State surveillance? I didn't vote for it! - Page 2

tigerchubs · 15th September 2008, 18:21

They are all as bad, Mrs Thach and her storm troopers used to stop us in yorkshire regularly, to check where we were heading and why during the miners strike, do you think she wouldnt have used camaras if available.

I'm sure after the next election whoever is in power, will do exactly the same.

tourerfogey · 15th September 2008, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerchubs

They are all as bad, Mrs Thach and her storm troopers used to stop us in yorkshire regularly, to check where we were heading and why during the miners strike, do you think she wouldnt have used camaras if available.

I'm sure after the next election whoever is in power, will do exactly the same.

Of course she would have done - and so she should have done.

Raistlin · 15th September 2008, 18:33

I think that what concerns me most about this is the way in which it has been quietly constructed using "back door" methods rather than being introduced as a bill to be considered for legislation through both Houses as it most certainly should have been.

The fact that such a fundamental incursion into the freedom of the individual has been able to get so far should, in my view, scare the pants off anybody living in this allegedly democratic state.

Clearly, the potential for tax gathering would not have been lost on those who were the prime movers of these developments and was, I suspect, offered as an inducement in the right quarters to ease the passage, if not "turn a blind eye".

It seems that we now have a mechanism of surveillance, not just available, but in place and functioning, which would never have been allowed, at least, in its present, uncontrolled form where it appears answerable to none, without the safeguards of debate and legislation.

So who put the MOCK in democracy?

GreyGhost · 15th September 2008, 18:38

I believe we are the most heavily controlled and spied on upon nation on the planet, so it comes as no surprise that this has slipped in through the back passage, so to speak.

Tyler Durden · 15th September 2008, 18:40

So lets whip it out and respond rather than detect and prevent.

Tax's will be implemented by the government, surveilance or not its always gonna happen.

Then lets all whinge when more crimes go undetected and scum get let off...

Raistlin · 15th September 2008, 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

So lets whip it out and respond rather than detect and prevent.

Tax's will be implemented by the government, surveilance or not its always gonna happen.

Then lets all whinge when more crimes go undetected and scum get let off...

Tyler, you might want to actually re-read what some of us have written to understand the real concerns.

It's clear that this is not to "detect and prevent" anything other than the ordinary citizen's rights. It certainly won't do much to prevent organised crime or terrorism.

Doesn't it scare you that a direct assault on individual rights and freedoms can take place unchallenged?

Zeb · 15th September 2008, 18:51

Sorry Tyler but really, if we want detection, if we want scum off the streets, if we want a safer country then what we actually need is more police out on the beat, interacting with and winning back the trust of the public and being seen to do their job. Spending funding on a system that would do what you and I and others want to see would be fine, unfortunately, what this article shows is that the money is going on a system whose agenda is far, far wider than supposedly protecting the public.....and actually reduces the effectiveness of the police in some ways because they are less visible. I am all for technology helping the police do its work but this is something else altogether and something that could and should have been scrutinised properly by a democratically elected parliament.

efreeti · 15th September 2008, 20:19

Wasn't the other Tyler Durden all about taking control away from the state? I'm pretty sure he blew up that building to destroy the computers which held all the credit records.

The first rule of talk club is? You do not fight about talk club!!

Tyler Durden · 15th September 2008, 20:50

<cough> no talking project MAYHEM on here soldier...<cough>

No on reflection I do see what you are saying, and I obviously went off on a tangent there, yes Paul it does worry me this has been put in behind closed doors so to speak, I agree there.

If it is being used for the wrong purposes then yes I agree its a major infringement of peoples personal privacy.

I'll now get my coat

Mart

apywell · 16th September 2008, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by efreeti

Oh wait...

It is becoming hard to stay positive about the future of this country.

I realised this about a year ago.......

15th September 2008, 18:21	#11
tigerchubs Gets stuck in Rover 75 CDT+ in Yorkshire Gold Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sheffield Posts: 975 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	They are all as bad, Mrs Thach and her storm troopers used to stop us in yorkshire regularly, to check where we were heading and why during the miners strike, do you think she wouldnt have used camaras if available. I'm sure after the next election whoever is in power, will do exactly the same. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

15th September 2008, 18:40	#15
Tyler Durden Avid contributor MG ZT CDTi 135+ Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Suffolk Posts: 161 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	So lets whip it out and respond rather than detect and prevent. Tax's will be implemented by the government, surveilance or not its always gonna happen. Then lets all whinge when more crimes go undetected and scum get let off... __________________ "Sometimes you're the pigeon, other times you're the statue"

15th September 2008, 18:51	#17
Zeb Banned MGZT V8 & ZTT 190+LPG Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,089 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Sorry Tyler but really, if we want detection, if we want scum off the streets, if we want a safer country then what we actually need is more police out on the beat, interacting with and winning back the trust of the public and being seen to do their job. Spending funding on a system that would do what you and I and others want to see would be fine, unfortunately, what this article shows is that the money is going on a system whose agenda is far, far wider than supposedly protecting the public.....and actually reduces the effectiveness of the police in some ways because they are less visible. I am all for technology helping the police do its work but this is something else altogether and something that could and should have been scrutinised properly by a democratically elected parliament. Last edited by Zeb; 16th September 2008 at 06:24..

15th September 2008, 20:19	#18
efreeti Gets stuck in ZT-T CDT 130+ (04) & 75 Tourer CDT Auto (52) & a 1998 MGF (with HGF!) Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Halifax Posts: 903 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Wasn't the other Tyler Durden all about taking control away from the state? I'm pretty sure he blew up that building to destroy the computers which held all the credit records. The first rule of talk club is? You do not fight about talk club!! __________________ Jim Replace in tank fuel pump with Peugeot alternative Dismantle and re-fit interior and seats Retrofit electric memory seats without the loom All followed at your own risk! Available to borrow: I have a home made (tried and tested) Cam Locking tool for M47 should anyone need it.

15th September 2008, 20:50	#19
Tyler Durden Avid contributor MG ZT CDTi 135+ Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Suffolk Posts: 161 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	<cough> no talking project MAYHEM on here soldier...<cough> No on reflection I do see what you are saying, and I obviously went off on a tangent there, yes Paul it does worry me this has been put in behind closed doors so to speak, I agree there. If it is being used for the wrong purposes then yes I agree its a major infringement of peoples personal privacy. I'll now get my coat Mart __________________ "Sometimes you're the pigeon, other times you're the statue"

15th September 2008, 18:33	#13
Raistlin Banned 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 8,450 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	I think that what concerns me most about this is the way in which it has been quietly constructed using "back door" methods rather than being introduced as a bill to be considered for legislation through both Houses as it most certainly should have been. The fact that such a fundamental incursion into the freedom of the individual has been able to get so far should, in my view, scare the pants off anybody living in this allegedly democratic state. Clearly, the potential for tax gathering would not have been lost on those who were the prime movers of these developments and was, I suspect, offered as an inducement in the right quarters to ease the passage, if not "turn a blind eye". It seems that we now have a mechanism of surveillance, not just available, but in place and functioning, which would never have been allowed, at least, in its present, uncontrolled form where it appears answerable to none, without the safeguards of debate and legislation. So who put the MOCK in democracy?

15th September 2008, 18:38	#14
GreyGhost Banned 180+ Sport Auto Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Bedford Middle Level Posts: 17,787 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 5 Posts	I believe we are the most heavily controlled and spied on upon nation on the planet, so it comes as no surprise that this has slipped in through the back passage, so to speak.