Prepare yourself for a mega-dose of bitter irony. Please take a look at this link to a splendid 100% Che-free site, kindly sent to me by Toni.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Are the Spanish big on irony or what?!October 17th, 2005 |
 108 comments to Are the Spanish big on irony or what?! |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
素人.きっと素人ライブチャットが一番萌えて,ライブチャット,萌えるライブチャットがアダルト動画,素人すぎるからきっといい, Hav a nice days.
Interesting, Japanese porn spam that got past the Turing code. Anyway, I don’t think people here are interested in your “amateur live chat,” even if it is the number one most moe live chat, nice though you assure us the “adult videos” of the amateurs are.
What a Japanese hoot!
Toni’s link is bitter, but could be replicated anywhere in Britain. It’s not big deal any more.
Government cameras spying on citizens …. It’s for their own good…
Is there a George Orwell Plaza in britain?
There is nothing wrong with video-surveillance of PUBLIC spaces. When one enters a public space one exposes himself voluntarily to public scrutiny.
George Orwell wrote agains surveillance of PRIVATE spaces – which is entirely different.
Sorry to spoil the joke.
There is nothing wrong with video-surveillance of PUBLIC spaces. When one enters a public space one exposes himself voluntarily to public scrutiny.
George Orwell wrote agains surveillance of PRIVATE spaces – which is entirely different.
Sorry to spoil the joke.
Jacob writes, “There is nothing wrong with video-surveillance of PUBLIC spaces.”
Doesn’t that rather depend on who is watching? And who else the watchers will – or must – pass the video records to? And on whether you are in a position to withold or grant your permission to be watched?
No. It’s a public space, which means the public – i.e. anyone at all – can see what you’re doing just as you can see them.
No. The people who receive the records have in principle nothing preventing them being there in person and watching you with their own eyes. What’s the difference if they do this with a camera or with the human eyeball?
No. By entering a public place you give your consent to the public seeing what you’re doing. In EXACTLY the same way, if you voluntarily enter someone else’s private property, you are consenting to the owner(s) of that property seeing what you’re doing while you’re there.
What do you do when you walk down a main road? Close your eyes and not look at anyone unless they give you express permission?
EG
Typical Euan Gray authoritative nothingness. He cannot grasp that there is a fundamental difference between having agents of the state watch you in a pubic place and record your activities, and a member of the public doing the same thing.
Euan believes that if you work for the state, you are in fact a higher order of human and less likely to do ill than a private person who has far less power at his disposal. Although he has not said as much, what other conclusion could I reach from the things Euan writes? In any case, I am so weary of being told by him “what libertarians think” when he actually hasn’t got a clue, it seems only fair that I do a bit of projecting regarding what he things.
Surely the point about be watched in a public place by other people is that i can watch them too. If they are taking too keen an interest in my affairs I can do something about it. When surveillance cameras are involved I have no idea whos watching me and am powerless to prevent it
I have no desire for anyone to watch my pubic places, thank you.
Anyway, this difference is what? That the state is so unremittingly evil that it WILL inevitably use these voyeuristic videos to encroach upon your liberty? How exactly? Perhaps by infringing your right to detonate bombs on underground trains? Or is it ok for the servants of the state to watch you with eyes – e.g. cops on patrol – but not with cameras? If that’s ok, then the problem is the recording and not the fact of the observation, isn’t it? Or perhaps your idea is that we should not bother looking at anything, never try to prevent or deter crime but only react to it afterwards?
Jacob is perfectly correct about the Orwellian idea of surveilling private spaces. I’d go further, though – moans about surveillance in public spaces are paranoia.
Suppose in Libertopia all the public places are sold to private hands. Suppose privately owned Main Street has surveillance cameras all over it to help the privately owned security company deal with crime – not unrealistic, since privately secured premises are often bristling with the things. What are people to do if they object? Build a parallel Not-Quite-So-Main Street without cameras and use that instead? Yes, they could use an alternative company to provide security, but perhaps that alternative company might also find (as have real world police forces) that video surveillance is a lot cheaper and more cost-effective than having cops all over the place watching, so the non-camera private security premium might increase. And since people might not want to pay more, we might just end up back with the cameras as people make a trade-off between being recorded on the one hand and not having to pay fortunes for an alternative on the other.
EG
With his customary bonhomie Euan Gray asks me, “What do you do when you walk down a main road? Close your eyes and not look at anyone unless they give you express permission?”
Well, no, though most people agree it is rude to stare. (A non-trivial point.)
However if I were to begin 24- hour video surveillance of your comings and goings, even you might start to feel that your participation in this activity was not quite on an equal footing with mine. Particularly if I kept the records to look through at my leisure.
That brings us to a later question of Mr Gray’s: “What’s the difference if they do this with a camera or with the human eyeball?”
I am astonished that you need to ask. Obviously it makes no difference in political principle whether the image is physically projected on the back of the eyeball or onto a strip of film or onto a digital-whatever-it-is. Equally obviously it makes a huge difference that using modern technology the images can be kept indefinitely, searched, analysed, tabulated, sent to others and, with increasing ease, altered. Tasks of surveillance that would once have taken an army of spies and clerks to perform can now be done by one man. Of course this makes a difference.
Good point, dunderhead.
Perry asks: Is there a George Orwell Plaza in Britain? At a guess – no. Although there may be a George Orwell Street or something. Maybe. But I take your point.
My point is, we have grown a carapace of indifference to shield ourselves from the daily assault of spying by the government. In Britain especially, people are not free to go about their business without the intrusion of the state … watching them. Recording their movements.
Euan,
You are suggesting that one rational objection to the right to privacy being fully compromised in a public space.
So what would you think if the state introduced
something like x-ray cc tv cameras to examine the contents of your locked briefcase? Presumably you’d
be okay with that.
One tries. Anyway, it’s better than rudeness or petulant ad hominem, is it not? I sometimes have to recalibrate and remember that surgical removal of the sense of humour is a prerequisite of dogmatism.
I think the last word rather sums it up. It’s hard not to get the impression that opposition to cameras in public places stems from a somewhat paranoid fear that the nasty ol’ gummint is out to get you.
I can’t understand why the same people who endlessly lambast the state for its hideous incompetence at everything it touches can simultaneously hold the opinion that it both could and would go to considerable lengths to fabricate evidence against them at the merest whim of a bored cop or voyeuristic civil servant. This doesn’t add up – either the state is after all not quite so incompetent, thus much of the criticism against it is wrong, or alternatively it IS incompetent in which case it will make a hash of trying to frame you.
The third – and perhaps more likely – alternative is that you say the government is incompetent at the things you want it to be incompetent at, but very effective at the things you don’t like anyone to do. Or possibly the mind control rays aren’t working at full strength (no doubt because they have to cut corners until the BBC licence fee is increased…)
A cop can watch you and lie about what he saw. A video tape can be altered, which amounts to the same thing. Which do you think is the most likely? It’s not trivial to alter video or film records. Of course it can be done, but it’s no 5 minute job. If the state is sufficiently determined to get you that it will do that, then frankly I don’t think the presence or absence of cameras on the street would make a lot of difference.
Now, is it ok for a private company to do exactly the same thing?
And another now – is the attempted bombing of the London Underground and the clean escape of the perpetrators a reasonable price to pay just so you don’t get recorded?
Going back to this:
Carry on. If you do it on my property, I object. If you do it on your property, that’s up to you. In a public space, whether it is done or not is up to the custodians of that public space, which is in the case of crime prevention and detection, the police. I just don’t get paranoid about it. And frankly, if it means I’m less likely to get blown up when out shopping, I’m not too bothered if some tape somewhere has a permanent record of me buying 20 fags and a newspaper.
EG
sorry, 1st sentence was garbled and should have been:
“You are suggesting that one’s rational objection to the right to privacy be fully compromised in a public space.”
How am I?
I have no problem with what is publicly visible being watched or recorded (for a sane reason). That in no way whatsoever implies that I think that what is in my briefcase or pocket is fair game.
Having said that, I see no problem allowing police to search pockets or briefcases PROVIDED THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE.
EG
Jacob:
And the dialague between the Winston and Julia about microphones being placed in the woods meant private woods? yes I recall in the second chapter Julia was described as a wealthy land owner with a thriving timber business. How could I forget that passage…?
Read the book before mischaracterising it.
George Orwell also wrote about the dangers of having a ruling class able to infer and therefore monitor the thought processes of individual citizens. Something which CCTV cameras on George Orwell Plaza is likely to faciliate.
