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.
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: (Score:2, Funny)
>>>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.
Dear British Cousins,
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.
A concerned l
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: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: (Score:2)
"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."
Wow, what a load of old cod.
You might need that to do certain things, and do them by the book, but it seems to me that you can get away with what you like so long a
Re:Police State (Score:4, Interesting)
You might need that to do certain things, and do them by the book, but it seems to me that you can get away with what you like so long as you cover it up for a bit and then grant retrospective immunity to everyone involved. And if you think your government, with all it's DHA, TSA and other such stuff isn't keeping a record of everywhere you go, well... I disagree!
Keeping a record of everywhere I go doesn't violate my rights. I question why the government needs such a record but if you think this started with TSA you are sadly mistaken [ezpass.com].
Surely the last government proved to you that the US executive can and will do whatever they like?
Actually, SCOTUS shot down several policies of the US executive so I think my underlying point still stands. The worst problem of the last eight years wasn't Bush (every single President since Washington has tried to expand executive power) but the manner in which the Congress rubber-stamped his policies for the first six years.
Also, who cares whether the calls were made to/from overseas places?
Historically the Government has had broader powers [wikipedia.org] at the border and some of your rights may not apply when crossing that border. That doesn't mean I support all of those powers (if the call is between two Americans I don't think they have any right to be listening) but claiming that this is something new shows that you haven't really researched the topic as throughly as you should.
"Shouldna bin talkin' to them furr-ners anyway"?
Yes, any American that might see the historical basis for this kind of policy is automatically the stereotypical xenophobe and can be dismissed as such.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
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. Its at best a palliative that gives us a false sense of security. 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.
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.
Nice in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Frighten the congressmen/women enough, fool the people enough and you can make them dance any which way you want. Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security, or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.
The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment. Whether its CNN's love affair with the Democrats or Fox's marriage to the Republicans, an ignorant, naturally insular populace such as ours is ripe pickings for these charlatans who call themselves our leaders. 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.
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: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: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: (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,
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: (Score:2)
You can keep polishing your rifle while dreaming about storming the capital building, but frankly with their 3 million military personnel I doubt you'll have them quaking in their boots.
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: (Score:2)
> The eastern Europeans stormed their capitals in 1990-91
Hardly an argument in favour of the 2nd amendment, as they overthrow their dictatorships without yielding any weapons (in 1989 [wikipedia.org], btw).
Re: (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.rangevo [rangevoting.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Voters don't even know how to punch-out a chad*, how on earth would they handle a scoring system??? I don't think that would work. Maybe we could get away with Australian ballots, where you assign 1 for your favorite (McCain), 2 for your second favorite (Harry Browne), and so on, but that's about it.
*
*I think it was less stupidity, and more laziness. The instructions said to verify the holes were punched out of your ballot, prior to handing it in, but like a typical school student, SOME of the voters wer
Revolt in the US (Score:2)
You can keep polishing your rifle while dreaming about storming the capital building, but frankly with their 3 million military personnel I doubt you'll have them quaking in their boots.
True. It's the loyalties of those 3 million military personnel, and recently released veterans, that are the ultimate limit to the power of our government.
Of course, it helps that the recently released veterans do have rifles. A lot of them also know exactly how the US military fights an insurgency.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the media that says they fight badly. If you ask them (you can, they're online), they'll say they are winning and give examples and statistics.
Go to bar.baen.com, for example, register, and ask this question in KratsKeller or Ringo's Tavern.
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)
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: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: (Score:2)
Considering the guys we want to revolt against hold the power to decide to ignore our complaints, what else is left beyond the use of force?
Immigrate. It's safer, easier, and eventually leaves a government without much of its beloved milking cows (oops, I meant to write "tax base").
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Please don't try to make this a left-right issue; the Tories only ever oppose such plans to gain political traction. Much of the mentality of New Labour is inherited from their ideological forebearers in the Tory party.
The fact that a bunch of old trots and stalinists could so easily switch over to thatcherism to me shows a fundamental similarity; the cynical treatment of man as an economic machine, a belief in political and economic rationalism to the point of total dehumanisation, and a utopian vision tha
Re: (Score:2)
A pound to a penny that is not about terrorism but about taxes. Whenever you see a government doing ANYTHING these days, I strongly recommend that you think 'Hmm, is this revenue related?' before considering anything else.
The UK apparently believes that it's losing around GBP 15 billion per annum in tax to various offshore and other borderline legal tax avoidance schemes.
One such scheme is to claim that you are non-resident for tax purposes. It used to be the case that you could be non-resident and visit fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whist tracking down tax avoidance is good, I can't help feeling they could save us a buttload more money by getting rid of all their surveillance crap and cutting deeply into public spending.
Make the UK a genuinely low-taxed capitalist country (as it damn well should be, even with the NHS) and the rich won't feel as much need to evade.
Police State? Really? (Score:2)
If this is a police state, where are my doughnuts?!
- Aggrieved Sugar-Deficient Brit
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, Interesting)
rather, people don't disappear in large numbers, yet. There are the occasionally reported cases of people being detained for periods of time widely considered unreasonable for criminal investigations.
Likewise, people aren't assaulted in large numbers. That doesn't mean the police limit themselves to levels of force widely held to be acceptable.
And then there's the participation in rendition programs that do nothing other than make people disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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."
His argument was actually "It's not a police state, calling it that weakens the criticism." Which I think is valid. Saying "The government keeps a log of when I leave the country... POLICE STATE BIG BROTHER!!!" is somewhat overstating it. I know I roll my eyes when I hear that term, because it gets thrown around so often. It immediately reduced my interest in this issue.
It seems to just be cynicism trying to pass itself off as wisdom. "I knew this would happen, after all, we do live in a police state."
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 don't agree though.
Some of the tools, sure. But it's no-where near stepping over that final line.
In fact I see nothing but backpedalling from most EU states to do anything to actually control citizens. Documentation is to me rather the opposite of control, or at least one with the lowest effect on citizens, and governments all over
Re: (Score:2)
My take on communism, from the words of those who lived under it, was that annoying bureaucrats are quite capable of real oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me when you are not in fact allowed to leave your own country
The UK has legislation that prevents certain "undesirable"s from being permitted to leave the country, in apparent contravention of international treaties. (Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 114)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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)
>>>
Even if the devil gives you a palace in Hell and says, "Look how much better I treat you than those poor smucks without a roof and in the middle of the flames," the fact still remains: You are in a damn hot place. I'd rather live in a freedom-loving UK Paradise, t
"UK doesn't make people disappear" (Score:5, Informative)
Under present laws, eg. Terrorism Act 2000, people can be held incognito for up to 30 days. In other words, you just disappear. People think you are dead. They would most likely call the police. This only happens to terrorists, of course. Right?
Well, actually it happened to me. 36 hours inside. For two nights my girlfriend thought I was dead. She was indescribably upset about it. This is how it goes. What did I do? I took some photographs in the centre (yes, this is the correct way of spelling "center") of town with my mobile phone and some dork behind one of those ridiculous cameras thought I was taking a picture of a manhole cover which could be used for terrorist activities.
I'm not making this up: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1213934526/bctid5172505001 [brightcove.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
I was born there and have been there repeatedly and recently. I've also been to far worse places.
There are many healthy and active protests, and yes, there are risks with this. The difference there right now is death vs arrest here in the UK. That doesn't make the UK better, just less efficient.
Many of the armed checkpoints are vigilante run and are run for opportunist / profit motives.
Many countries with weak currency have laws about taking currency out of the country and will arrest you for this - this do
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."
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: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, I can throw anecdotes around too.
But i'm not going to because I reject your relativist approach to this whole issue.
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
It cheapens the term when you abuse it like that.
Agreed
I live in the UK, and I'm rather appalled that people talk of our being or becoming a police state.
It seems to me some people are desperate to prove a police state exists in a nice safe (and entirely free) country so they can get all annoyed about it and not have to deal with the real ones, or the potential dangers of protesting an actual police state.
Last I checked people weren't being dragged from their beds in the night and improsioned/shot/beaten, and we have a legal system which apportions everyone legal rights that the police cannot avoid. I can't be bothered to refute this any more though, its too nonsensical for that.
Re:Very sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh how I wish this had any basis in reality.
Oh how I wish it hadn't.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Come on, I've also been to the UK a number of times and I have to call you on this statement.
When have you ever seen ANYONE in, say London scatter when the police come? They are way more likely to give them lip. This is the country where disabling speed cameras is a national pasttime.
And as a serious photographer I've photographed th
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, I've also been to the UK a number of times and I have to call you on this statement.
OK, here's an excerpt from the Financial Times magazine, Jan 10, 2009. It's from an article where a reporter accompanies two PCSOs (one 18, the other 24 - just think of all the weeks of experience these two must be able to draw on) on their evening "beat" in London. They're talking about photography by individuals: ...We talk about how Whittern and Eastoe sometimes see potential terror suspects taking photos of buildings as part of "hostile reconnaissance". I ask how they know who is a potential terrorist a
Re:police state? - been there! (Score:5, Informative)
Fear of the police? Not yet. Just the other day I read this in the Guardian:
"On the canal bridge just behind Kings Cross, a policeman took a huge snowball full in the face and - I couldn't quite believe this was happening - giggled delightedly (it must have really hurt). His three colleagues gathered snowballs and pelted the mob of school boys and girls, quite sensibly avoiding head shots (think of the lawsuits). But they were outnumbered and outgunned. And anyway, they were easy targets, these coppers in their fluorescent jackets. And the school children, those alleged dysfunctional products of our greed-obsessed, low-serotonin, broken-homed, intolerably lardy, TV-ruined society, were in a snowy wonderland where there was no school, no rules and nothing to worry about. I've never seen London secondary school kids look filled to the brim with such girlish glee. "See if you can knock his helmet off," I yelled at one girl (which probably made me an accessory to something but I don't care: the delirium is infectious) and she pitched a curve ball that would have hit had the copper not ducked."
Now, while I, like any right-thinking British citizen, am extremely worried about our government's incessant control-freakery, there is a huge amount of goodwill towards the police in this country, who for the most part have a history of being decent and even-handed. This is because they're an implement of the people, not of the state, and have always been operationally independent from the judiciary and the government. From time to time certain factions of society have their run-ins with them, but by and large they're seen as being "on our side". Sadly this is being steadily eroded by the current government, and at this rate it won't be long before people turn on them completely.
Re:police state? - been there! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being the second fattest chick in the bar does NOT make you skinny!
Just because there are worse places out there is no good reason to allow our own lands to slide.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The police generally can't carry guns. And the whole reason why they neither have them nor want them is because that would give them powers that ordinary people don't have. There are armed response units which are called out for firearms-related incidents, but these guys spend most of their days sitting around doing nothing.
And of course, ordinary people can have guns if they want them. It's just strictly controlled.
Re: (Score:2)
As an alternative do you prefer the idea that everyone may openly and freely carry weapons with no caveats? Or that no police officer regardless of training or position be allowed to carry a firearm? If the latter do you suggest that the police call for army support when dealing with an armed criminal or that we also remove the right of the armed forces to be armed?
Again, do you propose that we rem
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen Fry... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's "Lëtzeburg". That's how we "Lëtzeburger" call it. :)
The variant with ou is the French word for our country. The variant with only u is the German word. That's, because of the word burg (castle). :D
You're not French, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Just nitpicking
Re: (Score:2)
No, but he comes from a real country. ;-)
No big deal. (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the plan is to see how many baddies go to "suspect" countries
What makes you think that's the plan? Info on travel to any other country is useful in catching benefit fraudsters and tax dodgers.
The real surprise is... (Score:5, Informative)
... that they're not already doing this.
I believe Canada does it. When I returned to Canada last year from one of my trips, the guy at the border swiped my passport, looked at the computer screen, and commented on how much I travel. He hadn't even looked at all the visas and stamps in passport.
The US has definitely been keeping track of everything for years. When I went for the final interview for enrolment in the Nexus programme, the US immigration guy swiped my Canadian passport. After a while he asked me what happened at Detroit in Oct 2000. I'd been refused entry whilst travelling on my British passport, before I had Canadian permanent residency and long before citizenship, but he'd connected my two passports.
Re:The real surprise is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
But what *did* happen at Detroit in Oct 2000?
More security (Score:4, Insightful)
Open Project To Track ALL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Score:5, Interesting)
An project open to the public is hereby initiated to track and publish the movements of ALL GOVERNMENT STAFF from ALL branches and departments of ALL governments in ALL countries around the world. No government business is to be carried out unless all participants are video recorded and broadcast LIVE to the public around the world. No business of the public is valid unless it's public! Track all government officials, staff, employees. Record when they are with you and publish on the web. Develop and design tracking systems to monitor all communications of all government operatives anywhere and anywhen, anyhow. Their work is not valid public business unless it's fully PUBLIC!
Little Brothers Unite Against the Oppressive Big Brothers.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Uh... Yeah (Score:2)
So this is different from the current state of things... how? I guarantee every time you enter or leave almost any country, it's already logged. Particularly the more technologically advanced countries we know as the "First World".
typical knee jerk reaction on privacy (Score:2)
I'd be very surprised if the US is not already doing this, and just not making a point to let anyone know.
If the US does this, it's fairly recent; the US did not use to keep a lot of records. And if they don't let anybody know about it, that means that they can't be using it as part of regular legal proceedings (otherwise you'd know about it), which is a big part of the reason why people are concerned with the government collecting all this data. And US government agencies are restricted in the kind of da
Downloading publicly available data (Score:2, Interesting)
Using facebook, twitter and all that crap, we practially give away our privacy... so why blame the government for just downloading what is publicly available?
We all notice what is going on. And we all care... for about 5 seconds. And then we're distracted again.
I'm sure I care about my privacy... but I just don't spend enough time on it to really get involved in any revolt against the police state. Unless you can really revolt using twitter or facebook. I fear that a proper revolt is still done with barrica
DDOS (Score:5, Funny)
Not only will this improve your aerobic fitness, but all your "journeys in and out of the UK" could help overload this stupid system
Don't panic! Don't Panic! terrorists! terrorists! (Score:2)
Sounds like terrorism to me!
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.
Europe has done this for ages (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UK borders already extremely well-protected (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a US Citizen and my partner is English. A lot of people may not know this, but when you fly into the UK and you are not a citizen, you are subjected to extremely close scrutiny. You are required to provide proof of onward travel. Every time I go there now, I am very nervous because I may be accused of overstaying my visa -- not necessarily in UK, but elsewhere, like Europe -- anything that may cast doubt on my tourist status while in UK. True, my partner is English and we are not married, but I am basi
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
... who sees it beneficial to know about the terrorists travel history. It could help to know that he visited a brother in Amsterdam the month before and gambled at Las Vegas before blowing himself up.
Seriously?
Breaking news (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (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: (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 ou
the gravy train is over (Score:5, Interesting)
Allowing Workers to freely migrate within the EU was a big mistake and will drive wages down.
Wages in the UK and EU are going down because there is lots of cheap labor available overseas.
Closing the borders to people or goods makes the situation worse, not better. If you stop people from coming, the same people are going to work elsewhere for less.
If you stop good from coming, then people will need to buy UK goods for more money and their money will be worth less.
Face it, the prosperity of the late 20th century is over. The UK has little competitive advantage over India or China, and hence its standard of living is going to equalize. Protectionists measures only make things worse. And the same is true for the US and Europe.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you mean
The World is already overcrowded
I read this argument all the time but I've always received above average wages when working in another Country. Part of the reason I like to work in other Countries is because I want to compete and see how I can cut in in another economy. How does my Scottish education
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason airport security now seems to believe that my bottle of Shampoo, combined with Hair gel will somehow blow up a plane. You know, the one I'm threatening to hijack with my nail clippers.