CCTVs Don't Work in the UK 571
ShakaUVM writes "People who give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither, the saying goes. But what happens when people give up so much liberty their entire country resembles an Orweillean dystopia — but the pervasive monitoring doesn't help to solve any crimes? That's what is happening in the United Kingdom today. While the Guardian tries to put a good spin on the entire fiasco, the fact remains that CCTVs only help with 3% of all street robberies, the very crimes they were supposed to be best at protecting.
Should England finally move to eliminate its troubling state surveillance program?"
At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the same reason to be happy about RIAA strategy. They fail so badly their tactics will be much harder to use anywhere else.
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Interesting)
I envision a system where every person has a personal recorder that they carry around, and all the output of public cameras is mirrored and shared in a fashion that made it difficult to tamper with. Something along the lines of Freenet, except simplified by the fact that you don't have to anonymize the sources.
Any time there was a contested event, it would be possible to examine the footage from the CCTVs and from the personal data recorders of both parties. Barring a sophisticated attack, this would give you the facts right away. And, if someone tried to tamper with the public record and there were any anomilies, then you could start looking at where they came from with lots of forensic data available.
This would have all sorts of rewards... we would be able to watch the watchers, and we would be able to clearly see those ill conceived laws that are being casually broken all over the place so we could remove them from the books. This would protect us from selective enforcement of laws that aren't meant to be obeyed, but only grant power to the rulers.
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically [theregister.co.uk] it was so popular its viewing beat those of the last Big Brother series at some times of the day.
old ladies (Score:4, Funny)
1. we get an army of CCTV operators more than willing to ensure that any misdemeanour does not go unnoticed.
2. we keep the OAPs off the streets, and put them in a safe, warm environment
3. the investment in CCTVs pays off as every camera gets a dedicated viewer.
4. respect for pensioners increases as every young buck would know that to insult an OAP would have them on the lookout for him.
Obviously this would be good for society and keep the pensioners happy as they love nothing better than sitting around watching what's going on.
Re:old ladies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:old ladies of the night (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:old ladies (Score:5, Insightful)
"A retired military man with a German Shepard, a baseball bat and some good intel [slashdot.org]" chasing people he considers undesirables from the streets merely to increase the amount of money he can get from his house sure sounds like one of them.
So it seems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you nuts or just being funny? Do you think the community makes a good police force? Ever heard of a mob?
You'd have petty bitches using it to harass people, identity thieves and stalkers using it to spy on people, and spammers would find a way to inject ads into the feeds (cardboard signs?). You know, just like the Intarweb.
Making available clips of a crime might possibly help
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it wasn't THOUGHT TO BE effective, it wouldn't be a big industry.
Fixed that. A good ad campaign can convince anyone that they really desperately need this new security device. Note that my wife's family used to go that route - alarm, cameras, the works. They thought it was great that they were protected from robbery and other unpleasantness.
Came a time that they decided not to bother paying for the thing anymore - still not sure why. Since then
Re:Mod parent UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent UP (Score:5, Insightful)
The point being that it takes sane law for this to happen. If you comandeered a camera only to catch somebody smoking pot, would you rat them out? Smoking pot is, after all, illegal here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sane law will only happen when a systematic change forces all 101 of them out into the light at the same time.
The population is in a divide and conquer type situation, afraid to be the first to say "There's nothing wrong with that. I do that, my friends do that, and we're all good people". But if the right approach w
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same reason to be happy about RIAA strategy. They fail so badly their tactics will be much harder to use anywhere else.
You're optimistic. In politics, results do not feature strongly in the feedback cycle; politicians are not typically looking to see whether a policy achieves its purported end, but rather that it will be tolerated by the people.
That is: experiments test feasibility to a politician, not utility.
The politician's mode of thinking is not strongly connected to any kind of scientific reasoning, but rather to correct intent ("evil" must be "fought against") and, to some extent, social theory. They understand democracy as a check upon the excesses of "theory", but they do not consider theory in the scientific sense, but rather in the social science sense.
Is it any wonder that politicians and their kin in management talk of the "difference between theory and practice"?
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:4, Insightful)
And unfortunately, freedom-limiting measures are welcomed by a majority of people on this sceptred isle - two such examples are ID cards (which were overwhelmingly popular until it emerged that people were going to have to pay for them - and not just a token "don't lose it" fee) and 42-day detention without trial (which remains popular with just about everyone, because they somehow believe that it'll "only catch the bad guys"). My family still live in the town which first proclaimed that it had 100% CCTV coverage, and they said it made them feel safer - even though my brother-in-law has been hauled over by police a couple of times for trying to use an ATM at midnight. Yet it doesn't appear to have made the King's Lynn I remember (and ran the hell away from a decade ago) any less prone to violence or vandalism...
The great advantage of having perception define reality, rather than vice versa, is that it merely requires that people trust their perception unquestioningly. Manipulate their perception and they'll swallow any bullshit you throw at them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the whole idea of on camera stops crime. Yep. sure do.
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Funny)
But they DO work in Philadelphia (Score:4, Interesting)
If it weren't for the cameras, the pigs would've denied everything [yahoo.com].
The debate, once again, should not be around a particular method of law-enforcement, but whether 100% effective law-enforcement is desirable...
It means, you can not exceed speed-limit by 1 mile/h, nor drop a candy-wrap on the street, nor ask for money on subway. You will also not be beaten by a cop, nor will they be able to treat fire-hydrants as special parking spots reserved for "the force". Etcaetera...
Do we want the laws obeyed and enforced 100%, or do we want to live some "wriggle-room" for the dystopian future, when it will be needed to fight some kind of oppression?
Re:But they DO work in Philadelphia (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me quote the article:
So are you suggesting we use news choppers for surveillance? That article has NOTHING to do with CCTV.
Re: (Score:3)
The video, shot by a WTXF-TV helicopter, shows three police cars stopping a car on the side of a road.
So are you suggesting we use news choppers for surveillance? That article has NOTHING to do with CCTV.
I can't agree with you there... the implication of his commentary is more of pervasive camera surveillance, not solely the issue of government cameras - although those are in a different category. The parent comment is pretty insightful - pervasive camera coverage could prevent abuses by authorities, but also could be used to control any sort of opposition movement. How much are you willing to give up to get security? It is a slightly different version of the old freedom vs security adage. In this ver
Re:But they DO work in Philadelphia (Score:5, Insightful)
It means, you can not exceed speed-limit by 1 mile/h, nor drop a candy-wrap on the street, nor ask for money on subway. You will also not be beaten by a cop, nor will they be able to treat fire-hydrants as special parking spots reserved for "the force". Etcaetera...
Do we want the laws obeyed and enforced 100%, or do we want to live some "wriggle-room" for the dystopian future, when it will be needed to fight some kind of oppression?
I would say that yes, we want laws to be 100% enforced. But we need to get rid of 99% of the laws. The alternative is laws that everyone is guilty of violating, and enforcers who can immediately find a reason to arrest and convict anyone they see fit.
Re:But they DO work in Philadelphia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with the assumption that laws cannot cover every situation. It is entirely reasonable to think that we could make a much smaller set of laws that would cover every necessary situation. A great deal of what is currently regulated should not be regulated. There are vast areas of law that are about forcing people to behave in a fash
Re:But they DO work in Philadelphia (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny that this ridicules story is on the front page, while the reclassification of cannabis probably wont make it, that's much more infringing on civil liberties than videos of you when your in a public place.
Cannabis, as Class C was as illegal as it will be as Class B again.
All they're saying is they consider it more harmful today than they did yesterday, and that the courts are encouraged to mete out harsher sentences for supply, cultivation or possession with intent to supply. On PM this afternoon, it was said that possession of small quantities for personal use would not be dealt with harshly. (That would be down to the discretion of the police and courts.
As for CCTV, it's ineffective in the UK for several reasons. The images are generally too poor (blurred, dark and grainy) to be useful, and secondly, the police can't be bothered to look at the footage. It's "hard work."
Cannabis should be legalised. End prohibition of drugs.
CCTV is creepy. I'm sure there is a case for it in certain places under certain circumstances, but what we have now is illiberal, wasteful and almost totally useless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To take speed limits as your example, speed limits aren't there because they really expect everyone to drive below that speed. However, if the speed limit is 55 and people are driving faster than is safe, lowering it to 45 will lower their average speed. So, I can get the results I want even though I'm making a law I don't expect people to strictly follow.
Except in small towns where fines becomes a revenue source.
There is a small town about 10 miles from where I live. This "town" is really just an intersection. It has one gas station/tackle shop with a subway inside. It has a tiny little police station. Besides that there are about 5 or 6 buildings which are normally vacant, but a business will spring up in one of them every now and then, fail within a year, and then the building is empty again (there was actually a decent restaurant that opened in one
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Funny)
These 'safeguards' against simulated death could be modeled after Secret Service agents...
Sometimes I've just gotta go with it and reference something many geeks would rather not admit they ever liked
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well I guess if you want others to have the job of protecting you, and screw everyone else's liberty, you might want that.
Oh noes they can watch you when your outside, oh wait they can do that anyway.
As far as preventative goes, prove the cameras did in fact prevent anything.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=545802&cid=23325330 [slashdot.org]
Re:At the risk of being arrested... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exagerate much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Exagerate much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Exagerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Exagerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget the main point of any realistic dystopian society: at least initially, you have to allow a few dissidents to "prove" that dissent is allowed and that the people are "free". All the while, the people in power are concentrating their power and limiting the media's right to cover dissent by uncovering dissidents and getting them canned [nytimes.com], limiting which press have access to key government events [usatoday.com], planting people in editorial/analyst/writer positions [editorandpublisher.com], bribing commentators [usatoday.com], and outing confidential sources, undermining the credibility of the media and endangering the lives of dissenters [blogspot.com]. I could probably go on for several pages like this.
We can get away with criticism because we are relatively unimportant and unable to create a credible threat against the power structure, whether through force, through block voting, or through running for public office. Someone important criticizes the administration, though, and bad things happen....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Exagerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Exagerate much? (Score:4, Insightful)
The headline said "resembling an Orwellian dystopia". A city with government owned and monitored cameras at every corner does in fact resemble an Orwellian dystopia. Sounds like a perfectly sound comparison to me.
Perhaps if you didn't inflate "resembles" to mean "is", you would have understood.
Re:Exagerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps you are basing your comment on the headline from a year or two ago that took the number of security cameras (including private ones) per mile on the busiest shopping street in the UK and multiplied it by the number of miles of roads in the UK?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so it's not that bad, but that's because, unlike Winston, you don't actually see Big Brother's eyes tracking you.
I think... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be operating under the notion that companies install CCTV systems to protect victims of crimes that occur on company property.
This, however, is business and not altruism. Businesses need CCTV to protect themselves from prosecution and to ease the insurance claims process. For example, they need to know that some guy in a hoodie ran up to that old lady, threw her on to the ground and ran off, not that she slipped on the wet surface left by an employee. They definitely care about that. The identity of the attacker? Not so much. So the expenses surrounding the recording and storage of high-resolution images is simply overkill for the company's needs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think... (Score:5, Informative)
In a word, (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, is there really any doubt in anyone's mind? Continually infringing upon the privacy of the innocent does nothing to prevent the crimes of the guilty.
Re:In a word, (Score:4, Insightful)
Perspective please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In a word, (Score:4, Informative)
If you plan to publish for profit or just for public display and are not a news outlet, getting releases is crucial. Using someone's image without permission is a sure-fire way to having a lawsuit handed to you.
I work in the film industry and if we're filming on a location where we can't 100% control the foot traffic, we have PA's running all over the place getting releases signed.
If you are doing documentary video work, simply getting the subject to say their name and that it is alright to use their interview on tape suffices for a release.
Getting distribution REQUIRES that you have signed releases for every single cast, crew and extra as well as for locations and for music. On top of this they will require O&E insurance (Errors and omissions) in case you got a Pepsi bottle in a shot or something like that.
The amount of paperwork involved in getting something commercially distributed is incredible and for most indie filmmakers, it is also the reason they don't get their films released... they don't do their paperwork.
When I shoot music video in a club, I have to plaster the whole venue with legal verbiage just so that people know that by entering the venue they are agreeing to have their likeness video taped.
Yes, this is all a total hassle, but it's also about covering your own ass against lawsuits. Neglect your paperwork at your own risk.
IANAL but I have worked with many entertainment attorneys who will reiterate everything I just said.
They work perfectly. (Score:2)
The purpose it so be able to track political opposition. "Terrorism" and then crime were excuses.
Re:They work perfectly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uninformed paranoia, for the most part (Score:5, Informative)
Of the remainder, the vast majority of them are traffic-cameras at junctions, in speed-cameras (yes, these count, for some reason), etc. What's left are the police-owned ones which watch people in high-crime areas or (usually in partnership with the businesses) high-people-traffic areas (eg: Regent St., Oxford St. in London).
I lived in London for ~15 years before moving to CA. I don't feel any less "observed" here than I did in London. I'm on-camera in CA if I get money from an ATM; if I drive across a junction (try looking up once in a while); if I get on the BART; if I get on Caltrain; if I go to a bank;
I really wish people would stop pandering to the tabloid press trying to sell copy. Sure, there are cameras. Everywhere(*). Deal.
Simon
(*)Well, every country I've been to, anyway.
Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part (Score:5, Informative)
Yes folks, slashdot's latest evidence that the UK is a surveillance society is a report that states that no-one ever looks at the CCTV footage. But our summarisers have never let the facts get in the way of a good knee jerk.
Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying it's a true conspiracy born in smoke filled rooms over glasses of single malt, though it may be. Governments are entities of their own and act as such. They will continue to grow and try to take mo
Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget that the oft-reported massive figure for the number of CCTV cameras in the UK is *completely made up*. It's a fake figure. It was concocted by looking at the number of CCTV cameras on a section of the main street of a particularly rough part of London which was deliberately chosen because of the high numbers of CCTV cameras covering things like pawn shops, bookies, off-licences and cheque-cashing shops. Then this already artificially high figure was scaled up by multiplying by the amount of road in the whole of the UK. So, the number would be accurate if *every inch* of the UK's roads was like the middle of a particularly shitey area of London.
It's not, though.
Did you know that in the US, because it's legal for people to walk around with guns, *every single American* is robbed at gunpoint *every day*? No, you didn't did you? But it's true! It said so on the Internet!
Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a link for you: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras,+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do [thisislondon.co.uk]
The Real Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they work on homes or parking lots where the crook can just walk down the block to a non-camera lot but it's not like the crooks in the UK are going to boat over to the next island that doesn't have mass CCTV, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Another obvious Answer? (Score:5, Funny)
All hail our great overseers!
Re:Another obvious Answer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I grew up in Belfast. For those of you who are unaware, we've had a spot of trouble there over the last few decades. It's not as bad these days as it has been, but still to this day there are certain areas you simply don't go near in case something happens.
One of these "flash points" was just down the road from me, it was at a bridge that linked a Protestant estate with a Catholic one. Naturally, people who tried to cross this bridge were usually targeted by those waiting at the other side.
Unfortunately, there wasn't really an alternative route to get from one side to the other, that was less than 90mins in the opposite direction.
Naturally, there was always fighting and/or rioting on this bloody bridge (which went over a motorway - I'm sure you can imagine the potential risks of falling bricks and bottles there) and more than a couple of people got seriously injured on it - some even died.
Then one day they put a CCTV camera there. Actually, they put a big post there for the CCTV camera to be attached to and it IMMEDIATELY stopped nearly all violence on and around this bridge. Even before the camera was attached, it was enough to scare the little shits that started all of this away and now it's relatively safe to walk by there.
That alone is enough for me to have faith in the CCTV systems. They may not help in solving crimes, but they definitely do help PREVENT them, which I think is much more important.
This is just my experience, though, yours may differ.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But according to this article, blanketing the nation with CCTV doesn't have the same effect on either the city of London or the country as a whole. Implementing mass surveillance of all Her Majesty's subjects going about their daily business neither reduces crime nor leads to significantly more convictions.
CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure, [but] ... It's been an utter fiasco ... There's no fear of CCTV.
I think I can understand your happiness about having a notoriously dangerous bridge pacified, but this approach doesn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean some people make it "obvious" by wearing Celtic or Rangers shirts (one is predominantly Catholic, one is predominantly Protestant, for the uninformed), some people simply open their mouths (thick English accent? You must be protestant) and others let slip that they're called Patrick or Billy or something to that
I have no problem with CCTVs (Score:5, Funny)
I have however had one objection; I caught one blatantly checking me and one ex-girlfriend "making out" (let's say) in a park once. The dirty bastard on the end even nodded the camera at me in recognition I'd caught him watching it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have no problem with CCTVs (Score:5, Insightful)
But, that doesn't seem to be the case. People aren't concerned about it:
That doesn't sound like people are worried about the eye in the sky at all. It sounds like they're ignoring it, and the police are finding the system too damned awkward to actually retrieve the useful images.
First off, kudos for the public shag.
But, how can you on the one hand say you don't mind the eye in the sky, and on the other hand be somewhat surprised that the bored operator wouldn't zoom in on that if he saw you doing something naughty in a park? If you know they're watching, why would you be surprised they actually did watch?
I mean, it's not like the police are swamping the operators with requests for the images. In all likelihood, he and a bunch of guys pass around copies of all the public nookie they observe. I'm sure there's a whole underground trade in CCTV porn -- from what I hear, there should be a lot of material in the UK.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
UK != England (Score:2)
Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree entirely. Unless these cameras are in your house, then there is no problem. Unless you're the sort of person that screams at folks who accidentally look at them in the street, they're not doing anything bad at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what you mean when you say a CCTV monitors what a cop without a warrant does.
Let's be reasonable here: CCTV was NEVER EVER meant to solve crime. It was meant to keep tabs on people and was sold by companies to government on the premise they could solve crimes.
If you RTF
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight: The reasonable position is that the same system that can't effectively keep tabs on something as obvious as a mugger can instead effectively keep tabs on something as vague as a "subversive"?
Enlighten me, please. How, exactly, does "can't solve crimes, can keep tabs on people" actually work?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't compare the opression Benjamin Franklin and our other founding fathers lived through with a few cameras in public areas. These monitor the same things that any police officer can without a warrant.
Not to mention that the quote is wrong [wikiquote.org]:
Those words "essential" and "temporary" are kinda key there, but of course they're always omitted by those who don't like ANY restrictions against being an ass, or believe "it's not wrong if you don't get caught." Quite different than "essential" liberties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. In fact, omitting those words makes every one of us deserving of neither liberty nor security, as the very concept of a systems of laws is the sacrificing of liberty for security.
I give up my liberty to kill anyone who pisses me off in return for the security of knowing that I'm not likely to get killed by someone who I pissed off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Orwell... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Government declares an unwinable war against a changing opponent and people listen - Nope, most brits were against Iraq and almost everyone (even some in government) think it was the wrong target in retrospect.
2) Government demonstrates effective control over people - nope they can't even hold onto CDs
3) Government enforces complete control of society and the media - Nope, they get slated everywhere
4) Abandonment of the rule of law when they choose - nope they can't even get the detention extension they want
Ahh but there are CCTV cameras which catch bugger all information. Maybe the CCTV cameras should go but lets be clear this isn't about liberty and security its purely a cost control mechanism, its a free market decision in otherwords.
Go and read 1984 before talking about dystopia and ask yourself where you can find a country that actively spys on its citizens and where senior people state they are above the rule of law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Government declares an unwinable war against a changing opponent and people listen - Yep. Some people still think that our original reason for invading Iraq was to bring democracy to the Iraqis.
2) Government demonstrates effective control over people - It's called "propaganda." I've seen far more of it in the US ever since 9/11.
3) Government enforces complete control of society and the media - Why do you think we have a "White House press secretary"? I'll gran
*laugh* (Score:2)
I mean, really, say it aint so!! A company sold you something with the promise it cou
Why just England? (Score:3, Funny)
The elemental fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The elemental fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
3% of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm skeptical that the system brings benefits to outweigh the cost, but we should at least argue honestly about the system's alleged efficiency.
Not a dystopia (Score:2)
What articles like this make me think, is "how can I make these cameras work to fight crime better?"
CCTV helped end the English Disease (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again I don't really have a problem with being filmed while in public
Heathrow (Score:5, Interesting)
At Heathrow, my laptop needed re-charging. So, I found a power socket, and sat down and started inserting my power converter/adapter into it. The thing looks like an ordinary wall-mounted brick adapter.
Within 5 minutes, I was surrounded by three guys in uniform asking me what I was doing.
I said I am just trying to charge my laptop.
They looked at the adapter, then at the laptop, then at my face. They just stood there looking confused not saying anything. I picked up my stuff, said thanks and just walked away. They didnt follow me or anything.
Weird.
Having surveillance is fine but having smarter people who know how to analyze what they see is even more important.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Out towards the piers they do care, in particular because they have no real separation of the streams of passengers arriving and departing, and they clearly do not trust that arriving passengers have been properly checked on departured. I was once forced to go out through security and back in again because I went out to the pier too early, was told to go back and took a wrong turn that brought me about 20 meters dow
What's the cameras use? (Score:5, Informative)
April 2008, the law in the UK was changed by the government which now allows any official spy camera to be used for "traffic enforcement" (more easy money).
Lo and behold one week into this new scheme, in my local area a woman was attacked and sexually assaulted at a bus stop while waiting for a bus. What happened we'll never 100% know, because the camera operator was more interested in catching motorists going in a wrong lane, then to record video of tha assault and catch the guy that did the assault (what the camera was installed for in the first place).
The whole camera installation nationwide is for state surveillance of you, and it feels really uncomfortable knowing you are being filmed walking or driving around, whilst criminals remain untouchable and don't give a damn about the cameras.
Resist the cameras in your country, or suffer the surveillance fate of the UK.
The most effective form of slavery exists when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Morpheus: "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. "
-FL
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Americans are really big on the right to privacy, so being recorded as soon as you step outside your house is a huge loss of freedom for us.
Europeans are more used to government control, with mandatory registration of your residence and mandatory IDs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans are really big on the right to privacy, so being recorded as soon as you step outside your house is a huge loss of freedom for us.
As an American, I call bullshit on you. If we Americans thought being recorded was a "huge loss of freedom", then we would not be running around with camcorders and cameraphones posting videos on YouTube and MySpace and everywhere else on the Internet.
No, Americans' big problem with being recorded has nothing to do with liberty and freedom. It has everything to do with being a record of their stupidity, bad behavior, and criminality. And, even then, most people only care about it if it impacts them negativ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Surveillance isn't really an impediment on free (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of the birdies (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)