Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Geoge Orwell's Home Surrounded By Surveillance Cameras
thisislondon.co.uk — Use of spy cameras in modern-day Britain is now a chilling mirror image of Orwell's fictional world of '1984'. On the wall outside his former residence, where Orwell lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move.
MrBabyMan- 1238 diggs
- digg it
- gbotmbot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+82He was only off by 2 decades.
- spookyttws, on 10/12/2007, -43/+9Yeah, 2 decades. If only the public had the power to elect their leaders.. oh wait..
- Jemulov, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22@spookyttws
That defeatist attitude is what is keeping us from electing better officials in the first place. - acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4oh, i love the key on that picture/map. 'ohhh, CCTV. THATS what those are!'
- over90, on 10/12/2007, -44/+11I guess they should ban still cameras and video cameras from being used in public. *rolls eyes*. What about making everyone go around blind folded.
Without CCTV's the London Bombers would have never been identified.
What about those security footage of the 911 bombers.
Everyone is just being ***** paranoid without even experiencing what it is like to live among the cameras. They are not looking in your bedroom or your house. They are in the streets. It's no different to having a security or a police officer or any member of the public. Are you angry that all your actions can be seen by the public when you go out? - MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33@over90
From where I sit now, there are at least two police operated cameras which look into my property. - turquoisefish, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@madaxe42
My understanding is that the cameras can't look into your property, only the outside. Some systems have very sophisticated software to automatically block out windows when panning. I hope the ones near you use this system. - Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22"They are not looking in your bedroom or your house."
FTA: "The flat's rear windows are constantly viewed from two more security cameras outside a conference centre in Canonbury Place."
The 9/11 bombers, the madrid bombers and the bali bombers where identified and none of those countries have any where near the amount of cameras the UK has. - sekhui, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39all of you saying orwell was off by two decades are sadly unaware of how much they really do know. the only thing orwell missed on was the degree to which they would be able to mask themselves. the use of fearmongering, mysterious wars, language as a tool for manipulation, surveillance (both obvious f.ex CCTV and much more subtle), etc... it's all here. but people still tend to think that they care about the huddled masses - that is Big Brother's greatest triumph.
- Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I think a few of you missed the George Orwell reference... "The government will never abuse this system..!" - Read 1984 if you havent.. rent the movie if you're really lazy.
- Rooster99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@spookyttws
It would be great if that were as true as it sounds - Unfortunately, most of the time you are just selecting the lesser of 2 evils. It used to work, but nowdays its all a bit show for the camera's. Its time 'democracy' got a workover, as the way the system works is usually anything but democratic. I want the right to elect the person that I actually want to lead the country. What I dont want, is the system to say 'you must choose between these 2 people'. More often than not, both parties are just as bad as each other but you must select one of them.
Just to back myself up, we recently had an election for the head of NSW (Australia). The only reason the guy who won it, actually won it wasent because he was a good leader or had good policies. It was because his competition was even worse! Most of the polls taken say that he has a really low approval rating and is actually quite unpopular, but he just happened to be better than the other guy at the time! So now we're stuck with him for a few more years because we werent given a real choice! If that isnt a total failure of democracy, then I dont know what is! - sachmanb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The book was written about the year 1948, not 1984. He felt the ideologies in work where already at play. However, he decided to use the title 1984 instead for numerous reasons.
Also to note: Huxley wrote to Orwell and said we need not be deceived by a Big Brother - we will willingly enslave ourselves without a giant system around us in the name of efficiency (the underlying theme in Brave New World).
I believe both authors touched on themes that greatly effected how we are today - oh but they weren't the only two.... - BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@macktwo
The 5 dancing Israelis is definitely a very strange issue. It is beyond all doubt that anyone actually *celebrating* the destruction of the world trade centers on the same day, must have seen some benefit to it for them personally. Nobody could have known who orchestrated it so early, so anyone who thought it was a good event, worth celebrating at such an early point, must have been involved with the terrorist mission. Chertoff let them go back to Israel, which doesn't make sense. Then the fact that in the interview 3 of them had with Israeli TV, they said they were there just "to document the event". Videotaping it, etc.
People don't celebrate a terrorist attack that early unless they had a part in it themselves. - zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3over90, if the CCTV camera system was so ***** important and good and worthwhile why the ***** didn't they STOP the bombings instead of just identify the culprits AFTER they had killed so many people!!
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22lol irony
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38Doubleplus thoughtcrime.
Report for reorientation.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38Doubleplus thoughtcrime.
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -29/+12Brits have much to worry about.
The government already took away their guns- security over freedom.
The way the majority gets their news is from a government owned news agency affectionately called "Auntie"- Big brother would be envious of such a name.
They have cameras in A LOT of places.- Easty, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22The BBC isn't government-owned. Do some research.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35It is however government CONTROLLED and FUNDED.
So, the distinction you're making is pretty useless. - ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24You'd be surprised how little we care they 'took away our guns'. They're guns - unless the zombies attack, I won't be needing one.
- shiola, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@ Junkyarddawg - it isn't government controlled and is only partly government funded. Check here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ - it has independence and is partly funded by the viewers through a licence fee. After living in the US for a few years and being subject to the awful standard of TV and news I would not swap the BBC for anything.
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Actually, if you read the book, the "Ministry of Truth's" HQ is actually at the site of the BBC's Broadcasting House HQ - Orwell was ahead of you. By the way, the Beeb isn't government controlled or funded. But thanks for playing.
- KingWrecked, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"It is however government CONTROLLED and FUNDED. So, the distinction you're making is pretty useless."
To be more accurate it's controlled by the BBC Trust which is independent of the Government and, is funded via the licence fee. The only thing the government officially has to do with the BBC is rubber stamping the cost of the licence fee which is definitely a tool offering a degree of control.
Whenever a left wing government gets into power however, they always complain that the BBC is too right wing with right wing governments claiming the contrary which suggests that at least some, or even most of the time politicians see the BBC as a pain in the arse which is how it should be. - sekhui, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1shiola - try NPR.
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4" it has independence and is partly funded by the viewers through a license fee."
Those "fees" are mandatory and collected by the government. If you don't pay them the government will prosecute. Semantics aside. That gives the government enormous power over dear auntie oh I mean the beeb oh I mean the BBC. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, the BBC is real independent.
Who appoints the members of the board of that trust? Why, it's the government!
Who wrote and has the right to change the charter of the trust? Why, it's the government!
Who determines the size and enforces the collection of the license fee? Why, it's the government!
Who decides how much money BBC will get? Why, it's the government!
Who periodically reviews the BBC broadcasting licence? Why, it's the government!
Who funds the BBC international broadcasts through direct grants? Why, it's the government!
Who, then, controls and funds the BBC?
- RoundysSince, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11And the house next to it, and the house next to it. I bet they even have cameras in areas of high crime. Imagine that.
I'm afraid things like listening into phone calls and other "liberty taking" that some people are oh so deathly afraid of happened in 1984, it happened in 1974, it happened in 1944 and it will continue to happen. It's nothing new. What you're seeing is called advancement of technology. With advancement comes the way of balancing. What you really dislike is probably the way things are balanced, by using "wars".
1930s - War on Crime - Expansion of Division of Investigation, forming into FBI. The opening of The Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory.
1940s - World War II - The Central Intelligence Agency is the descendant The Office of Strategic Services.
Today - War on Terror - Department of Homeland Security, etc etc.
The biggest liberty taker is the media. Thee feed you fear, they feed you false ideals, they feed you materialism, they program you to have a cookie cutter life.- SuburbanDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You forgot the War On Drugs in the '80s that was paraded out every time they needed an excuse to screw you with a new law.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45It is actually pretty bizarre in the UK: if you're in a town or a city, you can always see surveillance cameras. It doesn't matter where you are; they're everywhere. And for every camera you can see, there's probably several you can't.
But that's not the bizarre part. The bizarre part is that no-one cares.- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11good point. I don't care. I see them all the time on the way to work. You see them more in town centres than anywhere else. London is really bad because of the road charge system they've put them everywhere. But where I live I don't see any (but can they see me.... ooooo)
- MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+44I live in Bath - they drive me nuts - you're walking along and you hear 'whrrrrrrr' as the damn things swivel around on their posts to watch you - I'm sitting at my desk now, and I can count at least 20 cameras within eyeshot - and those are just the police ones on the street. Also - those damned police vans covered in camera bubbles with 'Protecting and serving YOU!' in comic sans on their sides spook the hell out of me.
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I think people don't really care because no one is actually on the other end most of the time. Or if they are they are probably bored *****...... It's an illusion of safety which, for a few weeks, can be checked back on if something turns up and the camera might have caught something.
People complain now but once something like the murder of those two little girls happens, or the July bombings. People think it's great that we can, after digging through some recordings, track some one leaving their car in one part of the country and find out exactly what they did and where they went. They even knew down to a few hundred meters where those girls phones were turned off.... it meant that Huntley got convicted.
In reality Big Brother might be watching you in public, but Big Brother also thinks you are really really boring and has seen you pissing against a wall late on a Saturday night or scratching your arse soooooo many times he's going kill himself. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I surprised more have not been destroyed. A slightly modded laser pointer will blind them, and one person could blind more of them in one day than could replaced in a month.
- ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ williamdyer
I think you're severely overestimating the resources and motivation of Neds/Chavs. They're more likely to toss an empty cider can at them than coordinate and organised assault on them. They may even go as far as hitting them with a big stick. Maybe. :p
- SunDestroyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Who's watching the watchers?
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4The majority political party, no doubt.
- diggdong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People who are watching their backs against your front, and other peoples shoes.
- lordsnooty, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Let's be clear - Orwell predicted a world in which the government spied into your HOMES with a camera, barking orders in what was a two-way system. Why this gets compared to the one-way surveillance of a PUBLIC PLACE escapes me. They are not the same thing. And yes, I know in Middlesbrough they have a guy watching the cameras and barking orders at people (actually requests which perps seem happy to agree with), again this is not analogous with 1984 as it's only public spaces, town centres and the like.
- SunDestroyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Give it time.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12That's good and fine, unless your flat has windows.
- KingWrecked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26The problem is functionality creep. I remember cameras were only to be put in trouble hot-spots. Once that was done trouble moved and they spread everywhere. Speed cameras were only to be placed at accident black-spots. That happened and then they spread to profitable sites. The government also stated that due to the fact that they are the safest roads statistically, motorways would never have speed cameras. Now they're appearing along the M2 - All for your own safety of course.
When all that's done you can then look for the next statistical target. It would be great if everyone could have a chip in their arm m which would monitor cholesterol, and fat content and heart rate and other functions, purely to help keep you healthy of course. Then why go to the doctors to have them read when you can have it downloaded in your own home and just in-case you ever do have a problem it would be handy if it was GPS tracked so help can find you easily, purely for your own good of course. And this is where it gets dangerous. How much privacy are you willing to give up for your "own good?". Given the right monitoring technology in future you wouldn't need to fit camera's in houses as a chip could tell what you were up to by what's happening in your body. THC present? Dope smoking. Certain hormones rising plus increased heart rate? Oh look, he's getting laid and GPS says that the transponder he's sharing a bed with isn't his spouse.
This is a very real possibility and the only guarantee that the system won't be abused comes from the sort of person that can throw a graduates project in a folder and use it to justify a war (while holding a totally straight face).
To be honest, I don't think that Tony Blair really cares much about what I get up to in my spare time but the hardest part of establishing a totalitarian regime is getting the tools of oppression in place. Once there, keeping the plebs with their faces in the ***** is relatively easy and there's no guarantee that a future government will not have that in mind. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6The CCTV cameras help prevent vandalism and the sort. Its nothing like 1984. Read the book if you don't believe me, Britain is far from authoritarian. I know that statement will shock alot of you who seem to believe that we as civilized countries are living in a perpetual 1984. But then again, you know why they are there? Because normal people, who don't steal vandalize or anything of the sort are sick of living in those conditions. If the first world is in such an authoritarian state, then why are you even allowed to talk about it? Why does the internet exist as it does? Why are you allowed to protest and rally? Why is there political debate? Why do we even have courts? Why are half of you not being rounded up as we speak? I think for alot of you "living in 1984" is nothing more than an excuse to criticize authority and persist in your world of blissful paranoia.
- KingWrecked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5But then surely if you're sick of the huge amount of vandalism and crime, it would make more sense to find out why some people think they can assault others and wreck other people's property with impunity. People are genuinely scared of intervening in criminal acts because they're worried that at worst they may get stabbed and at best they'll be arrested for assaulting the perpetrator of the crime (which has happened many times).
It's the sign of a sick society when adults find themselves being scared of children and some of these kids know the law better than most lawyers. For instance, a friend of mine is a DT technician in a school. He intervened when he found a kid around 10-11 kicking a car. When he confronted him the kid said "If you come near me, I'll the Police you "touched" me". He was seriously shocked but for a school employee, an accusation of anything by an under 18 year old leads to suspension and possibly sacking. As for the Police, they're understaffed, overloaded and the burden of paperwork from pulling a kid for a relatively minor act of criminal damage means it not worth their while.
Ultimately if you want to put an end to crime you have to ensure that the "benefits" of committing it are outweighed by the penalties rather than spending billions on peppering the country with CCTV. At the moment they aren't and those who are that way inclined know it. - HolisticIsland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If public cameras are so innocuous then why not allow everyone access to them? Stream it onto the web. That way we can guarantee that the watchers are watched as much as us and maybe they will think twice about abusing the system.
- rhoadesb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2 Peace and joy to you friend.
- CuLT, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4If you're not doing anything wrong, what fear can you have of cameras in public places? They should serve as a constant reminder to thieves and anti-social louts that they are being watched.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ever hear of hoodies? It can help fight crime, no doubt... but the possibilities for abuse have been ignored. It all depends on the morality and motivations of those in charge of the cameras, and that can and will change, often for the worse.
- goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14That is until your government determines, in the interests of national security, that *you're* the thief and the lout. The problem with your line of thought is that the definition of "not doing anything wrong" can change without you realising it, or caring to.
- ScottAG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Did Orwell foresee people openly sharing surveillance of themselves the way they do today with Flickr, YouTube, and blogs? 1984 is so old skool.
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You forgot "twitter"..... which is exactly what you are referring to.... on a minute by minute basis.....
- Nitesmoke420, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8You'd be surprised how little we care they 'took away our guns'. They're guns - unless the zombies attack, I won't be needing one.
Fine, but why take them all from everyone? I have several, try to take one.
In the US the 2nd amendment or "the right to bear arms," is a "power to the people" law. Do you really want the government in control of all the weapons? And if you were mugged or whatever in London, would you want the police to check the tape and nail the perp, or would that violate his privacy? If you had the gun it never would have happened. I don't want cameras pointed at me 24/7 but i'm a criminal, always trying to buy weed or whatever. So what do I do? Not live in London.- over90, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Owning guns doesn't mean nothing when people are cowards. Look at Iraq, everyone had guns but noone stood up to Saddam.
Check out the video in the video section of a police officer beating up on a woman in a bar. Where was her gun? Why weren't the people in the bar doing anything to save her? Why wasn't anyone there with a gun? - MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ho hum - old myth - gun ownership in the UK is legal, you just have to have a license, and be able to prove that they're for sporting use. I have a deer rifle and a pair of twelve bores. It's only really handguns/automatics which aren't legal. I also have a license to store up to 20kg of high explosives and oxidation agents.
- jazh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Well the logic is, gun crime would not exist if people do not have guns.
As far as i'm concerned our gun crime is nothing compared to the USA levels of gun crime where practically everyone has one. - 1smartguy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0True more gun crime. But less blunt force trauma crime.
- podwich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Check out the video in the video section of a police officer beating up on a woman in a bar. Where was her gun? Why weren't the people in the bar doing anything to save her? Why wasn't anyone there with a gun?"
This was in Chicago--it's illegal for normal citizens to carry guns there. Cops can...but you can see the problem with that. - UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@jazh
You moron, your logic is flawed. You forgot that people who would kill or commit a crime DON'T obey laws. Why would they obey a law that bans guns. It doesn't deter murders. They would just use something else, ie, a brick, piano wire, candlestick, etc... you get my point. According to your logic we should all be forced to live in a round padded room. You know, so we can live in safety and without fear of anyone else going to harm us. Also, about the police beating the woman, no-one is gonna shoot a cop b/c then your *****. As long as it wasn't them, they're weren't worried about it. If it was them and they had a gun, it may be a different story. - dpmcalli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I know several people with guns. Shotguns. If you want a gun in the UK for whatever reason buy yourself a shotgun, its perfectly legal. In the UK hundguns etc are illegal and Im pretty sure the vast majority of Britons are thankful for it.
- ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@unstablemind
I would much rather get hit by a candlestick than get shots, Thank-yew-very-much.
It's true that criminals get guns anyway (well, depending on how resourceful they are, it's not like you can buy them just ANYWHERE)... but I don't see how making it easier for them to get one solves the problem.
- over90, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Owning guns doesn't mean nothing when people are cowards. Look at Iraq, everyone had guns but noone stood up to Saddam.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The article touches on the more sinister "Big Brother" problem in Britain - the way everything is tracked by computer. They even have a 1984 style ad about how "You can't hide from the computer" if you didn't pay your car tax. They don't seem to realise anyone with a brain can see that the same principle applies to whatever they want to scrutinize about you. Medical records, DNA, bank accounts, what you buy in the supermarket, where you travel in your car, location by cellphone triangulation, etc
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4How do you think any other developed country keeps records? Abacus? Every country with a modern architecture uses computers to keep records.
- CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the point scabbers was making was to do with the car tax advert being about scaring you into renewing your tax by saying 'we know who you are, and we know if you don't do it, and we will get you...' type-of-thing, instead of trying to encourage people to do the right thing.
The truth with that system is it changes the perception of these organisations from 'serving the public' to 'controlling the public', and that is pure Orwell. Unfortunately, the government here in the UK is becoming more and more convinced that 'control' is the way to go. Look at the plans to link up all your records in one big government-controlled database. This is a step too far, in my books, and will not help reduce crime at all. How on earth can putting everything a criminal would ever require to steal your identity in one place make his life more difficult? It defies all logic and common sense.
And I refuse point blank to EVER get an ID card, no matter what they threaten me with. And they WILL threaten me if I don't get one. I guarantee it will become law that you must possess one, punishable by jail time. Then it will become law that you must carry it at all times, and surrender it to an agent of the government without question whenever ordered to.
It's all just a matter of small steps. Before you realise where you are, you've been taken so far away from where you wanted to be (free), that you can't find the way back. Sorry to sound like some form of conspiracy-theory nutjob, but I am genuinely afraid of where the great, cultured western civilisations are heading.
Both the UK and US are slowly being smothered under a blanket of government control, and we moan and whine, but ultimately do nothing while our freedoms slowly disappear. And all this is the global fight for 'freedom and democracy'.
sucks a big one...
/rant
- noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Gosh, that almost makes me happy that I'm in the US, and not the UK. Here they just tap our phones and read our library records without our permission.
- jazh, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6No one cares. Only those with extreme paranoia or those with something to hide would have a issue with this.
As far as I'm concerned, they are used for my safety, I'd take a camera over a gun anyday.- drifter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8That is what separates the Americans from the British. We know we need the right to bear arms to stand up to our government. And paranoia? or the simple fact you should not be treated like a criminal if you are not one. Enjoy taking it up the ass from your government.
- ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@drifter
Yeah, I remember just last week when all those militias rose up to stop whatever law they didn't agree with that was being passed... oh, hang on, that NEVER happens. It's a wonderful excuse "Governments gonna get me if I don't shoot them!", but when does it EVER happen? When do you ever have to use a gun on 'The Man'? You don't need guns to stand up to your government. If your country relies on you having to shoot anyone in the government you think deserves it, you're in a sorry state, and not a democratic one.
I don't think I've ever thought about shooting my MP... but maybe I should? I DO hate taking it in the ass from my government...
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14There's a lot of misconceptions about CCTV in the UK, and against my better judgment of arguing it here, I'm going to anyway.
We do not have a country-wide network of government-monitored cameras watching everyone. We have localised schemes for public protection and aiding the capture of criminals. There's no big network. If my local supermarket has a camera outside because they've had problems with vandalism, that camera isn't plugged into a national grid. The supermarket records footage for their own use if needed to prove a case and no-one else gets it (and it is most probably discarded after a month). Local councils (who are not government) operate CCTV systems in their locality, but not for the sake of it. Generally they are placed only in public areas (e.g. a shopping centre), again for public protection. A CCTV network is expensive, and local councils don't have the money to put them wherever they want anyway.
CCTV aids the capture of criminals because it provides proof of the event and ties people to that event. They shouldn't replace police, and if they do that's wrong, but they're certainly a superb tool in assisting police. Police can't be everywhere all the time (unless you want a true police state?), and so CCTV provides a backup in that respect. The 7/7 bombers were located using CCTV images - without them, investigating movements, times and so forth would have been a whole lot more difficult.
Nothing pisses me off more than Americans sitting at their computer denouncing CCTV use in the UK when your government partakes in national wiretapping, and when you have a serious problem with police brutality/abuse of power, and when you have laws like the Patriot Act. You need to understand that the UK is completely different to the US. Our residential areas/public areas are created differently, and we have lots of people in a small area. You cannot compare it to your local area in the US I'm afraid.
As for the gun debate - the majority of public opinion here (UK) disagrees with you, and what you think counts for zero.
I am a privacy advocate too, but there is no problem with having CCTV in built up, busy public areas to aid the capture of criminals and/or record the criminal act for proof.- chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Well, I'm a Brit who now lives in the USA (dual citizen) and I can tell you that I feel very uncomfortable now whenever I visit Britain and have to drive or walk past the cameras. Last time I visited , I was both amused and disturbed when exiting a 'Motorway Cafe' to read a sign saying "Thank you for visiting Welcome Break. Your visit has been captured on CCTV". !
In my local big city in the US, such cameras were banned on Constitutional grounds and this reflects a fundamental difference between the two governmental structures: in Britain, there is a culture of secrecy where citizens are really 'subjects' and have no recourse to law if their government impinges on their freedom - in the USA, we have a written Constitution which protects us from such abuse. Yes I know that Bush and Co. are illegally wiretapping US Citizens' phone conversations and monitoring email but Constitutionally it is illegal and they will surely be exposed fully in the not too distant future. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11lol - you state you have a constitution to protect you, then go on to say abuse happens anyway - oh but they might get in trouble later! What a crock. America is no freer than any other first-world country, you just think you are.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Nothing pisses me off more than Americans sitting at their computer denouncing CCTV use in the UK when your government partakes in national wiretapping, and when you have a serious problem with police brutality/abuse of power, and when you have laws like the Patriot Act."
Really, I don't understand how you can say that. National Wiretapping was blown utterly out of proportion to be used as a political weapon. It is indeed true you can talk about whatever you want to in the US over the phone and never hear anything about it, but others would have you believe the opposite. The idea of police brutality is everywhere. Police are generally people of lesser intellect and wisdom - when you give them power over others they will abuse it. Police brutality is not just an American thing - its nearly everywhere. As for the patriot act, who is honestly effected by it? Nearly nobody, another set of laws blown totally out of proportion to be used as a political weapon. I think that you should look elsewhere besides the usual news sources and blogs painting American politics as the death of democracy and birth of the overlord fascist dictator GW Bush. When you really look at it, its nothing of the sort - just fear mongers and anarchist.
"America is no freer than any other first-world country, you just think you are."
Show me how im not free? No talking points please. - chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@tizz66
I think you know what I'm talking about. For many years in Britain there has been a movement towards political reform leading to a true democratic Constitution - I see here (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1703067,00.html ) that even the Conservatives are now pushing to remove the absolute power held by the Monarchy (this used to be just a left wing cause).
Quoting Tony Benn in the book "The Rape of the Constitution":
"A major part of the work of the security services, traditionally closely connected with the military, has been for domestic purposes. The army has intermittently put down colonial and domestic revolts, as in Northern Ireland, and the security services have been used in the surveillance of domestic activity including that of trade unionists, members of CND and workers of the National Council of Civil Liberties. That there is a role for the security services is itself an issue for the people to decide, but such a service should certainly be democratically accountable for its actions. Parliament does not have to be told what the security services are planning to do in advance, only that people should know, after the event, on what grounds phones have been tapped, on whose authority individuals have been placed under surveillance or had their homes searched, which foreign governments have been undermined, which supported and why. But instead, ex-members of the security services have explicitly rejected democratic control." - 1smartguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You are not free to spend all your money as you see fit. A significant portion it taken away from you cant do a damn thing about it.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6mirunit: I am *not* saying that nowhere else has those same problems, I am just saying that America has them too. You are not freer than anywhere else in the developed world, you're just told you are.
I'm from the UK - how am I not free? Because a store has a camera for loss-prevention? Sorry, that doesn't restrict my freedom anymore than the patriot act restricts yours. (Incidently, I forgot to mention this in my first post: the article lists the camera locations, and most of them are private, e.g. outside a club. They are not public CCTV, they are private cameras to aid that establishment in fighting crime aimed at it)
By the way, for those that think there's no controls on the power of the government here, you're utterly wrong. We have the Lords who generally smack down any bill that is too big for its boots. The governments megasuper casino plan got trashed by the Lords this week, but more importantly, the Lords wouldn't allow the government to detain people for 90 days without charge, and only allowed them 28 days with permission of a court. We don't have a written constitution, but we certainly do have checks and balances.
Like I said, I'm a privacy advocate too, so you don't need to preach to me about genuine issues of freedom. But CCTV just has nothing to do with freedom, in my opinion. If you want to complain about privacy, you should focus on ID cards (yours and ours!). They really are a cause for concern.
- chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Well, I'm a Brit who now lives in the USA (dual citizen) and I can tell you that I feel very uncomfortable now whenever I visit Britain and have to drive or walk past the cameras. Last time I visited , I was both amused and disturbed when exiting a 'Motorway Cafe' to read a sign saying "Thank you for visiting Welcome Break. Your visit has been captured on CCTV". !
- SunDestroyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/02.html
- dudefather, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13'surrounded' as in 'up to 3 streets away'
watch out, Tony Blair knows you buy Tesco value bread by checking your clubcard points :o - Depthfunction, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Why do you ***** pansy-ass Euros put up with this? TEAR THE CAMERAS DOWN!
- neszis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is doubleplus ungood.
- chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(sorry mis-posted - deleted)
- captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Anyone who supports a society based on total surveillance just because he's scared, is a freedom-hating moron.
- zombo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You're having delusions of grandeur if you really believe someone could give a ***** about your miserable insignificant life.
- 34tnu5x199, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@zombo
freedom-hating pussy.
- mikefitz2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Reporting from Dublin here. I can attest that the major cities in Ireland are also moving in this direction. In some cases it's not a bad thing IMO. Just three weeks ago I got a knock on my bedroom door at 2AM, was greeted by three Garda officers in full uniform and one of the study abroad students I had met three weeks prior to changing neighborhoods. They informed me that on her way back home from working at a pub in the area she was mugged about 2 blocks from her apartment. Luckily it was in a relatively open area and they only grabbed her purse, however, she was very shaken up and needed to stay with friendly faces for the night. As the Garda were leaving my room they took my contact information and told me they had captured images of the thugs on CCTV just half a block away as the guys took off north-bound.
Thanks to the cameras installed in the area the two men were caught, identified, and are awaiting prosecution from the Mayor's Court. While I don't doubt there is definitely room for abuse with such a system, I think there are also many positives that people tend to overlook (especially on Digg!!)- B0jangles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your statement pretty much sums it up. More good than harm in reality.
Most foreigners fail to realise the structuring of the political, cultural and social side of different lifestyles. In fact, all they tend to to is simply swallow it down as 'Oh yeah, UK, cameras' without questioning a thing.
If being free is the highest elevation one can aspire to, then what freedom comes from accepting everything you are told or living in fear that every single aspect of life could be abused?
- B0jangles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your statement pretty much sums it up. More good than harm in reality.
- Hippodamos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Seems the average Englishman is more concerned about why their national soccer team sucks than they are about big brother.
- jsffive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2You know, a lot of people like to quote from "1984", but I wonder if any of them are struck by the irony that "George Orwell" wasn't his real name...
One can judge history by the STORY, or one can judge history by what actually ended up happening.
Perhaps the book is a cautionary tale, written by someone concerned about the slow subjugation of the lower classes in a new technological age.
But what has ACTUALLY happened is, the book has been USED as a PLAYBOOK for the elites.
Before you ask, I'm not upper class. I'm not lower class. I'm what you call NO CLASS. And I'm damned proud of it.
In the immortal words of the wise man Snoop Dogg: "***** Bill O'Reilly".
... - over90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5UK towns are really densely packed with lot of shops and stores. That's why there is a high density of private CCTV cameras. Don't tell me US banks and gas stations don't have CCTV cameras.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I was up in Big City, USA this week, and they had those red light cameras. Driving around at night, they kept flashing (catching other people, I hope). It was creepy. What a ***** up world the stupids + the evils have made for us.
- 1smartguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They only flash when you run a red light. Hope you got 400 saved up, and a little time for traffic school.
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can only take solace in the fact that someone who is ok with being watched by Big Brother will one day screw up in front of one of the little "eyes in the sky." Then this gullible piece of refuse will find himself on the working end of a real state sanctioned beating.
- 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2War continues to change over time. You can go back Thur time and see dramatic changes. With today's war of terror you need camera's on every street corner. Orwell however seems to be ringing true with 1984. I would rather be safe with camera's everywhere.Look at all the Union jobs for guys to sit and drink coffee and watch those cameras.
- over90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So you're telling me that you don't like these cameras because you cannot commit murder and get away with it?
edit: This was a response to ichbinladen. - caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You have no rights in Brittan in any case.
You have been lulled into complacency by this fact.
Or is it the just the island inbreeding effect on IQs?
- over90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So you're telling me that you don't like these cameras because you cannot commit murder and get away with it?
- cjvos1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Britain has the second most number of surveillance cameras in the world (in terms of size). Second only to North Korea. Scary!
- motters, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The main difference between what we have at present and Orwells vision is a lack of centralised organisation. Most CCTV cameras belong to private companies and individuals rather than the state. But with increasing internet bandwidth this too is also moving in an Orwellian direction, with surveillance systems becoming integrated so that for example a single vehicle can be tracked as it moves across the country, or an individual can be tracked as they walk from one street to another.
