Britain Gets Over-Surveillance Warning

The Post Chronicle ^ | 4/29/07

[Xenophon450]

You favor a disarmed and constantly watched populace?

[ndt]

"Is there any possibility of even the slightest hint of rationality on this thread or is all"

This coming from the guy who's first four words on the thread were "Utter valuelessness. Utterly stupid". I think the precursor to rational discussion might be you leaving.

[James W. Fannin]

You haven’t addressed my questions about colonial immigration and hate speech regulation in the UK. Isn’t that why you need cameras everywhere? Admit it. The UK is just like France, where cars burned all across the country last year while “youths” “protested.” The dirty secret here is that we’re right behind you, and we’ve brought hundreds of thousands more here, even after 9/11. That’s why you love Big Brother. He keeps you safe.

[mysterio]

Ubiquitous cameras watching citizens is not Orwellian?

[James W. Fannin]

Not in his doublespeak mind.

[MNJohnnie]

So based on the replies the answer to my question. Is NO, no rational discussion is possible since the Libertines simply refuse to actually THINK about the absurdity of their opposition to this program.

Sorry but if you accept the logic of the "Argument" present here then we must also immediately remove all police patrols from all streets since their presence also infringes on the Libertines concept of "Civil Liberties".

[mysterio]

Sorry but if you accept the logic of the "Argument" present here then we must also immediately remove all police patrols from all streets since their presence also infringes on the Libertines concept of "Civil Liberties".

Logical fallacy. It's not an all or nothing proposition.

[ndt]

"Is NO, no rational discussion..."

Hell if you wanted to argue with yourself you could have done that without logging in. So far I've only seen you insult the posters and claim we are drug addicts. When you are ready to get off your invisible white horse and actually discuss let me know.

"Sorry but if you accept the logic of the "Argument" present here then we must also immediately remove all police patrols from all streets since their presence also infringes on the Libertines concept of "Civil Liberties"."

Oh, look, that might actually pass for the beginning of a discussion. Of course it is a classic false dichotomy because it presupposes no middle ground. No one here is saying that there should be no surveillance, that is an argument you are making up (strawman). The argument is against total surveillance.

[Xenophon450]

So based on the replies the answer to my question. Is NO, no rational discussion is possible since the Libertines simply refuse to actually THINK about the absurdity of their opposition to this program. Sorry but if you accept the logic of the "Argument" present here then we must also immediately remove all police patrols from all streets since their presence also infringes on the Libertines concept of "Civil Liberties".

So not wanting to be watched constantly on camera by the government makes one a "Civil Libertine".

........................................__............................................................. .................................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,................................................. ...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,.................................... ......................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,............................. ..................,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\............................ ................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\........................... ................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,......................... .................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,......................... ...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)........................... .....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../.............................. .....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\.............................. .................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\............................. ...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,.................... ...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,.............. .................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,, .................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\.......... ..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\......... ......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........ ........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......

[Xenophon450]

Oi headache man doesnt wanna go through HTML today....

[James W. Fannin]

Is NO, no rational discussion is possible since the Libertines simply refuse to actually THINK about the absurdity of their opposition to this program.

The B vocabulary. The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them. . . .

As we have already seen in the case of the word free, words which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink. Greater precision would have been dangerous.

http://www.msxnet.org/orwell/1984

[dljordan]

“Around 2%.”

Really? They sure raise a lot of hell for 2%.

[dljordan]

“Their new cameras are equiped with loudspeakers, so that the monitor can yell at the subjects if they need yelling at. I’m not making it up, it was reported a few weeks ago that this was the next stepp.”

And the newest software will allow the cameras to read lips (they already have facial recognition). I think GB is just a test bed for the rest of us.

[James W. Fannin]

Isn't Prince Charles one of them?

[Da_Shrimp]

They do somewhat!

There tend to be concentrations of them in large cities and they can get a bit vocal in those areas.

In the Derbyshire countryside, where I live, I doubt the percentage of Muslims is even 0.1%. We've had a LOT of Poles move in recently, though!

[burzum]

Is there any possibility of even the slightest hint of rationality on this thread or is all we going to be treated to here are absurdly ignorant misreferences to Orwell’s 1984 (which based on some of the comments here most of you have never actually read) and the nonsense stop regurgitation of absurd childish sloganeering?

Brilliant response! Instead of responding to anybody's argument in this thread, you instead decide to call them irrational and childish, thus obviating your need to participate in any form of discourse to support your argument. Bravo! Where did you learn this technique? From the Democrats?

If you decide that it is not beneath you to try to respond to our childish arguments, how about this: does the government have the right to monitor all citizens in general in order to stop crime, and where is this right derived? And at what point does this monitoring become Orwellian vs good police practice? What I'm asking in particular is what number of police cameras per citizen and what level of integration of that information into the government's hands makes a society Orwellian except for the specific oppressive actions? And if your response is that you feel that if you are not breaking the law then you never have to fear the police, can you explain why this is a satisfactory response (citing executive, legislative, and judicial parts).

I expect you will call this another regurgitation of childish sloganeering, but one can hope, right?

[burzum]

So based on the replies the answer to my question. Is NO, no rational discussion is possible since the Libertines simply refuse to actually THINK about the absurdity of their opposition to this program.

Can you justify your statement that 'Libertines' do not think about the consequences of opposing this program? How did you come to this conclusion? It will be interesting to hear. And by 'absurdity' do mean that society will descend into lawless anarchy like it obviously was before such programs were implemented?

[James W. Fannin]

And by 'absurdity' do mean that society will descend into lawless anarchy like it obviously was before such programs were implemented?

And if immigration were responsible for that state of affairs, would that make any difference?

[Grizzled Bear]

........................................__............................................................. .................................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,................................................. ...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,.................................... ......................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,............................. ..................,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\............................ ................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\........................... ................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,......................... .................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,......................... ...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)........................... .....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../.............................. .....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\.............................. .................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\............................. ...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,.................... ...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,.............. .................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,-—......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,, .................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\.......... ..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\......... ......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........ ........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......

---

No one ever explained it like that. Now it all makes sense!

;-)

[jjw]

Here's a funny comment from one of these other articles

He will also call for greater regulation of companies that supply surveillance technology which provides "convenience or safety for the more affluent majority", but not for the vulnerable such as children, immigrants and the elderly.