Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
: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.
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 towardQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
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:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
:cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gepper
:conspiracy theory: Perhaps the "tool against terror and crime" is a smoke screen :conspiracy theory:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
As opposed to all the other republicans from the other 49 states...Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
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.
You forget that the cameras would be a possible deterrent. It's like an automated police force to an extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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
Plztoberemembering Bush is not a Texan....Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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:
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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?
speed limits are just guidelines :snooty:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
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.
I don't even know what that means. If Parliament makes Laws then ECHR is effectively overridden, how in what way.Quote:
As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.
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.
...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. :(
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Well done, you've taken the art of writing pish to a new level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
:lol:
No, I didn't understand the crap you wrote.
is just nonsense, you must know that.Quote:
As long as parliament decides the issue by making law, rather than by ministerial order, then the EHCR is effectively overridden.
:sleeping:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
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.
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
I had some truly hideous clothing in 1984.
:shuriken:
Fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.
You really don't know what you are talking about. For example right to privacy (the issue here) is not absolute
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.Quote:
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".
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
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 5Quote:
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>.
This is all auditable by the surveillance commissioners. I assume you take them to be corrupt until proven otherwise.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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:
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.Quote:
(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.
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.
Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rev Jim Jones
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps you could throw off some ballast?Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
Might I suggest Rat Faced?
That, or put him to work topping up your floatation apparatus with hot air...:P
Talking of whom...Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Where is our erstwhile Mod?
Did I speak too........................late? :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
MAN OVERBOARD!!