7 ms·

Real-Time Surveillance Will Test the British Tolerance for Cameras

t34543 7y ago
http://archive.is/v0Bmd http://archive.is/v0Bmd
pjc50 7y ago
The British tolerance for cameras, and other oppressive behaviour by the police, is actually very high. Football fans have been subject to all sorts of illiberal measures ranging from face recognition to passport confiscation for decades. The rest of the public support it because they like order. See also the "ring of steel" London security system and everything related to terrorism. This is partly why there haven't been any significant anti-Brexit protests; the police have very effectively dismantled the structures from which violence might spring.
- gimboland 7y ago
  A million people on the streets of London doesn't count as a significant anti-Brexit protest? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/23/one-million-march-against-brexit-tories-plan-oust-may https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/23/one-million...
  - JoeSmithson 7y ago
    GP's comment is nonsense in a number of ways, most notably that British police are generally regarded among the least oppressive in the world.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Apart from the RUC, the kettling, Orgreave, Hillsborough, the Macpherson report, "sus" laws, and the embedding of undercover officers in environmentalist groups some of whom had children with the people they were surveilling? The fact that UK police are not routinely armed helps a lot, but they're still capable of some highly selective treatment of people they don't like.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Has it changed anything? Like the Iraq war protests, the government is capable of ignoring huge protests. Perhaps I should have said "effective" rather than "significant".
    - dTal 7y ago
      Do you think that protest must be violent to be effective?
- the-dude 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism_in_the_Un...
- bb123 7y ago
  This comment is just the silly kind of bile that gets spewed on Fox News to convince Americans that countries like the UK and Canada as Dystopian Hellscapes. If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK you might understand why those measures were considered necessary and a re supported by a large part of the public. Also there have been very significant anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests in recent years so I'm really sure what you're talking about there. I can only only assume this is some sort of hand wave to the idea that people in the UK aren't able to protest or express themselves like they are in The Land of The Free (TM).
  - pjc50 7y ago
    I'm aware of the violent hooliganism, and they probably deserve to be on the blunt end of some illiberal treatment. That doesn't change the fact that it is illiberal, and involves all sorts of "pre-crime" measures justified by the argument that someone might commit a crime, rather than being imposed as penalties for a crime actually committed. Really that's the core liberal/conservative policing distinction: the conservative argument is that some people are really bad and that justifies measures taken against them, and the liberal argument is that actions of the police should be judged as acceptable or unacceptable regardless of who those actions are against. Protest has also changed from the anti-"G8" anti-globalisation days. > anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests All those things appear to still be happening despite the protests. I should have said "effective".
    - mattmanser 7y ago
      The anti-war demonstrations in the UK were the biggest ever seen, and yet we went into Iraq. What protests are ever "effective"? They're a warning to those in power more than anything else. Usually the repercussions for politicians are felt years afterwards, for example Labour losing elections and Tony Blair being unable to participate effectively in UK politics any more.
    - bb123 7y ago
      Again, not true. It was nothing to do with "pre-crimes". The people who were banned from travelling to Russia had previously been convicted of football violence related crimes. Also regarding the protests - it really depends on your definition of effective. I don't think anyone thought they were going to topple the Trump presidency by protesting when he visited. They were just expressing that they believed he was not welcome here. And given the media coverage and the comments from the man himself I'd say they were quite effective.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  This is only true if you think protests need violence to be significant.
baybal2 7y ago
A strange thing, British continue letting its spy agency doing away with domestic espionage of the most extreme form (operation optic nerve,) but complain about "their face being scanned" I can't think of an explanation for that.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  Convenience link for 'Operation Optic Nerve' for those like me who had to Google it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ)
- DanBC 7y ago
  "Doing away with" means "getting rid of" or "stopping". Is that how you're using the term? I think you're right though. British people have a complicated relationship with surveillance. Mass government surveillance is mostly seen as okay so long as there are some checks and balances. CCTVs (and most UK CCTV is privately owned and run) are mostly seen as ok so long as there are some regulations around how it's used. But police surveillance does make some people feel uncomfortable.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    I meant as if letting it go unchecked
    - iamnotacrook 7y ago
      You meant "getting away with", which means "not being stopped/punished for". "Doing away with", as was pointed out, means to stop/abandon.
auiya 7y ago
I'm from the US and recently took a trip to UK for about a week. I was honestly surprised at the number of cameras strung up everywhere in the metro areas. Indeed the article states "The roughly 420,000 closed-circuit television cameras in London are more than in any other city except Beijing, equaling about 48 cameras per 1,000 people, more than Beijing." I did feel slightly safer knowing they were there however. The tolerance for surveillance there is already quite high it would seem.
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  It's almost straight out of a book from the 80s.
- codedokode 7y ago
  I don't understand why you should feel safe. Cameras won't prevent a crime and won't make you immune to a knife. But they are very convenient to monitor daily life of political activists.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Most of them are privately owned and not networked. This renders them very inconvenient to monitor the daily life of political activists.
    - mattmanser 7y ago
      They might be privately owned, but the police actually get to say to new bars, restaurants, etc. how many CCTV camera they must have in order to get an alcohol licence. It got a bit ridiculous at one point with one perfectly normal pizzeria in my town being asked to install 6 different CCTV cameras, but they started pushing back at that point.
  - auiya 7y ago
    No, but fear of being caught will.
    - 7y ago
opsunit 7y ago
I was once asked by a visting American friend why there was so much trash (rubbish) in London. I answered that it was because there weren't very many trash cans at all. "Then why don't they install some? Perhaps people would respect their environment a little more". "Because the IRA put bombs in them".
bookofjoe 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20980754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20980754
jaclaz 7y ago
I guess we need a comparative term to appreciate the sentence: >The police said that since 2017, 58 people had been arrested after being identified by the technology. I mean, 58 people in 2 years is like 2-3 per month, if the scanned faces were (say) 1,000 per month is one thing, if they were (still say) 1,000,000 per month it would be another. And it all depends on how the 998 or 999,998 not-identified people data (if any) is used (or stored). The analogy of: >a police officer standing on the corner looking out for individuals and if he recognizes somebody, saying, ‘I want to talk to you.’” is fine and dandy exactly because those that were not recognized are not "talked to" nor any note about them is taken by the officer.

http://archive.is/v0Bmd http://archive.is/v0Bmd

The British tolerance for cameras, and other oppressive behaviour by the police, is actually very high. Football fans have been subject to all sorts of illiberal measures ranging from face recognition to passport confiscation for decades. The rest of the public support it because they like order. See also the "ring of steel" London security system and everything related to terrorism. This is partly why there haven't been any significant anti-Brexit protests; the police have very effectively dismantled the structures from which violence might spring.

gimboland 7y ago
A million people on the streets of London doesn't count as a significant anti-Brexit protest? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/23/one-million-march-against-brexit-tories-plan-oust-may https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/23/one-million...
- JoeSmithson 7y ago
  GP's comment is nonsense in a number of ways, most notably that British police are generally regarded among the least oppressive in the world.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Apart from the RUC, the kettling, Orgreave, Hillsborough, the Macpherson report, "sus" laws, and the embedding of undercover officers in environmentalist groups some of whom had children with the people they were surveilling? The fact that UK police are not routinely armed helps a lot, but they're still capable of some highly selective treatment of people they don't like.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Has it changed anything? Like the Iraq war protests, the government is capable of ignoring huge protests. Perhaps I should have said "effective" rather than "significant".
  - dTal 7y ago
    Do you think that protest must be violent to be effective?
the-dude 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism_in_the_Un...
bb123 7y ago
This comment is just the silly kind of bile that gets spewed on Fox News to convince Americans that countries like the UK and Canada as Dystopian Hellscapes. If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK you might understand why those measures were considered necessary and a re supported by a large part of the public. Also there have been very significant anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests in recent years so I'm really sure what you're talking about there. I can only only assume this is some sort of hand wave to the idea that people in the UK aren't able to protest or express themselves like they are in The Land of The Free (TM).
- pjc50 7y ago
  I'm aware of the violent hooliganism, and they probably deserve to be on the blunt end of some illiberal treatment. That doesn't change the fact that it is illiberal, and involves all sorts of "pre-crime" measures justified by the argument that someone might commit a crime, rather than being imposed as penalties for a crime actually committed. Really that's the core liberal/conservative policing distinction: the conservative argument is that some people are really bad and that justifies measures taken against them, and the liberal argument is that actions of the police should be judged as acceptable or unacceptable regardless of who those actions are against. Protest has also changed from the anti-"G8" anti-globalisation days. > anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests All those things appear to still be happening despite the protests. I should have said "effective".
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    The anti-war demonstrations in the UK were the biggest ever seen, and yet we went into Iraq. What protests are ever "effective"? They're a warning to those in power more than anything else. Usually the repercussions for politicians are felt years afterwards, for example Labour losing elections and Tony Blair being unable to participate effectively in UK politics any more.
  - bb123 7y ago
    Again, not true. It was nothing to do with "pre-crimes". The people who were banned from travelling to Russia had previously been convicted of football violence related crimes. Also regarding the protests - it really depends on your definition of effective. I don't think anyone thought they were going to topple the Trump presidency by protesting when he visited. They were just expressing that they believed he was not welcome here. And given the media coverage and the comments from the man himself I'd say they were quite effective.
tinus_hn 7y ago
This is only true if you think protests need violence to be significant.

