If Orwell Was Alive, He'd Stock Up on Tinfoil

More Cameras in Britain

Guardian wrote:

Drivers talking on mobile phones or failing to wear seatbelts could find themselves tracked down through a widened use of road surveillance cameras, under proposals due to be floated in parliament tomorrow. The plans would form part of a major expansion of camera surveillance which critics say is already transforming Britain into the most watched country in the world.
The case for cameras to be focused on people using mobiles as they drive is made by the independent adviser to the transport select committee, Robert Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts).

Mr Gifford said expanding the use of technology for tracking the movements of cars could lead police to people who had committed other offences in the same way that Al Capone was eventually caught through his income tax evasion. He claimed that for greater safety and "the greater good of society", most people would be prepared to accept "a slight reduction of our liberty".

And then another reduction of liberty, and then another...but hey, it's in the name of protecting you. [6]
 
I feel safer already and I live across the pond. I sure hope you guys get all the kinks worked out of the system before it arrives stateside. I want our system to rawk!!! I can't wait to see the size of the database! Who's the contractor? Talk about a dream job!

That's what we do these days (we = make-believe democracies); we trade our liberties for the feeling, the illusion of security or privacy.

-- Adapted from a George Carlin quote

they that give up essential liberty for a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Ben Franklin

Well said, Ben; I was thinking along the same lines.  I decided to go with the quote others were less likely to submit.

I just watched a biography of Ben Franklin...it was 3 hours, but quite good.  The guy was amazing (inventor, statesman, writer, etc). This is just going to be a neverending spiral of chasing that illusion called "safety".  People are only going to get craftier about trying to get around "the system".  I just read an article today about how a bill is being put to a vote in New Jersey that would eliminate anonymity on the internet.  I have no idea how you would pull that one off, but whatever.

What's in your wallet?     [6]

zzzzz wrote:

they that give up essential liberty for a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Ben Franklin

Ah, but didn't you see where this is a D'israeli quote that Franklin frequently referred to?

Let Bush search your IMs/emails/HDD when you say "nit!".

------

Ok, it's big brother, etc...  so, what's the plan? 

Hmm.

Well, I'll accept a very slight reduction in YOUR liberties to improve MY safety...

I don't use a cell phone in the car as a rule, if I'm driving, because it's proven to be unsafe.

 As an example there's an episode of MythBusters where they compare the driving effects of being legally drunk to driving while talking on a cell phone. They took an actual driving test three times; once while sober and without phone, once with the phone, and once while drunk. Both the MythBuster people passed just fine while unencumbered - but they both failed equally miserably with the cell phone, and then while drunk.

Now, it was a reduction in liberties to tell people they can't drive if they're drunk - but the decision saves MANY lives every year. If people drive as badly with a cell phone as they do while drunk, then just as many lives could be saved if it becomes illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving.

I'd love to see something like this implemented in the US. I'd gladly pay additional tax money for this "reduction of liberties"...

"they that give up essential liberty for a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Since when is talking on a cell phone while driving an essential liberty? If the call is so damned important, pull off the road and stop endangering my life and the lives of those around you.

zzzzz wrote:

they that give up essential liberty for a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Ben Franklin

Yes, I agree with dzCepheus.  This is a horrible misuse of this quote.

Benjamin Franklin was referring to losing your essential liberties--  freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, etc.  He was NOT referring to silly things like using your cell phone in the car.  Nor is this a "little temporary safety" as Franklin was referring to.

billh wrote:

And then another reduction of liberty, and then another...but hey, it's in the name of protecting you.

Cripes. As a part-time pedestrian I observe a lot of stupid behavior from drivers. And an astounding measure of them are talking on cell phones. Yes, it is about protecting me!

I just love when people make a point that is total BS...

Cell phones do account for Car accidents but its not number one and not even close, its number 6th on causes...

Rubernecking is the biggest cause of accidents. 
if you really want to be safe do the following:

1:Make some kind of test to decide if we are alert enough to drive, and record the time we drive.

