What is Digg?57 Comments
- boff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Yeah, for now. We're just going to have to make sure we keep it that way.
- lasko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11just because there are less camera's doesnt mean we're any less "big brother" over here. ever hear of the so-called patriot act? theres not a whole lot we can do without the government knowing about it.
- noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13lets note that this is about the UK. there are considerably less security cameras in the US. we're less "big brother" here in the US than they are in the UK.
- primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Nice submission Steve Erwich of 122 Mapleridge Road in Maryland.
Oh, btw, your dog needs his water dish refilled. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8More like Sleepwalked.
- zacamjo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ignoring the 1984 references and other conspiracy inuendo, I think there's some legitimacy to this.
For years now I've watched people claim they value their privacy but then blaze a trail to Walmart for every possible purchase. If there were catwalks above the aisles and people walking those catwalks with a 2-way radio while eye-ballin' every shopper, people in general would be indignant. Yet there's no concern over the plethora of little black orbs hanging from the roof that accomplish the same. Granted, they're not watching for the mundane and it's done to guard against theft. But the data, once captured, can be used in many ways. And I think once the upside outpaces the downside to it's use, our personal privacy concerns will be sacrificed for more revenue. Related to traffic control or other law enforcement concerns... as budgets are squeezed, we'll only see more automation and surveillance. Just look at the military with the Predator and Global Hawk drones. - Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I want Big Brother and the government in general completely out of my life. And yet I'm against smoking bans. And I'd like weed to be legal. And legalize prostitution! WOOOOOO
- pegme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's called a "Panoptican Society", and was used in the first prison systems based on Jeremy Bentham's work. Michel Foucault expanded on the ideas that a panoptican society is the ultimate tool of the state that makes the citizen become their own slave driver. There's no need to have whips at the ready when the citizen is willing to whip himself into submission based on the watchful eye of the master.
It's not a question of privacy, it's a question of POWER. Privacy is hardly a concept in non-developed nations. It was only the Victorian era of individuality that enticed us to cherish privacy.
It is a moot point, however, because avoiding the panoptican society is avoiding the invisible exertion of POWER by the state upon the citizens. - expertninja, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I heard about this article from someone, but never read it. Glad I'm not British.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8yes but those security camera's are next to useless :p
they couldnt see the faces of whoever jumped me up the town centre a few years back despite it being in the middle of the car park, in a well lit area directly infront of the damn thing (well the inciting incident was) - redmaxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6For the time being. Right here in my state they are evaluating the first freeway speed cameras. If the professor determines that they improved traffic safety, they could be a fixture all over our state, and set a model for other states to follow.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That was pretty silly.
The problem isn't surveillance technology used by a free and open democratic society - in those it does mostly good (with only the occasional slipup).
People haven't resisted the spread of surveillance technology in Britain because, like the author, they feel it is neutral or even does a bit of good.
Maybe they'd even have fought a despot trying to put up the kind of surveillance already in place in Britain today.
The problem is what happens when a despot takes over a country with a highly functioning electronic surveillance of its citizens.
Would surveillance still be a good thing if Hitler came to power in Britain today?
Something like it will happen eventually. The present democracy isn't the end of history.
So that's one question: if the benefit today is worth the risk of tomorrow.
The second question is if we're willing to be caught.
We all do things we're not proud of. Pretty much all of us will also have broken the law on more than one occasion - by speeding, littering, software piracy, or perhaps worse. That's human.
As the electronic net tightens, the crimes it spots will become lesser and lesser. Speed cameras can already be automated - a computer reads the license plate and sends the ticket.
What's next?
Computers scanning network traffic and ticketing people who share copyrighted material or encrypt their mails? Computers scanning tens of millions of surveillance cameras for litterers, people who double-park, or don't pick up the ***** after their dog? Hello, you rode your bicycle without a helmet, please pay £50.
