Guilty by CCTV until proven innocent
Thanks to the White Rose blog for bringing this Daily Telegraph article by author Alexandra Campbell, about the stress of having to prove her innocence when accused of a theft , based on CCTV "evidence".
If she had not been friends with a solicitor, and did not have witnesses who could prove that she could not have been the person allegedly identified by a private CCTV system, she could easily have been convicted of a crime she did not commit.
The voluntary procedures which were supposed to govern the use of the private CCTV system which was used as "evidence" in the allegation were flouted, but this only highlights the fact that there are no enforcable legal regulations which govern such CCTV surveillance systems in the UK.
Her fingerprints and arrest details remain on the police files, despite the police dropping the charges. Having to go to the vast expense and disruption of going to court to prove one's innocence is an injustice in itself.
The police force's interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 and its policy on Data Retention of fingerprints also needs to be questioned in the light of the Bichard Inquiry into the handling of "soft" and " hard" criminal intelligence records following the notorious Soham murders case. Is this Data Retention policy consistent throughout every police force in the country - almost certainly not.
Comments
Without the risk of starting a conspiracy theory, I think that phones have been monitored for some years now.
Just think about it for a second... the government backed the internet and mobile phone companies.
Why would they see these as acceptable professional and recreational tools if nothing like this has been used before? Sure, they do make life easier, but with all innovations there are negative consequences, such as with the motor car there is pollution and congestion, accidents and theft. But when this was seen to be popular, then came the DVLA, a government initiative to register anyone with (or can operate) a car.
With the internet you get faceless criminals taking your money without your knowledge, at least when they mug you then you know it's happening and stand a chance of doing something about it! What about peodophiles who talk to your 14 year old daughter in chatrooms while they are in the same room as you, convincing them to run away with 16 year old shelly who turns out to be a 38 year old divorced office worker and recluse called Dave!!! how can that be a good thing?
I suppose the most common form of registration would be your NI (National Insurance) number. This has no relevance to your everyday life, except to correspond with the government. Anyone who is old enough to be taken seriously has one. Now that ID cards are being introduced in the UK it won't be long before privacy becomes a thing of the past.
Sure, freedom of speech as long as you have no original thoughts! If you think about it government runs the same way the mafia do. They take peoples money whether they like it or not and if you refuse you are arrested and imprisoned or are fined!!! With the underworld, if you own a shop, a gang would ask you for protection money. If you didn't pay they would take it anyway. If you owed a gang money they wouldn't imprison you, they would just beat you to within an inch of your life!!
The only difference between governments and gangs is that the government are more established! Think of it like this, there are 2 criminal outfits on an island with no government and a population of 10,000 people. The island is controlled by gang 1. If gang 2 started pushing its goods on the island without gang 1's permission, then gang 1 would punish gang 2. Its the same where ever you go in the world. Gang 1 is the established government and its followers and is known as the "legals", and gang 2 (known as the "criminals" is everyone else.
In closing, the mobile phone and internet monitoring is just another way of controlling the lives and thoughts of every "free" citizen. ID cards are just the "legal" gangs proof of membership. Don't get me wrong, we DO need some kind of government, but not at the cost of privacy and individuality.
If you have any thoughts or comments about this issue then please do not hesitate to contact me at: dan_fenwick@hotmail.com
Posted by: Dan Fenwick | June 5, 2004 2:28 PM
with reference to the above comment, if parts of the text appear unreadable, use your mouse to select all the text and it should appear,
Thanx for your time
Dan
Posted by: Dan Fenwick | June 5, 2004 2:33 PM
with reference to the comment below, if parts of the text appear unreadable, use your mouse to select all the text and it should appear,
Thanx for your time
Dan
Posted by: Dan Fenwick | June 5, 2004 2:33 PM
Just like Max Weber said: "we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." - http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xweb.htm
The question is - how far do we let the state go in monopolising violence (against the body or soul)?
Posted by: dunxd | June 7, 2004 11:35 PM