Me either.....look at shiny ZenGum...isn't he funny?!?

:)

I just really need to find the proper words before I try to give an adequate explanation for my questions and my reservations.

I'm pretty sure this isn't cultural because I think harm is broader than that....

Please hold...

Trust us, it's cultural.

Oh, he started as a Socialist. The experience made him an antiSocialist.

____________
Oldthinker, unbellyfeels Ingsoc.

No UG. He remained socialist until his death. He was more or less Trotskyist, though not a comfortable one. He became an anti-Stalinist. Orwell considered the Soviet system to be a perversion of socialism. He wrote much about it, including 1984 and Animal Farm. But he remained committed to the cause of true Socialism to his death.

I think the cultural arguement is a "bait and switch" tactic to remove the arguement from a genuine base. If you can't discuss it without assuming that I don't hold a world-view or that it was entirely written within American guidelines then I will have to postpone the discussion until first a different understanding is reached.

That's not actually what I said Cicero. Nor was it a bait and switch tactic, it was a genuine observation.

The problem is not that I believe you to operate within a solely American mindset. The difficulty I have is that both you and I are operating from a different cultural understanding and conception of the world and that affects many of our base assumptions, cultural references and linguistic concepts.

If one of us was speaking in English and the other in French, we would find some concepts simply don't translate exactly between the languages. We are linked by language, but there are differences in emphasis and understanding even of that language.

You say you think harm is a constant. I say the very concept of harm is cultural. For the most part your culture and mine, has a broadly similar conception of harm, but it is not absolutely the same. The principles on which our societies are based are different. That doesn't mean we don't have, again, broad similarities, but there are certain basic concepts which your culture values more highly than they are in ours and vice versa.

When will enough be enough? Again, I ask you, enough of what? I do not percieve the problems you have raised, as problematic. There is much in my country that does concern me, and much of it is about loss of civil liberties and a corresponding rise in governmental rights over individuals. I do not see that publically demanded CCTV, non-mandatory drug tests as a condition of entry to a pub, or tracking and intelligence gathering on suspected criminals, fall into that area of concern.

ID cards, that bothers me. National DNA database where everybody is listed, that bothers me. Keeping a camera trained on a town centre or estate where gangs of youths have made it a no go zone, or shops are regularly targetted by arsonists....that's protection.

I watched in interesting doco on CCTV in England last night. There's actually only 130 (or close to that figure) cameras in the whole of the country which surprised me. I would have thought there'd be more.

Everyone they interviewed seemed positive, of course, they would have edited the negative comments out, but there were also interesting interviews with law enforcement agencies.

It was an Australian production. Apparently when APEC was on, the AFP went to London to learn more about CCTV and other surveillance techniques. I guess they weren't listening properly though. lol

In any case, it seems all the authorities agree that there's only going to be more and indepth visual surveillance techniques in the future, and as one woman put it, there's nothing to hide if you're not doing anything wrong, and if you are thinking of doing something wrong, then maybe the fact that you're being watched might encourage you to think again.

I wonder.... I mean, every convenience store over here (in the US) has had a security camera for as long as I can remember... and yet they still get robbed right and left.

maybe because the people doing the robbing wear balaclavas etc?

You look a bit odd if you wear a balaclava on an ordinary street.

Alright Dana, let me pose the question properly and I will probably get an answer more directed at the actual subject I am trying badly to debate!

If we can agree that your society is monitoring the daily activities of it's public...I can ask.......Is it ok to view the insides of private residences? Of "criminals" even? There is a debate here (in the US)of "resonable expectation of privacy". What if...now what if the police in your neighborhood decided to do their beat and use this power of technology to see the insides of homes of "criminals"? And otherwise!!
Is this ok?
The United States thinks so(that this is ok) because a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is insulateing your home now. They no longer need probable cause to engage in these activities. If you would not like to be viewed along with the contents of your home, you have to provide the proper amount of insulation to have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".....If this happens in your country (and I doubt that it's not) and it is accepted by your people...Where would you stand on this issue? (Dana)


Like my "culture" there is no doubt that there is a resident right to privacy group that has something to say about this issue that is not the majority opinion. Is majority rule always the right decision? Once these insults to civil liberties are approved by your people, like mine, it will not stop there....You have been fooled into thinking that it was your vote in the first place. Knaivery.

Those databases that you don't like? I'm sorry, but CCTV likely has facial recognition and you are already in one. All it will take is your DNA match to complete the profile which has already been done because you probably visit a doctor's office that sends your samples and tissues elsewhere. Yeah...this has been done because you are likely going to see someone for your skin condition. (Just like the US) The databases have been linked. Nationally and internationally. Not that there is enough people yet to keep up with the databases, nor is there enough funding...but give it time. This is just the beginning . Your CCTV's are a wolf in sheeps clothing. There is an eye and a bunny....unfortunately you and I are bunnys. Whether you agreed or know or not. The only difference in our culture on this issue as that I do not agree, and I do not think that the real crime is misdemeanor bicycle riding of Londoners. "My culture" doesn't even agree with me, for the most part, so don't beg to differ on "my culture". The fact that I have a culture is debateable.

The "culture" you are branding me with...who's is it? Do you even know where I am from?!? For crying out loud.......Dana, I respect you for what you do and I can identify with you on many levels...where is this disconnect that says there is a disconnect because I am living in the Southwest United States?!? Yes, I have cultural differences but you would first have to tell me what and where my culture is....Has someone armed you with these facts?!? Ok...I'll slow down. This is a rant. Everyone else shut it.

If you are fighting for civil liberties Dana...Can you not see the progression of threats to them? I think you have blinders on and you think I am a trifle american. What more can be said?

Other than: We agree to disagree. But I've never been happy with such agreements because no one wins...hell we can't even get a clear understanding that way...but if that's where we are headed I'll give you that "out".

Yes.....maybe you are too absorbed in your culture to see other sides...but wasn't it you who said that you have a talent that can speak to many sides? I think that it's true......

So what of that? Can you fill your own shoes and say 'maybe I can take another perspectiveist view and see how it looks from there'. Fill the shoes you have given me. Take a look around for heaven's sake. It may not be accurate but at least you'd climb out of the culture closet.

And I would also like to add that I love that Dana (thus far) so everyone, put your claws back in. I just have a funny way of showing it.

That's only in the movies... the people they show on the news wear a baseball cap and sunglasses.

Of course that's not ok. We don't even allow phone tapping as evidence in our courts. CCTV is very strictly governed. You cannot place one which, for instance, takes in part of someone's back yard, unless they've agreed. You certainly can't film inside somebody's house. Cameras are placed a) on publically owned, or coporate owned property (e.g Train Stations, Shopping Malls, Street corners, Town centres) or privately on someone's own property, as long as it doesn't in any way infringe on the privacy of their neighbours or passers by (e.g after a spate of harrassment or burglasries, an individual may place one which takes in their path and doorway).

Basically we consider that if you are in a public place, you have already waived your right to privacy (except in terms of one's own person). If you are inside your home then you have absolute rights of privacy and if the police want to search your home, they have to get a warrant from a magistrate.

Actually data sharing is so hampered by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection acts that sharing between bodies such as the Health Trust, the Youth Offending team and the Crisis Response teams have proved all but impossible for most regions to achieve (as a way of ensuring services link up to identify children whose lives are going into crisis and who may be subject to abuse).

The national DNA database does not exist. It is a proposal which has been very badly recieved by the public. One reason it's so unpopular as a concept is that the attempt to link up all the medical records and hospital appointments system with all the pharmacies and all the Gps cost a small fortune and has been beset with technical difficulties. The other reason is that people are of the opinion that such information should not be held on people who've committed no crime. Basically, the idea is that if you have not committed a crime then you should have every right to your privacy.

Perhaps 'culture' is the wrong word. The correct word would be 'mentalite'. Whether you like it or not, whether you turn away from or not, whether you rebel or not...you have been moulded by the culture and mentalite of your world. You and I have been raised with different mentalites.

Like it or not you have been raised in a culture. That culture may have stark differences with the culture of a different part of the States and with different socio-economic sectors of your society. In mine also, there are distinct cultural differences (between the North and the South especially) born of diverse histories, and different class identifiers. But...there are fundamental differences in the base values on which our two societies are founded. There are fundamental differences in conception of space (Britain is a very small, densely packed Island), and the language we use has branched off in different directions over the past several hundred years.

I am not attempting to say that all Americans share one mindset or that all Brits do. What I am trying to say is that there are as many cultural differences between Britain and America as there are between Britain and France. The difference is we share a language. That gives us an impression of much greater cultural parity than there in fact is.

I see threats to civil liberities. I don't accept that CCTV is a threat to civil liberties. Changes in law regarding the amount of time a suspect can be held without charge when brought in under the Terrorism Act, is a threat to civil liberties. The way ASBOs can be converted into much more serious punishments without the same protections as someone who doesn't have an ASBO would recieve in the legal system, that is a threat to civil liberties. The use of 'Inderminate' and 'mandatory' sentencing is, I think a threat to civil liberties. The suggested change in the law to allow phone tapping as evidence in court, is a threat to civil liberties. The laws brought in under Thatcher which made 'Flying Pickets' a criminal offense, thereby taking employees civil action back into the realm of the criminal justice system, that was a threat to civil liberties. Laws prohibiting peaceful demonstrations in Parliament Square without written permission from the Police, that's a threat to civil liberties. Extending the rights of Stop and Search for the Police, that's a threat to civil liberties, and persisting with the ridiculous prohibition system on drugs is also, I think an attack on civil liberties.

There are many attacks on civil liberties. But CCTV is not one of them. Just being 'watched' is not initself dangerous. Do you really believe there was ever a time when we weren't watched? When you register the birth of a child, or the death of a parent, a marriage or a divorce, you are being watched. All that has changed is the technology. If laws are passed to allow the inside of my home to be watched, that would be a direct attack on my rights to privacy. There is no evidence, at all, to suggest that this is the direction CCTV is heading in. All the evidence is to the contrary, with CCTV being more strictly governed than practically any other mode of surveillance. The decision to place a CCTV camera, is not the province of Central government. IT is a decision usually taken either by an individual, or by the Police operating on locally agreed strategies and Councils.

It is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, it's a red herring.

*sighs* Cic, I didn't say I couldn't see the other perspective. I was trying to tell you that I find it very hard to explain my culture's perspective because I keep running into walls. You are the one listening to my explanation. I am the one trying to give the explanation and I am telling you I keep running into the same wall with you as I have run into time and again with other Americans. And I am not suggesting all Americans are alike or think the same. I have had this argument with Americans who've each had very different political opinions and presumably, as they're from disparate parts of the states, culturally distinct perspectives. On some issues though, I run into the same walls. This is one of those debates when I run into what I consider to be cultural walls and find it almost impossible to explain what I am talking about. Another issue that has that same effect is the idea of it being illegal to print certain types of racist material.


You are the one who is refusing to step outside and see another perspective. I have tried in this thread to share that perspective and explain it. I do not deny your perspective. I simply suggest that as an outsider your view of my country runs contrary to my view of it.

Round of applause Dana - you put it far more eloquently than I would.

Just as an aside - a woman at Water Workout today was complaining that she couldn't get a CCTV camera on her road. Her car has been targeted twice by a very odd form of vandalism - she lives on a hill and someone has left a stolen car further up the hill with the handbrake off so it crashes into hers. The sound wakes her and her husband but by the time they look out of the window the road is deserted. Both she and the woman she was talking to found it shocking that the police couldn't put up temporary cameras if there wasn't enough crime in the area for a permanent one. I smiled when I heard their conversation... apart from thinking they obviously weren't working hard enough in the water.

lol. I know. I nearly laughed out loud the other day when I was being petitioned to help a local residents group who want CCTV installed in a snicket that runs behind their houses :P

So far I have been unsuccessful in getting CCTV for people, except for one instance, where the woman in question was suffering extreme racial harrassment.

An outsider?!? Did you call me an outsider?!? Lame.


Here are some views from non-outsiders...Pay attention to the Judge's Opinion on English Law and right to privacy. Sounds like your English Judge wants standards that he doesn't have....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...884193,00.html

How does that fit with your view that we are going to hell in a handbasket and nobody cares?

You do realise that this is not really an issue regarding CCTV (despite the comment from Liberty who are a pressure group within Britain who oppose CCTV) this is an issue re not properly screening the features of a man who made a suicide attempt in a public place?

I don't see anything in that article which suggests the Judge disagrees with CCTV.

Not to get involved in this debate one way or another, but this article says that "There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people."

you mean the bad guys don't wear balaclavas? I can't believe that! They all wear them over here. Except the ones that're so drug fucked they forgot.

It's possible that I misheard. Perhaps they were talking about a particular section of a grid or something?

I'm sure the poms here can give us the facts anyway. ;) Besides, I did say I thought there'd be more, so at least I can content myself with that.

That ruling is about the use of footage, not about where the camera is. I wholly agree that such footage should be protected.

Christ on a bike Cic. Are you saying you are inside Britain?

you lasted longer than me Dana.

I appreciated your points and I agree that Cic was being insulting towards you for no reason. She does it to me also which I why I dropped out of this debate (in any meaningful way).

Guidelines. The judge is suggesting that unless privacy is protected by law, there should be stricter guidelines. he has not said CCTV are dangerous and should be fought against.

It is standard practice in this country to disguise people's faces if they are being shown on TV or in newspapers, unless the footage is being shown to help apprehend a criminal (e.g the TV show crimewatch may show cctv from inside a shop during a robbery), or permission is sought and given. What went wrong on this occassion is that CCTV footage was shown in which this gentleman's face had not been properly disguised.

In what way is this a route to a Big Brother state?

I'd also like to point out that the CCTV in question was placed by a local Council as part of its LAA (Local Area Agreement), a document which is available for any citizen to read and comment on. IN most areas of the country, Councils are struggling with the fact that properly managed CCTV is expensive and yet their constituents want more of them.

Cic, I said you were an outsider as in you have an outsider's perspective on Britain. In much the same way I have an outsider's perspective on America. On an intellectual level I understand the American approach to gun laws and medical provision. On a gut level I do not fully understand it. These things clash with my cultural understanding of the world. They do not fit into my mentalite.

Ali, just so your post doesn't look out of context, I want to point out to people that I have edited the preceding post :P

I think my point as a response to your post is still pretty clear mate. ;)

*chuckles* good good, just wanted to be sure :)

I'm sorry I was refering to your own watch-dog groups....forget it.

She had to erase the post because I'm not insulting anyone. I'm not even talking to anyone in this thread right now but DanaC. But we'll close that out as well.

*bangs head against a brick wal then walks off with bleeding forehead*

Hang on no. Before I go. I edited that post because in it I said I wasn't going to talk to you any more. I suggested that you are the one refusing to step outside your 'cultural closet' because every time I try to explain to you what the British perspective on CCTV is, you tell me I am blindly tripping down a path towards a Big Brother state.

I was far too vehement. I do not believe I was particularly insulting, certainly not as insulting as I am capable of being. I did however use this phrase:

When will enough be enough? Right fucking now.

I am repeating that phrase because I think it adequately sums up how I feel right now.

Consider this subject closed as far as I am concerned.

But don't you see that that speaks volumes? I've posted, Zen and Ali have posted (being subjects of a similar "police state") and yet you refuse to believe this has anything to do with the values with which you were brought up?

It's not a personal attack Cicero. We are not saying you are some sort of dumb American. We are just trying to agree to disagree without mudslinging. You may notice the non-Americans keep a low profile in the gun laws threads.

It's so weird seeing all the CCTV cameras around. It's so odd that my mind has mapped them out. I think I know upwards of 75% of the cameras within a one mile radius of my dorm. My brain has become fixated on the stupid things.

I think the strange thing for me is that they're all linked to the same organisation. In the States they are mostly privately owned, even if they are centrally monitored by the likes of ADT.

The ones you know about are :P Have you talked to anybody about them? Just wondering if you'd got any opinions from others.

Have you ever been to the US Ali, or are you an outsider trying to tell me how it really is over here?

lol...nope and nope. Just saying how it is over here. Srsly!

Oh... damn.

:lol:

Jinx: I'm sure I'll say something you can jump me on some other time. I do have a habit of letting my fingers do the talking a bit too much sometimes. :)

Cicero: Whether you intend to be or not, some of your comments are insulting, demeaning and quite simply rude. Good for you. As long as you're happy that's all that matters right?

I just wanted to say, now that this thread is winding down, thanks all, it has been mighty entertaining :corn: .
I've been lurking but not posting because I've said my piece (which is much the same as Dana's - inside your house is private, and cameras are bad; on the street is public, and cameras are ok there).
And especially, it was great to see a civil discussion - a few claws came out but comparing to some other threads there was a near-complete absence of name calling, abuse and personal attacks. :grouphug: Wow, grown-ups.
I can't help but notice that Y-chromosomes were rather scarce in this thread. Coincidence? Unlikely.

Two anecdotes:
CCTV: I used to live on campus where there was a slowly growing network of cameras. Almost everyone was clamouring for new cameras because there was constant petty crime. They came slowly for budget reasons. The only inconvenience to me was when I wanted to meet my dealer, we had to be a little careful and discrete about handovers. Easy to manage.
DNA: My brother's house was burgled. The ransacked his house, pinched his beer, stole his Commodore (manly V8-engine car) kicked his dog and left. Ali will understand this is a bloody outrage in Australia. But they also left a cigarette butt in the garden ... He found it weeks later, turned it in ...DNA database ... ding! Only people convicted of a crime get sampled. Only samples related to a crime can be checked against the database. With these safeguards, I am okay with DNA databases.
But! I am watching to make sure these safeguards remain.

Ding? Some schmo finds a cigarette butt in his yard weeks after his house is burgled - and ding? If ding is anything more than a fine for littering, that's pretty fucked up.
:headshake

Sorry, "ding" was intended to mean a match on the database with a person with a record of similar crimes, and lead (via a warrant, search, discovery of stolen property) to a conviction for burglary.

Yeah...that's an offence almost worth bringing the death penalty back for.

You don't think it's fair that the person who stole stuff should be caught through an act of his own stupidity (other than stealing someone else's stuff of course)?

If the guy hadn't been convicted of a crime before, his DNA would not have been available, but because he had, it was and I'm betting the crime was similar and that's what gave them probable cause for a warrant and I'll bet from there they found Zen's mates' stuff.

If that wasn't your issue with the post, please disregard this post. :)

Just as an aside, I was looking across the street last night (at an internet cafe - I was trying to work out what their hourly rate was) and saw a young teenage girl rip the cardboard top from the packaging on a Halloween wig and just drop it on the ground. She was about five steps from a bin. Then she pulled it out and dropped the plastic on the ground NEXT to the bin. If I was on her side of the road I'd at least have made a comment (and picked it up if necessary). I was on the other side of the BUSY road though.

I'd be happy for a speaker to shout at her. Or for her to get a fine through the post after being seen on CCTV (okay, creepy, but I was SO angry). Or for me to morph into the thing that has scared her since childhood and fall on her like all the fallen angels in hell until she realises the enormity of her crime and weeps for forgiveness. Ahem, sorry - I HATE littering.

I'm with you on that SG. There's simply no need for it. It's purely and simply laziness.

Ah, I see, that makes sense.... I thought ding meant meant the thief was convicted because a cigarette butt with his dna was found weeks later in the vicinity of a crime scene.

Ok, I was too vague in my "ding" comment. And I'm with you about this - if I'm on the jury, the prosecution is going to need more than a single matching DNA sample. For me, it just tells the police who they should be looking at; a clue, rather than complete evidence.

At the risk of digging up what should be perhaps left buried:

Cic, sorry if I was a little harsh/aggressive mate. You're entitled to your opinion just as anyone else is and just because I get frustrated at times doesn't mean I don't like discussing things with you.

Well....maybe I should have read this before I got drunk enough to be mad at you last night, along with the entire universe, in a ridiculous stupor. I am providing proof that I am silly....to the core. Just don't listen.

See: What do you look like RFN. I really should never drink...ever. "This is what I look like when I am mad at DanaC." Plbbbt.
:D

LoL silly mare :P