[Flipside]

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...

[karajorma]

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.

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.

[Flipside]

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?'

[Kosh]

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.

EDIT: And I haven't watched TV in more than a month. You should know by now that I seriously don't believe that.

[aldo_14]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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.

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[TrashMan]

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 )

[ionia23]

It is to our great shame as a civilization that law enforcement and litigation have had to replace simple courtesy and common sense.

[Flipside]

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

[aldo_14]

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.

[karajorma]

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

[Rictor]

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.

[Janos]

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?

[karajorma]

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.

[ionia23]

Might not be such a bad thing, assuming it could be cured.

[Ghostavo]

Might not be such a bad thing, assuming it could be cured.

If you're not being sarcastic let me say...

wow... 

[ionia23]

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.

[Rictor]

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.