English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Surely if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no reason to be bothered by it. I don't have a problem with it and would encourage more of the same.

2006-11-07 21:38:02 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Not a very balanced arguement Richard. Like I said "What's the problem??" RTFQ

2006-11-07 21:41:39 · update #1

What can they know about me that's going to damage me Roy? Watch me all day long why don't they? It would be like watching paint dry.

2006-11-07 21:46:49 · update #2

Still no answers.....sigh. C'mon someone give me a balanced arguement. Not the 1984 cr@p.

2006-11-07 21:49:24 · update #3

If they really need to know that I've just bought a tin of tuna, some pasta and a newspaper and they want to watch me cutting my toenails or having a shower then it's a bit sad.

2006-11-07 22:00:01 · update #4

I'll bet the anti-west terrorists living here relish a liberal state too.

2006-11-08 00:14:25 · update #5

12 answers

The problem with Britain being a big brother state is that the only people who are going to be affected are those who have something to lose. The hardened toe-rag doesn't have any regard for the law and certainly won't be bothered by cctv-in fact they may even increase their anti-social behaviour for the cameras.
We, as a nation, have spent a fortune on cameras and that money has to re-couped somewhere along the line. Take speed, sorry, I mean safety, cameras for example- a good idea gone bad I think 90% of motorists would agree.
With the introduction of the new i.d. card simple computer programmes will surely be comparing the on-record photos to the minor indiscretions recorded on camera and hey presto-the equivalent of on-the-spot fines will be winging their way to a letter box near you!
Had a leak on the way home from the pub? £50 indecent exposure fine, thanks for coming.
These cameras will be no more than an easy way to make a few quid out of those of us who bother to try to tread the straight and narrow.
If we really want to reduce street crime let's spend some money on proper policemen and women and give them some back up with a courts system that works efficiently and more importantly with backbone.
Cctv is all very well but the truth is that at the moment it's nothing more than a publicity stunt, the main bulk of them are in retail districts catching drunk & dizzies and the after pub brawl not the repeat offenders and teenage hooligans that at the moment have more rights than the families they're terrifying in suburbia.
Until we get a public commitment that these cameras will be used for targetting the hardened yobs that we all wish to see off our streets and not the bloke who had a few too many and couldn't find the lesser spotted public loo then personally I don't think that we should be allowing the government to expand the system at will.

2006-11-08 00:33:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It all depends on what the state considers is "doing wrong".

The problem with the UK is that it has no written constitution. It has an unwritten constitution which means that any law, once it passes through the House of Commons, the House of Lords and has gained Royal Assent, that's it: its the law. That means that the government of the day can in theory pass laws to instigate a police state if it gains the support of parliament.

I take it you are happy with the state judging you are a worthy citizen, your children deserving of an education and your family has access to medical treatment. Because in a police state all these can easily be revoked if you annoy a local official. This could be as petty as a dispute with a council officer or a traffic warden.

You are far too trusting and you obviously do not know British history. For hundreds of years the British people has battled with authority to establish parliamentary democracy, a battle which people like you are in danger of throwing away through complete ignorance. We have managed to gain a limited freedom and I would invite you to join the struggle to enlarge upon our civil liberties rather drawing the curtains and saying "I'm alright Jack." It is through that kind of thinking the Nazis were able to gain power in German.

2006-11-07 22:02:52 · answer #2 · answered by 13caesars 4 · 3 0

everytime I buy something using a credit card it is recorded If I walk the street It is recorded If I use my bank account it is recorded if i use the internet it is recorded. We now have sophisticated software that can film you with CCTV and If you have a criminal record or even ever been arrested and let go your name as your picture has been recorded when arrested and then can be linked to the the cctv image. Theoretically anyone with a passport or new driving license could have their whereabouts recorded without their permission 24 hours a day and the police know exactly who you are by linking the cctv image to your record. The new ID cards will allow the police to record your whereabouts using CCTV images, credit Card records 24hours a day.

I like living in a liberal society giving the police this access to information of 60million innocent people is an infringement of our civil liberties doesnt matter what you have done

2006-11-07 23:51:59 · answer #3 · answered by jojo 4 · 1 0

I do agree with you about if you are doing nothing wrong then why should it bother you? But..............it's all the data that is collected about throughout the day that worries me. By using your cash card an amazing amount of data is stored about you each and everyday. This data sits in a computer and we all now how easy it is for outside parties to access information held on large computer data bases. At this present time we are in country the is rife with identity fraud and chip and pin fraud. I have no problems with being viewed up to 300 times a day by CCTV but I do have issues with personal data being kept about me.

2006-11-07 21:53:29 · answer #4 · answered by Tabbyfur aka patchy puss 5 · 1 0

You say you haven't any reason to be bothered because you are not doing anything wrong, According to whom? You know that this is the way the dictatorships are formed. Some day you may express an opinion that can be misunderstood by those who want to misunderstand it, or look at someone in a funny way according to those who monitor you and then you can argue with them that you didn't do something wrong. Fundamental human rights were given to us by our ancestors who died for these freedoms. You should really be more respectful to them. You can express these opinions because they fought for this right! And i am bothered with anyone who is trying to convince me to give up my rights!

2006-11-07 23:46:39 · answer #5 · answered by Ancient spirit 3 · 1 0

The problem is that being a "Big Brother" surveillance state puts the tools in place which could be abused by future governments.

You say that.. "Surely if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no reason to be bothered by it", but where do you draw the line? In your living room? Your bedroom? Your bathroom?

After all, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no reason to be bothered by it........

2006-11-07 21:53:58 · answer #6 · answered by glawster2002 3 · 2 0

I would suggest you get yourself a copy of 1984, (which is where the phrase big brother comes from). It nicely illustates the potential for disaster in a grim, stomach churning kind of way.

If you're happy for them to happy all the info on you, that means you have to have complete trust in the people that hold it. I would guess the police and government don't score too highly in the trust polls at the moment.

2006-11-07 21:44:06 · answer #7 · answered by RoyF 2 · 4 1

i don't know what you brits make of your history of toleration of and rebellion against repressive authority, but in america, we (used to) want to live free or die. no american should be under surveillance by her govt. we are a free people and the govt is there to serve us, not us it.

of course i'm bothered even tho i do nothing wrong. the govt has no right to know what i'm doing unless i bother someone else. prior restraint is against the law, and preemptive surveilliance used to be, also.

what if the govt is committing a crime (imagine!) and people wish to gather to respond. a surveillance state makes dissent a crime.

if Orwell's book doesn't make it clear enough for you, how about Monty Python's blackmail sketch?

i'd say you don't seem like much of an american, comrade, and I guess you're not.

2006-11-07 21:55:59 · answer #8 · answered by cassandra 6 · 2 1

Yeah! good for you, you sure are on the right track, this is the same type of argument used by Hitler! bet you he said to himself what's the problem with Germany being the big brother for all Europe.

2006-11-07 21:50:23 · answer #9 · answered by lalouch 2 · 3 1

1984 or v for vendetta

2006-11-07 21:47:57 · answer #10 · answered by periacs 2 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers