Welcome to Slashdot Censorship Linux Business The Internet The Almighty Buck Toys
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
4/22
apache
4/29 (5)
askslashdot
4/26
books
4/25
bsd
4/29 (3)
developers
4/25
features
4/20
interviews
1/9
radio
4/28 (3)
science
4/29 (2)
yro
OSDN
freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

NewsForge
SlashCode

'CCTV - The Fifth Utility' | Login/Create an Account | Top | 477 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1, Troll)
by Kiss the Blade (Kiss_the_Blade@disinfo.net) on Sunday April 15, @06:56PM EST (#22)
(User #238661 Info)
I am fed up of hearing boring privacy maniacs with a political axe to grind and ulterior motives banging on about what a 'threat' CCTV camera systems are. They are no such thing.

I live in the UK, in Scotland. I am well aware that my country has a huge rate of camera penetration throughout city centres and streets. However, it is only foreigners, americans and the like, who find this unusual.

It is a cultural issue, not an issue of privacy at all. Americans view their government with fear, and quite rightly, given its history and abuses. However, in Britain we have a more socialist, left wing government, one that is not friendly to business or private interests. Out government is trusted by the people because it composed of ordinary people, people like Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Dennis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover. Both these men are very powerful and respected, and both come from working class backgrounds. All our politicians are men, and women, of the people. This is different from American politicians, who need hundreds of millions of dollars to run for office, and so are in the backpockets of all sorts of interest groups. Our politicians need no money to run for office.

All this means that our government is much less scary. We can trust it to set up CCTV systems and not use them to spy, but only to deter criminals.

Like I said, this issue is cultural only. We in Britain think it is crazy that americans cannot drink until they are 21 years old, and are free to buy guns and carry them around with them - an act, surely, of inherent danger. I would far rather face cameras in the street than guns, but each to his own.

It must be because America is so religious. 70% of Americans go to Church once a week, compared to 2.5% of Britains. This almost wholly explains the different attitudes in each country towards self defense, rehabillitation and crime deterrance. It is Old Testament values and paranoia (America) versus modern rationalism (Britain).

Just remember, these cameras are not used to spy, and never will be. They are used by the police, who are famous around the world for fairness and correct, brotherly behaviour.

CCTV is an excellent criminal deterrance.

KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no contradiction.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
<<This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward | Hmm... by Scoria (Score:1) >>
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Troll=4, Insightful=2, Interesting=3, Overrated=1, Total=11.
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:2, Insightful)
by Grey (chris.lusena@bigfoot.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:08PM EST (#38)
(User #14278 Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~chris.lusena
Just remember, these cameras are not used to spy, and never will be. They are used by the police, who are famous around the world for fairness and correct, brotherly behaviour.

CCTV is an excellent criminal deterrance.

They may befamous in the last 100 years or so for their brotherly behaviour. But not though recorded history. Try reading a little history what it was like for Trade Unionist in the 1800s or people of other relgions in th 1700s, and say that agin. In fact though most of British History the police have been used as an oppresive force, just becuase they are not lately doesn't negate this fact, or mean they won't again, see the police in the US during the '60s.

and in closeing the obligitory reference to Tomas Jefferson, Frankeln and Voltare.

Those who would give up libertry for freedom will get neither.
--Grey (Chris Lusena)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:10PM EST (#45)
    i liked it when germany blew the fuck out of london. that was cool.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Eh? (Score:2)
    by Kiss the Blade (Kiss_the_Blade@disinfo.net) on Sunday April 15, @07:15PM EST (#52)
    (User #238661 Info)
    Please explain what liberty I am giving up. CCTV cameras do not infringe any liberties, so your argument is redundant.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
    There is no contradiction.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
      by BenHmm (ben.hammersley@SPAMMENOTthe-times.co.uk) on Sunday April 15, @07:21PM EST (#62)
      (User #90784 Info) http://www.the-times.co.uk
      the liberty to *not*get*caught*

      :-)


      ::::::::::My body is a temple. Virgin sacrifices at 11.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
        by Deluge (sardokaur@hotmail.com) on Sunday April 15, @11:16PM EST (#255)
        (User #94014 Info)
        the liberty to *not*get*caught*

        Yeah, I know there was a smiley there, but then again some dweeb moderated it as "Insightful".

        If you're a wanted criminal and they catch you as a result of seeing your mug on CCTV, good. If you're committing a crime and you get videotaped doing it, and locked up as a result, good. Fact is, when you break a law you're giving up your liberty under the system that enforces those laws.

        Before you say anything about silly laws - they can't use the CCTV system to bust you for having a stash of MP3's or warez'd games unless they point the camera in your room, which they don't. Obviously the crimes that this deters (And gets people caught for) are clear-cut crimes such as assault, vandalism, theft, etc.

        And if, by chance, this system DOES get you busted for a bad law, one (for example) pushed through by moneyhungry corps, then it's a whole other discussion about why those laws shouldn't exist in the 1st place.

        ---
        Getting a hardon doesn't constitute personal growth...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Eh? (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:25PM EST (#72)
      the liberty to not live under a totalitarian state. it starts with measures like this.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
      by Grey (chris.lusena@bigfoot.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:28PM EST (#77)
      (User #14278 Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~chris.lusena
      The right not to have the police following you around all the time, waiting for you so commite some crime so they can arrest you. This may seam a little odd to you since the police are such nice fellows at the moment in england. (Or at least aren't after you) But as a tool of an oppresive goverment CCTVs every where are great, they can follow anyone and every one and take notes. Check out what happen to Jim Bel http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civillibe rty/library/weekly/aa041101a.htm esentually the policy state of the IS decided they didn't like what he wrote and investgated until they could arrest him on a trumpted up charge.

      Ubiquitous camars give more power to the police which is allmost allway though out history a bad think for people.

      As a right how about the right to be free of police harrasment? But then lots of people have the opion that if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide. Please make sure that your havn't done any of the following.

      • used or posesed any illegal drugs
      • broken trafic laws
      • Payed all you taxes (including on mail orders)
      • Informed the police about all knowen felloies (Its a crime not to here in the US
      • never been involed in a physical altercation
      • Always put the correct Identfication on offical forms
      • ...
      If you can say yes to the whole list then you ahead of 99% of the general public in any country.
      --Grey (Chris Lusena)
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
        by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @07:50PM EST (#111)
        (User #61682 Info)
          The right not to have the police following you around all the time, waiting for you so commite some crime so they can arrest you.
        First of all, the police are not watching you - for the simple reason that it would cost too much. Councils contract private security companies to staff CCTV systems, since the police are already over streached - and the CCTV operators will only bother calling the police if they see a crime in progress.

        Secondly, some people do want to be watched. For example, I heard of a pilot scheme in one city in the UK, where there is a phone number that a single woman walking home alone at night can ring. She can leave her description, a time, and roughly what route she will be following. Now, rather than walking home alone in the dark afraid of being attacked, every time she turns a corner she will be greeted by the sight of a CCTV camera turning to focus in on her. Having a big brother to watch over you is not always a bad thing.

          used or posesed any illegal drugs
        To quote the subject at the top of this thread, "CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences." Please bear in mind, that in this country, if you are caught smuggling 5 grams of pot into the country it is assumed to be for personal use and you will be given a 70 on the spot fine. Compare that to the US view on drugs smuggling. Cultural differences.
        main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Eh? (Score:1)
          by Grey (chris.lusena@bigfoot.com) on Sunday April 15, @08:10PM EST (#134)
          (User #14278 Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~chris.lusena
          Ahh the police aren't watching you, so its ok then? It a contraced private company so that's better? I think that it's worse esp, since now you have a company that isn't even marginally beholden to the public like the goverment is. Also that is the case now, imagent in 10-15 years when there are 10x time as many cammers, networked with some ok AI behind them. Also part of my argument is that they can be used by the goverment for harrasment which well it doesn't matter who is watch and the more the worse it it.

          As for people who want to be watched, Jefferson, Franklin, and Volare. They are will to give up freedom for safty and so they will get neither, and neither will any one else!!! Plus I doubt that the cameras will actually help, they don't in toronto, ca lots of muggings happen infront of the security cammeras at night, the police are overworked, and spread thing if they not there they are not going to help.

          Also their was a time when the drug laws wern't dracona in the US that time was the 1970s, it changed in one goverment, under Ronald Regan, and just think the US govement is optimised to get nothing done. Also you are relying on the police being nice to you which is not the case if your a poltical dissident, just the opposite actually.
          --Grey (Chris Lusena)

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Eh? (Score:2)
            by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @08:55PM EST (#159)
            (User #61682 Info)
              Ahh the police aren't watching you, so its ok then? It a contraced private company so that's better? I think that it's worse esp, since now you have a company that isn't even marginally beholden to the public like the goverment is.
            Whoa - this paranoia is going to kill you, I'd hate to have your blood preasure. Now lets slowly put down the crack pipe and talk about this rationally.

            CCTV was fitted in an area I used to live in. Not a high crime area - cameras were really fitted for the peace of mind of the elderly (who made up a large slice of the population), but street violence was halved over the first year. The cameras were paid for and fitted by the local council. A friend of a friend was hired as an operator - a bored 17year old kid, working for minimum wage (well, this is before a minimum wage was enforced, but you get the idea). He would go along and sit there, bored out of his little mind, twiddling the joysticks or reading a magazine, just sitting it out. He said that there were only staff rostered to man the cameras half of the time, due to costs.

            Okay, so the guys as CESG monitor our comunications. So what? The guys at NSA are monitoring yours - it's all the same thing. Be serious - beyond echelon, there is no great government conspiracy - and the man-hours it would take to spy on the general population with these cameras would be a poor way for the spooks to spend their time.
            main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Eh? (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @12:18AM EST (#281)
              Think about it... why would the government want to monitor everyone? wtf. would the interest be in Joe Admin? I can imagine the facinating rundown :-

              1. he wakes up, gets in car to work
              2. disappears into big server room for 9 hours
              3. gets in car, goes home
              4. tries to pickup 4 chicks on IRC.
              5. he downloads porn
              6. watches star wars 5 times.
              7. goes to bed.

              Well big fucking hooo... who cares? It's sad that so many people here thing they're so damn important the entire manpower of the government will spy on them 24/7, why? You're nobody, people couldn't even name you let alone care who you are.

              Why the big conspiriacy... wake up out your sad little lives, nobody cares! You're just a number of a government tax record.. why should they be interested in you?

              Get the picture, why is everything a big fscking conspiricacy. The only reason the government keeps spreading rumours about Echelon is to give meaning to thousands of sad little geeky lives.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Eh? (Score:1)
              by Grey (chris.lusena@bigfoot.com) on Monday April 16, @09:01AM EST (#361)
              (User #14278 Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~chris.lusena
              The problem is not that CCTVs don't do some good if that they can do a great deal of harm. If fact will used to harras people, in particulare anyone who disgrees with the goverment. History shows this, a goverment will use every means at in its possestion to oppress people. Ever read 1984? They didn't follow everyone in detail even though they could just the ones they wanted to caputure and torture.

              Another lesson of history tells us is that most change for things we take for granted came from political disidents. Giving power to trake anyone is a very bad thing and will be used against the people very soon.


              --Grey (Chris Lusena)

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Eh? (Score:2)
          by ChristTrekker on Monday April 16, @06:57AM EST (#342)
          (User #91442 Info)

          Government: If it's powerful to give you everything you need, it's powerful enough to take everything you got.

          The question shouldn't be, "How much good will this law do if used properly?" It ought to be, "How much bad will this law do if abused?"


          I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
          Unfortunately common sense isn't very common.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Eh? (Score:2)
        by GC (gilesATcoochey:freeserve:co:uk) on Monday April 16, @07:55AM EST (#349)
        (User #19160 Info)
        Heh...

        Some of our most senior police chiefs in Britain have campaigned for the legalisation of Marijuana...

        Their justification?

        They want to spend time on real crimes.


        Moderators Dilemma: Post, or Moderate...
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      perfect government (Score:3, Insightful)
      by Sanity (ian at octayne.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:54PM EST (#113)
      (User #1431 Info) http://www.octayne.com/
      It is the freedom not to be forced to trust your government.

      --
      If code is law, Freenet is the First Amendment.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:perfect government (Score:1)
        by YKnot on Monday April 16, @12:08PM EST (#399)
        (User #181580 Info)
        To those who think being watched all the time is ok: STASI ("Staatssicherheit") in the former German Democratic Republic had people spy on their neighbour. People feared to criticize their government in any way. And who says only the government is interested in video surveillance data? Realtime automatic user tracking may really be feasible in the near future and there are many more uses for that kind of data than just fighting crime...
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Cameras: UnusualDeterrentFurniture=Irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
      by Rares Marian (rmarian@winblowsstart.com) on Sunday April 15, @08:09PM EST (#132)
      (User #83629 Info)
      The argument would be irrelevant not redundant you troll. But just for the fun of it I'll respond.

      Two truths in symmetry:

      There can be no ownership without freedom (DeCCS/DVD is a perfect exaple.)

      Likewise there can be no freedom without ownership. Jack Valenti himself stated that privacy is a matter of property.

      It's why people own land. Did they make the land? No

      The liberty to be alone is what is missing. If you cannot be alone you have no safety nor freedom to speak of.

      Tell me what is the difference between a prison and the outside world if you're always watched?

      What is the difference between a prisoner with a tracking bracelet and cameras everywhere?

      Why bother maintaining pride, integrity, and character if your life is to be constantly judged at all times according to the stinking broth of the collective court of pubic opinion?

      If steal something in front of cameras available everywhere am I truly caught or am I just going to be given a different place to continue stealing?

      Remember society is recycled every 30 years (the average population doubling rate).

      You claim Americans see the cameras as being foreign and unusual. I claim you see them as being external as well though in a positive light.

      What will you do when your next generation sees them as normal as furniture. And the next have no innate fear of them and completely ignore them?

      Sir Churchill would be disgusted I'm quite sure of it.
      Mutual Masturbater,Junior Anti-Sex League Headmistress forced to mate. Making our children a better host for the world.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Not really. (Score:2)
        by Kiss the Blade (Kiss_the_Blade@disinfo.net) on Sunday April 15, @08:26PM EST (#146)
        (User #238661 Info)
        The liberty to be alone is what is missing. If you cannot be alone you have no safety nor freedom to speak of.

        CCTV cameras do not affect this liberty. CCTV cameras are only put in public places. You don't have the right to be alone in your local highstreet, supermarket or motorway, where the vast majority of these cameras are placed.

        Your argument would hold water if the cameras were being placed in peoples homes, or something outrageous like that. But they aren't.

        Why bother maintaining pride, integrity, and character if your life is to be constantly judged at all times according to the stinking broth of the collective court of pubic opinion?

        That it what the 'Closed Circuit' part of CCTV means. The camera data is readily accessible to everyone through the data protection act, but the fact remains that they are used publically only.

        What will you do when your next generation sees them as normal as furniture. And the next have no innate fear of them and completely ignore them?

        That is the situation now. CCTV cameras have been used here for years, to great effect. My local city, Glasgow, has seen a huge crime rate decrease in the city centre thanks to the use of CCTV. The system even has a computer face recognition system that can highlight known criminals and also pinpoint suspicious behaviours completely autonimously. This saves manpower and cuts crime.

        CCTV cameras are welcomed by the populace. If I am walking through a bad area at night, I feel much better about it if there is a decent CCTV system in place.

        In the end, these systems are just another legitimate policing tool. If you don't think the police force is trustworty enough to handle them responsibly, think of all the powers they already have, and be scared. CCTV is not some big brotherish, revolutionary concept. It has been quietly and successfully used here for many years now.

        KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
        There is no contradiction.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Cameras for years and you still have bad areas (Score:1)
          by Rares Marian (rmarian@winblowsstart.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:09PM EST (#173)
          (User #83629 Info)
          Your argument would hold water if the cameras were being placed in peoples homes, or something outrageous like that. But they aren't.

          Being videotaped in public gives people information which is private. By putting it in the database they can correlate where I go Saturday nights, when I leave, what I take with me, where I stop to buy champagne for a private party.

          There is no reason to have cameras on streets or driveways. There is nothing to steal on the street. Hey, criminal put that burnt out cigarette back on the ground it's not yours.

          In fact, with a camera on MY driveway, the information on it should BE mine.

          With cameras on streets, the information should belong to that neighborhood.

          There is aboslutely no reason for centralization of all the information.

          --What will you do when your next generation sees --them as normal as furniture. And the next have --no innate fear of them and completely ignore --them?

          -That is the situation now. CCTV cameras have been -used here for years, to great effect.

          You didn't understand my question. What will you do when your next generation doesn't give a damn about the cameras and starts commiting crimes in broad daylight. Chaos is a matter of power. If people don't care anymore your police will helpless to stop them.

          The system even has a computer face recognition system that can highlight known criminals and also pinpoint suspicious behaviours completely autonimously. This saves manpower and cuts crime.

          As long as criminals give a damn.

          Saving manpower is a savings in conscience. Conscience cannot exist without awareness. There's a difference between having a cop watch you and having a cop watching a camera. You can talk to the cop. The camera will not relay your message nor its potential to cause people to reconsider their actions.

          CCTV cameras are welcomed by the populace.

          And? Oh I'm sorry is there something else you had to say about this? Oh you didn't I see...

          I arrest my case.
          It has been quietly and successfully used here for many years now.

          Why quietly? What are you afraid of? Criticism?

          Mutual Masturbater,Junior Anti-Sex League Headmistress forced to mate. Making our children a better host for the world.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Cameras for years and you still have bad areas (Score:2)
            by Deluge (sardokaur@hotmail.com) on Sunday April 15, @11:26PM EST (#260)
            (User #94014 Info)
            There is no reason to have cameras on streets or driveways. There is nothing to steal on the street. Hey, criminal put that burnt out cigarette back on the ground it's not yours

            Well, there's cars to steal. And there's people to assault/mug/rape. There's the opportunity for vandalism. I guess you'd feel relaxed about your freedom knowing that whoever stole/vandalized your car parked on the street got off scott free because nobody saw him?

            ---
            Getting a hardon doesn't constitute personal growth...

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Cameras for years and you still have bad areas (Score:1)
            by igrek on Monday April 16, @03:58AM EST (#321)
            (User #127205 Info)
            There is no reason to have cameras on streets or driveways. There is nothing to steal on the street.

            Oh yeah... I work in SF and before moving to the current building our CEO gave us some instructions:
            - never leave building after 6pm alone
            - always carry pepper-spray for self-defence (company supplied)
            - before going out of the building dial 911 on your cell phone and hold your finger over the "Talk" button, so you don't need extra time to dial
            In addition, there are free self-defence classes for employees.

            It's not a joke, unfortunately.
            I'm sure most of my co-workers would like the idea of the surveillance cameras on the street.

            Street is public place. Therefore, there's no privacy there, by definition.

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Cameras for years and you still have bad areas (Score:1)
              by Rares Marian (rmarian@winblowsstart.com) on Monday April 16, @10:36AM EST (#390)
              (User #83629 Info)
              Well mention this to your CEO:

              The camera should be on the car and on the person. You could easily fit a tiny camera on those pepper spray cans. And what do you know no one would need to monitor any cameras and fall asleep on the job.

              Heck one acquaintance of mine carries a pistol and a wristwatch with a camera on it.

              And talk about eyewitness accounts. Five camras in close range matching a suspect.

              Cameras don't bother me personally. I don't have any emotional hang ups other than public speaking.

              I'd just rather have every camera run by someone with a conscience.

              I was born in a communist state. If I see a mile long row of cameras out in the desert disturbing me and my SO it's going to get "vaporized".

              Cameras should carry some level of responsibility and accountability.
              Mutual Masturbater,Junior Anti-Sex League Headmistress forced to mate. Making our children a better host for the world.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Not really. (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:17PM EST (#182)
          Don't take this the wrong way, but:

          Are you a troll?
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Not really. (Score:1)
            by Rares Marian (rmarian@winblowsstart.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:22PM EST (#187)
            (User #83629 Info)
            No, I swear I have never been caught trolling on CCTV.
            Mutual Masturbater,Junior Anti-Sex League Headmistress forced to mate. Making our children a better host for the world.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Cameras: UnusualDeterrentFurniture=Irrelevant (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:03PM EST (#167)
        are you a bot?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Eh? (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:05PM EST (#169)
      Do you know what the word redundant means?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Why it's actually scary (Score:2)
    by RandomPeon on Monday April 16, @12:25AM EST (#283)
    (User #230002 Info)
    I visited a old friend in Southern California this winter. He lived in a "gated community" where security cameras watched all the areas inside the complex.

    My friend had to return to work the day I arrived, so I spent the afternoon relaxing at his place. Having come from Minnesota (4 ft of snow when I left) I went outside and wandered aimlessly around the complex, enjoying the ability to wear shorts in January. I took pictures of interesting things, like Christmas tree lights on tropical trees and ponds filled with liquid water. In retrospect, this does seem awfully suspicious/crazy.

    After about half an hour in this paradise, a security guy told me I had to come with him. I didn't live there, my friend was out of his office, and I had no way to prove I wasn't some crazy Minnesotan intent on photographing the area before I killed everybody. I'd done nothing wrong, just acted a little weird. But I spent the rest of the afternoon in the security office until my host could verify I was indeed a legitmate guest. It was not a pleasant experience.

    One would hope that real police would do a better job and find something better to do than harass law-abiding people. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:10PM EST (#43)
Ah yes, the British government has committed absolutely no atrocities over the course of its history. The Americans revolted against the British because they were bored! Comeon, give me a break. Britian has just as bad, if not worse (because its been around longer) record of shitty shit happening than America.

Amount of privacy in one country and another might be a cultural difference, but the fact of the amtter is that England has LESS privacy than other countries. This is the point. Whehter privacy is important is a cultural issue. The amount of it, isn't. I guess when they add cameras in your home it will not really matter either, because you are a law abiding citizen. And of course, your governement is 'of the people'. Thus, 'the people' are incorruptible. Just like 'the people' of communist countries were incorruptible. Just like 'the people' in 3rd world dictatorships are incorruptible.

Go ahead, trust 'the people'.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    No. (Score:1, Insightful)
    by Kiss the Blade (Kiss_the_Blade@disinfo.net) on Sunday April 15, @07:23PM EST (#67)
    (User #238661 Info)
    America revolted for tax reasons. Any idea that it did so for reasons of liberty and freedom are absurd, especially when it has a truly dreadful record of human rights abuses itself.

    There have never been slaves on British soil.

    America was only free if you were a white man of property.

    Imagine if there had been no revolution in america. Slavery would have been outlawed 60 years earlier, without a fuss. Race relations would have been much improved in your country. It would not be infected by religious maniacs as it is. Prohibition and the like would never have happened. People wouldn't be getting electrocuted to death in a country with a law against 'cruel and unusual punishments'.

    America would be much improved. Sort of like a better, bigger Canada.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
    There is no contradiction.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:1)
      by baba on Sunday April 15, @07:29PM EST (#80)
      (User #105606 Info)
      I'm realy enjoying this now. You're almost funny.

      There have never been slaves on British soil.

      That right! It's much cheaper to abuse the poor bastards right in their own bloody lands. And cleaner, too.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:30PM EST (#82)
      YES, it was for tax reasons. The British wanted to tax us without representation. If that isn't a violation of democracy, I don't knwo what is. Yes, the post-revolution America wasn't the most egalitarian of states, but you said something along the lines of how Britian had a perfect history. I stated it didn't. I didn't say America had a perfect history. So, unless you would like to try an dprove Britians perfect history, there is nothing further to discuss. Ah yes, and American most likely wouldn't be the world power it is today either. And of course there wouldn't have been the immigrations in the early 20th century, or in the 60's and 70's because immigrants aren't 'American enough'.The list goes on and on. As much as you'd like to believe you are perfect, rest assured you aren't. Neither are we.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:30PM EST (#83)
      britain was sent packing because they thought they could do anyhing they wanted to the colonies, sort of like they're doing to brits now. we sent them home in body bags. you should look into as well.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:1)
      by Grey (chris.lusena@bigfoot.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:37PM EST (#93)
      (User #14278 Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~chris.lusena
      There have never been slaves on British soil.

      America was only free if you were a white man of property.

      Complete false, the Romans had slaves. The British had slave during the 1700s, they had serfs. They had indetured servitude until the late 1800s which is slavery except it doesn't count your children.

      The same was true of the Greate Britian at the same time, and her colonies. In canada the equivelent of a green card is still called Landed immergrent status, because you didn't get the right to vote until you had land. IN the US any none enslaved man had the right to vore from day one, many years before the any common wealth contry.
      --Grey (Chris Lusena)

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:No. (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:14AM EST (#306)
        So in Canada you couldn't vote until you had land, and the wrong sort of immgrants weren't given land... they were just enslaved upon someone elses land.

        In the states if you were the wrong sort of immigrant you couldn't vote because you were enslaved.

        Both of the above sound exactly the same to me, unless you were a white, male landowner, you couldn't vote.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:19PM EST (#185)
      Don't take this the wrong way, but:

      Are you gay?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @10:38PM EST (#235)
      I really have no tolerance for fools who naively think america created slavery even though it had been in practice in Africa for thousands of years. America was simply a new market. So instead of blaming America and asking for repartions go ask for repartions from the Africans who started it all, but obviously that doesn't fulfill greed or self-pity, which is what the issue is really about.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:No. (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:17AM EST (#307)
        America didn't create the concept... but it certainly continued to exploit this 'resource' decades after other imperial countries had abolish slavery... including the 'evil' British.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:2)
      by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Monday April 16, @12:55AM EST (#289)
      (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
      I take it back. I said elsewhere you were possibly ignorant or naive; but clearly you are just a troll. No one could be so ignorant of their own history to not know of indentured servitude or slavery on their own soil. Slavery was not abolished in England until 1833 Link. You get a 30 year lead there- which, on the grand scale of history, isn't much. And there was a great deal of fuss about it... sure, no civil war, but only because the numbers were smaller and the economy less dependent on them.

        White women in Britain couldn't vote until 1918 and for 10 years after that only women who owned property or were married to men of property were allowed to vote. Universal female suffrage happened here in 1920. Either we are two years worse or eight years better- take your pick.

      And, of course, you have to know whose idea property based suffrage was. It's not like British settlers arrived from enlightened England, bumped into classist Native Americans, and said "gee, how silly it was of us to give suffrage to everyone back in the old country. Here, only those with property will vote." Like many of our other good and bad ideas, the Brits had it first, and had had it for a lot longer than we did. As late as 1884, if you worked on a farm, you couldn't vote in the UK. True general suffrage was not granted until 1928. Legally speaking, the US wins by 59 years here (though obviously blacks were practically barred for another 100 years.)

      As far as the reasons for revolt... sure, taxes were a huge reason. But if the British Government had actually given the Colonies seats in Parliament instead of opening fire on protesters, maybe we might have stuck around. Maybe India might have done the same if you hadn't tortured and arrested people who wanted the right to make their own salt. And let's not get into South Africa.

      Look, America has a pretty dreadful history. But it is clear that you are just trolling when you are so willfully ignorant of your own history. Go back in your hole.
      ~luge

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @01:21AM EST (#294)
      If the revolution was really about liberty and not money why did it take the US government another 140 years to abolish slavery compaired to the 'evil' British Empire? Especially when all men were susposed to be created equal... equal if you're a rich, white, male land owner it seems.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:25PM EST (#71)
    I guess when they add cameras in your home it will not really matter either, because you are a law abiding citizen.

    If they put cameras in my house, i'll either:

    • Flog them down the pub for a fiver
    • Start my own p0rn0graphic webcam/website
    • Take them to bits to see how they work
    • Put them in the garden to look for UFOs
    • Use them to spy on the neighbours

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by skryche on Sunday April 15, @07:10PM EST (#44)
(User #26871 Info) http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~jonjh/

However, in Britain we have a more socialist, left wing government, one that is not friendly to business or private interests.

Yikes. Don't you ever watch any Mark Thomas? Big business looks pretty cozy with the British government to me.

They are used by the police, who are famous around the world for fairness and correct, brotherly behaviour.

Now I think you must be trolling. Police do what their bosses tell them, whether its nice or not so nice.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:5, Informative)
    by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @07:27PM EST (#76)
    (User #61682 Info)
      Don't you ever watch any Mark Thomas?
    Note for non-Brits:
    Mark Thomas is a politically motivated comedian-slash-borderline-terrorist (that's meant as a compliment) and probably one of the biggest pains in the government's ass.

    One thing that he had great fun playing with in his recent series, (not what prev. poster was talking about, but relevant to CCTV), was the Data Protection Act.

    This is a wonderful piece of UK legislation, which allows you to demand any company/organization which holds information about you to give you a copy (with certain exclusions ie some government agencies). So you can walk into MacDonalds, fill out a form while you eat your burger, giving the time, date, a description of yourself, the clothes you are wearing, etc, then hand it in before you leave forcing them to send you a copy of the footage of you sitting there filling out the form.

    :-)

    This is all wonderfully silly.
    main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Is that so clever? (Score:2)
      by Sanity (ian at octayne.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:52PM EST (#112)
      (User #1431 Info) http://www.octayne.com/
      I am not sure that abusing a law designed to protect the public interest is really all that funny.

      --
      If code is law, Freenet is the First Amendment.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Is that so clever? (Score:3, Interesting)
        by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @08:24PM EST (#143)
        (User #61682 Info)
          Is that so clever?
        Yes it is - using humor and entertainment to put across a serious and definitely non-mainstream political agenda is a very good idea.

        Mark Thomas would not get the audience and the platform to speak from if he did not play around and do silly stuff like this. But at the same time he demonstrated the power of the DPA, for example forcing a government department to hand over all the emails on their systems mentioning his name. He exposed a minister requesting a civil servant try to dig up dirt on him (MT). Not exactly the way you would expect a government ministry to spend taxpayers money - launching smear campaigns against stand-up comics.

        infotainment has its place.
        main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          crying wolf (Score:2)
          by Sanity (ian at octayne.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:08PM EST (#170)
          (User #1431 Info) http://www.octayne.com/
          The point is that if the government creates a good law, then by-all-means, use it the way it was intended, but don't provide ammunition for those who would prevent such laws in the future by abusing them. How does using the Data Protection Act to force a fast-food chain to hand over CCTV footage of you achieve anything other than pissing people off?

          --
          If code is law, Freenet is the First Amendment.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:crying wolf (Score:2)
            by Jah-Wren Ryel (jahwren@hotmail.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:30PM EST (#193)
            (User #80510 Info)
            Perhaps it makes the pissed off people question the point of the CCTV in first place. After all, if the cameras weren't there they wouldn't have to worry about fulfilling DPA for CCTV footage...
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:crying wolf (Score:2)
            by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @09:33PM EST (#198)
            (User #61682 Info)
              How does using the Data Protection Act to force a fast-food chain to hand over CCTV footage of you achieve anything other than pissing people off?
            Oh sure, I mean, I'm not advogating that anyone reading this should go out and do this. But Mark Thomas's show is funny, and by being funny it gets viewers. To directly answer your question:
              "It gets people to watch a show which then puts the DPA to proper use, exposing the questionable behaviour of public servants, and explaining to people a set of civil rights that they may not know they have."
            Happy?

            :-)
            main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:crying wolf (Score:1)
            by Danse (Wowbagger_TIP@hotgritsmail.com) on Sunday April 15, @10:12PM EST (#225)
            (User #1026 Info)

            I think he made the point that if the law is there, you might as well take advantage of it. It obviously helped him by letting him spot a corrupt politician out to do him harm.


            "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." T. Jefferson
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Is that so clever? (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:25AM EST (#309)
          I loved the emails he got back from the Ministry Of Defense

          Fred. "did you see mark thomas last night"
          Bob. "nah... I missed ot"
          Fred. "I've got it on video, I'll send it down to special services and get a copy to you by the end of the day"
          Bob. "cheers"
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Is that so clever? (Score:1)
          by gilgongo (gilgongo@phreak.NOSPAM.co.uk) on Monday April 16, @07:38AM EST (#346)
          (User #57446 Info) http://www.hatters.org.uk
          >Mark Thomas would not get the audience and the
          >platform to speak from if he did not play round
          >and do silly stuff like this.

          Much as I hate to think that this is the case, in fact, Mark Thomas probably gets the audience and the platform *because* what he does is ultimately ineffective.

          If he was really making a difference, there's no way he'd get TV (or any other) airtime. Don't get me wrong - I love his stuff, but it has to fall short of actually hitting the spot.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      DPA in the USA!!! (Score:1)
      by Ded Mike (mcannon@enteract.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:08PM EST (#172)
      (User #89353 Info) http://www.enteract.com/~mcannon/
      Yes!!!

      But since the Korporations now own our gubbamint here in the good ol' Korporate States of Amerika, served by their Republikan butt-servants, the Kompassionate Konservative Koalition (Keystone Kops Klavern), here in KorpAmerika, we'll never see it. Of course, data that refers to us and can damage our privacy and rights (including our right to life!) doesn't belong to us, the sheeple of the KSA!!! That's only fair. Corporations are MUCH more trustworthy than gubbamint...besides, they can sell the data to the gubbamint and make a tidy profit, never worrying or being responsible for the accuracy of the data!!!!

      *sigh* at least we can be happy God and Jesus (and LRH!) are on our side!!! and that one day, everyone in the world will live under our glorious rule!!!


      Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Mark Thomas sounds like Michael Moore (Score:1)
      by Ded Mike (mcannon@enteract.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:14PM EST (#177)
      (User #89353 Info) http://www.enteract.com/~mcannon/
      ...OUR resident curmudgeon.
      More info at: http://www.dogeatdogfilms.com/middlepage.html
      Sounds like something Mike would do for one of HIS TV shows...
      I still want the DPA here in the KSA...at least it would be a start!

      Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Mark Thomas sounds like Michael Moore (Score:1)
        by l-ascorbic on Monday April 16, @06:07AM EST (#330)
        (User #200822 Info)
        Yes, a lot like Michael Moore. Did you notice the end of the credits of his old show? BBC co-production, broadcast in the UK on the same day. You were enjoying a show financed by UK licence payers.
        ---l-ascorbic - keeping /. scurvy - free
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Mark Thomas sounds like Michael Moore (Score:1)
          by Ded Mike (mcannon@enteract.com) on Monday April 16, @10:57AM EST (#392)
          (User #89353 Info) http://www.enteract.com/~mcannon/
          hmmm...I'm jealous. You get Mark and Mike...we only get Mike (when KorpAm lets him through!...USAnet has stopped broadcasting and promoting his show.)

          As to the licenses...when I lived in the UK, I also had to pay the fee...got back to the US and used to ROTFLMAO at the 'Young Ones' episodes when they were trying to duck the Minders (always played by Alexi Sayles)...my friends here never got it though, even when I explained it.

          Now Vivian is the voice for Expedia here in the KSA. Is he there, too?

          Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Mark Thomas sounds like Michael Moore (Score:0)
            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @06:06PM EST (#444)
            Yeah we get Mike in the UK... and British actually get special "timeout" spot that lasts for about 2 minutes when the US viewers are taking a commercial break, he does a special little bit for US :)

            As for Mark Thomas, well, they're in the same direction, but Mark is much more indepth and hands on. Mark goes chasing after government ministers and pisses off people in the MI5 and MI6 buildings on a regular basis.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:2)
      by weston on Monday April 16, @02:18PM EST (#417)
      (User #16146 Info) http://mmedia.csoft.net/weston/
      This is a wonderful piece of UK legislation, which allows you to demand any company/organization which holds information about you to give you a copy (with certain exclusions ie some government agencies). So you can walk into MacDonalds, fill out a form while you eat your burger, giving the time, date, a description of yourself, the clothes you are wearing, etc, then hand it in before you leave forcing them to send you a copy of the footage of you sitting there filling out the form.

      Egad. I wrote a story about this a while back. The difference in the setup is that surveillance was a little more pervasive and the corporations could charge you for info/footage.

      --
      that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by baba on Sunday April 15, @07:12PM EST (#46)
(User #105606 Info)
Wow! Just amazing...

What to highlight:

It is Old Testament values and paranoia (America) versus modern rationalism (Britain).

And this drivel deserves 5/insightfull rating?


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Privacy (Score:2)
by winterstorm on Sunday April 15, @07:13PM EST (#50)
(User #13189 Info)

People who desire their privacy are not maniacs.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy (Score:2)
    by Deluge (sardokaur@hotmail.com) on Sunday April 15, @11:30PM EST (#261)
    (User #94014 Info)
    "People who desire their privacy are not maniacs"

    People who desire piracy so desperately that they can't bear being caught on camera in a public place should stay home and live a DotComGuy kind of life. See? There's an option for paranoiacs too.

    Oh, and, um, let's face it, whenever you show you face in public, even if there aren't cameras, there are PEOPLE, each with two eyes (in most cases). Gee, I guess, the only option there is invisibility. Good luck.

    ---
    Getting a hardon doesn't constitute personal growth...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Privacy (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:32AM EST (#310)
      Yeah... if a copper was standing in a public place looking around on patrol, as they do, would you feel your privacy is underthreat?

      If a camera was there doing the same thing, but the copper was sitting behind a TV monitoring another 3 cameras... how come your privacy becomes much more of a concern?

      It seems like it's just policing through abstraction... the difference is, a camera can't hit me with a trunchion and chase after me.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Privacy (Score:1)
      by winterstorm on Monday April 16, @10:07AM EST (#381)
      (User #13189 Info)

      What is it about these "paranoiacs" scares you so much you wish to see them forced into home-style prisons?


      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Privacy (Score:2)
        by Deluge (sardokaur@hotmail.com) on Monday April 16, @12:18PM EST (#400)
        (User #94014 Info)
        What is it about these "paranoiacs" scares you so much you wish to see them forced into home-style prisons?

        Mm? I'm not scared of them. I have absolutely no problem with them - it's they who seem to have a problem with adjusting to a way of life that is at odds with their ideal imagined lifestyle, in which "privacy" seems to mean that nobody ever sees them.

        ---
        Getting a hardon doesn't constitute personal growth...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:19PM EST (#60)
Uh-huh. And for HOW long did your government repress India, Burma, and scads of other "less civilized" countries? Puh-lease.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by Teflon Coating on Sunday April 15, @07:22PM EST (#64)
(User #177969 Info)
While it may be true that 70% of Americans go to church a week how many go just because their parents did? Many go to churches that are suited for them so that they can get their "religion" as fast as they can and then feel like they're Christans. These people aren't really religious, they just go because they think that they can go to church once a week and live a completly different life. People who i go to school with talk about how they went to church and then they got wasted later that night and had sex with someone they didn't know. Also i dispute the fact that 70% of Americans go to church once a week. Today our church was almost filled with around 500, it is usually 350. This happens at most churches in America during Christmas and Easter. Also a large percentage don't even go to Church on those days. No one on my mothers side of the family has went to church in the past 15 years. Many people that i know don't go to church or just go twice a year. What about the other religions? Probably 70% of Americans don't go to church on a weekly basis and a large number of the ones that do go don't take it seriously. Many liberal churches don't even belive most of the bible but they were probably included as being a "church." I would like you to reply with where you found this information as it seems a bit sketchy to me. I belive the British numbers as i have heard first hand accounts of the large percentage that don't go. I would rather have the true Christians rather than have ones that just want to fake it so that they feel okay.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:22PM EST (#65)
If the thought of Jack Straw having access to your personal information doesn't send shivers down your spine, then you are a fool.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:29PM EST (#78)
From America looking out, foreign customs seem just as, er, foreign.
Yes, guns are dangerous. That's why we demanded the right to keep them -- we had to start a little revolt a while back you might remember (happy Patriot's Day eve), and the only way to ensure that the govt doesn't put us in that situation again is to make sure that the scales stay balanced. To butcher Ayn Rand, how can I delegate to the government the ability to bear arms if /I/ don't have that right?

I think other countries mistake our drug/alcohol policies for puritanical religious views. If that were the case, I wouldn't defend them as I am atheist. Many USians view on drugs & alcohol are that while they may or may not be intrinsically bad in a closed environment, in the real world they can and are major problems for those people who can't handle their chemicals. Are we supposed to allow blanket permission, and then when it fucks someone up (sometimes for life) tell them sorry & point them to rehab? I'd rather we do everything in our power to prevent drugs from ruining those people's lives in the first place. If to do this I have to sacrifice the entertainment of those who /can/ handle their stuff, well, sorry, but there's a greater need.

Anyway, believe it or not, if you walk down the street smoking a joint in the US, you most likely will not end up in jail that night unless you're stupid about it. But we don't tolerate cameras and mj sniffers on every corner for our protection...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
    by Iguanaphobic on Sunday April 15, @11:56PM EST (#268)
    (User #31670 Info) http://www.technatica.net
    Many USians view on drugs & alcohol are that while they may or may not be intrinsically bad in a closed environment, in the real world they can and are major problems for those people who can't handle their chemicals. Are we supposed to allow blanket permission, and then when it fucks someone up (sometimes for life) tell them sorry & point them to rehab?

    No, apparently it is better to tell them how evil they are, send them off to the tender care of the US's largest growth industry (the prison system) and let that fuck them up for life. Typical right wing bullshit. Take someone with a medical problem (addiction) and criminalize them. All the while building a new generation of prohibition billionaires.
    Iguana: The other green meat.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @01:33AM EST (#296)
    Condoning the right to bear arms, while condemning drug use? You are either a troll or the biggest fucking hypocrite. When's the last time someone robbed a mom-and-pop convience store with a syringe full of heroine? You say we should sacrifice the right for drug abuse because of those people who can't handle their stuff, but what about those who can't handle the temptation of a gun, and rob a liqour store with it? or worse yet, kill someone for a their pair of $150 Nikes?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:48AM EST (#312)
    That is entirely contradictory... you say you defend the right for any old idiot to have a gun yet you believe people should be protected from drugs & alcohol because it causes "major problems for those people who can't handle their chemicals" ... so they should be protected from drugs for their own safety.

    I'd rather we do everything in our power to prevent drugs from ruining those people's lives in the first place.

    Don't people have the right to self determination without some other enity telling them the "right" way to live? If people want to screw themselves up on drugs, yes it's sad, but ultimately it's their decision and why should we have the right to challenge people's freedoms for their own protection?

    Who decides who's too stupid to control their own life and that the government should run it for them for their own protection?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:2)
    by Dyolf Knip (moc.liamtoh@lsseldj) on Monday April 16, @05:41AM EST (#326)
    (User #165446 Info)
    I'd rather we do everything in our power to prevent drugs from ruining those people's lives in the first place

    Really, the last thing I want or need is to be protected from myself, least of all by a government to whom I am just a number and a source of income. I mean, how is it I'm allowed to drink my liver into oblivion, smoke cigarettes until my lungs have more asphalt in them than the road outside, or throw myself out of an airplane and hope the parachute works right, but getting a buzz from a joint is just too dangerous to me? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, made even more stupid by the fact that it's the reality I have to live in.

    --
    If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

    Dyolf Knip

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:5, Insightful)
by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Sunday April 15, @07:40PM EST (#98)
(User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
The fair, brotherly cops and respectable politicians are the source of enough institutional racism that the UN is getting involved. Your government has investigated the cops and found them guilty of pervasive racial bias. Heck, your own officers don't even believe that their fellow cops are fair or brotherly.
 
BTW, the rate of church attendance is more like 44% in the US and 27% in the UK. The University of Michigan has one of the most respected social sciences/statistics departments in the world, so please don't come back here claiming otherwise.

And as far as New Labour and the "Third Way" being responsive to the people... well, it's about as believable as hearing the same thing from Clinton. It is true that the British government isn't bought and sold as brazenly as ours is, but it is just as responsive as any other government when dollars (or pounds, as the case may be) are at issue. When those businesses want to start invading your privacy more brazenly, you can be sure that MI5 will be there to help out.

In conclusion- either you are a damn good troll or you are pretty deluded about the society you live in. Hope it is the latter... it is never too late to learn.

~luge
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @07:56PM EST (#119)
    holy shit, this guy is good!

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:0, Flamebait)
    by Ded Mike (mcannon@enteract.com) on Sunday April 15, @08:58PM EST (#162)
    (User #89353 Info) http://www.enteract.com/~mcannon/
    hmmmm...

    ...given what's going on in Cincinatti, OH; Raleigh/Durham, NC; the State of Florida; New York City, NY; Los Angeles, CA; etc. ...

    ...and your being a gun-toting, resident of a state controlled by racists and represented in Congress by racists, with the remnants of a racist government symbolized on your state flag...

    ...and your citing of the particular study you did had nothing to do with the principal author's supporters...

    ...and all this coming from a guy who portrays himslf on his own hompage as an organizational consultant (clam?) and a 'famous' Lego Engineer who's about to graduate college...

    ...not to mention your TOTAL IGNORANCE OF WHAT THE POSTER WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!! since it's obvious you've never been to the UK or Europe (or probably North of the Mason-Dixon, for that matter)...

    Go look in the mirror...

    The Troll sir, is YOU!

    BTW, as to your slander of MI5, we in the US should only WISH for an Intel/National Crime Investigation Agency that is as effective and fair as they have in the UK...not to mention police that have as long a tradition of fairness (their police don't even as a rule carry guns, you ignorant TWIT!!!). Don't even THINK about crossing for their police agencies or MI6, you wanker!!!


    Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:2, Insightful)
      by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Sunday April 15, @09:42PM EST (#203)
      (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
      Wow. What a giant flaming asshole. (forgive the language.) But I'll bite.

      point 1: did I ever claim the US was better? No. It isn't. It's obvious that our nation has deep and terrible flaws. Cinci's current problems and past massive race riots in LA and Miami (just to name the worst in my lifetime) are clear evidence of that, as is our last election. That has little or no bearing on whether or not England is in good or bad shape. Sure, they aren't as bad off as we are- but they aren't in the kind of shape the original troll likes to think either.

      point 2: LOL. "resident" is the right word. In case you missed it in your quick perusal of my web page, I'm a Cuban-American from Miami who happens to live in Durham while I'm getting my education. That said, I'll point out that I've voted against Jesse Helms once and wish I could do it again. I'll also note that the state of North Carolina removed references to the Confederacy from it's flag- in 1907. It isn't the greatest place in the world, no. But (again) that's irrelevant to how good or bad the British government is. (BTW- I haven't touched a gun since 7th grade.)

      point 3: I have no clue what you are talking about. I have a few better things to do with my life than search for links, so yeah, some of those links are not the best. But they prove my point, I think, and additional research would support me.

      point 4: What does any of that have to do with anything? I'm also a history buff and political science major, if that makes you feel any better.

      point 5: Just in the past month, I've been past the Mason-Dixon twice and I'll be doing it again this weekend. Sorry; only been to Europe once. Liked it; I'll be back in January.

      point 6: LOL. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It's easy to think the cops are fair and effective when you aren't black or some other minority. And it doesn't matter that they don't carry guns- you can ask Rodney King and Abner Louima about that, if you want American examples.

      Look- America is no paradise, and yes, there are substantial differences in culture between the two countries. At the same time, the UK is not some kind of happy socialist paradise. They have racial strife and government corruption too, and to claim otherwise is just crap. Remember- every society has assholes: some are cops, some are politicians, and some just post to slashdot. To paraphrase... Go look in the mirror... the asshole, sir, is YOU.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:55PM EST (#216)
        you're good. really good.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:1)
        by Ded Mike (mcannon@enteract.com) on Sunday April 15, @11:24PM EST (#258)
        (User #89353 Info) http://www.enteract.com/~mcannon/
        I didn't call you an asshole...I called you a troll, a twit and a wanker...but those are minor details...

        The REAL point was that for all its flaws, the UK is more stable, less corrupt, less violent and more tolerant than we have EVER been here in KorpAm...

        ...and you still missed the posters' point! He believes that the original point of the submitted story was to throw muck on the privacy issue in the UK...and they have FAR more privacy and administer it FAR more intelligently than we EVER have. He then goes on to posit that the attention is misplaced, as its mostly a non-issue there. Finally, he made some tries at guessing why all the misplaced attention from here in the good old KSofA.

        As to the 'problems of blacks in the UK,' boy, are YOU barking up the wrong tree!! The MAJOR problem in the UK (and one, incidentally, that we DO deal with here, too) is the classful society.

        ...the other stuff, like your original post is just red herrings...oh, and as to your comment about 'socialist paradise,' the UK has never been socialist...anymore than we have been a fascist state since the Mullahs took over in 1970. What we are, and they are becoming, is an oligarchy.

        Finally, I am 'some other minority...' born on the Chickahsha Apache Reservation in Southwest Oklahoma...all 25 acres of it that are left!...was 'transported' to 'Indian Schools' in the '50s and still served 27 years in the military...travelled the world and returned here anyway...I lived in London on a PAL Exchange, served in Ulster, too, right alongside the RUC and the 'Specials'...spent time with Scotland Yard...also trained cops and sheriffs' deputies here...now I live in Chicago...believe me when I say that there is NO COMPARISON between the attitudes of the MAJORITY of UK police and Public Safety officers and law enforcement employees here in the KSA...they are FAR more professional and always have been...

        What really took the cake tho, was your MI5 comment....baseless CRAP spread by idiots and cowards for the benefit of criminals (some of whom are KSA Korps!)

        ...THIS is MY home...and MY country...three times over...much more mine than yours, or any other white-eye, even a mestizo white-eye such as yourself...and when I say you don't know what you're talking about, you don't...you're just spouting the same nonsense that the KorpAm media would have you believe. It's obvious that you do. Bad judgement comarade

        Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:1)
        by madprof (jon@durge.org) on Monday April 16, @12:05AM EST (#273)
        (User #4723 Info) http://www.durge.org/~jon/
        Your links prove you're desperate to push your own agenda. Try again.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @08:59PM EST (#164)
    BTW, the rate of church attendance is more like 44% in the US and 27% in the UK.

    Facts, schmacts. You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Who's the troll? (Score:1, Redundant)
    by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @09:48PM EST (#209)
    (User #61682 Info)
    Sigh. holding a different opinion is not Trolling. Now what you are doing... bringing up a whole bunch of irrelevant information to blind a few moderators into thinking the parent post is a troll...
      The fair, brotherly cops and respectable politicians are the source of enough institutional racism that the UN is getting involved. Your government has investigated the cops and found them guilty of pervasive racial bias. Heck, your own officers don't even believe that their fellow cops are fair or brotherly.
    So you give a couple of links the the Steven Laurence case - one case in the last 6 years where the police made a poor job of an investigation - and in this country there was then massive public outcry, and an investigation was held, and changes are being made.

    While at the same time there are riots in the US, because your cops are going around shooting black kids themselves. I really don't understand what you hope to prove by bringing this up.

    What were you trying to prove? That our police force isn't perfect? - well at least it is making a serious effort to improve.

      BTW, the rate of church attendance is more like 44% in the US and 27% in the UK. The University of Michigan has one of the most respected social sciences/statistics departments in the world, so please don't come back here claiming otherwise.
    I do not know why the cultural differances exist, so I'm not defending the original claim that this is due to religious differences.
      And as far as New Labour and the "Third Way" being responsive to the people... well, it's about as believable as hearing the same thing from Clinton. It is true that the British government isn't bought and sold as brazenly as ours is, but it is just as responsive as any other government when dollars (or pounds, as the case may be) are at issue. When those businesses want to start invading your privacy more brazenly, you can be sure that MI5 will be there to help out.
    So... Our govenment ain't perfect. Neither is yours. But this isn't the point.
    The point of the original post is just that this all comes down to cultural differences.

    What does this mean?
    Like I said in another post:

      I am english, and I believe in gun control. If I had been brought up in the states I would probably believe in the right to bear arms. But I wasn't so I don't.
    It's just a cultural difference. Most people on slashdot seem to believe in the right to bear arms. If you are one of them - ask yourself this: The majority of the UK population believe in gun-control - are you really arrogant enough to believe that you must be objectively right and that all these people must just be wrong?

    This is not about black and white, one country being right and one country being wrong. You chose to live in a country where you have the right to own a gun and walk down the street without being watched by CCTV cameras, and most US citizens seem agree with you. I choose to live in a country where there is a lower rate of gun-violence, and where I feel that the streets are safer in cities at night, and most UK subjects would seem to prefer this.

    The original poster was not trolling - just pointing out this cultural difference.

    G.
    main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Who's the troll? (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:53PM EST (#214)
      bringing up a whole bunch of irrelevant information to blind a few moderators into thinking the parent post is a troll...

      hahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      that was a good one!
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
        by madprof (jon@durge.org) on Monday April 16, @12:03AM EST (#271)
        (User #4723 Info) http://www.durge.org/~jon/
        Indeed - very well informed.
        I bet 99% of people outside the UK wouldn't know that the Metropolitan Police only cover London, so that saying the UK Police are racist due to the actions of some London officers is seriously missing the point.
        The Police up in Leeds were actually criticised by a judge for using the definition of racism as recommended by the author of the report into the Stephen Lawrence case. This was in another racist attack and shows that we don't tolerate racism any more than anyone else, by and large.


        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
          by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Monday April 16, @12:18AM EST (#282)
          (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
          I wasn't trying to claim that London cops == all British cops, or that all British cops are racist pigs. Certainly, there is a huge cultural gap between the American and British systems of policing- one definitely tends to encourage brutality and racism, the other (apparently) tends to encourage more positive values.
          At the same time, this perception of British cops as completely and 100% fair and honest (while probably more true than in, say, LA or NYC) is clearly not completely accurate. If tapes can't be made of me, then they can never be abused. If they are made, all it takes is one bad cop to abuse the system- and I think it is a safe bet that there is more than one bad cop in Britain. The naive faith that the original posters displays is... well, naive. It may reflect a perfectly valid cultural difference between the US and the UK- it's just a cultural difference grounded in some bad assumptions, IMNSHO. It's a cultural difference that really isn't that big a deal when cops don't have anything more powerful than bobby sticks, but when you give them the potential to track every person in a city... suddenly, those "outliers" in the police force- the ones who aren't quite so friendly and upstanding- should suddenly become much more scary.
          ~luge
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
            by JJC (firstname (at) lastname.co.uk) on Monday April 16, @12:28AM EST (#284)
            (User #96049 Info)

            all it takes is one bad cop to abuse the system

            Really? I don't think CCTV has anything to do with police brutality or mistreatment (except that CCTV could prevent or detect such things - how far would the Rodney King case have got without the infamous video tape) and if we're talking about wrongful conviction then it takes a lot more than one bad cop to put someone in prison.

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Who's the troll? (Score:2)
              by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Monday April 16, @01:17AM EST (#292)
              (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
              Or it could be used to blackmail you if you are in an affair. Or it could be used only to track and identify minorities. Or it could be used to specifically track members of opposition parties. Or to pinpoint targets for crimes. (Since I understand that private companies run the cameras, how easy would it be for a crime ring to infiltrate someone into the system? Probably pretty good, I'm guessing.)

              I understand and sympathize with the point of view of CCV advocates- additional eyes in public places can be very useful and I can see how they'd increase the sense of security (my school has them all over our parking lots.) But the naive faith the original poster places in the system is unsettling.
              ~luge
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
              by madprof (jon@durge.org) on Tuesday April 17, @04:35PM EST (#467)
              (User #4723 Info) http://www.durge.org/~jon/
              They can track and pinpoint who they want already. CCTV only makes it easier. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it before when it was harder.
              Please don't fall for the trolls who will tell you everyone is wide-eyed about them over here...
              I've got two watching me now. When I leave I'll have one watch me at thedoor, another track me as I walk out the building, and then another two as I walk away from the building. They are there to stop professional gangs from stealing computing equipment worth more than 100K though.
              Want to swap places?

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
            by madprof (jon@durge.org) on Monday April 16, @12:42AM EST (#287)
            (User #4723 Info) http://www.durge.org/~jon/
            Thing is, we have significant human rights legislation to cover for this.
            We're just as scared of Police abuse of power here as anyone else is, ask anyone who has at some point gone to a street protest.
            Thing is that when you weigh up the benefits of being able to catch the people that do MORE damage to society (ie. the type of people that only last night went rampaging around the centre of Bradford) against what MIGHT happen if a bad cop was able to use CCTV fotage to further abuse their positon of power, then I'd hope that most people would agree that CCTV is not an inherently bad thing.

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
      by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Sunday April 15, @11:57PM EST (#269)
      (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
      I'm not substantially disagreeing that there are cultural differences. As you point out, there are substantial cultural differences between the US and the UK. I could only dream that the US could be as sensible as the UK in re: gun control.* If the existence of cultural differences was the only claim the poster had made, I wouldn't have called him a troll, since (as you've pointed out, much more eloquently than he did) there are substantial differences in attitude towards government here and in the UK.
       
      However, having made the original claim, the poster then proceeded to pass off a number of lies and unfounded truths as facts, and base the cultural differences on these "facts." My post corrected his facts, and said that, in light of those corrections, either he didn't have a particular honest view of his own national institutions or he was trolling by deliberately indicting the US.

      To put it another way: He is probably quite correct that most Brits trust their government. That point is quite valid. But his stated reasons for that trust are both demonstrably false and deliberately inflammatory. That makes him either ignorant or a troll, which is all I claimed in my post. Having now read the rest of his posts, I'll lean towards ignorant. But that's just my own judgement, and the way he framed his "facts" certainly leaves that open to interpretation.
         
      *In re: racial strife, I'm not a British minority, so I can't really say, but I've read a number of writings that suggest that the only reason race relations in the UK are perceived as better than race relations here are because the UK has a substantially smaller minority population (2.8% v. ~30% in the US, according to the CIA World Factbook). The claim is that racism is just as bad, but since so few minorities are present, overt forms of racism like police brutality are much fewer and far between. How true this is, I have no clue, but it does seem plausible.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
        by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Monday April 16, @01:21AM EST (#293)
        (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
        Having now read the rest of his posts, I'll lean towards ignorant.

        Whoa. I totally retract that statement. If you still don't think he's a troll after reading this please post here and we can discuss. I suppose I leave open the possibility that he is just ignorant... but the level of ignorance there is staggering.
        ~luge
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Who's the troll? (Score:2)
          by barracg8 on Monday April 16, @03:24PM EST (#424)
          (User #61682 Info)
          Yeah, okay. But don't dismiss him.

          First of all, "There have never been slaves on British soil", seems particularly ironic, since (IIRC) a large proportion of slaves destined for the new world passed through Liverpool docks. Of course his statement is plain wrong; I'd go along with ignorant too.

          His post was a little flamey, and he does jump to conclusions a bit too easily, (eg. "It must be because America is so religious..... This almost wholly explains...". But I felt that despite all this the post was the most insightful and informative post last night - in drawing attention (in a somewhat clumsy manner) to the fact that this is not a black and white issue, and that intelegent human beings brought up in the UK are predisposed to react differently to these kind of actions than a US citizen would.

          I don't want to get into the subject of religion (big topic, much danger of flames occuring) but the Michigan figures you quote (eg. here) are taken from two surveys, and half of them are taken a decade ago (including the UK figure). Chuch attendance rates in the UK are in an ever accelerating decline, eg see this article giving a figure of 7.5% weekly church attendance. Your figure of 27% does not truely reflect the current situation in Britain, and is badly out of date.

          On the subject of race relations, your CIA World Factbook is a little out of date - Britain's population was composed of 5-6% ethnic minorities back at the 1990-1991 census, and has a high immigration rate. There are a couple of UK cities currently on the brink of reaching a white minority, and it is predicted that in 15 years time 40% of the youth population will come from ethnic minorities. I think it is fair to say that Britain is one of the most ethnicly diverse and integrated societies, compared with other developed world countries.[*]

          Politics is a big topic and I've written too much already, and is very difficult to discuss in these terms (I mean, I've lived in the US, and it is difficult to come up with a metric to compare the level of trust that UK/US citzens feel for their own government. Lets just file this one under cultural difference. From where you stand I am too trusting. From where I stand you are too paranoid. Again, no objective comparison: no black & white situation.

          To be brutally honest, I attacked your post because you had hit a score of 5 and called his a troll - and I think seeing this a few too many dumb moderators could have modded his post down to a 2 or less - which I think would have been a shame. The score of the original post currently stands at (Score:4, Flamebait), and I think this is probably an accurate reflection.

          G.

          [*] please note, I used the term 'one of', and that this is a relative statement, not an absolute one.
          main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Who's the troll? (Score:1)
        by lordpixel on Monday April 16, @10:09AM EST (#382)
        (User #22352 Info) http://homepage.mac.com/lordpixel/

        Having lived in major cities in the UK for most of my life, I find the figure of 2.8% extremely hard to believe. I guess as a percentage of the population as a whole its plausible, but my experience (admitedly the last few years I lived in the UK were in London, which is much more mixed) has been closer to 30% than to 2.8%.

        That said, I have no idea what the acutal percentage is, it could be 2.8% but that would more accurately reflect rural life than urban. Judging from the time I spend in Pennsylvania and New York in the US, I'd say that's pretty true here too. (ie, it depends a lot on where you are)


        Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
        A little bigger on the inside than out
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Who's the troll? (Score:2)
      by Erasmus Darwin on Monday April 16, @09:49AM EST (#378)
      (User #183180 Info)
      The original poster was not trolling - just pointing out this cultural difference.

      The original poster claims that its only Americans and other foreigners that find the uniquitous camera situation unusual. This statement was made in response to a Slashdot article that consists primarily of a link to a UK news article talking about all the standard privacy errosion problems.

      I won't disagree that there are cultural differences, but the original poster used it as an excuse to include a number of downright ludicrous claims. To create a somewhat analogous American example (with editorial notes):

      We Americans value our free speech (true enough). We believe people should be able to say anything and everything (a bit of an exaggeration -- slander is still a crime, for example). Institutions such as the National Enquirer and Howard Stern are beloved as being noble protectors of our rights (mostly false -- while it's true they help engender free speech, they're still mostly entities that exist to entertain).

      Likewise, the original poster used the notion of "cultural diffferences" to argue that the residents of the UK accept the cameras, love their politicians, and trust the policemen. While there might be some truth to these claims, the entirety of them certainly exceeds my bullshit-detection threshold, especially in light of the original poster's posting history.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:1)
    by JJC (firstname (at) lastname.co.uk) on Sunday April 15, @11:43PM EST (#266)
    (User #96049 Info)

    BTW, the rate of church attendance is more like 44% in the US and 27% in the UK. The University of Michigan has one of the most respected social sciences/statistics departments in the world, so please don't come back here claiming otherwise.

    Actually, I believe I will. This press release is from 1997, and the British data are from 1990-1991. Now, perhaps it isn't relevant to the discussion, but I wouldn't be suprised if our weekly church attendance is a lot lower than that nowdays.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:1)
      by luge (luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM) on Monday April 16, @12:01AM EST (#270)
      (User #4808 Info) http://tieguy.org/
      Fine. It might be lower... but from 27% to 2%? C'mon.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:2)
        by pmc on Monday April 16, @06:31AM EST (#335)
        (User #40532 Info)
        Probably arguing from different viewpoints here. The population of the UK is about 60 million. The weekly attendance at an Anglican Churchs is Church of England (which is the Christian denomination that Anglicans worship in) is the "state" religion. The state in this case being the monarchy rather than the Government - although there are rather bizarre rights of the Prime Minister in selecting Anglican Bishops - who incidently sit in the Upper Chamber of the British Parliment.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:State Churches (Score:1)
          by The Trinidad Kid (Gordon underscore Guthrie at hotmail dot com) on Tuesday April 17, @03:05AM EST (#453)
          (User #96681 Info)
          The UK consists of 4 jurisdictions:
          England
          Scotland
          Wales
          Northern Ireland

          The Anglican Church (Church Of England) is the established church (ie 'state religion') in England

          The Church Of Scotland (Presbyterian) is the established church in Scotland

          In both Ireland (as it then was before the secession of the Irish Free State - now the Irish Republic) and Wales there are no established churches. The local episcopalian churches (sisters of the Church of England) were disestablished (late 1800s in Ireland, early 1900s in Wales) due to the fact that the majority of the local populations were not members of the established churches.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:State Churches (Score:1)
            by The Trinidad Kid (Gordon underscore Guthrie at hotmail dot com) on Tuesday April 17, @03:07AM EST (#454)
            (User #96681 Info)
            Sorry, there is an established church in the Irish Republic - the Catholic Church - but for 20 odd years before Ireland seceeded there was no established church - bad editing...
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:56AM EST (#313)
    I really can't believe that church attendance record... an old report from 1997 stated that Church of England figures were below a million at 816,500 adults, and for a country of 60 Million people... what's that? 1.5-2%?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:1)
    by gilgongo (gilgongo@phreak.NOSPAM.co.uk) on Monday April 16, @07:48AM EST (#348)
    (User #57446 Info) http://www.hatters.org.uk
    >The University of Michigan has one of the most
    >respected social sciences/statistics departments
    >in the world

    ... who also make up words. What the hell is "religiosity"? Do they also measure fat people's "obesiosity", or how about levels of "faceiousisity"?

    Bloody Americans.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What a troll. (or, why you should be afraid.) (Score:1)
    by Shelled on Monday April 16, @09:55AM EST (#379)
    (User #81123 Info)
    He's a damn good troll. Do a search on Kuro5hin for his posts about Slashdot.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:2)
by AndyS (andys@mindless.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:46PM EST (#108)
(User #655 Info)
This reads to me like a troll, but I'll bite anyway I actually have (relatively) little problem with CCTV, but "honest politicians"? What a joke! PPP (large interests pushing the government to pick the absolute worst option for financing the London Underground), Tobacco's exemption from Formula 1 Racing, The changes in the copyright law that are like the DCMA but without even the token "fair use" comments in the bill, as well as people like Geoffrey Robinson who appears to have monied many members of parliament... and so on. The government might not quite be to the legalised influence buying position that's tolerated in America, but it's hardly perfect. And the police - well, they're humans too, and they mess up - unless you missed the huge number of bad convictions and the many miscarriages of justice. The worst part is that British law (generally) used to be designed to be incorruptible. With the (seemingly heralded) removal of double jeopardy laws and the slippery slope trodden by RIP, it looks like we may be heading in a position which would scare a lot of people.
"So when is it a problem... if you push it all so far"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
    by ihatefood on Sunday April 15, @10:43PM EST (#242)
    (User #443493 Info)
    Agreed, but compare the Formula 1 advertising exemption bought by Tobacco with the endemic, structural corruption of the national American democratic system. The US has a great deal to teach us (Britons) about civil rights, and has an outstanding system of local democracy, but the occasional scandal aside, British national politics is astonishingly clean compared to almost any country in the world. National American politics is corrupt to an extent that would astonish a Western European "sheeperson".(BTW I lived in both countries, each for many years.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
You are exactly what he is talking about! (Score:2)
by Sanity (ian at octayne.com) on Sunday April 15, @07:48PM EST (#110)
(User #1431 Info) http://www.octayne.com/
So essentially your response to this is that the British government, unlike every other government on the planet, is completely trustworthy because Gordon Brown is a salt-of-the-earth kinda guy, and the British police are flawless?

Is this the same government which pays for a security service (MI6) which has the capability of censoring any information regarding how they spend the taxpayers money. Are these the same police who, on several occasions, framed innocent people for the purposes of providing sacraficial lambs after a number of IRA terrorist attacks in the 70s? Are these the same police who are virtually invisible on the streets of London until after a crime has been committed (which they see on their beloved CCTV)?

The article is right, the British have no experience of totalitarian government, and as a result people like you think that it could never happen in Britain. I am sure that totalitarian government was probably the last thing on the German's minds in the 1920s too. The main difference is that Hitler never came close to the surveillance capabilities that the British government now have.

Note: And before you dismiss me as a dumb yank who knows nothing, I spent 6 years living in the UK (4 in Scotland, 2 in London), and originate from Dublin, Ireland. I even went through 6 months of police training in Scotland before deciding that the police wasn't for me.

--
If code is law, Freenet is the First Amendment.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:You are exactly what he is talking about! (Score:2)
    by barracg8 on Sunday April 15, @08:10PM EST (#133)
    (User #61682 Info)
      Note: And before you dismiss me as a dumb yank who knows nothing, I spent 6 years living in the UK (4 in Scotland, 2 in London), and originate from Dublin, Ireland. I even went through 6 months of police training in Scotland before deciding that the police wasn't for me.
    The original post was about cultural differences. Do you not think that the fact that you were (by the sound of your post) born and brought up in the US may contribute to the fact that you feel this way?

    Eg, I am english, and I believe in gun control. If I had been brought up in the states I would probably believe in the right to bear arms. But I wasn't so I don't.

    I am not trying to say you are right or wrong - just that people in this country are different.
    main(c,v){for(c=v=0;v&~9||(v="@pjC @`YB @`]N @HEu @F@iC \\A@lN BdpBp ToU~E "[c++]);v/=4)putchar(v^32?" \"Mo"[v%4]:10);}

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      huh (Score:2)
      by Sanity (ian at octayne.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:02PM EST (#166)
      (User #1431 Info) http://www.octayne.com/
      Er, if you actually read the sentences you quote from my post you will see that I am Irish.

      --
      If code is law, Freenet is the First Amendment.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:huh (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:31PM EST (#196)
        Stop ruining a perfectly good debate by demanding your opponent read what you write!
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:huh (Score:1)
        by Chasuk (brilfabex@hotmail.com) on Monday April 16, @01:58AM EST (#302)
        (User #62477 Info)
        Bob Hope "originated" in England, but he is not English. Having been "originated" in Ireland doesn't make you Irish. Further, the point that the opposing gentleman was trying to make has more to do with cultural values: I was born in the US, but I am _culturally_ English, as I spent 15 years as an adult there, and found the intellectual/social environment more to my liking. I am culturally English, despite the fact that I am not legally an Englishman.

        Your response would be relevant if you were culturally Irish.

        AC's deserve a reply who post anonymously from fear of imprisonment or starvation.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:You are exactly what he is talking about! (Score:1)
    by madprof (jon@durge.org) on Monday April 16, @12:11AM EST (#275)
    (User #4723 Info) http://www.durge.org/~jon/
    Okay, you raised Hitler so you are officially a Godwinned outof the argument but I'll bite:

    Hitler's Germany had far far more surveillance through comunities spying on each other.
    It was commonplace for people to be ready to report neighbours to the authorities should they suspect them of being subversive.
    Gordon Brown has nothing to do with it, he's the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is charge of finances. The person you're struggling to think of is Jack Straw who is the Home Secretary.
    To say that the Britishpeople could walk into a totalitarian government is quite an insult.
    Some of us (me included) like our freedom and we don't see CCTV as taking it away.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:You are exactly what he is talking about! (Score:2)
      by WNight (wnight@rocketmail.com) on Monday April 16, @09:12AM EST (#366)
      (User #23683 Info)
      Godwin's Law: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

      There's nothing in there about losing an argument.

      There are people who would say that unwarranted comparisons to Hitler or Nazis would lose the argument, but in this case, the Hitler reference was on topic.

      ".. no history of totalitarianism, unlike much of the rest of Europe."

      ".. Hitler would have loved this." (To paraphrase)

      Yes, he would have. That's the point the original poster made when they said that England had a different view than Germany, or Poland, or France, might have on this subject. To say that Hitler would have liked this would be like saying that Stalin would have liked it - factually accurate and on topic.

      Wasn't it in France where the Nazis used the gun registrations to round up the weapons from the locals? Think of how innefective the resistance would have been if there'd been CCTV cameras everywhere with facial-recognition AI.


      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:You are exactly what he is talking about! (Score:2)
    by TheSync (info@thesync.com) on Monday April 16, @09:48AM EST (#376)
    (User #5291 Info) http://www.thesync.com
    The article is right, the British have no experience of totalitarian government

    Uh, what about the Edict of Expulsion of all Jews from England in 1290? There has been plenty of totalitarian government in Britain (especially in occupied Wales and Scotland :) but it has been much better in the last few hundred years.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by dancingmad (nospamridwanatbellsouthdotnetnospam) on Sunday April 15, @08:45PM EST (#153)
(User #128588 Info) http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~rhinkhan
Wait, is this the same government that until quite recently had a "House of Lords"? British police are famous for brotherly behavior? Is this the bizarro world we're talking about?

About the U.S. drinking age - didn't Blair recent make some moves to make it harder for teens to drink? Right before his son was caught drinking?

I agree with quite a bit of this letter - these cams are not a big deal. And American needs gun control (more like Japan, not England). But the U.S. government is the world model for freedom and democracy. This was sheer idiocy.


"Who in cholesterol's name are you?" -Mog, Chocobo Racing

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:2)
    by Kiss the Blade (Kiss_the_Blade@disinfo.net) on Sunday April 15, @08:59PM EST (#163)
    (User #238661 Info)
    Funny you should mention the House of Lords. I think it highlights the difference in attitude very well indeed.

    The House of Lords was a truly excellent institution. It served the function of scrutinising legislation passed by the House of Commons. It was composed of normal people, or at least people a lot more normal than politicians tend to be. People who have careers and then subsume themselves into the Lord's at age 80 or so. It acted as a resevoir of common sense, and a bastion of conservatism (note the small 'c'). The fact is that it did its job very well indeed, and for a very cheap price.

    The difference in attitude I am talking about is that principles should not get in the way of good government, and that good government should be above principles if said principles get in the way of good government. In other words, a certain degree of expediency.

    Noone has ever made a case for the House of Lords being bad at what it did, for there is no case to be made.

    The simple fact is that it was replaced by a system much worse, and even less democratic, that of an Upper House chosen entirely by the government, and shorn of independence. This is why the government of Blair is so dangerous, IMO - because it is willing to throw the constitution into the air without regard as to where the pieces fall.

    This difference is fudamental.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
    There is no contradiction.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by Tangfan on Sunday April 15, @08:53PM EST (#158)
(User #254054 Info) http://www.crosswinds.net/~tangfan2
Christ I wish I had karma! And thank you a thousand, million times, luge! I was screaming as I read Kiss_the_Blade's depressingly deluded post... I am quite curious where he got his statistics, too (maybe from Here?). And the quite random connection between violence, the US government, and the portrayal of Americans as religious fanatics smacks oh so much of fresh, steaming FUD more than actual logical thought. Old Testament paranoia... that sounds silly even to an 'devout' atheist such as I. But I troll myself, and digress. The IDEA that the British government somehow represents the people more fairly than any other democracy is to me laughable. Simply ignoring the issue of cameras, the British government has a long history of doing exactly anything but representing the people (*cough*American Revolution*cough*). And although it is somewhat unfair to discuss issues far in the past, today's government is a descendent of that government and certainly hasn't shed all of its values yet. I'm going to stop now, because if I go further I need to dredge up sources to support myself, and I am far too damn lazy to do that. And it's dessert time, too.
/Tangfan
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:2)
by Mike Schiraldi (mgs21@columbia.edu) on Sunday April 15, @08:57PM EST (#161)
(User #18296 Info) http://cumb.org
All this means that our government is much less scary. We can trust it to set up CCTV systems and not use them to spy, but only to deter criminals.

Neat! I've got this great new technology that scans internet traffic, but don't worry, it won't be used to spy, just to deter criminals. Like people who trade MP3s, or DeCSS, or sell items from 1940s-Germany.

And i've got this new device to put in cars - it calls the cops when you go above the speed limit. But don't worry, only criminals have any reason to be afraid.

And we're going to institute a new program in bars, to make sure nobody under 21 is drinking. If they are, the authorities are notified immediately. But don't worry, non-criminals like ourselves have nothing to fear.

--
[ Don't confuse stderr with stdout. They hate that. ]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by wanderung on Sunday April 15, @09:13PM EST (#175)
(User #221424 Info)

It must be because America is so religious. 70% of Americans go to Church once a week, compared to 2.5% of Britains. This almost wholly explains the different attitudes in each country towards self defense, rehabillitation and crime deterrance. It is Old Testament values and paranoia (America) versus modern rationalism (Britain).

All that so called rationalism (and all those cameras and gun control) has produced the second most crime-ridden nations in the world. So much for your Socialist/Fascist utopia.

In hindsight we probably shouldn't have rescued the UK from Hitler in the first place, since it turned out to be a waste of time. You're voluntarily turning your country into a modern day Nazi Germany.

From the article:

We have a huge fear of crime and we have no totalitarian past like almost all the other countries in Europe."

Well that seems about to change. The UK seems hell bent on proving Orwell right, although he was off by a few years.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by rossz (rossz+slashdot@sendmail.com) on Sunday April 15, @09:38PM EST (#202)
(User #67331 Info) http://www.jps.net/rossw/seadog
I am fed up of hearing boring privacy maniacs with a political axe to grind and ulterior motives banging on about what a 'threat' CCTV camera systems are. They are no such thing.

You are a perfect British subject. You have swallowed the official propoganda line and accepted it without question.

Just about everybody else in the world questions this kind of intrusion, but not you, and obviously not very many other British subjects.

Note, I use the word subject and not citizen because a citizen has rights. You gave yours up long ago.

I speak for myself, not my employer.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @09:46PM EST (#208)
KTB, you're my hero. This is a work of fucking art.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by JunkDNA on Sunday April 15, @09:54PM EST (#215)
(User #123288 Info)

Oh please. Have you ever read the US Constitution? For those in slashdot audience who have not: It is interesting to note that the wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights always focuses on limitations placed on GOVERNMENT but not PEOPLE. The whole reason for this is that the framers of the US Constitution realized that power corrupts-- even the best people are at risk. You can't expect me to believe that you trust all your elected officials to do what is right 100% of the time. It is human nature to do what is in one's best interest. That's why it's necessary for the population at large to give leaders a little zap with the cattleprod once in a while. Lest they forget whose interests they protect.

The framers recognized this need and the US Constitution goes to great lengths to protect the right to keep the government in check. I would agree with you that this may indeed be a cultural difference. But if every citizen of the UK has your blind faith that government can be left to its own devices, the whole country gets a "+5 Troll" rating as far as I'm concerned.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
John Mill must be rolling in his grave (Score:1)
by xenocide2 (jld5445@ksu.edu) on Sunday April 15, @10:17PM EST (#226)
(User #231786 Info)
You wanna know why this is bad? For staters, its indicative of an overall police state. Second off, this kind of power is greatly desired by more than just your law enforment agency. And it would be very rare indeed to find an entire chain that can resist the temptation to fund expansion with private money, or whatever else you feel like buying. My point is that this data WILL NOT be the police's alone, and can be used by various other groups. Background checks perhaps? Maybe your potential employer decides that you're not the kind of person to hire since you associate with africans or maybe because you're gay. Maybe someone needs some dirt on you. Of course, this is all about granted access. Its certainly possible that this network gets hacked into. All the most ethical employees in the world wont stop breached access. Just think what you could do then. Feed data of a crime with whomever you need gone. Remove data of a crime in progress.

My question to you is, why is it that a thousand eyes arent enough?


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @10:32PM EST (#232)
Yes lets talk about the primary cultural difference that is evident in these posts. The British trust the inherent goodness of their government to ALWAYS have their best interest at heart. They are happy with the status quo. Their posts show no imagination or what if's leading to the conclusion that in their comfort enduced complaceny they are blinded to any negative futures that are potential effects of the the tools of their false sense of security. Americans, on the other hand, can think beyond the present. They can see both the good and bad of an issue in a rational way. Their posts are full of what ifs taking an issue to its logical conlcusion. British government thinks for a population to lazy or simply unconerned to think for its self. American government incites the people to think. What is better a society in which people are outraged when government attempts to steal even a minor freedom, or a society in which government slowly erodes freedom into a memory?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Troll (Score:2)
by Goonie (rgmerk at mira dot net) on Sunday April 15, @10:38PM EST (#236)
(User #8651 Info)
Just remember, these cameras are not used to spy, and never will be. They are used by the police, who are famous around the world for fairness and correct, brotherly behaviour.
Perhaps you need to read Geoffery Robertson's The Justice Game. This guy is perhaps Britain's most well-known lawyer (and perhaps the world's most famous human-rights lawyer) and is certainly not a crackpot, and check the scant respect the police held for human rights (or fair trials) at times throughout his career.

However, you're probably not interested because you're trolling. Unfriendly to business interests, my arse! Perhaps you should explain that to Bernie Eccelstone when he donated millions to Labour and just by coincidence restrictions of tobacco sponsorship of Formula One teams were delayed.

In any case, why do you bother trolling Yanks about socialism? It's not even fun anymore, it's like shooting cows in a paddock, something you Poms should be getting pretty expert in by now . . .

Go you big red fire engine!
--Adam Hills

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Oi (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21, @05:54PM EST (#475)
    So do you still need a criminal record to get into Australia?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by madprof (jon@durge.org) on Monday April 16, @12:36AM EST (#285)
(User #4723 Info) http://www.durge.org/~jon/
> However, in Britain we have a more socialist,
> left wing government, one that is not friendly > to business or private interests. Out
> government is trusted by the people because it > composed of ordinary people, people like Gordon > Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
> Dennis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover.
> Both these men are very powerful and respected

Okay - you've made me laugh too much. You are a troll and I claim my five pounds.
Dennis Skinner has as much influence on government policy as I do. You know this and you're trolling the idiots even more stupid than yourself.
Don't, for pity's sake.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Drinking @ 21 (Score:1)
by Greenisus (msm9@ra.msstate.edu) on Monday April 16, @12:38AM EST (#286)
(User #262784 Info)
Americans used to be able to drink before they turned 21 (18 for beer, 21 for liquor). You have to be 21 here because most people drive everywhere they go, unlike most of Europe, where we people walk to the pubs and crawl back.
"Where you at?" "Right here!" "Where's right here?" "Right here!"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Well said (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @06:34AM EST (#336)
well said, i agree entirely, thats all i want to say.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by Muttonhead on Monday April 16, @09:11AM EST (#365)
(User #109583 Info) http://intrepidsoftware.com/
Americans view their government with fear, and quite rightly, given its history and abuses.

What a dumbass. We view our government with fear because of our founding fathers' experience with kings and tyrants in Europe. They knew that power corrupts and they set out to form a government that held abusive power in check. Thus we have a separation of powers in the US, each designed to hold the other accountable.

It's not our own American history we fear. We fear and keep in check human nature's tendency to abuse power once it is gained.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
    by dbremner (dbremner@mail.21364.com) on Monday April 16, @12:47PM EST (#407)
    (User #16330 Info)

    Actually, there's many reasons to fear the US government. Over 10 major wars, the CIA's attempts to overthrow democratically elected foreign governments in Latin America, the DEA, the NSA, attempted assasination of foreign leaders (Castro), and a human rights record comparable to Islamic nations.


    Remove the newest Alpha cpu to email me.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Beyond cultural differences -- a recent example. (Score:2)
by hey! (mattleo@treehouse.acrcorp.com) on Monday April 16, @09:22AM EST (#367)
(User #33014 Info)
Government surveillance makes Americans uncomfortable. I understand this is a cultural difference between Britain and America, and people can vary a great deal in the degree of personal discomfort surveillance causes. For that reason I don't expect that we could come to any agreement on this point.

The second concern, which really undergirds American's concerns, is political. It's the question of whether government can and should be entrusted with using this power impartially.

This is probably not within memory of most slashdotters, but here in the US, we have had examples of egregious abuses of government investigatory powers for political ends as recently the Nixon era. Of course, the Watergate break-in brought down Nixon, but in some ways the break in and the subsequent coverup were not the greatest of the Nixon adminsitration's crimes. In the same 1970 election, the Nixon Whitehouse ordered Internal Revenue Service investations to dig up dirt on George Wallace and his family.

The investigation found crimes by Wallace and his brother, but the administration announced it was not going to pursue the matter. Less than a day later, in a separate and ostensibly unrelated announcement, Wallace retracted plans to start a third political party to challenge Nixon for the presidency.

Wallace was a populist demagogue who had the potential to split the right wing vote and throw the election to the left. much more dangerous politically to Nixon than George McGovern (the Democratic candidate) was by himself. McGovern would have very likely been buried by Nixon without the aid of dirty tricks. Of course, Wallace might equally well have siphoned McGovern support from the then solidly Democratic South. Nixon made sure, very sure, that any possible political scenario leading to his defeat was squelched by blackmail, bribery, and if necessary burglary.

Your touchingly naive lionizing of Labor politicans leads me to suspect you might be a Tory in red clothing. But supposing you are who you purport to be, doesn't your parliamentary system with its numerous parties lend itself to even more to the temptation to misuse surveillance for political ends? It seems to me that under your system, sometimes only a soupçon of skullduggery may be enough to prevent your enemies from forming an effective coalition.

I don't mean to start a debate about the virtues or pitfalls of parliamentary democracy -- it certainly has both. I just want to point out that temptations exist in every system, and that in a parliamentary system you might not have to blackmail many people to throw control of the government one way or the other.


---- It's bad luck to be superstitious.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Dumbass troll - what the U.K. needs is more guns!! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @10:31AM EST (#388)
CCTV is an excellent criminal deterrance.

So is a loaded .44, not that I expect any of you sissified limey buttheads to actually have the wherewithal to defend yourselves, being much too busy moaning for big brother to take care of you.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:1)
by Yunzil on Monday April 16, @11:23AM EST (#394)
(User #181064 Info)
All this means that our government is much less scary.

No, it's just as scary, you just don't realize it.

Just remember, these cameras are not used to spy, and never will be.

And you know this because.......

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Score 5, Funny (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @12:52PM EST (#409)
I also live in Scotland, UK and this is how I would have modded this article.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
WOW! **DUMB!** (Score:1)
by Fantastic Lad on Monday April 16, @01:54PM EST (#414)
(User #198284 Info)
Silly, silly Sheep-person!

Denial: Sweet but deadly.

I don't know specifics about the U.K. situation, but there are huge concentration camps set aside in the U.S., just waiting for the people to fill them when the day comes.

Put your programming aside for an afternoon, open up your mind, (tough, I know,) and do some Google research. Start with, "Denver Airport". That's an excellent 'on-ramp' because all the many creepy assertions are entirely verifiable and the questions raised by them have answers of vast import.

While you may live in the U.K., it is entirely foolish to believe that you are not affected, or that the negative perception of population control is merely a 'cultural thing' specific to any one region. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the world is on the cusp of an enormous, planned tragedy.

Dig until it hurts. Don't be a 'Blue Pill' piece of live-stock. Knowledge Protects.

-Fantastic Lad -He's just crazy, right guys? Guys?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:CCTV is a reflection of cultural differences. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @01:56PM EST (#415)
I believe that this would be irony. It doesn't mean "sort of metallic." This would also be a cultural difference, since most Americans think that ironic means what that silly pop song says it means, while most British think that it is the only way to speak. Alas, we are two countries divided by a common language.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Where to begin (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @04:18PM EST (#427)
I don't know what UK you're talking about but it's not the one I live in.

I have to go now, I'm wanted back on Planet Earth.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest 1997-2001 OSDN.

[ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]