2: band Kids as passageners,

3: No  cd's tape or any kind of music played in a car.

Then i will accept banning Cell phones

Sombody someplace created a new bandwagon to pass some stupid  law that has no impact on safety what so ever...

http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Research show this or that but guess what people the true facts show something very different. 

Since we are speaking somewhat in the context of lost liberties, would you like fries with that?

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

Since we are speaking somewhat in the context of lost liberties, would you like fries with that?

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

that be funny:D

The bad thing is it comes from the ACLU which is one of those groups actually hurting civil liberties more than preserving them.  Has any one taken a look at insurance cost lately??

The problem with the ACLU is they use the courts to make laws.
Remember is all this information is already collected and stored and allot of people have access to it in limited manner.

Look at all the Smoking bands being enacted around the world. Last time i check nobody forces anyone to go into smoke filled restaurants or bars.

zzzzz wrote:

The problem with the ACLU is they use the courts to make laws.

This is, by far, the funniest thing I've heard all day.

How, exactly, do you expect them to get the laws changed?

zzzzz wrote:

Look at all the Smoking bands being enacted around the world. Last time i check nobody forces anyone to go into smoke filled restaurants or bars.

How true.  Smoking bans are annoying. 

zzzzz wrote:

Cell phones do account for Car accidents but its not number one and not even close, its number 6th on causes...

Rubernecking is the biggest cause of accidents. 

Gimme some links. I wanna see this "list" of causes, and I want to see its references, sources, and all the accumulated data that supports this list.

zzzzz wrote:

Research show this or that but guess what people the true facts show something very different. 

I'm not sure what 'Research' you're talking about, but in my world, research is data collected from true facts - thus making them one and the same.

dzCepheus wrote:

Gimme some links. I wanna see this "list" of causes, and I want to see its references, sources, and all the accumulated data that supports this list.

I did, go see an eye doctor

and one is the US DOT

ScanIAm wrote:

zzzzz wrote: The problem with the ACLU is they use the courts to make laws.

This is, by far, the funniest thing I've heard all day.

How, exactly, do you expect them to get the laws changed?
 

I thought  that is how a democracy/republic works.  To write/change laws one is to use our elected officials.  If one uses the courts its not really open for debate but at the whims of a judge or panel of judges.   Court rooms  are not places for debates on public manners but decide how the law is or is not violated.  a Prime Examples are the Slavery issue a hundred 150 years ago and todays, Roe v Wade.  In both cases the Courts made decisions that have no bases what so ever in law but at the whims of judges. 

To clarify congress's hot topic  during the last to Supreme Court Appointments  was/is Roe v Wade.  both times Congress asked if Roe v Wade is settle law in both cases the new judges danced around the subject because the courts don't settle law on public maters because it can be overturned by the court at a later date.  Example Capital Punishment:  The Supreme Court has taken away and returned that right to the states.

For it to be settled law Congress or the States need to decide this issue as you can see States are now passing with little fuss limiting Abortion.  now if it was settle law this could not be done.  If another  Republican President is elected to office and another conservative judge is appointed Roe v Wade will be overturned.  Which puts it right back into the labs of Congress or the states decide the matter which is where it should have been done 40 years ago

To use courts in the manner ACLU does is nothing more than bully tactics.  They show up in some off in the middle of no where place find one person who has an ax to grind and file suit. This destroys any notion of public discourse and trying to find resolution that is pliable to both sides.  Instead the courts make decision at the expense of other people rights.  What about the rights of Christians to public display their worship.  The ACLU has all but destroyed that one.  At that point it ties the hands of local officials and even state officials, and sense Congress is to act in the interest of entire nation it should not be bothered with such trivial matters as where one can or can not display the Ten Commandments.

Judges and ACLU are dictating law.   If you don't like a law allow the legislators to be heard in a open and debatable forum.

The Courts have become far to powerful in the last 50 years.