Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Oxford cabs to spy on public

  1. #1
    Administrator Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Living in a Dictatorship, and finding little difference to a democracy.
    Posts
    2,319

    Exclamation Oxford cabs to spy on public

    In another obscene infringement of our right to privacy, Oxford council has approved the recording of both video and audio in all Oxford Cabs by 2015. Regardless of whether you are a criminal or not, you will be spied upon.

    I'm almost lost for words, blatant infringements of our privacy are occurring on an almost daily basis. I imagine the sheep out there will once again swallow the line "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide. Not even in the dictatorship I now live in do we suffer such an attack on our rights to privacy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-15720998
    Admin Will - Think for yourself, it hasn't been banned, yet.
    "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Contact me.

  2. #2

    Default

    What level of privacy is lost in a taxi where the driver can see and hear the passengers anyway? Do you object to CCTV in shops too? Have you even considered the very real safety issues the CCTV is being introduced for?

  3. #3
    Administrator Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Living in a Dictatorship, and finding little difference to a democracy.
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    What level of privacy is lost in a taxi where the driver can see and hear the passengers anyway? Do you object to CCTV in shops too? Have you even considered the very real safety issues the CCTV is being introduced for?
    Did you read it? It's not just CCTV, they are going to RECORD your conversations too and STORE them for a month! In other words innocent people's conversations can be recorded, and can then be monitored by police on any whim in which they decide you might be doing something suspicious.

    Did you consider why we have laws? It's to protect our rights to freedom and liberty, you can't have those things without privacy. Are you seriously saying you don't have any problem with someone monitoring your private conversations? I am lost for words, I assume you'd also have no problem with having CCTV and microphones placed in your own home? Or be forced to wear an electronic tag which records your every movement. Clearly you wouldn't have any problem with your emails being read, your every transaction monitored and all you internet activity monitored too?

    I can only repeat the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    Admin Will - Think for yourself, it hasn't been banned, yet.
    "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Contact me.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Did you read it?
    Yes I did and I wasn't looking through a red mist of righteous anger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    It's not just CCTV, they are going to RECORD your conversations too and STORE them for a month! In other words innocent people's conversations can be recorded, and can then be monitored by police on any whim in which they decide you might be doing something suspicious.
    Where does it say "on any whim"? Where does it say anything about the process for the police to be able to view the recording? Do you actually know how this would be used or are you just jumping to the worst possible assumptions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Did you consider why we have laws? It's to protect our rights to freedom and liberty, you can't have those things without privacy. Are you seriously saying you don't have any problem with someone monitoring your private conversations?
    As I suggested, I've never considered conversations in a taxi to be entirely private anyway. I don't see (and you've not answered) why this would be morally any different to having CCTV in shops or for that matter on buses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    I am lost for words, I assume you'd also have no problem with having CCTV and microphones placed in your own home? Or be forced to wear an electronic tag which records your every movement. Clearly you wouldn't have any problem with your emails being read, your every transaction monitored and all you internet activity monitored too?
    You are free to make whatever passively aggressive assumptions about me you like (you're wrong of course). None of it make the blindest bit of difference to the fundamental facts about this plan or your knee-jerk reaction to them.

    So, how about taking a deep breath, calming down and actually addressing the facts rather than the rhetoric? Do you consider taxis fundamentally different to shops or buses or are you arguing for CCTV to be banned in them all? Have you given any consideration to the reasons the introduction in taxis has been put forwards?

  5. #5
    Administrator Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Living in a Dictatorship, and finding little difference to a democracy.
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    Yes I did and I wasn't looking through a red mist of righteous anger.
    So I guess you just chose to be ignorant of the difference between CCTV cameras which don't record audio and these taxi cabs that do.

    Where does it say "on any whim"? Where does it say anything about the process for the police to be able to view the recording? Do you actually know how this would be used or are you just jumping to the worst possible assumptions?
    Oh dear, you going to split hairs over a phrase, how tiresome. OK, let me rephrase, police can decide to listen to your private conversations if they decide they have probable cause, in the same way they can search you because of "The way you're behaving." The police have asked in the recent past if they can stop and search without any cause at all, using the terrorism act. So, I'm not jumping to assumptions as you so glibly put it, I'm seriously concerned about how our rights are being whored away in the name of safety. There's no reason to think the rules would be any different for recording our conversations in a taxi, what is even worse they will probably be able to monitor our conversations without us even being made aware.
    As I suggested, I've never considered conversations in a taxi to be entirely private anyway. I don't see (and you've not answered) why this would be morally any different to having CCTV in shops or for that matter on buses.
    So because you don't consider your conversations in a taxi to be private, everyone else should accept that their conversations aren't private too? In every taxi Ive been in in a large city, there is usually a protective barrier between the passengers and the driver anyway, I can't see how there would be any problem keeping my conversation private from them if I needed. As for your question, you still show no indication that you've grasped the fact that these taxis will record your conversations as well as your actions. CCTV cameras for your information generally don't do this, and that should answer your question. I'll clarify in fact to save you asking, you can learn a lot more about someone by listening to their conversations, rather than just seeing them on video without audio.

    Now let me ask you a question. Assuming that you are still adamant that there is no difference between a taxi driver listening to your conversation and it being recorded, why exactly do you feel we need to have our conversations recorded? Isn't it just a waste of money when we could simply ask the taxi driver?

    You are free to make whatever passively aggressive assumptions about me you like (you're wrong of course). None of it make the blindest bit of difference to the fundamental facts about this plan or your knee-jerk reaction to them.
    Wrong about what? I asked you some questions, rather than getting defensive perhaps you should answer them. What fundamental facts would these be then? I'd like to know baring in mind you seem unable to discriminate between visual and audio information.

    So, how about taking a deep breath, calming down and actually addressing the facts rather than the rhetoric? Do you consider taxis fundamentally different to shops or buses or are you arguing for CCTV to be banned in them all? Have you given any consideration to the reasons the introduction in taxis has been put forwards?
    Again, you seem to believe that shops already record our conversations. I'm afraid this is largely not the case. As far as CCTV goes, I am against it but accept that it is a necessary evil, but I do believe there is a line between when it is a matter of security and a where it is an unbridled invasion of our privacy. Why is it necessary to have my private conversations recorded when I am guilty of no crime?

    It's the same old argument, they're there to protect us. It's the same argument that is used every time another one of our rights are infringed. The same argument that is used for ID cards, for tracking our internet usage, tracking our mobile locations, sabotaging our communications, storing our emails, hacking our home computers, storing our text messages. Always they are infringing more and more on our privacy, and it's always done with the blessing of people like yourself who can see no problem with it despite the fact that history has shown us that the authorities are laced with corrupt and incompetent people, and that power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    This argument that it's for our own good will be used until the day when we have no privacy at all, when every bit of information about us will be stored on file, no matter how private. I have given plenty of consideration as to WHY it is being done, perhaps you should do the same. I for one will never put so much blind faith in any authority.
    Admin Will - Think for yourself, it hasn't been banned, yet.
    "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Contact me.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    So I guess you just chose to be ignorant of the difference between CCTV cameras which don't record audio and these taxi cabs that do.
    A rational argument could certainly be made against the audio aspect, indeed could be made against the whole thing. You've made no attempt at a rational argument though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Oh dear, you going to split hairs over a phrase, how tiresome.
    It not splitting hairs, you were simply wrong. If you're going to object to this, you have a moral responsibility to do it honestly, not with rhetocial exageration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    There's no reason to think the rules would be any different for recording our conversations in a taxi, what is even worse they will probably be able to monitor our conversations without us even being made aware.
    There is every reason to actually find out rather than convineitently assume in favour of your objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    So because you don't consider your conversations in a taxi to be private, everyone else should accept that their conversations aren't private too?
    Not at all. I'm trying to calmly and fairly explain my personal perception of the situation so that we can have an inteligent discussion about it. You're the one who appears to have made definitive, unquestionable conclusions about the nature of the privacy and the "obscene infringement" of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Isn't it just a waste of money when we could simply ask the taxi driver?
    What if the driver is the one under suspicion? What if the driver is dead? What if it's a "he said, she said" between the driver and passenger? The whole point of CCTV in general is that it is an unbiased witness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    It's the same old argument, they're there to protect us. It's the same argument that is used every time another one of our rights are infringed. The same argument that is used for ID cards, for tracking our internet usage, tracking our mobile locations, sabotaging our communications, storing our emails, hacking our home computers, storing our text messages.
    Is this automatically an invalid argument in every case? What about for the police having a right of arrest, warranted searches, imprisonment, the very existence of the police at all? It's the same basic argument.

