UK media may be banned from reporting stories deemed against the interests of national security

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Would the British citizens actually put up with this?

They've already put up with closed circuit cameras all over the place, why not this?

It seems your ignoring the value of CCT when trying to solve crimes, it has proven to be very useful when being used to apprehend and convict criminals.

Many technologies can be useful in fighting crime. Many of those technologies also invade individual privacy in unacceptable ways, and CCT is one of those technologies.

[rocks 494]

The New York Times has blocked British readers from accessing an article published in the US about the alleged London bomb plot for fear of breaching the UK's contempt of court laws.

That is hilarious. As if copy and paste technology doesn't exist.

indeed, or proxies. or that letting the rest of the world read it didn't threaten our national security. that is why i am truly shocked by the idea of restricting the uk media because it clearly doesn't work the other way around.

[Niels Bohr 72]

[truffles 2]

Would the British citizens actually put up with this?

They've already put up with closed circuit cameras all over the place, why not this?

It seems your ignoring the value of CCT when trying to solve crimes, it has proven to be very useful when being used to apprehend and convict criminals.

Many technologies can be useful in fighting crime. Many of those technologies also invade individual privacy in unacceptable ways, and CCT is one of those technologies.

You may find those people who have been victims of crimes and have had the benefit of cct footage not only identify the individual(s) but been able to present it in legal proceedings would offer a different opinion - for them the so called invasion of privacy was valid.

[Niels Bohr 72]

[IAMX 3,055]

Would the British citizens actually put up with this?

They've already put up with closed circuit cameras all over the place, why not this?

Exactly. We're bending over to stupidity in the name of fighting terrorism in the U.S., but damn, what the #### is wrong with people in the UK? They're staring China Act II straight in the face with this extreme censorship shite, not just with national security, but they're closing in on movies and video games too. Then in the OP or somewhere it talked about banning U.S. newspaper articles from being read?

Is clandestine even in their English dictionary?

[Mags 112]

Would the British citizens actually put up with this?

They've already put up with closed circuit cameras all over the place, why not this?

It seems your ignoring the value of CCT when trying to solve crimes, it has proven to be very useful when being used to apprehend and convict criminals.

Many technologies can be useful in fighting crime. Many of those technologies also invade individual privacy in unacceptable ways, and CCT is one of those technologies.

I wasn't particularly bothered by CCTV in the UK myself, but I understand the issue it causes for many others.

However, let me tell you about an incident which happened a few years ago. There was a stretch of road which had CCTV cameras located at various points on it. There was one person monitoring it - probably very boring for him most of the time! Anyway, he saw this young woman walking along the side of the road on the pathway when this guy started following her. A minute or so later he grabbed her and pulled her into the bushes.

The bloke monitoring the CCTV phoned the police and they got there within 2 minutes or so, started a search in the bushes and surrounding scrubland, found the guy who snatched the young woman and pretty much saved her from whatever the perpetrator was going to do.

This all happened within about 3 minutes - the footage was shown in real time on Crimewatch UK and was pretty amazing viewing.

Everyone bemoans the intrusion of CCTV, but it can do some good as well.

Just my 2c.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The UK's media laws are pretty weird already - back in the 90s Gerry Adams voice was banned from broadcast news so whenever he made a statement they'd show him speaking but have someone else dubbed the words.

This is a constitutionally bad idea - as it grants government ultimate control over the press. Certainly in regard to something like Iraq (public perceptions of which would likely have been different if certain stories had been blocked) it would seem to allow politicians a means to conceal wrongdoing.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Mags 112]

The UK's media laws are pretty weird already - back in the 90s Gerry Adams voice was banned from broadcast news so whenever he made a statement they'd show him speaking but have someone else dubbed the words.

This is a constitutionally bad idea - as it grants government ultimate control over the press. Certainly in regard to something like Iraq (public perceptions of which would likely have been different if certain stories had been blocked) it would seem to allow politicians a means to conceal wrongdoing.

I think the UK's media should be allowed to print the truth, however, they are notoriously famous for printing first, asking questions (and finding out the truth) later.

I don't have a lot of time for the UK media, especially the Daily Mail. Ugh.

[Niels Bohr 72]

UK is slowly turning into communism.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

... the imprisonment without any official charges...

But they only do that to ay-rabs. Not like that they do it to real people.

... the imprisonment without any official charges...

But they only do that to ay-rabs. Not like that they do it to real people.

Oh really? Damn paint me red and call me an injun', I had no idea! I guess it's ok then.

and one for you too!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The UK's media laws are pretty weird already - back in the 90s Gerry Adams voice was banned from broadcast news so whenever he made a statement they'd show him speaking but have someone else dubbed the words.

This is a constitutionally bad idea - as it grants government ultimate control over the press. Certainly in regard to something like Iraq (public perceptions of which would likely have been different if certain stories had been blocked) it would seem to allow politicians a means to conceal wrongdoing.

I think the UK's media should be allowed to print the truth, however, they are notoriously famous for printing first, asking questions (and finding out the truth) later.

I don't have a lot of time for the UK media, especially the Daily Mail. Ugh.

Well there are already gag orders that can be imposed by court judges in criminal cases that involve minors, for example (though I'm not sure how often this is imposed). So we don't have the ridiculous situation that you can have here where news anchors give clear indications as to their opinion of the guilt or innocence of a suspect, or that TV movies can be made before the conclusion of a trial in which the defendant is shown to be guilty.

If this idea became law what it seems to do is give the government carte-blanche to dictate to the press what they can and can't publish, without recourse to the courts.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Would the British citizens actually put up with this?

They've already put up with closed circuit cameras all over the place, why not this?

It seems your ignoring the value of CCT when trying to solve crimes, it has proven to be very useful when being used to apprehend and convict criminals.

Many technologies can be useful in fighting crime. Many of those technologies also invade individual privacy in unacceptable ways, and CCT is one of those technologies.

I wasn't particularly bothered by CCTV in the UK myself, but I understand the issue it causes for many others.

However, let me tell you about an incident which happened a few years ago. There was a stretch of road which had CCTV cameras located at various points on it. There was one person monitoring it - probably very boring for him most of the time! Anyway, he saw this young woman walking along the side of the road on the pathway when this guy started following her. A minute or so later he grabbed her and pulled her into the bushes.

The bloke monitoring the CCTV phoned the police and they got there within 2 minutes or so, started a search in the bushes and surrounding scrubland, found the guy who snatched the young woman and pretty much saved her from whatever the perpetrator was going to do.

This all happened within about 3 minutes - the footage was shown in real time on Crimewatch UK and was pretty amazing viewing.

Everyone bemoans the intrusion of CCTV, but it can do some good as well.

Just my 2c.

But, but...people's privacy trumps the woman's right to be free from harm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For all the theoretical talk about London's "CCTV nightmare" I'm don't think we've seen examples where it has directly infringed on the rights of individuals - certainly not in the manner that justifies the comparisons to George Orwell.

The one issue I have heard about is how CCTV has been used by private companies to give out parking tickets to meet government assigned quotas on behalf of local authorities. Also that its been used as part of the congestion charging scheme - with intelligent cameras that can read your number plate and run a check on whether or not you've paid the fee.

Don't look now - but NYC is following suit - and is in the process of installing several thousand CCTV cameras in the area south of Canal Street.

[IAMX 3,055]

For all the theoretical talk about London's "CCTV nightmare" I'm don't think we've seen examples where it has directly infringed on the rights of individuals - certainly not in the manner that justifies the comparisons to George Orwell.

The one issue I have heard about is how CCTV has been used by private companies to give out parking tickets to meet government assigned quotas on behalf of local authorities. Also that its been used as part of the congestion charging scheme - with intelligent cameras that can read your number plate and run a check on whether or not you've paid the fee.

Don't look now - but NYC is following suit - and is in the process of installing several thousand CCTV cameras in the area south of Canal Street.

There are thousands of cameras all over the Bay Area, mostly traffic cams. Either enforcement cameras on stop light poles, or freeway cams (not really used for enforcement) for people to see how traffic is (widely used for radio traffic reports). These are ok I guess. As for the enforcement cameras, they took some down around here when people stopped running red lights.

However, a vastly different thing than what I'm told by people who live there that there are CCTV cameras in neighborhoods now? I already knew they were already all over public, and being retrofitted with microphones for lazy ### cops to yell at people from. The biggest problem I have regarding this is.. what was the initial reason for the CCTV expansion? Terrorism. Now it's suddenly just to stop petty crime and to yell at people for littering. If it isn't proof enough that "if you give a mouse a cookie.." is as consistent as day.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SRVT