Reply to: to cctv or not to cctv?

[vetran]

Surely if our government did get as bad as those, it would do whatever it likes anyway?

I have some reservations as our government does sometimes abuse rules, like that thing about councils using anti-terror laws to snoop on ordinary people, but I think I'd rather be protected from the more immediate risk of crime. Much more likely to get mugged than jailed for insulting our great leaders at the moment.

how very dare you!

you know the benefits of immigration are obvious!

[xoggoth]

That might be true at the moment. But if the government goes rogue, like it did in Russia under Stalin, or Germany in the 1930's, then you might have a lot to worry about. Privacy is about protecting private citizens from the force of bad governments.

Surely if our government did get as bad as those, it would do whatever it likes anyway?

I have some reservations as our government does sometimes abuse rules, like that thing about councils using anti-terror laws to snoop on ordinary people, but I think I'd rather be protected from the more immediate risk of crime. Much more likely to get mugged than jailed for insulting our great leaders at the moment.

[vetran]

If a party had implemented what I suggested, the "We need Brexit to stop immigration" argument would be proven to be dead in the water.

...unfortunately for us, they prefer hate, blame and fear, so no chance of getting my suggestion implemented.

Hey its been happening for 20 years, you could have stood for parliament any time you liked.

Its not just migration that was a catalyst though.

[LondonManc]

That is such a dangerous statement and one that completely undermines the whole concept of privacy.

It's not about doing right or wrong, it's about being able to conduct your day to day activities without being unnecessarily spied on, monitored, tracked and logged.

It's an insidious nonsense excuse that monitoring the populace and collecting data on everyone is there to stop crime and prevent terrorism. All it does is subject law abiding citizens to controls that curtail their freedom and remove their privacy while the alleged real targets continue pretty much as they were.



(I haven't read the article as I avoid the daily fail on principle)

You'll just have to accept that your car journey is clocked by many ANPR cameras each day. They're there to monitor for untaxed and un-MOT'd (yes, I verbed it; deal with it) vehicles and your car is simply checked through in the process. This facial recognition is done for the same thing - scrote detection. Your mugshot (I expect) would be just regarded as "not a match" and ignored, along with all the fingerprints that are not a match to the perp's in crime detection.

Are you opposed to a National Identity Card?

[WTFH]

Actually I partially agree with you our governments since 1997 have decided that they want mass migration. The figures prove that.

They have failed to manage it both via the EU & non EU route.

They are required by membership of the EU to let any decent EU citizen who has a job to move here, they have also failed to manage the undesirable EU citizens (criminals, wasters etc) and remove them.

They have failed to build the infrastructure required from the increased tax that may or may not come from increasing the number of workers available which forces the wages down.

They have done this without any conversation with the existing populace and its all turning a bit nasty.

If UKIP or any other party want to gain significant votes they need to address this with the electorate. If they said

1. We won't allow enough people to inhabit Liverpool to come every year if you don't want us to. If you do we will help them to integrate.
2. We won't allow enough net immigration to require building something the size of Newcastle every year unless you want us to. If you do we will build enough infrastructure.
3. We will deport those that repay our kindness with criminal acts or treason.
4. We will work to make sure everyone regardless of background gets fair opportunities.
5. We will make sure positive discrimination is proportionate & fair.

They would probably win by a landslide.

Reality Check: Has a city the size of Newcastle come to the UK? - BBC News

If a party had implemented what I suggested, the "We need Brexit to stop immigration" argument would be proven to be dead in the water.

...unfortunately for us, they prefer hate, blame and fear, so no chance of getting my suggestion implemented.

[vetran]

Because our government (not the fault of any other country or group of countries) chooses to do nothing to control migration.
Maybe if our country controlled migration, say by allowing people to come to the country for up to 3 months without the need of a visa, etc (e.g. for a holiday)
If they wanted to stay longer than 3 months, they'd need to prove they had sufficient resources for themselves and their family so as not to be a burden on the UK's welfare system, and to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover.
If they wanted to stay longer than 3 months they'd need to register with the relevant authorities
If they behave in a way that seriously threatens the UK's fundamental interests, they could be deported

But the UK government - no one outside the UK is to blame - refuses to do this, then stirs up certain groups by implying that some foreigners are the reason why we don't have laws like that.

Actually I partially agree with you our governments since 1997 have decided that they want mass migration. The figures prove that.

They have failed to manage it both via the EU & non EU route.

They are required by membership of the EU to let any decent EU citizen who has a job to move here, they have also failed to manage the undesirable EU citizens (criminals, wasters etc) and remove them.

They have failed to build the infrastructure required from the increased tax that may or may not come from increasing the number of workers available which forces the wages down.

They have done this without any conversation with the existing populace and its all turning a bit nasty.

If UKIP or any other party want to gain significant votes they need to address this with the electorate. If they said

1. We won't allow enough people to inhabit Liverpool to come every year if you don't want us to. If you do we will help them to integrate.
2. We won't allow enough net immigration to require building something the size of Newcastle every year unless you want us to. If you do we will build enough infrastructure.
3. We will deport those that repay our kindness with criminal acts or treason.
4. We will work to make sure everyone regardless of background gets fair opportunities.
5. We will make sure positive discrimination is proportionate & fair.

They would probably win by a landslide.

Reality Check: Has a city the size of Newcastle come to the UK? - BBC News

[original PM]

I think whether you like to or not you will always be on cctv in built up areas.

[WTFH]

We have uncontrolled migration

Because our government (not the fault of any other country or group of countries) chooses to do nothing to control migration.
Maybe if our country controlled migration, say by allowing people to come to the country for up to 3 months without the need of a visa, etc (e.g. for a holiday)
If they wanted to stay longer than 3 months, they'd need to prove they had sufficient resources for themselves and their family so as not to be a burden on the UK's welfare system, and to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover.
If they wanted to stay longer than 3 months they'd need to register with the relevant authorities
If they behave in a way that seriously threatens the UK's fundamental interests, they could be deported

But the UK government - no one outside the UK is to blame - refuses to do this, then stirs up certain groups by implying that some foreigners are the reason why we don't have laws like that.

[vetran]

Funny isn't it its suggested we augment human operators with machine ones and its seen as one step towards a dystopian nightmare. Opponents say we would emulate Hitler or Stalin, who came to power because the government of the day were not solving social issues.

We have uncontrolled migration with the many issues that entails. If you challenge that you are accused of emulating Hitler.

[WTFH]

Wouldn't it be easier to implant everyone with a microchip in their hand or head so that they could monitor everything. It could be linked to your bank account as well.

Anyone without the chip would not be allowed to work/shop/etc.
If you're doing nothing wrong, then there's no problem. If you don't have the chip, or it records you doing something wrong, then you could automatically be tried and sentenced.

For offences where the punishment is a fine, it could be automatically deducted from your bank account. So, things like fraud etc. Or if you stole from a shop, it would automatically charge you for what you took (plus an admin fee). Or if you were doing 71mph on the motorway, or overstayed in a car park, etc.

And if you've done nothing wrong, then there's no problem.

Isn't that the way it goes?

[DoctorStrangelove]

YouTube

[GJABS]

If you’re not up to anything wrong then nowt to worry about.

That might be true at the moment. But if the government goes rogue, like it did in Russia under Stalin, or Germany in the 1930's, then you might have a lot to worry about. Privacy is about protecting private citizens from the force of bad governments.

[darmstadt]

Is it GDPR compliant?

[vetran]

That is such a dangerous statement and one that completely undermines the whole concept of privacy.

It's not about doing right or wrong, it's about being able to conduct your day to day activities without being unnecessarily spied on, monitored, tracked and logged.

It's an insidious nonsense excuse that monitoring the populace and collecting data on everyone is there to stop crime and prevent terrorism. All it does is subject law abiding citizens to controls that curtail their freedom and remove their privacy while the alleged real targets continue pretty much as they were.



(I haven't read the article as I avoid the daily fail on principle)

I see it as the same as having more human observers, we already have the CCTV its the people watching it that we are short of.

We do need to restrict the use of the recordings.

[ladymuck]

If you’re not up to anything wrong then nowt to worry about.

That is such a dangerous statement and one that completely undermines the whole concept of privacy.

It's not about doing right or wrong, it's about being able to conduct your day to day activities without being unnecessarily spied on, monitored, tracked and logged.

It's an insidious nonsense excuse that monitoring the populace and collecting data on everyone is there to stop crime and prevent terrorism. All it does is subject law abiding citizens to controls that curtail their freedom and remove their privacy while the alleged real targets continue pretty much as they were.



(I haven't read the article as I avoid the daily fail on principle)