UK to lnstall Wireless Mics on London Streets 472
johnthorensen writes "Looks like parts of London may be seeing wireless microphones on the street sometime soon. At this point, they're looking to use them to monitor noise ordinance violations - if you call about a repeated disturbance, they'll mount one by your place to monitor noise levels for the next several days. The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs. The microphones apparently communicate via wireless Internet connection, although no real details are given as to the nature of said connection. Are London residents getting the boiled frog treatment?"
One question before we begin... (Score:2)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:3)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:5, Informative)
They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.
But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:4, Informative)
A totalitarian state has no particular use for incrementalism because the people do as they're told or they get shot. Sometimes, even if they do what they're told they get shot. However, subverting a government such as the United States used to have requires a bit more subtlety. Little things slip under the radar, but over time they result in a significant loss of civil liberties, and an even more significant loss of control over the government in question. In fact, if you move slowly enough, you can create a legal climate more reflective of a police state than a republic, and many of those frogs, uh, citizens will cheer you on.
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:5, Informative)
I think they're refering to the saying that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it'll leap out, but if you put it in cold water then gradually heat it won't try to escape and you'll boil it. It's the standard /. analogy when anything that could conceivably lead to an Orwellian society appears in the news.
The process is actually more likely to work on a human than a frog, because the human body would do various things to try to cool down once things got a bit hot, whereas the frog could only regulate its temperature by getting out.
Re:One question before we begin... (Score:2)
As a frog can't regulate its own temperature it will always try to move to an environment at a suitable temperature, so it will notice the heating, no matter how slow it is (see Snopes [snopes.com]). In contrast, a significant number of people have been killed by sitting in hot tubs and spas at high temperatures for too long:
"There have been several deaths from extremely hot water (over 110F) in a spa. High temperatures can cause drowsiness, which may lead to unconsciousness, resulting in drowning. Raised body tempera
Deus Ex anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1984! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deus Ex anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
St Louis City already has a few of these up and operational for gun noise. They set them up in 3 different positions around hot spots to triangulate where the shot was fired from. It's mostly a deterrant to celebratory gunfire.
Re:Deus Ex anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
I could see that. Nothing says I'm happy like firing a lethal weapon off gratuitously, and without regard for where the bullets might come down.
Re:Deus Ex anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Deus Ex anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Although many of the articles also cover both cites in Canada and the USA.
European cities with more than 250,000 residents are being required to install noise pollution monitors [wired.com]
Europoean Union Says "Quiet" - The European Union is requiring all cities with populations over 250,000 to develop noise maps in an effort to reduce exposure to bothersome and harmful noise levels. Paris leads th
Tampering? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tampering? (Score:2)
"Minimal damage"? Really? (Score:5, Funny)
However, they severly underestimated the talent and intelligence of drunken men - I swear one night I saw a group of people standing on their shoulders, rotating a speed camera around 90 degrees. Nobody in the police actually realised it had been rotated for a few months...
Re:"Minimal damage"? Really? (Score:4, Funny)
I presume they were tipped off by the Royal AirForce's complaints about their jets being ticketed for speeding.
Re:Tampering? (Score:5, Funny)
Steve...
Re:Tampering? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tampering? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with speed cameras is they disrupt traffic flow - everyone slams on the brakes as they see a camera which at worst case causes a pile-up, but usually just slows the traffic right down.
There are some speed cameras in a 50mph zone near me - everyone does about 50mph down the road and then slams on the brakes as they see the camera and slow down to about 25mph because they're not 100%
Re:Tampering? (Score:3, Insightful)
1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Britain -- major nanny state (Score:4, Informative)
The police here don't actually do hard stuff like going after burglars and muggers, it's too much work and it's not sexy and it may be dangerous to them.
Instead, they spend their time hanging out on motorways fining speeders despite modern cars running like on rails at our speed limit.
And of course, CCTV cameras are going up everywhere so that they can do even more of a bugger all. And now microphones.
The whole system of "law enforcement" here sucks, because it does nothing to stop hard crime. The police end up monitoring the ordinary fairly civil person instead, while the real criminal is totally unhindered.
1984 is definitely relevant.
Re:Britain -- major nanny state (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chicken Little (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)
neither did crime
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
Nice try. But Hitler was not german.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice try. But Hitler was not german.
I've heard someone say once that the two greatest achievements of Austria in history were to make the world think that Hitler was German, and that Mozart was Austrian.
(Not that I agree, but it's a fun joke to make Austrians angry with)
Re:1984 (Score:2)
Idiot. (Score:2)
Re:Idiot. (Score:2)
Re:1984 (Score:2)
Braunau is definitely not mountainous, it is sort of a rural hill area with lots of fields and farms, not the flatlants (which are close to Hungary in the east) but definitely not mountains which are 200 kilometers to the south.
Re:1984 (Score:2)
Re:1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem here , is some smart arse thought they could motivate the police to reduce the crimne-rate by giving them quotas . So instead of conducting there normal investigations they have to allocate a certain ammount of time to meeting those quotas . Violant crime and robbery take time to solve , Random drunks being a bit loud , speeders and dangerous drivers are like shooting fish in a barrel.
Its the same in the UK , its the same in Germany and im fairly sure its true in most other EU nations (probably also true in the USA , Canada , Australia , newzeland... etc etc)
On the issue of wireless mics , 90% of the recorded stuff (bar random noise ), will be pissed teenagers and 20 somethings Shouting "F**Ck off Pigs" directly at the mics which get found and are not in a position to vandalise
Its a waste of money and a waste of time
Good idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
"The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs. The microphones apparently communicate via wireless Internet connection, although no real details are given as to the nature of said connection."
While this may also be justified if you want to meassure noise levels (and if there is a concrete issue), having to worry about things you talk about on the stre
Re:Good idea! (Score:2)
I could be mistaken, but I believe they got John Gotti by wiring up all of the parking meters on the streets he walked with bugs.
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Justin.
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I love his line:
He should be embarassed and ashamed. Not all neighbours are reasonable, but FFS, he's puting his stereo over the well being of his neighbour. What the hell is the matter with this righteous prick?
It's no wonder people move into gated communities.
Re:Good idea! (Score:2)
Besides, suppose some city in the US were to implement a plan like this. But contrary to what the English are (apparently) doing, we end up using highly sensitive microphones. Our constitu
Westminster wireless network (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a London resident... (Score:5, Insightful)
Public streets are just that: public. You don't get to veto who's watching and/or listening to you. If you want to discuss insurrection or your new water-fuelled-engine invention, go somewhere private.
Besides, excessive noise is an infringement of privacy too, in my opinion.
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:2)
Initially. Then a year or so later, change a parameter.
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:2)
Good point; recording statistical data rather than actual samples ought to address the alleged intent perfectly well.
I did wonder while typing my original post whether the framerate on street CCTV was sufficient to allow lip-reading, in which case the privacy arguments become rather moot.
I'm a Londoner as well (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between between "public" as in "you can't complain if someone stands next to you in the tube and overhears all of your conversation" and "public" as in "you never know who's watching and listening". London is already tightly packed with CCTV (although I have to object to the "CC". I fail to see what's so closed circuit about wireless cameras that present their pictures on the net, like this one [bbc.co.uk], very close to where I live). Nevertheless, whenever the police publishes pictures of an "unidentified" mugger, you see that it is actually impossible to identify an unknown person on the pictures. What is possible, however, is to follow certain persons around town as they do their daily work.
To cut it short: London is already quite Orwellian (the Royal Opera [royaloperahouse.org] is right...). We definitely do not need microphones eavesdropping on us. I can already see the first headlines in the metro: "Drug dealers arrested after being overheard by micros!" And everyone will cheer...
Re:I'm a Londoner as well (Score:2)
Part of where I'm coming from - ever since reading Bob Shaw's Other Days, Other Eyes I've been convinced that attempts to hold back the spread of surveillance devices are Canute-like in the extreme. (I think David Brin has also written on the same subject.) Once they're tiny, disposable, wirelessly-networked, absurdly cheap and plausibly deniable, they WILL be everywhere.
Rather than fighting a losing battle against technological inevitability, I think we'd be be
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:2)
I think you just missed the entire "boiling frog" point.
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:2)
I'm not wild about universal public surveillance, but as I wrote in another post [slashdot.org] I think it's a technological inevitability, and we're better off legislating around the usage of surveillance data.
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that with each new step (e.g. first cameras, now microphones, next .. ?) the concept of being "watched all the time" becomes normalised amongst the public (and you, regardless of whether you think you are immune to this effect). Thus each new step taken is approved by the public because it only marginally increases the amount of surveillance currently in place, which, whatever the level, is considered 'perfectly normal' because it's already there. Each marginal increment is very soon normalised too.
Maybe you personally are able to draw the line somewhere (e.g. public vs. private spaces), but I promise you, 99% of the other humans around you are not - they have not even thought about this at all, and do not have a 'line' that they will draw that cannot be crossed - as a result, there IS no upper limit to how omnipresent surveillance will become. It's not a matter of if the line between public/private surveillance is crossed, it's only a matter of when, and people will accept it because most people don't even think about these things like you do. For them, it will already be normal to be watched all the time, so it'll just be an extension of the same thing. It will start, of course, with spaces that are somewhere between public and private, e.g. shopping malls, restaurants.
The technological capability of universal surveillance may be inevitable, however socially and politically it is most certainly not an inevitability. If people protested it strongly enough it would never actually happen. It is only "inevitable" so long as people believe it is an inevitability, and thus simply accept it. You are doing precisely this. You will never be able to effectively legislate surveillance in a world where everyone regards surveillance as normal. The only way to prevent it is to evangalise and 'normalise' the idea that surveillance itself should be balked at, anytime. This is tricky though due to the positive practical purposes that surveillance can serve, e.g. lowering the crime rate.
Re:I'm a London resident... (Score:2)
Dude, it's called a wall.
a little late: (Score:2, Insightful)
1984 here we come (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, it might be okay as long as actual sounds are not transmitted, but rather just sound levels (properly encrypted of course). Somehow, I don't have much faith though.
The UK is slowly moving towards a survalance nation. We have more CCTV per person than anyone else in Europe. Of course, violent crime is actually on the rise.
Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
You're contradicting yourself, fear of justice makes people less likely to commit crimes so you imply that support such cameras. Also, safety and privacy are exclusive in numerous regards.
London (Score:2)
Less noise, less pollution, less traffic, less crime, less intrusion, less stress, less expense.
London is a great place to visit for a week. It's a horrible place to live and work, though it's still better than Manchester.
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2, Insightful)
So after a while they could just go rate = 44.1kHz...
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
If attackers were usually caught and brought to justice, it'd make you feel safer and reduce the risk of you being mugged in the first place.
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
Like on the bus going through peckham when groups of youths from the local youth detention center "enquired" about what type of phone i had. Also outside clubs where fights regularly break out.
I'm not saying we don't need more police or anything like that and i hate the whole ID card scheme but I actually quite like CCTV and brighter lights.
Re:1984 here we come (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm. I have some problems with that scenario:
1.) The more that is recorded, the more that has to be sifted through and turned useful. Even with decent voice recognition, this is a hell of a lot of work requiring a LOT of processing power (assuming it's even automatic), lots of bandwidth, and LOTs of mics all over the place to actually catch anybody.
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
But this is not to say that an Orwellian nightmare couldn't happen right now. In fact, it's quite eas
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
Look at it this way, we now have more CCTV than ever, and more voilent crime than ever. That would seem to suggest that CCTV is not a deterrant to voilent crime.
Consider this. Voilent crime has risen. For some reason, people are not more inclined to commit voilent crimes. Some people would suggest that this is because punishment is not as harsh as it used t
Re:1984 here we come (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it's as black and white as that. It could be that violent crime would rise at a more rapid pace without all of the cameras, to play devil's advocate to your argument.
Another factor to consider is that as the technology of security increases, humans become
Re:1984 here we come (Score:2)
Re:1984 here we come (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's completely ridiculous, money-wise, so you have to lean on technology to increase manpower, just like we do in so many other ways. The capacity to do something Orwellian doesn't mean that's the policy or the intent. But being able to address s
Re:1984 here we come (Score:3, Funny)
I thought continental drift was moving it AWAY from America.
Oh, SUPER! (Score:3, Insightful)
At least they're not touting this as an anti-terrorist measure. I guess that's no longer as credible as it used to be.
Re:Oh, SUPER! (Score:2)
http://www.webactivemagazine.co.uk/news/1162852 [webactivemagazine.co.uk]
Re:Oh, SUPER! (Score:4, Funny)
You missed the wireless part of "wireless microphones".
Re:Oh, SUPER! (Score:2)
Cliff? Is that you?
WiFi squatters? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they will interfere or occupy the wrong frequency bands it's a big help to those who have all to fear from the technical achievements of WiFi.
Westminster is only a little bit of London (Score:2)
Eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Because it sure seems like they are.
Balancing of rights and another example (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, on the other hand, if London started recording conversations, that would make for a more interesting - and invasive- use. At that point we're heading right for 1984. Of course, London already uses cameras in public places for use as evidence, so their networking infrastructure is already there...
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Having lived in a flat very close to a nightclub, I'd support measures to fight their noise nuisance. If you were plotting to overthrow the government, you'd have no worries about the microphone picking it up - the relentless thud, thud, thud would drown you out.
As a citizen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, directional speakers might be really neat here, until they ban the use.
"When noise makers are outlawed, only outlaws... &etc."
..Already in Australia (Score:3, Interesting)
I made my way to the rooftop, and on an awning pointing toward the street was a large protective case, padlocked and covered with council stencils, with a large mic pointing toward the street, and an antenna.
The stickers on the case drew mention to ambient noise monitoring..
I guess the UK isn't the first place to have this/
This looks like a job for MR MICROPHONE! (Score:2)
(Stud to hot chicks) "Hey good lookin' We'll be back to pick you up later!" (family gathering) "We got a mighty convoy 'cross the USA! Convoy!"
(announcer) Just tune your radio to an unused AM station and speak into the lamp post. Fun for all ages!
Seriously, isn't New York and LA already using something like this for detecting gunshots?
london paid video perverts need sound too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I guess London is getting into the amature candid porn business....
English & Frogs (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:2)
That attitude is exactly why things are so bad in the UK.
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:3, Informative)
This seems a little odd to me. As far as I'm aware, the British government isn't any more inefficient and bureaucratic than your average democracy. The higher taxes go to pay for services that people in the UK seem to want, like the NHS. The US has lower taxes because it has less public services.
The UK also spends proportionally much less than the US when it comes to military spending. Even though I'd pay less
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:2)
Likewise, I don't really have too much of a problem with the TV Licensing system, so long as the BBC keep up the good work. The idea of putting all past content online is something that appeals greatly to me. Especially since they were talking about opening up old content to be remixed by mo
Previous poster 100% correct (Score:2, Insightful)
The previous poster is exactly right. Most english people do not care about things like this. From ID cards to constant surveillence, most people are not even aware that they exist.
Should they be aware then the standard response is "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"
Govt gone to war against Iraq? "well, nothing you can do about it is there?"
Civil liberties being removed? "well, nothing you can do about it is the
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:2, Insightful)
The Tories would be a massive step back for Britain. Anti-rights, anti-drugs, pro-religion, anti-Europe, run by the rich for the rich. No thanks. The Tories are dead and buried. On Thursday they didn't gain any votes, Labour lost them.
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:2)
Wow, I must have missed the box on the polling form that said "Reasons for voting".
Re:The Brits love being screwed by their governmen (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't choose to pay more taxes, the taxes are forced on us. How many people do you think like the petrol taxes and other such regressive taxes? How many people choose council tax which is not even based on ability to pay? And even when you do pay the binmen rarely bother emptying your bins, the streets are full of traffic wardens giving people tickets because the council want even more money to waste.
In Britain we seem to have the worst of capitalism and socialism. We pay ex
Re:The irony is..... (Score:2)
Re:Here's a better idea... (Score:2)
That should be punishment enough.
But seriously, I saw a doco of a guy in some scandinavian country in "prison" for murder. His "prison cell" was an almost-zero-security stylish modern self-contained flat with comfy furniture, tv, PS2, microwave, etc. A better lifestyle than many brits have indeed. It appears that US typical hell-hole type prisons with daily beatings and prison-sex are not fundamental to a prisoner's rehabilitation and reformatio
Americans fell for the "freedom bait & switch" (Score:3, Interesting)
But the American elite went on a propaganda spree in order to sell them on the Revolution. Of course for elites like jefferson, washington, Madison, Morris, et al., the Revolution was really all about making more money for themselves.
So Jeffe
Re:Americans fell for the "freedom bait & swit (Score:3, Insightful)
I however refer interested readers to the following books:
Howard Zinn's _A People's History of the USA_ (probably available on p2p)
Jerry Fresia's _Toward An American Revolution_ available online here. [cyberjournal.org]
Both authors have PHDs (History and Political Science).
Now put up or shut up.....
Man, they pumped your ass so full of propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
First, there have NEVER been "mob rule" (ooohhh!!!) in any western nation. THe rich make sure of that. But if we did have "mob rule", we might have horrors like we have in countries where the percent of citizen voting is really high, like say Denmark or Australia, where they have horrors like "Free College" (ewwww!) and "universal healthcare"! (please save us!)