One Nation Under CCTV

I read this news story... and it made me question surveillance... it's claimed that it only happens to protect us from terrorist attacks... but is this really true?

Britain is the most spied-on country in the world, with the largest numbers of CCTVs in the world

Civil servants attacked for using anti-terror laws to spy on public

Controversial surveillance powers employed to fight terrorism and combat crime have been misused by civil servants in undercover "spying" operations that breach official guidelines, the Guardian has learned.

• Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) did not have proper authorisation when they went undercover posing as anglers to glean information about imported fish;

• A manager responsible for authorising surveillance at the NHS anti-fraud agency routinely gave officials "carte blanche" in surveillance operations;

• Tracking devices were attached to vehicles in a bid to monitor the disposal of waste, after the Environment Agency received apparently incorrect advice from the Home Office

• Potential prosecutions were jeopardised because those conducting the surveillance operations were not properly trained and had not followed procedures

• A large array of public bodies are also using surveillance powers, including the Charity Commission, Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the BBC.

Reports of inspections by the watchdog, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, stretching back to 2003 shed new light on how government departments have been using surveillance powers.

The documents obtained highlight how the powers are "widely used" by Royal Mail, which uses hidden "viewing galleries" in sorting officers and local authority CCTV to secretly monitor its staff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/28/surveillance-government-public

And finally a lovely quote:

"Those who would happily give up a little freedom in order to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both"

-Benjamin Franklin

Should we really give up our rights just for the terrorists?

Find another way.

Agreed.

Those that need to get around surveillance will probably find ways while the normal people suffer due to it.

With the internet, snooping has become even easier, but some agencies around the world want it to be even simpler so that they can monitor everything from a central location instead of putting any effort in.

Atleast in the past spying on someone's conversations meant that they would have to get off their ass and bug a phone/telephone line - now the security services complain if they have to deal with encryption even though the original methods would work just as well.

Adding to that is the question of when a person becomes a criminal. At what stage of "preparation" has the person gone far enough to be convicted, locked up?

Should you wait for a crime to take place, or lock up the potential perpetrator before he/she can act?

[quote=You]

Adding to that is the question of when a person becomes a criminal. At what stage of "preparation" has the person gone far enough to be convicted, locked up?

Should you wait for a crime to take place, or lock up the potential perpetrator before he/she can act?[/quote]

What if they had second thoughts last minute and didn't go through with it?

What if they got a 'revelation'?

If they 'prepare' but would never have, in the grand scheme of things, actually gone through with what they were planning to do... you've convicted and imprisoned someone 'potentially' innocent... and how would it look to the public? They've not imprisoned someone for committing an act of terrorism but for WANTING to.... you can't imprison people for THINKING.

Imo though it MIGHT be too late... You don't have any right to throw someone in jail until they've actually physically done something wrong...

Anyone can plan to bomb. The Terrorist is the one who actually does it.

That's Minority Report, isn't it?

Police use methods, like reading the future, to see who will commit a crime before they do it, and then they arrest the person before they actually carry out the crime.

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?

I was not thinking that far into fantasy.

Just imagine someone planning a terrorist attack. at one point should you consider the person a criminal terrorist? Surely waiting for the person to blow others up be too late to act?

At the same time someone may change their mind at the last minute - just like one of the "copycat almost-bombers" on 21 July 2005 who decided not to board a train/bus even though he had a "bomb" (though probably unknown to him that it was faulty - or they were not really bombs depending on what version of the story you believe).

Salam

Snooping is against the British way.

However, I understand that they need to keep a

track of Wahhabis who might want to harm innocent people.

Ofcourse, there are far better ways to tackles nutters like Al Qaeda and their followers.

To spy on innocent people and make everyone jittery is surely counterproductive.

It does not work.

Omrow

[quote=Omrow]Snooping is against the British way.[/quote]

I beg to disagree. When the British empire was at its heights, espionage was one of the tools of the empire's trade.

[quote=Omrow]Salam

Snooping is against the British way.

However, I understand that they need to keep a

track of Wahhabis who might want to harm innocent people.

Ofcourse, there are far better ways to tackles nutters like Al Qaeda and their followers.

To spy on innocent people and make everyone jittery is surely counterproductive.

It does not work.

Omrow

[/quote]

How are 'Wahabbis' the same as al-qaida? Explain please.

[quote=Ya'qub]

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?[/quote]

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.

[quote=The Lamp][quote=Ya'qub]

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?[/quote]

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.[/quote]

LOL, I didn't expect anyone to answer it! By 'silly' question I meant 'one that is utterly pointless and stupid and doesn't deserve answering'!

:p

But you would then get a world with mechs and lasers and other cool weaponry!

Red Alert.

[quote=Ya'qub][quote=The Lamp][quote=Ya'qub]

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?[/quote]

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.[/quote]

LOL, I didn't expect anyone to answer it! By 'silly' question I meant 'one that is utterly pointless and stupid and doesn't deserve answering'!

:p[/quote]

The consequences of which could be unimaginable. Its not a good idea to meddle with major events like that in history. You could end up creating a wound in time.

[quote=Ya'qub][quote=The Lamp][quote=Ya'qub]

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?[/quote]

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.[/quote]

LOL, I didn't expect anyone to answer it! By 'silly' question I meant 'one that is utterly pointless and stupid and doesn't deserve answering'!

:p[/quote]

Yeah, but I thought it was worth answering.

Salam

Ya'qub asked: How are 'Wahabbis' the same as al-qaida? Explain please.

Al Qaeda are followers of the Wahhabi ideology - twisted and evil.

Sometimes they call themselves Salafies. Its the same corrupted form of religion.

These idiots have nothing to with true teachings of Prophet Mohammed.

Omrow

Just to make people aware, the new forum changes may be turned off within a few hours (edit - make that a few days), so make sure your opinion counts.

If people are viewing through non-standard browsers, please post to say if the changes work or not (I know that the old style forum comments were broken in atleast IE8 which will be launched to the world real soon now.)

I know that some people hate it and others don't - the new colours are brighter. In an ideal world, someone would spruce up the rest of the colours of the site to be just a tad brighter too to go along with the forums look, but AFAIK that ain't happening.

So make your opinions known.

If you're lucky there will be no one hunting you down.

:twisted:

:o wooh!!! The buttons and the folder image for the forums totaly remind me XP versions,

The blue colour just seems out of place with the rest of the colour scheme. :?

I do not want to seem horrible but, 'ADMIN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO IT!!'

It is totaly weird! I prefer the other one better! put it back the way it was! PLEASE!

🙁

SO you thought that he was on drugs?

Admin, are you on drugs! Change it back now!

Well, we can keep it for a few days, can't we?

IT'S OK. I NOT REALLY KEEN ON IT I THINK IT COULD BE BETTER.THE SHADE OF BLUE IS ANNOYING.

[quote=big bro]IT'S OK. I NOT REALLY KEEN ON IT I THINK IT COULD BE BETTER.THE SHADE OF BLUE IS ANNOYING.[/quote]

SO IS WRITING EVERYTHING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, BUT WE FORGIVE YOU!

Bit....... different. But I'll get used to it.

blue is a bit too bright

and the white writing against the light blue..can it be black instead? (don't worry about it , if its too much hassle)

Umm its fine! just doesnt go with the other colour

That guys on dope.

Although i like blue, but the change completely clash with the colour scheme of the website. You either change all of it or leave it as it was. And its far too bright. I dont like bright... strains my eyes unnecessarily.

Alternatively if you can implement the same style but in colours similar to the old version then that might be more appropriate.

Functionality wise it seems to do the same job as the previous version. Which begs the question; why fix something if it isnt broken??

IMO just change the color but all in all

I do not mind changing the colours/shades of the rest of the site to go with the forums - if someone can specify exactly what to use.

(I guess getting rid of the white background to be replaces with something else would be nice too, but a year ago I failed in finding an adequate shade.)

Assalamu alaikum

i like it looks sharper, more professional. The green was outdated and drab, change is good. Just like your living room need a lick of dulux so does the revival. The yellow or beige on left doesn't go with blue you need to match the colours.

The icons are better too.

A white background is good. Looks bright, inviting, please don't use dark colours for background.

P.S whiners if its too bright reduce contrast/brightness on your monitor

[quote=Hajjar]

Assalamu alaikum

i like it looks sharper, more professional. The green was outdated and drab, change is good. Just like your living room need a lick of dulux so does the revival.[/quote]

Thanks.

[quote=Hajjar]The yellow or beige on left doesn't go with blue you need to match the colours.[/quote]

Got any reccomendations. if I was into interior decorations, I would paint everything white. No need to match things up then...

[quote=Hajjar]

The icons are better too.

A white background is good. Looks bright, inviting, please don't use dark colours for background.[/quote]

I want it to stay light, but potentially "off white" - some thing close to it, but not exactly that.

[quote=Hajjar]P.S whiners if its too bright reduce contrast/brightness on your monitor

[/quote]

😃

I think it's Brilliant! It looks much neater and much more classier. A definite improvement.

The blue doesn't look too bright to me at all... well not on this laptop anyway. I did at first think the white writing didn't stand out much on the blue background where it says the date and time of the post, but actually I think it looks fine now. If it was to be changed then I think black would look too heavy and stand out too much as it wouldn't really go with anything else, so maybe the dark blue/navy would look better.

If the white background looks too bright then what about a beige colour instead? Like the one behind the top article on the homepage?

The forums do stand out on the page but I think it looks ok, at least everything else down the side is in one colour too.

(And I love the new Quran feature!)

You know when you click on the 'Recent posts' or 'tracker' or whatever it's called... when you click on 'new' for each thread, it used to zoom to the first new post since you last logged on... but now it goes right to the bottom, to the most recent post. Can you change that back somehow?

Other than that, I really don't care either way. I come on here to read what people write, not to get interior design tips.

[quote=Ya'qub]You know when you click on the 'Recent posts' or 'tracker' or whatever it's called... when you click on 'new' for each thread, it used to zoom to the first new post since you last logged on... but now it goes right to the bottom, to the most recent post. Can you change that back somehow?[/quote]

For me it still seems to behave as it did before...?

I think it's perfectly fine... on the other comp now and it's still not at all bright to me.

And it's surprising how easily you get used to it, I can't even remember what the older version looked like.

Yeah get rid of the peach colur and just tart it up a bit more, but the white looks ok.

lol@tart it up

[quote=Imaani]I think it's perfectly fine... on the other comp now and it's still not at all bright to me.

And it's surprising how easily you get used to it, I can't even remember what the older version looked like. [/quote]

i cant either now and im really trying to remember