The Obsession With Surveilence Continues...

[detective-boy]

how do you know the checks and balances are being observed as everything is secret. tony blair and a few other elected bods may or may not know what's going on, but how do we know they're respecting the rules?

I know that various committees / Commissioners, etc exist. I know what their brief is. I know that they do carry out their work (I have been on the receiving end of some of it). I know they ask questions. I know they report back to (e.g.) Parliamentary committees charged with oversight of the different agencies.

I am willing to accept that the system is operated responsibly. If that makes me naive, so be it.

I would like to see more lay involvement. I would like to see more accessible reports of the activities of the oversght bodies (albeit only in sanitised format).

I would like to see more access to information generally.

But I cannot see how we can ever reach a situation where every individual case is debated on the front page of the Sun or the op-ed page of the Guardian. A society will inevitably have secrets in it's own interests.

 

[detective-boy]

How long before the crims come up with a low-tech cheat for this do you reckon (given that the thumbprint-locked IPAQ lasted about a week before falling victim to a gummy bear and some wax, and you can buy counter-devices to most of the stuff presently in use by the cops - radar-detectors, license-plate covers etc). I give it about a fortnight, after which only Joe Public will be being monitored by the system.

That is one reason why I would like to see the current system stabilised before considering spending fortunes on expansion. The basic problem with registration based data is false number plates / incorrect number plates / obscured number plates or false registered details.

Until that is sorted out (by more proactive enforcement, with realistic penalties for repeated breach) only those daft enough to have the correct number on a standard number plate registered to their correct address through which they are traceable will be policed. That has been the case with RFL enforcement, parking tickets and congestion charge and will be the case with ANPR. Having a note of the car number is meaningess unless it is accurate and traceable to someone.

 

[Fruitloop]

Sounds sensible to me. Still, I can't help but think that as soon as this becomes a serious threat to the people that you're after they'll find ways round it.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I know that various committees / Commissioners, etc exist. I know what their brief is. I know that they do carry out their work (I have been on the receiving end of some of it). I know they ask questions. I know they report back to (e.g.) Parliamentary committees charged with oversight of the different agencies.

I am willing to accept that the system is operated responsibly. If that makes me naive, so be it.

I would like to see more lay involvement. I would like to see more accessible reports of the activities of the oversght bodies (albeit only in sanitised format).

I would like to see more access to information generally.

But I cannot see how we can ever reach a situation where every individual case is debated on the front page of the Sun or the op-ed page of the Guardian. A society will inevitably have secrets in it's own interests.

as far as the police is concerned, yes, there are checks and balances which hopefully are working. how well they are working is a different matter. but I was referring mainly to MI5. anyway, how can I trust the police on this issue after the treatment they mete out on innocent, IMO, protesters like Brian Haw and Maya Evans?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

That is one reason why I would like to see the current system stabilised before considering spending fortunes on expansion. The basic problem with registration based data is false number plates / incorrect number plates / obscured number plates or false registered details.

Until that is sorted out (by more proactive enforcement, with realistic penalties for repeated breach) only those daft enough to have the correct number on a standard number plate registered to their correct address through which they are traceable will be policed. That has been the case with RFL enforcement, parking tickets and congestion charge and will be the case with ANPR. Having a note of the car number is meaningess unless it is accurate and traceable to someone.

I must say that I got so fed up getting parking tickets fines to this non car owning household that I had to write a letter to whoever was sending them to tell them it had nothing with me. it did stop after that.

 

[tobyjug]

how can I trust the police on this issue after the treatment they mete out on innocent, IMO, protesters like Brian Haw and Maya Evans?

Good grief, anyone would think they were put up against a wall and shot.
Quote from the introduction in my U75 Grumpy Bastards prize, Reasons to be cheerful, Mark Steel:-
The people I find most infuriating are the perenially miserable: the sort who say ‘just my luck’ or ‘story of my life, that is’. I feel like saying to them, ‘Look. If you are a Hutu from Rwanda who accidentally strolls into an armed Tutsi warrior camp, then you are entitled to go “Huh, just my luck. Story of my life.” But if you’ve gone down the shops for a packet of biscuits and they’ve run out of your favourite sort, shut the fuck up and put up with it.'

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Good grief, anyone would think they were put up against a wall and shot.
Quote from the introduction in my U75 Grumpy Bastards prize, Reasons to be cheerful, Mark Steel:-
The people I find most infuriating are the perenially miserable: the sort who say ‘just my luck’ or ‘story of my life, that is’. I feel like saying to them, ‘Look. If you are a Hutu from Rwanda who accidentally strolls into an armed Tutsi warrior camp, then you are entitled to go “Huh, just my luck. Story of my life.” But if you’ve gone down the shops for a packet of biscuits and they’ve run out of your favourite sort, shut the fuck up and put up with it.'

I agree that the phrasing is slightly over the top but the point is that they are merely engaging in peaceful protests but then get arrested as potentially dangerous terrorists. I don't think the police is about to censor the type of biscuits you want from your local shop.

 

[tobyjug]

I don't think the police is about to censor the type of biscuits you want from your local shop.

They might get pissed off if I bought all their favourite donuts.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

They might get pissed off if I bought all their favourite donuts.

but then the police may put donut eaters under CCTV surveillance and nick them under the flimsiest excuse on the books so they can get fat on them. you'd better be careful, toby...

 

[tobyjug]

but then the police may put donut eaters under CCTV surveillance and nick them under the flimsiest excuse on the books so they can get fat on them. you'd better be careful, toby...

All this paranioa about a police state assume a hell of a lot more police officers than there currently are. There are 15 year old children in this area who don't know what a police officer looks like.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

All this paranioa about a police state assume a hell of a lot more police officers than there currently are. There are 15 year old children in this area who don't know what a police officer looks like.

with CCTV absolutely everywhere, they don't have to patrol, they can stay in the office getting fat on your donuts.

 

[tobyjug]

with CCTV absolutely everywhere, they don't have to patrol, they can stay in the office getting fat on your donuts.

There aren't any CCTV cameras where I live. (The bus shelter could do with one pointed at it 24 hours a day).

 

[guinnessdrinker]

There aren't any CCTV cameras where I live. (The bus shelter could do with one pointed at it 24 hours a day).

maybe I'll move in your neighbourhood then. you'll know I have moved in your area when your local will run out of beer on a regular basis.

 

[tobyjug]

maybe I'll move in your neighbourhood then. you'll know I have moved in your area when your local will run out of beer on a regular basis.

My "local" is 13 miles away, brews it own beer and the likelihood of it running out is near to zero.

 

[Giles]

That is one reason why I would like to see the current system stabilised before considering spending fortunes on expansion. The basic problem with registration based data is false number plates / incorrect number plates / obscured number plates or false registered details.

Until that is sorted out (by more proactive enforcement, with realistic penalties for repeated breach) only those daft enough to have the correct number on a standard number plate registered to their correct address through which they are traceable will be policed. That has been the case with RFL enforcement, parking tickets and congestion charge and will be the case with ANPR. Having a note of the car number is meaningess unless it is accurate and traceable to someone.

I can see the day coming when serious crims (not just knobheads committing low-level driving offences) make extensive use of Easyrentacar.com or similar.

Giles..

 

[Bob_the_lost]

he! what are you on about? have you been smoking?

Irony is utterly wasted on you.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

brews it own beer and the likelihood of it running out is near to zero.

not when I am around and the urbanite camra branch come to visit.

 

[tobyjug]

not when I am around and the urbanite camra branch come to visit.

Believe me some very so called hard men have come to grief on the Christmas special, it is 7.8% this year.

 

[detective-boy]

...anyway, how can I trust the police on this issue after the treatment they mete out on innocent, IMO, protesters like Brian Haw and Maya Evans?

Which was what exactly? Charging them with offences newly created by Parliament? They have a duty to enforce the law of the land. They have discretion about how and when to do so, but would be acting well in excess of their powers if they chose to ignore such obvious (deliberate, in fact) challenges to the law.

If you have a problem with the laws, then take your complaint to Parliament, not to the police.

And there are similar systems in place regarding the activities of MI5 as there are the police, albeit they are less well publicised, something I think could well be rectified to increase public awareness of, and trust in, the system.

 

[detective-boy]

... but then get arrested as potentially dangerous terrorists.

Why do you persist in damaging your valid arguments with bollocks hyperbole. They WEREN'T arrested "as potentially dangerous terrorists". They were arrested under legislation which prohibited demonstrations of ANY SORT in a specific location, brought in PARTIALLY because of perceived terrorist dangers.

If they had been arrested "on suspicion of causing an explosion on a tube train in July" then that would merit your description. What happened, quite frankly, does not. (Any more than the similar bollocks used to describe the temporary detention of the bloke at the Labour Party conference).

 

[detective-boy]

I can see the day coming when serious crims (not just knobheads committing low-level driving offences) make extensive use of Easyrentacar.com or similar.

They use rental cars already, mate. Have done for years. Getting together enough false documents to convince the clerk at Avis or Hertz that you are Mr M Mouse is not exactly difficult.

 

[tobyjug]

They use rental cars already, mate. Have done for years. Getting together enough false documents to convince the clerk at Avis or Hertz that you are Mr M Mouse is not exactly difficult.

You have to admit is not as easy as it was.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Which was what exactly? Charging them with offences newly created by Parliament? They have a duty to enforce the law of the land. They have discretion about how and when to do so, but would be acting well in excess of their powers if they chose to ignore such obvious (deliberate, in fact) challenges to the law.
If you have a problem with the laws, then take your complaint to Parliament, not to the police.

such obvious challenges to the law like reading the name of soldiers at the cenotaph. at the end of the day, this is against the right to demonstrate peacefully. it's not as if they had been storming parliament, was it?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Why do you persist in damaging your valid arguments with bollocks hyperbole. They WEREN'T arrested "as potentially dangerous terrorists". They were arrested under legislation which prohibited demonstrations of ANY SORT in a specific location, brought in PARTIALLY because of perceived terrorist dangers.

so that's all right then peaceful protesters, clearly not intending to burn down whitehall or parliament, cannot demonstrate because of "perceived" terrorist threats! can you justify that?

 

[detective-boy]

so that's all right then

No it fucking isn't. I think it is wrong that it is an offence. BUt you cannot blame the police -they are there to enforce the law so blame the lawmakers. And you do yourself no fucking favours at all by exaggerating.

Tell it like it is - these people were arrested for making a non-threatening demonstration. Why? Not "these people were arrested as "potentially dangerous terrorists" when they patently were not.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You know me from a couple of posts and you feel able to tell me that I am a totalitarian. Well you're (again) talking fucking bollocks. I am not.

The rights you list are repeated worldwide as the rights we have as individuals as against the state - not against other individuals or against corporations, but against the state. And that is as it should be - they are the rules which we have set for them to act on our behalf.

But we also need a "right to life", etc. as against fellow citizens because there are some bad people about who we, as a society, wish to prevent from preying upon the vulnerable amongst us (or at least those of who live in the real world realise that there are). This means that is the government is to proactively protect our right to life (etc) we (through them) need to make laws and have a system for enforcing them (police / Courts / etc). Unfortunately this enforcement also infringes on the rights of the suspects and so the ONLY possible answer is for a balance to be struck.

Why are you so keen to ignore the need for us to protect the vulnerable amongst us from those who would prey upon them when you are so keen to protect us from our own servants? Surey they are not mutually exclusive positions?

I don't disagree with the protection of the vulnerable, but constant surveillance of all the citizens is overkill.

 

[nick1181]

Why are you so keen to ignore the need for us to protect the vulnerable amongst us from those who would prey upon them when you are so keen to protect us from our own servants? Surey they are not mutually exclusive positions?.

Where did I say anything about ignoring the need to protect the vulnerable? Weak.

They are not mutually exclusive positions by default - but tend to be framed as such by politicians because they want to use one to erode the other.

Institutionalised violence is far more dangerous than random violence and historically oppressive governements have often used "protection" as a pretext to grab more power for themselves. It's happening now.