Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 17:26 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d6db4$459c2a9c$4fe7356$31348(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: <snip> >> Also, "appeasement" of Nazi Germany was carried out by more countries >> than the ones in Europe. > > For sure. But we do love to blame you. LOL Nothing wrong with that. :-) >> I am sure if Iran annexes the Persian version of the Sudetenland the >> analogy may be more appropriate, but at the moment it isn't. > > The future is bound to be interesting. It always is :-) >>>>>>>The US anti-Bushers >>>>>>>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. > >>>>>>There is no "European Law". > >>>>>Exactly. > >>>>Blimey. IKWYABWAI variant if ever I saw one. > >>>Part of the disagreements in this thread are real legitimate >>>head on crashes. Some of them are the product of a significant >>>cultural mismatch which perhaps neither of the two of you >>>actually grasps. > >> Two of who? > > You and BAH. Ah. First time I have been lumped in a collective with /BAH. I feel soiled...... :-D
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:27 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:86c37$459c124f$4fe756c$30793(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >>>news:engmkb$f7p$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >>> >>> >>>>In article <f0efd$459a7d43$4fe7539$20621(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>>>We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in >>>>>the UK today? >> >>>>They don't have a Bill of Rights. >> >>>Nor does it make it "right." >> >>>Nor is using a foreign nation as an example of what should or shouldn't >>>be allowed in your own nation particularly relevant. People in the UK >>>have become lax in safeguarding their civil liberties and now we have >>>much less "freedom" than [for example] when I was in School. >> >>Unfortunately freedom and liberty are always conditional. It >>is quite one thing to voluntarily give up some freedom in >>exchange for security, still another to give up freedom in >>order to have someone fill their pockets with wealth. Both >>have the same consequence while one is generally bearable >>while the other isn't. > > > I agree with the principles you point to here. However, the vast majority of > the "freedoms" given up by people in the UK are not there to provide any > real form of security and probably never will. Also, these are freedoms > people are "giving up" with out having the option not to give them up. I haven't heard of any protests or lawsuits in the UK over the subject. > As you say, the UK has one of the highest (if not the highest) incidence of > CCTV systems in the world. You can not walk more than a few meters down a > street in any of our big cities without your actions being recorded. Has > violent crime (the overt reason this was brought in) reduced in the last 15 > years? No. The only remaining question is whether or not the system has actually helped to solve crimes. > The problem with governments selling "National Security" to the public, is > by and large the public follow a herd mentality and as long as some on TV > tells them that XYZ will make them "safer" they will swallow pretty much > anything. I will not comment on things like biometric passports or the US > entrance visa requirements (because they affect people making the *choice* > to travel so if you really don't like them, don't go) but the legislation > which keeps raising its heads in the UK is shocking. It is a fashion item at the moment IMO. Chicago put cameras into several elevated railway (overhead municipal system) stations a long while ago. They found it far too expensive to monitor the small pilot program they undertook. The whole thing didn't last 2 years if I recall correctly. And when there was a crime committed, invariably the camera was looking in some other direction. On average it took one person at a monitor all the time the station was open and in operation to monitor the system. They figured they could do a much better job putting patrol personnel into the stations. Eventually UK's system will probably be dismantled, or perhaps just allowed to die as the equipment deteriorates over time. I'd be interested into whose pockets the profit from the sales and installations landed. The UK speeding camera didn't bother me too much while I was there. By the time they got through the car rental firm to my name and address I was well out of the country. By the time I go back, God willing and the creek don't rise, they'll have forgotten about me and/or the statute of limitations (probably already has) will have kicked in. I'd sure hate them if I lived there though.
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:28 T Wake wrote: > Removing the original context makes /BAH's comment tenuously acceptable but > it is even more of a cheap shot than I would resort to. OK. But I'm LOL
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:29 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:de4d6$459c1096$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> >>>>In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>>> >>>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>>> >>>>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>>>Constitutional rights. >>>> >>>>No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>>>wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >>>> >>>>He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>>>if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>>>procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>>>do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>>>1975 or so. >>>> >>>>Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>>>longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>>>through security? >>>> >>>>Use your noodle. >> >>>But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >>>forward all your electronic comms are monitored. >> >>Of that I have no doubt. Everything usenet is international and >>public with *no* expectation of privacy. This is just like >>the bugged parking meters. Many of have assumed for years that >>usenet is scanned for such key words. I've seen all sorts of >>attention seeking posts using dozens of suspect expressions >>like anthrax, bomb, suitcase bomb, hijacking, concealed weapons, >>and the like. >> >>There, think that got someone's attention? >> >>I sure hope so! Otherwise the boys are asleep at the switch. > > > And there is no way of knowing if they are. Make it look real. Unfortunately that possible cost is a bit too dear for my taste.
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 17:45
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b5f60$459c2dbd$4fe7356$31413(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > <snip> >> >> I agree with the principles you point to here. However, the vast majority >> of the "freedoms" given up by people in the UK are not there to provide >> any real form of security and probably never will. Also, these are >> freedoms people are "giving up" with out having the option not to give >> them up. > > I haven't heard of any protests or lawsuits in the UK over > the subject. Sadly there are very few. Mostly because lawsuits in the UK are rarer than the US anyway. There were some a few months ago which got national press coverage following the Forrest Gate farce. >> As you say, the UK has one of the highest (if not the highest) incidence >> of CCTV systems in the world. You can not walk more than a few meters >> down a street in any of our big cities without your actions being >> recorded. Has violent crime (the overt reason this was brought in) >> reduced in the last 15 years? No. > > The only remaining question is whether or not the system has actually > helped to solve crimes. It may have, but the selling point given to the public was to reduce crime, not to increase the detection rate. As the crime rate has not stabilised over the last 15 years (it is increasing in inner city, high CCTV areas), this leads to questions about the value of solving the crimes. If people are going to give up a freedom willingly, then surely they need to know the _real_ reason it is has been surrended, not be told one reason then if that fails to appear be given alternative reasons until one which has actually happend pops up? Something sold as crime prevention needs to prevent crime. When it fails, finding a new use (in crime solving) is not something which can be trumpteted as a valued reason. > >> The problem with governments selling "National Security" to the public, >> is by and large the public follow a herd mentality and as long as some on >> TV tells them that XYZ will make them "safer" they will swallow pretty >> much anything. I will not comment on things like biometric passports or >> the US entrance visa requirements (because they affect people making the >> *choice* to travel so if you really don't like them, don't go) but the >> legislation which keeps raising its heads in the UK is shocking. > > It is a fashion item at the moment IMO. Chicago put cameras > into several elevated railway (overhead municipal system) > stations a long while ago. They found it far too expensive > to monitor the small pilot program they undertook. The > whole thing didn't last 2 years if I recall correctly. > And when there was a crime committed, invariably the > camera was looking in some other direction. On average > it took one person at a monitor all the time the station > was open and in operation to monitor the system. They > figured they could do a much better job putting > patrol personnel into the stations. I agree totally. In my day to day job, I often go to companies who want advice on installing CCTV so they can reduce their security force personnel. It breaks their hearts when I explain it doesn't do that and they need patrols and CCTV operators. If the money spent on the UK's CCTV had been spent on more police officers _that_ may have reduced crime. (Although I admit it is a "may") > Eventually UK's system will probably be dismantled, or > perhaps just allowed to die as the equipment deteriorates > over time. I'd be interested into whose pockets the profit > from the sales and installations landed. Sadly the UK system has been co-opted into too many other parts of the UK "security" plan now that I suspect it will be quite some time before it is gone. I cant imagine a home secretary being willing to give up the surveillance capability during my lifetime. > The UK speeding camera didn't bother me too much while I > was there. By the time they got through the car rental > firm to my name and address I was well out of the country. > By the time I go back, God willing and the creek don't > rise, they'll have forgotten about me and/or the statute > of limitations (probably already has) will have kicked in. > I'd sure hate them if I lived there though. I hate them like nothing on Earth. Another example of something put in place under false pretences. |