Britain: Police State?

[Analogue Boy]

You will not be required to use a card unless you wish to work, use the banking or health system, travel or receive benefits


that just about covers everyone except bums in card board boxes.

and perhaps terrorists !!!

You forgot that with a mandatory ID Card which is also designed to combat fraud, it won't be too long before all online purchases require your ID number before checking out.

Another thing is the way they could be used by the police in cases of legitimate demonstrations, protests or even leafleting. Say things got a bit out of hand and you were passing the area as an innocent bystander, Police with a handheld reader could demand you produce your ID and swipe it and add it to the numbers of those present. It wouldn't really matter then whether you were demonstrating or not. Your prescence there would simply be added to the database.

 

[techybloke666]

Your scaring me JimV !!!!!!!!!!!!

useful info for those that care TED

http://www.privacyinternational.org/iss ... w-1204.pdf

 

[lupinwick]

More erosions of liberties?

On Monday the Guardian carried a letter from Nick Gibson who told how he had taken over a pub in Islington, London, and had to apply for a new licence, which required the approval of a number of organisations, including the police.

"I was stunned," he wrote, "to find that the police were prepared to approve – ie not fight – our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them on request."

He wrote to his MP, Emily Thornberry, but got no reply until today when she sent a letter to the Guardian – a somewhat patronising note, suggesting that this was indeed a civil liberties issue and that the staff from the nearby local Labour headquarters should be able to come and go "without being stolen from and intimidated". She also used the opportunity to take a swipe at the local Liberal Democrat council, which has refused to install street CCTV in Islington.

Typically for a Labour MP, she did not answer the substance of Gibson's complaint, which is that there seems to exist an unofficial policy of forcing pub licencees to install CCTV. In effect, Gibson had been compelled to go along with the policy at his pub – the Drapers Arms – to keep making a living. "When was it that the constant small erosion of our liberties became irreversible?" he asked.

It is clear that the police do indeed have an unofficial policy that they implement in a thoroughly undemocratic manner when advising on licence applications – not on the merits of the case but on the applicant's compliance with their policy.

I contacted the Metropolitan Police Service and asked what was going on. Their statement read as follows:

The MPS overall does not have a policy of insisting CCTV is installed within licensed premises before supporting licence applications. However, individual boroughs may impose blanket rules in support of their objectives to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences when they do occur. Islington is one of the most densely populated districts for licensed premises in London and the borough's licensing authority is committed to providing a safe environment in which to socialise.

Islington council has suggested that Gibson can withdraw his application, take away the CCTV cameras and apply again for the licence. A sensible council would of course waive the need for this absurd procedure, and at the same time publicly state that it will stand against the surveillance creep that is blighting every city centre in Britain. CCTV has its purposes but the idea that someone going for a pint must give up their privacy by having their image taken and stored is repellent to all notions of a free society.

Gibson has been put in a difficult position and I would expect the council to make the first move to resolve what is a minor but also crucial issue of privacy, which of course is guaranteed to each one of us by the Human Rights Act.

If it fails to do so, he might like to provide a mask at the entrances to his pub with a suggestion that if people want to drink in private they hold up the mask as they pass the cameras. Or possibly drinkers may like to go equipped with their own mask. A V for Vendetta mask seems appropriate (£4.99).

Perhaps there should be a V for Vendetta evening at the Drapers Arms. If Gibson would like to suggest a date in the next two weeks, I will publicise it.

In the meantime, it is important that the police understand it is not their business to use their influence to make and implement policy affecting people's privacy.

Source

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

The point about tax is that Income Tax was introduced in 1799 as a temporary measure to finance the War Against Terror...er I mean Napoleon. The fact that it has become the cornerstone of Public Finance is just one precedent where a measure can have wider implications for future generations.

Also, I think it's wrong to say that the Government can only enforce the Law on those who subscribe to it. That principle simply wouldn't hold up in court.

Things were very different in 1799. For a start most people didn't have the vote nor the capacity to organise themselves the way they do now. It's also worth pointing out that it was later abolished as well. In any case they're two quite different propositions. Income tax will still be useful even if its reach is not total - if 90% of the population pays it then vast numbers of schools, hospitals, roads, benefits programmes etc etc can be paid for. The fact that 10% may not pay it is not a good reason not to implement. With mandatory ID cards it's pretty much pointless if 10% don't co-operate (and it would be extremely easy not to co-operate) it becomes pointless since once would reasonably assume the people who need to be monitored would feature in this 10 percent.

It's also worth raising the issue of the poll tax here as well...

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ted

its easy to make them compulsory without the need for them to announce it.

all it takes is

ID cards are needed for any public service access and access and purchases to supermakets.

job done, without your card you would be buggered !

That doesn't, however, make them mandatory to the ends which you earlier described. A compulsory card and the mandatory carrying of identification are quite different. You already have a bank card, a national insurance card and an NHS card but the authorities could no more enforce you to carry them at all time in a society resembling ours than they could an ID card.

 

[lupinwick]

Things were very different in 1799. For a start most people didn't have the vote nor the capacity to organise themselves the way they do now.

I dunno about organisation, 60,000-80,000 at St Peter's Field in 1819? Not bad, pity about the ensuing heavy handedness though...

 

[techybloke666]

What if I simply refused to use the card?
You will not be required to use a card unless you wish to work, use the banking or health
system, travel or receive benefits. As Mr Blunkett advised
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ext/20703-
07.htm Parliament: "The issuing of a card does not force anyone to use it, although in terms
of drivers or passport users, or if services - whether public or private - required some proof of
identity before expenditure was laid out, without proof of identity and therefore entitlement to
do it I doubt whether non-use of it would last very long."

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

But if we had mass protests that got out of hand, then the army might be used.

Well that's simply enforcing order (or abusing it, if you like), it's not the enforcement of the mandatory carrying of ID. The same impracticalities would arise on the everyday level. It also seems rather unlikely in a country which has a clear mistrust of government on such issues that they could deploy the army against the public without it having a negative effect on them in the polls. Without the suspension of democracy it would be suicidal for the government and if they're capable of suspending democracy whilst having to take such steps then it seems rather pointless to worry about the carrying of ID cards.

 

[techybloke666]

Ted

if you can't actually do anything useful without a card it is effectively mandatory , surely you can see this, a bank card is mandatory to use a cashline machine, you need your NI number to get a job.

if the ID card is tied into these you will need an ID CARD to survive.

unless you are a terrorist living in a pre paid rented accomodation with loads of cash and a stolen car.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

National ID card offences - already in place
19.10.2006 17:03

New offences under the ID Cards Act include the following (at least correct just before Bill was passed):
*refusal to obey an order to register = £2500
*failure to submit to fingerprinting and biometric scanning = £2500
*failure to provide information demanded by the government = £2500
*failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time = £2500
*failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card = up to 1yr in prison and/or a fine
*failure to renew a card = £1000
*failure to attend subsequent fingerprinting and biometric scanning when demanded = £1000
*failure to provide subsequent information when demanded = £1000
*failure to attend subsequent interview at specified place and time when demanded = £1000
*failure to notify authorities of any change in personal circumstances (including change of address) = £1000
*providing false information = up to 2 years and/or a fine

None of those deal with the mandatory carrying of ID cards, though, and certainly not in the way which would you compared it to with real-time permanent surveillance.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

You will not be required to use a card unless you wish to work, use the banking or health system, travel or receive benefits


that just about covers everyone except bums in card board boxes.

and perhaps terrorists !!!

Precisely - which is why it would be pointless to implement the kind of scheme that you've proposed.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

You forgot that with a mandatory ID Card which is also designed to combat fraud, it won't be too long before all online purchases require your ID number before checking out.

They currently require a form of identification anyway.

Another thing is the way they could be used by the police in cases of legitimate demonstrations, protests or even leafleting. Say things got a bit out of hand and you were passing the area as an innocent bystander, Police with a handheld reader could demand you produce your ID and swipe it and add it to the numbers of those present. It wouldn't really matter then whether you were demonstrating or not. Your prescence there would simply be added to the database.

And if you didn't have your identity card with you..?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

More erosions of liberties?

On Monday the Guardian carried a letter from Nick Gibson who told how he had taken over a pub in Islington, London, and had to apply for a new licence, which required the approval of a number of organisations, including the police.

"I was stunned," he wrote, "to find that the police were prepared to approve – ie not fight – our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them on request."

He wrote to his MP, Emily Thornberry, but got no reply until today when she sent a letter to the Guardian – a somewhat patronising note, suggesting that this was indeed a civil liberties issue and that the staff from the nearby local Labour headquarters should be able to come and go "without being stolen from and intimidated". She also used the opportunity to take a swipe at the local Liberal Democrat council, which has refused to install street CCTV in Islington.

Typically for a Labour MP, she did not answer the substance of Gibson's complaint, which is that there seems to exist an unofficial policy of forcing pub licencees to install CCTV. In effect, Gibson had been compelled to go along with the policy at his pub – the Drapers Arms – to keep making a living. "When was it that the constant small erosion of our liberties became irreversible?" he asked.

It is clear that the police do indeed have an unofficial policy that they implement in a thoroughly undemocratic manner when advising on licence applications – not on the merits of the case but on the applicant's compliance with their policy.

I contacted the Metropolitan Police Service and asked what was going on. Their statement read as follows:

The MPS overall does not have a policy of insisting CCTV is installed within licensed premises before supporting licence applications. However, individual boroughs may impose blanket rules in support of their objectives to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences when they do occur. Islington is one of the most densely populated districts for licensed premises in London and the borough's licensing authority is committed to providing a safe environment in which to socialise.

Islington council has suggested that Gibson can withdraw his application, take away the CCTV cameras and apply again for the licence. A sensible council would of course waive the need for this absurd procedure, and at the same time publicly state that it will stand against the surveillance creep that is blighting every city centre in Britain. CCTV has its purposes but the idea that someone going for a pint must give up their privacy by having their image taken and stored is repellent to all notions of a free society.

Gibson has been put in a difficult position and I would expect the council to make the first move to resolve what is a minor but also crucial issue of privacy, which of course is guaranteed to each one of us by the Human Rights Act.

If it fails to do so, he might like to provide a mask at the entrances to his pub with a suggestion that if people want to drink in private they hold up the mask as they pass the cameras. Or possibly drinkers may like to go equipped with their own mask. A V for Vendetta mask seems appropriate (£4.99).

Perhaps there should be a V for Vendetta evening at the Drapers Arms. If Gibson would like to suggest a date in the next two weeks, I will publicise it.

In the meantime, it is important that the police understand it is not their business to use their influence to make and implement policy affecting people's privacy.

Source

Which particular liberty is being lost?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Things were very different in 1799. For a start most people didn't have the vote nor the capacity to organise themselves the way they do now.

I dunno about organisation, 60,000-80,000 at St Peter's Field in 1819? Not bad, pity about the ensuing heavy handedness though...

Still quite a different scenario, though. People at that time had less rights and less expectation of their rights being respected so reaction would inevitably be different. Also, it hardly needs pointing out that 60,000-80,000 pales in comparison to the Stop The War demonstration in 2003 or even the pro-fox hunting on shortly after.

 

[lupinwick]

Agreed, but very impressive given the size of the population at that time and the difficulties inherent in organising that many people relying I'd guess on hand-bills, word of mouth etc. etc.

 

[techybloke666]

10% DRIVERS FACE £1,000 FINES FOR DEFECTIVE NUMBER PLATES



Swinton warns motorists to be vigilant when buying registration plates

One in ten motorists face fines of up to £1,000 for driving with registration plates that do not conform to DVLA regulations, according to Swinton, the UK’s leading high street car insurance retailer.

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipment failed to recognise 12% of vehicle registration plates in a five month period due to defective number plates. This means that up to 12% of vehicles do not comply with DVLA regulations leaving drivers vulnerable to on-the-spot fines.

With the growing use of automated speed cameras and surveillance equipment, police are being extra vigilant towards number plates which do not conform to strict guidelines issued by the DVLA which specify the typeface, size, distance between the lettering and colouring of the characters on the plate.

An online survey of 1,764 Swinton motor insurance customers found that 68% of motorists did not know if their number plate conformed to DVLA regulations, and a worrying 21% believed that their plates might not conform to correct standards.

Steve Chelton, Insurer Development Manager, for Swinton said: “Many drivers are unaware of the strict guidelines imposed by the DVLA on registration plates. If you are in any doubt it is best to take your car to one of the 35,000 businesses registered with the ‘The Register of Number Plate Suppliers’ which was set up in 2003 to regulate number plates across the country and reduce criminal activity.

“If you are thinking about buying a new registration plate, make sure it is purchased from a reputable dealer and ensure that it conforms to the correct guidelines which can be found at DVLA website.”

“Although it can be quite costly to buy personalised number plates, such as Ronaldo’s recent £150,000 purchase of registration CR7, it is relatively inexpensive to replace an existing plate, costing as little at £8.”

One motorist, Heather Price from Manchester, said: “I got stopped by the police on my way to work. They told me that the letters on my private number plate were not spaced correctly and that I was breaking the law. Fortunately I got off with a warning but I have had to get my plates replaced.”


http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_ ... 64&hilite=

we can't have the anpr big brother database being cheated of info can we.

how would our police state know where we had been and when and for how long

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Haven't the regulations regarding the spacing and lettering on number plates been around for over 30 years?

 

[techybloke666]

So let me get this staight mr Chief constable such and such

you've iplemented a multi million pound surveilence system that monitors 50 million car journeys a day every day and you store all of them in a database for 5 years.. wasn't the first anpr a MI5 security system ?
yes I thought it was.

but anpr does not work on fake plates ? so you have to catch em by hand ?

so all the crooks out there , that you implememted this system for are free to drive where ever they wish on fake plates without going into the database !
And don't forget sir most crooks drive stolen cars, you will think the driver is someone innocent ?

so whose details are we left with in the datebase ? sir ?

ah yes I see all the innocent people driving their cars are being monitored successfully.

:-(

isnt that invasion of privacy sir ?
is the database safe ?

what if the database security is hacked god forbid !!

sorry what ws that sir could you say that again please

you can monitor the speed of all the cars being tracked , you mean like a giant speed camera system ?

wow thats a cool thing to be able to do on the back of a flawed rollout of something to stop criminals.

clever Mr Policemen.

 

[techybloke666]

Haven't the regulations regarding the spacing and lettering on number plates been around for over 30 years?

quite possibly, but any savvy crook worth his salt knows if he makes a fake number plate based on someone elses, and uses a slightly different size and font and spacing can fool the anpr system and not be tracked, thus relying on mobile coppers to be vigilant.

the whole idea of the system is to be able to reduce police in cars , thus saving pennys.
and catch the bad guys ? well thats what they tell you anyway.

could be a massive speeding trap combined with gps location technology and civil cctv.

that should raise some money.

excuse me sir, can I issue you with tyhis £1000 fine for having a non compliant number plate, of course officer I won't be paying it anyway, Mr smith from 23 acorn ave will get the summons , not me the terrorist !

yep no loop holes there then !

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that most criminals drive stolen cars but let's assume for a second that's true. Wouldn't the fact that they would be driving cars with plates that can be read and have been most likely reported stolen be of assistance in capturing them?

