UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs

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

NOW do you believe us?

Re:Slippery Slopes

NOW do you believe us?

9/11!

Re:Slippery Slopes

1984!

Re:Slippery Slopes

2001!

What are we playing?

Re:Slippery Slopes

2001!

What are we playing?

That's Numberwang!

Re:Slippery Slopes

First they came for the communists,
Then they..

Damn, they got me with this. I didn't expect them to come after me First.

Re:Slippery Slopes

I hope more incidents like this happen, maybe it will piss off the rest of the UK population enough so that they might just take notice.

Finally a use I can get behind

I hate it when dogs piss and poop right in the middle of the sidewalk.

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.

Is anyone surprised by this ?

Anyone who is surprised by this doesn't understand either the police, or politics.

Won't someone please think......

of the anonymous flaming dog shit bags!!!!!

Actually..

Actually I'm all for executing* people who don't clear their dog poop :-) As a dog owner I'm fed up of being tarred with the same brush..

*For those with a sense of humour failure, this is a "joke" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke [wikipedia.org]

I miss the days

When I could sit in front of my computer and feel smug when this happened in other countries.
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.

Re:I miss the days

In my current job, I've met over 50 Republican members of Congress and leaders of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," all the way back to the source of it all -- Richard Viguerie.

I remember being a kid and watching Ruby Ridge, Waco, et cetera. I remember going to gunshows with my dad and stocking up on stuff, coming home and watching Red Dawn. I remember hating Bill Clinton and Janet Reno with a passion.

I most certainly did not feel SMUG about being an American before Bush -- but I can tell you, I did feel PROUD.

That is now long gone. Between the antics of Bush et al, and the bullshit, lies, half-truths and innuendos I have to endure at work, I am now perhaps the least "conservative" person I deal with on a daily basis anymore.

I am leaving my job and leaving Washington to go back to school for mechanical engineering (I had started out as a comp sci and bio double the first time, ended coming out with a BA in English 'cause my heart wasn't in it at the time) and doing school right this time.

I now hate politics with a passion and I can pretty much guarantee that I hate those in power now more than you ever will. I wanted to buy what they were selling before, but now not only do I want my money back, I want to sue for damages.

I used to be a Ron Paul fan, but even in the last few months I've become so fed up that frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with any of those "let the market sort it out" people who only care what happens to you until you're born, then throw you to the wolves.

Oh, by the way, they're the wolves.

The corner stone of the whole operation, the lynch pin, the original vampire, is the National Right to Work foundation. They operate front groups, pimp fake economic numbers, et cetera.

They're the ones that need to go down first, because they're the ones that have been pushing this crap since the 60s.

Anyway... sorry for the rant. It's been a long week.

Taking Liberties documentory

Available at http://www.noliberties.com/ [noliberties.com]

and if you're a UK view, for free here,

http://www.channel4.com/video/true-stories-taking-liberties/catchup.html [channel4.com]

(WMP11 unfortunately)

For anyone who's studied the UK constitution, and in particular, Lord Nicholls' dicta in Belmarsh, it is frightening to see so obviously what one Government has done to the UK in a way that will effectively bind successive governments: not for want of power, but for want of justification should they revoke popularist statues that give the illusion of service.

Matt

Privacy VS. Security

It's interesting how attitudes differ. People (including in the UK) seem to think the CCTV there is a terrible violation of privacy and the justifications for it, even if true, would be weak. In South Africa, CCTV is profligating faster than that and our tech is actually MORE advanced now. Here, it has gotten nothing but praise. People just don't care about privacy. There is a twofold reason for that I think. The first is that just a generation ago we were living under what was little less than a military dictatorship. A dictatorship that had propaganda SO effective that some people to this day yearn for their rule ! What's worse, people here seem to chaos and order as a black/white thing. Either everybody does what they are told all the time, nothing more, nothing less- or you have complete chaos. The idea of a free society in between those extremes, where the individual's rights matter is basically non-existent. Throw in a massive crime wave, and putting up CCTV will get you hailed as heroes, with nobody wondering if it may be abused. It is scary to see the same thing happening in the UK though - because it removes from the rest of us yet another example of liberty being respected - if the UK with their relatively small crime problems lose it... how will we with a crime wave possibly convince people that the little extra security you may or may not get out of CCTV may not be worth the incredible price we are paying ? We already live in a country where it is now a crime for teenagers under the age of 16 to HUG OR KISS. How long before we have teenagers arrested for making out - and CCTV used to find them/as evidence ? It's no less of a minor crime than dogpoop (of course, the kissing should never have been a crime at all but at least it's classified as minor). The biggest irony of all is, even in South Africa the camera's have not actually had a real positive effect, the criminals simply moved to other neighbourhoods. So the cycle ends up with every street everywhere being under surveillance in the end. 1984 Was not so far fetched.

Poor summary, poor submission

Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations

"everything but" - well no, actually, that is tabloid style summary hyperbole - in fact it isn't even hyperbole, just plan rubbish.

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.

Remember

Remember, remember
the 5th of November.
The gunpowder, treason, and plot.
I know of no reason
why the gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.

Re:Yay

Then they came for the dog owners,
And I didn't speak up because I was not a dog owner.

Re:Yay

If it stops inconsiderate bastards leaving their dog's shit on the pavement, I'm all for it.

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:Yay

I, good sir, refuse to sell my liberty for a shit-free sidewalk.

Re:1984

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

Yes, it was set in London. And you can still see the building that suggested the Ministry of Truth to Orwell, just off Tottenham Court Road at UCL (University College London). During World War II it was the Ministry of Propaganda, and Orwell worked there.

Re:Petty crimes?

Its not about dog poo. its about private citizens being spied on with the assumption they are guilty and the loss of reasonable privacy.

I bet you buy the 'its for the children' nonsence too.

Re:Petty crimes?

Pavement

Re:May not deter crime, but...

Please send me all of your important info including passport, etc so that I might make sure that you are safe and nothing bad happens. I promise not to abuse it.

Re:Waitasec...

It's one thing to argue that the new laws were unnecessary, but are you really saying it's a bad thing to use them to solve other crimes? Yes, they may be trivial crimes listed, but they are still crimes.

I believe the point is that these powers were sold as necissary to battle dire threats. If it turns out that they're only useful for solving petty crime then it raises the question of whether the trade of civil liberty was really worth it.

Sure - police using the tools they have available to deal with all manner of crime makes sense. Whether they should continue to have access to those tools is the question.