5 ms·

The people of England are stereotypically doormats when it comes to this sort of thing. Standing up for rights is not something we/they do very well. We are th

The people of England are stereotypically doormats when it comes to this sort of thing. Standing up for rights is not something we/they do very well. We are the most survillienced nation, the population the most docile. That is one of the reasons I moved away, no one cares about this stuff, all they want is TV and quite often dole money. Let the filter roll out! Of course there are exceptions, but nowhere near enough to make a real difference. The Government in England gets what it wants no matter what. EDIT: I mean England, from my travels the other UK countries do not seem to have the same attitude as England does.

arethuza 13y ago
"the most docile" I take it you didn't include the rest of the UK because of the significant number of people in Scotland and Northern Ireland who be quite happy to leave the UK? :-) [Note that I said "significant number" rather than "majority" - the Scottish independence vote is still nearly a year away] PS - Apologies to the Welsh for my lack of knowledge as to your feelings about membership of the UK
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  British leaders voted in by Scotland have shown no more respect for privacy and freedom than their opponents. The last Labour government, overwhelmingly backed by Scotland, proposed mandatory ID cards, and a child-protection Vetting and Barring Scheme which would have seen a quarter of the adult population put on a database, subject to ongoing checks. I've seen nothing which indicates the Scottish electorate believes this is any more of an important issue than people elsewhere in the UK. The idea that intrusion into privacy will fade away with Scottish independence is just in line with the attitude that things in general will magically get better as a result.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but worth noting that the Government of Scotland is formed by the SNP, not the Labour Party.
    - gnerd 13y ago
      Also worth noting that the Vetting and Barring Scheme was established in 2002 and the Identity Card Act was from 2006 whereas the SNP only took office for the first time in 2007.
    - Brakenshire 13y ago
      Yes, but the post above was saying that the English electorate is particularly docile to surveillance - I have seen nothing to indicate there is a difference between the Scottish and English in that respect. Where are the protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow indicating this upswell of opposition? I'd definitely be glad to see them. It's possible that the SNP have different attitudes, which they would bring with them into independence, but they have not taken a public stand on the issue, and of course they have no track record either way because the devolved government does not have power in that area.
      - arethuza 13y ago
        Actually, the Scottish Justice Minister "has written to the UK government stating that intelligence gathering should not be abused": http://www.scotsman.com/news/gchq-fears-call-for-assurances-over-spying-on-scots-1-2973881 http://www.scotsman.com/news/gchq-fears-call-for-assurances-... [NB I am not an SNP supporter, although I am in favour of Scottish independence]
        summerdown2 13y ago
        Although it's nice to see a politician taking an interest, that's the mildest possible letter. The reason I say this is I can't imagine any politician, of any party not agreeing with it. "Of course," they'll say. "Intelligence gathering should not be abused. Next." If a politician actually wanted something to change, I think they'd write a more focussed letter, with actual demands for things to change - eg how long data should be stored, independent inquiries, codified powers, public reporting of statistics on surveillance, etc.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      While this is true, I think the OP was making the point that Labour would not have got in to Westminster (or certainly not have had so long in government) without the Scottish vote, and the Labour government in Westminster until 2010 was certainly backed by the scots.
- robin_reala 13y ago
  About 10% of the Welsh population would vote for a split: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427#story_continues_2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427#story_continues_...
hackerboos 13y ago
> survillienced nation Private surveillance not state surveillance.
ZoFreX 13y ago
> We are the most survillienced nation We are? I hope you have a better source for that than yelling something about CCTV and 1984 before running away (which is the extent to which most people can make the argument). I do agree with the rest. Apathy is the name of the game here.
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  Indeed. There's no evidence I've seen which shows the UK is subject to more surveillance than the US. Grainy, mostly privately-owned CCTV is a complete irrelevance in comparison to the digital/online monitoring which has recently come to light.
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    last i heard cheltenham was actually somewhere inside the uk.
    - Brakenshire 13y ago
      There have been reports which indicate that GCHQ have greater capabilities than the NSA, but they are based on leaked documents, produced by GCHQ, to make themselves look good to other surveillance agencies. The NSA has a budget which is equivalent to that of the entire British military.
- josephagoss 13y ago
  I was under the impression the statistics show that even negating private CCTV we have more cameras than every other nation and capital city. Also when I was there only 5 years ago they started to build cameras that could speak to people on the street to issue fines on the spot for littering or being out of school, remotely. Also road cameras were being deployed that issued automatic fines if the driver was eating or drinking in the car. I have never seen that level of surveillance anywhere else in the world.
  - vidarh 13y ago
Toenex 13y ago
...the population the most docile. If that is true, then surely we need protection from 'extremism' because we are so easily lead. ;)
kjjw 13y ago
What an utterly daft mix of hate-backed nonsense and false statements. "all they want is TV and quite often dole money." Please, take your small mind elsewhere.
- josephagoss 13y ago
  You could argue it was my location, however I did get around quite a bit. This is from observation and will never be assembled into statistics. I admit it is from my own observations and I may have missed all the good apples.
  - leoedin 13y ago
    I briefly knew a few people on the dole after finishing school/university. All of them were constantly broke and quickly got jobs. I don't know anyone who turned down a job so they could keep getting £56 a week jobseekers. There are areas of the UK which have high proportion of people on the dole, but it's a tiny minority. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.
    - josephagoss 13y ago
      Fair enough, I must of been in one of bad areas. I lived in England my whole life up until I moved to Oz.
mortov 13y ago
Despite being individual countries with different characteristics, they are all equally docile. Coming originally from Scotland, I can tell you the primary interest is in events affecting Rangers or Celtic football [soccer to North Americans] clubs. Surveillance ? Only of interest if it gives more details on what the favoured football club is doing. Politics is, by definition, saying how much you hate Margaret Thatcher - her death did nothing to diminish the constant blame attached to her despite it being more than 20 years since she was UK Prime Minister. The monotonous regularity would be a source of humour if it were not for the fact these are supposed to be serious people leading a country forward to independence on the world stage. Any spying on citizens in the UK is universal - the component countries do not make a difference to that in any way. CCTV, number plate cameras etc. are all present and operate universal surveillance throughout the UK. Nowhere is there any sizeable objection to it - especially since "only people with something to hide would object to the monitoring". UK residents would do well to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin : "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Perhaps we would all benefit from remembering the US Founding Fathers who had railed against the rot of the UK by 1776 - it is amazing how much resonance their words have today and how much their meaning has been lost even to Americans who should know better.
- ttflee 13y ago
  Ah, in China you watch CCTV; in United Kindom, CCTVs watch you.
- nettletea 13y ago
  Who watches the watchers? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillan... CCTV fails to reduce crime: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1
bport 13y ago
The study that made us think the UK was the most surveilled country was a 2006 report, which reported about 4 million cameras in the UK. This report was published by the UK government's /own/ information comissioner as a warning of what we could be walking into. A more recent study a couple of years ago put the number closer to 2 million, about 90% of which are privately owned. A large number of privately owned, non-centralised security cameras are not a threat to me in any way. If the government started networking private security for monitoring by the government, /that/ would be the action that would get people (and private companies) up in arms. Other recent government aggression, such as suspicionless stop and searches, extended detention for terrorism offences etc. were successfully challenged in the European court of humans rights within a few years. I've seen a pattern of worrying things slipping passed a sleepwalking public, then reverted later when it comes to light. Apart from all that, this headline in particular is really inaccurate. There was no quote as strong as the subject, but the closest thing is that the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity. The internet surveillance under RIPA /is/ genuinely frightening, but that isn't unique to the UK.
- jon-wood 13y ago
  > the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity. That sounds very much like the the Internet Watch Foundation's filter list, which was originally implemented to block access to child abuse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...) There has been at least one case of that list accidentally blocking access to Wikipedia after an over-zealous block took out the entire domain instead of a single page, and there's no reason to believe that it couldn't be used to block far more content if the political will were there.
- mortov 13y ago
  You mean privately controlled, like this ? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/cctv_shoplifters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/cctv_shoplifters/ Hey, they just need to suspect you and you're all over their web site. No need for any actual proof or any inconvenience stuff like an actual conviction. Many UK retailers already share CCTV between each other and many operate central monitoring hubs for facial recognition of 'undesirables' - people convicted of shoplifting or people the police have asked them to look for. Here, from guess where, parliament's site, is a paper explaining lots of the UK technology in use in 2002 : http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-175.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-175.pdf Have a look at the part about Newham in London using automatic facial recognition. Are you serious about not being worried ?
w_t_payne 13y ago
Docile? How about we know when we're beat.
- kamjam 13y ago
  The government works for us, not the other way round. There is no such thing as us being beat, there is such a thing as us not getting our shit together to do something about it.
  - w_t_payne 13y ago
    The government most definitively does NOT work for us. Elections are a fig-leaf to give a semblance of legitimacy -- the politicians approved by the democratic process are little more than glorified PR spokespeople, whose nominal power is largely illusory; undermined and diverted by innumerable tricks motivated by callow mendacity and the insurmountable complexity of the parasitic institutions that they front: The vast majority of governmental power is unseen, unscrutinised, unelected and largely unaccountable. In most forms, government is a highly-evolved form of the protection scams run by organized criminals, and whilst hard-working and well-meaning public servants certainly do exist, my personal experience is that cynicism and greed rules the day as one approaches the more elevated levels of seniority. So when I say that we are beat, I mean it. We are never EVER going to change this system. These guys may be corrupt as hell; evil in a "unwitting", petty, careless and banal sort of way, but there is nothing that the rest of us can do about it. We have to acknowledge that they have won the game, and that we are beaten. Our purpose in life is now to shine and polish their boots and egos in equal measure: To make sure that their coffers are full and that their jobs are secure; that their mistresses and personal vices remain secret, and that their ability to moralise, preach and generally look down on the plebeian masses remains unimpeded; to grow their ability to exercise arbitrary personal power, and to make them more secure in their roost. This is not a conspiracy theory, because there is no explicit conspiracy to be seen, just the unrelenting grind of universally flawed human nature.
Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
Are you forgetting the IRA who spent 24 years attacking and killing people the UK? Please respect those people who died and were injured (on both sides) before calling anyone a 'doormat'.
rjzzleep 13y ago
if it's any comfort to you, the reason why there's not nearly as much cameras on german streets, it's because germans even report each other for jaywalking.

arethuza 13y ago

"the most docile" I take it you didn't include the rest of the UK because of the significant number of people in Scotland and Northern Ireland who be quite happy to leave the UK? :-) [Note that I said "significant number" rather than "majority" - the Scottish independence vote is still nearly a year away] PS - Apologies to the Welsh for my lack of knowledge as to your feelings about membership of the UK

Brakenshire 13y ago
British leaders voted in by Scotland have shown no more respect for privacy and freedom than their opponents. The last Labour government, overwhelmingly backed by Scotland, proposed mandatory ID cards, and a child-protection Vetting and Barring Scheme which would have seen a quarter of the adult population put on a database, subject to ongoing checks. I've seen nothing which indicates the Scottish electorate believes this is any more of an important issue than people elsewhere in the UK. The idea that intrusion into privacy will fade away with Scottish independence is just in line with the attitude that things in general will magically get better as a result.
- arethuza 13y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, but worth noting that the Government of Scotland is formed by the SNP, not the Labour Party.
  - gnerd 13y ago
    Also worth noting that the Vetting and Barring Scheme was established in 2002 and the Identity Card Act was from 2006 whereas the SNP only took office for the first time in 2007.
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    Yes, but the post above was saying that the English electorate is particularly docile to surveillance - I have seen nothing to indicate there is a difference between the Scottish and English in that respect. Where are the protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow indicating this upswell of opposition? I'd definitely be glad to see them. It's possible that the SNP have different attitudes, which they would bring with them into independence, but they have not taken a public stand on the issue, and of course they have no track record either way because the devolved government does not have power in that area.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      Actually, the Scottish Justice Minister "has written to the UK government stating that intelligence gathering should not be abused": http://www.scotsman.com/news/gchq-fears-call-for-assurances-over-spying-on-scots-1-2973881 http://www.scotsman.com/news/gchq-fears-call-for-assurances-... [NB I am not an SNP supporter, although I am in favour of Scottish independence]
      - summerdown2 13y ago
        Although it's nice to see a politician taking an interest, that's the mildest possible letter. The reason I say this is I can't imagine any politician, of any party not agreeing with it. "Of course," they'll say. "Intelligence gathering should not be abused. Next." If a politician actually wanted something to change, I think they'd write a more focussed letter, with actual demands for things to change - eg how long data should be stored, independent inquiries, codified powers, public reporting of statistics on surveillance, etc.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    While this is true, I think the OP was making the point that Labour would not have got in to Westminster (or certainly not have had so long in government) without the Scottish vote, and the Labour government in Westminster until 2010 was certainly backed by the scots.
robin_reala 13y ago
About 10% of the Welsh population would vote for a split: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427#story_continues_2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427#story_continues_...

hackerboos 13y ago

> survillienced nation Private surveillance not state surveillance.

ZoFreX 13y ago

> We are the most survillienced nation We are? I hope you have a better source for that than yelling something about CCTV and 1984 before running away (which is the extent to which most people can make the argument). I do agree with the rest. Apathy is the name of the game here.

Brakenshire 13y ago
Indeed. There's no evidence I've seen which shows the UK is subject to more surveillance than the US. Grainy, mostly privately-owned CCTV is a complete irrelevance in comparison to the digital/online monitoring which has recently come to light.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  last i heard cheltenham was actually somewhere inside the uk.
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    There have been reports which indicate that GCHQ have greater capabilities than the NSA, but they are based on leaked documents, produced by GCHQ, to make themselves look good to other surveillance agencies. The NSA has a budget which is equivalent to that of the entire British military.
josephagoss 13y ago
I was under the impression the statistics show that even negating private CCTV we have more cameras than every other nation and capital city. Also when I was there only 5 years ago they started to build cameras that could speak to people on the street to issue fines on the spot for littering or being out of school, remotely. Also road cameras were being deployed that issued automatic fines if the driver was eating or drinking in the car. I have never seen that level of surveillance anywhere else in the world.
- vidarh 13y ago

Toenex 13y ago

...the population the most docile. If that is true, then surely we need protection from 'extremism' because we are so easily lead. ;)

kjjw 13y ago

What an utterly daft mix of hate-backed nonsense and false statements. "all they want is TV and quite often dole money." Please, take your small mind elsewhere.

josephagoss 13y ago
You could argue it was my location, however I did get around quite a bit. This is from observation and will never be assembled into statistics. I admit it is from my own observations and I may have missed all the good apples.
- leoedin 13y ago
  I briefly knew a few people on the dole after finishing school/university. All of them were constantly broke and quickly got jobs. I don't know anyone who turned down a job so they could keep getting £56 a week jobseekers. There are areas of the UK which have high proportion of people on the dole, but it's a tiny minority. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.
  - josephagoss 13y ago
    Fair enough, I must of been in one of bad areas. I lived in England my whole life up until I moved to Oz.

mortov 13y ago

Despite being individual countries with different characteristics, they are all equally docile. Coming originally from Scotland, I can tell you the primary interest is in events affecting Rangers or Celtic football [soccer to North Americans] clubs. Surveillance ? Only of interest if it gives more details on what the favoured football club is doing. Politics is, by definition, saying how much you hate Margaret Thatcher - her death did nothing to diminish the constant blame attached to her despite it being more than 20 years since she was UK Prime Minister. The monotonous regularity would be a source of humour if it were not for the fact these are supposed to be serious people leading a country forward to independence on the world stage. Any spying on citizens in the UK is universal - the component countries do not make a difference to that in any way. CCTV, number plate cameras etc. are all present and operate universal surveillance throughout the UK. Nowhere is there any sizeable objection to it - especially since "only people with something to hide would object to the monitoring". UK residents would do well to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin : "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Perhaps we would all benefit from remembering the US Founding Fathers who had railed against the rot of the UK by 1776 - it is amazing how much resonance their words have today and how much their meaning has been lost even to Americans who should know better.

ttflee 13y ago
Ah, in China you watch CCTV; in United Kindom, CCTVs watch you.
nettletea 13y ago
Who watches the watchers? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillan... CCTV fails to reduce crime: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

bport 13y ago

The study that made us think the UK was the most surveilled country was a 2006 report, which reported about 4 million cameras in the UK. This report was published by the UK government's /own/ information comissioner as a warning of what we could be walking into. A more recent study a couple of years ago put the number closer to 2 million, about 90% of which are privately owned. A large number of privately owned, non-centralised security cameras are not a threat to me in any way. If the government started networking private security for monitoring by the government, /that/ would be the action that would get people (and private companies) up in arms. Other recent government aggression, such as suspicionless stop and searches, extended detention for terrorism offences etc. were successfully challenged in the European court of humans rights within a few years. I've seen a pattern of worrying things slipping passed a sleepwalking public, then reverted later when it comes to light. Apart from all that, this headline in particular is really inaccurate. There was no quote as strong as the subject, but the closest thing is that the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity. The internet surveillance under RIPA /is/ genuinely frightening, but that isn't unique to the UK.

jon-wood 13y ago
> the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity. That sounds very much like the the Internet Watch Foundation's filter list, which was originally implemented to block access to child abuse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...) There has been at least one case of that list accidentally blocking access to Wikipedia after an over-zealous block took out the entire domain instead of a single page, and there's no reason to believe that it couldn't be used to block far more content if the political will were there.
mortov 13y ago
You mean privately controlled, like this ? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/cctv_shoplifters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/cctv_shoplifters/ Hey, they just need to suspect you and you're all over their web site. No need for any actual proof or any inconvenience stuff like an actual conviction. Many UK retailers already share CCTV between each other and many operate central monitoring hubs for facial recognition of 'undesirables' - people convicted of shoplifting or people the police have asked them to look for. Here, from guess where, parliament's site, is a paper explaining lots of the UK technology in use in 2002 : http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-175.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-175.pdf Have a look at the part about Newham in London using automatic facial recognition. Are you serious about not being worried ?

w_t_payne 13y ago

Docile? How about we know when we're beat.

kamjam 13y ago
The government works for us, not the other way round. There is no such thing as us being beat, there is such a thing as us not getting our shit together to do something about it.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  The government most definitively does NOT work for us. Elections are a fig-leaf to give a semblance of legitimacy -- the politicians approved by the democratic process are little more than glorified PR spokespeople, whose nominal power is largely illusory; undermined and diverted by innumerable tricks motivated by callow mendacity and the insurmountable complexity of the parasitic institutions that they front: The vast majority of governmental power is unseen, unscrutinised, unelected and largely unaccountable. In most forms, government is a highly-evolved form of the protection scams run by organized criminals, and whilst hard-working and well-meaning public servants certainly do exist, my personal experience is that cynicism and greed rules the day as one approaches the more elevated levels of seniority. So when I say that we are beat, I mean it. We are never EVER going to change this system. These guys may be corrupt as hell; evil in a "unwitting", petty, careless and banal sort of way, but there is nothing that the rest of us can do about it. We have to acknowledge that they have won the game, and that we are beaten. Our purpose in life is now to shine and polish their boots and egos in equal measure: To make sure that their coffers are full and that their jobs are secure; that their mistresses and personal vices remain secret, and that their ability to moralise, preach and generally look down on the plebeian masses remains unimpeded; to grow their ability to exercise arbitrary personal power, and to make them more secure in their roost. This is not a conspiracy theory, because there is no explicit conspiracy to be seen, just the unrelenting grind of universally flawed human nature.

Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago

Are you forgetting the IRA who spent 24 years attacking and killing people the UK? Please respect those people who died and were injured (on both sides) before calling anyone a 'doormat'.

rjzzleep 13y ago

if it's any comfort to you, the reason why there's not nearly as much cameras on german streets, it's because germans even report each other for jaywalking.