Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Plans To Monitor 20,000 Families' Homes Via CCTV

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the words-fail-but-pictures-deliver dept.

Privacy 693

metrix007 points out a story in the Sunday Express with more surveillance-camera madness from the UK, where the government now wants to place 20,000 CCTV cameras to monitor families ("the worst families in England") within their own homes, to make sure that "kids go to bed on time and eat healthy meals and the like. This is going too far, and hopefully will not pass. Where will it end?"

cancel ×

693 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Big Brother (4, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914945)

Dont worry people! This will be broadcasted on television too so you wont be missing anything. As you know, the tv show "Big Brother" viewer amount has been going down and advertisers want something fresh!

Re:Big Brother (5, Insightful)

arogier (1250960) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915019)

There is no freedom if everything is criminal.

Let me be the thirst to say ... (5, Insightful)

gerddie (173963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915113)

In the UK, TV watches you!

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... (0, Troll)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915163)

In Labour Britain, TV watches you!

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... (3, Insightful)

toriver (11308) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915351)

As if the Tories are any less concerned:

We cannot tackle crime unless we also address the causes of crime, such as family breakdown, drug abuse and binge drinking.

All of which these cameras probably will help with. The Conservatives are very unlikey to remove them, at least, if set up before any change of government.

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Crime_and_Justice.aspx [conservatives.com]

Re:Big Brother (1)

flowsnake (1051494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915329)

Every one of these "Big Brother" TV programme will just show groups of people sitting around in different houses, all watching different "Big Brother" TV programmes. It will be quicker and cheaper to just replace all televisions with mirrors so we can watch ourselves.

Re:Big Brother (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915335)

Boy 1984 has in the news a lot recently. 15 years late?

Holy shit. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28914947)

This is an actual, verbatim representation of Orwell's vision for the future (today's present). There isn't any needed for interpretation, it's literally 1984. Wow.

Re:Holy shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915133)

The telescreen was giving forth an ear-splitting whistle which continued on the same note for thirty seconds. [gutenberg.net.au] It was nought seven fifteen, getting-up time for office workers. Winston wrenched his body out of bed--naked, for a member of the Outer Party received only 3,000 clothing coupons annually, and a suit of pyjamas was 600--and seized a dingy singlet and a pair of shorts that were lying across a chair. The Physical Jerks would begin in three minutes. The next moment he was doubled up by a violent coughing fit which nearly always attacked him soon after waking up. It emptied his lungs so completely that he could only begin breathing again by lying on his back and taking a series of deep gasps. His veins had swelled with the effort of the cough, and the varicose ulcer had started itching.

'Thirty to forty group!' yapped a piercing female voice. 'Thirty to forty group! Take your places, please. Thirties to forties!'

Winston sprang to attention in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman, scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already appeared.

'Arms bending and stretching!' she rapped out. 'Take your time by me. ONE, two, three, four! ONE, two, three, four! Come on, comrades, put a bit of life into it! ONE, two, three four! ONE two, three, four!...'

The pain of the coughing fit had not quite driven out of Winston's mind the impression made by his dream, and the rhythmic movements of the exercise restored it somewhat. As he mechanically shot his arms back and forth, wearing on his face the look of grim enjoyment which was considered proper during the Physical Jerks, he was struggling to think his way backward into the dim period of his early childhood. It was extraordinarily difficult. Beyond the late fifties everything faded. When there were no external records that you could refer to, even the outline of your own life lost its sharpness. You remembered huge events which had quite probably not happened, you remembered the detail of incidents without being able to recapture their atmosphere, and there were long blank periods to which you could assign nothing. Everything had been different then. Even the names of countries, and their shapes on the map, had been different. Airstrip One, for instance, had not been so called in those days: it had been called England or Britain, though London, he felt fairly certain, had always been called London.

Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war, but it was evident that there had been a fairly long interval of peace during his childhood, because one of his early memories was of an air raid which appeared to take everyone by surprise. Perhaps it was the time when the atomic bomb had fallen on Colchester. He did not remember the raid itself, but he did remember his father's hand clutching his own as they hurried down, down, down into some place deep in the earth, round and round a spiral staircase which rang under his feet and which finally so wearied his legs that he began whimpering and they had to stop and rest. His mother, in her slow, dreamy way, was following a long way behind them. She was carrying his baby sister--or perhaps it was only a bundle of blankets that she was carrying: he was not certain whether his sister had been born then. Finally they had emerged into a noisy, crowded place which he had realized to be a Tube station.

There were people sitting all over the stone-flagged floor, and other people, packed tightly together, were sitting on metal bunks, one above the other. Winston and his mother and father found themselves a place on the floor, and near them an old man and an old woman were sitting side by side on a bunk. The old man had on a decent dark suit and a black cloth cap pushed back from very white hair: his face was scarlet and his eyes were blue and full of tears. He reeked of gin. It seemed to breathe out of his skin in place of sweat, and one could have fancied that the tears welling from his eyes were pure gin. But though slightly drunk he was also suffering under some grief that was genuine and unbearable. In his childish way Winston grasped that some terrible thing, something that was beyond forgiveness and could never be remedied, had just happened. It also seemed to him that he knew what it was. Someone whom the old man loved--a little granddaughter, perhaps--had been killed. Every few minutes the old man kept repeating:

'We didn't ought to 'ave trusted 'em. I said so, Ma, didn't I? That's what comes of trusting 'em. I said so all along. We didn't ought to 'ave trusted the buggers.'

But which buggers they didn't ought to have trusted Winston could not now remember.

Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles)--the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, IT NEVER HAPPENED--that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.

'Stand easy!' barked the instructress, a little more genially.

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The instructress had called them to attention again. 'And now let's see which of us can touch our toes!' she said enthusiastically. 'Right over from the hips, please, comrades. ONE-two! ONE-two!...'

Winston loathed this exercise, which sent shooting pains all the way from his heels to his buttocks and often ended by bringing on another coughing fit. The half-pleasant quality went out of his meditations. The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory? He tried to remember in what year he had first heard mention of Big Brother. He thought it must have been at some time in the sixties, but it was impossible to be certain. In the Party histories, of course, Big Brother figured as the leader and guardian of the Revolution since its very earliest days. His exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the streets of London in great gleaming motor-cars or horse carriages with glass sides. There was no knowing how much of this legend was true and how much invented. Winston could not even remember at what date the Party itself had come into existence. He did not believe he had ever heard the word Ingsoc before 1960, but it was possible that in its Oldspeak form--'English Socialism', that is to say--it had been current earlier. Everything melted into mist. Sometimes, indeed, you could put your finger on a definite lie. It was not true, for example, as was claimed in the Party history books, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. He remembered aeroplanes since his earliest childhood. But you could prove nothing. There was never any evidence. Just once in his whole life he had held in his hands unmistakable documentary proof of the falsification of an historical fact. And on that occasion----

'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! THAT'S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'

A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and--one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency--bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.

'THERE, comrades! THAT'S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I'm thirty-nine and I've had four children. Now look.' She bent over again. 'You see MY knees aren't bent. You can all do it if you want to,' she added as she straightened herself up. 'Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's MUCH better,' she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.

Re:Holy shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915165)

Actually, I think it's 2009.

Re:Holy shit. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915187)

It's always been 2009.

Re:Holy shit. (5, Funny)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915167)

I think there is a plan behind it. A project was founded to find out how much surveillance people will endure until seriously, unavoidable riots occur in a well-off society. I also think the reason the project was started so that people, after revolting against cuts into their privacy, have a better foundation and understanding for freedom and privacy.

However, the Brits didn't react according to the expectations of project coordinators. Unfortunately, no end date was agreed upon for the project.

Re:Holy shit. (-1, Flamebait)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915171)

Does anyone have anything original to say, or are we going to end up with 500 "OMG 1984!!!!1!1!1!1!" comments?

Re:Holy shit. (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915207)

Does anyone have anything original to say, or are we going to end up with 500 "OMG 1984!!!!1!1!1!1!" comments?

Dude, we're talking about surveillance cameras to make sure the kids go to bed in time. What did you expect?

Here's another application of cameras, which would've been unthinkable even 5 years ago. Pretty soon, you'll get used to it like you did with public cameras, and a bit later, you'll find it natural that everyone is monitored constantly for their own safety. Or you won't, and it will cost you dearly.

How is that not 1984?

Re:Holy shit. (3, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915273)

After reading the article, here are my thoughts:

1. This is not something you can vote on, or discuss. Some goverment official just said "Hey, I have an idea, here's 400 million pounds, go implement it."
2. Youngsters don't get into crime because they have a chaotic family life. They do it, because it's cool, they have too much free time, and they live in a neutered society. They simply have no outlet for violence, which is a pretty basic instinct if you think about it (ever seen a little boy who just starts to walk? The first thing he does is picking up a stick and beating stuff with it).

Re:Holy shit. (2, Insightful)

Lundse (1036754) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915213)

It bears repeating...

Yes (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915237)

At least 100, most likely more.

Re:Holy shit. (4, Insightful)

haifastudent (1267488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915277)

OMG 1984!!!!1!1!1!1!

Re:Holy shit. (1)

DMalic (1118167) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915299)

I don't really need to say anything. The article cracked me up and I'm still laughing. It's a a giant 1984 joke which could have been written by the Onion.

Re:Holy shit. (5, Funny)

haifastudent (1267488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915271)

This is an actual, verbatim representation of Orwell's vision for the future (today's present). There isn't any needed for interpretation, it's literally 1984. Wow.

Somebody should give Amazon a call, I hear they have experience in making these "1984" matters disappear.

Re:Holy shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915285)

Well, in Orwell's book the cities were literally crumbling, and the political elite surpressed the masses just for the hell of it. Scary though it it, the government thinks what it's doing is best for the people - which is a marked difference from the novel.

Re:Holy shit. (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915301)

Your reaction is pure hyperbole, even though I do not agree with some of the social engineering that is being down by the state (such as the issuance of ASBOs as a step under the criminal justice system).

If you actually go to the source -

http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678 [respect.gov.uk]

You can see that these families are offending and creating a poor environment for their communities. There are several levels of intervention and that the last of which is the core residential unit, which is some sort of support facility which these families attend, as a family unit. Afterwards they are moved into social housing.

This is the same type of people that in the US people would be called trailer trash. The difference is that in the UK, the system of social housing is quite good, and these people live in populated areas and causes disturbances resulting in less desirable neighborhoods. I am curious if this works at all, and the raw data of the existing program should be released and analysed, but I don't believe this program is used to create a system to oppress political ideas.

Re:Holy shit. (3, Interesting)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915365)

It has to start somewhere.

I live in Britain and I hate those white-trash types. "Chavs", we call them. Funded by state benefits, which become generous when you include the free housing that they live in, the chavs do no work other than producing children, who then live chaotic and deeply miserable lives. Sometimes these children appear in the media, normally when they've been murdered (Baby P) or kidnapped (Shannon Matthews) by their own families; or perhaps when they're a bit older and have entered the petty crime lifestyles of their parents. There is no escape from the chav ghetto.

I always remind people that the welfare state created this problem. By taking away the need to work, the need for self-improvement, it locked these people into their lifestyle. The purpose of welfare is to keep the poor poor, and thus ensure that there will always be jobs for Socialist politicians, who can offer to solve the problem. Not in an 1830s Poor Law sense, i.e. "There are no benefits-- get a job or go in the workhouse", but in the Soviet style, with surveillance technology to keep them in line.

It has to start somewhere. There's a short step between a welfare state and a totalitarian state, because eventually the state has to control who gets benefits and how they are spent. First they came for the chavs. The rest of us are next.

Re:Holy shit. (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915415)

welfare state created them that is total bullshit.

Without a welfare state they still wouldn't work, or care for their kids, or any of that and the entire family would be even worse off stealing for food, clothes and everything else. What people like to think that it is the government fault however some people are just lazy and they still wouldn't do anything if they had to. The only way to make that group actually work is to force them to go to work. and I do mean Force as those types of people are so lazy that they can't hold a normal job on their own anyways.They won't show up on time, etc.

Just because they accept state welfare doesn't make them lazy, they are on welfare because they are lazy. Learn the difference. as a work chain gang will be the only way to get them to do anything on time.

Welfare keeps them for being even worse off. What is needed is a way to tie welfare into a real job paycheck so you can't get one with out the other. Though that too will create other problems.

Jesus Fucking Christ (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914953)

You just can't make hyperbole out of this shit anymore. Get the fuck out of England while there isn't a 30ft concrete wall preventing you from doing so. Either that or start killing your politicians.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (5, Informative)

mustafap (452510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915045)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. As an englishman living in england, I can tell you these newspapers are rubbish. Page 3 probably has "Elvis is alive and working as a roadsweeper".

There are about 50 million people in the uk, so it only takes a *tiny* fraction of the population to have enough idiots to write this rubbish and the remainder to buy newspapers printing it..

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915405)

um... Population: 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)

i truly don't worry about it as a Scotsman living in Scotland this would NEVER get past the Holyrood parliament.

roll on independence and the referendum in 2010 is all i can say

however point to note, just like the anglocentric english to count the population of england as the population of the whole uk

you know sometimes you have to realise their is more to the so called "uk" than england

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (4, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915077)

You know, we Americans really ought to give the guys in the UK credit. I mean, every time we seem to sink farther and farther into a police state, with crap like warrant-less wiretapping ( gotta love that hope and change!) and other Big Brother style crap, along comes the UK to prove "hey, it could always be worse!"

So I personally would like to extend the folks of the UK a hearty golf clap, for proving that no matter how bad of a corporate ass kissing, police state loving pile of douchebags we end up with writing our laws that we will always have the UK proving that nobody beats them for CC loving, neighbor snooping, big government bullshit. Thanks UK! /golf clap/

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915243)

If we Americans go above and beyond we might question why we ever left.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

gnupun (752725) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915085)

How is this different from the US? There's security cameras in every business, bus, train, plane, street, traffic cameras etc. We urgently need laws preventing these so-called security cameras from stealing what little freedom we have.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915131)

You sound like a 1990's conspiracy theorist.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915143)

But the UK wants to put it PRIVATE houses. Not in PUBLIC areas where expectation of privacy doesn't exist.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (3, Informative)

leenks (906881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915349)

These aren't in private houses. They are in publically owned houses (or at least publically paid for houses). The UK has a very "good" benefits system - so "good" that it is the aspiration of thousands of teenage girls to get pregnant as early as possible such that they can get their own flat and benefits so they don't have to work. The biggest problem is we are now entering at least the second generation of this kind of thinking/upbringing, so the teens don't know any better. It isn't obvious what the solution is either.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915155)

If you have to ask how it is different, I'm not sure you will be inteligent enough to understand.

First of all, security cameras in businesses are owned and operated by businesses, not the government. Second of all, we are talking about inside a fucking home to monitor the actions of the parents and children in their personal life, not to spot people carrying machine guns into banks or crowded train stations.

When you are in the public view, anyone watching can see your actions. That is different then closing your front door and getting out of the public view. If I put a camera through your window, I would go to jail for being a pervert. If I taped you walking down the street, the most that would happen is a few funny looks. There is a big difference between the privacy of your home and the ability to live your life the way you want and being in public with the government telling you what you can and can't do.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915361)

They aren't planning to put them in everybody's homes. They're for families who frankly ought to be behind bars anyway.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915379)

First of all, security cameras in businesses are owned and operated by businesses, not the government. Second of all, we are talking about inside a fucking home to monitor the actions of the parents and children in their personal life, not to spot people carrying machine guns into banks or crowded train stations.

The majority of the "millions" of cameras in the UK are owned by private businesses too, not the government.

And yes, this is inside the homes. And about frickin time too - these parents don't raise their kids, the kids have to figure it out for themselves. The 9 year old daughter has to look after the baby, the 13 year old gets bawled at for being in the way in the house, or wanting to watch something other than Jeremy Kyle on the TV. In some situations kids are subject to violence (and I've first hand seen kids explain that the burn marks on their arms are because their father stubs out cigarettes on them. And all of this goes on in populated areas, much of it integrated with expensive new housing, and the resulting crime from the kids affects everyone else (tyres slashed, WD40 windshields, petty theft, etc)

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (4, Informative)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915173)

Look; I know that this is a touchy subject, but after working for 5 years (in Australia - things aren't quite as bad here as they are in the UK or the US) as a teacher with kids from the rough side of town, I can tell you there are some seriously fscked up families out there. That warrant some kind of intervention, yet too often the departments responsible for this sort of thing are too fearful of being seen as some Orwellian over-lords. Often it comes down to an issue of human rights, particularly with children involved. Why bother having laws against child abuse if you don't police them? Democracy isn't "do whatever the hell you want" - it involves responsibilities to our fellow people, and people who don't want to undertake those responsibilities need to be handled in some way. Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.

I'm not for a surveillance sort of a state, but when everyone complains of governments becoming "nanny states", I see a lot of people that need a nanny.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (4, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915303)

I agree with you; but my response is that if the parents actually need 24 hour supervision to look after their kids properly, then the kids need to be taken away. I can't really see how that's a worse outcome than growing up in such a messed up family.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

sudotron (1459285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915359)

Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.

In the US, we have a nice little thing called due process, which guarantees (or at least it used to) that, before a person could be deprived of their rights in such a way as having a camera installed in their home, they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of their peers.

+1 insightful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915229)

why is this modded funny? it seems like good sense

Only 25 years late. (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914959)

And it didn't even take a revolution.

I can't wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28914961)

I can't wait for some homemade CCTV pr0n. Diligently waiting to download as we speak.

Re:I can't wait. (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915253)

Uh... these cameras are focused on the kids, too, you know.. so..... PEDO!

Re:I can't wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915381)

If it's tight it's right. That's what I, Father Brady, and the rest of the folks down at the NAMBLA safe house say. Why are you such a prude. What is so unnatural about a 40 year old hairy IT tech plowing a 9 year old who is asking for it. Really, some people...

Oh god, the Daily Express (5, Insightful)

ttlgDaveh (798546) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914965)

For the love of jebus, ignore the Daily/Sunday Express just as much as the Daily/Sunday Mail. They are terrible, borderline-racist, reactionary publications with a fixation on Big Brother (Orwell, not the terribe reality show) and 'foreign types stealing our jobs'.

There's a site [mailwatch.co.uk] dedicated to the terrible nature of these publications, which is well worth a read, if only for a giggle.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915011)

Err, you are aware that this scheme is already in existence?

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (2, Insightful)

AxeTheMax (1163705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915067)

There's a scheme for CCTV watching people in their own houses, already in existence? I've missed it, obviously I've not been reading enough of the Daily Express.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (2, Insightful)

bmsleight (710084) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915175)

Err, you are aware that this scheme is already in existence?

Where, citations ? Please a good source of truth not the Express.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915071)

with a fixation on Big Brother (Orwell, not the terribe reality show)

Although they don't exactly ignore the TV show.

Get Real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915087)

"reactionary publications"

Stop being so closed minded. Yes that is a problem with *all main stream media* in the UK (as they bias news as they fight each other for peoples attention), but that doesn't change the core fact the UK is becoming a police state. Living in the UK there's an ever growing sense of the politicians trying to gain ever greater power over peoples lives.

Given the amount of evidence in the UK in even just the past few years, if you still can't believe the UK is slowly becoming a police state, then theres no hope you'll ever see through the political lies and chess moves to gain ever more power for themselves over peoples lives. The UK is slipping into a police state run by an increasingly self righteous arrogant political elite who care little for any opinion that differs from their own. They want ever more power and all the personal gain that power gives them and they keep showing they are determined to use whatever technology they can to increase their power over peoples lives.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915117)

Took'a'dzioooo !

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (4, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915259)

From the phrasing of that post, I'll have a stab and say you're quite left wing, and happily buy into the Labour spin.

First off, there are sites saying how bad the news is on any given source (including things like the BBC and so on). This does not mean the site that decries the news sources is any more reliable themselves.

Secondly, throwing in the word "racist" and expecting any argument to be over just doesn't work so much these days. Quite a few studies have shown that everybody discriminates (on just about every factor you can think of). Including the papers you read (which presumably you think are ok, because they say what you want to hear, and you don't feel like hunting down a site which says how bad the news quality is in it).

Finally, and most importantly, show me the disputation that proves this isn't actually happening. You'll be hard pressed, because it is actually in place at the moment, merely being expanded upon.

Classic spin tactics on your part. Really must applaud. However, wrong.

Oddly, however, I've known families like the ones being watched. They're the kind that'll send their kids round to burn out your car because you told their dog off for savaging your baby. Playing the club music at full volume until 4am every night and generally making the neighbourhood a really bad place to be in (because, of course, it's a free country and they can do anything they want any time they want, nobody's allowed to tell them any different, otherwise they don't have any 'respeck', and thus deserve a knife in the gut).
I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?
You just know that as soon as any measure is put in place, it'll widen in scope to creep up to the point it encompasses everyone, and then what do you do?

Much as my 'knee jerk' reaction is to say that this is awful, being surveilance, it's one that leaves me feeling edgy, but it's worth looking at. And keeping an eye on very closely to watch its creep.

Like fixing anything badly broken in a system, sometimes you have to use extraordinary measure to fix a dire problem. Monsters we are, lest monsters we become.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915389)

I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?

Three strikes and you're out. Or how about breaching parole means your original sentence is doubled and starts again?

Basically something that involves locking them up early and leaving them there for a long time.

DONT GO OUTSIDE! (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915403)

Its full of queers, blacks and crime!

Oh, if only Diana were here!

CCTV part probably fake (5, Insightful)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914969)

Other news sources (Telegraph, Daily Mail) mention "24-hour supervision", but no CCTVs. Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914995)

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Yeah, I want my family living under forced 24 hour supervision, like elderly homes.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915391)

If your family are the kind of chavs this scheme is targeted at then that's the least you deserve.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (2, Insightful)

pennyloafer (1175025) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915093)

Around 2,000 families have gone through Family Intervention Projects, but ministers intend to increase its scope to 20,000 more in the next two years - each costing between £5,000 and £20,000. Are things that bad there?

Re:CCTV part probably fake (3, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915177)

Well, there are families which constitute the dregs of society, same as you'd get anywhere else. Think "mother had her first child at 15, now has four children with five different fathers, drinks like a fish, has never really paid any attention to what her kids eat, what they do of an evening or how they behave and if they get in trouble is more likely to rush to their defence than to make any effort to find out if they really have done something wrong".

These families are very much in the minority, though they probably cause upwards of 70% of the trouble in any particularly troubled area.

It's these that such schemes are targeting - of course you've got the "slippery slope" argument and there may be some truth to that - I don't think anyone in the public sector in general from the prime minister right down to the lowliest PCSO has ever voluntarily relinquished some of their power, and this gives some people an awful lot of power. But making an effort to understand the causes and treat them rather than the symptom would be far too much like hard work for the majority of ministers.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915325)

Indeed, you can read about these schemes here [respect.gov.uk] . No mention of CCTV anywhere. It's almost certainly just made up.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (4, Insightful)

phooka.de (302970) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915135)

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Except it's "non-negociable2 meaning "forced on families" and highly invasive to their lifes. I'd challenge it in the european courts for breach of human rights in a heartbeat. Thankfully, the united kingdom is part of an organization that does recognize those.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915327)

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Except it's "non-negociable2 meaning "forced on families" and highly invasive to their lifes. I'd challenge it in the european courts for breach of human rights in a heartbeat.

I guess lots of old people don't want to be put into a home, either. As you said, it's invasive, and it's undeniable that you've lost control of your own life when it hits you. It's better if they are taken care of in the environment which they are used to, but that's not always possible.

Re:CCTV part probably fake (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915411)

I guess criminals don't want to be put in jail either (which is much closer to the situation we're discussing). Life is hard.

P.S. The Europeasn court of human rights can fuck off, all they care about is criminal scum.

that is truly nauseating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28914973)

unacceptable, exactly the kind of thing common sense would tell us *NOT* to do. Exactly the kind of thing that would cause anyone in their right mind to express anti-social behavior. Do not let such cameras in your home. This is madness.

Re:that is truly nauseating (1)

laederkeps (976361) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915147)

Madness? This is the UK!

...in other words, the guys who decide on these things haven't even gotten warmed up yet.

1984, literally (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914979)

Too often, people describe things they don't like as "being just like 1984", using hyperbole to over-exagerate how bad the situation is.

Sticking cameras in people's houses to monitor them on CCTV, however, especially against their will, is literally right in the book. I think it's even on the first page if I remember correctly.

Is the British government unaware of how they, every day, come more and more to resemble the exact institution warned against over half a century ago, or are they just taking bets on how far they can push things before people wake up and fight back?

Re:1984, literally (0, Troll)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915033)

The brits can't fight back. They've been disarmed. They can take to the streets and the government will ignore them. If they even try to do anything further, the police will happily billy-club some randomly picked guy to death or explode his head to make the other see the light.

And after they'll have realized their actions are futile they'll go to the nearest pub, grumble a bit and drink their disappointment away.

The day after, they'll go to work as usual. Must pay the bills, you know. Except the leaders, who will find themselves fired after being identified by the ubiquitous CCTVs.

The UK is a lost cause. Wall it away already. Dynamite the Eurotunnel.

Re:1984, literally (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915055)

The brits can't fight back. They've been disarmed.

You don't need the bullet when you've got the ballot - G. Clinton.

Re:1984, literally (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915181)

You really think you have the ballot?

Re:1984, literally (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915185)

The ballot doesn't do you much good when your options for leadership are a couple of lizards and the people assume that the government they voted in more or less represents the government they want.

Re:1984, literally (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915193)

Tell that to the Iranians.

Re:1984, literally (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915315)

Yes you will face a "'Forward Intelligence Team", no shoulder numbers and ready to stop your air supply as they where on a "counter-terrorism operation".
You will be filmed, identified, monitored, logged into the Crimint database and cross-checked.

Instruction Manual? (1)

XFire35 (1519315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914981)

Maybe the politicians do read books. It really does come across as an instruction manual for them.

And away we go... (3, Insightful)

24-bit Voxel (672674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28914989)

Children's secretary Ed Balls sure does have some.

That they are even talking about this is nefarious indeed. What we the people should be doing is insisting on our legislators and lawmakers being CCTV'd 24/7 along with phones. (With exceptions for national security.)

Imagine how much corruption would be uncovered this way. If the representatives choose to conduct business elsewhere it can be assumed they are guilty of something or at least worthy of voting out.

Yes, that sounds much better.

Time to get up and go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28914991)

I hear Canada is nice.

Louise, UK.

Orwellian (4, Funny)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915003)

In case you were wondering Orwell's1984 is not actually a manual for statecraft. Just to clear that up.

Re:Orwellian (3, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915017)

May not have been written with that intent, but it's serving that purpose rather nicely so far!

Sick to my stomach. (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915005)

It makes me sick to my stomach to think that I put on the uniform of my country, fought terrorism and their war in the early 90's just to have the country turn into a Stalinist State. I tell you this; the USSR was nothing compared to what this country has become. The difference is that in the USSR they were aggressive whereas our KGB use a quasi politically correct and "rights aware" approach but seem to forget that people have a right to privacy in their own homes.

Fuck em. Fuck the Police. Fuck the government. Only a year to go and we can fire the whole lot of them.

Soviet Russia (2, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915007)

No one is watching Big Brother in the UK anymore, so instead they're going to use the classic Soviet Russia twist:

(takes deep breath)

In UK, Big Brother watches you!

Plus, Davina McCall needs something to do besides those hair colour adverts.

Re:Soviet Russia (1)

bothemeson (1416261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915341)

When I was in the British military (in the early 1980's) we took it for granted that the main difference, as it affected world security, between the USA and USSR was that only a tiny proportion of the Soviet people believed their state propaganda. We certainly believed little that came out of the BBC.

New, updated version of the poem... (4, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915049)

First, they came for the paedophiles; and I didn't speak, for I was not a paedophile.
Then, they came for the hoodies; and I didn't speak, for I was not a hoodie.
Then, they came for the problem families; and I didn't speak, for I was not a problem family.
Then, they came for me. But I was in Canada by then (please?!)

Re:New, updated version of the poem... (2, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915347)

I don't know mate. Putting up cams in my 13 year old daughters bedroom tells me they don't have a problem with paedophiles.

Why not start in the House Of Windsor . . . ? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915075)

. . . their kids always seem to find some trouble to get themselves into . . . naughty kids == bad parents . . . ?

Re:Why not start in the House Of Windsor . . . ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915231)

Aren't they already under the camera 24/7? The papers certainly seem to uncover everything they get into (and alot they don't, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day)

What's the difference between England and the USA? (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915099)

England admits they're doing it!

honestly, some people need this. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915149)

i can see where this might actually be needed, there are lots of people out there who make an absolute fuck up of their lives and drag EVERYONE (their kids)down with them. the problem is who gets to say who needs monitoring and who doesn't, until there is a way to answer this, it's out of the question in my books.

It's a good alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915153)

It's a good alternative to taking the children in to care, I think - a chance to sort things and keep the kids of (very) bad parents safe, without social services having to ruin all their lives by splitting the family up.

Re:It's a good alternative (2, Insightful)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915205)

If a family fails so much at parenting that they have to be supervised by the government to do their job, I really don't think that it would change anything. Sure, it might prevent the parents from beating the crap out of their children, but if they do that, taking away the children is a better idea anyways, or do you really expect them to turn into loving, good-citizen parents just because Big Brother is watching? I'm not as opposed to surveillance as most of the /. crowd, but this...they aren't just completely invading *private* homes, it's also completely stupid - that is, if it weren't just to increase government power. Yes, the UK is really becoming a Stalinist state, slow maybe, but they sure are. And like in every authoritarian state, they already disarmed their citizens. I'd get out of that country ASAP if I'd be living there.

Re:It's a good alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915313)

Why not just kill them all. It's a far better solution. Maybe they hope to learn something from the half-animals. Führer Brown may not be impressed.

The Resident Skeptic (1)

geegel (1587009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915191)

The Sunday Express is not exactly the most reliable news source. This is why a bit more digging is in order. One Google search later, I came over this site: http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=7524 [respect.gov.uk]

The verdict is: if you happen to live in UK you're fucked

There's no mention of CCTV cameras, but the programs these people have border on downright nazi. They talk about getting the "right" outcome in courts, tackling important issues like noise nuisance or vehicle nuisance and they use some cryptic acronyms which when translated are plain scary.

Some examples:

ISSP - intensive supervision and surveillance programme

YIP - youth inclusion programme. YIPs operate in local neighbourhoods and are aimed predominantly at young people identified as being at risk of offending, but who have not yet entered the criminal justice system.

LAA - A local area agreement (LAA) is a three year agreement that sets out the priorities for a local area agreed between central government and a local area.

Re:The Resident Skeptic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915293)

but the programs these people have border on downright nazi.

You have godwinned this conversation already.

Re:The Resident Skeptic (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915363)

Infringing on people's rights to keep half the neighbourhood awake is "downright nazi"?

It's time for the people to act. (3, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915199)

I spoke to one of my British immigrant friends about the big brother attitude in England, saying I understand it's financially motivated in the U.S., but I couldn't see what motivated it there. He said a large portion of the population has absolutely no sense of personal responsibility and wants some one else (the government) to handle that for them. Of course this isn't everyone.

Let's look at history and see how British citizens who didn't agree with the crown acted and what came of it:

Scotland - William Wallace. They fought a good fight but ultimately failed. They made their point and over time, since people allowed the fight to die with him, it didn't matter.

Quakers, Puritans, other settlers. - Fled to the New World to escape the mainland oppression only to experience oppression by remote control. They eventually rebelled, established independence and we now have the United States. Some time later Canada decided to break free also - a little more peacefully and they still have the Queen on their money. I wouldn't.

It's time for the English citizens to have a civil war. They've already screwed up, they've let their government take their guns away, so it's going to be difficult, but I'm sure they can manage. If enough of the populace proves they're willing to go to war with rakes and shovels it may just get enough attention to prove to the government they're serious and the government may start listening. I'm sure it would only take a few government officials dieing during riots and stealth assassination missions before they agree to consider that 1984 wasn't meant as an instruction manual.

It's very important that the people declare war and actually send over a document declaring such, if they don't it's no better than gang terrorism.

The U.S. proved such a thing can work.

Tories just as bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915209)

Perhaps the opposition will at least pretend they wouldnt do this.

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: âoeThis is all much too little, much too late.

Oh.

Sigh (1)

thriemus (514728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915221)

This doesn't even suprise me, wtf is happening to the world?

Good! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915295)

I know your all going to compare it to 1984, say this is a big brother police state, but to be honest, if you live on an area affected by youths who make you terrified to go outside, who intimidate you if you do, who will not hesitate to key your car, smash in it's windows or even set it on fire, who make it the norm to set of fireworks in the street and even post them through letter boxes, then you wouldn't be moaning about their human rights.

In a related article (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915323)

The UK gov also announced that it 'Really doesn't give a shit anymore' and will be opening the soylent green factories, imposing a curfew, recruiting Thought Police Officers, and 'Anything else we can think of, since the populace are disarmed and we can do what the fuck we like'. - Reuters

Sunday Express ? Then ignore it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28915333)

Seriously, if the Sunday Express is the best source the poster can find, then it is a non-story.

Relax: It's only the silly Season (3, Insightful)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28915339)

El Gordo is off on his hols and the underlings feel they can let out silly proposals like this. Then the ministers get to keep their TV hours up by spending copious amounts of time saying that this is only a proposal knowing full well that it will never happen.
The 'Comics', newspaper like the Daily Wail and Express need to fill their copy and stories like this are exactly the sort of thing to fill the 'silly season'.

Besides if by some legal mangling, the cameras were ever to be installed, they would be:-
(within minutes)
1) Stolen and sold down the Pub for Drink,Fags or Drugs.
2) Vandalised
3) The house sublet to a nice family ensuring nothing for the monitors to see.

Anyway, NuLab will get a real tanking in the next election and the Tories will have all their attention on getting the country out of the financial sesspit that Gordon 'prudence' Broone has got us into since 1997.

Finally, as this is in a clear breach of the European Human Rights Directive I think many of the wailers here should get a life.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?