My and my Camera

[CBJ]

You can't legitimately start out by implying someone is using these numbers in some disingenuous or devious way without at least offering up some kind of reasoning for that, can you?

I'm struggling to work out how you've managed to misunderstand red assassin's post so badly. Following the link you posted and going the source document if cites for the 6 million figure, it is quite clear from the explanatory information that a very high proportion of the cameras counted are privately-owned security cameras in shops and petrol stations, and the like, not government surveillance cameras. The point red assassin was making was not that your source document was false or misleading; what is misleading is that that 6 million figure is frequently used in the press as supposed evidence that the UK is some kind of police state with the government watching every corner. The reality, as he points out, is that we are much like any other country. There are some cameras controlled by local authorities at places like busy intersections to monitor traffic, at level crossings for safety purposes, and in some city centre areas with nightclubs and shops, where it is beneficial to be able keep an eye on what is happening without constant police patrols. The rest are private security cameras, which have nothing to do with the government.

[Alan Phipps]

My niece is a data protection officer for a widespread corporate chain in the UK and she tells me that even the police (and personal representation solicitors) have to jump through significant justification and safeguarding hoops to gain access to firms' private CCTV footage (whether relating to external or internal views regarding the firms' premises) when hoping to recover evidence of criminal activity or negligence, etc that might be caught on their security cameras. It is her job (under relevant confidentiality and non-disclosure coverage) to vet the request and justification, review the relevant footage and then advise the management board whether or not to release footage in whole or part under specified safeguards.

There is no way that some random government department has rights or access to that footage as part of some greater public surveillance conspiracy. It is not like on TV or in the films where some random police officer just walks in without the necessary authority and paperwork and says 'Give me or show me your CCTV footage'.

[Morkonan]

You can't legitimately start out by implying someone is using these numbers in some disingenuous or devious way without at least offering up some kind of reasoning for that, can you?

I'm struggling to work out how you've managed to misunderstand red assassin's post so badly. Following the link you posted and going the source document if cites for the 6 million figure, it is quite clear from the explanatory information that a very high proportion of the cameras counted are privately-owned security cameras in shops and petrol stations, and the like, not government surveillance cameras. The point red assassin was making was not that your source document was false or misleading; what is misleading is that that 6 million figure is frequently used in the press as supposed evidence that the UK is some kind of police state with the government watching every corner. The reality, as he points out, is that we are much like any other country. There are some cameras controlled by local authorities at places like busy intersections to monitor traffic, at level crossings for safety purposes, and in some city centre areas with nightclubs and shops, where it is beneficial to be able keep an eye on what is happening without constant police patrols. The rest are private security cameras, which have nothing to do with the government.

It was also mentioned by red_assassin that it is very difficult to get accurate numbers of who owns what and who is using what for what... OK, fine, then further citations of "numbers managed/owned by ___" doesn't really have much validity does it? There is no way to form a "common ground" basis for a discussion if we can't actually define what it is we're talking about, is there? OK, so, instead, we can look for quantitative evidence published by sources who's authority is, or should be, relevant. Yes? That way, we can perhaps determine how significant the issue really is and whether or not it merits further discussion. If, for instance, not having hard numbers or official statements regarding the number of cameras accessed by the UK government is a failure-point for further discussion, then maybe how much the government spends on monitoring CCTV systems relative to other budget items may be an acceptable approach?

And, to further that sort of discussion, should someone accept the common ground offered, I offered the quote from a Minister/Commissioner about their suggestion to create a network of public and private CCTVs to create a "One CCTV Monitoring Network to Rule Them All" kind of approach... Which is such an insanely overbearing suggestion that one must be forced to explain a government or department culture that would be capable of birthing it.

IOW - OK, the stated number will be disputed because of an unknown amount of exclusively private ownership of CCTV cameras. That's fine. Then, let's find hard numbers and government positions regarding the use of CCTV for internal monitoring instead and see if there is anything significant there worthy of discussion.
[/quote]

...There is no way that some random government department has rights or access to that footage as part of some greater public surveillance conspiracy. It is not like on TV or in the films where some random police officer just walks in without the necessary authority and paperwork and says 'Give me or show me your CCTV footage'.

In principle, I agree. In that situation I'm sure there are plenty of safeguards and protections in place to protect the ownership of CCTV footage and to prevent its misuse.

But, lest we forget - UK spies on Millions of Yahoo Webcams. They didn't need to go to the owners of that footage and didn't need to offer up official documents or observe privacy laws and legislative protections there, did they?

...In a statement, a GCHQ spokesman said: "It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters.

"Furthermore, all of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

"All our operational processes rigorously support this position...."

So, it was all done legally according to that government agency. "Nothing to see here, move along please..." ( Guardian Source Article )

In the above, as far back as 2009 I know, they were discussing factial recognition and imaging technology testing and using it in this fashion. In the post I made earlier, the report from 2018 has that as a major component. IIRC, recently, there was a hullabaloo about police using CCTV cameras at a some sort of concert event to search for potential notable persons, targets of interest, people on a watch list, etc.. (UK Citizens may have good resources there as I don't know how that argument ended up, yet.)

The point is that protections that involve an adversarial system, like the one you mentioned where a live person is charged with ensuring such protections and a government or other agency must present legal cause, seem to be fairly secure. However, that does not mean that in situations where there are no adversarial protections such security exists. Nobody can offer adversarial, protective, resistance of privacy intrusion if they are not aware it is taking place. Further, a great deal of CCTV camera footage is not stored locally and many systems use teh interwebz... If the "Yahoo" incident is any indication of general standards and practices, anything that crosses the boundary in the UK is wide-open for government observation no matter who is involved. And, it's likely not limited to out-of-country hosts, either, given the very powerful capabilities of UK E-Int Surveillance. (The UK is pretty darn "badass" when it comes down to how much data they can get. They are no joke. That's due in a large part, IMO, to UK privacy laws that simply don't afford much personal citizen privacy where National Intelligence is concerned.)

NYT - From Mountain of CCTV Footage, Pay Dirt: 2 Russians Are Named in Spy Poisoning. A wonderful use of CCTV, right? Right! But...

...Investigators released a cache of evidence, including security camera images that captured the progress of the two men from an Aeroflot flight to the scene of the crime, and from there back to Moscow....

From arrival, to the scene of the crime, to their departure back to Moscow? The... whole trip? On CCTV? Sun - Some released footage

...“It’s almost impossible in this country to hide, almost impossible,” said John Bayliss, who retired from the Government Communications Headquarters, Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, in 2010. “And with the new software they have, you can tell the person by the way they walk, or a ring they wear, or a watch they wear. It becomes even harder.”...

Uh... wow. Rings? Watches? How they walk?

It's all for a good cause, right?

[Alan Phipps]

I would imagine that in the Salisbury Nerve Agent attack case, the police were indeed able to provide the necessary justifications for obtaining willing release of private CCTV coverage from all sources that might have captured images of the suspects. It also took a long time to complile it all. That's rather a no-brainer.

Now try to get the same access to comprehensive coverage for the movements of some person or group that the police might have some occasional or minor interest in for say petty crime. That's just not in the same league as the first example.

The Salisbury attack tied up major investigative and evidence-protection police resources, drawn from right across the nation, for months and months at great inconvenience and overstretch to themselves and at significant taxpayer expense. That's just not available nor even viable to consider for minor crime or just random general surveillance.

Private surveillance footage also generally has a lifetime before being overwritten. Unless a timely reason or request causes it to be preserved for later scrutiny, it is relatively soon deleted.

Sorry Mork, but your conspiracy theories in this respect at least just do not hold up.

[Morkonan]

...Sorry Mork, but your conspiracy theories in this respect at least just do not hold up.

Please point out the "conspiracy theory" you're accusing me of.

Is anything there that I posted valid information? Is any of it untrue? Are the sources suspect? Ficticious? They don't have to be addressed, of course. It's a free world, for the most part, so nobody has to even read them.

But, you can't just say "Nuh uh" and declare victory when the discussion hasn't even arrived at an arguable point.

PS - There doesn't have to be a discussion. I don't demand one at all, btw. It's just that the notion that the UK just might at least be the most broadly surveilled democracy on Earth could possibly have some merit. If, despite the sparse bits of stuff I posted isn't enough to support that in your mind, that's fine too. After all, it's your government reading your posts, not mine. My government will be happy just to read the reports about me that your government provides them.

[CBJ]

Is anything there that I posted valid information? Is any of it untrue? Are the sources suspect? Ficticious? They don't have to be addressed, of course. It's a free world, for the most part, so nobody has to even read them.

The source you provided seemed both credible and reasonable; what seems less reasonable is your reluctance to accept that it doesn't support your argument. Your source mirrored exactly what red assassin said, namely that the vast majority of the cameras that it counted were private security cameras. It even supported his estimate for the number of cameras that did not fall into this category (less than 1% of the total), and I (from my "local" knowledge) gave you examples of what most of that 1% were used for.

Please point out the "conspiracy theory" you're accusing me of.

This one right here:

The point is that the UK is the most "observed" place in the world. Teh Gubbermint cameras everywhere...

[Chips]

I have a dash cam, bought my mother one too, and the other week installed motion activated home security type camera (Arlo, starts recording for 30s and uploads it if it "sees" something, or if you configure it, if it hears a noise) for my parents place. It's because they're away... for another month or so. While I will endeavour to visit the property regularly, it gives them peace of mind and I will get alerted if anything *does* happen.

All I would say about walking around with a camera is... risk assessment 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).

[Morkonan]

The source you provided seemed both credible and reasonable; what seems less reasonable is your reluctance to accept that it doesn't support your argument. Your source mirrored exactly what red assassin said, namely that the vast majority of the cameras that it counted were private security cameras. It even supported his estimate for the number of cameras that did not fall into this category (less than 1% of the total), and I (from my "local" knowledge) gave you examples of what most of that 1% were used for.

So, "......“It’s almost impossible in this country to hide, almost impossible,” said John Bayliss, who retired from the Government Communications Headquarters, Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, in 2010. “And with the new software they have, you can tell the person by the way they walk, or a ring they wear, or a watch they wear. It becomes even harder" doesn't really mean much, right? It's all about eventually gaining access through a warrant-like system to view the footage of all these private cameras, right? I mean, it might take years, but eventually, after all those warrants yield the fruit of private CCTV footage, like grandma's cat and the fuel pumps at the local gas-station, "it's almost impossible in this country to hide." That's what he's talking about, right? OK. Gotcha.

What is the UK Surveillance Camera Commission? It's under "Law Enforcement" out of the "Home Office." I guess they're just interested in making sure that private CCTV cameras are focused properly or something? A Law Enforcement arm that ensures the lenses are clean on your home doorbell camera? That consumers of CCTV cameras get their money's worth? Maybe it's just to be sure that the Laws are being enforced? A separate agency to enforce just one specific section of legal code?

You're right, it's probably nothing. Certainly, it's not a concern of anyone except the U.K. Government who spends a significant amount of money on a budget item to monitor and maintain CCTV camera networks. That 2.2 Billion Monies must be spent polishing the lenses of all those private cameras you're talking about. What a great service!

Edit:Add - While not specifically related to CCTV, I think things like this bear somewhat on the concerns surrounding CCTV and government use of it: Big Brother Watch and others vs UK.

"On Sept. 13, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the United Kingdom’s bulk data-collection programs violate human-rights law by failing to incorporate adequate privacy safeguards and oversight—but that mass surveillance and intelligence sharing did not violate international law....

This stuff happens. Whether or not the EU defines it as being in violation of "international law" notwithstanding. You may not care about the dictates of "international law" if you discover that government intel workers are passing around video of you taking an agonizing dump in a public restroom after having had ingested a particularly disgusting rendition of curry chicken. And, if you don't know what is happening, how do you, for yourself, ensure your "human rights" in regards to your own privacy are actually secure and protected? "Trust?" Sure, that's actually possible... But, "blind trust" is not. Somebody, somewhere, has to have their finger on a "Stop" button. Do you "trust" them? What if they're an elected official who promotes policies you're vehemently against? Still trust them? They're the ones that direct policy, right? Lots of trust, still?

Added for levity: UK-Police hunt gang who ransacked Knife Amnesty bin. It's not like you can really trust law enforcement to make the right decisions...

Lastly - Given the OP's post and given that some keep insisting "private cameras" make up the "bulk" of all these fairly large and concerning numbers of CCVs in the UK... The issue of general surveillance, private or governmental, is worthy of consideration, isn't it? Considering that nobody is denying the numbers of CCTV cameras, just their "ownership," it's obviously something that is becoming pervasive in the UK, right? So, at least that subject just can't be dismissed as a "conspiracy" or "hoax," right? They exist. They presumably collect footage or at least are intended to. And, someone has access to that footage that you don't know which may be footage of you. No concern? Move along? Or... a bit concerning?

[Alan Phipps]

Mork said "it's obviously something that is becoming pervasive in the UK, right?"

You mean just like it is in every other developed nation? As has been pointed out, the number of CCTV cameras per head or per business is probably no more in the UK than elsewhere with the same commercial and law-enforcement development.

Yes, UK city centres may well have public security and law-enforcement cameras at typical trouble spots as has been explained before. They are there to protect the public by alerting the authorities to ongoing trouble and crime and may even act to deter some of it. Can you say that does not happen in cities in similarly developed countries to the UK?

GCHQ is a targeted intelligence asset dealing with identifying and monitoring elements of internal and external threats to our nation. Despite the fact that it is extremely expensive to operate, it does not have the budget, capacity or staff to analyse footage of the general populace in public convenience cubicles, even were our decency laws to permit security devices there, nor even if there is the off chance of it providing the night's entertainment for the desk staff.

I think that the downfall of much of your theorising is that you use sources out of context by muddling what *might* technically be possible to do in exceptional and very resource-hungry targetted circumstances with what actually does happen as a routine and widespread state of affairs across the UK. That is why, for example, your references to the Salisbury Nerve Agent attack investigation and to GCHQ are so out of place in a thread more about the public reaction to types of overt privately owned on-person, in-vehicle and domestic house security cameras that were bought say from Amazon.

I'm not having a go at you personally Mork, rather I'm trying to correct a misunderstanding of how life really goes on in the UK. Still, take a look at the Brexit thread and I can see why people would perhaps be thinking the worst just now.

[CBJ]

What is the UK Surveillance Camera Commission? It's under "Law Enforcement" out of the "Home Office." I guess they're just interested in making sure that private CCTV cameras are focused properly or something? A Law Enforcement arm that ensures the lenses are clean on your home doorbell camera? That consumers of CCTV cameras get their money's worth? Maybe it's just to be sure that the Laws are being enforced? A separate agency to enforce just one specific section of legal code?

No need for drama and hyperbole. You can read exactly what they do here.

Lastly - Given the OP's post and given that some keep insisting "private cameras" make up the "bulk" of all these fairly large and concerning numbers of CCVs in the UK...

I don't understand why you keep putting things in quotes as though they aren't factual. 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?

The issue of general surveillance, private or governmental, is worthy of consideration, isn't it? Considering that nobody is denying the numbers of CCTV cameras, just their "ownership," it's obviously something that is becoming pervasive in the UK, right? So, at least that subject just can't be dismissed as a "conspiracy" or "hoax," right? They exist. They presumably collect footage or at least are intended to. And, someone has access to that footage that you don't know which may be footage of you. No concern? Move along? Or... a bit concerning?

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. Where do you think all that hilarious CCTV footage of failed robberies you see from stores and gas stations in the US comes from? Private security cameras, right? And those ones of UPS delivery people mistreating packages they are supposed to be delivering? More private security cameras. Things are no different in the UK. Indeed I'm pretty sure we have fewer porch-cams here than you do in the US. Is surveillance as a general topic an important matter of concern? Yes, of course. 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.

[Masterbagger]

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.

[Morkonan]

...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.

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.

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?

[Alan Phipps]

Well, despite all the fantasy there about UK Government/Intelligence Agencies and what they really do, I suppose that I should be a little bit flattered that Mork believes that the UK can do useful crime surveillance activities that the US Intelligence Agencies find beyond their technical and resource capabilities.

[Chips]

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.)

No. Wait, what are you talking about? The page you were linked to specifically detailed what is and isn't the role of the authority. Where's this 2.2 billion coming from as well?
Anyway:

What the commissioner is responsible for:
providing advice on the effective, appropriate, proportionate and transparent use of surveillance camera systems
reviewing how the code is working and if necessary add others to the list of authorities who must have due regard to the code
providing advice on operational and technical standards
encouraging voluntary compliance with the code

What the commissioner isn’t responsible for:
enforcing the code
inspecting CCTV operators to check they are complying with the code
providing advice with regard to covert surveillance

It addresses what they do. I'm kinda guessing the entire "CCTV costs this much" is not just about watching it - it's the install costs and ongoing running costs. They're not spending 2.2 billion a year ("they" being everyone installing CCTV). But where does that figure come from?


Anyway, have a read of this page

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/ho ... -community

You have the right to access images of yourself that may have been recorded by a CCTV camera system. Public organisations like local councils need to make any personal data available to you if you ask them.
Personal data is information that relates to an individual and is held by a public organisation. You need to write to the owner of the CCTV system. The owner's contact information is usually on a sign attached to the camera.

You need to give them enough information to identify you, for example a specific date and time, and a description of yourself and your clothing. The operator can charge you up to £10 for a copy of the footage.

But, what I am examining is what happens in a Western Democracy when Intelligence agencies have fairly unfettered and broad access to internal intelligence.

Wait, what? Where has this popped up from?

Teh Gubbermint is going to be categorizing them based on physical attractiveness and passing them around the office?

Wait, what? Kinda like whatsapp/snapchat/Facebook/dropbox/twitter/Apple. Whataboutery of course, but fairly sure there's nothing about passing nudes around the Office in any of those companies of the Government. The EU ruling did mention adequate safeguards surrounding those who aren't specifically targeted when bulk data was being hoovered up.

p.s. I'm unlikely to reply. Realised I scanned the EU ruling and many other sources, and edited this several times. It took me an hour. I'm going to go cry in the corner; I wanted to play some Don't Starve. It's not that replies may not be brilliant, it's just that I don't think anything will change from this contribution and further contributions may eat more hours of my life away. I have to stop posting :/

[Morkonan]

..Where's this 2.2 billion coming from as well?

It's in a government report .pdf linked and in one of the article links. It's a direct quote from the Commissioner/Administrator/Titled person. (Just another reason I hate "link wars" stuffs. )

Wait, what? Where has this popped up from?

Basically, in the EU ruling report, and if one looks at other direct source articles, it's discussed that UK e-int agencies basically have legal authority to record/monitor/snoop any traffic from UK citizens that has a connection/destination point outside of the UK. In short - There's no privacy past that boundary.

Wait, what? Kinda like whatsapp/snapchat/Facebook/dropbox/twitter/Apple. Whataboutery of course, but fairly sure there's nothing about passing nudes around the Office in any of those companies of the Government. The EU ruling did mention adequate safeguards surrounding those who aren't specifically targeted when bulk data was being hoovered up.

A reference to the Yahoo scandal from several years ago where the UK accessed private Yahoo accounts and their associated webcam pics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ)

p.s. I'm unlikely to reply. Realised I scanned the EU ruling and many other sources, and edited this several times. It took me an hour. I'm going to go cry in the corner; I wanted to play some Don't Starve. It's not that replies may not be brilliant, it's just that I don't think anything will change from this contribution and further contributions may eat more hours of my life away. I have to stop posting :/

Understood. Same here... While some form of basic common foundation has to be laid for a discussion, it gets tiresome having to build it up from scratch with document links...

Enjoy your game!

Well, despite all the fantasy there about UK Government/Intelligence Agencies and what they really do, I suppose that I should be a little bit flattered that Mork believes that the UK can do useful crime surveillance activities that the US Intelligence Agencies find beyond their technical and resource capabilities.

"Fantasy." OK.


Anyway, that's enough I suppose. I won't bother anyone with anything else on this. (A short reply if required will be the only thing further I'll add.)

[Chips]

Really quickly... as it's clear you've got some very different ways of presenting "facts"

..Where's this 2.2 billion coming from as well?

It's in a government report .pdf linked and in one of the article links. It's a direct quote from the Commissioner/Administrator/Titled person. (Just another reason I hate "link wars" stuffs. )

Okay, cheers, read it - ah here it is.

Surveillance camera technology costs approximately £2.2 billion a year in the UK. The strategy will produce a ‘Buyers Toolkit’ that will seek to ensure that every pound spent is spent wisely, in line with the regulatory landscape and in a way that matches public expectations of what surveillance cameras are there to do.

How to you interpret that cost of 2.2 billion? Lets look - it was

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...

1) The camera technology costs approx 2 billion a year. This is not "watching cameras costs 2 billion a year". Unless you mean "Monitoring CCTV Cameras" to imply all costs associated by the entire nation's CCTV installers/operators etc? Bit misleading if so
2) This is not specific to the Governments cameras and that it costs the Government 2 billion a year to monitor them. It's the spend of an entire country on installation, repairs, replacements, maintenance, monitoring, storage, electricity, the works.


Then

Basically, in the EU ruling report, and if one looks at other direct source articles, it's discussed that UK e-int agencies basically have legal authority to record/monitor/snoop any traffic from UK citizens that has a connection/destination point outside of the UK. In short - There's no privacy past that boundary.

A reference to the Yahoo scandal from several years ago where the UK accessed private Yahoo accounts and their associated webcam pics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ)

Familiar with the Yahoo statement. But also, addressed that as I actually read the EU ruling. I did make specific reference to it - and the ruling did mention the inability to prevent picking up info on UK citizens communicating with stuff outside the country, but again, I refer you to what it said about it as I highlighted...

"The EU ruling did mention adequate safeguards surrounding those who aren't specifically targeted when bulk data was being hoovered up"

Your interpretations appear to include a healthy dose of exaggeration - which is precisely what several others have said.

[Morkonan]

...
Your interpretations appear to include a healthy dose of exaggeration - which is precisely what several others have said.

You're right.