Petition against UK surveillance

[Synapse]

Could you please sign and share a petition i've started against snooping powers

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54565

[Diche Bach]

Not that I disagree, but . . . bit late for it isn't it? I was under the impression you guys (at least in most metro areas) were more or less living in a 1984 sort of surveillance state already? I mean, is it possible to do anything in London in a public place and NOT be captured on camera?

[Synapse]

I don't mind being monitored in public, just not in private, including private internet websites

[lajoswinkler]

I don't mind being monitored in public, just not in private, including private internet websites

LOL, this is the kind of attitude that helps evil people do their stuff to "protect us".

It's too late for London. I think that's the most covered city out there.

[KOCOUR]

Surveilance on public places is good thing. And in my oppinion neccessary. (In my hometown actually people signed petitions to force town representatives to put more cameras.)

And i actually dont see why people complain about it on public places, are you planning to do something ilegal?

[Synapse]

I am only petitioning for no surveillance in private places, such as in your own home or using a website that is not owned by the government

[lajoswinkler]

Surveilance on public places is good thing. And in my oppinion neccessary. (In my hometown actually people signed petitions to force town representatives to put more cameras.)

And i actually dont see why people complain about it on public places, are you planning to do something ilegal?

Yup, another kind of people that ruin societies. Classic statement people make, not realizing they're condemning themselves as "presumably guilty".

Sorry if it comes as an offence, but it's true. I think you have a lot more to learn about the history of mankind. Your trust in official structures is incredibly ridiculous.

If they were benevolent deities, the would still be a problem - breaching the code of mutual trust and freedom. Right to a privacy is a basic human right. You have a right not to be snooped by someone unless you're doing something illegal.

But they are not benevolent deities. They're people, meaning they're susceptible to greed and crime. History is packed with examples when people gave up their basic freedom to receive advertised safety - they've lost freedom and gained no safety at all. In fact, most of the time it was all the way around.

And then wars had to be started, to reset the corrupted system.

And people were like "what were we thinking???"

And they would breed kids who they taught about the dangers, yet the kids didn't learn.

And that's when the new seed of a new war was planted.

Kids were like "surveilance? Why not? It's not like we're going to do something illegal."

History repeats itself.

I'm all for surveilance of banks, stores and alike, but covering all public places? That's a crime. It violates the basic principles of privacy and damages the society.

Edited September 4, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Diche Bach]

Ah I see. Well, I don't tend to see a clear distinction between 'public' and 'private.' The fact that you guys are permeated with public and now finding yourselves threatened by intrusion into the private is emblematic of that false dichotomy to me.

I wasn't arguing that an effort to curtail or even reverse such things is 'futile.' Merely that, it seems like the 'momentum' is very much there in UK society and as such it is a bit late in the game to have much hope of reversing the trend.

I'll have a look at your petition and see if I can sign it

[drakesdoom]

I would sign this but that would be another terror watch list the US government would put me on after seeing that with their surveillance programs.

[Mercy]

You people over-exaggerate the whole "surveillance" ****e to the point where it becomes a joke. It's been like this for a long time, and it will continue to be this way. The chances are that none of you are being monitored individually, you're just not that interesting. The government simply don't have the manpower to monitor everyone in the UK 24/7 and in the VERY unlikely event that they are monitoring every last UK Citizen, I doubt you have anything to fear. They aren't going to send you to jail because you posted a new FB status update or looked up some porn.

Anyhow, this thread will be locked probably. The forum rules forbid political discussion of any type. (I don't agree with that rule, but that's how it is.)

[deskjetser]

You people are funny.

90% of all 'surveillance' cameras in the UK are owned by private businesses for their own protection, town centers, shops, car parks are all owned by private entities, IE; NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

While you can whine all you want about privacy invasion, your in a public place get over it, people see you all the time, the fact is while it doesn't affect the crime rate, it greatly improves the percentage of successful prosecutions. ALSO, as I mentioned above, the government isn't watching you, some fat minimum wage security guard hired by a supermarket is. The government only has access to the footage of you mooning someone in public, if they get off their arses, start an investigation into you, and go and ask the supermarket to hand them the footage.

Now take off your tinfoil hats, get outside and research things before you go mad with anarchy.

*EDIT*

Just to prove my point a lil' more, here are some figures:

There are only 1.85 million CCTV cameras in the UK, not 4.2 million as commonly claimed, according to research undertaken by the deputy chief constable of Cheshire and ACPO lead on CCTV, Graeme Gerrard.

Privately owned cameras in UK = 1,704,773 cameras <Business owned>

Publicly owned cameras in UK = 33,433 <Government owned>

Source: http://www.politics.co.uk/

Edited September 4, 2013 by deskjetser

[Synapse]

Just to clarify - this thread/petition is NOT about public CCTV surveillance, which is perfectly lawful and acceptable.

It is about the monitoring of persons in the private domain by public bodies. Example of this; the government monitoring your private communications through a IM facility and your ISP. Or monitoring your dustbin usage in your own private home.

There is no grounds, from the perspective of a business owner for example, for the government to compromise your business integrity by monitoring your customers without yours or their consent.

[Sid]

You'll never change anything. Too many people in the UK are only too happy to exchange freedom for the illusion of security.

We dealt with our annoyance about being spied on, bullied and taxed almost out of existence by the UK state by emigrating to a remote rural location in Spain.

If the Spanish state also wants to try and make our lives a misery it's got to find us first...

[lajoswinkler]

You people over-exaggerate the whole "surveillance" ****e to the point where it becomes a joke. It's been like this for a long time, and it will continue to be this way. The chances are that none of you are being monitored individually, you're just not that interesting. The government simply don't have the manpower to monitor everyone in the UK 24/7 and in the VERY unlikely event that they are monitoring every last UK Citizen, I doubt you have anything to fear. They aren't going to send you to jail because you posted a new FB status update or looked up some porn.

Anyhow, this thread will be locked probably. The forum rules forbid political discussion of any type. (I don't agree with that rule, but that's how it is.)

Come on, it was not like this before.

Nobody says everybody is being monitored at every moment. That would be impossible given modern technology. It's too much work.

It's the potential that's worrying. If someone wants, you could be monitored far more easier than 20 years ago. That someone is a huge problem because that someone often doesn't respect the law even if the law is ok, which is not always the case.

Have you got any idea about the power that can be given to a dictator like this? Don't worry, Hitler came to power in a democratic process. People were all for it.

Why on earth would anyone like the idea of covering the entire public space? If I want to hike alone and be alone with my thoughts, I'll turn off my phone and go hiking. I don't want no cameras watching me. It's disgusting. I have a right to be left alone.

[deskjetser]

Just to clarify - this thread/petition is NOT about public CCTV surveillance, which is perfectly lawful and acceptable.

It is about the monitoring of persons in the private domain by public bodies. Example of this; the government monitoring your private communications through a IM facility and your ISP. Or monitoring your dustbin usage in your own private home.

There is no grounds, from the perspective of a business owner for example, for the government to compromise your business integrity by monitoring your customers without yours or their consent.

For the most part, dustbins are emptied by contractors who are paid by the local council to take away the waste, the government has no part of waste collection for the majority of parts. However in areas where the council is responsible directly for taking away waste, the actual disposal sites are almost always privately owned. Therefore I see no way the government is monitoring your waste, except perhaps by mass/volume for surveys.

As far as monitoring your communications, the media hyped this one up back in 2012 and the police do not directly monitor everyone at all times, this is simply ridiculous. For a starters, only 'high risk' individuals are put onto a list that are to be monitored as said by the media '24/7', these people are; asylum seekers suspected of fleeing for their crimes, suspected international terrorist cells ect.

As far as you, or I being monitored 24/7, that is ridiculous. It costs the government with current infrastructure about £500 per week to monitor someone 24/7, given the current economic crisis, £500x63million = £31,500,000,000 per week. Just no.

[Mercy]

Come on, it was not like this before.

Nobody says everybody is being monitored at every moment. That would be impossible given modern technology. It's too much work.

It's the potential that's worrying. If someone wants, you could be monitored far more easier than 20 years ago. That someone is a huge problem because that someone often doesn't respect the law even if the law is ok, which is not always the case.

Have you got any idea about the power that can be given to a dictator like this? Don't worry, Hitler came to power in a democratic process. People were all for it.

Why on earth would anyone like the idea of covering the entire public space? If I want to hike alone and be alone with my thoughts, I'll turn off my phone and go hiking. I don't want no cameras watching me. It's disgusting. I have a right to be left alone.

If the government is going to waste time, resources and manpower monitoring you individually, you've probably done something wrong.

That comparison is stupid, and I'll tell you why. Hitler was put in power because German was in a state of great debt after the Treaty Of Versailles screwed them over hardcore, and Hitler promised to get Germany out of the slums and re-established as a power to be feared. He 100% succeeded in the first count, and to some extent in the second. The situation in Britain today is nothing like 1930's Germany, and after a disaster like that, people have wisened up anyhow.

Because crimes are committed in public places, and many of the culprits are caught due to the CCTV surveillance. As someone above stated there are nowhere near as many cameras as people think, and a tiny fraction are operated by the government. Also, no one will be watching you hiking. You hike in nature, in mountains. Somehow, I can't see cameras set up there. Are they gonna get electricity from the trees and wiring from vines? Don't be sensationalist.

[lajoswinkler]

If the government is going to waste time, resources and manpower monitoring you individually, you've probably done something wrong.

That comparison is stupid, and I'll tell you why. Hitler was put in power because German was in a state of great debt after the Treaty Of Versailles screwed them over hardcore, and Hitler promised to get Germany out of the slums and re-established as a power to be feared. He 100% succeeded in the first count, and to some extent in the second. The situation in Britain today is nothing like 1930's Germany, and after a disaster like that, people have wisened up anyhow.

Because crimes are committed in public places, and many of the culprits are caught due to the CCTV surveillance. As someone above stated there are nowhere near as many cameras as people think, and a tiny fraction are operated by the government. Also, no one will be watching you hiking. You hike in nature, in mountains. Somehow, I can't see cameras set up there. Are they gonna get electricity from the trees and wiring from vines? Don't be sensationalist.

Thing is, with ever increasing pervasiveness of surveilance, less and less effort is needed. If cameras are everywhere, it's just a matter of getting access to a certain area.

If you work in the police and you want to snoop someone's life, you need a warrant. That's the law. However it's easy to avoid it in some cases, and that opens a huge hole in the system. You can use your power to reveal information to the third party in exchange for cash. It happens all the time.

If you think law enforcement agencies do their work like a well oiled machine, only when needed and in a perfect manner, you're incredibly naive. They're plagued with security holes and the level of corruption is high. In some countries it's even a norm.

My comparison was exaggerated, but not completely failed. People are being told their way of life is highly endangered. Jews, commies, terrorists, each era has its own scapegoat. Terrorist attack mortality is ridiculously small, a fragment of road transportation mortality, but we don't see "war on road transportation" because you can't exactly look at roads as humans. Mind that I'm not denying the existence of bad people trying to blow stuff and other people up. I'm just saying the danger is exaggerated and the fear is highly profitable. When people fear for their lives, they do crazy stuff.

I thought we were talking about putting cameras on all public space. OK, so then you mean cities only? Even that's too much.

I've already said I have no problems with monitoring the space in front of banks, atm machines, stores. I like that idea because it's helpful. But why cameras in every corner of a city? Every street, every park... That's just stupid. It's a dystopia.

If I was in charge of a country, anyone actively working on such projects would be accused of treason, trialed and sentenced to few years in prison because that's work against the longterm safety and prosperity of a country. People need basic freedoms otherwise society goes to hell.

Edited September 4, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[deskjetser]

*Snip* (Previous post)

I take it your not from the UK, because there is no corruption in the UK police force management. Investigations in the UK are so open to public scrutiny, its neigh impossible to open a case to get a 'warrant' on someone and steal information via private CCTV cameras.

For a corrupt cop to get footage of someone, caught via a privately owned CCTV camera, they would need to open a case with their department, which within hours would be public knowledge, then they would need to gather the required paper work from a court (Which is independent from the police btw), and only then could they head down to the business, hand them the paperwork and then obtain the footage. Even then, the business can appeal to the court, their decision to allow the release of their footage.

This isn't 'Murica where you can turn up as a cop and demand everything, please don't confuse the UK with the US, we are nothing alike as far a law proceedings are concerned.

Edited September 4, 2013 by deskjetser

[lajoswinkler]

I take it your not from the UK, because there is no corruption in the UK police force management. Investigations in the UK are so open to public scrutiny, its neigh impossible to open a case to get a 'warrant' on someone and steal information via private CCTV cameras.

