UK Wants Surveillance Cameras To Watch 20,000 Worst Families?
from the yikes dept
Slashdot points us to a story that sounds like it has to be a joke/satire, concerning a plan by the UK's Children's Secretary, Ed Balls, to spend £400 million to put 20,000 families (the worst families) under constant surveillance including 24-hour CCTV cameras in their homes, and private security guards checking on them from time to time. The cameras will supposedly be used to make sure kids go to bed on time and eat proper meals. Even in the UK, where surveillance cameras are even more popular than in the US, this seems quite extreme. Balls apparently explained:"This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support."I'm hopeful that someone in the UK can let us know if this is somehow an exaggeration of what's going on or if this is accurate, because it honestly seems difficult to believe.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cctv, ed balls, families, surveillance, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Orwell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unbelievable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just kick them out of the country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Support"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Support"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Support"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Support"
Also they should be monitoring all military and police families too then? These people are 100% supported by the government. What about companies who receive the lions share of their income from governments (either directly or once removed) like Halliburton or General Dynamics . . . using the posters "government support" logic, employees of these companies should be susceptible to government surveillance at least 80% of their lives (in proportion to the amount of their income that comes directly from Taxpayers), or what about industries that receive large government subsidies, again directly like ADM or indirectly like ExxonMobil . . . should employees of these companies also be trading their liberties in proportion to the amount of subsidy that their employer receives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Support"
As for companies, the difference comes up again.. difference between government contracted companies and welfare... and the analogy still applies: the government has taken a very invasive role in the operation of companies that received bailouts, and the personal lives some of their employees.
If you want more government welfare and "support", then things like this will follow. Hopefully not as extreme, but then again, hopefully the extent of personal "support" in the US doesn't reach that of the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Support"
Also they should be monitoring all military and police families too then? These people are 100% supported by the government. What about companies who receive the lions share of their income from governments (either directly or once removed) like Halliburton or General Dynamics . . . using the posters "government support" logic, employees of these companies should be susceptible to government surveillance at least 80% of their lives (in proportion to the amount of their income that comes directly from Taxpayers), or what about industries that receive large government subsidies, again directly like ADM or indirectly like ExxonMobil . . . should employees of these companies also be trading their liberties in proportion to the amount of subsidy that their employer receives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Support"
People accepting gov't provided fire and police protection should also be monitored. After all, the gov't needs to make sure that such people aren't doing things (such as risky behaviors) in their homes that might raise the cost of providing those services.
Why are people that point this out labeled as crazy?
I dunno, makes perfect sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintended consequences...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unintended consequences...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unintended consequences...
Nah, gov't agents are usually exempt. I don't know about the UK, but in the US the Congress even exempted itself from child porn possession laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's put cameras in the homes of these politicians
And air the highlights of those videos during prime time on television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then the 200,000 worst.
Then 2,000,000 worst.
Then everyone - just in case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't be too careful.
Think of the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great
Such buffoons surely cost the state more than these families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great
Such buffoons surely cost the state more than these families.
Good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm why do you keep parroting tabloids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm why do you keep parroting tabloids?
The original idea didn't die at that point, far from it. The new regulation will be gradually modified to come closer to the original idea and probably even exceed it without much outrage, because it is much easier to modify an existing regulation with hidden legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ummm why do you keep parroting tabloids?
Interesting theory - and I suspect that's quite correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ummm why do you keep parroting tabloids?
The new idea might be to only use this on the 2,000 worst families instead. See how much more reasonable that is than the original 20,000? Why, it's only a tenth! Jolly good, let's pass it then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought voyeur was a French word...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Balls
Yeah, I giggled at the guy's name too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proud Britons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, a few sweet words was all that was necessary to persuade the freedom-loving individualists of this country that if an Illinois/Cook County politician is corrupt it doesn't mean the next is a liar. And if the next is a liar, it doesn't mean the NEXT is a liar. And if the third IS a liar (and so on through 999)...it doesn't mean the thousandth (Obama) is a regular say-anything-to-get-elected, do-anything-to-stay-in-power politician.
I'm not saying Obama is better or worse than any other politico, but the gullibility of his supporters surely rivals anything we've see in England.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
USA: Holy fucking shit, we've been attacked! Who knew something like this could happen (besides the people associated with the CIA shortselling United and American Airlines stock the week before)? Bin Laden says he did it. Let's get in Afgahnistan and get that fucker!
World: That sucks that you got attacked. Afgahnistan can't house terrorists. Get in there and get 'em. Hell we'll even help!
USA: Okay, well we didn't find Bin Laden. This country is really hard to crack.
World: Yeah, well we kinda told you that would happen. But c'mon, they're housing terrorists. Get in there and get him.
USA: Yeah, we hear you. That's why we're going into Iraq.
World: Ye-wait, what? Iraq? What do they have to do with anything?
USA: They have weapons of mass distruction!
World: Uh, no they don't. Plus that wasn't the point of this whole thing, you were going after Bin Laden. Remember that 9/11 thing?
USA: They helped plan 9/11!
World: [forehead slap]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
USA: Yeah, we hear you. That's why we're going into Iraq.
World: Ye-wait, what? Iraq? What do they have to do with anything?
USA: They have weapons of mass destruction!
World: Really?
USA: Really! We have proof!
World: Oh, great. Let's see it, then.
USA: Nah, I don't think so. But trust us, it's really really good proof.
World: Uh..... is this guy for real?
Nicely done though!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
American's didn't attack the wrong country, the administration did. We are part of the victims, not the victimizers. A culture of fear was cultivated by the administration allowing them to do anything they wanted to keep us "safe" with little resistance from the general populace, while people that did dissent we're deemed terrorists by our own country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's the thing about a democracy or republic. The people DO become responsible for the official actions of their elected representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We live in a democracy (a representative democracy anyway), the Bush Administration got a second term even after blatantly misleading the citizenry (even using known to be false information) and cause the needless death of thousands of American soldiers (a treasonous crime the top members of that administration should rightfully be executed for). I don’t think we as Americans get to claim "innocence" when our elected representatives do horrible things, especially when we are told (the Iraq war was no secret). Also, when we reelect the perpetrators after the crimes, then it gets even harder to claim "ignorance". The German people were responsible for Hitler and his actions, and we Americans are responsible for Bush and the actions of his administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20,000 of the worst families, then every house in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really a new idea -- already considered in U.S.
Houston Police Chief Wants Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really a new idea -- already considered in U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the lights must now be left on (for the cameras).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another sound bite to sound tough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am utterly disgusted by the way that the Labour government (socialist, in government since 1997) has cynically used the "lobster" approach (turn up the heat slowly and it will not realise it's being boiled alive) to erode liberty in the country.
While there is truth in the notion that ideas are first punted in an extreme form before being scaled back slightly and implemented with the population breathing a sigh of relief, the simple fact is that this government is so obsessed with intervening in people's lives at levels which should never be accepted and have a disgraceful faith in social engineering.
The usual ploys are to claim a campaign against criminals and terrorists, those two modern bêtes noires. But this really is an incredible proposal even for Labour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What he said ^^^
Something has gone terribly wrong in Britain in the last ten years. Someone mentioned 9/11 above - I think that's at the root of it. As Tony Blair said on October 2nd, 2001,
"The kaliedoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon, they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3750847.stm)
And boy, did he ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're No 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The stupid, it HURRTS!
In the last ten years, there have been nearly 1000 offences added to the roll of criminal activity.
CCTV is now more used than the police force.
Pen-pushers get to decide if you're worthy enough to qualify for anything.
The Welfare state costs £100bn pa.
And we still do a Balls-up better than you Yanks. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Techdirt??
I dislike the ideas that were expressed in the original article. What I dislike more is the fact that instead of having a discussion about those ideas, the comments have degenerated into a forum dedicated to the bashing of governments and administrations that are no longer in power.
Before someone responds that I must be a sympathizer of those previous governments and administrations, I would want you to know that I do not support the erosion of personal liberties for the purpose of a perceived safety. Nor do I support the use of military force as the optimal means of achieving resolution to the issues between nations.
In the end, those of you that think the governments of Europe are doing so much better than the US might want to consider looking a bit deeper into the costs associated with their way of life. The reality is that governments by nature will seek to take from you as much as you are willing to give up to them. That includes your money, your freedom, your privacy and possibly your life.
Draw your lines in the sand and then stand up to defend it, lest the government wash away your line and draw a new one for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Techdirt??
What I dislike is people trying to control what other people talk about. Yah, some people just hate for history to examined, especially if it results in criticism of Nazi Germany and others. Well, tough. We'll talk about history if we want to. (And it isn't degenerate either.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments dont kill people - People kill people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this CCTV story is a total fabrication
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we offer the Louis Vuitton Replica handbags with great Imitation and leather and the acceptable price, a[url=http://www.byreplica.com]louis vuitton[/url] Replica designer handbags will attract your neighbours’ admiration in their eyes,louis vuittonand it high quality can be guaranteed. Here you will find[url=http://www.byreplica.com]replica handbags[/url] luxury items are no longer something you ever hesitate going for. To surprised, we always provide Designer Handbags that is perfectly imitated and the vogue is elegant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]