Passports required to buy Pay-as-you-go mobile phones.
- Thread starter Traxata
- Start date
As I see it, you're willing to sacrifice your privacy or you aren't. Let me put that into different terms. (I'm going to butcher this story as I don't have time to properly reference it, but so it goes. I think it's relevant enough.)
A man approaches a woman and asks "Would you sleep with me for 50 million dollars?"
After very little consideration, the woman answers "Yes."
The man then replies "Would you sleep with me for five dollars?"
She slaps him, shouting "Just what kind of woman do you think I am??"
"Ah, we've already determined what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."
Essentially you've said that you're willing to give up your privacy, given an acceptable 'excuse' (for lack of a better word) why. Now all that's left is the negotiation. How far can they push it before it's too much? If it's being removed little by little, will you even notice?
A man approaches a woman and asks "Would you sleep with me for 50 million dollars?"
After very little consideration, the woman answers "Yes."
The man then replies "Would you sleep with me for five dollars?"
She slaps him, shouting "Just what kind of woman do you think I am??"
"Ah, we've already determined what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."
Essentially you've said that you're willing to give up your privacy, given an acceptable 'excuse' (for lack of a better word) why. Now all that's left is the negotiation. How far can they push it before it's too much? If it's being removed little by little, will you even notice?
KillCrazy
Active Member
I already explained in my last post, that, in an area that is under surveillance is probably most likely to be filled with people, as it is a public place, which isn't really private at all. So there is no issue about privacy at all here.
My counter argument to your line:
"Again, if you've got nothing to hide, then you don't mind them placing cameras in your shower"
was that privacy comes in to play at the point of putting cameras in people's homes, where, in my point of view, surveillance outside of that is not breaching privacy any more than it does when you're somewhere where anyone else has the freedom to be.
My counter argument to your line:
"Again, if you've got nothing to hide, then you don't mind them placing cameras in your shower"
was that privacy comes in to play at the point of putting cameras in people's homes, where, in my point of view, surveillance outside of that is not breaching privacy any more than it does when you're somewhere where anyone else has the freedom to be.
That's the $50 million.
The showercam is the $5
That's the lowest bid you're (currently) willing to accept.
What if they make an offer that seems acceptable? (Hypothetical situation...) What about a special camera in your house that doesn't store recorded video, but can notify police when it detects violence? Does that sound ok? You're negotiating a tiny bit of privacy, but you're potentially preventing domestic violence. What if the camera was only in "public" rooms in the house, like the kitchen or TV room? That's even less privacy removed. Where is the line? Will the line change along with new technology?
decky101
In Cryo Sleep
It's difficult to specifically classify what exactly is "private" and I'm sure many people's definition can be entirely different to anothers, so for some, it's easy to say that they have no problems with this coming in as they don't consider this to be explicitly private, though in comparison, others considering this as prying and intrusive, and so it's clear they'd rather that this wasn't put in place. Needless to say, these people may or may not have anything to hide, they just feel that this is their business.
Several have said that they think this is a rather useless and needless measure also, and to be quite frank, I agree, what overall purpose does this serve? It appears to me that it's already easy enough to get the information you can obtain from this, and so I find it's emplacement to be quite pointless.
Several have said that they think this is a rather useless and needless measure also, and to be quite frank, I agree, what overall purpose does this serve? It appears to me that it's already easy enough to get the information you can obtain from this, and so I find it's emplacement to be quite pointless.
Tingham
In Cryo Sleep
Speaking as a civil servant:
This sort of thing is generally not actually used. The law is merely passed and then ignored.
More than likely, as in the case of the 42 days detention without trial, it is merely a bargaining chip for a government wanting to appear tough on crime.
As it has been pointed out masterly by Haven, it is completely unenforcable.
I know our civil service dept in leeds wouldnt have the time or capacity , or willingness to enforce it.
Speaking as an Amnesty International Speechwriter and Speechgiver:
This sort of thing is, as has been pointed out. A base and unnescecary infringment of privacy.
As with the 42 days terrorism, it is merely a paranoid government using fear to get through laws which , if enacted , make its own figures look a little better.
I urge anyone who objects to this bill to write to their MP at www.writetothem.org, write to Amnesty at www.protectthehuman.org or to write to me at tim_ingham@hotmail.co.uk.
Also, by the way. There will be a special Secret Policeman's Ball happening in Leeds in 2009, on which i will post later. I shall, however, be doing some standup and a speech.
Speaking as a Former Liberal Councillor.
We are told that criminals and (more importantly) terrorists are hell bent on destroying our free way of life.
The terrorists we hear so much about do indeed abhor our free, tolerant and informed way of life.
They know however, that they cannot get rid of it by killing people. They will make an attack and wait for us, with Bills like this, and 42 days detention, to get rid of it for them.
Thankyou.
This sort of thing is generally not actually used. The law is merely passed and then ignored.
More than likely, as in the case of the 42 days detention without trial, it is merely a bargaining chip for a government wanting to appear tough on crime.
As it has been pointed out masterly by Haven, it is completely unenforcable.
I know our civil service dept in leeds wouldnt have the time or capacity , or willingness to enforce it.
Speaking as an Amnesty International Speechwriter and Speechgiver:
This sort of thing is, as has been pointed out. A base and unnescecary infringment of privacy.
As with the 42 days terrorism, it is merely a paranoid government using fear to get through laws which , if enacted , make its own figures look a little better.
I urge anyone who objects to this bill to write to their MP at www.writetothem.org, write to Amnesty at www.protectthehuman.org or to write to me at tim_ingham@hotmail.co.uk.
Also, by the way. There will be a special Secret Policeman's Ball happening in Leeds in 2009, on which i will post later. I shall, however, be doing some standup and a speech.
Speaking as a Former Liberal Councillor.
We are told that criminals and (more importantly) terrorists are hell bent on destroying our free way of life.
The terrorists we hear so much about do indeed abhor our free, tolerant and informed way of life.
They know however, that they cannot get rid of it by killing people. They will make an attack and wait for us, with Bills like this, and 42 days detention, to get rid of it for them.
Thankyou.
Cynic-Al
In Cryo Sleep
With Regards to the original point of this post, it's already in effect here in Germany (Erasmus placement FTW), I had to give my passport details in order to Register my prepaid simcard and to be perfectly honest it didn't bother me. It seemed a little pointless at first, but it makes more sense than asking for an address (which is harder to check, if you give the right name for the occupant and pay cash, you could still be anybody). The other thing being that almost everyone here (with the exception of a few Erasmus students) as a personal ID card (though it does seem to be basically just the same info as your passport).
@D what is the difference between a CCTV camera and a patrolling policeman? Other than the fact that they are easier to spread around.
What I do in my home is visible only to myself and people I invite into that space. Anything I do in the street is already viewable by anyone else there at the time. What is the difference between the individual seeing me being on the street with me or a mile away in an office?
@D what is the difference between a CCTV camera and a patrolling policeman? Other than the fact that they are easier to spread around.
What I do in my home is visible only to myself and people I invite into that space. Anything I do in the street is already viewable by anyone else there at the time. What is the difference between the individual seeing me being on the street with me or a mile away in an office?
Well, the patrolman can actually do something about crime, for starters
But as far as it relates to privacy, the camera has a memory that lasts forever. You don't know what they might use the footage for a year from now. Or ten years from now.
So, if someone followed you around with binoculars (or a video camera, even) every time you left your house, you'd be ok with that? Privacy doesn't apply outside your house, after all!
It's not just the cameras, it's the "we have to track everyone all the time" mentality. Getting rid of the cameras would be ideal, but unlikely. Personally, I would be ok with it if they laid out some very strict rules. The entire system needs to be much more transparent. They need to lay out WHO has access, and WHY. They need to set a reasonable time WHEN they'll delete footage/logs. And they need to document ALL uses, and these logs need to be available to the public.
Until the government is prepared to let the public watch everything little thing they do, they shouldn't expect the same from the public.
Until the government is prepared to let the public watch everything little thing they do, they shouldn't expect the same from the public.
Taffy
New Member
Bob you are a true hero. Lethargy FTW
D, I think you are being a little extreme. The cameras do protect us. They are one of the most efficient ways of preventing crime. Sure, It'd be great to have thousands more policemen on foot patrol replacign us, but the fact of the matter is that they are too damn expensive. Also, how do you know cameras have a memory that lasts forever? Are you suggesting that they keep every second of video recording from every camera in the country? That would be one bloody big warehouse
DeZmond
Junior Administrator
Don't know if it's already been posted, but:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7690005.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7690005.stm
It might be time to split this off into its own thread? It doesn't exactly have anything to do with the original topic...
That's simply not true.
Please give me some numbers. How much money has been spent on CCTV cameras in the last 5 years? How many additional police officers could've been paid instead?
Why wouldn't they? Data storage is cheap.Also, how do you know cameras have a memory that lasts forever? Are you suggesting that they keep every second of video recording from every camera in the country? That would be one bloody big warehouse
Traxata
Junior Administrator
bbc.co.uk/news said:
£4.25Million a year
There's the amount spent on them,
A PC, 'on the beat' costs 24k per annum,
At 24K, that's 177 extra PC's
http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm
Cynic-Al
In Cryo Sleep
Which isn't enough to put an extra policeman in every reasonably sized town in the country, let alone provide the sort of coverage that CCTV can in any city. A policeman on the beat may be able to react faster than one who has to be called out, but only if he is in the right place.
Data storage may be cheap but not that cheap, it would be far more likely that they delete all footage that doesn't potentially contain information about a crime. Besides with recorded information not occurring at the time of a crime, who is actually ever going to watch it? There are also a reasonable number of cameras that are just direct links to a base station with a human operator, which is somewhat more like a patrolling officer, as any response is real time, not trying to glean evidence from footage of the crime.
As for the stupid comment about someone following you round with a video camera, there is a quite significant difference. CCTV is a general overview, not focusing on any one individual (unless said individual appears to be committing a crime at which point the camera may focus in), whereas someone following you with a video camera would be focusing specifically on you. The CCTV camera is also stationary, it's still reasonably easy to walk around
How do they know what footage might correspond to a crime?
It's been proven (I'll link the study later when I have time to find it again) that a human can't keep track of more than a couple video monitors at once. So you've either got people watching many screens, and likely to miss all but the most brazen abnormalities, or you've got one person for every two or three cameras. Neither sounds very cost effective.
How is having a camera operator like having a patrolling officer? The best they can do is call a patrolling officer to the scene, which is exactly the same thing a dude with a cell phone can do...
Cynic-Al
In Cryo Sleep
If someone reports a crime you know roughly when and where it took place, so you keep the footage within a given time window of crime. Or even if you do store it all, that's the only bit that will get watched.
Only the most brazen abnormalities are likely to get noticed anyway. And is it not better to have the brazen abnormalities (and thus through inference the larger crimes) in several areas noticed than have the minutiae of a situation in one location noticed while crimes in the other 7 places are missed completely.
A police camera operator using police radio to call officers to a scene is still considerably faster reaction than a telephone operator taking a call from a member of the public and putting out a call. It takes a step out of the chain.
Only the most brazen abnormalities are likely to get noticed anyway. And is it not better to have the brazen abnormalities (and thus through inference the larger crimes) in several areas noticed than have the minutiae of a situation in one location noticed while crimes in the other 7 places are missed completely.
A police camera operator using police radio to call officers to a scene is still considerably faster reaction than a telephone operator taking a call from a member of the public and putting out a call. It takes a step out of the chain.