| Motoring Discussion > BB (not that one) is watching - you! | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Dog | Replies: 16 |
|
Mon 19 Apr 10 16:41
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - Dog
|
|
THE next generation of speed cameras are secretly being trialled in South East Cornwall. tinyurl.com/y3tvvam |
|
Mon 19 Apr 10 19:45
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - Skoda
|
|
What happens when the computer is wrong? Can i inspect the computer and its software as preparation for my defence? I understand it will be "approved" by the Home Office but home office approval does not equal a "free from defects" guarantee. Last edited by: CraigP on Mon 19 Apr 10 at 19:46
|
|
Mon 19 Apr 10 21:15
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Can i inspect the computer and its software as preparation for my defence? Yes you can, but there is a hitch. First you have to become sufficiently wealthy to afford a 10k an hour lawyer, who can spend a few weeks using every trick in the book to force them to hand over the software by successfully arguing that by not doing so they are breaching your human rights, or some such ploy. The good news is that you can then kill your wife and her lover (sorry to break the news to you that way) and the lawyer can get you off on that too. I saw a white Bronco for sale the other day, if you are interested. |
|
Mon 19 Apr 10 21:06
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
| Well, as long as Liberty are spending their money on trying to stop the evil spread of speed cameras, they will have less to spend on helping all the poor downtrodden terrorists. |
|
Mon 19 Apr 10 21:55
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - Skoda
|
|
Ouch, i guess you're referring to the case of Lotfi Raissi. A man guilty of being a muslim from Algeria. He was arrested & dragged naked from his house, held despite no evidence, imprisoned while the CIA went to find some evidence (those are pretty much the words of the court of appeal), when it became crystal clear 3 days into the situation that he was innocent & a case of mistaken identity, we effectively took him off the radar and locked him away -- to save face. He was stabbed, twice. He lost his job. He suffered a breakdown. His wife lost her job. She tried to commit suicide too IIRC but maybe not. He was eventually released, fought for a good few years to try and clear his name, maybe even still fighting. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/17/uksecurity.law www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7077578.ece news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1822228.stm Poor downtrodden terrorists they help right enough! :-) EDIT: he was innocent btw -- The court ruled then that Mr Raissi had been “completely exonerated” of any involvement with terrorists and severely criticised the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service over their handling of the case. Last edited by: CraigP on Mon 19 Apr 10 at 21:56
|
|
Mon 19 Apr 10 23:09
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
|
No, I wasn't referring to that case, a case where a man was mistakenly arrested on terrorist charges, held for 5 months and then tried to sue for $10 million. I am not sure if Liberty were involved in the case (I know that Amnesty were), trying to get him $67,000 for every day he was locked up, in a country where every year thousands of people are acquitted after spending months on remand for crimes they didn't commit. I didn't raise that case, firstly because I don't know if Liberty were involved, and secondly because it is obviously a case were an innocent man was imprisoned, so working for him seems perfectly reasonable. No, I am thinking more of their attempts to, amongst other things, reduce the powers of the state to hold and interrogate terrorist suspects, and making the police and intelligence services reveal sensitive intelligence to obtain warrants and detention orders. Of course, when they are not busy helping terrorists, they are only too glad to help your common criminal by getting rid of CCTV surveillance and DNA databases. |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 00:16
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - Skoda
|
|
A CCTV operator couldn't catch a cold never mind a criminal -- he's stuck in an office on the outside of town when he's "catching" a crime in the town centre. That's assuming he's trained in on the crime and not the pretty girls on other side of the street. The old IRA bombers+flashers tactics wouldn't get a look in... Of course CCTV deters would be crims. Except that it doesn't -- simple street lights are consistently more effective (even ignoring the cost) than CCTV cameras at reducing crime. That ignores the notion that crime just goes round the corner. When CCTV's pervasive and all seeing then it definitely will help. Except that it wont. We have more diverted money from hospitals classrooms police and culture to CCTV, per head of population than any other nation. Are we any more safe than the French? The Germans? The Dutch? The Spanish? Some of those nations have real terrorists to deal with, not just holywood movie plots to legislate against. CCTV does however ensure a conviction after the fact, by recording who did what and when. Except that CCTV secures convictions in less than 1% of all trials (England and Wales) for theft and possession related crimes -- the very area it's supposed to be best at. DNA databases are special. You are removing control of your DNA from yourself and entrusting it in another who you trust today. You cannot ever be issued with a new "DNA number", once it's out there, it's out for good there is absolutely no going back under any circumstances if you later decide it was a bad idea. For what benefit? Sally-Ann Bowman's benefit! That's who. So it allows us to solve a crime, committed by a convicted criminal -- a person who liberty believe should be on a DNA database. What does it achieve for the rest of the population? There's an addage that goes something like 80% of the crime is committed by 20% of the people. Why should an innocent person have to give up control of their DNA just in the off chance they might one day be a criminal? Well they've nothing to lose is surely the only sane response. After all they've nothing to hide, and Sally-Ann Bowman is surely justification enough? So in 20 or 30 or 40 years, when your denied health insurance because your DNA profile (from the edited register sold by the government -- think electoral roll but instead of telemarketing companies think health insurance providers) is in the high risk for a type of cancer category, will you wish you hadn't given up control of your DNA so easily? So you still want to create a DNA database? "You first" will be my answer! |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 00:54
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Some of those nations have real terrorists to deal with not just holywood movie >> plots to legislate against. I think you will find that we have had and continue to have a problem with terrorists and terrorist plots in the UK. The thing is Craig, IMHO, there are people that have to deal with the problems and there are people that can sit on the sidelines and tut. If those people that sat on the sidelines really had to do the job of the people that had to deal with crime and terrorism, they would likely want the same tools available. The thing is they don't want that job. To say that those tools could be abused is a fair point, and there need to be safeguards, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give the tools to the people that need them. A prime example from abroad is Guantanamo Bay, Obama openly criticised the previous administration that said it was required because there were people in there that they knew were very dangerous, but they couldn't prove it in a court of law. That was fine when tutting was his job, now he is in charge of preventing further terrorist attacks, it is not quite so clear cut for him. Especially when the Justice Department tells him that, and who could have guess this, that there are people there who are too dangerous to releases but who they don't have enough evidence to convict. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8476075.stm Crime blights many lives in this country, in ways that haven't affected me and hopefully haven't and won't affect you. To claim that a DNA database is only for the sake of Sally-Ann Bowman, is to ignore a lot of suffering of a lot of very good people. The number of rape victims whose lives are shattered, with some ending up committing suicide, and yet Liberty only seems bothered if the person driven to suicide is questioned by the FBI. IMO double standards of the chattering liberal classes, who so adore the likes of Obama and Chakrabarti. Well Chakrabarti will only ever have to tut, rather than take on any responsibility. On the other hand Barack now has real problems to deal with, so at least we have a test case for how those liberal ideals stand up to a dose of those real problems. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 20 Apr 10 at 00:56
|
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 01:17
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - Skoda
|
|
Proportionality. We spend more on our continued terrorist problem (which by the way, in real terms you are less exposed to danger today than you were when the IRA were declaring "you have to be lucky all the time, we only have to be lucky once") than is fitting of the risk to which we are exposed by terrorism compared with say road safety. I don't want to die of a terrorist act tomorrow, i don't want to choose between all out no holds barred anti terrorism and no protection at all. Perspective. My entire family (save for me and my younger sister) are either serving or retired police (seriously, they're all Strathclyde's finest from my Grans to my Grandpas, from my Dad, my Mum my aunties and my uncles and they all have their 20 year old semper viglo badges on their windscreens -- i wanted one when i was younger because i figured it might help me beat a speeding ticket in future if i ever got one, then my grandpa got booked even with his on display… :-). The exception's my step dad, he was a prison warder. >> there are people that can sit on the sidelines and tut While i'd not ever want to have to comfort a rape victim whilst coaxing the information i need out of them or scrape the larger bits of an RTA statistic off the road, i do absolutely want a say in how my home country is run. >> That was fine when tutting was his job Could the act of locking them up in such a way have instilled the determination in them to seek vengeance? If handled another fairer way -- whilst still achieving the goal of interception / prevention of a terrorist act, could the outcome have been different? >> The number of rape victims whose lives are shattered To choose one or the other is absurd -- police state or anarchism, dna database or no database . There is a middle ground, and the one Liberty (your chosen organisation) support is that *convicted* criminals can and should be on a DNA database. I agree with them. >> rather than take on any responsibility Rightly or wrongly she was rated the most powerful woman in Britain and 2nd or 3rd most powerful person. I don't support that for an unelected position. |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 09:31
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - madf
|
|
Anyone who thinks that the Government can be entrusted with our personal data and not abuse it: 1. Is either naive. or 2. Not seen the Labour Party letter to cancer victims or heard of the arrest of an MP in the House of Commons - on a pretext or 3. is a supporter of a police state. in my personal opinion of course... There are enough examples of misuse of data held by the Government to prove my point. Last edited by: madf on Tue 20 Apr 10 at 09:33
|
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 11:24
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Anyone who thinks that the Government can be entrusted with our personal data and not >> abuse it: >> 1. Is either naive. or >> 2. Not seen the Labour Party letter to cancer victims or heard of the arrest >> of an MP in the House of Commons - on a pretext >> or >> 3. is a supporter of a police state. >> >> in my personal opinion of course... >> >> There are enough examples of misuse of data held by the Government to prove my >> point. I absolutely agree that there are dangers, and I have no problem with people bringing in safeguards, but I don't think that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, the police and government have plenty of powers that could be mis-used already. The right to arrest and to stop and search for example. It doesn't mean that society would be better off if we took away the power of the police to arrest police, just because some individuals will no doubt mis-use it - we just put in safeguards. Craig raised the very valid concern about use of DNA data by health insurers. Well, that needs to be legislated against (assuming we believe that there should be a level playing field). Not to keep dragging poor Barack back into this, but the recent health reforms do, I understand, prevent insurers dropping people when they get sick, so a similar kind of anti-discriminatory legislation. All currrent and new technology has risks of mis-use, it is just that for the new technologies we don't yet have the right legislation in place to stop mis-use. |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 12:59
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - FotheringtonTomas
|
|
>> the police and government have plenty of powers that could be mis-used already. They certainly do, and some of them are already being misused. Don't give them further and greater opportunity. >> All currrent and new technology has risks of mis-use it is just that for the >> new technologies we don't yet have the right legislation in place to stop mis-use. Quite. However, there's *lots* of legislation to stop misbehaviour in general. It doesn't stop people in general, though, does it - and it won't stop government from mis-using information - they can simply "legislate it legal" [T.M.]. Apart from all of the above, there's also "leakage". |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 11:41
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
|
>> >> there are people that can sit on the sidelines and tut >> >> While i'd not ever want to have to comfort a rape victim whilst coaxing the >> information i need out of them or scrape the larger bits of an RTA statistic >> off the road i do absolutely want a say in how my home country is >> run. Absolutely, I wouldn't argue with your or Liberty's right to have I say, I just don't happen to agree with you, that's all. >> >> That was fine when tutting was his job >> >> Could the act of locking them up in such a way have instilled the determination >> in them to seek vengeance? If handled another fairer way -- whilst still achieving the >> goal of interception / prevention of a terrorist act could the outcome have been different? Yes, it could well have made them worse but, to be fair, they were already involved. After all, many of them were picked up in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. What legitimate excuse do people have for being in a terrorist training camp? >> >> The number of rape victims whose lives are shattered >> >> To choose one or the other is absurd -- police state or anarchism dna database >> or no database . There is a middle ground and the one Liberty (your chosen >> organisation) support is that *convicted* criminals can and should be on a DNA database. I >> agree with them. The thing is, that middle ground doesn't solve the problem. That is what I mean about Liberty not taking it upon themselves to assume the role of problem solver, or to take into account the need to solve a problem. A nationwide database helps solve the problem, and legislation to prevent mis-use helps to solve the concerns about the database. >> >> rather than take on any responsibility >> >> Rightly or wrongly she was rated the most powerful woman in Britain and 2nd or >> 3rd most powerful person. I don't support that for an unelected position. I don't really have an opinion on it. I just wish that more people questioned how these policies actually helped solve problems. If they did that, they might question what I consider to often be fairly empty rhetoric from the people like Chakrabarti. I have no doubt that she has he best of intentions, and I support her right to say whatever she wants, but it depresses me that she has so much power and so little responsibility. Oh, and I take your point on the terrorist threat in real terms, although Obama now seems to be saying that nuclear terrorism is a major risk. I did see somebody on another message board sum it up as thus: Bush scaremongering on the nuclear terrorism threat = War Hawk Obama scaremongering on the nuclear terrorism threat = We love Obama Not exactly eloquent, but I take the guy's point. Anyway, my thoughts on it are that it is more important to prevent attacks because of the fallout from the attacks (hopefully not actual fallout). After all, Sept 11th only killed 3,000 people but the knock on effects have killed a lot more than that. |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 09:37
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - Zero
|
|
too dangerous to releases but who they don't have enough evidence to convict If you dont have the evidence, how do you know? If we end up with a national DNA databse (and they will have to drug me to get mine) we end up with a lazy and currupt national justice system. |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 11:18
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - SteelSpark
|
|
>> too dangerous to releases but who they don't have enough evidence to convict >> >> If you dont have the evidence how do you know? You'd have to ask the Justice Department for the details, but presumably because they don't have sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. There is, of course, the gap between knowing that somebody is dangerous and having sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Probably a lot of the evidence is inadmissible due to being obtained under torture. >> If we end up with a national DNA databse (and they will have to drug me to get mine) we end up with a lazy and currupt national justice system. I don't know why that is necessarily the end result, but I think there need to be safeguards. But it seems very likely to be valuable tool in the hands of people who just want to do the job better. |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 12:48
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - madf
|
|
If we end up with a national DNA databse (and they will have to drug me to get mine) we end up with a lazy and currupt national justice system. Totally disagree. We already have a injustice system which thrives by protecting the guilty and punishing the innocent... (See HRA, lags for trials and inability to repatriate illegal immigrants) |
|
Tue 20 Apr 10 12:51
BB (not that one) is watching - you! - FotheringtonTomas
|
|
I am uneasy about this. If the information is collected only for the purposes of detecting speeding drivers, and if all information not relevant is completely discarded (i.e. information pertaining to a driver not speeding between cameras A and B is immediately and permenantly descarded, effectively not being collected) then my unease is lessened. If the information for all drivers is retained, then I am absolutely against it. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
