[Flipside]

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.

[Roanoke]

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 ?

[aldo_14]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

[Nuclear1]

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.

[ionia23]

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.

[Rictor]

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 , 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.

[karajorma]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[vyper]

"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.

[SadisticSid]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[karajorma]

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!"?

[aldo_14]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[StratComm]

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.