Listening and talking CCTV systems...why??

The City of Westminster has installed CCTV's that can listen as well as video you, and Middlesbrough council has installed a system that can bark orders at you from a tannoy. There are plans to spread this system to at least another twenty cities in Britain:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,2050297,00.html

The people in Britain must be so dangerous that anonymous council workers are obliged to morally control us with the use of a loudspeaker. I accept that there are people who can be violent and agree that criminal justice policy should be directed at them, but I do not want to be lumped in with any punishment meted out to them.



The City of Westminster has decided that it is in the best interest of their constituents that they listen in on their private conversations. Whatever the introduction of this system, terrorism or anti-social behaviour, I don't consent to having any of my conversations monitored as if I'm a delinquent.



When these measures are widened, the outcome will be that people will not voice any opinions in public, for fear of a council worker hearing it and reprimanding them like a naughty child. Conversations between people are private, and should not be scrutinised by anyone, let alone someone who has no elected authority over them whatsoever.

If the police don't want more surveillance powers, then why are they getting them?

The Information Commissioner has warned that Britain should not 'sleepwalk into a surveillance society'. I think his warning may have come a little late.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/aug/08uk-info-commissioner.htm

A former Chief Executive of the Police IT Organisation has warned that there is the potential for the misuse of information held on police databases.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/05/29/224372/data-misuse-threat-to-trust-in-police-it.htm

Ian Redhead, Hampshire's Deputy Chief Constable has said 'I have to question: does the camera actually instill in individuals a greater feeling of safety and does it prevent serious offences taking place?'

http://www.irdial.com/blogdial/?p=728

There seems to be a pattern emerging, if the people who are supposed to impliment and enforce the close surveillance of us are feeling uneasy about it, there must be something terribly wrong.



I would have thought the police force would want every technology available in order to carry out their job. I was suprised to find top police officers who believe that the loss of freedom that results from surveillance is too high a price to pay, and I would say that it must have taken alot for them to speak out about it.



If it is not the police force that is driving the surveillance initiative, then who is? and for what reasons? The police enforce the law and try to prevent criminality, if they are feeling disturbed about the means they are given to carry this out, why is even further surveillance being proposed?



This can only leave the government, who is granting the police powers they say do not want. I can only guess as why the government wants their law enforcing institution to have those powers, and I believe them to be only sinister and coercive. The government is the body which defines what is considered a crime, and they are giving the police the power to enforce every single one of them, whether we (or the police) like it or not.

Is it acceptable for the police to target babies as potential criminals?

Commander Dave Johnston said that he thought it is acceptable for DNA samples to be taken from babies as young as four days old. He thinks that as blood samples are already taken at that time to test for genetic diseases, it would be easy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6172769.stm


What is not easy for me, is to understand how a person working at the top of a government led institution tries to justify targetting babies as potential criminals. How they propose to get consent for this from parents, or whether they would need to, is not mentioned.


Mr Woodburn, the headteacher at Ghyllside Primary School in Kendal, devised a spy game for children in order to take their fingerprints for a print-recognition library system at the school. He told children that it would not be necessary to tell their parents.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388467-details/Children%20tricked%20into%20giving%20fingerprints...%20by%20headmaster/article.do?expand=true


We should not allow the government to start labelling our children, or to have any power in making a judgment over their future behaviour. Who's to say what the DNA database would be used for in the years to come. If any child does exhibit 'inappropriate' behaviour then the underlying causes of that behaviour should be investigated, and a solution found that involves other human beings.

Nobody can tell what a child will grow into, or how they will get there. There are plenty of examples that show that children from grinding poverty or that have come into contact with the criminal justice system, can grow up to be dynamic and respected members of society.


If we start rigidly enforcing strict formalities on peoples behaviour, there will be a distortion in the element of being human that we prize the most - our exceptional uniqueness. Having rules that cannot be broken will stifle the progression of our society and will allow us only an artificial intelligence.

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE SUCH TIGHT SURVEILLANCE OVER US?

There is a real contradiction when it comes to our surveillance culture. Nobody in their right mind wants to be a victim of crime, I certainly don't. We want to feel safe, but we also want to feel free, with autonomy over what we think and do.

The problem comes when the reasons given for bringing in each type of surveillance are changed, by the people we have elected to govern us.

The motivations for the introduction of CCTV was to monitor traffic, now they are to combat terrorism, and solve 'social problems'.

If the government has said they are bringing in biometric systems for passport control, for example, is it possible to construct mechanisms that will stop those details from being used for any other reasons?

I think that it is possible that surveillance techniques which are brought in for entirely appropriate and legitimate reasons could be used for manipulation, when used in conjuction with all the other information held on a single individual.

I really believe that it is important in society for people to have the choice and the chance to deviate from the norm, as this is how I think society is able to grow and progress. If your every move is monitored as a potential criminal, where is the presumption of innocence?

The government should be accountable and work for us, not us have to account for ourselves and fit into a nationally prescribed behaviour pattern. I have the right to be able to say I don't like something, in any way I chose to, that is not a right that the government should be able to take from me.

The surveillance culture is huge, and growing, it will be impossible to limit or stop when none of us have the choice to disobey.

http://uk.360.yahoo.com/profile-uixSlBYidq8Hw6g9kbpd8sdjkA--?cq=1