CBJ wrote: ↑Fri, 5. Apr 19, 23:16
...No need for drama and hyperbole. You can read exactly what they do
here.
So, they're just a "Regulatory Agency" then, right? A few people, maybe in some offices scattered around the UK, making sure everyone is compliant with code and stuff. So, who was spending 2.2 Billion Monies monitoring and maintaining CCTV cameras? (Also, as I understand it, a good portion of this agency has been rolled into a new one under Home Office.)
I don't understand why you keep putting things in quotes as though they aren't factual.
That's not why I put them in quotes. In some cases, it "might" be.
The source YOU posted stated this information in black and white and gave the numbers. Other sources give similar figures, and you have confirmation from people who actually live in the UK that the information rings true from their own experience. If you're not peddling a conspiracy theory then why are you dismissing all the evidence in favour of a few scary-sounding sound-bites stripped of their context?
2.2 Billion Monies spent on Monitoring CCTV cameras, which is a sizeable comparative portion of the entire budget of some other UK Budgetted Agencies...
And, stop it with the "peddling" crap.
I am not "peddling" something. I am simply discussing this because I believe it is concerning and worthy of merit, considering the OP and the reaction of the individual who confronted him.
I am not "peddling"
anything.
If you can't get over that notion, I'm not going to discuss this any further with you. I don't "peddle" anything and wouldn't ever do so. I engage in honest discussions while looking for sensible and constructive rebuttal, even to the point of actively seeking to challenge my own opinions so I can hold to the most valid ones I can.
Morkonan wrote: ↑Fri, 5. Apr 19, 21:21
Of course the level of surveillance in modern society is of interest, but you seem bizarrely enthusiastic to paint this as being some kind of UK speciality, and weirdly insistent that it's a UK government conspiracy in particular.
It's not a "conspiracy."
The reason I am fixated somewhat on it is because the UK is a "Western Power." It is a democratic form of government. It professes, as other similar Western governments do, the sanctity of individual freedoms and the "Rights" of citizens, even though it doesn't really enumerate those "Rights." But, that's beside the point - The UK may be different than other Western governments in some respects, but it's close enough to serve as a comparative test-bed for "what if" situations in other Western democracies, like my own.
Or, is that just too nebulous an idea? I mean, don't you see a car crash on television and sometimes say to yourself "I had better not get in a car crash." Or, maybe you don't drive a car. Well, I'm in a Western democracy watching what is arguably the most powerful electronic-inteligence agency in the Western World.. doing stuffs that concern me in the area of "civilian privacy."
...Is the UK, with particular reference to government use of CCTV, such an extreme case that it warrants special attention when discussing the subject? As someone who lives here and can see for themselves what the situation is, no, I don't think it is.
I used to live in a very hot and humid region of the US where frozen water falling from the sky would have resulting in the State calling out the State's National Guard units to fight it until they were told it was a "weather phenomenon." Then, I moved to a much nicer climate, in my opinion, that actually has this frozen stuff in it fairly often and might only have a couple of weeks of weather that might peak near 100 deg in Freedom units. The change was remarkable. I didn't realize just how hot and muggy and often unpleasant it was where I had been living. After all, I was surrounded by it all the time and really didn't know what living someplace a bit cooler would be like.
You seem to think that I'm "peddling" something or maybe you're defensive, thinking I am somehow trying to criticize the UK? Frankly, I don't care about the UK. I care about the people in the UK and what happens to them, of course. But, what I am examining is what happens in a Western Democracy when Intelligence agencies have fairly unfettered and broad access to
internal intelligence.
Masterbagger wrote: ↑Sat, 6. Apr 19, 04:35
My chosen personal security device is not a camera but the discussion does make me remember some wise words I once heard. Way the heck back when I was younger and doing manly stuff in uniform another guy had a big bulky camera mounted on his helmet. I can't remember his words but the gist of it was that if questionable stuff ever went down he would have a record of it from the point of view of his own eyes. The footage would either clear him or destroy him. It was on him to act righteously and be able to articulate the reasons he did whatever he did. It's kind of something to take to heart. When I think on it I decide that If I ever used cameras I would have them set up so that the footage could only be accessed by me. It would be too easy to use my own film against me.
And, his behavior was different, modified, whenever he wore that camera... In some cases that's good, but in all cases it's a reminder that one's behavior can be radically modified if one believes "someone is watching."
Most of the people who had their nudes ripped off of their private feeds by UK intelligence agencies and then archived "for research" or whatever would have probably not opted to create those nudes in the first place. And, then again, the other 80% of them probably would have been more enthusiastic about creating them...
But, the point remains - How are we supposed to send nude pictures and vids of ourselves to other people if we know Teh Gubbermint is going to be categorizing them based on physical attractiveness and passing them around the office? They won't really tell us what they like, so how can i be sure I'm giving them the best pose?
I personally wouldn't wear one. If I were a cyclist I would, but not walking. The risk is really low and, to be fair, I'd feel more a target and way more likely to be a victim of crime wearing one than without. It attracts unwanted attention and I definitely don't like that - especially as that could escalate depending on location, time and type of people. You only have to see how drunkards and others fly off the handle at the presence of a camera on various real life TV shows (if they still make that sort of thing).
