UK Politics

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

How? They work and they keep survellance on the close area.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But later you say that you don't have a problem with private businesses using cameras. (I don't have a problem with you boycotting Wal-mart, I'm just confused by the two statements.)

It is their right to use them if they choose - it's their property - it is also my right not to go into those stores that choose to assume you are a criminal instead of a customer. it wasn't just because of the magnitude of cameras in wal-mart although that was part of the reason I boycotted them. It also has to do with I had a bunch of shopping to do and they were going to make me pay for my DVDs in the electronics department (where there were 10 people in line) and then I was going to have to check out a second time when I picked up the rest of my stuff. They also searched my bags on several occasions.

We're talking about the government here. They already know your liscence plate number, age, income etc. etc. It's not wrong of them to know that, but it would be wrong if they used it to discriminate against you in some way.
Similarly, it would be wrong if the cameras were pointed into people's windows, but not if they automatically took a picture of anyone running a red light at an intersection, for example.

The person behind the camera doesn't have access to that information. Surely you must realize that not EVERYONE in government or in a security position is a 'good guy" right? Hmmm - let me see what's going on here with his hot young girl who lives in Apartment 3b with a license number of ADF143 who seems to always leave at 6:30am sharp and comes home everyday at 4:30pm.

Are the cameras in Britain proposed or already in place? What are/will they be used for?

Already in place.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Do you not trust your government, JD?

I don't trust any government - that is why we have checks and balanaces, that is why we have the Constitution. If you read about the founding of our government - you will see that our founding fathers didn't trust the government. They put these checks in place to make sure that the government never got too strong or powerful and guarantee that personal freedom and privacy was protected.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The person behind the camera doesn't have access to that information. Surely you must realize that not EVERYONE in government or in a security position is a 'good guy" right? Hmmm - let me see what's going on here with his hot young girl who lives in Apartment 3b with a license number of ADF143 who seems to always leave at 6:30am sharp and comes home everyday at 4:30pm.

So the cameras will see everything that happens there. Not everyone in the government is a bad guy!

[Pytt]

I think this is a interesting subject. I'm ceartainly for cameras, beacuse they help the police solve crime. but I agree with you, JD also. I think it is scary that the government may track us, and see every move we make.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Pytt

as far as i get it, it is the Europe, and mainly the british government JD don't trust.

You edited this out based on my post above - but I'll address this...

From what I have seen - Europe doesn't have the same protections on personal freedom and privacy that Americans hold dear and that our constitution enforces. The supreme court has struct down several things out of the patriot act which they deemed unconstitutional. In Indiana - they were having road blocks to check for drugs - which I was completely against and even got into an argument with the Governor the one time when Channel 6 News had a live webchat with him. it's funny - he was so sure it was acceptable and after arguing for a while - he dropped it - but the Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional and Indiana was forced to stop doing those ridiculous roadblocks (I wanted so much to call hijm up and ask him "so who was right?" . I'm also against alcohol roadblocks too (those for some unimaginable reason have been upheld though).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

So the cameras will see everything that happens there. Not everyone in the government is a bad guy!

So then why not just let the government do spot checks in your house then? Make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Cameras aren't t keep you personally under 24 hour surveillance(sp) it is to make sure if anything illegal happens they can stop it happening again. Stopping and checking your house would be implying that you yourself under surveillance.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't trust any government - that is why we have checks and balanaces, that is why we have the Constitution. If you read about the founding of our government - you will see that our founding fathers didn't trust the government. They put these checks in place to make sure that the government never got too strong or powerful and guarantee that personal freedom and privacy was protected.

But governments are just made up of people. Some of them are good, and some bad. I want to know why you think the government is desparate to spy on its citizens, not what the founding fathers thought.

Maybe this is the difference between Europe and the US on security - we don't think our government is out to get us all the time

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are the cameras in Britain proposed or already in place? What are/will they be used for?

As JD said, they're already in place. There are several kinds that I know about:

The cameras used to guard private property (if this property is a public area, CCTV cameras often aren't used. For example, there's a large garage at the end of my road which has CCTV coverage so there's no coverage for the rest of the surrounding area).

The 'government' ones*. These cover main streets - where I live we have a couple on the high street and one or two on the seafront. Basically the places where the most people go, not residential areas.

Speed cameras. To stop people breaking the law on speeding, going through red lights etc.

Some places like railway stations also have them, and they are very helpful in solving crimes in areas where there are no police on the beat.

* this may be a Local or County Council issue rather than a government one - I'm not quite sure.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Cameras aren't t keep you personally under 24 hour surveillance(sp) it is to make sure if anything illegal happens they can stop it happening again. Stopping and checking your house would be implying that you yourself under surveillance.

No - not if they checked everyones house. That just means that everyone is under surveillance - just like if it was a camera. it's a way to prevent crime. No one still answered my question though - how much freedom and privacy are you will to lose for securitry? And when the cameras don't eliminate crime - what is the next step people are willing to go through. In the future will people be willing to have GPS systems inbedded in their body so that their every move of every second can be tracked - that way if their is a murder - who was at that location when it took place. Think about how handy that would be in the Laci Peteron case. If Steve and her were both embedded with a GPS chip that time stamped the locations - there would be no question if he killed her and dumped her body from his boat. Would you be willing to do that? Remember - it would cut down on crime and god knows - NO ONE in the government woud EVER try to use the tracking device in a bad way?

remember - hitler came to power and killed jews - not all in the beginning - but by slowly taking away things the majority of people were willing to give up. Guns, pornography, etc. Also remember - the burning of pornography - later became the burning of books. It's a slippery slope when you give the government too much power and control and when you willingly reliquish your privacy and freedoms.

So how long do you think Putin will be president of Russia now? prime example of someone rolling back freedom, privacy and consolidating his of power. When the US Congress gave Clinton the line item veto - which allowed him to veto a part of a bill and sign the rest of into law - the Supreme Court struct it down because they deemed that it gave the president too much control - which I agree. I completely left the president in control of legislation - instead of it being a matter of compromising.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by sun-star

But governments are just made up of people. Some of them are good, and some bad. I want to know why you think the government is desparate to spy on its citizens, not what the founding fathers thought.

I'm not saying they are desperate to spy on it's citizens - but as you said - government is made up of the people. What happens when someone becomes elected who is power hungry? or see nothing wrong in abusing his/her authority? Do you have any stop measures to prevent this from happening? And once you have reliquished your freedom and privacy - how easy do you think it will be to get it back if you find out that you've "made a mistake"?

Maybe this is the difference between Europe and the US on security - we don't think our government is out to get us all the time

See we have personal experience with an abusive government - namely Britain. It's also surprising that you should say that when Europe has given the world - Stalin, Hitler, Napolean, Mussilini.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

GPS could harm the patient of the operation whereas cameras are just monotiring actions. People shouldn't be doing anything that a policeman/woman wouldn't be happy to see themselves. So if you have nothing to hide then cameras shouldn't be a problem.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for the info Sun-star.

JD, if I had ever been treated the way you had by Wal-mart I would probably boycott them too. That sucks.

I did read everyone's comments following mine, and I only have a comment on this.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The person behind the camera doesn't have access to that information. Surely you must realize that not EVERYONE in government or in a security position is a 'good guy" right? Hmmm - let me see what's going on here with his hot young girl who lives in Apartment 3b with a license number of ADF143 who seems to always leave at 6:30am sharp and comes home everyday at 4:30pm.

That's me! Don't eat me!

Well, they have systems to put trustworthy people in positions with responsibility in Britain.

For example, police officers have a huge responsibility. Maybe a similar method would be used to decide who would operate and observe the cameras. You would want someone who would be good at finding possible evidence for a crime etc. and who could be trusted not to point one into people's windows.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

GPS could harm the patient of the operation whereas cameras are just monotiring actions. People shouldn't be doing anything that a policeman/woman wouldn't be happy to see themselves. So if you have nothing to hide then cameras shouldn't be a problem.

That's the age old feeling - "if I have nothing to hide - then it shouldn't matter". That's how people felt in the beginning when Hitler was banning small things and keeping an eye on his citizens. If you weren't hiding anything - you had nothing to worry about.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's the age old feeling - "if I have nothing to hide - then it shouldn't matter". That's how people felt in the beginning when Hitler was banning small things and keeping an eye on his citizens. If you weren't hiding anything - you had nothing to worry about.

... unless you were Jewish!

I see your point here, but I think this is a very different situation. The wrongness of Hitler's actions was in the orchestrated murder of millions of people, not having public security cameras (if that is what they were).

If he used cameras to gather information to discriminate against German citizens, then that is wrong as I stated before.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, they have systems to put trustworthy people in positions with responsibility in Britain.

For example, police officers have a huge responsibility. Maybe a similar method would be used to decide who would operate and observe the cameras. You would want someone who would be good at finding possible evidence for a crime etc. and who could be trusted not to point one into people's windows.

There is no way of guaranteeing this to be the case. There is no guaranteeing that someone getting the job - may at one point have a change of heart. I don't think that giving up your privacy is a way of combatting crime. I think it's merely the beginning of Big Brother.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Yet Hitler was arguebly a terrorist. Blair isn't. Hitler wanted to kill and Blair doesn't. There is a distinctive difference.

[Nurvingiel]

At some point, you have to trust the government. There are corrupt cops out there, but pretty much all of them are just trying to do their jobs as best they can. I think a similar system would apply to security cameras.

I mean... there's no guarantee that someone from the government isn't reading our posts right now! Hey... is this your tinfoil hat?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

... unless you were Jewish!

It wasn't initially directed at jews - that only came after he had taken away enough freedoms. By that time - it was too late to do anything.

I see your point here, but I think this is a very different situation. The wrongness of Hitler's actions was in the orchestrated murder of millions of people, not having public security cameras (if that is what they were).

He didn't kill jews in the beginning - it was all slowly done. He first started out with the citizens in general and taking away everyones freedom - not just the jews. Then he made jews identify themselves with a star of david - come on - how much of an infringement is that. It was only after that that he started killing them.

If he used cameras to gather information to discriminate against German citizens, then that is wrong as I stated before.

Once the cameras are in place and your freedoms and privacy have been eaten away - who is to stop some hitler like figure coming to abuse the system that the citizens so willingly put at his disposal?