Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on January 08, 2007, 06:02:28 pm
-
(http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/pods/watchful_eyes.jpg)
Apparently this is an actual poster posted around London. So says Digg anyway. Here's another instance (http://xs511.xs.to/xs511/07021/bigbrotheriswatchingyou.jpg) of the same poster.
If I may be blunt: what the **** is wrong with you people? This is not slightly over the line - the line has been crossed and is now out of view. Your country is a good ten miles beyond the line and accelerating. Oh yeah, and telescreens (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405477&in_page_id=1770) are becoming all the rage.
You're a lost cause. Sorry to say it, but that's the way it seems to me right now. Because to reverse even the damange that's already been done would take decades, nevermind the new laws that are being passed every day.
-
Scary....
Tom Sawyer: Boy, they told me Europeans had funny ways...
-
Even America hasn't gotten to the point where we advertise our spying.
-
Hah! I can just tell you all to get Penn & Teller Bull****, that show just rocks, and the U.K. Is way way over the top with Big Brother.. Just like Rictor said.
-
Even America hasn't gotten to the point where we advertise our spying.
Yes, we actually understand the #1 rule of spying.
Rule #1: Don't EVER let the people you're spying for know that you're spying on someone else because they won't like it.
Oh yea,
rule #2: Don't let the enemy know you're spying on them... just a side note
-
Why won't the British take a stand? I mean, isn't there some kind of outrage? Some kind of "leave my business to be my business" attitude?
-
Yes, we actually understand the #1 rule of spying.
Rule #1: Don't EVER let the people you're spying for know that you're spying on someone else because they won't like it.
Oh yea,
rule #2: Don't let the enemy know you're spying on them... just a side note
Yes, but we have yet to actually praise such surveillance openly. Notice how Bush says that it's necessary due to the threat of terrorism, which at least suggests a temporary nature. Now your boy Blair has been quoted as saying "the age of civil liberties has ended," if I am not mistaken.
If somebody doesn't tear those down, then frankly it's Britain that needs to be liberated, not Iraq.
-
:wtf: That's all I have to say about this........
**** even China doesn't have posters like this. What is wrong with you people?
-
They've been around for years. I think they even won an award for 'worst promotion concept ever' from Private Eye magazine.
It's really all about advertising the new camera systems they installed on Buses and Tubes, after a boy was stabbed to death on the Bus and it turned out the onboard camera was empty. It was supposed to re-install confidence into passengers about travelling late at night on the bus, but, quite frankly, they could have put the words 'Mein Kampf' on that poster and it would have had much the same impact.
It stopped being used by London Transport about 2 years ago, at least, that's the last time I remember seeing a poster and having a laugh.
-
It's really all about advertising the new camera systems they installed on Buses and Tubes, after a boy was stabbed to death on the Bus and it turned out the onboard camera was empty. It was supposed to re-install confidence into passengers about travelling late at night on the bus, but, quite frankly, they could have put the words 'Mein Kampf' on that poster and it would have had much the same impact.
Yeah I thought there would be a side of the story that wasn't being mentioned here. It just seemed out of place, even for the British government, to be blatantly advertising its spy programs.
The poster is still stupid, but now it makes sense.
-
I guess it takes a Brit to know a Brit.
-
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6640/bigbrogx2.png)
-
Hmmm, remembers a certain something from the 1984 novel....
-
They've been around for years. I think they even won an award for 'worst promotion concept ever' from Private Eye magazine.
It's really all about advertising the new camera systems they installed on Buses and Tubes, after a boy was stabbed to death on the Bus and it turned out the onboard camera was empty. It was supposed to re-install confidence into passengers about travelling late at night on the bus, but, quite frankly, they could have put the words 'Mein Kampf' on that poster and it would have had much the same impact.
