It seems that every day in the UK we're rushing closer to the 1984 society. In
the paper today:
_________________________________________________________________
"Police to trial mobile fingerprinting
Police are to begin carrying a new hand-held fingerprinting device that will allow
them to check a person's identity on the spot.
The portable machine will be linked to a database of 6.5 million prints and could
come to be used as routinely the breathalyser.
Drivers and their passengers stopped for speeding and other offences will be
among the prime targets of the new technology."
Among the prime targets? Anyone, it seems to me, will be a prime target. Also:
"During trials, fingerprints can be taken only if a person gives permission.
However, if the technology proves reliable, it is thought officers will be given
the power to demand compliance."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ers122.xml
_________________________________________________________________
"Child database 'will ruin family privacy'
Information Commissioner report
Parents will be devalued and family privacy shattered by the mass surveillance
of all 12 million children in England and Wales, says a report today commissioned
by Parliament's Information Commissioner.
In what is likely to be a major embarrassment to Tony Blair, it says proposals
for a £224 million database containing details of every child will waste millions
of pounds, undermine parental authority and actually put children in more
danger."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... hild22.xml
_________________________________________________________________
That's just today. There are huge concewrns over some of the UK's agreements
with other countries, the horriffic ID card system, DNA database, medical record
database, etc., etc. It seems to me that it's nearly time to leave the UK, and go
to a country that's less "developed", but where there's more freedom.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;466507 wrote: We're taking applications Bill 
Seriously, it seems to me that the Blair Government is displaying all the hallmarks of an overly intrusive and snoopy government. But then I don't live there so what would I know?
Applications... could be useful. Have you any hint of a centralised governmental
monster appearing? What are the approximate immigration requirements?
You're right about the overly intrusive and snoopy gang. Unfortunately, I can't
see successors changing or reversing matters. What happens when "they"
vote to change the law, so that "they" can't be changed? A rhetorical question.
Seriously, it seems to me that the Blair Government is displaying all the hallmarks of an overly intrusive and snoopy government. But then I don't live there so what would I know?
Applications... could be useful. Have you any hint of a centralised governmental
monster appearing? What are the approximate immigration requirements?
You're right about the overly intrusive and snoopy gang. Unfortunately, I can't
see successors changing or reversing matters. What happens when "they"
vote to change the law, so that "they" can't be changed? A rhetorical question.
-
Uncle Kram
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:34 pm
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Well I think it's a good thing. The dabs aren't kept so it's an on-the-spot check to see if you're who you say you are. What's so wrong with that?. I'm no fan of the government but this is more likely to be Police driven. I'm sick of all this violation of human rights bullsh1t. I'm all for CCTV too. If you're law abiding and doing no wrong, what's to fear?. I don't subscribe to this paranoid and sinister view.
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN PUN
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
I used to hate maggie thatcher and the tories but compared to new labour they are almost upstanding examples of honour and integrity. Keep you fingers crossed he still might get arrested over the cash for honours scandal or maybe labour will waken up to the fact he is losing them votes hand over fist and get rid of the sod.
Our MP's seem to have lost sight of the fact that TB remains PM only if they say so.
Our MP's seem to have lost sight of the fact that TB remains PM only if they say so.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Uncle Kram;466555 wrote: Well I think it's a good thing. The dabs aren't kept so it's an on-the-spot check to see if you're who you say you are. What's so wrong with that?. I'm no fan of the government but this is more likely to be Police driven. I'm sick of all this violation of human rights bullsh1t. I'm all for CCTV too. If you're law abiding and doing no wrong, what's to fear?. I don't subscribe to this paranoid and sinister view.
You might be surprised to hear that I'd advocate somewhat stronger penalties
for transgressions than are currently prescribed. "Sick of all this violation of
human rights bullsh1t"? Hm. So the "dabs" aren't kept. Oh dear, with a little
ingenuity, I'm sure they could be. A quick DNA test would be useful (I'm sure
it's coming), too. A DNA database. Of course, fingerprints and identification
can be compared to this. "The chances are 1 in 100, m'lud". In-car tracking
equipment? Most certainly on the agenda right now, as I should hope you are
aware. Testing for possible inherent (in the person) criminal traits - that sort
of thing is being done, and is exciting interest. Tracking of people's everyday
movements? Possible now.
How far have we come (or gone) in the last 25 years? There have been great
advances in computing power. We're using some of them, right now. Look at
some of the systems available now. Google - a large and very interesting
database. I bet some people there have had very interesting discussions on
systems with "the authorities".
Look at changes in society - what is now acceptable, or not comment-worthy,
compared to only a little while ago, in the scheme of things?
How far could we go? A long way! Let's have a information repositories which
contain people's DNA "fingerprint", as well as other information. Let's also
keep track of their everyday movements. We'll have information on their exact
finances and exact use of "money" in a cashless society. We will know where
everyone lives. We will know all their health details, and those of their parents,
grandparents, siblings, etc. etc., more and more as time goes by.
That's all OK.
As we progress, we may find interesting things, patterns in the data. Some
people may be "marked", for some reason or other - liable to become a burden
on the State? Liable to some sort of naughtiness? Their personal backgrounds
give rise to some sort of misgiving? We'll call these "undesirables", for want of
a better word. Perhaps we can do something about them, to prevent their
putative undesirability from becoming manifest! I'm sure the people are law
abiding and doing no wrong (under current law). But, but, but.
Who knows what we could do!
I don't mind about CCTV in some places, BTW.
You might be surprised to hear that I'd advocate somewhat stronger penalties
for transgressions than are currently prescribed. "Sick of all this violation of
human rights bullsh1t"? Hm. So the "dabs" aren't kept. Oh dear, with a little
ingenuity, I'm sure they could be. A quick DNA test would be useful (I'm sure
it's coming), too. A DNA database. Of course, fingerprints and identification
can be compared to this. "The chances are 1 in 100, m'lud". In-car tracking
equipment? Most certainly on the agenda right now, as I should hope you are
aware. Testing for possible inherent (in the person) criminal traits - that sort
of thing is being done, and is exciting interest. Tracking of people's everyday
movements? Possible now.
How far have we come (or gone) in the last 25 years? There have been great
advances in computing power. We're using some of them, right now. Look at
some of the systems available now. Google - a large and very interesting
database. I bet some people there have had very interesting discussions on
systems with "the authorities".
Look at changes in society - what is now acceptable, or not comment-worthy,
compared to only a little while ago, in the scheme of things?
How far could we go? A long way! Let's have a information repositories which
contain people's DNA "fingerprint", as well as other information. Let's also
keep track of their everyday movements. We'll have information on their exact
finances and exact use of "money" in a cashless society. We will know where
everyone lives. We will know all their health details, and those of their parents,
grandparents, siblings, etc. etc., more and more as time goes by.
That's all OK.
As we progress, we may find interesting things, patterns in the data. Some
people may be "marked", for some reason or other - liable to become a burden
on the State? Liable to some sort of naughtiness? Their personal backgrounds
give rise to some sort of misgiving? We'll call these "undesirables", for want of
a better word. Perhaps we can do something about them, to prevent their
putative undesirability from becoming manifest! I'm sure the people are law
abiding and doing no wrong (under current law). But, but, but.
Who knows what we could do!
I don't mind about CCTV in some places, BTW.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
All very thought provoking. I used to believe if one had nothing to hide one had nothing to fear. It is possible that in the future , if a person commits a crime they will almost certainly be caught which would lead to a near crime free society. I think the real worry is, what will be the definition of a crime? I suspect the implementation of new surveillance technology will in fact be used to increase tax revenue IE not used to catch thieves & thugs but to impose (& collect) fines for petty offences
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Uncle Kram;466555 wrote: Well I think it's a good thing. The dabs aren't kept so it's an on-the-spot check to see if you're who you say you are. What's so wrong with that?. I'm no fan of the government but this is more likely to be Police driven. I'm sick of all this violation of human rights bullsh1t. I'm all for CCTV too. If you're law abiding and doing no wrong, what's to fear?. I don't subscribe to this paranoid and sinister view.
We live in a country where you can go about your lawful business undisturbed. If a policeman stops to question you he has to have a good reason for doing so. If you are arrested they have to charge you or let you go within a fixed time. You do not have to answer his questions as it is up to them to prove an infraction of the law.
This turns it in it's head. Refusing to answer becomes in itself a crime, refusing to allow your fingerprints to be taken becomes a crime in itself. Refusing (if TB gets his way) to carry an ID card becomes in itself a crime.
If police stop somene and they have resaonable suspicion they can already arrest them. If someone doesn't identify themselves they can be charged with wasting police time, most law abiding citizens will co-operate and be on their way as quickly as possibly anyway.
We have a carefully designed judicial system where there must be corrobratory evidence of a crime, saying you saw Mr X do something wrong is not enough for the simple reason that one persions word against another is not proof. If no one else saw him amd there is nothimng to link them to whatever then you cannot be imprisoned on the word of a total stranger or a vindivtive neighbour.
We have laws as we do and concern about human rights to protect us from government as much as from the criminal. You do not give police the powers of arrest without very tight cotrols on what they can and cannot do.
We have an unarmed police force fo essentially the same reason. They are there to uphold the rule of law not enforce it at the point of a gun. When the first metropolitan police act was passed Britiain WAS a police state. That we are not today owes nothing to government wating to protect us but to those much individuals that believed everybody is entitles to a fair trial and all are innocent util proven guilty. Liberal has the same root as liberty, the americans seem to have already maligned the word to the point whre it is an insult but if you beleive in individual freedom you are a liberal whether you like it or not. Anyone who does not believe in individual freedom and all being equal before the law and all are entitled to face their accusers and believes the police needs greater powers of arrest and to hold people without trial needs to ask why they don't any more.
When Hitler started imprisoning people he started not with the jews but with those of the opposition the liberals and those of the left who argued that no one should be imprisoned without a trial first. Enemy of the state became anyone that disagreed with the process-the proof being that they objected in the first place. He generated a climate of fear so that he could get away with it. When he finally released them it was too late Hitler had such a grip no one could shake it.
Of course I'm not suggesting TB is another Hitler but he is a control freak. How about durig the miners strikes? would you have been happy to see all the demonstrators arrested and forced top identify themselves even when all most of them were doing was peacefully demonstrating? Are ordinary people protesting about what they see an an injustice really criminals? The next time you want to object to something do you like the idea that someone in authority has a note of who you are and what your politics are?
How about you decide to join a protest about a hospital closure. Do you think you should be fingerprinted while taking part? Farcical perhaps but this measure gives the police the power to do just that and saying no will not be an option. After all if you are innocent why do you object? If you are innocent and law abiding what possible objection could you have? You must be up to something. No ID card? Tough you're under arrest.
Object to more police powers? You must be up to something. Object to govt agencies having all this information? what are you afraid of? It's a load of bollocks.
We don't need this kind of thing to enforce the law and catch criminals. All it will do is waste money and police time as they spend less ime investigating properly real crime and chase up on ordinary punters just because they feel like throwing their weight around or are having a bad day.
I don't object to cctv in some cases because I can see its uses. I would like to see fewer police speed traps and more traffic cars stopping those numpties that drive dangerously. I want to see more police on the beat beacuse that kind of physical prescence is more effective than TB's latest soundbite.
We do not do what our governement tells us, it is the other way round. This lot are a bunch of tossers using more spin so we don't take them up on the real issues. The government does not protect our freedom, we do. As soon as you start being convinced that they will always have your best interests at heart is the day we start losing the freedom we take for granted.
