Britain is the World's Surveillance Leader 640
hax0r_par writes "It seems that in Britain, surveillance on the general public is happening and being recorded 24/7. They are playing the angle that this is allowing for criminal surveillance, which seems justified by the article. But it really is something to take into paranoid consideration now that we've got the technology to make this possible."
don't worry, the US is catching up (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about online privacy. I'm not worried about government spooks sifting through my e-mail or web surfing habits and finding out that I like brunettes with long legs, long hair, and almond shaped eyes. It really doesn't concern me. If it were some supercomputer sitting in a back room chewing through e-mail looking for "homicide, suicide, terror, assassinate, secret, password, 9/11" or some other stupid set of keywords or tracing kiddie porn that'd be fine by me. At least until the anti-pr0n people decide that moral righteousness has no bounds and start coming after willing adults with no real sex life and a speedy net connection.
Face it. We live in the real world. People in power let it go to their heads and they often use it for purposes other than those in which it was given to them for.
What I'm worried about is that the guy down the block is an FBI agent. Or CIA. Or NSA. Or some local politician who knows one. One day I'm walking down the street and a candy wrapper drops out of my pocket onto his lawn. Now this guy is such a straight laced Bible thumping tight a__ POS that he uses his political muscle to find out who I am and begin harassing me. "He dropped a candy wrapper on my lawn! He's a litterer! He's no good for society! Besides, I saw him carrying home a six-pack of beer! He must be an alcoholic as well!"
Where's the check and balance? There is none. Who could prove it? No one. Who can stop it? No one.
Echelon, Big Brother surveillance, the Anti-Terror bill. They all suck for the same reason that the Windows registry sucks: there's no way to secure them from people misusing them to hijack the system.
Only when I'm in public (Score:5, Insightful)
I was attacked several years ago. Unprovoked; they were drunk, I was drunk. Anyway, the attack resulted in me being partially blinded in one eye. The police never caught the idiot who did it; not that they didn't try, but I couldn't exactly give them a good description. I wish there had been a camera at the spot where it happened. I fucking wish! So don't bleat on about personal privacy, because you've already got it. Unless you're in public.
Patriot Act (Score:2, Insightful)
And the best of it is (Score:5, Insightful)
A perfect proof, if one was needed, that putting a country under surveilance may have a little effect on petty high street thieves, but most certainly has nothing to offer to curtail terrorism, and everything to do with controlling the populace.
Orwell.......grave........spinning
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:don't worry, the US is catching up (Score:1, Insightful)
Will the real paranoid wacko please stand up?
Panopticon (Score:3, Insightful)
http://users.rcn.com/mackey/thesis/p
Good old Jeremy, whose stuffed corpse is still on display in in one of the institutes in London. He also wanted everyone - well, everyone except the well-to-do - to have the equivalent of bar codes on their foreheads. A man before his time, obviously.
The ironic thing is that these cameras have had little or no effect on behaviour or the crime rate. Mind you, there was no systematic monitoring to test the crime-reduction effects of cameras in the first place. Just a wild hysteria which amounted to "put those cameras up or they'll kill all our children."
h
But does it help? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid the answer is NO.
And very strong rules need to be aplied to WHEN en WHO can use this information.
In the UK anyone can (and does) install such systems that look at public spaces and use it for any purpose, not just catching the obvious criminal!
Without clear laws to protect the privacy of the innocent this WILL eventually get out of hand.
Watching the watchers (Score:2, Insightful)
I think all politicians should be monitored and recorded, as well as all civil servants [especially the police] - pretty much anyone in a position of power over others, in fact.
The technology's there, but it'll never happen - for some strange reason we're expected to trust those in power [for example, the word of a police officer is considered to be beyond doubt in court - but why? They're people, people lie.]. I wonder how many police officers would resign if they were told their every move was to be recorded in their day-to-day work.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, us privacy advocates understand this problem, and would like to point out that the camera's deterrent nature falls completely off once the first person has undertaken an illegal action under the camera and *not* faced any kind of punitive action. The majority of cameras are run by third party companies where they can be funded. I happen to live in a town where they spent all the money on the cameras and didn't have enough to staff them. Incidentally, the siteing of the cameras is also illegal under the CCTV extensions to the data protection act. But that's okay, they're the government.
"I trust the British government"
Well, I'll continue to be one of those naive privacy advocates until you shift your arse enough to understand that the government doesn't really care if you trust them or not, and that the time when you don't trust the government might be a few days too late to do anything. Also, it should be pointed out that it's local councils that handle cameras outside of the M25, and they've been models of civic pride. Discounting the special deals they make with developers. Or minor cases of corruption.
It's the laws that are important (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the checks and balances are there, I'm happy. Governments have always been able to spy on people, what matters is that people are participating in the political process and maing sure they have the power to resist any wrong the government does (note that I'm not talking about owning firearms. Owning guns doesn't give you power over a government- they can always afford bigger guns). Accountability is the key.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there were more rigidly enforced rules as to what can be recorded and how it can be used, then perhaps the cameras wouldn't be so bad - instead, you can get filmed by dozens of cameras and not have a clue what's being done with the footage.
Cameras might be helpful in catching criminals, but too many times you see fuzzy, single-frame-per-second, black-and-white video footage of an armed robbery with the police asking if anyone in the public recognises the masked perpetrators...
Then there's the mast-mounted CCTV cameras in town centres and the like, which merely have the effect of shifting crime out of the field of view of the cameras' lenses...
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Facts as seen by who? Suspicious according to what criteria? Into which context will our activities be placed?
At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.
Honestly, you trust the government at the moment (I'm also from the UK)? I certainly do not, and by the dramatic plunge in confidence ratings for Labour I'm not alone (not advocating an alternative party, merely pointing out the failings of the one in power).
And yes, let's look at the London congestion scheme. Brought in ostensibly to cure central traffic problems, when revenue undershot expectations they decided to extend the scheme to the suburbs against the wishes of 76% of the inhabitants, and today it's announced they're also raising the price. Trffic problems? Revenue raising.
Also, where do you think the people who used to drive have gone? What's happened to them, what's happened to their quality of life? Or do you feel it is co-incidence that there have been so many Tube failures lately after a surge in passenger numbers and drastic overcrowding on certain lines?
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who decides what's illegal and what's suspicious? Not to long ago, some jerk decided that being Jew is illegal. Now imagine what would have happened if he had the means our governments are installing today. Noone can guarantee that there will never again be someone in charge like Hitler or Stalin, so lets at least guarantee that they will not have a preinstalled surveillance network at their disposal...
Re:And the best of it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Different timelines. Cameras didn't hit their current ubiquity until after the bombing campaigns started to tail off when Sinn fein and the British Government starting talking in the wake of Clinton politicking between the two parties. The 'ring of steel' around downing street followed the mortar bomb attack, and cameras followed after that, but only in central London. Sod the populace as long as the PM is okay.
However, there have been more than several drunken fights outside my house (under a camera), and our town's crime statistics have stayed constant. The police are royally pissed because the cameras have been used as a justification to reduce their numbers in the local area, meaning that cars are administered from the county centre roughly 25 miles away. Calling the police tends to result in a 30 minute delay for them to divert a car, and they act as a visual deterrent more than anything else.
I'm less bothered about the drunken fights (they happen the world over) than I am the complete erosion of the policing of our towns. I'm more bothered that my tax money (council charge, paid to the local council in opposition to wage taxes, which go to central government) being used to buy a camera system that is patchy and considered a replacement for a warm body and brain in a uniform.
"may have a little effect on petty high street thieves,"
Almost none. There was a TV report of a man running a shop who'd invested in a state of the art camera system...put it this way, he dumps the footage to DVD. Now sinee he'd put the camera in, he'd had 250 cases of shoplifting. How many convictions off that? 5.
Basically, when the police arrest someone, the Crown Prosecution Service has to determine whether they can win a case and whether it's in the public interest to convict. So while it's obviously correct to try and convict Paul Burrell of stealing from *Our lady of grace, Princess Diana* [sarcasm intended], after her death, petty theft is not. Case in point. My sister and GF were attacked in the street. The attacker was known as someone who assaults people. The police said that they couldn't press charges because the woman in question had children and it wouldn't be in the public interest to remove a violent prat from the streets. THAT is what we contend with daily in the UK. We're by no means a police state, we just have the apparatus at the hands of the incompetant.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
When it is just you and a bunch of drunken yobs on the street, you may still get the crap beaten out of you or mugged, but at least with CCTV you stand a good chance of getting them caught and convicted.
We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, all at the cost of some imagined "privacy" while in a PUBLIC place.
CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth, in return there is footage of me scratching my arse while waiting to cross the road , which will be kept for a month or so before being taped over.
Hardly a terrible price to pay all things considered.
When the government passes a law mandating all cameras have to be digital, all digital footage has to be kept forever, and connected to a government face recognition system, then I'll be concerned.
As it stands most footage is erased after a month, and is stored on hundreds of individual unconnected systems. Hardly Big Brother.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't mind being filmed when I'm in a public place, why would I? I don't have anything to hide. No offence, but I think most privacy advocates should get a more creative hobby.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of times I would walk past some poor pedestrian surrounded by paramedics after being hit by a car was insane. Something had to be done about it.
Almost every car you see is just carrying one person. That's just not sustainable. Charging a toll that's really not that great compared to parking charges is a good way for the city to raise money to pay for upgrading public transport, and to make the car drivers actually pay for the vast damage they are doing.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good or bad ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, you're so missing the point. What happened to challenging people in the committing of a crime? what happened to actually taking an interest in keeping your own community safe? What happened in not handing over responsibility to local councils to keep you safe at night?
"Do we have to sacrifice some smaller parts of freedom to live in a more secure society ?"
Argh. So you want to keep trading those small bits of freedom to feel safe while the media fills you with dread over pedophiles, child murderers and terrorists? When will you feel totally safe? When the last terrorist has been hunted down?
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
-George Orwell, "1984" Chapter 1
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind that under contemporary definitions your 'Founding Fathers' would have been considered dangerous terrorists.
The founding fathers were pretty much driven by paranoia of a geographically and socially distant government becoming plutocratic and disconnected from the governed. That is why one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is that of the states to raise and train a civil militia (and the right of the civilians to keep and bear arms for participation in that militia) to oppose and even overthrow the federal government. Given their experiences such paranoia could be considered some what justified.
Stephen
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem arises when you don't trust the government. A system of cameras covering people's lives gives enormous power to the ones controlling it. Eventually a corrupt group will control the system as it provides too much power to leave alone. Take a camera down for an hour, commit a murder. Blank past recordings for incidents you don't want to be known. Record different events over old tapes, essentially rewriting history.
When you do reach a situation when you no longer trust the people in control it will be next to impossible to stand against them. It would certainly be impossible, if things came to it, to organise any kind of resistance against the government. No such thing as secret meetings. Potentially large crowds could be dispersed before they ever got troublesome.
With no privacy you lose power.
not so bad because... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the first thing people have to remember is that the CCTV cameras in the UK are not some huge centralised network where Blair can press a button and see me sitting at my laptop in the park. It is decentralised, set up and run by shops, bars, clubs, councils, etc... Enemy Of The State is a cool film, it is also rather silly.
The Brittish government, while I wouldn't go so far as to say I trust them, are relatively benign when it comes to nation affairs. There are laws protectly us from the missuse of these cameras and if we can't relay on governments abiding by the (national) law then we are all screwed anyway.
I worked for some time in a small shop in a "difficult" area. Sometimes I would be working on my own late at night and my only friend was the CCTV. When trouble was bruing I would say "Smile for the cameras, I'm phoning the police now." Okay this doesn't tackle the route causes of crime but anything that prevents it being perpetrated on me right now is a very good thing.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine that I will get flamed for this, but I think the statement above is very true, esp. concerning England. Personal ownership of fire arms is a much easier and, in my opinion, much more effective way of preventing crime. Violent crime in Britian as risen greatly since the fire arm ban. Bobbies are now being issued guns. If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.
Just to show I am not talking out of my ass.
Apparently Violent Gun Crime has gone up 20% in the last year [bbc.co.uk]
" Later in the week the home secretary is to host a summit on tackling gun crime, which figures due out on Thursday are expected to show has risen sharply......It is expected the figures will show a 20% increase in firearm offences in England and Wales."
