Add to that how all credit and debit card transactions are logged, every book you lend from the library is tracked in their system, moves towards central medical record keeping and passport border controls every time you go abroad... Watch Enemy of the State for an entertaining idea of how easy it is to track our lives. Good thing most of it wouldn't be admissible in a court of law. As an aside, hellblazer.doom, you do know that sleep deprivation can lead to a heightened sense of paranoia, do you?
Just a word of caution if you're ever writing an essay etc. on this. You've taken a quote from a report and used it out of context, but left in an obvious tell-tale flag. By leaving in the first part of that sentence (see the emboldened bit) you've shot your argument in the foot. Anyone with any inquisitiveness would follow the link and see that you've chopped the end of the paragraph off, the bit that says "That, however, would be too simplistic a conclusion, and for several reasons.", which leads on to two pages of discussion about why that is. The fact that you've done that undermines your argument because it suggests you can't be relied upon to use sources in the correct context, and you allow your own bias to unbalance your argument - you've not ever worked for a tabloid newspaper, have you? I think a reason CCTV has become so prevalent in this country is because all too often too many members of the public can have their voting decisions swayed by politicians promising to be tough on crime. So when a government gets elected on such a promise they are under pressure to implement some new initiatives etc. but rather than spend a boat load of money on extra police officers they figure that installing a tonne of CCTV shows the shop-keepers and old grannies that something is being done to make their towns 'safer' in a more cost-effective manner. Well if their intended purpose is to appease the dumb-ass masses that something is being done to make their town centres safer then perhaps they are fulfilling their purpose, because it does appease the public, according to the report you quoted above anyhow. Do not underestimate how much the work of politicians and the police is about providing some form of assurance to the public. They can't just magic up money to double the amount of front-line police officers but they can much more easily find the money to install CCTV cameras. Now Joe Public has no idea how effective CCTV cameras really are because they don't get access to them, they just see that cameras have gone up, they see a few signs up, and so they accept that the area is 'safer' and that the politicians/police are doing something. The reality of the CCTV I've seen is that it's either from a fixed camera with a limited angle and range of view, or it's a camera that tracks across a given range of angles over time automatically unless it's overridden and directed manually. Therefore there's a huge amount of blind spots at any one time. When a crime has occurred the police request the footage from the relevant cameras and then have to sift through all that footage on the chance that the crime didn't take place in a blind spot. Once you've done that a couple of times and come up with nothing you soon start not bothering with investigating the CCTV unless it's a really serious incident - coppers just don't have the time to sit through hours of the dullest video imaginable to see whether or not the cameras caught your bike being nicked. If every town centre premises had cameras that covered all of their building all of the time, with an overlap with neighbouring premises and premises on the other side of the street, then the blind spots would reduce drastically and a police officer could maybe stand a better chance. But if CCTV is so ineffective at catching criminals, what do you think it is effective for? I don't really see how innocent civilians can be more under threat from it than the crims.
I disagree. The State is the enemy. Hellblazer is concerned about the erosion of individual liberty. Well that is what the State does, it's an inevitable consequence of putting 'society' ahead of 'individual'. I don't believe that there are any evil psychos running the country, not content until we're all living the Fahrenheit 451/Big Brother lifestyle. But it's just how the State system works. That is why Bradbury and Orwell et al were able to write the sort of books they did that over time seem more and more visionary and accurate - it's because it is the logical conclusion. 'Scoiety' is built on healthcare, policing, education and business. All things that over time have become increasingly burdened with bureaucracy and legislation, and just generally increasingly interfered with by the State. If one politician/party wants to stand out from the others they have to promise change and then be seen trying to deliver it. The best way to be seen is by going for the crowd-pleasing headline easy wins, banning this and that, cracking down on 'them' and generally going for the cheapest implementable method that will do enough to appease the ignorant masses. Either you want society or you don't. If you want it, you have to accept the inevitable consequences.
I vote for society. It's never done me any harm and I do not intend to harm it. This generally works for most people I think.
So you mean to tell me that I posted evidence, and you actually read through the evidence and didn't just take what I said as gospel? You felt compelled to actually read it and find out yourself? It had to happen sometimes In that post at first I had included the full quote and wrote a little part about it but I edited it out to see if anyone would actually read the sources and spot this. I'm assuming you did. Out of context? Not at all in the slightest and you need to bare the following in mind: 1. The other numerous other reports(far more than the 6 I posted) come to the same conclusion. CCTV camera's have no effect on crime(Which was their intended purpose). 2. So they come to the conclusion that it would be easy to conclude from the information presented in this report that CCTV is not effective; but this is far too simple a conclusion? I'm assuming you have read those two pages? They don't dismiss the raw facts provided In the same Home Office Study, once again that cctv has no effect on crime. 3. I'm not 100% sure what your getting at with your first point; the only part I left out was "That, however, would be too simplistic a conclusion, and for several reasons." That and only that. Their reasoning for this statement still does not dismiss hard evidence. I'm not giving you the evidence they are. I've mentioned this numerous times and it's in those reports, PANACEA is their aim. The intended purpose was crime detection, prevention and clean up. The actual reason for these camera's is nothing to do with crime and have little to no effect on crime. There are indeed a huge amount of blindspots, more cameras will solve that. I have already given this evidence. This is what you quoted me saying in your reply: I have already given this in a previous post and if you had read what you quoted me saying in your reply you would have gotten your answer. Did the words "Clearly as proven above" not invite you to scroll up as it is suggesting in a previous post of mine or another user, that evidence was posted. I don't disagree with you, your correct if that is indeed what they are used for, but again as proven above in the post you missed, this system is now being imbedded into core police strategy when it's intended purpose was to find stolen cars, quite a huge jump in strategy. Will it be used for what they say it will be used for? Absolutely not. The internet, your webcam, your ISP, phones, credit and debit card transaction cannot tell the ones in control what a smart meter can tell them, here's why. A smart meter can give away literally everything you do in the privacy of your own home to some extent. When you get up, when you go to sleep, when people are there, what order you do things, when you boil a kettle, when you turn the computer or tv on, when your using the hair dryer, when you eat your food, what you use to cook the food, and make an educated guess on what it is your actually eating etc etc and considering the government wants smart meters in everyones home by 2019-20, they will be able to get this information on everyone. Don't think it matters that they basically know your schedule? Well none of the things either of you mentioned can give them this information apart from your phone gps telling them your not at home and where you have been. And it doesn't stop there, just from the amount of gas and eleccy thats being pulled through they can guess a whole range of things. No device or company in the world can give huge advertising corporations this information so consistently and on such large scale. Think about it. I most certainly don't want them knowing this but thats my opinion. As time goes by they will refine their methods and we truely will be completely and utterly powerless to do anything, they will know exactly what we are doing, when we are doing it when ever they want to look. Trust them when they say they arn't logging or you can opt out? Yeah, like we havn't heard that one before. Amongst other things? Why pick on paranoia? Well I know why you conveniently chose paranoia... Correct, But define society. A society is defined as a group of people joined together by mutual consent. Was anybody asked if they wanted to join, or were they forced? Don't get me wrong, there are huge implications as well for leaving society as well as being a part of it. You give up alot of your liberties for these rules and benefits, but how can you consider it a benefit when you have no idea what you gave up? For example: Do you know your rights? If a copper violated your rights could you quote sections of the law to them and put across they are there to keep the peace and not escalate a situation? Most people are terrified of the police and have no idea what their rights are which is completely counter productive. If you do not know your rights, and have given them up for all the things you pay taxes for, and support from the state just incase you lose your job, how can you consider what they are giving you a benefit, when you have no idea what you have given it up for? So, by extension how can you know if it has done you harm? You don't have the full facts if this is the case. We should be given the choice, but we arn't, we are forced into this system. But who says the system should be bad? It can be fair and work for everybody in the same way but it doesn't. The people at the bottom are considered to be "lesser men". They think they are better than us mere mortals. Relevent roman maxims in law: Ignorance of the law excuses no man. Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory. Due process and doing things properly by the law of the land, has long since been forgotton.
I'm sorry, but you have entered the land of tinfoil hats now. Given that the rational part of the debate has finished, I'll leave you guys to it.
No, I probably could not quote sections of the law to a member of the police force. There is probably no reason I would have to either. If I stay within what is acceptable in society and abide the law, why would a member of the police ever have reason to approach me?
Have we? I don't think so, everything I said is perfectly true to some extent, and by that I mean differing opinions. CCTV, completely true, look at the evidence. Smart Meters again completely true. You may not realise how much information can be found about someones lifestyle, depending on when they use the energy, for how long and how much was used. This information can give alot away about you. And the rest was simply my opinion on our rights and people not knowing there rights. I don't see how you can now come to the conclusion this was now about tin foil hats, well isnt that exactly what it has always been about? What is a conspiracy exactly? Just people getting together talking and speculating. All of a sudden anyone who attempts this is a tin foil hat wearing paranoid person who needs to be avoided, ignored and all the rest of it? Wow didn't think you'd give up so easy Nexxo I have, and will always be rational and try to give you some form of inadmissable evidence for my claims. interpretation of the evidence is a matter of opinion. Judges interpret the law but alot of judges disagree, so who decides who is right and wrong? Isn't that the reason we have more than one judge? And courts for that matter. I see it happening on a daily basis, because you do not does not mean it won't happen. Also, I posted this earlier in the thread, you must have missed this. You also did not answer the question. Do you know your rights?
You also didn't answer my question. Why would the police approach me? For your example, why did they approach you? What did they say? You only mentioned that you assumed it was because you "had your phones out". I am fairly certain the police force have better things to do than quiz people using mobile phones, so can you elaborate more about what exactly you were doing, as I suspect there is more to it than just that. You see the police stopping people for no reason everyday? This I find very hard to believe. Are you following the police around to see who they approach and then listen in to see what is being said? Do I know my rights? Do you mean my rights if approached by the police? Probably not. Again, if I am doing nothing wrong, I would have no reason to fear the police, answer any questions they pose to me, quote anything about my rights. I can totally understand why they would start asking you questions if you were not being co-operative. What are you trying to hide?
Everything is true for a given value of 'true'. Doesn't mean a thing. Not true; conjecture. And totally beside the point. We were talking about the government using psychological manipulation, remember? A conspiracy is people in the act of conspiring, not people speculating about conspiracy. And speculation is not proof. Not sure what you mean by 'inadmissable' in this context. But what you seem to do is present an argument, present evidence, and when I challenge the argument or evidence you simply move on to a totally different argument and evidence. Hence we went from the government using psychological manipulation to sex education to how we raise our kids to CCTV to civil rights to Smart Meters. The rambling walls of text don't help. So I'm bowing out.
Of course, I was unclear. When I say true, I mean as oppose to false, which is often the judgement of people who think like I think, call it what you like. I agree it doesn't mean A thing, couldn't agree more. Again, I wasn't clear. When I say true regarding CCTV and Smart Meters, I mean I was simply pointing out that they were not having an effect on the intented purpose and giving you the evidence from the horses mouth and the fact that a device installed in peoples homes can potentially get this information. I work for an energy company so I personally know thats true, and if you doubt what I'm saying you can obviously find out for yourself. Again I wasn't being clear. When I said that I was meaning how a conspiracy comes to be not the actual definition. I responded to everything you say near enough, as anyone can see from me long winded posts, however we are all guilty of going off topic, which you cannot deny. However neither can I. I was not the one moving on in most cases, I was presenting an example, then people question the example and things go off topic. We are Nexxo all guilty of it, and why not mention it in the thread or point it out? It was not intentional. I was merely pointing out facts and backing them up. The daily mail links were nothing more than me remembering the story and googling, daily mail just happened to be the one I chose, and no other reason. Other media also reported the same things but no sod bothered to look or point this out. The cctv stuff I just provided you what I would call evidence from the horses mouth, but this is why we have debates isn't it? Everybody has a different opinion. Was what the government did purely stupidity and ignorance, or was something more malicious involved? You said the government maybe saw that .nl had had good success with their sex education methods and copied. I was giving you an example of what I think the government should be focusing on as their own reports are contradictory of what they are actually doing and what is actually happening. They spend silly amounts of money on their CCTV strategies. Like I say people question examples as well. These things happen and nobody does it on purpose. I accept my response was not entirely clear, I hope I've set that straight now but don't leave a debate just because, effectively it goes off topic. Obviously you don't have to, it is your choice, just saying tis all.
If you are not being clear, how can I meaningfully respond to what you are saying? If you keep changing the topic every time you get challenged, how can we meaningfully debate it? You see my problem.
Nexxo I'm not changing the topic, everybody was guilty of allowing the topic to go the way it did, why just pick on me? If I had just said well CCTV cameras are not at all useful and theres loads of evidence to prove it, you would have asked for evidence for my claim. So I get in there and explain everything in full before I am asked. I've repeated myself so many times in this thread it's unreal, and I was not clear in one or two or my posts and your now implying I have been unclear for the entire thread? I'm in no way changing the topic. You see my problem? For a start, if you go back and read the entire paragraph I replied to you with there are about 2-3 questions in there you have ignored. For seconds I did answer your question.... with an example. I can see from this you havn't read the thread, go back through my posts and you will find the answers to those questions. I'm out and about quite alot, I am only telling you what happened, which was, they saw us with phones out and didn't want us recording(which we are allowed to do). Security guard comes first and then police a few minutes later. It all started from the CCTV camera(their words). You find it hard to believe? I know it happens, go out and find out for yourself. Are you suggesting I do not have a right to privacy? If I am walking down the street doing absolutely nothing wrong and a police constable comes along and wants all my details, wants to search me and basically humiliate me under the basis that I may be doing something wrong is completely unconstitutional. What do I have to hide? My damn privacy, thats what. If I have done nothing wrong, then I have a right to privacy. You are suggesting everyone is guilty till they are proven innocent which IS completely true, thats how it is. We have to prove our innocence, well I think we should be innocent untill proven guilty(anyone disagree?). You cannot treat everyone as suspects which is what happens. You seem to think it is fine for the police to be able to search anyone they want with no probable cause. All I am doing is protecting my rights, it's your choice if you want to give yours up. Well you've no idea what it is your giving up so it doesn't matter does it?
Look at it from the police officer's point of view for a moment. If they've been called to a scene where they have had reports of someone (you) acting suspiciously, they are going to want to establish what has happened and generally that will involve asking you some questions. They will want to establish who you are, so the information you set out earlier - name, address, DOB, etc. will be required. I really don't see the problem here. Even if you've done nothing wrong, the report of someone (you) acting suspiciously has to be acted on. If you have indeed done nothing wrong, you'll be on your way pretty swiftly.
Fair enough but are you suggesting I don't have a right to privacy? Are you suggesting stood filming on a public road in a public place next to a public building is suspicious? We are well within our rights to stand in a public place next to a public building, filming. There is no law against it; quite the contrary: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm Says there quite clearly we can. So again I ask you was what I was doing suspicious in any way shape or form? No is the correct answer and even if they did suspect, simply coming and having a word with us to find out is hardly unreasonable. Film makers we reply, just making a film and that is what we were doing. But no they just didn't want us there, and admitted we were breaking no laws. So if they agree'd we broke no laws, to what point and purpose would they possibly have to try and take our details, search us and threaten us? You don't see a problem because you have absolutely no idea what your rights are. We were doing nothing wrong and they abused their power to try and move us, but why do you think we were not hauled away? He knew there was no law, and more importantly he knew I knew. We ended up chatting quite friendly in the end. Does that not suggest anything? If what I do was so suspicious, he would have arrested me wouldn't he? But he knew I was right.
Well, obviously it was suspicious, otherwise a security guard and then a policeman would have not got involved! What was the public building you were filming? If a policeman ask you any question and you are uncooperative, regardless if your rights, it just creates suspicion. Why act like this? Again, what are you trying to hide? Are you the type of person that goes out of their way to exercise their rights by any chance? I am out there a fair bit thanks. I spend a majority of my weekends in London and often have to go there for work. Not once have I ever seen anything like you describe. Of course not. But again, if you are walking down the street doing absolutely nothing wrong, why would a police constable come along and ask you details? Do you think they have the time or inclination to stop random people walking in the street. Your example does not answer this question at all - you were in fact doing something to raise suspicion.
Did you seriously actually read what I said? You've asked questions I've already answered. What was suspicious? Filming on a public road near a public building is suspicious? I have already mentioned numerous times, the security guards caught us on CCTV and they came out and told us to move, they must have already rung the police because the police were there within minutes of them coming out. This is the 3rd time now I've said this, they just did not want us filming there. You go inside and there are CCTV cameras everywhere, but if you try and record in there they will have you out so fast even if it's a public building. Even if they don't want you to do it inside, they certainly have absolutely no right to stop you outside. If you think filming is suspicious, please point to the law that says your not allowed to do it. If your in London alot you will know people walk around with cameras all the time. To keep the peace I would have shown them what was on the camera, but we do not have to give details, or be searched, or be threatened, we have the right to anonymity if we have broken no laws. Completely irrelevent, although I've seen it happen infront of alot of public buildings. On this occasion it was the City of London Magistrates. That comment shows the ignorance your currently absorbed in. So are you suggesting regardless of what my rights are, if a police constable asks me questions I HAVE to answer regardless of if I've done anything wrong? That sir is so completely incorrect I cannot stress enough. The police are public servants who are suppose to uphold the law, protect our rights and keep the peace, did you think thats really what they were doing when we had broken no law? What would then be the point of having rights? What your saying is, if a constable wants to know anything I have to answer or he will arrest me for being suspicious. That is against the law if he has no reasonable suspicion, and if you continue to repeat that stood in a public place filming is suspicious, you need to read the law and educate yourself on what your rights are. I neither have to answer police questions nor have to give any details if I had done nothing wrong. Why act like that? Because we had broken no laws and the constables on duty admitted we had broken no laws so why should we move? You really havn't got a clue what your rights are. Again what am I trying to hide? I've already answered this. My privacy which I have a right to. If I have done nothing wrong and they demand things from me why should I answer? I don't have to answer. As I've already mentioned, just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it doesn't occur does it? So what you've never seen it happen. You mean to tell me every time you see the police you go over and ask them exactly what it's about? Of course you don't so if your not involved how would you know if what I'm suggesting happens or not? You wouldn't. And I don't go out my way to exercise anything, I'm just out alot and know what my rights are. The police abuse their authority when the ones they are enforcing these silly rules on have no idea what the rules are. Easy for the police to abuse their authority when 99% of people don't have a clue. You clearly havn't read the thread and quite frankly I'm sick and tired of repeating myself for people who either cannot read or havn't bothered to read my posts. I was doing something to raise suspicion? Filimg in a public place for a short film next to a public building was suspicious? I don't think so and if you truely believe that then you really have no clue what your rights are or for that matter what the law says. The police have the time or inclination to stop random people walking in the street? In your own reply you put this: "Well, obviously it was suspicious, otherwise a security guard and then a policeman would have not got involved!" When have I made the claim the police do this? Your own reply proves this means nothing as you have acknowledged what I actually said, so I have no idea why you even asked this question. I suggest you re-read this as it answers alot of your questions: I really don't mean to come across as rude but please read my posts before asking questions. You cannot possibly tell me if what the police did, was unlawful or lawful, or legal or illegal if you don't know the law and don't know what your rights are. I'm not here to boast I know everything about the law which is far from the truth anyway, I just want people to know what their liberties are and keep hold of them if they choose to. If you do not know your rights you cannot possibly defend yourself so how do you know they arn't making it up as they go? You have no idea they arn't fiddling, and this is proven by your last reply. You truely believe what the Police currently do is acceptable, most won't admit it but they are scared of the police. They are master, we are obedient, we do what they say. It's suppose to be the other way round assuming we have broken no laws.
