To protect ourselves from crime and terrorism we must be prepared to give up some small parts of our traditional freedoms and allow greater surveillance and intrusion by the state. Discuss
I have to say I am with Benjamin Franklin on this one.
Whilst I understand the need to protect the population from harm, I worry that the methods used to acheive that protection are more harmful than risks we face.
It has happened, it is happening, it will continue to happen.
Intrusion and personal surveillance has been getting steadily greater by every passing year and regardless of any perceived threat of terror or increased crime, it will continue to do so.
[cite]Posted By: KillersBeard[/cite]It has happened, it is happening, it will continue to happen.
Intrusion and personal surveillance has been getting steadily greater by every passing year and regardless of any perceived threat of terror or increased crime, it will continue to do so.
[cite]Posted By: ns_eb_rj_s?[/cite]If it protects us then I think its Justified. I have nothing to Hide.
I always hate this "if you've nothing to hide..." argument. From my point of view I have nothing to hide but that doesn't me I don't object oto someone in authority checking on me 'just to make sure'
The idea of this helping to reduce the risks of terrorism is pretty rubbish too. Indiscriminately snooping on large number of people makes it harder to spot the real bad guys (and gals). Intelligence needs to be intelligent. ID cards and CCTV are not intelligent.
[cite]Posted By: kigelia[/cite]three psychics can detect murders before they are about to happen and people are arressted in advance of committing the crime.
yes but i was talking more about the surveillance side of things.
there are eye scanners everywhere that hold all of your personal details. it tracks when you get on a tube, a bus, in and out of buildings (including your house). Everything is individualised etc etc.
The whole terrorism argument is rubbish, it is simply an excuse for the government (and not of just this country) to excercise greater control over the population and line the pockets of their cronnies in the defense industry.
Look at it this way, in the last 100 years less than 10,000 people have been killed by terrorism in the UK. That is the number of people who die of smoking every 3 weeks, the numer of people who die in alcohol related deaths every two months or on the road in a similar period of time. Without doing any serious research I imagine the number of people who will die from MSRA in the next 5 years will be greater than the number killed by terrorism in the last 100, but we're spending a lot lot more money on anti-terrorism than we are on cleaning our hospitals.
[cite]Posted By: KillersBeard[/cite]It has happened, it is happening, it will continue to happen.
Intrusion and personal surveillance has been getting steadily greater by every passing year and regardless of any perceived threat of terror or increased crime, it will continue to do so.
Whether we like it or not.
But is it right or justified?
To a certain level yes. To the level it will undoubtedly reach and be used, no.
I have no problem in Police or anti terrorist units having Unique powers that mean they can say go into a property without a warrant or hold someone indefinately if Terrorism is suspected. MY problem is with the poor innocent people with families who never puts a foot wrong his whole life, yet are basically treated on a par with a terrorist by having threats of ID cards etc thrust upon them without much of a say.
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]I have no problem in Police or anti terrorist units having Unique powers that mean they can say go into a property without a warrant or hold someone indefinately if Terrorism is suspected. MY problem is with the poor innocent people with families who never puts a foot wrong his whole life, yet are basically treated on a par with a terrorist by having threats of ID cards etc thrust upon them without much of a say.
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]I have no problem in Police or anti terrorist units having Unique powers that mean they can say go into a property without a warrant or hold someone indefinately if Terrorism is suspected. MY problem is with the poor innocent people with families who never puts a foot wrong his whole life, yet are basically treated on a par with a terrorist by having threats of ID cards etc thrust upon them without much of a say.
But what if it is you they suspect. I could make a case for you being a enemy of the state just from what you've said on here (seriously and not being personal but you can twist anything if you want to)
Yes i agree there is a need for increased intelligence and surveillance in this day and age, but i think its important its used in the correct way, and not just seen to be a way of prying or generating cash.
Speed cameras as an example to recent conversations, are a great example. On the face of it, an excellent tool, if used to surround schools, small villages etc, or dangerous stretches or roads are superb, yet the majority are in hidden spots, bottom of hills etc in the hope of catching a motorist on a straight bit of road 10mph over the limit. That to me is not using the surveillance tool to its correct potential but as a way of generating revenue.
The trackers in wheely bins is another example of surveillance not being properly utiliised.
Not sure what you mean Henry to be honest if they broke into where I live they would be most dis-appointed with whatever they found on my PC (Charlton Life) or my reading material (Football programmes), do not think they would find anything that in all honesty could be construed as a terroristy activity. I suppose they could try & infer my DJ equipment was some kind of nuclear device but other than that they would be seriosuly struggling.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]From a female point of view rather than looking at the terrorism viewpoint i say yes if it meant less sexual assaults against women and children.
That's a good point. If everyone's DNA was on a register then the police would be much better able to catch rapists as well as other criminals but how many people would be willing to put their DNA on a national register? And if it is not complusory then it won't work.
[cite]Posted By: DJ Davey Dave[/cite]three psychics can detect murders before they are about to happen and people are arressted in advance of committing the crime.
We had that here 20 years ago. It was called the SPG.
I think the SPC were more psychos than psychics but they certainly laid into you before you committed a crime just in case as I found out on the Embankment one day. Ouch
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]Not sure what you mean Henry to be honest if they broke into where I live they would be most dis-appointed with whatever they found on my PC (Charlton Life) or my reading material (Football programmes), do not think they would find anything that in all honesty could be construed as a terroristy activity. I suppose they could try & infer my DJ equipment was some kind of nuclear device but other than that they would be seriosuly struggling.
OK Known drug user and dealer, links with far right organisations (rangers fan) and football holligans. Clear threat to the state. See how easy it is too twist these things.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]From a female point of view rather than looking at the terrorism viewpoint i say yes if it meant less sexual assaults against women and children.
That's a good point. If everyone's DNA was on a register then the police would be much better able to catch rapists as well as other criminals but how many people would be willing to put their DNA on a national register? And if it is not complusory then it won't work.
That is making the very big assumption that a database this big run by the government could be kept accurate to prevent miscarriages of justice.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]From a female point of view rather than looking at the terrorism viewpoint i say yes if it meant less sexual assaults against women and children.
That's a good point. If everyone's DNA was on a register then the police would be much better able to catch rapists as well as other criminals but how many people would be willing to put their DNA on a national register? And if it is not complusory then it won't work.
In the vast majority of cases though identification isn't the issue. Most rape victims know the rapist (I'm sure I read a pointless stat that a woman is more likely to be struck by lightening than raped by a wandering opportunist rapist) and it is other issues (whether that be fear, not wanting to turn in a friend/familly member, etc.) that stop charges being brought of convictions being secured. Not DNA register of ID card will have an effect on that.
The whole ID card thing needs to be looked at unemotionally from a poor cost/benefit analysis point of view. It's going to cost billions and (if experts can be believed) going to be riddled with inaccurate data. The people most likely to commit acts of terrorism aren't going to have ID cards, illegal immigrants aren't going to have ID cards. Therefore saying these cards will counter those two things is a lie. If the data is accurate then it could revolutise police investigations, with processing of potential suspects being quicker and more accurate, but that depends on something that hasn't happened recently happening, i.e a large, government funded IT project actually being completed and working.
I think I must have missed the point, somewhere along the line. Terrorism needs to be stamped out so I have no problem with certain suggestions to counter this. As for general crime that's a bit different is it not. Perhaps if the old Bill spent more time & resources on real crime not speed cameras & harrassing motorists that would be a start.
Comments
Whilst I understand the need to protect the population from harm, I worry that the methods used to acheive that protection are more harmful than risks we face.
Intrusion and personal surveillance has been getting steadily greater by every passing year and regardless of any perceived threat of terror or increased crime, it will continue to do so.
Whether we like it or not.
But is it right or justified?
For those of us who haven't seen it what's the story?
I always hate this "if you've nothing to hide..." argument. From my point of view I have nothing to hide but that doesn't me I don't object oto someone in authority checking on me 'just to make sure'
The idea of this helping to reduce the risks of terrorism is pretty rubbish too. Indiscriminately snooping on large number of people makes it harder to spot the real bad guys (and gals). Intelligence needs to be intelligent. ID cards and CCTV are not intelligent.
three psychics can detect murders before they are about to happen and people are arressted in advance of committing the crime.
yes but i was talking more about the surveillance side of things.
there are eye scanners everywhere that hold all of your personal details. it tracks when you get on a tube, a bus, in and out of buildings (including your house). Everything is individualised etc etc.
No doubt about it Arf
We had that here 20 years ago. It was called the SPG.
Look at it this way, in the last 100 years less than 10,000 people have been killed by terrorism in the UK. That is the number of people who die of smoking every 3 weeks, the numer of people who die in alcohol related deaths every two months or on the road in a similar period of time. Without doing any serious research I imagine the number of people who will die from MSRA in the next 5 years will be greater than the number killed by terrorism in the last 100, but we're spending a lot lot more money on anti-terrorism than we are on cleaning our hospitals.
To a certain level yes. To the level it will undoubtedly reach and be used, no.
I think 'Enemy of the State' is a closer example.
Most of us already have one.
But what if it is you they suspect. I could make a case for you being a enemy of the state just from what you've said on here (seriously and not being personal but you can twist anything if you want to)
Yes i agree there is a need for increased intelligence and surveillance in this day and age, but i think its important its used in the correct way, and not just seen to be a way of prying or generating cash.
Speed cameras as an example to recent conversations, are a great example. On the face of it, an excellent tool, if used to surround schools, small villages etc, or dangerous stretches or roads are superb, yet the majority are in hidden spots, bottom of hills etc in the hope of catching a motorist on a straight bit of road 10mph over the limit. That to me is not using the surveillance tool to its correct potential but as a way of generating revenue.
The trackers in wheely bins is another example of surveillance not being properly utiliised.
That's a good point. If everyone's DNA was on a register then the police would be much better able to catch rapists as well as other criminals but how many people would be willing to put their DNA on a national register? And if it is not complusory then it won't work.
I think the SPC were more psychos than psychics but they certainly laid into you before you committed a crime just in case as I found out on the Embankment one day. Ouch
OK Known drug user and dealer, links with far right organisations (rangers fan) and football holligans. Clear threat to the state. See how easy it is too twist these things.
That is making the very big assumption that a database this big run by the government could be kept accurate to prevent miscarriages of justice.
In the vast majority of cases though identification isn't the issue. Most rape victims know the rapist (I'm sure I read a pointless stat that a woman is more likely to be struck by lightening than raped by a wandering opportunist rapist) and it is other issues (whether that be fear, not wanting to turn in a friend/familly member, etc.) that stop charges being brought of convictions being secured. Not DNA register of ID card will have an effect on that.
The whole ID card thing needs to be looked at unemotionally from a poor cost/benefit analysis point of view. It's going to cost billions and (if experts can be believed) going to be riddled with inaccurate data. The people most likely to commit acts of terrorism aren't going to have ID cards, illegal immigrants aren't going to have ID cards. Therefore saying these cards will counter those two things is a lie. If the data is accurate then it could revolutise police investigations, with processing of potential suspects being quicker and more accurate, but that depends on something that hasn't happened recently happening, i.e a large, government funded IT project actually being completed and working.