The Political Party

[omni]

Wow!

[yumpy]

she's hot!

[Gromit]

---

---

Kids brandishing machetes and knives in public - is that a good idea in Long Crapperworld?

[omni]

---

yumpy wrote:

she's hot!

---

Who? The fat mom?

[yumpy]

---

omni wrote:

---

yumpy wrote:

she's hot!

---

Who? The fat mom?

---

the black chick

[Bowe]

what kind of world is it, where people can't even post pictures of themselves committing crimes on publicly accessible social network websites anymore!!!!!

/mad

[quickie1]

---

Long **bleep** wrote:

---

Great use of the net to catch these criminals.

[radomu]

I was on the national rail from Manchester to Sheffield, and they had stickers on every door saying "SMILE - You're on CCTV". 

Not only does this symbolize the mild cynicism this country, but it shows how you're on camera where ever the **bleep** you go.

It doesn't bother me personally. It should only bother you if you're genuinely interested in nicking people's stuff, but I get it why some people are furious about it.

[quickie1]

---

radomu wrote:

I was on the national rail from Manchester to Sheffield, and they had stickers on every door saying "SMILE - You're on CCTV". 

Not only does this symbolize the mild cynicism this country, but it shows how you're on camera where ever the **bleep** you go.

It doesn't bother me personally. It should only bother you if you're genuinely interested in nicking people's stuff, but I get it why some people are furious about it.

---

I agree. I personally don't care if I'm "on camera" when it's used for crime control. I also can understand others objections, but just disagree with them.

[Bowe]

---

radomu wrote:

I was on the national rail from Manchester to Sheffield, and they had stickers on every door saying "SMILE - You're on CCTV". 

Not only does this symbolize the mild cynicism this country, but it shows how you're on camera where ever the **bleep** you go.

It doesn't bother me personally. It should only bother you if you're genuinely interested in nicking people's stuff, but I get it why some people are furious about it.

---

the true irony of the complains of CCTV and the British "police state", is that the vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privetly owned, out of the estimated 1.85m cameras in the UK, 1.7m are privately owned

so getting rid of them would require the government to intervene and take away peoples CCTV cameras

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

Bowe wrote:

---

---

the true irony of the complains of CCTV and the British "police state", is that the vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privetly owned, out of the estimated 1.85m cameras in the UK, 1.7m are privately owned

so getting rid of them would require the government to intervene and take away peoples CCTV cameras

---

Regardless of who technically owns them, is it not true that the government/police have unfettered access to the data produced by those cameras?

Either way, I feel bad for the Brits and deplore the same trend here in the US.

Anyone who says "it doesn't bother me because I'm not doing anything wrong" is a sheep and does not deserve the label free citizen.

[Bowe]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

Regardless of who technically owns them, is it not true that the government/police have unfettered access to the data produced by those cameras?

Either way, I feel bad for the Brits and deplore the same trend here in the US.

Anyone who says "it doesn't bother me because I'm not doing anything wrong" is a sheep and does not deserve the label free citizen.

---

 no, they have to ask the owner for access to the recordings, like any other evidence held by private individuals

[Zig al-din]

---

radomu wrote:

I was on the national rail from Manchester to Sheffield, and they had stickers on every door saying "SMILE - You're on CCTV". 

Not only does this symbolize the mild cynicism this country, but it shows how you're on camera where ever the **bleep** you go.

It doesn't bother me personally. It should only bother you if you're genuinely interested in nicking people's stuff, but I get it why some people are furious about it.

---

This surveillance infrastructure is also useful in monitoring and suppressing political dissidents. It's naive to think it's just about controlling crime. 

[Zig al-din]

If these kids had shown off assault rifles or RPG's instead of knives, they'd be considered models of virtue and defenders of personal liberty in this country. 

[Bowe]

---

Zig al-din wrote:

This surveillance infrastructure is also useful in monitoring and suppressing political dissidents. It's naive to think it's just about controlling crime.  

---

yes, because all the privately owned train operating companies in the UK have a huge problem with political dissidents

[guido61]

---

yumpy wrote:

---

the black chick

---

I find black chicks with British accents to be ridiculously sexy.

[radomu]

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

radomu wrote:

I was on the national rail from Manchester to Sheffield, and they had stickers on every door saying "SMILE - You're on CCTV". 

Not only does this symbolize the mild cynicism this country, but it shows how you're on camera where ever the **bleep** you go.

It doesn't bother me personally. It should only bother you if you're genuinely interested in nicking people's stuff, but I get it why some people are furious about it.

---

I agree. I personally don't care if I'm "on camera" when it's used for crime control. I also can understand others objections, but just disagree with them.

---

It's more about the cultural implications that allow the state to surveil all aspects of society that worries people.

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

Anyone who says "it doesn't bother me because I'm not doing anything wrong" is a sheep and does not deserve the label free citizen.

To a non-libertarian, that is a meaningless cultural label. None of us are technically free. We are forced to enter into a social contract with the state wherein we give up certain rights for security and protection. 

The question is not whether if this is ethically correct, but more over the degree of state surveilance. I would rather pay tax for my society to have a police force rather than to live in a society without a police. Most people would prefer that.

[quickie1]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

Bowe wrote:

---

---

the true irony of the complains of CCTV and the British "police state", is that the vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privetly owned, out of the estimated 1.85m cameras in the UK, 1.7m are privately owned

so getting rid of them would require the government to intervene and take away peoples CCTV cameras

---

Regardless of who technically owns them, is it not true that the government/police have unfettered access to the data produced by those cameras?

Either way, I feel bad for the Brits and deplore the same trend here in the US.

Anyone who says "it doesn't bother me because I'm not doing anything wrong" is a sheep and does not deserve the label free citizen.

---

[Zig al-din]

---

Bowe wrote:

---

Zig al-din wrote:

This surveillance infrastructure is also useful in monitoring and suppressing political dissidents. It's naive to think it's just about controlling crime.  

---

yes, because all the privately owned train operating companies in the UK have a huge problem with political dissidents

---

I'm sure your right - my paranoia gets the better of me sometimes.