1984 is not a fucking training manual!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones

It really bothers me when Brits say "LOL AMERICA SUX ENJOY YOUR FACSISM" and then sign off on this. Jesus Christ people.

If nothing else, reading has inspired me to watch they live again... mostly because it reminded me of one of these:



I still haven't finished reading 1984, so thanks for reminding me.

Yeah, say all you want about the Bush years and how they destroyed our freedoms, but Britain and Australia are about 10x worse off now. Britain's got government-owned cameras on literally ever street corner and people get arrested there for being "anti-social" or saying the wrong thing. Meanwhile in Australia, they're trying to shut down the internet, violent media (and all video games), and pornography. Then there's Jeremy Clarkson who greets all the American guests with "welcome to a free country". Makes me want to cockpunch him.

In all fairness I don't think Brits have had much reason to say things like that since Bush left office. And besides, it's well-understood in England that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from surveillance.

The Blair-Brown government: Being absolutely terrible since 1997.

Cjwright79 said:

In all fairness I don't think Brits have had much reason to say things like that since Bush left office. And besides, it's well-understood in England that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from surveillance.

I really don't like the idea of cameras watching my every move, even if I am just minding my own business and not causing any trouble. Still, all those CTV cameras DID help the Torchwood team a lot. :P

TheDarkArchon said:

The Blair-Brown government: Being absolutely terrible since 1997.

Thatcher wasn't that great, either.

Isn't Britain the country where you can get arrested for taking pictures of buildings?

people get arrested there for being "anti-social"

That's a euphemism for "being a drunken knife-waving thug". They don't bang people up for wearing black and not talking on suspicion that they might do a school shooting.

or saying the wrong thing

That does happen a lot, though. Also for owning hentai, now. I mean it's not like the police had anything else to do or our troops weren't fighting America's wars with crap equipment that doesn't work was it?

Isn't Britain the country where you can get arrested for taking pictures of buildings?

I think somebody did for taking pictures of MI5 from a distance. If you're visiting your old school and taking pictures of it for nostalgia you'll be lucky if it's the police that get you though. Some hysterical "paedogeddon" mob might hang you from a lamp post first.

As to the OP - I'd be surprised if they weren't doing it already. Apparently they were using spy satellites (though that was probably tabloid language for "google earth") to find houses with big gardens, which could then be compulsory purchased and built on "to avoid an atmosphere of haves and have nots" with the people who buy newly-built houses with tiny gardens.

Cjwright79 said:

law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from surveillance.

Increased surveillance is NEVER a good idea under ANY circumstances.

Churchill would be very dissapointed. Hell, he'd probably be in tears right now .

Mr. Freeze said:

Increased surveillance is NEVER a good idea under ANY circumstances.

Churchill would be very dissapointed. Hell, he'd probably be in tears right now .

Under any circumstance you say. Have you even bothered to think about why people might want cameras up in the first place? Or are you so incensed by the imposition that no reason could possibly suffice?

Cjwright79 said:

Under any circumstance you say. Have you even bothered to think about why people might want cameras up in the first place?

The only reason that I can think up is that Brits are desperately trying to find a way to eliminate crime. But they're hitting the hand, not the heart of the problem.

Seems a lot of British are FINALLY getting fed up with all of this insanity. Too bad it's way too late. This genie is not going back into the bottle. Falling into authoritarianism is like falling into a black hole. Once you're past the event horizon, there is no escape. At least not until a bloody revolution destroys the whole country.

Quasar said:

Once you're past the event horizon, there is no escape. At least not until a bloody revolution destroys the whole country.

We're not at the event horizon yet. The event horizon is effectively the election later this year and if Labour win, the electorate will have gleefully jumped into it.

Dammit, I was hoping to move to Iceland, with Australia being my backup. Looks like I'll have to look into New Zealand as my plan B.

Mr. Freeze said:

The only reason that I can think up is that Brits are desperately trying to find a way to eliminate crime. But they're hitting the hand, not the heart of the problem.

Yeah, if they were serious about crime they'd take a more draconian approach like execute every mother------ who breaks a law. But they aren't so you get cameras instead.

Cjwright79 said:

Yeah, if they were serious about crime they'd take a more draconian approach like execute every mother------ who breaks a law. But they aren't so you get cameras instead.

Way to miss the point. Badly.

...

(Trying hard to ignore ^^^)

The difference between British and American opinions on Crime, at least through the media, is always very striking to me. Watching BBC reality cop programs it all seems to be very big into scaremongering. And, at least whenever I turned the TV on, it always seemed to be playing. It's like the media in Britain WANTS you to be afraid of crime and WANTS you to be "protected" by the government.

Now American shows like COPS always seemed more comedic to me. More of a, "Look at these poor trashy folks! You really don't need to be concerned about this crime, it's not your problem! These people are fucking dumb! Have fun in Suburbia now!" Which is funny in its own dark way I suppose, but all in all makes it seem like a problem which is not pervasive across classes. Which in my mind, it really isn't. Nor can I imagine it being in Britain either. But I could be wrong.

Also, Britain has a lot more in terms of thought and net crime going on than the US. All in all, in terms of feeling more secure against the government, I'd much rather live in the US.

Britain does have a big problem with yob mentality. Somehow it became socially acceptable to act like a mouthy/violent/aggressive/etc waste-of-oxygen in public and no one really seems to know how it happened.

Then again, cameras alone aren't going to stop that issue, so why they're pissing away so much money on this blimp nonsense is another mystery.

Alright, since you guys seem pretty serious about this topic, I did a little research...

There is little evidence that CCTV deters crime; in fact, there is considerable evidence that it does not. According to a Liberal Democrat analysis, in London "Police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any." A 2008 Report by UK Police Chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. In London, a Metropolitan Police report showed that in 2008 only one crime was solved per 1000 cameras. There are valid reasons for using CCTV in a comprehensive physical security program, but deterrence is not one of them.

Its similar to talking/texting on cell phones whilst driving. The places that have banned have seen no decrease in traffic accidents - the main reason they banned them in the first place!

I will never go to Britain due to the surveillance they use on their citizens. I'd like to see what they do now that they have this huge CCTV network, but the crime rates still increase...

Danarchy said:

Yeah, say all you want about the Bush years and how they destroyed our freedoms, but Britain and Australia are about 10x worse off now

.

Destroy what freedoms? We still have freedom of speech, religion, press, and all that. I've openly admitted to being Atheist several times and the FBI's not following me around on suspicion that I'm going to steal something or kill someone. Since the Bush Administration, my dad's had a hand gun and hunting rifle and nothing was confiscated in our home.

Britain's got government-owned cameras on literally ever street corner and people get arrested there for being "anti-social" or saying the wrong thing. Meanwhile in Australia, they're trying to shut down the internet, violent media (and all video games), and pornography.

And did anyone ever hear of Bush or Obama trying to do such things?

How'd Bush destroy out freedoms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Criticism

Of course, I just referenced Wikipedia, which is about as official as saying I have a doctorate in Physics without presenting an actual degree. Still, I recall hearing about this and the controversy around it.

Abyssalstudios1 said:

New Zealand as my plan B.

Don't bother, our weakass government is pretty much going down the same path as Australia when it comes to internet freedom.

As police states go, the UK's managed to surpass Chauchesku's Romania in all but brutality.

Kagemaru_H said:

.
Destroy what freedoms?

There's a fairly innocuous piece of legislation called "The Patriot Act" which gives the government license to spy on the citizenry. If - like Cjwright79 - you have nothing to hide, you mightn't object to having your movements monitored, phone calls recorded, other electronic communications (including forum posts) vetted, your financial transactions scrutinized and everyone you associate with being treated as a potential enemy of the state - to me it'd be a pain in the ass.

Regrettably, Americans have no 'Constitutional right to privacy', despite my school mates' constant bitching about their lack of rights in that area.

Mr. Freeze said:

It really bothers me when Brits say "LOL AMERICA SUX ENJOY YOUR FACSISM" and then sign off on this. Jesus Christ people.

Except that we're going to win the race to become the first Western police state, and have been winning for a long time.

TheDarkArchon said:

We're not at the event horizon yet. The event horizon is effectively the election later this year and if Labour win, the electorate will have gleefully jumped into it.

We went past it a decade ago.

(and whoever wins the election is irrelevant, since the politicians are mere puppets of the people who really run the country and are implementing all the BB measures)

Shaikoten said:

The difference between British and American opinions on Crime, at least through the media, is always very striking to me. Watching BBC reality cop programs it all seems to be very big into scaremongering. And, at least whenever I turned the TV on, it always seemed to be playing. It's like the media in Britain WANTS you to be afraid of crime and WANTS you to be "protected" by the government.

This. And the BBC drama 'Spooks' is the biggest culprit by far.

DooMAD said:

Then again, cameras alone aren't going to stop that issue, so why they're pissing away so much money on this blimp nonsense is another mystery.

Control. The pieces are being put in place, ready for some distant event that will see them being fully used for their intended purpose.

Planky said:

Its similar to talking/texting on cell phones whilst driving. The places that have banned have seen no decrease in traffic accidents - the main reason they banned them in the first place!

The reason they were banned is the same reason that speed cameras were invented - to make money via fines.

Cjwright79 said:

Alright, since you guys seem pretty serious about this topic, I did a little research...

There is little evidence that CCTV deters crime; in fact, there is considerable evidence that it does not.

Crime generates money for rich lawyers, therefore there's no incentive to eliminate it...in fact it's far more beneficial to an authoritarian government to let it be, and use it as an excuse for BB policies.

It's the exact same pattern as ID cards (will they stop terrorism? ofc not, that was proved in 2004). If people can't see what's coming with all this then it's them who are mad, not the ones who they claim are mad for believing in something other than what's on the "official" news.

Frankly, I know I'm being watched most of the time - particularly in London... but it just never seems to bother me, you know? "Spot the CCTV camera" is a bit of fun for me - not a survival instinct to avoid the police state. Maybe in time the "oh shit, crime is killing us all" mentality will drive this country too far down the wrong road, but all the same, I think it won't matter. The world is a constantly changing place, and as long as I've been aware of this, I've not liked it.

Shaikoten said:
All in all, in terms of feeling more secure against the government, I'd much rather live in the US.

Comparing news on crime and politics, there's a difference in character, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions about who's safer from government abuse. The answer has a lot to do with the judicial branch, in the end. People seem to have "suicided" in both countries when things got rough during the post 9/11 scare. Brits might be more restricted by the government in some senses, but they also seem to trust it more. That is, while having cameras all over your ass can be intimidating, being paranoid against one's own government doesn't seem very secure. The British government seems more controlling, yet less hostile. I get the impression that in the US the treatment of crime and authority varies more between different states.

There are two ways to be safe; by exposure or by anonymity. It's true that if people don't know you they likely won't do anything to you, but it's also true that if people don't know you, you can go missing (or something) with little notice.

Some bloke on another forum i read (think it was the Download festival ones) said he got mugged right under a CCTV camera but the criminals couldn't be traced or arrested because the footage was "too blurry to be certain".

Of course rather than wasting money on cameras it'd be better to have more actual police (with actual powers not just a snappy uniform) and a willingness to follow through with punishments rather than "community service" (work alonside volunteers who aren't being paid and... also not get paid!) or "asbos" (which are seen as medals... even before they were invented the chavs at my college were always boasting about who had the "best" charges). Binning stupid "hate crime" laws and giving everybody an "extra harsh" punishment might help too... i hoped the Sophie Lancaster case might push things in that direction but it's just made stupid campaigns to expand hate crimes to include "against other fashion cultures"... how is anybody going to prove that?