In the UK next year will be 1984

[Busyman]

I don't like it but if you are in public you are in public.

I remember some stink about camera monitoring of street before. People were raising the privacy flag. Guess what, you're outside.

So perhaps we should place a monitering tag under your skin that records your every movement when you're outside your home.

After all, you are in the public.

Just like any phone call you make, those cross public lines, right?

The question is whether this "safety" measure outweighs ones' right to privacy.

I would opt for personal privacy over personal monitering by Big Brother.

I think the chance for misuse outweighs its legimate use.

Your logic is flawed.
Can a person see you outside anyway?
Are there cameras outside anyway?
Phone calls do not cross public lines.

The camera's are not looking into your home. That's against the law.

[Mr JP Fugley]

So perhaps we should place a monitering tag under your skin that records your every movement when you're outside your home.

After all, you are in the public.

Just like any phone call you make, those cross public lines, right?

The question is whether this "safety" measure outweighs ones' right to privacy.

I would opt for personal privacy over personal monitering by Big Brother.

I think the chance for misuse outweighs its legimate use.

Your logic is flawed.
Can a person see you outside anyway?
Are there cameras outside anyway?
Phone calls do not cross public lines.

The camera's are not looking into your home. That's against the law.

with the greatest of respect, you don't know what you are talking about. the use of CCTV as a method of surveillance is considered a breach of privacy in the UK.

people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy whilst in public, however the rules change as soon as technical assistance is used.

mayhap you are correct in the ewe essay, i know not and frankly care little.

[Busyman]

Your logic is flawed.
Can a person see you outside anyway?
Are there cameras outside anyway?
Phone calls do not cross public lines.

The camera's are not looking into your home. That's against the law.

with the greatest of respect, you don't know what you are talking about. the use of CCTV as a method of surveillance is considered a breach of privacy in the UK.

people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy whilst in public, however the rules change as soon as technical assistance is used.

mayhap you are correct in the ewe essay, i know not and frankly care little.

Uh....I don't know what you mean by I don't what I'm talking about. It's an opinion (besides the phone lines and there I was speaking from a U.S. perspective).

Furthermore, hobbes equated camera monitoring with under the skin monitoring which is a flawed comparison.

[GepperRankins]

Those in the U.K. should not have a problem with this...it's a natural extension of the terrorist-born paranoia we're all living with.

I doubt it would be in the works absent current circumstances.

If they want next to install cameras in the cars, I'd start worrying; the Nose-picker's Rights League would surely gripe-I mean, if you can't hook a booger in the privacy of your own vehicle...

unless the terrorist are unbelievably stupid, this can't do anything for anti terrorism.


anyway they all use public transport so it doesn't matter.

[JPaul]

with the greatest of respect, you don't know what you are talking about. the use of CCTV as a method of surveillance is considered a breach of privacy in the UK.

people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy whilst in public, however the rules change as soon as technical assistance is used.

mayhap you are correct in the ewe essay, i know not and frankly care little.

Uh....I don't know what you mean by I don't what I'm talking about. It's an opinion

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

You said

Can a person see you outside anyway?
Are there cameras outside anyway?


The camera's are not looking into your home. That's against the law.

The fact that they are there anyway and that you are in public anyway is irrelevant.

The cameras can be set up to monitor a certain area which people walk thro'. They cannot simply be used to watch or follow a specific person, that would be a breach of her right to privacy, under ECHR. In order to use them to watch someone then authority must be sought and granted under RIPA. That will only be given if it can be shown to be proportionate to the alleged offences.

To use the cameras in the street without the proper authority would be illegal, just like using them to point into someone's house.

[hobbes]

Furthermore, hobbes equated camera monitoring with under the skin monitoring which is a flawed comparison.

It wasn't a comparison.

You stated that "when you are in public, you are in public". Presumably that means that when you leave the confines of your home, you become a willing target for government monitering. Which I find different from people seeing me outside.

One is a stochastic encounter, the other is an intentional effort to spy on me, just in case.

So we must follow the logical trail. If you have no objection to camera monitering, because you are outside, would you then object to under the skin tags that only activate when you are "outside"?

To what level of precision do you want your comings and goings monitered?

Even if we stop at the license plate capturing level, an interested government can simply input your license number and have an E-mail waiting for you at work, asking you why you are 15 minutes late today.

Back off, I say. My opinion is that my personal privacy outweighs my governments need to know.




I don't want a man's home to become his ca-cell.

[JPaul]

Back off, I say. My opinion is that my personal privacy outweighs my governments need to know.

Hence the safeguards we have in place. Everyone is entitled to privacy, unless the authorities can demonstrate that this right is outweighed by their name to monitor them e.g. if there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious criminal conduct (which is defined).

ECHR Protects the following;

* The right to life
* Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment
* Freedom from forced labour or slavery
* The right to Liberty and to a Fair trial
* Freedom from facing retrospective crimes or penalties
* A Right to Privacy
* Freedom of conscience
* Freedom of expression
* Freedom of assembly
* The right to marriage and family
* Freedom from discrimination

[hobbes]

I can see how the potential information could be useful, but why stop there? Why not implant a chip in everyone and collect the data in a safe place. The data only being accessed under the proper circumstances.

I just don't think the data needs to be obtained, just because it can.

I find the potential for abuse more of a threat than its potential benefit. Political "leaks" cannot occur if the data is not there.

After all, we (ewe-essay)have all sorts of laws and treaties that we only give lip service too.

I guess I am becoming old and skeptical. I no longer trust the superficial (Iraq and WMD) reasons given to me as representing the real purpose.

This seems like a strong step in the 1984 direction, regardless the proffered levels of personal privacy.

[Busyman]

Furthermore, hobbes equated camera monitoring with under the skin monitoring which is a flawed comparison.

It wasn't a comparison.

You stated that "when you are in public, you are in public". Presumably that means that when you leave the confines of your home, you become a willing target for government monitering. Which I find different from people seeing me outside.

One is a stochastic encounter, the other is an intentional effort to spy on me, just in case.

So we must follow the logical trail. If you have no objection to camera monitering, because you are outside, would you then object to under the skin tags that only activate when you are "outside"?

To what level of precision do you want your comings and goings monitered?

Even if we stop at the license plate capturing level, an interested government can simply input your license number and have an E-mail waiting for you at work, asking you why you are 15 minutes late today.

Back off, I say. My opinion is that my personal privacy outweighs my governments need to know.




I don't want a man's home to become his ca-cell.

Ok, not a comparison but the equation is still flawed.

When I say you are outside, you are in the public eye. Invasion under your skin is another ball game.

So if you are outside you can be seen. How is your privacy invaded when you aren't in private?

Do you object to traffic cameras too?

I don't like them but I can't say they invade my privacy.

For instance, cameras that capture my license plate is a public thing. A camera inside my car is not.

A cop can walk by and look into your car and arrest you if he sees illegal activity going on inside it.

[Busyman]

I can see how the potential information could be useful, but why stop there? Why not implant a chip in everyone and collect the data in a safe place. The data only being accessed under the proper circumstances.

I just don't think the data needs to be obtained, just because it can.

I find the potential for abuse more of a threat than its potential benefit. Political "leaks" cannot occur if the data is not there.

After all, we (ewe-essay)have all sorts of laws and treaties that we only give lip service too.

I guess I am becoming old and skeptical. I no longer trust the superficial (Iraq and WMD) reasons given to me as representing the real purpose.

This seems like a strong step in the 1984 direction, regardless the proffered levels of personal privacy.

Why do keep bringing up chip implantation? He goes against your argument.

Chip implantation is an invasion of your body. A camera seeing you outside where a passerby could take your picture anyway is not.

Funny enough, there is a doohicky that parents can get installed in their car for their children that monitors it.