backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by MekhongKurt.. on May 19 at 3:50 AM


Surveillance operators monitor CCTV feeds in London.  (Source: The Guardian)
Rights groups outraged

Hot off the heels of news indicating that widespread civic CCTV deployment has little meaningful impact on crime, new reports indicate that local UK governments are using CCTV to prosecute petty crimes, including cases of littering, the misuse of a disabled parking passes, and dog owners who fail to clean up after their pets in public.

According to the BBC, local authorities have abused the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) more than 100 times in the past 12 months, based off of interviews with 46 out of the 468 local governments in the UK.

In one of the more infamous examples, a government council admitted that it invoked RIPA in order to track a family that it suspected was living outside of a school’s admissions area. James Welch, legal director for rights group Liberty, called the abuse a “ridiculously disproportionate use of RIPA,” noting that it would “undermine public trust in necessary and lawful surveillance.”

RIPA was passed in 2000, in response to a rapidly-growing usage of the internet and strong encryption. The law both allowed and governed the use of surveillance, interception, and “covert human intelligence sources” in efforts to combat crime and terrorism.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti compared the government’s current scandal with CCTV to using a sledgehammer to crack nuts. Her group, as well as others such as Privacy International, called for a complete, “root and branch” review of the country’s surveillance and privacy laws.

Accusations against local governments are compounded by a number of recently-arising facts, including one that found that only 3% of street robberies in London are solved with CCTV-gathered images – despite the UK’s highest per-capita deployment of surveillance cameras in the world. One such report, published in The Guardian, attributes their lack of use to police investigator laziness and citizens’ lack of fear due to the fact that they think that the “cameras are not working.” Police departments attributed it to a lack of meaningful collaboration, and have since called on work to produce a national database of offenders.

“There are strict rules to protect people from unnecessary intrusion,” said Local Government Association chairman Sir Simon Milton. “Whenever a council applies to use these powers they must prove that it is both necessary and proportionate to the crime being investigated.”

Chakrabarti was not satisfied, however: “There are better ways to achieve the objectives without using counter-terrorism laws,” she said.

“You can care about serious crime and terrorism without throwing away our personal privacy with a snoopers' charter.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: No privacy in public...omfg
By Mithan on 5/11/2008 2:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
People are generally stupid.

In other words, no, your average person today doesn't know why a police state is bad. They found history to be "boring" and for losers.


RE: No privacy in public...omfg
By Ringold on 5/11/2008 4:21:00 AM , Rating: 1
Okay, you two intellectual heavy weights point out a society, nation or empire that fell because littering on public grounds was enforced.

If you two nuts think cameras in public areas constitutes a nasty police state, I'd suggest, perhaps, a look at France's attempt to replicate America's revolution as an example of a state that goes too far. The USSR wouldn't be a bad start, either. Tibet, perhaps?

There's this location that exists between anarchy and Soviet Russia. It's called a middle ground. It's where most of us live. It's worked quite well for the last couple hundred years, except when the masses lose their mind -- but that's rather unavoidable. It's happy here, in this middle ground. Join us. :P


RE: No privacy in public...omfg
By derwin on 5/11/2008 4:57:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Okay, you two intellectual heavy weights point out a society, nation or empire that fell because littering on public grounds was enforced.


No offense, but this is the most mindless point I have ever read.

The point is not that littering laws are being enforced. The point is that this is already sliding down the slippery slope of broader and broader governmental power. The cameras where not intended for such things. They were intended to solve murders, muggings, and to stop terrorism, not to bother people with near sensless criminality. What happens when these are used to arrest free speach zone violators? I'm not sure if such a thing exists in the UK, but imagine the possibilities of the laws these could be used to enforce that don't fall under tha categories of petty and clear cut.

I am not saying this is a guaruntee (sp??) that things will fall down that slippery slope, but like many other steep cliffs, I for one do not even care to lean over to see the bottom - I know where this road COULD go, and I feel the best way to avoid falling down that cliff is to not stand near it.


RE: No privacy in public...omfg
By exploderator on 5/11/2008 2:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
point out a society, nation or empire that fell because littering on public grounds was enforced


Point is that many countries have fallen by becoming too violent, too police heavy, to militant. Too much reliance on enforcement by force using police and tazers and guns handcuffs and jails... It leads to an endless cycle of escalating violence, that ends with societal breakdown.

You advocate ENFORCING litter, dog-poop and similar ettiquet laws by force. Hiring that many police people, erecting that size a justice system, you create a MONSTER!

At the same time, you train people to accept violent physical force as the predominant, first-and-best chioce method for achieving any goal. You teach that the right way to achieve any goal is through forced compliance.

I choose negotiation. I choose freedom. I ask that you talk to me, in fairness, and in goodness and compassion we will find our own right solutions to our problems.

I abhor the idea that the only way for us to get along is to have a goon with a gun stand behind us and threaten death for bad behaviour and non-compliance.

I never heard where litter or dog-poop really justified that kind of response.


RE: No privacy in public...omfg
By wordsworm on 5/12/2008 11:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the same time, you train people to accept violent physical force as the predominant, first-and-best chioce method for achieving any goal. You teach that the right way to achieve any goal is through forced compliance.


Are you talking about the Iraqi war or the war on drugs?

quote:
You advocate ENFORCING litter, dog-poop and similar ettiquet laws by force. Hiring that many police people, erecting that size a justice system, you create a MONSTER!


Singapore is a great little country. If everybody littered, it would be covered with it.

quote:
I choose freedom.
There are two kinds of freedoms: freedoms to, and freedoms from. Freedom to litter versus freedom from litter. I'll gladly give up the freedom to litter in exchange for the freedom from litter.

As far as the goon with the gun, I don't think the city usually uses that level of enforcement when it hands out fines like that. Nor do I think the webcams are armed. Hmmm... maybe if they got SWORDS cams to look out for litter bugs that would change everything.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki