Britons named world's biggest emitters
This issue has heated up over the last few months and is going to become a bigger issue in the future. The EU has been hashing this over, all summer, trying to figure out how to balance it with their, carbon footprint/emission reduction, goals.
Britons named world's biggest emitters of CO2 from air travel
The Guardian (UK) 10/10/2007 Author: Thair Shaikh
Britons produce more carbon emissions from air travel a head than any other country, a study reveals today, citing the country's predilection for low-cost airlines as a major factor.
The average carbon emission for each British flyer was 603kg (95lb) a year, more than a third higher than Ireland in second place with 434kg and more than double that of the US at 275kg, in third place.
Wetter summers and easier access to air travel were also blamed for the increasing greenhouse gas emissions by British air travellers, according to the report by Global TGI, a market research company, which studied 20
countries with high rates of air travel.
Geoff Wicken, a spokesman for Global TGI, said: "There are clearly a number of reasons for it, some of which include the British weather and people wanting to get away from that, some of which are to do with our being an island. But the rapid growth in low-cost flying has undoubtedly been a factor."
The figures will put the government under renewed pressure to clamp down on air travel to meet its targets to reduce emissions. Although the government has pledged to cut carbon emissions as part of its fight against global warming, it has supported airport expansion.
Delivering his budget report yesterday, Alistair Darling announced measures to tackle climate change, including switching air taxes from individual passengers to airline flights to encourage more efficient use of planes. He also said that air travel, which contributes 6.3% of the UK's carbon emissions, should be part of the EU's .
Several studies have shown that the aviation industry is rapidly becoming a major contributor to global warming. Over the past 30 years air passengers in Britain have increased fivefold.
The government's own figures support the notion that air travel is more harmful to the environment. Defra calculated that rail journeys produce 0.04kg of carbon dioxide for each passenger kilometre.
For longhaul flights it is 0.11kg, while short-haul flights produce 0.15kg. That would make a flight from London to Paris about four times as polluting as a train journey. Cheap shorthaul flights offered by airlines are now in direct competition with trains to European destinations such as Paris and also big cities in the Britain such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
Scientists say carbon emissions in the atmosphere are at least twice as harmful to the environment as those at sea level.
But overall, US adults have the biggest annual travel carbon footprint in the world at 7.8 tonnes, more than double France's 3.7 tonnes, which comes in at number two. Third on the list, at 3.1 tonnes, is Britain.
The study calculated air emissions by adding up the number of long and short haul flights taken. It arrived at road emissions figures by determining the amount of fuel consumed.
The EU, particularly the French and Germans, have been adamantly opposed to including aircraft in the emissions trading scheme. Maybe they are jealous of Briton's lead in airlines?
Given the thread title, I thought this was going to be about national flatulence rates. All that beer and egg-and-chips...
Seriously, your title is misleading. Britons are the biggest per capita source of emissions from air travel.
The biggest per capita source of emissions in total remains the USA.:us:
Still, it's an interesting point. With the huge distances in travelling within the USA, I'd have thought they would fly much more. I guess the sucky weather in Britain makes them all want to escape to Spain whenever possible, and who can blame them?
I'm all for high speed trains, MUCH lower emissions. Planes are still faster while in motion, but all the sodding about you have to do to get on a plane adds a lot to the total travel time, so for short and mid-length journeys, trains can be quicker door-to-door.
That was the whole point, ZenG: to pull you in...
So why not "snot-dribbling naked chick hung upside-down over a vat of liquefied head's with a feather duster up her arse while being tased by George Bush"?
Oh yeah, we've already had that thread.
We've already had every thread before. We're like a bunch of broken records around here.
I hope that their data is better than indicated by their ability to convert between units.
Given the thread title, I thought this was going to be about national flatulence rates. All that beer and egg-and-chips...
Seriously, your title is misleading. Britons are the biggest per capita source of emissions from air travel.
The biggest per capita source of emissions in total remains the USA.:us:
Still, it's an interesting point. With the huge distances in travelling within the USA, I'd have thought they would fly much more. I guess the sucky weather in Britain makes them all want to escape to Spain whenever possible, and who can blame them?
I'm all for high speed trains, MUCH lower emissions. Planes are still faster while in motion, but all the sodding about you have to do to get on a plane adds a lot to the total travel time, so for short and mid-length journeys, trains can be quicker door-to-door.
China and India will beat us out as the biggest emitters within the next three years.
(edited)
What, you don't believe 603kg equals 95lb, in Britain? Is The Guardian conversion-ally challenged?
Of course, converting from kg to lb isn't strictly a unit-conversion issue, as kg is a unit of mass and lb is a unit of weight (force) and one needs to account for the local gravity constant, as well as other factors.
China and India will beat us out as the biggest emitters within the next three years.
(edited)
Biggest in total, true (and China may well be there already). But per capita, you guys still kick arse.
I wonder how it works out per unit of GDP? Whose economy is the most efficient at creating wealth with the lowest emissions. I'd tip Japan. Industry here is mostly high-tech, and public transport is fantastic.
Anyone got any -gasp- facts?
EDIT *follows links in Mercenary's post* Good graphs, Merc. I'll look for per capita and per GDP breakdowns.
Biggest in total, true (and China may well be there already). But per capita, you guys still kick arse.
I wonder how it works out per unit of GDP? Whose economy is the most efficient at creating wealth with the lowers emissions. I'd tip Japan. Industry here is mostly high-tech, and public transport is fantastic.
Anyone got any -gasp- facts?
There might be some here:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
I have not looked.
Thanks Merc, couldn't find the breakdowns I wanted there but some interesting (and generally depressing) stuff. Especially that renewables have
lost market share in the US since 2002 :( This bodes ill.
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/renewable_1996-2004.jpg
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/energy_con_2005.jpgBut back to the main issue here ... who does fart the most?
Chinese, with all that cabbage?
British, with their beer and egg-and-chips?
Americans, because everything is usually their fault? (joking, UG!)
Russians ... Borscht ....
Anyone?
renewables have lost market share in the US since 2002
An expanding economy will do that.
An expanding economy will do that.
Only if the non-renewable sector is expanding faster than the renewable sector. Like I said, it bodes ill.
I think Australians fart the most and loudest in public because we're all uncouth and crass and descended from convicts.
I think Australians fart the most and loudest in public because we're all uncouth and crass and descended from convicts.
And we give them scores out of ten, for technical difficulty and artistic merit.
I'm not so worried about being descended from convicts. What worries me is that quite a few of us must be descended from
prison guards. Ughghghgh.
Better that than puritans.
Well I'm probably the offspring of a traitorous wench who slept with an occupying force - be it Viking, Roman or Norman...
I think Australians fart the most and loudest in public because we're all uncouth and crass and descended from convicts.
Maybe that is why the Aussies seem to get along better with the Yanks than most of the previous colonials? :p
Well I'm probably the offspring of a traitorous wench who slept with an occupying force - be it Viking, Roman or Norman...
Probably all three, over the generations.
Not all of those wenches were willing traitors.
And most Antipodeans share a similar heritage, with plenty of Irish and maybe a bit of German thrown in.
Of course! I'm descended from a whole line of women who valued their life over their chastity. Makes sense ;)
I'm a descendant of a puritan. *shivers violently*
Most Watched as well?
Copy paste:
~Civil-rights groups speak out over Britons' long-accepted 'Orwellian' way of life
By Kim Murphy | Los Angeles Times
10/19/2007
GLOUCESTER, England — It used to be that troublemakers could lounge on the planters outside the McDonald's here and pick apart the geraniums to their hearts' content.
A Polish immigrant hamburger salesman might complain — as if! — or someone's grandma would tell the offending group of hoodlums to knock it off, if she dared.
But these days, Big Brother does the job.
The closed-circuit television camera lurking just down the street from the fast-food restaurant bellows menacingly at the first sign of danger to the flora or a cast-off cigarette butt or fast-food wrapper, for that matter. "Pick it up," commands a booming voice from ... where, exactly?
The CCTV cameras in Gloucester and several other British towns now come equipped with speakers, meaning Big Brother is not only watching, but he's telling you what to do.
"When people hear that, they tend to react. They pick up the litter and put it in the bin," said Mick Matthews, assistant chief police constable in this old cathedral city of 110,000 in the rolling Cotswold Hills.
For all the increased anti-terrorism security measures in the U.S., there is probably no society on Earth more watched than Britain. By some estimates, 4.2 million CCTV cameras, or one for every 15 people, quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, monitor the comings and goings of almost everyone — an average person is caught on camera up to 300 times a day.
Thanks in part to Britain's history of terrorist attacks by the Irish Republican Army, some early, high-profile law enforcement successes helped imprint the potential benefits of closed-circuit television on the popular imagination. With more than $200 million in funding since 1999, CCTV was a fixture in British cities long before attacks by Islamist militants began prompting other governments to step up surveillance of their populations.
Cameras are fixed on lampposts and on street corners, above sidewalks, in subways, on buses, in taxis, in the stores, over the parking lots, in mobile police vans and in some cities, even perched in the hats of police officers walking their beats. Surprisingly clear images of Britons engaged in apparently nefarious activities have become a staple on the evening news; few of the country's many terrorism trials unfold without the jury being presented with multiple images of the defendants carrying alleged backpack bombs or driving up to a storehouse of explosives.
Pub patrons in one town last year had their fingerprints scanned as they walked in (bringing up their criminal records on a computer screen); some cities are talking of putting electronic chips in household trash cans to measure output; a toll-free "smoke-free compliance line" takes snitch reports on violators of the new national ban on smoking in public places.
The DNA profile of every person ever arrested — even those briefly detained for, say, loitering and released without charge — is on file in what is believed to be, per capita, the largest such database in the world, with 3.9 million samples. It includes the genetic markings of an estimated 40 percent of Britain's black male population.
For the majority of Britons, polls show, there is nothing wrong with much of this monitoring.
"I didn't know the camera was even up there until it started talking," said Clive Anthony, who blinked and twirled for a moment one recent afternoon while shopping in downtown Gloucester when the CCTV camera started barking at something. "I haven't got a problem with it, basically. To my mind, if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing and going about your business, just because somebody's watching that, it's not taking anything away from me."
Public acceptance of closed-circuit television skyrocketed after the murder of toddler James Bulger near Liverpool in 1993. In CCTV footage that shocked the country, the killers, a pair of 10-year-old boys, were shown leading the trusting boy away from a shopping center.
"The last known sighting of this boy was on CCTV. And there was this kind of iconic image that was used to say, 'If we had more CCTV, we would be more likely to spot horrible crimes like this,' " said Kirstie Ball, an expert on surveillance systems at Open University Business School in Milton Keynes. "It got to a point where if you were opposing CCTV, you were in favor of child murder."
But a growing number of people, including some police officers and the country's information commissioner, are beginning to wonder if Britain isn't watching itself too closely.
"Local communities are pushing very powerfully for closed-circuit television. What they say is, I may live in this little village that has no history of violent crime, but I'll feel safer if I've got CCTV," said Ian Readhead, deputy chief constable of the Hampshire police, who recently warned that Britain risks "an Orwellian situation with cameras on every street corner."
"Suppose Mr. Brand is seen walking down the local street with Mrs. Wight. 'What's that about?' someone will ask. And in a village environment, it begins to cause a rumor; it begins to cause intrigue," he said in an interview. "You really only want to deploy this kind of equipment when you have clear knowledge of an identifiable situation, and when you've achieved your objectives, you want to take it down."
In a round-the-world survey conducted by Privacy International, a London-based civil-rights group set up to monitor government infringement on privacy, Britain was roughly keeping company with Russia and China near the bottom, colored in black on a world map, with the U.S. not far behind, in red. Britain has no written constitution, no bill of rights and no privacy act. Its privacy protections are enforced mainly through the European Convention on Human Rights and a limited data protection law passed in 1998.
"In the area of visual surveillance, we are so far ahead of the field that it's beyond measurement," said Simon Davies, the group's director.
Britain's information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has warned that the country is "waking up in a surveillance society" and has called for greater public discussion of what it really means to make one's life a virtual open book.
"The U.K. has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country in the world, but it's not only that," Thomas said. "Every time we use mobile telephones, every time we use credit cards, every time we use the Internet for shopping or a search, every time we interact with the government for social security or taxes or passport checks, every time we go to our doctors or hospitals now, we are leaving an electronic footprint. And this of course is not just a U.K. issue; it is an international issue."
Government authorities say their new surveillance tools not only guard against terrorists but also against welfare cheating, illegal immigration and the juvenile delinquents who plague many of Britain's cities.
"The public don't have a problem with being protected from thugs or having CCTV cameras that catch murderers or DNA that solves horrendous crimes that left victims and families without justice for 20 years," former Prime Minister Tony Blair said, responding to growing concerns before leaving office. "But there must always be safeguards."
Although studies have shown the CCTV cameras have had a negligible effect on crime in most areas where they're placed — other than parking lots, where they help prevent thefts — police say they are an invaluable tool in catching suspects after the fact, helping track missing children or the elderly and directing police to potential problem situations before they escalate.
In Gloucester, the CCTV cameras not only talk, they can be linked to software that scans vehicle registration plates to track suspects even before they have committed crimes.
"If there's a criminal we're interested in, not necessarily in a position to arrest him, but if you're trying to track this criminal, learn his lifestyle, his movements, his vehicle number will be put into the system, and any time he comes into the city, his movements will be tracked," said Roger Clayton, chief inspector of Gloucester.
Sometimes, these days, the wrongdoer is merely someone who gets caught riding a bicycle in the downtown pedestrians-only zone.
"Please dismount from the bicycle," the offender is told, by someone, somewhere. They're never sure who.~
I thought this was pretty creepy. No.....more like....scares the shit out of me.
Yeah. We are the most watched nation in Europe.
A Polish immigrant hamburger salesman might complain — as if! — or someone's grandma would tell the offending group of hoodlums to knock it off, if she dared.
But these days, Big Brother does the job.
If a grandma dared to tackle a group of youngsters in this way she could quite possibly be beaten to death by said group. It's happened a few times now, that an adult has tried to tell a gang of kids to stop being destructive/noisy and they've turned on him like a pack of wild things. Police advice now is,do not attempt to intervene with a group of teenagers. Is it any wonder many people feel safer with cameras around?
"Local communities are pushing very powerfully for closed-circuit television. What they say is, I may live in this little village that has no history of violent crime, but I'll feel safer if I've got CCTV," said Ian Readhead, deputy chief constable of the Hampshire police
This is a very important point, and one I tried making to rk on the issue of cctv and the 'Big Brother' effect. The concept of the Big Brother state, in Orwell's novel, is top-down. Much of the surveillance in my country is there because the people have asked for it, in many cases actively campaigning to persuade councils and police forces to install more. This is far from top-down. This is what happens when a democratic government and its agencies respond to the urgings of the populace.
From here;
By some estimates, 4.2 million CCTV cameras, or one for every 15 people, quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, monitor the comings and goings of almost everyone -- an average person is caught on camera up to 300 times a day.
Surprisingly clear images of Britons engaged in apparently nefarious activities have become a staple on the evening news; few of the country's many terrorism trials unfold without the jury being presented with multiple images of the defendants purportedly carrying backpack bombs or driving up to a storehouse of explosives.
Pub patrons in one town last year had their fingerprints scanned as they walked in (bringing up their criminal records on a computer screen); some cities are considering putting electronic chips in household trash cans to measure output; a toll-free "smoke-free compliance line" takes snitch reports on violators of the new national ban on smoking in public places.
The DNA profile of every person arrested -- even those briefly detained for, say, loitering, and released without charge -- is on file in what is believed to be, per capita, the largest such database in the world, with 3.9 million samples. It includes the genetic markings of an estimated 40% of Britain's black male population.
For the majority of Britons, polls show, there is nothing at all wrong with much of this monitoring.
And that's the bottom line, is it not?
I might point out that despite our acceptance of such monitoring there is huge unease and opposition to the proposals for both ID cards and a National DNA database.
So the general attitude is something along the line of, the police are only taking DNA samples from criminals and n'er do wells, but they shouldn't sample everyone?
We are well trained in double-think here. Like all the mobile phone users want universal coverage, but no-one wants a phone mast within 10 miles of their home, workplace, child's school, playground etc etc.
So we want anyone vaguely suspect on a database, so they can be locked up indefinitely, but the idea that Mrs Smith down the road should have her cheek swabbed is ludicrous.
*grins*
Oh please, I have to deal with a lot of NIMBYism in my work. Frustrates the living hell out of me. It always amazes me how quickly people can whip up a protest group steering committee if it involves the slightest change to the look of their street, but damn, can ya get these people out of their houses when something big is going off?
Many industries have the same problem with nimbyism, some rightly so. It's a big problem in a lot of ways though. someone's always going to be unhappy. The trick is to start paying people to accept having things in their back yard. Then you get swamped by people being pissed of because they weren't offered. ;)
Doesn't really matter what you do, you can't win.
At least you have a fair amount of space over there. We're such a crowded little island that everything is in someone's back yard.
lol...believe me Sundae, it can be 500 km's away and someone will still claim it's in their personal space. ;)
I'm a descendant of a puritan. *shivers violently*
Hell, on my father's side, I am myself -- of one William _____, a glover by trade, from a village south of Norwich in East Anglia, who hit Massachusetts in 1638. Some of his grandkids had these really Massachusetts Puritan Old Testament names, too. When the Puritans let up, they became Congregationalists, I'm told.
I think my mother's people, Scots by way of Northern Ireland, were a couple centuries later.
I manage. I just plays me bagpipes...
I can claim one genuine convict: Richard Welch. Transported for life in (I think) 1802, and none of this wimpy stealing-a-loaf-of-bread nonsense. The charges:
:jail: Firing a pistol at Mr J. Dennis with intent to kill him.
:jail: Firing a pistol at Mr J. Dennis with intent to disable him.
:jail: Firing a pistol at Mr J. Dennis with intent to do him actual bodily harm.
:jail: Merely firing a pistol at Mr J. Dennis.
:jail: Being in unlawful possession of a firearm.
:jail: Burglary in the house of Mr J. Dennis.
(My favourite: )
:jail: Being in the High street, with his face blackened, and being otherwise disguised against the statute. :ninja:
The phrase "threw the book at him" comes to mind. Also, given that this was in Ireland, the phrase "You land-owning English bastard" might also fit in somewhere, but we don't know the complete details.
He was found guilty of the first four charges, judgment being reserved on the remaining three.
He was originally sentenced to be hanged, but this was commuted to transportation for life, and eventually he was paroled on condition he remain Down Under.
Five generations later his offspring was a lord mayor of a council in Sydney.
My great-great...not sure how many greats-grandfather on dad's side was a country parson, who went out to India with the British East India Company. Did very well for himself and his offspring became Indigo plantation owners. In fact Dad's family were the last of the great Indigo families in India. Grandfather, as the second son, would not have inherited the family estate anyway, so he went into governance. He was Chief Auditor of Indian railways, with (I kid ye not) his own train, or rather a train for his own use.
He used to tell fabulous stories, like when some bandits (or rebels, I could never be sure) tried to derail his train. I don't remember at what point he ended up stood on a rock firing his army revolver, but it was a good story:P Oh and the time his servant was bitten by a poisonous snake, whilst they were out hunting crocodile.
Brits may have come across the Fast Show, with Paul Whitehouse. The old man telling stories, really reminds me of Grandfather, right down to the green leather chair he's sitting on.
[youtube]nAB-Gmru_mU[/youtube]
[youtube]NPiGJBHVadA[/youtube]
~snip~"If there's a criminal we're interested in, not necessarily in a position to arrest him, but if you're trying to track this criminal, learn his lifestyle, his movements, his vehicle number will be put into the system, and any time he comes into the city, his movements will be tracked," said Roger Clayton, chief inspector of Gloucester.~snip~
Here in the United States the people are saying that you at least need probable cause. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Britons. Not that I'm sitting here calculating differences, but I believe in peoples right to privacy.
If I were there I think I would get confused between the actual trash and the actual receptacle and might throw the wrong thing in the wrong place...but I am a rude American. :)
It's suprising what we can get used to. Being investigated without cause has never made me feel safer.
Yea....I do think catching people for loitering and then releaseing them is a great idea and a great way to spend the public's money and your time.....I'm not sure why we should put up with people doing nothing in the wrong place here in America. We should adopt this all across the United States...just like Colorado where people were caught loitering in public parks.
~"If there's a criminal we're interested in, not necessarily in a position to arrest him, but if you're trying to track this criminal, learn his lifestyle, his movements, his vehicle number will be put into the system, and any time he comes into the city, his movements will be tracked,"
This sounds to me like probable cause. Just not enough evidence to actually issue an arrest warrant. You can be breathalised, or have your bag searched, if the police feel they have reasonable cause for suspicion. That doesn't mean they have enough evidence to convict. If the police were only ever able to search/question/breathalise or investigate people when they already have enough evidence for an arrest then they would be unlikely to ever gain that evidence.
He's not said that anybody they don't like the look of will be tracked; he's suggesting that if they have reasonable grounds for suspicion they will continue to monitor and investigate that individual. I would have thought that constituted much of police work.
Yes...you are right Dana. That statement is too ambiguous to tell. Now isn't it?
It's alright if you are all under a self-imposed investigation in Britain and you don't mind. Hey, if that's what you guys really want-do it. The people have spoken.
Oooh...I've got that Kafka feeling...I hate that feeling.:(
I will not accept this in the country I live in if I get the choice. People have a right to privacy. I am an adult that doesn't need to be told how to throw my trash away or how to wipe my own ass.
Tell me when they finally report the OmegaVision goggles and how it's ok to peer into your home and watch you scratch your ass on the way to your fridge for milk. :) (the scenarios could get worse from there) When will you say enough is enough? When is when? How far is too far?
I don't think you need to be filmed all the time Dana. As fun as that sounds.....:) Is it ok to be taken in for suspicion of loitering if it keeps the real loiterers off the streets?
Gee...take out the smilies from Ciceros' posts and there you have rkz.
I don't know how Dana and other Brits feel about what you've put in your last couple of posts Cicero, but from the outside looking in (and also being from a country with very similar laws) I'd say you've got no idea. That's the problem with some people from the US. You're so wrapped up in your own ideals about things that you can't see that there are other ways of doing things which might be just as good... or heaven forbid. Even better!
I know Ali....
Some people have this version of heaven that happens to be my version of hell and vice versa. American or not.
But I would still like the answer from Dana....on when will enough be enough because I give a flip about her opinion.
I don't think you need to be filmed all the time Dana. As fun as that sounds..... Is it ok to be taken in for suspicion of loitering if it keeps the real loiterers off the streets?
I don't think people get taken in here for loitering. Unless it's loitering with intent
But I would still like the answer from Dana....on when will enough be enough because I give a flip about her opinion.
I dunno. When will it enough be enough in America? In another thread we see that your president and whitehouse can act outside of the law, on such things as phone tapping without a warrant. Yet Americans consistently point to our law enforcement and cameras and tell me that this is an invasion of our privacy.
If
the people are requesting, nay demanding, more cctv, who are the police and politicians to deny them that? If the police have enough evidence to suspect a criminal, but not enough to issue an arrest warrant, should they just throw up their hands and say "oh well, let him go, don't bother watching him or attempting to gather evidence about his activities"?
Honestly Cicero, I think you guys have a strange view of freedom. There's a real double standard in what you allow in your own country and what you perceive as amiss in mine.
This may be the line Cicero is looking for:
CCTV cameras only film public places. (Checks "L" is correctly used in that phrase ;) )
On the street, if there were a police officer, they could stand and keep an eye on you. I have no problem with that. Inside your home, the police need a good reason (or your permission) to enter.
I am fine with CCTV in public places. I am opposed to it if it is used inside peoples' homes, especially against their will.
This gives Dana her protection from street hoodlums, and Cicero her privacy - inside her own home. You can't expect privacy on the public street, can you?
Cicero, your arse-scratching is indeed your own business, but throwing out your garbage is, I believe, public business. Once it leaves your home, you expect the city to deal with it. What if Mr Burns decided to start putting nuclear waste in the domestic garbage?
Mind you, that can go pretty extreme. In Japan, you must (a) sort your garbage into appropriate categories and (b) put it out in transparent plastic bags, so that people can see if their neighbours are doing the right thing. Not shocked yet? When this was first introduced, you had (by law) to write your name and address on all the garbage you threw out! Even in Japan this was going too far, and they fell back to the clear bags bit, figuring that shame and neighbourly disapproval would do the trick. Mostly it does.
I dunno. When will it enough be enough in America? In another thread we see that your president and whitehouse can act outside of the law, on such things as phone tapping without a warrant. Yet Americans consistently point to our law enforcement and cameras and tell me that this is an invasion of our privacy.
If the people are requesting, nay demanding, more cctv, who are the police and politicians to deny them that? If the police have enough evidence to suspect a criminal, but not enough to issue an arrest warrant, should they just throw up their hands and say "oh well, let him go, don't bother watching him or attempting to gather evidence about his activities"?
Honestly Cicero, I think you guys have a strange view of freedom. There's a real double standard in what you allow in your own country and what you perceive as amiss in mine.
I'm not imposing these double-standards. I don't like it going on in my country, and it happened without my vote, so I have to sit around and work with people here of like mind that want the Patriot Act destroyed. I also don't like a lot of the policies in my own country, and it's hard for me to watch other countries adopt, and adapt policies we created that we won't even follow through with. Or are trying and haven't managed yet...This is a global situation and calling me an American with double-standards doesn't illuminate any fact about that. I watch this happen to myself without my consent, and it's just strange to watch people that adopt these policies on purpose. The "watch you scratch your butt" comment- well it stems from what is actually happening in
America.
I've been saying enough is enough before W got to the White House. I knew of the electronic surveilance before the patriot act and I stood in the streets and said enough was enough then too. Unfortunately...no one gives a shit.
My president? Well it's uncomfortable (that you put me and that guy in the same sentence), but it's true, he's "my president"...our president here has done tons of things I don't agree with and I traveled to his ranch to tell him so. I didn't vote for him, but then again, neither did a lot of people. I actively helped to campaign against him. That also didn't work. Don't tell me
I have double-standards. I don't agree with these new surveillance societies straight across the board.
Especially where I live.
Again, when is enough going to be enough? Do you have a direct answer for this question? How much of your privacy will you give up before you will say "this is enough for me to feel safe"? Is it what is in place now in your country, or do you think you guys need to take it further? This is an honest question I have here....I'm not trying to trash England and the vote of it's citizens! Seriously! I am trying to understand it. Genuinely.
:rant:
Again, when is enough going to be enough? Do you have a direct answer for this question? How much of your privacy will you give up before you will say "this is enough for me to feel safe"? Is it what is in place now in your country, or do you think you guys need to take it further? This is an honest question I have here....I'm not trying to trash England and the vote of it's citizens! Seriously! I am trying to understand it. Genuinely.
Okay, if it's an honest question I will give an honest answer, but this is only my opinion. We Brits live cheek by jowl, we're a small and rather crowded island. There is a certain mentality that is bred into small island dwellers - they put a higher premium on consideration for others than they do for what Americans call "freedom". We have a different view of freedom here, and a lot of it is to do with feeling protected and knowing that if you have to obey the laws then someone or something is going to ensure that your neighbours observe it too.
I haven't spoken to a single Briton who has a problem with being filmed by CCTV. And I don't know many who believe this is the thin end of the wedge and eventually we will have cameras in our homes or any other of the outlandish predictions. While we have cameras on the streets it makes sense to use them. Note the policeman in Gloucester was referring to a
criminal, not a member of the public. This is someone with a criminal record, known to the local police, perhaps on parole and suspected of breaking his parole conditions etc etc. Not Ms Cicero headed down the street to get a McDonalds with her two kids. Am I bothered that the police have some people under surveillance? Nope. They could watch me for years and not have anything on me - and if they did it would be tough luck on me for breaking the law.
I know how frustrated the police get, when they know someone is responsible for a one person crime wave but they don't have enough to convict. They are using tools already in place to try to redress this - surely better than fitting up a usual suspect for a random crime, knowing that he was at least responsible for others they didn't get him for.
And speakers identifying people breaking the law? I'm all for it! I would have personally hidden in a rubbish bin on the pedestrian-only New Walk and shouted at the cyclists with a megaphone if I could - it was a steep hill and the freewheeling bikes caused so many near-misses (and accidents apparently, I just never witnessed one). And littering... well let's put it this way, if I was a 6 foot 2 imposing bloke I would never suffer to see anyone drop litter in front of me. It's disgusting and anti-social and I'm all for people being reminded of that.
We are a stubborn race. If there's something we're not happy with we complain in big enough numbers for it to be changed. It generally works. The reason the bin monitoring didn't go ahead was public disapproval. When is enough? I don't know yet, but if we get there you'll hear about it.
Probably didn't help any, but that's my two penn'orth.
But then, we literate people, both sides of the pond, just can't help but remember a word, from a different guy named George...
...telescreen.
For me, the big issues in 1984 were the restriction of everyday goods and the manipulation of information in order to manipulate the populace. Not the telescreens - which I do not believe will ever happen.
And it's not literate people in this country who reference Big Brother, it's the same people who say, "political correctness gone mad!" at every story the newspapers put that spin on. Most people who make Big Brother comments don't even realise it's not the title of the book, let alone have read it [COLOR="Silver"](this is not referring to you, UG, it is my personal experience in this country)[/COLOR]
Obviously you can be perfectly literate and not get the moral to a story.
We can go ahead and nail down specific details and lose sight of the "big picture".
If everyone drowns themselves in obscurities and in details about said, obscurities, (literature or not) we will all be comfortable and not half as confused as I am right now.
I am going to go stick my head in the dirt, bury it, and leave my ass in the air. Wait....no I'm not.
SNIP
I am going to go stick my head in the dirt, bury it, and leave my ass in the air. Wait....no I'm not.
Please? Would you scratch it too? I've got my CCTV camera all lined up... ;)
I sure will Zen, because that is my new angle on how to break all the cameras and not get charged with anything.....lol!
:)
I sure will Zen, because that is my new angle on how to break all the cameras and not get charged with anything.....lol!
:)
:lol:
Did you ever wonder if the popularity of large-brimmed hats and caps, and big dark glasses, corresponded to the density of CCTV cameras? Or am I attributing way too much rationality to urban bad boys? These people get
tattoos and wonder why they are identifiable.
Oh yea....what are they going to charge me with?!? Destruction of public property by way of ugly butt?!?
Sure, I'll be identifiable...But cite the law that says it's illegal for my clothed butt to be so ugly that it breaks cameras!!
Hah! CCTV cameras would be lucky to distinguish between my butt and my face in the first place...... Hell, most people on the Cellar can't even do that!!!
lol!!
And it's not literate people in this country who reference Big Brother, it's the same people who say, "political correctness gone mad!" at every story the newspapers put that spin on. Most people who make Big Brother comments don't even realise it's not the title of the book, let alone have read it [COLOR="Silver"](this is not referring to you, UG, it is my personal experience in this country)[/COLOR]
Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
That happens all the time. "1984!" was a punchline in a Peanuts strip from the earlyish Sixties. Charlie Brown was figuring when he'd be an adult...
The novel itself quite completed my allergy to communist totalitarianism. It's more than any other single thing why I so often visibly desire to feed a busload of fascisto-communists, brothers under the skin as we all know, into Room 101. Perhaps after dragging them
down U.S. 101. It being just the other end of town. "My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time..."
You do know that Orwell was a socialist right?
And you do know it was just a story right? lol
[QUOTE=Cicero;399400]Obviously you can be perfectly literate and not get the moral to a story.
QUOTE]
hey- it's a good time to quote myself.
:D
*side-note*
Dana...are you going to answer my question?
When will enough be enough? How do I know? Enough of what? CCTVs specifically? Or is there some meta problem/direction of travel encompassing CCTVs, police drug tests, monitoring of suspected criminals etc ?
I get the impression you think the latter...I don't necessarily group those things into a single journey. They are societal and/or systemic responses to specific problems or needs. They are entirely contextual.
[eta. I didn't answer earlier because I haven't really had the headspace to think through my reply. In some threads that doesn't really matter...but in this one I wish to be cogent, or at the very least clear. This issue is difficult to argue...as there seems to be a very distinct cultural difference in our thinking. Though we use the same base language, some of our base assumptions are alien to each other, I think. Only some, in many ways we are culturally alike. But this is one of those areas.*smiles*
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...
I'm pretty sure this isn't cultural because I think harm is broader than that....
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.
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.
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.
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.
maybe because the people doing the robbing wear balaclavas etc?
That's only in the movies... the people they show on the news wear a baseball cap and sunglasses.
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? ... 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
*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/story/0,3604,884193,00.htmlHow 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.
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.
...
Not to get involved in this debate one way or another, but this
article says that "[SIZE=2]There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.[/SIZE]"
That's only in the movies... the people they show on the news wear a baseball cap and sunglasses.
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.
Not to get involved in this debate one way or another, but this article says that "[SIZE=2]There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.[/SIZE]"
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).
The judge, Mr Justice Harrison, ruled in November 1997 that the council was within its rights under English law to release the film and had not been acting irrationally.
But he added: "Unless and until there is a general right of privacy recognised by English law - and the implications are there may soon be so by the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into law - reliance must be placed on effective guidance being issued by codes of practice in order to try and stop such undesirable invasions of a person's privacy."
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.
I'm not even talking to anyone in this thread right now but DanaC. But we'll close that out as well.
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.
you mean the bad guys don't wear balaclavas? I can't believe that! They all wear them over here.
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!
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.
But they also left a cigarette butt in the garden ... He found it weeks later, turned it in ...DNA database ... ding!
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
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.
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.
Yeah...that's an offence almost worth bringing the death penalty back for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
