.
And there was me thinking the US bastardization of those terms hadn't reached Europe yet. Sigh.
-
Because your movements can be used against you (especially in the case where the system is 'established', and hence can be believed even if altered to suit the prosecution). If your every word was taped for potential use in 2+ years (in a court case, at the very least), then that would impinge your ability to speak freely.
Your ability to speak freely would remain. The only difference is that now there is a record. That record can be used for both persecution AND defence. However, freedom of speech* is not at issue here.
See, my reaction to someone getting bent out of shape about Britain's plan for tracking vehicle movements is: If you're that worried about being seen doing something, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it. Know what I mean?
-
See, my reaction to someone getting bent out of shape about Britain's plan for tracking vehicle movements is: If you're that worried about being seen doing something, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it. Know what I mean?
Like meeting your lover?
-
Your gay, drug-smuggling, al-Qaeda-affiliated lover?
-
Your gay, drug-smuggling, al-Qaeda-affiliated lover?
oh darling are you jealous
-
Your ability to speak freely would remain. The only difference is that now there is a record. That record can be used for both persecution AND defence. However, freedom of speech* is not at issue here.
See, my reaction to someone getting bent out of shape about Britain's plan for tracking vehicle movements is: If you're that worried about being seen doing something, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it. Know what I mean?
Didn't I just read about someone getting shot dead a month or two ago because they mentioned something about a bomb in an airport? And everyone talking about how that was justified (even though AFAIK the man was completely innocent). So much for 'freedom of speech' and 'right to be presumed innocent'
However I suppose my response to the latter paragraph is twofold.
If the government needs this sort of all-pervasive system to enforce its laws, something they're legislating is fishy. A constant public surveillance system just makes me wonder. Sure it could be used to track terrorists or keep people to _always_ drive below the speed limit, and live in fear of that quick burst to 65 mph they made. Or it could be used to nitpick someone's life, to bring up some minor reason to persecute them, or provide damning circumstantial evidence at a trial.
It violates one of the principles of the legal system, although we really seem to have forgotten that what with the rationalization for these incredibly strict copyright laws. And that is that generally the laws are to govern the interactions between people, rather than people themselves, so as to give the individual as much freedom as possible.
I've been thinking recently about all those people who died in the terrorist attacks. What did they die for - was there any meaning in their deaths? As more laws like this get passed then I wonder. Rather than standing firm in our laws and ideals we seem to have run away in fear, and try to barricade ourselves in little holes because of what might happen. I hear people talking about it being a 'completely different world' after 9/11, but it seems that for the most part, it was us that made it that way.
I've barely ever heard of these new terrorism laws catching even suspected terrorists, much less proven ones.
-
Not everything counter-productive to the way the Government wish us to be is 'bad'. Consider this, had this technology existed before the American revolution then it would have been practically impossible to arrange the conditions that finally led to the freedom of America from UK control. Same deal with arranging equal rights protests for Blacks or Women in both the UK and America etc etc.
Rev. Martin Luther King is a name that springs to mind. How many people who made the world a better place would never have been heard or ever had their message carried to as many people had this kind of control been in place? After all, you can hardly say Rev. King's actions were benefitting the government, they could have traced him to his contacts etc etc and the whole black rights movement would have struggled far more or never got off the ground at all.
-
Seems the Police nowadays are there just to issue petty fines. In Manchester, they had a blitz on Football players tinted car windows. I bet the coffers swelled after that little sting operation.
On another note, you can bet this system will only work against people who attempt to operate within' the law. What harm is it gonna do to joy-ridin' SOBs ?
-
Because your movements can be used against you (especially in the case where the system is 'established', and hence can be believed even if altered to suit the prosecution). If your every word was taped for potential use in 2+ years (in a court case, at the very least), then that would impinge your ability to speak freely.
Your ability to speak freely would remain. The only difference is that now there is a record. That record can be used for both persecution AND defence. However, freedom of speech* is not at issue here.
And who keeps the record? The government. And who would have the most interest in removing free speech should they get... dictatorial? Why, the government!
Not to mention access - any access to entries in the Giant Database Of Everyones Travel would have to go via the government, and if the government has said personal interest in controlling the results? What do you think would be considered the most reliable by a court - eyewitnesses, a suspects personal logbook, or this tracking system?
This is essentially, of course, not about paranoia of the current government, but about preserving the democratic system from any future threat.
See, my reaction to someone getting bent out of shape about Britain's plan for tracking vehicle movements is: If you're that worried about being seen doing something, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it. Know what I mean?
Yeah, I'm sure the Jews and Gypsies of Germany in 1939 would have agreed with that......... extreme example, perhaps, but as Flip has pointed out above me, the difference between what the government considers wrong and what morality, freedom, democracy and human rights consider wrong can be a very big one - even with the (elected) Labour government of today we can see that. Journalists meeting their sources, for example, could be potentially tracked in this manner.
-
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif)
-
Didn't I just read about someone getting shot dead a month or two ago because they mentioned something about a bomb in an airport? And everyone talking about how that was justified (even though AFAIK the man was completely innocent). So much for 'freedom of speech' and 'right to be presumed innocent'
No, I think the one you're thinking about was the one where the man jumped out of his seat, screamed about how he had a bomb, reached into his bag to get something, and was then shot dead by an Air Marshall who had to decide bomb-or-not: one man's life, or the lives of dozens of innocent passengers.
With that said, I disagree with a lot of the new anti-terror laws floating around in the West. People are being forced to give up far too many freedoms for protection, protection that doesn't even seem to be clearly evident. Sure, there hasn't been a bombing in the USA anywhere near the scope of 9-11 since, but I still fail to see how the Patriot Act does any good for the country by giving the government the capabilities to throw anyone in Guantanamo Bay out of pure suspicion indefinitely.
Same goes for this law as well. The motive behind the law isn't inherently evil, but the way the government carries it out makes it appear to be a step towards 1984. There's absolutely no reason why the government should need or want the records of every motorist in the UK, besides tracking those 'suspicious' types.
-
Yeah, I'm sure the Jews and Gypsies of Germany in 1939 would have agreed with that......... extreme example, perhaps, but as Flip has pointed out above me, the difference between what the government considers wrong and what morality, freedom, democracy and human rights consider wrong can be a very big one - even with the (elected) Labour government of today we can see that. Journalists meeting their sources, for example, could be potentially tracked in this manner.
Unfortunately, the two examples you've given me are a bit too extreme to work with in the current scope of this debate. However, I do get your point: Utilizing a broad-based monitoring system to catch specific individuals is about as effective as amputating one's leg due to an ingrown toenail. Certainly cures the ingrown toenail, but now you're one leg short. So yes, I hear you.
There are too many examples to cite when such a system being in place here in the states would have made a huge difference on the side of the victim (theft, assault, etc). People have been proven consistently to being unable or unwilling to police themselves and each other. This creates a ripe environment for a 'dictatorship', if you will, to come into play. The nice thing about a dictatorship is it cuts out the bull**** quickly. However, see the above ingrown-toenail-amputation example...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you see governments making steps that will curtail your existing priviledges (those things you call 'freedoms'), take that as a sign. 'Liberals' have a tendency to misinterpret such actions. Rather than attacking said-government for making such moves, ask yourself what you can do as an individual to create an environment where such systems are unnecessary. Sometimes it's a power grab out of greed, sometimes it's desperation. Sometimes a little of both.
"I guarantee you this, we will never recover from the long-term consequences of our short-term solutions. We're nuking the wrong target." - My reaction to the passing of the Patriot Act the first time around.
-
First of all, that bit about dictatorships being more efficient and cutting through the bull**** is not true. Every dictatorship, after it's been around for a while, develops corruption on a massive scale because, hell, who is going to hold you accountable? China, the former USSR, Iran: take your pick. I'm certain that this was a contributing factor to the death of the Soviet empire, the fact that they had an entire class of beaurocrats, tens if not hundreds of thousands of them picking away at the government coffers, handing out personal favours, and generally screwing up the system to the point where it could no loger function. Besides, when the government is empowered to bring swift and merciless justice to criminals, it can also do the same thing for everyone else. Realistically, how many personal scores do you think were settled by, say, Saddam Hussein's secret police? Or by the NKVD / KGB? Loss of freedom simply does not guarantee security.
Also, you seem to be talking about crime and other Bad Stuff in the US as if it were a goddamn warzone. Crime is not something you can do away with, even under the worst dictatorship. Get some sort of perspective: sure, each crime, violent or otherwise, is a bad thing, but Rio di Janeiro has about 100 gun deaths a day, and they recently voted against a proposed gun ban. Now, you can argue that they were right or wrong to do this, but as my grandfather might have said, were he a grizzled yet kindly Southern rancher, "Boy, you ain't seen ****.". You see this as a failing of humanity, but I see it as exactly part and parcel of humanity. We are not perfect, and can not possibly live up to the ideals of perfection. And for what it's worth, which ought to be quite alot, society at present is a whole hell of a lot safer than ever before. Would you rather have a hundred people die from shootings, or ten thousand from diesese, pestilence and the fact that rats are making a nest in your food supply?
Consider that maybe it is your unrealistically high standards which cause you to think that, while living in what could pretty accurately be described as a haven of peace and security, you see the "sitaution" as desperate.
-
First of all, that bit about dictatorships being more efficient and cutting through the bull**** is not true.
Of course it's not true. But to the fool on the street who votes for draconian measures like this one it appears to be true at first and it's only once their own families are being disappeared that they realise that it isn't true.
-
Ah, but there is some truth to it. A dictatorship can be much more efficent in certain things, simply because there's one person who can say "okay, stop that" or "okay, do this" unilaterally. It's once things have been in the implementation stage for awhile that they start to break down. Dictatorships tend to do well in the short term. Beyond five years or so though, they falter.
-
Yeah, I'm sure the Jews and Gypsies of Germany in 1939 would have agreed with that......... extreme example, perhaps, but as Flip has pointed out above me, the difference between what the government considers wrong and what morality, freedom, democracy and human rights consider wrong can be a very big one - even with the (elected) Labour government of today we can see that. Journalists meeting their sources, for example, could be potentially tracked in this manner.
Unfortunately, the two examples you've given me are a bit too extreme to work with in the current scope of this debate. However, I do get your point: Utilizing a broad-based monitoring system to catch specific individuals is about as effective as amputating one's leg due to an ingrown toenail. Certainly cures the ingrown toenail, but now you're one leg short. So yes, I hear you.
There are too many examples to cite when such a system being in place here in the states would have made a huge difference on the side of the victim (theft, assault, etc). People have been proven consistently to being unable or unwilling to police themselves and each other. This creates a ripe environment for a 'dictatorship', if you will, to come into play. The nice thing about a dictatorship is it cuts out the bull**** quickly. However, see the above ingrown-toenail-amputation example...
Bueraucracy is arguable more important to a dictatorship than a democracy. Whilst there's no accountability, there's a need for the state to organise it's oppression and control of the people; police and security services become larger and generate more paperwork, for example. True, there's not a mountain of regulations legalising actions - or otherwise - but there's also not an impetus of public opinion. Coupled with the usual side effects of pariah status (like N.Korea as the best example), and even the limits of what can be done are restricted beyond an open and free country.
On the issue of protecting the victim - unfortunately not everyone can be 'protected'; the problem with systems that try to do so, is that they often introduce an element of societal risk far greater than any problem they solve. Yes, universal car monitoring could solve crimes that would otherwise be undetected - but in the worst case scenario of misuse, it would destroy any concept of freedom of movement. And you have to plan for the worst case.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you see governments making steps that will curtail your existing priviledges (those things you call 'freedoms'), take that as a sign. 'Liberals' have a tendency to misinterpret such actions. Rather than attacking said-government for making such moves, ask yourself what you can do as an individual to create an environment where such systems are unnecessary. Sometimes it's a power grab out of greed, sometimes it's desperation. Sometimes a little of both.
"I guarantee you this, we will never recover from the long-term consequences of our short-term solutions. We're nuking the wrong target." - My reaction to the passing of the Patriot Act the first time around.
Well, as I said before, this is not just about the current government (despite numerous 'dangerous' - i.e. counterdemocratic - actions it has taken already), but about the system. It's the same reason the US Constitution - for example - is held in such high regard (when it's not being shredded by amendments); you need to restrict the power of the state in order to restrict the potential abuse the state can carry out. I mean, the main justification for this system will almost certainly be presented as for cheaper (road-usage based) taxation - because the Government itself knows announcing plans to monitor private journeys would rightly be seen as political suicide.
-
"Freedom is not free".
That expression has been bastardised over the years, turned and twisted into a soundbite used to justify the removal of many civil liberties and the bombing of many far away peoples. We are told that to remain free we must continually give up more and more of our privacy, to protect us from those that would destroy us. We are told the the enemy would brutally repress any form of free speech, individuality or civil rights as we know them; At the same time more and more of our civil liberties are quietly stolen from us in the name of their defence.
The true meaning of the phrase "freedom is not free" is something I have discussed many times before here. Apparently to no avail, given the continual stream of pro-government rhetoric I see in this thread (albeit interspersed with civil rights arguments). The truth is that the price of true freedom is the risk that sometimes people will try and kill us for our beliefs, our civilisation and rights. We have to live with that risk, and sometimes die with that risk, to protect freedom for all people.
-
I don't see what the big hoo-hah is about here unless you're talking about access to the system being made available to third parties. Now THAT would be dangerous. But if the government really wants to go after you in particular, it already has the means to do so and we've already seen government departments sidestep the law when it suits them. What's being proposed just makes it somewhat easier for them. My greatest grief with this project is the massive amount of taxpayer money that's going to be used for an utterly frivolous system that makes it easier for the state to prosecute, not prevent terrorism.
About the state deciding what's right and wrong aldo - well, it's always been that way. You don't have a choice about downloading copyrighted files for example - it's illegal regardless of what you think of the issue, you're still compelled to obey the law. It's no different in this case really.
-
I don't see what the big hoo-hah is about here unless you're talking about access to the system being made available to third parties. Now THAT would be dangerous. But if the government really wants to go after you in particular, it already has the means to do so and we've already seen government departments sidestep the law when it suits them. What's being proposed just makes it somewhat easier for them. My greatest grief with this project is the massive amount of taxpayer money that's going to be used for an utterly frivolous system that makes it easier for the state to prosecute, not prevent terrorism.
The 'easier' part is the important distinction. With any form of police system, the realities of simple evidence gathering become an issue in this manner; investigation of any crime requires private intrusion into both the lives of the suspect and (sometimes) the victim. That, however, is a far cry from a system that effectively regards every individual as a suspect in storing their movements. You've pointed out that the government itself has done very dangerous things - why is it then acceptable to give them even more power to do so? It's like rewarding a child with bullets for learning how to play with an unloaded gun.
About the state deciding what's right and wrong aldo - well, it's always been that way. You don't have a choice about downloading copyrighted files for example - it's illegal regardless of what you think of the issue, you're still compelled to obey the law. It's no different in this case really.
Actually, it hasn't. The legal system has always been traditionally separated from political control, and you could also argue that the House of Lords - as a non-elected body - is also somewhat independent of the government. The likes of the army, police, etc IIRC have certain legal responsibilities which would not allow them to act in certain illegal ways.
There's an important distinction between 'state' and 'government' which I think is important; the state as a whole does and should preserve safeguards against the government gaining oppressive levels of power or having the ability to act against the public good. The government could wish to imprison political opponents and outlaw elections; the state (in the form of the various other legislative bodies) should prevent that from being allowed as a legitimate action.
-
I'm saying one thing - if a P.I. following you isn't illegal (and you don't consider it), then how can you claim a CCTV is when it preforms THE SAME function a P.I. would, with the difference of being restricted to certain areas.
Same method (visual tracking), same outcome (data gathered), different device (camera vs. man)
Now you're all putting too much into this thing - no freedom is gon with it. And about resistances (like M.L.King) - it wouldn't stop them, since cameras are placed and pointed only in teh streets. You can meet in churches or stadiums...there's no way in hell they'll track 80000 people.
And you forget the scope. The ammount of data gathered and individuals tracked is HUGE. they'll either have to cut down on the data storage time to save costs or employ more personell...
and ever thought that there are extensive camera systems installed in many other places (like casinos, stadiums, etc..) and the tapes are prefectly safe and have not been misused..al least I don't recall them ever being misused.
Sure, some of the laws passed are utterly dumb, but some are completely OK.
And about that guy with the "bomb" - I?m a pacifist, probably the last guy who would pull a gun, but when someone threatns to have a bomb and reaches for his jacket/bag/whatever I WOULD shoot. I have no reasons to doubt him and 100 living, breating reasons around me to shoot him.
-
The ammount of data gathered and individuals tracked is HUGE.
No it isn't. It probably amounts to nothing more than a few Kb per day per car. All that needs to be recorded for this system to work would be the the licence plate number, the date and the ID numbers of the cameras which that car passed.
And about that guy with the "bomb" - I?m a pacifist, probably the last guy who would pull a gun, but when someone threatns to have a bomb and reaches for his jacket/bag/whatever I WOULD shoot. I have no reasons to doubt him and 100 living, breating reasons around me to shoot him.
Would you still shoot if he ran off the plane without the bag and with his wife shouting "Don't shoot he's mentally ill!"?
-
I'm saying one thing - if a P.I. following you isn't illegal (and you don't consider it), then how can you claim a CCTV is when it preforms THE SAME function a P.I. would, with the difference of being restricted to certain areas.
Same method (visual tracking), same outcome (data gathered), different device (camera vs. man)
Actually, it has nothing to do with the legality of PIs - although I believe there are a number of legislations upon them anyways, prohibiting such things as surveillance of private residences without consent. There are also the other equivalences to that level of intrusion - such as stalking.
The point is that it is an unquestionable infringement of privacy; specifically contradicting article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."). Note the arbitrary part, in particular; this would relate to surveillance and tracking of individuals who are not under suspicion of any crime.
Again, we have the fundamental differences of scale, too; we're not talking about individual surveillance but mass surveillance of every person in the country (see 'arbitrary' part referenced before). Imagine every person being followed, watched, and recorded.
Now you're all putting too much into this thing - no freedom is gon with it. And about resistances (like M.L.King) - it wouldn't stop them, since cameras are placed and pointed only in teh streets. You can meet in churches or stadiums...there's no way in hell they'll track 80000 people.
And you forget the scope. The ammount of data gathered and individuals tracked is HUGE. they'll either have to cut down on the data storage time to save costs or employ more personell...
I believe I already stated this, but I'll reiterate. Firstly, the technology is and will be developed to track large numbers of individuals. Storing terabytes+ of information isn't particularly hard, just expensive. Secondly, an invasive surveillance system such as this would aim to have high unified coverage, including ingress and egress to private property; as such making it easy to identify 'meets'. Say you want to survey a pro-democracy rally in a private building - all you'd need to do is identify some key individuals (journalists, protestors, members of groups like Liberty or Amnesty International), and track them to said building. Then to either adopt covert surveillance (by person or by placing covert cameras), or just check who enters and leaves that building.
and ever thought that there are extensive camera systems installed in many other places (like casinos, stadiums, etc..) and the tapes are prefectly safe and have not been misused..al least I don't recall them ever being misused.
Well, they have been; security guards have been arrested for spying on women in changing rooms, IIRC. But this is an entirely different proposition to unified surveillance - one of the fundamental fears of CCTV (And specifically this car-tracking scheme) is that it provides an overreaching risk to general privacy and freedom. CCTV in private organisations has a very limited danger of that sense, for obvious reasons of its scope, coverage and accessibility. Even if the government was to have access to it, it would require a standardized method to allow the sort of constant surveillance that is feared (at which point the level of integration would be such as to constitute a universal private-and-public area network.....
Again, the whole point I have been making is about privacy from the state, and protection from abuse/oppression - either at the present or future. Not from individuals. Furthermore, I have also said (several times IIRC) that there is a further fundamental issue of consent and choice of private individuals not to be monitored or followed; a consent that can be excercised by not going into CCTV covered private buildings. Furthermore, even with excisting CCTV/Road surveillance cameras, you can have reasonable expectation of privacy as there is not 100% coverage and recording of your journeys.
Sure, some of the laws passed are utterly dumb, but some are completely OK.
And about that guy with the "bomb" - I?m a pacifist, probably the last guy who would pull a gun, but when someone threatns to have a bomb and reaches for his jacket/bag/whatever I WOULD shoot. I have no reasons to doubt him and 100 living, breating reasons around me to shoot him.
That would be an incredibly vague judgement to make (and seemingly at a complete tangent); it's not even been confirmed the guy said he had a bomb before he was shot, nor whether his behaviour and statements were valid cause for a shooting. Lets not forget the killing of de Menenzes, here.
-
I don't consider being taped while you drive by a "interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation", you see, becoause SOME people have a way of defining privacy as broadly as it suits them.
Car monitoring CCTV doesn't interfere with the home or correspondence and street is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and the government has the right to place survailance on it's property (like in federal buildings)
What next? You'll want to remove cammeras from there too?
And they can't do nothing with CCTV what they can't to allready with different means.. In fact, it easier to avoid being taped on a camera than a mole in your organisation. Cameras can be detected easily enough and jammed or destroyed. Spies are far harder to root out.
-
That is a very poor argument. It's like saying that cause being shot in the head hurts more than being shot in the leg it's okay if you shoot people in the leg. The correct answer is that you shouldn't be shooting anyone without a damn good reason.
Bush is currently in political trouble for having peoples privacy invaded using spies. That should be enough to show you that your argument that because the government can do one of them the other one is alright is specious. The Government can't spy on you without having a good reason. It's called an unreasonable search. You're continually comparing apples and oranges and you've completely missed the point that all the things you've talked about the government being able to do are actually all highly illegal.
The government isn't allowed to spy on everyone. The government isn't allowed to keep a dossier of peoples movements. These are all illegal and break the human rights act which is the highest law in the country. It matters not one jot if the the government uses spies, speed cameras or three pale skinned telepaths in a tank of water. Its all illegal.
-
I don't consider being taped while you drive by a "interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation", you see, becoause SOME people have a way of defining privacy as broadly as it suits them.
Oooh, capitals. Very subtle. I find bold better myself, but whatever floats your boat.
Firstly, let me clarify your statement. This is not being 'taped while you drive'. This is every trip you make being recorded (time, location, etc), and stored for at least 2 years with the view to either a) taxation and b) prosecution. This is applied arbitrarily to every individual (driver) in the country.
The essential, most basic definition of privacy (within this context) is the limit into how far the state can intrude into your affairs. My contention would be that the state does not need to know the details of every car journey you make, especially when they have no legal grounds for such an interest.
Car monitoring CCTV doesn't interfere with the home or correspondence and street is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and the government has the right to place survailance on it's property (like in federal buildings)
What next? You'll want to remove cammeras from there too?
I never said that; you're evidently trying to use the ole strawman, but it's a daft connotation you're drawing. It's like saying that being opposed to torture means I'm automatically opposed to police arresting and interrogating suspects.
I am willing to accept CCTV within public spaces (i.e. where there is no reasonable expectation or privacy), or within private buildings (where the owner consents and the public, by entering consent to monitoring), and where that CCTV information is not automatically archived for a long period of time (but instead only kept for a short period, and only stored where it is known and provable in court to be of use in the investigation of a crime). I am not willing to accept tracking via biometrics & universal CCTV coverage (i.e. across the country, by a singular entity), nor am I willing to accept the storage of such data on all or arbitrary individuals without a clear legal justification to do so.
Furthermore, the issue of individual rights is entirely seperate from the issue of property ownership. Your human rights cannot be suspended simply by dint of being on private property; I cannot torture you legally just because you're in my house, and neither can the government. This is why we have legal controls on the powers of government, to prevent oppression being made legal just because the government says so (duh). Also, the government does not own the land - the state does, and by state that means it is owned effectively by the public. The government - and other state organisations - simply the have the responsibility of managing it. This is why we call them 'public' roads (etc).
I also note your entire arguement for it being acceptable to track people is based on a personal definition of privacy that seems, on previous threads, to be "the government can do anything, because you're safe if you don't dissent".
And they can't do nothing with CCTV what they can't to allready with different means.. In fact, it easier to avoid being taped on a camera than a mole in your organisation. Cameras can be detected easily enough and jammed or destroyed. Spies are far harder to root out.
Again, you make the mistake of assuming this system would somehow be only applied to specific individuals or organizations, when it is designed to be universal and arbitrary in who it watches. Also, you miss the whole point of it - quick and easy tracking; something that is most efficient when wanting to monitor a large amount of 'low risk' people, where low risk constitutes potential dissentist.
How many private civillians can easily jam cameras? I don't know how to (especially bearing in mind that doing so in a visible way would lead to prosecution - or worse in a truly opressive society). Planting moles requires having trained individuals, for one thing - and places realistic constraints in terms of resources (which alone means it has to be used sensibly for actual state security, such as within terrorist organisations or criminal groups rather than, say, political ones). As I said previously - I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've had to repeat this - the fundamental issue is the ease and scope of this level of road camera/CCTV equivalent; that it gives a very low 'cost' ability to track and monitor individuals (who are under no suspicion of any crime) compared to conventional, current methods. And that it does so in an arbitrary manner where there is no legal clearance required for individuals - i.e. it assumes the legal ability to watch every individual.
-
Are we really having this same argument again? I thought we had already clearly established that Trashman's principles fall to the far side of totalitarian in more cases then not, and there's really nothing any of us can do to convince him otherwise. It's a horrible idea, this whole traffic database thing, and it reeks of 1984-esque monitoring. The difference is that Trashman somehow thinks it's a good thing, as apparently do some rather influential members of western governments. Except that where government leaders stand to gain from doing this sort of crap, people like us (Trashman) only stand to lose.
-
If they manage to read the license plates properly, they'd only record the plate, the date, and the camera ID, as Kara said. That would be about 38 bytes (12 for the plate, 16 for the timestamp, and 10 for the camera. I'm allowing for 10^10 camera;s here.) Saying there's a camera every mile, you'd meet 60 for every hour your drove (more or less), and even spending 24 hours behind the wheel a day would leave you with 60*24*38=54kb per day per car. that's easy to store. In reality, going for two hours a day is more likely, making 4,5kb. Even when there are 10 million cars (number out of thin air), you'd have 4,5*10.000=45000kb meaing 45 MB a day. 16GB a year. That means that I could store about 5 years of data on my own HD. And I'm sure that I've been pessmistic on some parts of that calculation.
To find out the movements of someone in the last 24 hours, this'd be sufficient:
SELECT * FROM `1984db` WHERE `licence`LIKE "AB-CD-55" AND `date `LIKE ` '11362%%%%%' ORDER BY `date`.
If you want to get someones movements for the last five years, just remove AND `date `LIKE ` '11362%%%%%' and there you are.
And then you'd have a record of every camera post where that car has been spotted. Not all that hard to plot that to a map either.... Do you really want it to be that easy for someone to track you?
-
Saying there's a camera every mile
I doubt they'd even need that many. The first place they're putting these things is on the motorways after all. You only need camera's at the junctions there cause unless someone decided to drive over the hard shoulder and go cross country that's the only place you can get on or off the motorway.
But you've done a good job proving my point about how little space you'd need even with a ridiculously high number of cameras.
-
So if you go for a camera every ten miles, I could store 50 years of data on my own little HD.
The point is indeed that if someone is willing to shell out on the hardware, and has licence plates in place as a good, unique ID, it'll be this easy.
If you add a credit-card check on public transport stuff, or that ID card with some readers everywhere, you'd have the same amount of data per checkpoint, and if you go by my original estimate of the amount of cameras and stuff, you'd still only need a consumer-level HD to store the movements of everyone. But then, not just for cars, but also public transport.
-
I say you Brits bring back the proud tradition (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/28/200px-Fawkes.gif) of solving your political problems more...directly. Power to the people!
-
What, the same Guy Fawkes that wanted to place a puppet ruler on the throne and 'blow the Scots back into Scotland'?
-
Actually, I meant that you should all grow fancy facial hair as a symbol of protest against the unjust opression by your government. But your thing works too.
-
"Remember remember the 5th of November."
-
Why, is it your birthday?
-
nope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot)
-
Is it my birthday?
-
Maybe!
-
If you check my posts carefulyl then you might realise that I'm not against CCTV, but I am against storing data liek that. 2 Years???
Well , if you're folling a suspected terrorist storing HIS data for so long does sound sound..but everyones? THAT I am allso against.