Another article from the BBC about it [bbc.co.uk]
Another Article [csmonitor.com]
Heu Fox News gets in on the action too, you decide! [foxnews.com]
In all fairness, I have tried to include several sources and not just gun nut sites in the US. Flame away
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go with David Brin [davidbrin.com] on this one: we must be able to watch the watchers. I read in one article that several of those cams (the ones in the downtown London area) *are* monitored 24/7. There must be a publically available "watch the cam crew" cam. How will we know they aren't being racist, using the cams for inappropriate purposes, whatever? Easy, we can watch them. After all, if the cams are supposed to keep us safe from crime, shouldn't the same principle be applied to keeping us safe from the cam crews?
Similarly, I'd argue that the street cams should be available to the public; after all their taxes paid for 'em. You wanna see what's going on at 93rd and Main, check the cam.
What with cameras getting smaller and smaller it seems inevitable that they will, soon, be everywhere. Even if they were outlawed that hasn't stopped governments in the past, it'd just ensure that the cam network is hard to spot and kept a tight secret. Best to produce accountability, and transparency. Don't let access to the cams be a thing held only by the elite, make it available to everyone. And never forget to watch the watchers, naturally they'll scream that a public cam in the cam control room is wrong. Kinda interesting how they act when *we* want to watch *them*, isn't it?
I was once one of the "cams are evil, and I'll join the cam destruction teams" crowd. Then I read Brin's The Transparent Society [barnesandnoble.com]. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of cams everywhere, but I can see the inescapiable conclusion that with cameras getting smaller and cheaper it will be possible for the government to put them out in secret. I'd rather have transparency and accountability on a known cam network than the false believe that I've got privacy because I don't know about the secret cam network. Let's have even more cameras. Cop cams (pubically accessable) mounted on every police officer's shoulder when they're on duty. My own private cam that I can put on *my* shoulder when a cop stops me. Kinda makes for amore polite discussion when we both know the world can watch, ne? Etc...
Brin says it better than I do (which is to be expected I suppose, considering that he is a published author while I'm just a geek on slashdot). I'd recommend The Transparent Society to everyone here.
This argument is so simple (Score:2, Insightful)
The damning argument for high surveillence isn't that it invades privacy. Yes, many criminals have been caught with these cameras (but it should be noted that probably few have been prevented). The question is who is watching the people who aren't criminals? There are many people who have access to these tapes. Perhaps one of them has a crush on the sexy blond who goes jogging every morning. Perhaps he watches her as she goes to the store, sees what she buys, sees which bank she goes to, where her boyfriend lives, where her parents live... get my point?
Or perhaps you are a member of a subversive publishing house printing media scathing to the government. You aren't breaking any laws, but you're really pissing off the people who control those cameras. They begin to follow you, invade you life, and pretty soon you find you cannot be a member of their society anymore.
All of this happens today, without the help of cameras. Big Brother just makes it easier to commit the crime. Every politician is corrupt, and most of the police are too. Are these the people with which we are to trust our private lives?
-Dave
You're an American, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember a time when I was a kid when you could drive round all four sides of the square, but now you can't (and you haven't been able to for a long time) because of the anti-terrorist measures that have been placed there to protect the US Embassy from potential attacks. This protection, which has been there for well over a decade, maybe two, is greater than that afforded to Parliament or even Buckingham Palace. And the number of cameras attached to the building itself. Well, it's like they're going for a record or something.
The bottom line regarding CCTV cameras is this: most are either in shops (which are privately owned), stations and airports (for obvious crowd control in case of emergency/accident reasons), or in city centres. So, if you tried your damn hardest you could probably be filmed by 300 cameras in one day if you traipsed all over London but you'd have a nigh on impossible time hitting that 300 figure anywhere outside any major shopping precinct.
And, on top of all that, these cameras are hardly linked as part of some all-seeing network: if they were, do you think that we'd have any crime at all in central London? Think.
Now, if you want to take the article as being accurate, or if you want to assume that your experiences on your little sight-seeing tour were typical of everywhere in Britain, then feel free to be totally in the dark as to the real picture.
The average street doesn't have a camera on it. In fact, despite living in a London suburb, I'd have to go a couple of miles to find a camera that's not in either a private premise (such as a shop or pub) or train station (to prevent things like platform overcrowding). Even then, those cameras would be outside a public building (such as a Police Station) or in a popular shopping centre. Now, if that's your definition of "Big Brother is watching you" then you really have a warped idea of how effectively someone can watch me from a few cameras a couple of miles away.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to know that a camera can watch me getting mugged.
