Lunacy if vehicle computor systems.

I'm no fan of the current level of snooping and surveillance that exist (although Id like you to clarify 'unlawful surveillance').

You can avoid it if you choose too - don't use devices that track and monitor your activity, use good old fashioned post rather than email, don't use network connected PC's etc etc.

If you can prove to me that machine controlled existence will be any better than human controlled existence then feel to post those findings up as well - my router has had to be re-booted twice this week, I'm not sure I'd like technology to be any more in control than it already is.

My reference to you getting a grip was a reference to the last line of your post with seems to place total trust in technology - exactly who is commissioning and running your brave new world?

I don't need to avoid being tracked because I do nothing illegal. My main gripe is with corporations tailing private internet users in order to build a consumer profile and flog 'stuff'. The other gripe I have is that government surveillance organisations, most prolifically the NSA (admittedly data mines UK citizens as well as their own) are building profiles of citizens without their consent. As we are governered by consent this is effectually unlawful.

Take for example activism and protesting, government can target people within these groups who are non-violent, law abiding and peaceful but may feel strongly about a politically hot subject, e.g. fracking. In the interests of freedom of expression and speech, it is in our interest that protestors have a platform, it is not in our interest to allow government to treat protestors the same as terrorists. All of the freedoms we have, and often take for granted, come at the expense of those who have fought to the death for a belief or ideology. As the saying goes the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, for as long as human's are in control of their own destiny this saying will hold true.

So, again where is the evidence that intrusive surveillance makes us any safer? Why is the government so paranoid about its own citizens ?

I never said everything should be handed over to a robot. That original comment I made was sarcasm.

From your original post ''Last year, just under 200,000 people were killed or injured on the UK roads in cars where humans had control (or not!)''. - What I find interesting is that these sorts of statistics are often used by government to push agendas, for example that could mean a new law forcing all new cars to have in-built trackers which are hooked up to a government grid, the emphasis being road safety. They would say it brings down deaths on the road and makes it safer for everyone. Where's the evidence? I'm all for making the World a safer and better place, but you have to ask yourself why is it always at the expense of a futher lose of privacy?

Look at gumtree in the news recently, someone was killed over a juicer and 3 men went to prison for it, the government's answer? A call for added ID checks from gumtree and a public critisism of it's business model.. It's as though now the answer to all the world's ills is to be totally stripped of your inalieable right to privacy. I think we should resist it for as long as we need to until a solution becomes obvious and works for EVERYONE, not just those in control of our data.
 
Sponsored Links
I don't understand why people gripe about corporations (e.g. Google) tailing private citizens - they are commercial organisations offering a free service with strings attached - use our service and we will try to sell stuff to you. I will agree that there are a lot of naive users out there who post every detail about their lives and are surprised when it comes back to bite them but that was their choice.

As far a governed by consent - that smacks of "Freeman on the land" - lovely idea but not real world.

I do agree that the ability to monitor everybody is getting out of balance - freedom to protest is being subjugated in the name of crime prevention.

Road death/injury statistics are just that - if trends can be identified and reasonable measures put in place to reduce them then where's the harm? I assume that I'm require to wear a seatbelt, have a crash tested vehicle, have the vehicle tested annually, drive to a set of rules etc. etc are as a result of initiatives to reduce the chances or being killed or injured. (ignoring for a moment the green agenda)

I think you jump to a government controlled grid monitoring every and controlling every vehicle may be a bit of a jump (for now!) - even were it to be the case I'd be skeptical about it being any safer than mere mortals controlling vehicles.

Whenever I'm asked for personal details, I choose to give or not to give them - that rule applies to people in shops (no, PC World, I won't give you my details - you don't need them!), technology companies or police officers.
 
There is no inalieable (sic) right to privacy in The UK. Whilst Article 8 of The ECHR covers The UK, there are a number of qualifications to it and, in any event, there is no formal legal 'offence' for what is often termed invasion of privacy.

The idea that we are governed by consent is based on the fact that we are a full democracy. As a result, we vote for MPs and then those MPs pass laws and regulations by which we are governed. We may not like some of the laws but such government remains 'by consent'.

Irrespective of data collection via the internet, we are already 'tracked' in all sorts of ways by NI number, NHS number, DL number etc.etc. It would be nigh on impossible to become nondescript even without usage of mobile telephones, internet etc.

BTW, your initial statement of 'I don't need to avoid being tracked because I do nothing illegal' is probably incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
With reference to the first post. I've had to disable the stupid safety features on my current car due to when the car in front is turning left, my car thinks I'm going to hit it and slams on the brakes. A few other people I know with similar cars have also disabled the safety feature. Sometimes too much doesn't work.
 
where is the evidence that intrusive surveillance makes us any safer? Why is the government so paranoid about its own citizens ?




