What is Digg?119 Comments
- gbotmbot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+82He was only off by 2 decades.
- 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.
- 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. - goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38"While George Orwell's novels have proven to be frighteningly accurate, I don't like their endings. They ended the way they did because George actually believed in what he wrote and envisioned a society in that light as being a society for the better. (Much like Aldous Huxley, may he rest in hell.)"
What the bloody hell are you talking about? Orwell's novels ended the way they did because, besides being critical of totalitarian goverments in general and stalinism and nazism in particular, they were also critical of the popular apathy that allowed for such despotism. Winston Smith lost because he stopped caring after he fell into O'Brien's trap. 2+2=5, whatever. The unhappy ending is supposed to alarm and energise readers, not have them feel good about themselves, believing that things will improve on their own if they just let them sit.
"There is "Animal Farm", "1984", "Brave New World" and "V for Vendetta". Which world do you wish to be a part of? Your time for choice is much more limited than you realize. If your choise is any of the first three, please be aware that you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Those who have chosen option 4?"
Those who have chose #4 are as retarded as the rest, if they chose to live under a brutal totalitarian regime. How about "NONE OF THE ABOVE" for an answer? Isn't that the point of political dystopias? - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38Doubleplus thoughtcrime.
Report for reorientation. - 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.
- 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. - SunDestroyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Who's watching the watchers?
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35It is however government CONTROLLED and FUNDED.
So, the distinction you're making is pretty useless. - 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.
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22lol irony
- 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.... - 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.
- inactive, 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? - cheekdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@bluebonics...no you're not. i don't know if i enjoyed it so much as was freaked out by how our society is completely headed in that direction.
- 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. - 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.
- SunDestroyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Give it time.
- Jemulov, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22@spookyttws
That defeatist attitude is what is keeping us from electing better officials in the first place. - bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11i take it i'm the only digger who enjoyed huxley's literary classic. how unfortunate...
- Easty, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22The BBC isn't government-owned. Do some research.
- 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.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12That's good and fine, unless your flat has windows.
- 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 - 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.
- inactive, 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!!) - tenken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Tyranny, you really need to read more about Orwell's life because I think you're vastly mistaken about his stance on fascism. He was publically a Socialist Democrat, but all that means is that he believed in democracy but also felt that the government should take care of the people. His books are about pro-government societies that fall off the deep end. If anything they're warning notices to the political leanings of that time.
His democratic socialism, shared by many at the time, strikes a balance between self-supported populations and government control. You're seriously oversimplifying his beliefs if you think that he actually wished for any of his books outcomes. Given your username, you should be more well versed in this topic. - 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, -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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- inactive, 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 - inactive, 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.
- 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.
- 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? -
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is