TB is liar and also a crook. Anything he says is a good idea I object to. We give TB a typically British reply. "F(*K ((F we're not having this nonsense.
We live in a country where you can go about your lawful business undisturbed. If a policeman stops to question you he has to have a good reason for doing so. If you are arrested they have to charge you or let you go within a fixed time. You do not have to answer his questions as it is up to them to prove an infraction of the law.
This turns it in it's head. Refusing to answer becomes in itself a crime, refusing to allow your fingerprints to be taken becomes a crime in itself. Refusing (if TB gets his way) to carry an ID card becomes in itself a crime.
If police stop somene and they have resaonable suspicion they can already arrest them. If someone doesn't identify themselves they can be charged with wasting police time, most law abiding citizens will co-operate and be on their way as quickly as possibly anyway.
We have a carefully designed judicial system where there must be corrobratory evidence of a crime, saying you saw Mr X do something wrong is not enough for the simple reason that one persions word against another is not proof. If no one else saw him amd there is nothimng to link them to whatever then you cannot be imprisoned on the word of a total stranger or a vindivtive neighbour.
We have laws as we do and concern about human rights to protect us from government as much as from the criminal. You do not give police the powers of arrest without very tight cotrols on what they can and cannot do.
We have an unarmed police force fo essentially the same reason. They are there to uphold the rule of law not enforce it at the point of a gun. When the first metropolitan police act was passed Britiain WAS a police state. That we are not today owes nothing to government wating to protect us but to those much individuals that believed everybody is entitles to a fair trial and all are innocent util proven guilty. Liberal has the same root as liberty, the americans seem to have already maligned the word to the point whre it is an insult but if you beleive in individual freedom you are a liberal whether you like it or not. Anyone who does not believe in individual freedom and all being equal before the law and all are entitled to face their accusers and believes the police needs greater powers of arrest and to hold people without trial needs to ask why they don't any more.
When Hitler started imprisoning people he started not with the jews but with those of the opposition the liberals and those of the left who argued that no one should be imprisoned without a trial first. Enemy of the state became anyone that disagreed with the process-the proof being that they objected in the first place. He generated a climate of fear so that he could get away with it. When he finally released them it was too late Hitler had such a grip no one could shake it.
Of course I'm not suggesting TB is another Hitler but he is a control freak. How about durig the miners strikes? would you have been happy to see all the demonstrators arrested and forced top identify themselves even when all most of them were doing was peacefully demonstrating? Are ordinary people protesting about what they see an an injustice really criminals? The next time you want to object to something do you like the idea that someone in authority has a note of who you are and what your politics are?
How about you decide to join a protest about a hospital closure. Do you think you should be fingerprinted while taking part? Farcical perhaps but this measure gives the police the power to do just that and saying no will not be an option. After all if you are innocent why do you object? If you are innocent and law abiding what possible objection could you have? You must be up to something. No ID card? Tough you're under arrest.
Object to more police powers? You must be up to something. Object to govt agencies having all this information? what are you afraid of? It's a load of bollocks.
We don't need this kind of thing to enforce the law and catch criminals. All it will do is waste money and police time as they spend less ime investigating properly real crime and chase up on ordinary punters just because they feel like throwing their weight around or are having a bad day.
I don't object to cctv in some cases because I can see its uses. I would like to see fewer police speed traps and more traffic cars stopping those numpties that drive dangerously. I want to see more police on the beat beacuse that kind of physical prescence is more effective than TB's latest soundbite.
We do not do what our governement tells us, it is the other way round. This lot are a bunch of tossers using more spin so we don't take them up on the real issues. The government does not protect our freedom, we do. As soon as you start being convinced that they will always have your best interests at heart is the day we start losing the freedom we take for granted.
TB is liar and also a crook. Anything he says is a good idea I object to. We give TB a typically British reply. "F(*K ((F we're not having this nonsense.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
When I was in the military they started taking DNA samples, ostensibly to verify remains should we die in battle. I refused as long as I could, until my commander ordered me directly to "contribute" (nice euphamism, eh?). I never served anywhere that I might have been in combat.
Yorkster reminded me of a conversation I had with a guy who had that attitude that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care. Combine that with Ronald Reagan's Trust But Verify mantra, and you get police trying to justify warrantless search. I mean, after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care if the police come in and look through your undie drawer.
Yorkster reminded me of a conversation I had with a guy who had that attitude that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care. Combine that with Ronald Reagan's Trust But Verify mantra, and you get police trying to justify warrantless search. I mean, after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care if the police come in and look through your undie drawer.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Accountable;468594 wrote: I mean, after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care if the police come in and look through your undie drawer.
Sadly Acc, I might well welcome it...t'would be the best offer I've had for more years than I can remember :-1
(sorry!!)
Sadly Acc, I might well welcome it...t'would be the best offer I've had for more years than I can remember :-1
(sorry!!)
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
theia;468597 wrote: Sadly Acc, I might well welcome it...t'would be the best offer I've had for more years than I can remember :-1
(sorry!!)
:wah:
(sorry!!)
:wah:
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
theia;468597 wrote: Sadly Acc, I might well welcome it...t'would be the best offer I've had for more years than I can remember :-1
(sorry!!)
:yh_rotfl
(sorry!!)
:yh_rotfl
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
At this point I'd like to bring up the Government's plans to record our movements.
The proposal is to install a satelite tracker into everybody's car to record, to the nearest 15 feet and the nearest 0.1 mph, their exact movements.
The justification for this intrusion is to measure how far you drive in order to charge you for road use.
It will cost billions whilst the existing, very good, aproximation (road fuel tax) pais billions into the treasury.
Why do you imagine HMG want this information?
The proposal is to install a satelite tracker into everybody's car to record, to the nearest 15 feet and the nearest 0.1 mph, their exact movements.
The justification for this intrusion is to measure how far you drive in order to charge you for road use.
It will cost billions whilst the existing, very good, aproximation (road fuel tax) pais billions into the treasury.
Why do you imagine HMG want this information?
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;469899 wrote: I'm SURE it would only be for tax purposes Bryn, I KNOW the government would never abuse information.......anyway that was a telling example, I assume fictitious? (Jeez I hope so!).
Not ficticious - they are deadly serious.
I missed out the follow on scenario - link the box to the cars controls so that it can act as a limiter to restrict you to the current speed limit.
We in the biker lobby have only just convinced them that doing this to a bike half way round a bend where the limit drops from 70 to 40 would cause an accident.
This is not science fiction - it is going through final testing as we speak.
Not ficticious - they are deadly serious.
I missed out the follow on scenario - link the box to the cars controls so that it can act as a limiter to restrict you to the current speed limit.
We in the biker lobby have only just convinced them that doing this to a bike half way round a bend where the limit drops from 70 to 40 would cause an accident.
This is not science fiction - it is going through final testing as we speak.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bryn Mawr;469755 wrote: At this point I'd like to bring up the Government's plans to record our movements.
The proposal is to install a satelite tracker into everybody's car to record, to the nearest 15 feet and the nearest 0.1 mph, their exact movements.
The justification for this intrusion is to measure how far you drive in order to charge you for road use.
It will cost billions whilst the existing, very good, aproximation (road fuel tax) pais billions into the treasury.
Why do you imagine HMG want this information?
I would trust HMG as far as I could throw them. I find it hard to talk about TB and his cronies without using expletives. They have a high lvel ofself delusion if they believe they have widespread support for wjhat they are coming out with. The sad reality is they really do believe we are all stupid and can't think for ourselves.
The proposal is to install a satelite tracker into everybody's car to record, to the nearest 15 feet and the nearest 0.1 mph, their exact movements.
The justification for this intrusion is to measure how far you drive in order to charge you for road use.
It will cost billions whilst the existing, very good, aproximation (road fuel tax) pais billions into the treasury.
Why do you imagine HMG want this information?
I would trust HMG as far as I could throw them. I find it hard to talk about TB and his cronies without using expletives. They have a high lvel ofself delusion if they believe they have widespread support for wjhat they are coming out with. The sad reality is they really do believe we are all stupid and can't think for ourselves.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;469899 wrote: I'm SURE it would only be for tax purposes Bryn, I KNOW the government would never abuse information.......anyway that was a telling example, I assume fictitious? (Jeez I hope so!).
Dripping sarcasm cleanup, aisle 12!
Dripping sarcasm cleanup, aisle 12!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;470059 wrote: A (hopefully rare) use of it too - but it was aching to be said.
I like sarcasm, myself. Properly used, it's kind of like padding your pointed barb, adding sugar to the medicine, ...... I've run out.
I like sarcasm, myself. Properly used, it's kind of like padding your pointed barb, adding sugar to the medicine, ...... I've run out.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;470021 wrote: I'm not given to paranoia Bryn (hyperbole I'll admit to) but that is simply scary. Time to give them the heave ho.
It's the whole ethos of the machinery "behind" the public face of government,
unfortunately it needs someone "up front", at the "sharp edge" to say "We
are not going to do this, and will actually undo the steps taken so far. Will
the next lot, whomsoever they be, change matters? My guess - no.
It's the whole ethos of the machinery "behind" the public face of government,
unfortunately it needs someone "up front", at the "sharp edge" to say "We
are not going to do this, and will actually undo the steps taken so far. Will
the next lot, whomsoever they be, change matters? My guess - no.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bill Sikes;470064 wrote: It's the whole ethos of the machinery "behind" the public face of government,
unfortunately it needs someone "up front", at the "sharp edge" to say "We
are not going to do this, and will actually undo the steps taken so far. Will
the next lot, whomsoever they be, change matters? My guess - no.
Sadly, I agree with you - the only thing stopping whichever party it is from passing the law is the fear of public backlash. The moment they can say "it was the other lot that did it" they're laughing.
unfortunately it needs someone "up front", at the "sharp edge" to say "We
are not going to do this, and will actually undo the steps taken so far. Will
the next lot, whomsoever they be, change matters? My guess - no.
Sadly, I agree with you - the only thing stopping whichever party it is from passing the law is the fear of public backlash. The moment they can say "it was the other lot that did it" they're laughing.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;470849 wrote: And so it goes. The following was apparently in The Times (date not known) but it appeared in The Australian of 28 November 2006
[snip]
I don't want to believe this.
November the 27th.:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 01,00.html
This is tacked onto the article in "The Times":
"Details of the database emerged after Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, said that Britain had “sleepwalked into a surveillance society.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said yesterday: “It is quite right that the police should keep intelligence on suspected criminals, but it is obscene to suggest there should be a ‘crime idol’ list of those who might commit an offence.
“The police are systematically moving the boundaries as to where they can exercise their powers. The Minority Report syndrome is pushing the boundary of criminal intervention further into the general community.
There was also concern that the database would be ineffective if the authorities continued to fail to act on the information already available to them. Ray Wyre, a sexual crimes consultant, was supportive of the database but said that it would only work if police acted on the information.
“Of course you have to know your enemy, but it is what you do with the data that matters, he said".
So. "Thought crime", anyone? This "database" is a disgrace.
[snip]
I don't want to believe this.
November the 27th.:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 01,00.html
This is tacked onto the article in "The Times":
"Details of the database emerged after Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, said that Britain had “sleepwalked into a surveillance society.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said yesterday: “It is quite right that the police should keep intelligence on suspected criminals, but it is obscene to suggest there should be a ‘crime idol’ list of those who might commit an offence.
“The police are systematically moving the boundaries as to where they can exercise their powers. The Minority Report syndrome is pushing the boundary of criminal intervention further into the general community.
There was also concern that the database would be ineffective if the authorities continued to fail to act on the information already available to them. Ray Wyre, a sexual crimes consultant, was supportive of the database but said that it would only work if police acted on the information.
“Of course you have to know your enemy, but it is what you do with the data that matters, he said".
So. "Thought crime", anyone? This "database" is a disgrace.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Crime Idol - nice term.
Whatever happened to that old law that if you treat a person as if the were a criminal, they will start acting like a criminal? Happens with children, happens with adults.
Bet your last farthing that if this dispicable idea comes to reality, some impatient cop will push one of these "pre-criminals" until he does break the law. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
I can't think of any pre-emptive action (or strike) of this type that's justified.
Whatever happened to that old law that if you treat a person as if the were a criminal, they will start acting like a criminal? Happens with children, happens with adults.
Bet your last farthing that if this dispicable idea comes to reality, some impatient cop will push one of these "pre-criminals" until he does break the law. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
I can't think of any pre-emptive action (or strike) of this type that's justified.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bryn Mawr;470347 wrote: Sadly, I agree with you - the only thing stopping whichever party it is from passing the law is the fear of public backlash. The moment they can say "it was the other lot that did it" they're laughing.
Course there's always the European Human Rights act so you can take the govt to the european court and get them to overrule the govt on this. But then there are those who argue concern for human rights and in particular the human rights act and labour adoption of it have gone too far and it helps criminals escape justice when the police arrest them and even if there is not enough to convict them in an open court they are still clearly guilty. After all we can trust the govt not to lie and if they say they need this to protect us all from these nasty terrorists who are we poor thick electorate to argue with them.
Hopefully being facetious won't become a crime but who knows.
Course there's always the European Human Rights act so you can take the govt to the european court and get them to overrule the govt on this. But then there are those who argue concern for human rights and in particular the human rights act and labour adoption of it have gone too far and it helps criminals escape justice when the police arrest them and even if there is not enough to convict them in an open court they are still clearly guilty. After all we can trust the govt not to lie and if they say they need this to protect us all from these nasty terrorists who are we poor thick electorate to argue with them.
Hopefully being facetious won't become a crime but who knows.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
gmc;471052 wrote: Course there's always the European Human Rights act so you can take the govt to the european court and get them to overrule the govt on this.
Eh? How is that applicable?
Eh? How is that applicable?
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
The move will alarm civil liberties groups who are concerned about the increasing monitoring of the public.
I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.
Perhaps this device is different from the one about to be used here in the states. Law enforcement already has this information in the office or on computer databases. They're just making it mobile.
If you have never been fingerprinted, you won't be on the database, in house or on the mobile printer. Ergo, you have nothing to be concerned about.
OK, for those criminals that have been fingerprinted, that device will alert the officer of a sex offender, someone who has a restraining order or protection order against them, a warrant against them or if they are an ex-felon.
Example: Police pull over a subject that is a registered sex offender and he has a small child in the car with him to which he is not related. It needs to be investigated. Or: A man has his ex girlfriend in the car with him who signed a protection order against him. It needs to be investigated.
Just know as you go about your daily life nearly anything you do can be monitored. You can be found just by walking around with your cell phone on, chatting on line here with friends, buying a car tag, a drivers license, getting married, owning property and voting. Satellites pass over you everyday.
But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. That's not to say that aren't dirty cops or District Attorneys or mayors for goodness sakes. But we take chances every day of our life just by sitting in our recliner watching TV and getting bitten by a brown recluse spider. Whatcha gonna do?
Someone here said, why don't they stop reckless drivers instead of having speed traps or driver checks on the road. Do you know how many drunk drivers, drivers with no insurance, drivers with warrants against them and drivers with no licenses are found by having those check stops? Someone that might have hurt or killed you or a member of your family had there not been those stops.
Everyone screams when the police don't do those things and something happens but when the authorities try to stop it before it happens, everyone screams.
What to do, what to do?
I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.
Perhaps this device is different from the one about to be used here in the states. Law enforcement already has this information in the office or on computer databases. They're just making it mobile.
If you have never been fingerprinted, you won't be on the database, in house or on the mobile printer. Ergo, you have nothing to be concerned about.
OK, for those criminals that have been fingerprinted, that device will alert the officer of a sex offender, someone who has a restraining order or protection order against them, a warrant against them or if they are an ex-felon.
Example: Police pull over a subject that is a registered sex offender and he has a small child in the car with him to which he is not related. It needs to be investigated. Or: A man has his ex girlfriend in the car with him who signed a protection order against him. It needs to be investigated.
Just know as you go about your daily life nearly anything you do can be monitored. You can be found just by walking around with your cell phone on, chatting on line here with friends, buying a car tag, a drivers license, getting married, owning property and voting. Satellites pass over you everyday.
But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. That's not to say that aren't dirty cops or District Attorneys or mayors for goodness sakes. But we take chances every day of our life just by sitting in our recliner watching TV and getting bitten by a brown recluse spider. Whatcha gonna do?
Someone here said, why don't they stop reckless drivers instead of having speed traps or driver checks on the road. Do you know how many drunk drivers, drivers with no insurance, drivers with warrants against them and drivers with no licenses are found by having those check stops? Someone that might have hurt or killed you or a member of your family had there not been those stops.
Everyone screams when the police don't do those things and something happens but when the authorities try to stop it before it happens, everyone screams.
What to do, what to do?
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
911;471332 wrote: I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.
[snip]
But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
See earlier posts. It's not the *immediate* issue, taken in isolation, that's the
problem.
[snip]
But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
See earlier posts. It's not the *immediate* issue, taken in isolation, that's the
problem.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bill Sikes;471118 wrote: Eh? How is that applicable?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm
ARTICLE 8
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
It is open for a Uk citizen to take his case to the european court if they are ubnsatisfied with the outcome in the UK. It's a moot point if this kind of power will actually do anything to catch more criminals. New speeding penalties, three point, £30 and an entry on a criminal data base. yeah right.
Can't think of any criminal case offhand but For instance-part time workers went to the eu courts to get the same pension rights as full time workers (albeit on lower salaries, it used to be the case that to be eligible to join the local authority superannuation scheme you had to work more than 16 hours,) they won he case and local authorities and the NHS found themselves having to back date pension rights for all those part time workers mainly female that had lost out-eu law overruled UK law. That's also why pension ages are being equalised, eu rules.
posted by 911
I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.
Perhaps this device is different from the one about to be used here in the states. Law enforcement already has this information in the office or on computer databases. They're just making it mobile.
If you have never been fingerprinted, you won't be on the database, in house or on the mobile printer. Ergo, you have nothing to be concerned about.
As it stands the police have access to a database on the car that tells them if someone is uninsured. They don't use it enough as it is.
Currently they can only take your fingerprints if you are arrested. This proposes giving them the right to demand that you accede to giving your prints on request and making the refusal in itself an offence. As it is I can be arrested if I refuse to answer questions anyway. If I haven't commited a crime I don't need to be on a database just in case I might.
Incidentally in this country we are not obliged to carry ID and I don't carry my driving licence and insurance documents in the car. If stopped as part of a clampdown on uninsured drivers all I would be required to do is produce them at a police staton within a reasonable time. I object to ID cards as well.
Example: Police pull over a subject that is a registered sex offender and he has a small child in the car with him to which he is not related. It needs to be investigated. Or: A man has his ex girlfriend in the car with him who signed a protection order against him. It needs to be investigated.
Presumably they would have other information that made them stop him in the first place. being able to fingerprint him doesn't make them easier to spot going past in a car.
the idea that random fingerprint stops will catch more criminals is ludicrous. the police can already stop and question anybody they like if they have reasonable suspicion something is wrong. Most law abiding people will co-operate anyway. But the idea that anyone can be stopped and questioned and be expected to give fingerprints and account for what they are doing and failure to answer is in itself a crime is just not on.
i don't need to account to any policeman for what i am doing. If asked i will probably answer since I appreciate they may be after someone in a similar car to mine for some reason.
Someone here said, why don't they stop reckless drivers instead of having speed traps or driver checks on the road. Do you know how many drunk drivers, drivers with no insurance, drivers with warrants against them and drivers with no licenses are found by having those check stops? Someone that might have hurt or killed you or a member of your family had there not been those stops.
That was me. You misunderstood my point. What we have here thousands of static speed cameras not just at accident black spots or junctions, outside schools as you might expect but any where someone might be tempted to speed and where that speed might not terribly dangerous. They were used as revenue generating methods more than they were to control speed.
One consequence was fewer traffic cops on the roads. I'm objecting because I want to see traffic cars picking up on drunks, uninsured cars, tailgaters and other dangerous drivers. driving standards are worse because people know they are unlikely to get caught not because i don't think they should be doing it. believe me i have no sympathy for drunk drivers and i've been in an accident with a hit and run driver with no insurance I have no time for those B)**YS either.
Just know as you go about your daily life nearly anything you do can be monitored. You can be found just by walking around with your cell phone on, chatting on line here with friends, buying a car tag, a drivers license, getting married, owning property and voting. Satellites pass over you everyday.
So i can and my buying patterns can be bought by anyone buying he information o the credit card company. Doesn't mean I have to think it right does it? Not does it mean i will tolerate giving the police the right to listen in or follow me around without a very good reason for doing so and getting a court order first. If they dn't have enough evidence or suspicion to convince a judge what are they doing following somebody in the first place?
But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
I suppose by the same logic if you do object you have been doing something have you? Or maybe you mightb in the future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm
ARTICLE 8
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
It is open for a Uk citizen to take his case to the european court if they are ubnsatisfied with the outcome in the UK. It's a moot point if this kind of power will actually do anything to catch more criminals. New speeding penalties, three point, £30 and an entry on a criminal data base. yeah right.
Can't think of any criminal case offhand but For instance-part time workers went to the eu courts to get the same pension rights as full time workers (albeit on lower salaries, it used to be the case that to be eligible to join the local authority superannuation scheme you had to work more than 16 hours,) they won he case and local authorities and the NHS found themselves having to back date pension rights for all those part time workers mainly female that had lost out-eu law overruled UK law. That's also why pension ages are being equalised, eu rules.
posted by 911
I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.
Perhaps this device is different from the one about to be used here in the states. Law enforcement already has this information in the office or on computer databases. They're just making it mobile.
If you have never been fingerprinted, you won't be on the database, in house or on the mobile printer. Ergo, you have nothing to be concerned about.
As it stands the police have access to a database on the car that tells them if someone is uninsured. They don't use it enough as it is.
Currently they can only take your fingerprints if you are arrested. This proposes giving them the right to demand that you accede to giving your prints on request and making the refusal in itself an offence. As it is I can be arrested if I refuse to answer questions anyway. If I haven't commited a crime I don't need to be on a database just in case I might.
Incidentally in this country we are not obliged to carry ID and I don't carry my driving licence and insurance documents in the car. If stopped as part of a clampdown on uninsured drivers all I would be required to do is produce them at a police staton within a reasonable time. I object to ID cards as well.
Example: Police pull over a subject that is a registered sex offender and he has a small child in the car with him to which he is not related. It needs to be investigated. Or: A man has his ex girlfriend in the car with him who signed a protection order against him. It needs to be investigated.
Presumably they would have other information that made them stop him in the first place. being able to fingerprint him doesn't make them easier to spot going past in a car.
the idea that random fingerprint stops will catch more criminals is ludicrous. the police can already stop and question anybody they like if they have reasonable suspicion something is wrong. Most law abiding people will co-operate anyway. But the idea that anyone can be stopped and questioned and be expected to give fingerprints and account for what they are doing and failure to answer is in itself a crime is just not on.
i don't need to account to any policeman for what i am doing. If asked i will probably answer since I appreciate they may be after someone in a similar car to mine for some reason.
Someone here said, why don't they stop reckless drivers instead of having speed traps or driver checks on the road. Do you know how many drunk drivers, drivers with no insurance, drivers with warrants against them and drivers with no licenses are found by having those check stops? Someone that might have hurt or killed you or a member of your family had there not been those stops.
That was me. You misunderstood my point. What we have here thousands of static speed cameras not just at accident black spots or junctions, outside schools as you might expect but any where someone might be tempted to speed and where that speed might not terribly dangerous. They were used as revenue generating methods more than they were to control speed.
One consequence was fewer traffic cops on the roads. I'm objecting because I want to see traffic cars picking up on drunks, uninsured cars, tailgaters and other dangerous drivers. driving standards are worse because people know they are unlikely to get caught not because i don't think they should be doing it. believe me i have no sympathy for drunk drivers and i've been in an accident with a hit and run driver with no insurance I have no time for those B)**YS either.
Just know as you go about your daily life nearly anything you do can be monitored. You can be found just by walking around with your cell phone on, chatting on line here with friends, buying a car tag, a drivers license, getting married, owning property and voting. Satellites pass over you everyday.
So i can and my buying patterns can be bought by anyone buying he information o the credit card company. Doesn't mean I have to think it right does it? Not does it mean i will tolerate giving the police the right to listen in or follow me around without a very good reason for doing so and getting a court order first. If they dn't have enough evidence or suspicion to convince a judge what are they doing following somebody in the first place?
But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
I suppose by the same logic if you do object you have been doing something have you? Or maybe you mightb in the future.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
911;471332 wrote: I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.
[...]
OK, for those criminals that have been fingerprinted, that device will alert the officer of a sex offender, someone who has a restraining order or protection order against them, a warrant against them or if they are an ex-felon.Pretty broad statement. Looks like only criminals are fingerprinted. Are you aware that everyone in the military are fingerprinted? Don't forget the parents who for decades have been fingerprinting their children in the name of safety - where are those records, yathink? And the ex-felon thing ... ex is the operative word. The person is supposed to have paid the debt to society. Why would they still be suspect?
911 wrote: [...]
Just know as you go about your daily life nearly anything you do can be monitored. You can be found just by walking around with your cell phone on, chatting on line here with friends, buying a car tag, a drivers license, getting married, owning property and voting. Satellites pass over you everyday.Is this your justification for allowing more?
911 wrote: But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Do you have any idea how dangerous this attitude is? It's what allows totallitarian governments and fascist societies. We have to remember that when we give power to the government, we aren't giving it to that individual in the position today, but to the position itself, no matter who fills it. Any power you cede, you should be comfortable ceding it to anyone - absolutely anyone.
[...]
OK, for those criminals that have been fingerprinted, that device will alert the officer of a sex offender, someone who has a restraining order or protection order against them, a warrant against them or if they are an ex-felon.Pretty broad statement. Looks like only criminals are fingerprinted. Are you aware that everyone in the military are fingerprinted? Don't forget the parents who for decades have been fingerprinting their children in the name of safety - where are those records, yathink? And the ex-felon thing ... ex is the operative word. The person is supposed to have paid the debt to society. Why would they still be suspect?
911 wrote: [...]
Just know as you go about your daily life nearly anything you do can be monitored. You can be found just by walking around with your cell phone on, chatting on line here with friends, buying a car tag, a drivers license, getting married, owning property and voting. Satellites pass over you everyday.Is this your justification for allowing more?
911 wrote: But, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Do you have any idea how dangerous this attitude is? It's what allows totallitarian governments and fascist societies. We have to remember that when we give power to the government, we aren't giving it to that individual in the position today, but to the position itself, no matter who fills it. Any power you cede, you should be comfortable ceding it to anyone - absolutely anyone.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
gmc wrote:
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes
Eh? How is that (European "Human Rights") applicable?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm
Quote:
ARTICLE 8
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"
Tony and his crazed mob (or whoever else is "in power" only need the "except".
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes
Eh? How is that (European "Human Rights") applicable?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm
Quote:
ARTICLE 8
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"
Tony and his crazed mob (or whoever else is "in power" only need the "except".
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bill Sikes;471825 wrote: "except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"
Tony and his crazed mob (or whoever else is "in power" only need the "except".
Which is why having another court outside the country to appeal to might be a good idea. Actually I'm not a lawyer so I am not sure exactly how it works. The police already have enough powers what we need is perhaps more police on the ground where needed.
Tony and his crazed mob (or whoever else is "in power" only need the "except".
Which is why having another court outside the country to appeal to might be a good idea. Actually I'm not a lawyer so I am not sure exactly how it works. The police already have enough powers what we need is perhaps more police on the ground where needed.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
"DNA 'should be taken from babies'
DNA samples should be taken from babies and stored on a database to help in the fight against crime, a senior police officer said yesterday.
Commander Dave Johnston, Britain's most senior murder investigator, said the information could be used to both to solve and prevent crimes.
He also suggested samples could be taken from people when they renewed their passports and from migrants arriving in the country."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ndna12.xml
DNA samples should be taken from babies and stored on a database to help in the fight against crime, a senior police officer said yesterday.
Commander Dave Johnston, Britain's most senior murder investigator, said the information could be used to both to solve and prevent crimes.
He also suggested samples could be taken from people when they renewed their passports and from migrants arriving in the country."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ndna12.xml
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
It's never going to happen straightforward like that. Parents will be pressured to "store" samples their kids' DNA for identification purposes - in case they get kidnapped or something. Then of course, comes the chip: a small device the size of a grain of rice already being used on pets for identification. It will soon be marketed to "protect children" then later be available with a GPS homing signal. We must protect the kiddies, right?
