Biometric Data

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 12:41PM #1

Looks like the big boys will soon require the handing over of Biometric data to travel into or out of any country. I think this is crazy, and a violation of basic human rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/20/interpol-facial-recognition

What do the boardsies think??

Hee hhee hhee he, sneaky, sneaky, it will protect us from the "bad guys"?

Danbo! · 22-10-2008 12:43PM

TheEnforcer wrote: »

What do the boardsies think??

I think run_to_da_hills is on holiday or getting slow

R0ot · 22-10-2008 12:46PM

noblestee wrote: »

I think run_to_da_hills is on holiday or getting slow

I hope to god Big Brother finally kicked him in the hole. :pac:

Boom_Bap · 22-10-2008 12:47PM

TheEnforcer wrote: »

I think this is crazy, and a violation of basic human rights.

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 12:48PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

Why not have a camera in your front room, you might get an attacker coming in some day???

The dead are alive and well, I see.

R0ot · 22-10-2008 12:49PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

Someone doesn't know what biometric data is.

javaboy · 22-10-2008 12:50PM

I assume the OP wears gloves at all times to avoid Big Brother getting his fingerprints?

BaconZombie · 22-10-2008 12:50PM

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.
And yes denying people there right to privacy is a breach of their human rights.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

javaboy · 22-10-2008 12:53PM

R0ot wrote: »

Someone doesn't know what biometric data is.

Are you talking about the Guardian writer or Boom_bap?

BOFH_139 wrote: »

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.

It has? When exactly was that? How was it proved? Wouldn't a single instance of it being used to identify a criminal prove that it does work?

robinph · 22-10-2008 12:53PM

Taking pictures won't help prevent anything. Might make figuring out who did the "bad thing" was long after the event, but even that is doubtful as it would mostly just be used for putting pictures of the "bad guys" on the front of the next days papers once it's all over.

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 12:54PM

javaboy wrote: »

I assume the OP wears gloves at all times to avoid Big Brother getting his fingerprints?

Interesting point, consent was required in the past. However in the past few days "laws" have been passed to enable the covert collection of data.

Have you no sense of privacy.

Let me guess, all your little life is spread over BEBO, are you a little celeb?

javaboy · 22-10-2008 12:56PM

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Interesting point, consent was required in the past. However in the past few days "laws" have been passed to enable the covert collection of data.

What laws specifically allow covert collection of data?

Have you no sense of privacy.

Yes I do.

Let me guess, all your little life is spread over BEBO, are you a little celeb?

Wrong.

Quazzie · 22-10-2008 12:56PM

Private things should be done private places. Things done in public places are.. you guessed it.. Public!

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 12:57PM

javaboy wrote: »

It has? When exactly was that? How was it proved? Wouldn't a single instance of it being used to identify a criminal prove that it does work?

As many prominent thinkers of the past have said (you won't find todays puppets voicing anything other than the party line) it is better to have a few murders every year, you'll get it anyway, and live in a free state.

Read the Sunday World lately, you would think this place was like the wild west in its prime. Same old story, scare the plebs and rush in new laws to protect (read enslave) them/

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 12:58PM

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Private things should be done private places. Things done in public places are.. you guessed it.. Public!

:rolleyes: Private security guard: "bend over"
Quazzie : "is that far enough?"

Fratton Fred · 22-10-2008 12:58PM

BOFH_139 wrote: »

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.
And yes denying people there right to privacy is a breach of their human rights.

you obviously don't watch any of the police camera action type tv programmes then.

I have nothing to hide, I don't care.

javaboy · 22-10-2008 12:59PM

TheEnforcer wrote: »

As many prominent thinkers of the past have said (you won't find todays puppets voiceing anything other than the party line) it is better to have a few murders every year, you'll get it anyway, and live in a free state.

Prominent thinkers such as.....?

Are you talking about the "it is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than......" idea? Because I don't think that's the same thing really.

Read the Sunday World lately, you would think this place was like the wild west in its prime. Same old story, scare the plebs and rush in new laws to protect (read enslave) them/

Ugh. No. I won't read the Sunday World thanks.

Kiera · 22-10-2008 01:00PM

noblestee wrote: »

I think run_to_da_hills is on holiday or getting slow

He's off fapping over his new found friends post!

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 01:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you obviously don't watch any of the police camera action type tv programmes then.

I have nothing to hide, I don't care.

Here we go. This man sits watching police propaganda shows everynight.

Ever think of all the people filmed and not shown? Or do you think at all?

dsmythy · 22-10-2008 01:02PM

OP, what are you up to that you're worried about being caught over?

Do you want all cctv to be taken down?

TheEnforcer · 22-10-2008 01:04PM

dsmythy wrote: »

OP, what are you up to that you're worried about being caught over?

Brilliant, what did that take 19 replies?

dsmythy wrote: »

Do you want all cctv to be taken down?

Yes, burned down preferably.

dsmythy · 22-10-2008 01:05PM

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Brilliant, what did that take 19 replies?

Yes, burned down preferably.

It's tired old and worn but true. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

That's grand about the cctv. Can you start in Dublin City Centre because i feel like going on a drunken rape spree over the weekend without getting my mug caught on tape.

Quazzie · 22-10-2008 01:06PM

I find paranoid people really funny.

"they're out to get me" roughly translates as "I wish I was important enough that someone actually wanted me. Coincidently this type of talk is more common in Mental Hospitals than in public forums. Ever wonder why?

javaboy · 22-10-2008 01:10PM

javaboy wrote: »

BOFH_139 wrote:

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.
And yes denying people there right to privacy is a breach of their human rights.

It has? When exactly was that? How was it proved? Wouldn't a single instance of it being used to identify a criminal prove that it does work?

Well BOFH_139? How was it proven that CCTV doesn't work to solve crimes?

javaboy wrote: »

What laws specifically allow covert collection of data?

Are you avoiding my question Enforcer? What laws are you on about?

robinph · 22-10-2008 01:11PM

dsmythy wrote: »

Do you want all cctv to be taken down?

Well the only purpose of the cameras seems to be in creating crap shows for Sky so far, not sure that they have achieved anything else by having all the cameras around. The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

javaboy · 22-10-2008 01:12PM

robinph wrote: »

Well the only purpose of the cameras seems to be in creating crap shows for Sky so far, not sure that they have achieved anything else by having all the cameras around. The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

By that logic we shouldn't bother to fight crime at all since places with high levels of policing still have crime.

cooperguy · 22-10-2008 01:16PM

BOFH_139 wrote: »

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.

I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of places where cctv has been put in and crime has dropped HUGELY

dsmythy · 22-10-2008 01:16PM

robinph wrote: »

Well the only purpose of the cameras seems to be in creating crap shows for Sky so far, not sure that they have achieved anything else by having all the cameras around. The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

People still get away with things but how many more would also do so without it? Most crime is committed by repeat offenders. The more of them collared the less crime there should be.

The only time cctv fails is when it is poorly implemented with shoddy pictures or poor maintenence.

Now if you go to my website you'll find good quality cc...

cooperguy · 22-10-2008 01:19PM

robinph wrote: »

The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

Thats a very simple question to answer. Less bad stuff happens, more bad stuff gets caught. I dont think anybody expected all crime to stop around the CCTV. They arent magic.

thelordofcheese · 22-10-2008 01:25PM

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Looks like the big boys will soon require the handing over of Biometric data to travel into or out of any country. I think this is crazy, and a violation of basic human rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/20/interpol-facial-recognition

What do the boardsies think??

Hee hhee hhee he, sneaky, sneaky, it will protect us from the "bad guys"?

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Interesting point, consent was required in the past. However in the past few days "laws" have been passed to enable the covert collection of data.

Have you no sense of privacy.

Let me guess, all your little life is spread over BEBO, are you a little celeb?

TheEnforcer wrote: »

As many prominent thinkers of the past have said (you won't find todays puppets voicing anything other than the party line) it is better to have a few murders every year, you'll get it anyway, and live in a free state.

Read the Sunday World lately, you would think this place was like the wild west in its prime. Same old story, scare the plebs and rush in new laws to protect (read enslave) them/

TheEnforcer wrote: »

:rolleyes: Private security guard: "bend over"
Quazzie : "is that far enough?"

Y'see, heres the problem. Any actual concern over the concept, implementation and use of a biometric data system is overshadowed by the fact that every single one of these threads descend into the OP acting like a cretin and calling everyone else a 'pleb' or 'sheeple' or somthign else.
And then nobody listens to you because you're acting like a moron.

Now, surely you'd have realised this by now, because i'm guessing it's not your first attempt to 'warn' people.
The only conclusion is that you're just an attention seeking troll who actually has no interest in any of the possible ramifications of a biometric system, you just need to have someone pay attention to you for longer than five seconds.

Of course if the opposite is true and you genuinely believe in this then you're probably the best thing to happen to the case for biometric data. Nothing strengthens a case like having all the opposition to it be comprised of dribbling lunatics and the socially backward.

BaconZombie · 22-10-2008 01:25PM

Billions of pounds spent on Britain’s 4.2 million closed-circuit television cameras has not had a significant impact on crime, according to the senior police officer piloting a new database.

Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville said it was a “fiasco” that only 3 per cent of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3877670.ece

cooperguy wrote: »

I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of places where cctv has been put in and crime has dropped HUGELY

Biometric Data

Comments