Sorry, but I have to chime in here. Where you were filming is totally relevant. The London Court of Magistrates deals with a.o. youth offenses; youth offenders enjoy anonymity in the press according to the law. That means no names, no pictures. Now how do you know that they weren't dealing with a particularly contentious case at that moment (say, overspill of the London riots), and how did they know that you weren't part of a news team, trying to get a glimpse of the accused? Just saying that there are rational explanations. In an era of heightened paranoia associated with terrorism the police do get skittish about people taking pictures near certain public buildings, so they are likely to just want to check you out. If this happened recently, we can throw anxiety about security during the Olympics into the mix. Stay calm, polite and cooperative (police deal with a lot of crap on a daily basis, after all) and you're OK. I see police as neither saints nor the Gestapo. They are just people doing a rather unpleasant sometimes dangerous and politically difficult job. We don't want them to impose on our liberties, but we all want them to crack down mercilessly when we are the victims of crime.
Hehe as usual nexxo you manage to find the one thing I forget to mention in my long winded posts. It isn't a bad thing because it's a very important point. I understand why not on the inside, but quite frankly outside is a public place. As said before I would have had no trouble giving the constable the camera to keep the peace to check for that reason as I completely understand. But the constable did not care and just wanted us to move. We are the most polite people you will ever meet face to face with the police, but this man really wouldn't let anyone speak, quoting Terrorism Acts at us and the like. I won't put up with it mate. Like I said I would hand over the camera to keep the peace for that reason but threatening us, searching us and getting details off us was not needed as we had broken no law. I cannot remember exactly but I'm fairly confident we were filming on a day and at a time with no more cases, but I cannot remember fully. I have every bit of respect for the Police, but as soon as they start quoting Terrorism Laws at me when they have admitted no laws are being broken I cannot stand by and watch it happen. We need the Police more than we think, but they arn't serving in our best interests anymore, either for themselves or their boss. Also, like I've said I've seen almost identical cases in front of alot of public buildings in or around the City of London and numerous other cities. They just don't want you filming.
Doesn't matter if it is inside the building or outside --as long as you can see the entrance of the building, you could film the defendant entering or leaving. It also does not matter what is on your camera phone --apart from the fact that the police officer cannot examine it without a warrant, I'm sure he does not want to faff about trying to browse your photo and video library on a smartphone that he possibly doesn't know his way on. And anyway, he may be worried about the filming that you are going to do, when, say, the defendant leaves the court in 15 minutes. He just wants you gone. Or how do you know that said court wasn't the topic of one of many anonymous terrorist threats that get phoned in to the police every day? Details matter. You forget the difficult position the police are in. Act too much, and you moan at them for abuse of powers. Act too little, and the next time a nutter manages to blow something up the public cries: "Why doesn't the police do something?!?". Meanwhile they deal with abusive drunks, petty criminals, domestic fights that would make Jeremy Kyle crap himself and irate citizens who somehow think that they can park on double yellows because they got their four-way flashers on. They deal with human stupidity all the time. They get shouted at, swore at, spat at, swung at and occasionally bled and puked over. And we expect them to stay measured and respectful of the public.
