9 ms·

The UK has been trying for decades to become the surveillance society, hasn't it? I remember being taken aback by the amount of street CCTV cameras back in the

The UK has been trying for decades to become the surveillance society, hasn't it? I remember being taken aback by the amount of street CCTV cameras back in the early '00s. Coming from Canada for a visit that feeling of being observed nearly constantly was really uncomfortable and bizarre. For Brits it looked like a norm (or they didn't show it). Also the parallels with 1984 were uncanny, especially given that Orwell was English.

pjc50 2y ago
Orwell understood the authoritarian streak in the national character.
tazjin 2y ago
Don't forget the incredible posters that used to be up in London! http://soerenkern.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/uk-met1.jpg http://soerenkern.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/uk-met1...
- moffkalast 2y ago
  That's gotta be satire right? Looks straight out of V for Vendetta. I'm really glad the EU just completely banned predictive policing.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - _joel 2y ago
    It's got a red bus on it, must be one of Boris's...
  - tazjin 2y ago
    It's not satire! It really was an official poster campaign (some 20 years ago).
    - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
      It was an official campaign but it’s worth noting that the satirical element of it is there, deliberately, because we are way, way funnier as a nation. Almost nobody worries about these transport safety cameras because we don’t fear or tolerate overpolicing in the same way. Of course there should be safety cameras on public transport! And if a US tourist was on a night bus in London they too would be happy there were cameras. A nation of drivers has a very different calibration, I suspect.
      - tazjin 2y ago
        I gotta say that I didn't feel very safe on night buses in London, despite the cameras. Besides Brussels, London is the only other city in which I've occasionally felt like I was in danger. It's still a fun city, to be clear, and it probably helps that it isn't a 24/7 city so that you don't end up in weird situations at night too much. In the end the CCTV doesn't actually prevent anything from happening ...
        ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
        > In the end the CCTV doesn't actually prevent anything from happening ... The question of whether it prevents things from happening is a question of statistics. I suspect the data doesn't support your claim, and that certain categories of crime have indeed been deterred. But neither of us can know without that statistical analysis.
kyleyeats 2y ago
This is a propaganda piece by the state-funded BBC. Notice that the focus of the article is whether the technology is accurate enough, not whether they should be doing it at all in the first place. It's an Overton nudge, a softball position that's easy to take-- because of course the tech will get better.
- switch007 2y ago
  Spot on. It's amazing how much the BBC is riding on its reputation and how many people are ignorant or just turn a blind eye to the fact it's Tory crony central at the top, and has been for years
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  The better it gets, the worse the experience for the people who are mistakenly identified.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  You do not understand the BBC or its level of independence or funding model. Yes, the tory government have been trying to stack the governance of the BBC with their own people, but it doesn’t always go the way they expect.
gcanyon 2y ago
John Varley in the science fiction novel The Golden Globe envisioned a future where there are two separate AIs: one that is solely designed to help people, that knows everything, and a separate AI designed for law enforcement that is constrained to a limited set of inputs. I don't know if that's practical, or palatable, but it was an interesting thought experiment, although he doesn't dig into it too deeply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Globe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Globe
ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
This idea that the UK is a surveillance society that is meaningfully different to other western societies is somewhat misplaced, based on motivated misreadings of a US article about surveillance in King’s Lynn in the 90s. The vast, vast majority of CCTV systems in the UK, that are part of this “culture”, are just store and private CCTV systems that police can get access to with a warrant, by going door to door. The same as in almost all western countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom#CCTV_networks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... There’s almost no police CCTV network, and there’s no reality to the fantasy element of police being able to see you wherever you go in the UK in real time (with the exception of a few crowded high crime areas where tourists get robbed, ironically, and a few high violence and terrorism risk areas, public transport facilities and live road traffic cameras). There are some council-owned networks in high crime areas which are pretty contentious, and then there are these police facial recognition vans which are clearly offensive bullshit overreach. In particular a lot of visitors misunderstand the prevalence of cameras pointed at our roads, which are not live feed cameras at all but speed-triggered safety cameras. Basically it’s important to understand that the vast majority of cameras in the UK are people and businesses legally protecting their own shit, just like in the USA. One key cultural difference is ANPR. In America the general perception is that privacy includes where you go in your car, because you treat it as a portable living room. There’s never been that presumption here. ANPR systems probably can track cars in metropolitan areas and on some motorways, but live traffic cameras are unusual in most of the country. There is definitely a slightly less self-centred lean to the balance of individual rights compared to community safety compared to North America. But this is also part of why we don’t have to put up with anywhere near the same risk of violence or crime, even in areas that are significantly more densely populated. We also have pretty good laws governing this stuff. In short, Hot Fuzz ain’t real, and I think North Americans like to project this idea of a surveillance culture onto the UK without considering that they are likely under the exact same sorts of surveillance in the same sorts of places, without as many of the same legal protections. (And with plainly discriminatory surveillance systems like Shotspotter to boot) Do you think retailers in the USA and Canada are not using the systems described in the article? Because you would be wrong if you do. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12592563/walgreens-macys-facial-recognition-technology-spy-shoppers.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12592563/wal...
brokenmachine 2y ago
>The UK has been trying for decades to become the surveillance society, hasn't it? Australia wants that title! Bunnings here also uses (used?) facial recognition technology. Also concert venues and sporting events. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bunnings-denies-reintroducing-facial-recognition-technology-amid-privacy-investigation/11m26l1of https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bunnings-denies-reintrod... I'd be willing to bet that supermarkets are next, if they aren't already.

