X-ray cameras may be installed in UK lamp posts.

I was going to add a comment along the lines of "how would members of Parliament feel if we got to watch them in their underthings all day".

I then almost blew chunks on the keyboard at that prospect and had to go for a walk to clear my head of a few particularly nasty images.

These millimetre wave scanners are incorrectly labelled X-ray systems, I guess to make it easier for Joe (or Josephine) public to understand. ie, anything that looks through a material is an X-Ray.

At this time I don't know whether this is mere speculation or something that's in the pipeline for deployment. If deployment is the plan I can see a lot of troubled times ahead over privacy issues, if of course they actually tell anyone they have been deployed

Originally posted by myowncrusade
Big Brother Police State Oh My God My Rights Are So Infringed Im On Fire!!!!

Newsflash, doombringers. We've had cameras on our streets for a long time and I welcome it. We can't have a cop on every corner so we get the next best thing;

UK crime statistics paint a different picture, more and more surveillance, more and more violent crime, this gadget wouldn't be any different, just because your tool is cool flashy and dangerous (cuts down your life span by ionizing radiation if it's really X-ray imaging), doesn't mean it's going to do squat in its intended role.

there is no security, chances are most of the time, nothing happens, but when it does, you are on your own.


PS:since i'd certainly qualify as 'doombringer' in your eyes, let me ask you one quick question: who's worse? someone trying to warn people or someone embracing every and any additional means of surveillance and control as progress despite ample evidence to the contrary?

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Long Lance]

d/P

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Long Lance]

i dont think they will use x rays because they can be harmful but if this was put into action i reckon they wud use the terhertz waves that they discovered a while back. the difference with terahertz waves ( t rays) is that they dont need anything to reflect the picture back and from what ive read, are not harmful

Originally posted by Britguy
I was going to add a comment along the lines of "how would members of Parliament feel if we got to watch them in their underthings all day".

remember enemy of the state movie.

PS:since i'd certainly qualify as 'doombringer' in your eyes, let me ask you one quick question: who's worse? someone trying to warn people or someone embracing every and any additional means of surveillance and control as progress despite ample evidence to the contrary?

Who's worse? I'm not going to get into "I'm better than ... because I believe "This view"" but I will respond to your question with a few of my own.

Who is trying to warn people of what? Do you mean this new surveillance tech?

Where are these "means of control" you talk about? Would they be the ones everyone was worried about when they started putting cameras everywhere?

I have never been "controlled" through surveillance, have you?

Violent & gun crime is down 6.9% this year and 35% since 1995: www.met.police.uk...

Bottom line; Who expects the right to privacy in a public street? The idea is a contradiction.

I apreciatte the concerns people have but until someone comes up with some spec of this thing I will hold off believing the cameras will work in the same way as those amazing X-Ray specs you used to be able to buy from the back of comics.

@ XPhilles. I've spent time in the US and can tell you the UK population has way more freedom to say and do as they wish (pretty much how I define Freedom). It also has alot more people who do not blindly assume everything their government does is the right thing. But this thread is not about that so I'll stop there.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by myowncrusade]

Originally posted by Britguy
These millimetre wave scanners are incorrectly labelled X-ray systems, I guess to make it easier for Joe (or Josephine) public to understand. ie, anything that looks through a material is an X-Ray.

While millimeter wave scanners exist, the resolution of the images in the article are higher than you get from them. The article may be using incorrect examples, although the various articles I've read all said "airport style x-ray cameras" and then show a backscatter x-ray image as an example.

The new airport "people scanners" are in fact scanning x-ray imagers and not millimetric wave scanners:

www.rapiscansystems.com...
www.epic.org...
www.epic.org...
www.as-e.com...

If it catches my former neighbour's daughter with her knife and her cronies armed, then I can put up with the inconvience. I would welcome the camera if it meant that she got arrested for carrying a lethal weapon on her person.

The police have been unable to find it on her person.These cameras will stop the likes of her going around carrying concealed weapons in their clothes.

Originally posted by myowncrusade

Who is trying to warn people of what? Do you mean this new surveillance tech?

the limitless use of any kind of surveillance even though i have yet to understand why deterrence is so alluring to so many people. the logic behind global surveillance is basically that everyone's a suspect. debate it all you wan't that's the premise, if you cannot read between the lines and understand that laws are effectively installed unilaterally and that more surveillance will just mean more laws because the can actually enforce them you might as welll stop reading right here.

Western parliaments produce hundreds of thousands of pages of new or amended law every year. law is there to prohibit and limit, so more laws mean less room to breathe. doesn't matter if you willingly obey, once they have their way, the next thing is right around the corner, this is so surreal that, where i live, speed limits are continuously reduced in order to create revenue from fines, where that does not work, they are flip-flopped every few hours. the goal is therefore not security but money and power. everyone's a criminal at all times and can be treated as you please.


just because *you* personally don't know or notice all these infringements over time doesn't mean they are not there.

let's examine a favourite example of mine: nutrition

www.ffnmag.com...
Co-Q10, discovered in 1957, is poised for further growth in Europe as awareness builds and supply expands and stabilises. According to Euromonitor, Norway is by far the biggest market followed by Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark.

Some ambiguity remains in Europe as the detail of pan-European supplements legislation is negotiated, but it is legally on sale in most markets and is expected to remain that way despite a ban in France on what can only be called highly conservative grounds. (France has banned co-Q10 in supplement form for the moment not because it is deemed a threat to public health but because the French government has determined it is nutritionally unnecessary by the bulk of the population.)

so, if they please they can do pretty much anything, banning a natural substance - it's none of their business, simply put. where does surveillance come in?

well, imagine mandatory health testing (DNA testing is already established, for non-suspects, mind you: news.independent.co.uk...) which could give away your illegal use of vitamin and mineral supplements - well it's either dying of depletion and cancer like the rest of them or living in illegality.
there are more of course:

Cinnamon legislation for the heck of it

let's see what they have to say about coumarin (the alledged reason why they restricted Cinnamon use)

Source
Coumarin has blood-thinning, anti-fungicidal and anti-tumor activities. Coumarin should not be taken while using anticoagulants. Coumarin increases the blood flow in the veins and decreases capillary permeability. Coumarin can be toxic when used at high doses for a long period

let me add: Salt can be toxic if used in high doses -- who determines what high means, it's our body not the state's, so these peeps need to take a long walk off a short pier.

Tryptophan case

Codex

So, to be fully honest, i am not willing to sacrifice health and life on the altar of obedience, so the reason why i'm trying to warn everyone of surveillance is that yes, you will want to break the law, you just don't know it yet.

Where are these "means of control" you talk about? Would they be the ones everyone was worried about when they started putting cameras everywhere?

I have never been "controlled" through surveillance, have you?

if cattle could speak, would the believe you if you told them they're in for a surprise when they get off the truck? did you know that such harmless items as old radio licenses were once used to determine people's religion, in Norway, during WW2...? implications, think about them...

Violent & gun crime is down 6.9% this year and 35% since 1995: www.met.police.uk...

Bottom line; Who expects the right to privacy in a public street? The idea is a contradiction.

nice, there's a lot to say, but i've had enough by now and will just post a few articles:

www.spectator.org...

In 2002 a study found that 11 million crimes had been left out of British government figures, including hundreds of thousands of serious crimes involving woundings, robberies, assaults and even murders as well as thefts. Dr. David Green of the Civitas research institute said: "When you check the small print, it turns out the Home Office itself thinks that there were far more than the 13 million crimes discovered by the [official] British Crime Survey, perhaps four times as many." Dr Green said the Office of National Statistics was subject to political interference and a genuinely independent statistical service was needed.

another gem:

wheelgun.blogspot.com...
Yet the attacks are not included in the Government’s key measure of crime, which IGNORES offences on under-16s. [emphasis in the original]

if this is really true, i will hazard a guess why: gun control just has to work and denial is the weapon of choice.

lies, damn lies and ...