BBC Criticized For Snooping Under RIPA Powers 183
judgecorp writes "The BBC and other UK public bodies have been criticized for excessive and secretive use of snooping powers granted under RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act). The act allows the BBC and other to request information on suspected criminals, but it has been over-used, and used covertly according to critics. From the article: 'The BBC said it had not been secretive about how it was using RIPA powers. “The BBC uses Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for the detection of television licence evasion alone,” a spokesperson said. “It is only used as a last resort once other enforcement methods have been exhausted.The reason we do not release more details on how and when it is used is to ensure people without a valid TV licence don’t use this information to their advantage when attempting to avoid detection.”'"
Heh! Heh! (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet UK, TV watches you!
Glad we still don't allow that here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't paid my TV license since I moved away from home some 10-15 years ago. Most of that time I haven't actually had a TV either, I get my media online these days... but the people who come asking why I haven't paid my license are rarely so easily convinced.
"Hello, I'm from 'Radiotjänst', we notice you haven't paid your TV license."
"I don't have a TV."
"Really? Can I look?"
"I don't have a TV, I don't have a TV card for my computer, or any other item that is listed as requiring me to pay your license."
"Are you sure, it covers quite a lot. If I can come in and have a quick look..."
"I'm quite sure, and no, you can't come in."
Then they'll usually call a few weeks later, because the inspector reports that behaviour as suspicious, so they call to ask. And then sometimes I get a letter as well, making sure I know that I seem to have 'forgotten' to pay my license.
Agencies like that are the basic reason why things like RIPA is a very, very bad thing. Guilty until proven innocent, and harassed until you confess whether actually guilty or not. Organizations with that mindset is what caused the inquisition, so we really need to keep them under check rather than giving them more power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are simple and clear: If you're not watching or recording live TV, you don't need a license. Catch-up and on-demand services are exempt.
The rules are seldom that simple, and depend on the country you are in.
In some, any equipment capable of receiving over-the-air signals in the designated TV bands is what prompts the license. Actual usage is irrelevant.
How I know? I was forced to pay a license for using an RF modulator for connecting an old hobby computer with RF output to a monitor. The store that sold the modulator was required to report the buyers as owner of a license-requiring device.
Anyhow, that's not the real problem. The problem
Circumventions (Score:2)
Why didn't you ask a friend to buy it for you, or bought it on ebay or over the internet, or even built it yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you ask a friend to buy it for you, or bought it on ebay or over the internet, or even built it yourself?
Because I didn't know this would be an issue until after I had bought it. All I wanted was to hook up my old hobby computer to a monitor, and an RF demodulator would do that.
Re: (Score:2)
A licence is absolutely not required for the use you describe.
Again, this depend on the country and the legislation in that country.
Re: (Score:2)
What these thugs are doing is even worse than stopping and searching pedestrians at random and demanding to see their driving license: What they're doing is akin forcing pedestrians to drop by at the Driver's and Vehicle Licensing Agency periodically, and force them to waste their time to prove that they DON'T own a car
Even worse, it's more like turning up and searching your flat for keys to an auto... and taking note of anything else they might find.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At one time they rang the door when I wasn't home. My girlfriend answered and said that we had a TV. Now apparently they aren't allowed to ask people who don't live there, but back then they rarely asked if the person that answered the door was a resident. Anyway, I got a bill, and tried to refute it. They refused. I ended up "admitting guilt" and then telling them I got rid of the TV because I didn't want to pay more, which meant I had to pay for only the week or soi I allegedly had it.
Haha, good story rig
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I hope you don't have a radio as well, as in Sweden you need to pay the license for radios too.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's not true. While the collected funds pay for public service radio as well, it's only the TV-receivers that have to pay.
But no, I don't have a radio - streaming audio entertainment over the network or downloading just the songs I wanted was feasible long before the same was true for video.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that experience can actually happen here in Sweden as well - if you live rurally. The licensing agency here actually pays a commision on any cheaters caught, and anyone can apply to be one of their checkers, so in any city there are plenty of regular people who apply and get a list of local people "who aren't paying" and then have a financial motivation to find these non-payers out as cheaters.
But even so, why is the burden of proof on you? As in why do you have to so to say "apply for an exemption"?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they'd have trouble doing that in Sweden, although I know it's been suggested. The reason it would be hard is because if everyone ends up having to pay then it's legally a tax, not a license, and private organizations are not allowed to gather taxes... and taxes can never be earmarked for one particular thing, so they couldn't get the entire sum for their business, they'd have to take whatever chunk the government budgeted for them, regardless of how much less that is than what was collected.
As for
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, yes, what could one country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" possibly have to do with another country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" through the use of RIPA?
I think the main clue is in the title: Glad we still don't allow that here. If that's not link enough for you then my statement that giving these types of organizations more power is a bad thing cements the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the tip, if I ever end up living on "my own property" I'll be sure to check up if that's the case. In Sweden however a lot of people - most I believe - live in apartments, which means they don't have to set foot on my property to ring my doorbell.
Hrm (Score:4, Informative)
"The reason we do not release more details on how and when it is used is to ensure people without a valid TV licence don’t use this information to their advantage when attempting to avoid detection.”
Bollocks. The reason they do not release more details is that they don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
The crucial thing is not to let Sky and its parent company know how they are checking who has licences.
Sky paid people to break ITV Digital's viewing cards and release "pirate" cards and the method for obtaining free TV without paying on the internet in order to drive ITV Digital out of business (it directly competed with Sky for Pay TV services), so I certainly wouldn't put it past them to "help" people dodge the TV licence to starve another competitor - the BBC.
Direct bribery and cosy relations with polit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, was. In the olden days your RF receiver pumped out loads of modulated RF dependent on input frequencies so it was distinctly possible. Now with EU regulations governing emissions on all electronics you'd be lucky to even detect if it was switched on from more than a couple of metres away. Your ring main kicks out more than a LCD TV.
TV vs. Monitor (Score:2)
What defines a TV in the UK? If I have a 50" flatscreen hooked to my PC and never use it to watch TV (very common), does that mean it is not a "TV"? Is it anything with a tuner? It's harder and harder to get a large flatscreen without a tuner these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A "TV" is something used to watch live television.
I've noticed all the angry posts above, refusing to let the person checking licenses in to the house (you don't have to).
However, not watching live TV is unusual, so I avoided all the hassle by letting them look at the TV, see that it very obviously was connected to 5 consoles and a DVD player (but no antenna, cable or satellite) and haven't heard anything more from them in two years.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could disable the tuner if you were really worried about it, documenting the process. You'll want to buy a used (out of warranty) television for that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have not been secretive ... (Score:3)
They really cover all bases in this article. They have both a denial that they have been secretive and an explanation of why they had to be secretive.
power granted, then abused, sounds normal (Score:2)
So, they gave the BBC permission to snoop on criminals then are surprised to find that the BBC abuses the privilege? Seriously? Those who do NOT learn from history are doomed to repeat history.
Man can NOT have unchecked power. At all. When you give someone power, you need to have checks and balances to keep that person from abusing that power, otherwise the power will get abused.
And we keep doing this over and over through out history. Will we ever learn?
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Funny)
It's worth it to have the BBC. Seriously.
When V for Vendetta came out, I was watching it and thinking "Curfews? Meh. Government sponsored rape squads? Yawn. You call this a dictatorship? ...wait a minute, they've replaced the BBC with US-style propoganda TV? The bastards!"
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence [wikipedia.org]
You pay that there IS something to watch in the first place.... (Instead of fundfraising pleas from you PBS)
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and in return, you have one or several channels that are rely less on advertising resources for their survival. You also get news that is written more by real journalists and less by corporate bullies with political agendas (yes, I'm talking about Fox)... while still be independant from their government. You also get shows and other stuff that would not be considered mainstream enough to make money... Some countries decide that it's worth it to have some sort of tax on everybody to promote/create/garantee that sort of stuff. You have the right to disagree of course.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It must be great if someone is rich enough that paying the TV license is a moot point when it comes to affordability. However, whether or not there's exemptions for the poor, for those near poor it can be a burden I imagine. Why don't they just subsidize the revenue needed by shifting to a graduated income tax? Just get rid of the TV license. I imagine it'd be more cost effective to have one less method of taxation. Plus, I subscribe to the idea that communication should be tax-free.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Informative)
"...Why don't they just subsidize the revenue needed by shifting to a graduated income tax? Just get rid of the TV license. I imagine it'd be more cost effective to have one less method of taxation...."
Yes, it would be much more cost-effective. If you only interested in making a profit. But that's not the point.
Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence. Do you think we haven't thought of funding through direct taxation? But The important (VITAL!) thing about the BBC is that it is NOT a government-run station. It is not beholden to government and dependent on a minister deciding to provide or withhold tax. That means that it can afford the huge and rare luxury of:
1 - not being commercial. Not only does that mean no adverts, it also means that unusual/experimental programs can be run depending on artistic merit alone, even if there is not an obvious market for them. Why do you think the BBC leads the world in development of novel entertainment?
2 - being able to criticise not only government policy, but ALL pressure and interest groups equally. This enables it to have balance, which no other broadcasting station can have. During WW2 the world listened to the BBC, because everyone knew that it would report stories accurately, no matter who was going to be annoyed...
3 - transmitting civilisation according to educated ideals. Lord Reith laid down the dictum that the BBC's job was "to inform, educate and entertain". In that order. No other funding system would be able to support that ideal.
In fact, what happens is that the British pay into a fund to maintain themselves and the rest of the world at a reasonably civilised cultural level. The BBC is neither commercial nor political in spirit. It is biased in favour of idealism. There is nothing anywhere else like it.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Interesting)
As a fan of the BBC I wish all of this were true, unfortuantly its not quite. The BBC's budget is used as a politcal weapon. The Conservatives would like to reduce the BBCs size and thus influence, something they were calling for before they were in power. Personally I'd summise that if News International hadn't scored such an amazing own goal recently (as a lot of influence was coming from them) that the pressure to do so would increase. Their main problem is that like the NHS, on the whole people quite like the BBC...
Also it's woth noting the World Service I'm pretty sure is paid for by the goverment rather than from the license.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.
Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side. (It required a decades or two to remove all the activist management and gradually replace them with stooges.)
Re: (Score:3)
Much of that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Daily Mail turning middle class opinion against it, for the very reason that it was a thorn in the Tory government's side.
If you can't kill it directly, go for a propaganda war. The Daily Hate Mail is very good at that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Insightful? Really? How many cc tvs were operating under Thatcher? How many ASBO's were issued during Thatcher's time as PM? Oh, wait, only right wing authoritarianism is bad, left wing is ok.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.
You do realise that any given BBC news item is liable to get equal numbers of complaints stating, "Your reporting of this matter demonstrates your bias towards the evil Tories" and "Your reporting of this matter demonstrates your bias towards stupid Labour".
If you think the BBC are being biased, it's more likely due to how you interpret their lack of bias than because they are actually biased.
(Sometimes they are just biased)
Re: (Score:2)
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
Re: (Score:2)
When 28 people complain that a TV programme unfairly favoured the Conservative Party and 28 people complain that a TV programme favoured the Labour Party, tell me, is the BBC biased?
I've seen those complaints. They were all for the same programme.
So no, I don't trust generic accusations of bias.
Disclaimer: I don't work in media or for the BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
When 28 people eat chocolate, and 28 people have a beer, tell me, is the BBC biased?
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
(Sorry, I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion any further. There are essays all over the web discussing the post-Hutton BBC and you're starting from an untenable position.)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't get "made by some channel". But feel free to walk off without addressing my points.
Re: (Score:2)
Also it's woth noting the World Service I'm pretty sure is paid for by the goverment rather than from the license.
This is no longer the case. One of the first things the Tories did when they recently got back into power was to "freeze" the BBC Licence Fee. From 2014, the BBC World Service will be funded from the Licence Free and not from the Government [fco.gov.uk]. The deliberate effect is to force bigger cuts onto the rest of the BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:4, Interesting)
"2 - being able to criticise not only government policy, but ALL pressure and interest groups equally. This enables it to have balance, which no other broadcasting station can have. During WW2 the world listened to the BBC, because everyone knew that it would report stories accurately, no matter who was going to be annoyed..."
Which they do so well that practically every ruling UK political party has accused the BBC of being biased in favour of the opposition. Including most recently our current abomination of a government. Basically because the BBC doesn't parrot what they are fed by the government they must be biased. Unlike the commercial media/press organisations that have been shown recently to have a disturbingly close 'relationship' with the UK government. It is just a shame this that will eventually be the death of the BBC as they get punished by those governments by having their funding cut. That and most people think that because they don't like *everything* on the BBC they shouldn't have to pay for any of it so are eager to support such actions.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think we haven't thought of funding through direct taxation?
To be very blunt, I think your country is insane for letting the BBC have that kind of power over you. And yes, I don't think your country has thought about it. Else they would be funded differently.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well unlike any time in the last 90 years, maybe they'll think about it now due to your post.
I'm not usually that sarcastic, but the arrogance in your post is staggering. Because their decision is different from yours, rather than thinking that maybe they arrived at the decision based on different priorities or values or something else you're missing, you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922. Do you realize that you're implying that the currently-living 62 million people, and all the people before them, were just shit-chucking apes who couldn't make their own decisions correctly? And that's not a rhetorical question.
I suggest that you at least consider the possibility that other people did really come to the right decision for them, even if it's not the right one for you. I live in the US, and frankly I'd gladly pay the license fee for quality news and programming live, rather than catching the scraps over here.
Re: (Score:2)
you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922.
It's like a car wrapped around a tree. That doesn't happen when everything is working correctly. One doesn't need to know the details of the decision to fund the BBC in this way. The mere fact that it happened, indicates a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence.
"They know they (the government) can trust us not to be really impartial" - Lord Reith in his diary during the General Strike in 1926.
The BBC is in no sense independent. The board of governors is appointed directly by the government. Trying to argue that the BBC is independent is like trying to argue that the department manager has no influence over you because you only answer to the line manager (who is answerable to the department manager). There are plenty of examples of the BBC being highly partisan
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the BBC never give members of the Government a hard time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI [youtube.com]
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Informative)
There is very little in the way of subsidy , being blind reduces the licence fee and i think there is a provision for pensioners. Other than that there are fines and imprisonment as alternatives to paying.
One issue, often stated, with bundling into general taxation is that it would probably lead to the government deciding what is or isn't acceptable to broadcast, especially when it is something which shows the government in a poor light.
It would make sense for the BBC to encrypt their channels and eliminate most of the thorny issues concerning licensing. Since if you want to watch the content you would need to pay for a card to decrypt it. Unfortunately the BBC knows that the revenue base would shrink dramatically. It would also put an end to most of Europe having free access to the BBC via satellite. Interesting to the note the contrast between Britain and Ireland in broadcasting to it's neighbours, There is a certain propaganda value to pushing British Culture to foreign parts one not shared by the more neutral Irish.
Ireland already does encrypt it's channels delivered by satellite, you need to access them via a subscription to Sky TV or use Digital Terrestrial TV *. Either way you will not be able to view outside of Ireland, to be honest you wouldn't be missing much other than Fair City, and Irish News and Sport. The bulk of the broadcasts are from UK, Australia and the USA, and are widely available anyway.
Ireland still has the curse of TV licensing and since digital terrestrial isn't encrypted an excuse to carry on with it into the future.
* Analog TV shuts off in Ireland in a few months time.
Re: (Score:3)
It would make sense for the BBC to encrypt their channels and eliminate most of the thorny issues concerning licensing. Since if you want to watch the content you would need to pay for a card to decrypt it.
Not really because hardly anyone has a receiver capable of accepting such a card. 99% of Freeview and Freesat receivers don't even have card slots.
Re: (Score:2)
Forward planning, if there was any intention to encrypt the BBC there would be decryption modules or at least a space for one on the freeview boxes. Unlike Sky where encryption increases revenue for the BBC it would lower revenue.
Making the BBC freely available should be good for me, but sadly even though I can receive the BBC via satellite I rarely watch their channels. The Olympics was an exception and particularly absurd since I could watch the BBC tv channels but was region banned from Olympic content o
Re: (Score:2)
It must be great if someone is rich enough that paying the TV license is a moot point when it comes to affordability.
It works out far cheaper than satellite or cable, and the license only applies if you're watching the broadcast in real-time. If you don't have a TV, and only use the iPlayer for catch-up, then you don't have to pay for the license.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to have a TV licence [wikipedia.org] for live TV. Most of the money goes towards the BBC and the TV, radio and other services it provides. The upshot of that is that BBC content is broadly well regarded quality wise and doesn't contain third party advertising. The down side is that some people don't see why they should have to pay the licence if they don't like the BBC's content.
The right to not watch TV (Score:2)
No, we pay for the right to *not* watch TV
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you want off-air or live streaming. The BBC provides about a dozen advert-free channels of high-quality programming, and dozens of ad-free radio stations..
Compare this with the state of TV in the US, where you pay about the same amount of money (or more, depending on your cable or satellite provider) to watch ten minutes of adverts with two minutes of programme in between.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Informative)
It would ok with me if you could avoid the TV license if you didn't use any BBC content, but the TV license applies to all live TV. Even if I only ever watch commercial TV, I still need to pay the TV license. Perhaps that made sense when there were only a few channels, but not today. It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:4, Informative)
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.
Re: (Score:3)
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government. It is not a tax in that sense. It's set up this way to ensure that the BBC is not just a state-owned and controlled media arm of whatever government happens to be in charge at the time.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
You might as well say that water ra
Re: (Score:3)
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government.
It most certainly is collected by government through both the law establishing the licensing fee, the government body that sets the fee, and the actual enforcement of nonpayment.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
The TV license is not a "stealth tax" because it is overt. I do consider it a variation of a property tax since it is imposed by government fiat (on owning a working TV) not by contract.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.
[...]
*except* live broadcast TV
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.
[...]
*except* live broadcast TV
The TV can be working just fine (ie, it could receive live OTA TV if you hooked up an antenna or dish) but if you don't use that function of it, you don't need to pay for a TV licence.
You don't need a special "non working" TV - a normal working one is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.
Wrong on two counts: first, everyone knows about it, and second, fee collection is enforced by the BBC, not by the police.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if you refuse to pay? A civil suit? A fine?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is enforced solely by the BBC, according to Wikipedia:
Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee is the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority.
Original source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee.shtml [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I've watched "live" TV in about 15 years. These days if there's anything I want to watch, I'll get it on iPlayer or grab a torrent, at a time that is convenient for me.
Re: (Score:3)
...unlike commercial television, whereby anybody who buys a packet of breakfast cereal is forced to make a donation to the cost of TV, even if they never watch it... and when they do watch it everything is effectively censored to avoid upsetting the advertisers. Or do you think the money to pay for commercial TV is magically conjured up by the Invisible Hand Fairy?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the money goes to fund the BBC, which even the most blinkered of Americans has to accept as being "one of the best" broadcasters in the world, and I can watch it's entire output for under 1/4 of the cost of my satellite subsc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4#Funding [wikipedia.org]
C4 receives nothing at all from the taxpayer. It doesn't get anything from the license fee either. The main funding for C4 comes, just like ITV, from advertising.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unbelievably, I couldn't give a shit whether Americans are watching it or not, but here are a few incredible television shows created by the BBC which spank most - I did say most - comparable American products:
As far as journalism goes, The Daily Mail is an embarrassment. It's an affront to journalism which is purely aimed at tacky sensationalism which has only the most ten
Re: (Score:2)
Downton Abbey was ITV.
Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonders of the Universe.
Everything & Nothing.
Chemistry: A volatile history.
Planet earth.
The frozen planet.
Science & Islam.
The majority of the UK population thinks: global warming is a massive environmental disaster, that we're all descended from a common ancestor, and that the earth has been around for a few billion years more than the bible claims. The quality of the BBC's programming is largely to thank for that, and so i'm happy to continue paying my license fee. Compare any of the above programs with the typical output of 'the history channel', and I think you'll quickly change your opinion about the program quality.
Re:Inflammatory much? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's about the size of it. It's slashdot, so they must maintain their rabidly anti-UK stance no matter what.
It's like they hate us because we're free, or because we keep pulling them out of the shit when they get embroiled in wars the US can't fight on their own, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like they hate us because we're free
Free-ish. We're not as bad as the US, but we're getting there.
Re:Inflammatory much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see... Surveillance cameras on every corner, no freedom of speech, no right to self defense, no protection against self-incrimination(encryption keys), and it's the very reason the term "nanny state" was invented. What's not to love?
I'm not saying the UK is worse than my country, but you clearly have serious problems. I don't see how anyone can consider the UK "free".
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance cameras on every corner. Bollocks.
No freedom of speech. Bollocks.
No right to self defence. Pretty much bollocks.
Encryption keys- you're right. This was part of "Computers are scary" legislation that had too little oversight.
Reduction of freedom from fear of murder counts a lot. No thought that the guy/gal who is being a dick to you will have a gun. Hooray!
8 775 gun murders in USA in 2010 compared with 51 gun murders in UK (popl 1/5 of USA) (12,996 vs 600 total murders). Hooray!
No "Please
Re: (Score:2)
Um, how do you reconcile these two statements:
Surveillance cameras on every corner. Bollocks.
and
We have all main road (and city) car movements tracked in real-time through an enormous increase in ANPR
No freedom of speech. Bollocks.
You're just in denial here. The Public Order Act of 1986 makes insults an arrestable offense.
No right to self defence. Pretty much bollocks.
Again, this sounds like denial on your part. There are way too many stories like this [sky.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Car movements and cameras trained at people are very different. By driving a car with numberplates, you automatically have a way for the authorities to recognise you. The automated tracking WILL become an issue, but I'm guessing a little here; nothing public has ever been announced (ssshh, terrorists might be listening). Assume most western countries have something similar or it is planned, even if it's publicly there to reduce the "Police-Action" chases ? Not great, but a long, long way off a viewing-port
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true
You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens [guardian.co.uk].
no freedom of speech - not true
Proof [guardian.co.uk]
no right to self defense - not true
Proof [bbc.co.uk]. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.
no protection against self-incrimination (encryption key
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, none of those links are 'proof'. They are mostly anomalous cases.
1:32 camera ratio includes shops, pubs, clubs; cameras are anywhere where private and public meet. I'm surprised it's not more. I can walk mile-upon-mile of streets in my city with no cameras anywhere. Most street surveillance are concentrated where there's booze and people. There's one hell of a lot of extrapolation in that cited article too.
The 'cult' prosecution didn't last 3 days- see the same page. I read the follow-up
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, none of those links are 'proof'. They are mostly anomalous cases.
It only takes one counterexample to disprove an assertion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your example kind of argues against your point.
You do know why Assange is hiding in Ecuador, don't you? HINT: He's not afraid of "special rendition" to Weston-Super-Mare.
Re:Inflammatory much? (Score:4, Funny)
Bloody hell I would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely though, as even in the US it would be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".
Re: (Score:2)
The US relied heavily on Britain's remaining colonial outposts during the cold war. They were quite vocal, in back channels at least, about us not divesting ourselves of them. A lot of them were in very useful places for placing either USAF or USN bases, or sigint and elint stations. Places like Diego Garcia are officially under the control of the British Government, but if you went there all you'd find is a US Naval base and a notional British Government official presence.
Re: (Score:2)
first raising stuff that happened hundreds of years ago to no one in living memory
So history is irrelevant
then claiming some irrelevant current affairs come into it
As is the present. So what does that leave us with - the future?
and then claiming that not liking racism against your fellow countrymen is "nationalism"
Despite the fact that, broadly speaking, white Britons and white Americans are from the same racial stock.
it's US nationalism that causes them to believe that *all* countries are inherently inferior (which does at least explain US foreign policy).
Well, ok, one out of four I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American. I should be giving Australia back to the Aboriginals, and the British should be un-deporting me. That aside, history can have a valid impact on the attitudes of people. Are you saying that the Red Indians aren't allowed to feel anger towards the Americans for the actions of their ancestors? Because, after all, the people who did it are dead now.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time we needed you? What were the stakes?
Afghanistan and Iraq: support in the UN and on the ground? Or special rendition flights refuelling in Scotland?
When was the last time you needed us? What were the stakes?
The Falklands: support in the UN and the purchase of a few missiles?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we needed your support in the UN, which was my point. We have our own refuelling equipment, it would just cost more money to put it into position.
Re: (Score:3)
1. We know these powers have been abused in the past, and more generally speaking power is always abused when given. That is why we need oversight of power.
2. There is no oversight in these cases. It isn't just the BBC, there are other unmonitored organizations. You are correct in stating that we don't know if there has been any abuse yet (although arguably TV Licensing merely using such powers counts), and that is the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
So they might not actually have done anything and they most likely haven't done anything inappropriate and they don't have any obligation to reveal what they've used the powers for, but let's pretend they're all doing evil things with it 24/7 because it makes for a better article.
That is a fair assumption to make about power. And since the BBC isn't a citizen but a public organization with a bit of power, there's no concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If they're not willing to show what they're doing with that power, then I'm not willing to assume that they aren't abusing it. That's how I roll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC became the Licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991.