Are you happy with the British police wanting to take "...public surveillance to an entirely new level"?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6186348.stm

There is no doubt in mind whatsoever that if Blunkett was still Home Secretary he would be fully supporting the police in this.

Answer 1

Absolutely not. Men and women fought, died and were horrifically wounded in 2 world wars to ensure freedoms that included a range of civil liberties that we now take so much for granted that we seem to care less as they are being progressively eroded by those in positions of power in this country. We are the most spied on citizens in the "free" world, and our freedoms are being taken away by the day. Those vociferous people who constantly repeat the politician's and police mantra that "if you have done no wrong, you have nothing to fear" will be the first to complain when we are subjugated, monitored and controlled to such a degree, in the not too distant future, that they are no longer allowed to even voice their protest. We are calmly sleep-walking into a totalitarian police state, and most of the responders in this forum appear to think that's fine. I despair for our future, and our liberty, when you have so blithely let it go.

Answer 2

I believe that most surveillance will result in the possibility of the recognition and apprehension of the offender AFTER the event. I do not recall a case where surveillance prevented a serious crime. i.e. the terrible bombs on the Trade Centre and on London the London Tube and bus. With this in mind I would say that If the Police and Security Forces can justify an increase in surveillance methods by proving that they can prevent these terrible crimes happening then all strength to their case; without the justification I would find it hard to accept taking that public surveillance to a new level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be disappointed by this answer but I cannot agree with accepting the concept just to continue to collect fines AFTER the EVENT. I do not think that preventing a serial bomber, murderer or rapist to continue counts as justification in this case. that can be accomplished at the present levels.

Answer 3

As a Yank, I thought I'd make an observation here. Hope you don't mind. It seems that your country already has seen an increase in violence from the radicalised Muslim faction and on a much larger scale per capita than we have in the states. I took the time to read your link and while the concerns are valid, I wondered if one could imagine the outcry if nothing was done and another large scale attack were to take place. I am one who despises the intrusion of government on my own personal freedoms and am very concerned over the possible abuse of this new power in the name of safety but trying to be fair minded, and considering the rising violence these days wonder if it might be necessary.

Man...that was one long sentence..

Answer 4

What many people fail to realise is that most of these surveillance cameras are unmanned and only on record(if that).The idea is that the cameras themselves act as deterrent but of course if they are unmanned how can they possibly prevent a crime that is happening at the time.The police would love to have more surveillance, they always do it saves putting police persons on the street where it may be cold and wet. The real people on the surveillance kick are this government who probably would like a camera in every living room.

Answer 5

Well, it's not like the police are going to be wading into crowds to pull out someone who's just confessed to his mate that's he's parked on a double yellow. This type of technology is designed to find those people with much more sinister motives. I for one would much rather have my conversations listened to than hear the big boom as explosive devices go off during the Olympics opening ceremony killing hundreds if not thousands of people.
I keep hearing people saying
"Why don't the police concentrate on catching real criminals?"
I would say this is a step in that direction.
As crime and terrorism gets more sophisticated so too must the methods used to catch these criminals.

Answer 6

I have no problem with increased surveillance or crrying an ID card as I think of myself as an upstanding member of the community and law abiding citized.
What does concern me is not the surveillance, but where the resulting information is stored and who has access to it.

We see every other week someone has hacked into some organisation and stolen someones identity. Until networks and storage facilities are really secure, I think this is a touchy subject...

SUMMARY
No problem with the concept.... Big problem with who will have access to the data!

Answer 7

not happyat all, there are too many examples of the offended getting punished worse than the offender, i believe that all this is a 50yr old plan coming together,to defeat the british and her freedom to force us into a new world order, we dont want. being a christian theres prophesy that podicts the captivity of the world by an evil force, and its all coming true...The anti christs have control of police force.

Answer 8

No. Just a step away from George Orwell's "1984". First surveillance, then ID cards, then curfews, then a police state.

Answer 9

intresting quote. On the one hand this may be a good thing as it removes all the so and so's from our enviroment. However i belive that people have a right to privacy and should not be "screened" every second of every day so that some ploice man can look at it.

As a wise man once said "Thee whom looks, sees"

Answer 10

I think its a good idea..

If your waiting for the next terrorist threat to hit London when do you think it is going to happen??. Olympics Perhaps when the whole world is watching it would be the biggest public statement any terrorist orginisation could make...

Needing the up most to date security available and policing to keep the worlds crowd safe is a small price to pay..