Posted on 09/07/2008 12:59:31 PM PDT by null and void
Councils are using anti-terrorism laws to spy on residents and tackle barking dogs and noisy children.
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph found that three quarters of local authorities have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 over the past year.
The Act gives councils the right to place residents and businesses under surveillance, trace telephone and email accounts and even send staff on undercover missions.
The findings alarmed civil liberties campaigners. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: "Councils do a grave disservice to professional policing by using serious surveillance against litterbugs instead of terrorists."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
ping
Surprise?
Britain really sounds like a terrible place to live these days.
I know you are going to try and draw parrallels between this and that scheme encouraging people to report on vandalism etc, so why do you think they’re the same?
In both cases it is the use of the full force of government power over relatively minor problems to the detriment of addressing major issues.
I pinged you because I thought you would be interested in another example of the British government being more concerned with noisy children than terrorism.
My fervent hope is that at some point you begin to think that an all powerful and unquestionable government is not your personal friend.
By-the-way, it isn’t reporting vandalism that I object to so much as providing financial incentive to lie about one’s neighbors.
“In both cases it is the use of the full force of government power over relatively minor problems to the detriment of addressing major issues.
I pinged you because I thought you would be interested in another example of the British government being more concerned with noisy children than terrorism.
My fervent hope is that at some point you begin to think that an all powerful and unquestionable government is not your personal friend.”
Er, I don’t see the gov’t as my ‘personal friend’, this is a dangerous extension of police powers, the other matter is just encouraging citizens to help police their own community.
“By-the-way, it isn’t reporting vandalism that I object to so much as providing financial incentive to lie about one’s neighbors.”
Well, I assume it will require something like, I don’t know, evidence rather than heresay. If the accusation is unfounded, it will be ignored, or if persued it can be challenged in a court of law, and if the evidence is flimsy, it will be thrown out.
"Quick!--they're after you! The Kaitempi!"
"I've done nothing. I..."
"How long will it take to convince them of that? Run, you fool!"
(a little jewel for any Eric Frank Russell fans)...
Are we disappearing back into that fantasy land were Britain is a totalitarian nightmare state that far exceeds the worst excesses of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union? I know that under Zanu-Labour’s governance Britain hasn’t exactly been a shining beacon of liberty compared to 20 years ago, but even now things like evidence are still required in a court of law in order for a conviction to be made....
It will be the job of John McCain to figure out how to reform the Patriot Act and related legislation.
Nothing too dramatic, just figure out what works, what doesn’t, what is economical and what is cost prohibitive. For example, lots of the loosened restrictions on warrant-less search, wire tapping, etc., while greatly desired by police agencies and spy organizations, have little use against terrorism, and have solely been used against US citizens for totally unrelated reasons.
That is, they may want them, but the constitution doesn’t permit them, so “Tough, guys, but you have to go back to playing by the rules, even if it is harder.”
This will not be hard to do, because a statistical analysis of how the new laws were applied, and how effective they are, will point out the obvious.
At the same time, the Patriot Act has forced America to look at the obvious: elderly blond women in wheelchairs do not need to be searched at the airport, because they do not commit terrorist acts.
However, people from Muslim countries, who carry Korans, travel in groups, act suspiciously, wear beards and turbans, loudly protest being inspected, etc., are highly suspect, EVEN if it amounts to “racial profiling”. As has been noted in Europe, racial profiling works, even if there is some philosophical objection to it.
This does not mean that every black person is a suspect. Far from it, and that nonsense should still be prohibited. But all black people are not equal. A black man who dresses in Muslim garb is just as much a reasonable suspect as is a white man in Muslim garb. The black man should get no special advantage because he is black, even if he insists that it is the color of his skin that is the problem.
In turn, this also points out that the problem is *exclusively* one of Islam, not some fantastic “generic” terrorism. It does not mean that all Muslims are guilty, but it does mean that they are reasonable to suspect by association. This is not prejudice, this is common sense.
It's all those little steps. A bit of freedom for convenience here. A bit more for safety there. A chunk of their freedom for our comfort.
A little bit of over-enthusiastic enforcement on the yobs.
A chance to pick up a few quid snitching on that annoying neighbor.
Before you know it, you are them as far as your betters are concerned.
Assuming McCain wins, of course.
And even if he does, what about the next president? Would you really want a president Hillary!™ to have that much authority???
NEVER give any government any power over you you wouldn't give your worst enemy!
That is, they may want them, but the constitution doesn’t permit them, so “Tough, guys, but you have to go back to playing by the rules, even if it is harder.”
Yes. I'm certain a guy that suspends political free speech for the month before an election will be a great respecter of constitutional limits on what he wants to do.
In turn, this also points out that the problem is *exclusively* one of Islam, not some fantastic “generic” terrorism. It does not mean that all Muslims are guilty, but it does mean that they are reasonable to suspect by association. This is not prejudice, this is common sense.
Yes. It would have made a great deal of sense after 9/11.
Now that the terrorist have spent the last 5 years recruiting "lilly whites" - a term that oddly enough doesn't reflect race, but the lack of a paper trail, no police record, travel to terror supporting countries, etc. A lilly white rap sheet devoid of any ink. - we have to make sure granny isn't smuggling weapons or God knows what.
I hate these people.
“(a little jewel for any Eric Frank Russell fans)...”
The inventor of MYOB and Tanstaafl, IIRC.
Thus, possibly, of inital slang BTW.
oops...
Tanstaafl was Heinlein.
Freedom - I Won’t
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.