How did the UK end up with so much surveillance?...
Discussion
NY Times article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=britain%20surveillance&st=cse
Looking at it from the outside, it seems inconceivable to me how quickly all this happened. I lived in the UK years ago and such a thing would have been unimaginable in a liberal democratic country. What was it that caused such a significant change?. I have been wondering about this for a while.
Looking at it from the outside, it seems inconceivable to me how quickly all this happened. I lived in the UK years ago and such a thing would have been unimaginable in a liberal democratic country. What was it that caused such a significant change?. I have been wondering about this for a while.
It is the result of government using scaremongering and moral panic to introduce poorly drafted, and poorly scrutinised legislation to increase the amount of power held by them. It is part of the 'we know better than you' style of governing so loved by champagne socialists.
Coupled with the British tendency to put up with a huge amount without complaining and there you have it. Instant 1984.
Coupled with the British tendency to put up with a huge amount without complaining and there you have it. Instant 1984.
The simple answer is that a vast number of very very stupid people voted labour on three separate occasions in the past 12 years.
This in turn resulted in a socialist government hell bent on removing people’s civil rights under the guise of “terrorism” and PC stupidity.
The only way out of this is to ensure that nobody ever votes for a socialist bunch of
s again
This in turn resulted in a socialist government hell bent on removing people’s civil rights under the guise of “terrorism” and PC stupidity.
The only way out of this is to ensure that nobody ever votes for a socialist bunch of
s againText of NY Times article:
POOLE, England — It has become commonplace to call Britain a “surveillance society,” a place where security cameras lurk at every corner, giant databases keep track of intimate personal details and the government has extraordinary powers to intrude into citizens’ lives.
But the intrusions visited on Jenny Paton, a 40-year-old mother of three, were startling just the same. Suspecting Ms. Paton of falsifying her address to get her daughter into the neighborhood school, local officials here began a covert surveillance operation. They obtained her telephone billing records. And for more than three weeks in 2008, an officer from the Poole education department secretly followed her, noting on a log the movements of the “female and three children” and the “target vehicle” (that would be Ms. Paton, her daughters and their car).
It turned out that Ms. Paton had broken no rules. Her daughter was admitted to the school. But she has not let the matter rest. Her case, now scheduled to be heard by a regulatory tribunal, has become emblematic of the struggle between personal privacy and the ever more powerful state here.
The Poole Borough Council, which governs the area of Dorset where Ms. Paton lives with her partner and their children, says it has done nothing wrong.
Local governments regularly use these surveillance powers — which they “self-authorize,” without oversight from judges or law enforcement officers — to investigate malfeasance like illegally dumping industrial waste, loan-sharking and falsely claiming welfare benefits.
But they also use them to investigate reports of noise pollution and people who do not clean up their dogs’ waste. Local governments use them to catch people who fail to recycle, people who put their trash out too early, people who sell fireworks without licenses, people whose dogs bark too loudly and people who illegally operate taxicabs.
“Does our privacy mean anything?” Ms. Paton said in an interview. “I haven’t had a drink for 20 years, but there is nothing that has brought me closer to drinking than this case.”
The law in question is known as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, or RIPA, and it also gives 474 local governments and 318 agencies — including the Ambulance Service and the Charity Commission — powers once held by only a handful of law enforcement and security service organizations.
Under the law, the localities and agencies can film people with hidden cameras, trawl through communication traffic data like phone calls and Web site visits and enlist undercover “agents” to pose, for example, as teenagers who want to buy alcohol.
In a report this summer, Sir Christopher Rose, the chief surveillance commissioner, said that local governments conducted nearly 5,000 “directed surveillance missions” in the year ending in March and that other public authorities carried out roughly the same amount.
Local officials say that using covert surveillance is justified. The Poole Borough Council, for example, used it to detect and prosecute illegal fishing in Poole Harbor.
“RIPA is an essential tool for local authority enforcement which we make limited use of in cases where it is proportionate and there are no other means of gathering evidence,” Tim Martin, who is in charge of legal and democratic services for Poole, which is southwest of London, said in a statement.
The fuss over the law comes against a backdrop of widespread public worry about an increasingly intrusive state and the growing circulation of personal details in vast databases compiled by the government and private companies.
“Successive U.K. governments have gradually constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world,” the House of Lords Constitution Committee said in a recent report. It continued: “The development of electronic surveillance and the collection and processing of personal information have become pervasive, routine and almost taken for granted.”
RIPA is a complicated law that also regulates wiretapping and intrusive surveillance carried out by the security services. But faced with rumbles of public discontent about local governments’ behavior, the Home Office announced in the spring that it would review the legislation to make it clearer what localities should be allowed to do.
