![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics...did I say Jews? I meant immigrants/enemies of the state.
Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans
So a recuring theme in the comments of my last post was that "the innocent have nothing to hide" and "transperancy is your friend". How do you feel about CCTV, or vans that can see through walls?
Now I understand that there is a world of differance between Pelosi calling for an investigation of some kind, and the Feds actually looking into political speech but the mindset is similar and that troubles me.
With that in mind I'd like to share something that I read a few weeks ago.
Only People with something to hide close the blinds
Now I'm sure somebody will raise an objection to the (clearly biased) source but I still reccomend reading through it, and the embeded links. For those uninterested in reading through the frothing Libitarianism I will sum it up here.
The blog is a link to this decision by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority regarding the following radio spot.
The man at the end of the street doesn't talk to his neighbours much, because he likes to keep himself to himself. He pays with cash because he doesn't have a bank card, and he keeps his curtains closed because his house is on a bus route. This may mean nothing, but together it could all add up to you having suspicions. We all have a role to play in combating terrorism. If you see anything suspicious, call the confidential, Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0-800-XXXXXX. If you suspect it, report it".
A petition was filed a complaining about the ad on the following grounds.
1. The ad was offensive in that it cast suspiscion on otherwise law-abiding citizens.
2. The ad was harmful in that it encouraged people to harass or victimise their neighbours.
3. The ad made an undue appeal to fear.
The Metropolitan Police, defended the ad on the basis that it "Addressed the issue that terrorists lived within communities and sometimes what appeared to be an insignificant behaviour could potentially be linked to terrorist activities."
The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) stated that "the campaign's overall style and tone were restrained and that the ad comprised a legitimate call to action, made in clear circumstances and in an acceptable manner and, as such, did not play on fear without justifiable reason."
Now in the end, the ASA made(in my opinion) the right descision and had the ad pulled. However, I still think it says a lot about the state of British affairs that such an ad would even get on the air in the first place.
Personally I do not consider legality and morality to be intrinsicly linked. After all, "Victor Kugler"(the inspiration for the title of this post) had a whole lot to hide.
It is for this reason that I take such a dim view of arguments like "the innocent have nothing to hide" and, "it's for the Greater Good".
PS: Considering this and other stories that I've heard about "The Surveillance State" I'm particularly interested in hearing from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mintogrubb and our other represenatives from the UK.
Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans
So a recuring theme in the comments of my last post was that "the innocent have nothing to hide" and "transperancy is your friend". How do you feel about CCTV, or vans that can see through walls?
Now I understand that there is a world of differance between Pelosi calling for an investigation of some kind, and the Feds actually looking into political speech but the mindset is similar and that troubles me.
With that in mind I'd like to share something that I read a few weeks ago.
Only People with something to hide close the blinds
Now I'm sure somebody will raise an objection to the (clearly biased) source but I still reccomend reading through it, and the embeded links. For those uninterested in reading through the frothing Libitarianism I will sum it up here.
The blog is a link to this decision by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority regarding the following radio spot.
The man at the end of the street doesn't talk to his neighbours much, because he likes to keep himself to himself. He pays with cash because he doesn't have a bank card, and he keeps his curtains closed because his house is on a bus route. This may mean nothing, but together it could all add up to you having suspicions. We all have a role to play in combating terrorism. If you see anything suspicious, call the confidential, Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0-800-XXXXXX. If you suspect it, report it".
A petition was filed a complaining about the ad on the following grounds.
1. The ad was offensive in that it cast suspiscion on otherwise law-abiding citizens.
2. The ad was harmful in that it encouraged people to harass or victimise their neighbours.
3. The ad made an undue appeal to fear.
The Metropolitan Police, defended the ad on the basis that it "Addressed the issue that terrorists lived within communities and sometimes what appeared to be an insignificant behaviour could potentially be linked to terrorist activities."
The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) stated that "the campaign's overall style and tone were restrained and that the ad comprised a legitimate call to action, made in clear circumstances and in an acceptable manner and, as such, did not play on fear without justifiable reason."
Now in the end, the ASA made(in my opinion) the right descision and had the ad pulled. However, I still think it says a lot about the state of British affairs that such an ad would even get on the air in the first place.
Personally I do not consider legality and morality to be intrinsicly linked. After all, "Victor Kugler"(the inspiration for the title of this post) had a whole lot to hide.
It is for this reason that I take such a dim view of arguments like "the innocent have nothing to hide" and, "it's for the Greater Good".
PS: Considering this and other stories that I've heard about "The Surveillance State" I'm particularly interested in hearing from
mintogrubb and our other represenatives from the UK.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 23:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 02:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 13:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 16:11 (UTC)one of the best action-comedy movies evar
(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 00:16 (UTC)That's a joke by the way ;)
(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 02:38 (UTC)Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:21 (UTC)Invasion of individual privacy is the opposite.
Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:31 (UTC)Person A is a member/financial supporter of a prominant Gay Rights Organization but lives in a very conservative state/town and works for a very conservative company.
One could argue that in the name of institutional transparency that the Gay Rights Organization must disclose the names of its members and where it gets its money from.
Doing so may put Person A's home/job at risk. Can you honestly tell him/her that "transperancy is your friend"?
Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:41 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:51 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:54 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:55 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 25/8/10 23:57 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 26/8/10 04:40 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 26/8/10 03:27 (UTC)Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 26/8/10 04:41 (UTC)I'll try to keep it in check if you will. Deal? =]
Re: Institutional transparency is good.
Date: 26/8/10 14:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 10:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 19:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 13:25 (UTC)They might be useful at cargo terminals and border crossings, but you don't really need mobile units there.
brb, buying lots of tinfoil for my car
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 17:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 00:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 01:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 03:12 (UTC)Dang, that ad sounds like just about every avid gamer I know. :P
Walking the (criminal) walk
Date: 27/8/10 03:19 (UTC)The things mentioned are hardly evidence of any kind of wrongdoing and people are right to speak out against it.
Given the limited resources of law enforcement agencies it would be wise to have them continue to focus on monitoring the processes by which criminals attempt to put their plans in action instead trying to watch everyone and then pick out the "bad ones".