As many as 95 per cent of CCTV systems in the UK are operating illegally, according to a CCTV expert. The revelation comes as new legislation is about to take effect in Scotland which could render even more systems illegal.
Companies whose premises have CCTV systems in operation must alert the Information Commissioner that they are gathering personal information about the people they are recording. They must also put up signs to warn the public that recording is taking place.
A new law will come into force in Scotland on 1 November requiring those operating systems on a contract to have a separate licence. The law, which is already in effect in England and Wales, does not apply to operators working directly for the company whose premises are being surveyed.
Bernie Brooks of CCTV compliance consultancy DatPro told OUT-LAW Radio that he comes across few systems that operate within the law.
“From my own my experience after personally surveying many, many hundreds of buildings, I would say probably less than five per cent are compliant,” said Brooks. “I would say that 95 per cent are non-compliant in one way, shape, form or another with the [Data Protection] Act. Obviously, that’s quite a worrying thing. If the system is non-compliant it could invalidate the usefulness of the evidence in a court of law.”
Brooks’s assessment matches that of non-profit CCTV awareness raising body Camerawatch. It said in June that its research showed that over 90 per cent of the UK’s 4.2 million CCTV systems were not compliant with the Data Protection Act.
“That has profound implications for the reputation of the CCTV and camera surveillance industry and all concerned with it,” said Camerawatch chairman Gordon Ferrie in June.
The new law in Scotland could push even more systems into illegal territory. The new licences for individuals is operated by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).
“If you operate CCTV equipment monitoring public or private space and you are monitoring members of the public then it is likely you will need a SIA licence,” said SIA head of investigations Jennifer Pattinson. “The reason for licensing is to remove the criminal element from the private security industry but also to improve levels of training and professionalism in the industry.”
People who work directly for the firm which owns the monitored premises do not need a licence. Pattinson said that this was because companies which directly employ security workers are likely to conduct the kind of thorough background checks that it does when issuing a licence.
The news that almost all systems are likely to operate illegally will raise questions about the effectiveness of CCTV.
The news follows the revelation last week that London’s dense network of CCTV cameras may not have an effect on the solving of crimes. An analysis of London’s 10,000 cameras showed that boroughs with many cameras had no better crime-solving statistics than those with few cameras.
There is something of a continual debate here in the UK regarding CCTV. On one side are those who see the technology as a benefit, to catching criminals etc, they usually have had something happen to them, or know someone who has so it is a lot more personal. Otherwise they just use the ‘well if you have nothing to hide…’ argument.
Your private life on show to civil servants? More bureaucrats, local and national, having access to your personal information - through data-sharing and data-matching bet- ween government databases, through access to your telephone and email data, through the national database that will lie behind a “smart” identity card. Your health records on tap to researchers by ministerial order - your doctor can’t say no. Local authorities, even health trusts, able to put you under covert surveillance.
I am firmly in the ‘NO CCTV’ camp. The idea that the ever-growing parasitic corporate government and its equally corrupt subsidiaries have eyes (and now ears and mouths) watching almost every square metre of Britain does not encourage the concept of a free people. Most people who bleat on about CCTV have little or no idea about how prevalent it is, who has access to it and the potential for function creep.
I am going to address some of these issues now.
Prevalence.
Britain is now widely known as a surveillance society[1], it contains 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras. Quite high when you consider the fact that the UK only makes up 0.164% of the planets inhabited space.[2]
People say it lowers the crime rate. Well it doesn’t, the crime rate is rising.[3] (There are, to be fair, a large number of factors involved when producing the crime rate, as it represents a reflection of the state of society in general, I will deal with this later).
The first CCTV was more or less useless, with low resolution black and white cameras so bad they couldn’t spot the difference between a globalist and a human being. But it accomplished what it was really intended for, which was getting the people used to being watched. That means all of us. By placing cameras all over the place, the weak-minded public were brainwashed by the government into believing it is there to prevent crimes against them, like robbery, rape etc.
In some situations it has helped with evidence, but that is almost inconsequential in the scheme of things. The psychological consequence of the people thinking they are being ‘protected’ serves to actually disarm and weaken the public. By thinking someone or something else will do the protecting, the people lose the ability of doing it themselves. This is part of a larger plan to render you, the people of the UK, completely harmless and infantile, ready to run to your daddy government for any little reason.
Your complete submission and reliance on the government is the big picture here. Part of the justification of placing ever-more CCTV about the place is the idea of ‘combating crime’. As I said earlier, crime is a side effect of anti-social social policies. Encouraging chaos and fear is part of the Marxist governments idea of becoming your ’saviour’.
It is the classic problem-reaction-solution paradigm. If you don’t know what that is, I suggest you read up on it as it is THE modus operandi of those who seek to enslave you.
So, now the ignorant, frilly entertainment loving, apathetic public have been desensitised to the point of attacking those who question the need or the real motives behind CCTV. the government is liberated to begin upgrading those CCTV with microphones and loudspeakers. Now they need to listen to your conversations and bark orders, 1984 style at you because you obviously cannot behave according to the state’s rules.
Remember what I said about infantilism? Now you need to be told to pick up your rubbish, you bad child!
And while they’re at it, you wouldn’t mind if they installed x-ray scanners in lamp posts to see through your clothes, who knows, you might be a terrorist. How about smart software to be able to judge and predict your behaviour from those warm cuddly cameras you love so much.
If you aren’t doing anything wrong how can you argue against them? It’s a classic excuse based on a a set of rules that have been arbitrarily defined by those who seek to dissolve your freedoms. They weren’t set by you or me. How about the idea of putting cameras in your house, in every room?
Oh you wouldn’t like that. ‘But my house is my private space, the street isn’t’.
No it isn’t, but the street doesn’t belong to anyone, or it belongs to everyone. It sure as hell doesn’t belong to the government so what makes you think it’s okay for them to drench the country in CCTV? How about if private companies starting putting them up on every street, selling the data they’re collecting on you. Using it to judge your shopping habits so they can market more crap to you maybe?
By the way, I almost forgot. Just because the state administers the cameras, don’t go thinking for one second that all sorts of private firms don’t have easy access to it.
Do you want CCTV images of yourself sold to broadcast TV and video companies, without your permission, and without paying any royalties to you ? Where CCTV images are used as evidence of crime, are there proper procedures to prevent unauthorised editing or tampering with the evidence ? Is it right that CCTV systems can automatically tag your behavior in a public place as “suspicious” ?
What are the criteria for removal of suspects images in facial recognition or video ID parade databases ? Are they entered for the duration of an investigation, or are you branded as a suspect for life, in the same way as DNA databases seem to be abused ?
Will the results of facial recognition analysis e.g. number of women, numbers of whites, asians or blacks walking down the street, be sold to marketing companies, or handed over to racists ?
How do you know these things won’t happen? Because the communist daddy state said so? Ah diddums, the government has already done back-room deals to sell the data it collects about you to private firms.
The fact that the government has decided that everyone needs to be watched all of the time should make you think.
Think. The government wants to watch us all because it considers us all a potential threat. It wants to be able to watch and study our every movement, not because we are free individuals in OUR country, but because we are sheep in THEIR country. They have no trust of us.
But their job isn’t to trust us or not. Their job is to serve us. That’s it. Anything else they are doing has ulterior motives. It is that simple. You can try and avoid it all you like. ‘Oh the government wouldn’t do that, bleah bleah fucking bleah.’
You limp-wristed morons. Get a fucking spine. Unless you don’t mind being enslaved, with technology that can scan your face from a distance, track your movement through the city, link you with your purchases, spending habits, track everyone you come into contact with, analyse your walking pattern, see through your clothes, build an unbelievably detailed profile of you (which the state needs for what exactly, apart from selling it on?) and all of this to protect you? From what, terrorists? The same ‘terrorists’ who have the wonderful good luck of having this CCTV constantly fail whenever they were out there doing their alleged terrorist stuff. Seriously, 400,000 cameras in London and all over the Underground, and none of them were working?
