In the UK next year will be 1984

[vidcc]

From 2006 Britain will be the first country where every journey by every car will be monitored


Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.

By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.

Already there are plans to extend the database by increasing the storage period to five years and by linking thousands of additional cameras so that details of up to 100 million number plates can be fed each day into the central databank.

Senior police officers have described the surveillance network as possibly the biggest advance in the technology of crime detection and prevention since the introduction of DNA fingerprinting.

But others concerned about civil liberties will be worried that the movements of millions of law-abiding people will soon be routinely recorded and kept on a central computer database for years.

The new national data centre of vehicle movements will form the basis of a sophisticated surveillance tool that lies at the heart of an operation designed to drive criminals off the road.

In the process, the data centre will provide unrivalled opportunities to gather intelligence data on the movements and associations of organised gangs and terrorist suspects whenever they use cars, vans or motorcycles.

The scheme is being orchestrated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and has the full backing of ministers who have sanctioned the spending of £24m this year on equipment.

More than 50 local authorities have signed agreements to allow the police to convert thousands of existing traffic cameras so they can read number plates automatically. The data will then be transmitted to Hendon via a secure police communications network.

Chief constables are also on the verge of brokering agreements with the Highways Agency, supermarkets and petrol station owners to incorporate their own CCTV cameras into the network. In addition to cross-checking each number plate against stolen and suspect vehicles held on the Police National Computer, the national data centre will also check whether each vehicle is lawfully licensed, insured and has a valid MoT test certificate.

"Every time you make a car journey already, you'll be on CCTV somewhere. The difference is that, in future, the car's index plates will be read as well," said Frank Whiteley, Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and chairman of the Acpo steering committee on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR).

"What the data centre should be able to tell you is where a vehicle was in the past and where it is now, whether it was or wasn't at a particular location, and the routes taken to and from those crime scenes. Particularly important are associated vehicles," Mr Whiteley said.

The term "associated vehicles" means analysing convoys of cars, vans or trucks to see who is driving alongside a vehicle that is already known to be of interest to the police. Criminals, for instance, will drive somewhere in a lawful vehicle, steal a car and then drive back in convoy to commit further crimes "You're not necessarily interested in the stolen vehicle. You're interested in what's moving with the stolen vehicle," Mr Whiteley explained.

According to a strategy document drawn up by Acpo, the national data centre in Hendon will be at the heart of a surveillance operation that should deny criminals the use of the roads.

"The intention is to create a comprehensive ANPR camera and reader infrastructure across the country to stop displacement of crime from area to area and to allow a comprehensive picture of vehicle movements to be captured," the Acpo strategy says.

"This development forms the basis of a 24/7 vehicle movement database that will revolutionise arrest, intelligence and crime investigation opportunities on a national basis," it says.

Mr Whiteley said MI5 will also use the database. "Clearly there are values for this in counter-terrorism," he said.

"The security services will use it for purposes that I frankly don't have access to. It's part of public protection. If the security services did not have access to this, we'd be negligent."

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.

By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.

Already there are plans to extend the database by increasing the storage period to five years and by linking thousands of additional cameras so that details of up to 100 million number plates can be fed each day into the central databank.

source (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece)

vital law enforcement tool or invasion of privacy? Is the trade off balanced?

[GepperRankins]

it kind of suxxors because it can be used to catch you speeding.

i mean like my theory is, i can justify speeding if i'm aware enough not to get caught. so if a camera snaps you or a cop sees you. you obviously weren't concentrating on the surroundings and therefore weren't safe enough. but if they start sending people tickets because average speeds are too high, it's gonna be majorly unfair on competent drivers :mellow:



the apparent intentions sucks too, because vehicle identity theft is like the fastest growing crime in the UK. so any terrorists or murderers are just gonna have a laugh giving you false trails :dabs:

[hobbes]

My first thought was "cool". If my car is stolen, we can just track where they took it.

But how long will it take to develop a simple device which will either obscure the plates or act as a clip-on false plate that can change every 5 minutes.

This leaves the average joe the only one whose moves have been tracked.

Can a private eye access the database to catch a cheating spouse.

I can't imagine the mudslinging in the next election with that sort of data available for political propaganda.

Why are your plates seen at the liquor store or strip clubs so much. Also nice fodder for a lawyer working a case.

I don't think I like it. I prefer my privacy over some supposed protection.

5 minutes of thought, but open to revision.

[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.

[j2k4]

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...:dry:

[hobbes]

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.

[zapjb]

I like the title of this topic. "In the UK next year will be 1984" For those of you young ones. A must read is George Orwell's 1984.

[JPaul]

I like the title of this topic. "In the UK next year will be 1984" For those of you young ones. A must read is George Orwell's 1984.
Interestingly the title was created by the publishers, not the author. They thought the original (something like "The last man in Europe") was pish, so they changed it to "1984".

Oh and please stop looking at things in isolation. The article vidtard copied and pasted is quite interesting, however reading it sans ECHR and RIPA is pointless.

[zapjb]

JPaul, The title was just the year of publication 1948. And switched the last 2 digits.

[Mr JP Fugley]

JPaul, The title was just the year of publication 1948. And switched the last 2 digits.
That makes sense.

[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).:huh:

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

[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...:dry:
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.:dry:


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.


http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~karthik/pics/2001-12-2-SF/2/640-480/036f.jpg

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.:dry:


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.


http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~karthik/pics/2001-12-2-SF/2/640-480/036f.jpg

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.

[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. :dabs:

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.

[JPaul]

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.
From a surveillance point of view it wan't and even if it were it doesn't matter. Right to privacy is not an absolute right, it can be breached if the circumstances are correct, see my earlier.

An example of an absolute right is the right to life.

[GepperRankins]

i'd love to read back but i can't really be bothered.


the point is, it's pretty much useless for what it's supposed to do. but when the systems up and running they'll quietly use it to monitor speed and reep unfair revenue. :smilie4:

[Busyman]

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.
Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

[Busyman]

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.
From a surveillance point of view it wan't and even if it were it doesn't matter. Right to privacy is not an absolute right, it can be breached if the circumstances are correct, see my earlier.

An example of an absolute right is the right to life.
Mmk. Nothing new there.

[JPaul]

the point is, it's pretty much useless for what it's supposed to do.
:lol: :nob:

[JPaul]

From a surveillance point of view it wan't and even if it were it doesn't matter. Right to privacy is not an absolute right, it can be breached if the circumstances are correct, see my earlier.

An example of an absolute right is the right to life.
Mmk. Nothing new there.
Hardly surprising really when you come up with a different example which still demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

[Busyman]

Mmk. Nothing new there.
Hardly surprising really when you come up with a different example which still demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.
Good lord....I got everything you said. It ain't a stretch ya know. We actually are on the same page...but you don't know it....or acting like you don't.

For instance, when I mentioned watching an area you quickly brought up it's about the people. :dabs: It's like no shit. Like it has to be spelled for you or something.

If I wrote...."I ma Buysanm" would you

1. Really wonder wtf I meant or

2. Know what I meant but play smartass.

Either way I'm pretty much done with you in this thread. You're starting to bore me and this is supposed to be entertainment.:ermm:

[hobbes]

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

When we are talking concepts, implementation is irrelevant. The chip was an example. You know what an example is don't you. Rather than spend the entire day creating a working model of a physically non-invasive personal monitering device, I took the "chip" for convenience.

Think "concept" not "concrete".

Concept = what level of monitering is too much for your personal comfort.

Cops are there to enforce laws, not to moniter people. They don't take pictures of me and store them.

Cops are placed in certain location in relation to expected crime. There field presence helps to expediate enforncement. Just like taxi cabs and ambulances, they form a network, and the ones closest to the "action", respond to the call.

[JPaul]

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

When we are talking concepts, implementation is irrelevant. The chip was an example. You know what an example is don't you. Rather than spend the entire day creating a working model of a physically non-invasive personal monitering device, I took the "chip" for convenience.

Think "concept" not "concrete".

Concept = what level of monitering is too much for your personal comfort.

Cops are there to enforce laws, not to moniter people. They don't take pictures of me and store them.

Cops are placed in certain location in relation to expected crime. There field presence helps to expediate enforncement. Just like taxi cabs and ambulances, they form a network, and the ones closest to the "action", respond to the call.


It boils down to proportionality.

The use of cameras is a proportionate response to a problem, provided their use is controlled properly, as outlined earlier.

Placing a tracking device in, or even on your entire population is not.

The latter is indeed a more effective solution, particularly if they are in the person. However it is disproportionate to what it seeks to achieve.

I think it was j2 (or maybe you) who quite rightly pointed out that we could practically do away with death on the roads by making the speed limit 5mph. However it would not be a proportionate response to the problem.

[Busyman]

Chip implantation is not just an invasion of "privacy" it's an invasion of your body.

You see the difference, right? Implementation is key here.

You don't have a problem with stepped up police patrols do you? More cops walking a beat?

When we are talking concepts, implementation is irrelevant. The chip was an example. You know what an example is don't you. Rather than spend the entire day creating a working model of a physically non-invasive personal monitering device, I took the "chip" for convenience.

Think "concept" not "concrete".

Concept = what level of monitering is too much for your personal comfort.

Cops are there to enforce laws, not to moniter people. They don't take pictures of me and store them.

Cops are placed in certain location in relation to expected crime. There field presence helps to expediate enforncement. Just like taxi cabs and ambulances, they form a network, and the ones closest to the "action", respond to the call.
Huh? Your convenience concept is over the top. It actually introduces another concept...invasion of one's body. That's where your concept gets muddled and detracts from what you are saying.

I like the better example of how maybe your job can get hold of the records but chip implantation is ridiculous.:ermm:

I wonder is it that people are afraid of this surveillance falling into the wrong hands or that they want to be able to break the law. I know in the case of speed cameras, people just don't like getting caught.
The even goes for filesharing. Any copy protection scheme would have cries of foul by folks who want to be able to copy illegally. People want to be able to keep stealing and even if there was a way of demonstrating "fair use" would be upheld. Those cries will still heard.

The mere concept of the law "seeing" you on the street should not be an issue. If you were being followed around for purposes of harrasment or stalking, that's different.

[JPaul]

Hardly surprising really when you come up with a different example which still demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.
Good lord....I got everything you said. It ain't a stretch ya know. We actually are on the same page...but you don't know it....or acting like you don't.

For instance, when I mentioned watching an area you quickly brought up it's about the people. :dabs: It's like no shit. Like it has to be spelled for you or something.

If I wrote...."I ma Buysanm" would you

1. Really wonder wtf I meant or

2. Know what I meant but play smartass.

Either way I'm pretty much done with you in this thread. You're starting to bore me and this is supposed to be entertainment.:ermm:


:lol: you really are an arse.

You think you understand things and then go on to post pish which makes it apparent you don't. Then you get stroppy with someone else and when they reply get on a ridiculous high horse.

Fan-tastic.

You should have just done a vidcc and posted :yawn:, it would have been more succinct.

[hobbes]

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.

My personal opinion that it has definite Orwellian implications. If one were to ask is this a step "toward" or "away" from what Orwell feared, I would say toward

The system is more likely to expand in the future and not regress, so each step is an incremental compromise of personal privacy.

I also feel that where I go and what I do is entirely my concern and not for any data bank, regardless that it is not accessed. The data should never be gathered.

It is the beginning of trend of more personal monitering which I think can lead to Orwell's feared conclusion.

It may not be today or 10 years from now when Seth MacFarlane's mark on the world will be known, but a system will be in place, rife with the potential for abuse.

So, it would sit in the back of my mind that my steps could be retraced. You won't find anything criminal but surely some things which could prove embarassing if I had to explain them because someone mistakenly suspected me for something.

Just like the history in your computer might record the occasional porn site you visited and be embarrassing to explain. You know and I know, it was for research, but that is so hard to convince others.

I am not saying I'm right, just my opinion. It is a hardware limitation.

[Busyman]

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.

My personal opinion that it has definite Orwellian implications. If one were to ask is this a step "toward" or "away" from what Orwell feared, I would say toward

The system is more likely to expand in the future and not regress, so each step is an incremental compromise of personal privacy.

I also feel that where I go and what I do is entirely my concern and not for any data bank, regardless that it is not accessed. The data should never be gathered.

It is the beginning of trend of more personal monitering which I think can lead to Orwell's feared conclusion.

It may not be today or 10 years from now when Seth MacFarlane's mark on the world will be known, but a system will be in place, rife with the potential for abuse.

So, it would sit in the back of my mind that my steps could be retraced. You won't find anything criminal but surely some things which could prove embarassing if I had to explain them because someone mistakenly suspected me for something.

Just like the history in your computer might record the occasional porn site you visited and be embarrassing to explain. You know and I know, it was for research, but that is so hard to convince others.

I am not saying I'm right, just my opinion. It is a hardware limitation.
I understand your concerns but recording license plates, too me, is not a big deal. Measures are put in place to make sure there's no abuse. If you think about it, this "recording" could be done in secret anyway. I rather it be open to oversight and public scrutiny.

The bold print was quite funny.:lol: :lol: Everyone will believe that the gay porn files on your computer are for a book you're writing.:mellow:

[JPaul]

hobbes,

Indeed, that's the bit which becomes opinion. I can live with the balance and what it seeks to achieve and what we lose.

The reality of the situation is that there are far more intrusive things going on all the time, it's just not so widely known. It's quite stunning how much data is available on individuals. Off the top of my head;

What you earn
What you spend
What you spend it on
How much money you have
How much money you owe
Who you owe it to
Which ATM you use
Where you use your credit card
What you buy with it
Who you phone
Who phones you
Any medical conditions you have
Any treatments you are receiving

Feck it goes on and on.

[hobbes]

hobbes,

Indeed, that's the bit which becomes opinion. I can live with the balance and what it seeks to achieve and what we lose.

The reality of the situation is that there are far more intrusive things going on all the time, it's just not so widely known. It's quite stunning how much data is available on individuals. Off the top of my head;

What you earn
What you spend
What you spend it on
How much money you have
How much money you owe
Who you owe it to
Which ATM you use
Where you use your credit card
What you buy with it
Who you phone
Who phones you
Any medical conditions you have
Any treatments you are receiving

Feck it goes on and on.

Typically when you make a purchase at a large store chain, such as Best Buy, they always ask for your home phone number with area code (to collect demographic information).

I always tell them "no" or ask for theirs:naughty:

This consistently flusters the cashier as most people just automatically respond.

Just to be a bit more friendly I pretend to not understand why they are asking and say "Well, you guys call past my bedtime and leave obscene messages on my machine". If you say it just right, you can enjoy leaving the cashier completed baffled with her mouth agape.

Point being, I might be a little bit of a nutter on this privacy thing.

[JPaul]

You could give them the details for a git.

That would feck up their demographic research and annoy someone you don't like.

Two birds, one stone etc.

[hobbes]

You could give them the details for a git.

That would feck up their demographic research and annoy someone you don't like.

Two birds, one stone etc.

What's your number. ;)

[JPaul]

You could give them the details for a git.

That would feck up their demographic research and annoy someone you don't like.

Two birds, one stone etc.

What's your number. ;)
:cry:

[vidcc]

There is always the arguement that if one does nothing wrong then there is nothing to worry about. It is shown that areas with CCTV do experience a reduced crime rate.
Unless these cameras are pointing at oncoming traffic and have face recognition capabilities then in effect all it is doing is tracking the vehicle and not the occupant. For the UK this would increase the amount of prosecutions for untaxed, uninsured or vehicles without the "MOT".
I don't have any problem with the legal and regulated use, however it doesn't matter how many safeguards are in place it is open to abuse. (certain texas republicans would love this). It isn't that the government would know that I travelled from point A to B. It's that it is none of their business.
It isn't so much who "should" have access to the data but instead who "could". I have less faith in the safeguards we have here than someone in the UK could have in the safeguards there.

the point is, it's pretty much useless for what it's supposed to do. but when the systems up and running they'll quietly use it to monitor speed and reep unfair revenue.
I think one can't complain about being caught breaking a speed limit, you take your chances. One thing springs to mind though. I heard that the UK is trying to charge "per mile" usage of the roads. Once this system is operational that could follow quickly.
:conspiracy theory: Perhaps the "tool against terror and crime" is a smoke screen :conspiracy theory:

[JPaul]

A thought occurs - perhaps our opinion on whether the safeguards against abuse would be circumvented says more about our assesment of our authorities than it does about the system itself.

I work on the basis that the system will not be abused, but if it is the regulators will take some action against the abusers. It seems you American chaps work more on the basis of when / how the abuse will take place.

Maybe I'm just naive.

[lynx]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Hobbes on this one.

JP points out that there are safeguards over who can examine the data and when they are allowed to do so. This assumes that the safeguards will not be changed, but that's not a reasonable assumption in my opinion. Governments always find reasons why existing safeguards are too restrictive.


I work on the basis that the system will not be abused, but if it is the regulators will take some action against the abusers. It seems you American chaps work more on the basis of when / how the abuse will take place.I'm intrigued, have you ever known such a system which has NOT been abused? And where REAL penalties have been dished out to the offenders.


Maybe I'm just naive.Yes, I think so. The only way to stop the abuse is to prevent these busybody systems from being introduced in the first place. The people who are proposing such systems are the same ones who are complaining that our jails are too full, and our police have too much to do. If we did more to prevent the offences in the first place (such as having more police on the street) we wouldn't need to find out who the offenders are, there would be less people in jail, the police wouldn't have so much paperwork. Camera systems are about catching offenders after the offence has been committed, not an acceptable solution.

[JPaul]

The safeguards are under the terms of ECHR (which is European Legislation) and RIPA which was the UK response to it.

This means that our Govt cannot just change it to suit themselves, they would have to withdraw from ECHR in order to do so, which I find unlikely.

It also means that complaints / appeals can be heard above our Govt's head, at the European Court of Human Rights.

The end result is that many hoops need to be jumped thro' for breaches of privacy to take place. This is not the same as our Govt making rules and changing them, or changing how they are regulated, to suit themselves.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

...however it doesn't matter how many safeguards are in place it is open to abuse. (certain texas republicans would love this).

As opposed to all the other republicans from the other 49 states...

[vidcc]

...however it doesn't matter how many safeguards are in place it is open to abuse. (certain texas republicans would love this).

As opposed to all the other republicans from the other 49 states...

I confess it was a little dig at Mr. Delay and his use of the system to track his political opponents and Mr. Bush with his current "I don't need warrants to wiretap US citizens" policy.
I said "certain texas republicans". I genuinely don't link all republicans with the questionable ethics of a few.(whoever it was that said they all eat their babies was right though ;):shifty: ) The same goes with Democrats. Some have very questionable ethics. Just happens to be the republicans making the big news right now.

[Busyman]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Hobbes on this one.

JP points out that there are safeguards over who can examine the data and when they are allowed to do so. This assumes that the safeguards will not be changed, but that's not a reasonable assumption in my opinion. Governments always find reasons why existing safeguards are too restrictive.

I'm intrigued, have you ever known such a system which has NOT been abused? And where REAL penalties have been dished out to the offenders.


Maybe I'm just naive.Yes, I think so. The only way to stop the abuse is to prevent these busybody systems from being introduced in the first place. The people who are proposing such systems are the same ones who are complaining that our jails are too full, and our police have too much to do. If we did more to prevent the offences in the first place (such as having more police on the street) we wouldn't need to find out who the offenders are, there would be less people in jail, the police wouldn't have so much paperwork. Camera systems are about catching offenders after the offence has been committed, not an acceptable solution.
You forget that the cameras would be a possible deterrent. It's like an automated police force to an extent.

Even with traffic cameras over here, I am less likely to run a red light.

[vidcc]

You forget that the cameras would be a possible deterrent. It's like an automated police force to an extent.

Even with traffic cameras over here, I am less likely to run a red light.

I agree with and approve of the deterent factor with a couple of "howevers"

Speed cameras and traffic light cameras only take pictures of offenders. This system monitors, identifies and keep records of the non offenders. (well the vehicles). Standard CCTV does not record indentity in the same invasive way

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

As opposed to all the other republicans from the other 49 states...

I confess it was a little dig at Mr. Delay and his use of the system to track his political opponents and Mr. Bush with his current "I don't need warrants to wiretap US citizens" policy.
I said "certain texas republicans". I genuinely don't link all republicans with the questionable ethics of a few.(whoever it was that said they all eat their babies was right though ;):shifty: ) The same goes with Democrats. Some have very questionable ethics. Just happens to be the republicans making the big news right now.

Plztoberemembering Bush is not a Texan....

Don't be fooled by Bush's PR, just because he has a home here doesn't cancel his northeastern origins.

[vidcc]

Plztoberemembering Bush is not a Texan....

Don't be fooled by Bush's PR, just because he has a home here doesn't cancel his northeastern origins.

I am aware of his birthplace. splitting hairs slightly there. Politically he was and is a "texas republican" after all he was the gov.

He must be slipping from grace if texans are distancing him :P

Edit: mind you i see you are from Austin...... isn't that a liberal place?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Plztoberemembering Bush is not a Texan....

Don't be fooled by Bush's PR, just because he has a home here doesn't cancel his northeastern origins.

I am aware of his birthplace. splitting hairs slightly there. Politically he was and is a "texas republican" after all he was the gov.

He must be slipping from grace if texans are distancing him :P

Edit: mind you i see you are from Austin...... isn't that a liberal place?

Texas wasn't voting him into the White House, we were voting him out of Texas.

It is more than his birthplace, it is his formative years, collegiate years, military years that make up his origins. He didn't come to Texas till much later in his career.

BTW, just because he was the governor doesn't make him a Texan by any chance, So he is not a Texas republican. Under your theory, wouldn't it mean California was a Nazi state? :lol: :P

[j2k4]

hobbes,

Indeed, that's the bit which becomes opinion. I can live with the balance and what it seeks to achieve and what we lose.

The reality of the situation is that there are far more intrusive things going on all the time, it's just not so widely known. It's quite stunning how much data is available on individuals. Off the top of my head;

What you earn
What you spend
What you spend it on
How much money you have
How much money you owe
Who you owe it to
Which ATM you use
Where you use your credit card
What you buy with it
Who you phone
Who phones you
Any medical conditions you have
Any treatments you are receiving

Feck it goes on and on.

By and large, these are all items the availability of which has resulted from the obscure (and ostensibly innocent) maneuverings of financial and commercial interests, and which also have become a more-or-less open book to our governments.

The system has for many years/decades been subject to the goodwill/honesty of government auspices, but a quick study of J. Edgar Hoover's machinations tells you all you need to know about the ultimate disposal of such information as regards any human agency possessed of mal-intent.

The truth of the matter is such access has always existed, but now the human inclination is aided more than ever by technology.

As to the inclination itself, wiretaps, legal or otherwise, have been with us literally since the invention of the telephone, and, in-and-amongst the traffic there has always been an element of innocent communication.

Anyone gullible enough to believe the particulars of such tangential gleaning hasn't been scrutinized by strange eyes all along should think again.

The info is there for those who are inclined (or not) to use it for any out-of-context or malicious intent they choose.

What's new? :huh:

[lynx]

The safeguards are under the terms of ECHR (which is European Legislation) and RIPA which was the UK response to it.

This means that our Govt cannot just change it to suit themselves, they would have to withdraw from ECHR in order to do so, which I find unlikely.

It also means that complaints / appeals can be heard above our Govt's head, at the European Court of Human Rights.

The end result is that many hoops need to be jumped thro' for breaches of privacy to take place. This is not the same as our Govt making rules and changing them, or changing how they are regulated, to suit themselves.Have you been asleep? There have been suggestions from within government circles that they may indeed have to withdraw from certain aspects of the ECHR, as part of their "war on terrorism".

Once again you've fallen into the trap of "there are safeguards". If they want to change the safeguards they will do so. If they want to find ways round the safeguards they will do so. Most of those "safeguards" are only there to prevent ministers from making decisions without proper legal framework. As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.

In any case, RIPA specifically states that the Secretary of State may issue regulations permitting surveillance on any person without need for a warrant. Where's your safeguard now?

[GepperRankins]

There is always the arguement that if one does nothing wrong then there is nothing to worry about. It is shown that areas with CCTV do experience a reduced crime rate.
Unless these cameras are pointing at oncoming traffic and have face recognition capabilities then in effect all it is doing is tracking the vehicle and not the occupant. For the UK this would increase the amount of prosecutions for untaxed, uninsured or vehicles without the "MOT".
I don't have any problem with the legal and regulated use, however it doesn't matter how many safeguards are in place it is open to abuse. (certain texas republicans would love this). It isn't that the government would know that I travelled from point A to B. It's that it is none of their business.
It isn't so much who "should" have access to the data but instead who "could". I have less faith in the safeguards we have here than someone in the UK could have in the safeguards there.

the point is, it's pretty much useless for what it's supposed to do. but when the systems up and running they'll quietly use it to monitor speed and reep unfair revenue.
I think one can't complain about being caught breaking a speed limit, you take your chances. One thing springs to mind though. I heard that the UK is trying to charge "per mile" usage of the roads. Once this system is operational that could follow quickly.
:conspiracy theory: Perhaps the "tool against terror and crime" is a smoke screen :conspiracy theory:
speed limits are just guidelines :snooty:

if there's a straight road through fields and i can see for miles, i shouldn't have to go 50, it's not unsafe to go faster, but i could get points and a fine if i have an average speed of 58 on this stretch of road.

please nobody point out that my only ever vehicle maxed out at about 65 :pinch:

[JPaul]

The safeguards are under the terms of ECHR (which is European Legislation) and RIPA which was the UK response to it.

This means that our Govt cannot just change it to suit themselves, they would have to withdraw from ECHR in order to do so, which I find unlikely.

It also means that complaints / appeals can be heard above our Govt's head, at the European Court of Human Rights.

The end result is that many hoops need to be jumped thro' for breaches of privacy to take place. This is not the same as our Govt making rules and changing them, or changing how they are regulated, to suit themselves.Have you been asleep? There have been suggestions from within government circles that they may indeed have to withdraw from certain aspects of the ECHR, as part of their "war on terrorism".

Once again you've fallen into the trap of "there are safeguards". If they want to change the safeguards they will do so. If they want to find ways round the safeguards they will do so. Most of those "safeguards" are only there to prevent ministers from making decisions without proper legal framework. As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.

In any case, RIPA specifically states that the Secretary of State may issue regulations permitting surveillance on any person without need for a warrant. Where's your safeguard now?
Which parts of ECHR are these "government circles" suggesting they wish to withdraw from, in relation to terrorism. That would surely be relevant to your point.

Yes if they want to remove the safeguards then ultimately they can withdraw from the ECHR and do so, they can ignore public opinion, they can pass any laws they want. They can ignore the upper house, they can force any bill thro' they want. That's the same for everything else.


As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.

I don't even know what that means. If Parliament makes Laws then ECHR is effectively overridden, how in what way.

Re the Secretary of State thing, they do surveillance without warrants all the time, he made such regulations. I don't really see your point, its that surveillance which is regulated and controlled. That's the whole point.

[thewizeard]

...In the future, your automobiles will be fitted with a black box, voice recorder :) and a special chip, so that when the police wish, they can shut down the engine remotely... When you start the engine it will automatically connect to a GPRS system that will connect to the GPS system, or the European equivalent, this will be monitored by the CIA, Scotland Yard, Interpol and ... Rossco. :(

[lynx]

Have you been asleep? There have been suggestions from within government circles that they may indeed have to withdraw from certain aspects of the ECHR, as part of their "war on terrorism".

Once again you've fallen into the trap of "there are safeguards". If they want to change the safeguards they will do so. If they want to find ways round the safeguards they will do so. Most of those "safeguards" are only there to prevent ministers from making decisions without proper legal framework. As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.

In any case, RIPA specifically states that the Secretary of State may issue regulations permitting surveillance on any person without need for a warrant. Where's your safeguard now?
Which parts of ECHR are these "government circles" suggesting they wish to withdraw from, in relation to terrorism. That would surely be relevant to your point.

Yes if they want to remove the safeguards then ultimately they can withdraw from the ECHR and do so, they can ignore public opinion, they can pass any laws they want. They can ignore the upper house, they can force any bill thro' they want. That's the same for everything else.


As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.

I don't even know what that means. If Parliament makes Laws then ECHR is effectively overridden, how in what way.

Re the Secretary of State thing, they do surveillance without warrants all the time, he made such regulations. I don't really see your point, its that surveillance which is regulated and controlled. That's the whole point.Strange how you know so much about ECHR, RIPA, safeguards etc until someone actually calls you to back up what you've written, then all of a sudden you don't understand a thing.

Well done, you've taken the art of writing pish to a new level.

[JPaul]

Which parts of ECHR are these "government circles" suggesting they wish to withdraw from, in relation to terrorism. That would surely be relevant to your point.

Yes if they want to remove the safeguards then ultimately they can withdraw from the ECHR and do so, they can ignore public opinion, they can pass any laws they want. They can ignore the upper house, they can force any bill thro' they want. That's the same for everything else.


As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.

I don't even know what that means. If Parliament makes Laws then ECHR is effectively overridden, how in what way.

Re the Secretary of State thing, they do surveillance without warrants all the time, he made such regulations. I don't really see your point, its that surveillance which is regulated and controlled. That's the whole point.Strange how you know so much about ECHR, RIPA, safeguards etc until someone actually calls you to back up what you've written, then all of a sudden you don't understand a thing.

Well done, you've taken the art of writing pish to a new level.


:lol:

No, I didn't understand the crap you wrote.


As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden. is just nonsense, you must know that.

[lynx]

:lol:

No, I didn't understand the crap you wrote.


As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden. is just nonsense, you must know that. :sleeping:

Let me know when you've actually read up on the subject.

[JPaul]

:lol:

No, I didn't understand the crap you wrote.

is just nonsense, you must know that. :sleeping:

Let me know when you've actually read up on the subject.
I've studied it in quite some depth, both read up on it and had it explained to me by experts.

Governments in Europe cannot "override" the ECHR, what would be the point in having it if they could.

Courts must also ensure that the ECHR is complied with. Hence so many cases falling foul of it, particularly Article 6.

Let me know when you actually know a wee bit about it. Nah, don't bother, coz' when you do you'll already know you were talking crap, so I won't have to bother.

[Biggles]

On the plus side I wouldn't mind another go at 1984. I don't think I made a very good job of it first time round. :lookaroun

[MagicNakor]

I had some truly hideous clothing in 1984.

:shuriken:

[lynx]

:sleeping:

Let me know when you've actually read up on the subject.
I've studied it in quite some depth, both read up on it and had it explained to me by experts.

Governments in Europe cannot "override" the ECHR, what would be the point in having it if they could.

Courts must also ensure that the ECHR is complied with. Hence so many cases falling foul of it, particularly Article 6.

Let me know when you actually know a wee bit about it. Nah, don't bother, coz' when you do you'll already know you were talking crap, so I won't have to bother.Fine.

Except that the recent attempts to hold people for 90 days without trial or evidence would be contrary to Article 5 (Article 6 is irrelevant since no criminal charge has been brought), but the Terrorism Bill has still gone through, albeit reduced to 28 days, but that's still contrary to Article 5. Perhaps you were away when that was discussed, it got very little coverage. :dry:

You might also like to consider Article 8, Paragraph 1:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Now compare that with RIPA, Section 3:
"Lawful interception without an interception warrant".

The two are incompatible, but AFAIK there have been no challenges against RIPA. Why? Because they don't bother to tell anyone they've intercepted their mail, or tapped their phone etc.

You still think there are safeguards? Life must look lovely through those rose coloured glasses.

[JPaul]

You really don't know what you are talking about. For example right to privacy (the issue here) is not absolute


You might also like to consider Article 8, Paragraph 1:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Now compare that with RIPA, Section 3:
"Lawful interception without an interception warrant".


people have the right to privacy, however Governments have the right to breach it, under certain conditions. RIPA give the legal framework for those conditions. The safeguards are there to ensure that the breaches are only made when the conditions are met.

If this were not the case then the investigation of crime would be absolutely impossible. It is difficult to see how anyone could not understand that. Why would we sign up to a convention which precluded us from prying into the activities of people who were suspected of serious criminal conduct.

Oh and read a bit more about the "phone tapping" thing


Section 3 of RIPA, (Archbold 25-370) provides that an interception without a warrant will be lawful in certain specified circumstances.

These include consensual interceptions where both parties consent, or where one party consents and surveillance by means of interception has been authorised as 'directed surveillance' in accordance with Part II of the Act, e.g. in a blackmail scenario < refer to Covert Surveillance elsewhere in this guidance>.

A warrant would normally be required, however in certain circumstances and if other authorities are in place it may not be required. The much more common position would be Section 5


Section 5 of RIPA, (Archbold 25-372) allows for interception to be carried out where a warrant has been obtained from the Secretary of State. Section 5(2) provides that the Secretary of State shall not issue an intercept warrant unless he believes that the warrant is necessary on one of the grounds set out in section 5 (3) - these include the prevention and detection of serious crime - and that the conduct authorised must be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it.

This is all auditable by the surveillance commissioners. I assume you take them to be corrupt until proven otherwise.

http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/

[lynx]

This is all auditable by the surveillance commissioners. I assume you take them to be corrupt until proven otherwise.

http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/
Why would I believe them to be corrupt. I'm sure they do a very nice job of auditing everything they are asked to audit.

However, I'm not so naive as to believe that they are told about every interception.

Going back to section 3 of RIPA, you omitted one of the most important parts:

(3) Conduct consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if-
(a) it is conduct by or on behalf of a person who provides a postal service or a telecommunications service; and
(b) it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service or with the enforcement, in relation to that service, of any enactment relating to the use of postal services or telecommunications services.In other words, if parliament makes provision for it (not a minister) then it is legal. That is exactly what I told you earlier, you seemed not to understand.

[JPaul]

Of course parliament makes provision for it, that's what law is about. The bit I omited states that such warrants are only legal if they fall within the law. I thought it pointless to include it. The law often includes bits like that, because by it's nature it has to be pedantic.

Part 3 interceptions would be rarer than part 5, which are the ones the Secretary of State authorises, having been given the power by the act.

In any case, what you told me earlier on was that so long as Parliament passed a law then it effectively "override the ECHR". That was and is pish. If a Court decides that a Law is not ECHR compatible then the case potentially falls and they report their findings. The UK can then be told to change the law either by repealing or amending it, to make it ECHR compatible.

I give up, there is only so much ill-informed repetition even I am willing to endure. You cannot just read small parts of acts of parliament and expect to understand them. They are the subject of discussion (recorded in the Hansard notes which must be read with the act to understand the intent of the legislators) and legal interpretation by the Courts.

[~Rev Jim Jones]

UK Pay-as-you-go' road charge plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm):unsure:

[j2k4]

UK Pay-as-you-go' road charge plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm):unsure:

Hmmm.

A good idea, or more evidence of the impending demise of the U.K.? :lol:

[ilw]

UK Pay-as-you-go' road charge plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm):unsure:

Hmmm.

A good idea, or more evidence of the impending demise of the U.K.? :lol:
are we going to sink under the weight of the additional cameras? :unsure:

[j2k4]

Hmmm.

A good idea, or more evidence of the impending demise of the U.K.? :lol:
are we going to sink under the weight of the additional cameras? :unsure:

Perhaps you could throw off some ballast?

Might I suggest Rat Faced?

That, or put him to work topping up your floatation apparatus with hot air...:P

[Biggles]

are we going to sink under the weight of the additional cameras? :unsure:

Perhaps you could throw off some ballast?

Might I suggest Rat Faced?

That, or put him to work topping up your floatation apparatus with hot air...:P

Talking of whom...

Where is our erstwhile Mod?

[j2k4]

Perhaps you could throw off some ballast?

Might I suggest Rat Faced?

That, or put him to work topping up your floatation apparatus with hot air...:P

Talking of whom...

Where is our erstwhile Mod?

Did I speak too........................late? :cry:

MAN OVERBOARD!!