UK government planning a database of every phone call and email by the public -- in the name of fighting terror....

[Amby 490]

this thread and charles' comment about big brother made me think of this

I think the end is the best bit

Edited May 20, 2008 by Amby

[SteveLaura 0]

Although I am vehemently against national ID cards and the govt poking their nose into my emails, phone calls, etc, I strangely don't give a toss about CCTV.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Although I am vehemently against national ID cards and the govt poking their nose into my emails, phone calls, etc, I strangely don't give a toss about CCTV.

What if the video streams were recorded and stored in perpetuity?

Edited May 20, 2008 by VJ Troll

[SteveLaura 0]

Although I am vehemently against national ID cards and the govt poking their nose into my emails, phone calls, etc, I strangely don't give a toss about CCTV.

What if the video streams were recorded and stored in perpetuity?

I might spring for a better haircut and a new wardrobe.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Although I am vehemently against national ID cards and the govt poking their nose into my emails, phone calls, etc, I strangely don't give a toss about CCTV.

What if the video streams were recorded and stored in perpetuity?

I might spring for a better haircut and a new wardrobe.

What if the CCTV's recorded audio as well?

[SteveLaura 0]

Although I am vehemently against national ID cards and the govt poking their nose into my emails, phone calls, etc, I strangely don't give a toss about CCTV.

What if the video streams were recorded and stored in perpetuity?

I might spring for a better haircut and a new wardrobe.

What if the CCTV's recorded audio as well?

I already have a cute accent. But I might use more Brit slang, luv a duck, mate, cheers, cushty, noworramean?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What if CCTV's were required inside your home? Bedroom, bathroom? With audio.

[SteveLaura 0]

What if CCTV's were required inside your home? Bedroom, bathroom? With audio.

1984-like? Nope, wouldn't be pleased.

Seriously, I have no idea whether CCTV captures audio, and I would be against that if it does. But if someone wants to watch me walk out of my home, go to the store to pick up a paper, and watch me come home again - whether it's another member of the public whom I pass in the street or a CCTV camera - knock yerself out. But a police officer stopping me on the way there and telling me I have to prove who I am - sod that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If there was a national ID, why assume cops will stop you for no reason and ask you to produce ID? We have ID today, at a state level (drivers licenses) and cops do not do that. You are assuming if a national ID exists they will abuse it, and yet you don't assume the same thing with respect to CCTV... why not assume they will abuse that as well?

Edited May 20, 2008 by VJ Troll

[SteveLaura 0]

If there was a national ID, why assume cops will stop you for no reason and ask you to produce ID? We have ID today, at a state level (drivers licenses) and cops do not do that. You are assuming if a national ID exists they will abuse it, and yet you don't assume the same thing with respect to CCTV... why not assume they will abuse that as well?

Good question. I see it like this: I need my driving license to drive. If I leave my house and go for a walk, I don't need it. With a national ID card to be effective, I'm assuming there would have to be a requirement to carry it with you at all times. Therefore, a police officer could indeed stop me and demand that I prove who I am. I against that.

It's possible that CCTV could be abused also, I suppose. I've been to a couple of Drinking Liberally meetings, and you could, if you wanted, monitor us going in to the pub for future reference. But you don't need CCTV for that - just a couple of cops in a car outside. What abuse did you have in mind?

Edited May 20, 2008 by SteveLaura

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Good question. I see it like this: I need my driving license to drive. If I leave my house and go for a walk, I don't need it. With a national ID card to be effective, I'm assuming there would have to be a requirement to carry it with you at all times. Therefore, a police officer could indeed stop me and demand that I prove who I am. I against that.

Cops are allowed, today, to stop you and ask you to identify yourself. Whether you are driving or not.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

It's possible that CCTV could be abused also, I suppose. I've been to a couple of Drinking Liberally meetings, and you could, if you wanted, monitor us going in to the pub for future reference. But you don't need CCTV for that - just a couple of cops in a car outside. What abuse did you have in mind?

Using video as blackmail against political opponents, for example.

[SteveLaura 0]

Good question. I see it like this: I need my driving license to drive. If I leave my house and go for a walk, I don't need it. With a national ID card to be effective, I'm assuming there would have to be a requirement to carry it with you at all times. Therefore, a police officer could indeed stop me and demand that I prove who I am. I against that.

Cops are allowed, today, to stop you and ask you to identify yourself. Whether you are driving or not.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

What if you have no ID on you? I didn't have a driving license (UK or US) when I first came here, and didn't carry my passport with me. I have no problem telling a cop my name. I just don't think I should be required by law to prove it every time I leave my house.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the point here is the giving up of civil liberties by the introduction of new laws, or by working around current ones. The problem being that once you lose/give/barter away these things governments tend to be fairly reluctant to give them back.

Will the govt ever dismantle the CCTV network? Would they ever repeal a mandatory ID card law?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Good question. I see it like this: I need my driving license to drive. If I leave my house and go for a walk, I don't need it. With a national ID card to be effective, I'm assuming there would have to be a requirement to carry it with you at all times. Therefore, a police officer could indeed stop me and demand that I prove who I am. I against that.

Cops are allowed, today, to stop you and ask you to identify yourself. Whether you are driving or not.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

What if you have no ID on you? I didn't have a driving license (UK or US) when I first came here, and didn't carry my passport with me. I have no problem telling a cop my name. I just don't think I should be required by law to prove it every time I leave my house.

The current law is that you must state your name and address if asked. Obviously no national ID exists so it's up to you to tell the truth. Lying about it is obviously a crime.

With a national ID, it's not much different except you can't lie about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good question. I see it like this: I need my driving license to drive. If I leave my house and go for a walk, I don't need it. With a national ID card to be effective, I'm assuming there would have to be a requirement to carry it with you at all times. Therefore, a police officer could indeed stop me and demand that I prove who I am. I against that.

Cops are allowed, today, to stop you and ask you to identify yourself. Whether you are driving or not.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

What if you have no ID on you? I didn't have a driving license (UK or US) when I first came here, and didn't carry my passport with me. I have no problem telling a cop my name. I just don't think I should be required by law to prove it every time I leave my house.

You already do as a permanent resident of the US - supposedly to carry your Green card on you at times. Theoretically I break the law every time I go swimming.