For a corrupt cop to get footage of someone, caught via a privately owned CCTV camera, they would need to open a case with their department, which within hours would be public knowledge, then they would need to gather the required paper work from a court (Which is independent from the police btw), and only then could they head down to the business, hand them the paperwork and then obtain the footage. Even then, the business can appeal to the court, their decision to allow the release of their footage.

This isn't 'Murica where you can turn up as a cop and demand everything, please don't confuse the UK with the US, we are nothing alike as far a law proceedings are concerned.

With that being said, I can only reply with ROFL and retrieve from this discussion, because it has become a joke. Dream on. One day you'll wake up.

[deskjetser]

With that being said, I can only reply with ROFL and retrieve from this discussion, because it has become a joke. Dream on. One day you'll wake up.

Quit being an anarchist, applying the USA template onto every other nation. If you were smart enough, you will have seen I said 'management', not individuals, the management of the UK police is an entirely public domain. This includes the courts, which are not government appointed.

Edited September 5, 2013 by deskjetser

[Sid]

Yeah, stop being an ANARCHIST :D

[lajoswinkler]

For the record, I think anarchists are naive dumbasses as well as conspiracy theorists and I don't live in USA. I don't wear tinfoil hats, I don't think men in black are monitoring me, I don't think my place is bugged. I'm talking in broad terms and longterm damage to the society. A historical lesson. I've seen enough bad stuff in the real world to blindingly follow and accept stuff that structures with higher than average percentage of sociopaths say I should.

Saying stuff like "our security sector is perfect and impeccable and they never do mistakes" is downright stupid and naive, and I won't apologize. It deserves an epic facepalm so here's one.

[Monkeh]

I really don't see the problem with more cameras. As stated no-one is going to watch the footage without reason. You get murdered, the footage is there and the bad guys get caught. Great. You murder someone, the footage is there and you get caught, great. Nothing of note happens and....guess what, nobody watches the footage and nothing else happens.

I find it strange that you feel that being caught on camera means there's someone watching the feed or tape later, they wont be unless anything gives a reason to do so.

As mentioned before, you're neither that interesting or important for anyone to give two turds. 99.98% of all recorded footage from cctv is NEVER even seen by a human eyeball.

Also, 75% of statistics are made up on the spot etc.

[shand]

yeah lajoswinkler; you're missing the point.

there are some corrupt officers and indeed some other corrupt individuals - but when someone finds out about it... well you can't read "news of the world" anymore, because they bribed some police officers into spying in people.

the point is, even if the technology everything was in place to spy on each individual (it kinda already is - they can contact your ISP and get a list of what you've been doing online) they can only do so in line with an investigation (or by asking nicely to the person it concerns - "excuse me, would you mind if i viewed your CCTV footage please?")

the way internet monitoring will go is they will have key phrases - each time you use one you will be flagged. so if i were to type "bomb", "london" and "airport" in a public forum it may get 3 points on it. perhaps if i went above 5 points in an hour period a human would look at the posts in context.

another method would be to identify some content thats illegal - child porn for example - and trace connections to that site.

The key thing here to note, the internet is a public place. beyond your modem/router you are in a public place - so if you wouldnt walk down the street into a "child porn" shop, then perhaps you shouldnt be working down the informational highway to one!

Of course, if you are just walking to www.amazon.com, well you just walked past a cop car and they didnt even look at you twice, despite the fact you were in your underwear. Now of course the same standards in privacy stand - if you walk into a gun shop the police can check what you did in there - did you buy a gun you are allowed to? but if you popped into the post office to post a letter, unless they had reason to beleive the letter was dangerous, then they wouldnt search the letter.

SUMMARY: everything outside your PRIVATE network is PUBLIC and so is open for monitoring. just because YOU are in private doesnt mean what you are DOING is private.

Hope that made sense.

[Synapse]

Amazon is a private website. If I access Amazon through a private ISP like Virgin, there's absolutely no sense of me going out in public. it's exactly like if I travelled on a private road through my property to someone elses business without ever touching a public highway.

The person who said UK cops are never corrupt...LOL. There are so many stories of British police officers who are criminals themselves: sex abuse, rape, steroid or cocaine abuse, GBH etc.... I'd say they are more prone to becoming corrupt than a normal citizen.