http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... es.privacy
Thoughts?
Nothing makes me want to leave this country more personally...
Surveillance 'culture' in Britain
Moderators: Benn, Calix, senji
hmm 3.23am hmm @ work hmm calix just burned 7 minutes of my shift contemplating this...
and yes, it is crazy, but also the society we have forged in britain is so fucking disgusting, that we have vandals and drunks on every corner anyway, and this is just an excuse to get a few cheap arrests when more effective meaures like active policing (spend the money more wisely...) are put on a backburner for schemes like equiping middlesborough with talking fucking cameras.
i dont mind big brother style monitering if the basic elements of managing society had failed, but instead our government ops for star fangled ideas in a hope of some cure for our disease ridden culture, when it could at least try regular promotion of education and respect.
meh, i feel quite strongly about what our country has become now joe is growing older by the day and i fear about the way his life will be lived, and how little respect most youngsters now have for there enviroment and population. (and yes i sound old and @ 23 i fucking feel it! no offense carix/villa/amber - the "true" oldys)
tbh, i feel that recovery is nigh on impossible the way our culture has fallen in 50 years, imagine leaving ur house unlocked at night? letting your kids play freely for hours without a thought? etcetcetc
and yes, it is crazy, but also the society we have forged in britain is so fucking disgusting, that we have vandals and drunks on every corner anyway, and this is just an excuse to get a few cheap arrests when more effective meaures like active policing (spend the money more wisely...) are put on a backburner for schemes like equiping middlesborough with talking fucking cameras.
i dont mind big brother style monitering if the basic elements of managing society had failed, but instead our government ops for star fangled ideas in a hope of some cure for our disease ridden culture, when it could at least try regular promotion of education and respect.
meh, i feel quite strongly about what our country has become now joe is growing older by the day and i fear about the way his life will be lived, and how little respect most youngsters now have for there enviroment and population. (and yes i sound old and @ 23 i fucking feel it! no offense carix/villa/amber - the "true" oldys)
tbh, i feel that recovery is nigh on impossible the way our culture has fallen in 50 years, imagine leaving ur house unlocked at night? letting your kids play freely for hours without a thought? etcetcetc
-
Superfast Oz
- Cardinal Chunder
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:23 pm
- Contact:
I agree with the principles of surveillance, certainly in cities. Not sure about ridiculous extremes like tracking bins, but their other example about checking the address of a school applicant is a bit out there, considering the outcry when it was revealed some school workers weren't properly CRB checked. I'd say that's a valid venture, although it might not be the most cost effective method.
As merc pointed out, there are so many other major issues with our society that make surveillance necessary. Until we can resolve those then there won't be any change in direction. Those are the genuine issues to consider, and then we have the non-genuine reasons such as our foreign policy which provides one of the main pretexts for surveillance in terrorism.
As merc pointed out, there are so many other major issues with our society that make surveillance necessary. Until we can resolve those then there won't be any change in direction. Those are the genuine issues to consider, and then we have the non-genuine reasons such as our foreign policy which provides one of the main pretexts for surveillance in terrorism.
Personally I think the money could be better spent in other ways.
Being watched doesn't really bother me, I feel that I've got nothing to hide, so I don't mind.
Of course I don't especially like the fact I'm being watched, but if it helps cut crime then it's great.
But the thing is I think it doesn't.
In Japan there's a strong sense of society and stuff. While there is lots of fucked up things in the country, there are other great points. If you lost your wallet there's a good chance it would be returned to you. The same for phones etc.
Street crime is a lot lower than in the UK. It's generally a lot safer. It's not about surveillance it's about mind set. They're taught in schools that it's not good to do that shit. They're also taught lots of other fucked up shit but I'll take that over being worried or intimidated by large groups or something like that.
More public lighting would be a good start. After school stuff as well. Education is a joke in Japan but it means children are always busy. Junior high/high school kids often take part in school clubs and really devote themselves and their energies into it. They don't have time to be wankers on street corners.
It's not like Japan has the answer but it has really brought into focus just how much I hate the things i hate about the UK. I'm not saying it's all bad but throwing cameras to tackle street crime isn't fixing it. It doesn't stop crime at all.
Theres bullshit about why people commit crime but the reason is because they're wankers with no morals. Yes some people are poor and have problems, but I can promise you 95% of the little shits out there mugging people are not doing it so they can pay rent or eat. They're doing it because they know they can.
GRR
Being watched doesn't really bother me, I feel that I've got nothing to hide, so I don't mind.
Of course I don't especially like the fact I'm being watched, but if it helps cut crime then it's great.
But the thing is I think it doesn't.
In Japan there's a strong sense of society and stuff. While there is lots of fucked up things in the country, there are other great points. If you lost your wallet there's a good chance it would be returned to you. The same for phones etc.
Street crime is a lot lower than in the UK. It's generally a lot safer. It's not about surveillance it's about mind set. They're taught in schools that it's not good to do that shit. They're also taught lots of other fucked up shit but I'll take that over being worried or intimidated by large groups or something like that.
More public lighting would be a good start. After school stuff as well. Education is a joke in Japan but it means children are always busy. Junior high/high school kids often take part in school clubs and really devote themselves and their energies into it. They don't have time to be wankers on street corners.
It's not like Japan has the answer but it has really brought into focus just how much I hate the things i hate about the UK. I'm not saying it's all bad but throwing cameras to tackle street crime isn't fixing it. It doesn't stop crime at all.
Theres bullshit about why people commit crime but the reason is because they're wankers with no morals. Yes some people are poor and have problems, but I can promise you 95% of the little shits out there mugging people are not doing it so they can pay rent or eat. They're doing it because they know they can.
GRR
[img]http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/deeaaaaaaad.jpg[/img]
I am all for surveillance, but in moderation.
For me the question is where does it stop?
For the past 50 odd years it seems that the government has attempted to seize any oppertunity to increase security measures, surveillance is all well and good but i have heard some farfetched stories.
For example (cant remember where i heard it, maybe some tv documentary) but i once heard that America was looking into adopting a scheme where they would insert a chip into you at Birth, and on this chips your entire records would be stored, from banking information to medical records and the chip would even work as a tracker.
In my opinion in the fucked up society that seems to be rampant over most of our country it seems that tight measures are needed, but there is a line i would stop at.
For me the question is where does it stop?
For the past 50 odd years it seems that the government has attempted to seize any oppertunity to increase security measures, surveillance is all well and good but i have heard some farfetched stories.
For example (cant remember where i heard it, maybe some tv documentary) but i once heard that America was looking into adopting a scheme where they would insert a chip into you at Birth, and on this chips your entire records would be stored, from banking information to medical records and the chip would even work as a tracker.
In my opinion in the fucked up society that seems to be rampant over most of our country it seems that tight measures are needed, but there is a line i would stop at.
Nixon wrote:Surveillance? Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have nothing to hide, nor care if I'm being watched 24/7, I think the cameras have made a positive difference.
- retard alert -
I'll debate it seriously later, too tired atm, but the "I have nothing to hide" attitude is retarded. And anyway, nothing except illegal downloads right Nix?
Serious question though Nix, have you ever read Brave New World or 1984? I'd be interested to see how they've affected your opinions if so.
Last edited by Calix on Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Superfast Oz
- Cardinal Chunder
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:23 pm
- Contact:
I have read both those Calix, good reads. 1984 in particular holds interesting similarities to modern society. Funnily enough though, I find the dystopia of Brave New World semi-appealing, at least in the respect that the ejection from the system is not a punishment at all, but still adequate in maintaining the norm.
They are far fetched however, it would be a ridiculous passage to ever reach either of those scenarios. That's my main complaint about this hype over too much surveillance; all the questions are mere rhetoric. I haven't seen these concerns articulated well at all, least not with any real world examples or relevance.
They are far fetched however, it would be a ridiculous passage to ever reach either of those scenarios. That's my main complaint about this hype over too much surveillance; all the questions are mere rhetoric. I haven't seen these concerns articulated well at all, least not with any real world examples or relevance.
Again without going into things too much, a good real world example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 52477.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 52477.html
Why does a local council have these abilities? An authority generally staffed by retards who can/will use any information gained against you or for their own ends.Figures released by councils under the Freedom of Information Act show that the telephone and email records of thousands of people have been accessed under the Act.
-
Superfast Oz
- Cardinal Chunder
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:23 pm
- Contact:
Interesting article Ingo. The most notable comment for me was the "if you scare them first" near the end of the article. This is what I touched on earlier, in that terror probably accounts for at least 75% of the premise for surveiilance. Ignoring the fact that terror is (ab)used in fearmongering tactics, it's worthwhile to note that genuine terror created by our own foreign policy is a significant, or dominant, provider for the justification of surveillance. It overrides everything else, and to debate this topic is to debate foreign policy.
Calix, I see where you're coming from, but that is not a real world example that actually demonstrates how an Orwell style transformation might occur. It's slightly barmy, but even the fact that you're linking it is suggestion enough that something more serious would never pass unscrutinised. The article seems naive to me also, in that it questions use after facilitation. If you're going to question use in matters like that, you have to question the path there first.
Calix, I see where you're coming from, but that is not a real world example that actually demonstrates how an Orwell style transformation might occur. It's slightly barmy, but even the fact that you're linking it is suggestion enough that something more serious would never pass unscrutinised. The article seems naive to me also, in that it questions use after facilitation. If you're going to question use in matters like that, you have to question the path there first.