In the UK next year will be 1984

Quote:

---

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zapjb

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

---

That makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/...0-480/036f.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/...0-480/036f.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

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

---

:lol: :nob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.