See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Word on the street ... they’re listening
Source:
Times
URL Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2087-2471987%2C00.html
Published: Nov 26, 2006
Author: Steven Swinford and Nicola Smith
Post Date: 2006-11-26 18:09:19 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 181
Comments: 14
POLICE and councils are considering monitoring conversations in the street using high-powered microphones attached to CCTV cameras, write Steven Swinford and Nicola Smith. The microphones can detect conversations 100 yards away and record aggressive exchanges before they become violent. The devices are used at 300 sites in Holland and police, councils and transport officials in London have shown an interest in installing them before the 2012 Olympics. The interest in the equipment comes amid growing concern that Britain is becoming a “surveillance society”. It was recently highlighted that there are more than 4.2m CCTV cameras, with the average person being filmed more than 300 times a day. The addition of microphones would take surveillance into uncharted territory. The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that a full public debate over the microphones’ impact on privacy will be needed before they can be introduced. The equipment can pick up aggressive tones on the basis of 12 factors, including decibel level, pitch and the speed at which words are spoken. Background noise is filtered out, enabling the camera to focus on specific conversations in public places. If the aggressive behaviour continues, police can intervene before an incident escalates. Privacy laws in Holland limit the recording of sound to short bursts. Derek van der Vorst, director of Sound Intelligence, the company that created the technology, said: “It is technically capable of being live 24 hours a day and recording 24 hours a day. It really depends on the privacy laws in a particular country.” Last month Martin Nanninga of VCS Observation, the Dutch company marketing the technology, gave a presentation to officials from Transport for London, the Metropolitan police and the City of London police about the CCTV system. Nanninga is to return next year for further discussions. “There was a lot of interest in our system, especially with security concerns about the Olympic Games in 2012. We told them about both our intelligent control room and the aggression detection system,” Nanninga said. In Holland more than 300 of the cameras have been fitted in Groningen, Utrecht and Rotterdam. Locations include city centres, benefit offices, jails, and even T-Mobile shops. The sensitivity of the microphones is adjusted to suit the situation. Police and local council officials are still assessing their impact on crime, although in an initial six-week trial in Groningen last year the cameras raised 70 genuine alarms, resulting in four arrests. Harry Hoetjer, head of surveillance at Groningen police headquarters, recalled an incident where the camera had homed in on a gang of four men who were about to attack a passer-by. “We would not normally have detected it as there was no camera directly viewing it,” he said. Last Friday a Sunday Times reporter visited the office of Sound Intelligence in Groningen to test the system. The reporter stood in the control centre with a view of an empty room on one of a bank of monitors. Van der Vorst entered the room, out of sight of the camera, and began making aggressive noises. The camera swivelled to film him and an alarm went off in the control room, designed to alert police to a possible incident. “The cameras work on the principle that in an aggressive situation the pitch goes up and the words are spoken faster,” said van der Vorst. “The voice is not the normal flat tone, but vibrates. It is these subtle changes that our audio cameras can pick up on.” Public prosecution services can use them in court as evidence. The Dutch privacy board has already given its approval to the system. According to a spokesman for Richard Thomas, Britain’s information commissioner, sound recorded by the cameras would be treated under British law in the same way as CCTV footage. Under the commissioner’s code of practice, audio can be recorded for the detection, prevention of crime and apprehension and prosecution of offenders. It cannot be used for recording private conversations. Graeme Gerrard, chairman of the chief police officers’ video and CCTV working group, said: “In the UK this is a new step. Clearly there is somebody or something monitoring people speaking in the street, and before we were to engage in that technology there would be a number of legal obstacles. “We would need to have a debate as to whether or not this is something the public think would be a reasonable use of the technology. The other issue is around the capacity of the police service to deal with this.”
Poster Comment: I cannot understand why the English allow this to happen. They have a high crime rate but that is due to an unwillingness to enforce the law and a decision made by the elite to flood the country with legal and illegal aliens.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
Kinda like us, huh?
I have always despised that country. I don't even know why. I don't think it ever came back from "winning" World War II. Perhaps it would have been a better outcome had the U.S. not intervened to save the UK's sovereignty, if not its empire, which basically was surrendered to the U.S. in the postwar period. And now we are repeating the process. Empire-building or even empire-holding is tough, unnatural work because colonies always yearn to be free of the yoke of oppression, even if it is a "soft empire" of economic hitman-style oppression. Blair blew what little respect I might have had for Great Britain by surgically attaching himself to Chimpy's azz after 9/11 in spite of the fact they have little in common politically otherwise. All they have in common is that they are both front men for City of London/Wall Street global financiers.
The interest in the equipment comes amid growing concern that Britain is becoming a “surveillance society”. It was recently highlighted that there are more than 4.2m CCTV cameras, with the average person being filmed more than 300 times a day. The addition of microphones would take surveillance into uncharted territory. Funny how ALL the cameras that mattered were malfunctioning the morning of the London tube bombings.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Main Entry: Dialectic Main Entry: Dialectical Materialism The original method of deductive logic based its premises on the presense of agreed upon truths that led to an otherwise unknowable conclusion. The dialectical method of reasoning bases its premises on constant conflicts of opposites, on natural, ongoing tension between two or more commonly acknowledged truths. Good versus evil is the most commonly understood dialectic. In Hegel's version it is through our understanding of what is evil that we are able to understand what is even better than good. Hegel's dialectic was an inward discovery of being versus nothing. The Hegelian dialectical method changed the format for deductive reasoning into one in which truth is obtained by pitting truth against a falsehood which leads to a false truth. Frederick Engels and Karl Marx's expansion of the Hegelian dialectic: Marx's Grundrisse and Hegel's Logic by Hiroshi Ouchida, 1988, posted by Hegel's dialectical idealism was founded on the premise that the abstract thought process comes before the actualization of the idea. To Hegel, the idea came first. Marx's dialectical materialism said the opposite. Marx wrote that human events preceed the ideas about the events. To Marx, the events came first. Marx used the dialectic argument to explain the necessary conflicts that will lead mankind into social perfection. State control of the production of goods and services and equal distribution of all wealth was to be the final crowning achievment of mankind. Marx's theory of human progress proves life is an ongoing conflict between people at various levels of material wealth, and he thought of himself as a scientist who had discovered the key to human history. Engels and Marx's dialectical materialism changed the Hegelian formula in several crucial ways. First they excluded God's law from the formula altogther, then they pitted a lie against a lie and claimed the result was a synthesis of the two opposing lies. Their theory of rational, inexorable, inevitable world evolution into totalitarian communism was attained via the Hegelian dialectic. The modern theory of American (and global) evolution into communitarian collectives ruled by a benevolant global government was attained via the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic. Transformational Marxism is the Hegelian dialectic. The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis). For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave. The Soviet Union was based on the Hegelian dialectic, as is all Marxist writing. The Soviets didn't give up their Hegelian reasoning when they supposedly stopped being a communist country. They merely changed the dialectical language to fit into the modern version of Marxist thinking called communitarianism. American author Steve Montgomery explores Moscow's adept use of the Hegelian dialectic in Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village. Bertrand Russell quote on the end of rational thinking. For a lengthy analysis of Hegel's dialectical reasoning, the University of Idaho posts an online version of STUDIES IN THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC, by John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart (1896). In Chapter VI: The Final Result of the Dialectic, the author explains the confusion inherent in Hegels' philosophy: "Hegel taught that the secrets of the universe opened themselves to us, but only on condition of deep and systematic thought, and the importance of philosophy was undiminished either by scepticism or by appeals to the healthy instincts of the plain man. But there is some difference between taking philosophy as the supreme and completely adequate means, and admitting it to be the supreme end. There is some difference between holding that philosophy is the knowledge of the highest form of reality, and holding that it is itself the highest form of reality. It seems to me that Hegel has been untrue to the tendencies of his own system in seeking the ultimate reality of Spirit in philosophy alone, and that, on his own premises, he ought to have looked for a more comprehensive explanation."