In any case they're hardly free to flout the law - if they get caught (which they could quite easily be if traffic wardens or police were encouraged to look out for them) then they can be fined and risk greater intrusion by police. Not having the system would presumably make it even easier to go about breaking the law with impunity.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

you can monitor the speed of all the cars being tracked , you mean like a giant speed camera system ?

Oh yeah, I forgot that people who break the speed limit aren't criminals, just the innocent victims of the facist bully boys who currently masquerade as a police force.

 

[Analogue Boy]

You forgot that with a mandatory ID Card which is also designed to combat fraud, it won't be too long before all online purchases require your ID number before checking out.

They currently require a form of identification anyway.

Well we all know how online transactions are impossible to hack.
We've all seen there's nothing to worry about with stores like TK MAXX having access to your credit details.
There have been absolutely no reports of the Government losing data or any hints that collated data would be made accessible to private, non-governmental companies.

Which is just as well really as complications involving losing your identity in future could make having your bank account robbed at mousepoint look trivial.

Once your personal data is handed over, That's it. It'll be a target for every hacker in the world and you can't get it back.

 

[techybloke666]

It is likely that ANPR will be supplemented by electronic vehicle identification (EVI) schemes, notably RFID tags built into the bodywork of vehicles in addition to tags on plates

hmmmm yet another surveilance item that can be tracked.

http://www.caslon.com.au/anprnote2.htm

whole page is worth reading !!!!!!!!!!!!!

One critic sniffed that

traditional law enforcement is based on the assumption that the police only track and watch people where solid evidence of criminal activity already exists. It does not involve tracking everybody going about their normal business by using electronic tools such as CCTV, ANPR and systematic profiling that infers past deeds or future action on the basis of your residential address, work address, sex, how much tax you paid last year and whether you travel overseas.

but surely we must be guilty of something the police can pin on you, maybe from 5 years ago !!!!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Haven't the regulations regarding the spacing and lettering on number plates been around for over 30 years?

quite possibly, but any savvy crook worth his salt knows if he makes a fake number plate based on someone elses, and uses a slightly different size and font and spacing can fool the anpr system and not be tracked, thus relying on mobile coppers to be vigilant.

the whole idea of the system is to be able to reduce police in cars , thus saving pennys.
and catch the bad guys ? well thats what they tell you anyway.

could be a massive speeding trap combined with gps location technology and civil cctv.

that should raise some money.

excuse me sir, can I issue you with tyhis £1000 fine for having a non compliant number plate, of course officer I won't be paying it anyway, Mr smith from 23 acorn ave will get the summons , not me the terrorist !

yep no loop holes there then !

Does the fact that a system is not perfect neccessarily make it worthless? Some criminals have always been able to get around certain laws but does that mean that the laws should be abandoned?

Of course, the scenario you describe above could be pretty muchavoided if the officer demanded an ID card.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

You forgot that with a mandatory ID Card which is also designed to combat fraud, it won't be too long before all online purchases require your ID number before checking out.

They currently require a form of identification anyway.

Well we all know how online transactions are impossible to hack.
We've all seen there's nothing to worry about with stores like TK MAXX having access to your credit details.
There have been absolutely no reports of the Government losing data or any hints that collated data would be made accessible to private, non-governmental companies.

Which is just as well really as complications involving losing your identity in future could make having your bank account robbed at mousepoint look trivial.

Once your personal data is handed over, That's it. It'll be a target for every hacker in the world and you can't get it back.

Perhaps but that doesn't bolster the claims about a burgeoning police state one iota. Save for questioning the government's motivation to implement it - and there are arguably better explanations for why they may choose to do so - it simply illustrates the extent to which the government is incapable of establishing the kind of authoritarian or totalitarian order which its critics suggest.

Also the notion that once your personal details are hacked there is simply no way of getting it back seems to be based on an unfounded fear more than anything else. In what way would it be impossible to prove or disprove certain data held about an individual?

 

[techybloke666]

Well Ted

If I was a criminal, a good one hopefully!
were talking organised crime here not Joe Bloggs down the road

I would steal a car same model and colour , make a fake plate from another car same make and model, having stolen all these details from the database so kindly put together by the police.
make a fake ID , hence stealing that person identity for the duration of the crime.

and if the said crim does not leave behind any DNA evidence , hes home and dry.

and thats assuming the police got lucky and stopped me in the night earlier anyway, and asked me for my fake ID, that I left in my other pants, officer, hmmm maybe they should insist people driving cars also carry an ID card !!!! another one for them to add to the list.

black BMW series 3 1600
I wonder how many of thoses there are on the british roads to eyeball and clone for anpr bypassing. jesus you could have 20 plates in a month all ready to roll out.

So what about techonology creep ? many purposes for anpr , did someone pick the one that would be accepted by the public and not tell them about all the others , before they have been implemented ?

hmmmmmm

congestion charging
speeding
tracking
marketing

why should all our journeys be stored for 5 years Ted , these are innocent people not accused of any crime.

If you have a personal policeman follow you 24/7 on foot, how long before you turned around and said what do you think your up to Mr Copper ?

but its ok to do it to cars ?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ok if you were a criminal who apparently is capable of stealing two cars without alerting their owners to report the thefts to the police, can hastily scramble together fake identification and license plates whilst having access to the police database which you expertly hacked perhaps you might not get caught. However, the fact that hit and run drivers or people who park directly in front of people's front doors denying them the ability to get out of their house (as several twats have done with me) could be detected is not worth implementing because some people won't be caught, apparently. By that logic there's no point in having any laws whatsoever since the smarter criminal will get away with their crimes. That's ultimately the logical extension of this argument.

Also, it's hardly comparable to say that CCTV is like being 'followed' (a word used here to generate an emotional response based on the natural fear of predatory behaviour or stalking) by a policeman. You're not being stalked in any fashion simply because a camera is fixed on you. The reality is that nobody is watching you about 99% of the time. If people really felt the same emotion as someone who is habitually stalked then you would never enter a town centre or a shop again. How many people do you know who stay away from places with CCTV cameras in case someone is 'following' them?

Also, if innocent people are not being accused of any crime what is the problem with keeping the information? You might argue that it could be hacked in order to frame you in some way but then it could equally be capable of exonerating you from other accusations.

 

[Quake42]

Also, if innocent people are not being accused of any crime what is the problem with keeping the information?

Arguments like this are depressingly familiar. Some thoughts:

1. I think that people sometimes forget that the government, police and general state apparatus should be there to serve us, not the other way round. They exist because we allow them to. Not the other way round.

2. Police, bureaucrats and private companies should have to justify to us why they need this data. We should never be in a position where we have to explain why they don't.

3. If my nosy neighbour was keeping records of every journey I took, every visitor I have etc I would feel uncomfortable and - yes - violated. If it's not OK for my nosy neighbour why is it OK for the state to do so?

3. The (now rather old-fashioned) sentiment that privacy is a good thing in itself seems to be dying out. It's now assumed that various public and private sector bodies will want to hold excessive amounts of data on us and that this is just the way things are. Personally, I think that is a great shame.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Also, if innocent people are not being accused of any crime what is the problem with keeping the information?

Arguments like this are depressingly familiar. Some thoughts:

1. I think that people sometimes forget that the government, police and general state apparatus should be there to serve us, not the other way round. They exist because we allow them to. Not the other way round.

2. Police, bureaucrats and private companies should have to justify to us why they need this data. We should never be in a position where we have to explain why they don't.

Yes but I'm not asking as someone who is seeking to assert their authority or justify the collection of data, I'm just genuinely curious as to what specifically people fear about information being held in this way. Whether it should be held like this or not is another matter but as someone who has no particular brief for either perspective I'd like to know - it seems to produce strong emotions whilst apparently a rationalisation of the causes of those emotions is not required. The answer that no explanation is necessary is equally depressingly familiar to those who make this enquiry out of an attempt to understand the fears expressed irrespective of whether they want this sort of data collection or not.

In any case those who have expressed the need for data collection (although the specific requests do not neccessarily cross the boundaries between police, bureaucrats and private companies) have generally attempted to expain why it is neccessary. Whether we think these reasons valid or whether we belive them efficacious is another matter. The problem here is that we simply don't trust the types of people - mainly in government - who will be responsible for the implementation of such schemes.

However, it hardly has to be pointed out that governments are generally profligate wth public cash. In fact ours actually thinks that the more money you spend on something the better it becomes - witness Geoff Hoon's glee today when he specifically mentions how much new money is going to be spent on the railways. Whilst any extra jobs or industrial regenerations are more than welcome you could be forgiven for thinking Hoon would be even happier if he could announce an additional billion pound of spending for the same outcome. Likewise with these grand data collection projects.

Given that the current mantra of Gordon Brown is 'we are doing something, they (the Tories) are not' it's reasonable to suggest that many in the Labour party - though the Tories will no doubt have their own white elephants given the public purse - believe that the intervention and incursions into various aspects of an individal's life is generally a good thing. Combine that with the apparent belief that the abscense of money is at the root of all evil and it's not really surprising they will act, act often and act generously with other people's money.

And that's before any debate about the potential personal kickbacks involved, of course.

3. If my nosy neighbour was keeping records of every journey I took, every visitor I have etc I would feel uncomfortable and - yes - violated. If it's not OK for my nosy neighbour why is it OK for the state to do so?

Because your nosy neighbour is actively monitoring you. The fact that they're your neighbour puts them in an entirely different environment - their close proximity means that any fixation, obsession or attempt to find your vulnerabilites is centred on you as an individual rather than as a collection of meaningless journeys, purchases and medical conditions. And, as an individual, you will probably have to socially interact with them which can be an uncomfortable. Furthermore, the fact that they are not charged with upholding law and order nor are capable of doing so in any way would be suggestive of an undeclared motive, one which may be sinister or one which might be deemed unpleasant or embarrasing to be the subject of.

In the case of devices which can track various aspects of your life - movements, purchases and idiosycracies which will rarely if ever be scrutinised by anyone you know and who will almost certainly have no interest in knowing anything more about you, producing any kind of judgement on you or having any kind of influence over your life - these considerations should be absent.

I have witnessed plenty of people alter their habits,routines and behaviour because they want to avoid or ignore people they find judgemental, manipulative or simply nosy but I have yet to witness anyone refuse to go into a pub, shopping centre or drive down a particular road because there were cameras assembled there. And yet I'll wager that more than a few would express the same misgivings about the Orwellian Britain they happily drink, spend and drive in.

It's also reasonable to point out that we insist on different standards from private citizens than we place upon others, unless we wish to go down the route of the vigilante. I'd no more expect my neighbour to cordon off a stretch of road after what they believe to be an accident than I would allow them to collect a portion of my monthly wage.

3. The (now rather old-fashioned) sentiment that privacy is a good thing in itself seems to be dying out. It's now assumed that various public and private sector bodies will want to hold excessive amounts of data on us and that this is just the way things are. Personally, I think that is a great shame.

I can certainly accept that some people guard their privacy on an instinctive psychological level (although quite how anyone can be private in public is another rather confusing matter) and I would certainly do so myself in cases which I believe to be pivate ie involving me and no-one else, out of the sight of everyone else. However, it might be the case that this particular concept of privacy and its desirability is becoming old-fashioned because when asked why it should be so the questioner is informed that it's incumbent upon themself to demonstrate why it is not desirable. For those who don't understand this view it'unlikely to be changed without at least a little evangelism.

 

[techybloke666]

Just like old times ! like i've never been away !!.

hey Dr B are the police more interested with raising capital from people who are breaking the little laws or arresting proper criminals ?