Maybe if they were working they would have seen this:
Bruce Lait, in a tube carriage in which an explosion occurred:
As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. “The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,” he said. [Cambridge News]
Maybe they would have been able to show the same things this man saw:
Which brings up something else about CCTV. As the government markets their public surveillance network as an infallible crime-rate smashing-super-good-great-thing (which never seems to fucking work when it’s convenient for the government), the people grow to believe in it’s ‘truth’ completely (that is part of the psy op). So showing one frame of so-called footage is enough to convince the public that whatever the police say must be true, they’re got a picture! Sure it’s distant and grainy, and actually looks like it’s been forged, but it must be true! I mean, it’s on the TV!
Think.
Don’t you feel safe?
They want to make us feel like we don’t need our freedoms so we won’t complain when the government takes them (for our safety of course). It wants to administer your life, your money, your freedom to you when it sees fit. If it sees you and the body language recognition software flags you as a potential pain in the states’ arse, it can just send the police round, or get more invasive surveillance put on you. Technically you could be a terrorist. What I mean by that is, someone who incites terror in the scum bags running this country. (Like those who want their freedom and their country back from the globalists).
There is only so much power in any society. Societies always begin with the people having it, as societies are built up around communities, and for those communities to accept the idea of a council, the council must agree to serve the people.
This current UK government is Marxist/ Communist. This is apparent in its continuing attempts to power grab everything from the people, to control everything. Like I said earlier, it does this by convincing you idiots that you need the State to do these things because you can’t do it for yourself.
Wake up people, please. Time is running, CCTV is a pinprick compared to other issues I have become aware of. But you have you understand the State is dedicated to scaring the shit out of you, then attempting to portray itself as your friend as it swoops in to ‘protect’ you from whatever fear-mongering IT’S been doing to you. But you have to give up some of your power as people. Every time. Just a bit more here, a bit more there.
Transport for London (TfL) and TranSys have said they have successfully completed the first technical trials of the combined Oyster and Barclaycard.
It amounts to a significant step towards making the Oyster card, currently used to prepay for travel around London, a means of payment for other transactions.
Since December, 60 Barclaycard employees have taken part in a technical trial to test the card’s functionality and reliability. A contactless terminal was installed in the coffee shop at Barclaycard’s head office in Northampton, and the cards have been used on the TfL network more than 2,500 times to make journeys or add Oyster products to the card.
TranSys, the consortium which manages the Oyster card for TfL, said the trial was successful and that no issues with the technology were identified.
Cards are now being issued to a larger number of employees, including those based at Barclay’s head office in Canary Wharf, to test the technology under greater volumes. Two contactless terminals have been installed in coffee shops at Barclays in Canary Wharf.
Shashi Verma, director of Oyster card at TfL, said: “This is yet another example of Oyster at the forefront of the technology industry.
“The new card will give passengers the ability to pay for low cost goods and take advantage of Oyster fares on the same card reducing the need to carry cash. It makes the already hugely successful Oyster card even more convenient.”
In December 2006 TranSys and Barclaycard revealed plans to combine Oyster and Barclaycard on one piece of plastic. It was the first agreement to licence Oyster to selected third parties to extend the functions of the card.
The trial is aimed towards enabling passengers to use one card for different payments around the capital.
Over the next few months an increasing number of cards will be issued to employees, including those of TranSys, TfL and Visa, with the aim of having approximately 2,000 trial cards issued before the planned customer launch later in the year.
Barclaycard is in negotiations with a number of retail chains to make the card valid for use at shops all over the capital. A spokesperson said it also has the potential to be used in smaller, independent stores.
“It depends on the existing systems the shops have, but in most cases it would just be a case of plugging in a reader,” the spokesperson said.
Discussions are also going on between TranSys and Barclaycard to establish the branding of the card before the public roll out.
This article was originally published at Kablenet.
“Read my lips….” used to be a figurative saying. Now the British government is considering taking it literally by adding lip reading technology to some of the four million or so surveillance cameras in order identify terrorists and criminals by watching what everyone says.
Electronic Design is reporting that the Home Office is interested in a project being pursued by a senior lecturer in computer vision at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England: Computer-based lip-reading technology would help video surveillance systems spot people planning a crime or terror attack by literally watching suspects’ lips for clues. Once it finds someone speaking certain key words or sentences, the system would automatically send an alert message to a central console, mobile phone, or other communications device. Police or security agents could then be dispatched to the scene to question the individual.
Of course as with all these Big Brother surveillance moves it cannot be selectively applied and everyone will be subjected to it.
The automatic devices bring to mind the heart-chilling scene in “2001: A Space Odyssey” when HAL (the intelligent computer) tells Dave that, despite all the precautions taken, he knows Dave was planning to disconnect him because he can read lips.
Imagine a place where you cannot step out of your front door and have a conversation with someone without it being monitored. Imagine a place where if you say something considered by the authorities to be suspicious a team of agents is dispatched to your location to detain and question you. Does that sound like a free country?
Two articles for you, the first, from the Daily Mail and the second from Infowars.
Britain is now being watched by a staggering 4.2million - one for every 14 people and a fifth of the cameras in the entire world.
The Royal Academy of Engineering also warned that lives could be put at risk by the lurch towards a ‘big brother’ society in which the Government and even supermarkets hold huge amounts of personal information on us.
It said any system was vulnerable to abuse - including bribery of staff and computer hackers gaining access.
The Government’s planned Children’s Database, for example, which will contain the names and addresses of children considered vulnerable or ‘at risk’, could open the door for paedophiles to target them.
The academy said our identities, eating habits, health and vulnerability could all be compromised and abused.
This could include details being sold or leaked of whether a woman has had an abortion or a person’s HIV status.
Supermarkets, which keep records of a shopper’s purchases each week using
The use of face recognition technology would allow the authorities to pinpoint a person’s exact localoyalty cards, could pass information about unhealthy eaters to the NHS or life insurance companies.
One of the report’s authors, Professor Nigel Gilbert, said the number of CCTV cameras in Britain is so large that the installation of any more should be halted until the need for them is proven. The average Londoner may be monitored by up to 300 every day.
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.
The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.
See the article here. This is the article on Digg. (Warning, it will slow down your computer due to the huge number of Diggs and comments this article has, almost more than any other in the history of Digg, which makes you wonder why it isn’t in the top ten.)
The ink wasn’t dry on the Versailles Peace Treaty before the Illuminati started work on World War Two by building Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.
Before 1919, Hitler had been a political “gun for hire” who had many Jewish friends and had flirted with both Communism and Socialism. Overnight he became a virulent anti-Communist and anti-Semite. What happened? He had become an army intelligence officer. Throughout the 1920’s the Reichswehr secretly funded his party and trained his SA “Brownshirts.”
I suspect General Kurt Von Schleicher was the point man for Illuminati bankers like Max Warburg, whose Frankfurt I.G. Farben HQ was spared by Allied bombers, and whose Jewish mother lived in comfort in Hamburg throughout the war.
In the Protocols of Zion, the author, an Illuminati banker, boasts they create or sanction anti-Semitism when it serves their purpose. “Anti-Semitism is indispensible to us for the management of our lesser brethren…this matter has been the subject of repeated discussions amongst us.” (Protocol 9). Hitler is an example of how anti-Semitism was created. The author continues:
“It is from us that the all engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists and utopian dreamers of every kind…striving to overthrow all established forms of order. All states are in torture… but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super government…”
The newest London Metropolitan Police publicity campaign posters have been released today and, as usual, encourage the public to be scared of anyone who uses a phone, carries a bag, drives a van or takes pictures with a camera because they may be terrorists.
On February 18, 2007, the BBC broadcasted an hour-long episode which it claimed would examine and answer the questions of the 9-11 truth movement. However, both the episode and the written Q&A turned out to be attacks on the skeptics rather than a true investigation. The public was presented with a heavily controlled and edited discussion, which was rigged in favour of the official story. Worse yet, propaganda techniques were used to portray the opponents of the official story unfairly. Techniques included: manipulative camerawork, personal attacks and a show which focussed on only the weakest evidence presented by the opponents of the official story.
The aim of this article is to address the inaccurate rebuttals offered by the BBC, as well as to analyse the propaganda techniques and reiterate the questions that the BBC failed to address.
Hollywood director Russo goes in-depth for first time on the astounding admissions of Nick Rockefeller, including his prediction of 9/11 and the war on terror hoax, the Rockefeller’s creation of women’s lib, and the elite’s ultimate plan for world population reduction and a microchipped society.
