A new study has been released about survelliance societies in the EU and the world. The map pretty much says it all, but there are some nice tables breaking the stats down. (I suppose Greece did so well, because they don't have a word for privacy.)

I'm not in the least bit surprised that the UK comes out as "endemic surveillance" and things are getting worse all the time.

I don't see many countries (well any actually) in the good categories.

I don't think it's any secret that we have a large number of CCTV cameras per person than anywhere else. What I might take issue with is whether that equates to "bad".

Frankly, as a law-abiding citizen, I would suggest that there's case to be made for higher levels of surveillance being better than lower levels.

Which is of course the standard defence of the people who want to be wolves in charge of sheep. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear is the first battle cry on the road to 1984.
The most recent sighting in the wild of this pernicious fiction is the Government's desire to hold the DNA of every person in the country on a national database - not just convicted criminals but every man woman and child in the country. Their justification for this is that it would assist in stopping terrorism and crime and that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

Every day our civil liberties are being cynically eroded in the name of "stopping terror".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Which is of course the standard defence of the people who want to be wolves in charge of sheep. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear is the first battle cry on the road to 1984.

Every intrusion into people's privacy, or control on people's right to do as they please, has to be a has to be balancing act.

If people all behaved themselves all the time we would need no laws to control people and no police to enforce those laws. Unfortunately there are always enough people who will take advantage of any lack of control and supervision for any such lack to lead rapidly to anarchy.

The TV camera in a deserted street might not be so reassuring as the old-fashioned bobby on the beat - but it is surely better than no deterrent at all to those with evil on their minds.

And sadly there are always enough cynical people who will take advantage of this perceived need for control to control not just the criminals but also the law abiding. These people are called politicians. Frankly I trust criminals more than I trust politicians as I know what their motives are.

You can use your argument to justify national DNA databases, biometric identity cards, stop and search, random police sweeps of your property, eye-in-the-sky surveillance of your car journeys, curfews, suspension of due process, telephone tapping, cameras on every street corner, opening and reading of your mail... in fact just about anything.

I know you said that its a balancing act but every one of those suggested measures I've listed could individually be argued for (most of them have been) but the cumulative effect is a society that I don't want to live in. I'd rather take my chances with the criminals and the maniacs, thanks.

quote:

I'd rather take my chances with the criminals and the maniacs, thanks.

That I very much doubt. I would far sooner live in England, for all its supposed intrusion into privacy, than I would live presently in Kenya, Iraq or Afghanistan. All places where the rule of law has broken down and the criminals and maniacs are all fighting one another to gain control; it is the law abiding majority, or course, who are getting killed.

It's far too easy to criticise our country which, on the whole, does a very good job of balancing the demands of individual rights against the needs of public protection.

And, of course, all sorts of arguments can be used in an attempt to justify just about anything at all. Deciding what to do best on balance is the tricky bit; it is a balancing act which we do quite well in England.

Doubt all you wish.

I do not wish to live in a police state and regardless of your opinion there are many far cleverer people than I who believe that's where we are heading.

By the way, you do not refute the argument by comparing us with war-torn nations. The comparison is both facile and invalid. It is not like with like. So war and crime are evil. I never said they weren't, but tyranny is tyranny, police states are police states and saying that you personally are prepared to accept that they are a necessary evil does not make them any less an evil.

I'm sure that you, being an educated man, are familiar with both the following quotations.

quote:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

and

quote:

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

I genuinely believe that we are on the road to a police state. (Though it's probably not to late to change the road we're on.)
I genuinely believe that in both the US and the UK "the War on Terror" is being used by some as an excuse to mount an attack on civil liberties.
I genuinely believe that civil liberties are important.
And yes, I genuinely believe that I'd rather take my chances with the criminals and the maniacs than live in a state where my freedoms have been systematically stripped away while the population has marched wide-eyed into 1984.

Oh yes, I also genuinely believe that I intend to say no more on the subject.

Bob's first quotation is usually attributed to Martin Niemöller (1892–1984), a German pastor. Professor Marcuse of UCSB has a page dedicated to the poem, its origins, etc.

Please send these data to our political candidates!

quote:

The comparison is both facile and invalid. It is not like with like. So war and crime are evil. I never said they weren't, but tyranny is tyranny, police states are police states and saying that you personally are prepared to accept that they are a necessary evil does not make them any less an evil.

I think the comparison is perfectly valid. It is not war that has led to the present situation in Kenya; it is a breakdown of law and order.

And I have never said that I am prepared to accept a police state - I have said that some degree of control is needed in any society. It it getting the balance right between a police state and anarchy that is the difficulty. Although I agree that some of the traditional freedoms we used to enjoy in Britain have been eroded, this has become necessary because the nature of society has also changed. Just think of the things that have become common in our own lifetimes: graffiti; mugging; vandalism - none of which existed to any extent when I was a boy.

Increased surveillance and policing is in response to these changes and, if and when society changes its standards so that such things become socially unacceptable and disappear, then so will the need for control of them.

And I am well familiar with the quotations you cite and both talk about inaction. In the UK we are still allowed to speak out - and many people, including I, do so. I have no more belief in the infallibility of politicians than do you - but I used to write regularly to my MP in Reigate and now write regularly to my MP in Sussex. They are working for me and, I can tell you, neither has ever failed to answer my letters. If you are not happy with what your elected representative is doing on your behalf then why not do the same? We do have that right in Britain and I see no signs of that right's being eroded. If you believe that we are heading towards a police state then share your concerns with your MP. I would sooner trust my MP than I would a maniac.

For what it's worth, which might not be much to some, I incline to agree with Rich that when it's not intrusive, more surveillance is better

There's a difference, for instance, between a camera on a street corner and one in a bedroom

Identify theft has become so common that in effect pertinent laws aren't even enforced anymore. You may rail against surveillance or technology intended to prevent it, until you are first its victim

While researching something entirely different (such is the very nature of the Web), I came across this great posting retrocasting CCTV technology to 1888 for use in apprehending suspects in the notorious Whitechapel Murders. (NB, it is known that some crank suggested to the Metropolitan Police that the retinas of one of the victims be photographed to see if any latent picture of the murderer could be discerned.)

Bell's photophone wouldn't work because amplification hadn't been invented. But the Nipcow disc was eventually used by another Scotsman, Baird, to produce the first practical TV system which was used for true broadcasting before WW2.

Oh dear. Maybe it's a good thing I've been traveling and have missed this thread. Even though I constantly hear (on this Board) that the most conservative British person would be considered liberal in the states, Richard's perspective is quite conservative over here. I am surprised to hear your view on that Richard, especially after knowing some of your other political views.

My view is simply that a measure of control is needed in any society. No control at all means anarchy and anarchy only resolves itself when the strongest faction wins. That faction will become the leader and, what do you know, before very long it will have reintroduced controls!

When Iraq was invaded the victors, it would seem, had made no plans for establishing proper control and allowed all of Saddam Hussein's control mechanisms to disappear. Within just a few days, anarchy prevailed with all the excesses one expects of anarchy. Even now there is still a power struggle and who knows which faction will win? Whichever it is, you can be sure they will introduce some pretty strict controls.

Too bad your view isn't based on the facts.

[You know I am tweaking you! ]

Speaking of which, we talked about the word "tweaking" on a chat recently, and apparently one meaning is "teasing." I'd not heard of using it that way, but I like it now!

I have never hear the word used in this sense previously.

I'd not heard of using it that way, but I like it now!

Tweak.

quote:

I'd not heard of using it that way, but I like it now!

Nor had I. However, I prefer more earthy expressions such as "I was pulling your plonker!".

or, taking the piss?

Precisely, tsuwm.

Actually, Michael Quinion's site just says that

quote:

So to take the piss is to deflate somebody, to disabuse them of their mistaken belief that they are special

I'd say it's often used rather more widely, with the meaning of just "to tease", not only when teasing a pompous person.

yeahbut, we were speaking of tweaking Richard...

No comment ...

Well, I had meant it to mean "tease."

Sorry I've been missing this spirited discussion. Here is my ginny-come-lately 2cts.

Richard E wrote:

quote:

My view is simply that a measure of control is needed in any society. No control at all means anarchy and anarchy only resolves itself when the strongest faction wins. That faction will become the leader and, what do you know, before very long it will have reintroduced controls

This is fine but I would like to see some statistics proving any connection whatsoever between increased surveillance and crime statistics.

Anecdotally, check out our local "Mad Hatter" bank robber, who was seen countless time on surveillance video broadcast on TV over a 10-mo. period and just under 20 robberies total. He was caught when a bank employee saw his getaway car and reported the license tag.

BobHale said of heavy-handed surveillance:

quote:

the cumulative effect is a society that I don't want to live in. I'd rather take my chances with the criminals and the maniacs, thanks

I just wanted to say, well come on over, Bob, glad to have you! You know, over here we use surveillance tapes for spying on people who talk against the government. The criminals and maniacs are well-protected by the constitution.

quote:

This is fine but I would like to see some statistics proving any connection whatsoever between increased surveillance and crime statistics.

I've not looked for statistics but would make two points.

1. Surveillance doesn't only mean CCTV. Alert employees are a form of surveillance, as are bobbies on the beat and other security personnel.

2. I have no doubt at all that the surveillance we all are subjected to every time we fly has significantly reduced aircraft terrorism and hijack crime - I would certainly not want to fly from an airport where no surveillance took place.

Well you're completely right about air travel no doubt, RE.

I'm perhaps just a little oversensitive right now because it has taken me five... yes FIVE trips to the motor vehicle bureau to register the used car I bought for my son. Having gone to school/univ.,worked, owned & driven cars, & banked in this country for nearly 60 yrs it is a little incredible to find that (just ONE example) I am going to have to legally change my name to include the middle name I've been using since 2 days old.... It seems ma, like many another ma in her day, decided to add it, but didn't feel like spending $50 to change the birth certificate. (Looks like it's going to cost ME $500).

Like I say, that's just one of several "problems" that had me rushing from pillar to post, redoing, notarizing etc. (I'm a little worried about all that video showing me ticking off the clerical staff...) I guess the clerks at the DMV are smiling very happy smiles this week, as they are surely the only thing standing between we Americans and El Quaeda!@!!

quote:

I guess the clerks at the DMV are smiling very happy smiles this week, as they are surely the only thing standing between we Americans and El Quaeda!@!!

What's the DMV?

The equivalent of our DVLC

The California DMV lets you make appointments online. And they work. I really couldn't manage to stand in line any more after that. The AAA (American Automobile Association) also has a mini-DMV in their offices for registering cars and paying fees.

quote:

The criminals and maniacs are well-protected by the constitution.

Well, if they're really criminals, I suppose you're right...except for those detainees in Guantanamo Bay; they're not being given any rights. However, if people are accused, and happen to be African-American or poor, I'd say their rights aren't well-protected.

Speaking of which, I just heard a report that I can never be on a jury that would have to consider capital punishment because I am morally against it. That means that juries are systematically chosen to favor capital punishment.

I am not sure what you mean by "maniacs."

quote:

I am not sure what you mean by "maniacs."

Understandable. They're aren't too many of them at large - except politicians, of course

Let's all read Thomas Hobbes, use only our middle names, and go have a pint.

Asa, who uses his middle name in real life, and thinks Leviathan makes sense

Hmm, thanks for the ride, Asa! Have to say I knew zip about the Leviathan (though I expect I knew a bit about its author's theories in the late '60's-- sadly much of that good info has lodged somewhere irretrievable.) I am somewhat enlightened by Wiki. Just wondering where one finds this wonderful Sovereign who runs the government reasonably and peaceably without benefit of check and balances--- oh, wait, never mind! That would be Mr. Bush of course.

My thinking was that it's not altruism but common needs that create Leviathan. Or have I forgotten Hobbes' intent? Anyway, he seems pertinent to the discussion.

Quite right, that's the overall gist. At some point I must have known more (DOH ), as I remember being very interested in 'pragmatism' & related philosophies back in more scholarly days...