UK Government Plans 10-Year Database of Citizens' Travel 289
moderators_are_w*nke writes "The UK government is planning yet another database to track its citizens, this time keeping track of their movements in and out of the country for ten years. Just like all their other databases, this one 'is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and [of course] terrorism.'" I'd be very surprised if the US is not already doing this, and just not making a point to let anyone know.
Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of hearing that we, here in the UK, are 'marching toward' a Police State (I think we essentially have one, it's just being applied in a low-key and selective manner at the moment). May I make an appeal that we can all agree that the bunch of ex-communist sympathisers who rule the country at the moment, at least WANT a police state?
Then perhaps we can move forward instead of repeating the self-defeating 'walking toward' mantra.
superficial and ineffective (Score:5, Insightful)
If the plan is to see how many baddies go to "suspect" countries (obviously with nefarious intent - not simply because they might have family there, or like traveling), then it's easily negated by traveling to a "friendly" country and booking onwards from there. As usual with govt. hare-brained schemes, this will track the millions of holidaymakers and completely miss any people who have half an interest in concealing their true intentions. Meantime, we are all tracked, tested, tagged, followed and surveilled to an even greater extent. All this does is add to the general sense of oppression in the country, and adds to the sheer volume of innocous data collected - while leaving those with both the motivation and the organisation free to carry on as they wish, safe int he knowledge that the "intelligence" services are snowed under in an avalanche of useless data.
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
If Wikipedia's definition of a police state is accurate, the fact it's applied "in a low-key and selective manner" really does mean "marching toward" rather than "having arrived".
We can only hope that the western world, having known freedom, will revolt while they still have enough of that freedom left to effectively do so. Not saying that time is now, but if the governments keep heading in the direction they are, it's only a matter of time.
Ideally, one would vote the nations out of these issues instead. But if all the parties are caught up in the hysteria, what's there left to do.
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that people actually think even the UK is a police state, they obviously have not read much about what being in a real police state is like, or travelled to some truly controlled parts of the world (like Zimbabwe, which I have been to)
SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument? I see it a lot on Slashdot, and everywhere else I go!
It goes like this:
"X is bad."
"Y is worse than X, X isn't bad at all."
The fallacy here is that somehow, you could be the 2nd worse and that isn't a bad thing at all! While it might be true that the UK doesn't make people disappear (yet) it is also true that the UK is creating very powerful policing tools, and that once they do start making people disappear, it will be all too late, as George Orwell has warned us.
And don't even think for a second that our leaders are benevolent and immune to corruption.
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree.
People seem notoriously unable to recognise a police state when they are immersed in one.
On the other hand, I don't think there is a photofit image of a police state for easy identification. It's fallaciously to say, "Oh look, we aren't as bad as China/Iran/Zimbabwe, so we can't be a police state, every thing's fine."
More security (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)
Great attitude dickhead. Perhaps other countries should take the same attitude towards expat Britons too. You realised 1 in 10 Britons live overseas? How about we start with the 761,000 (2006 numbers) who live in Spain, and send them home? That will surely help, or at least in Spain. Australia has 1.3 million, many of whom are retired and screwed by the British government on their pensions and so costing the Aussie taxpayers a lot of money... I'm sure Gordon Brown will be happy to raise taxes or government debt further to provide for them.
police state? - been there! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the same position that law-abiding UK citizens face every day, in their own country. If that isn't a measure of a police (run) state, then I can't say what is. Taking extreme examples of a failed state (e.g. Zimbabwe) as an example does not represent the everyday situation.
We're there already guys. It just crept up on us, slowly, and no-one noticed.
You demean those who have suffered before (Score:5, Insightful)
SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument?
I don't "buy into" anything. I merely mean to protect the meaning of a phrase.
You see, literally millions of people have died in real police states. Not been inconvenienced, or had some privacy stripped from them (though that of course happened to). I am talking about actual lives lost.
That's pretty much where I draw the line. As much as you might not like the governments attempt to keep a travel journal for you, it's hardly anything like a "Police State" Wake me when you are not in fact allowed to leave your own country, or your Slashdot post whining about the police state from your cozy home is met with imprisonment.
I am not saying some things that are being done should not be reversed, and are not good ideas. What I am saying is that to equate your "suffering" with those that have truly suffered at the hands of a police state is obscene, and you belittle them all.
I'm sorry if you can't see that, but if you keep watering down the word people will not realize when REAL problems occur as they'll have no way to describe them, just like the boy who cried wolf.
Give an example (Score:4, Insightful)
People seem notoriously unable to recognise a police state when they are immersed in one.
Please give an example?
Through history it's been pretty clear when the police state arrives, because that's when the cleansing begins and freedom truly ends.
It's absurd to the look at the UK and say "those poor buggers are just like Zimbabwe or old Russia". It's offensive to those actually suffering day to day in those regimes.
And it's even more sad that I am being attacked because I have the temerity to point this out, that people think because I dislike the use of the term "Police State" I must of course agree with the concept of the government keeping secret records and so on. Well I don't, it's just that I have seen real suffering and dislike people pretending they are under the same thumb or even close. You can't claim that *I claim* that everything is fine simply because I object to you normalizing references to any oppressive government from Zimbabwe to the UK under the same umbrella. Everything is not fine, but you can't take away the ability to see just where you are on the scale either.
Re:You demean those who have suffered before (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't die as long as they play along.
The fact that people play along, doesn't change whether or not it's an orwellian police state.
Right now, we can at least agree that governments in Europe are quickly installing all the tools required for creating and maintining a police state/totalitarian dictatorship.
I think we should stop making more hammers, before the average citizens starts looking like nails.
I'm looking forward to when the EU gain the power, to declare a union wide state of emergency. When they get that power, it won't take many years before it's used.
You know not of what you speak (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimbabwe is no more a "police state" than anywhere else.
I've been there asshole.
You can't take currency out of the country (illegal, you can be arrested). The protesters we take for granted here in the US would all be dead by now in Zimbabwe as speaking against the government there is not healthy. The price of basics like bred is controlled by the state (meaning of course there is none) and you will be arrested if you try to circumvent that.
Then of course there are the random armed checkpoints with soldiers set up to question you...
Try going there and then post your ignorant relativistic bullshit.
and just like the other UK gov. databases... (Score:4, Insightful)
...it is going to be left on a train by some retard in the civil service.
I don't know what is worse - totalitarian government collecting information on us all or totalitarian collecting information on us all and then fucking losing it.
Writing this, I do feel perhaps I am exaggerating a bit with the word totalitarian, considering some of the other regimes that have been described as such. So I would be interested to get some perspective from someone who lived in Eastern Europe under communism (was it really 20 years ago? fuck I am getting old) and now lives in the UK - on a scale of 1 to Glorious Peoples Republic Knows What Is Best For All, how buggared are we at the moment?
Re:police state? - been there! (Score:2, Insightful)
You run away from the Police when they show up? Do you get arrested for photographing offical buildings or people?
I've not been in the UK for just over a year but things must have changed an awful lot.
Re:Immigrants (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to concentrate on the non-citizens who are coming into the country, not the citizens who are traveling abroad. Just last week there were strikes because too many people are coming into the UK. The UK is already overcrowded and the government seems to be able to do very little to control the borders effectively. Allowing Workers to freely migrate within the EU was a big mistake and will drive wages down.
You lose your freedom but you complain about money.
Re:You demean those who have suffered before (Score:1, Insightful)
The German governemnt has had the power to create a nation-wide state of emergency since the 60s, and those were abused all the time, right? Right? Oh wait, they weren't. They were never used.
The fact that people play along, doesn't change whether or not it's an orwellian police state. The fact that it's actually not an orewellian police state by any sane definition of "orwellian" or "police state" does.
Re:You know not of what you speak (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a futile discussion - classifying all nations into 'police state' and 'not a police state' is oversimplifying a complex issue.
So you have seen Zimbabwe with your own eyes. Have you seen the UK also? If so, could you gauge in your own opinion how far from true freedom the UK is in the direction of Zimbabwe, and if it is truly headed for such a state.
Re:Very sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know not of what you speak (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. Some places really truly are worse than other places. Relativism is bullshit.
But I'm not sure where your argument is headed; Are you truly saying we shouldn't be concerned about the policies and the development in the UK, because there exists worse places on this planet ?
It sorta sounds like it, and that makes no sense at all.
If something is bad, then it remains BAD even if you can point to one (or many!) examples of things which are WORSE.
Re:police state? - been there! (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on how you are dressed. If you have the temerity to wear a hoodie, a baseball cap, or the wrong colour skin, you are VERY wary around the police. The UK police are undermanned and under great pressure to produce 'results' - i.e. convictions - so they go for easy collars. Often this involves intimidating someone from a poor background into doing something, however minor, that could constitute resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, and stomping on them for it - despite the fact that the individual would've commited no crime were it not for being approached by the police.
Watch the film 'taking liberties' by the way - it shows two older ladies being accosted by the police for standing on a hill near a military base, with a camera crew.
Cool... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just love it when the government wastes my money like this. It's so much more interesting to watch than when they build stuff that's actually needed like clean waste disposal sites, fresh water reserviours, and public transportation infrastructure. That stuff is usually completed on time, under budget, and works as advertised - how boring.
Immigration jobs must be utterly brain dead boring (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering 99.9999% of people traveling are legit, it must be sooo brain dead boring asking the same questions, quizing people, interogating people, and finding out most are legit, and very very very few are crims/baddasses.
How sad it must be to go home and say, "F*CK, I screened 8200 people, and only 1 hit!!!, what a dull day!"
That must really make them eager to bust people, be over zealous and find the most minute thing to detain people on.
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
How's that working out for you?
The US already does much of the stuff the UK does. You have free speech zones, warrantless wiretaps, your homeland security theatre...
The US public is too complacent to revolt, and too "patriotic".
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
If this law to track citizens' movement were passed in America, we would exercise our second amendment rights
I hear this sort of thing a lot from Americans, but it really isn't borne out by the evidence.
Re:Immigrants (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullcrap
Loads of britons work abroad, many more than the few contractors that this idiotic furore broke over.
This is just the working class braying for protectionism, again, and turning to xenophobia as a way to shift the blame off themselves or to admit that the wider economy is screwed.
Whilst border control *is* an issue, it's not as big of one as you think. And the workers in question are EU citizens. By all means let's kick them out, then rehouse and re-employ the million or so brits that get kicked out of other EU nations and deal with economic isolation as the EU either kicks us out or disintegrates. Because clearly that would be best for all of us, to restrict international trade and screw up Britons' ability to work abroad.
Great plan.
Re:You know not of what you speak (Score:1, Insightful)
As a UK citizen i can honestly say we are not becoming a police state aka zimbabwae.
1:
out military do not run armed check points
2:
nobody has disappeared for critisizing the government.
3:
the current laws that are being abused were part of a terrorism act which is being inforced by stupid councils rather than police. This is being picked up on and dealt with in the usual slow way.
4:
the state of our police force and councils any data they store will probably appear on ebay within a week.
5:
The laws in question already exist in the USA.
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
If this law to track citizens' movement were passed in America, we would exercise our second amendment rights. We would tell our parliamentarians: Real this law or die. Government is there to SERVE the people, not to be a master. Politicians who desire to be masters need to be "fired" by their employers, the People.
I wish Americans had the testicular fortitude to do this. Unfortunately since, idk, the civil war we have been pretty trusting of government (even if we talk a lot of smack about Washington and politics). In fact, not only are we not willing to give an ultimatum to the Federal government, we keep electing politicians who ensure more of the same (albeit in different trappings sometimes). The only way something like this would ever happen is if the economy when to complete shit and you had large numbers of people (> say 30%) unemployed and the rest unable to live in any sort of comfort. Americans are just too comfortable to make real change.
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
The eastern Europeans stormed their capitals in 1990-91, and in the face of an armed communist military, and yet they still managed to reclaim their freedom.
Re:police state? - been there! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh how I wish this had any basis in reality.
Oh how I wish it hadn't.
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:police state? - been there! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
When on earth is it illegal for the British government to spy on us?
(Assuming us = British citizens located in the UK:)
* When you are a British government agency engaged in national security work whose terms of service expressly forbids spying on British Citizens located in the UK (IIRC this includes the SIS/MI6)
* When you are doing so ostensibly under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act but are failing to observe those regulations.
* When you are not covered by RIPA nor national security regulations, and are failing in your responsibilities under the Data Protection Act.
I don't actually have a problem with people monitoring me, so long as I have a right to check all records about me and correct any incorrect ones. That's pretty much what the Data Protection Act says. If it's an issue of national security, then, well duh, all governments are in the same boat and the UK is no different.
The loophole, if there is one, is the rather stupidly wide-ranging Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which allows you to be monitored without your knowledge or right of reply if they suspect you of a variety of minor crimes such as dumping an old tyre in a hedge. The problem there is that these investigations are so common, that they are done by poorly trained local council staff who frequently mistake identities, and you have no right to become aware of the problem, nor correct it. Indeed, under most situations it is illegal to inform someone that they are being monitored under RIPA.
The root problem, therefore, is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which needs to be significantly re-written.
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls
Fixed that for you.
The US public is too complacent to revolt, and too "patriotic".
Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?
Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.
Re:Police State (Score:2, Insightful)
I have seen some good ideas to change things. For example to allow voters to say yes to more than one candidate - so they can vote for the third or fourth party and can still have a say in the fight between the two strongest. Here is one such site: http://www.rangevoting.org/ [rangevoting.org]
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because keeping and bearing arms was seen more like a stupid idea than a dear time-honored right?
That whooshing sound is the point flying right over your head. If sensibilities can evolve towards considering that right to be a "stupid idea" and taking it away then they can evolve towards considering other rights to be a stupid idea.
I think we should take away free speech because organizations like the KKK use it for bad things. Phrase it like that and watch the sheep line up to surrender their rights.
Re:Police State (Score:1, Insightful)
warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls
Fixed that for you.
Still warrantless, no?
Besides, it wasn't(isn't) just overseas calls. Remember the entire floor at AT&T that the NSA is camped out in? The one with *ALL* AT&T traffic flowing through it including domestic calls?
Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights.
Actually, for things like killing the 4th amendment it should take a new amendment with all the states agreeing. But it's far easier to break the law, then pass a new law saying "Everything we did before is now OK. Oh, and by the way, no one can investigate what we did, and even if you do investigate we've destroyed the records anyway." (See FISA 2008).
Re:Very sad (Score:2, Insightful)
I entirely agree. Saying "But but, it's not as bad as [insert some very bad country]" is not exactly a ringing endorsement!
What happened to striving towards a country that values freedom? Now instead, it's okay to strive towards countries like Zimbabwe, just so long as things don't get as bad as them? This trend in itself is worrying.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to get a revolution (almost anywhere) is by hitting people directly in their pockets. American Civil War: slaves were a cheap workforce and not having them or having to pay them was bad for a lot of people's business. Thus they revolted. Same goes for the Soviets. They went along as long as they weren't affected. As soon as people started disappearing on large scales and the whole 'communist' thing meant that they were working but weren't getting food but the big wigs in the Party did get all the perks of the communist idea they started revolting. Same for the French: As long as they had it fairly good they went along. But then when the government started raising taxes to the point of famine they started revolting. African nations the same: as long as they are fed they will be fine with whatever ruler comes along, have 1 group/tribe/area excluded from food and that group is larger than a village, that group will start a rebel movement or a civil war. Israel-Palestine is trickier because they will kill each other because they hate each other but the same goes there: having 2 states is all fine and well even with the occasional bombing but one side starts to close borders and rationing food/gas/supplies and you'll have a revolt.
Re:You demean those who have suffered before (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see that it demeans the phrase. If people are murdered in a "police state", I don't say "They lived in a police state" if I want to convey the gravity, I say "They were murdered".
No, I don't think that we are in a police state. But the term is not some magical phrase that is only reserved for the absolute worse case possible - that demeans the phrase. You are wrong to equate police state with "very bad things like murder" in the first place. The term is a phrase describing how things are run in a country, and not what necessarily takes place in such a country. It's also not a case that one either is or isn't - a country typically has many different systems, and it's rather simplistic to catgorise all countries as either being a police state, or not being one. You could have countries that were generally okay, but where they gave judicial powers to the police. OTOH, you could have regimes where people were murdered by the state, but which wasn't a police state at all, because it was still a democratic country with oversight by the courts.
I'm sorry if you can't see that, but if you keep watering down the word people will not realize when REAL problems occur as they'll have no way to describe them, just like the boy who cried wolf.
The only one watering down phrases is you, by mistaking a term describing how things are done in a country, with how many people are murdered in such a country. By your reasoning, a state where millions of people were imprisoned by the choice of the police wouldn't be a police state, so long as they were simply "inconvenienced" and not murdered.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
And that certainly helped you during the 8 years with W didn't it.
It did if you were paying attention. SCOTUS reined in a lot of his policies. Some of the states stood up and flipped Washington off over Real ID. Just because the system doesn't work overnight doesn't mean the system doesn't work.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence.
Well I would dispute that notion (it would matter if the Feds decided to SWAT a whole bunch of people out of existence) but that wasn't the underlying point I was trying to make. My underlying point was that the people of the UK sheepishly agreed to surrender a right that they had held for hundreds of years. That's a pretty dangerous precedent to set, IMHO, and why should we believe that any of the other rights will be respected if that one wasn't?
As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.
The difference between someone captured on the battlefield and someone captured within the United States should be plain to everybody. Do you also think that we lost the right to trial by jury because we didn't afford it to the POWs we captured in the Civil War/Spanish-American War/WW1/WW2/Korea or Vietnam?
Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security
I opposed the Iraq War but you should at least acknowledge that it was the stated policy [wikipedia.org] of our country since the 90s to change the regime in Iraq. It's not like Bush picked a random country off to map to invade and bullied Congress into letting him do it.
or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.
Well, I oppose that too, but it's interesting that you are bringing up pork in a discussion about civil liberties. Which civil liberties do I lose if Congress decides to fight STDs? My right to keep and bear chlamydia? ;)
The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment.
The media has it's own agenda -- selling copy. I would dispute that you can make a blanket statement that 'the media' is part of 'the establishment'. 'The media' is a pretty broad term. Slashdot is part of the media. Is Slashdot part of the establishment? How about 2600? They part of the establishment?
We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.
I disagree. The fact that several states stood up and told Washington to fuck off with regards to Real ID tells me that we are far ahead of the Brits.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls
You must have missed this story:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/nsa-whistleblower-says-journos-were-targeted.ars [arstechnica.com]
"The NSA had access to all Americans' communications: faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," said Tice. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas in the middle of the country and you never made any foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."
Re:Very sad (Score:1, Insightful)
I can't believe this has been modded insightful.
The logic in it is bad.
It's perfectly logically acceptable to say "Muslims do get raided like that" if only some people who are muslims get raided.
As well as being logically fine, its also useful, if many of those who have been raided share the characteristic of being muslim. Which they do.
Compare, for example:
"Black people were racially discriminated against in Americas past"
Were all black people racially discriminated against?
No, but some of them were, so it makes sense to say.
Re:Police State (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
It's a one step forward and two steps back. Take the DC gun ban for instance. They had been attempting to take guns away for a while and finally the Supreme court took the case up and made the anti-gun people take 10 steps back. The former President wanted to take habeas corpus away from prisoners held at club gitmo, the court made them take a few steps back.
We won't be free of people, however innocently intentioned they think they are, who will attempt to take rights away from the people. However, because it is so difficult to do so, we end up with a document which gives the government directions for all the power it can derive from the people and being enforced by the supreme court of the land who steps in eventually and puts a stop to it. There is no higher legal authority in England where the courts can say "stop doing that because the constitution doesn't allow it". There is nothing others then rights that can be easily legislated away. It's especially easier to do so when the government has no fear of reprisal from the people. Taking the right to defend yourself from not only a criminal but a tyrannical and/or oppressive government away from the people only makes it easier for the government to becomes tyranical and oppresive when it takes other rights away. Perhaps you right to vote against them, or you right to free speech (which shouldn't be confused as a right to deny others their speech and some seem to think) or to speak against them will be next.