6 ms·

Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. The "average Joe" has the "I got nothing to hide" and that "go get them paedophiles", which are very true

Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. The "average Joe" has the "I got nothing to hide" and that "go get them paedophiles", which are very true statements. We are talking about a nation that has 4,200,000 [1] cameras surveilling them and nobody bats an eye about this. For some reason, Britons have decided (or was forced to them and they didn't push back) that privacy is not necessary, so, let them have it. What harm can 3 more cameras can do? :) (per kiosk, per street) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...

timthorn 9y ago
With state surveillance, I'd agree. I don't think things are so clear cut for private sector actors. Private CCTV is tolerated because it's a) typically not a networked system, b) rarely mined for analytics and c) often conflated with council run systems anyway.
dingaling 9y ago
> (or was forced to them and they didn't push back ) How do you suggest that we should have pushed back? By voting the bastards out? The UK is actually quite good at that, but policy outlives politicians thanks to the civil service.
- celticninja 9y ago
  New government can easily reverse or change the policies of previous governments, the civil service jut enacts what the government of the day tells them to do.
  - desas 9y ago
    Sort of. The civil service has lots of people with their own agenda which they push to the elected politicians when they ask the civil service for options on how to solve problems
    - celticninja 9y ago
      The civil service doesn't push their own agenda. They are tasked with finding solutions to enact policy decisions, they provide the best solutions that they can that will fulfill the policy presented by the government. A civil servant cannot push their own agenda and the civil service as a whole doesn't have an agenda except to serve the government of the day to the best of their ability regardless of their personal politics.
gaius 9y ago
Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. Here's a true story, a few years ago I was supervising a diver training session at a swimming pool in London, it was closed to members of the public at the time. My locker was broken into, my phone, tablet, credit cards, car keys and bizarrely a load of Mexican money I happened to have in my wallet was stolen, as were a couple of other lockers. Thank God I hadn't driven in that evening, I'm sure the guy walked around all the local streets pushing the button and seeing if any cars lit up. That was the most annoying thing to get the car re-coded, I easily bricked all the devices and cancelled the cards, no activity was detected on them. Insurance replaced them. No idea what he wanted with or did with the pesos. Anyway, the thief was caught on several CCTV cameras, should have been an easy job for the popo to pick him up, but actually, CCTV footage is next to useless. All you could tell was that he was 6-ish feet tall and approximate ethnicity. So I don't mind the pervasive surveillance, because it doesn't work anyway. I guess I am vaguely annoyed that taxpayer's money is wasted on any of it deployed by the government, but that's all. Maybe it at least has some deterrent effect, but this guy clearly wasn't bothered by being caught on camera at all, so probably not.
- linkmotif 9y ago
  The answer is face recognition.
  - gaius 9y ago
    I saw the CCTV footage - impossible.
  - goblins 9y ago
    Current quality for the majority of CCTV is probably not good enough for facial. May be gait recognition is more feasible.
    - Spearchucker 9y ago
      There's an interesting article in last month's Economist. They show resolution that let's an operator recognise a face a mile up the road. That was in Islington.
benbristow 9y ago
At least these cameras give you WiFi in return
musage 9y ago
Even if all people in the world were "$arbitrary_number comfortable with", say, wars of aggression, that still wouldn't sanction it. At the very least, let them speak for themselves. > Britons have decided (or was forced to them and they didn't push back) "This victim probably welcomed the death following her rape; notice all her skull tattoos in combination with a route through an unlit street. Either that, or she could have been deceived and/or forced, so it's fine either way."
dvdhnt 9y ago
Okay, I'm going to toss out downvote material because I think it's important to say. > Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. I think Americans are actually 99% comfortable with massive surveillance but can't admit it because of our culture. We consume reality TV like no one's business, watch YouTube to see people do dumb things in real life, and just in general, feel the urge to record and capture everything. The 1% we disagree with is when it happens to be us doing something we didn't want anyone to see because it's embarrassing or causes us some kind of hardship e.g. pay a fine for breaking a law. Personally, even if I have something to hide, it's my responsibility to hide it, or to stop doing it, and therefore, the public good shouldn't be hindered because I'm a crappy person. If we could implement a CCTV system with ACTUAL checks and balances i.e. used my authorities, regulated by a public authority, and monitored by some third-party NON-CORPORATE watchdog, I'll vote for it as often as they'd let me. If it's 1% more effective at stopping sexual assaults, preventing kidnappings, or protecting us from mass shootings, then it's 100% worth it.
- alex_young 9y ago
  Maybe I'm just part of that 1% who will reject this idea. Is a 1% reduction in any crime really worth a totalitarian world where the state can hunt down people who disagree with them?
- yesenadam 9y ago
  >Okay, I'm going to toss out downvote material because I think it's important to say. I didn't get past that first sentence of irrelevant filler.
  - dvdhnt 9y ago
    You’d be better served expending energy reading my comment rather than proclaiming your failure to read it, friend.
    - yesenadam 9y ago
      Well, judging from the first line, I thought not. And don't be snarky then call me "friend". Thanks. I guess I was too obliquely referring to the "don't mention voting, it's tiresome" guideline. I was offering anecdata, sample size 1, that your first line could also serve to deter readers, which it seemed you hadn't considered. Well, I've learnt (from this and my previous attempt) that offering what free advice I can on here on how to better reach readers, isn't appreciated, so I shall stop. Thanks.
rahoulb 9y ago
I would say Britons are 95% comfortable with government surveillance. But there is a growing backlash against private/corporate surveillance. Of course, there is a grey-area with government surveillance when things like ANPR services are outsourced with completely opaque contracts.
gerdesj 9y ago
We are Britons in Britain. There is no one living here by the name of Average Joe. There are a lot of cameras here, many more than than some other places apparently. The vast majority of those cameras are in town and city centres or on the motorways. It is possible that in Britain we are able to count better (and publish) than some other regions and hence look bad in this regard - who knows. I don't feel more "surveilled" here than I do in say Italy, France or the US (all of which I am pretty familiar with). I will say that I do feel looked upon when driving along the M42, south of Birmingham, there are a lot of cameras there but that area is a massive cross-road for the UK and an obvious place to want to keep an eye on. Push back? Will do when things really do go wrong. You don't know us ... mate.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> Push back? Will do when things really do go wrong. You don't know us ... mate. Problem is, if things "really" do go wrong, it will be too late to push back.
  - gerdesj 9y ago
    Bear in mind that this is a land that has executed kings and been a short lived Republic, run up a fairly large Empire and died back down and is still a constitutional monarchy. We've done a few other things here as well. It's never too late. We're odd.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
      It is also a country were police officers used the names and identities of people who died as infants to infiltrate activist groups, often having relationships with female members to gain their trust: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/undercover-policing-inquiry-activists-deceived-relationships-spies_uk_58e22f5de4b0c777f788af7f http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/undercover-policing-in... You don't need to wait too long, I'd say.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. The "average Joe" has the "I got nothing to hide" and that "go get them paedophiles", which are very true statements. The British just have their own ideas about privacy. I've lived here 12 years and I still don't understand how almost everybody leaves their blinds up with the lights on, after dark. It's not without risk either. I think it was last summer when, for a few nights, Creepy Old Dude would walk past my window mumbling "show us your pussy" and "show us your legs". On the other hand, every so often someone tars people leaving their blinds down or curtains drawn as "skivers" sleeping it off through the day while everyone else goes to work [1], or as potential terrorists hiding some nefarious plot [2]. Then again, when a few years ago, the Labour government passed a law introducing ID cards for every citizen, everybody went up in arms - citing everything from concers about the potential for abuse and discrimination against minorities, the access of third parties to the database etc. Even -I kid you not- the conflict of a national ID card with Human Rights legislation, which is usually portrayed as a "criminal's charter" [4]. But- nobody worries that this is the European nation with most cameras than any other, or about the "Snooper's charter" (a.k.a. the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 [5]). I guess people really feel they have nothing to fear. There may be a historical explanation for why the UK is like this: most other nations in Europe have at some point been under the control of a totalitarian government that spied on its citizens and used the information collected to brutally oppress them. But I'm sure that will never happen in the UK. _______________ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/oct/08/curtains-closed-blinds-down-george-osborne https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/oct/08/curtai... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10929203 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10929203 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006#Objections_to_the_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006#Object... [4] Search for "Human rights laws are a charter for criminals, say 75% of Britons". I'm not linking to the Daily Mail directly. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016
- stordoff 9y ago
  I suspect it's partially an emotional response to ID cards - there's no current requirement to carry (or hold) ID, and the concept conjurers up clear images of Nazi Germany. Regarding blinds, I doubt many people even think about it - you aren't doing anything private (or even interesting most of the time), so it just doesn't occur to you. It's also generally considered rude to stare into people's houses, so even if they can, there is a general presumption that people won't. It's quite possibly related to your last paragraph - there's no culture of shielding your day-to-day life because they has never been anything really to shield it from ("no need to hide" being subtly different to "nothing to hide" - even people with things they would rather not be public don't necessarily see the need to conceal them from the government).

timthorn 9y ago

With state surveillance, I'd agree. I don't think things are so clear cut for private sector actors. Private CCTV is tolerated because it's a) typically not a networked system, b) rarely mined for analytics and c) often conflated with council run systems anyway.

dingaling 9y ago

> (or was forced to them and they didn't push back ) How do you suggest that we should have pushed back? By voting the bastards out? The UK is actually quite good at that, but policy outlives politicians thanks to the civil service.

celticninja 9y ago
New government can easily reverse or change the policies of previous governments, the civil service jut enacts what the government of the day tells them to do.
- desas 9y ago
  Sort of. The civil service has lots of people with their own agenda which they push to the elected politicians when they ask the civil service for options on how to solve problems
  - celticninja 9y ago
    The civil service doesn't push their own agenda. They are tasked with finding solutions to enact policy decisions, they provide the best solutions that they can that will fulfill the policy presented by the government. A civil servant cannot push their own agenda and the civil service as a whole doesn't have an agenda except to serve the government of the day to the best of their ability regardless of their personal politics.

gaius 9y ago

Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. Here's a true story, a few years ago I was supervising a diver training session at a swimming pool in London, it was closed to members of the public at the time. My locker was broken into, my phone, tablet, credit cards, car keys and bizarrely a load of Mexican money I happened to have in my wallet was stolen, as were a couple of other lockers. Thank God I hadn't driven in that evening, I'm sure the guy walked around all the local streets pushing the button and seeing if any cars lit up. That was the most annoying thing to get the car re-coded, I easily bricked all the devices and cancelled the cards, no activity was detected on them. Insurance replaced them. No idea what he wanted with or did with the pesos. Anyway, the thief was caught on several CCTV cameras, should have been an easy job for the popo to pick him up, but actually, CCTV footage is next to useless. All you could tell was that he was 6-ish feet tall and approximate ethnicity. So I don't mind the pervasive surveillance, because it doesn't work anyway. I guess I am vaguely annoyed that taxpayer's money is wasted on any of it deployed by the government, but that's all. Maybe it at least has some deterrent effect, but this guy clearly wasn't bothered by being caught on camera at all, so probably not.

linkmotif 9y ago
The answer is face recognition.
- gaius 9y ago
  I saw the CCTV footage - impossible.
- goblins 9y ago
  Current quality for the majority of CCTV is probably not good enough for facial. May be gait recognition is more feasible.
  - Spearchucker 9y ago
    There's an interesting article in last month's Economist. They show resolution that let's an operator recognise a face a mile up the road. That was in Islington.

benbristow 9y ago

At least these cameras give you WiFi in return

musage 9y ago

Even if all people in the world were "$arbitrary_number comfortable with", say, wars of aggression, that still wouldn't sanction it. At the very least, let them speak for themselves. > Britons have decided (or was forced to them and they didn't push back) "This victim probably welcomed the death following her rape; notice all her skull tattoos in combination with a route through an unlit street. Either that, or she could have been deceived and/or forced, so it's fine either way."

dvdhnt 9y ago

Okay, I'm going to toss out downvote material because I think it's important to say. > Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. I think Americans are actually 99% comfortable with massive surveillance but can't admit it because of our culture. We consume reality TV like no one's business, watch YouTube to see people do dumb things in real life, and just in general, feel the urge to record and capture everything. The 1% we disagree with is when it happens to be us doing something we didn't want anyone to see because it's embarrassing or causes us some kind of hardship e.g. pay a fine for breaking a law. Personally, even if I have something to hide, it's my responsibility to hide it, or to stop doing it, and therefore, the public good shouldn't be hindered because I'm a crappy person. If we could implement a CCTV system with ACTUAL checks and balances i.e. used my authorities, regulated by a public authority, and monitored by some third-party NON-CORPORATE watchdog, I'll vote for it as often as they'd let me. If it's 1% more effective at stopping sexual assaults, preventing kidnappings, or protecting us from mass shootings, then it's 100% worth it.

