UK Has Become a "Surveillance Society" 291
cultrhetor writes "In a story released by the BBC, Richard Thomas, the information commissioner for Great Britain, says that fears of the nation's 'sleep-walk into a surveillance society' have become reality. Surveillance ranges from data monitoring (credit cards, mobiles, and loyalty card information), US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic, to key stroke logging at work. From the article, the report 'predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.' The report's co-author, Dr. David Murakami-Wood, told BBC News that, compared to other Western nations, Britain was the 'most surveilled country.' He goes on to note: 'We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us.'"
That's a whole lot of cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
With that many cameras one can imagine it must be fairly difficult to venture out in public without being "ON CAMERA".
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it might prevent some crime, on the other it certainly makes one feel like their privacy is in doubt. I guess it's only gonna be a real problem when they start installing them in your home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're being funny.
The "Chairman" would be the clue that, yes, he is being funny.
Cameras do not prevent crimes. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the record that is the problem. How long is it kept? If you're running for office 20 years down the line or applying for a job, would you want it to come out that you were speeding at 100mph/kissing a person of the wrong race or gender/talking to someone who ended up being arrested for terrorist 5 years later/etc? If there's a sunset law on the footage, that anything not involved in a criminal investigati
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different than people taking pictures on the street on their own? A photographer for a newspaper for example? Should we have laws all microfilm records of newspapers be distroyed after a set amount of time? After all, we can't have it
Re: (Score:2)
Because depending on your local laws, it is either illegal or VERY bad form to use a photograph of someone without their permission. 99% of the time people don't care, or will purposely stand in front of the camera("Hey Mom!") but if someone takes your picture you can always go to the person and ask that they not use it. If they use it anyway, at the bare minimum you can sue them. You can't do the same thing with a state-cont
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, that is completely WRONG (unless you are citing UK law). There are generally no laws against taking pictures of someone in public. In fact, there are no laws against taking pictures of private property as long as you are standing on public property and the shot is in plain view.
Please review the Photographer's Right (PDF) [krages.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the photographs damning the current government can be posted online, photocopied, reprinted, emailed, or faxed making them equally umbiqitous. There is no inherent advantage to the government in this situation except that they are already in power and peo
Re: (Score:2)
1. You may not carry weapons or defend yourself properly.
2. A criminal assaults you and if he's in a bad mood, he'll kill you, too.
3. The police cleans up your body.
4. The crime's on camera, but you're still dead.
But, you say, criminals will be discouraged from committing crimes if they're monitored.
First an observation: they're not monitoring criminals, they're monitoring you. And you aren't a criminal, so why are they monitoring you?
1. Criminals commit crimes even if they're monitore
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if there's one place I'm concerned about privacy, it's when I'm out in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you wouldn't mind if a masked man followed you everywhere, every day, from the moment you left your house to the moment you returned, and made regular and detailed reports about your activities to unspecified people? Because personally I'd feel extremely intimidated and invaded by that situation. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that you're being treated that way by CCTV, because the cameras are relatively unobtrusive.
Re: (Score:2)
People are only being treated that way by CCTV if they're doing something suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a funny story [slashdot.org] about just that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's your assumption, but in most cases you can't see what the camera's looking at. How would you feel about a camera operator watching your mother or sister for ten minutes because he found her attractive?
On a crowded street, each camera captures more than 14 people at a time. Anyway, would you be happy to be followed by a masked man for one day every two weeks? Do y
Re: (Score:2)
And the difference would be what exactly? Would you go up to the gawker and punch them? I didn't think so. You can be annoyed by them just as well whether they are 15 ft or 1500 miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't remember what you saw last time you were at the grocery store? You coudn't write a description of the events you witnessed on paper, creating a record anyone could refrence if they wish?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the government is following you right out of your hous
Re: (Score:2)
Which get disabled once you buy the item, are only effective in a limited range, and can be disabled by individuals with the correct equipment (which is getting smaller, too).
Didn't you just point out that the government is identifying my strange behavior of buy
Re: (Score:2)
Now currently they arent all interconnected, but it wouldnt be hard to take that 'extra step'.
And it doesnt really prevent crime. thats just marketing to get you to accept the invasion. It might help to id the person that mugged you later, but they wont stop just because it might be recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, people are still being robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered here in Blighty.
Re: (Score:2)
Utterly trivial in rural areas, pretty easy even in the large cities - for example, I live in London (just), and there are no CCTV cameras in my area at all. Go 10 miles west, into the centre of London, and sure, there are loads; I used to pass about 14 on the 5 minute walk from the Tube station to my office (then the office moved, and the number dropped).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it might prevent some crime
You are gravely mistaken [guardian.co.uk] if you think that people will shy away from criminal activity if they know they are on camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that worked really well. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
YOU ARE INCOMPATIBLE. YOU WILL BE DELETED.
The lameness filter is INCOMPATIBLE.
Hey Fark! (Score:3, Funny)
Funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, I'm sure there's a downside to this technology, otherwise why the fuck would people keep going on and on and on and on about it all the time, as if the presence of cameras somehow stops them from going about their lawful business.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that any one view is better than another, although for my own part I think that i
Re:Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2192911.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire
Of coarse, it's your country, and it's none of my business that you let your government monitor you. Just don't let them fool you into thinking it's useful for deterring crime. Violent crime in particular is often not a rational act; most criminals are not putting the risk and reward through an algorithm to determine whether or not they should commit the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
And similarly, if you talk to many Chinese people you will discover many of them see nothing wro
Re: (Score:2)
Also would you support mandatory CCTV and microphones placed in peoples houses; that'd make terrorist plots almost impossible to hatch at home, You won't mind a CCTV camera placed in your bathroom will you? You've got nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case I'll pay for a masked man with a digital video camera to follow you about 24hrs a day, recording you whilst you are out of your house.* After all that's effectively what CCTV cameras are, would you mind if I (as another citizen and resident of the UK) did that? How about if the government did that to everybody? would you mind then? Or is it the lack of a physical person and the ease with which we forget we are
Re: (Score:2)
And if I paid for all 60mn people in the UK to be followed, with a camera, whilst in public? Of course it'd be cheaper to just place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)
What IS the problem with being filmed as you go about your lawful business? I don't get it.
If you don't get it, than why do you mind me filming you do your "lawful business" but not mind a CCTV camera? To me, they are one and the same. The amount of times I'm caught on C
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess - another Orwell reference, right?
No Orwell reference, just pointing out that placing cameras all around the country to watch people instead of paying someone to follow everyone individually sounds a lot like CCTV to me
It's up to a democratically elected government, yes.
Lots of Nasty regimes were democratically elected when they came to power; Robert Mugabe,
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not, as I said in my previous post many dictators start by getting elected into power, then failing to give it up; hence my comment about Robert Mugabe, now widely considered a dictator, he first came to power through democratic elections. Another famous example would "Godwin" this thread. Secondarally, many dictators regularly hold elections; Saddam Hussain kept on getting 99.9% of the vote; the elections were always uncontested, but they we
Re: (Score:2)
"Surveillance Society" is defined in great detail in the report which led to the article which started this discussion: The Information Commissioner's "A Report on the Surveillance Society" [ico.gov.uk].
In this context, surveillance is not just about cameras. They are not even the most important aspect. Unfortunately they are the most visually obvious sign
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another way to look at it, which it doesn't seem like anyone has really considered..
If the only way your populace obeys the law is because they know they might get caught.. what does that say about your society? What does a society really have to offer, that can only control it
Re: (Score:2)
The deception's working rather well with you then, isn't it?
There are two big problems with the "reasonable" line of argument that you've swallowed (and please don't try to say it's your own independent conclusion - that would be too painful to watch). I mean the one that's ready to pile a few "theoretical" disadvantages against what are seen as the real advantage of lower crime rates. The problems are thes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Britain is (yet again) running out of space in its jails. So either the cameras are not having any effect on the crime rate, or else a lot of people are being imprisoned for trivial offences for which they would not have been imprisoned in the past. In the first case they are a waste of money, and in the second case they are having the effect of criminalizing a large proportion of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course individual cases get solved in this way. But the studues that have been done show that the overall rate of crime does not decrease. The effect of surveillance is simply to move the problem around, not to reduce it.
Were any sensible objections raised, or was it just more Orwell quotes?
The trouble with this sort of argument is that it just doesn't take ordinary human
Re: (Score:2)
The main evidence used to posthumously charge the 4 men was the Luton station still. This frame has been quite obviously photoshopped. I know I'll be modded into oblivion for questioning this but I feel I should point it out because it bothers me a great deal. The CCTV system of the bus that exploded in Tavistock Square was uncharacteristically not working that day too.
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.htm l [julyseventh.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely right. No law abiding individual has SECRETS... NONE.
Surely law-abiding people don't mind that they're being videotaped by the government as they meet up with their homosexual lover, go get an abortion or visit the child they put up for adoption years ago. etc. After all, it's perfectly legal, why should you care there's videotape of it all?
Re: (Score:2)
Just the same, I'm glad the theory is being tested in a country other than my own.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet.
It only takes a little more zeal or stupidity in these places to lead to genuine abuses. And then the lack of checks will become nasty.
And if we get a government which really distrusts its people, and has a strong leader, well, it's happened too many times before in too many places in too many ways to claim that we'l
keylogging *shudder* (Score:3, Funny)
God I hate draconian surveillance
Won't be long... (Score:2)
The list of the countries (Score:3, Informative)
As it seems, the quite bureaucratic Germany has learned from its history (three police states in a century: the Second Empire with the Prussian secret police, Nazi Germany with the GESTAPO/SD/SS and socialist Eastern Germany with the STASI), however privacy is eroding there nearly as quickly as anywhere else.
Where will this (cultural?) trend in the western world lead to and where will it end? I think the older Germans know and perhaps some already prepare for the next autocracy/surveillance society.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Brit living in Germany, I have to say that Germany feels far far more oppressive than the UK. While I may be on camera and my shopping may be monitored in the UK, I am free to live wherever I wish without state interference.
I cannot do that in Germany. Everytime I move house here I have to sit for hours in a miserable state office to inform them of where I now live. I am fined if I do not do so quick enough. I cannot leave the house in Germany
2006 and 2016 (Score:2)
Summary incorrect (Score:2)
That is not true. I heard his comments, both last year and this year.
Last year he said
"I think we are sleep-walk into a surveillance society"
this year he said
"We have sleep-walked into a surveillance society"
He never said 'fear'
He wants a debate as to whether or not this is something we want.
Don't put words into his mouth to make your subjects sound interesting.
Terrorstorm DVD (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
NOTHING Alex Jones has ever done can possibly be called "excellent".
His format is taking select comments out of context, relying on typos, using unverified statements from completely random/anonymous individuals, etc.
But if you want to hear some baseless bullshit evidence about how HAARP is a weather m
Change (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hear! Hear!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One Englishmen I know maintains (Score:2)
He's planning to move to America next year because he can't take the high taxes and cost of living anymore, among other things. I wonder if he ever connected the two. (Remember all those new surcharges to fly these days after 9/11 to pay for the federalization of the security workforce and multiply that throughout an entire society.)
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany they pay close to twice as much tax as Britain, yet the cost of living is considerably lower. What connection are you expecting him to make?
crimes we didn't know existed (Score:2)
Excuse me, this already goes on in the U.S. (Score:2)
I don't know if I'm helping to dismantle the vapid Orwellian scare tactics that the article has adopted or if I'm just adding to them by pointing this out. The work climate and employment laws in the U.K. may differ from those of the U.S., but in the United States, this already happens.
The Americans With Disabilities Act proscribes discrimination against disabled Americans and imposes a bur
Re: (Score:2)
*This is probably a bigger problem with lots of bosses reluctant to employ women of childbearing age due to costs of statutory regulations over maternity leave and pay.
Excellent! (Score:2)
Slippery Slopes (Score:2)
But this defense of surveillance does not give me any comfort.
Denied Jobs due to health risk.. just a start. (Score:2)
Dont forget insurance rates going up "we see you drive often in a higher crime area then you live, so we will be rasing your rate to compensate"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By far, the most excellent quote (Score:2)
It's not often that the most excellent quote from the article is included in the /. summary of said article.
BTW, WTF is a 'London Oyster Card'?!
Re: (Score:2)
You can still buy them with cash. Same with NYC and Wash, DC metro cards in the US. Why not ban paying with cash? Too many immigrants without credit cards or really any papers at all. Rights groups would protest, at least in the USA they would. One of the benefits of illegal immigration is that there's still a subculture of anonymity and no-questions-asked catering to the immigrants.
-b.
If you have nothing to complain about (Score:2)
no mentio to orwell yet ? (Score:2)
Torchwood (Score:2)
All your SciFi are belonging to us... (Score:2)
Nothing to see here. Just a minority report written by Guy Fawkes at Gattaca...
Australia: Being forced into self survellience (Score:2)
***********
I am writing to you as my Federal representative on a matter that has caused me some concern and distress. Our household has been selected to take part in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey 2006, and we were informed of this in writing roughly two weeks ago. On Monday October 23rd, an ABS employee named OMITTED came to our house and asked
my part
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad you at least have realistic expectations about what the response to this letter will likely be.
In response to some of my posts here a few days ago about George W Bush, I was called a crackpot and a raving moonbat. However I find myself wondering...What are the demoniacs inhabiting the halls of government in three countries (Australia, America, and England) going to have to do to us before we develop an appropriate sense of
Re: (Score:2)
Britain to leapfrog China in mass-surveillance (Score:2)
Linking medical, email, phone, bank & credit card records w
What a sad day ... (Score:2)
What a sad day !
As an aside, I personally don't mind the public CCTV cameras. If in doubt, I think these actually serve as deterrent against crime respectively help solving crime. If someone *actually* and *really* needs to know where I go when taking a walk, could in any case follow me.
But he
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, Guy (aka Guido) Fawkes [wikipedia.org], the only honest man to set foot in the Houses of Parliament... (He tried to blow them up in 1606.)
-b.
Your claim is worthless without pictures! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dictatorships do censorship, political prosecution and incarceration, banning, executions opponents etc.
So if you are being surveyed you can think of yourself as lucky.
No. Dictatorships do both. The STASI, for example, had some of the most extensive files on E. Germany's citizens of any agency. Secondly, a surveillance society sets up a framework and a culture (we're used to being spied upon) that can easily and quickly be abused by a
Re: (Score:2)
So, what do you call a system where you can't force those who are in power to leave without bloodshed? A dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, yes. Fortunately, those same crowds will be cheering in another 20 years when we string up the dictators by their pinkie toes and set 'em on fire.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are a dumbass. Thinking like that is what will eventually make the UK, U.S., and other once-half-free countries into fascist nations. The government just loves it when the citizenry goes along with their latest and greatest draconian measures.
Re: (Score:2)
References please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No: one Brit - George Orwell/Eric Blair - wrote 1984. Perhaps he knew his countrymen all too well and realized that a surveillance society was a possibility or inevitability in Britain.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a camera on the street (which you can never know is in use or not), or even if you think there might be a camera on the street, you won't do it.
Right, I wouldn't skip down the street. I'd skip down the street towards the camera then break dance while wearing a giant latex penis on my head with a sign on my back - To The Watchers: This Is You... When the cameras are present
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Car tracking is already happening via ANPR (Score:2)
There are 130 such cameras in Bristol and Glou