61–70 of 275 posts
That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investi...
London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.
No, it is not. It is a city where tiny portions have police cameras. Somewhat larger areas have council-controlled cameras that it's fairly easy for police to gain access to. The vast majority of CCTV in London - and in the UK - is privately controlled, and most of it is not networked. Police can get access to it if/when something has happened, but most of them also either don't record or record only on a 24h loop, and access is often enough of a hassle that police does not even bother.
Certainly there is a lot of surveillance in London, and especially the central areas and around important buildings, but it's nowhere near as bad as you imply.
I live in London - I'd have about a 20 minutes walk to the nearest networked, police controlled camera, and about 10-15 minutes walk to any camera. In any direction.
> surveillance vans
Yes, but how many of them do you think there are? They are a rare sight, and they are obvious. I'm sure the Met would like more of them, but they don't have the budget to use them all over the place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London doesn't have "blocks". Surveillance vans are a myth. Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.
There's CCTV vans all over the City Of London. They don't tend to venture out much further, but they totally exist. I see them all the time.
City certainly is it's own little undemocratic (sure, you can vote, but so can nominees of corporations located in City), police-state fiefdom.
(for the non-Lononders, City of London is one of the financial districts of London, on the site of the historical site of the original settlement of London, and makes up a tiny portion of London; it's got its own police force, and a government that's entirely unlike anything else in the UK)
> police hacking of journalists and protestors Because they are the real terrorists. I seriously think they had dissidents in mind when pushing for all those "anti-terror" surveillance laws.
If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of what's allowed by said anti-terror laws. This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy. Frankly we should wait to see w…
No-one even knows why they were infiltrating them in the first place. The Met has got seriously out of control. Undercover officers with crazy fake identities not investigating crimes but acting as stasi agents.
This is not a surprise nor particularly unbelievable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London doesn't have "blocks". Surveillance vans are a myth. Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.
> London doesn't have "blocks". I don't think they meant "block" in the usual American sense, but in the general sense, that is: "an area". > Surveillance vans are a myth. Simply Wrong. Surveillance vans are not a myth, honestly. Maybe not in the what the police would call the "plebian" areas, but in the centre and Canary Wharf, you can see them every now and then, they even have their own WiFi you can try and connec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's CCTV vans all over the City Of London. They don't tend to venture out much further, but they totally exist. I see them all the time.
City is "special", and City has its own police force, which is why they don't venture further out - City of London Police does not generally have any business venturing out of City unless cooperating with the Metropolitan Police on something or following a suspect. City certainly is it's own little undemocratic (sure, you can vote, but so can nominees of corporations located in City), police-state fiefdom. (for the n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of what's allowed by said anti-terror laws. This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy. Frankly we should wait to see w…
There's been scandals in the UK recently of the Met using undercover police infiltrating peaceful groups and then attempting to incite them to violence. No-one even knows why they were infiltrating them in the first place. The Met has got seriously out of control. Undercover officers with crazy fake identities not investigating crimes but acting as stasi agents. This is not a surprise nor particularly unbelievable.
Talk to some anarchists, activists and others that may be labeled as dissidents by the capitalists ruling class. They will clearly tell you their motives: keep the status quo from being seriously challenged, allowing the rich get richer at the expense of the broader societies and the environment they exploit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intelligence services have been doing this forever in most countries. If you don't know about it you're not paying attention. Here is PJ O'Rourke writing about this in the 1960s in the US. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&... People don't just don't care that much. It is worth worrying about though. With the NSA and computer surviellance we've created a 'turn-key tyranny'. And people ha…
What about Intelligence services? This is a local police force!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of what's allowed by said anti-terror laws. This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy. Frankly we should wait to see w…
> The UK is hardly an autocracy. Not only autocracies do this kind of evil. Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists mainly of capitalist, you can see that the police targeting dissidents fits a clear motive.
Sorry I don't think you should state conspiracy theories as fact without someone calling you on it. There are reasons for police to spy on activists (even illegally) without needing to assert the existence of a "deep state"
EDIT: to clarify, above where I say "reasons" I mean just that, not "reasons that I necessarily agree with"