Next will come the requirement for children to be "protected" in such a way before they can be enrolled in school, claimed as a dependent, or something as creative.
Within a generation, all young adults will be trackable.
Next will come the requirement for children to be "protected" in such a way before they can be enrolled in school, claimed as a dependent, or something as creative.
Within a generation, all young adults will be trackable.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Then there's the proposed system of pay-per-mile *extra* road tax. Vehicle
movements will be tracked to enable this, it is proposed.
movements will be tracked to enable this, it is proposed.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bill Sikes;505316 wrote: Then there's the proposed system of pay-per-mile *extra* road tax. Vehicle movements will be tracked to enable this, it is proposed.
And who, we might ask, would be the most delighted people if offered a complete list of everyone's movements (to the nearest 15 feet and 0.1 MPH)?
Given that this is estimated to cost several billion to implement, can it be justified as cost effective compared to increasing the fuel tax which is already a pay per mile tax with a built in green surcharge.
And who, we might ask, would be the most delighted people if offered a complete list of everyone's movements (to the nearest 15 feet and 0.1 MPH)?
Given that this is estimated to cost several billion to implement, can it be justified as cost effective compared to increasing the fuel tax which is already a pay per mile tax with a built in green surcharge.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bill Sikes;505316 wrote: Then there's the proposed system of pay-per-mile *extra* road tax. Vehicle
movements will be tracked to enable this, it is proposed.
It would probably cost more to administer than they raise in revenue and no doubt we would be expected to pay for the installation of all the devices. In the meantime they put up train fares because too many people are using them.
This govt is getting more and more like a spitting image sketch every day.
movements will be tracked to enable this, it is proposed.
It would probably cost more to administer than they raise in revenue and no doubt we would be expected to pay for the installation of all the devices. In the meantime they put up train fares because too many people are using them.
This govt is getting more and more like a spitting image sketch every day.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Diuretic;506529 wrote: Yep - Blair's Spitting Image is looking much like Thatcher's Spitting Image.
Remember the puppet of Maggie that looked completely insane? When she put her head through the door and said "here's maggie" (as in the scene from the shining) I reckon it must feature in the top ten of the funniest political skits of all time.
saw George brown this morning-who knows maybe he will lose his seat at the next election.
Remember the puppet of Maggie that looked completely insane? When she put her head through the door and said "here's maggie" (as in the scene from the shining) I reckon it must feature in the top ten of the funniest political skits of all time.
saw George brown this morning-who knows maybe he will lose his seat at the next election.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Road pricing steams ahead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads24.xml
Also, soon we could all be monitored from the air. Combine *this* with road pricing and existing intrusions into personal privacy:
Titled "Crash fears as drones prepare to take off":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rone06.xml
"They can fly at more than 100 mph and remain airborne for a day at a time, monitoring traffic, searching for sailors lost at sea or even tracking suspected criminals 20,000ft below, all without a human on board.
[snip]
They may even be fitted with face recognition technology to follow the movements of particular people. Merseyside police have expressed an interest in using them to hover over problem estates to tackle anti-social behaviour."
Anti-social behaviour. Hmm.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads24.xml
Also, soon we could all be monitored from the air. Combine *this* with road pricing and existing intrusions into personal privacy:
Titled "Crash fears as drones prepare to take off":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rone06.xml
"They can fly at more than 100 mph and remain airborne for a day at a time, monitoring traffic, searching for sailors lost at sea or even tracking suspected criminals 20,000ft below, all without a human on board.
[snip]
They may even be fitted with face recognition technology to follow the movements of particular people. Merseyside police have expressed an interest in using them to hover over problem estates to tackle anti-social behaviour."
Anti-social behaviour. Hmm.
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
Bill Sikes;620311 wrote: Road pricing steams ahead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads24.xml
Also, soon we could all be monitored from the air. Combine *this* with road pricing and existing intrusions into personal privacy:
Titled "Crash fears as drones prepare to take off":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rone06.xml
"They can fly at more than 100 mph and remain airborne for a day at a time, monitoring traffic, searching for sailors lost at sea or even tracking suspected criminals 20,000ft below, all without a human on board.
[snip]
They may even be fitted with face recognition technology to follow the movements of particular people. Merseyside police have expressed an interest in using them to hover over problem estates to tackle anti-social behaviour."
Anti-social behaviour. Hmm.
Big Brother is alive and well and living in England
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads24.xml
Also, soon we could all be monitored from the air. Combine *this* with road pricing and existing intrusions into personal privacy:
Titled "Crash fears as drones prepare to take off":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rone06.xml
"They can fly at more than 100 mph and remain airborne for a day at a time, monitoring traffic, searching for sailors lost at sea or even tracking suspected criminals 20,000ft below, all without a human on board.
[snip]
They may even be fitted with face recognition technology to follow the movements of particular people. Merseyside police have expressed an interest in using them to hover over problem estates to tackle anti-social behaviour."
Anti-social behaviour. Hmm.
Big Brother is alive and well and living in England
The relentless advance of the 1984 society.
I can't believe Blair. He really does think he has a legacy to be proud of. But in this country parliament is sovereign. He could have been stopped at any point by enough MP's voting against him. We badly need electoral reform.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6685279.stm
What is really depressing is that PR was imposed on Germany and Italy precisely BECAUSE it would have stopped Hitler getting power in the first place just as it would have stopped Thatcher and Blair from being able to form a government where they could ride roughshod over everybody. At the very least politicians should be familiar with political history. Yet none of them picked up in her simply being wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6685279.stm
What is really depressing is that PR was imposed on Germany and Italy precisely BECAUSE it would have stopped Hitler getting power in the first place just as it would have stopped Thatcher and Blair from being able to form a government where they could ride roughshod over everybody. At the very least politicians should be familiar with political history. Yet none of them picked up in her simply being wrong.