But what is the microchip good for? - Unnamed IBM suit
|
|
|
Britain's surveillance culture undermines democracy
BRITAIN IS BEGINNING to sharply resemble Orwell's vision of a Big Brother society. While most of us living here have known it for some while, even the doddery old duffers in the House of Lords have now noticed.
The Lords constitution committee reports levels of surveillance in the country both by the state and by private firms are threatening to undermine democracy as we know it. The right to privacy, the report says, is "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom," yes it is being systematically undermined.
Big Brother Broon
"There can be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about us being recorded and pored over by the state," said committee chairman and Conservative peer Lord Goodlad.
People who are spied on by the government under terrorism laws should be compensated if they are found to be totally innocent, according to the report with the catchy title Surveillance: Citizens and the State.
You'd have thought the Lords would be aware that we are supposed to be subjects not citizens.
Local councils were slammed for using their powers under the terrorism act to investigate petty offences like dog fouling and under-age smoking. Surveillance cameras are being used "to spy on the public over issues such as littering," the report said.
Judges should have the final word on when town halls and other public organisations can use terror powers to spy on people, the report said.
It called for a legally-binding code of conduct about when it is unacceptable to spy on people. If the public is to trust that information about them is not being improperly used there should be much more openness about what data is collected, by whom and how it is used.
The Government should recognise that privacy is an "essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom", the report said.
It made 44 recommendations including one which allowed the Information Commissioner to be given the same powers to carry out inspections of private sector organisations as for the public sector.
"The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing tradition of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy," Lord Goodlad added. µ
Share this:
Share
It is incredible how many people still stupidly believe that the loss of privacy is "essential" for their "security". The terrorists have actually now won the game. They have forced you to change your life and to sacrifice your personal details in the misguided belief that nanny Government will watch over you. This isnt just about cctv cameras, either; once you've surrendered your fingerprints, medical records, financial dealings and spending habits to the Great God Computers, that is it....the end of your privacy and there's no going back.
Government does NOT want the "best for us" (Ben, above), in fact YOU are the only one best placed to decide what is best for you. If you are so mentally incompentent that you cannot run your life without being guided every step of the way by the Home Office, then I feel sorry for you.
Personally, as an older person, I despair of all this. I have been used to a life in which money has been moderate but freedom to move around has been unencumbered. To submit at my age to a Government control-system is demeaning, insulting and demoralising. I only thank God that they can't tag my soul, which is the only thing about me that will eventually be able to escape!
sleep
...the "legally-binding code of conduct about when it is unacceptable to spy on people" should be opt-in instead of opt-out? That is to say, make it a legally-binding code of conduct about when it is acceptable to spy on people instead.
Maybe I'm just dreaming.
It's democracy evolving, remember the ancient greece where slavery was an integral part of a democratic society, in 50 years people won't give a damn about privacy as long as they are kept safe by the state.
I am not from the U.K., but from the U.S. - having said that i fear what is happening in Britain could happen over here. Mainly it isn't the question of whether or not you have something to hide, it is the question of whether government has the right to spy on its own people. Historically if a government has had to create a system of internal spying to keep everyone in line it cannot be called a democracy. a state agency trusted to police everyone can easily be misused. Here in the states we have the secret wiretaps issue. We happen to have a little document here that specifically states that citizens are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. the fact that my government can spy on me just to check that i am not doing anything illegal, with no suspicion or reason to believe that i am doing anything illegal, is itself illegal. yet it is occurring. I fear that Britain has gotten so used to the government encroaching on individuals rights that it is the more radical to say something about it than to submit to it. The sad thing is that countries like ours have always been a little xenophobic and we always need someone to mistrust and hate. however, even during the height of the cold war, we didn't have this much internal spying. if out governments proceed down this slippery slope any further we will wake up one day and find that we are in a fascist state were a gestapo/stasi/KGB like organization can do what they want to "protect" us from ourselves. The new buzz word 'terrorism' is the catalyst for this horrific prophecy to come to pass. For the record i have nothing to hide, but i believe that government does not have the right to encroach on our lives or rights. do not believe that because you have nothing to hide makes you safer. it only takes someone in power to label a group the new enemy and you may be a part of it because you had nothing to hide.
"So that you keep it that way."
Haha, did you put your brain into gear before you thought up that little gem comrade BB?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And there's nothing we can do. Remember the poll tax and all the protest and waste of time. and recently, remember the 3rd runway at heathrow well we cry all we want but the powers to be will always treat us like kids and do the parents work for us thinking we're too stupid to make decisions and deal with things we don't understand or are not educated enough in.
We are in a recession the likes of which hasn't been seen since at least the great depression. This recession will last many many years, the one in the early 1990's lasted about 6-8 years depending on the industry you were in. This recession will be hard for at least 4 years, and continue to be felt for approx 10 years.
These CCTV are going to be used for people who strike, and that's going to be a lot of people over the next 4 years.
Do you have curtains on your windows at home? Why, if you have nothing to hide?
So that you keep it that way.
If I have nothing to hide why do they need to spy on me?
Its fairly standard practice as history has shown us, that socialist and left governments on the whole invade personal space and freedoms more and erode civil liberties, than their centre and right wing counterparts.
The nanny and surveillance state is now well developed following 10+ years socialist politics at the helm in the UK. On the plus side at least the immense government debt thats been run up may curb spending on cameras a little in the future.
In the words of Jilted John... Gordon (truly) is a moron...
Be real, be sober, be part of the solution.
Thanks INQ. Nothing could be more important to our tech discussion then this social hurricane, this state of denial, this thing we've come to call fascism. Perhaps when we don't have men living lives stripped of all dignity the albatross will fall from our neck.
"Britain's surveillance culture undermines democracy"
Slap forehead and say, "No s**t, Sherlock?" How long does it take to figure this out? Apparently, TOO long since it's TOO late now, fools.
does anyone remember when princess diana died in a car crash? none of the cameras on the night of the crash were on and captured any evidence of what really happened? To me its a little wierd, maybe just coincidence, considering the parties that wanted her silenced or taken care of??? To me big brother turned a blind-eye that night and let whatever happen, actually occur.
The whole idea of big brother is great if it is publicly controlled and run, willing to show all whether or not the REAL BIG BROTHER is in control and whether willing to show both good and bad without censorship. Maybe 24-hour web-channels anyone?????
The issue of privacy amongst other ethical issues will always arise if God (or someone fair and straight down-the-line) isnt in control to over-see the fair use of all media, as the corporate media has shown some terrible bias on more than the odd occasion and cant entirely be trusted any more.
Those who seem so sure that "we live in a free country", so everything is OK, should perhaps think that through a little. What exactly do you mean, for example, by "free country"? How free are you, today, to do anything you want? To put it another way, how many things are not allowed to do that you might reasonably want to? Is the number of things you are not allowed to do increasing? Why?
It's not a matter of living in a free country or a dictatorship. There is a continuous spectrum, and the UK is steadily sliding down it. Moreover, repressive states do not come into being overnight with a big bang and tanks in the streets. More usually, it is a slow quiet process over many years. Like the famous boiling frog, the ordinary people never notice that their liberties have been taken away.
If you are in a public place, it's not spying..
Statistics show that in areas where CCTV is employed crime rates have dropped considerably. This is a good thing.
Guess that means that everyone that looks at someone else while walking or driving up the road is spying on them?
Why people are so against something that makes life a little safer is beyond me.
Don't want big brother to use the recording as evidence for your conviction? DON'T break the law giving him a reason to do so!
LoCatus.
Some seem to be missing the point of those constitutional guarantees of certain rights. Or what I hope and understand to be part of the point of them, to be more exact: Governments are made of people. They are very much fallible. Indeed, if anything is to be learned from history, they are often corrupt, to a greater or lesser extent. This means that they should not be given sweeping powers that will allow them to oppress those they, for whatever reason, don't like. Even in the name of things that sound OK. Because such powers *will* be mis-used. Case-in-point is the use of laws and powers granted to fight terrorism to prosecute petty crimes. Or else look at what are considered oppressive regimes, wherever you are: you will often find that if you define whatever the State has legislated to be Right, then, indeed, no one is being oppressed and all that is happening is that a bunch of criminals are rightly being punished for their crimes with the punishments rightly prescribed by the law. It is a large issue and cannot properly be explained in a short single paragraph. There is a lot written on the subject. Read some of it. Before someone bans the texts, anyway.
On the basis that we have a government that we did not elect, that creates new laws on a whim for it's own good, then you could easily argue that we do have a dictatorship of sorts. Admittedly they don't line people up against the wall and shoot them..... yet.
This is always going to be the problem wit to widely defined laws like these terrorism laws. When something is vaguely defined it will be at some pointe misinterpreted and misused - this is a human nature. It's already the case here - too many people are stopped by brainless police officers trying to (ab)use their power for practically no reason. Look at what photography in public places has become, yet it is perfectly legal and valid under our current laws.
So our government should be really careful with generic laws like that - better get rid of them or make ther more narowly defined. Plus they should nit contradict basic human rights and imo they are at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
I think Big Brother is good... If someone was mugged the first thing they will ask is where is the CCTV footage?
If we lived in a dictatorship, having little freedom of speech and feared the government maybe we should review things. However, we live in a free country and the government at the end of the day wants the best for its citizens.
How can people claim their right to 'privacy' in a public place? Perhaps they have something to hide. If you're doing nothing wrong, you've nothing to be worried about and if individuals are caught littering using this system, they should be penalised - it may teach them to respect their environment a bit more!
Calling the House of Lords 'doddery old duffers' is gratuitous, ageist and insulting. Many of them have actually run something, which I doubt you have. Moreover,they seem on this issue to be right on. So cut out the age bigotry.
... local authorities would be a little more careful before misusing terrorism laws if a punishment (preferably financial, and in favour of the "victim") were introduced for misuse.