The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, February 22, 2009
CCTVs to track alcohol usage
Don't be fooled by the pro-CCTV types who proclaim how having a camera on every street corner saves lives. Once the state realizes it can watch you, it starts monitoring everything you do including how much alcohol you drink.
Posted by Moin A Yahya on February 22, 2009 | Permalink
This kind of thing is downright evil. It will provide police with a new source of "evidence" which they can use selectively, whenever it is convenient to the State.
As for the other law against photographing police officers, it scares citizens out of trying to collect their own evidence (which the government may find inconvenient). How long before this is extended to any picture "likely to be useful to a person suspected of criminal activity"?
The phrase "likely to be useful," by the way, is strikingly similar to the term "likely to expose" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It puts the burden of proof firmly on the individual, rather than the state.
This seems like a roundabout way of destroying due process, particularly the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2009-02-22 3:04:54 AM
The UK has them just about everywhere along with a totalitarian type of gun control, yet crime has increased even more. Nor did these cameras prevent terrorist attacks. Need I say more?
Posted by: Alain | 2009-02-22 11:27:50 AM
Go ahead mad at the worlders- go ahead, photograph police officers and run away- they will never catch you then put it on Youtube, Entertain th stay at hom mad at the worlders.
If progressive people are going to ignore drug laws, gun laws, swarm global strategy conferences,etc etc etc - certainly they will ignore this kindergarten material and throw a few stones at snoopy lenses and snap some pix of police brutality-
hey when police shoot at you, its only rubber bullets..
break any law you want, pay the price, limp home
Posted by: 419 | 2009-02-22 12:09:21 PM
This is why gun ownership is so important. Eventually things reach a point where it's time to fight back. I'm not saying the UK has reached that point But it's getting there.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-02-22 12:31:01 PM
***Warning*** ...your postings are being tracked...
Posted by: tomax7 | 2009-02-22 6:37:34 PM
How did the land of the Magna Carta ever reach this point? The news just gets worse and worse and worse. Even in the dark, ugly days of the 70s and 80s, when New York had a far higher crime rate than London, there was never this kind of Orwellian oversight. But, I wouldn't be surprised to see similar developments here if the Bloc, the Greens, or the NDP ever took power. Beware the political party who think they know better than everyone else.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-22 6:56:30 PM
This is why gun ownership is so important.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-02-22 12:31:01 PM
And the link between gun ownership and CCTV camera's in pubs and off-licenses is?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-22 7:02:38 PM
Shane, you have just described "almost" all political parties.
Posted by: DML | 2009-02-22 10:37:57 PM
And the link between gun ownership and CCTV camera's in pubs and off-licenses is? - I think the point was that the more you see of the one, the less you see of the other.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-22 11:26:30 PM
Yes, DML, but there's a difference between political parties who think their plans will make for good government, and those who think their plans will create a better society.
Governments shouldn't try to modify society; to be good at that, you have to place the welfare of society before the welfare of you. And that doesn't sound like many politicians I've heard of.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-22 11:28:59 PM
Free institutions cannot exist in a multi-ethnic nation. Mass immigration and the drive to control 'race relations' fundamentally underpins the loss of freedom of the British people.
"According to Home Office statistics, the total number of migrants coming to the UK for more than one year rose from 326,100 in 1997 to 582,100 in 2004 while the net inflow (which accounts for emigration) increased from 46,800 to 222,600 (see Figure 1). The Government Actuary Department predicts net immigration to continue at 145,000 individuals per year. The foreign-born population living in the UK now totals 4.9 million, or 8.3 percent of the population.
The post-war UK policy model of immigration was established between 1962 and 1976, when three restrictive immigration laws and three antidiscrimination laws were passed. The immigration laws had an official objective of "zero-migration," and the three antidiscrimination laws, at least partly inspired by the US civil rights developments, were instituted to improve what is commonly called "race relations."
Measures against racial discrimination, such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, have been reinforced, and laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998 have made equality a fundamental tenet of general policymaking. Under Blair, there has been a discernible move to include race equality as part of all policies."
As mass immigration of distant peoples progressed, concurrently, so did non-discriminatory legislation. And as distant immigrants started terrorizing British soil, a concomitant decrease in civil liberty grew. Blair's Britain, that grew immigration and terror massively, also oversaw the growth of "a few thousand CCTV cameras in the UK" to almost five million.
Posted by: DJ | 2009-02-23 12:33:30 AM
...interesting posting on it.
"Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It's been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There's no fear of CCTV. Why don't people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working."
Posted by: tomax7 | 2009-02-23 8:27:31 AM
"Why don't people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working."
Most of them probably aren't working.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-23 9:05:31 AM
DJ, America is a multi-ethnic nation. First came the English, the Dutch, and the French. Then came the Scandinavians, the Germans, the Italians, and the Irish. Following that came the Ukranians, the Russians, the Yugoslavians, the Mexicans, the Puerto Ricans, and the Latin Americans. After that came Lebanese and Iranians. And through it all there were African slaves and Jews from every nation.
America has a violence problem, to be sure; it has had it from the first. But nevertheless, American civilization does work, at least to the extent that more people try to make a new life there than in any other single country, and having arrived, few leave. But it does not have CCTV on every corner, and it is highly questionable whether American politicians would even dare put this question to their voters. And you are still arguably freer in America than in any other country, many of which have far more homogeneous populations than America.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-23 10:42:47 AM
Most of them probably aren't working. - Perhaps the English people should see to it than none of them do.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-23 10:43:22 AM
Operation Budgie Mirror
.. We bet that millions of people in the wired future will _want to be on closed circuit TV, and would relish being constantly evaluated by unseen authirity figures...look at how many civies now utilize web cams to advertise their lame opinions, their mundane existance, their unappealing sexual activities, etc--
we're talking cameras- not the zillion intimate detail text blogs... where people confess in great detail not only stuff they do, but stuff they didn't do..but would have liked to have done.
will there ever b enough eyes watching all the retards on cam? We think not---and then sorting out useless monkey shines from serious evil activity-- real crime happens with split second precision..whoosh a few seconds. minutes its over and the perps are gone..
Posted by: 419 | 2009-02-23 11:28:33 AM
"But it does not have CCTV on every corner, and it is highly questionable whether American politicians would even dare put this question to their voters."
It's a profoundly false statement. In the homogeneous areas of the US, (Maine or Montana etc.) there a probably few cameras (ditto the UK), however, in highly diverse areas like New York City the camera population is growing like dandelions. Increasing diversity means decreasing freedom.
A 1998 study conducted by the NYCLU identified 2,397 video surveillance cameras visible from street level in Manhattan. Seven years later nearly that same number of surveillance cameras
was counted in just one area of lower Manhattan that comprises Greenwich Village and SoHo. The 2005 survey found 4176 cameras below
Fourteenth Street, more than five times the 769 cameras counted in that area in 1998. Two hundred and ninety-two surveillance cameras were
spotted in central Harlem, where cameras literally line 125th Street.
The maps on the following pages pinpoint the locations of the cameras identified by NYCLU surveyors in the organization’s 2005 street survey. The maps show that cameras lined nearly every block in the neighborhoods surveyed, including the Financial District, Tribeca, SoHo, Greenwich Village, the Lower East Side, Chinatown, and Central Harlem. Both private and public cameras have proliferated. Private entities—corporate headquarters as well as corner delis—now operate cameras that remain hidden to the untrained eye. The New York City Police
Department, spurred by the promise of $9 million in Federal Homeland Security grants and up to $81.5 million in federal counter-terrorism
funding, announced this year that it plans to create “a citywide system of closed-circuit televisions” operated from a single control center. And in 2006 the City Council for the first time will consider mandating that private entities install video surveillance cameras.4 The proposed law would require that each of the 250 private night clubs in Manhattan install video cameras at its entrances and exits.
NEIGHBORHOOD CAMERA COUNTS, 1998 AND 2005
District 1* (Financial District, Tribeca) 446 1306
District 2 (Greenwich Village, SoHo) 142 2227
District 3 (Lower East Side, Chinatown) 181 643
Central Harlem N/A 292
TOTAL 769 4468
*NYC Community Board District
Posted by: DJ | 2009-02-23 12:45:11 PM
How many of those cameras are already privately owned and operated, DJ? It's no more kosher to include private security cameras in your total than it is to include suicides and accidents in a homicide-by-firearm survey. Ditto photo radar, red-light cameras, traffic cams, and other such applications. For the purposes of honesty, we count only government-operated or -mandated cameras aimed at the street, businesses, or other public places.
I live in Metro Vancouver, the most polyglot city in Canada (definitely more so than Seattle) and about the only place you'll find publicly owned and operated security cameras is at the Skytrain stations and in and around other government buildings. Pubs here are installing cameras and metal detectors at the urging of the police, but they're not required to do so, and in fact most proprietors need little convincing.
Keep in mind, you cite only one city. The experience in New York is not typical, especially since September 11, and New Yorkers are understandably edgy. The report you reference is quite explicit in that many of these cameras are privately owned.
In any case, the English experience has shown that wall-to-wall CCTV doesn't reduce crime. They'd do better to fire the existing crop of left-leaning judges, hire tough new law-and-order ones, and put more police boots on the ground. If the cost of building more prisons is prohibitive, use tent cities.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-23 1:11:38 PM
LA, Chicago, Boston and Miami to name a few are all moving toward CCTV. None of these cities were attacked on 9/11. Homeland Security is financing an across the board surveillance program. NYC council is requiring night clubs to install surveillance. It matters not if it is private or public, the tapes/hard drives are available to the police for viewing. It matters not if it works, it directly invades the privacy of citizens.
BC does not have an HRC programmme?
Posted by: DJ | 2009-02-23 2:24:37 PM
Human Rights Code
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.
Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons.
(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating
(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or
(b) on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.
Discrimination in purchase of property
9 A person must not
(a) deny to a person or class of persons the opportunity to purchase a commercial unit or dwelling unit that is in any way represented as being available for sale,
(b) deny to a person or class of persons the opportunity to acquire land or an interest in land, or
(c) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding a term or condition of the purchase or other acquisition of a commercial unit, dwelling unit, land or interest in land
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or sex of that person or class of persons.
Discrimination in tenancy premises
10 (1) A person must not
(a) deny to a person or class of persons the right to occupy, as a tenant, space that is represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant, or
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding a term or condition of the tenancy of the space,
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age or lawful source of income of that person or class of persons, or of any other person or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the following circumstances:
(a) if the space is to be occupied by another person who is to share, with the person making the representation, the use of any sleeping, bathroom or cooking facilities in the space;
(b) as it relates to family status or age,
(i) if the space is a rental unit in residential premises in which every rental unit is reserved for rental to a person who has reached 55 years of age or to 2 or more persons, at least one of whom has reached 55 years of age, or
(ii) a rental unit in a prescribed class of residential premises;
(c) as it relates to physical or mental disability, if
(i) the space is a rental unit in residential premises,
(ii) the rental unit and the residential premises of which the rental unit forms part,
(A) are designed to accommodate persons with disabilities, and
(B) conform to the prescribed standards, and
(iii) the rental unit is offered for rent exclusively to a person with a disability or to 2 or more persons, at least one of whom has a physical or mental disability.
Discrimination in employment advertisements
11 A person must not publish or cause to be published an advertisement in connection with employment or prospective employment that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age unless the limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
Discrimination in wages
12 (1) An employer must not discriminate between employees by employing an employee of one sex for work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay at which an employee of the other sex is employed by that employer for similar or substantially similar work.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the concept of skill, effort and responsibility must, subject to factors in respect of pay rates such as seniority systems, merit systems and systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production, be used to determine what is similar or substantially similar work.
(3) A difference in the rate of pay between employees of different sexes based on a factor other than sex does not constitute a failure to comply with this section if the factor on which the difference is based would reasonably justify the difference.
(4) An employer must not reduce the rate of pay of an employee in order to comply with this section.
(5) If an employee is paid less than the rate of pay to which the employee is entitled under this section, the employee is entitled to recover from the employer, by action, the difference between the amount paid and the amount to which the employee is entitled, together with the costs, but
(a) the action must be commenced no later than 12 months from the termination of the employee's services, and
(b) the action applies only to wages of an employee during the 12 month period immediately before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action.
Discrimination in employment
13 (1) A person must not
(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or
(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.
(2) An employment agency must not refuse to refer a person for employment for any reason mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply
(a) as it relates to age, to a bona fide scheme based on seniority, or
(b) as it relates to marital status, physical or mental disability, sex or age, to the operation of a bona fide retirement, superannuation or pension plan or to a bona fide group or employee insurance plan, whether or not the plan is the subject of a contract of insurance between an insurer and an employer.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a refusal, limitation, specification or preference based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
Discrimination by unions and associations
14 A trade union, employers' organization or occupational association must not
(a) exclude any person from membership,
(b) expel or suspend any member, or
(c) discriminate against any person or member
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or member, or because that person or member has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the membership or intended membership.
Posted by: DJ | 2009-02-23 2:31:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.