7 ms·

London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister

London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

harry8 10y ago
Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects rather than running a criminal conspiracy. If the law is inconvenient or wrong, they can lobby to change it, same as everyone else. Break it, and they really ought to be in jail, same as anyone else.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  > Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects I'm now 38 years old and have seen little evidence to support your statement, either in the UK or elsewhere. Most people seem _totally_ okay with members of their ruling class being drone-murdering, tax-thieving, law-breaking, crotch-grabbing assholes.
  - mmjaa 10y ago
    You forgot: pedophiles.
    - duncan_bayne 10y ago
      Oh, right - although one could argue that's a subclass of crotch-grabbers.
      - mmjaa 10y ago
        Yeah, but I think its a little more serious than Trumps' crotch-grabbing sexism, when such a significant swathe of UK politicians is embroiled in child-sex scandals, that it becomes a frickin' National Security issue to prosecute them. If only the subjects of the UK had a spine, as a people, and the willingness to confront the dire evil that has usurped their political infrastructure .. alas, they don't. A nation of cowards, really.
        noir_lord 10y ago
        > A nation of cowards, really. A nation of sheep perhaps but not a nation of cowards.
        mmjaa 10y ago
        Until the people of the UK stand up and do something about the criminal factions that have usurped their government, I remain of the view that it is really a very cowardly society. There is simply no other excuse for the inaction and disregard for these heinous crimes. Not to mention a significant portion of the society appears to be perfectly aligned with the need for a total surveillance state, due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost..
        noir_lord 10y ago
        > due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost.. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, most people I know don't know much about what we did during the age of empire and the rest broadly think Empire was a good thing for the countries we conquered.
        mmjaa 10y ago
        I'm not talking about some foregone era of the foggy, distant past. I'm talking about here and now. But you're right, nobody knows about that, either.
        duncan_bayne 9y ago
        Do you think the UK has more of a problem in this regard than the US? I'm unsure whether it's more prevalent in the upper echelons of British society than in America, or whether it's less well hidden.
        mmjaa 9y ago
        I think both nations have been equally usurped by a criminal element, for which this situation acts as leverage and coverup. Neither nation seems to be immune to this dire influence, alas.
  - ethics_gradient 10y ago
    It's not that they don't care, it's that they're conditioned to think it's too hopeless and complicated. The common people have the power, they only need to understand they do.
- JimDabell 10y ago
  > British subjects Virtually nobody is a British subject, we are citizens. There are only two cases where you can be a British subject: if you were born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949 and claimed British subject status before 1983, or if you were born in a British colony that gained independence but you didn't become a citizen of the new country.
devoply 10y ago
Expectation of privacy is quite a bit different from breaking locks to steal information without judicial oversight.
dirtbox 10y ago
The camera surveillance stuff hasn't been true since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 when much of it was scrapped. I'm not sure I've never heard of surveillance vans on every block though, that's certainly not true.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  There are a lot of fucking cameras in London - they didn't get taken down in 2012. Of course I'm fine with the cameras so ymmv. Also, plenty of police vans with ANPR systems to check on cars etc as they drive about. As for the rest, sometimes I wonder if people on HN have forgotten what the real world is like. Is encryption evil? Clearly not. Does it being prevalent cause issues with intercepting terrorist/criminal communications? Probably. So, sure, the prime minister said something which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - as have most politicians and indeed people. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that they've ill intentions.
  - th4dv 10y ago
    "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - just sayin'
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
qqg3 10y ago
London doesn't have "blocks". Surveillance vans are a myth. Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.
- SamUK96 10y ago
  > London doesn't have "blocks". I don't think they meant "block" in the usual American sense, but in the general sense, that is: "an area". > Surveillance vans are a myth. Simply Wrong. Surveillance vans are not a myth, honestly. Maybe not in the what the police would call the "plebian" areas, but in the centre and Canary Wharf, you can see them every now and then, they even have their own WiFi you can try and connect to, which has like 3 password fields (I've tried when I was passing one in Canary Wharf). > Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated No evidence for this, and I think the parent comment meant "street-level" CCTV, not in buildings, and i'de be pushed to say it's more weighted towards public CCTV (govt.) rather than private.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Most of the "street level" cameras are council owned and operated, outside of a few areas where the police operate them. City certainly has a lot of police operated surveillance. But venture outside the most central areas and there's not much street-level CCTV. As I've mentioned elsewhere, where I live in London it's about a 20 minute walk in any direction to see one. There are many parts of London where that is true once you venture outside of zone 1. In zone 1, yes, you'll be on camera a lot unless you sneak around back streets and on purpose try to avoid them.
- ciaranm 10y ago
  There's CCTV vans all over the City Of London. They don't tend to venture out much further, but they totally exist. I see them all the time.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    City is "special", and City has its own police force, which is why they don't venture further out - City of London Police does not generally have any business venturing out of City unless cooperating with the Metropolitan Police on something or following a suspect. City certainly is it's own little undemocratic (sure, you can vote, but so can nominees of corporations located in City), police-state fiefdom. (for the non-Lononders, City of London is one of the financial districts of London, on the site of the historical site of the original settlement of London, and makes up a tiny portion of London; it's got its own police force, and a government that's entirely unlike anything else in the UK)
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? Because article 8 of the ECHR guarantees it and the courts generally uphold it. I haven't researched beyond this article but it clearly says what the Met is/was doing is/was illegal.
- tremon 10y ago
  Which is why PM May has been saying she wants the UK to leave both the EU and the Council of Europe.
orf 10y ago
Lots of cameras, sure, but so what? Can you elaborate why this is bad, in relation to how they are deployed and operated in London? I was involved with a long trial that relied heavily on CCTV evidence and I'm interested to read how you think they are operated or owned.
- halloij 10y ago
  Americans would rather the freedom to get shot at in private...
  - halloij 10y ago
    * Privacy * Safety Pick one.
vidarh 10y ago
> This is the city with police cameras on every block No, it is not. It is a city where tiny portions have police cameras. Somewhat larger areas have council-controlled cameras that it's fairly easy for police to gain access to. The vast majority of CCTV in London - and in the UK - is privately controlled, and most of it is not networked. Police can get access to it if/when something has happened, but most of them also either don't record or record only on a 24h loop, and access is often enough of a hassle that police does not even bother. Certainly there is a lot of surveillance in London, and especially the central areas and around important buildings, but it's nowhere near as bad as you imply. I live in London - I'd have about a 20 minutes walk to the nearest networked, police controlled camera, and about 10-15 minutes walk to any camera. In any direction. > surveillance vans Yes, but how many of them do you think there are? They are a rare sight, and they are obvious. I'm sure the Met would like more of them, but they don't have the budget to use them all over the place.
- georgespencer 10y ago
  > [surveillance vans] are a rare sight I see them often. But equally often I ask myself what the point is. What are the odds of catching a crime? Or do they work in tandem with dispatchers from the police, moving around in areas near reported crimes to try to capture footage?
  - vidarh 10y ago
    I only ever see them when I go in towards the centre. I'm assuming they are moving them around known crime hotspots.
halloij 10y ago
It's scary to hear such ridiculous propaganda. This is just as bad as Trump labeling areas in the UK "no go zones". It's just garbage.
- halloij 10y ago
  shrug downvote away. It's complete fantasy. It doesn't exist.

harry8 10y ago

Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects rather than running a criminal conspiracy. If the law is inconvenient or wrong, they can lobby to change it, same as everyone else. Break it, and they really ought to be in jail, same as anyone else.

duncan_bayne 10y ago
> Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects I'm now 38 years old and have seen little evidence to support your statement, either in the UK or elsewhere. Most people seem _totally_ okay with members of their ruling class being drone-murdering, tax-thieving, law-breaking, crotch-grabbing assholes.
- mmjaa 10y ago
  You forgot: pedophiles.
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    Oh, right - although one could argue that's a subclass of crotch-grabbers.
    - mmjaa 10y ago
      Yeah, but I think its a little more serious than Trumps' crotch-grabbing sexism, when such a significant swathe of UK politicians is embroiled in child-sex scandals, that it becomes a frickin' National Security issue to prosecute them. If only the subjects of the UK had a spine, as a people, and the willingness to confront the dire evil that has usurped their political infrastructure .. alas, they don't. A nation of cowards, really.
      - noir_lord 10y ago
        > A nation of cowards, really. A nation of sheep perhaps but not a nation of cowards.
        mmjaa 10y ago
        Until the people of the UK stand up and do something about the criminal factions that have usurped their government, I remain of the view that it is really a very cowardly society. There is simply no other excuse for the inaction and disregard for these heinous crimes. Not to mention a significant portion of the society appears to be perfectly aligned with the need for a total surveillance state, due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost..
        noir_lord 10y ago
        > due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost.. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, most people I know don't know much about what we did during the age of empire and the rest broadly think Empire was a good thing for the countries we conquered.
        mmjaa 10y ago
        I'm not talking about some foregone era of the foggy, distant past. I'm talking about here and now. But you're right, nobody knows about that, either.
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        Do you think the UK has more of a problem in this regard than the US? I'm unsure whether it's more prevalent in the upper echelons of British society than in America, or whether it's less well hidden.
        mmjaa 9y ago
        I think both nations have been equally usurped by a criminal element, for which this situation acts as leverage and coverup. Neither nation seems to be immune to this dire influence, alas.
- ethics_gradient 10y ago
  It's not that they don't care, it's that they're conditioned to think it's too hopeless and complicated. The common people have the power, they only need to understand they do.
JimDabell 10y ago
> British subjects Virtually nobody is a British subject, we are citizens. There are only two cases where you can be a British subject: if you were born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949 and claimed British subject status before 1983, or if you were born in a British colony that gained independence but you didn't become a citizen of the new country.

devoply 10y ago

Expectation of privacy is quite a bit different from breaking locks to steal information without judicial oversight.

dirtbox 10y ago

The camera surveillance stuff hasn't been true since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 when much of it was scrapped. I'm not sure I've never heard of surveillance vans on every block though, that's certainly not true.

Ntrails 10y ago
There are a lot of fucking cameras in London - they didn't get taken down in 2012. Of course I'm fine with the cameras so ymmv. Also, plenty of police vans with ANPR systems to check on cars etc as they drive about. As for the rest, sometimes I wonder if people on HN have forgotten what the real world is like. Is encryption evil? Clearly not. Does it being prevalent cause issues with intercepting terrorist/criminal communications? Probably. So, sure, the prime minister said something which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - as have most politicians and indeed people. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that they've ill intentions.
- th4dv 10y ago
  "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - just sayin'
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

qqg3 10y ago

London doesn't have "blocks". Surveillance vans are a myth. Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.

SamUK96 10y ago
> London doesn't have "blocks". I don't think they meant "block" in the usual American sense, but in the general sense, that is: "an area". > Surveillance vans are a myth. Simply Wrong. Surveillance vans are not a myth, honestly. Maybe not in the what the police would call the "plebian" areas, but in the centre and Canary Wharf, you can see them every now and then, they even have their own WiFi you can try and connect to, which has like 3 password fields (I've tried when I was passing one in Canary Wharf). > Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated No evidence for this, and I think the parent comment meant "street-level" CCTV, not in buildings, and i'de be pushed to say it's more weighted towards public CCTV (govt.) rather than private.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Most of the "street level" cameras are council owned and operated, outside of a few areas where the police operate them. City certainly has a lot of police operated surveillance. But venture outside the most central areas and there's not much street-level CCTV. As I've mentioned elsewhere, where I live in London it's about a 20 minute walk in any direction to see one. There are many parts of London where that is true once you venture outside of zone 1. In zone 1, yes, you'll be on camera a lot unless you sneak around back streets and on purpose try to avoid them.
ciaranm 10y ago
There's CCTV vans all over the City Of London. They don't tend to venture out much further, but they totally exist. I see them all the time.
- vidarh 10y ago
  City is "special", and City has its own police force, which is why they don't venture further out - City of London Police does not generally have any business venturing out of City unless cooperating with the Metropolitan Police on something or following a suspect. City certainly is it's own little undemocratic (sure, you can vote, but so can nominees of corporations located in City), police-state fiefdom. (for the non-Lononders, City of London is one of the financial districts of London, on the site of the historical site of the original settlement of London, and makes up a tiny portion of London; it's got its own police force, and a government that's entirely unlike anything else in the UK)

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? Because article 8 of the ECHR guarantees it and the courts generally uphold it. I haven't researched beyond this article but it clearly says what the Met is/was doing is/was illegal.

tremon 10y ago
Which is why PM May has been saying she wants the UK to leave both the EU and the Council of Europe.

orf 10y ago

Lots of cameras, sure, but so what? Can you elaborate why this is bad, in relation to how they are deployed and operated in London? I was involved with a long trial that relied heavily on CCTV evidence and I'm interested to read how you think they are operated or owned.

halloij 10y ago
Americans would rather the freedom to get shot at in private...
- halloij 10y ago
  * Privacy * Safety Pick one.

vidarh 10y ago

> This is the city with police cameras on every block No, it is not. It is a city where tiny portions have police cameras. Somewhat larger areas have council-controlled cameras that it's fairly easy for police to gain access to. The vast majority of CCTV in London - and in the UK - is privately controlled, and most of it is not networked. Police can get access to it if/when something has happened, but most of them also either don't record or record only on a 24h loop, and access is often enough of a hassle that police does not even bother. Certainly there is a lot of surveillance in London, and especially the central areas and around important buildings, but it's nowhere near as bad as you imply. I live in London - I'd have about a 20 minutes walk to the nearest networked, police controlled camera, and about 10-15 minutes walk to any camera. In any direction. > surveillance vans Yes, but how many of them do you think there are? They are a rare sight, and they are obvious. I'm sure the Met would like more of them, but they don't have the budget to use them all over the place.

georgespencer 10y ago
> [surveillance vans] are a rare sight I see them often. But equally often I ask myself what the point is. What are the odds of catching a crime? Or do they work in tandem with dispatchers from the police, moving around in areas near reported crimes to try to capture footage?
- vidarh 10y ago
  I only ever see them when I go in towards the centre. I'm assuming they are moving them around known crime hotspots.

halloij 10y ago

It's scary to hear such ridiculous propaganda. This is just as bad as Trump labeling areas in the UK "no go zones". It's just garbage.

halloij 10y ago
shrug downvote away. It's complete fantasy. It doesn't exist.