In the UK next year will be 1984

[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

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

[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.

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]

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.

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

[JPaul]

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

is just nonsense, you must know that.

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.

[MagicNakor]

I had some truly hideous clothing in 1984.