In the UK next year will be 1984

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gepper

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:

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.