    That argument certain can't be used justify absolutely any action by the police or state as a whole but neither can it be used to automatically condemn any either. Each power or action needs to be understood and balanced between freedom and protection on it's individual merits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Always they are infringing more and more on our privacy, and it's always done with the blessing of people like yourself who can see no problem with it despite the fact that history has shown us that the authorities are laced with corrupt and incompetent people, and that power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    When did I say there is no problem? The world is imperfect and pretty much every decision comes with problems. Having CCTV in taxi's creates problems, not having CCTV in taxi's creates problems. I'm not pretending they can all be solved, I'm trying to understand them all to make a rational "least worst" choice. Get past the anger and rhetoric and you could convince me that the least worst choice in this case is not to have the cameras.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    I for one will never put so much blind faith in any authority.
    Me neither Mr Administrator.

  7. #7
    Administrator Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Living in a Dictatorship, and finding little difference to a democracy.
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    A rational argument could certainly be made against the audio aspect, indeed could be made against the whole thing. You've made no attempt at a rational argument though.
    Only in your opinion. I can see how not wanting my conversations recorded may seem irrational to you, but many people who don't want to whore their privacy off under the illusion of security, don't want it either.
    It not splitting hairs, you were simply wrong. If you're going to object to this, you have a moral responsibility to do it honestly, not with rhetocial exageration.
    I'm wrong because you say so? That's your idea of a rational argument is it?
    There is every reason to actually find out rather than conveniently assume in favor of your objection.
    The law is already there, I don't need to assume anything. You seem under the mis-guided assumption that a new law is going to be invented to allow our conversations to be recorded. I can tell you now it isn't. They are going to use the same law that they use for "Tracking our internet usage, tracking our mobile locations, sabotaging our communications, storing our emails, hacking our home computers, storing our text messages, etc."

    Not at all. I'm trying to calmly and fairly explain my personal perception of the situation so that we can have an intelligent discussion about it. You're the one who appears to have made definitive, unquestionable conclusions about the nature of the privacy and the "obscene infringement" of it.
    Really, I haven't seen your justify the recording of people's private conversations at all yet?

    What if the driver is the one under suspicion? What if the driver is dead? What if it's a "he said, she said" between the driver and passenger? The whole point of CCTV in general is that it is an unbiased witness.
    The driver is under suspicion, the passengers are under suspicion. That is now the attitude, everyone is guilty and needs to be spied on to prove they are innocent. This is a particularly ridiculous argument, if a driver was under suspicion, do you really think they would bring in a blanket law forcing all drivers to be recorded both by video and audio and tell them about it? Get real, seriously. If the driver was dead, most likely someone had killed him, and unless they're particularly stupid, they are unlikely to do it in full view of a camera and microphone.

    Is this automatically an invalid argument in every case? What about for the police having a right of arrest, warranted searches, imprisonment, the very existence of the police at all? It's the same basic argument.
    Not by any means, it becomes invalid the second you start presuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and infringe on people's right to privacy in the name of security.

    That argument certain can't be used justify absolutely any action by the police or state as a whole but neither can it be used to automatically condemn any either. Each power or action needs to be understood and balanced between freedom and protection on it's individual merits.
    I don't automatically condemn everything, forget about trying to put words in my mouth and making assumption about my stance on everything, it only makes your argument look weaker.

    When did I say there is no problem? The world is imperfect and pretty much every decision comes with problems. Having CCTV in taxi's creates problems, not having CCTV in taxi's creates problems. I'm not pretending they can all be solved, I'm trying to understand them all to make a rational "least worst" choice. Get past the anger and rhetoric and you could convince me that the least worst choice in this case is not to have the cameras.
    I'm not trying to convince everyone, I'm simply pointing out the problem with people's unquestioning complacency every time a new infringement of our rights are introduced. Not only do we get no say, most drones actually think it's a good thing.

