7 ms·

Authoritarianism has clearly been feeling its way into the UK ever since the 90s when they put up CCTV cameras everywhere. The UK effectively has an inherently

Authoritarianism has clearly been feeling its way into the UK ever since the 90s when they put up CCTV cameras everywhere. The UK effectively has an inherently and self-evidently illegitimate government based on its own actions and words, as do most western governments at this point. These types of bills/laws are those of authoritarian governments fearful of its own population wising up to what has happened or what the authoritarians are up to and they want to make sure they can snuff out any little bit of burgeoning opposition before it can organize and get off the ground. It’s the repression part of 1984 style government. It’s the same thing all authoritarian, evil governments do, regardless of how long they can get away with it or how much the brainwashed masses go along with it, even if just out of fear.

1827163 3y ago
Yes, when you think about it on a fundamental level, having so many CCTV cameras recording people's movements everywhere is absolutely dystopian. It's incredible that it got this bad and there wasn't a backlash against it from the general public. The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. And the people happen to tolerate it. It has the potential to get worse, the Police are rolling out facial recognition, but by that time I will have left the UK for good, due to our civil liberties situation, in particular the forced encryption key disclosure laws. I wonder if those cameras will ever go away. How long is it going to take, 20 years, 50 years, or even more? When are we going to get our public spaces back? So we can be ourselves, be spontaneous, silly, eccentric, protest and so on, without experiencing the psychological effects of pervasive recording by the state. And thus the chilling effects.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  > The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. I'll point out that the vast, vast majority of the UK's CCTV cameras are privately owned and installed, not connected together, but having worked in retail positions, an awful lot of them aren't even working or turned on and used soley for deterrance. Like, going by this: https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in-london/ https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in... (which may or may not be accurate, looks like they did their work on it), cameras controlled by the Metropolitan Police, local councils and TfL come to less than 10% of the total. Blame insurance companies, not the state.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    Yes, if the public didn't accept it, then the insurance companies would not be able to get away with imposing it on us. Maybe the state was the first to introduce the cameras, once the public got accustomed to them, then private actors were able to get away with it afterwards? We also have the TfL London Underground and National Rail cameras, which are very likely to be linked to Police systems. Public transit is where people's movements can be tracked very effectively. And we now have services such as Facewatch where these private cameras are networked. And the Ring doorbell cameras. No idea what intelligence agencies might be doing with that data? Running facial recognition on every video stream? Just as they did with people's webcam images (from the Snowden leaks). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webca...
    - 1827163 3y ago
      The Amazon Ring camera might be a NSA, GHCQ or even an FBI camera "masquerading as a home surveillance device". They only need to process the images when motion is detected, which makes things a lot simpler. And Amazon does have a lot of contracts with the government for cloud computing services. They wouldn't want to lose those, would they? So it's a distinct possibility, given what we learned from the Snowden leaks.
- mattmanser 3y ago
  They're not something you really notice. It got pretty ridiculous at one point where one restaurant I knew of was told to put up 5 CCTV cameras by the police as a condition of their alcohol licence. This wasn't a pack 'em and feed 'em booze restaurant, just a perfectly normal couples style restaurant. Afaik the local council eventually reined the police in, but the police just don't seem to view any of it as a massive invasion of privacy, or consider the cost to the businesses involved. There's only upsides for the police requesting more, no downsides as they don't bear the cost.
  - CTDOCodebases 3y ago
    At the moment it's ok. Most are just on record with no one actively watching them. Wait until processors for AI start getting integrated into these cameras.
    - snovv_crash 3y ago
      It becomes a real issue when the SCORPION STARE firmware gets uploaded onto them.
      - kayodelycaon 3y ago
        This is a reference to the Charles Stross's Laundry Files series. SCORPION STARE is a firmware update to CC cameras that allows any two cameras can look at a target and destroy it. Without too many spoilers, the first time it's used automatically, bad training data causes a lot of civilian casualties.
    - 1827163 3y ago
      They already are, at least with highway cameras: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-cameras-highways-stop-trash-thrown-2023-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-cameras-highways-stop-tra... " AI cameras are being set up on highways to catch drivers who throw trash out of their car windows " https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/07/artificial-intelligence-cameras-litter-fines-motorways/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/07/artificial-intel...
silasdavis 3y ago
There are certainly authoritarian wings of the two main parties. Though I can't help thinking that a big part of the creep is driven more by spineless pandering to various public constituencies and short term perceived vote winning rather than a particularly thought through desire to crush dissent. Never mind the effect is much the same.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Weren't all the CCTV's based on frequent bombings? We've seen in US, that based on 'a problem of the moment' there are new laws passed, like Homeland Security. Then years go by, it looks authoritarian, then everybody is calling it 1984, when really the people asked for it. It seems less like a grand government plan and more humans just Forest Gump'n themselves along into this situation.
- Randomizer42 3y ago
  Just because people ask for it, doesn't mean that it should be implemented. I didn't know that Mob-Rule was how democracy/republic was defined.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Mob Rule is exactly how democracy is defined. When a government does things the mob does not like, then they are autocratic and authoritarian. When government does what the people want, suddenly it's mob rule and just going by the latest poling numbers. -- Can't really win, someone is blaming someone for something no matter what side.
    - account42 3y ago
      The mob is generally not the whole populance but just a loud part. Let's not pretend that acting on (often manufactured) outrage is even remotely related to democratic rule.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Sure, but its hard to tell isn't it? This mob issue goes back to Plato. Even a majority can act like a 'mob' against its best interest. I just object when people start talking about 'Oh my god its 1984', 'the government is totally fascist'. When in reality, we meandered here. Decisions from 20 years ago look bad now, it doesn't mean the government now is some 'deep state conspiracy'.
cmilton 3y ago
I am still unsure how I ultimately feel about the use of these technologies by government. I do believe that people want safety over all, and by most of the statistics I have seen, the UK is somewhat safer than before [1]. Is the government implementing these measures to take advantage of its people or to provide safety for them? [1]: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/230-priks.pdf https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/230-priks.pdf
zo1 3y ago
This is why hate-speech laws are a Trojan horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Un... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...

1827163 3y ago

Yes, when you think about it on a fundamental level, having so many CCTV cameras recording people's movements everywhere is absolutely dystopian. It's incredible that it got this bad and there wasn't a backlash against it from the general public. The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. And the people happen to tolerate it. It has the potential to get worse, the Police are rolling out facial recognition, but by that time I will have left the UK for good, due to our civil liberties situation, in particular the forced encryption key disclosure laws. I wonder if those cameras will ever go away. How long is it going to take, 20 years, 50 years, or even more? When are we going to get our public spaces back? So we can be ourselves, be spontaneous, silly, eccentric, protest and so on, without experiencing the psychological effects of pervasive recording by the state. And thus the chilling effects.

dukeyukey 3y ago
> The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. I'll point out that the vast, vast majority of the UK's CCTV cameras are privately owned and installed, not connected together, but having worked in retail positions, an awful lot of them aren't even working or turned on and used soley for deterrance. Like, going by this: https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in-london/ https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in... (which may or may not be accurate, looks like they did their work on it), cameras controlled by the Metropolitan Police, local councils and TfL come to less than 10% of the total. Blame insurance companies, not the state.
- 1827163 3y ago
  Yes, if the public didn't accept it, then the insurance companies would not be able to get away with imposing it on us. Maybe the state was the first to introduce the cameras, once the public got accustomed to them, then private actors were able to get away with it afterwards? We also have the TfL London Underground and National Rail cameras, which are very likely to be linked to Police systems. Public transit is where people's movements can be tracked very effectively. And we now have services such as Facewatch where these private cameras are networked. And the Ring doorbell cameras. No idea what intelligence agencies might be doing with that data? Running facial recognition on every video stream? Just as they did with people's webcam images (from the Snowden leaks). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webca...
  - 1827163 3y ago
    The Amazon Ring camera might be a NSA, GHCQ or even an FBI camera "masquerading as a home surveillance device". They only need to process the images when motion is detected, which makes things a lot simpler. And Amazon does have a lot of contracts with the government for cloud computing services. They wouldn't want to lose those, would they? So it's a distinct possibility, given what we learned from the Snowden leaks.
mattmanser 3y ago
They're not something you really notice. It got pretty ridiculous at one point where one restaurant I knew of was told to put up 5 CCTV cameras by the police as a condition of their alcohol licence. This wasn't a pack 'em and feed 'em booze restaurant, just a perfectly normal couples style restaurant. Afaik the local council eventually reined the police in, but the police just don't seem to view any of it as a massive invasion of privacy, or consider the cost to the businesses involved. There's only upsides for the police requesting more, no downsides as they don't bear the cost.
- CTDOCodebases 3y ago
  At the moment it's ok. Most are just on record with no one actively watching them. Wait until processors for AI start getting integrated into these cameras.
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    It becomes a real issue when the SCORPION STARE firmware gets uploaded onto them.
    - kayodelycaon 3y ago
      This is a reference to the Charles Stross's Laundry Files series. SCORPION STARE is a firmware update to CC cameras that allows any two cameras can look at a target and destroy it. Without too many spoilers, the first time it's used automatically, bad training data causes a lot of civilian casualties.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    They already are, at least with highway cameras: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-cameras-highways-stop-trash-thrown-2023-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-cameras-highways-stop-tra... " AI cameras are being set up on highways to catch drivers who throw trash out of their car windows " https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/07/artificial-intelligence-cameras-litter-fines-motorways/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/07/artificial-intel...

silasdavis 3y ago

There are certainly authoritarian wings of the two main parties. Though I can't help thinking that a big part of the creep is driven more by spineless pandering to various public constituencies and short term perceived vote winning rather than a particularly thought through desire to crush dissent. Never mind the effect is much the same.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Weren't all the CCTV's based on frequent bombings? We've seen in US, that based on 'a problem of the moment' there are new laws passed, like Homeland Security. Then years go by, it looks authoritarian, then everybody is calling it 1984, when really the people asked for it. It seems less like a grand government plan and more humans just Forest Gump'n themselves along into this situation.

Randomizer42 3y ago
Just because people ask for it, doesn't mean that it should be implemented. I didn't know that Mob-Rule was how democracy/republic was defined.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Mob Rule is exactly how democracy is defined. When a government does things the mob does not like, then they are autocratic and authoritarian. When government does what the people want, suddenly it's mob rule and just going by the latest poling numbers. -- Can't really win, someone is blaming someone for something no matter what side.
  - account42 3y ago
    The mob is generally not the whole populance but just a loud part. Let's not pretend that acting on (often manufactured) outrage is even remotely related to democratic rule.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Sure, but its hard to tell isn't it? This mob issue goes back to Plato. Even a majority can act like a 'mob' against its best interest. I just object when people start talking about 'Oh my god its 1984', 'the government is totally fascist'. When in reality, we meandered here. Decisions from 20 years ago look bad now, it doesn't mean the government now is some 'deep state conspiracy'.

cmilton 3y ago

I am still unsure how I ultimately feel about the use of these technologies by government. I do believe that people want safety over all, and by most of the statistics I have seen, the UK is somewhat safer than before [1]. Is the government implementing these measures to take advantage of its people or to provide safety for them? [1]: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/230-priks.pdf https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/230-priks.pdf

zo1 3y ago

This is why hate-speech laws are a Trojan horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Un... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...