I DONT WANT TO BE MUGGED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
This is the same as the policemen sitting down letting technology do the work for them (speed cameras etc).
Its unfortunate you lived in a rough neighbourhood, and I have been in similar situations.
I would rather spend 10 times as much money (yes even raise taxes if needbe) on real life, actual police officers that I can see and speak to.
Getting real officers out and about doesnt just reduce crime, it gives people confidence and peace of mind. A camera just idly watches it happen.
Technology should never replace the human touch, cctv does have a place, but not sprinkled around like confetti.
I fear to do it however would mean a major shakeup of everything though, but thats my £0.02 worth.
How Can This be Invasion of Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were cameras installed in my house, I would have privacy issues, but not in the town centre.
No-one has issues with cameras in banks, shops or ATMs. No-one asks tourists to delete photos that include them in the background.
Why is it such an issue in public places if the camera is run by the police?
Does anybody believe there are hoards of analysts checking these tapes for individuals in real time?
Do you believe everybody is interested in you?
Do you believe the guv'mint is keeping tabs on you, where you walk, what you buy, who you talk to, just because they can?
Does anybody actually identify with Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory? Are we being tracked by the metal strips in our currency?
I believe this is just a mistrust of the unknown thing. In the distant past, our campfire light didn't illuminate the woods, so there were trolls, gnomes, elves and pixies in there. Same thing these days, but it's Aliens and secret guv'mint departments, because we don't know what they are up to.
Paranoia is no way to live your life, relax, you are not the centre of the universe, nobody cares about you, you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are a member of a mass, you do not stand out.
Unless, of course, you are all criminals and have your faces in the image recognition software that will call down an airstrike from black helecopters as soon as you are identified!
That was a joke, by the way.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since nobody in UK (apart from weird tabloid-speak and people attempting to be ironic) use the word 'bobbies', I'm assuming you're not from the UK. This would explain your frankly bizzare linking of the firearm ban (which was ridiculous, IMHO) and the rise in violent crime. Absolutley nobody carried (legitimately) a handgun as a crime deterrent and anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.
I'm not saying that gun crime isn't up, I'm not saying that the ban was stupid, but to connect the two is a non-sequitur of pretty big proportions.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:1, Insightful)
What? Only the people who start bar fights get severely hurt? What planet do you live on?
Had you soundly thrashed the wanker, he might have refrained from starting trouble in the future.
Yeah right. Do you really believe this? If you do, you might well be the least cynical and most naive person alive.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right. Do you really believe this? If you do, you might well be the least cynical and most naive person alive.
On a reduced level, as a former Junior high school teacher I'm firmly convinced much of the drugs and violence in High School is because we stop bullying in Junior High too much. The way it now works is that the kids with fast mouths victimize and ridicule the ones with fast fists and they are helpless to respond. Even as a teacher who knew which kids to watch, actually catching them picking on someone verbally in earshot is very difficult. On the other hand, seeing the physical retaliation is easy. What a good chunk of these behavior problems need is a good ass kicking. For you non-US, Junior High is ages 10 to 13 generally.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.
This has got to be a troll. America is one of the few nations with a high degree of personal firearms, and has crime "gone away" there? I think not.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure that the EU types will love their gun bans until they manage to extinguish in the name of safety all freedom. If you take the USA's crime rate apart by race you find ours even for guns is lower than England for the persons of northern European ancestry. If this is a product of some racial factor or some sociological factor I don't propose to say. The incidence of murder and other violent crimes appears to have a pretty stable rate for various ancestrial groups no matter where in the world they are.
One statistic which simply does not lie is the one which tells how reliable this "Trusting the Government" idea is. In the period from 1900 to 2000 the world saw something close to 205 million persons murdered. During this same period we saw the total number of persons murdered by their fellow citizens in crimes below 5 million. We saw the number of persons murdered by their respective states reach nearly 200 million. Trusting your personal security to a nation state is INSANE.
We have in the USA a creature who is a most peaceful animal. This animal never is known to attack others and is generally left alone by all. It is a porcupine. Assauting a porcupine is a good way to wind up with a face full of quills. (long spikes) So long as the State understands they will get a face full of quills (Bullets) if they bother me. They leave me alone.
In the USA the right to keep and bear arms is not associated with crime control. It is State Control. The reason the State wants gun control is it is getting predatory.
It must be clear to all that removing the quills from porcupines does not enhance the safety of porcupines. It only favors the predators. This is also true regards the State. (State = Nation for those who cannot read the dictionary)
In order for the State to feel safer in hurting its citizens it finds it necessary to make them fearful of the citizens quills. This makes the citizens give up and makes the world safe for the worst of all criminals, the police state.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Britain's gun crime rate has risen since its handgun ban. That is a comparison of Britain to itself; nowhere is America mentioned, because America is irrelevant to the claim.
Thus, Britain's *rate* of gun crime is rising (positively-sloped, but a negative to British society). This again, is a comparison of Britain to itself, and nowhere is America relevant to the argument.
Admit it, the law has backfired and the grandparent provided several very-credible sources showing this is true. Like the NRA famously claims, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Britain is learning this the hard, violent, bloody way. That's what you get for trusting the big British government...
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason you trust your government is because at this particular point in time your definition of a criminal act happens to loosely coincide with that of the powers that be. However, the assertion that sometime in the future for your children or grandchildren that pleasant circumstance may not exist is more a historical fact than any tin foil hat wearing paraonoia.
When it comes to issues of civil liberties, it's a good excercise to imagine the most extremist views in your society that you disagree with and ask yourself: "Would I want that guy deciding who is the criminal and who is not? Which person to film and which to ignore?"
The answer is almost always a resounding NO! We all do things that may be legal today, but were it up to certain fringe parties would not be tomorrow.
The problem with those so willing to give up civil liberties won by civil war and extreme social unrest is that they always imagine that the guy behind the government camera agrees with them.
-- James
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the grand-grand-parent suggested that the american idea of people carrying arms to reduce crime was working, hence it's completely fair to compare crime rates between the countries.
Also, one of the articles he pointed to claimed as a great success that the murder rate in the US was now *only* 6 times (!!!) as high as britains, rather than 10 times as high like it used to be.
Even if the arguments of the NRA are applicable in the US (which i doubt) they do not work in a society where guns are as rare as they are in britain. In 7 years here, I have not seen a single gun, not even an imitation one, except for armed policmen at specific point (e.g. airports, the US embassy, visits of foreign dignitaries etc.).
Similarly in 20 years living in Germany I've seen one gun other than in the hands of police. While I spent 1 year in the US I saw countless guns...
If you're not used to that it makes you feel very uncomfortable, I guess if you're used to it it could make you feel safe...
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, why? Is a mugger more in the right than someone trying to keep from being mugged? One guy has done nothing wrong (legal gun owner) and is trying to defend himself. The other guy is in the commission of a crime that assaults another. This should be clear-cut in favor of the gun-owning victim. I don't understand the British sense of priorities in this case...
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
> nearly 200 million. Trusting your personal security to a nation state is INSANE.
And you really think that in the states where this happened, guns were not ready available to the populace? Most of these 200Mn deaths are due to attempted coups and revolutions and counter-revolutions and fights with "rebels" etc. etc.
IF the US government starts doing things you don't like, what are you going to do? You really think that handgun in your house is going to stop them?
You really think that if Germans had had more guns, Hitler wouldn't have come to power? You think Hussain would have been removed earlier if there were even more weapons in Iraq? You think Afghanistand was lacking handguns more than anything else? How about Sudan?
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Stalin disarmed the peasants. Hitler disarmed the Jews. Pol Pot disarmed his citizens. It always starts with taking away the method of resistance. Guns may not have stopped these tyrants from rising to power, but when the gestapo came knocking, a few would have paid for it.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now that is sick.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
This statistic is a little crude because it doesn't take into account very very different levels of gun ownership from place to place. For instance, guns are entirely banned in Washington DC, and DC is often the most likely place to be murdered by a gun in the US.
On the other hand, there are places here in rural Ohio which are so well armed that they could take over a latin american country, and they have not had a murder in that county since Ohio's inception (and they are not necessarily unpopulated...they often have a pretty good sized population.)
And of course there are places that are mixed. Much like comparing the gun culture of Switzerland and Israel to the anti gun culture of Japan (former two have low homicide rates, lots of guns, latter has relatively high murder rates, low guns) its the culture that makes the difference, not the guns.
Gun crime in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, the places in the US with high crime rates are the places with the most gun control (NYC, LA, etc.). Gun control laws were passed because of high crime rates. Crime rates were not thereby reduced. The answer, of course, was more gun control. And here's why:
"When an ideologue finds himself in a hole, he calls for a bigger shovel." -- Bill Clinton.
Bill is a smart cookie (he also happens to be an advocate of gun control, but there's no law of logic or nature that says a guy who's right about one thing can't be dead wrong about another).
So in places like NYC, gun control has been successful in getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but it has failed utterly to get them out of the hands of criminals, much less reduce the crime rate.
Meanwhile, in parts of the US where law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, and in significant numbers do own guns, the crime rate is so low as to make London look like a war zone. That's called a "correlation". We haven't established causality.
All we've done is demonstrate that you're talking out your ass.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
That argument doesn't work. Sure, a revolutionary is going to break laws, but that isn't the only thing preventing a revolution. Arranging them is difficult. Having to acquire your weapons from a source outside of your own country and then import them makes them harder, and increases the chance that you will be noticed before you manage to stage your coup.
The facts about CCTV cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
They are mostly used to catch people peeing in the street (locking up public toilets is always a good way for a council to raise some revenue), rolling joints, and other petty things. In my experience CCTV cameras have not reduced littering; camera-equipped streets are just as full of crap as everywhere else.
CCTV cameras do not reduce crime, they merely displace it.
Once the locations of CCTV cameras become known, criminals simply avoid them and commit crimes elsewhere. There was an incident in my home city where somebody went around spraying paint on every property in a street except the ones covered by cameras.
CCTV cameras are widely abused.
CCTV monitoring is unregulated. Often monitoring centres are filled with dirty old men letching at attractive young women, occasionally attractive young men. Sometimes the monitoring operatives will be so busy spying on a particular "target" that a real incident will go unnoticed.
CCTV cameras do not provide an undo button.
By the time the crime has been committed, it is already too late. Stolen property may be recovered; but the greatest probability is that it will already have been sold on by the time that the authorities get around to investigating the incident. Rewinding a tape will not bring a dead person back to life, nor will it undo the psychological damage caused by being a victim of crime.
CCTV cameras do not provide incontrovertible evidence.
CCTV footage is often of insufficient quality to enable an arrest to be made. There have been many cases where tapes have been "accidentally" lost, erased or never even loaded into the recorder. It is also possible that CCTV footage -- especially if stored digitally -- could be tampered with.
CCTV cameras engender a false sense of security.
The lumpenproletariat expect that CCTV will protect them from the "evil people", and as a consequence take less responsibility for their own security.
The potential costs associated with CCTV cameras outweigh the benefits.
Imagine the misuse of CCTV if an extremist group such as the BNP somehow managed to take power. We have pretty much taken for granted the right to come and go and carry out our business without anyone else knowing or caring about it. What if something that you currently enjoy doing became illegal?
The greatest cause of crime in Britain today is drug prohibition. A dose of heroin which costs pennies to manufacture sells for £10; most of that goes on the costs associated with hiding the business from the police. Since dealing is already illegal, there is no incentive for dealers to be concerned with product quality nor customer welfare. There is a definite disincentive against users seeking help to break a habit, because to do so might involve betraying friends. (Altruism is hard-wired into humans, for the sake of survival of the species as a whole; but is bypassed entirely in times when an immediate need is present. An addict, especially of painkillers, needs their drug with their whole body, in the same way as you or I might need food, or water, or the toilet. If you are ever so careless as to get so desperate that you have no alternative but to take a huge crap right in the middle of a crowded shopping street, I guarantee you that you will not feel one iota of remorse or embarrassment until after the deed is done. Unsatisfied need overrides everything else).
Nicotine is reckoned to be more addictive than heroin (though the different legal status undeniably distorts this statistic), but is legal and -- compared to heroin -- it is cheap to maintain a nicotine habit. (The illegal smuggling of rolling tobacco from the continent, where taxes are lower because there is no NHS, is known about, and largely tolerated, by
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that in 1938 (when Hitler passed the law you refer to) the Jews could have mounted an armed struggle against the nazi party, or even against the Gestapo is absolutely ludicrous. The Jews in Germany were not militant nor widely armed in the first place.
SciFi commentary becomes Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftrans
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
you are ignorant of the large number of laws that
you violate on a daily basis. When you become
politically unpopular, or inconvenient to some
powerful person's brother-in-law, you will be
removed to prison.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
But he has, he's waved a firearm around in a public place. So actually both guys are commiting crimes that have the potential to injure or kill somebody.
If the person with the firearm uses it and hits an innocent bystander should he be let off because he was just protecting himself? He is carrying out an action that has potentially disasterous consequences for others who have nothing to do with the crime why should he be allowed to put others at risk in this way?
I dont understand Americans obbsession with the freedom to use items designed urely to injure and kill in anyway they please without restriction.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not trying to be pro or anti gun but..
What are the statistics on non gun crime, heh? I think th UK would rank up there, but of course gun crime leads to more death.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Germany elected Hitler - it wasn't totalitarian to begin with. But otherwise, right. They take away the guns while the gov't is trusted. (Sounds like a good idea - fewer weapons means less violence, right?) Then when the gov't changes (or maybe it was the plan all along) the populace is defenseless.
Learn from history. Never, never, never give up your guns. Things may be OK now, but situations can change quickly, and it's too late to undo the mistake of disarming.
Even if the threat of tyrannical gov't is removed, criminal elements alone are reason enough to protect yourself. You wouldn't put a sign in your yard that said, "This home has no effective resistance to a powerful criminal, but police can be summoned in 5-15 minutes" would you? Maybe you live that way, but you're relatively safe because it's unadvertised, and criminals have to risk the odds. But in a country where law-abiding folks are disarmed, the whole country has that sign in their front yard. It's foolish.
Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your position is utterly perplexing. You say "waving a firearm around" like the mere action is causing horrific injuries and massive casualties.
Hello, nothing happened. If the gun accidentally discharged due to the owner's carelessness, he should be fully responsible for that. (This very risk is why responsible gun owners [which most are] that carry for self-defense [which not many do] usually take it upon themselves to get training.) But to leave him defenseless because of a maybe, a might-have-been, a potentiality - is ridiculous. I might slander or libel someone, and that's a crime too - should I be barred from speaking or writing??? Just like most people never slander or libel someone (to a criminal level anyway) most people never use a gun against another person. Most of the times when they are used against a person are in self-defense. And most defensive gun uses never even result in a bullet being fired - just "waving it around" (and often it doesn't even amount to that) is enough to make a criminal think twice and back off. However, these stories don't make headlines [hillsdale.edu] (Sep 2004 if the relevant story has been archived).
Nobody in the US makes it a habit to walk around like Rambo, dozens of guns and live ammo strapped on, casually sticking them under people's noses with the safeties off. The fact that you have that perception just shows how ignorant you, and most people that haven't grown up around guns, are of them in particular and America in general. The media plays on your ignorance, showing the very thing you fear as the only possible outcome. Try a different picture. [americandaily.com]
"Your defense against aggression might have a remote possibility of harming a third party. Therefore you shall forever be relegated to victimhood." Silly Brits.
I don't understand the British obsession with bending over and taking it up the rear.
It is precisely because there are people who will use (potentially lethal) force against me and my family, whose lives I value very much, that we fiercely protect the freedom to use similar force in defense. If my right to life means anything at all, my right to defend it (with force if necessary - maybe you get by with biting witticisms?) is a natural consequence.
If your life isn't worth protecting, fine, don't buy a gun. If your neighbors' aren't worth it, disband your police. If your countrymens' aren't worth it either, disband your military. If you can claim a collective right to protect your collective lives, then how can you deny an individual right to protect your individual life? In a country of one, you'd be your own military. No one cedes that right just because there are other people around.
Government (people as a collective) has no right to do what individual people have no right to do. Invalidating self-defense invalidates national defense. Just because you want to be peaceful doesn't mean everyone else does, and occasionally you may have to use violence to defend the peace. Sounds paradoxical, but true.