Police State Downtown.

Started by stephendare, January 27, 2009, 04:25:47 PM

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 9 10 11
User actions

BridgeTroll

#150
February 19, 2009, 07:31:41 AM
Ah... the slippery slope of police intrusion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1148244/Pubs-ordered-install-Big-Brother-CCTV-cameras--risk-losing-licences.html#

QuotePubs ordered to install Big Brother CCTV cameras - or risk losing licences
By James Slack and Dan Newling
Last updated at 8:27 AM on 18th February 2009

Big Brother-style plans to force pubs to install CCTV cameras raise ‘serious privacy concerns’, the surveillance watchdog has warned.

Police are telling pubs, clubs, restaurants and off-licences they will not support their licensing applications unless they agree to train the intrusive cameras on their customers.

Owners also have to promise to hand over to the police any CCTV footage requested.

Pubs are being ordered to train CCTV cameras on customers if they want police backing for liquor licences
The blanket policy has been introduced in the London boroughs of Islington and Richmond, where all applicants for permission to sell alcohol are being told they must fit CCTV.

Other forces are adopting similar tactics. Martin Reed, a licensing officer for Essex Police, said the force asks that every licensed premises in the county open beyond 11pm should have CCTV cameras that take head shots of customers coming into the building.

He explained there should be cameras on all public entrances and exits and all licensed outside areas.

A spokesman for Northamptonshire police said that in Northampton town centre they recommend that any licensed premises open after midnight must install CCTV.

The Information Commissioner’s office, the UK’s privacy watchdog, said it was seriously concerned by the development.

David Smith, the deputy Information Commissioner, said: ‘Hardwiring surveillance into pubs raises serious privacy concerns. Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements.

‘Use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment.’

The moves came amid renewed concern about the lurch towards a surveillance society under Labour.

On Tuesday the Mail revealed how the ex-head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, warned that the Government was using the public’s fear of terrorism to try to pass laws which risked turning the UK into a ‘police state’.

The Tories tonight backed the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the pub plan.

National security spokesman Crispin Blunt said: ‘CCTV can be a useful tool against crime and anti-social behaviour but it is no substitute for having a real police presence on our streets.

‘This Government has sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people.

‘The police need to be specific about why CCTV is needed in this case.

‘On this issue, as elsewhere, evidence is required so a proper balance can be struck between privacy and security.’

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: ‘Boroughs may impose blanket rules to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences.’
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

#151
February 19, 2009, 12:54:46 PM
Agreed.  But... This is being done at many establishments already and with NO safegaurds.  Whats to stop the night manager of BT's tacos to download and post silly videos of his silly patrons on the net... or selling them to americas stupidest patrons?  We are so worried about big brother we are forgetting little bro...
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

#152
February 19, 2009, 12:58:04 PM
True... but the damage has been done.  If the recordings are private property I can do what I wish with them... no?
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

#153
February 19, 2009, 01:25:19 PM
Just tossing about ideas... How about a law.  A license to video survielle.  The license is not intended to prohibit or limit private property surviellance but to set the rules of use for the recorded data.  May only be used for...  may not be used for... etc.  Protects property owners and patrons... cans still be used as evidence by police.  Win, win!
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

#154
February 19, 2009, 01:34:54 PM
Jeez... Stephen... I am not THAT old! :D  Perhaps I was not clear on my last post.  My proposal was for people who wished to own and operate their own surveillance equipment.  As it stands now owners can do as they wish with the recorded data.  The license would lay out rules of use and misuse.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

#155
February 19, 2009, 02:20:59 PM
Hmmm... another dilemma.  We do not want state sponsored surveillance in our downtown because of the many abuses possible against the ordinary citizen.  Unmonitored and unregulated surveillance occurs now by merchants and private citizens but these entities are free to use the recorded data as they see fit.  We are also against licensing or limiting the data recorded by private citizens.  This seems nearly as creepy as letting Rutherford watch me...
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

gatorback

#156
February 20, 2009, 10:29:08 AM Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 10:34:04 AM by gatorback
I got it.  They want to tax you for each mile on your car now right? So, why don't we have a video tape tax. For each inch of video tape used, we tax?

Ohio studies vehicle-miles tax to replace or supplement fuel tax
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/ohio_studies_vehiclemiles_tax.html
'As a sinner I am truly conscious of having often offended my Creator and I beg him to forgive me, but as a Queen and Sovereign, I am aware of no fault or offence for which I have to render account to anyone here below.'   Mary, queen of Scots to her jailer, Sir Amyas Paulet; October 1586

urbanlibertarian

#157
February 24, 2009, 07:58:47 PM
Videotape is so 20th century, man.  Digitize yourself.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes (Who watches the watchmen?)

gatorback

#158
February 25, 2009, 06:25:17 AM
A bytetax? Brilliant!
'As a sinner I am truly conscious of having often offended my Creator and I beg him to forgive me, but as a Queen and Sovereign, I am aware of no fault or offence for which I have to render account to anyone here below.'   Mary, queen of Scots to her jailer, Sir Amyas Paulet; October 1586

Overstreet

#159
June 07, 2013, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 19, 2009, 01:25:19 PM
Just tossing about ideas... How about a law.  A license to video survielle.  The license is not intended to prohibit or limit private property surviellance but to set the rules of use for the recorded data.  May only be used for...  may not be used for... etc.  Protects property owners and patrons... cans still be used as evidence by police.  Win, win!

so then you need a license to put a video camera at your front door as part of your security system?

NotNow

#160
June 07, 2013, 08:31:41 PM Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 08:33:48 PM by NotNow
Quote from: KenFSU on February 03, 2009, 11:44:11 PM
It's closing in on midnight and I'm exhausted, but no, these statements are not false. They are backed up by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc. They are also backed up by former members of the NSA, such as Russell Tice. Watch this MSNBC clip for a small sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFprWnCjPA&feature=related

The fact that the Pentagon and intelligence agencies has been spying on anti-war movements for over five years has been all over the news. A simple Google search will return dozens of stories from the most credible of sources saying the same thing. USA Today broke the story on phone logs nearly four years ago. The New York Times broke the story on phone taps. The LA Times broke the story on Financial Transactions. The Department of Homeland Security website will give you all the information you need to know on the Fusion Centers.

Illegal, yes.

False, absolutely not.


Ken, I apologize.  You were absolutely right.  I am shocked and ashamed of my government and my elected officials.  [/color]
Deo adjuvante non timendum
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 9 10 11
User actions