Yeah, but since when are CCTV cameras on buses and trains A-OK? The point is not the atrocious advertising*, but rather the fact that there is something to advertise. From everything I've heard about the plague of "anti-social behaviour" coming from the UK, I get the impression that surely you must have roaming gangs of armed psychopaths shooting everyone on sight. Maybe it's just something that British politness and sensibility fail to grasp, but people are often violent. They get hurt, they get mugged, they get drunk and have a brawl. And sometimes they die. Every large city, even in Sweden, has its crime problems. That's life. And monitoring your citizens like ants or children isn't the solution. There is such a thing as an acceptable level of violence in society, and I can't imagine that a modern, civilized country like the UK has exceeded that threshold enough to warrant George-****ing-Orwell. I think the public's acceptance of such intrusive measures may have to do with the prevailing attitude that someone so much as looking at you sideways is a horrific and utterly unacceptable breach of safety and must be dealt with at any cost. What happened to you guys? You survived the Blitz, but a few Chavs have forced you into adopting a police/nanny state out of fear.
*actually, it's very clever. The ad agency created a clearly subversive ad and managed to get it approved - kudos and thanks to them.
-
Rictor, if there was a way to prevent crimes from happening at all, would you use it?
Would you use it if it cost you a tad bit of privacy?
-
'Anti Social Behaviour' is basically an outcropping from that 'stiff upper lip' that bought us through the war. When the government wants to start talking about evicting people for playing their music too loud, you just know that something's very wrong.
As I said, it wasn't a good ad. but that's all it was, it wasn't a quiet attempt to remind us how under the thumb we are, it wasn't an attempt to set up a secret network of ultra-secret spies based on the illuminatae in order to monitor our every move. It was just a bloody stupid ad.
-
I know Flip. It's just entertaining to watch this post whilst reading Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six....
-
'Anti Social Behaviour' is basically an outcropping from that 'stiff upper lip' that bought us through the war. When the government wants to start talking about evicting people for playing their music too loud, you just know that something's very wrong.
As I said, it wasn't a good ad. but that's all it was, it wasn't a quiet attempt to remind us how under the thumb we are, it wasn't an attempt to set up a secret network of ultra-secret spies based on the illuminatae in order to monitor our every move. It was just a bloody stupid ad.
And that's precisely when people need to burn a couple buildings to the ground, to remind the government not to try anything.
-
They've been around for years. I think they even won an award for 'worst promotion concept ever' from Private Eye magazine.
It's really all about advertising the new camera systems they installed on Buses and Tubes, after a boy was stabbed to death on the Bus and it turned out the onboard camera was empty. It was supposed to re-install confidence into passengers about travelling late at night on the bus, but, quite frankly, they could have put the words 'Mein Kampf' on that poster and it would have had much the same impact.
Yeah, but since when are CCTV cameras on buses and trains A-OK? The point is not the atrocious advertising*, but rather the fact that there is something to advertise. From everything I've heard about the plague of "anti-social behaviour" coming from the UK, I get the impression that surely you must have roaming gangs of armed psychopaths shooting everyone on sight. Maybe it's just something that British politness and sensibility fail to grasp, but people are often violent. They get hurt, they get mugged, they get drunk and have a brawl. And sometimes they die. Every large city, even in Sweden, has its crime problems. That's life. And monitoring your citizens like ants or children isn't the solution. There is such a thing as an acceptable level of violence in society, and I can't imagine that a modern, civilized country like the UK has exceeded that threshold enough to warrant George-****ing-Orwell. I think the public's acceptance of such intrusive measures may have to do with the prevailing attitude that someone so much as looking at you sideways is a horrific and utterly unacceptable breach of safety and must be dealt with at any cost. What happened to you guys? You survived the Blitz, but a few Chavs have forced you into adopting a police/nanny state out of fear.
*actually, it's very clever. The ad agency created a clearly subversive ad and managed to get it approved - kudos and thanks to them.
I'm more bothered about CCTVs' prevelance in public areas than transit, myself. Any ticketed system of travel offers the capability to track people, but it's not too meaningful as surveillance in public transport because you're using fixed point-to-point links; it's the ability to track people outside that bus stop or train station that opens up the can of worms for me.
Why won't the British take a stand? I mean, isn't there some kind of outrage? Some kind of "leave my business to be my business" attitude?
Akin to it, but bear in mind this is an advert only seen - AFAIK - in the metropolitan area. There are several caveats worth remembering - namely that the majority of any population tend to be ill-educated sheep, and the context of this poster (that Flip pointed out). There is an ongoing debate about the level of CCTV et al in the UK going on, and there have been a few recent stories from important watchdog people warning about the loss of privacy; but ultimately the problem is that this stuff is portrayed as tackling the 'scum' of society, and it's not politically expedient for the main opposition parties to get too mouthy over it.
Anyways, for sinister see the benefit cheat ads; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKWtife5BqA, or the TV licence ones.
I'm always astonished they get away with those ones....
-
:wtf: I don't understand the outrage at having CCTV on buses and trains.................Rictor, what do you get up to on public transport that you demand privacy.. I mean it's PUBLIC transport there is no privacy even without the camera's.
-
Wobble; that's the sort of attitude that lets them do this. It's not the cameras on the busses that's the problem, it's the fact that if the government wanted to they could track your every movement. It's the potential for harm and the fact that this opens the door for even worse things that we're worried about.
-
I have nothing to hide, even from the government. I'm okay about there being cameras in public places, just as long as they don't put cameras in my home I'm happy with it! :pimp:
To be honest, I don't see why the government would be remotely interested in what I get up to, I mean I live a fairly hum-drum life
-
I have nothing to hide, even from the government. I'm okay about there being cameras in public places, just as long as they don't put cameras in my home I'm happy with it! :pimp:
Ok, but let's say the government started being abusive? Then you'd try to stop them, right? Except the government could track your every movement and stop you from doing anything, or they could even kill you if they were that far gone.
That whole "I've got nothing to hide" attitude is shared by a lot of people, and very short-sighted. Not only do we have a basic right to privacy, but if we let them get away with this, then we let them get away with other things in the future.
-
I was going to say something meaningful but...
I have nothing to hide, even from the government. I'm okay about there being cameras in public places, just as long as they don't put cameras in my home I'm happy with it! :pimp:
Ok, but let's say the government started being abusive? Then you'd try to stop them, right? Except the government could track your every movement and stop you from doing anything, or they could even kill you if they were that far gone.
That whole "I've got nothing to hide" attitude is shared by a lot of people, and very short-sighted. Not only do we have a basic right to privacy, but if we let them get away with this, then we let them get away with other things in the future.
QFT.
-
Rictor.
Best - post - ever.
-
Alright then, this is really an indication that the UK is soon to be run by lots of trained government ninja funded by the Pope who will climb through your Bedroom window with a 35mm camera when you are shagging your wife. I know it doesn't say a word of that on the poster, but hey, if we're going with conspiracy theories, let's eat the whole cake.
-
As a fellow Brit I'd like to get in on this and say that at face value, I actually welcome the idea of there being some sort of security on public transport.
I've seen too many idiots and "anti-social behaviour order" candidates on public transport - especially late at night - getting away with antagonising everyone else and making public transport unsafe to use. If installing cameras on buses and trains helps to deter them from causing trouble then I'm all for that.
That said I'll also say that I can see where those of you who are against this are coming from. Where does surveillance stop being a helpful protection from yobs and start being a tool for oppression? God knows I dislike the notion of things like speed cameras that often seem to cause more harm than good and sure as hell don't seem to stop the police from speeding even if they're off duty. So already it seems that some of these tools are being used to keep the public under control whilst allowing the "establishment" to do as they please.
To put it another way - despite it being a film and one to be taken with a pinch of salt at that - I find myself identifying with the film my avatar is currently based on. V for Vendetta portrayed some quite believable elements.
-
This stuff is scary :sigh:
-
Point of interest - does anyone else find the artwork very similar to the old cold-war era style?
Mind you, what else do you expect from Red Ken?
-
Alright then, this is really an indication that the UK is soon to be run by lots of trained government ninja funded by the Pope who will climb through your Bedroom window with a 35mm camera when you are shagging your wife. I know it doesn't say a word of that on the poster, but hey, if we're going with conspiracy theories, let's eat the whole cake.
My thoughts exactly. What is terribly wrong about having security or cameras on public transit systems? Sure, cameras monitoring movement in residential buildings and surveillance of private areas is a problem, but shouldn't the police be able to monitor areas where, say, a bomb or gunman can do harm to a lot of innocent people in public?
-
Alright then, this is really an indication that the UK is soon to be run by lots of trained government ninja funded by the Pope who will climb through your Bedroom window with a 35mm camera when you are shagging your wife. I know it doesn't say a word of that on the poster, but hey, if we're going with conspiracy theories, let's eat the whole cake.
My thoughts exactly. What is terribly wrong about having security or cameras on public transit systems? Sure, cameras monitoring movement in residential buildings and surveillance of private areas is a problem, but shouldn't the police be able to monitor areas where, say, a bomb or gunman can do harm to a lot of innocent people in public?
I don't mind the concept of cameras on the buses so much, but the issue I take with it is that it's an extension of the already over bearing security camera system. Now the government can watch you from your house, every step of the way to your office and back (if you don't have your own car). Doesn't that feel wrong at all somehow?
-
Since the UK government denies the average person the right to adequately defend themselves, it seems all we can do for some resemblance of 'safety' is let them put cameras everywhere, in the hope that the chav that mugs us might actually get caught on camera.
And then sentenced to community service for three weeks (reduced to three hours after appeal,which consists entirely of the little ****'s mum saying 'he's a good boy really' when what the bastard needs is a thorough horsewhipping), then back out on the streets to repeat the offence.
Any other Brits want to declare independance? I think I know where to get some guns...
-
Estate Agents would be first against the wall, I'm getting kinda pissed off at the constant increase in house prices here.
-
I think the point being made overall is that of the nature of the poster. It's got a very 1984 feel to it, all it lacks is the Newspeak.
-
It's so Orwellian that it could only have been done on purpose. Which begs the question why would they have done it on purpose?
-
Sometimes ad designers are stupid. That's all. It's like the PSP ads in Sweden...
(http://www.ibtimes.com/data/articlethumbs/2037.jpg)
Just because these ads were badly designed and appeared in Sweden, does that mean that all Swedish are racist? Of course not, the idea is absurd. Yet when an ad appears in the UK that looks like a scene from 1984, it must autmoatically mean that was the intention of the ad. Yes, it's a stupid ad, and it got taken down within months because of it.
-
Something else just occured to me... the london travel board aren't the ones who're entirely responsible for the poster. I imagine they commissioned someone to do the artwork, yes? So it follows that that person went ahead and did it.. they then OKd it.
-
Like I said, I think it's a case of the ad agency being subversive, trying to voice their opposition with the blatantly totalitarian style. There's no ambiguity about it - the fascist overtones are obvious.
-
Like I said, I think it's a case of the ad agency being subversive, trying to voice their opposition with the blatantly totalitarian style. There's no ambiguity about it - the fascist overtones are obvious.
I think you're vastly overestimating the intelligence of advertisers (the type the government would hire, anyways)....
-
Just because these ads were badly designed and appeared in Sweden, does that mean that all Swedish are racist? Of course not, the idea is absurd. Yet when an ad appears in the UK that looks like a scene from 1984, it must autmoatically mean that was the intention of the ad. Yes, it's a stupid ad, and it got taken down within months because of it.
I don't care. Your government (and ours definately) could use a good riot anyway.
-
On the subject of cameras on the buses and trains, I think that is acceptable. Public transport is too large of an area, and the chance are high for some type of crime, such as a mugging.
However, I definitely draw the line there. The government has no right to put cameras in other locations. I read the article at the beginning of the post, and I think it is a complete invasion of privacy to put cameras all over a city. And it is certainly unethical, not to mention a huge breach of privacy, to put them in residential areas. If you're that desperate to improve security, then you should be hiring more police. They keep an area safe just by their presence, and they can't go sticking their nose anywhere they want, like a camera can. If this ever happened in America, we'd probably have people with rifles shooting the cameras out of their mountings. Not that that would be a bad thing...
-
I've seen too many idiots and "anti-social behaviour order" candidates on public transport - especially late at night - getting away with antagonising everyone else and making public transport unsafe to use. If installing cameras on buses and trains helps to deter them from causing trouble then I'm all for that.
Good idea. This way, if a random guy in an overcoat gets shot while running to catch a subway, they can bring the shooters to justice.
Oh wait, scratch that. For a moment I thought the cameras were for the benefit of the public.
-
I have nothing to hide, even from the government. I'm okay about there being cameras in public places, just as long as they don't put cameras in my home I'm happy with it! :pimp:
Ok, but let's say the government started being abusive? Then you'd try to stop them, right? Except the government could track your every movement and stop you from doing anything, or they could even kill you if they were that far gone.
That whole "I've got nothing to hide" attitude is shared by a lot of people, and very short-sighted. Not only do we have a basic right to privacy, but if we let them get away with this, then we let them get away with other things in the future.
That's only partially correct though..
There's no way the government could track everyone. At any point in time they will be focused on a few select individuals..there's simply not enough time, monitors and people to track everything.
So if a full-scale uprising is to happen, those cameras would be of no real use to the government. Besides, I'd rather be taped walking the street than be mugged/killed (or havy someone dear to me) doing so..
-
I have nothing to hide, even from the government. I'm okay about there being cameras in public places, just as long as they don't put cameras in my home I'm happy with it! :pimp:
Ok, but let's say the government started being abusive? Then you'd try to stop them, right? Except the government could track your every movement and stop you from doing anything, or they could even kill you if they were that far gone.
That whole "I've got nothing to hide" attitude is shared by a lot of people, and very short-sighted. Not only do we have a basic right to privacy, but if we let them get away with this, then we let them get away with other things in the future.
That's only partially correct though..
There's no way the government could track everyone. At any point in time they will be focused on a few select individuals..there's simply not enough time, monitors and people to track everything.
So if a full-scale uprising is to happen, those cameras would be of no real use to the government. Besides, I'd rather be taped walking the street than be mugged/killed (or havy someone dear to me) doing so..
The government doesn't need monitors to track people; facial recognition software (possibly based on unique facial vein structure rather than features) does that job with minimal time and people cost - especially if people are made to carry RFID identity cards. I believe the Israelis are (in particular) hard at work on the recognition part (also working on body language detection).
Moreso, did it ever occur to you that CCTV wouldn't necessarily deter the average mugger? Bung on a balaclava then run out of camera range, job done; unless you want an actual national tracking system of cameras.
finally, bear in mind the government already 'tracks' everyone to some degree- that's how they identify your aformentioned 'target' individuals from a population of millions. The issue is, what sort of depth can they do so in?
-
Aldo.. Alright then, I'll play devils advocate.
What harm exactly could they do with this? I mean, so what if they can track you? What could you do.. and what could they do.. that makes this a problem?
I mean they can find you yes. But assuming you're not doing anything of a criminal nature, I can't see a reason why they'd want to. As has been said a large scale uprising would mean that even if you could find everyone, assuming the uprising was successful, it would be fruitless. Finding someone and stopping them are two different things - you said that yourself with relation to muggers and balaclava...
-
Aldo.. Alright then, I'll play devils advocate.
What harm exactly could they do with this? I mean, so what if they can track you? What could you do.. and what could they do.. that makes this a problem?
I mean they can find you yes. But assuming you're not doing anything of a criminal nature, I can't see a reason why they'd want to. As has been said a large scale uprising would mean that even if you could find everyone, assuming the uprising was successful, it would be fruitless. Finding someone and stopping them are two different things - you said that yourself with relation to muggers and balaclava...
Furthermore to this point, what serious advantage does it give the government if they wanted to persecute you (for whatever unjust reason)? The police and the intelligence agencies have always been able to track down their targets - these "Big Brother" systems just make the process slightly quicker. In a country this small you'd still get caught in 'the net' sooner or later.
-
Aldo.. Alright then, I'll play devils advocate.
What harm exactly could they do with this? I mean, so what if they can track you? What could you do.. and what could they do.. that makes this a problem?
I mean they can find you yes. But assuming you're not doing anything of a criminal nature, I can't see a reason why they'd want to. As has been said a large scale uprising would mean that even if you could find everyone, assuming the uprising was successful, it would be fruitless. Finding someone and stopping them are two different things - you said that yourself with relation to muggers and balaclava...
Well, the easiest argument is - what would Hitler or Stalin do with such a system? Because, even if you don't believe Blair et al are equivalent to that, the next government down the road might be. And surely a fundamental part of democracy is to protect the populace from the possibility of totalitarianism, not remove the obstructions to it.
That is, granted, the easy part. The more subtle, more immediate threats are perhaps a little harder to describe. The first thing is, under a state which desires/needs to excercise complete surveillance, then your chances of being a suspect for no good reason are increased - being in the wrong place at the wrong time (in terms of the police/security service view), and thus being arrested, detained, interned, etc becomes more likely. This is perhaps close to the prior point, though, but worth reiterating in view of the governments' eagerness (and desire) to detain people nigh-indefinately on dodgy anti-terrorism charges.
Also, you risk being labelled as a 'subversive' type by association (meeting, knowing, even passing by frequently) with people opposing the government. That is, something akin to Thatcher using MI5 to infiltrate trade unions, but on a more pervasive manner (imagine if the destruction of Trade Union influence was paralleled by a destruction of political dissedence and thought). On the uprising side of things, this allows security services to identify and 'attack' dissidents before any sort of ground movement can begin.
On top of the latter 2 is the risk of data 'leak'; that is, that this information is sold, stolen or simply lost and ends up in the hands of people whose possesion of it will hurt you, simply by the bias or conclusions they draw. What if (perhaps potential) employers can gain access to your movements and decide you spend too many nights in the pub, for example? Or if Tesco purchase your data and decide you spend too long in Asda and should receive some spam? It seems ludicrous, but there will be a cost to be paid and the government loves cash cows.
Finally, with regards to identification. There's several caveats here, which I avoided going into detail before on. Firstly, it's worth noting that my comment on the ineffectiveness of CCTV against crime was directed at the concept of the current close-to-but-not-all-pervasive, human monitored system (although it's worth noting an automatic system wouldn't prevent crime so much as ease prosecution). But for a national CCTV network with facial recognition (allowing automated tracking) to arise, it's likely there'd also be a system in place that recorded biometric data (i.e. ID cards), allowing easier correlation. Moreso, it'd have the capability to track you all the way to your front door - gathering data that means that whilst you're recorded as 'Citizen#35325" in the database, it's relatively trivial to analyse that and get a name.
In essence, an automated tracking system would be an almost direct equivalent of chipping everyone with a government GPS transponder.
But even if it doesn't work, then it still represents a tremendous waste of money better invested in visible policing, or correcting the social causes of crime.
-
In short, monitoring everyone with cameras, ID cards, etc is so vastly inefficient there's no way it can have any appreciable effect on crime, while the potential for misuse is unacceptably high.
The government thinks it can do a better job if it has more data, but what really happens is that they just have more crap to wade through. Even computerised analysis won't affect that much.
-
In short, monitoring everyone with cameras, ID cards, etc is so vastly inefficient there's no way it can have any appreciable effect on crime, while the potential for misuse is unacceptably high.
The government thinks it can do a better job if it has more data, but what really happens is that they just have more crap to wade through. Even computerised analysis won't affect that much.
Ahhh, yes, thank you.
Guess which one of us isn't jetlagged today.....