Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Brits to Be Fined Five Credits for Violations of Verbal Morality Statute
Britain's security cameras will be silent no more:
"Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England.
They are already used in Middlesbrough where people seen misbehaving can be told to stop via a loudspeaker, controlled by control centre staff.
Home Secretary John Reid told BBC News there would be some people, "in the minority who will be more concerned about what they claim are civil liberties intrusions".
"But the vast majority of people find that their life is more upset by people who make their life a misery in the inner cities because they can't go out and feel safe and secure in a healthy, clean environment because of a minority of people," he added.
Competitions would also be held at schools in many of the areas for children to become the voice of the cameras, Mr Reid said.
Whole thing here.
|4.19.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.
ed|4.19.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Dear Britain,
For best results I humbly recommend that the scolding be done in a
high-pitched German accent.
|4.19.07 @ 2:17PM|#
YOU! Yes, YOU, Laddie!
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you
have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!
Tom Accuosti|4.19.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower,
please!
Dang! You beat me to that one!
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Ugh.
The implication in his statement is that the minority who objects
to surveillance and big brother is probably also the minority who
"makes life a misery" for the well-behaved masses. i.e. 'only the
guilty have reason to fear'. The oldest excuse for government
reaching into peoples lives.
I lived/worked in london off and on for a couple of years (was
employed by british company who'd periodically send me over there
for months at a time), and I was always taken aback by the Brits
social reticence to 'be noticed' / stand out. Elenor Rigby type
shit. I remember once I was taking the escalator up from the tube,
and saw the rubber handrail flapping off. I went up and fixed it,
and was grabbed by a bobby "right. You're nicked. Vandalism.'. An
old woman behind me started protesting that I'd fixed the thing...
and he argued "Madam, interfering with public property in ANY way
is a crime''. When I spoke up and he realized I was a yank he let
me off as he wasnt sure he wanted to do the paperwork.
|4.19.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Britian is, alas, beyond hope.
Definitely worth a read: Theodore Dalrymple, who left Britain for
greener pastures.
http://www.city-journal.org/author_index.php?author=47
The best articles are from 2006 or so.
|4.19.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Catching and acting on the bleedingly obvious 1984 reference on Hit & Run takes lightning reflexes. Though the real test of manhood is whether you can be the first to catch a Hestonian reference, particularly of the 1970s Apocalyptic Trilogy variety.
|4.19.07 @ 2:22PM|#
I guess if people of Britian think that civility is more important than freedom then this idea makes sense. Aside from basic human rights violations I don't see the point in complaining about the rules of a society that one doesn't live in.
|4.19.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Well just think of the endless hours of fun you can have with an
amplifier and wireless microphone.
"Pull your frock out of your hose love"
|4.19.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Hooked on Innuendo | April 19, 2007, 2:22pm | #
I guess if people of Britian think that civility is more important
than freedom then this idea makes sense. Aside from basic human
rights violations I don't see the point in complaining about the
rules of a society that one doesn't live in.
_______________________
Yes. We should turn a blind eye towards erosions of liberty in all
other western nations since we know those actions never set
precedent in ours.
Chucklehead|4.19.07 @ 2:35PM|#
It pains me to see a country I love to visit (been there 4 times) turn to shit.
lunchstealer|4.19.07 @ 2:37PM|#
The tragedy of course being that they're a bit too late to get Sir Nigel Hawthorne to do the voicing for the cameras.
|4.19.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Hooked on Innuendo,
For the benefit of our newer commenters, would you mind terribly
changing your name to something like "Trolly McTrollerson" from
here on out? It'd save a lot of time and energy.
|4.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm sure the newer commenters have already noted the irony that
a site that brags about the promotion of "free minds" demands total
participation in libertarian GroupThink, lest ye be hit with the
dreaded "troll" label.
Now drink.
|4.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I want a set of these cameras for around my house. I have yet to
yell at the kids to get off my lawn, but...
One rainy day, I was standing on my front porch smoking my morning
cigarette. (I'm an inveterate smoker, I know, I know, I need to
quit. I smoke only 10-12/day. Lay off me already.) A middle aged
man comes walking past, umbrella in one hand, dog leash in the
other. Rain's coming down pretty hard. The dog stops in my parkway
and squeezes out a couple of rolls. The guy starts walking away
when the dog has finished its business. So I yelled at him, "Hey,
you're not leaving that there! You pick that up!" He stops, looks
at me, shrugs, looks all sheepish, then mumbles, "Sorry, it's just
that it's raining..." I almost leapt off the porch to rub his face
in it. Anyway, If When I quit smoking I'll need one of
those cameras.
(One time, I kind of played the role of one of those cameras. I was
standing on the back porch of my friend's third floor apartment
when I saw a guy come through the alley scavenging recyclables from
the bins. He pulled a bunch of trash out of a dumpster, found some
stuff he liked and loaded it into his cart, and started to walk
away. I yelled down, "Pick that up!" He looked around, couldn't see
anybody, and started walking off. I yelled again. "Don't walk away!
Clean up your mess!" He looked around and still couldn't find me,
but he cleaned up his mess. Good times.)
|4.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
An even better response was here:
'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079
Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than
that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now
stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face
remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show
resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He
stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her
head and -- one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable
neatness and efficiency -- bent over and tucked the first joint of
her fingers under her toes.
|4.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Yes. We should turn a blind eye towards erosions of liberty
in all other western nations since we know those actions never set
precedent in ours.
But all you see is the cost without giving any consideration to the
benefit. Maybe Brits would rather have clean streets than preserve
the right to litter. Can't blame them entirely.
VM|4.19.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Highnumber -
OMG I thought that was you!
You're
Mr. Wilson!!!!! (sorry about the trash in the alley. I thought
I threw away my BATE-MASTER 69,000)
[ducks]
|4.19.07 @ 2:53PM|#
HOI, we by no means call all dissenters from the Libertarian
Party Line trolls.
Dissenters who consistently push their authoritarian statist agenda
in good faith are welcome in any thread.
Those who contribute little to the discussion, not so much.
SugarFree|4.19.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Troll Logic:
If you complain about me shitting on your rug, then you must be
against people going to the bathroom!
"If only we could turn trolls into tires, then we could get some
use out of them."
dhex #2|4.19.07 @ 2:55PM|#
yes hooked, its clearly groupthink at work here. but worry not!
we'll convert you...in the village.
be seeing you
Fluffy|4.19.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Frankly, public surveillance isn't that big an issue to
me.
Unfortunately, the courts have ruled many times [quite rightly, as
far as I can tell] that you have no reasonable expectation of
privacy for actions committed on a public street.
If a policeman was physically standing right there to see you,
would you think he was violating your privacy? Of course not. So
what is the difference if the policeman is using a camera to look
at you instead of his eyes, if we're talking about a public
place?
I am much more concerned about police intrusion into private
spaces, or the compulsory use of surveillance in private spaces
[like many airports]. I am much, much more concerned about the set
of things made illegal. If the police can't conduct surveillance of
my activities on private property, and if the right set of things
is legal and illegal, then I don't really have an issue with public
surveillance.
|4.19.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Dissenters who consistently push their authoritarian statist
agenda in good faith are welcome in any thread.
Those who contribute little to the discussion, not so
much.
What discussion? Without "trolls", this place is basically an echo
chamber where you guys spend most of your efforts trying to top one
another with witty allusions to pop culture.
|4.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#
What discussion? Without "trolls", this place is basically
an echo chamber where you guys spend most of your efforts trying to
top one another with witty allusions to pop culture.
Hey! That's not fair...Aw, nuts!
You're a poopie head.
Stay off my lawn!
|4.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#
I'm sure the newer commenters have already noted the irony
that a site that brags about the promotion of "free minds" demands
total participation in libertarian GroupThink, lest ye be hit with
the dreaded "troll" label.
And only the newer commenters would think that, since all the older
ones have seen you in action, Dan/Sam/HoI.
Seriously, you can't be as obtuse as your "persona" here would
indicate. You're clearly capable of adding valid viewpoints to
these discussions - you're not the extreme authoritarian dickwad
you pretend to be. If you'd just abandon the trolling aspect, and
stick with seriously considering topics and discussing them
honestly with us (and I don't mean you need to toe the libertarian
line, either), you could be absolutely welcomed here. For now,
though, you're just noise, and while I have to guess you think
you're adding to the conversation, you're just distracting us all
from it.
I sense the good in you. Leave the dark side behind. Please.
SugarFree|4.19.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Fluffy,
But that is like saying cops = cameras. Even if it would be OK to
have a cop chide you for a minor infraction (and there are hundreds
in a large and old city like London) there is something freedom-y
about the cop having to be physically there to chide. If the
cameras are cops, could you imagine the reverse, 5 cops for every
non-cop citizen? No one (except a certain upthread troll) would
think that didn't constitute a repressive police state.
And there's the old slippery slope argument... getting people used
to increased or constant public surveillance will lead to expanded
private intrusions.
Sandy|4.19.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Kudos for the Demolition Man reference, Kerry. And to the few commenters who got it.
poco|4.19.07 @ 3:12PM|#
It pains me to see a country I love to visit (been there 4
times) turn to shit.
Me too. Why they don't hire more cops if they want to tell people
off, I don't understand. But to be fair, it sounds as if it's not
going down well with the British public, aside from Daily
Mail/Torygraph readers. See the comments here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2059417,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2052957,00.html
Alarming factoid: "Meanwhile police are keen to run trials of a new
generation of cameras used in Holland which can detect
conversations 100 yards away."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2050193,00.html
|4.19.07 @ 3:15PM|#
What discussion?
I dearly love to torment him, crypto-authoritarian goon that he is,
but joe is no troll.
Same goes for others who are less than consistent in their
suspicion/opposition to Our Masters in DC. Plenty of
non-libertarians on this board who are not trolls.
|4.19.07 @ 3:17PM|#
But Innuendo, I would like to live there. I love it there,
except for the overt nannyism that is morphing into
totalitarianism.
Anyhow, the more important point is that other western nations do
set precedents with regard to individual liberty. Given the
British-American connection, esp. Britain supplying the foundation
for our concept of human liberty (you know, the Magna Carta and
all), it is generally very troubling to see the way things are
evolving over there.
|4.19.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Jake, I confess to being fond of throwing out arguments that I
know most here will disagree with. But there are many sides to
every issue and I enjoy pointing out some of those other sides,
hoping that others will attempt to show me how they're wrong.
I'm used to being called a "troll" and it doesn't really bother me.
But sometimes it comes across as a handy way to dismiss my points
without actually having to think about them.
|4.19.07 @ 3:42PM|#
[Home Secretary John Reid told BBC News there would be some
people, "in the minority who will be more concerned about what they
claim are civil liberties intrusions". ]
Oh well...if it's only a minority, then fuck 'em. I mean...who
gives a damn about a minority? Right? Sorry ass!
|4.19.07 @ 3:45PM|#
If you want to play Devil's Advocate, that's perfectly fine, but
why not put forward the ideas that you are really considering,
instead of playing the walking straw man? If you want to get our
reactions to a wacky idea that you don't actually hold, just ask!
("So what about the people who say [X]? How would you counter that
argument?")
If you let us get to know you as a person, instead of a caricatured
"enemy", your ideas and arguments will be given full consideration.
But your current persona is simply prompting more and more people
to ignore you; most folks don't like the feeling that they're being
manipulated for someone else's enjoyment, and that's the vibe I
think you're giving off with your current modus operandi.
Getting dropped into filters is, I suspect, not the most effective
way to spark discussion. It is, however, a good way to give folks a
reason to "dismiss [your] points without actually having to think
about them."
Please give the honest participation thing a shot. You may find
that you enjoy it more than you think; if you don't, what have you
lost?
|4.19.07 @ 3:47PM|#
I should have pointed out that I was responding to "Hooked on Innuendo" in my last post, not "smartass sob" (on the off chance that anyone both a: was confused, and b: cared at all).
Jorgen|4.19.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I'm used to being called a "troll" and it doesn't really bother
me. But sometimes it comes across as a handy way to dismiss my
points without actually having to think about them.
This would be more believable if you replied to those people who
actually respond to what you have to say rather than those who call
you a troll.
And I don't think that these cameras are any more a violation of
liberty than those speed detectors placed on the road that flash
your speed at you, but I also think that they're unlikely to do
much good.
Fluffy|4.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Sugarfree -
I think that if the presence of police makes you think it's a
police state, it's probably because the list of crimes in your
state is off.
For example, in another thread I came down against speed limit
cameras. But that is not because I feel I have some right to not be
observed in a public place - it's because I think the overwhelming
majority of speed limits, particularly on non-highway roads, are
set absurdly low, and the only thing that makes them tolerable is
the fact that 99% of the time they aren't enforced. That's a case
where there is "something freedom-y" about relying on physical
police coverage - but it's because when the cop isn't right there,
we all just ignore the speed limit. If the speed limits were set
properly, it wouldn't make any difference if the cop was there or
not. As a result, if the speed limits were set properly, I wouldn't
care about speed limit cameras at all.
And I also wouldn't care about street corner cameras if the laws
those cameras were helping to enforce were right-sized. It's only
"freedom-y" to rely on beat cops and not cameras if the crimes
being enforced are things like loitering, public intoxication in
the absence of disorderly conduct, violating noise statutes
[otherwise known as "talking to a group of people boisterously"],
etc. The problem isn't the presence or absence of police or the
application of techology - it's the laws themselves.
|4.19.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Seems to me the Brits could have saved themselves a hell of a lot of trouble by just letting Operation Sea Lion succeed.
|4.19.07 @ 3:56PM|#
This is terrible. I just tried to pull up my "Maw-Wide"
song on Google for reposting, and it's gone! There's been a Hit
& Run purge. No more early Censor theorizing, no more Top 100
Things I'd Do if Elected Libertarian President, no nothing.
I feel violated. The historical record should be sacrosanct!
|4.19.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Please give the honest participation thing a shot. You may
find that you enjoy it more than you think; if you don't, what have
you lost?
Okay, well in this case I'm simply pointing out that if the
citizens of an autonomous nation feel that clean streets and public
grounds is a benefit worthy of the costs of monitoring public
spaces then what's the problem?
I admit that I'm something of a collectivist in the sense that,
with the exception of certain human rights, I have no problem with
people coming together and deciding the rules under which they wish
to run their civilization. To me that's all that's going on
here.
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Maybe Brits would rather have clean streets than preserve
the right to litter. Can't blame them entirely.
Which logical fallacy is this? The 'false dichotomy'? pretending
that it's always an either-or situation?
Dude, one can have clean streets without draconian 24/7
technological nannying by a Panopticon government.
(in case you never heard =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)
Pretending that Overlord Governments that scrutinize the entire
public for minor infractions of 'public civility' is a fair trade
for 'less littering' (where's it been shown that these things DO
reduce litter, btw?), then youve got a broken cost-benefit meter in
your brain. Maybe you think 200billion is also a fair price for our
Wall Between Us and Mexico, which will achieve nothing at all for
the cost.
|4.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
HOI - what makes you think the "citizens" of Britain decided
anything here?
And, to the degree the Total Surveillance State in fact represents
the Will of the Majority, do you think there should be any limits
on majority rule?
|4.19.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Wait! I spoke too soon. While Google has clearly conspired to
make me an unperson, Ask.com--the web search page for free
people--has not. Take that, Google!
Anyway, you're a troll if this song applies to you. You're not if
it doesn't. Simple! A troll litmus song.
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Keep postin', postin', postin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them trollies postin' Maw-wide!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just emote and blow at random,
Soon we'll be getting high and laid.
Enjoy my hearty ad hominem
My statements all be dictum, be waiting at the end of my
tirade.
Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em out,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Maw-wide!
Set 'em out, post 'em in
Post 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, post 'em in Maw-wide.
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Maw-wide!
SugarFree|4.19.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Fluffy,
I completely agree with everything you said and I was going to make
that point as well, but it felt redundant here for some
reason.
So yes, as I've often told the nice officer who I occasionally
interact with at work, if the police and lawmakers only concerned
themselves with personal and property crimes, I would be "Woo-hoo,
police!" most of the time. (He's a nice enough guy, but he can't
even imagine a world without rules for every little things.
Although, he often has entertaining stories about breaking up bum
sex in the public parks...)
The Roving Reporter|4.19.07 @ 4:02PM|#
"Pro Libertate | April 19, 2007, 3:56pm | #
This is terrible. I just tried to pull up my "Maw-Wide" song on
Google for reposting, and it's gone! There's been a Hit & Run
purge. No more early Censor theorizing, no more Top 100 Things I'd
Do if Elected Libertarian President, no nothing.
I feel violated. The historical record should be
sacrosanct!"
Dateline: Walla Walla, WA
THIS JUST IN. BOB GELDOF AND BONO DECLARED THAT LIBERTY-MINDED
ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHALL BE EXPUNGED.
In Other News: Pro Libertate Has Been Reassigned to a
Re-education Camp
This is the roving reporter, signing off.
|4.19.07 @ 4:08PM|#
VM,
I was half right. Nothing earlier than 2006 is showing up. I was
going to gather all of my Top 100 Things I'd Do if Elected
Libertarian President for Ron Paul's campaign. I'm like the picture
in Back to the Future--I haven't ceased to exist just yet,
but I will soon.
I feel like Doc Daneeka after the plane crash.
Nonook,
No, of course not. Why did you resign, by the way?
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 4:08PM|#
I have no problem with people coming together and deciding
the rules under which they wish to run their civilization. To me
that's all that's going on here.
No knucklehead. These things arent the product of a public
demanding 24/7 oversight by Big Sister, they are the product of a
government taking ridiculously overwhelming system to address silly
social issues that are THEMSELVES the product of bottom-up
cultures.
You think people actually had a referendum to decide that they
should submit their rights to be free from perpetual surveillance
by government?
What you are really arguing in defense of is the Freedom of
Government to impose any power they want over individuals in
society so long as the people cant collectively find the spines to
oppose it and force them to back off. If they even can under the
few 'rights' they still have left.
Its a contemptable point of view. One unfortunately typical in the
tradition of Liberal passivity in the face of creeping
tyrrany.
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
|4.19.07 @ 4:09PM|#
HOI - what makes you think the "citizens" of Britain decided
anything here?
Somebody decided - who else would it be?
And, to the degree the Total Surveillance State in fact represents
the Will of the Majority, do you think there should be any limits
on majority rule?
Sure, those would be human rights. And I do think that generally
minority groups should not be singled out for unfair treatment.
Fluffy|4.19.07 @ 4:12PM|#
HOI -
That just moves the conversation to "What are the human rights that
the majority can't violate?"
I think many people here would include "the right to conduct one's
business without continuous state surveillance" as one of those. I
don't, personally, when we're talking about public places - but I
think the people you're arguing with would.
|4.19.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Ve Germans--I mean Englanders--haf no objection to der coming together und deciding on ze rules for purging ze Reich by exterminating all uv ze Juden folk. Und reunifying vit France.
|4.19.07 @ 4:16PM|#
HoI,
Others in the thread have already touched on the problems that I
see with this initiative.
First, it really can't be said that the majority of Britons (is
this the correct term?) really have "decided" to do this; this
looks more like some small number of bureaucrats have decided to Do
Something.
Second, as Fluffy said, cameras aren't nearly as disturbing if
they're used in a society that only punishes "right-sized" crimes.
I don't think Britain is one of those societies,
unfortunately.
Third, I suspect you and I may have differing viewpoints on the
proper scope and power of a democratic system; even if it were
voted in by a majority of Britons, does that fact in itself make it
okay? I'd say it doesn't, but I don't know that you'd agree.
It's not even just one of these factors, necessarily, that cause
many of us here to cringe in distaste at the very idea of
prerecorded scoldings from video cameras. It's a combination of all
of them, along with other issues, that give us the sense that this
development should be placed on the Bad Thing side of the
ledger.
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 4:32PM|#
And I do think that generally minority groups should not be
singled out for unfair treatment.
And, again typical of naive liberal wrongheadedness, you actually
mean, "ethnic/gender" minorities... but not POLITICAL minority
groups who object to tyranny by the minority.
Your problem is not so much your bubbleheaded idealism, its just
that you dont even really understand the arguments you think you
are making. To describe "Someone decided!" as driven by the will of
the demos is absolutely emptyheaded. Ever heard the one about where
a road paved with Good Intentions leads?
|4.19.07 @ 4:40PM|#
A couple of points to consider in re: to any government
decisions in the current UK;
a) Labour won the last election with 35.3% of the popular vote,
hardly a strong popular mandate
b) the Blair government has increasingly marginalised Parliament,
creating a 'presidential prime-ministership' with most critical
decisions taken by a handful of ministers and senior deputies
Given these factors, it is misleading at best to suggest that any
action taken by the government represents the 'will of the people'
in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
|4.19.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Jake, it's not so much that I would be in favor of "prerecorded
scoldings from video cameras" myself. I'm kind of glad we don't
have them here in the states.
But, I can't say that there is not a point where if littering and
other public misbehavior got bad enough that perhaps I wouldn't
change my mind. It's a cost/benefit analysis, and if Britian feels
that the benefit is worth the cost then that's their decision to
make.
That's really true of any prohibative law. For example, theft is
illegal because we feel that the cost (restricting our freedom to
take things from others if we can) is worth the benefit (our stuff
is less likely to be taken).
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 5:12PM|#
But, I can't say that there is not a point where if
littering and other public misbehavior got bad enough that perhaps
I wouldn't change my mind.
Because you think having 24/7 government montitored cameras are a
good solution to 'littering'?
Is there a good single word out there for 'hopelessly naive?'
It never occurrs to you that there might be cheaper, more effective
solutions to minor problems? Like people taking responsibility for
policing their own properties and people speaking out to defend the
public commons without handing it over wholesale to the
Overseer?
You SHOULD be a troll. Instead you are just a goof.
|4.19.07 @ 5:42PM|#
While I admit that the idea of talking surveillance cameras
gives me the creeps, so long as they are in public areas it doesn't
seem they violate any civil rights, any more than having a cop
watching a public area violates them.
Yes, I know that a cop isn't a camera, but the difference isn't
really important in this case. TBH, I'd rather have a camera
watching me than a cop, since a camera is an objective observer,
and won't lie after the fact. I'm sure most of us here would rather
have a camera filming us whenever we get pulled over, for instance,
so that the cop wouldn't be able to fabricate crimes and consents
to searches, etc.
Yes, I know that when police are in control of the cameras, strange
technical difficulties tend to arise when a cop wants to lie or
cover up his own misbehavior. That's a separate issue; one solution
would be to have the camera video available to the public over the
Internet so that the watched can watch the watchers, as it
were.
|4.19.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Its a contemptable point of view. One unfortunately typical
in the tradition of Liberal passivity in the face of creeping
tyrrany.
Ahem,
It isn't just Liberals who are passive in the face of creeping
tyranny. Conservatives are right up there as well. See: Terror, War
On
|4.19.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Really, who isn't passive in the face of creeping tyranny? I'm sitting here at work, typing indignant comments. I should, at the very least, be running for president on the STOP THE CRAP ticket. But no, I sit here bemoaning the loss of my liberties, doing nothing.
|4.19.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Is there a good single word out there for 'hopelessly
naive?'
I think "useful idiot" fits the bill, except for being two
words.
Jim Bob|4.19.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Is Reid saying people who would voice objection to 24-hour public CCTV monitoring are people who would act like assholes in public? What a handy way to attack critics.
Jammer|4.19.07 @ 8:29PM|#
I suppose, at this late hour, noting that Winston Smith was
in his own apartment, not some public space, when he got
jobbed by the exercise lady telescreen is a bit moot.
I'm with crimethink on this one. The cameras creep me out, but I
honestly can't think of a real violation.
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 11:27PM|#
ChiTown T-Dog sez
It isn't just Liberals who are passive in the face of creeping
tyranny. Conservatives are right up there as well. See: Terror, War
On
I hear you dog.
My point was that his particular rationale was the uniquely-liberal
variety for the same. The Red version of creeping tyranny is
'putting these cheap scum in their place'. Same result, different
avenues.
pax americana
Your Boss|4.20.07 @ 12:34AM|#
I'm sitting here at work, typing indignant comments. I
should, at the very least, be running for president on the STOP THE
CRAP ticket
You should be working.
|4.20.07 @ 5:07AM|#
I feel compelled to reply being a Brit- although Brits are the
most watched people in the world, it does not bother me, as Fluffy
wrote, its like having a policeman watching me. If I lived in
London I might feel different though, as there are not so many
cameras where I have lived.
Recently there was an incident where 2 men were randomly stabbed at
2am (1 survived, the other died), a conviction being possible
because it was all caught on camera.
The talking cameras are tbh, a bit of a joke. Surely there is a
less embarrassing way to remind someone there is a camera watching?
But think of the stabbing, if the camera could remind the murders
they were being watched, maybe both could have survived.
|4.20.07 @ 9:05AM|#
Coming late to this party, certainly but... I have to agree
(sadly) with what I thought was Hooked's initial point...
It's none of our business.
Yes, unfortunately, we SHOULD turn a blind eye towards erosions in
liberty in other western civilizations. If we don't, then where do
we draw the line on interfering in the autonomy of other nations?
(And who decides there that line is?)
It's none of our business.
(Not to say we can't point at it and laugh about how silly the
Brits are for doing it, but just stay out of it. After all, at
least they're British, and not... French, for God's sake).
CB
George Orwell|4.20.07 @ 9:10AM|#
Some people seem to have missed the point.
"1984" was NOT meant to be an instruction manual.
|4.20.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Your Boss,
See?! We should be rebelling, but, instead, I'm leaving off to read
another contract.
|4.20.07 @ 12:49PM|#
you should be off getting ready for the
rehearsal...
Moose, old chap, if he doesn't know how to follow the commands of
"she who must be obeyed" by now, it's a little too late to start
practicing. :)
Oh...wait...you mean a wedding rehearsal.
Congrats Pro Lib. And Best Wishes to you both.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245