h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hmm, no it might not.

The theory being of course that being a democracy we don't want such things to happen, and we can prevent them - but can we? I think it would help if people actually bothered to vote for a change, you know? Then they wouldn't feel like they can do what they want because nobody cares, because that's the impression the turnout at the last election generated.

I don't think we can hit Big Brother state if the population oppose it. As for the cameras that pick up registration numbers automatically, I was told about those by a police officer (who is quite proud of them, unsurprisingly) about eight months ago. They're a great way to spot stolen vehicles, those registered to drivers with suspended licences, wanted criminals etc. etc. Of course, as with many things, there is a potential for abuse. The crucial thing, I think, is that the abuse _doesn't_happen_.

I agree that such technology is an excellent way of combating crime, and that's why there's going to be a lot of it around. If it was useless for that purpose then the democratic process would serve to prevent its implementation because people would notice. However, once it's installed to fulfil legitimate functions, you'll have no way of knowing whether it's being abused or not. This means that whether people vote or not is irrelevant - you can't vote against something you don't know about. It's not as if you can information from MI5 under the Data Protection Act.

On reading the backlog I have been asking myself:

Did the policemen surrounding the protesters at the Mayday do get to go to the toilet or did they form a ring round said demonstrators for 8 hours without respite?

And on CCTV (especially with all the trappings Mycroft suggests) - who watches the watchers?

And I am sure that my nose, eyes and mouth are arranged the same way as yours are, Grey Desk! Does this mean I will have to do time for your crimes?

Re: The responses to post 94


The computers with CCTV check vehicle registrations. If they detect one that has been flagged for any reason, it drawn to the attention of a human operator who will use CCTV (the City of London has 100% street CCTV coverage) to follow the vehicle & direct police to intercept it (assuming that the checkpoint where the car entered was unmanned).

Well TC if you're face is the same as mine, you must look pretty strange

TC mentioned the late night TV usage of CCTV footage from public places (where she used to play), but no one has specifically mentioned the motorways footage.
One of the channels here has an hour a week of "Worst Drivers Ever" or some such silly title and it's always 70% British footage from CCTV's and police car cameras. (Do they still call them 'pandas' or is that insensitive these days?) Sometimes they even 'flip' (mirror reverse) the footage so it doesn't all look like right hand drive, but the lorries and taxis are a dead give-away.
In any case someone, probably not the British Police forces, is making a fair buck on selling these pictures to US tv and Americans are now deathly afraid of ever driving in the UK. Having watched but a few minutes by chance from time to time, I consider this a legitimate fear.
~jwf~

*removing foot from mouth slowly*

Gosh darnit and damnation. Check that TC reference. It was who said she used to cuddle in darkened doorways.

er...it id the poice forces that sell the motorway footage to TV stations - not all forces do (example the met police has done in the past but dose not at present).

And the programmes I've seen like that contain scenes from the US, Canada and Australia. Not just cctv footage but that from the in car cameras also.

Whatever its country of origin, it's still an invasion of privacy. The in-car cameras just give worse pictures.
Aren't the police supposed to _destroy_ these pictures? (whether or not there was a court case based on them) <star)

IN the UK, its up to the individule police forces as to how they dispose of such footage.

Unfortunately they generally have so little money that selling some of the footage from their traffic cars and cameras is actually worthwhile for them.

...because governments foolishly follow the new global business model, all possible sources of cash flow are exploited.

Governments were never designed to be run as businesses.
Big business has become more efficient (spends less on employees), more competitive (spends less on raw materials and costs) and more environmentally conscious (sell the trash to the highest bidder) while increasing profit margins (raise prices/taxes).

Sadly, the people who manage governments have implemented these new global-capitalist business practises in the name of progress and efficiency, while buying up all the new techno-gear for employee surveillance and plant security.
Governments are not supposed to be about running a business, high tech or not. The results are akin to buying high fashion garments for your pet dog while the goldfish starve and the cats run wild.

any comments on what happened in sweden ?

Well, I *have* been wondering what those who don't have driving licences do. In Sweden I mean.

Err... they don't drive?

As for what happened, wasn't Bush really slimey?

Well, people that don't have driving licences in Sweden, as MaW said, don't drive.

What happened in Sweden this weekend is highly regrettable. Bad part is that I think that according to Swedish law, tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons aren't allowed to be used against demonstrators/rioters, which resulted in live rounds being fired.

But I say that the demonstrators brought it upon themselves. There are ways of getting ones point across without having to wreak havoc and destroying private property, just because you're opposed to the governments of Europe.

Oh so true... if only the people making the mess would realise that.

Yes, just imagine how much 'nicer' the French revolution would have been if Les Miserables had brought paint and ladders to the Bastille. Instead of 'storming' it they coulda given it a fresh coat of French bleu. No doubt, Marie Antoinette would have let 'em have their cake and eat it too.

~jwf~

At the time, it was probably the best thing to do. In these enlightened days, it's nice to think that there are more positive ways to effect change.