In the UK next year will be 1984

[JPaul]

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.

There's a World of difference between putting chips in your entire population and occasionaly monitoring specific people who are suspected of serious crime.

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

It isn't that's what I'm saying. It must be justified and it must relate to things like the investigation of serious crime before it can be used to monitor people individually.


I find the potential for abuse more of a threat than its potential benefit.

I disagree, catching a suspected murderer outweighs her right to privacy.

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.

Surveillance in the UK is monitored (pun intended) by an independent commission of ex Judges (I think). They have the right to access all papers relating to and justifying the surveillance.

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.

I just don't see it, so long as the controls are in place.

Writing words so the message isn't "to short", bloody big brother mentality.

[JPaul]

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

That's why I said you didn't know what you were talking about.

Any activity, carried out by the authorities, which is likely to result in discovering what someone is doing or who they are meeting is an invasion of their privacy.

That's simply a fact, where surveillance is concerned, in the UK.

[Busyman]

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.

Oh I missed this post.

Actually I agree with you there. I'm referring to the bold print and that's all.

[Busyman]

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

That's why I said you didn't know what you were talking about.

Any activity, carried out by the authorities, which is likely to result in discovering what someone is doing or who they are meeting is an invasion of their privacy.

That's simply a fact, where surveillance is concerned, in the UK.

Ok. I'm talking in general terms. Whatever you laws are regarding what's invasion and what is not is whateverthefuck. I spoke on nothing irregardless to "discovering what someone is doing or who they are meeting".

I'm talking surveillance of an area not a person. There was some stink about simply having the cameras on the street over there.

[JPaul]

That's why I said you didn't know what you were talking about.

Any activity, carried out by the authorities, which is likely to result in discovering what someone is doing or who they are meeting is an invasion of their privacy.

That's simply a fact, where surveillance is concerned, in the UK.

Ok. I'm talking in general terms. Whatever you laws are regarding what's invasion and what is not is whateverthefuck. I spoke on nothing irregardless to "discovering what someone is doing or who they are meeting".

Ah, I see we have the illiterate busyman using the account today. Can you get the adult one to explain this to you.

How can you talk about "privacy" with regard to surveillance, without using the definition of privacy which relates to surveillance.

Our laws with regard to surveillance are quite important in a thread discussing surveillance by the authorities in the UK being overly oppressive .... I think

EDIT to answer EDIT - The cameras are there to watch the people in the area, not the area itself. So Privacy rules apply.

[hobbes]

For both JP and BM,

The question is, to what level of intimacy are comfortable with in regard to personal monitering.

Implanting a chip is simply the next level of intimacy to a massive network of cameras which plug into a centralized computer network which has the ability to determine if you are late for work.

For Busy, stop being so literal. A "chip" is simply an example of a personal monitering device. It could be put under your skin, it could be a barcode on your neck, it could be a wristwatch or a funny hat. I am talking about the concept of personal monitering.

Perhaps if the camera only stored the data of specific licenses which were under suspicion, I could live with that, but it collects data on us all.

If you think that the rights of a murderer are outweighed by the information given to you by cameras, why not take it to the next level?

We are again testing the limits. Where do we draw the line?

Doesn't this seem like an "end" (we catch the murderer) justifies the "means" (we collect retreivable data on the entire populace) scenario. I was told that was wrong.

This type of data collection is very 1984, wouldn't you agree. It has a tremendous power for misuse, if a corrupt, lying leader was ever elected.

I don't trust them with my stuff.

[Busyman]

Ok. I'm talking in general terms. Whatever you laws are regarding what's invasion and what is not is whateverthefuck. I spoke on nothing irregardless to "discovering what someone is doing or who they are meeting".

Ah, I see we have the illiterate busyman using the account today. Can you get the adult one to explain this to you.

How can you talk about "privacy" with regard to surveillance, without using the definition of privacy which relates to surveillance.

Our laws with regard to surveillance are quite important in a thread discussing surveillance by the authorities in the UK being overly oppressive .... I think

EDIT to answer EDIT - The cameras are there to watch the people in the area, not the area itself. So Privacy rules apply.

Ok then in that case YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CAMERAS AT ALL.

The traffic cameras over here aren't there to watch specific people. They are there to catch those breaking the law.

Let use a different example: There's a camera on a particular street corner and some asshole punches another in the face. The person who did the assault can't claim his privacy was violated.

[Busyman]

For both JP and BM,

The question is, to what level of intimacy are comfortable with in regard to personal monitering.

Implanting a chip is simply the next level of intimacy to a massive network of cameras which plug into a centralized computer network which has the ability to determine if you are late for work.

For Busy, stop being so literal. A "chip" is simply an example of a personal monitering device. It could be put under your skin, it could be a barcode on your neck, it could be a wristwatch or a funny hat. I am talking about the concept of personal monitering.

Perhaps if the camera only stored the data of specific licenses which were under suspicion, I could live with that, but it collects data on us all.

If you think that the rights of a murderer are outweighed by the information given to you by cameras, why not take it to the next level?

We are again testing the limits. Where do we draw the line?

Doesn't this seem like an "end" (we catch the murderer) justifies the "means" (we collect retreivable data on the entire populace) scenario. I was told that was wrong.

This type of data collection is very 1984, wouldn't you agree. It has a tremendous power for misuse, if a corrupt, lying leader was ever elected.

I don't trust them with my stuff.

My point is your chip example is simply off the mark.

You harp on monitoring to include all monitoring which makes no sense. One could go in reverse and say that the police patrol the area too much.

I heard the same thing about stop light cameras awhile ago when they were deployed in DC. Now though, they have something worse. Speed cameras are popping up all over the place.

You know why people are pissed? 'Cause they might get caught.

[hobbes]

My point is your chip example is simply off the mark.

How exactly?

If you say that when you are in public, you can be monitered by cameras because it will help combat crime, why not stop being half-assed and put a chip on people and do it right.

The chip, is just like the cameras. The data goes to a file which is not accessed without due process. So no-one is personally monitering you, as such. But if you commit a crime your footsteps can be retraced by opening the proper data file. Just like the movements of your vehicle around town can be retraced, just better.

It is the next logical step.

[JPaul]

hobbes,

The cameras can only be used for surveillance in certain circumstances as I outlined earlier. Someone has to be suspected of a serious crime, that is something like - the offence would carry a 7 year sentence on a first offence (maybe not exactly that but something like it).

It is beyond doubt that the cameras also serve their primary purposes, to reduce inner city crime or to catch offenders who are guilty of it. They make our cities safer, particularly with regard to violent crime.

When you add the effect they have it is worth the minimal effect they have on our right to privacy. That part is just my opinion obviousement.

That is entirely different from putting a chip in everyone, sans suspicion of an offence. That is most definitely not the next logical step, even if you post that it is.