One-fifth of world's surveillance focused on Brits!

Firstly, Boondock and Greatlakes, again i think I must be speaking Venusian or something...

If they have a description, they will obviously look for those who match it. Jeebus, not a difficult concept to grasp.

If they don't and some poor woman gets raped in a village church yard, the Police will ask local men to provide a DNA sample to match against evidence. If you don't come forward willingly, you attract attention. It's one of the methods used to flush out rapists. You either give the sample willingly, or they'll come looking for you and get it anyway. They don't need a warrant, they just arrest you. Any DNA evidence taken from you will be destroyed if you are not charged and convicted.

Secondly, to the poster who asked the second silly question about the private companies. You miss the point also.

A private company, for example my firm, Cable and Wireless run their own CCTV operation. It might be Mr Hussain, the local newsagent or Mr smith of the local Fish and Chip shop. Thats what I mean by private company.

Unless your suggesting that EVERY company in the UK is owned by the Government?

You stated that the majority of the cameras are ran by PRIVATE COMPANIES.

I believe that these private companies might be hired by the Government.

The connection I was trying to make is that there are many private companies operating in Iraq who were hired by the Government.

If the private companies that run these cameras were hired by the British Government, than I am pretty sure the British Government has access to the recordings that are being made.

I would call this BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING. All this means is that the Government is SUBCONTRACTING the work knowing if they did it themselves directly it would be way more costly. This means they DO HAVE ACCESS to all this recorded information and it means there is a BIG BROTHER element.

I dont live in your country so that is why I was asking these questions. It seemed your argument against the point of the Thread Starter is that "these are private Companies so the Government has no access". I am saying that if the British Government hired these companies to run the cameras they most likely have access.

Originally posted by hoochymama
You stated that the majority of the cameras are ran by PRIVATE COMPANIES.

I believe that these private companies might be hired by the Government.

The connection I was trying to make is that there are many private companies operating in Iraq who were hired by the Government.

Exactly, I thought of this as well, it would be a way in the future (if people started to wakeup) to point any negative statistics AWAY from being that of the gov or mil origins and ownership. It would also make sense since outsourcing arguably SAVE MONEY and the UK is so keen on this part, that the police/mil/gov would use private contractors to outsource the surveillance.

Good post.

Your not listening....

Private Companies = Companies/Business running their OWN CCTV on their OWN premises for their OWN protection..

What's so hard to understand....

Jeebus H Christ, people. Learn to speak English.

It's not Government "outsourcing", it's business' running their own CCTV.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it without beating you round the head with a large stick.....

If people are just going to gloss over any post that contradicts their own little fantasy world, then whats the point?

Originally posted by stumason
Private Companies = Companies/Business running their OWN CCTV on their OWN premises for their OWN protection..
It's not Government "outsourcing", it's business' running their own CCTV.

How do you know? Granted there are private "mom and pops" as we call em here (maybe in the UK as well?) businesses that have a camera here and there. How these cameras get listed in the official count is beyond me, but anyways thats another topic posting...

But how do you know that there isn't a subset within the term PRIVATE within your 90% figure, a subset that consists of CONTRACT PROVIDERS OF CCTV cameras and surveillance to the government - to the police or to anyone else?

[edit on 6/8/2007 by greatlakes]

I see Greatlakes posting on the thread we're directed to in the all users U2U about the 911 TV fakery thread, applauding the actions there.

And yet in this thread he/she has employed exactly the same style of posting manner that has been going on in that thread, namely ignoring the points put forward and continually posting to his/her own agenda, whilst arguing that the people on the ground here don't seem to know what they are talking about.

Its arrogant and its patronising to people in the UK.


[edit on 8/0607/07 by neformore]

Just found this thread and I wonder if I might ask some questions?

Invasion of privacy - what privacy is being invaded when you are out in a public place?

Would rather protect the freedom of the criminal to attack/rob/murder someone and melt into the night, or the freedom of the law abiding citizen to go about his business unmolested?

Don't you think all this web data, plus the (usual) silly scaremongering from sources like the Daily Mail is giving you a warped view of the UK?

If the UK is a police state how come American cops can throw you to the ground for just walking across the road? (saw an interview on TV with Jeremy Irons where this happened to him, three copps held this very genteel actor on the ground just for crossing the street!

There are things about the UK that are enough to make my blood boil with anger - but camera's frankly, do not bother me in the slightest, in fact my only complaint about them is that quite a few of the hoodies have moved away from the town centres and into the suburbs to avoid them so lets have more there too!

Wouldn't you be better off worrying about your own country?

Originally posted by greatlakes
But how do you know that there isnt a subset within the term PRIVATE within your 90% figure?

How can the government get acess to the system if they require a court order to provide the tapes? Those are private property and its been shown the the govoernment and the corporations do not go hand in hand.

Originally posted by hippichick

And before you say that the streets are under control, answer these questions; Do you walk alone unarmed, anywhere, anytime or do you go in a group or in a car or avoid certain areas? How many cars in your street have been tampered with or stolen last year? How many homes in your street have NOT been broken into or vandalised last year? How many old people in your town/suburb have been harrassed or mugged in the last twelve months?

I will: I live in a town in Scotland that has a population of 80,000. I walk 3 miles to the village (the village being the original old part of the town) to go drinking with friends (not the nearest pub but it has a band). I walk home at 1:30am half of which is in landscaped areas with trees and streams. I have NEVER had any problems. I don't carry any weapons. The street I live in has never had a burglary and no cars have been broken into. I have lost count of the number of times my house has been left unlocked by accident whilst I was at work and nothing has happened. All the houses on one side of my street (mine) backs onto one of those landscaped/park areas. No one has leaped over the fence!

There is crime in the town where I live and there are incidents of GBH etc. However, you can count on the fingers of one hand with missing fingers the number of serious incidents per week (by reading the local paper). You also have to be careful you don't "count" the same crime multiple times e.g. The initial incident, the following week the first appearance in the sheriff court, several weeks later the court case, several weeks later the appeal !!

Just recently on the radio they described why there is a false perception of the level of crime. The actual average level of crime in Britain is indeed lower then ever before and that ironically is the problem. It's an average. There are some areas of Britain where crime is practically non existant! However there are hot spots where crime has increased. People who live in these hot spots have family and friends in low/zero crime areas but those people still have a fear of crime because of their friends/relatives experience in the rising crime area. It's a false perception. The crime statistics have to be reported differently and broken down into much smaller areas so that people can clearly see that most areas are better but some are worse. This has the benefit of highlighting problems that need solving as well as allaying the fears of people in low/zero crime areas.

Originally posted by stumason
Your not listening....

Private Companies = Companies/Business running their OWN CCTV on their OWN premises for their OWN protection..

What's so hard to understand....

It's not Government "outsourcing", it's business' running their own CCTV.

Hi Stum

I'm not sure how correct you are here, well yes company's do run their own cctv for their own protection but i work in an industry were cctv is very important to have.

And I can tell you the governments agencies can come into your place of business and confiscate any and all cctv videos at any time and with little or no reason period! under the terrorism act or whatever else. the fact is Greatlakes has a point although we don't work for the state, the state has access to any cctv camera, kind of surveillance by proxy.
There are guidelines to the quality of cctv you should install and it's getting ever better I wonder how long the standards are made law....just a matter of time i assume.

There was a show on bbc three last night called Mischief – Bust My Ass?

Journalist Sam Delaney has a hunch that we are living in a Big Brother State. Since New Labour came to power, there are over 3,000 new offences that can get you "nicked"; the police have greater powers of arrest and, every day, there is a new initiative to monitor and keep tabs on ordinary people.

I don't know if anyone saw it but it showed just how far our civil liberties had been eroded i.e. protesting within one mile of parliament without permision can get you arrested under anti-terror law, disturbing the peace etc etc. Now protesting is a crime unless permission given or you do it somewhere no one cares. "out of sight out of mind". the journalist had to hold up a blank placard across the street from Westminster saying he is not protesting anything just to not be arrested.

For a start, what's wrong with a T-shirt which says "Bollocks To Blair"? Is it the word "bollocks", or the fact that people are criticising the Prime Minister?

Now this young women was arrested for wearing this T-Shirt under some obscure new law. Now pretend she was spotted on cctv and then reported to the authorities then arrested and charged, Wouldn't that just be ludicrous?? but just goes to show we are wide open for abuse of power by our elected government should this big brother thing be taken too far if it hasn’t already.
Another interesting thing was new technology, which allows people to be tracked anywhere and from anywhere, but that was secret and didn’t give any details.
Cameras now talk at you for dropping litter or anything else which may come into legislation.

You now don't have the right to free protest....

He eventually ends up in the former Communist bloc Albania – once notorious for its hard-line stance on civil liberties. He drafts in a group of Albanians to protest outside their Parliament on our behalf displaying banners saying "Free Protest for the UK". Against expectations, there's no problem: the police don't object, no one gets arrested and the demonstration passes without any incident – a far cry from what happens outside the Mother of Parliaments back in Britain.

BBC PRESS OFFICE

It is not necessary to go through all of what happened in that Docu but would suffice to say it should be watched given the opportunity.

We are constantly told how wonderful cctv works, and i must concede it helps to solve many cases and prevent crime but even households now have cctv watching their drive and consequently catching people walking by.

With all this fear mongering there will only ever be more cameras and not less big brother catching your every move.

To me it feels like big brother state and I don't believe we should DENY it.

Originally posted by reaper2
And I can tell you the governments agencies can come into your place of business and confiscate any and all cctv videos at any time and with little or no reason period! under the terrorism act or whatever else. the fact is Greatlakes has a point although we don't work for the state, the state has access to any cctv camera, kind of surveillance by proxy.

Yeah only if its valid to an actual investiagation....they arent going to actually investigate the entire country are they?
They requrie a warrant to take the tapes forcefully but then again you could just give them the tapes to make it easier for them, but legally if they want to take them by force they require a warrant.

I don't know if anyone saw it but it showed just how far our civil liberties had been eroded i.e. protesting within one mile of parliament without permision can get you arrested under anti-terror law, disturbing the peace etc etc.

Well mate unlike some people I prefer not to walk down my street and be bothered by idiots who I may or may not agree with, frankly if they want to protest go protest at the persons house not in a public place.

Now this young women was arrested for wearing this T-Shirt under some obscure new law. Now pretend she was spotted on cctv and then reported to the authorities then arrested and charged, Wouldn't that just be ludicrous??

Why? Come on, she broke the law....are you telling me that cameras shouldnt be used to prosecute people?

Another interesting thing was new technology, which allows people to be tracked anywhere and from anywhere, but that was secret and didn’t give any details.

GPS is nothing new and frankly they cant track you unless they actually know who and where you live or have a GPS trasnmitter on you.

You now don't have the right to free protest....

Yes you do, you dont have a right to be a menace to the public and make my life hell jsut because you feel self righteous enough to stand up and shout about something.

To me it feels like big brother state and I don't believe we should DENY it.

Yeah with police that cant even arrest someone without fear of themselves being charged for assault because the subject resisted arrest.

A tearful Denis was driven to a mobile police unit. "I asked the officers how they could arrest someone for wearing a T-shirt and they told me it was because it would offend a 70-80-year-old woman," she said.

After agreeing to wear a friend's coat, Denis was released without charge. But the incident ruined her day: "You don't expect to be treated like that at a country fair," she said.

This story, from September 2005 can be found here

Girl arrested over to Bollocks to Blair Shirt

So, the girl was picked up by a jobsworth policeman, given a slap on the wrist and sent on her way wearing a coat. Hell she didn't even have to take the T-Shirt off. Is that indicitive of a Police state? No. Where was the detention without trail and political correction gulag? Did she get a right good kicking? No. Did members of her family disappear overnight? No.

Foul and abusive language, although fast becoming the norm in the UK, can still be considered a public disorder act, particularly if a complaint is made to an officer about it.

But, lets redress the balance, and deny some ignorance, because the US is sooooo much better off than the UK isn't it?

Or is it?

Heres a link to the Democrats.com archive.

Democrats.com archive

Which details such stories as....


Publishing Co. Attempt to Tie Up, then Destroy Anti-Bush Magazine Thwarted by Librarians

FBI Seizes Indymedia Servers

Warner Bros Censors David Russell's Anti-War Films

Lani Frank Slapped with $230 Fine for Handing Out Voter Registration Forms Outside F-911 Theater

Pentagon Censors Soldiers' Blogs to Suppress the Truth about Iraq

Public Outcry Forces W.Va. City Officials to Apologize to Couple Arrested for Wearing Anti-Bush T-shirts

Democratic Leader is Arrested Outside F911 Theater for Distributing Voter Registration Forms in Public Parking Lot

Teacher 'Investigated' for Refusing to Acknowledge Reagan Greatness

Avant Garde Art Now Considered Terrorism by Bush Administration

Teen's Anti-War Artwork Brings a Visit from the Secret Service

Protester Fined $500 for Being Inside Bush's Half-Mile Bubble

Anti-Iraq War Veterans Pulled from Florida Parade

Fired for Expressing Anti-War Opinion, North Carolina Teacher Appeals Her Case

Singer Banned from Corporate Book Chain for Saying Bush has Chicken Legs

Oregon Republican Wants 25-to-Life Sentences for Blocking Streets

Lawyer Arrested for Wearing Peace T-Shirt in Mall

30 Star Wars Protestors Held without Bail in Tiny Single Cell in Maximum Security Prison Cell



And I'm like....half way down the page after having skipped a few.

Now who lives in a Police state? I feel so sorry for the Americans living in their miserable country. Us poor Brits are next you know.....




[edit on 8/0607/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by stumason
Firstly, Boondock and Greatlakes, again i think I must be speaking Venusian or something...

If they have a description, they will obviously look for those who match it. Jeebus, not a difficult concept to grasp.

If they don't and some poor woman gets raped in a village church yard, the Police will ask local men to provide a DNA sample to match against evidence. If you don't come forward willingly, you attract attention. It's one of the methods used to flush out rapists. You either give the sample willingly, or they'll come looking for you and get it anyway.

uhhh, why you put my name in there. i am 6 foot 3 and sleeved with tattoos. i said if there is a description of a possible rapist and the description is a 6 foot 3 inch male with full sleeve tats, then i fit that description.
that said, i still wouldn't give a dna sample on the side of the road.
and here in the states, yeah, they would get it anyway but they would have to get a warrant first. they can not just swab you.
so, if i am innocent, let them get their damn warrant. follow the procedure. go through the motions..get a judge to sign it.
i want to make it as hard on them as possible.
my dna is not on file anywhere and i would like to keep it that way.

besides which, here in teh states you can't do it on the side of the road. you need to go to the station/lab and give the sample. they can ask you for it and you can refuse. if they still want it you are right, more than likely they will get it, but i am just not giving it up.
never would.
if that means i have to sit in jail for a day or 2 days ro whatever till they get a warrant and swab me...thats cool.
i'll be right there, chillin, getting free food.

i been to jail before. not like you'd go to the pen. you'd be at the station.
let them get their warrant i say again.
you know, that process was put in place for a reason.

same as if a cop knocks at your door and asks if he can have a look around cause your house fits the description of a 'drug house'....do you let him into your joint to look around or do you tell him to split and get a warrant?
why is your mouth any different?

I had read that the DNA database was large in the UK, but found some figures that have been updated, but even these numbers are a year old, so the amount of stored persons could be even greater.



Basically says that the DNA of MORE THAN 5.20% of the population of the UK is stored in POLICE DATABASES. This figure outnumbers EVERY country the world over and is in fact over FIVE TIMES the size of that of the US. The US has 1%, the other EU countries on average, 0.3%. These stats are telling of the extent of big brother prevalence, even if you want to DISCOUNT the CCTV stats...these numbers are from POLICE DATABASES ONLY, no private firms are within these numbers.

news.independent.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Police in Britain hold vastly more DNA samples than any other country in the Western world, and many are from people who have never committed a crime.

More than three million samples have been added to the national DNA database - more than 5 per cent of the population. With new figures showing just 1 per cent of Americans have their genetic information on record, and an average of 0.3 per cent in other European Union countries, ministers were last night accused of attempting to build a national DNA database by stealth.

Three years ago, police were given the right to obtain and retain DNA samples from anyone arrested, regardless of whether they are eventually convicted. The genetic information remains on file for a person's life and is almost impossible to remove.

Catch that, the police have the right to OBTAIN & RETAIN the DNA samples from people even if found to be innocent.

Now does the UK consist of more than 5% of the population that are criminals, and therefore justifiably within this DNA database?

But answers to Parliamentary questions show that nearly 125,000 people on the database have neither been charged nor cautioned for any offence.

Questions about discrimination were also raised yesterday after figures showed that nearly a quarter of those neither charged or convicted were from an ethnic minority.

Overall, 24 per cent of people on the database are non-white, even though the black and Asian population of the UK as a whole is less than 8 per cent. Some estimates have even suggested that that more than a one-third of young black men have had samples taken.

The database includes 139,463 people never charged or cautioned with an offence, separate Home Office figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats show.

Just who are some of these people in this so-called criminal DNA database? Hardened criminals obviously? - WELL, No - the criminal types that are ranging in age from 10-18 years old! This report states that at least 24,000 children were listed in the DNA database.

news.bbc.co.uk...
The government has defended storing the DNA profiles of about 24,000 children and young people aged 10 to 18.

The youngsters' details are held on the UK database, despite them never having been cautioned, charged or convicted of an offence, a Conservative MP found.

How did this information come about?
LAUNCH VIDEO-How Grant Shapps MP discovered the extent of the national database

For some updated figures, just how many children are suspected to be in the database? From 22nd May 2007:

www.genewatch.org...
Briefing by GeneWatch UK and Action on Rights for Children. Based on Home Office figures we calculate that at least 100,000 innocent 10-17 year-olds are on the DNA Database.

...and some more figures from:

www.genewatch.org...
1. England and Wales are the only countries in the world which keep DNA profiles and samples from innocent people and people convicted of minor offences for life. The practice of taking DNA on arrest for a very wide range of offences, and retaining both DNA samples and the computerised DNA profiles permanently is disproportionate to the need to tackle crime.

2. The rapid expansion of the National DNA Database has enormous implications for the balance between the power of the state to implement “biosurveillance” on an individual and the individual’s right to privacy. Issues of cost and cost-effectiveness are also raised by the practice of keeping DNA profiles and samples permanently from so many people. There is also significant potential for others – including organised criminals – to infiltrate the system and abuse it, for example by using it to reveal changed identities and breach witness protection schemes.

Now these are more updated figures that express the numbers with even more alarm than the above, taken to be from MAY 2007:

4,100,000 people in the database (6.75% of the population!);

About a third (1,139,445) had no criminal record;

667,737 people added to the database last year;

Of those added last year, 90,919 were below the age of 16;

A total of 521,901 CHILDREN are now on the DNA database;

Just over 100 samples (of children) have been removed;

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/06/26/ndata26.xml
www.theregister.co.uk...
www.privacyinternational.org...

And finally, here's ONE of the CRIMINALS that has her DNA stored in the police database, perhaps forever...

www.newstatesman.com...
A simple prank by a 13-year-old. Now her genetic records are on the National DNA Database forever.

Two months ago, a 13-year-old schoolgirl was arrested in Ashford, Kent for throwing a snowball at a police car. It was reported in the national and local press, but not one journalist chose to focus on the most disturbing aspect of the incident: she was DNA-swabbed and her details were added to the National DNA Database. Unlike her ticking-off or public humiliation, this mark against her name will remain indefinitely on a mainframe somewhere in the Forensic Science Service.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by stumason
Your not listening....

Private Companies = Companies/Business running their OWN CCTV on their OWN premises for their OWN protection..

ok, the private cameras take motion shots or stills.
where do those images go? are they stored in some database/ where is it at? who has access to it?

do you think that big brother could get access to this stuff if they want?


i don't like it even with the private cameras..it is an easy way to set a timeline.

say someone gets raped by a guy that looks like me(tall, tats, brown hair) and thats all they know.
they know it happened on this cross street so they start pulling footage from traffic cams, businesses, all that trying to fin dhim.
so they see me at this red light 20 minutes before she was taken. then they see me pull into the cvs and buy i don't know, sleeping pills..then the outside camera catches me going right, right towards the cross streets where this lady was taken then raped.
they only have a description and no suspects...when they start pulling films, they start to see me.

you see where this is going?
i don't need to be braced by the cops and i don't need my whereabouts known all the time.
sure, it's not in real time and sure the cameras are in businesses.
some of those cameras face the parking lot, they face outside on the street, and on and on.
now, IF a serious crime happened and they needed to find a person, i am thinking the law could go into that business and pull the tapes.

personally, i have a problem with this.

Originally posted by waynos

Would rather protect the freedom of the criminal to attack/rob/murder someone and melt into the night, or the freedom of the law abiding citizen to go about his business unmolested?

you know darn well that people are still gonna get attacked/robbed.
is that camera gonna jump off the building and go hong kong phooey on the perp?
nope. guy will still get mugged. only nbow, MAYBE there will be a few frames of the mugger....that means, crime not prevented.

do you guys not think the gov can pull tapes from these places?
how do you think they build cases? they build timelines and such...innocent people have been put to jail and even to death.
wonder if that will increase or decrease now

Perhaps the collection of DNA and adding to it consistently is only a "pilot program".

DNA DATABASE, EXCLUDING 2006-2007 in which over 667,000 persons were added in this period alone...



So taking these figures, the population of the UK is roughly 60,800,000 and the amount of persons in the DNA database is 4,100,000...This works out to a staggering percentage of 6.7% of the population, many of which are children and never convicted of a crime as stated in the above post.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by greatlakes]

Here's a official Home Office report on CCTV in UK.

Home Office Research Study 292

It's a good read. It sure put this issue in perspective and also contains something for pro and contra CCTV ATS member. It practically shows that both of you are right and wrong at the same time.

Personally, I think CCTV projects are a major cash cow.

Here is something from this report that sure made me laugh.

Norris and McCahill (2003) noted that operators were not always native speakers and this limited the extent to which they could communicate with the police.

Originally posted by yanchek
Here's a official Home Office report on CCTV in UK.

Home Office Research Study 292

Good find and post yanchek.

From the paper,

The above results indicate that the CCTV schemes that have been assessed had little overall
effect on crime levels. Even where changes have been noted, with the exception of those
relating to car parks, very few are larger than could be due to chance alone and all could
in fact represent either chance variation or confounding factors. Where crime levels went up
it is not reasonable to conclude that CCTV had a negative impact.

Theres a lot of good quotes in there, both pro and con as you say. I have the 1992 version from the same group, it would be interesting to compare the two documents. It goes over in length how to study the peoples perceptions and how to gear a CCTV program to minimize civil liberty infringement perception.

Yes it may be true that the systems now both in the US and the UK may not be all that sophisticated, some are some aren't. But as the camera amounts INCREASE and the BUDGETS SHRINK for surveilance camera operators, what is the next course of logical action?

AUTOMATION. The camera systems will be automated with facial recognition and other automation features that allow a MINIMUM of human operator guidance and control and monitoring. Thats the 'slippery slope' that we must avoid.

Also found this in my digging. Police are apparently requesting that CCTV cameras get UPGRADES to the quality that the police demand.

Police and the Home Office are planning a significant upgrade of the CCTV network in a move that will deepen concern about a lurch towards a "surveillance society''.

New laws would require camera operators to ensure that their equipment produces images good enough for police investigations.

This follows an 18-month review carried out by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) amid concern about the quality of evidence supplied by millions of cameras. The findings are due to be published within weeks.

And this is scary, the camera request may extend to PRIVATE CAMERAS AS WELL?

The CCTV review was ordered after the July 7 bombings in London in 2005 which demonstrated the importance of the cameras by picking up the terrorists on the way from Luton to London.

But police found many of the images they acquired, especially those from private and commercial sources, were not good enough.

Police chiefs believe the system has developed in a ''piecemeal'' way and the time has come to impose rules on the type of cameras used.

''We want a generic technology that allows us to download images easily and quickly. All those who don't conform would have to change.''

The move will alarm civil liberties groups who have questioned the proliferation of cameras and are sceptical at claims that they help cut crime.

Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, said: "Surveillance in Britain has now reached a level equivalent to Russia and Malaysia. If something is not done soon to reverse this trend privacy will be extinct within a decade."

www.telegraph.co.uk......



[edit on 6/8/2007 by greatlakes]

[edit on 6/8/2007 by greatlakes]