Who's watching you? (2)
| 17:24 UK time, Wednesday, 20 May 2009
When I started with Richard Bilton on our new BBC Two series about surveillance (see previous post), I knew the often-quoted statistic that the UK has 4.2 million CCTV cameras (actually, this is a very rough guesstimate made in 2002), and I knew that we have one of the largest DNA databases in the world.
What I didn't know was how relaxed the British public has been about the collection of data and how pervasive surveillance has become.
The office of the Information Commissioner runs an opinion poll every year asking people to rank various social concerns such as crime, health, unemployment and the environment.
Last year, for the first time ever, the report [361Kb PDF] shows the protection of personal information ranked equal alongside concerns about crime. Three years previously [193Kb PDF], it ranked third.
The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, told us that he thinks that people have now "woken up to the implications" of increasing surveillance.
So maybe things are changing. But we already have a huge network of surveillance. The big change has been the growth of enormous databases which not only record masses of information but also allow it to be searched, linked and accessed by other systems. Increasingly, modern surveillance is general and not targeted.
Take the network of number plate recognition cameras spreading across the country: a system that reads everyone's journey and holds it for two years. Of course, this is aimed at criminals and terrorists, and it has an important function - but to get them, it holds records on all of us.
And it's not just the government that's watching us; business is too. Look at all those loyalty cards that we willingly use, which record everything we buy. And look at some of Google's latest features: Latitude - where, if you opt in, others can track your location based on your mobile phone - and Street View, which allows you to look in detail around cities, but which also filmed lots of people in places where they would rather not have been seen.
A surprising number of CCTV cameras are now provided online, openly and publicly. For the first time, we've started to put all those cameras on a clickable map of the UK. We want to build the map to show just how much is already available. So, if you spot a CCTV camera that has a public feed, please go to bbc.co.uk/whoswatchingyou and add it to the map.
This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. The official figures suggest that there are around 30,000 CCTV cameras operated by public authorities. Beyond that, there are hundreds of thousands - and almost certainly millions - of private CCTV cameras.
It's worth looking around to see all the unusual places where cameras have now been installed. We're also asking for your pictures of surveillance in the UK - where's the most unlikely camera?
Privacy seems to matter little until it's your privacy that's being invaded. Most of the time, surveillance is hidden and we're unaware and unconcerned about just how much there is.
Who's Watching You? delves into that secretive world to see just how much surveillance there is and what it means for all of us - and your contributions are appreciated.
Mike Rudin is series producer of Who's Watching You? and The Conspiracy Files. Who's Watching You? starts on Monday 25th May at 9pm on BBC Two and BBC iPlayer.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"What I didn't know was how relaxed the British public has been about the collection of data and how pervasive surveillance has become."
Count me out !! I HATE being watched all the time, and as the film 'Red Road' showed, CCTV is about as much use as a chocolate teapot in preventing crime, and certainly does NOT make me 'feel safer'.
Axe the cameras - now !
Complain about this comment
This website is very useful as well.
http://www.spychips.com/
Fight back !
Complain about this comment
This isn't a very good idea.
It is the security services Job to monitor things not us, by putting these details online, it is creating an effective breach of security as terrorists will begin to realize where security cameras are and where they are likely to be watched, I advise the BBC to remove this immediately for the sake of 'State security'
Complain about this comment
defenderofparliament
I really hope you're joking !
Less than a hundred people have died as a result of terrorism in Britain this decade, more people have died as a result of acquiring an infection in hospital this year alone.
The threat & risk posed to the British public from terrorism is negligible at best, it's about time our rights as individuals regained precedence over "state security".
CCTV doesn't prevent anything, it sometimes doesn't even help convict people as lots of it is of such a poor quality that it is inadmissible in court.
This is something I'd like the BBC to talk about more often !
Complain about this comment
#4
"...it is creating an effective breach of security as terrorists will begin to realize where..."
Oh come on, if a website or the public can find/workout were CCTV camera are then any terrorist will.
The terrorist threat is no greater now than it was in the 1970s or '80s when the IRA was active, the only difference is that now the terrorist is willing to die for the cause - don't even get me started on ID cards and the prevention of terrorism!
Complain about this comment
#5
Oops, I mean #3
The fourth comment didn't even exist on my screen when I made my comment! :~(
Complain about this comment
Yes I agree with you, but surely this is a breach of security?
Complain about this comment
There is a belief that when systems are in confrontation they become more like each other. The Soviet model is now the Western model and just in time to relate to the Chinese. As they always like to say "If you have nothing to hide what are you afraid of?" Scary times..caught between the terrorist and our own governments......feel like a serf with a bad harvest, taxes due and a war on the horizon and know I'll be told to defend the castle.
Complain about this comment
"We're also asking for your pictures of surveillance in the UK"
This ad encourages people to report people studying CCTV cameras to some terrorism hotline.
If people actually do what you are asking they may become a suspected terrorist, and with UK terrorism laws, that is a very unfortunate thing to be.
Complain about this comment
'Whine, whine.., you folks have an emergency number and operator is waiting.
It is as simple as that.
Whenever you're ready..,'
Complain about this comment
So we have elaborate databases filled to the brim with visual or encoded information about our movements, plus all the mistakes that the human and electronic operators can make along the way.... A few examples may suffice: DVLA not registering a change of vehicle ownership they have lost in transit; the DWP registering the "premature" death of someone who is still alive and kicking; an "ANPR" camera misreading a number plate because of a glint of reflected sunlight from another vehicle; a GPS failing to correct a misreading of several miles because of a software glitch.
Our political "servants" may indeed have become our "masters" and may indeed have reduced us to the role of little people who cannot be trusted but that is only because they cannot be trusted themselves.
#8 says it all - at the end of the day we are serfs. Hopefully most of us are above betraying our fellow "citizens" for a bag of silver.
Complain about this comment
WHO WATCHING YOU [HOW LONG ? ]
IN THE EARLY 70,S THERE WAS A BIG STOREY IN THE NEWS= BT WINS MASSIF CONTRACT TO SUPPLY TRERAN WITH A COMPLETE TELEPHONE SYSTEM WORTH MILLIONS,
WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU WAS EVERY CONVERSATION MADE WAS TRACEABLE TO THE POINT OF PHONE,WETHER HOUSE OR STREET CORNER,
THEN THEY CHANGED OUR PHONES TO NEW BRIGHT COULORFUL ONES,
BUT INSIDE THERE WERE CURCUIT BOARDS ,THE OLD STOREY THAT IT TOOK 3MINUETS TO TRACE A CALL WERE RUBBISH,
ANY MODERN PHONE CAN BE ACTIVATED TO ACT AS A RECIEVER TO LISTEN IN TO,
MAGGIE THATCHER SACKED ONE OF HER YOUNG HOPEFULS BECAUSE HE PHONED HIS GIRLFRIEND SAYING HE HAD TO WORK LATE BECAUSE OF THAT[&&&&&&7 OLD COW
ALL OF THIS IS CHECKABLE ,AND THEY ARE MORE PROFICIENT NOW.
OOBUCKSHOT
Complain about this comment
BUY A SAT NAV PAY WITH A CARD = TRACK BACK,PROGRAM IN HOME=TRACKBACK,
GO TO A DESTIATION=TRACKBACK,ON THE ROAD=SAME HOW LONG ,WHERE,WHAT ADDRESS,
POSTCODE ,THEY GOT IT ALL ,IF YOU BUY A CAR WITH A SATNAV IN IT ,DISCONECT IT ,THATS WHAT THE BAD GUYS DO,MOBI MANY IF NOT ALL PHONES HAVE GRPS = TRACAKBLE,OYSTER CARDS /PHONE CARDS/CREDIT CARDS ,ALL CAN BE TRACKED IN A MATTER OF MINUETS,
Complain about this comment
SEEN THOSE DARK BLUE LAMPOST LIKE CAMERAS= HI DEF IMAGE=NIGHT SIGHT,
WHY DO YOU GET PROSICUTED FO A DARK TINTED FRONT WINDOWS,BECAUSE THE CAMERAS CANT SEE YOU,YOUR COUCIL PAY FOR SATERLITE IMAGES WITH YOUR MONEY
TO CHECK IF YOU HAVE AN BUILT ANYTHING THEY CAN TAX ,
FACE RECOGNITION CAMERAS LINKED TO NUMBER PLATES /STEET CAMERAS/TRAINS/AIRPORTS/EVERYTHING,SO HOW COME THEY CANT FIND THE RIGHT BOMBER OR CRIMINAL ?
Complain about this comment
#12,#13,#14 OOBUCKSHOT...
I think you should have fitted a GPS to your caps-lock key as it seems to be missing-in-action.
Complain about this comment
This all started ironically in 1984 with the publication of a government paper entitled "Common Data Standards Across All Departments". The same year the Inland Revenue system was computerised using our NI numbers as the prime key for our tax records. From those, the authorities could build up a fair picture of most people - where they had lived, where they worked, what they earned, their health records, unemployment etc. If things had not moved on they'd still know who your bankers were and how much you saved etc., and probably a bit more if you belong to a leaky bank.
Then came the era of cameras and databases. But the European Snoopers Charter - the database that'll record the IPs of all your web browsings, your email and phone call details was first under dicussion in 2003. It raised concerns only recently when it hit national headlines. When set up, anyone with the barest credentials will have access to these data. Now, because of those "common data standards" they can pretty will link together anything they can see and hear as well as your personal data.
Point is, the platitude "If you've done nothing, you have nothing to worry about" is so ridiculously naive that anyone who believes that is plain dappy. It would only need some malign, totalitarian government to get in, start disliking certain classes of people and they might have a lot to worry about.
We should remember Germany in 1925 when Hitler was released from prison on the understanding that he would work to the Constitution...which he did. Millions of people there had nothing to worry about - what had they done wrong? Twenty years later they were dead.
All because of data mining.
So beware. The Labour government is already trying to enforce its view of normality. You may not like to fit in with their scheme....
Complain about this comment
It's not just privacy from the law - being watched by the authorities just in case I might possibly be doing something that is not strictly above board, but the fact that business also has these cameras installed in shops and stores, bars, car parks and office complexes, among other places.
It's not that I'm always up to no good, but what's good for one man might be bad for another, and for me, it comes down to who is watching, not what they're watching.
One common cause for false arrest is 'right place, wrong time' and although you might be proven innocent after the fact, the camera is more likely to catch people in these circumstances, just passing through, and then it is up to the innocent party to prove it, after having been inconvenienced by the electronic law enforcer.
Complain about this comment
#17 continued
Shouldn't forget of course the 'non visual' surveillance - like pretty much everything you do on a daily basis.
Get up in the morning and drive to work. Stop for petrol on the way, pay by credit card, use your Tesco Clubcard when you buy your lunch at the garage, use the ATM on the way out. Three transactions there to tell anyone who has access to the various systems that you were in that garage, at that time, and what you bought.
All day long, at work, logged onto your gmail, BBC blogs or whatever, your userID being linked to an IP address and broadcast for those who can view it.
On your way home, scanned by any number of CCTV cameras, Character Recognition Software, your location recorded and journey mapped. If you use Google Earth or maps and have your mobile mapped through GPRS, your entire day can be itineraried.
Maybe the opposite side to this is that any criminal that wants to avoid detection would be best placed to 'steal' someones identity, and then prove to the authorities that all they did that day was get up, go to Tesco, go to work, then go home again in the evening while putting your data in their place, dealing drugs, shoplifting, stealing cars, burgling houses and sitting pretty.
Complain about this comment
ref #16 - At 2:06pm on 21 May 2009, atrisse wrote:
Couldn't agree more
Like I said - it's not what they're watching, but who is doing the watching. Take it further, and ask why they're watching. What is being looked for now, is not necessarily what they'll be looking for in 5 years time, and all that archived data will be there to be trawled through, dug up, collated and then finally, used against those who were innocently going about their business at the time.
Scary - and it's not whinging - it's precaution - I hope
Complain about this comment
I've never understood the panic amongst the posters here about this one.
People walk down a city street. A hundred living people can see everything they do. No worry - it's a public place, you expect people to see what you do.
People walk down same city street. A dozen CCTV cameras can see them (council, shops, hidden in cashpoints etc). No living person ever looks at the overwhelming majority of the images. Big panic.
Why are you so worried about cameras in locations where no one - even in the middle ages - has ever had an expectation of privacy?
Get back to the real world guys. MI5 hasn't got enough people to watch all the people they already know are terrorists, let alone have people scrutinise the video of you buying a tin of beans last Friday on Chelmsford high street.
Complain about this comment
i understand very well the reasons behind the removal of dog excrement but where will this all end? I have owned dogs all my life and taught them to use rough ground to relieve themselves and only in a suitable place that is out of the way of pedestrians and especially children. Is this not being a responsible dog owner? Also walking them where they can do this before taking them into a public place or into a town environment (rare). Are there no responsible adults or parents to teach their children to avoid animal excrement?
Shouldn't we expect our councils to provide dog toilets in public areas, a lot cheaper than surveillance once installed and which is already the case in some towns in Europe?
All that said, my real concern is with regard to the bags often used by dog owners for the purposes of collecting their dog's excrement and also provided by some councils? In these days of recycling and the problems that plastic bags create for the environment, are these bags biodegradable? It is often the supermarket bags that are used and left behind too rather than disposed of properly. How on earth did most of us grow up healthy and indeed, my children too? Is this not just another example of the "nanny state", costing the tax payer unnecessary money? Dog excrement disappears naturally within a few days, a lot more quickly than a plastic bag!
Complain about this comment
This is a bit rich coming from the BBC.
They proudly claim to sit outside houses monitoring if you're receiving TV signals and have one of the largest databases: TV users in the UK, where they live, where they moved to, who's giving up a TV licence to move in with whom, who's registered blind etc. They need to collect all this data? No, they don't. But they collect it, keep it, process it and use it to find potential "offenders".
But that's just the start of it. To use this blog I had to provide the BBC with my email address, my date of birth, the school I went to etc. Far more than they need. All that talk at the sign-in pages about how you can change the data later is just that - talk. Once you're signed in there's no easy way to find and edit your profile. I spent the better part of 15 minutes trying.
Well done, BBC!
Complain about this comment
#20
Have you read any books on the human psyche and the bit about having a built in sense that someone (or in these days something) is watching you? That is the big difference. You cannot tell who is behind the machine but you can see a person is watching you whoever it is.
I do not mind someone staring at me because if it becomes offensive I can ask them what their problem is. But in the case of a CCTV who do you ask?
I was not placed on this earth to be a part of some huge database for the pleasure of some voyeur, or the fantasy life of some irksome nobody who likes looking at records. In summary I do not want somebody trying to piece together my life - if they want to know something then they can ask me and then if it is none of their business I can tell them so.
Complain about this comment
20. At 4:13pm on 21 May 2009, jon112uk wrote:
I've never understood the panic amongst the posters here about this one.
Jon, I wouldn't call it panic, but rather justified concern about the privacy of data. To use your analogy, walking down the street is not really the same thing. People seeing you coming and going are mostly taking no notice, but even if they do, they need a damn good reason for watching you - otherwise it is stalking, or spying, or just plain nosey.
Most people don't have photographic memories linked to a database where hundreds or thousands of facts can be collated, cross-referenced, and held in perpetuity until they decide to use it against us. I think that you need to draw a distinction between people going about their business and being seen, and people going about their business and being RECORDED.
Complain about this comment
24. At 5:52pm on 21 May 2009, SHLA2UK wrote:
... To use your analogy, walking down the street is not really the same thing. People seeing you coming and going are mostly taking no notice, but even if they do, they need a damn good reason for watching you - otherwise it is stalking, or spying, or just plain nosey....I think that you need to draw a distinction between people going about their business and being seen, and people going about their business and being RECORDED.
------------------
Hi.
I used to work somewhere with lot's of CCTV.
We had 28 VHS cassettes for each recorder, lined up on a shelf. Each night at 2.00am one of the security guys pulled out that day's tape, put it on the shelf in order and put the next tape off the shelf in the machine. When they got to tape 28, they started at tape one again. (A 3 hour tape lasts 24hrs because it doesn't record every frame of the video. 28 tapes is good, a lot of places only have 7 or even 1)
Thats what's happening to most CCTV. There can't be more than single figures percent of it ever being watched by someone.
(A lot of the better systems are digital now, recording on hard drives, but the same thing is happening as the hard drive fills up)
To me it's an issue of whether I have an expectation of privacy. If they wanted to put a CCTV camera in the bottom of my toilet I would kick off, even though I'm not 'doing anything wrong' in my toilet pan. It's the expectation of privacy that does it for me. On a public street I don't expect to be private.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mike,
So this is where you are hiding out...
@20, jon112uk,
I can't let this question go...
"Get back to the real world guys. MI5 hasn't got enough people to watch all the people they already know are terrorists"
Well, firstly. Can you trust these secret organisations? If you check Mike's other blogs legitimate questions on 9/11 go unanswered. Check out message 2998 (I'm not kidding!) which lists dozens of high ranking intelligence officers questioning 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission Report. (That is, if the provable science of maths (freefall of WTC7), physics (Netwon's laws of motion) and Chemistry (exotic explosives found in the dust) does not convince).
Secondly, have you not heard of facial recognition software which automatically scans faces from cctv and matches them? Or automatic speaker and voice recognition which automatically recognises the speaker and translates conversations into text searchable by computer. The automatic collection of every email and its analysis... This technology and databases already exist. Or the airport scanners that sees through clothes and allows anybody to walk through it to be subject to a literal strip search! (As reported by the bbc). Where is the balance between security and civil liberties?
Sure there are bad guys out that need to be controlled... terrorists, drug dealers, criminals of all shades... but surely the real bad guys are the people that create provable false flag events such as 9/11 to create the conditions of war or wreck the financial system for their own gain or those that cover up these abuses.
Complain about this comment
I thought George Owell solved all of this in 1984: The Novel. He wrote what would happen. He even divided up the world as it looks now. He even predicted that the dollar would replace the pound sterling. So why is this question of "Who is watching you?" even being discussed?
Complain about this comment
there>
The man who beat Big Brother Britain: Police told they can't keep pictures of arms trade activist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1185588/The-man-beat-Big-Brother-Britain-Police-told-pictures-arms-trade-activist.html
Cheers, as well as kudos, for such solid and sound judgement.
Complain about this comment
#25
In the latter decades of the 20th Century CCTV was seen as a minimal security measure in "high risk" public offices for example. As someone who serviced those machines I can tell you that the tape replacement was woefully inconsistent (some machines had unreported jammed cassettes) and that the quality of the images (even on highest resolution and frequency of images) woefully inadequate to identify a culprit or stand up in court. At best they were used as a deterrent as in "These Premises use CCTV". It was cheaper than providing adequate security presence. The posting at 16 gives a very good explanation as to how we moved from limited CCTV use to the present glut.
The step from CCTV on selected premises to overkill coverage in public areas as a cheaper option to providing adequate policing is attractive to politicians of most current colours (we do not have a "red" party any more). We also have a careerist police force matching our careerist politicians and no one really wants to be at the sharp end of public contact when there are "easier" options. "Just the targets" as an update to Joe Friday's "Just the facts".
There is a healthy balance between what the state needs to know and what the public have a right to exclude from that. Unfortunately the balance shifted far too far towards what the state wants almost three decades ago.
Complain about this comment
RF ID CARDS ?
when we go over to id cards will they have rf transmission ?,you know the ones they look like a square barcodes shops stick them onto expensive items
and when you walk through a detecter alarms go off,these little tags can tell you what the item is,if fitted into a card you could walk into a building and the security would know what when and who it is,
this technololgy is used in the states and it controls your working enviroment[lights/temp /ect the technoligy is good but as useual its the application that is questionable,
place a card between 2 stong magnets and all the info is wiped.
grps on cap locks off goes to prove someone watching you
Complain about this comment
I would support the proliferation of CCTV cameras if they actually did what they were supposed to do and prevent or reduce crime. They haven't. What they do do is manage to catch normally law-abiding people and prosecute them. You know, the ones who have properly registered cars, mobile phones and fixed addresses. They are nice and easy to catch! Real criminals are much less obliging. They have false number plates, unregistered phones, don't publish their addresses and wear hoodies to disguise their faces. In the face of such criminal genius, PC Plod seems increasingly ineffective. Sure, they can arrest somebody when they are given their name and address on a piece of paper, but otherwise don't expect a crime to be solved. My worry is that we are becoming so reliant on criminals leaving a nice easy set of electronic footprints to follow, that we can't or don't bother with those who don't. In doing so we risk clogging our law system with low-grade offenders leaving the real criminals to get on with business as usual.
Complain about this comment
26. At 9:21pm on 21 May 2009, ynda20
Hello again.
MI5 (etc) watching us all?
They don't have enough people that if they know someone is linked with terrorists, they have a photo of him and they know where he lives they can watch that person.
Why would they expend tens of man hours to find me on hundreds of video tapes to follow me in a shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon? Why would one of them even spend 30 seconds reading one of my emails? - even if I printed the email out and sent it them by post?
If your home/shop/petrol station is subject to theft/damage and you hand the police a video tape you will be lucky if any of them will be bothered to spend time playing back.
The biggest danger with this mass of data - noted post 9/11 - is that it is impossible for them to even evaluate all the important stuff, let alone waste time watching me.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re/ lippy lippo
you are right the criminals are getting away with it ,or they were till the expences came to light now we know who they are!
Complain about this comment
@26. Hello again jon112uk
You said "MI5 (etc) watching us all?"
No. They target people based on various forms of intelligence such as Suspicous Activity Reports provided by the banks or passports or facial recognition of people entering the country at airports or from other intelligence agents. They don't watch us "all" but they have the capacity to select anybody. Where is the scrutiny of the intelligence agencies? MPs? What do you make of the Guardian report that MI6 conspired to leak the MP expense claims?
You said "They don't have enough people that if they know someone is linked with terrorists, they have a photo of him and they know where he lives they can watch that person."
They have somewhat more than a photo. More than that was described in SPYCATCHER and that was virtually all before the introduction of cheap technology.
You said "The biggest danger with this mass of data - noted post 9/11 - is that it is impossible for them to even evaluate all the important stuff, let alone waste time watching me."
As I pointed out: can we trust these secret organisations when questions on 9/11 and 7/7 go unanswered or MI5 pressurizing Muslims to work for them (as reported in the independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-secretary-was-warned-of-mi5s-blackmailing-of-muslims-1689212.html)
or suspension of Habeus Corpus for terror suspects, or torture of terrorist suspects, extraordinary rendition etc - you can point out that the US does most of this, but the UK are complicit!
When will you feel the Police State has gone too far? By the time they get to knock on your door, (because you've been falsely accused by a jealous neighbour perhaps), it may be a bit late, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
35. At 1:14pm on 22 May 2009, ynda20
Sorry ynda, it all sounds like a bit of weakly linked plot to me (again).
Sticking to the original point....
MI5 are openly admitting that there are people they believe to be terrorists and they do not have enough people to watch all of them. That is, on their figures, ~ 1000 suspects in the UK. (Presumably some would claim those are inflated figures)
How on earth can an organisation that can't properly watch 1000 people be watching 60+ million?
And why would they want to watch Mrs Smith from Cheltenham buying fishfingers in Tesco, when they don't have enough people to watch Sidiqe-Khan building a bomb in Bradford?
Complain about this comment
@36, Hi jon112uk
Ok, let's try sticking to original point: MI5's claim that they cannot watch 1000 suspects. If you are discussing on the ground agents watching then I agree, it is doubtful that they could watch any more than that with agents on the ground.
I agree that they are not watching 60million except from intelligent alerts: banks and passport details. The 4million CCTV cameras are probably not a great deal of use to them.
The cctv watching Mrs Smith from Cheltenham in Tescos is probably making sure she is not shop lifting.
With regards to Sidique Khan, I refer to wikipedia :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Sidique_Khan
...the NSA had been monitoring phone calls and emails between Khan and several Islamic radicals from the United States and England, including Ahmed Omar Abu Ali.
...According to David Leppard in The Sunday Times, Khan was assessed by MI5 in 2004, after his name appeared during an investigation into a plan to detonate a 600-lb truck bomb in London.
U.S. intelligence officials have said that Khan was known to Mohammed Junaid Babar, who has pleaded guilty in the U.S. to providing material support to al-Qaeda. ...
On 18 July 2005, the Pakistani government released video footage of Khan arriving at Karachi airport on 19 November 2004 ...
Looks like to me they had the guy under surveillance. Now the question is how did MI5 prioritise their agents on which targets to watch? How can we trust MI5 was doing the right thing? Never let a good crisis go to waste (in order to get the budgets we want) and if there isn't one at the moment, let's just let one happen. How do you square the information on wikipedia against the first claims that none of the bombers were known to the Intelligence services?
I may have a weakly link plot but how do you know we can trust what the Intelligence Services are saying?
To digress a little from the point...
Please compare against what is happening in the staes. Pelosi claims the CIA lied to her:
Pelosi says CIA lied on 'torture'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8050930.stm
Meanwhile Senator Bob Graham is saying the CIA lied too!
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/senator-bob-graham-the-cia-made-up-two-briefing-sessions/
They lied about torture, they destroyed interrogation tapes illegally, they tortured (which as far as I'm concerned is even worse than lying about it!)
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a03070403ksmpoland&scale=0#
By the way, how is the proof for the official story of 9/11 coming along? Especially now the main evidence for it seems to have been extracted by torture... Because the questions keep on mounting for my weakly linked plot on 9/11 including scientific peer-reviewed paper on nano-thermite being found in independently collected dust samples at ground zero, NIST WTC7 report being slammed because they couldn't calculate freefall etc, etc?
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk - you've missed the point entirely - no, no one is interested in Mrs Smith buying fish fingers in Tesco.
But what if, for the sake of argument Mrs Smith was a member of the Womens Institute, and they were campaigning against the goverment of the time about something? What if the government wanted to declare the Womens Institue a terroist organisation for opposing it? What if you are a friend or a 'known associate' of this evil Mrs Smith?
What you are doing might be innocent now, but things change very very quickly. Just because the Government delares Mrs Smith to be a terrorist for being a member of the WI will you still be her friend?
By the sound of things you will probably agree that she is a terrorist and start informing on her!
Complain about this comment
#30 OOBUCKSHOT...
"...square barcodes shops stick onto expensive items..."
These are *not* true IC based RF ID tags but *magnetic resonance strips* that are disabled with a strong static magnetic field. They contain *no information* about the product they are attatched to, unlike true RF ID tags.
I am not saying that RF ID won't be used on shop items in the future (and certainly ID cards) but currently the cost prohibits the net gains.
Complain about this comment
37. At 3:13pm on 22 May 2009, ynda20
The info about sidiqe-khan is just what I'm getting at. Even with significant reason to suspect someone they don't have the people to do everything they want to do. I'm sure they would have loved to have a full (~30 people) surveillance team on him. They are forced to prioritise, and they get it wrong.
Staying on the CCTV, I just can't imagine the tasking meeting at MI5 where they say...
'should we target this bloke who has been to a training camp and keeps buying hair bleach OR this one who has connections with the last bombers and keeps sending encrypted emails to pakistan ... no let's watch lots of video of Mrs Smith buying fishfingers'
38. willingdrone - still can't see it even if Mrs Smith is campaigning against the next windfarm or whatever.
Personally, I think the big scandal about CCTV is that for the great majority of it no one will ever watch it and what a huge waste of money it is.
Complain about this comment
#32
Have you forgotten Jean Charles de Menezes already? Not only did the police have a photograph and a name of the suspect they had intelligence on how the "bombs" were to be detonated. This isn't about watching it is about politicians and their masters claiming they can make us all safe by making us fear our freedom.
It is a negative and completely fallacious argument about what stops people doing bad things - for most people that means treating them like adults and respecting them, not like fish in a goldfish bowl.
Complain about this comment
I don't see what all the fuss is about?
Are you all paranoid?
Who the hell is interested in watching you, if you've got nothing to hide?
Complain about this comment
You know, considering that the government is supposed to work FOR the people, and they are paid BY the people, if the government can put up cameras everywhere and snoop on the people then the people should put up cameras in elected officials offices and be allowed to view their correspondence and listen in to their phone conversations.
After all they work for us, not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
#42
"...got nothing to hide?..."
I'am sure the Jews in the 1940's had "nothing to hide" but they hid, and can you blame them?
Suffering from paranioa? You bet with this Labour government and our "dear leaders" in the EU. I would not only like to hide but disappear completely off their radar.
Have I got somthing to hide? Yes I have. It's called *Freedom*.
Corny? Perhaps, but unfortunatley true. Maybe the verb "hide" should be changed to "protect" when discussing such paramount issues as our personal freedom?
"If you've nothing to protect you've nothing to fear" anyone??
Complain about this comment
I was surprised to learn that for 10 pounds and some form filling your local police force not only have to provide details of past convictions/cautions etc but also details of all the times you have been caught on cctv footage that is controlled by the local police and council.
Complain about this comment
@40. Hi jon112uk
You wrote "The info about sidiqe-khan is just what I'm getting at. Even with significant reason to suspect someone they don't have the people to do everything they want to do. I'm sure they would have loved to have a full (~30 people) surveillance team on him. They are forced to prioritise, and they get it wrong."
I would agree with all you have said there except that you believe that MI5 is telling you the truth. And perhaps they are!!! But as we have seen from MP expenses, CIA lying and performing multiple ILLEGAL activities (our intelligence agencies have a "special relationship" with the USA's, the huge amount of money spent by government misinformation campaigns (known as PysOps) and the fact we cannot get at the truth of 9/11 or 7/7 etc... then we have to be deeply skeptical about such statements.
If we view that our government may be relatively benign, suppose something darker took its place. At what point would we find we have already lost all our liberties?
I also agree that MI5 does not review all 4.2m CTTV cameras. But the technology is available to Automatically scan and identify anybody and everbody in view of a camera. So its a relatively small step for every person to be tracked from the moment they leave their house, get into a car and go wherever.
It'll be even easier when we're all RFID chipped!
Where do you draw the line, jon?
Complain about this comment
OOBUCKSHOT THE REWRITE
I have had to rewrite this as i got a notice on it ,
In the 80,s i worked on a van that was being driven by an irish person
the result of this was,my application for the renewal of a licence
for a particular piece of sporting equipment was subject to a delay ,
after a lot of calls to the police i was told [you are under investigation]
this resulted in my phone being tapped ,being followed/ filmed,as it turned out the police recovered what they wanted to get,[CENSORED]
as i was an inocent bystander my licence was renewed and my phone went
back to normality,and i was not folowed,
the right of this
yes there was inconvenience and agrovation but i think they were right
in all of it , as the gain was far greater than some agro /loss of civil
right,s /whatever,that i got.
this is a watered down version the beeb censored my first version,
bit like what we all are all writing about [WHO IS WATCHING YOU ]
Complain about this comment
46. ynda20
On CCTV I would draw the line if they want to put it somewhere I would expect to be private. Broadly: public street = OK, pointing into (or hidden in) my house = not OK.
They can infringe on that principle if they have reasonable cause to think I am up to some kind of crime and some kind of judge authorises it.
Complain about this comment
@48,
Hi jon, again I would agree with you that would be fine by me too - I'm a pretty clean living person with nothing to hide. But is that applicable to everybody in society? what about people in an extramartial affair, or is secretly homosexual or other habit that while not illegal isn't something they want to brag about. I'm a Liberal Democrat but I keep quiet about it! ;-)
With cctv with facial recognition, car number plate recognition and telephone intercepts, such secrets could be made easily uncovered and made available to Big Brother. And they could - like the Muslims reported to be pressured to work for MI5 - pressure you to become an informant or in other ways make you a pawn in their games. Have you read Spycatcher, btw?
Complain about this comment
@48,
What about the scanners at airports which uses radar to see through clothes and routinely provide an image of you naked - a complete strip search of yourself, your wife and children everytime you walk through them? Are you happy about that?
Complain about this comment
reading the majority of comments on here it would appear at long last the UK public are waking up to the implications of the state "looking after" them. This along with the threat of ID cards was the reason I left the place and changed my nationality. The principal that anyone who wants to police or spy on other people has a basic personality flaw and is precisely the type of person that should be excluded from having all this information and the platitude "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" is frankly outrageous. As previous posts suggest, no one knows what the colour of a particular government will be in years to come, once the data is there it will be there for ever, this technology would have been manner from heaven for the Nazi regime of the 30's and 40's
Complain about this comment
49. ynda20
Same logic...if I thought an activity or location should be private then I would expect some sort of proper procedure to CCTV it.
Example: if the liberal democrats have a conference the TV is there.. by all means put it CCTV as well. If they hold a meeting of the national executive committee to plot their strategy for the next election then I think they should expect that to be private: if MI5 reckons they are plotting a revolution and want to install a covert camera, then let them convince a judge first.
Backscatter X-ray gives a pretty lousy nude girlie pic. I can't see it catching on as porn. The next generation will have this altered to make it even more like a cartoon - operators only need to see the gun and roughly where it is, they don't need to be able to read the serial number. If it's a problem: have two aisles: one male (male operator) one female (female operator), just like they do for rub down searches.
Complain about this comment
@52,
We're almost on the same page but not quite.
Do MI5 go to a judge? I don't think so. The police do but not MI5. Have you read Spycatcher?
These scanners we're talking about are first generation - don't you think they'll get better images over time? Your assumption that they'll worry about guard gender is I must say nice but rather at odds with commercial pressures.
Complain about this comment
I suppose any comment on a question like this will always lead those who "support the Government agenda", either left or right, to cry "conspiracy nonsense!". I wonder if the brave men of the Great War, as they danced with their girl-friends in the early summer of 1914, thought so. Nothing changes. People are scared of the truth.
On that depressing thought I would like to quote from the great late Sir Osbert Sitwell's autobiography "Left Hand, Right Hand!". I have used it out of its original context, but it demonstrates beautifuly the general stupidity of both followers and leaders alike.
..."A robust old country-neighbour,one of the last of the squires, was heard during a severe thunderstorm thus to address his faithful and ageing servant:'Alec, you damm fool, don't stand about there, doing nothing! Climb up the lightning-conductor, can't you, and see if it's working!'".From Noble Essences by Sir Osbert Sitwell.
Who do you trust?
Complain about this comment
What the hell do you expect from bolsheviks? Isn't this why this gang of criminals that claims to be a government have kept the last 12 years kids utterly stupid and uneducated. Where was the last government that closed down the department of education, and replaced it with a large dose of utter balls?
Complain about this comment
A surveillance grid, largely unnoticed by the majority of British Citizens, is about to come on line and be fully functioning in a matter of months. It has already been used to suppress peaceful protest.
Thousands of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras are already operating on Britain's roads...
The police themselves say they have nothing to hide and would welcome the introduction of a regulatory code. But that seems some way off - and for now this secretive system continues to watch us and continues to grow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm
Complain about this comment
#55 RadioRogerL...
I agree 100%. But perhaps the Bolsheviks are looking a 'tad' right-wing these days with the advanced social engineering this Labour Government is capable of!!
A recent poll suggests that 54% of the good people of this country want a general election.
I say the other 46% need an election for thier own good! Are they the ones that are blindly climbing the 'political lightning rod' and when it does finally get struck will they blame their masters for the catastrophe? I doubt it.
This country is in a right mess!
Complain about this comment
SURCURITY IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
But this is a 2way street, they put something into opperation someone finds
away around it,= numberplate recognition relies on a clear reflection ,but then someone came up with another application of a certain product that makes number plates inisable to a camera ,at least the ones in the cars maybe even the 3rd generation one,s ,
the police faced with loss of revenue and more importantly the fact that it trips out a security tracking consulted the gov,they did not ban it,but
and it is an offence to use it on a number plate,
if mi5 did not want to be auto tracked by cameras on a route they would use it, TIME LINE ,is the key here [the camera needs to see it to time line it ] ,
in germany hgv trucks used country roads to avoid toll charges on the autobahns the govs answer to this loss off revenue was to track these vehicles by satalite ,= the govs data base, equivilent of dvla,
are programed into the system and then the satalite goes to work
it tracks the vehicle ,then the police issue the fine.
number plate recognition [NPR] linked to a satalite program with grps
is a very effectiv system,along with phone track ,face recognition/voice patten [vpr] not to mention [face book]
they are turning the screw,
Complain about this comment
53. ynda20
Intrusive covert surveillance (eg. covert CCTV in your house, installed by a break-in or fully fledged phone bugging, not just list of the numbers called) is authorised by the secretary of state.
Strangely enough I have had direct contact with this process and was more surprised by the difficulty of getting permission for what (I thought) was a serious matter, rather than the civil liberties side of it.
Personally I would prefer it to be a judge, but the same principle would apply. Public place = so what. Expectation of privacy = justify it. Whoever authorised it, it would still be covert of course.
Complain about this comment
Am I right in thinking the CCTV surveillance in the Uk really took off under New Labour in 1997? Its seems that when people complain about the incredible increase in surveillance the stock answer is that it is there for national security purposes to help track down terrorists. I wonder just how many terrorists there are in the UK at any one time compared with the number of cameras? one for every 100,000, or more. Also just how many terrorists have been tracked down using this equipment?
I think the real purpose of the cctv network is the result of an New Labour dogma and its obsession with central control over all aspects of our lives. As pointed out above it does not seem to prevent terrorism. It like the claim that speed cameras stop speeding. The only winners in all this are the manufacturers of the cctv equipment.
It would be interesting to find out just how many public servants have interests in these companies?
Complain about this comment
@59. jon112uk
You wrote "Intrusive covert surveillance (eg. covert CCTV in your house, installed by a break-in or fully fledged phone bugging, not just list of the numbers called) is authorised by the secretary of state."
Indeed. So not by a judge.
You wrote "Strangely enough I have had direct contact with this process and was more surprised by the difficulty of getting permission for what (I thought) was a serious matter, rather than the civil liberties side of it."
Well if you are involved in the process surveillance you are not really a dis-interested party on the subject, surely! I don't think you have balanced the civil liberties side at all - you may be just interested in getting the bad guys (not a bad thing, by the way).
Have you read Spycatcher?
Complain about this comment
61. ynda20
I'll be quite open in saying I think it should be authorised by a judge of some kind - like for a search warrant - not a politician. That would both protect against political interest and would probably be quicker and easier than the current system when it was really needed.
The case I was involved with, the phone surveillance was not allowed, even though it would almost certainly have caught a moderately serious criminal (drugs). Personally I thought it should have been allowed, so the current system is by no means a walk over.
I still hold with my original point: CCTV in public = yawn. CCTV where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy = needs justifying and authorising.
(I haven't read spycatcher, but I am aware of the allegations in it)
Complain about this comment
@62
I agree a judge should authorise such warrants and also I agree that targetted surveillance like you wanted should have been allowed. I don't want criminals on the street either! The policy and procedures in this area is inconsistent and a mess neither satisfying crime fighting or civil liberties. We need a "bill of rights", clear methods and rights of appeal or redress when the rules have been abused.
The CCTV yawn - I would agree - if the current technology is used. However this is he first step to a technology which could automatically identify individuals and track them in a database. This would also be great if tracking REAL criminals but as I mentioned in 49 it is open to abuse.
I do recommend Spycatcher - don't be put off by the Hollis-is-a-spy hubris around the book - it is the methods, procedures and game playing between MI5/MI6 and the US agencies that Peter Wright captures so interestingly. With your background I'm sure you'd find it an interesting read.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Crap camerawork. Was this all shot using a surveillance camera operated by a chimp?
Complain about this comment
I do hope that this program mentions all the people like me whose lives are being ruined by the surveillance. I strongly object to being filmed or placed under any form of surveillance without there being a strong evidence that I am committing a crime. Buses and trains film me so I do not use them. I rarely drive any more because of the cameras. I avoid town centres and anywhere else where I know there are cameras. I keep my curtains closed because of the cameras on the exterior of buses which film the front of my house and I can no longer enter of leave without checking to see if the coast is clear. These cameras have destroyed my life without any justification. I hate them! I do not understand how anyone can feel safe under this grotesque surveillance. I do not fear crime or terrorists but I do fear the police and the state. It is time for a rebellion. I want my freedom back!
Complain about this comment
The impact of an obviously well-researched programme was obliterated by appalling direction and camerwork. Each interviewee was treated with shots that were routinely zoomed, adjusted in focus (in, out, in). There were erratic camera movements and all this was intersperced with tacky, grainy pseudo-CCTV images. It made the programme unwatchable. We turned over before the end. This type of camerwork simply does not work.
Complain about this comment
I just saw part 1 and honestly can't believe that was just a single episode of a series. There was a huge amount to digest and an amazing scope for one programme.
Firstly congratulations to all involved and thank you, Richard, for delivering the facts with such clarity and personality.
I would hope that this balance of clear explanation - without talking down to the viewer - is exactly what the BBC considers to be model journalistic pitching for primetime audiences. I am very pleased there were no tacky metaphors for statistics or signs of a shortage of subject data.
The amount of production involved was clearly huge and the effort doesn't go unnoticed!
I hope this will pick up plenty of iPlayer views over the coming days.
Complain about this comment
Kilostan #22.
hear, hear. well said.
and now they're adding a silly mechanism to some debates where one has to identify one's location in order to post.
a big part of the problem, IMO, corporates amassing data, seemingly, for the sake of it.
Complain about this comment
Fascinating first of three programmes about UK surveillance, but you hardly scratched the surface of what really happens in the UK. Your presenter ended the programme with "Except for these drones, I haven't seen any evidence of Big Brother."
It is currently far worse than George Orwell or anyone today imagine which is why there is the disposition to deny its existence which serves the interest of those carrying it out. They can do as they please, and nothing a surveillance target says will make any difference. In fact, everyone would rather blame the victim at present such is the resistance.
I've been subject to surveillance technology abuse for almost eleven years 24/7/365 since August 1998 under the operational control of those whom I reported for their child abuse in May 1998. Participants include others from the police, NHS, local and central governments including elected officials, the general public, tenant management and agents of the US government who are supplying this most sophisticated surveillance technology.
I call it Son of Tempest capable of totally invading personal privacy and tracking the target wherever and whenever with minimum people. It is also used to totally monitor and control computer technology without any wired links. The social control and torture interrogation aspects are complete with verbal abuse feedback carried out continuously by the electromagnetic transmission of sound which the US Army calls Sound-to-Skull (S2K).
The evidence is there for you to find if you look for it. You can intercept these feedback transmissions to the target, but if they only use the monitoring intercept aspect, then it cannot be detected. Think of the human being turned into a surveillance instrument, and you will begin to understand what can be done.
The UK is a secret police torture state which I've been experiencing directly for almost eleven years 24/7/365 since August 1998. And, the Mental Health Act is used to help silence the accurate reporting of what is actually happening. The UK is now the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union.
Complain about this comment
I'm not really adverse to dodgy security services reading all my email and listening to my phone calls using the systems that I know they already have. However this socialist government would like to give my town hall access to the same data so that they can pursue their policies of social engineering. I strongly object to systems of state security being used by people with political agendas to seek out and destroy their opposition.
Complain about this comment
The Big Brother Communications Corporation ought to consider the following...
There seems to be a pattern of state sponsored behavior of luring stupid and/or vulnerable people (drug addicts, petty criminals) into "terrorist" plots which then can be promoted on prime time TV as a major terrorist bust!
This is as bad as anything that Orwell imagined...
a) The Miami Herald ponders the 3rd retrial of potential terrorist plotters...
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/10566 84.html
b) Worst Fake Terror Plot ever
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/worst_fake_terr.html
c) The Sunday Times headline sums it up entirely - "FBI lured dimwits into terrorist plot".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article635 0389.ece
All enabled by government surveillance to make us feel "safer"(!?)
Complain about this comment
the bbc and information
There seems to a few people who comment on what the bbc do with their information and why they cant access their profile,
Its not rocket science ,any application to any website requests all of this and more,but in the case of the bbc when the cold war was on in the 60,s a person i knew worked as a vehicle technition for the gov ,
one job he had to do was to work on a coach and conceal a [as then ]hi def
camera in the coach ,to film eastern block aircraft at an air base in slovac country,the trip organised through the bbc as part of some culture gig,the driver was given a routeclose to an airbase [that was a resticted area ,they were caught with the survailance the inocent passengers were free to go but the driver was detained[my friend did not know what happened to him ]
the thing here is the bbc is massivly funded by the gov no one knows where [all the money goes] we have an organization here that goes all over the world for the news + culture + wars the whole gambit,
Its not so much how you get the information [ITS WHAT YOU DO WITH IT]
A lot of life has been saved because of info ,the downside is govs use it for darker purpose/councils use it to screw more money out of you,
the police will and do use it agaist you.
Complain about this comment
I think that the LookC surveillance of a nursery raised a couple of interesting points. Firstly the only reason anyone would want to have sixteen cameras monitoring a small building with children in it is that they believe there are paedophiles hiding behind every blade of grass. Secondly they ought to have known better than to trust a promise of "absolute security." There is no such thing on the net. They should have accepted that the images were being sent in an insecure way: that although only a few people were interested in seeing the images, anyone who wanted to see them would be able to look. Thirdly I can't believe that a nursery or a playgroup could have nothing better to spend their money on than sixteen (16) CCTV cameras. What _are_ they frightened of?
Complain about this comment
kenjohnson
"Thirdly I can't believe that a nursery or a playgroup could have nothing better to spend their money on than sixteen (16) CCTV cameras. What _are_ they frightened of?"
Probably prosecution from one of the horde of over-protective parents, you know the sort, they're happy to dump their children with strangers all day but then complain when they scratch their knee playing. All in the hope of getting some no-win, no-fee "compensation".
This is another big reason we're seeing an increase in private CCTV being installed, these days no-one accepts that accidents happen and insist on suing for compensation, if you haven't got CCTV footage of yourself then how do you defend yourself against these vultures ?
Like many others, I like to criticise this government for the surveillance-state we find ourselves in but more than that I blame the cretins in our country who support & incite them to carry out such actions. I swear that Im going to scream the next time I hear someone say what if it was your child that got hurt or one of the other catch all clichés that are used to defend such intrusions into our private lives.
Its time for a lot of people in our country to grow a pair, life is risky, get over it !
Complain about this comment
to Secretariat (currently 75):
Are the pictures from the cameras recorded? The programme only said that they were narrowcast on the internet. You don't need to narrowcast the pictures if the purpose of the pictures is to record that Johnny fell over by accident, Sebastian kicked Marmaduke etc. The purpose of narrowcasting the pictures appears to be reassuring the parents (who, as you say, can't be bothered caring for their children at home and pay someone else to do it) that no paedophiles, axe murderers, rampaging gunmen or any of the other monsters from telly-land have appeared in the building to rend little Tarquin and Pollyanna limb from limb.
What do they do on fine days? Do they take portable CCTV cameras with them when they go outside to play football, or do they stay indoors where the monsters can't get to them?
Complain about this comment
kenjohnson
I think you may have found one of the main reasons why we're becoming so obsessed with risk as well as condemning our children to a life of obesity & boredom.
Everyone seems to believe everything they read in the papers or see on the news is happening everwhere, people seem to have forgotten that when things appear on the news it's because it is a rare event.
Children are now locked up in classrooms and bedrooms because their parents are convinced that they'll be killed, raped or assaulted everytime they step outside.
When I was growing up in the 80s (not that long ago!) the children on our estate would regularly go for bike rides to the beach or park during the summer holidays, our parents trusted us and they trusted that the older children would keep an eye on us. I doubt many parents from that estate allow their children to go so far without adult supervision these days.
The crazy thing is that children are no more at risk today than we were 20 years ago, there's no more peadophiles, rapists or murderers now than there was then. if anything, they're far safer than we were and certainly far safer than my grandparents generation who would play in bombed out buildings during the Blitz.
I wish I had an answer to these problems but unfortunately it seems to have become a part of our national psyche, so many people seem to live their lives obsessed with fear and are unable to see the dangers of wrapping everyone up in cotton wool.
Complain about this comment
Not been online all weekend, and still need to watch the program - hope it's still on iPlayer tonight.
Anyway, I stand by my points at 17, 18 and 19. It's not what they're watching, it is who is doing the watching, and why. I think to limit the discussion to 'video tapes' is a bit 1980s. I work in the iT world, and can see how database cross-referencing, digital recording of not only images, but profiles based on internet usage, electronic transactions such as credit card payments, swiping of clubcards, oyster cards, mobile phone use to pay car parking charges, the list goes on and on, COULD be used to profile a persons life, every move, all day.
I think to write that the security services don't have the staff to sit and watch all 60 million of us is an opinion a little off centre. I cannot imaging a room full of VHS tapes with operators scanning 1000s of cameras every day - that is not what the issue is. The network of cameras, linked with all of the other electronic data gathering devices in use by the authorities to business COULD be cross-referenced on a central database.
We need to prevent that happening. It is already becoming reality and needs to be stopped.
Forget criminal activity for a moment. Wanting time for me, time to myself, wanting to 'fall off radar' for a weekend or so is NOT currently a crime. So, say that, just for argument sake, I finish work one Friday and am feeling a bit Reginald Perrin. I want to go off and have a weekend in Brighton, turn off the phone and disappear for a few days. I'm not planning on hurting anyone, I just want to be alone for a few days. Now, just imagine, for sake or argument, that a database exsits that holds all my personal information, is linked to surveillance cameras, the M25, the M23, my car tracked, hotel reservation logged and credit card payment recorded. Upon checkin, I'm issued an electronic key. When I enter my room, the hotel system logs me as being inside. That system COULD be also connected to any central surveillance system.
I've not broken any law. What I have done is something 'out of the ordinary'. I have deviated from my normal plan. This activity could possibly flag me as acting suspiciously. That could increase interest in me. All very far fetched, all very unlikely, now, but the fact is, it is possible. Should laws change in the future, the data collected, collated, cross-referenced and stored about me, my friends and family could be used by unscrupulous sources for less than honourable means.
Complain about this comment
A recent govt report on cctv shows that it has made no significant difference to crime figures. A school near to me has installed it in the classroom to monitor pupils, The kids went on strike! How can kids develop socially with such invasion of their rights?
The whole big brother culture is I fear designed for the control of the general populous not for our own good!
It is a fact that with the EU and our own govt that we have more rules and regs and surveillance imposed on us than East Germany did. We all cheered when the Berlin wall came down and now we are more oppressed ourselves!
Habius corpus- is our birth right we have lost it by this govt. It means that we could do what ever we wanted providing it was within the Law. Now under the current regime we can do whatever the law permits- thats why we have our current culture. You have to have every thing regulated to be able to go about day to day business. This is fact! all other discussion cant change the outcome so Vote for change!
Complain about this comment
Its interesting the outrage about surveillance of people lying about where they live to get their kids into the right schools. Surveillance has been around for years its just the technology thats changed. I suspect the 'nice' middle class couple would be perfectly happy for social security officers to sit outside a single parent's house to check how offten her boyfriend stays over.
Pulling tricks to get your child into the best schools isn't victimless. For every child that fraudulently gets a place in a popular school another child has lost out. And when you're rich enough to be able to afford 2 houses then its obviously easier to pull the tricks off.
But of course, this is surveillance of nice middle class people which is a step too far. Middle class people like to reinvent their dishonesty as 'exercising choice'.
Complain about this comment
The programme did not draw enough attention (only a brief mention) to the fact that councils using the RIPA act to spy on people (ie the couple who had moved out of the school catchment area) are using something which the government promised would only be used to catch terrorists and serious criminals. The Home Office wording insists:
"RIPA provides a number of important safeguards:
It strictly limits the people who can lawfully use covert techniques, the purposes for and conditions in which they can be used and how the material obtained must be handled
It reserves the more intrusive techniques for intelligence and law enforcement agencies acting against only the most serious crimes, including in the interests of national security"
The function creep has already happened, as was predicted. Laws will be misused, the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear" argument is simply wrong because those who make the law cannot be trusted. The programme makers need to provide a much more robust critique of all this; the arguments against were a bit limp to say the least. Another series in the Conspiracy files mould I fear.
Complain about this comment
Postings 78, 79 and 81, shed light on what the BBC show failed to do, whilst 80 demonstrates that when we manipulate supply and demand there is always a victim.
I have been targeted as a committed union activist for years in my workplace. In common with a few others of similar persuasion, I am watched by managers who wait for a slip armed with a catalogue of events that will be used to "orchestrate" my demise when it happens. It is like the witch hunts of old. In a similar way so there are those within society considered threats, not because they are terrorists, but because they can persuade or influence others and/or have damning evidence of the wrongs of the ruling classes.
This is the age of mistrust, of suspicion, of the obedient clone who would have done Hitler's mobs proud. It is the age of the lowest common denominator to whom we must all descend or be picked off when it suits. Even journalism descends into the practise of fearing the truth for what it may reveal where serendipity was such a wonderful tool to have and to use.
When you continue to write laws or rules to catch every last ounce of mischievous difference in the realms of human nature then you eventually trap everything and everyone until freedom dies and no one knows the point of anything any more. Is it overkill, scaremongering, or mental illness, or is it some people noticing how fast we are moving from a wafer thin beginning to a much thicker end?
We know how manipulative of the truth some journalists can be when it is their livelihood at stake; do you make a program that may be seen by a few or one that may never be seen because it is too near the knuckle to risk? Which truth would you have?
Complain about this comment
It's important to remember how wide the definition of terrorism is.
There's a definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
=====================
1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action
where --
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a
political, religious, or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it --
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person
committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4) In this section --
(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom, or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
================
And nowadays even the police don't feel obliged to follow instructions from the High Court: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]for
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6368314.ece
Complain about this comment
At 9:24pm on 26 May 2009, forensix wrote:
Postings 78, 79 and 81, shed light on what the BBC show failed to do, whilst 80 demonstrates that when we manipulate supply and demand there is always a victim.
And for my part, Forensix, thanks for agreeing with my #78 - analogies can be useful for some things, however, yesterday, I was driving back from Oxford and stopped on the M40 services just east of the city. On leaving the services, there was a sign, a big yellow couldn't miss-it sign, saying 'Thanks for visiting Oxford Services. The details of your vehicle and your visit have been recorded' or words very similar to that.
Why? I can see no reason why my details should have been recorded for visiting a service station. It was not in the petrol station, it was on the exit road. I understand the fact that petrol stations check number plates to help against fuel theft, but this sign was on the exit road. It means that everyone who visits the services has their details recorded. Why? Where? When? How does all this happen. ANPR cameras, facial recognition in the services / cafe / restaurant, shop? Is it just the car details that are recorded, and therefore the registered owner. What if I was driving a friends car, or a friend was driving mine. Whose details would be recorded then?
Man, the more I look at this, and now having watched the first part of Richards show, I feel stronger than ever that this is wrong. Very very wrong.
And don't get me started on 'talking cameras'. Now that really is just scary. Maybe I'm influenced by Sci-Fi reading, but cameras to record people is bad enough, but cameras that now tell us to 'STOP RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE, DO NOT MOVE, YOU ARE BEING OBSERVED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, DO NOT RUN, YOU ARE UNDER ARREST, AUTOMATIC STUN GUNS ARE AIMED AT YOU. IF YOU RUN YOU WILL BE SHOT. YOU WERE SEEN JAYWALKING. STAY RIGHT WERE YOU ARE. LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL ARRIVE MOMENTARILY'.
Yeah, I know, I made that up, but it's only a few steps away from where we are now. Don't drop a cigarette butt in Middlesborough town centre. Maybe it will be a case of being arrested for smoking in public next. Dirty dirty smokers, we don't deserve freedom anyway.
If there are any sane people out there who feel as scared about this as I do, let me know I'm not being overly paranoid.
Complain about this comment
Watch Dog in a Tower
You're like a watch dog in a tower
For what I don't know
But Babylon always finding me
They always finding me
Though I stumble they think I fall
So they come on I and I
Like a vulture in the sky
Babylon always watching me
Complain about this comment
#84
No, you are not alone. It isn't paranoia; it is the feeling that no one has any will to fight back these days, and that even that idea may be one step too far for our over zealous thought police. It is truly frightening when you remember this is only the beginning.
Smokers are an interesting breed. Risk takers and "subversive" to an otherwise would be clean living youth; not the stuff that the clone machine were thinking about in their ivory towers. It seems diversity comes to a shuddering halt when nicotine consumption is on the agenda. Imagine you can have all kinds of sex but you cannot smoke afterwards - not unless you go outside anyway. Sad or what?
And get me going on loyalty cards. There is a phenomena that offers a small price on crucial elements of your lifestyle in the hands of a business that has no problem in selling the information on. A diet rich in "carbs" may just tip that life insurance premium up a few quid. But you never put two and two together in case they make five?
Someone once said that your life is in the hands of one or maybe two synapses in your brain that no one other than you can "converse with". And you expect a professional whatever to act as a translator for a language neither they nor you understand. But the thought police are out there armed with their quick phrase books - just in case. Kooky times.
Complain about this comment
SHLA2UK
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not watching you !
As for smokers, we had plain clothes Policemen patrolling the business area where I work giving out fines for dropping cigarette ends today.
I don't condone littering but surely the Police have better things to do with their time ?
A young girl was gang-raped the other day so surely they would be better off investigating this serious crime instead of concentrating on trivial civil offences.
CCTV is another symptom of this problem, how much time and money is being wasted on CCTV systems that could be better spent on front line Police ?
These systems cost millions of pounds a year to install and maintain as well as the cost of the staff operating them, if we spent this money on recruiting, training & deploying real Police Officers onto the streets of Britain I bet we'd have a far safer country than we have now.
If we're lucky CCTV will detect and help solve some crimes but they don't prevent them, they just move some of them to other areas. The only way to have totally effective CCTV is to have it everywhere but this would be impossible to achieve, there'd be more people watching than being watched and each of them would need watching too.
I've not got to the point of being scared just yet but I'm getting very annoyed !
I.D. cards, biometric, movement & communications monitoring is simply adding to the anger.
Complain about this comment
.. smoke spliff daily
Complain about this comment
"...but to get them, it holds records on all of us..."
Is this quote confirmation of the Government's equality measures or a suggestion that we are all "them" until we prove ourselves to be "not-them"? And if we are "not-them" can we offer suggestions as to who "them" may be to increase our "not-them" points? And if we get enough "not-them" points do we get a free VIP tour of security service HQ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MOTORWAY CAMERAS STOLEN
In hertfordshire on the m1 the police had some cameras stolen i believe it was about 15,the thing is these cams are on massiv towers,you would have to be very well equiped ,to climbe up remove it ab it down + your self and get away,
begs the question when a camera fault logs up how long is it to investigate it/having done that how long to replace it ,
having had so many removed , on one stretch indicate A/SOMEONE IS GREEDY ,
B/SOME ONE DOES NOT WANT SOMETHING OR SOMEONE SEEN]
why is it there is little or no pulicity about thefts such as these,
how many cams have been stolen or damaged,
where i live some one damaged one and it took 3 months to replace/repair
it.
Complain about this comment
ref 87
Paranoia is a hightened awareness of things happening around you,
as for cameras vs more plod ,the cam is a health and safety dream,
it dont get drunk off duty,it dont want a paycheck every month/
it likes to stay on duty where it is /it dont do,dinner breaks /teabreaks/
it dont a sicki/or holidays /it dont need a pension /or a house or flat/
jesus im starting to like these little guys allready, I THINK I NEED HELP
Complain about this comment
SO HOW COME THEY CANT FIND THE RIGHT BOMBER OR CRIMINAL
---------
They do, hundreds each year in the UK alone are arrested or convicted on the basis of CCTV and other survielance systems.
Complain about this comment
ANPR, AND YOU CANT SEE ME
Iv, been on the planet a long time [61 years ]with the brain of an 18 year old,
seen a lot over the years ,but one one thing i do not like is being watched by the state /police/ council/,
on route eto another town there are noumerouse cameras ,so i put the visor down as they have those cams on the [DARK BLUE POSTS], YES I KNOW THEY HAVE THE CAR AND PLATE,they just dont have my face,
then i went out and bought some sunshades for the car ,well to stick on the front side windows ,i already them on the side = rear,
I am going to fit smoke glass visors [we used to have them in the 60,s/70,s they have not banned them yet, problem is the number plates
there is a product on the market that works ,but how far can you drive befor its flagged up [not to far [npr] will flag and then track ,then ,
plod will pull you over then you must be worth a look realy good look, because sunshades /tinted visors/and plates that a camera cant read,
oh i forgot you know that little bar code on your tax disc take one roll of opauqe tape cut a small piece same size as the barcode and stick it on = the high def cams cant read though foggy tape .
Complain about this comment
Oh come off it. There's nothing wrong with CCTV cameras in town centres and on the roads. Some people's paranoia goes far beyond irrational.
I'm not sure if it's just Hollywood movies sending peoples imaginations running wild or a sense of egotistical self-grandure: "everyone is interested in me and everything I do". Here's the shocking truth: everyone isn't interested in every detail of your life, unless you're doing something illegal, in which case the police hopefully will be interested.
Complain about this comment
#87. At 10:46pm on 27 May 2009, Secratariat wrote:
SHLA2UK
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not watching you !
I wish, Secretariat. If being paranoid meant not being watched, I'd prefer to stay paranoid to stay free. As it is, I'm glad that there are so many other people becoming aware of this problem. I have tried 'educating' in my own inimitable way :-) at my place of work, to people who I thought would be more understanding, but there seems to be an air of apathy that I cannot understand. Forensix, at #86, summed it up nicely with that statement 'It isn't paranoia; it is the feeling that no one has any will to fight back these days'.
Those of us who disagree with policy like this are marked as 'troublemakers' or as having 'something to hide', some kind of revolutionary. I'd be happy to be known as a revolutionary if it got the desired results - is that not what democracy is about, or was about.
I'm not totally against CCTV, in the right place, for the right reasons. It's been a part of my life for all my life. I remember as a kid, Boots the Chemist had these big black balls on the ceiling and I was scared by them because you couldn't see the camera and couldn't see which direction it was facing. That was in the 1970s. I've gotten used to that now.
It's the way the use of CCTV and other electronic data collected, that can all be compiled, collated and cross-referenced that scares the hell out of me. Loyalty cards do it with a caring face - you buy sausages, here's a money-off coupon for bacon to go with your sausages. I appreciate the way that the police can check credit card statements when it comes to checking for evidence of criminal activity of a suspect in serious crime. I appreciate how MI5 / GCHQ are able to tap into telephone networks and trace calls made by serious criminals to track and apprehend those that may be engaged in terrorist activity. These are all ways the technology can protect us.
What I object to is the ongoing clandestine routine observation and data gathering of every man, woman and child in this here so called free country to compile a database in an effort to profile each and every one of us for use by the authorities at their will.
I am a name, not a number. We were warned about this but couldn't stop it happening, and therein lies the problem when it comes to revolution. It wouldn't be revolution if we prevented it happening - it would go unnoticed. By definition, revolution has to be a complete turn-around from where we are, and that tends to violent, one way or another. So, to be a revolutionary seems to suggest that you favour violent action to your ends and that is what 'they' want us to be scared of. Raise your hands, get arrested for inciting violence, and you cannot deny it cos we've caught it all on CCTV.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to see a little more detective work on who profits from cctv - local councils, private citizens and most disturbingly, the police have all sold cctv images to companies to make programmes such as police camera stop and even candid camera style shows.
Then the police wonder why people think they can't be trusted with DNA - given that they are already touting camera footage of people who may never been convicted, in the public domain.
Complain about this comment
Ref #89 - Forensix - and the 'them' versus 'not them' argument.
I like your way of thinking. In other words, we're all guilty until proven innocent.
Complain about this comment
#86 forensix
If you have a cigarette after sex and your partner is a non-smoker, are you breaking the law? If you go outside, standing in the back garden at 3am, and some covert camera catches you, will you be done for indecency in the early hours? Oh you really big law breaker you :-)
#87 secretariat
I can only empathise. At work, we have a smoking area, outside, and it's fenced off with no shelter and lots of ashtrays. There are signs saying that it is illegal to smoke in the car park, even though it is an open air area, not even multi-storey. Our building security walk around and tell you off if you are seen smoking outside of the allocated smoking area. They have cameras mounted that they watch in reception, and even have been known to tell people coming back inside that they've been seen. Then an email gets sent around the entire building reminding people that smoking is a dirty disgusting habit that needs to be driven out at any cost. I generally walk across the car park, cigarette burning, and sit in my car and smoke. The car is my property and so my rules apply. Just try and stop me.
You're right, both of you, and I like that we seem to agree on this. It's not simply the fact that we're being watched, but more it is WHO is doing the watching, WHY they're watching, and WHAT they do with the data they collect.
Complain about this comment
SHLA2UK
"What I object to is the ongoing clandestine routine observation and data gathering of every man, woman and child in this here so called free country to compile a database in an effort to profile each and every one of us for use by the authorities at their will."
And I thought I was the only one !
I remember a time when we were innocent until proven guilty, pretty soon we will all be guilty until we can prove we're innocent.
This for me is the real problem, it used to be accepted that you could do whatever you wanted as long as it wasn't against the law, these days you have to get permission to do anything and then you're constantly observed while doing it, just in case you break the law.
I think it's time we had a major rethink of our legal system, we have too many laws that are being badly enforced and the emphasis now seems to be on persecuting the ordinary citizen while ignoring the real criminals.
Complain about this comment
So what can we do about it if we *don't* agree with all these CCTV cameras being everywhere?
Complain about this comment
#96
SHLA2UK
I agree that the important thing is to remain free, as in "free spirit", "independently minded", "free thinker", etc. Too many "freedom fighters" have passed away, gotten too old, or are already submerged under the sheer volume of directives from Brussels nodded through our Parliament because they have no alternative. It is as if one law won't do because it could miss but fifteen must have a high success rate and if more than one applies to your "miss" demeanour then it won't look good on your CV.
Perhaps the graffiti should have registered to us when Thatcher and our "deputised Conservative police force" brutalised much of our trade union movement regardless of "rights" or "wrongs". Once established that government can do this kind of thing then they are all at it. Totalitarianism at the backdoor whilst the front entrance boasts "All In Your Interests". Now we have local authorities at it because there is no right of protest against council tax unless you do not mind residing in more expensive if less attractive dwellings for a while.
It is as if someone wrote "make an example of them" in the margins that said we are innocent until proven guilty. "Rough 'em up", "Make 'em pity that raised voice" etc, etc. And now we have a huge machine gathering information that one day will rough us up, make us pity ourselves, and stick us out front as an example to others. It is as if someone believed that workers have power, too much power, and decided enough was enough. Now we have no power at all and they are busy polishing their boots ready to show up all the blood that is about to be let....
Except history suggests the eventual winners will be...."them" because there will not be any "not-them" left standing!
Complain about this comment
'What I didn't know was how relaxed the British public has been about the collection of data and how pervasive surveillance has become.'
Not relaxed, Mr Rudin. Numb, perhaps resigned, but definitely not relaxed.
Complain about this comment
Following on the EU debate on an interesting QT (BBC1) last night I scanned through some of the EU directives on surveillance. Across a wide spectrum of issues it seems the undemocratic arm of the European community has been busy issuing ream after ream of control measures including crime, disease, travel, borders, internal traffic, finance and cash, biometrics, ID cards, CCTV, police intervention with protest etc etc. What is intriguing is that for the UK (being many islands) most of the stuff is irrelevant and yet we are "forced" to accede to it.
It follows from what I have found that our MPs (and even MEPs) do not have the "power" (or will) to disclose how destructive this bureaucratic overkill is. Freedom is not a word used in any of the documents I have perused thus far. So who is driving this "socialisation" of people? Is it necessary to have standardisation of laws across the EU? Why is the protectionism especially overt in France and Germany deemed more important than the protection of all EU people as a whole?
I gather from some of what I have read thus far that the UK has, not for the first time, been asleep when crucial wording needing greater understanding and comprehension has slipped through "on the nod". I need to do more reading of the invasive stuff to get a real picture of the objectives of these moves but I am already convinced that it is the EU that is driving us furtively away from individuality unless you have the money to buy it back. Our problem, as "little people", seems to be a lack of democratic influence over this whole process.
Is anyone prepared for us to leave Europe unless it cleans up its act?
Referendum on the EU Constitution anyone?
Complain about this comment
Hi Forensix, if you follow the Conspiracy Theories it is the Bildeburger Group and the New World Order. I got a chill down my spine when Gordon mouthed the "New World Order" phrase following the G20 since for years the tin hat brigade had been predicting, man-made global financial crisis at the hands of a global elite. I thought the woman on QT last night that said "how can we vote for anyone when we don't know the truth" was particularly apt.
Complain about this comment
forensix
"Is anyone prepared for us to leave Europe unless it cleans up its act?
Referendum on the EU Constitution anyone?"
Yes, to both !
The European dream has turned into a nightmare, our ancestors had to fight and die to remove power from the hands of the wealthy land owners of Britain, one day soon we're going to have to do the same against the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Democracy is dead when you can't elect or influence those who control your life.
No legislation without representation !
Complain about this comment
Forensix and Secretariat.
I missed QT last night - will have to try to catch up on iPlayer tonight after work. I feel like I'm at the foot of a long dormant volcano that is about to blow up in my face, and not without fear and trepidation, I find it exciting.
Not wanting to go 'off-topic' and have my post removed, I would like to see this raised in its own right - it is a political thread, and justly born from the current one, but the moderators might think differently. That said, I have sat on the EU fence for far too long, wanting to give it a chance, wanting to wait and see. One other northern European nation sat on the fence in 1933, to wait and see, and look what happened in 1939.
It's always been known that UK Govt use Scotland as a testing ground for new laws - well I think the the EU uses the UK in the same way. If the EU are now rolling out control laws based on monitoring movement, surveillance etc., that goes 1000 miles (not kilometers) to prove the dangers highlighted by this discussion. It adds weight (in LBS, not KGS) to all the so-called whiners and whingers arguments that the world of covert surveillance has gone 10 steps too far. They've implemented it already in the UK, and it may yet come to pass that the UK Govt rolled over and let it happen, or were maybe cajoled into it, but if what you're saying is correct, it would appear that they're about to roll out this same technology and practice EU wide.
I hate to do this, and I may yet be proved wrong, but I have to take sides now. I've sat on the fence too long but the fence is about to collapse, and I need to decide which side I'm going to fall on.
The EU was a promising prospect, still is, but I'm English, northern English, proud English, equally British, pro UK. I like Europe, but when the EU slurry hits the British fan, I know where I want to be.
We have too much to sort out in our own backyard. We used to be a free country, like you guys said, innocent until they could prove you guilty. Now we are a sad country, lain down, belly up, given in, and watched 24/7 like suspects before the fact. It doesn't seem to matter if you've done wrong or not, we're all the same 'might-do-wrong' population, and need to be kept in check.
In the middle-ages, the church was used as a control mechanism to keep the population in check. The industrial age saw economics used as the control (money makes the world go around). In the technological age, we have a new control mechanism. What is the common ground here? Fear! Instil fear to control the masses.
Yes, let us leave the EU, if it were so simple. All my life I've heard of this independence move - independence from the UK, well now it's our turn, the UK wants independence. Is that what I'm saying? I know we need something. Where is our pride? National pride is not allowed. [sorry moderators, off topic again].
I'll end it here. We need a new thread to continue this one.
Complain about this comment
104. At 07:29am on 29 May 2009, forensix wrote:
'...Is it necessary to have standardisation of laws across the EU?'
'...Our problem, as "little people", seems to be a lack of democratic influence over this whole process.'
First point - no. We have different laws in England than those in Scotland. On a different scale, the laws in Florida are not uniform across the entire US. Different strokes for other folks. I appreciate that your 'question' was rhetorical - I simply wanted to emphasise the point.
Second point - spot on. There is no democracy in the EU. They have bullied their way, ridden roughshod across the peoples of Europe. Our MEPs seem ineffective, not to mention extremely costly. It is truly scary how much it is costing us on a daily basis. I'd like to see figures to show how much return we get for our investment in the EU. If EU-wide community surveillance is what we're paying for, my vote is with the independence lobby
Complain about this comment
102. At 7:39pm on 28 May 2009, forensix wrote:
'....It is as if one law won't do because it could miss but fifteen must have a high success rate'
I think we are singing from the same song book here. Laws to reinforce or plug other laws that are there to prove other laws correct. What happened to the one law - don't hurt anybody. That's how I was brought up, and that one sentiment sticks with me to this day. The problem is, for a totalitarian system, it is not specific enough. It leaves room for interpretation.
The more Govt attempts to control and suppress (I use suppress rather than oppress for the time being) the population, the more laws that need to be written to allow this, and to deal with the outcome of resistance. Suddenly, someone who disagrees and protests against something, commonly called and misconstrued as a protester, becomes a law breaker. The democratic process is being written out, legislated out of existence.
All this surveillance has been presented to us as a means to protect us all, to make life a safer place to be, when in actual fact what it does is reports on us, tells tales about us, turns us all into 'fun loving criminals'.
I saw the best example of surveillance turning ordinary people into criminals, on the BBC London News, last night. I cannot remember which borough was named, but they're spending something in the region of £210,000.00 in order to catch people dropping litter. Now, ok, dropping litter is dirty, disrespective and totally unnecessary, but the person featured had just left court, with a £200+ fine, for putting a cigarette out on the floor, in the street, outside. Absolutely ridiculous.
They are waiting for people to screw up. And when we do, as we surely will, being human as we are, we are made out to be law breakers. We are demoted to a sub-class because the law is more powerful than the people. That's the direction we're going at a high rate of knots. Time to put on the brakes.
Complain about this comment
SHLA2UK #108.
find myself agreeing with much of what you (and some others) wrote from #78 onwards, but regarding the EU I do not; the UK has not made much positive contribution since Thatcher & co (on the 'Stephanomics' blog they call these policies "Anarchist"), and as for returns look at mobile phones as the most recent example: do you believe all the providers would fall over themselves to reduce their pricing if it hadn't been forced on them by EU legislation? and do you believe that the UK outside the EU would have legislated fairer, more equitably?
Complain about this comment
110. At 2:10pm on 29 May 2009, jr4412 wrote:
'...but regarding the EU I do not'
'...do you believe all the providers would fall over themselves to reduce their pricing if it hadn't been forced on them by EU legislation?'
Fair points, nicely put. We all have an opinion, and I'm happy to engage with anyone who has a fair argument to put across. Like I said in my #107, the EU was an exciting prospect, and still is. Like I said, I sit on the fence, but am increasingly becoming anti-EU in some regards.
We're going off-topic here, but if we can keep it in line with the original 'anti-surveillence' thread and the points raised by Richard Bilton in his program, and reinforce the discussion with the points raised by Forensix @ #104, it would seem that the EU is proposing surveillance measures already in place in the UK, making it EU-wide. In itself, no more frightening than what we've become used to here at home, but looking at the bigger picture, it is a widening of a policy that seems to have been tested in the UK, and now becoming commonplace across the union. For me, that is more scary than dealing with it here. Different cultures could apply that in different ways. It has the potential of being bad here; it is getting there quickly, as is being discussed in this blog. The ramifications for us all for having our data held and stored and cross-referenced for investigative purposes BEFORE the fact are scary enough. For that data to be potentially cross-referenced with an EU-wide database, to me, sounds abhorrent.
Take another EU state - not any one in particular, but let us say it is one of the eastern EU states, historically used to state oppression. The way THEY handle data about YOU could be very different to the way UK Govt handle data about you. I'm not saying we are better, but that we are used to it. It is this that I object to, the need to stand up and stop it from happening.
I'll say it again, we may still have a voice to do that here in the UK, but our voice across the EU is virtually silent. If not a rejection of EU membership, what else to raise our game.
There are benefits to being part of a union. England and Scotland realised that in 1707 with the act of the union. The US did the same in 1776, albeit the result of a bloody civil war, and I agree that the EU is not inherently a bad thing. What is different is that UK central govt has lost too much of our autonomy within that union. Brussels rules the roost. What has become clear is that where we blame the govt for all things 'surveyed' it may be the case that it was Brussels that imposed this upon us and it is to them that we should address our objections, before it is too late.
Back to the reasons for covert surveillance. I agree that prevention is better than cure, but covert surveillance, whether in the UK or worse, EU-wide, is not the prevention I favour.
Complain about this comment
SHLA2UK #111.
"..looking at the bigger picture, it is a widening of a policy that seems to have been tested in the UK, and now becoming commonplace.."
yes, however, I think "Echelon" and such things may have more to do with *why* the UK has been the testbed. agree that the prospect of this way of conducting business spreading further is most unattractive.
you are right about the benefits of being part of an union, unfortunately the last few UK governments have concentrated too much on "the other side of the pond" rather than working constructively on integration with the continent. which is why IMO we are (in some real sense) disenfranchised today.
as for your point that governments of nations which until recently were under oppressive regimes might use the powers they gain from an EU-wide implementation of surveillance laws more easily against their (or other EU) citizens - I'm not worried, in fact I'm sure they'll be learning eagerly about "extra-ordinary renditions" and suchlike from us. [would put a grin emoticon here if the subject wasn't so serious].
in summary, whilst I fully agree that "..prevention is better than cure, but covert surveillance, whether in the UK or worse, EU-wide, is not the prevention I favour", I do think that most of the worries you (and others) expressed are at least eight years too late (ie. since "9/11" -- Americans can't even write dates, sigh..).
Complain about this comment
Can you please tell me if we truly have a secret ballot in UK elections? I ask because I have previously noticed that, when voting, my ballot paper number is recorded next to my name on the electoral register, at the polling station. This would suggest that it would be possible for the individual ballot papers to be referenced to voters names. I realise that this is probably done to counter any claims of electoral fraud, but this just doesn't seem to be widely known to the general public.
Complain about this comment
Re #112 jr4412:
I think we seem to be in some kind of agreement, outcome at least, if not the means to get there.
As I've said already, I'm pro-UK first, but not totally anti-EU. My feelings are that we are being driven by a force intent on getting their way rather than by a policy to the betterment of the people.
Back to covert surveillance, I think, moving forward (and away from the anti-EU thread that is not really part of this blog), we need to understand, and moreso, believe, the process that has led us to this point. Yes, we have been complacent. I am not of the opinion that this was some master plan, not completely anyway. The introduction of CCTV happened decades ago. Little by little it has crept into almost every corner of our lives. Credit cards have been around for decades. Electronic banking for less, but still well established. Nowadays we all carry cards with some kind of chip or electronic strip on them. It has been a gradual introduction of all these things, and more, with the advancement of technology, that has allowed it all to be tied together.
Yes, we're a few years late in our objections maybe, but honestly, do you feel it could have been avoided sooner? Accidents are prevented because of learning. That is, after the fact. Before the fact, you need accidents in order to learn from the mistakes made. It is natural for us all to allow things to go along, until (as scientists would put it) a tipping point is achieved. To take that forward, it is NEVER too late.
I said in a previous post that revolution is only so because prevention would go un-noticed. That does not make revolution a bad thing, but an 11th hour saviour at best; a 13th hour coup at worst.
Thanks to the program put out by Richard last week - the first of three, and I'm looking forward to any revelations in parts 2 and 3 to come - we might have an opportunity to right the wrongs that are driving this surveillance culture. I've said all along, I'm not against CCTV or other counter-terrorist type surveillance. It is not the being watched I have a problem with, but WHO is doing the watching, and what they do with the information they have.
For instance, in that first program he interviewed both the Home Secretary and the Information Commissioner, two people who should be singing from the same song book but it became apparent from the two interviews that they are at times, poles apart, especially when it came down to the way data was stored and what data was stored, and why. The Home Office say one thing, and the Information Commissioners Office say another, which takes me back to my post at #96:
'What I object to is the ongoing clandestine routine observation and data gathering of every man, woman and child in this here so called free country to compile a database in an effort to profile each and every one of us for use by the authorities at their will.'
In fear of contradicting myself, the law needs to be tighter on data collection and use. Admittedly, too many laws are as bad as not enough, but as Secretariat wrote at #100:
'I think it's time we had a major rethink of our legal system, we have too many laws that are being badly enforced and the emphasis now seems to be on persecuting the ordinary citizen while ignoring the real criminals.'
Complain about this comment
MODERATORS - something has gone wrong. All the posts seem to be mixed up - having regressed to computer number logic 1, 2 then 11, 101, 102 and so on.
Complain about this comment
Acts5:29-32,38 Then Peter and the apostles answered and said,"We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you slew and hung on a tree. Him has God exalted with His right hand. A Prince and Saviour for to give repentance to Israel(mind you that Jacob name was changed to Israel when He received the Holy Ghost) and the forgiveness of sin(we all know that God forgives named sins)And we are His witnesse of these things and also the Holy Ghost whom God has given to them that obey Him. Now I say unto you refrain from these men(people)and let them alone for if this counsel or this work be of men it will come to nought but if it be of God you can not overthrow it lest haply you be found even to fight against God.
Romans13:1-2 Let every soul be subject unto the higher power for there is no power but of God. The power that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resist the power resist the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Revelation21:8 The sovereign Will of God Almighty is certain of complete fulfillment but the moral Law is disobeyed by the people and the desires of God are fulfilled only to the extent that they are included in His Will. God does not desire that any should perish but it is clear that many will not be saved.
Matthew6:33 But seek you first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you
John9:32 Now we know that God hears not sinners but if a person be a worshiper of God and does His Will them God will hear.
Mark1:15 The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand repent and believe the gospel
Acts22:14-16 And Saul said,"The God of our fathers have chosen you that you should know His Will and see that the just ones should hear the voice of His mouth for you shall be His witness unto all of what you have seen and heard. Now why tarry you? Arise and be baptized to wash away your sins calling in the Name of the Lord.
Luke13:5 I tell you nay but except you repent you all shall likewise perish.
Note: Cleanse your garment(soul)
http://worshipwiththetruth.ning.com
Complain about this comment
#116. messenger71
Ist thou Dorothy Cotton? Surely thou hast drifted from topic! I now haveth an aching head. Dost thou think that CCTV is the work of God? Thou is not required to post a response, my question is one of rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
#105
"I thought the woman on QT last night that said "how can we vote for anyone when we don't know the truth" was particularly apt."
If memory serves me well it was the woman in orange that asked a question earlier; I thought it was strange she didn't get any applause because, like you, I thought she articulated her views well and was by a league the most astute point maker on the night. Earlier she had suggested (a point taken up by Ms Lucas, Green Party MEP) that detailed and significant material was unavailable on EU matters.
To dispel any anti-EU-ism on my part I am not advocating a complete coup-de-grace on Europe but I am concerned that it is a democratic shambles, a point loudly echoed by the Conservative representative, UKIP, the Green Party and the Liberals. Caroline Flint was her usual "we're working on it" self and still, apparently, in denial. Deeper in the mire are the EU directives which are where the real damage is being done. Well over a third of these never get to be seen either by MEPs or our MPs or voted on. That has to stop. It is these to which my earlier posting refers and they are blood curdling and savage invasions of freedom.
I re-rehearse my question - who is behind it? So far ynda20 has echoed a view that I have; it means that there are some very wealthy bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg who are quietly doing the bidding of some quite unpleasant characters. When you think about it who else other than a very odious person would want to inflict such pestilence on the rest of us?
Complain about this comment
@118, Thanks for your comment, forensix.
I still await an open discussion on the EU Lisbon Treaty. I think the Irish vote was the only time I heard about the detail within it and what I learnt I didn't like. For the first time ever I may be not be voting for the Liberal Democrats despite them coming through the latest MP expenses scandal unscathed and all their other policies that I like, I don't want the draconian rules from Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Just a point on trade unions. I lived as an active unionist through the "winter of discontent" and there were times when I was so ashamed as a human being that I crossed picket lines because my conscience would not allow me not to. It was a shambolic time for many like me. Much too black and white.
But the deepest and most savage problems really manifested with the throwing out of the baby with the barf water that Thatcher engaged in when she manically over reacted to the defeat of the miners. There is nothing wrong with trade unions; indeed the whole world badly needs them to protect workers from themselves. What is wrong is the lack of democracy that Thatcher (un)wittingly (?) introduced with her OTT industrial relations laws, laws which a real Labour Party would have repealed and rewritten on day one of forming a government.
Democracy must be everywhere and if first past the post (FPTP) or simple majority is good enough in elections then it must also be good enough in a show of hands at a workplace. But we know that FPTP is not sound in providing good government and so our idea of democracy in action must change.
Trade unions at the moment are one of our best measurements of the feelings of ordinary workers we have and that is a damning indictment of the lousy democracy the UK and the EU have.
Complain about this comment
Terrorists CCTV why won't you stop terrorising the neighbourhood
The people want to live in the right way they should
You're no good no no you're no good
I'm on me guard because babylon system is a fraud
they want to come run me from my yard
but I can not bear it out no longer
because if you don't put a stoppage they are going to get stronger
Complain about this comment
I wish I knew how it feel to be free
I wish I could break all the chains holding me
I wish I could say all thing that I should say
Say them loud say them clear for the whole world to hear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCodBBnUYRE
Complain about this comment
Don't come here to test me
They never know that Jah bless me
They want to depress me
None of them no impress me
Wait make me go into the full history
Merciless Sting History 2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_rCqgVDzQU
Complain about this comment
The history of surveillance looks pretty muddled and, for the most part, has many apparently benign roots. For example the health databases appear almost sensible in intention - track disease and infection with high accuracy; detail diet versus morbidity outcomes; pinpoint areas of high risk sexually transmitted infections; identify pregnancy and abortion rates; track cancer prevalence etc. It is only when these individual projects are subjected to being joined up seamlessly into freely available research material that one begins to sense a 1984-ish diversification into ulterior use and motive. This is then turned into a business opportunity to both generate income for further research (intelligent) and to invite commercial interests (e.g. insurance) to pay to improve their risk efficiency and management (suspect). So within the UK our NHS benefits but so too do our foreign based commercial interests and all at our expense via VAT revenue (not to mention high taxes and high insurance premiums).
We then see the spectre of DNA which is not uniformly applied throughout European cultures. In the UK it is seen (perhaps by the majority) as the beginning of the end for many criminals because its many shortcomings have not been (nor will be) explained in detail. We do not, for example, hear about DNA as being much like a finger print whose presence at the scene of a crime will not, on its own, guarantee guilt or a conviction - a good alibi will always overcome circumstantial attack. Pretty soon we will see DNA evidence failing more readily and then what will governments turn to?
Turning information into cash rich businesses has been going on for a long time but it is the unique development of large amalgamated databases with high speed search and enquiry that has raised the stakes in public and private sectors. Many EU developments have sought to bring all this information together rather like a huge research library except the general public will be excluded and the private elements will raise doubts about FOI enquiry success. This is "proof" that a thousand bad laws are never as effective as one good one. It is also suggestive that the only democratic voice within the core offices of the EU is a commercial one.
A very effective way of turning this tide which involves direct non-violent action by the greater public is to demand that if our information has a value then we must be paid that value by flat payment or by royalty via a license. We can democratically determine what each facet of information is worth and make it either voluntary or mandatory according to referendum outcome. It would demand that commercial (and public bodies) declare all information held and pay a premium to each of us for holding that information in the case of the private sector or be held to account for the reasons for holding it in the public sector. We then decide what the public sector may keep.
By making information expensive to the entrepreneur may ensure that they do not spread eagle developments aimlessly, and it may make the ordinary person that bit more able to make a reasonable life for themselves simply by selling off their "facts of life".
Complain about this comment
Still waiting for the BBC to Opt-Out of the Phorm/Webwise (...smartweb in Korea) System.
Phorm are trialling this System in Korea & it only takes one access from the Phorm Profiler to Profile all the information on this Webpage, Personal or otherwise?
So how about it BBC, although these pages are for public consumption (subject of course to your Copyright & access permissions) they are not intended for use for commercial gain by "hidden third parties".
Complain about this comment
Google is watching you. Go to the web and google your name.
Complain about this comment
@marygrav
I've just put my name in Google & "found nothing" which fits me!
And I've been around since the BBS days!
What's this though every time Phorm/Webwise is mentioned up pops the inference that "but Google is a bigger threat"?
Jealousy or lust for at least as much power??
I am well aware of the faults & problems Google can cause, but my Point to the BBC was that the DPI equipment poses an imminent & greater threat because neither Web Users nor Website Owners have any control of, or can see what data is being profiled or collated!
Complain about this comment
#125
The key interest any Internet user has is their right to choose the action they wish to take. The main criticism of Phorm and Webwise is that the "opt out" does not stop the central servers from mirroring user data. The UK's OIC has already suggested that what Phorm does is illegal, and has criticised the company and BT for misleading users involved in trials.
Here we see the problem of a lack of democratic will to defeat these corporate information gluttons. Although we read much about corporate rights to protect copyright material (even on the BBC) from "illegal" download we hear little about the "illegal" use of personal data by corporations. If my downloading of Little Miss Muffet singing "I have no voice" is worth a couple of quid to SoNowTimesRWarnerEmi then my details on their databases must be worth at least the same to me in each case.
Personal data at a price. My decision as to whether I sell it. Time limited renewal of the limited rights to my data. No sell on of my data except when I say so and at a price I determine. Long prison sentences for any Corporate bosses breaking the law and seizure of all their assets. All sealed in International law. That'll do nicely.
Complain about this comment
And I forgot - anonymity is a red herring. If a Corporation chooses not to mention my name that still does not mean that what they collected is not mine. In my analogy of Little Miss Muffet it really doesn't matter if I do not bother to label the file does it?
Complain about this comment
#126
haha
I know google has a fact file on everbody. haha
I don't see the problem in being watched, I understand though if I intended to do a runner cause I didn't like it, It would be very hard to cover up who I am.
Anyway I don't intend to go elsewhere so it's alright.
Can I just say the programme about Surveillance the other day was very good.
Complain about this comment
#130
Don't care at all then, I suppose your house or dwelling has got Glass Walls?
Some things including "correspondence" are Private & Confidential & should be respected by the "LAW".
Unfortunately I've seen very little evidence of this in certain parts of the Telecoms/ISP industry recently & very little desire from those who claim responsibilities in this area to actually properly enforce the available Laws.
Which we are all supposed to abide by!
Complain about this comment
In regard to CCTV in public places, such as town centres, thats fine by me. The problem is it isnt just in public places anymore. The police and housing association where I live regularly drive vans with cameras on top right past my window. This happens up to three or four times on some nights. I know the cameras can see straight in my living room window and this is an invasion of my personal and private life. Im not doing anything wrong but it doesnt mean I want a camera van crawling past my living room, in fact thats exactly why I dont see the justification, BECAUSE Im not doing anything wrong. As a young woman I find this quite alarming to have guys driving past and recording footage from my house, incidental or otherwise. I could keep my curtains pulled but then it would really look like I had something to hide.
The other week the housing camera van was snooping around after nine at night and fined my friend with severe special needs for not picking up after his dog. This was not on pavements, parks or outside houses but on a relatively unmaintained grassy area. On the very same day, in the same area a young woman was gang raped by a group of youths in broad daylight and CCTV vans where nowhere to be found. Presumably too busy wasting these resources picking on residents with special needs who had forgot to lift a dog bag. Instead an appeal for witnesses to the rape went out on BBC news.
These authorities are totally abusing this technology to the extent that there is growing unease and mistrust between the public and government. It is causing more trouble than its worth. The money spent on these things could go toward more employment for police and NHS or to help eradicate some of the poverty in deprived areas. After all poverty is a massive contributing factor for serious crimes in the first place.
My partners elderly mother was called last week by their local council who wanted to know if they could install their camera on the side of the families bought house! This would mean it would be in my in-laws garden, which is private property!
I want to write and complain to my local housing association but fear my details will be marked if I do. I work in the media and regularly use camera equipment but everyone that I film has to give their consent, why then can I be filmed going about my personal life in my own home and Im not asked for permission? This isnt for my safety its a threat to my freedoms.
This government is afraid of the people it claims to work for and I for one will be using my vote to reflect my disgust at the constant criminalisation of the wider population. Im fed up being treated like a suspect and I want a government wholl concentrate on serious crime instead of using every given opportunity to snoop on the rest of us. My grandparents fought for my freedoms, and I intend to do what I can to keep them.
Complain about this comment
Notionally, Americans have been less tolerant of being spied upon by their governments than others. I, for one [American], would like more cameras, BUT for traffic control. I drive only 15 minutes per day to and from the end of the commuter rail line. If I had a dollar for every near miss by scofflaws, cell [mobile] users, and just plain bad drivers I would be wealthy enough to retire. Cameras at strategic points like nuclear power stations also do not bother me. The cameras on the train platforms are OK if they are watching the tracks to prevent accidents but not if they are just watching the people. Camera usage must be governed by two precepts: public safety and respect for privacy.
Complain about this comment
@133, Hi McJakome,
If the Americans don't like being spied on why does the American people permit the Patriot Act to stay in place, or the expansion of the Dept of Homeland Security or not prosecuting the huge number of illegal phone taps (esp on politicians, it seems!)?
Complain about this comment
Here are more heinous crimes that CCTV's stamp out and earn a few squids
* Drink and Drunk
* Humans / Dogs Peeing / Pooing in the streets
* Loitering outside during school holidays
Complain about this comment
#113 mokum777
Yes, you are right, our votes are no more secret than the IP number on your computer which can be logged and used (or abused) by any interested government department and certain other less official organisations.
#130 and 131. The problem is less one of being watched and more one of covert censorship. They have a little list, you know, so it's no good blaming the moderators if a post is ignored or rejected.
The secret is, write your post like an illiterate street fighter, pepper it with crudity then sit back and wait for it to appear.
It generally will because large sections of the media use such comments to lend an artificial air of fairness to their columns; something to point to when justifying their failure to print more intelligent observations.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
or you can post like a literate 'street fighter'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/17_panthers.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=WW2jpQ36kSAC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=black+panthers+%2B+meaning+of+pigs&source=bl&ots=CHUZBC-w7M&sig=7AZbsxr4_bfDwFgoGHUT9kI69_w&hl=en&ei=KSAjSr2GJ-LLjAf9q-C3Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPA74,M1
Complain about this comment
#136
Perhaps another way of defining the use of a "censor" is to think upon the old adage that "harmless prose" with a "harmful coded message" is harder to detect than "harmful prose" with "no harmful intent". An angry person may say things they do not mean; the astute activist knows how to manipulate the censor to their desired intent without ever showing anger. Rather someone show anger than remain cold and calculated.
It reduces the role of the censor to the meaningless.
Complain about this comment
Something that bothers me about this debate is that whilst everyone agrees that a "presence" may be a deterrent, the discussion on whether it is better to have people as the "presence" rather than electro-mechanical objects and data collection machinery.
People have an advantage. (Assuming two eyes) They have three dimensional vision, intuition, experience, reactions, intelligence and the ability to reason action. They also contribute back into society via their income and expenditure.
One thing that is always left out of "heavyweight" social discussions in the public political domain is the effect of the absence of work. In the UK we have somewhere around one person in three "out of work". Many of these will be "out of work" by choice - mothers or retired but under retirement age people for example. But the vast majority will want to be in work and will feel acutely disadvantaged by the system.
Social engineers of the past few decades are unable to answer questions relating to the side effects of having such low employment ratios. It is as if this is a seething vacuum of the underclass which is swept out of sight and out of mind until something nasty happens. Governments use the mantra "there is work" but it wears thin if you trawl a town and its environs for several weeks without so much as a "little nibble".
Perhaps if we invested more effort in meaningful work for idle hands we wouldn't need to spend quite so much time worrying about what nasty things lurk inside the seething underclasses.
Complain about this comment
No-one will probably agree with me but here I go. My husband put a full hard drive cctv system around the front and rear of my house to record the public areas immediately outside the house. I must point out that he ensured that the none of the neighbours properties were within view out of respect for their privacy. The system was put in due to gangs of teens, (two in particular), who were throwing bricks, rocks and pieces of wood at the windows, doors and even my 6 and 8 yr old children. One day my husband yelled at them to leave only to have the police come around to say he was causing them distress and he would be arrested if he did it again. They advised the cameras and have been around to the house twice in the last six months to check the footage in connection with other crimes around the area. Maybe if legislation didn't protect the vandals then maybe we wouldn't have this problem. In the U.S every citizen has the right to take action to protect themselves and their property but in the UK the police have to be called and then with no evidence they will just leave when they do eventually turn up. My husband is more in favour of direct action than the cameras but he isn't willing to do time for some little scumbag whilst leaving his family unprotected.
Complain about this comment
activists pah, rah rah rah
support your local artists
etana - I am not afraid
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI7Y1SXPNXI
Complain about this comment
whoops 142 couldn't link up properly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI7Y1SXPNXI
Complain about this comment
A Chinese Asian man was last seen coming out of Asda's and the Chinese Takeaway
TIANANMEN SQUARE TANKS CHINA TANK MAN 24x34 POSTER
http://www.popartuk.com/photography/the-unknown-rebel-pp0893-poster.asp
The Unknown Rebel, Poster
Tiananmen Square, June 5th 1989
Complain about this comment
martine70
Your husband was responding to an existing and known threat to your property and family, there can be no complaint from anyone about this.
Would this threat have existed if the government would spend some more money on real Policemen to walk a beat around your neighbourhood instead of placing CCTV cameras in your high street ?
This for me is the real issue, not that long ago we used to have two Policemen who would walk a beat around our estate, they knew who the trouble makers were and could deal with them, often before any real trouble broke out.
Anyone suffering the sort of harassment your family has could tell them what was going on and they'd be able to sort it out.
This would not only prevent problems from escalating to the point you had to secure your home with CCTV but would also have the advantage that the local people support the Police and try to help them keep the streets safe.
Now when we have any problems on the estate we get some nameless Officers turn up in a squad car and no-one wants to talk to them because they've got no existing relationship with them. Instead of being seen as a part of the community they're seen as some distant authority figure coming to cause more trouble.
We wouldn't need all of the CCTV if we had a proper Police Force.
Complain about this comment
Something I've noticed recently with regard to the comments about police being over involved in the less important aspects of crime - in situations involving health issues. The story about Susan Boyle today on the BBC news website is an example:
"At 1800 BST, officers were called to a London hotel where doctors were assessing a woman under the Mental Health Act, Scotland Yard said. A woman was taken voluntarily by ambulance to a clinic, police said."
What does all this have to do with the police? Or am I just being dim? Are they expecting Susan Boyle to commit a crime?
Complain about this comment
ayjayhawk - the reason that the police were involved in the Susan Boyle incident is that the police have powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain people and take them to a place of safety. Furthermore, when a police officer is sworn in they pledge to protect life and limb.
You are correct in saying that the police are spending at lot of time involved in less serious crime. But that is because most crime is not that serious (unless you are someway involved in the crime). If police were to deal with only serious crime they wouldn't be that busy.
With regards to tonights program I think that it missed the point somewhat. Information is only interesting to anyone who is interested. Most information is dull and irrelevent. For example, the people who had details about cosmetic surgery. Surley if you had your nose done or boobs enlarged then this would be in the public at some point.
Complain about this comment
I saw your episode about dispute with neighbours today and would like to ask for advice. I would love to install the cameras as my house was broken in and my new car was stolen, my other car has been vandalised on a number of occasions, my number plate was stolen, marks left, then a couple of weeks a swastika was drawn on the side with a sharp object. Unfortunately the police will not take any measures unless you present a solid proof (they did not even take a staement after a major burglary). Watching your programme today strengthened my wish to install a CCTV camera. As some readers post on this blog not all camera recordings are of good quality. So can you recommend a certain model, like the one the people in today's episode used.
Complain about this comment
#146,147
The key words in this incident are "taken voluntarily" which means that the person was not "sectioned". I rather suspect that the police were called to protect privacy/dignity rather than to deal with the mental health aspects of the situation (of which there were none as it would seem). For the police to be involved under section 136 there has to be a serious risk that the person will harm themselves or others; in most cases doctors will deal with this kind of situation without assistance.
Complain about this comment
Got to say again that last night's programme was ruined by the bloody aggravating camera work throughout, like last week. The constant defocussing and refocussing is just so unnecessary, but also sort of hypnotic, to the point where I realised I had been so distracted that I had not taken in anything that was said for about 5 minutes! Please BBC, we can watch a documentary without this ridiculous MTV style visual treatment, it really really doesn't help.
Also re the neighbours dispute, it wasn't really properly investigated as to who initiated this dispute - there were two points of view but no obvious culprit identified. What did come across was the total lack of communication between the parties - for God's sake TALK to each other!!
Complain about this comment
Did I miss it, or was there no mention of Phorm/Webwise during this programme? Surely Simon Davies should have mentioned it, after all Privacy International have said they are concerned about the issue of consent in Behaviourally Targeted Advertising in a press release issued on 20th April on their Privacy International website.
Yet Simon Davies yet again cannot seem to find it within himself to mention the name of the only company in the UK currently promoting this technology for BTA. It's inexplicable. I appreciate his concerns about Google, but the Phorm DPA-based model, operating at a deep level within the ISP network, is even more intrusive and far less considerate of the issue of both user and website consent for the interception of communications. If informed consent is the goal, then it seems remiss of Simon Davies not to mention the one BTA company whose methodology of DPI kit installed at the heart of the ISOP and intercepting ALL a customer's internet traffic, and fails to seek consent for the intial interception from the ISP user, nor from the webwsite whose content is profiled, but instead to focus on Google, who although they do present concerns, can only collect information from people who visit their site or use their products. If its about informed consent, as EU privacy law requires, then Phorm/DPI is far more worrying than Google. The current EU infraction proceedings against the UK government have been triggered not by Google's technology but by the very inadequate government response to Phorm/BT and their trialling of Webwise technology. It was remiss of the programme, and of Simon Davies. to fail to mention Phorm - after all, both of them are well aware of it.
Complain about this comment
My post (151) above refers to Privacy International director Simon Davies when of course it should refer to Privacy International director Gus Hosein who was the PI person interviewed in the programme. My apologies, although the substance of my comment still stands - the programme and PI mysteriously fail to mention Phorm.
Complain about this comment
#150
Have to agree with you about the show which was poor. It is also worth noting that "information collection" is NOT talking to each other - a point you make so well!!!
Complain about this comment
ayjayhawk
"The constant defocussing and refocussing is just so unnecessary, but also sort of hypnotic, to the point where I realised I had been so distracted that I had not taken in anything that was said for about 5 minutes!"
I've got to second this.
Happens to me all of the time.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps someone could add a bit of flesh to something I was aware of yesterday morning (3.6.09) in South/South West London. I witnessed a large presence of police in various mobile units stopping motorists for what I presume were traffic offences. In all five of the incidents I witnessed the "offender" was a female driver.
Complain about this comment
The CCTV cameras are a serious invasion of privacy and a reduction of freedom. They are the contemporary society's first technical version of the Nazi Brown Shirts that informed on their families and friends to a savage dictatorial regime. To have so many in the UK without any discussion with the public before their instalation is a disgrace in a so called democracy.
The Govt's own stats show little or no decrease in crime so why are they still going up across the nation? It is yet one more illustration that the politics of modern Britain is not democratic. Increasingly in the UK and US the political system is more akin to the old 'kigdom' models where the ruling/controlling classes do as they see fit ..... for their own agendas.
Sadly, by the time large numbers of citizens realize the inevitable ramifications of this surveillance regime it will be too late!
Complain about this comment
#156
"Increasingly in the UK and US the political system is more akin to the old 'kingdom' models where the ruling/controlling classes do as they see fit ..... for their own agendas."
Certainly the apathy shown towards politics and politicians is worrying as it drives the very point you are making. The strategy works on the principle of "low turnout" equals "low opposition", whereas the real problem is "low (no) choice". People must reclaim their belief in being able to make changes by being vociferous and determined in their efforts.
CCTV serves little purpose other than being a "reassurance" when nothing happens. People can be oblivious to a non-working camera because no one can tell it isn't sending video signals. And there lies the rub - how long will it be after something bad happens in front of a TV camera without any emergency service response before the public gets the message that this farcical so called "security" is a waste of time and money?
Complain about this comment
A SAD REFLECTION
It is a sad reflection on sociatey when the gov/the police and the council,
are your worst enemy!
Complain about this comment
I've just watched the episode on surveillance and am appalled at the Manchester policewoman's aggressive attitude toward those men leaving HMP Strangeways. Is there no training available for these people? Does she not realise that shoving a police badge in someone's face and demanding they come with you (bearing in mind they have just escaped months of incarceration) will disconcert them somewhat? If they must film these people the best way to inform them is in a manner that wont alarm. She went on to explain that this tactic was only used in circumstances where ex-offenders continue to commit crime. So what did these chaps do between the prison gate and bumping into her? I am shocked.
The state must work very hard on their relationship with those leaving prison if they want to avoid them re-offending.
Complain about this comment
Turned 'whos watching you' on by accident tonight and found it very interesting.
On my CRB there has been a police note put that I held someone hostage, no date, no time, no place, just that a good few years ago I held someone hostage. I have never held anyone hostage, I don't have a criminal record or a mental illness. I told the CRB that the information was incorrect and after over six months the CRB officers are still waiting for the relevant police department to produce proof of their accusation against me.
I do not even have a driving offence against me. But as yet I have not been able to get this untrue police statement removed from the bottom of my CRB. It seems that in the same way as the police can take the finger prints of an inocent person, and hold the fingerprints on file, so the police can also make comments on people's CRB disclosures (which affect people's life and work opportunities) when a person has not been arrested, questioned, charged or convicted about an alleged offence.
With all the information that is held on people, I wonder, if we did a national survey, how much of a percentage of the population would be found to have false information held on them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why is it legal to film someone leaving prison? They have served their time. And the Christmas cards why hasn't that been labelled harassment?
Filming of demonstrations - as people arrive - is outrageous. It seems to me that is interfering with the democratic process.
The mantra should always be innocent until proven guilty. But you all know, if you don't want to be filmed all you do is park at Loch Lomond and start walking - hardly an ATMreally nice and pleasant land all the way to John O'Groats!
Complain about this comment
ALthough there'd be a lot to say about the content I was heavily distracted by the horrible camera techniques employed in this programme (I would have commented on it somewhere else more appropriate but there was nowhere else to leave this feedback). It was surely a nice idea to use the "in and out of focus" analogy to allude to spy-photography and surveillance OCCASSIONALLY, but come on...did it have to be a constant feature, even during interviews? It was not only gimmicky after a while, it was also annoying and made it difficult to watch the screen without getting sea-sick! Please don't over-do the "special effects"...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
System Own Dem, babylon control dem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MtGMc3N-cM&feature=related
Misty In Roots
Complain about this comment
Episode 3 watched and enjoyed. My life is now complete :-) Richard, a well balanced and excellent overview of our surveillance society.
One of many things that alarmed me, was the video recording of time-spent prisoners being released. It is almost covert other than a quite aggressive female officer wafting her badge and saying 'come with me' BEFORE explaining what is going on. That is a glaring example of our police state in action. The reason behind this intrusive behaviour? It is in case they re-offend and their appearance has changed. Lame, pure and simply LAME.
A process could be put in place within HMP, that every prisoner being released will have their picture taken, inside HMP, in a controlled environment, and that picture can be given to the Home Office. If that is the only reason, then this process would suffice. It is glaringly obvious that this procedure, along with the 'bad boys are not on Santa's list, but you're on ours' Christmas Cards from Manchester plod are used as pure intimidation.
Contrast this with a program broadcast recently by BBC Four (you can still find it on iPlayer) called 'Meet the British'. There is a section in that program featuring our 'marvellous' British Bobby. A friendly bunch of men providing a cute and quaint police service in the c.1950s. It was laughable by comparison, but a hark back to how things could be.
Back to 'Who's Watching You', I felt the decision by the GCHQ chief, 2001-2008 (name escapes me), to give his first ever TV interview was a brave step indeed. He very correctly summed up the fears, I think, of many a member of society today. (I'll paraphrase) Too much surveillance, he said, takes away the liberties that the protection supposedly provided by such measures is there to provide. In other words, 100% surveillance, meant to provide security to the people and state would itself become an oppressive regime to control the people for the state. The opposite effect to that intended.
A balanced approach is necessary. We need surveillance. We have always had surveillance in one form or another, but this total electronic recording, logging, cross-referring and collating of our data, journeys, shopping habits, phone calls, credit card spending, email sending, text writing, blog posting, coffee drinking, litter dropping, smoke inhaling, alcohol consuming society, is a step too far.
- Plods on the street, community support, every community watching out for each other. Sounds good, a bit 1950s, and not enough for our society today.
- More plods on foot, community relations, pride in that community, and watching out for each other, with technological advancement allowing the police and security services to 'watch' those that have come to their attention for valid and real reasons - red-flagged if you like, is where we should be.
- Not enough plods on foot, too many racing around in camera equipped cars, little respect for the community, everyone watching out for themselves, with technology invading every private moment in one way or another (I'm looking a bit further than mere cameras here) is a police state - that is where we are now, or at least very close to it.
We need to step back - middle ground. Just because the technology is there to spy on every member of society, in case they might be doing some wrong, doesn't mean we have to use it. Also, it shows two very pertinent things.
1. The authorities are paranoid - the few in fear of the many.
2. We are human
The first is perverse, and very wrong.
The second is natural
Complain about this comment
I would like to know how i can become an undercover operative in london or oxford. I saw an example in the first episode of Who's watching you?, i would just like to know if i could become one preferably within my council which is redbridge or nearby in london. I would like the information to be genuine.
Also i would like to know if the MI6 or MI5 recruit 18 year olds or under 21s for their covert operations?
Thanks for your help.
Complain about this comment
167. At 3:23pm on 10 Jun 2009, mdtaiwo wrote:
"I would like to know how i can become an undercover operative in london or oxford."
I would suggest you consider joining one of the Armed Forces, do your time, apply for consideration by Special Forces, and hope to be recruited. Alternatively, join the Police Force, become involved in Special Ops and hope to be recruited. They are not the only ways to become involved at that level in MI5/6; there are civil servants that work their way up too, but to my knowledge, you cannot simply 'become' an undercover operative (aka spy) unless you start your own Private Investigation company.
You need to start somewhere. There are no MI5 Careers Information Offices that I know of :-)
All the best
(ex-military and police by the way)
Complain about this comment
166. At 12:07pm on 10 Jun 2009, SHLA2UK wrote:
- More plods on foot, community relations, pride in that community, and watching out for each other, with technological advancement allowing the police and security services to 'watch' those that have come to their attention for valid and real reasons - red-flagged if you like, is where we should be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I don't sound too derogatory, but isn't that the point of the police whether they be c1950 or present day? Surley the police back then used the technology availible to the best of their ability?
We seem to be getting to the point where people blame technology for all of societies faliures.
Is it just a common sense thing or too many human-rights for the criminals that is the main policing problem of today?
People had more respect for each other and the law back then.
Complain about this comment
The purpose of a CCTV Camera - recording evidence of Criminal activity, recording possible causes of malfunctions.
The use of a CCTV camera for surveillance reasons is justified, no doubt. However, the misuse of its prime use is when the issue of 'privacy' surfaces. In a Third World generation like ours, where democracy is existent(supposedly), an individual begins to question the principles of social equality and respect for the individual because his privacy is being encroached upon. Why? Mainly because the CCTV cams are being used for several other illegal purposes rather than simply as a deterrent to crime and a social control measure.
Since there's no technological limitation preventing a network of such cameras from tracking (legal or illegal) the movement of individuals (the common man or terrorists!) the question that arises is, is the concept of privacy ultimately heading towards extinction?
Complain about this comment
A relationship breaks down when the two parties stop talking and begin to spy on each other; furtive suspicion; more interest in what the other is doing than what they are doing; obsession with conflict; the victim game.
The eventual outcome is always divorce, separation, and a long period of attrition.
And so our political leaders and their in crowd want a divorce. We should give to them, dispose of them, and then find someone else to commit to.
Complain about this comment
169. At 5:17pm on 10 Jun 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
isn't that the point of the police whether they be c1950 or present day?
Reginald, I agree. In fact that is what I was trying to say @166. Out of the 3 scenarios I tried to show; the 1950s type scenario, the more plods on foot scenario and the too many plods in cars scenario, I tried to show how we had moved too far in one direction, to the state we are in now, and need to take a step back to the middle ground - the 2nd scenario.
I do agree that we should use the available technology to protect and better our lives, but my argument is that this technology needs to be used properly, morally, ethically and justifiably. At the moment, and for the foreseeable, it would seem that there is a blanket approach to surveillance. Everyone seems to be fair game dependent on the person(s) watching. We need to shift the balance into one of law, and more specifically, the type of law, based on national security and public safety.
I liked the analogy made at 171. At 06:56am on 11 Jun 2009, In_for_me "A relationship breaks down when the two parties stop talking and begin to spy on each other" which nicely lends itself to my statement that the authorities are paranoid. They have become so insecure in themselves, they dare not turn their backs on the public in case we are drawing knives against them. In fact, their fears have driven that very manifestation and look at where we are now.
A simpler way of looking at it is, I would never read my partners text messages or view their emails unless they ask me to. If I did, I would be immediately suspicious, or why would I have done it in the first place? Once I've done it, I'll have to do it again, otherwise my paranoia would get the better of me. Now I am trapped and in a downward spiral of suspicion. Trust has been destroyed.
That is what has happened to our government because of all this surveillance. That is what will happen to our society as a result. That is why we need to change it, and change it now before it is too late.
The big question is, how to begin?
Complain about this comment
Having re-read my comment at 169 I see how it can be mis-interpreted. I *do not* support the use of mass-surveillance on the "presumed innocent".
SHLA2UK, Hello,
172. At 1:18pm on 11 Jun 2009, SHLA2UK wrote:
"...I tried to show how we had moved too far in one direction, to the state we are in now..."
I appologize, I read into your three statements at 166 differently. Having re-read I understand what you are saying and I also agree with you.
In my personal opinion some seismic shift in our *social structure* has/is occur/ed/ing and it isn't good.
What is the cause?
1)globalisation? 2)immigaration? 3)overpopulation? 4)terrorisation?
I certainly don't know.
The politicians seem to be using the 'crisp-packet-dropper' to mount an oppresive assult against an innocent majority using every technological weapon availible. For a police-state? Why?
#172 - "They [the authorities] have become so insecure in themselves, they dare not turn their backs on the public in case we are drawing knives against them."
I still don't understand the time-line.What has changed since the second-world war? Why are we now heading down this path? Or have we aways been and only now starting to feel the implications of "our dear leaders" actions? The Cold-War?
Ah well, such is life!
Regards
Regie.
Complain about this comment
Regie @ 173, thanks for clearing that up. I suspected we were both speaking the same language, and had re-read my own post to make sure I hadn't mucked things up - glad we're on the same page now.
I think that, barring the 'acceptance' culture that we're all guilty of, your confusion about the timeline - why / how we've ended up like this, is probably shared by everyone.
I don't believe that these things happened overnight. Change, for it to be accepted, or more likely, not noticed, needs to be gradual. I'm no conspiracy theorist, least not on the scale that would be needed to implement a grand plan of social change over 40 or 50 years, but I think that the blame, of where we are, lies fairly and squarely with us all. That said, we should not perpetuate this blame culture as that would be destructive, but we should, as a society, as a nation, develop a voice, raise our hands, show we are better than that.
I wasn't around in the 1950s, I only just made it into the 1960s and wasn't an adult until the 1980s, but I've seen the gradual changes like we all have. Mostly, they were insignificant on their own. They happened, broadly speaking, un-noticed. As time went on, we became used to seeing CCTV cameras in shops; on high streets. It was done for the common good.
We began to see CCTV in our workplace. If you handled money at any time, you could almost guarantee a camera would be watching the till. We were told, and in fact believed, that CCTV was some kind of guardian angel, there to protect us from the bad people. Don't assualt me, CCTV recording in progress.
I don't know if any psychologists are out there reading this, and I don't know if they would agree with my analogy, but looking at my post @ 172; the reading your partners text messages scenario, once you begin watching, it is addictive, compelling; it becomes necessary.
Expand this to watching cameras, recording data such as credit card purchases, internet use, mobile phone use, GPRS locating, ANPR software, facial recognition, tracking movements in various ways, not to mention the DNA database, fingerprinting and so on, and anyone capable of seeing all of this big picture in one place would become hugely paranoid.
It's human nature to be curious - that's how we got to the moon - but we are now very much in a dangerous place - curiosity killed the cat, it could be the downfall of our freedom too.
If you have surveillance, you don't need trust, but if you have trust, you don't need surveillance.
Complain about this comment
174. At 12:17pm on 12 Jun 2009,
SHLA2UK,
#174 "It's human nature to be curious - that's how we got to the moon - but we are now very much in a dangerous place - curiosity killed the cat, it could be the downfall of our freedom too."
Well said.
#174 "If you have surveillance, you don't need trust, but if you have trust, you don't need surveillance."
How true. Remember grandparents telling you how they "used to leave their back-door unlocked...you can't do that now-a-days!".
My grandad, on my mothers side, practised this until his death in 1996. From relatives to milk-men, all would be welcome.
I am not being sentimental. This was fact. The *majority* of people respected each other and each others property. Surveillance was personal and not institutional.
I was born in the early 1970's and therefore remember the *convex-mirrors" stuffed into each corner of our local CO-OP (now only seen on blind corners of country roads). Placed there, no doubt, to protect MS Smith ramming MS Jones with her trolly; perhaps also for the local manager to observe the same MS Smith stealing a packet of biscuits? I used to marvel at those mirrors now long replaced with CCTV. I *enjoyed* the idea that only I could see *round the corner*. But, of course, I was wrong. The battle field was flat. A mirror is bi-directional. Not so with CCTV.
Now I am being sentimental!
SHLA2UK, mud in your eye old fellow!
Regards
Regie.
Complain about this comment
Regie, I'd forgotten about the convex mirror thingy - yes, you're right, being 2-way, you can see who is watching you. I was never really concerned about them - they were there to protect the business and it was a mirror, not being recorded or streamed to a security company monitoring centre. So, as you seem to say, it was an acceptable way to keep an eye on things you can't always see.
We've taken a huge leap on in such a short time. My local shop has seemingly HD cameras - I see the screens - 17" TFT monitors, and the clarity is amazing. Again, this is for the protection of the business. I only become concerned when I hear of data being collected, recorded, archived, and it's happening all the time now.
No need to lock your doors - your life is an open book. Logged and stored for hackers to find. I grew up in NE England in the 70s and 80s, and people didn't lock doors, very true. The main reason was the no-one had anything worth nicking. Now they steal your identity, they can steal your very soul.
OMG, how creepy, following our recent exchange of thought and opinion, I see C4 has begun the Big Brother season again. Curiosity laid bare, a trap for the cat to spring.
Farewell privacy, farewell trust, farewell respect, and soon, farewell freedom.
Complain about this comment
#176 SHLA2UK...
I personaly believe in the use of mirrors,CCTV etc for the protection of businesses and individuals' property. Unfortunatly we need them.
I, like yourself, do not believe in the *mass archiving* of such data. This will only lead to no good. There is simply too much data that governments can twist into innumerable combinations for their own benifit.
A trap for our cat? No. The trapper will feel his snare. After all cats supposedly have nine lifes! Unless, taking the metaphor to its conclusion, this is its last?
Anyhow, the human race has survived two world wars thanks to the brave men and women of previous generations. I hope that ours and future generations will do the same.
Here is a passage from one of my favorite authors (the other you can guess from my username!) Sir Osbert Sitwell, an officer in the first world war. This is from 'Laughter in the next room' It is an answer to a future question of the past - how did the run-up to the 1st world war feel?:
"What was the world like before it fell, they ask: was there deep sorrow?...No, there was a peculiar sadness in the air, a feeling of hundereds of days leading up to this particular day, and every now and then the breath of a change to come as when the great airs of summer move under August trees: only that, and a surge of vanity in man. It is difficult to know the end of the world when you reach it."
If only I was that clever! Ah well, time to step down from my pulpit on this blog.
On a lighter note...We seem to be singing so well from the same hymn sheet that the vicar called yesterday to ask if i'll sing lead tenor at the next service!
I'll certainly look out for your username on other bbc blogs; we'll strike up an agrument with each other that'll get the other commentators (and hopfuly the moderators!) blood pressure soaring!!!
SHLA2UK, Cheers friend,
Regie.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if Mr Rudin watched Panorama's excellent effort at portraying the UK's one sided surveillance regime, covering climate change protest, some conservationists at work, and the G20 to name but three. There was also some very sharp interviewing of police and political representatives.
How "investigative" journalism should be done.
Complain about this comment
What is censor,restrictions are all modern terms to curtail individual freedom freedom of movement to from one places,restrictions on public speech against some governments anti human rights,same treatement to all,for reasonable wages,demonstrations against ruling forces inhunan treatements, banning some provoked news etc.etc.,
Government can impose certain rules,regulations,restrictions for certain periods for national security,for promoting ,for restoring confience among people at the time of agression,war and all of a sudeen violence from students,youths.
For prevention of terroists activities ,strict censor is necessary.
We are all free birds.
Complain about this comment
Look, it was out and it was pulled by the source, it happens once too often, eh? Must be one of those erroneous reports that deserve to be 'incinerated', yes?
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/
'Reports say the cameras will be used to monitor families who aren't abiding by the rules put in place by the Children's Secretary. More than 2,000 families have already taken part in the trial - but more funding is now being considered to roll out the plan en-masse.'
I don't get it, this will to be enslaved. Good thing there are folks willing to stand up for those who are moulded into conformance and numbness.
It's disturbing to see that nation which was given clear and farsighted warning about its own future is ready to steadily and blindly march towards it.
Bravo!
Complain about this comment
http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/
keen effort, it's always good to keep an eye on watchful eye
that research suggests that '4 in 5 people believe freedoms are being eroded in Britain', do tell, is it so?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS