Big Brother Wants Ears

by Chris | 2 May 2007 | No Comments

Big Brother can see. It can talk in some places. Now it wants to listen as well.

Microphones may be the next addition to the 20% of the world’s CCTV cameras we have here in Britain, and the speaking cameras to be trialled. Not only do they want to watch you you do and tell you how to do it, they want to listen to what you say.

The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, is [surprisingly, given the title] opposed to the idea of microphones, alarmed by the idea of small tiny cameras hidden in lamp posts, and considers even the talking CCTV cameras a “bridge too far”. I like him.

Surveillance in Britain is already greater than that in any of democratic state. It has already gone too far. CCTV cameras cut crime, but street lights do it better (30% to 2-4%). Why do they need to place more and more cameras, with more and more features in order to keep an eye on us? Why do they want to listen to our conversations now, too? It’s not as if terrorists are likely to discuss the enacting of atrocities in a public space at all, let alone in plain language!

Stop with the surveillance. If you want to cut crime, put more police on the beat and deal with the reasons people commit crimes in the first place. Hell, I rather have a member of the plastic plod than a CCTV camera! After all, a policeman can prevent crime – a CCTV camera can just record it.

We don’t need more surveillance, if anything we need less.

Source: The Telegraph

[Still writing an essay...]

Categories: Uncategorised

No Comment »

  • Lord Nazh said:

    I know you and I don’t agree but, if you take away the citizens right to defend themselves and cut back on ARMED police presence, you need to be able to later identify who the criminal was :)

    # 2 May 2007 at 2:28 pm
  • ThunderDragon said:

    Citizens have the right to defend themselves – but guns aren’t needed to do it.

    The presence of police prevents crime because they are there and are trained to deal with these things. They are certainly far netter than CCTV cameras.

    # 2 May 2007 at 5:29 pm
  • Ruthie said:

    Wait, you have talking cameras? Really? Does it feel like an invasion of privacy, or do you normally not notice? That seems like it would be hard to get used to.

    AND your policemen don’t carry guns?

    You’ll have to forgive LN and I, the gun ownership thing is a second amendment right here, and I don’t think we can conceive of a country in which it’s illegal for the law-abiding citizenry to possess guns… much less an unarmed police force!

    I suppose it’s all what you’re used to.

    # 3 May 2007 at 3:29 pm
  • ThunderDragon said:

    There aren’t many talking cameras yet – they’re on trial. Personally I think they’re an unnecessary intrusion.

    We have never had a need for an armed police force. It was founded on that premise, that they wouldn’t carry guns as a rule. There are armed units, though. When the police force was started, the most a policeman could carry was a cutlass.

    It’s not illegal to possess guns, just more controlled, and less socially acceptable. But to the best of my knowledge it is illegal to carry them on the street.

    Our police armed armed because they don’t NEED to be armed. More guns = more deaths. If the police are armed, the criminals need to be too, or else they are at a great disadvantage. And that leads to greater gun crime and greater deaths.

    Just because something is A right doesn’t mean that it IS right.

    # 3 May 2007 at 4:01 pm
  • Ruthie said:

    I don’t see gun ownership as inherently wrong, even though I personally dislike guns and would never own one. Cops/ordinary citizens with legal weapons have protected me from imminent harm more than once.

    You know that phrase, “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight?” How does an unarmed police officer defend himself/herself against a criminal with a gun? It seems like an unfair advantage.

    I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

    # 3 May 2007 at 8:43 pm
  • Lord Nazh said:

    coulda swore I commented again on this one … oh well.

    Ruthie explains things well enough

    # 4 May 2007 at 11:15 pm

Comments

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.