“The government has absolutely no interest in spying on law-abiding people going about their everyday lives,” Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, said.
One of the biggest criticisms of the law is that the targets of surveillance are usually unaware that they have been spied on.
Indeed,Ms Paton only learned what had happened later
when officials summoned her to discuss her daughter’s school application. To her shock, they produced the covert surveillance report and the family’s telephone billing records
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re within their rights to scrutinize all applications, but the way they went about it was totally unwarranted,” Ms. Paton said. “If they’d wanted any information, they could have come and asked.”
She would have explained that her case was complicated. The family was moving from their old house within the school district to a new one just outside it. But they met the residency requirements because they were still living at the old address when school applications closed.
At the meeting, Ms. Paton and her partner, Tim Joyce, pointed out that the surveillance evidence was irrelevant because the surveillance had been carried out after the deadline had passed.
“They promptly ushered us out of the room,” she said. “As I stood outside the door, they said, ‘You go and tell your friends that these are the powers we have.’ ”
Soon afterward, their daughter was admitted to the school. Ms. Paton began pressing local officials on their surveillance tactics.
“I said, ‘I want to come in and talk to you,’ ” she said. “ ‘How many people were in the car? Were they men or women? Did they take any photos? Does this mean I have a criminal record?’ ”
No one would answer her questions, Ms. Paton said.
Mr. Martin said he could not comment on her case because it was under review. But Ms. Paton said the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners, which monitors use of the law, found that the Poole council had acted properly. “They said my privacy wasn’t intruded on because the surveillance was covert,” she said
The case is now before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which looks into complaints about RIPA. It usually meets in secret but has agreed, Ms. Paton said, to have an open hearing at the beginning of November.
The whole process is so shrouded in mystery that few people ever take it this far. “Because no one knows you have a right to know you’re under surveillance,” Ms. Paton said, “nobody ever makes a complaint.”
POOLE, England — It has become commonplace to call Britain a “surveillance society,” a place where security cameras lurk at every corner, giant databases keep track of intimate personal details and the government has extraordinary powers to intrude into citizens’ lives.
But the intrusions visited on Jenny Paton, a 40-year-old mother of three, were startling just the same. Suspecting Ms. Paton of falsifying her address to get her daughter into the neighborhood school, local officials here began a covert surveillance operation. They obtained her telephone billing records. And for more than three weeks in 2008, an officer from the Poole education department secretly followed her, noting on a log the movements of the “female and three children” and the “target vehicle” (that would be Ms. Paton, her daughters and their car).
It turned out that Ms. Paton had broken no rules. Her daughter was admitted to the school. But she has not let the matter rest. Her case, now scheduled to be heard by a regulatory tribunal, has become emblematic of the struggle between personal privacy and the ever more powerful state here.
The Poole Borough Council, which governs the area of Dorset where Ms. Paton lives with her partner and their children, says it has done nothing wrong.
Local governments regularly use these surveillance powers — which they “self-authorize,” without oversight from judges or law enforcement officers — to investigate malfeasance like illegally dumping industrial waste, loan-sharking and falsely claiming welfare benefits.
But they also use them to investigate reports of noise pollution and people who do not clean up their dogs’ waste. Local governments use them to catch people who fail to recycle, people who put their trash out too early, people who sell fireworks without licenses, people whose dogs bark too loudly and people who illegally operate taxicabs.
“Does our privacy mean anything?” Ms. Paton said in an interview. “I haven’t had a drink for 20 years, but there is nothing that has brought me closer to drinking than this case.”
The law in question is known as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, or RIPA, and it also gives 474 local governments and 318 agencies — including the Ambulance Service and the Charity Commission — powers once held by only a handful of law enforcement and security service organizations.
Under the law, the localities and agencies can film people with hidden cameras, trawl through communication traffic data like phone calls and Web site visits and enlist undercover “agents” to pose, for example, as teenagers who want to buy alcohol.
In a report this summer, Sir Christopher Rose, the chief surveillance commissioner, said that local governments conducted nearly 5,000 “directed surveillance missions” in the year ending in March and that other public authorities carried out roughly the same amount.
Local officials say that using covert surveillance is justified. The Poole Borough Council, for example, used it to detect and prosecute illegal fishing in Poole Harbor.
“RIPA is an essential tool for local authority enforcement which we make limited use of in cases where it is proportionate and there are no other means of gathering evidence,” Tim Martin, who is in charge of legal and democratic services for Poole, which is southwest of London, said in a statement.
The fuss over the law comes against a backdrop of widespread public worry about an increasingly intrusive state and the growing circulation of personal details in vast databases compiled by the government and private companies.
“Successive U.K. governments have gradually constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world,” the House of Lords Constitution Committee said in a recent report. It continued: “The development of electronic surveillance and the collection and processing of personal information have become pervasive, routine and almost taken for granted.”
RIPA is a complicated law that also regulates wiretapping and intrusive surveillance carried out by the security services. But faced with rumbles of public discontent about local governments’ behavior, the Home Office announced in the spring that it would review the legislation to make it clearer what localities should be allowed to do.
“The government has absolutely no interest in spying on law-abiding people going about their everyday lives,” Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, said.
One of the biggest criticisms of the law is that the targets of surveillance are usually unaware that they have been spied on.
Indeed,Ms Paton only learned what had happened later
when officials summoned her to discuss her daughter’s school application. To her shock, they produced the covert surveillance report and the family’s telephone billing records
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re within their rights to scrutinize all applications, but the way they went about it was totally unwarranted,” Ms. Paton said. “If they’d wanted any information, they could have come and asked.”
She would have explained that her case was complicated. The family was moving from their old house within the school district to a new one just outside it. But they met the residency requirements because they were still living at the old address when school applications closed.
At the meeting, Ms. Paton and her partner, Tim Joyce, pointed out that the surveillance evidence was irrelevant because the surveillance had been carried out after the deadline had passed.
“They promptly ushered us out of the room,” she said. “As I stood outside the door, they said, ‘You go and tell your friends that these are the powers we have.’ ”
Soon afterward, their daughter was admitted to the school. Ms. Paton began pressing local officials on their surveillance tactics.
“I said, ‘I want to come in and talk to you,’ ” she said. “ ‘How many people were in the car? Were they men or women? Did they take any photos? Does this mean I have a criminal record?’ ”
No one would answer her questions, Ms. Paton said.
Mr. Martin said he could not comment on her case because it was under review. But Ms. Paton said the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners, which monitors use of the law, found that the Poole council had acted properly. “They said my privacy wasn’t intruded on because the surveillance was covert,” she said
The case is now before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which looks into complaints about RIPA. It usually meets in secret but has agreed, Ms. Paton said, to have an open hearing at the beginning of November.
The whole process is so shrouded in mystery that few people ever take it this far. “Because no one knows you have a right to know you’re under surveillance,” Ms. Paton said, “nobody ever makes a complaint.”
tank slapper said:
poorly drafted, and poorly scrutinised legislation
I think it's probably quite cleverly and carefully drafted. There seems to be a recurring theme that they ask for sweeping powers to solve some small problem, but no need for us to worry because they'll only use them in a few special cases. I don't think the time is far away when we're all guilty of something and it's an administrative choice which of us gets prosecuted. RDMcG said:
NY Times article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=britain%20surveillance&st=cse
Looking at it from the outside, it seems inconceivable to me how quickly all this happened. I lived in the UK years ago and such a thing would have been unimaginable in a liberal democratic country. What was it that caused such a significant change?. I have been wondering about this for a while.
It's a typical socialist takeover, they had such a huge majority, and wanted to ensure that their pitiful existance was plummier, so they snuck in all those diverse small laws, gradually chipping away at our nation, until "lo and behold" the Socialist Republik of Little Britain, has become a reality. And if bLIAR and his hag get to Brussels then it's goodbye Britain for ever.Looking at it from the outside, it seems inconceivable to me how quickly all this happened. I lived in the UK years ago and such a thing would have been unimaginable in a liberal democratic country. What was it that caused such a significant change?. I have been wondering about this for a while.
Note that Hitler said that if you erode all their rights and guarantees in small steps, they won't notice it until they're all gone and then there's nothing they can do!!!
The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed - Adolf Hitler
Thanks to Grumpy Old Sod dot Com
Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 26th October 15:08
How did the UK end up with so much surveillance?
I went on a blind date with a rather tasty bird who was doing her politics/sociology dissertation on this. She was a paranoid freak and very rude to boot. After having (1) beer and lunch, her phone rang again and I excused myself, popped outside, jumped in the car and drove off.
Left her with the bill
I went on a blind date with a rather tasty bird who was doing her politics/sociology dissertation on this. She was a paranoid freak and very rude to boot. After having (1) beer and lunch, her phone rang again and I excused myself, popped outside, jumped in the car and drove off.
Left her with the bill
Edited by Shoot Blair on Monday 26th October 17:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff