yourmumsdomain.com

Superfast Oz wrote:but even the fact that you're linking it is suggestion enough that something more serious would never pass unscrutinised.

By who? There's no one actually monitoring this except pressure groups/civil liberty groups which have zero power and very little voice.

That's why this is such a big issue. Most people are prepared to accept the governments assertation that these measures are to prevent terrorism and major crime, even though there's plenty of evidence(as show above) that these new powers are already being placed in the hands of inappropriate people and misused.

Most people I talk to are like Nixon, haven't actually examined the issue at all, or have any clue regarding the ongoing process of curtailing and eroding our civil liberties. It's not just about CCTV cameras Nix. When you actually point out some of the powers the government has now given itself, the general reaction is "they can't do that can they?"

I think the problem in this country, especially in our generation, is that we've grown up in such a fair and democratic society, etc etc. That we seem to forget that we(well, previous generations) had to fight and die to give us the rights that we're now happily letting the government take away.

What do you think is the agenda though? Obviously the expense is ludicrous and surveillance is a bandage rather than a solution, but I fail to see what the actual purpose is. It's easy to say control and invasion etc, but in reality it doesn't just translate so simply. The government would be naive to think that increasing surveillance will naturally lend itself to more control, and I don't think that's a high priority anyway; at least not in comparison with resource control.

2nd post: I do mean unscrutinised by the people. I just don't buy that people will accept extended abuse. We can all sigh and roll our eyes about them spying on dogs shitting too much, but when it extends to something more intrusive, the British press is at least honest enough to bully that into submission. Part of the reason for that is that I don't believe surveillance is a priority for corporate media, or corporate government. The correct approach to tackle this issue is by ignoring it, and focusing on educating the Nixon's of the country on foreign policy. The results follow hand in hand.

The most threatening aspect of it is the principle that's used to purport the intrusion into public life, the idea that 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about'. Of course, this is not strictly true. I would not give up my right to commit a crime and to try and get away with it to eliminate crime altogether; and that right should be the right of any free human. Give me an imperfect free world over a false moral world any day.

It is also worth noting that the techniques used to implement the kind of laws which extend suspect questioning without charge are the techniques that have always been used in dictatorships to justify the reduction of civil liberty. They are implemented behind a philosophy of protecting the citizenship from terrorist attacks, the threat of which usually pales in insignificance next to the damage done to the basic principles of a free and democratic society. I am sure there are a lot of people working very hard to foil terror plots, but how many people were actually killed by Islamic fundamentalists last year, and how does that figure compare to the amount of people killed by knife and gun crime in London?

Imo the culture of surveillance is fundamentally flawed in that it is only remotely effective once a crime has already occurred. Instead of tackling the root causes of social problems it is just built to convict and punish criminals after the offence, by which point the shit's already gone down and you maybe have one party who is dead or paralysed and another who is going to prison for life. It is an effective tool for social revenge, but the money might better be used on national funding trying to reach and effect the maladjusted before any surveillance is neccessary. That way maybe they can have a chance at a decent life, too, and we might all feel safer. Then again, that is a much longer-term solution to a problem, whereas constant surveillance is a bandage that probably looks more appealling to the majority of people in this culture of instant gratification.

As usual Sonez wins. Couldn't have said it nearly as well or agree more.

On the subject of the CCTV camera's:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 609746.stm



lolz

Good post Sonez, the bandage analogy is correct as I mentioned previously. I'm still unsure about the objective of increasing surveillance though. Protecting us is blatantly not the idea, and monitoring or controlling us seems like it would be fairly fruitless. I've seen ideas about reducing dissent against government policy, but I can't believe that as most dissent is so ill advised that it's actually beneficial to government (9/11 truth etc).

Wait, people other than Jesus watch me wank?

Calix wrote:On the subject of the CCTV camera's:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 609746.stm



lolz

Lol that's pretty fucking funny man.

Nice post Sonez, and on the whole i agree, however....

Sonez wrote:I am sure there are a lot of people working very hard to foil plots, but how many people were actually killed by Islamic fundamentalists last year, and how does that figure compare to the amount of people killed by knife and gun crime in London?

The number of people killed by such ist actions is reduced massivly thanks to the surveillance employed by our intelligence services. The dangerous part is that we are starting to employ them in ever more intrusive ways and turning into a big brother state. I agree that the security and intelligence services should have access to all manner of surveillance methods, i've used some of them myself within my work, but local councils using it to garner information about our refuse bins is simply absurd.

Always interesting to see other peoples views on these kinds of subjects though, and for once it hasn't decended into insults etc.

Buster wrote:intelegance

oh god.. irony.. too... much... can't... cope

OMG I missed this thread entirely
Oh well, CBA to read it in full so I'll just summarise by saying -
The only people who need to fear surveillance cameras are criminals and right-wing Americans.

That is all.

Villa wrote:The only people who need to fear surveillance cameras are criminals and right-wing Americans.

fact

what

Also since when did surveillance just = cameras:(

The article is a slight overreaction brought on by sci-fi fuelled paranoia.

Just who are these people, these swelling legions of unelected, ill-qualified monitors who wield such extraordinary power in our surveillance society?

Unelected isn't really a good point, the police aren't elected and they have similar powers because they are trained and entrusted with them. Also the monitors and surveillance operators themselves have no special immunity or power, they just follow instructions.

It doesn't matter how many cameras they put in the streets, as the article said you can get away from them by wearing a hood and all a camera can do is have you watched - if you aren't doing anything suspicious it's inconsequential. As long as the insides of private properties are totally protected there are limits to how much we have to be worried, and there is no government that is going to risk the loss in popularity that kind of statutory change would bring, and no Commons or upper house that would sanction it.
The paranoia lurking in the back of everyones mind is this fantastical V for Vendetta style society waiting to happen; that's far-fetched and the state probably has that sort of power within its reach already.

If security and surveillance becomes so advanced the state can effortlessly tackle all kinds of crime - from murder and theft to littering and riding your bike on the pavement - there is going to be a larger problem. They are going to have to change a lot of the laws and maybe some constitutional elements to do so because we all commit minor crimes, even off-duty policemen.
Hopefully technology won't run ahead of common sense regarding natural human behaviour and the needs of society.

I preferred your posts before university corrupted you into a socialist.