I wondered how they arrived at that.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." As the security cameras in the airports on 9-11, if I am not mistaken. Co Inky dink.
and the Pentagon seemed woefully ill-equipped too!
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." They work great at Wall Mart all the time.
Everybody must get stoned.
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/rainy.html
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." The security cameras in London were run by an Israeli firm Verint and those on 911 by another Israeli firm ICTS. Maybe it was just a coincidence.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Thanks, I don't remember reading that. So many coincidences to keep track of these days.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." I wouldn't assume that the Bush administration isn't doing the same thing right here.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Like the videocameras that should have shown the plane hitting the Pentagon?
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
and a decision made by the elite to flood the country with legal and illegal aliens
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Just as there is no money in peace or freedom, there is also no money in a healthy Amerika - - IndieTX
#2. To: Horse (#0)
#3. To: Horse (#0)
The devices are used at 300 sites in Holland and police, councils and transport officials in London have shown an interest in installing them before the 2012 Olympics.
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#4. To: As to why this is happening. The Hegelian dialectical formula, A thesis versus B anti-thesis equals C synthesis. (#0)
2. Merriam-Webster's definition of the dialectic
Date: 14th century
1 : logic
2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal idea
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements.
Date: 1927
1 : the Marxist theory that maintains the material basis of a reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind
3. How the Hegelian dialectic changed the formula for deductive reasoning
Hegel altered deductive reasoning from a simple 1 + 1 = 2 formula to a series of progressive triads where two opposite premises combine into a synthesis, and then each synthesis becomes the premise in the next triad, and on and on it goes, (where it ends, nobody knows). He established that history follows a "logical" progression through the dialectical process of constant conflict between extremely different ideas that keep blending together, over and over, forming new ideas that keep merging and blending again and again, until mankind realizes perfection in philosophy. Most importantly (from the ACL's viewpoint) is "Hegel's version puts all of the emphasis on the collective expression of what is best for the people rather than on each individual's capacity to discover it for herself or himself" (Kemerling 2002).
Hegel took logic to the next logical level, in what many consider to be a higher intellectual level, claiming an (A) ideology conflicting with its (B) opposite ideology = (C) a new and sometimes better philosophy. Hegel's dialectic pits A against B in a constant conflict and resolution, which eventually creates C... an outcome that may or may not have any resemblance to A and B. According to modern social scientists, C does not have to be a reasonable conclusion, since Hegel's logical dialectic takes pure reason out of the reasoning. If you don't get it, that means you got it, because anything arrived at using Hegel's "logic" doesn't have to make any sense.
Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General by Karl Marx, 1844, posted by
>http://Marxists.org.
>http://Marxists.org.
Hegel Resources from Andy Blunden. Mr. Blunden is an Australian communist who studies Hegel's contributions to totalitarian dictatorships "of the people."
#5. To: Jethro Tull, Tauzero, Dakmar, historian1944, aristeides, angle, MUDDOG, tom007, Esso, ladybug (#4)
For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#6. To: robin (#3)
Funny how ALL the cameras that mattered were malfunctioning the morning of the London tube bombings.
#7. To: tom007 (#6)
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#8. To: robin (#7)
#9. To: robin (#5)
For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.
I've already said too much.
#10. To: MUDDOG (#9)
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#11. To: tom007, Robin (#6)
#12. To: Horse (#11)
The security cameras in London were run by an Israeli firm Verint and those on 911 by another Israeli firm ICTS. Maybe it was just a coincidence.
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#13. To: Horse (#0)
I cannot understand why the English allow this to happen.
#14. To: robin (#3)
Funny how ALL the cameras that mattered were malfunctioning the morning of the London tube bombings.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest