"Britain gets 1984 telescreens – CCTV cameras that bark at you when you do something wrong. Scary stuff, particularly when there’s a regular CCTV camera for every 5 people in Britain already."
One camera for every 5 people! wtf!
Where have you been? Britain has been Orwellian for almost a long time now! And the English then ask “Why don’t you bloody Americans just live like we do?” NO THANKS! I think I’ll pass.
This is political. Lock imminent. =/
Edit: Decided to say something useful. I think the cameras are a great idea. Better than having plainclothes policemen loitering around watching you or beating you up. =D
Yeah, thats a little wierd…
I dont know if I’d love that, but Im sure I could get over it…
But when they got into my house? I wouldnt be cool with that, and I guess that thats where it would inevitably(sp? 
) lead…
The cameras a an ok IDEA. It’s just that power corrupts, as it’s been said, and it can only ever go downhill.
Being in control of those would be awesome.
ha, trudat
Considering how many crimes have been prevented, or sorted out because of those cameras, I’d say it’s a very small price to pay. I’d go for computerchips under your skin as well. Who’ll be able to deny a crime, if there are records that show that you were the only one at the scene of he crime at the specific time? Yes, I am serious…
Sacrifice liberty for safety, aye? You may be serious, but your sad, nonetheless.
Considering England has one of the worst crime rates in the world, I’d say the CCTV stuff isn’t working.
What kind of liberty would be sacrificed? That’s just BS. And as for England having high crime rates, that doesn’t say how high it would have been without, so that’s a flawed argument.
Once again, I’m just talking about what’s LIKELY to happen. Communism is a fine example of a system gone horribly wrong because of humanity’s innate propensity to do terrible things. Once you get a system that has its claws into everything, you can bend the system, and all the people will bend with it. It’s not what how good or bad the ideal is, it’s what will almost definitely happen once the wrong people get into it.
QUICK ADDITION: Also, the more control you have over people, the less control they’re likely to have over themselves if the system breaks or goes away.
SECOND QUICK ADDITION: I should probably mention that this is so far as I have percieved.
Yeah, I think thats a really good argument, and take your side on it.
This stuff is inevitable. The terrorists are stronger than ever, in order to fight them off, the government has to be strong. I don’t agree with starting wars - that is counter productive. But I will say that I’d rather be watched or tagged than dead or forced to believe something that I don’t.
EDIT: Hehe, I’m a sheeple. BAAhAAh
Having cameras placed discretely in public places, with the intent to prevent crime sounds alot better than having a police officer staring down your neck every 10 meters. For one thing, it would be a lot more annoying, not to mention tax payers would probably object to the immense costs. As long as it’s not in my home, I really don’t mind, because I don’t let paranoia diminish the positive aspects.
Erh, who has the flawed argument? You stated that crimes are prevented by CCTV cameras with no proof. I’m simply pointing to a well known fact that crime in Britain has skyrocketed while so have the number of CCTV cameras, hence your preventive theory seems be bunk. You don’t know if cameras prevent crime, otherwise , present proof.
As for how high it would have been without, well, as I clearly said, Britain has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Assuming your theory is correct, Britain would have even HIGHER crime rates without. Either way, Britain is still a crime capital, which makes your whole argument seem rather stupid.
Lastly, I’m tempted to point you to the dictionary definition of liberty. First definition: 1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. But if you think planting chips in people is not a diminution of liberty, your probably a lost cause.
This stuff is inevitable. The terrorists are stronger than ever, in order to fight them off, the government has to be strong
Of course! Man-leaving-can-on-bench-terrorism is awful!
In related news “A father criticised a police force today for launching an investigation after his ten-year-old son allegedly called a schoolfriend “gay” in an email”. TV’s watching your every move, police watching what you say. Crime, meanwhile, soars? Britain! Birthplace of the Magna Carta. Soon to be a Stalinist dump!
As long as it’s not in my home, I really don’t mind, because I don’t let paranoia diminish the positive aspects.
Hey, why stop in public places? Your whole “if-your-not-doing-anything-wrong-don’t worry about it” theory applies in your home as well as in public, right?
Good Job, Bell-end. You’ve managed to unwittingly answer your own question.
Nice, elam…
Yeah, Im not diggin’ the idea anymore.,…
You know, for a minute I was hoping the mods would overlook this thread and keep it active. People seemed to respond courteously and with reasonable comments. I beg the mods to keep this thread open. I really would like to talk about this stuff.
No country gives their people absolute freedom. Freedom and liberty are relative. As far as most 1st world people are concerned, so long as they can eat what they want, watch what they want, believe what they want, criticize their government, and travel without a permit - they are free. We can do without guns, and we can do without privacy in public. I don’t know if it will get as far as bugging apartments and homes… and I’d rather it not get to that point to be honest. But I wouldn’t mind talking cameras, National IDs, strict gun laws, and chips. You can have all of those and still be ‘free’.
You can have a debate and not be insulting.
Freedom and liberty are relative
Indeed, they are. And what history shows, is that the more liberal and free a society is, the more it prospers.
If Britons want this sort of society, and many of them don’t, go for it. Expect a lot of emigration, though. Slippery slope and all that.
But I will say that I’d rather be watched or tagged than dead or forced to believe something that I don’t.
Wait a minute. This doesn’t make any sense. You’d rather be watched/tagged than forced to believe something you don’t agree with? Then, in this context, what is the point of watching you? To make sure you don’t act on your beliefs? What’s the point of believing something if you can’t act on it? To make you feel good?
Your whole attitude is authoritarian. You’d rather be safe, or incrementaly give up your freedoms so your not dead. “Give me liberty or give me death”? Anyone?