    Me neither Mr Administrator.
    Could have fooled me.
    Admin Will - Think for yourself, it hasn't been banned, yet.
    "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Contact me.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Only in your opinion. I can see how not wanting my conversations recorded may seem irrational to you, but many people who don't want to whore their privacy off under the illusion of security, don't want it either.
    I don't want my conversations recorded. I don't want my actions recorded. I don't want to have to prove my identity to travel abroad. I don't want my bags searched to get on a plane. I accept these things in some circumstances though and so do you. This isn't about the principal of recording conversations being fundamentally wrong, it's about the balance between privacy and safety. I'm honestly unsure about the balance here which is why I'm trying to get you to explain your reasoning for apparently being so unshakably certain which way the balance swings. You appear to be unwilling or unable to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    The law is already there, I don't need to assume anything. You seem under the mis-guided assumption that a new law is going to be invented to allow our conversations to be recorded. I can tell you now it isn't. They are going to use the same law that they use for "Tracking our internet usage, tracking our mobile locations, sabotaging our communications, storing our emails, hacking our home computers, storing our text messages, etc."
    It's clearly not the same laws of regulations as all those things are done in completely different ways to CCTV in a taxi. You could always admit that you don't actually know the details, having reacted to the media report (and your preconceived bias) alone. You could even look in to it - you might even find actual arguments against the plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Really, I haven't seen your justify the recording of people's private conversations at all yet?
    That's because I'm not trying to.

  9. #9
    Administrator Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Living in a Dictatorship, and finding little difference to a democracy.
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    I don't want my conversations recorded. I don't want my actions recorded. I don't want to have to prove my identity to travel abroad. I don't want my bags searched to get on a plane. I accept these things in some circumstances though and so do you. This isn't about the principal of recording conversations being fundamentally wrong, it's about the balance between privacy and safety. I'm honestly unsure about the balance here which is why I'm trying to get you to explain your reasoning for apparently being so unshakably certain which way the balance swings. You appear to be unwilling or unable to do that.
    Of course there's a balance, that is obvious. However recording the private conversations of people who have committed no crime is a step way too far. By accepting such an infringement, we are giving the green light to have microphones placed in every public place. You never see things go in the opposite direction, you never see legislation go in the opposite direction to allow us MORE privacy. Every time we give up a right, it is gone for good and they will only take more away if we allow them to. There's no hidden logic to it, innocent people should not be spied on, it's as simple as that.

    It's clearly not the same laws of regulations as all those things are done in completely different ways to CCTV in a taxi. You could always admit that you don't actually know the details, having reacted to the media report (and your preconceived bias) alone. You could even look in to it - you might even find actual arguments against the plan.
    What exactly am I supposed to be looking for? Again, NO NEW LAWS HAVE BEEN CREATED! Asking me to look for something which isn't there does nothing to bring value to your argument.
    That's because I'm not trying to.
    Or more likely, because you can't. Which is exactly the point.
    Last edited by Will; 12-07-2011 at 09:07 PM.
    Admin Will - Think for yourself, it hasn't been banned, yet.
    "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Contact me.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    I've enjoyed following this little tirade. But the only question I have over this is, will the taxi owner be paid to record conversations? Or are they merely going to be lackeys for a over-policed State? If the former, then wouldn't that make them spies? Like the article says, the police will only view footage related to criminal activity. Surely it's patently obvious this is another case of the innocent proving their innocence rather than the guilty being proved guilty.

    Anyhow, in my dubious youth we would be wholly reliant on taxi-drivers to transport us to obtain our illicit goods. Wouldn't this either constitute complicity, or entrapment? Besides which I'm fairly certain an off-hand conversation, such as a conversation in a cafe or a pub cannot be entered as evidence. I think the wholescale recording of conversations is an infringement too far. Look at how CCTV material is entering into public life, such as car-crashes, office staff acting incorrectly, and famous people having sex or taking drugs. And this is only the stuff we are permitted to witness.
    Last edited by eatmywords; 12-09-2011 at 12:58 PM.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •