UK local governments use anti-terror spying powers to catch litterbugs and people who put out trash early
Half of the local councils in Britain are using anti-terror laws to plant secret cameras and enlist snitches in order to catch people who put out their trash-cans too early.
Back when Britain was ushering in its dramatic new Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, those of us who questioned whether it was a good idea to take all reins off the power to spy on people was a good idea were called paranoid kooks. Now we come to find that RIPA is the first tool that local governments turn to when they need to catch someone whose dog has crapped on the pavement, or to catch paperboys who dump their advertising circulars rather than deliver them, or to catch litterers. These are the grave crimes that justify warrantless spying and turning neighbour against neighbour.
Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It is crazy that so many councils are using anti-terror legislation to spy on their residents. It must cost a huge amount for all these concealed cameras, just to give a few people relatively low-level fines.'Other local authorities which gave details of how they used RIPA included Lewes District Council in East Sussex.
It admitted that the Act was used to gain evidence on residents who persistently left rubbish out at the wrong time.
South Bedfordshire council also admitted going through phone bills inside rubbish bags to identify who had left them outside.
Officers also electronically tagged certain types of rubbish to find out if they had been dumped illegally.
Wycombe District council in Buckinghamshire put an electronic tag on rubbish left outside a shop to see if it was taken.
March of the dustbin Stasi: Half of councils use anti-terror laws to watch people putting rubbish out on the wrong day (via Schneier
the latest
latest episodes
"Our friend the Living Statue is back again."
I didn't realise that Hot Fuzz was a documentary.
Tough call. I would like the ability to identify the neighbor that lets his dog crap on my lawn though.
Did I also hear that the British Government froze Icelandic assets using anti-terrorism laws, because the Icelanders wouldn't give preference to British asset-holders over Icelandic asset-holders?
And, I suppose, did I hear correctly?
Taking this post seriously requires you to a) treat right-wing rag the Daily Mail as a credible source and b) care what the so-called "Tax Payers Alliance" think about anything.
A waste of a good opportunity to shoot litterers on sight.
Back in June there was a white paper published giving guidelines to local authorities on how to use surveillance technology in such a way as to avoid alienating their residents. It included such things as not using CCTV to identify all the petty crimes mentioned in this article. It was given a fair bit of airtime as I remember. Odd that the Daily Mail just seems to have heard of it
they have speed cameras all over their freeways, GB actually beats W.USA in crazy in some respects.
you're right, this is trivial. Let's talk about how the British government has chosen to support the torture and murder of Tibetans then. For money.
@Baldhead, #1: us Gloucestershire residents know that Hot Fuzz is much more of a documentary than you realise. Yarrp.
@NeilS, #4: Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. These things /really are/ happening; just for once, it's not a figment of a Daily Wail hack's fevered imagination. (That said the "TPA" (aka "Neighbourhood Watch Alliance"?) however sound a highly suspect bunch who would be just as happy wingeing about asylum seekers or women newsreaders...)
One teeny point about the story: RIP wasn't "anti-terror" legislation, it was (is) about interception of communications, and was passed before 9/11 (2000 IIRC.)
My memory of 1999/2000 is just like Cory's -- I convinced many people I was a complete paranoid loon by suggesting that RIP would make a terrible law which would enable all sorts of police-state-like activities, and deal a severe blow to normal expectations of privacy and various other civil rights. (And yes, I really did try to boil it down to simple factual statements and walk people through it in a straightforward way without foaming at the mouth... honestly...)
How bitterly ironic it is that it's the right-wing tabloid press that jumped on this sort of story as a stick with which to beat the current Labour government, when I'm sure I remember at the time that they were all in favour. As the IRA had declared their ceasefire and then signed the Good Friday Agreement several years earlier, my recollection is that "the peedos!! on teh world wide web!!!" were the casus belli. I've not found time to look back at what we said at the time, but Need To Know and El Reg would probably have been my main source of info at the time. Back then I hadn't joined EFF, and the ORG didn't exist yet, though the largely uncontroversial rubberstamping of RIP was one of several events that finally pushed me into doing it.
If it takes a Daily Mail campaign to help the UK realise that our civil libs have been savaged over the last decade - well, that's sad, but so be it. RIP, of course, is almost cuddly compared with other laws that have been, or nearly been enacted since 9/11, though. Here's hoping my theory that the worm is turning on all this stuff is correct... I'm cautiously optimistic. Apart from the 42 days detention without charge bill getting humiliatingly destroyed in the Lords recently, I've got a good feeling about ID cards too - the signs are good that it's running into the sand and will be written off pretty soon.
@ Editz #2,
I think you can still surveil your own yard. Although in England you might get in trouble if you record a child walking his dog, or throwing rocks at your house. (for the life of me i can't find the link)
It just seems the potential for gov't abuse is high with centralized surveilance.
@ Takuan #8,
You are right, there are bigger civil rights abuses being committed. This doesn't mean that we should ignore all but the most egregious. We should do what we can, when we can, to preserve our freedoms.
Some have remarked this is trivial. That is by design. The powers that be start intruding in little ways: traffic cameras, fingerprinting for your driver's license, seat belt laws, etc. We're like lobsters in a pot with the temperature slowly rising
We're oft to blame, and this is too much proved, that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar on the devil himself.
'It is crazy that so many councils are using anti-terror legislation to spy on their residents.'
this isn't crazy, its inevitable and to be expected. its exactly why these kinds of spying systems are shameful and wrong.
The solution to this surveillance problem seems quite simple. Put cameras (no microphones) in every room of every government office. Each camera goes to a different (lo-res) TV channel that can be viewed by any member of the public.
This gives the sticky beaks something to do with their lives, and an impeachable view into how governators spend their office hours.
@7, Rollerskater:
Your comment about the ubiquitous CCTV on roads sparked off a long rambling series of mental tangents and got me into a confused gray area where a devil's advocate position (which I use all the time as a way of testing my own notions about stuff) blurs into what I really think.
Taking the UK's CCTV surveillance of roads as the example, but hoping that the general principles are more generally applicable... here's a strictly hypothetical scenario.
Suppose that, in a parallel universe, the UK road cameras are only ever used for the well-known (advertised) purposes:
* convicting people for driving-related offences ("members of the jury, observe the defendants car weaving up the road before he struck the lamp-post. Now, see the police arrive and breathalyse him. Now, drunk driving - guilty or not guilty?")
* convicting people of other offences where video evidence of them travelling from A to B is used as evidence ("so then the bank robbers disappear from the bank CCTV. 10 seconds later the traffic cams pick up THIS car zooming off from the road where the bank is.")
* Very rarely, vectoring police onto a serious perp in a "hot pursuit" scenario ("We've picked up the car with a matching numberplate to the one the bank-robbers jumped into and sped off in; it's northbound on the M5 at Junction 8")
(I've probably missed a couple of the typical "benign uses" for such systems trotted out by their proponents as examples of things that, presumably, they think no-one could object to except serious criminals.
*IF* that was how the system were used, and supposing some pixie dust meant that this was all it could ever be used for... would you still be opposed to it? If so, why?
He said, "Kid, we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of garbage, and we was just wonderin' if you had any information about it." I said, "Yessir, officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that garbage."
-- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3479612/BNP-membership-list-leaked-onto-internet.html
I just saw that on BBC. Hopefully some heads will roll.
wikileaks
oh chortle chortle, I really shouldn't but it's just too too...