user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
you can read the whole article at timesonline dot co dot uk
Voted : this is bad
Too much security.
Voted : this is bad
Granted, you can't expect a measure of privacy once you decide to walk out your front door and have a converstaion anywhere in the world, but the thought of people actively *trying* to eavesdrop...from now on, all of my phone sex will have to be done indoors. The thrill I get from talking dirty in the food court at the mall will justhave to suffer...
i'm telling you man, every where you look governments are totally invading our privacy. sometimes i get the feeling they're implementing some grand plan step by step and just testing it all out in phases. worries me.
Voted : this is bad
Oh brother, you have too be kidding...Unbelieveable.
prison planet . com Visit: einswine . org dahrjamail iraq . com and Look at Image Galleries 3 and 4 (Graphic Shocking Photos) If this is not oppression, then what is???
Voted : this is bad
Man, if this were happening here it would be proof that bush is hitler and the US is a totalitarian regime. Fortunately britain seems to be able to get away with far worse abuses of power than we'd ever dream of without recieving the same level of criticism.
I have some agressive tones for them.
Did anyone actually read the article. I'd like to think that being safe on the streets was a benefit to everyone. They are not recording everything you say but monitoring certain vocal characteristics to pre-empt violent incidents and stop them early. "The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that a full public debate over the microphones’ impact on privacy will be needed before they can be introduced." So, actually bringing the issue to the public is violation of rights now is it? Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually bother to think about anything ever at all.
Widehead: so public safety is the primary concern, not individual rights? What if it could be proven that monitoring calls could prevent some acts of violence, would you support bush implementing a program to monitor all telephone calls?
Its not comparable though, Herzog. The software here is designed to look for specific characteristic of speech in order to detect possible violence. The technology you mention is not feasible at present. I think we have 'crossed swords' over the issue of CCTV cameras on the streets of the UK before. This is just a pure enhancement to that system. Looking for signs of violence is not recording or even monitoring exactly what people say. Surely you can see the difference?
I don't like the idea of this at all.
Widehead: are you certain that once this system is in place they will stop there? Would you stake your freedom on it?
Let's say the government decides to route all cellphone calls through a central agency that claims it will only monitor for certain words and use these to arrest violent criminals. Would you be at all suspicious of them? Would you be certain no one is recording these conversations or using them for anything other than their intended purposes? Could you be certain that even if they were behaving now that they would always do so? If governments weren't prone to abusing their powers we'd have no need for any constitution, seperation of powers, or other limits on the governments ability to do as it pleases. But of course we all know that this is not the case.
I can't be certain that someone isn't listening in to my calls right now. I can't be certain that someone isn't recording everything I search for on the internet or looking into my email account. I would say that it does seem to have a major flaw. It is a titanic waste of resources to monitor our communications in such a way. What percentage of monitored/recorded communication would yield criminal activity. Not much I'd wager. The enhancement of CCTV cameras is not comparable. It is for the benefit of the citizens - a benefit that will probably not be implemented for all the wrong reasons. Whining about a loss of civil liberties is both misjudged and misplaced.
|
|