PDA

View Full Version : Warning over UK "surveillance state" threatening to undermine democracy


Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-09, 21:16
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7872425.stm

Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, peers have warned.

CCTV cameras and the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, the Lords constitution committee said.

It called for compensation for people subject to illegal surveillance.

The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential" to fight crime but campaign group Liberty said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear".

'Orwellian'

Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.

Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".


There can be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about us being recorded and pored over by the state
Lord Goodlad

Ministers are consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said it had written to local councils to ask them to ensure surveillance powers were used "proportionately" and not for tackling minor offences such as dog fouling.

A spokesman said: "It is right and important that councils have these powers of surveillance - they are an effective means of tackling real problems that can blight communities, such as rogue traders, fly tippers and loan sharks.

"But the public must have confidence in who has these powers and that they are used in a proportionate and proper way which is why we are working closely with the home office and local government to develop training and guidance."

In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".

People were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.

"There can be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about us being recorded and pored over by the state," committee chairman and Tory peer Lord Goodlad said.

'Misuse of powers'

Among areas of most concern were the growth of CCTV cameras, of which there are now an estimated four million in the UK.

The UK is said by privacy campaigners to have the most cameras per head of population in the world, but no definitive figures are available.

According to a 2004 European Commission report, Britain has the highest density of CCTV cameras in Europe. It found 40,000 cameras monitored public areas in 500 British towns and cities, compared to fewer than 100 cameras in 15 German cities and no open street CCTV at all in Denmark.

In its report, the Lords committee said the use of cameras should be regulated on a statutory basis in the UK, with a legally binding code of practice governing their use.

There was evidence of abuse of surveillance powers by some councils, with cameras wrongly being "used to spy on the public over issues such as littering".

The UK's DNA database is the "largest in the world", the report concluded, with more than 7% of the population having their samples stored, compared with 0.5% in the US.


KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Judicial oversight of surveillance
Privacy impact assessments for new data collection schemes
Better regulation of the DNA database and reassessment of time samples are held
Binding code of practice for use of CCTV cameras
More powers for information commissioner and new parliamentary committee to study data issues

Police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland can take DNA and fingerprints from anybody arrested on suspicion of a recordable offence and the samples can be held indefinitely whether people are charged or not.

Campaigners say anyone not convicted of a crime should have their DNA removed, a position endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights in a recent ruling in the case of two British men.

Ministers should comply with this ruling quickly, peers said, and legislate for a new regulatory framework for the database.

Other recommendations include a requirement for any new data scheme to be preceded by a public assessment of its impact on privacy and for the information commissioner to be given powers to carry out inspections on private companies.

"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.

"If the public are 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."

'Right balance'

The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools" but acknowledged personal data should only be used in criminal investigations where necessary.

"The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data," a Home Office spokesman said.

"This provides law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect the public... while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework to protect civil liberties."


Over the past seven years we've been told 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' but a stream of data bungles and abuses of power suggest that even the innocent have a lot to fear
Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has rejected claims of a surveillance society and called for "common sense" guidelines on CCTV and DNA.

She recently announced a consultation on possible changes to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, under which public bodies can conduct covert surveillance and access data, to clarify who can use such powers and prevent "frivolous" investigations.

The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".

"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.

Human rights campaigners Liberty welcomed the report.

Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Liberty's postbag suggests that the House of Lords is more in touch with public concerns that our elected government.

"Over the past seven years we've been told 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' but a stream of data bungles and abuses of power suggest that even the innocent have a lot to fear."

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, urged the government to "reassert" its control over the use of data.

He said: "Governments tend to think that gathering new information on citizens is a good thing. But that's not true if our privacy is undermined and our data isn't secure.

"We need to see privacy by design: you can't bolt on privacy at the end of big government IT projects, we need privacy safeguards built into systems right at the start."

Mad Tony
06-02-09, 21:19
While I wouldn't exactly call it "Orwellian" I do think there is too much government surveillance in this country.

Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-09, 21:20
Have you read 1984 yet?

Mad Tony
06-02-09, 21:21
Have you read 1984 yet?No, but I'm well aware of what Orwellian actually means.

Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-09, 21:23
No, but I'm well aware of what Orwellian actually means.

It's a fantastic book, whether or not you think you know what "Orwellian" means.

Here, only a fiver. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/1984-Nineteen-Eighty-Four-George-Orwell/dp/014118776X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233955449&sr=8-1)


My concern with this, btw, is not loss of democracy. It's loss of privacy due to the government's fumblings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_government_data_losses)

Mad Tony
06-02-09, 21:24
It looks like a good book. I'll get round to buying it once I've finished the 6 other books I've got left to read. :p

IceColdLaraCroft
06-02-09, 21:25
i dont see the problem, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?

Mad Tony
06-02-09, 21:30
i dont see the problem, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?There comes a point when it just becomes a waste of money. For example, do we really need anymore CCTV cameras?

Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-09, 21:31
i dont see the problem, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?

You can break the law without even realising it - there are so many laws we don't even know about that I firmly believe it's impossible to live without ever doing something illegal in some way.

If the govt became totalitarian and decided they wanted to arrest you for some political reason, they'd have all the surveillance footage they needed to catch you with your trousers down for five seconds. You'd never even know it had happened.

Second, they're incompetent and irresponsible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_government_data_losses).

Third - as above... seriously, couldn't that money be better spent helping us than breathing down our necks? A lot of crime happens because of poverty. Relieve the poverty, improve the social conditions, and there'll be less crime therefore no need for security cameras on every wall.

violentblossom
06-02-09, 21:32
i dont see the problem, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?

because. sometimes it would be nice to pick a wedgie and have no one no about it.

Mad Tony
06-02-09, 21:33
Second, they're incompetent and irresponsible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_government_data_losses).Yeah, that's my biggest worry. The current government seem to constantly loose all this data. I really don't think all of the nation's details are safe in their hands.

Wow, we're actually pretty much agreeing on something. This only happens once in a blue moon.

Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-09, 21:36
You've changed your argument since the last time we discussed this particular issue. :whi:

Goose
06-02-09, 21:38
I dont see the point in putting out new CCTV cameras, whats the point when our police are powerless to act.

I like the tasers they've bought, but, no doubt someone will start crying about it and they wont even be issued.

Mad Tony
06-02-09, 21:39
You've changed your argument since the last time we discussed this particular issue. :whi:I don't recall ever changing my stance on this. I've always felt like there are a tad too many CCTV cameras on the streets.

Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-09, 21:39
I was thinking of someone else. My bad LOL

I like the tasers they've bought, but, no doubt someone will start crying about it and they wont even be issued.

Thought they'd already been rolled out?

Don't know if they're used up here tho.

Btw, a law is being considered to make it illegal to take photographs of police officers in England and Canada if it "could be used to help commit terrorism". A catch-all excuse that will be abused to prevent anyone taking photos of heavy-handed or illegal police activity. So the police get their privacy and we lose it. :(

Changeling
06-02-09, 21:43
I agree with Geck-o-Lizard, why waste money on CCTV camera's (of which we already have too many) when they could actually be helping us instead of constantly spying on us the whole time? :(

Lew
07-02-09, 00:33
ii think polcice are more involved with getting rid of privacy you knw.... i was once abit intoxicated otuside a police station drinking champagne and they didnt even notice..... its like wtf

LaraLuvrrr
07-02-09, 00:36
Well... if the UK wants to watch me pick my nose when no one's watching or cough something up when I'm sick. Or vomit on the sidewalk if I've drunken too much. I would say it's their problem not mine. Then again I'm not from the UK :p

aileenwuornos
07-02-09, 04:21
i dont see the problem, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?

Because people have a right to privacy and not to worry about their every act being recorded.

I dont see the point in putting out new CCTV cameras, whats the point when our police are powerless to act.

I like the tasers they've bought, but, no doubt someone will start crying about it and they wont even be issued.

Omg. I'm speechless.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 08:27
Btw, a law is being considered to make it illegal to take photographs of police officers in England and Canada if it "could be used to help commit terrorism". A catch-all excuse that will be abused to prevent anyone taking photos of heavy-handed or illegal police activity. So the police get their privacy and we lose it. :(

I see. Obviously people shouldn't be allowed to survey police stations and take detailed records and such, but I really do not like that "could" part of the potential law because it means whatever they want it to mean. Technically anything and everything "could" help commit terrorism, so once the door is opened then they would be able to make it illegal to do anything at all.

I would think that if someone is taking suspicious photographs then they would be investigated and they'd only be charged with a crime if there was evidence of something illegal. To totally cut out the investigation part and jump straight to photographs = illegal is not something that should happen. I mean, I think they can already take someone in for questioning and hold them for a short period of time if they catch something suspicious happening, but then if there's no evidence of wrong-doing they have to let the person go.

Goose
07-02-09, 08:57
I see. Obviously people shouldn't be allowed to survey police stations and take detailed records and such, but I really do not like that "could" part of the potential law because it means whatever they want it to mean. Technically anything and everything "could" help commit terrorism, so once the door is opened then they would be able to make it illegal to do anything at all.

I would think that if someone is taking suspicious photographs then they would be investigated and they'd only be charged with a crime if there was evidence of something illegal. To totally cut out the investigation part and jump straight to photographs = illegal is not something that should happen. I mean, I think they can already take someone in for questioning and hold them for a short period of time if they catch something suspicious happening, but then if there's no evidence of wrong-doing they have to let the person go.

There is absolutly no reason to take a picture of a police officer. Even more so in this day and age, it can be an offense for civilians to take my photo on duty, has been since the 70's, in the past a photo of military personnel could, and has been, used to gather information by the IRA, once they get enough information about you they would attempt kidnappings, bombings, or target your families. If you remember recently, islamic extremists here plotted to kidnap a soldier and behead him on camera to try and intimidate the armed forces, this is the reason they dont want police officers to be photographed. Remember they are security forces to, and part of the great infidel machine, if anything, there in a more dangerous place then i am in the UK, at work im protected by armed guards 24/7, then i leave the local area to a home miles away, police are local.

When our police look like this, then you could start worrying...

lnneQfsZxJo

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 09:07
There is absolutly no reason to take a picture of a police officer. Even more so in this day and age, it can be an offense for civilians to take my photo on duty, has been since the 70's, in the past a photo of military personnel could, and has been, used to gather information by the IRA, once they get enough information about you they would attempt kidnappings, bombings, or target your families. If you remember recently, islamic extremists here plotted to kidnap a soldier and behead him on camera to try and intimidate the armed forces, this is the reason they dont want police officers to be photographed. Remember they are security forces to, and part of the great infidel machine, if anything, there in a more dangerous place then i am in the UK, at work im protected by armed guards 24/7, then i leave the local area to a home miles away, police are local.

I've never been to the UK so I'm not familiar with a lot of the things you are talking about. I figured that if someone was taking a picture for nefarious purposes, then there ought to be evidence of their criminal plans which could be found out by taking them in for questioning and investigating them.

Goose
07-02-09, 09:18
I've never been to the UK so I'm not familiar with a lot of the things you are talking about. I figured that if someone was taking a picture for nefarious purposes, then there ought to be evidence of their criminal plans which could be found out by taking them in for questioning and investigating them.

'The war on terror' started in 1969 for the UK, with IRA bombings and sectarian violence on mainland Briton and northern Ireland. Our police forces and military have been taking part in counter insurgency for decades going back to the Malaya insurgency, and have good reason to fear terrorists Intel gathering, as that is always the foundation of a terror attack.

To take a picture of a police officer at a rally or protest is fine, but to take a picture of a police officer on the beat is worthy of arrest in my opinion. But then again, some people are so clueless with personal security of police and military personnel you could forgive them for there ignorance. Once taken in for it though, if there an American tourist or annoying uni student who 'hates authority' they would be soon back on the street.

aileenwuornos
07-02-09, 09:32
Not taking photos of police makes sense to me and I'm usually quite uh, questioning of authority (I can't help it, I'm a responsible citizen ;)) considering how much crap they can and do take from people.

On the flipside of the coin, I'm really glad there aren't a bucketload of CCTV cameras over here (although, there probably are. Thank you nanny state[sarcasm])

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 09:48
'The war on terror' started in 1969 for the UK, with IRA bombings and sectarian violence on mainland Briton and northern Ireland. Our police forces and military have been taking part in counter insurgency for decades going back to the Malaya insurgency, and have good reason to fear terrorists Intel gathering, as that is always the foundation of a terror attack.

To take a picture of a police officer at a rally or protest is fine, but to take a picture of a police officer on the beat is worthy of arrest in my opinion. But then again, some people are so clueless with personal security of police and military personnel you could forgive them for there ignorance. Once taken in for it though, if there an American tourist or annoying uni student who 'hates authority' they would be soon back on the street.

Maybe the laws are different in the UK, but I was looking at it from the perspective that in the US, the police can question anybody for suspicious activity and if someone taking suspicious photos refused to answer questions then they could be arrested for loitering while the police sort out what they were doing there.

If it's an explicit law that people aren't allowed to take photographs, then how do the "American tourists" and "annoying uni students" get off so lightly? If the law is selectively enforced, then what is the point of it? I mean, doesn't taking photographs of police already fall under a general loitering/suspicious activity category that the police investigate anyway?

Goose
07-02-09, 09:53
Maybe the laws are different in the UK, but I was looking at it from the perspective that in the US, the police can question anybody for suspicious activity and if someone taking suspicious photos refused to answer questions then they could be arrested for loitering while the police sort out what they were doing there.

If it's an explicit law that people aren't allowed to take photographs, then how do the "American tourists" and "annoying uni students" get off so lightly? If the law is selectively enforced, then what is the point of it? I mean, doesn't taking photographs of police already fall under a general loitering/suspicious activity category that the police investigate anyway?

Ignorance, young people are, and so are tourists. Yes it would be suspicious, but once taken in or questioned on the spot, it would be obvious that there just doing there own thing, like at air force bases, some people are avid fans of military hardware, but we dont arrest try them for espionage after taking a picture of a Eurofighter, you take a look at them, or look them up on the computer and then decide if there just a plane spotter or terror suspect.

Its not selective enforcement, its common sense really.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 10:05
Ignorance, young people are, and so are tourists. Yes it would be suspicious, but once taken in or questioned on the spot, it would be obvious that there just doing there own thing, like at air force bases, some people are avid fans of military hardware, but we dont arrest try them for espionage after taking a picture of a Eurofighter, you take a look at them, or look them up on the computer and then decide if there just a plane spotter or terror suspect.

Its not selective enforcement, its common sense really.

My point was that I thought that the police already had the right to act upon common sense and question/detain suspicious people. Why does there need to be a new law specifically referring to photographs? I thought that was already covered by currently existing laws in the UK :confused:

Goose
07-02-09, 10:08
My point was that I thought that the police already had the right to act upon common sense and question/detain suspicious people. Why does there need to be a new law specifically referring to photographs? I thought that was already covered by currently existing laws in the UK :confused:

What the police do is what anyone can do, if im walking down the street and someone starts taking pictures im within my right to ask why, and report it to the police if i feel threatened by it, what seems to be coming is a fixed law, more for civilians to read and abide by, rather then police, which explains it in detail. After all, if theres no written law, people can say "i didnt know".

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 10:14
What the police do is what anyone can do, if im walking down the street and someone starts taking pictures im within my right to ask why, and report it to the police if i feel threatened by it, what seems to be coming is a fixed law, more for civilians to read and abide by, rather then police, which explains it in detail. After all, if theres no written law, people can say "i didnt know".

Alright, I guess that makes sense then. I haven't seen the proposed the law so I was just going by the description which made it sound like it was vastly increasing police power and I was all confused about why that would be necessary. If it's just making current laws more explicit, then that's probably a good thing so people will have fair warning instead of getting in trouble and not knowing why.

Goose
07-02-09, 10:22
Since 1997 police powers have been going down rather then up. If im on guard duty at work i have powers of arrest, but was told bluntly that its more hassle then its worth.

aileenwuornos
07-02-09, 10:26
Since 1997 police powers have been going down rather then up. If im on guard duty at work i have powers of arrest, but was told bluntly that its more hassle then its worth.

Depends where you are ;)

Goose
07-02-09, 10:38
Depends where you are ;)

Yea, well i dont mean id allow people to mess about, id just use minimum force to detain then tell the military police to deal with them, im not going to waste my evening on paperwork.

Punaxe
07-02-09, 11:17
http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/surveillance_map.jpg

"The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the "black" category along with Russia and Singapore. However for the first time Scotland has been given its own ranking score and performed significantly better than England & Wales."

UNITED KINGDOM
- World leading surveillance schemes
- Lack of accountability and data breach disclosure law
- Commissioner has few powers
- Interception of communications is authorised by politician, evidence not used in court, and oversight is by commissioner who reports only once a year upon reviewing a subset of applications
- Hundreds of thousands of requests from government agencies to telecommunications providers for traffic data
- Data retention scheme took a significant step forward with the quiet changes based on EU law
- Plans are emerging regarding surveillance of communications networks for the protection of copyrighted content
- Despite data breaches, 'joined-up government' initiatives continue
- Identity scheme still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven; plan to issue all foreigners with cards in 2008 are continuing
- E-borders plans include increased data collection on travellers

England & Wales
- Inherited constitutional and statutory protections from UK Government and many of the policies
- National policies are not judged, e.g. Communications surveillance, border and trans-border issues
- Councils continue to spread surveillance policies, including RFID, CCTV, ID and data sharing, road user tracking
- Few democratic safeguards at local government level, even though local government may be more accountable to electorate because of smaller numbers, decisions do not appear to be informed by research, prototyping

Scotland
- Inherited constitutional and statutory protections from UK Government and only some of the policies
- National policies are not judged, e.g. Communications surveillance, border and trans-border issues
- Stronger protections on civil liberties
- DNA database is not as open to abuse as policy in England and Wales
- Identity policy is showing possibility of avoiding mistakes of UK Government
- Scottish government appears more responsive and open to informed debate than local governments in England

Privacy International (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597), 2007.

Also
http://www.provokateur.com/news/wp-content/photos/liberty_ad_for_blog.gif

Goose
07-02-09, 12:54
[IMG]http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/rankings2007/map.jpg



Lol, Russia has the most surveillance? On average, one solder/sailor/airmen dies A DAY in Russia through violence or suicide, the surveyors cant even watch themselves, let alone the public.




[IMG]http://www.provokateur.com/news/wp-content/photos/liberty_ad_for_blog.gif


Hmm, shocking, till you see it only applies to people caught in the act of planning or instigating terror, i mean seriously, 2 days without charge in america :confused:, theres blokes in Gitmo who have been there for years without charge, 40 odd days is sweet in comparison.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 13:23
Hmm, shocking, till you see it only applies to people caught in the act of planning or instigating terror, i mean seriously, 2 days without charge in america :confused:, theres blokes in Gitmo who have been there for years without charge, 40 odd days is sweet in comparison.

I think that number of 2 days applies only to how long US citizens can be held without charge in the US. I don't think they took into account foreign criminals being detained in the US, or US citizens being detained in other countries.

Goose
07-02-09, 13:26
I think that number of 2 days applies only to how long US citizens can be held without charge in the US. I don't think they took into account foreign criminals being detained, or US citizens being detained in other countries.

Yes, that's pretty much it, but the chart is implying that the UK is the only people to detain terror suspects for more then 48 hours.

Its odd how this whole right wing conspiracy thing is taking a good bit of there influence from our liberal left wing government.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 13:31
Yes, that's pretty much it, but the chart is implying that the UK is the only people to detain terror suspects for more then 48 hours.

This is a genuine question that I don't already know the answer to -- Is the UK the only country to detain their own citizens for that long without charging them? (I would imagine not, especially if the whole world is being considered, but that's what the chart implies so I'm asking)

Its odd how this whole right wing conspiracy thing is taking a good bit of there influence from our liberal left wing government.

I can't keep my conspiracies straight, so I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here :p

Goose
07-02-09, 13:40
This is a genuine question that I don't already know the answer to -- Is the UK the only country to detain their own citizens for that long without charging them? (I would imagine not, especially if the whole world is being considered, but that's what the chart implies so I'm asking)


Well it was the US that instigated it, people taken by special forces from Pakistan tribal regions were for the most part, held without charge or trial. But i certainly don't disagree with that.

It seems people feel that a person accused of terror activities taken from afghanistan is less of a breach of that persons rights then a terror suspect taken from London.


I can't keep my conspiracies straight, so I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here :p

We have a liberal Center Left government, the nutters on the net who chat about the New world order, always accuse it of being a conservative and right wing thing, yet they use the UK as an example.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 14:14
It seems people feel that a person accused of terror activities taken from afghanistan is less of a breach of that persons rights then a terror suspect taken from London.

I think it's more a question of citizenship. The government promises certain rights to its citizens, so if it breaks that promise people get more concerned because it could happen to them. If the government is off fighting in another country, then people feel like it won't directly affect them so they don't care as much.

Goose
07-02-09, 14:22
I think it's more a question of citizenship. The government promises certain rights to its citizens, so if it breaks that promise people get more concerned because it could happen to them. If the government is off fighting in another country, then people feel like it won't directly affect them so they don't care as much.

I suppose people believe that terrorists aren't born in England:whi:

Ahh well, not much we can do, id rather be over protected then under protected, at work i live under armed guard, and life is so much better, people dont walk outside wondering if there cars been keyed or smashed up, everyone respects there elders, and everyone has to pay compliments, those that act like chavs are told to there face: "your a ****-head", and made to feel the pathetic people they are.

Edit: Should 'Dick' be allowed in general chat?

Geck-o-Lizard
07-02-09, 14:45
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Take your armoured guards and 40 day detentions and keep them. I won't give up my freedom so you can have a false sense of security while our country slides slowly into totalitarianism. I would much rather have to occasionally get my car repaired than live under a government with its eyes and fingers everywhere.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 14:46
I suppose people believe that terrorists aren't born in England:whi:

Maybe, or maybe they're afraid of setting the precedent that anyone's rights can be ignored if the government wants it. Over here I keep hearing the saying that people who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. Of course absolute freedom and civil rights are contradictory (one person can't be free to harm another) so I don't think the saying is really true. It does represent an attitude a lot of people seem to have, though.

Edit: Should 'Dick' be allowed in general chat?

Well it's not censored so I guess it falls under the general umbrella of being okay as long as it's not used to harass other members.

Edit: I'm psychic! I totally posted this before I saw the previous post :p

Goose
07-02-09, 14:58
I won't give up my freedom so you can have a false sense of security

I know you wont, that's why someone like me has to instead.

Your opinion of this countries enforcement is quite high, were not that good at oppressing people into order.


Well it's not censored so I guess it falls under the general umbrella of being okay as long as it's not used to harass other members.
:p

I think its quite offensive!

EmeraldFields
07-02-09, 15:30
I thought cameras at traffic lights were bad!

Mad Tony
07-02-09, 15:31
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin FranklinI don't really agree with that. Steps have to be taken to make sure something like 9/11 or 7/7 doesn't happen again. Obviously there's no need to go completely overboard and set up a police state, but steps still need to be taken. We can't just sit by and wait for another massacre.

There's that and the fact that I've heard that quote so many times it's starting to get a bit annoying. :p

Another thing, I do think some people are overreacting to security necessities (not directed at anyone here). Some people always seem to cry fascism whenever they see armed police protecting something or when police break up a violent "protest".

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 15:33
I think its quite offensive!

It could be somebody's name. I think that's why it isn't censored. I don't remember seeing anyone use it as an insult on this forum so I don't think it's an issue.

Nausinous
07-02-09, 15:58
i dont see the problem, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?

The UK will essentially become Big Brother basically and no one will be able to do anything privately, the government can trace were you go and what you do. So if you miss work, they'll know and they'll know if you were really ill because they can trace where you went. If you just wanted to leave home because of a family disagreement the police could track you easily because of the whole DNA thing. It's just sick and wrong. They have already started taking DNA of Army members and their families. This is going to end badly. I predict riots if any one has the guts to stand up for their civil liberites.

To be honest, we need to really make our voices heard on this topic. I remember the debates on the I.D cards that each citizen would carry with all their data on it (Even currency). If you commited a crime they would disable your card and with that you couldn't live because you couldn't buy food etc. You wouldn't be able to use anyone elses card because it would be registered to them only. If something like this happens we're all screwed.

Goose
07-02-09, 16:10
The UK will essentially become Big Brother basically and no one will be able to do anything privately, the government can trace were you go and what you do. So if you miss work, they'll know and they'll know if you were really ill because they can trace where you went. If you just wanted to leave home because of a family disagreement the police could track you easily because of the whole DNA thing. It's just sick and wrong. They have already started taking DNA swabs of Army members and their families. This is going to end badly. I predict riots if any one has the guts to stand up for their civil liberites.

To be honest, we need to really make our voices heard on this topic. I remember the debates on the I.D cards that each citizen would carry with all their data on it (Even currency). If you commited a crime they would disable your card and with that you couldn't live because you couldn't buy food etc. You wouldn't be able to use anyone elses card because it would be registered to them only. If something like this happens we're all screwed.

OMG teh police are harassing meh!

qFyOxS5jL5o&feature=related

Lavinder
07-02-09, 16:12
My answer to that video - remove football :p.

Nausinous
07-02-09, 16:12
What are you trying to say Goose?

Mr.Burns
07-02-09, 16:12
The dangers of a collective mob mentality.

Nausinous
07-02-09, 16:18
The dangers of a collective mob mentality.

I understand that but I wasn't suggesting creating a mob. I was going for more of a gentle protest were we don't throw things at the police.

Mr.Burns
07-02-09, 16:20
Sorry Nausinous, I was commenting on the video. I agree in principle but in reality, mob mentality can form very quickly.

@Goose: I'm all for freedom of speech but no posting videos with swearing in them.

Goose
07-02-09, 16:23
Sorry Nausinous, I was commenting on the video. I agree in principle but in reality, mob mentality can form very quickly.

@Goose: I'm all for freedom of speech but no posting videos with swearing in them.

Sorry, i must have missed that over all the free speech they were practicing...

We certainly would make a failed police state with our police force and laws.

Nausinous
07-02-09, 16:31
Sorry Nausinous, I was commenting on the video. I agree in principle but in reality, mob mentality can form very quickly.

@Goose: I'm all for freedom of speech but no posting videos with swearing in them.

I agree that is often the case and sometimes protesting doesn't achieve anything because sometimes the intellectual members of a protest are drowned out by the protesters who are fuelled by testosterone and adrenaline so that the crowd looks like nothing more than a gathering of thugs.

It's too late anyway, I know for a fact that the government have a sever with the information of every man, women and child in the country under one military base. Why they are allowed to record our whole lives, activities and movements is far beyond me. Government should of set some kind of law or legislation to stop from such a thing from happening in the beginning but I imagine the changes are already being made and we are walking blindly into a future were government uses terrorism as a trojan horse to limit civil liberties.

Geck-o-Lizard
07-02-09, 16:35
Just to put the danger of terrorism into perspective (for Americans)... (http://eyewashstation.blogspot.com/2007/11/odds-of-dying-in-terrorist-attack.html)

You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

You are six times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

You are eight times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

Goose
07-02-09, 16:35
I know for a fact that the government have a sever with the information of every man, women and child in the country under one military base.

This an internet fact? Or a, 'i work at this military base everyday and read them during my lunch break' fact?

Hardcore server though, good for hosting future mmorpgs i would think.

EmeraldFields
07-02-09, 16:37
Just to put the danger of terrorism into perspective (for Americans)... (http://eyewashstation.blogspot.com/2007/11/odds-of-dying-in-terrorist-attack.html)

While we're constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they?

:vlol: LOL!

Mad Tony
07-02-09, 16:37
I don't think it's too late at all, Nausinous (nor do I think it's as bad as you're making it out to be). I honestly think all this surveillance is largely to do with the Labour party. Notice how the Conservatives and the Lib Dems were opposed to making the 28-day detention limit longer? Whenever there's a new law proposed which would increase government surveillance it seems like Labour are the only ones who support it.

Ward Dragon
07-02-09, 16:37
Just to put the danger of terrorism into perspective (for Americans)... (http://eyewashstation.blogspot.com/2007/11/odds-of-dying-in-terrorist-attack.html)

So that means our anti-terrorist policies are working :pi:

While we're constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they?

Dearborn, Michigan.

Goose
07-02-09, 16:42
While we're constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they?

Right next door if you live in Birmingham!

S6a-YgZgwQ8&feature=related

EmeraldFields
07-02-09, 16:43
Dearborn, Michigan.

:eek: I never heard this story!

Just found it!
Story (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/08/terror_arrests.php)

Right next door if you live in Birmingham!

[youtube]

I'm fine with people practicing Islam, but this goes a bit far.

Goose
07-02-09, 16:58
I'm fine with people practicing Islam, but this goes a bit far.

Comically enough, after the original program was released, the police tried to arrest the film makers, rather then investigate the clerics.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/film_tv/dispatches+reported+to+ofcom/660762

Then when they were cleared over the police allegation, the police still did nothing about the clerics....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/19/channel4.ofcom

Mad Tony
07-02-09, 17:02
I think the current government are way too hard on religious extremism. It's a sad fact that all four of the 7/7 bombers were British citizens. In fact, I'm surprised there hasn't been a major terrorist attack here since 7/7.