In the UK next year will be 1984

[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 ) 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 ) 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

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

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?

[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?