George Orwell didn’t write about:
Retrospective surveillance
Alteration of Images and logs digitally
Video and still picture facial recognition.
Computer networking / the Internet
RFID / Oyster cards
Satellite vehicle tracking technology
Artificial Intelligence / automated inference
Communications Data Retention
…
It’s good to see EG back here, as the threads have once again become places of discussion rather than me-too ism.
The case of the X-Ray cameras is interesting. One can agree with EG’s position (it’s OK to watched in a public space) but object to the idea of X-Ray CCTV – because such cameras would see what is not normally visible. They would be seeing something private (your underwear) even though that thing is in a public space. The normal CCTV camera, meanwhile, is analagous to the policeman watching the passers-by.
So far so good. But there are things in the public realm that are still private, beyond cases such as my underwear and what’s in my brief case. Among these, I give the follow interesting examples.
1. My journey. A policeman can see me passing down the street or loitering in front of the betting shop, or coming out of the pub in a tired and emotional state. But my day’s journey in total must be considered private. My _business_ remains private, though I go about parts of it in the public domain. Yet, with sufficiently comprehensive CCTV coverage, and decent face tracking software, my entire journey is accurately timed and recorded.
2. My identity. Unless I am literally ‘known to the police’, the bobby can merely say that a gentleman of my description was seen loitering outside the bank in the hour before the robbery. But in a world where CCTV is linked in some reliable way to a larger database, it is _me_ they are watching – not simple my body. If I go out on the town wearing a traffic cone, I do so safe in the knowledge that while people may think me a fool, they won’t know who I am. But in the future of linked CCTV, they will know how I am.
So, while I agree with much of what EG says (esp. regarding the paranoia many people have here), I don’t think the CCTV camera = policeman analogy is all that strong. And while the linked database I speak of are not really in existence, they are not hard to imagine – we will soon have the technology to do this kind of thing, if not necessarily the will.
A counter-example to my own arguments, and an interesting case, is the private eye. This snoop makes excellent use of publicly available information, and does indeed track my entire journey, know exactly who I am, and generally spys on me. And all to find out who my mistress is. And all of it legal! So, if it is legal for a private eye to stake me out, stalk me and generally watch all my most detailed actions in public, thereby building up a record of who I meet, where I take them, etc. – why not the state too?
If you attend any public meeting with a vaguely rebellious theme, whether it be about bypasses, opposition to the ban on foxhunting, tibet or any other cause in a wide area of dissent, you will find outside police CCTV vans or police photographers. Couple that with the ability to automatically match faces of attendees with pictures and hence names and addresses stored on an ID card database and it becomes a deeply frightening situation.
It’s hard not to get the impression that opposition to cameras in public places stems from a somewhat paranoid fear that the nasty ol’ gummint is out to get you.
There is an enormous effort going on right now to capture information about people who dissent, it is not paranoid to fear something that is happening already.
On another note I have done a search for “George Orwell” on the streetmap database, no matches which seems a shame. I would have done a search on his birth name but too many results matching on the surname would have triggered my “paranoia”.
By using its ability to watch you in public 24 hrs a day, the state can and does watch dissenters and compile ways to exert pressure on them. That is hardly paranoia.
Indeed it is. A private company has great difficulty watching my every move within the whole city and does not have a police force and secret service at its immediate beck and call.
If the police are merely outsourcing and still have pooled access to every image, then there is indeed no difference, it is still a panoptic nightmare.
However a multiplicity of private security companies with CCTV to which the cops can only get access with their permission or a court order, now that I can live with.
If access to pooled CCTV footage is trivially easy to access, then abuses will also be trivially easy. I have nothing against CCTV per se, just giving the state easy access to it. I have CCTV on my own residential street in London, moreover I in fact helped fund it! The hard drive sits in one of my neighbours attics and access to it is with his permission or a court order only. I am entirely happy with that arrangement. However if the camera was putting a live feed into the local nick, I would be taking a hammer to it.
Sussex police once had a camera van parked outside my local supermarket (presumably) filming all those who went in or out of the store through one particular sidestreet entrance. I was moderately disturbed to be filmed in this way and knocked on the back of the van to ask what was going on – either there was nobody in the van or they were very determined not to answer. I was very tempted to pull a bag over the camera but decided against on the grounds that I would be very likely arrested.
The idea that filiming on public property is OK because it is public property has some superficial merit until you consider that this would allow the police to put a camera on the pavement outside your house pointing directly at your front door. Another point is that not just anybody can set up a camera in a public area.
On the other hand I can see that some sort of video surveillance is useful for public safety and that a camera can replace some of the work of a policeman (albeit a very stupid one.) Much as it pains me to be calling for “regulation” I do think that it may be appropriate in this case. WTWU on Spyblog spy.org.uk has written about this at greater length.
* Anybody should be free to set up a camera on public property or on private property with the permission of the owner.
* There should be clear signs indicating who is filming and why.
* All surveillance of public spaces should be streamed over the internet and available without charge.
* Camera operators must register with the police what their cameras can see to facilitate investigations.
* Camera operators would be obliged to turn over video only on a warrant issued by a judge.
* Recorded footage (as opposed to live feed) which clearly identifies individuals may not be released without permission of the person filmed.
EG writes, “I can’t understand why the same people who endlessly lambast the state for its hideous incompetence at everything it touches can simultaneously hold the opinion that it both could and would go to considerable lengths to fabricate evidence against them at the merest whim of a bored cop or voyeuristic civil servant. ”
General incompetence and determined efforts at individually-directed malice are not incompatible. On the contrary, the combination is the only way to make sense of numerous incidents, or indeed whole periods, in history. The Soviet Union under Breshnev might as well have had that written up in lights as its guiding principle.
The “merest whim of a bored cop or voyeuristic civil servant” is unlikely to be a common motive – but the following motives are very likely, having already been the motive for acts of official malice in other contexts:
a) bureacratic ass-covering for errors
b) a desire to be seen to be “doing something” about crime or terrorism (the recent “ricin plot” trial comes to mind).
c) organised crime infiltrating the state apparatus – far from unknown in history
d) use of official powers to pursue personal or political vendettas (e.g. the recent case when an official at the DVLC supplied information to allow animal rights “activists” to find out people’s addresses from their number plates so they could be targeted at home)
e) intelligence games -e.g. the Matrix Churchill case.
And the voyeurism isn’t impossible either. Some of the videos circulated at police parties are pretty unsavoury, I hear.
States do that. They always have done, cameras or not. However, it is one thing for the state to use such a system to identify and track people who want to blow up buses to make a political point, and it is quite another to suggest that merely disagreeing politely with government policy on taxation is going to motivate Plod to watch your every move. That IS paranoia.
And if the private security company IS the police? And if that company has the contract to monitor all the city? 90% of it? 50%? What’s the percentage when you stop saying it’s ok because it’s private?
There are some 140,000 police in the UK. I have no idea how many SS/MI5/whatever agents there are, but it’s going to be a fraction of that. Even being insanely generous, let’s assume there are 200,000 state agents dedicated to spying on people – i.e. they don’t have to deliver warrants, investigate crimes, do anything else, etc. This is 1 agent per 300 citizens. Assume a tenth of the citizens are out and about at any time, it’s still one to 30. Assume our agent works 10 hours, then he has an average of 20 minutes per person of spying. The real figure, allowing for plausuble numbers of agents and so on, is a fraction of that, and we still haven’t considered any actual plausible reason other than random chance for Plod to be fascinated by you. Presumably, he also has to spend some time looking at people who really are doing something wrong, who are wanted for some crime, etc.
And on this basis you say the whole thing is a dangerous invasion of privacy that will certainly be misused and all manner of horrid things will happen? Paranoia.
Provided there is motivation.
Can you actually think of a plausible reason why someone would want to abuse CCTV footage to inconvenience you? You don’t have to answer that, but think about it. WHY? What would they gain? They’re going to blackmail you for walking down the street? Possibly humiliate you by revealing that you once bought a Guardian? Tell you you won’t get planning permission for your new extension because they saw you leaving a bar 32 seconds late one night?
EG
Perhaps so, but we don’t live in the USSR and this country and government are not in any way whatosever remotely comparable to it or to the CPSU.
Indeed. Of course, it is well known that companies never indulge in bureaucratic ass-covering because they are always efficient, they never pretend to do things just for appearance’s sake, they’re immune from criminal inflitration and they never conduct vendetta. Such things are the exclusive preserve of the state.
To be consistent, you’d need to deny the possibilty of cameras at all. Then, you’d need to explain to people why they have to suddenly pay more for security whether they want to or not and even though it is now more reactive than active security, and then if that is in Libertopia you need to explain what the hell the difference is between compelling higher prices and taxation.
EG
We may not have a Orwell Plaza, but we certainly have an Orwell Place 🙂
I wonder if any of these have CCTV…
http://www.multimap.com/map/places.cgi?client=public&lang=&advanced=&quicksearch=orwell+place
EG writes (sarcastically), “Of course, it is well known that companies never indulge in bureaucratic ass-covering because they are always efficient, they never pretend to do things just for appearance’s sake, they’re immune from criminal inflitration and they never conduct vendetta. Such things are the exclusive preserve of the state.”
1) No. Where did you get this straw-man idea that libertarians in general or I in particular think that companies are perfect or even generally virtuous? There is a long tradition, from Adam Smith onwards, of saying exactly the opposite.
2) To say that companies also behave badly does not negate my point that the motives I suggest are plausible and likely.
“To be consistent, you’d need to deny the possibilty of cameras at all ” is another straw man.
The problem with state as opposed to private surveillance is its ability to link numerous sources of information and its possession of the police power.
“And the dialague between the Winston and Julia about microphones being placed in the woods meant private woods?”
The point of Orwell was that you couldn’t get any privacy even in the woods. The theme of 1984 is the total supression of any privacy, especially the right or ability to have private thoughts…
I agree that the idea of being watched 24 hours a day is scaring. But we have to get used to the new capabilities of technology. Think for example that every thing you do on the web, every e-mail, every pageview, even every keyboard stroke can concievably be recorded and watched by someone, without your knowledge. The web is some kind of public space. Technology has widened or increased the public domain at the expense of the private…
We will have to learn to live with it. There is no going back to the old days when tracking all one’s movements was technically impossible. It’s useless to try to smash the cameras, even if some uneasiness about them may be understandable.
Let’s just all wear our Burberry hoodies.
As it happens, and getting away from the earlier controversy, I sometimes wonder whether the ever-increasing ease of falsification of images may to some extent cancel out the ever-increasing ease of collecting them.
I speculate that we may be returning to an age when a man or woman’s pledged word or handshake is the best guarantee available – simply because images (or documents) become so easy to fake.
Whether that would be on balance good or bad I cannot say.
EG writes –
Can you actually think of a plausible reason why someone would want to abuse CCTV footage to inconvenience you? You don’t have to answer that, but think about it. WHY? What would they gain?
Well you can bet unfortunate individuals like this lady will be among the victims of a search of CCTV footage to see what they have been up to. If they are willing to target members of the public like this, they will go after anyone should circumstances arise.
Perry,
“I have CCTV on my own residential street in London, moreover I in fact helped fund it! The hard drive sits in one of my neighbours attics and access to it is with his permission or a court order only.”
Don’t feel too sure about the privacy of this hard drive. Remember Nixon ! He did some very private recordings, of things going on in his private office, and lo… those tapes did him in in the end. If a recording exists, it exists. Why do you feel that the police might persecute you but a judge won’t issue an order ?
Seems that you were willing to give up some amount of privacy, for some amount of security. Such trade-offs are part of everyday, normal life.
Oh, they always have? Well that’s ok then…
So the Fuel Tax protesters and the Countryside Alliance have NOT in fact had their meetings videoed by police, is that what you are saying?
If there are dozens or even hundreds of private CCTV cams, and someone sets a bomb off, I am happy to have footage handed over to the fuzz on demand. However that is not the data pooled, face recognition driven future envisaged by Tony Blair…
Because I fear the whole system less when it is weighed down with cumbersome due processes like court orders. The thing that makes it far scarier is when some petty functionary that I might have pissed off (something I am rather prone to do) can just watch my movements with the flick of a button or a purely administrative phone call.
Thanks for that revelation! And your point is what exactly? I am guessing that you are suggesting that if I trust my neighbour with easy access to the data (and who can get the same information regarding my movements by looking out his window), that is the same as trusting the state with easy access to that same data?
I really don’t mind if they get to watch me wandering around in ragged arsed chinos if someone has been murdered on my street (which did indeed happen a few months ago), but I sure don’t want them to have casual access to it just because I am making like miserable for certain employees of The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea by turning up embarrassing things under the feeble Freedom of Information act.
You see the bit just above that where the word “sarcastically” appears?
And my point was that there is no reason private companies cannot do exactly the same things. Especially if we have managed to privatise the police. In that case, police power and the data sources are all in private hands. So how is that better?
If there are multiple competing private police agencies, there is some theoretical (but little practical) merit in the idea that data security might be tighter. However, it’s not as if companies don’t spy, bribe, steal or corrupt. I don’t see any reason to suspect the data would be any more secure in private hands than in state hands, nor do I suspect it would necessarily be less secure. We’re still dealing with human beings, after all, and they have the same weaknesses whoever employs them. Of course, you could regulate to prevent a single company having both police power and data sources, but then what else are you going to regulate? And who enforces the regulation?
And what if one big security company ran the whole area?
Sure she would. The organs of the state have nothing better to do than trawl through thousands of hours of video footage looking for a face belonging to a person who has not committed an offence, then track her through the system until they find out whether she actually has committed an offence just so someone else can make political capital out of it. This is technically possible but in practice astronomically unlikely. Paranoia again, I’m afraid.
There is nothing to stop smears and so forth as it is, and it does happen. But it’s one thing for a political adviser to ask other political people a political question. It’s quite another to misuse state resources for party or personal gain – when politicians get caught doing that, they tend to be in serious trouble, although it has to be said that some visually challenged former Home Secretaries seem to be teflon-coated in this respect. The more pressing issue here is not paranoid ravings about the mind control rays, I mean CCTV cameras, but rather enforcement of accountability and standards against politicians. The potential for abuse there is rather more serious.
Be realistic, Perry. The state has always infiltrated and monitored organisations they consider potentially or actually subversive. Recall the stink about agents provocateurs and spies in the Chartist movement, or the suffragists and early unions. More recently, MI5 penetrated and monitored the CPGB so thoroughly that by the 1980s it was effectively running the thing.
No, of course they have. I think this is reasonable, because in the first case there is the potential for damage to the economy, and in the second criminal damage and bringing the body of the law into disrepute. Ignore for the moment that fuel tax is very high and the hunting laws absurd, look at the principle and consider what you would do faced with the same situation. You wouldn’t do it? Then how about this:
You’re president of Libertopia. A thoughtless bunch of misguided socialists and statists don’t like the economic system, presumably because they have not read The Literature, and decide to embark on an organised campaign of peaceful protest aimed at changing state policy without recourse to the lawful method of changing the government (if there still is such a method in Libertopia). Do you let them protest, not taking the slightest notice? What about if the protests were likely to cause some economic disruption? No? Then you hear from reliable sources that there are some genuine criminal elements somewhere in the mix. Now do you check and record? Somebody checks and finds out that a couple of names linked to the protests also have links to a revolutionary socialist organisation. NOW do you check?
Such people are often harmless, full of sound and fury but, as it were, signifying nothing. But not always, so when do you and when do you not take the chance? Remember the CPSU, which had its origins in the eternally squabbling and seemingly insignificant bolshevik and menshevik factions. Look what happened there. I’m not, by the way, trying to say that the fuel protest groups or the hunters are revolutionary organisations bent on overthrowing the state, but it is in the nature of these things that such groupings DO attract the professional malcontents and subversives. This REALLY happens, which is one of the reasons why such groups are watched. But you will note that as long as protests are peaceful, no action is taken.
So when do we get compulsory barcode tattoos and have to surrender to the state all our stocks of tinfoil?
EG
Libertopia wouldn’t have a president.
Sure she would. The organs of the state have nothing better to do than trawl through thousands of hours of video footage
But this is exactly the point that is being missed, they won’t have to trawl through anything, they will simply get a computer to run a search through their image database (all the photos do actually go somewhere) and see if they can get any matches using ever more sophisticated image recognition technology. If this sounds science fiction, try imagining what the power of google would have sounded like 20 years ago.
The more pressing issue here is not paranoid ravings about the mind control rays, I mean CCTV cameras, but rather enforcement of accountability and standards against politicians. The potential for abuse there is rather more serious.
So you agree politicians abuse their power and there are problems with them being held accountable. This is hardly new stuff. What is new is the major erosion of privacy, which has been historically one of the individual’s defences against such abuse. Hence the “paranoia” when faced with what is a new and unprecedented threat.
Possibly you’re thinking of Anarchotopia, which would have the life expectancy of a plastic bag in Hell before collapsing into Feudalotopia or being taken over by someone else.
And is that the sum of your objection to the problem?
EG
Guess what? If the state is already that interested in you, it has multiple means of tracking you anyway. I don’t dispute that the technology makes all this possible, or at least will one day, but what I do dispute is that there exists the will to do this on a regular basis for no particularly significant reason.
The structure of the British telephone system, for example, enables most directly connected modern telephones in the country to be turned into microphones pretty much at the flick of a switch without you knowing it (it’s been exported to such respecters of privacy as Russia…). Depends on the facility being built in to the phone’s chip, of course, but it’s standard CCITT. Computer technology is such that the state can, if it wants to, intercept every single packet you send to and receive from the internet. The mobile phone system by its nature means your pinpointed pretty accurately whereever you go (or at least, wherever your phone goes). Already the state can, if it wants to, listen to you at home, find out exactly what dodgy websites you visit, check where you are, hear all your phone calls and read your email. You would never know it was doing these things.
The fact that the state CAN do these things does not automatically mean that it DOES do them.
EG
And there is the real Euan Gray and why its pointless to debate with him: He is just another pseudo-intellectual violence addicted thug when you push hard enough.
Read the rest of it and tell me where YOU would start recording. Ideally without ad hominem.
EG
How do you know that?
Guess what? If the state is already that interested in you, it has multiple means of tracking you anyway.
Two points.
Firstly, as has been pointed out previously, most of the tracking methods outlined require data to be obtained from private companies, and therefor a warrant is required and a degree of hassle is involved. State operated CCTV is different and shortcuts what is a degree of protection.
Secondly, most of the existing methods outlined are where an individual is already of interest to the state and effort is then put into finding out more about them. The state’s use of CCTV is different in that it enables – through for example police photographing attendees of a public meeting – to identify individuals previously not of interest in an easy and cost effective manner. This represents a worrying development in the state’s powers.
My problem with cameras is more prosaic than the libertarian objection to the 24/7 Surveillance State issue, important though that objection is (Euan’s typically complacent attitude makes one’s teeth grind).
The problem is sheer information overload. There are now millions of the cameras all over the country and yet there are hardly enough coppers to watch them all the time. So these cameras are only much use after a crime or some notable incident has taken place, as in the failed July 24 attacks on the Tube. And then the problem is finding needles in very big haystacks.
CCTV is creating a warped sense of priorities in our police and security services. This obsession with the things needs to stop.
Given the constant assaults on civil liberties by this government, a bit of alarm (“paranoia”) is understanderble, Euan. You may not give a f**k about individual liberty, but that ultimately is something you have to deal with in your conscience.
How do you know that’s not the case? No-one can argue against a paranoid mindset that assumes the government WILL spy on him the moment it has a chance. If that’s what you think, good luck to you. Of course, you know they got the image recognition technology out of that crashed spaceship in Area 51, right?
As far as I’m concerned, if some weed gets his jollies watching me on camera walk down the street then that’s his problem. There’s not a lot he could do to me unless I actually broke the law. If I do that, I’ve either done it unintentionally, in which case my ignorance and my fault, or intentionally for gain, in which case I deserve to get done, or intentionally in protest, in which case I’m prepared to pay the price.
I’ve worked in places where you really do get watched and monitored – a goon once broke into my telephone call to ask me some questions, for example – and I can honestly say it doesn’t bloody bother me. You guys need to get out more.
Indeed. One could probably also say that the invention of the camera did the same thing because then they could keep a permanent record of your face rather than one officer’s recollection. I wonder if there were paranoid conspiracy theorists around when writing was developed, perhaps talking about how this represented a huge leap in state power because now they could keep a record of your deeds longer than someone’s memory, and incidentally has anyone invented tinfoil yet because those clay tablets look mighty suspicious to me?
There are many good arguments against the proliferation of cameras and cards: it’s very expensive for the supposed benefits; the technology is often unreliable; it’s not as effective as cops on the street; it creates a chasm between people and state, and so on. Paranoid delusion about governments spying here, there and everywhere is NOT a good argument and frankly detracts a great deal from the serious arguments.
EG
Somewhat undermines the civil liberties argument that we’re all being spied on, doesn’t it?
EG
Euan, of course we are not all being spied on all the time but that does not mean that the cameras cannot be used for bad ends in certain cases.
To take up a point you made earlier, it is in fact possible for states to be incompetent but also oppressive. The two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as governments try to do ever more things to make us safe, they may end up doing a lot of collateral damage along the way.
I agree with Euan here.
If you are in public, anyone else who is also there should have a right to take photos, etc…
And yes, I am concerned about agents of the State gathering info. In my opinion, the best way to prevent State video survailance is to prevent the State from existing.
Yes, but pretty much ANYTHING can be used for bad ends in certain cases – airliners can be crashed into tower blocks, for example. Doesn’t happen all the time, but given the WILL it can happen. I think this is what’s being got out of all proportion here, the will to do these things maliciously. I think it’s being seriously overstated here, perhaps fuelled by a separate resentment of government and leading to “government can, government bad, therefore government will.”
EG
Perry,
” but I sure don’t want them to have casual access to it just because I am making like miserable for certain employees of The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea”
You might not want it but you can’t stop them.
Suppose your neighbour is setting up a surveillance camera in his attic, aimed at the street and even at your house, and is doing with the pictures whatever he pleases. He is not violating any of your rights. Most of the time you won’t even know that he is doing it. You can’t stop him.
Now you propose to deny the police the right to do what everyone is allowed ?
Would you preffer that all surveilance cameras be removed ? Wouldn’t that impair crime prevention too much ? What other new technology tools (like data bases) would you forbid the police to use ?
Kristopher
Nice one. So you agree with Euan that it’s all hunky dory for your movements and business to be recorded if you’re in public but you are concerned at agents of the State gathering info. Very coherent.
Surely the question should be Is there anywhere in the UK that is NOT a George Orwell Plaza?
A street in Ladbroke Grove this afternoon …
Kristopher – In my opinion, the best way to prevent State video survailance is to prevent the State from existing.
But ’til then, don a burqa! Guys! Why not? Za-NuLab ‘n’ Her Cherieness will support your right not to be discriminated against! Go to the office in a suit, tie and burqa! Eat at Burqa King (the home of “no religious swirl” ice cream)!
Yes, and I really could not care less because he is not the state! Why is it so hard to understanding that what the good Doctor across the street can do with the cameras (which I jointly finance!) and what agents of the state can do if they have unrestricted easy assess to them, is qualitatively different?
For the love of God YES!!!!
As much as I would love to join in this free-for-all, the thought of cameras focused 24 hours a day on EG’s pubic places is making me very queesy, and I think I will have to lie down for awhile.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming…
How about a Zanulab solution to this.
It’s kind of circular- arnt they all?
We get the “hoodies” with the spray cans, who we hate, to swap their cans for paint guns, which we like , cos they’re executive toys, and are great team building tools (Economist march 4th) and we get them to carry out their community service orders for the community by taking out all the Speed cameras and CCTVs with the paint guns.
Then we get someone else to clean up the mess.
They could spin this out for years as long as some poor fool out there is still paying tax.
Yet Euan himself gives several examples of our government doing just that. And he still thinks he can make a case for unease over such spying being ‘paranoia’. Probably because he really, really likes calling Perry and co. paranoid. Vintage Euan doublethink.
Euan, it is not necessary to have a “paranoid” view of the government (though it helps, I guess) to take a dim view of the obsession with surveillance of the UK population on a 24/7 basis.
Let’s not forget another point: there is a blur between what counts as oppressive government and nuisance. Governments may not always use data to coerce us, but they can do a lot of annoying things, and sometimes it will be hard to spot the difference between annoyance and oppression.
I find EG’s relaxed attitude to all this rather scary, since I bet it is shared by a large chunk of the rather dim UK population.
I’d be interested to know exactly how you expect the state could use the data to coerce us. What would it do, and how, and why?
And true, it’s hard sometimes to differentiate between petty annoyance and active oppression. Especially if you have the sort of outlook that sees petty annoyance as an oppressive act, to be honest.
Britain is one of very few countries in the world where one does not need to carry papers or have a mandatory ID system. Almost every country keeps a watch on its citizens, in some cases more than in others. One of the reasons I object to the paranoid hysteria surrounding all of this in the UK is that in countries where they do have these things and have had them for a long time, it simply does NOT cause the horrors envisaged here.
If the state wants to oppress you, then whether or not it has cameras makes little difference since there are many ways it can do it without them. If that’s the problem, focus on demanding accountability and transparency from the state. If the state has cameras, it does not mean they will necessarily be used for oppression, since in the vast majority of countries they simply are not.
EG
Euan, it is indeed true that we have not had to carry ID papers and other such around with us for centuries. I know that. I trust this remains the case in the future.
Oh and Euan, I certainly agree on the need for trust and accountability from the state. Starting off with the resignation of that prize booby, the chief of the Met, Sir Ian Blair.
Indeed, but in what ways exactly do you expect the state to use CCTV images matched to identity to coerce the people? And how? And why?
Are you evading the question, or did you just miss it 🙂
EG
Are you really that naive? Somehow I doubt it. Having an affair? Are you gay? Do you have questionable business associates? Like ladies of the night? Better yet, rent boys? Do you meet with other troublesome agitators?
As for why, it sounds like Perry makes a career of annoying officialdom, which is cause enough. Anyone who is politically active is a target is the means to get the dirt on you is cheep and easy to access.
That’s rich coming from you!
Your comments show you to be a nasty piece of work that cannot see anything wrong with the state having an internal spy network to keep tabs on political opponents. You try to sell this monstrous notion by conflating the Countryside Alliance with Al Qaeda. Truly you are a child of the Blair generation, amoral, disingenuous and sanctimonious in equal measure. It is very good that you comment here as it is useful that people get to see the nature of their enemy.
But the question is still unanswered. In what way would the state coerce you and to do or stop doing what?
All you have provided is simply a list of examples of what information they could get against you. I know this already. What are they going to DO with it, and what are they going to make you do or make you stop doing?
Annoying officialdom? Fine, but I assume Perry is not actually breaking the law in doing this. Even if the officials don’t like you doing this, WHAT coercive action are they going to take? Stop annoying them, because if you don’t they’ll expose the fact that you’re breaking the law in other ways? Fine, but why are you breaking the law in other ways in the first place, and isn’t getting caught for that the risk you have to run anyway? Or do you think you should be allowed to break the law when it suits you? Stop annoying us or we tell your wife you’re cheating? Tough titties, you shouldn’t be cheating & if you are it’s your own lookout if you get rumbled.
What I am asking is this: What is the state going to do to a law abiding person with these images? What CAN they do to you if you’re not doing something you shouldn’t be doing anyway, or if you’re not breaking the law?
But at least I’m polite about it.
Now, are you going to answer the question, or just sling more ad hominem about?
EG
Perry,
“…what the good Doctor across the street can do with the cameras (which I jointly finance!) and what agents of the state can do if they have unrestricted easy assess to them, is qualitatively different?”
That “good Doctor” might be anyone, he might be an enemy of yours, maybe a lefty. He might give the pictures to the police, or to the mafia, or to whomever he pleases.
There is a basic conflict here: having entrusted the police with exclusive use of force to fight crime and protect us, we are afraid of them abusing that power and restricting our freedom. So we impose on them limitations and regulations.
Taking the particular case of surveillance cameras: are they effective in fighting crime? To some degree – yes! Have they been abused and used to oppress people ? So far – no. The fears expressed so far are theoretical – about what MIGHT happen, not about what HAS happened.
I think, based on accumulated evidence (as contrasted with imaginary threats), that police surveillance cameras in public places should be allowed.
I did answer the question and that you just pretend I didn’t is like your endless capacity to “reset” in each new thread as if the previous ones never happened when you don’t like the answers.
It means that sometimes ad hominem attacks on you are quite justified because it is you, rather than just your views, which are the issue.
No, Praxis, you haven’t answered the question. You’ve simply stated what evidence they might collect and that this could be used to dissuade you from doing something they don’t like IF YOU’RE DOING SOMETHING ELSE YOU SHOULDN’T BE DOING. Being caught out doing something you’re not supposed to be doing, or which is illegal, is hardly oppression or coercion.
So, I ask yet again – how and why would or could the state use CCTV footage to coerce a law-abiding person?
EG
And in which case I can sue him or bring social pressure to bear on him or do all manner of other things to defend my interests, all of which are vastly harder if he works as an agent of the state. I am baffled by your inability to see the difference.
Of course he has answered the question and I can only deduce you are being wilfully obtuse to say he has not. When you shout “IF YOU’RE DOING SOMETHING ELSE YOU SHOULDN’T BE DOING”, Praxis included a list of things none of which “you shouldn’t be doing” if that is your wish, yet all of which could destroy a person’s reputation in the appropriate context. Having a reporter from the tabloid press doing it to some celeb may not be nice but it is quite different when the state does it as a method of political control.
Moreover quite apart from social reputation, almost everyone breaks some laws sometimes (I would argue it is often a duty to do so) and of course panoptic law enforcement makes that very unwise. As so many laws are morally indefensible, why should I calmly acquiesce to making it easier to enforce them?
But then of course as the process by which laws are made is incorruptible and always just and moral, how could anyone object to 100% effective law enforcement, right Euan?
To make it easy to acquire that information (as opposed to the trouble and expense of getting a detective to sit in a car in front of your house) just makes is a trivially easy way to coerce and damage enemies. Put that weapon in the hands of ever more petty functionaries and the police state is here.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?
Remember where you wrote earlier it is ok for the state to video political activists who might be “…bringing the body of the law into disrepute”? This where you give the game away and why I simply do not believe you when you say you think people who object to that are “paranoid”. I do not think for a moment you actually believe that, you just want to see a more authoritarian state develop and find dismissing people who disagree as paranoid a useful tactic.
Well said, Perry, well said indeed. Euan’s remarks about the fuel protesters gave the game away totally. The man is a statist toady.
Perry notes: “you just want to see a more authoritarian state develop and find dismissing people who disagree as paranoid a useful tactic.”
This is true. Euan wants a state where people would be obliged by law to wade through his windy, overwritten posts and ANSWER EVERY ARCANE, PRETENTIOUS QUESTION HE POSES, or else!
OK, let’s look at them:
Having an affair. Of course this could destroy someone’s reputation. But then, why doesn’t he get divorced? Why cannot he stick to the obligations of the marriage contract? If he’s cheating, tough – he shouldn’t be. If he’s doing the kind of job or arguing the kind of position where he needs to be faithful, then he’s a hypocrite and I have limited sympathy. Why should he be expecting people to do something he can’t or won’t do, and in that case why should he complain when he’s caught out? Then again, if it’s the kind of relationship where people openly have affairs, no harm is done by revelation, is it? Either way, non-issue and the question isn’t answered.
Being gay? Not a crime, and in some circles these days positively fashionable. It’s only a problem if he’s married to someone else, but then the same comments apply as above. More so if he’s a “family values” guy having a gay affair on the side – that’s hypocrisy. Again, non-issue and the question isn’t answered.
Same deal for prostitutes. If he’s a single man, who the hell cares? Non-issue, question unanswered.
Rent boys? If they’re of legal age, same deal as for protstitutes. Guess what – non-issue.
Troublesome agitators? Presumably at some point he’s planning on confronting the state anyway (otherwise why is he mixing with agitators?), so all that’s happened is that he’s been rumbled early. You don’t need CCTV on the streets to do this, now do you? Again, this isn’t an issue because the man is either just forced to do what he was going to do anyway, or is mixed up in subversive activity which in pretty much every state that has ever existed is illegal and already watched.
So, we have a man who is either a criminal, a subversive, a cheat or a hypocrite. All that has happened is that he’s been found out using different methods than those already used to find out exactly the same things. Kindly explain how this answers the question of how the state is going to use CCTV imagery to coerce people in some new and terrifying way.
The question is NOT answered. Probably because there isn’t an answer, I suspect, but some hyperbolic bombast and a dash of ad hominem will presumably suffice.
I ask again: given a person who is not breaking the law or doing something he knows is dodgy for whatever reason (i.e. because he would suffer if found out), HOW is the state going to coerce him with CCTV images?
Of course, it’s just so plausible that people are going to be routinely hounded for putting their rubbish buckets out 15 minutes early because they ask difficult questions of their representatives. The decision on whether or not to prosecute someone is made on the basis of several factors, one of which is the public interest – if it costs a lot of money to prosecute someone for a trivial offence and there is no significant effect one way or the other, prosecution is often abandoned. So even if the nasty state does have the goodies on you, it still has to go through the legal system.
Of course, since the state prosecution system is part of the state, it’s possible that there cuold be some organised plan to do down Joe Bloggs for trivial offences. On the other hand, if that keeps happening on a regular basis, people are going to notice. Apart from anything else, the costs of running the state prosecutions are going to rocket. Then again, if you have the kind of mind that sees cameras as somethnig the state will inevitably use against everyone for trivia, I suppose you can also believe in vast state conspiracy to cover it all up.
This is completely unrealistic, stuff that theoretically could happen (and if you ask really dodgy questions might in some rare circumstances very occasionally happen) but in 99.99% of cases simply wouldn’t. And if they want you that bad, cameras make no difference. Paranoid.
A fair point. On the other hand, why should I put up with a greater risk of getting mugged in the street just because you don’t like cameras?
If you don’t like the law, campaign to get it changed. Unfortunately for you, we live in a democracy and the majority more or less rules. Ah, I forgot, you refuse to take part in the political process. This is your choice, but you don’t have a lot of credibility if you lambast the laws but then refuse to use the established method for changing them because it won’t give the results you want.
I have to say that if you refuse to play the game, you cannot justly complain about the score.
The system is not perfect, and I can’t recall saying it was or even implying such. It never will be. What to do? Abandon everything and let nature take its course? Only ideologues expect perfection.
It’s a compromise. As was pointed out above, it is clear enough that cameras can and do assist in defeating crime – the real crime that even libertarians don’t like – but the number of cases where CCTV footage has been used to coerce or oppress the innocent is, so far, nil.
When balancing paranoid ramblings about hypothetical oppression against actual capture of real criminals, what do you think most people are going to favour?
So basically the best you can come up with is that the state would find it a little easier to politically damage people it already wants to (and does) politically damage, and even then only when they are actually caught doing something either illegal or contrary to their public persona. Well, if you’re going to go into political controversy, best to be honest about who and what you are, no? If you’re gay, say so – nobody cares any more. That way you can’t get caught out, can you?
I mean, who cares these days if his MP is a lesbian or smoked a joint at school? Who cares if the local campaigner occasionally sees a prostitute? It only matters if the closet lesbian MP promotes heterosexual Christian family values, or if the campaign is against prostitution, and if so they’re hypocrites and arguably deserve what they get. Or do you object to the infringement of your right to blatant hypocrisy in pulbic affairs?
So I repeat the question which still has not been answered – how does state possession of CCTV imagery enable a law abiding non-hypocrite to be coerced?
No, I don’t. I want an answer to a straightforward question. The fact that the only answers seem to be a blend of evasion, hyperbolic doom-mongering, ad hominem attack and now diversion onto unrelated issues leads me to conclude that the opposition is in fact based on nothing more than paranoia because you simply don’t have a rational answer.
If that’s not the case, you’ll be able to answer the simple and non-disingenuous question. Why can’t you?
But he’s still asked a difficult question you can’t answer other than by making two irrelevant points on side issues.
EG
Although I don’t really care for public security cameras, I’m struck by a similarity between the arguments for banning government cameras and for banning guns.
In both cases, proponents want to ban something because of illicit uses to which it MIGHT be put, despite valid uses to which it can also be put. Why is that argument valid in one case and not in the other? I feel that it is an invalid argument in general, and that the illicit uses should be banned rather than the mere owndership/existence.
Probably for no better reason than that the libertarian likes guns but not cameras, whereas the gun controller likes cameras but not guns.
EG
Wow, 74 posts and counting. Euan must be in the house. So he is:
Eh? So it’s ok for the State to out an adulterer? An affair is the business of the State? You surpass yourself, Euan.
Yet again, Pete responds to a point not being made.
An affair is only the business of the state if the state makes it so by trying to use it to coerce someone. I don’t think it should do that, but that’s not the question. My point is that one has to ask why the adulterer is having an affair, why he cannot remain faithful, and indeed whether the fact of his adultery has any bearing on his ability to do his job.
Why would the adulterer find disclosure of his affair damaging? Since you seem to have missed this point, let me quickly run through it again:
If he tries to protray himself as a loyal and faithful husband, then it would be damaging. Equally, though, the man is clearly a hypocrite and IMO deserves what he gets. Not only that, but he is leaving himself wide open to attack by ANYONE who finds out about the affair, so he’s an imprudent and reckless hypocrite.
If his employer or the nature of his job requires him to have a clean family life, then again it’s damaging. But also then again, he is a hypocrite and a liar and I say he deserves it.
If he makes no claim about his family life, but encourages “traditional Christian family values” in others, then it’s damaging. But he’s still a hypocrite.
If he’s in the type of “open” relationship where people have affairs, and is quite plain about this, then there is no damage done by the revelation of the affair and thus the CCTV imagery is of no use in coercion.
So basically, the state can only harm our hypothetical man if he is lying or cheating, if he’s a hypocrite.
Given the existence of microphones, bugs, cameras and so forth, the state has ALWAYS been able to do this. The existence of CCTV imagery might make it marginally easier for the state to do it in the future, BUT it only works if the victim has something to hide. If he’s honest and open, the state can’t touch him this way.
And that’s the question nobody has yet answered – how does CCTV imagery enable the state to oppress or coerce an honest man?
EG
( If the preceeding statement wasn’t sarcasm, I apologize in advance … it’s hard to tell with print )
Ermmm … how would you prevent me from filming or recording anything I can see in public?
Say … I chose to wear monitoring gear … or rented private property and set up cameras in areas not usually considered private, like restrooms, etc.?
Do I not have a right to do as I please with my property?
Do I not have a right to record anything I wish, provided I do not trespass or otherwise initiate the use of force?
Yes … the state will use this kind of data to perpetuate its continual violations of basic human liberty. But the answer is not to ban recording devices … but rather to remove state powers until the state is irrelevent.
I’m repeating a point that seems to me relevant:
Police has been entrusted with powers that ordinary citizens don’t have: the power to use force to maintain order, to make arrests, make searches, etc. They have been handed these powers so they can do their job, which is to protect citizens against crime. There is a problem with police abusing their power – which is why the police powers are strictly regulated.
But the powers that are regulated are the EXTRA powers they have. You can’t deny the police normal powers, that all citizens enjoy. You can’t prohibit police from entering public spaces, you can’t prohibit the use of police cameras in public spaces unless you prohibit the use of all cameras.
You can’t (and probably don’t want to) deny the police the right to use computers and data bases.
So I don’t see how you can legally or logically demand that police refrain from using surveilance cameras.
And the point made by Jason is, of course, also valid – it’s not that gadget that matters, but what you do with it. What you actually do, not what you MIGHT do.
Jacob, the reason, I think, why surveillance cameras bother some people is that they can be used (in filming things like demonstrations for instance) to target people who might be deemed a “nuisance”. I don’t think that the cameras per se are regarded as a bad thing.
If a street were privately owned, say, then so long as the people entering the place knew about the cameras, there could be no complaints. That clearly does not obtain now.
Of course there are more serious threats to liberty than state-run CCTV, and to that extent I can see why EG gets a bit surprised at the vehemence of people about them. But CCTV is all part of a bigger picture (‘scuse the pun) of growing state surveillance and intrusion. And that is definitely a problem.
But you still haven’t offered the slightest explanation of how this can possibly work against an honest person.
It’s more a case of being frustrated that people speak vehemently against them but when challenged haven’t the least justification for their opposition, yet still maintain it.
EG
Let’s see if this hypothetical meets the approval of the pro-gov surveillance group.
Big Company MS (or any other acronym you like) developes and puts in place a comprehensive nation wide camera and analysis system. The can now reconstruct were you go, who you meet, what you appear to have done. And they can do this whenever you leave you property and sometimes when you are on it.
Next, having a profit motive, they offer to sell this knowledge about where, what, when and how you do things on the open market to whoever will buy it. This includes business competitors, ex-spouses, creditors, people you don’t know who are trolling for various opportunities (like theft), and anybody else who will pay for the information.
Would anyone, on any part of the political spectrum, tolerate this? Maybe you would.
Bear in mind that much of our financial information was already in this catagory so in the US we passed rules about information privacy.
I wouldn’t. But then, it’s not a meaningful comparison.
I don’t know about the US, but over here we have pretty strict rules about what the police (as individual citizens) may or may not do. For example, a policeman is not permitted to have an unsatisfied debt outstanding against him. The reason for that is that unsatisfied debt leaves the debtor open to blackmail and/or bribery, so it is prohibited in the police. This goes back to the point Jacob made about the extra rules for citizens with extra power, which is what police are.
The probability of corrupt police selling CCTV imagery exists, since it’s impossible to be absolutely certain that it cannot happen. However, this probability is extremely small. The chances of a private company doing it, on the other hand, are probably a little higher because (a) the company exists to make money whereas the police do not and (b) private security staff in the UK are not paid anything like the generous salaries the police get (another means of avoiding corruption, BTW).
EG
“You haven’t given an explanation of how they can be used against an honest person”, writes Euan.
Jesus . H. Christ. You recite the old, tired canard that only the guilty should be afraid. Words fail me – have you no regard whatsoever to the abuse of powers that your mindset can give rise to? Learn some history.
There have always been protests in free societies and I am pretty sure that people in authority would prefer it if they did not occur. And I know for a fact that the ability by police to take photos of people is all a part of trying to intimidate would-be “troublemakers”. Of course we have had a fairly tolerant history in the past century or so but there is no reason to assume this will endure. The government’s recent horrendous Civil Contingencies Act suggests as much (or do you support that as well?).
Were you ever a rebel in your youth? Did you ever take part in demos or events that you might, in a different part of your life, think either foolish or reckless?
And your remarks about adulterous husbands or whatever are outrageous. I leave to other people to wonder what on earth has happened in your life that has pushed you to take such a point of view. I’ll leave it there before I say something I might regret later.
No, I said not that only the guilty should be afraid but that the innocent cannot be oppressed by this technique. That’s not the same thing. This is in opposition to the notion that the cameras are instruments of oppression and will inevitably be used as such against the innocent.
Does it work, I wonder? I don’t know anyone outside of Africa who feels intimidated getting their picture taken. The idea’s absurd, man. It can only be intimidating if it can actually be used against you in any way. You have yet to explain how this is supposed to happen.
No, I don’t. But then I know the government doesn’t actually need fresh legislation to rule by decree if it so wishes. It just needs a plausible reason.
Oh, incessantly. Rebel without a pause, me. I’ve done many things I’m not terribly proud of. I just don’t get paranoid about it. If I went into politics there are things that could be used in an attempt to embarrass me. To which the obvious response can only be “So what?” This works, as the Duke of Wellington knew perfectly well when he said “publish and be damned.” Coercion like this works only when two criteria are met: firstly, that you’ve done something wrong (or wrong enough) and secondly (more importantly), that you actually give a damn if people know about it. It’s not the specific act that is the issue, it is the desire to keep the act secret – that’s what blackmail’s all about, isn’t it?
So you think it is NOT hypocrisy to pretend to a faithful marriage when in reality you’re having an affair? You think hypocrisy and mendacity is quite acceptable behaviour?
Please explain what is so outrageous about saying that if people aren’t honest they need to accept the consequences? Do you assert a right to lie and cheat and get away with it? You really need to explain this one.
Oh, and you still haven’t answered the question of how CCTV footage is supposed to oppress the innocent. Trying to divert things into a discussion of my character isn’t going to work, you know.
EG
Euan, your answer belies your previous statement that government surveillance is not doing anything the private sector is not permitted.
You’re going to throw out the canard that it’s different because the government is using the information for government ends and the corporation is using the information for corporate ends. But since ultimately the gov’s ends are to get bigger and secure it’s own future, just like corporate, I think it’s one and the same.
Interesting thing about hunting rabbits. If you stay back and let others do the chasing, a rabbit always comes back to where it started from.
Sorry, you’ll need to explain that one because I’ve read through it several times and I cannot for the life of me see how you put that construction on it.
EG
Euan said –
Midwesterner said –
Euan said –
.
OK, I understand your meaning now. It’s still wrong, though.
My first comment relates to the simultaneous control of both recording system and police power by private companies.
The second comment responds to your suggestion that the state could (or possibly would) sell the recorded data.
I don’t see how one contradicts the other, not least because they are discussing two completely separate things.
EG
No Euan. That’s not at all what your first comment was about. Go back and read the thread. I did.
As to your second comment, I’ll make it clearer. It is not about corporations and governments selling data. It’s about them using it.
In my example I used two corporations. One to collect the data and one to use it against you. The government is perfectly capable of handling both functions all by itself.
When surveillance cameras are involved I have no idea whos watching me and am powerless to prevent it
Surely spraypaint is not yet illegal in Airstrip One?
Euan, you have proved my point about your bullying tendencies perfectly in your reply to me. You presumably hope that only a world full of perfect, well behaved, priggish shits like you need not fear CCTV and its use by the state. What a total ass.
Well, yes it is, and pretty obviously. Natalie said:
The problem with state as opposed to private surveillance is its ability to link numerous sources of information and its possession of the police power.
to which my response was:
And my point was that there is no reason private companies cannot do exactly the same things
This is not only possible, but in the libertarian scenario of privatised security almost certain. I don’t understand your difficulty with what I said.
Yes, but one could do both tasks, could it not? You’re not really making much of a point except to say the police do two tasks at the same time. We know. One company could also do the same two tasks. What’s the issue?
Nobody has managed to explain how this is supposed to happen. Care to try?
EG
I asked a question. You sidestepped it. I repeated it, and you evaded again, then tried to divert the discussion into one of my character. I repeated the same question and you STILL have not managed to come up with an answer. You also have not explained what is so outrageous about considering cheating on one’s wife whilst pretending otherwise to be hypocrisy. Instead, you evade once more and slide into ad hominem.
And yet I am the bully? Have I called you a shit? Have I called you an ass?
I ask again: how does state possession of CCTV imagery lead to the oppression of an honest man?
I also ask again: why is it not hypocritical to lie about not cheating on one’s wife?
These aren’t hard questions, and I’m not asking them in a bullying or aggressive tone. They’re just simple questions – you’ve made assertions, and I’m calling you on them. Can’t you provide the answers? If you can, why haven’t you? If you can’t, why are you getting personally insulting and avoiding the questions?
EG
I ask again: how does state possession of CCTV imagery lead to the oppression of an honest man?
Assuming the state employees are all honest- which is what you seem to be doing- it doesn’t.
The problem is that it creates a potential for abuse if the people who have access to, or control over, that CCTV system are not honest. History has shown, repeatedly, that dishonest, malicious, and/or just plain evil people do occasionally attain positions of power in government.
It is up to the people in the relevant jurisdiction to decide if the benefit is worth the risk.
Last time spoon feeding Euan in this thread.
Your first point was that there was nothing the police were doing that private companies could not do. I gave a hypothetical. You said you would not put up with a private company doing that. But to have it both ways, you base your new misinterpretation of your old statement on the idea that power would corrupt a private company but not a government. You say there is no way a government could use surveillance information against you.
You go on to reiterate –
Ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover?
Don’t bother replying. I won’t.
Obviously. One assumes that honest cops aren’t going to try it in the first place. This is not the question, & I suspect you know this & you’re evading.
Assuming the cops are dishonest, how is their possession of CCTV footage going to be useful in the oppression of a citizen who IS honest? What is the mechanism? What do they blame him for doing? Why can it not be challenged?
No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t put up with the police doing it either. What the hell has that got to do with private companies not being able to do what the police do? Sure, the police can be corrupt. Sure, companies can be corrupt. Sure, they can both misuse the data. How do you go from there to saying the police are doing what private companies CANNOT do? The two points are not the same, and it is meaningless, not mention risible, to try and draw a connection between them.
If you don’t want a reply, don’t post. To say what you have is the blog equivalent of making your point and then jamming your fingers in your ear to somehow defeat any reply. Very mature.
EG
Assuming the cops are dishonest, how is their possession of CCTV footage going to be useful in the oppression of a citizen who IS honest? What is the mechanism? What do they blame him for doing? Why can it not be challenged?
Have you ever heard of this thing called ‘google’? What Midwesterner and myself are referring to is not a hypothetical situation. Here’s one example, that happened in a nation generally considered to have a fairly good record on such matters-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Methods
I thin it is, because it seems that your opposition is based at least in part on the matter you highlight with your next sentence:
Fair enough, and of course these things did happen. However, I’m not at all sure it is valid to assert that the same thing will inevitably happen in the UK.
For a start, we don’t (yet) have a body like the FBI with over-arching national criminal investigation power. We DO have executive and police branches with national reach, but these are state security arms rather than police.
Another thing to recall is that on the whole (and especially in the period in question in your link) America is a more corrupt, less homogenous, more paranoid and more insecure culture than Britain. It is logical, therefore, to expect that the probability of this type of thing happening in the US is somewhat higher.
Finally, it should be recalled that at the time in question the FBI was headed by a paranoid homosexual transvestite with a personal power fixation, a predisposition to blackmailing anyone and everyone (including senior politicians) and so much political clout that the bureau was effectively a state within a state. I fail to see how this corresponds in reality with anything in the current, recent or forseeable British situation.
Although American institutions are generally accountable to either congress or the president explicitly, and are always subject to the courts, these things happened. Similar British institutions either do not officially exist or are accountable only in secret and direct to the PM or Home Secretary (or FCO in the case of MI6). People have far less idea of what they do or even – until recently – whether some of these bodies really existed outside fiction. So you’d expect far more abuse and corruption in the British bodies, given the secrecy and what not. There’s actually a lot less, by all accounts.
The two cultures are so different that it’s not possible to extrapolate like this. If you can post links about systematic British state campaigns of intimidation and blackmail against British citizens, then you might have a point. But just because the FBI did something 35 years ago does not mean the British are going to do it tomorrow.
EG
Finally, it should be recalled that at the time in question the FBI was headed by a paranoid homosexual transvestite with a personal power fixation
J Edgar Hoover was a monster in many ways, but I think the transvestite accusation is probably untrue. I believe it was made by one woman quoted in Anthony Summers’ biography of JEH, and she wasn’t a particularly credible witness. He may well have been gay, but if he was I feel he probably repressed it. Certainly he used the FBI to snoop on people and blackmail them over their private lives, something you seem to dismiss as a threat in posts above. It’s not as if someone’s life could not be destroyed by revelations that they were having an affair or were discreetly gay is it? You might be a let it all hang out sort of guy, others prefer a bit of privacy in their private lives.
Anyway, we’re safe on this side of the pond because there’s no way a paranoid homosexual could ever rise to a high position in the UK or EU government is there?
I fail to see how this corresponds in reality with anything in the current, recent or forseeable British situation.
If you haven’t noticed that Britain is being turned into an authoritarian total surveillance state then you haven’t really been looking have you? But since you seemed to accept “goons” breaking into your phone calls with equanimity perhaps you have a rather higher threshold for state intrusion than most of us.
Tomorrow? They are doing it right now if you happen to be a seperatist or other form of serious dissident, rather than just playing at it. But you will not read that in the Guardian or Daily Mail. There are many of your kinfolk in the hills around where I live Euan, all white and fluffy, and they think the farmers who look after them want them to have long and happy lives.
I see. They’re doing it, but I don’t read about it and you, I am guessing, can’t actually prove it. If you can, that’s different, but otherwise why would I see your remarks as anything more than yet more paranoia?
Last time I looked, it was perfectly legal and above board to be a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party or Plaid Cymru (sp?), both of which are legal separatist parties, many of whose members call for complete independence. Are you saying they get blackmailed for it? Evidence, please.
EG
It’s not a case of privacy, more one of honesty.
I don’t have any great desire to see the details of my life splashed around the place (i.e. I value my privacy), but on the other hand those who matter to me already know who and what I am and no particular harm would be done (i.e. I’m honest about myself).
The point I was making earlier was that the only people who can conceivably be pressured by this are people who are, basically, either liars or hypocrites. Of course people can live their lives any way they please. But I cannot see any reason why the should expect as of right to avoid the consequences IF what they are doing is illegal or, in the case of the adulterer, hypocritical. As I asked Mr Pearce, who has been unable to explain himself, are you suggesting that people should have a right to live a hypocritical or mendacious life and get away with it?
Of course I look, I just don’t automatically assume they’re out to get me.
It’s reasonable to assume that any conversation you have over the phone, mobile or internet may be monitored. That’s not to say it WILL be monitored, but it might be and certainly the technology has been readily availble for a long time. Expecting to have services like this guaranteed free from eavesdropping, whether by state goons or private snoopers, is completely naive. That’s the way the world is, and one must deal with the real world, not with fantasy about how it should be.
EG
The point I was making earlier was that the only people who can conceivably be pressured by this are people who are, basically, either liars or hypocrites.
What’s so wrong with lying or hypocrisy? Martin Luther King was a hypocrite to have extra-marital affairs, but he was right to oppose segregation, and Hoover was wrong to try and drive him to suicide by illegally bugging him and threatening him with the information.
You don’t seem to understand that a malign state will use private peccadillos against people to shut them up or stop them doing something which is important.
Of course I look, I just don’t automatically assume they’re out to get me.
Neither do I, but I’m not sanguine about them using dirty tricks against others.
It’s reasonable to assume that any conversation you have over the phone, mobile or internet may be monitored.
Yes it may, but that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean that I’m happy to see a massive expansion of authoritarian state intrusion.
This government has no concept of checks and balances, it is authoritarian and power hungry. So far we may not have a J Edgar Hoover, but they have already hounded one whistle blower to his death, and their hold over the BBC is such that John Humphrys almost got the sack for making a few mild jokes about cabinet ministers at a private meeting, so I think they have already got the basics in place.
The national security state is organised so as to give security to the state. The clue is in the title.
Er…a lot?
I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually ask that question with any seriousness. If you don’t know the answer, what can I say?
EG
I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually ask that question with any seriousness. If you don’t know the answer, what can I say?
Maybe this is a Scottish thing, but most people find that going through life they have to smooth things with the odd lie or bit of hypocrisy. Try telling your missus that her bum really does look big in that if you don’t believe me.
The point I made about Dr King is valid. He was a hypocrite for having affairs, but that was his private business. Hoover’s FBI illegally bugged his hotel rooms and tried to drive him to suicide because he challenged the prevailing racist power structure in 60’s America. When he wouldn’t kill himself, someone else was found to do the job for him.
No, EG, the total surveillance state probably isn’t after you, or me. But we know that if we become the tall poppy, they might be, and they will have the ability to do it. And that means we won’t challenge things. And then they win. Which is what it’s all about.
You make a perfectly valid point here. But there is a world of difference between “no, dear, your bum doesn’t look big” and “honestly I’m not porking my secretary,” is there not? And what are the relative consequences of getting caught out? One night sleeping on the sofa versus a painful divorce, I’d think.
It’s not practically possible to go through life being completely 100% honest and straightforward, and I’m not trying to pretend this is possible. Everyone understands that little white lies inevitably get told, but there is really no way you could possibly say that concealing an affair falls into that category, surely?
As for someone like King, I really think that if you are going to take on the kind of challenge he took on, or if you’re going to become a professional politician, then you really do need to be honest about things. You can’t say King was caught up in things as an innocent bystander – which is the sort of potential oppression people are talking about with the cameras. He knew perfectly well what he was doing, and although I don’t deny his courage in doing it I think you’d have to say he was a little stupid to keep having affairs whilst thrusting himself (as it were) into the public eye. And anyway, wasn’t he a priest? Aren’t they supposed to observe various Biblical strictures about being faithful?
I’m not sure I agree. The fact that they have the ability to do something means people will not challenge it?
EG
And anyway, wasn’t he a priest? Aren’t they supposed to observe various Biblical strictures about being faithful?
Of course, that’s why he was a hypocrite. But his private hypocrisy does not excuse the FBI’s illegal use of this information to try and make him kill himself. He was not committing any crime.
The more the state knows, and the easier it is for them to know things, the more chance information will be misused. You cannot say that the recent behaviour of NuLabor gives you any confidence in this regard. It may not be illegal to visit a massage parlour, but you might not want the fact made public knowledge, so you might prefer not to challenge the state. Look how the EU deals with whistle blowers. Think our masters haven’t taken it on board?
I’m not sure I agree. The fact that they have the ability to do something means people will not challenge it?
It’s bound to put some people off. That’s why blackmailers such as Hoover did what they did.
Says someone who repeats an obvious lie concerning J. Edgar Hoover. So where do you stand on your personal scale for lying hypocracy, Euan?
You’re also dead wrong if you believe the Blairites aren’t willing to use ‘private’ details of people’s lives against those people who do cross them. Maybe you remember the incident where Blair made a speech to the Women’s Institute, and was slow-handclapped for his troubles. I know I remember the front page story in the Daily Mirror the next day, which was all about supposed links the head of the WI had to the BNP.