Britain: Orwellian Nightmare

[segovius]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the UK is far ahead of the US down the road to totalitarianism and although Blair is in many ways, merely a Bush toady, I believe the UK's slide towards fascism represents a different agenda than the Bush/Neocon one and is far more insidious, dangerous and has almost reached the point of no return.

Consider these two example. Both from today, both chosen almost at random.

Firstly from Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/27/jailed_for_using_a_n.html) comes an article about a man jailed for accessing a site with a Lynx text-browser (I'm not making this up):

A Londonder made a tsnuami-relief donation using lynx -- a text-based browser used by the blind, Unix-users and others -- on Sun's Solaris operating system. The site-operator decided that this "unusual" event in the system log indicated a hack-attempt, and the police broke down the donor's door and arrested him.

From a mailing list:
For donating to a Tsunami appeal using Lynx on Solaris 10. BT [British Telecom] who run the donation management system misread an access log and saw hmm thats a non standard browser not identifying it's type and it's doing strange things. Trace that IP. Arrest that hacker.

Armed police, a van, a police cell and national news later the police have gone in SWAT styley and arrested someone having their lunch.

You could argue that it was a mistake but even if it was a fraud attempt does that warrant a SWAT team smashing down your door ?

Article 2 from the Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1400586,00.html) is entitled "Is Britain becoming a Police State and focusses on some claims that it is.

Unfortunately for those who would want to dismiss this though, the claims are not by some pinko-commie or someone not in a position to know but by
George Churchill-Coleman ex-head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad.

Mr Churchill-Coleman told the Guardian: "I have a horrible feeling that we are sinking into a police state, and that's not good for anybody. We live in a democracy and we should police on those standards."

I have a horrible feeling the UK is too and no, it definitely isn't good for anybody.

Where is the resistance ?? :mad:

[iPoster]

IIRC, isn't Britain the most monitored country in terms of police video cameras mounted in public places and on streets??


:???:

[segovius]

Originally posted by iPoster
IIRC, isn't Britain the most monitored country in terms of police video cameras mounted in public places and on streets??


:???:

Yeah - just checked an apparently it is. Four million cctv cameras (population 60M or so) and on average each person on cctv at least ten times a day :wow:

[johnq]

Originally posted by segovius
Yeah - just checked an apparently it is. Four million cctv cameras (population 60M or so) and on average each person on cctv at least ten times a day :wow:

There's a reason all those "World's Worst/Craziest/Dumbest/Wackiest Criminals" T.V. shows have tons of footage from Britain - more material.

If they'd just come out and admit, "yeah, we're a police state", I'd a bit feel better about it. This pretending to be a free democracy thing is a bit much.

[segovius]

Originally posted by johnq
There's a reason all those "World's Worst/Craziest/Dumbest/Wackiest Criminals" T.V. shows have tons of footage from Britain - more material.

If they'd just come out and admit, "yeah, we're a police state", I'd a bit feel better about it. This pretending to be a free democracy thing is a bit much.

Yes, basically people here don't have any rights. Literally, under law - there are none.

They've opted out of many EU human rights agreements and they only just introduced an FOIA. Whitehall have been working overtime shredding documents and no-one cares.

I know you mentioned you might leave the US johnq but it's probably better to stick with it if you were tempted to think of the UK.

[johnq]

Originally posted by segovius
I know you mentioned you might leave the US johnq but it's probably better to stick with it if you were tempted to think of the UK.

No, I'll be in Thailand, but for reasons largely independent of politics/economics. My girlfriend is Thai and I want to be there for as long as possible. I simply like it there, despite it's faults. But it's hard for foreigners to work and live there. Still, it beats the U.K.

Thailand might be some other kinds of nightmare, but it's not an Orwellian one at least :D Yet...

[Alex London]

Most cctv is private, ie in shops,malls or business premises. Not all run by, or for, the state. Get a grip.

[Harald]

The way I see it is that in the US the more dangerous fascist prominence is in the public; in the UK it's in the government.

Not sure which one is better. Not happy. Can see where this is heading. Going to move.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Harald
The way I see it is that in the US the more dangerous fascist prominence is in the public; in the UK it's in the government.

Not sure which one is better. Not happy. Can see where this is heading. Going to move.

How do you see this? I always here this kind of thing...and, mind you, I'm not denying it...but what are the signs?

Also how can the fascist prominence be in the public (as opposed to government)?

[MarcUK]

look in the mirror.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
look in the mirror.

I assume that you intended that for lil' ol' me. How nice to see you back and being as clever and witty as ever.

:rolleyes:

You seem to think that I have some power to actually be able to oppress anyone. You flatter me, but sadly, you're wrong...again.

( now i have reached my quota for talking with you )

[MarcUK]

you're flattering yourself if you think I was adressing you.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by iPoster
IIRC, isn't Britain the most monitored country in terms of police video cameras mounted in public places and on streets??


:???: Wow . . . what a great opportunity for doing some great Perfomance art!!

Get all crazy, do something 'meaningful' . .. you're being watched: make it count!!

I'm almost jealous . .

[johnq]

(Perhaps urban myth, correct me if I'm wrong)

Britain: where it's illegal to "give the finger" (or fingers or whatever they do) to a camera because it is presumed that there is at least potentially a police officer at the other end of the camera.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Alex London
Most cctv is private, ie in shops,malls or business premises. Not all run by, or for, the state. Get a grip.

But when the state has the right to force any shops, malls or business premises (indeed even private homes) etc to hand over the tapes, what then is the difference except that the cost of establishing and maintaining the massive surveillance infrastructure is now the burden of the private sector and not the state?

It's deliciously convenient, why should the state spend their own resources? Instead, they legalize and encourage surveillance in those places ("for safety, you understand"), let the private sector spend the cash to set the networks up, (including simple mom and pop VHS systems) then give themselves the right to have unfettered access to all the info then gathered.

Win-win...:rolleyes: ...um yeah.

Worse yet, the public craves the "safety" of cameras now. If a bank had no cameras, how would you feel? Unsafe. Yet you are no safer, really, with cameras. It merely makes it easier for cops to tidy up robbery cases, but you might still be dead regardless.

Cameras, like guns, don't deter criminals.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by johnq
Worse yet, the public craves the "safety"

People show an unnerving (and, at this point, unsurprising) willingness to trade freedom for "safety" (or "prosperity")...ultimately to their peril. God is anyone teaching history in school anymore?!?!

[johnq]

Originally posted by johnq
Cameras, like guns, don't deter criminals.

I know this first hand by the way.

One could say I was part of the problem. ;)

Last job I had, I designed and set up http://massmostwanted.com/ (although don't blame me for anything "ugly" on the site, that was a travesty of doing what the client says to do. I digress.)

I don't have too many qualms with the site (in fact it's quite good at helping to capture actual criminals) and the cameras that it utilizes but this is a best case scenario (provided you aren't on that site but are actually innocent!). These people are of course innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but most of these cameras are at stores or banks and it feels reasonable to me at least, to post these images to at least find the people for questioning.

But the scope of the surveillance in Britain, from various things I've seen and read, is far more prevalent and intrusive.

One could say that "in case" one was mugged in an alley, and that alley had a camera and the camera helped ID the criminal, then that is a good thing. But how far does it go? Too far, I fear.

Worse, is that each successive generation will shrug it off and say whatever, who cares.