alex_young 9y ago
Maybe I'm just part of that 1% who will reject this idea. Is a 1% reduction in any crime really worth a totalitarian world where the state can hunt down people who disagree with them?
yesenadam 9y ago
>Okay, I'm going to toss out downvote material because I think it's important to say. I didn't get past that first sentence of irrelevant filler.
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  You’d be better served expending energy reading my comment rather than proclaiming your failure to read it, friend.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    Well, judging from the first line, I thought not. And don't be snarky then call me "friend". Thanks. I guess I was too obliquely referring to the "don't mention voting, it's tiresome" guideline. I was offering anecdata, sample size 1, that your first line could also serve to deter readers, which it seemed you hadn't considered. Well, I've learnt (from this and my previous attempt) that offering what free advice I can on here on how to better reach readers, isn't appreciated, so I shall stop. Thanks.

rahoulb 9y ago

I would say Britons are 95% comfortable with government surveillance. But there is a growing backlash against private/corporate surveillance. Of course, there is a grey-area with government surveillance when things like ANPR services are outsourced with completely opaque contracts.

gerdesj 9y ago

We are Britons in Britain. There is no one living here by the name of Average Joe. There are a lot of cameras here, many more than than some other places apparently. The vast majority of those cameras are in town and city centres or on the motorways. It is possible that in Britain we are able to count better (and publish) than some other regions and hence look bad in this regard - who knows. I don't feel more "surveilled" here than I do in say Italy, France or the US (all of which I am pretty familiar with). I will say that I do feel looked upon when driving along the M42, south of Birmingham, there are a lot of cameras there but that area is a massive cross-road for the UK and an obvious place to want to keep an eye on. Push back? Will do when things really do go wrong. You don't know us ... mate.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> Push back? Will do when things really do go wrong. You don't know us ... mate. Problem is, if things "really" do go wrong, it will be too late to push back.
- gerdesj 9y ago
  Bear in mind that this is a land that has executed kings and been a short lived Republic, run up a fairly large Empire and died back down and is still a constitutional monarchy. We've done a few other things here as well. It's never too late. We're odd.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    It is also a country were police officers used the names and identities of people who died as infants to infiltrate activist groups, often having relationships with female members to gain their trust: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/undercover-policing-inquiry-activists-deceived-relationships-spies_uk_58e22f5de4b0c777f788af7f http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/undercover-policing-in... You don't need to wait too long, I'd say.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> Briton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. The "average Joe" has the "I got nothing to hide" and that "go get them paedophiles", which are very true statements. The British just have their own ideas about privacy. I've lived here 12 years and I still don't understand how almost everybody leaves their blinds up with the lights on, after dark. It's not without risk either. I think it was last summer when, for a few nights, Creepy Old Dude would walk past my window mumbling "show us your pussy" and "show us your legs". On the other hand, every so often someone tars people leaving their blinds down or curtains drawn as "skivers" sleeping it off through the day while everyone else goes to work [1], or as potential terrorists hiding some nefarious plot [2]. Then again, when a few years ago, the Labour government passed a law introducing ID cards for every citizen, everybody went up in arms - citing everything from concers about the potential for abuse and discrimination against minorities, the access of third parties to the database etc. Even -I kid you not- the conflict of a national ID card with Human Rights legislation, which is usually portrayed as a "criminal's charter" [4]. But- nobody worries that this is the European nation with most cameras than any other, or about the "Snooper's charter" (a.k.a. the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 [5]). I guess people really feel they have nothing to fear. There may be a historical explanation for why the UK is like this: most other nations in Europe have at some point been under the control of a totalitarian government that spied on its citizens and used the information collected to brutally oppress them. But I'm sure that will never happen in the UK. _______________ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/oct/08/curtains-closed-blinds-down-george-osborne https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/oct/08/curtai... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10929203 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10929203 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006#Objections_to_the_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006#Object... [4] Search for "Human rights laws are a charter for criminals, say 75% of Britons". I'm not linking to the Daily Mail directly. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016

stordoff 9y ago
I suspect it's partially an emotional response to ID cards - there's no current requirement to carry (or hold) ID, and the concept conjurers up clear images of Nazi Germany. Regarding blinds, I doubt many people even think about it - you aren't doing anything private (or even interesting most of the time), so it just doesn't occur to you. It's also generally considered rude to stare into people's houses, so even if they can, there is a general presumption that people won't. It's quite possibly related to your last paragraph - there's no culture of shielding your day-to-day life because they has never been anything really to shield it from ("no need to hide" being subtly different to "nothing to hide" - even people with things they would rather not be public don't necessarily see the need to conceal them from the government).