baybal2 7y ago

A strange thing, British continue letting its spy agency doing away with domestic espionage of the most extreme form (operation optic nerve,) but complain about "their face being scanned" I can't think of an explanation for that.

PeterStuer 7y ago
Convenience link for 'Operation Optic Nerve' for those like me who had to Google it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ)
DanBC 7y ago
"Doing away with" means "getting rid of" or "stopping". Is that how you're using the term? I think you're right though. British people have a complicated relationship with surveillance. Mass government surveillance is mostly seen as okay so long as there are some checks and balances. CCTVs (and most UK CCTV is privately owned and run) are mostly seen as ok so long as there are some regulations around how it's used. But police surveillance does make some people feel uncomfortable.
- baybal2 7y ago
  I meant as if letting it go unchecked
  - iamnotacrook 7y ago
    You meant "getting away with", which means "not being stopped/punished for". "Doing away with", as was pointed out, means to stop/abandon.

auiya 7y ago

I'm from the US and recently took a trip to UK for about a week. I was honestly surprised at the number of cameras strung up everywhere in the metro areas. Indeed the article states "The roughly 420,000 closed-circuit television cameras in London are more than in any other city except Beijing, equaling about 48 cameras per 1,000 people, more than Beijing." I did feel slightly safer knowing they were there however. The tolerance for surveillance there is already quite high it would seem.

sieabahlpark 7y ago
It's almost straight out of a book from the 80s.
codedokode 7y ago
I don't understand why you should feel safe. Cameras won't prevent a crime and won't make you immune to a knife. But they are very convenient to monitor daily life of political activists.
- dTal 7y ago
  Most of them are privately owned and not networked. This renders them very inconvenient to monitor the daily life of political activists.
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    They might be privately owned, but the police actually get to say to new bars, restaurants, etc. how many CCTV camera they must have in order to get an alcohol licence. It got a bit ridiculous at one point with one perfectly normal pizzeria in my town being asked to install 6 different CCTV cameras, but they started pushing back at that point.
- auiya 7y ago
  No, but fear of being caught will.
  - 7y ago

opsunit 7y ago

I was once asked by a visting American friend why there was so much trash (rubbish) in London. I answered that it was because there weren't very many trash cans at all. "Then why don't they install some? Perhaps people would respect their environment a little more". "Because the IRA put bombs in them".

bookofjoe 7y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20980754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20980754

jaclaz 7y ago

I guess we need a comparative term to appreciate the sentence: >The police said that since 2017, 58 people had been arrested after being identified by the technology. I mean, 58 people in 2 years is like 2-3 per month, if the scanned faces were (say) 1,000 per month is one thing, if they were (still say) 1,000,000 per month it would be another. And it all depends on how the 998 or 999,998 not-identified people data (if any) is used (or stored). The analogy of: >a police officer standing on the corner looking out for individuals and if he recognizes somebody, saying, ‘I want to talk to you.’” is fine and dandy exactly because those that were not recognized are not "talked to" nor any note about them is taken by the officer.