"Remain where you are, citizen!" - Talking CCTV camera madness

[Pinball]

Well said.

We have to be monitored for our own good, as we cannot be trusted... We are potential criminals, and scum. There is no other logical conclusion from how the authorities are treating us.  Consequently, I despise authority more than I have ever done, and will do all I can to disobey/bypass it, within the law. For example, I will refuse to get an ID card and will pay the consequent fine. I will also ask to be excluded from the electronic patient record of the NHS, as is my right, and will go private if I can afford it, and ask said company not to copy in my GP. I do not want some civil servant twat data-trawling and profiling me, even if they say it is good for me and society. I don't believe them. Ditto for the CCTV and related surveillance State, and those minion monkeyboy twats who work for it.

The Human Rights Act enshrines a right to privacy. Where is that right in the UK? The implication from CCTV et al is that we have no right to privacy, as we are threats. This country is shit.

Someone will say "well fuck off then". My response is - no, you fuck off. Unlike immigrants, I don't have a second passport and hence somewhere to "fuck off to" when there are problems. I was born here. This is my (only) country, unfortunately (because, let's face it, the UK is a shit over-priced low quality of life one). I say these things in order to try to improve the situation. Fat chance of course. Puritanical illiberalism is the order of the day.

Regarding CCTV again, is it illegal to wear a mask? If not, that might be a neat solution, and a superb gesture of defiance. A Tony Blair mask or (even more hideous) dark-under-the-eyes miserable fat Gordon Brown one, would be great. Also, why not carry laserpointers around and shine them at the cameras? If not illegal, go for it. CCTV and all that shit is the first stage of totalitarian oppression. If we don't stand up to it and stop it now, we will be fucked.

[Beagle 2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6528425.stm

Christ, how would this sort of thing even ever be used as evidence, they're obviously not accurate or they'd be used more widely. That's just sinister.

[Pinball]

It's just to frighten people off claiming.

[wasp_f15ting]

Thank you. I'm all boy. Another thing.

[...]General public surveilance in a city centre is useful even if it saves one or two lives[...]

How do you compare the cost of saving lives to liberty? You can't because they'd be different units of measurement. So it's not logical to say so. There might be an argument in saying "Electronic public surveillance is worth it compared to more police on the streets because these figures in this independent report show the cost savings and increased crime reduction." But then you still have to weigh up the loss of privacy and how that affects society, which is difficult. It's not reasonable to say anything's worth saving lives/protecting children though, when whatever it is that aids in this gives more potential for a government to abuse their power.

By the way, I'm not saying I'm against CCTV in city centres, but once it becomes talking CCTV and then this spreads to suburban areas (i.e. the next step - you've got nothing to hide so why should you mind? And we'll place it in your living room one day once you're used to it incase you have a heart attack) I have a big problem with the change in the relationship it creates between citizen and government.

As I stated before I am very much against the talking cameras. There is something very disturbing about your behaviour being observed and percieved and you being told what to do. Its a silly idea, criminals do not listen to police, how will the respond to a camera?

"stop spraying this wall"

-V sign

It just wont work.

[wasp_f15ting]

stuff.

[Pinball]

:-)

[asv]

Talking CCTV cameras accuse wrong person


Martin Wainwright
Thursday April 12, 2007
The Guardian


Britain's talking CCTV cameras are to issue their first apology for embarrassing a blameless passerby on the day the government announces plans to extend the anti-vandalism scheme to 20 town centres.
Marie Brewster, 26, a young mother, appeared on TV news reports after a camera operator mistakenly thought she had dropped litter and boomed out a reprimand from the control centre in Middlesbrough.

Ms Brewster said yesterday: "We were in the town centre and I'd got some chips at McDonald's for my daughter Ellie, but they were hot so I tipped them into a box and crumpled the packet up."

"I put it on the bottom of Ellie's pram to take home but then heard this voice say: 'Please place the rubbish in the bin provided'."
She said she had no idea the incident had appeared on TV until her mother-in-law phoned.

"I still think the cameras are a good idea, but I have to say when you haven't done anything wrong it's annoying to appear like this."

Middlesbrough council, which has had inquiries from across Europe and the US about the "bossy cameras", said the incident would be investigated. Four council staff operate nine talking cameras out of 150 which keep an eye on the town. There are an estimated 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain.

Barry Coppinger, Middlesbrough's executive member for community safety, said: "I'm sorry if there has been a misunderstanding and I'll be writing to Ms Brewster to apologise."

The council's system has so impressed the Home Office that last week, the home secretary, John Reid, said it would be extended to Derby, Norwich, Southwark in London and other towns, at a cost of £500,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2055056,00.html

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Part of the effect of stuff like this is it appeals to the middle-class who consider themselves law-abiders and have contempt for the working class who they'd secretly like to have chastised by loud speakers for their disgusting anti-social behaviour.

I remember someone telling the audience in a stand-up gig the most embarrassing thing to do to a middle class family is not to remove the security tags so the alarm goes when they walk out of the store, as they care so much about how they appear to other people. And as a result, the embarrassment makes them look slightly guilty, and they become quite angry and sanctimonious that law-abiding economy-contributers like themselves have been picked on. Most people know its a result of some checkout fuck-up and make the least bother. It's partly because of these social-climbing twats that we are calmly introducing a surveillance society into all possible aspects of British life, because they have such a selfish high-minded opinion of themselves and they secretly love state-power stamping on people who they'd rather didn't exist, mostly because they wear the wrong clothes and say fuckin' a lot.

[Fry]

"stop spraying this wall"

-V sign

When i first read that, i thought you meant they ahd sprayed a V sign on the wall.

[Cupid Stunt]

Lie detectors to be used for all benefit claims now.

Ooh look.  My lie detector just went off.

[Uncle TechTip]

Eww, I do hate that "4.2m cameras in the country" stat, because it clearly distorts the truth - a large chunk of that number must be privately-owned units pointing at private property. Or are there 28,000 towns in the UK with an average of 150 cameras in each?

[Pinball]

"I still think the cameras are a good idea, but I have to say when you haven't done anything wrong it's annoying to appear like this."

But if you've done nothing wrong...

Well there goes that pitiful excuse for a justification. And what a lame quote from that woman! Sheesh. Grow a backbone, love.

Why doesn't the government put cameras where it would be really useful, like on their fucking boats in Iran, or on the tops of police helmets. Plodcam. Now that I'd watch.

[Pinball]

Oh and another thought - 4.2 million CCTVs but no ghosts detected. Solves that little chestnut, then.

[Blumf]

Why doesn't the government put cameras where it would be really useful, like on their fucking boats in Iran, or on the tops of police helmets. Plodcam. Now that I'd watch.

They do that, from what I've seen they have a little pen sized camera attached to an Archos media recorder thingy like you can get at Currys.

[Pinball]

Now that's a good idea, because it's targeted.

[Hypnotoad.]

Well its not quite DNA profiling....

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2080331,00.html

Unborn babies targeted in crackdown on criminality


Blair launches policy imported from US to intervene during pregnancy to head off antisocial behaviour

Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
Wednesday May 16, 2007
The Guardian
   
Women can be identified for help just 16 weeks after conceiving. Photograph: Getty Images


Unborn babies judged to be at most risk of social exclusion and turning to criminality are to be targeted in a controversial new scheme to be promoted by Downing Street today.

In an effort to intervene as early as possible in troubled families, first-time mothers identified just 16 weeks after conception will be given intensive weekly support from midwives and health visitors until the unborn child reaches two years old.

Unveiling the findings of a Downing Street review, Tony Blair will make clear the government is prepared to single out babies still in the womb to break cycles of deprivation and behaviour.

He will also acknowledge that the state must do more to help a minority of families and will stress that the support they need cannot come through the promotion of marriage.

In an attempt to draw a clear division between Labour and the Conservatives Mr Blair will say that making marriage the primary focus of family policy will be ineffective and could lead to discrimination against children whose parents have split up or died.

The Nurse Family Partnership programme is the most striking attempt yet to pre-empt problems.

Downing Street will outline today how a £7m pilot scheme has already begun to recruit the first of 1,000 families in 10 areas in England.

Supporters of the policy say the risk of stigmatising unborn infants as potential future victims or troublemakers is outweighed by the advantages of helping poor families build on the aspirations they have for their children.

Under the programme, which has been copied from the United States, young, first-time mothers will be assigned a personal health visitor at between 16 and 20 weeks into their pregnancy. They will continue to have weekly or fortnightly visits until the child is two - far more than the few postnatal visits generally on offer.

The support includes help with giving up smoking or drug use in pregnancy, followed by a focus on bonding with the new baby, understanding behaviour such as crying, and encouraging a mother to develop her skills and resources to be a good parent. The programme is voluntary and the intention is to capitalise on the so-called "magic moment" when parents are receptive to support for themselves and their baby.

In the US, three large trials have seen consistently positive results, including higher IQ levels and language development in children, lower levels of abuse, neglect and child injuries in families, and improvements in the antenatal health and job prospects of mothers.

Proponents of the scheme, pioneered by the American paediatrician Professor David Olds, also point to the long-term cost savings, estimated at almost $25,000 (£12,500) by the time a child is 30.

The decision to target unborn babies is, in effect, an acknowledgement by Mr Blair that the government's focus on tackling social exclusion has left a hardcore - 2-3% - of the most excluded families behind.

The prime minister's introduction to today's family review says the state must help such children out of fairness, and because "some of these families actually cause wider social harms. The community in which they live suffers the consequences".

Kate Billingham, director of the project and deputy chief nursing officer, rejected suggestions the scheme could stigmatise deprived children. "I myself think labelling and stigmatising are used as ways of not giving people the help they want and their children can benefit from."

At a Downing Street breakfast to launch the policy this morning, Mr Blair will meet expectant mothers recruited to the scheme, as well as Professor Olds, its founder. Prof Olds told the Guardian the key to the scheme was its ability to "tap into" the instincts of parents. "We are wired as human beings to protect our children," he said.

It was possible that the UK's "superior health care system and social services" compared with the US could result in the relative benefits of the scheme here being smaller than the significant impact seen in American trials, he warned.

While the scheme is generally backed by children and parenting campaigners in the UK, concerns have been raised that the new focus on intensive help for excluded families could drain resources away from already overstretched health visiting services.

A spokeswoman for the Family and Parenting Institute said: "We very much welcome the health-led parenting projects, but they are only for a tiny proportion of the population and we think that a strong universal offer is critical for the majority of families who also need support and parenting help from health visitors.

"The problem is that the number of health visitors is falling - and there are massive variations in numbers throughout the country."

[mothman]

"It's eugenics through the back door!"

[glitch]

Seriously though, how free do you think you really are? Your ISP tracks everywhere you visit, there are thousands of tracker cookies installing themselves in your PC tracking your internet behaviour and send the data to a sever

I know this is slightly off-topic but:

[*]Your ISP may track everywhere you visit, but actually trying to do anything with that data is difficult, especially in a real-time setting. One of the reasons Echelon doesn't work. Also, you can completely negate being tracked by using something like Tor or SSH.
[*]Tracking cookies do not send data to a server - they merely store little bits of data which can then be re-read by the server that issued them. The best part? They can be easily blocked by browsers, firewalls, etc.
[/list]

[Phil_A]

Oh and another thought - 4.2 million CCTVs but no ghosts detected. Solves that little chestnut, then.

What about Henry VIII?

[Pinball]

That is not a 500 year old doorway. And that CCTV footage is highly suspect. And the ghost's arms are too long.

My point really was that, if there were such a thing as ghosts, CCTV/camcorders would have produced a glut of sightings. That they haven't proves the point, statistically at least, that the phenomenon is a sham.

[Blumf]

What if ghost's images don't register on CCTV cameras.

[Pinball]

That would be a shame.