UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs 303
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that it seems the UK is trying make up for their judicious use of surveillance cameras that, according to recent research, do not actually deter crime, by using the surveillance network to prosecute petty crimes. "Conjuring up the bogeymen of terrorists, online pedophiles and cybercriminals, the U.K. passed a comprehensive surveillance law, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, in 2000. The law allows 'the interception of communications, carrying out of surveillance, and the use of covert human intelligence sources' to help prevent crime, including terrorism. Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations."
Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally a use I can get behind (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, the summary is wrong - that study the other day did not say the crimes didn't deter crime... only that they don't help much in SOLVING street robberies. Big difference, that.
Yay (Score:1, Insightful)
Is anyone surprised by this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Judicious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Petty crimes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
May not deter crime, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on where you feel public resources should be allocated. Dog poop certainly annoys me, but I do not want millions of taxpayers dollars to be used dealing with that problem. I'd rather they spend it on free breakfasts for schoolchildren or going after drunk drivers.
The point is, there are finite dollars to throw at a relatively large number of potential issues, and every dollar spent enforcing dog poop laws is one less dollar that will be spent on some other public good.
Oh, and using terrorism to justify spending any large amount of money is also annoying. But that is another issue.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:1, Insightful)
Nah, got a nice glass of wine, good TV, live in an affluent area with a low crime rate. Who cares?
Re:Petty crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you buy the 'its for the children' nonsence too.
Actually.. (Score:5, Insightful)
*For those with a sense of humour failure, this is a "joke" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:May not deter crime, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I miss the days (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully when Bush and his cronies are out of office we can repair the damage and I can once again feel a smug attitude about my country.
Whoa (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is suspending habeas corpus, destroying congressional oversight, and wiretapping phones without permission from any legal authority constitute freedom?
Or is this the crazy part of American culture where abortion is murder and war is heroic?
Re:Good strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you sure about this theory of yours? Because although I have smoked marijuana in the past, some 20 years ago, and gotten away with it; I haven't really felt the need to kill or rape anyone so far...
Re:Yay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:May not deter crime, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be this pervading Slashdot meme that British people are dumb privacy hating idiots... yes, the majority of people in Britain support the CCTV cameras. No, there have been no major abuses yet. Yes, potentially, a CCTV network with facial recognition would be quite useful to a hypothetical future fascist government. But really, if Britain has already elected a fascist government, then we have already lost...
Re:Petty crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor summary, poor submission (Score:5, Insightful)
The submitter should familiarise themselves with (off the top of my head) three ongoing terrorist trials where CCTV evidence is important to gaining a possible conviction. One in particular, that of the prosecution of associates of the 7th of July London bombers who travelled with them to London in advance to case targets, relies heavily on CCTV to link these people to the bombers, and will help obtain convictions (should that be what the jury decides).
That is just an ongoing trial, and is publicly known, "terrorism investigations" covers a multitude of unknown (to the public) current investigations - monitoring people who have warranted the attention of the intelligence community.
But god forbid the truth should get in the way of a hyperactive slashdot submission - desperate for 500 comments of "1984", "slippery slope" and every other cliché under the sun. There may be (and indeed I would personally say, are) valid criticisms of CCTV and how people are monitored in public places - but that debate is entirely short circuited and debased with juvenile submissions like this that are not interested in facts, only hyperbole.
Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)
Some may think 'what a waste of tax payer money, pulling people over for not making a complete stop at the stop sign'. But I decided instead of whining to talk to the police officer. Know what I found out??
They were there BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD COMPLAINED PEOPLE WERE SPEEDING DOWN THE STREET. In other words, they were doing exactly what the citizens who pay taxes asked for. Just not the ones that were speeding down the street.
Why did I not stop fully?? Because there were several kids hanging around the street and I was paying more attention to them than the stop sign. My fault, I paid the ticket.
But the police were hoping to slow people down so that none of these kids get hit because some moron is speeding down the street.
So
All laws have to be enforced (or eliminated), otherwise people learn very quickly which ones they can get away with. When people learn they don't get stopped for speeding, they start to go faster. When they learn they can let their dogs poop anywhere, they will do that to.
So
Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)
But I still believe in due process and privacy and small government and limiting government's power over people's lives. I'm not a doom sayer conspiracy theorist who thinks that the British or Canadian government turning into Nazi Germany in my life time is a likely scenario (sorry for the Godwin) but there are still a lot of bullshit laws that IMO do more harm than good and democracy has this one downside where the majority (some times a rather large group of people which was demonstrated in the last 2 US presidential elections) gets consistently screwed over.
Government is force even when they are democratic and are doing their job and serving the will of the people. They exist solely for the purpose of exercising force. They can take away your freedom, your property. They can send you to your death. The control and moderate and arbitrate. They are force and authority by it's very definition. So while CCTV has some positive uses I don't favour it because I don't like giving force more force. I don't like the idea of living in a world where everyone is considerate just because they're afraid. I don't like being afraid of being caught on camera walking into an adult bookstore. I don't trust the government to keep data safe and I realize the same can be said about passports and census data etc. but the way I see it the less there is to be abused or breached the better.
While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public I think that you *should*. To a much lesser extent then on your private property obviously but people need to know that they're not being followed and recorded everywhere they go and having everything they do stored to some hard drive that can be accessed later and used against them.
I'm not crying Orwell or Hitler and I'm not even saying "slippery slope". I just don't want video footage of me when I'm out and going about my personal affairs. I'm a private person who doesn't even like his picture being taken in family portraits. My worst nightmare would be for me to be a celebrity. Video surveillance makes me feel like one.
Re:Poor summary, poor submission (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to stand here and "defend the camera's at all costs" - I don't want to, or believe that they are the all singing all dancing saviours of civil society. What I do want to point out, and did so in my post, was highlight that the reactionary, hyperbole filled junk that characterises so much of "anti-camera" brigade - and to their detriment, because by turning it into a game of "the scary cameras are watching you" they are preying on the same FUD philosophy that the CCTV-turfers prey on.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
And do what about it?
Metaironic (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a new word for something that's ironic because it is designed to seem ironic but really isn't.
The meta-irony here comes through in the point that terrorists aren't really a danger to normal people (statistically speaking), and in fact are probably less of a hazard than slipping on dog poop on the sidewalk. But you can get CCTVs pushed through based on the former and not the latter because almost all people have extraordinarily poor risk assessment skills.
Re:Privacy VS. Security (Score:1, Insightful)
People just don't care about privacy.
Nonsense. People care a great deal about privacy. The reason why you don't see this come into conflict with CCTV is because there really is no conflict. You are deeply confused about what privacy is. You don't have privacy when you are walking down the street in a public place. Everybody can see you. People can follow you around and watch what you do if they wish. Cameras don't take away anything, you never had privacy in a public place to begin with.
Re:Finally a use I can get behind (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a simple plotting of crimes on a map that had colored areas showing where obvious cameras were installed could prove instructive.
The 3% number all by itself is interesting, but certainly not enough to say "they don't work".
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe they'll remain blissfully unaware or just plain roll over like in the US and most other places nowadays.
Re:Privacy VS. Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy is NOT a black and white, either you have it or you don't, sort of thing. There are many gradations of privacy - where being in your home with the lights off and no one else around is one extreme and the other extreme is having every movement you make recorded, archived and cataloged in a database for anyone with enough power, money or general sneakiness to peruse at will.
Until recently the scale never really went past a sort of middling-grey. Out in public anyone could see you and you could see them. If someone wanted a record of your movements, they had to put at least one other person on the job of tailing you. Nowadays we are about 70-80% of the way to total privacy loss - automated systems mean no more chance for you to see someone who sees you and everyone is now recorded regardless of any current interest in their movements or not.
We are rapidly approaching a 100% loss of privacy with all of your 'public' information recorded and correlated in new and fascinating ways to dig up and expose your 'private' information too - like the fact that you started buying condoms a few weeks ago being used by your health insurance to raise your rates because if you are buying condoms you are probably having sex and now have both a higher risk of STDs and of having children - both costs for a insurance company.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:4, Insightful)
First, sign a petition like the reply before me has suggested. Then give the CCTV cameras the same treatment as speed cameras are getting. [speedcam.co.uk] Prove to the government that the presence of CCTV actually increases crime, mostly arson. [thenewspaper.com]
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy VS. Security (Score:1, Insightful)
No, you are deeply confused about what privacy is.
No, really it's you. Your first hint should be the fact that you want privacy in public. They are antonyms FFS! Your second hint should be the dictionary. OED defines privacy as "The state or condition of being alone, undisturbed, or free from public attention, as a matter of choice or right; seclusion; freedom from interference or intrusion.". Let's see:
What you are talking about is not privacy. It's something along the lines of anonymity, or the right to control information about you.
I'm actually a strong privacy advocate, and people like you make the rest of us look like nuts when you start ranting about the right to privacy in a public place. Please stop.
Re:Metaironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you really making the case that most people in the UK are more likely to be killed by sidewalk dog poop than acts of terrorism? I understand that the likelihood of either is quite low, but I'm still going to have to see a few cases of death by sidewalk poo before I believe they occur with any frequency.
Re:cameras and crimes (Score:3, Insightful)
That's like saying, "The 20 new police officers who were hired to help reduce drunk driving should not be used to catch burglars even if they happen to be the closest officer at the time."
If your job was traffic law enforcer, and you saw a murder, would you just ignore it? What are you trying to say, that you believe that millions of taxpayer euros should be thrown away to prove some kind of point purely out of spite?
Why do you think that a crime isn't a crime anymore if it is discovered using unorthodox methods?
-b
(oh and for good measure, "Why do you hate Jesus?")
Wrong.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about that.
Yes someone may have complained, but really if you take a close look at the criminal justice system in America it really does resemble a business.
Lawmakers = Marketing
Police = Salesman
Judges = Accounting/Invoicing
Poverty is the number one source of crime. Period. Poverty will not be able to pay for the criminal justice system. So they need to generate revenue to pay for the court houses, jails, etc... this comes from...YOU with your speeding ticket.
Taxes only pay for so much, but how do you know your money is spent effectively in combating crime? YOU DON'T. More people are going to jail and prison everyday, and the truth of the matter is that the streets are not safer, but indeed getting worse.
The individual policeman...it's not his fault he's just part of the system. But really it is the system that is messed up.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold not because justice is equal, but to conceal the tears of a failed system.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:1, Insightful)
*breath*
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
All that'll happen is you'll get an email in a months time saying "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway. Shut up now."
Summary on par with blog (Score:3, Insightful)
- Complaining that CCTV is being used to witness crimes (yes, littering and fouling are crimes)
- Complaining that the crimes that CCTV is being used to witness aren't important enough
- Complaining that a law which specifically states that surveillance can be used to solve crimes is being cited when people want to use surveillance to solve crimes
Of course, the submitter takes an incident where CCTV was used to witness littering, and a case where RIPA was invoked to monitor someone suspected of fraud, and manage to blur the line to "ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS USED ON DOGSHIT".
Yawn.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the sound of the point flying far, far, over your head.
It is certainly true that if JUST ONE person stands up asgainst a gang of hooligans, they risk getting beat/killed.
But if ALL the people stand up against them, it is the gang that would be outnumbered, and would risk getting beat (possibly killed, depending) if they start something. But for that to happen, each individual in the crowd needs to make the decision to stand up to them.
With people like you saying "Your solution, while noble, is not an option...", that has a low probability of happening.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it would be nice if all people everywhere would instantly stand up in a united front to end all oppression in all its forms. You might as well wish for a flying pony while you're at it.
I stand by my claim. In the UK it's stupid to confront destructive youths, so no one does it. Suggesting anything else is, well, juvenile.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I miss the days (Score:2, Insightful)
The worst ones, of course, are those who don't care if people disagree with them and don't care if they run their country's economy into the ground, only about some petty constitutional theory regarding the executive branch. If you really want to direct your ire someplace, start with Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo. Bush is little more than a willing patsy; these guys used him and bullied everyone else to forcibly "prove" the unitary executive theory that would wreck the balance of power that true patriots worked so hard to create. Cheney watched Nixon resign in disgrace, so he created King George IV to spite the Congress that rightfully wanted Nixon's head for abusing power.
Cheney, as Defense secretary, advised his father to ignore Congress, but Bush Sr. was smarter and actually listened to advisors who disagreed (rather than surround himself with yes-men and lawyers), so he deferred the decision to begin Operation Desert Shield/Storm to Congress. He also knew enough about Vietnam to realize that having a permanent peacekeeping force there in a country that can easily become hostile (which is very much unlike South Korea or MacArthur-era Japan) is a very bad idea-- which is why he left Saddam in power rather than completely obliterate him and leave a power vacuum.
As VP, he surrounded Bush and himself with both a crowd of lawyers who (no doubt under intense pressure from Addington) told them they could do anything, and a cloak of secrecy that Stalin would've been proud of. In the early days, some appointees, like Colin Powell and John Ashcroft, still had a brain and a conscience, so when they resisted Cheney, they were circumvented until they resigned in disgust, only to be replaced with men who are effectively puppets. The aforementioned lawyers rival Scientology in their zeal to make sure the POTUS gets his way in everything.
I'm sure the Bush administration has the hubris and cojones to think that they will be remembered as the greatest presidency in US history, but I'm sure that historians will remember them as the administration that destroyed many things that made the US great. The best result of their ill-conceived policies is that future politicians will look to them as an example to avoid. The worst possible resulting scenarios are the administration effectively taking a third term (then a fourth, etc.), or a future President using the precedents they set to establish a true dictatorship.