- etg1109, on 10/12/2007, -1/+09/11/2006: Arizona State University
On the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, TandemCreations.org captures the perception ... all ยป of an affected generation. Hear our voices, feelings, and thoughts about the most altering day in our lives.
Co Produced by
Evan Gagnier & Nicholas Gagnier
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3550893372762423070&hl=en - bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In my meanderings I have lived and worked in the UK and now in the US. (I'm a Canuck.)
The cameras in the UK were very creepy for me. I did not feel any safer because of them. I did feel "watched".
Now safely in the US, I feel less safe because of US databases watching my socializing, purchasing and surfing habits. So there you go.
For the Brits, there are aspects of the cctv cameras that are (or once were) illegal to publish in the UK, such as the fact that in the City, the cameras are linked and tied to facial recognition software. (cryptome.org, hint hint.) I have no doubt that there are aspects of US snooping that are similarly illegal to publish.
For me, there are other reasons why these programs ought to be abolished...
1) In the context of terrorism, the false perception of security allows governments to pretend that they are secure. When individuals act, they balance their security with the possible rewards. Governments do this too, but if the general population believes themselves to be invincible (or close) then they will tend to be less risk adverse than they should. The bombings in London were perpetrated by English of middle eastern decent. I propose that one factor that allowed Blair to join in the war on Iraq (that was what incensed the bombers to act) was the fact that he thought that the borders were sufficiently safe and that he thought that on balance the cameras would deter people from acting in response.
2) The resources used to build the networks and to "watch TV" could be used walking the beat, or mitigating the issues that cause crime. Again, the "invincibility" effect of CCTVs and internet snooping. For a surveyed society, the question becomes "why bother with crime prevention when one has the means to catch the criminals"? Catching criminals using CCTV and not the "gum shoe" method justifies budgets. It undoubtedly occurs, but it is the most efficient method of preventing the crime in the first place? Or simply an efficient method of catching criminals after the fact?
3) Sets governments against their populations. If tax dollars are spent on spying on citizens, then the citizens are more or less the enemy. In the last few years after 9/11 the US government seems to be working less to help people and more to defend against them. It occurs in many subtle ways, such as building large prisons, putting many people in prison, letting churches do the helping side. Like that kid who pushed the teacher's assistant in the hall doing time. Stupid kid yes. Citizen enemy, perhaps. The US (as is the UK from what I read) is becoming a more harsh and judgmental society.
In the US, "homeland security" is the biggest boondoggle in human history. Right when the US's finances are at their worst in decades and more people die of car accidents, heart attacks, or strokes then ever will from terrorists. The marginal cost of preventing a death from terrorism has got to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars while on the highways it is about $75k.
Perhaps the real utility of "homeland security" and CCTVs and snooping on citizens *is* to allow governments to act more freely on the international and national stage; it is simply a marketing gimmick that mis-allocates resources to the general detriment of society. Not only could that money be spent on preventing traffic accidents, but increasing the specific likelihood of a death due to terrorism due to the increased propensity of governments to get us in trouble with other peoples. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Orwell was worried about cameras in your home, not in public places.
- skitboxkilla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yeah... quite!
http://www.theipatch.com/
- skitboxkilla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yeah... quite!
- caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't wait until global warming sinks those morons.
BTW
Lots of countermeasures exist to screw up these pig cams.
A big ass sombrero comes to mind...... - caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...
- piker62, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21984 - it's funny because it's true.
- jackzhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.speedateauction.com
- skitboxkilla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0...a fine twist on an old classic:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/21/offbeat_news_apples_old_macs_are_for_the_birds.html - mgadalsky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wonderful! Are you people blind to vote for THIS? http://hobbyzoom.blogspot.com
- samakida, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0oh my god - high technology for current world
http://www.anzenthai.com - Gizmopsa, on 10/21/2008, -0/+0Most people have a very good reason for installing CCTV, not least the requirement to prove incidents from Asbo related events, vandalism and victimisation. There is quite a lot of legislation in place re: overmonitoring etc. I know I am biased but having worked in the CCTV industry all my life, I can assure you there are many, many dangerous people serving time due to evidence caught on camera - if it wasn't for the video evidence these "people" would still be raping, killing, abusing, etc.
Whilst it is easy to claim overmonitoring by CCTV, it should also be accepted that, as in several recent cases, CCTV produced evidence allowing police to act proactively to stop some quite heinous crimes. For Example - It's increasing use as an early detection system around schools by spotting individuals repeatedly seen loitering is to be commended.
Just my 2 cents.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is