Jump to content

Infringement of human rights...or not?


Dr Bob

Featured Posts

14 hours ago, Slim said:

Some years ago an old school friend of mine who's son was 'something ' in a large police force was taken to their forces cctv control room. Said son demonstrated that by pressing a few keys he could zoom in on stations, bus stops etc etc. He did so by homing in on a person as he got off a train, followed him out of the station and some distance along a road. All without the individual concerned having a clue as to what was happening. An everyday event but creepy.

Not sure why it's creepy. No point having CCTV if it cant do that?

 

Your account seems to show that it can do exactly what it is supposed to do. Crook is identified, and followed, until he is filmed to the point where further action can be taken.

 

To do the above, the thing needs to be able to do it with all of us, and not just the crooks.

 

It will be rare that anyone of no interest will be followed more than a little, (rare, rather than never).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Not sure why it's creepy. No point having CCTV if it cant do that?

 

Your account seems to show that it can do exactly what it is supposed to do. Crook is identified, and followed, until he is filmed to the point where further action can be taken.

 

To do the above, the thing needs to be able to do it with all of us, and not just the crooks.

 

It will be rare that anyone of no interest will be followed more than a little, (rare, rather than never).

The only problem was that he was not a crook, he was an ordinary member of the public, could have been you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slim said:

The only problem was that he was not a crook, he was an ordinary member of the public, could have been you.

Exactly what is the 'problem' ?

 

You have people watching you 100's of times a day in shops, airports, petrol stations, walking up the street etc etc.

Just because they 'zoomed in' it suddenly becomes a 'problem'

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slim said:

The only problem was that he was not a crook, he was an ordinary member of the public, could have been you.

I don’t see the problem. Yes, it might have been me. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Slim said:

Some years ago an old school friend of mine who's son was 'something ' in a large police force was taken to their forces cctv control room. Said son demonstrated that by pressing a few keys he could zoom in on stations, bus stops etc etc. He did so by homing in on a person as he got off a train, followed him out of the station and some distance along a road. All without the individual concerned having a clue as to what was happening. An everyday event but creepy.

am never peeing in public, standing up, after this revelation...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Slim said:

The only problem was that he was not a crook, he was an ordinary member of the public, could have been you.

Kind of my point really..... why would I be bothered???

26 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

am never peeing in public, standing up, after this revelation...

Good idea.... I do recall a video of someone peeing in public. Probably on Facebook - cant recall whether it was a police issue or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, restlessnomad said:

am never peeing in public, standing up, after this revelation...

 

The mix tapes that CCTV ops show at the Christmas parties tend to include much more amorous adventures.   It's eyeopening (or eyewatering!) the antics of some folk leaving pubs and clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After getting a new Android phone I was a bit taken aback to be sent a report from Google showing my routes I had taken and places I had visited (or been near) in the previous month.

 It didn’t bother me particularly, but I could imagine a few divorces resulting from this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that the NHSX app is getting closer.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

 

I can see an issue with this. Someone feels ill and reports on their app that they have the virus. The App then tells me I was near them 2 days ago for long enough to be exposed so I should go into isolation for 7 (14?) days. Eeek!

What if the 'someone' just has a cold. Shirley this only works if the government test that person and find they are positive. I do hope there is a bit more scrutiny of who has it and peeps get tested?

At least it is more info than I have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I see that the NHSX app is getting closer.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

 

I can see an issue with this. Someone feels ill and reports on their app that they have the virus. The App then tells me I was near them 2 days ago for long enough to be exposed so I should go into isolation for 7 (14?) days. Eeek!

What if the 'someone' just has a cold. Shirley this only works if the government test that person and find they are positive. I do hope there is a bit more scrutiny of who has it and peeps get tested?

At least it is more info than I have now.

 

I read somewhere this morning that you would get a checksum code from NHS 111 if they decided you had the virus, and you would need to enter this into the app to trigger the alerts.

 

Can't find it now though!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dr Bob said:

I can see an issue with this. Someone feels ill and reports on their app that they have the virus. The App then tells me I was near them 2 days ago for long enough to be exposed so I should go into isolation for 7 (14?) days. Eeek!

 

Yes exactly. This is why the app needs to report to the govt who them send someone around to enforce your isolation. No-one will bother otherwise. 

 

Unless they get paid for it, or something. 

 

Testing facilities need to be in place really, to prevent the pranksters causing havoc. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes exactly. This is why the app needs to report to the govt who them send someone around to enforce your isolation. No-one will bother otherwise. 

 

Unless they get paid for it, or something. 

 

Testing facilities need to be in place really, to prevent the pranksters causing havoc. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the last sentance in the article said

 

Ross Anderson, a professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, recently wrote that “anyone who’s worked on abuse will instantly realise that a voluntary app operated by anonymous actors is wide open to trolling”.

 

You can imagine the panic that an individual could cause standing near people for 5 mins and then declaring they were ill a few days later. Testing is a must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Yes, the last sentance in the article said

 

Ross Anderson, a professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, recently wrote that “anyone who’s worked on abuse will instantly realise that a voluntary app operated by anonymous actors is wide open to trolling”.

 

You can imagine the panic that an individual could cause standing near people for 5 mins and then declaring they were ill a few days later. Testing is a must.

 

Its on the BBC News now (16:25)

 

@Mike the Boilerman

 

Apparently 'working now' and trials starting.

Lots of concerns re security.

 

Doesn't log where you actually are simply keeps a record of any blue-toothed activated phone that you pass, if you 'press the button' to say you are positive it notifies all phones that you are logged as having been close to, to get themselves 'looked at'.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Yes, the last sentance in the article said

 

Ross Anderson, a professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, recently wrote that “anyone who’s worked on abuse will instantly realise that a voluntary app operated by anonymous actors is wide open to trolling”.

 

You can imagine the panic that an individual could cause standing near people for 5 mins and then declaring they were ill a few days later. Testing is a must.

 

Mandatory testing of anyone reporting illness, in fact. I can't see how it can possibly work otherwise. Even then the contact-tracing function is as good as useless as 50% of contacts would fail to self-isolate I reckon, asking "why should I, when I feel fine".... particularly those at the thick end of the spectrum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes exactly. This is why the app needs to report to the govt who them send someone around to enforce your isolation. No-one will bother otherwise. 

 


Have you looked up Paranoia in the dictionary Mike?  Just keep away from other people, and don't touch things outside your boat/home unless you are wearing gloves. It isn't that difficult.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:


Have you looked up Paranoia in the dictionary Mike?  Just keep away from other people, and don't touch things outside your boat/home unless you are wearing gloves. It isn't that difficult.

 

 

Do stop being a pillock.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2020 at 10:57, Rickent said:

I always find this 'loss of liberty' argument strange. 

If you are going about your lawful business then what does it matter.

Movement can already be traced via mobile phones anyway.

 

It rather depends on the government of the day.  In a totalitarian state I would think that "lawful business" could mean anything that they wanted it to mean.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes exactly. This is why the app needs to report to the govt who them send someone around to enforce your isolation. No-one will bother otherwise. 

 

Unless they get paid for it, or something. 

 

Testing facilities need to be in place really, to prevent the pranksters causing havoc. 

 

 

 

 

If we are going to be doing 100,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks time, there will be testing facilities all over the place........ wont there?

Edited by Richard10002
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Richard10002 said:

If we are going to be doing 100,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks time, there will be testing facilities all over the place........ wont there?

 

Shirley Knott....... that's gonna be in a month's time, silly!!

 

Always has been, always will be.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, David Schweizer said:


Have you looked up Paranoia in the dictionary Mike?  Just keep away from other people, and don't touch things outside your boat/home unless you are wearing gloves. It isn't that difficult.

 

 

More seriously have you seen this in the Guardian?  A broader discussion of how the govt are likely to follow the methods used in Hong Kong and Singapore to get control of the virus, and how it leads to loss of liberty. Here's a snippet:

 

"Governments know they can pick only two of the following three options: limit deaths, revive the economy by lifting lockdowns, or defend basic freedoms. You only have to look around the world to see they have decided that basic freedoms have to go. They are using surveillance technology to confine carriers of the virus and their contacts to the modern equivalents of the medieval leper colonies or Victorian tuberculosis sanatoriums. Hong Kong enforces home imprisonment, monitored with digital tracking. Singapore is encouraging citizens to download an app that allows the authorities to learn of their contacts, while Taiwan is using mobile phone data to put an “electronic fence” around infected homes."

 

Its coming here I predict, despite your smug complacency. The price we will have to pay for getting this disease under control.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/we-must-take-drastic-action-but-lets-not-turn-into-a-nation-of-little-tyrants

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Pressed "Submit Reply" too soon!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.