But if you're innocent you've got nothing to hide, right? - noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@lasko
LESS does not imply NONE. the information from the PATRIOT act in the US means that information is easily obtainable. in the UK, people are being actively watched. there's a difference, imo, between what you're doing being able to be obtained, and what you're doing being actively watched by people.
@anyone else
does the UK have similar legislation to the PATRIOT act? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For more similar stories see http://Orwellistan.com
It is true that the situation is worse in the UK than the USA, but I suspect that the USA will soon catch up, unless a lot of people speak out about it. - deadprez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I intern at an industry organization representing financial institutions. At a large meeting the question of privacy and ownership of information was discussed. The post-meeting networking opportunity was filled with gallows humor over the state of privacy here in the United States. The quote that I overheard from multiple people representing different institutions I will paraphrase as, "there is no such thing as privacy in America."
Now my law professor may point towards a penumbra in the Constitution which draws from different amendments and sources to find privacy being a right, but it certainly isn't clearly enumerated (not that that would always help). However, I think the mode US citizens should be in is that privacy doesn't exist nor will recover as an American value without fundamental shifts of law and society. - lasko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yeah, you're absolutely right, i'm sure our government only gets information about us on a "as needed" basis. just like i'm sure during the clinton admin when they monitored millions of phone calls, it was for our own good. it's amazing all the ***** our government tells us(or in most cases, doesnt tell us) and we just go on believing that it's for our own good.
- ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This article is very manipulative: it asks for genetic informations, fingerprints, and iris picture to be stored in databases to be sure there is no identity theft, and then some checks and balances (not specified) would be nice, and things would be fine.
We know that a big problem is that corporations can know what you write and read and watch on internet, and use that info to hire only people who have the right ideas. It means that capitalism, like the Soviet dictatorship for exemple, will force people to censor themselves, and keep their thoughts for themselves. The fact that corporations are dictatorships will be made more clear.
And a Revolution may ensue. Or corporations will use new technologies to create the most efficient dictatorship ever. - lasko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i think not only will we catch up quick, we will be much worse. with the national id cards and checkpoints in 2008 and the plans to implant the rfid in people.
- jonashwing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2does this remind anyone else of the game Deus Ex?
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nah, the Illuminati are all about secret power, my government doesn't hide its Big Brother intentions so well - instead, everyone here is asleep. Actually no, they're just morons.
I wasn't aware that intelligent, successful people would actually say "Why do you worry about being spied on if you have nothing to hide?" until a few weeks ago. I was quite horrified. - DeusMachinae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dugg for the cool title.
- thestu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the consequences both good and bad are listed in the article. heck- the article even poses a solution. doesn't the problem really lye with convenience given certain circumstances?
information security will continue to spark arguments regarding checks and balances to protect privacy/security, but remember- if you are to make a complaint about an issue, be prepared to come up with a solution. - BellaOxmyxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wake me when I should care...
- ruggerkets15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps those fake fingerprints could come into play. Privacy will never be invaded in the two most sacred places of ones home- the ***** and the bedroom
- burgerboy06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this was on tom leykis a few days ago
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let's face it... it's much cooler to insult "crazy conspiracy nuts" than it is to care about your own civil liberties...
"tin foil hat crowd" is the new "radical dude" - lasko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2actually if you werent such an idiot and actually did some research then you would know that our social security numbers are being abused by the powers that be. the purpose of ss# when they were first started was not for what they are used for now.
- CalvinLawson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For anybody interested in how technology is influencing privacy, they should read David Brinn's "The Transparent Society"
- colinm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article sounds like a response to the recent UK TV programme "Suspect nation", that looked at issues such as RFID, wholesale surveillance, function creep, etc.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=%22suspect+nation%22&search=Search - stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Big Brother, Big Business: http://urlx.org/video.google.com/25517
- Almadiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Main Entry: public
Part of Speech: adjective 1
Definition: community
Antonyms: ***_private_***, restricted
There IS NOT and NEVER will be any expectation of privacy in public places. We never had it to begin with. When you enter a public space, you accept the fact that someone may be looking at you. You can't simply demand that everyone turn away as you walk down the street. Surveillance technology changes nothing. Now it just means that people don't have to don a fedora and sunglasses and watch you through a newspaper. Information about what you do in public places has always been, drumroll... PUBLIC. Get used to it or stay indoors. - BlackKnight6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That game was the best. Everyone should buy it and play it, its like 5 bucks now, really interesting and deep game.
- Twinked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have to invoke "Godwins Law" and blame it all on Hilter and the Nazi regime.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2We haven't had true data privacy since the invention of the credit card.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"WAHHHHHHHHHHH" doesn't work against privacy worries, believe me.
- ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, but with representative democracy (politicians do what they want once elected, real democracy would mean that we would define a program and send representatives to apply it) and with the media in the hands of the oligarchy, and within capitalism (a system based on competition between people, economic war, cynicism), it is very easy to lead people to believe that they need more security.
When the real problem is that this society refuses to give everyone economic and social security which would increase security a lot. But the propaganda devised by the oligarchy avoids to talk about it, or pretends it cannot be different, which is not totally a lie within the bounds of capitalism. Of course putting an end to capitalism and constructing a society bases on new, more democratic and human rules is never debated because the oligarchy does not want that to happen. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I think your alreeady a member of Slavery Inc.
- wolferz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Your damn right I don't approve of some one else increasing my risk of lung cancer or other serious and possibly life threatening conditions just so they can get a nicotine fix. I have no problem with people smoking, but they need to do it where they aren't putting other people at risk. What they do to themselves is their own business.
There is a difference between being able to do what you want and being able to inflict your habits on those around you against their will.
No country will ever be truly "free." To do so would be true anarchy, the complete absence of law. Law and _true_ freedom are mutually exclusive. I think most will agree that it's better to give up the right to kill people if it means other people can't kill you. The question is where to draw the line. I draw the line at other people having that ability to harm me agaisnt my will, whether through recklessness, selfishness, or ignorance.
I think I like the methodology used where I live best. Each business is given the option of allowing smoking on the premises without restriction, or not allowing it at all. People who don't want to deal with second hand smoke have the option of not going to places designated as smoking permitted. The only negative from this is that most business around here chose no smoking. Smokers thus are limited in where they can go and be able to smoke. However, it was their choice to have an unhealthy habit. - kindpastor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How's the election system work in Britain anyways? I thought it was strictly representative democracy? If the people in England didn't want a surveillance society they would have voted into office people who opposed it. My theory is that the average Brit likes the idea of the government watching over and protecting him.
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2“lets note that this is about the UK. there are considerably less security cameras in the US. we’re less ”big brother“ here in the US than they are in the UK.” ~ noodlez
Are you sure? Go through your day SLOWLY and count the cameras, then get back to us. - zelig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1primehifi- you're a true *****.
- TheGeek27, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Boo ***** hoo.
Whackjob conspiracy theorists.
OMG U GUYS, THE GOVERMINT NO'S R SOSHUL SECURITY NUMBERS AND HAS VIDEO CAMERAS. THAT MEENS THE WRLD WILL B LIEK V FOR VENDETA IN 5 YEARS. - uberneoconcert, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4i don't get the "slavery inc" comment
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@bitcloud
Sorry, where exactly in the article are my civil liberties being endangered? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I want to be Big Brother. Or maybe not, since he was apparently a fictitious character in a fictional world.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Where I live we only have a few security cameras posted by major intersections.
HELP!! I AM BEING VIOLATED. WAHHHHHHHHHHH
Okay, might be different if you live in London, but not too bad in many other places. - plsailboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3i hear you.
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Most bans are because of second hand smoke, not smoking itself. Very few people want to ban it outright, certainly no-one I know. All the smokers I know agree with bans on smoking in enclosed public spaces.
- MikeWeller, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5I couldn't agree more darthderkaderka.
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is