pjc50 2y ago

Orwell understood the authoritarian streak in the national character.

tazjin 2y ago

Don't forget the incredible posters that used to be up in London! http://soerenkern.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/uk-met1.jpg http://soerenkern.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/uk-met1...

moffkalast 2y ago
That's gotta be satire right? Looks straight out of V for Vendetta. I'm really glad the EU just completely banned predictive policing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _joel 2y ago
  It's got a red bus on it, must be one of Boris's...
- tazjin 2y ago
  It's not satire! It really was an official poster campaign (some 20 years ago).
  - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
    It was an official campaign but it’s worth noting that the satirical element of it is there, deliberately, because we are way, way funnier as a nation. Almost nobody worries about these transport safety cameras because we don’t fear or tolerate overpolicing in the same way. Of course there should be safety cameras on public transport! And if a US tourist was on a night bus in London they too would be happy there were cameras. A nation of drivers has a very different calibration, I suspect.
    - tazjin 2y ago
      I gotta say that I didn't feel very safe on night buses in London, despite the cameras. Besides Brussels, London is the only other city in which I've occasionally felt like I was in danger. It's still a fun city, to be clear, and it probably helps that it isn't a 24/7 city so that you don't end up in weird situations at night too much. In the end the CCTV doesn't actually prevent anything from happening ...
      - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
        > In the end the CCTV doesn't actually prevent anything from happening ... The question of whether it prevents things from happening is a question of statistics. I suspect the data doesn't support your claim, and that certain categories of crime have indeed been deterred. But neither of us can know without that statistical analysis.

kyleyeats 2y ago

This is a propaganda piece by the state-funded BBC. Notice that the focus of the article is whether the technology is accurate enough, not whether they should be doing it at all in the first place. It's an Overton nudge, a softball position that's easy to take-- because of course the tech will get better.

switch007 2y ago
Spot on. It's amazing how much the BBC is riding on its reputation and how many people are ignorant or just turn a blind eye to the fact it's Tory crony central at the top, and has been for years
Hnrobert42 2y ago
The better it gets, the worse the experience for the people who are mistakenly identified.
ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
You do not understand the BBC or its level of independence or funding model. Yes, the tory government have been trying to stack the governance of the BBC with their own people, but it doesn’t always go the way they expect.

gcanyon 2y ago

John Varley in the science fiction novel The Golden Globe envisioned a future where there are two separate AIs: one that is solely designed to help people, that knows everything, and a separate AI designed for law enforcement that is constrained to a limited set of inputs. I don't know if that's practical, or palatable, but it was an interesting thought experiment, although he doesn't dig into it too deeply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Globe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Globe

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago

This idea that the UK is a surveillance society that is meaningfully different to other western societies is somewhat misplaced, based on motivated misreadings of a US article about surveillance in King’s Lynn in the 90s. The vast, vast majority of CCTV systems in the UK, that are part of this “culture”, are just store and private CCTV systems that police can get access to with a warrant, by going door to door. The same as in almost all western countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom#CCTV_networks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... There’s almost no police CCTV network, and there’s no reality to the fantasy element of police being able to see you wherever you go in the UK in real time (with the exception of a few crowded high crime areas where tourists get robbed, ironically, and a few high violence and terrorism risk areas, public transport facilities and live road traffic cameras). There are some council-owned networks in high crime areas which are pretty contentious, and then there are these police facial recognition vans which are clearly offensive bullshit overreach. In particular a lot of visitors misunderstand the prevalence of cameras pointed at our roads, which are not live feed cameras at all but speed-triggered safety cameras. Basically it’s important to understand that the vast majority of cameras in the UK are people and businesses legally protecting their own shit, just like in the USA. One key cultural difference is ANPR. In America the general perception is that privacy includes where you go in your car, because you treat it as a portable living room. There’s never been that presumption here. ANPR systems probably can track cars in metropolitan areas and on some motorways, but live traffic cameras are unusual in most of the country. There is definitely a slightly less self-centred lean to the balance of individual rights compared to community safety compared to North America. But this is also part of why we don’t have to put up with anywhere near the same risk of violence or crime, even in areas that are significantly more densely populated. We also have pretty good laws governing this stuff. In short, Hot Fuzz ain’t real, and I think North Americans like to project this idea of a surveillance culture onto the UK without considering that they are likely under the exact same sorts of surveillance in the same sorts of places, without as many of the same legal protections. (And with plainly discriminatory surveillance systems like Shotspotter to boot) Do you think retailers in the USA and Canada are not using the systems described in the article? Because you would be wrong if you do. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12592563/walgreens-macys-facial-recognition-technology-spy-shoppers.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12592563/wal...

brokenmachine 2y ago

>The UK has been trying for decades to become the surveillance society, hasn't it? Australia wants that title! Bunnings here also uses (used?) facial recognition technology. Also concert venues and sporting events. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bunnings-denies-reintroducing-facial-recognition-technology-amid-privacy-investigation/11m26l1of https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bunnings-denies-reintrod... I'd be willing to bet that supermarkets are next, if they aren't already.