6 ms·

They've been doing this for years at protests, using "Forward Intelligence Teams". Even back in 2010 [1] there was an action group trying to protest this growin

by elric 1y ago

They've been doing this for years at protests, using "Forward Intelligence Teams". Even back in 2010 [1] there was an action group trying to protest this growing police-state (Fitwatch). The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember. Must be a truly dangerous place... https://web.archive.org/web/20100824175032/http://fitwatch.org.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20100824175032/http://fitwatch.o...

crimsoneer 1y ago
The fact the UK police deploy teams with cameras to record crime is really not the dystopian hellscape Fitwatch like to make out it is.
jon-wood 1y ago
The CCTV cameras I've never really had a problem with - despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network, a vast proportion of them are operated by random shopkeepers, private home owners, and other such places. If they want footage from them the police are typically going to have to send someone out to ask for it, and then hope they haven't reused the storage already. This sort of thing, deploying facial recognition systems in the street in the hope of finding someone, is much more insidious. Technically you can choose to bypass it, or pull something over your face, but that's more or less guaranteeing that you'll be stopped and questioned as to why you're concerned about it. Sadly the UK never met an authoritarian they didn't like (apart from Hitler, so long as you're not as bad as Hitler himself you're good though). When surveyed the British public will call for banning basically anything they don't like, even if it doesn't impact them at all.
- DrBazza 1y ago
  There's no small irony that facial recognition isn't going to recognise the faces of those currently racing around on e-bikes stealing phones wearing their 'safety balaclavas'. Or, indeed, some of the more militant protesters that are turning up all over the place. It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face?
  - tharmas 1y ago
    >if you have nothing to hide But it's not you that decides that what you are doing is harmless. It's what the authorities decide; and that can be quite different from what you or other people deem "nothing to hide".
  - dathinab 1y ago
    > It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face? because who says the state (and the people acting for it, e.g. police) are always the good guys there is a VERY long history of people being systematically harassed and persecuted for things which really shouldn't be an issue, and might not have been illegal either (but then the moment a state becomes the bad guy "illegal" loses meaning as doing the ethical right thing might now be illegal) like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay or how people through history have been frequently harassed for "just" not agreeing with the currently political fraction in power, and I really mean just not agreeing not trying to do anything to change it and even if we ignore systematic stuff like that there has been also more then just a few cases of police officers abusing their power. Including cases like them stalking people, or them giving the address of people to radical groups, or blackmailing them for doing stuff which is legal but not publicly well perceived. (E.g. someone had sex with their wife on a balcony not visible from the street but visible from a surveillance camera). And even if nothing of this applies to you, if there is no privacy and mass surveillance this can also help people in power to frame you for something you didn't do. Like e.g. to make you lose your job so their brother in law can get it instead. and even ignoring all that you should have a right for privacy and since when is it okay to harass people which just want to defend their rights? anyway if you think is through "I have nothing to hide" is such a ridiculous dump argument.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      > like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay Well. Maybe[0]. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092
- owisd 1y ago
  You're mixing your definitions of authoritarian, there's authoritarian in the 'Nolan chart' sense of the word, which just means 'not a Libertarian', which is like 98% of people, which is different to the Hitler meaning of authoritarian, which means 'rejecting democracy'. If the people agree to ban things they don't like, that's democracy, so it's the Nolan kind of authoritarian but not the Hitler kind of authoritarian. Deciding the people shouldn't be allowed to agree collectively to ban certain things is rejecting democracy, so it's Hitler authoritarian but not Nolan authoritarian.
- anonymousDan 1y ago
  I don't think this is true. Apparently the operation of a large majority of those private cameras is in fact outsourced to a handful of big security companies, and many of them are remotely operated. This makes getting access to private cameras a lot easier for police than you think.
  - _Wintermute 1y ago
    If you've ever had to deal with the UK police as a victim of a crime, you'll quickly find out they're pretty useless at obtaining CCTV footage. I was asked to get it myself, to which the business who owned the CCTV told me they would only hand it to the police, so nothing happened.
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  > despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network Isn't that the CC in CCTV? Closed circuit implies that it's restricted to an on prem network
orra 1y ago
> Must be a truly dangerous place... I don't know if you're awaee, but the number of arrests for terrorism has skyrocketed in recent months, in the UK. Sounds terrifying, until you realise people were arrested as terrorists for holding placards. (That fact is of course terrifying, but in a chilling way).
- tharmas 1y ago
  Its Orwellian.
- lambdas 1y ago
  I hope I’m not adding 2 + 2 to get 5, but it’s incredibly convenient that a lot of people are being charged for supporting a proscribed group the same month as the online safety act is rolled out… The cynic in me almost wonders if when it comes to re-election time, these increased numbers in terrorist charges will be trotted out and the context conveniently forgotten.
  - pydry 1y ago
    I dont think it really signifies anything more than there being a rather dim and unimaginative set of authoritarians in charge.
  - foldr 1y ago
    Terrorism hasn’t historically been an election issue in the UK, so this seems enormously unlikely.
- pmarreck 1y ago
  It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance. Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.
  - gregorygoc 1y ago
    It’s basic game theory. If someone is not nice to you, you have to be not nice for them.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
>* The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember.* Per-capita it’s less than the US.
- dylan604 1y ago
  But with the smaller space for the population, it's nearly total coverage from multiple angles vs the wide distances separating the equivalent number of cameras in the US.
  - machomaster 1y ago
    And generally people speak about London specifically and not about rural UK areas.
  - jansper39 1y ago
    The original figure included private CCTV systems which to all intents and purposes aren't available to government bodies without a warrant.
gopher_space 1y ago
Judge Dredd was an 80s reaction to this ethos. It’s old.
sunshine-o 1y ago
> The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember. By the way, do anybody care what would happen (at least psychologically) in case of a massive blackout or cyber-incident? Just imagine something akin to what happened to the Iberian peninsula a few months ago, the country goes into flame quickly preventing recovery and then it's on. Most of the systems the UK has to control its population are inoperable. I am pretty sure it is in the back of the mind of the UK leaders when they negotiate with Russia and China....
- rkomorn 1y ago
  You think it would turn into an impromptu de facto purge (of The Purge fame)?

by elric 1y ago

crimsoneer 1y ago

The fact the UK police deploy teams with cameras to record crime is really not the dystopian hellscape Fitwatch like to make out it is.

jon-wood 1y ago

The CCTV cameras I've never really had a problem with - despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network, a vast proportion of them are operated by random shopkeepers, private home owners, and other such places. If they want footage from them the police are typically going to have to send someone out to ask for it, and then hope they haven't reused the storage already. This sort of thing, deploying facial recognition systems in the street in the hope of finding someone, is much more insidious. Technically you can choose to bypass it, or pull something over your face, but that's more or less guaranteeing that you'll be stopped and questioned as to why you're concerned about it. Sadly the UK never met an authoritarian they didn't like (apart from Hitler, so long as you're not as bad as Hitler himself you're good though). When surveyed the British public will call for banning basically anything they don't like, even if it doesn't impact them at all.

DrBazza 1y ago
There's no small irony that facial recognition isn't going to recognise the faces of those currently racing around on e-bikes stealing phones wearing their 'safety balaclavas'. Or, indeed, some of the more militant protesters that are turning up all over the place. It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face?
- tharmas 1y ago
  >if you have nothing to hide But it's not you that decides that what you are doing is harmless. It's what the authorities decide; and that can be quite different from what you or other people deem "nothing to hide".
- dathinab 1y ago
  > It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face? because who says the state (and the people acting for it, e.g. police) are always the good guys there is a VERY long history of people being systematically harassed and persecuted for things which really shouldn't be an issue, and might not have been illegal either (but then the moment a state becomes the bad guy "illegal" loses meaning as doing the ethical right thing might now be illegal) like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay or how people through history have been frequently harassed for "just" not agreeing with the currently political fraction in power, and I really mean just not agreeing not trying to do anything to change it and even if we ignore systematic stuff like that there has been also more then just a few cases of police officers abusing their power. Including cases like them stalking people, or them giving the address of people to radical groups, or blackmailing them for doing stuff which is legal but not publicly well perceived. (E.g. someone had sex with their wife on a balcony not visible from the street but visible from a surveillance camera). And even if nothing of this applies to you, if there is no privacy and mass surveillance this can also help people in power to frame you for something you didn't do. Like e.g. to make you lose your job so their brother in law can get it instead. and even ignoring all that you should have a right for privacy and since when is it okay to harass people which just want to defend their rights? anyway if you think is through "I have nothing to hide" is such a ridiculous dump argument.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay Well. Maybe[0]. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092
owisd 1y ago
You're mixing your definitions of authoritarian, there's authoritarian in the 'Nolan chart' sense of the word, which just means 'not a Libertarian', which is like 98% of people, which is different to the Hitler meaning of authoritarian, which means 'rejecting democracy'. If the people agree to ban things they don't like, that's democracy, so it's the Nolan kind of authoritarian but not the Hitler kind of authoritarian. Deciding the people shouldn't be allowed to agree collectively to ban certain things is rejecting democracy, so it's Hitler authoritarian but not Nolan authoritarian.
anonymousDan 1y ago
I don't think this is true. Apparently the operation of a large majority of those private cameras is in fact outsourced to a handful of big security companies, and many of them are remotely operated. This makes getting access to private cameras a lot easier for police than you think.
- _Wintermute 1y ago
  If you've ever had to deal with the UK police as a victim of a crime, you'll quickly find out they're pretty useless at obtaining CCTV footage. I was asked to get it myself, to which the business who owned the CCTV told me they would only hand it to the police, so nothing happened.
Ferret7446 1y ago
> despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network Isn't that the CC in CCTV? Closed circuit implies that it's restricted to an on prem network

orra 1y ago

> Must be a truly dangerous place... I don't know if you're awaee, but the number of arrests for terrorism has skyrocketed in recent months, in the UK. Sounds terrifying, until you realise people were arrested as terrorists for holding placards. (That fact is of course terrifying, but in a chilling way).

tharmas 1y ago
Its Orwellian.
lambdas 1y ago
I hope I’m not adding 2 + 2 to get 5, but it’s incredibly convenient that a lot of people are being charged for supporting a proscribed group the same month as the online safety act is rolled out… The cynic in me almost wonders if when it comes to re-election time, these increased numbers in terrorist charges will be trotted out and the context conveniently forgotten.
- pydry 1y ago
  I dont think it really signifies anything more than there being a rather dim and unimaginative set of authoritarians in charge.
- foldr 1y ago
  Terrorism hasn’t historically been an election issue in the UK, so this seems enormously unlikely.
pmarreck 1y ago
It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance. Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.
- gregorygoc 1y ago
  It’s basic game theory. If someone is not nice to you, you have to be not nice for them.

tonyedgecombe 1y ago

>* The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember.* Per-capita it’s less than the US.

dylan604 1y ago
But with the smaller space for the population, it's nearly total coverage from multiple angles vs the wide distances separating the equivalent number of cameras in the US.
- machomaster 1y ago
  And generally people speak about London specifically and not about rural UK areas.
- jansper39 1y ago
  The original figure included private CCTV systems which to all intents and purposes aren't available to government bodies without a warrant.

gopher_space 1y ago

Judge Dredd was an 80s reaction to this ethos. It’s old.

sunshine-o 1y ago

> The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember. By the way, do anybody care what would happen (at least psychologically) in case of a massive blackout or cyber-incident? Just imagine something akin to what happened to the Iberian peninsula a few months ago, the country goes into flame quickly preventing recovery and then it's on. Most of the systems the UK has to control its population are inoperable. I am pretty sure it is in the back of the mind of the UK leaders when they negotiate with Russia and China....

rkomorn 1y ago
You think it would turn into an impromptu de facto purge (of The Purge fame)?