Huge deterrent to activist loons.
Targeting of looters, arsonists, vandals, thieves, thugs, general nob-ends whilst going about their 'peaceful' protests. All discussed on the internet before they do it.

Hundreds more reasons why it makes us safer.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why people gripe about corporations (e.g. Google) tailing private citizens - they are commercial organisations offering a free service with strings attached - use our service and we will try to sell stuff to you. I will agree that there are a lot of naive users out there who post every detail about their lives and are surprised when it comes back to bite them but that was their choice.

As far a governed by consent - that smacks of "Freeman on the land" - lovely idea but not real world.

I do agree that the ability to monitor everybody is getting out of balance - freedom to protest is being subjugated in the name of crime prevention.

Road death/injury statistics are just that - if trends can be identified and reasonable measures put in place to reduce them then where's the harm? I assume that I'm require to wear a seatbelt, have a crash tested vehicle, have the vehicle tested annually, drive to a set of rules etc. etc are as a result of initiatives to reduce the chances or being killed or injured. (ignoring for a moment the green agenda)

I think you jump to a government controlled grid monitoring every and controlling every vehicle may be a bit of a jump (for now!) - even were it to be the case I'd be skeptical about it being any safer than mere mortals controlling vehicles.

Whenever I'm asked for personal details, I choose to give or not to give them - that rule applies to people in shops (no, PC World, I won't give you my details - you don't need them!), technology companies or police officers.

I don't understand why people gripe about corporations (e.g. Google) tailing private citizens - they are commercial organisations offering a free service with strings attached - use our service and we will try to sell stuff to you. I will agree that there are a lot of naive users out there who post every detail about their lives and are surprised when it comes back to bite them but that was their choice.

1) Google is not a free service, it is paid for by marketing and advertisements which are paid for by the end-user agreeing to be monitored and tracked, it is not a free service, nothing is free when money forms a factor in the equation.

As far a governed by consent - that smacks of "Freeman on the land" - lovely idea but not real world.

2) We are governed by consent which is how a democracy works. That's why you go to tick a box on a card every 5 years. A civilisation without consent is a regime, usually a oppressive and authoritarian one.

! Don't pile me in with that crowd !

Road death/injury statistics are just that - if trends can be identified and reasonable measures put in place to reduce them then where's the harm? I assume that I'm require to wear a seatbelt, have a crash tested vehicle, have the vehicle tested annually, drive to a set of rules etc. etc are as a result of initiatives to reduce the chances or being killed or injured. (ignoring for a moment the green agenda)

3) Having a seatbelt requirement is a poor example because it is proven through rigorous testing to save lives and is engineered primarily for that purpose and requires no 'exchange' to perform it's function, it's not as though you have to enter a personal 4 digit pin for the seatbelt to work. A seatbelt reduces the potential for harm IN THE EVENT, so it makes perfect sense to wear one. Again, how would surveillance in the form of a nationwide grid save lives?

Effectually I could claim ownership of all the roads and by-roads and say you need to play by all my rules and regulations otherwise you can't travel, I've taken control from you and told you that you need to play by my rules. I'm just another human being claiming I know better, and I'm punishing you if you don't comply. Would you comply? If not, why not ?

The highway code can be used to inform people to be more aware on the road, evidently it's a positive addition. Nothing to do with surveillance...

Trackers in every car monitoring every person and every journey, explain to me how that equals safer roads ? What relevance does your name, address, religion, ethnicity, hair colour, etc etc etc have on your ability to drive a vehicle from a to b ? Isn't this what driving tests are supposed to determine?

Government 'initiatives' often follow the money, if you've noticed.

I think you jump to a government controlled grid monitoring every and controlling every vehicle may be a bit of a jump (for now!) - even were it to be the case I'd be skeptical about it being any safer than mere mortals controlling vehicles.

4) To be clear I would hate for this to happen

Whenever I'm asked for personal details, I choose to give or not to give them - that rule applies to people in shops (no, PC World, I won't give you my details - you don't need them!), technology companies or police officers.


5) And how are you treated when you choose to withhold your personal information ? Go figure
 
There is no inalieable (sic) right to privacy in The UK. Whilst Article 8 of The ECHR covers The UK, there are a number of qualifications to it and, in any event, there is no formal legal 'offence' for what is often termed invasion of privacy.

The idea that we are governed by consent is based on the fact that we are a full democracy. As a result, we vote for MPs and then those MPs pass laws and regulations by which we are governed. We may not like some of the laws but such government remains 'by consent'.

Irrespective of data collection via the internet, we are already 'tracked' in all sorts of ways by NI number, NHS number, DL number etc.etc. It would be nigh on impossible to become nondescript even without usage of mobile telephones, internet etc.

BTW, your initial statement of 'I don't need to avoid being tracked because I do nothing illegal' is probably incorrect.

The idea that we are governed by consent is based on the fact that we are a full democracy. As a result, we vote for MPs and then those MPs pass laws and regulations by which we are governed. We may not like some of the laws but such government remains 'by consent'.


There is an inalliable right to privacy if I think there is. If we can't agree that I'm entitled to my 'inaliable right' to privacy then we have entered very dangerous ground because that, to me, is outright facism and intolerance.

Just to be clear, using the term 'right' does not automatically place a burden on the rest of society. In a decent and functional society interpersonal exchange is based on mutual consent, not force and coercion, where there is no consent there is violence.

Irrespective of data collection via the internet, we are already 'tracked' in all sorts of ways by NI number, NHS number, DL number etc.etc. It would be nigh on impossible to become nondescript even without usage of mobile telephones, internet etc.


And? Does that make it right in your view ?

BTW, your initial statement of 'I don't need to avoid being tracked because I do nothing illegal' is probably incorrect.

Shame you had to ruin it with that attempt at a petty quip
 
where is the evidence that intrusive surveillance makes us any safer? Why is the government so paranoid about its own citizens ?




Huge deterrent to activist loons.
Targeting of looters, arsonists, vandals, thieves, thugs, general nob-ends whilst going about their 'peaceful' protests. All discussed on the internet before they do it.

Hundreds more reasons why it makes us safer.

Intrusive surevillance. I'm not talking about CCTV cameras and social media.



Despicable really that you rope peaceful protestors in with ''looters, arsonists, vandals, thieves, thugs, general nob-ends'', rather black and white view of life perhaps. Do you read the daily mail ?
 
You really do have some bizarre leaps in your logic!

1) How much has your use of Google/Firefox etc cost you?
2) I don't claim to believe that a big brother network would either improve safety (as I stated in my last post) or indeed be a practical proposition.
3) How does a hypothetical tracker plan to know your name, ethnicity, address, religion, hair colour?
4) I'm not sure how you plan to seize control of the road network and impose your rules on me but good luck!
5) As far as governed by consent, if you actually believe that voting in a party is what makes this a democracy then you need to look at how government works - how many policies and laws actually spring from the people and how many are modified and slanted to take account of interest groups (big business, unions etc.)
6) As far as withholding personal data - my choice if I don't want to give it, I don't. If I want the service and that is part of the price then I choose to give it. As far as the police demanding personal data, when I refused to give them my details I was given a hard time and threatened with arrest, when I suggested that they either consult with a senior officer or a good lawyer, they backed off.

Any other questions?
 
You really do have some bizarre leaps in your logic!

1) How much has your use of Google/Firefox etc cost you?
2) I don't claim to believe that a big brother network would either improve safety (as I stated in my last post) or indeed be a practical proposition.
3) How does a hypothetical tracker plan to know your name, ethnicity, address, religion, hair colour?
4) I'm not sure how you plan to seize control of the road network and impose your rules on me but good luck!
5) As far as governed by consent, if you actually believe that voting in a party is what makes this a democracy then you need to look at how government works - how many policies and laws actually spring from the people and how many are modified and slanted to take account of interest groups (big business, unions etc.)
6) As far as withholding personal data - my choice if I don't want to give it, I don't. If I want the service and that is part of the price then I choose to give it. As far as the police demanding personal data, when I refused to give them my details I was given a hard time and threatened with arrest, when I suggested that they either consult with a senior officer or a good lawyer, they backed off.

Any other questions?

Yes the half dozen or so I asked previously which you ignored
 
Well I'm afraid that you rather unusual style has me defeated and trawling through your posts really isn't what I had planned.
 
As far as the police demanding personal data, when I refused to give them my details I was given a hard time and threatened with arrest, when I suggested that they either consult with a senior officer or a good lawyer, they backed off.
You're lucky. You remind me of a very self-opinionated young gentleman I saw earlier today on one of those 'police programmes'. He thought he knew all the legal requirements and 'human rights rules' and was quite cocky when asked to provide evidence of his motor insurance.

To cut a long story short, the police took his car away from him and invited him to accompany them to the police station! The look on his face made me laugh out loud!
 
I can assure you that I'm not young, possibly self-opinionated but generally easy going
I wasn't, as you suggest, lucky, the law requires you to provide personal information when you are driving a vehicle. The law doesn't require you to provide personal information unless you are suspected of committing an offence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a law abiding citizen who generally supports the police, what I objected to was a police officer with attitude throwing his weight around when it was inappropriate.

I've seen the cocky s*ds who believe the law doesn't apply to them - usually because they have something to hide, I laugh at these as well.

As far as human rights go, how about a 'Human Responsibilities Act'?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top