George Orwell must be rolling over in his grave

[Jedi Master Carr]

I didn't realize that things in England was progressing like this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061102/wl_uk_afp/britainsecuritycctv_061102190511
It is pretty bad when England is down there with Russia when respecting individual freedom and Russia has become a dictatorship again.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

My brother came back from the UK last night. He absolutely agrees with every word, it's just completely and utterly over the top. The speed camera situation is completely beyond any resonable defence especially. And the amount of other cameras......

Orwell would indeed recognize the society we're all progressing to.

[Zem Vymes]

Kudos to every bit of sabotage taken against them. If it happens where you live, I expect nothing less from you.

[JMK]

Jesus...V for Vendetta anyone?

[Zem Vymes]

I'd known they were using CCTV and biometrics to monitor citizens for years, but I didn't know it had gotten this bad.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Jesus...V for Vendetta anyone?

I was thinking that or 1984 comes to mind.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'm surprised there isn't more buzz about this. I'd like to hear what the UK posters think about this situation.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I always laugh at the suggestion that I'm caught on camera 300 times a day... mostly because I'm not out of the house enough for that to happen!

In seriousness though, I wasn't aware that we were ranked so low. I would be amazed if they actually introduced those biometric and psychometric tests.

In the end though, I don't mind if things are brought in as a measure to combat crime. I don't really have any issue with the introduction of ID cards and CCTV has never bothered me, because I'm not doing anything illegal. Stuff like the DNA database for criminals, too, obviously has no effect on me.

I don't know. It just doesn't worry me that much, for some reason. Maybe just because I can't ever see it realistically becoming as bad as that article suggests.

[Khendon Sevon]

Give an inch, take a foot.

Err.. " " " centimeter " " " meter.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You're not doing anything illegal. Yet. Until they outlaw reading. :shakefist

Seriously though... it would freak me out to no end. I think I'd move.

[Pan]

I'm in complete agreement with Jenny. If I were smuggling drugs or trying to cheat the system in anyway, then I'd have a reason to be concerned but as long as the measures don't interfere with personal freedom, I'm cool with it.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I'm in complete agreement with Jenny. If I were smuggling drugs or trying to cheat the system in anyway, then I'd have a reason to be concerned but as long as the measures don't interfere with personal freedom, I'm cool with it.

Oh, okay, so you have no problem with someone spying on you as long as your not doing anything wrong? Because that's basically what you said.

That is the wrong damn answer. NO ONE has the right to know a thing about what your doing and if they suspect you, that's why a warrant is for - to prove there is a valid reason to gather info on you. You have give the governemnt the ability to do so without a warrant, to spy on your life, to know exactly what you are doing, no matter how well you live your life.

As far as I am concerned, the government car go root it's boot if they dont have a real reason to know a thing about me. If there is a real reason to tap my phone, spy on me, read my mail etc, go prove it to a judge. Until then, stay out of my life in total and as a law abiding citizen, I resent the insinuation the governemnt 'needs' to watch me for any reason.

I dont care if there's 'bad' people out there, more cameras, more wire taps, more spying on my life isnt going to stop them at all. It never has and it never will.

[Byl Laprovik]

The reason that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry" fails miserably is because you are waiving your civil liberties and protections, and defaulting to be treated as a quasi-prisoner class. It's the ultimate affront to any sort of western liberal democracy to do such a thing. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine how such a stance could ever be defensible.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Are they watching everyone? Don't they pick people based on certain red flag issues? I mean I can't think of any reason for them to invest money into spying on me. I could be wrong? I don't know a lot about our governments policys, to be honest. Saying that, I haven't heard really anything about this in our press (which I doubt is because of the government silencing it - the BBC aren't afraid to say how awful they are, after all). The ID cards are the one thing that has cropped up, and there seems to be a lot of negative press on that.

[Byl Laprovik]

You mean you haven't heard about the facial recognition biometrics which link up to the CCTV net? That's been common knowledge for years.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I'd heard about them using it in conjuction with criminal databases, but not just matching up randoms on the street. It strikes me as kind of odd because the quality of CCTV we see on TV is pretty poor. If they're showing it, they're usually asking for people to step forward and try to identify the criminals themselves - which you'd think we wouldn't have to do if they had this hi-tech match-up thing.

[Byl Laprovik]

You don't need HDTV setups or anything to run biometrics. As long as you have an image of the face, it can run on waypoints like the distance of the eyes, and look at skeletal reference points that can't be faked.

[Byl Laprovik]

Think of it this way. Your government is the same as my government. They're full of fallible, flesh & blood human beings same as any workplace is staffed by such humans. These aren't unquestionable bastions of virtue. Would you be okay with giving this ability to say, a private company? Why are you okay with giving it to the government? You somehow trust them to not abuse it?

Modern history is so full of governmental abuse of citizens that it blows my mind that people don't question them at every turn in which they legally are able to. You aren't doing anything wrong in doing so. You make them run the full course, not cut corners, and actually get what they want the hard way, and the correct way.

[Khendon Sevon]

The road to hell is paved with good intent.

Or something.

[Peter McCoy]

I will see a British Civil War in my lifetime - I guarantee it. I may be 60 years old, but I will see it! Our government is ridiculous.

[Pan]

Oh, okay, so you have no problem with someone spying on you as long as your not doing anything wrong? Because that's basically what you said.


I stopped reading after that because that is not what I said. I hardly consider a camera on a public street spying. If the cameras were in my house, then that's a different matter entirely. As for all this sensational raving about facial recognition biometrics, ID cards, and the rest of it, I don't view it as spying whatsoever. It's not an intrusion of personal privacy at all.

[Khendon Sevon]

That's right. Them being able to literally follow your every move through a network of sophisticated camera systems isn't an invasion of personal privacy.

I've seen the research going on in security systems through computer science.

Hell, my school developed software that can track a person walking through a network of cameras and make decisions based on their stance, gate, estimated destination, etc.

It's all automatic and it's all real-time.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I stopped reading after that because that is not what I said. I hardly consider a camera on a public street spying. If the cameras were in my house, then that's a different matter entirely. As for all this sensational raving about facial recognition biometrics, ID cards, and the rest of it, I don't view it as spying whatsoever. It's not an intrusion of personal privacy at all.

Then you don't know how it works and how good it all is these days. You don't understand what's happening - they don't NEED a camera in your house, your life with this camera network is already tracked and frankly it's all too easy to get more info on you just by how you surf the web and what you do on it. Get informed because you need to be aware how good the systems can be at spying on YOU for no reason other than they can.

I know exactly about this because people pay me a lot of money per hour to implement systems just like Khendon described, if that's what my clients want.

[Droo]

I'm sorry but I have to wave this off as sensationalism, your arguments are far too vague to even remotely convince me that all this is nothing more than conspiracy theory ravings. And secondly, I don't care if the government knows where I go to buy the morning paper, or the time I visit my local café, or even the brand of toilet paper I use to wipe my backside. Until these security measures breach my personal freedom, which they do not, then I have absolutely no problem with them.

I just cannot believe what I'm reading to be perfectly honest. I'm going over some of these posts and asking if what you're saying is actually serious. You're trying to tell me you would be remotely bothered if your government had the potential, should they wish, to follow you around in public using security systems? The power to do that as a counter-measure to crime is incredible and I really don't see why people are being so up in arms about it. Unless it's an overblown sense of being camera shy.

Anything that can be found out about me via tracking my movements or assessing that which I do on the internet is nothing I wouldn't be perfectly fine with answering in person should they wish to know. I honestly cannot see what the big fuss is about. I know my government is as full as rubbish as the next but CCTV, ID cards and the like is not something I'd chalk down as a great grievance just yet.

[JMK]

Anything that can be found out about me via tracking my movements or assessing that which I do on the internet is nothing I wouldn't be perfectly fine with answering in person should they wish to know. I honestly cannot see what the big fuss is about. I know my government is as full as rubbish as the next but CCTV, ID cards and the like is not something I'd chalk down as a great grievance just yet.

I think the fuss is that if you let this happen, you open pandora's box and you give the gov't authority to eventually do whatever they want. You can't slam the door once you've let them have their way for so long. You either keep the door shut, or swing it wide open.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think the fuss is that if you let this happen, you open pandora's box and you give the gov't authority to eventually do whatever they want. You can't slam the door once you've let them have their way for so long. You either keep the door shut, or swing it wide open.

Exactly what if a authorative person comes to power in your country or any country with some measures. You would have people rounded up because they don't like you etc. Like what happens in 1984. Its not that what they are for is bad it is the fact they could be used for very sinister purposes. Plus as others have said I don't trust goverment officials. They are human beings and as such are fallable. In a perfect society this would be fine, but since we live in a very imperfect society, I say its not.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I'm sorry but I have to wave this off as sensationalism, your arguments are far too vague to even remotely convince me that all this is nothing more than conspiracy theory ravings. And secondly, I don't care if the government knows where I go to buy the morning paper, or the time I visit my local café, or even the brand of toilet paper I use to wipe my backside. Until these security measures breach my personal freedom, which they do not, then I have absolutely no problem with them.

I just cannot believe what I'm reading to be perfectly honest. I'm going over some of these posts and asking if what you're saying is actually serious. You're trying to tell me you would be remotely bothered if your government had the potential, should they wish, to follow you around in public using security systems? The power to do that as a counter-measure to crime is incredible and I really don't see why people are being so up in arms about it. Unless it's an overblown sense of being camera shy.

Anything that can be found out about me via tracking my movements or assessing that which I do on the internet is nothing I wouldn't be perfectly fine with answering in person should they wish to know. I honestly cannot see what the big fuss is about. I know my government is as full as rubbish as the next but CCTV, ID cards and the like is not something I'd chalk down as a great grievance just yet.


Do you honestly think that a government, normally a group of the most untrustworthy people arent coming up with way to use this right now? Adn that governemnt goodness will keep the use in check?

I'm sorry Droo, but if you dont fight these things then you have handed the government the tools for a dictactorship. Your 'rights' are being infringed on in a daily basis and just because YOU dont notice doesnt mean in the future it wont turn around and bite you. You have laws that right now can declare you a enemy of the state and cart you away without trial to be tortured without any legal recourse. Just because the governemnt doesnt do it now doesnt mean someone else wont.

[Byl Laprovik]

I'm sorry but I have to wave this off as sensationalism, your arguments are far too vague to even remotely convince me that all this is nothing more than conspiracy theory ravings. And secondly, I don't care if the government knows where I go to buy the morning paper, or the time I visit my local café, or even the brand of toilet paper I use to wipe my backside. Until these security measures breach my personal freedom, which they do not, then I have absolutely no problem with them.

I just cannot believe what I'm reading to be perfectly honest. I'm going over some of these posts and asking if what you're saying is actually serious. You're trying to tell me you would be remotely bothered if your government had the potential, should they wish, to follow you around in public using security systems? The power to do that as a counter-measure to crime is incredible and I really don't see why people are being so up in arms about it. Unless it's an overblown sense of being camera shy.

Anything that can be found out about me via tracking my movements or assessing that which I do on the internet is nothing I wouldn't be perfectly fine with answering in person should they wish to know. I honestly cannot see what the big fuss is about. I know my government is as full as rubbish as the next but CCTV, ID cards and the like is not something I'd chalk down as a great grievance just yet.

Very simply, a thing like this would serve as a continuous plain view incursion. If you're prepared to behave in a fashion in which your every movement is potentially sifted for probable cause, then go right ahead. I just don't think such a relaxation of vigilance is any sort of civic virtue.

Lets go on to other hypotheticals. Say you're a college-aged chap and you go grousing around for a titty mag, or some off-color sort of entertainment. Now you're on CCTV and in a database as having done so. Your purchase is also logged. Fast forward two or three decades, and lets say you give a political career a try, or any career that involves appointment by government official. Say your opponents are cozy with the police. "Leaks happen from time to time" is the old hand-wringer I've heard too often, and people get slimed for things that aren't even illegal to begin with.

You're comfortable because you're not a criminal. That's good. Are you also comfortable because you don't face any trouble for minor things that may ostracize you from society if brought into the light?

What if you get pounded at the nuclear sub and give Pete a kiss on the mouth ;) That certainly won't destroy a future MP's chances, eh?

[Dasquian Belargic]

Do you honestly think that a government, normally a group of the most untrustworthy people arent coming up with way to use this right now? Adn that governemnt goodness will keep the use in check?

We only have two political parties that ever elected in the UK, and the Conservatives are not going to get into power until people have at least forgotten that the Thatcher-era happened. Even then, neither are right wing - Labour are socialists (just like Orwell!). They might have made some stupid decisions now and then but it seems that by and large they have been trying to do what's right for the country, and they do admit when they have made a mistake.

I have to stick with Droo on this one. If certain measures help to reduce crime rates, I'm for them. I'd only be worried if I was a criminal. The government can't just up and lock me away for no reason.

[Byl Laprovik]

I have to stick with Droo on this one. If certain measures help to reduce crime rates, I'm for them. I'd only be worried if I was a criminal. The government can't just up and lock me away for no reason.

Without due processes and habeas corpus, that's exactly what they can do. That's happening here, and you think you're immune?

[Jaime Tomahawk]

We only have two political parties that ever elected in the UK, and the Conservatives are not going to get into power until people have at least forgotten that the Thatcher-era happened. Even then, neither are right wing - Labour are socialists (just like Orwell!). They might have made some stupid decisions now and then but it seems that by and large they have been trying to do what's right for the country, and they do admit when they have made a mistake.

I have to stick with Droo on this one. If certain measures help to reduce crime rates, I'm for them. I'd only be worried if I was a criminal. The government can't just up and lock me away for no reason.

Read your recently introduced anti terror laws again because your quite wrong now. Your government, mine as well AND the USA's can in fact lock you away for no reason, with no trial, with no access to lawyers, with no rights. And you can be tortured.

Have the events in the last three years not opened your eyes as to what a governemnt can do, even one that proclaims to love liberty and freedom as the USA's does?

Did you know that in fact this very post under the sedition laws in Australia could get me into trouble? Am I going to rely on the fact that no one cares right now that in ten years it will be the same?

Do people not remember that Hitler was orginally democractly elected and so have other dictactors that have murdered millions in their own countries?

The only reason why I dont have anything to fear is that I am in fact highly boring in real life apart from being a risk taking adrenaline junkie, in fact to a dictactorship I would be a highly useful person. That's not the same for others here tho.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

The report suggests that by 2016 shoppers will be scanned as they enter stores through tags in their clothes, with information matched to details on loyalty cards to recognize shopping habits.
Cars linked to satellite navigation systems will allow police to monitor speeds and journeys more closely, while workers will be subject to biometric and psychometric tests to weed out unsuitable candidates or health risks, it adds.

Creepy. That last bit is a little too Gattaca for my taste. Plus, why would police need to monitor where I'm driving? I'm sure they can come up with all sorts of good reasons, but like Khendon said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Liam Jinn]

Lol, you older kids and the 'shock' factor.

'People are watching other people on camera?? OMG!!! You mean people can know where you are and what you are doing 24 hours a day?? OMG!!! Well I for one will not stand for this! Those who don't care, how dare they have an opinion of indifference!'

Right. I just figured the government would watch and monitor who they wanted anyway. Because it's public makes more of a difference? Nah.

I can't wait for the thread "The government admitted aliens exist!!" ;)

[Byl Laprovik]

Yeah I don't know where you're going with that, other than showing you're just a guy who will lie down and take it.

[Liam Jinn]

Lie down and take what exactly? Nothing new is happening here, besides the use of newer technology. Does it scare me? No, sorry.

[Figrin D'an]

Lie down and take what exactly? Nothing new is happening here, besides the implemation of newer technology. Does it scare me? No, sorry.


The "new" here is that continued technological advances make such surveillance and monitoring much easier to undertake and far easier to abuse. That's not the fault of the technology, but it is the fault of those whom will use such tech to push the envelope of what constitutes a violation of privacy.


That's why there are those who continue to be concerned and want to keep such things in check. It's the "give an inch, take a mile" analogy that once again applies, as it has many times throughout history. For that very reason, there is a need for people whom are willing to push back against such things.

[Droo]

I honestly hoped to wake up today to find a string of extremely convincing arguments to really make me rethink my stance on this matter. Apart from what Charlie said about the abuse of information(which is nothing new really, least of all in politics, only the technology is getting better), there's nothing that has been said here that I'm not already privy to and I honestly don't buy into this "give an inch, take a mile" argument either. The government would have to pass any stricter monitoring techniques and technologies by its people. People who take evn a remote interest in politics are smart enough to know when to say 'stop' and when to cry 'dictatorship'. I asked myself if I was being naive here but in all honesty, I believe it is paranoid to think a democratic government can turn around a few years down the road and say "Haha! Well, you said 'Yes' to CCTV forty years ago, you can't stop us now! So get those electronic chips under your skin!"

I know governments are corrupt and I am no fan of my own even now but unless things change dramatically in the future, which they wouldn't without the approval of the people, then I think this whole security issue is getting blown out of proportion. People are painting it in black and white: you either keep the door closed or it swings wide open. I don't think anything is black and white these days, and like many other citizens of this country I'm willing to support these security measures as far as I see fit and then the moment something arises that goes against what I believe in, I'll be the first to object.

Nevertheless, there is one thing I would like to ask someone to correct me on if I'm wrong is how right am I to believe that the government cannot pass any extreme measures like the kind we've been talking about without the approval of its people?

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I honestly hoped to wake up today to find a string of extremely convincing arguments to really make me rethink my stance on this matter. Apart from what Charlie said about the abuse of information(which is nothing new really, least of all in politics, only the technology is getting better), there's nothing that has been said here that I'm not already privy to and I honestly don't buy into this "give an inch, take a mile" argument either. The government would have to pass any stricter monitoring techniques and technologies by its people. People who take evn a remote interest in politics are smart enough to know when to say 'stop' and when to cry 'dictatorship'. I asked myself if I was being naive here but in all honesty, I believe it is paranoid to think a democratic government can turn around a few years down the road and say "Haha! Well, you said 'Yes' to CCTV forty years ago, you can't stop us now! So get those electronic chips under your skin!"

I know governments are corrupt and I am no fan of my own even now but unless things change dramatically in the future, which they wouldn't without the approval of the people, then I think this whole security issue is getting blown out of proportion. People are painting it in black and white: you either keep the door closed or it swings wide open. I don't think anything is black and white these days, and like many other citizens of this country I'm willing to support these security measures as far as I see fit and then the moment something arises that goes against what I believe in, I'll be the first to object.

Nevertheless, there is one thing I would like to ask someone to correct me on if I'm wrong is how right am I to believe that the government cannot pass any extreme measures like the kind we've been talking about without the approval of its people?

It's an interesting age divide here - the older posters should be the ones without the tin foil hats and yet were the ones decrying this.

Droo, the the porblen is that we dont need to post evidence - the simple fact is that all a govt has to do these days is cry "TERRORIST!" and they can almost get what they want, example here is the lunacy of the last four years if the USA and Iraq. The proof is easy to fetch and we even had other threads in this forum discussing these issues. It's really at the point where the tin foil hat brigade just dont need more evidence than to point at the BBC's website and start going through what's happened lately. Or even right now with this waaaaay over the top survellance system

You also have it wrong in thinking a govt can not act without the approval of it's people. I might remind you the Ira1q war was never popular and every single reason for it was proven false, yet your govt (and mine) went for it anyway. The Bush Admin has removed Hapeas Corpus (sp), instituted secret prisons and processes called "extraordinary rendition" to spirit suspects away from the law, it has tortured innocent people, it's still got inncoent people locked up in Gitmo. It has a warrantless wiretapping scheme. All this it did with or without the people approval.

The simple fact is a govt with a majority in parliment can do exactly what it wants. I will also remind you that Hitler was elected democractially - now this brings up the whole thing about propagana and feeding the people BS until it's too late, which these days sounds remarkably like WAR ON TERROR or war on Eastasia if you want to bring it back to a Orwellian theme.

[Droo]

It's funny you should mention terrorism because in one of my earlier posts I said "The power to do that as a counter-measure to crime is incredible..." and I originally typed "crime and terrorism" and rethought it. Reason being is that I knew it would bring up the whole point the government only has to say "terrorism" and it gets what it wants and I didn't want to go down that road. I completely agree with you on that, these days "terrorism" is being used as a tool for governments to brainwash their people.

When the democrats took the two houses by storm the other week, I remember watching George Bush give his first speach and it took him about twelve seconds to say "war on terror" and "9/11". It was completely sickening and if anything will give the government the power to implement totalitarian tactics on its own people, it will be terrorism brainwashing.

Don't get me wrong, I see where you're all coming from with your arguments but I just think for things to get that bad would take a noticeable change. This is not Revenge of the Sith and in our society, for a government to make such a dramatic change, the people would be given enough time to intervene. To get it right, we have to walk a fine line between being paranoid and being naive and to reitterate what I said earlier, nothing is black and white anymore.

[Morgan Evanar]

Dru, the true test will be to see if all the rights taken away in the US are restored. If not, we're in much bigger trouble than you want to admit.

[Khendon Sevon]

Don't get me wrong, I see where you're all coming from with your arguments but I just think for things to get that bad would take a noticeable change. This is not Revenge of the Sith and in our society, for a government to make such a dramatic change, the people would be given enough time to intervene.

History disagrees with you.

Political change often happens fast. It blindsides a nation. Sure, the roots will be there for a while; but, they're below the surface or get shrugged off.

Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Emilio Aguinaldo, Poland, Russian Civil War, Afria, Latin America.

Just look at the amount of times political parties have evolved into different ideologies in Europe. Oliver Cromwell was a dictator ;p France had dictators (Napoleon).

Even "modern" Greece had a dictator or two at one point (Ioannis Metaxas, Georgios Papadopoulos).

Politics changes fast :) That's why we, the people, have to be the watch dogs of our own liberties.

[Pan]

Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I find it interesting how its the people outside of our country giving us that what for and why is on the state of things, when its clear that the brits who have replied to this thread see it as being blown out of proportion. And yes, I speak on Peter's behalf here. And please don't give me the "You are BLINDED by your own government!!" talk because I think we're smart enough to judge things for ourselves without being victims of propaganda.

The current Orwell fiction comparisons are enough of an exaggeration for me to still believe that all in all, the argument holds little water. I'm sorry, but contrary to popular belief, this country is not being run by Big Brother.

[Khendon Sevon]

The current Orwell fiction comparisons are enough of an exaggeration for me to still believe that all in all, the argument holds little water. I'm sorry, but contrary to popular belief, this country is not being run by Big Brother.

No one is saying it is being run by Big Brother. They're saying you're opening the doors to allow it to be run by Big Brother :)

Us Americans have already done it. Way to follow in our footsteps ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Khendon pretty much made the point I wanted to make. I think you can't say well we have time to stop the government from going to far. And something like that happened in ROTS can't happen in real life. Well it has happened in real life. Hitler was elected in 1932 and by 1935 the country was a tolterian regime. The government before that one was more democratic than the U.S govt, and became a police state in 3 years. There are other examples, mainly in Africa and Latin America although the Roman Republic fell into an Imperial regime rather quickly and there was no outrage. I am just saying things can change fast. There has been evidence of this throughout history. We have to be careful to secure our liberties. It does worry me though that the public will give up there freedom in order to be safe. I hope people don't make that choice.

[Peter McCoy]

The British aren't as complacent as you might think. I don't believe things are getting out of hand - at least not regarding this current topic - and if they ever did, something would be done about it, believe me. I know enough people who are like-minded and I'm sure there are many thousands more just like them. As a society, we know whats acceptable and whats not.

And just to comment on what Jenny said about Margaret Thatcher - it depends on what political side you were on at the time. She was loved and loathed equally. Quite frankly, I think this country needs another Thatcher right now.

As far as the possibility of me being locked up without any evidence or reason whatsoever - tripe. No reason to. A waste of their time. Makes no sense and serves no purpose.

[Morgan Evanar]

And just to comment on what Jenny said about Margaret Thatcher - it depends on what political side you were on at the time. She was loved and loathed equally. Quite frankly, I think this country needs another Thatcher right now.What, you want to completely destroy your public services this time?

[Neutron]

As far as the possibility of me being locked up without any evidence or reason whatsoever - tripe. No reason to. A waste of their time. Makes no sense and serves no purpose.

You know, up until Jose Padilla, Military Commissions Act, etc, I would say the exact same thing. Now, I really can't be certain. I err on the side that it probably won't, but there's a part of me I can't ignore that makes me give pause to the LEGAL things I do, wondering if that's enough to cause suspicion and paranoia. That's a tragedy that it's come to this.

[Droo]

And just to comment on what Jenny said about Margaret Thatcher - it depends on what political side you were on at the time. She was loved and loathed equally. Quite frankly, I think this country needs another Thatcher right now.

Agreed completely.

[Neutron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6170070.stm

Hey here's some more common sense security measures for you. Still nothing to get alarmed over, eh?

[Pan]

OH MY GOD! THEY... HAVE... OUR... FINGERPRINTS!!!!

I mean really, what is this all about?

[Dasquian Belargic]

"Both of those things are actually only happening in the trial because the laws haven't been passed to do this on a national basis compulsorily and with recording."

I'm not especially worried yet. It's just a pilot scheme, nothing is set in stone.


At present about 60% of drivers stopped do not give their true identity.

Such an honest nation, haha.

[Neutron]

That they go for the prints (I swear we aren't putting them in a database, take my word for it tee hee!) instead of the ID is kind of disheartening.

Lets see what else. A 5-6% chance of misrepresentation. Oh that's great. Must suck for those 5-6% but we can always find something they're guilty of after we lock them up.

[Pan]

Or it's economic. I'd rather a police officer spend five minutes identifying a traffic law offender using a fingerprint scanner and then get straight back to work and deal with other matters rather than spend half an hour down the station with him. I simply view the implementation of all this modern technology in internal security as efficient rather than tyrannical.

[Neutron]

Then where's the oversight? Surely making sure that such data abuse doesn't occur would be relatively cheap, but here it is strangely absent.

[Shawn]

nevermind.