America is an imperialistic, warmongering, racist country that puts self-interest above all else. And that's our ally speaking.
"Vulgar," "uncultured," "ignorant" and "greedy" are some of the more common adjectives that Britons use when describing Americans, according to the findings of a new poll published today in the Daily Telegraph. Ironically, those same adjectives can be used to describe the Telegraph's editorial board that thought it necessary to conduct the poll — with the help of YouGov — just in time for the 4th of July. Perhaps the better story, which the Telegraph chose not to report, is that after 230 years, Britons continue to begrudge the United States for that pesky revolution.…
Article comments
126 - Christopher Rose
Please try not to be a complete dork, Dave. The cameras are in public spaces, so privacy isn't an issue.
There is and always has been, even during the worst of the IRA bombing campaigns on the mainland, more freedom in Britain, despite the vast amount of dishonest chundering on about it that the US indulges in.
127 - Dave Nalle
Chris, my point is that peoples expectations are different in the UK and the US. We actually have laws which protect our privacy in our cars and to a certain extent even our privacy in public. I realize that's an alien concept to you, but that's my point. Our definitions of freedom are subtly different.
Dave
128 - Christopher Rose
It's not an alien concept, Dave, that's just another of the little self-delusions you like to cling to.
We like to be able to go about our business safely, rather than trying to pretend that public spaces are anything other than that.
129 - Dave Nalle
It's not a delusion, Christopher. It's based on things which both you and STM said a few minutes ago on this thread.
You've clearly stated that you don't consider cameras watching you in your car or in public places to be an invasion of your privacy.
Many, many Americans disagree with that perspective. That's a fact, not a delusion.
Dave
130 - Dave Nalle
And before you go any further with your fruitless argument, you might want to actually inform youself on the subject. The ACLU is suing various states and cities over this issue, including DC, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Minneapolis, Louisiana and Iowa.
Dave
131 - Christopher Rose
I really can't tell if you are comprehension challenged, Dave, or being wilfully dim and obstructive.
If some of you Yankees have become so ego-centric as to consider public spaces private, I think most people would consider that a delusion.
That you consider cameras recording what happens in public spaces a greater threat to freedom than the Patriot Act just goes to show how confused you are.
132 - Dave Nalle
Christopher, when did I say that anyone considers this issue more of a threat than the Patriot Act? I don't believe I said any such thing.
But you know, it IS possible to oppose more than one form of tyrrany, so we can oppose the Patriot Act AND oppose surveillance cameras.
If some of you Yankees have become so ego-centric as to consider public spaces private, I think most people would consider that a delusion.
It is not the public space which is private, it is the actions of people in that public space which may be private. People have an expectation that when no other people are present they can behave in certain ways and not be spied on. And like I said, the fact that this does not seem reasonable to you points out the difference between your perspective and ours.
You can call it a delusion and throw out your usual personal insults, but that doesn't change the fact that civil rights groups in the US take this issue very seriously, and they're not just a few crackpots.
Dave
133 - Clavos
"That you consider cameras recording what happens in public spaces a greater threat to freedom than the Patriot Act just goes to show how confused you are."
Not greater, but a threat even so.
Some cities have even begun to install cameras with face recognition software in entertainment districts; Ybor City in Tampa, Florida is one such. How long wil it be before the courts decide that the government has a right to put cameras in boardrooms, and one day even in bedrooms?
After all, it wasn't that long ago that the government asserted the right to regulate people's sexual behavior in their own bedrooms. There are still millions of people in this country who regard that as appropriate; should they gain sufficient power, the behavior will once again be proscribed and the cameras won't be far behind.
Need proof? Listen to Huckabee's speeches. It's not rocket surgery to extrapolate from them that he would love to regulate private behavior voyeuristically.
These kinds of things do tend to mushroom, at least in this country.
"We like to be able to go about our business safely..."
I am reminded of Ben Franklin's well known observation:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
134 - Dr Dreadful
Cameras in public spaces are no threat unless they are abused, and the concern of privacy advocates in the UK is that they are abused. At the moment, it's mainly only by voyeuristic cops and others who think it's a good giggle to spy on people just because they can. The line is crossed when this surveillance equipment is used to pry into people's private business (which BTW, Chris, is often conducted in public) for no good reason.
While there hasn't been much danger of that in the past from British governments, this current one is far too cosy with the Bush administration and its Ahmed-Under-the-Bed paranoia.
I was in London recently. While cameras are very prevalent, I never felt worried that a police officer or a man in a sinister dark suit was going to come up to me and ask what I was doing standing around on that corner just now. There are also millions of cameras in Las Vegas, and I feel far more uncomfortable there than in Britain.
It's a fine line. At what point do we all start thinking it's OK for the government to put cameras in our homes? That day is a long way off, but it needs to be guarded against.
As Juvenal warned: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
135 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, you seem to be sharing the same confusion as Dave.
I'm going to ignore his nonsense as, to judge by his, let's be generous and call it deliberate mis-comprehension, he seems determined to cling to it and he objects to being mocked, whilst simultaneously calling another colleague "clinically insane", "stunningly stupid", "a complete moron" and so on.
However, I would have hoped that you would see that there is a clear difference between merely watching and/or recording what happens in public, which doesn't infringe upon anyone's freedom at all, and the powers granted by the Patriot Act, which is a matter far more suited to your Franklin quote.
Going back to the cameras issue, I don't really see how we get from cameras in streets to the prospect of having them in either boardrooms or bedrooms; that seems like paranoid conjecture to me, but then my freedom is under less threat than that of you guys in the USA...
136 - Dave Nalle
Chris, I have to point out that Dr. D. and many others in Britain seem to get the issue with surveillance cameras.
The Patriot Act has not been abused, yet we object to it because of the potential for abuse. Public surveillance cameras carry that same potential for abuse - and even moreso when coupled with legislation like the Patriot Act.
You know, Britain has its own laws which are every bit as bad as the Patiot Act, and many of them predate it. You guys led the way. You've denied Habeas Corups under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which was created by your Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill which is your equivalent of the Patriot Act and just about as bad and it was just the start of a series of acts which culminate with your new government's anti-terror bill which will allow people to be detained for up to 6 weeks without even a hearing.
As I said before, you have lower expectations of freedom because you have always enjoyed less freedom. Not a huge amount less, and still a lot more than most countries, but your standards ARE different.
Dave
137 - Dave Nalle
I do think it's cute how when Chris is so obviously wrong he just becomes more condescending and defenseive, though.
Oh, and as to my 'insults' to Adam Ash, they are either accurate descriptions based on his ludicrous article or not personal in nature.
Dave
138 - Christopher Rose
Dave, I simply don't accept that we have less freedom in the UK than the USA. You lot go round believing you live in the land of the free, which I consider one of the most successful big lies of all time, but there is far more regulation and law in the US than here, despite the rising tide of EU law.
Our current government is quite a cause for concern, as it was set on a seriously misjudged road by the recently departed arch deceiver Blair. Hopefully the country will recover from the dangerous momentum he created as it has so many times in the past.
139 - Les Slater
"People have an expectation that when no other people are present they can behave in certain ways and not be spied on."
And they should. This is not 'just' a few cameras in public places. It's part of a pattern. There are also phone and web tracking, purchasing information and even medical records that have become 'public' records. Every fuckin insurance company and creepy Human Resources flunky have increasing access to them. In the big picture of things, this invasion of privacy has little to do with protecting public places. It's more about giving opportunity for some to make an extra buck. Again, the major use of this invasion of privacy is NOT to track criminals.
I know from experience that when one exercises their right to address grievances committed by various agencies of government there is often intimidation. I was protesting at a Federal building and a cop came up and asked for identification. I refused and he informed me he was from Homeland Security. Just another flunky so I just stepped onto city property. No further attempt to demand that I identify myself. But there were some cop assholes that made a big deal of photographing everybody there. This is nothing but an attempt at intimidation.
140 - Christopher Rose
Dave, as a person who openly tags himself as both an elitist and a pig, your words not mine, it is always hugely comedic when you try to paint me as condescending and I'm not trying to be defensive at all.
It's presumably your giant ego, which is positively galactic in its scope, that prevents you from seeing the error of your ways, whether it is in your "perception" of matters political or your inability to see that your subjective opinions are just that and nothing more.
I find your entire political stance to range between wish fulfilment and seriously deluded, with a prolonged diversion round the utterly insane, but I don't go round arrogantly referring to you in the way you do to others such as Adam.
You can, and should, debate the subject matter without tossing around the personal remarks so freely.
141 - Dr Dreadful
Don't mind Chris, everyone. He's just grouchy because his team didn't win today.
;-)
142 - Clavos
"You lot go round believing you live in the land of the free, which I consider one of the most successful big lies of all time, but there is far more regulation and law in the US than here, despite the rising tide of EU law."
...Which is precisely why you should be able to see why some of us are alarmed at the installation of "crime control" cameras in public places.
And, IMO, it is decidedly NOT such a great step from cameras in public places to spying on people in private settings, as Les so eloquently pointed out above.
Trust your government if you want to. I don't trust either of mine, and they rarely prove me wrong.
143 - Colin
Singing: As long as we beat the English, we don't care...
Gwlad, gwlad... etc.
144 - Colin
And on this rather patronising, preachy and simplistic article - No America is neither Evil empire nor benevolent ruler. Do I win a bun?
145 - Dan
If street camera's aren't objectionable, for reasons of safety, then why not recordings of conversations? Or inspection of library materials conducted at public libraries. As with the Patriot Act.
Phone conversations are all conducted over governmentally regulated transmission lines, or electronic airwaves.
If there is to be no expectation of visual privacy in the public domain, then why do some draw the line at audio privacy, as in phone conversations between terrorists?
I understand the medium implications here. An illegality commited on the streets is there for anyone present to see. But for a successful prosecution a judge and jury, who weren't present, would need to focus on a recording.
Whereas a successful intervention in a terrorist conspiracy plot would sometimes require a focus on a suspect before the illegality occured.
That is admittedly a distinction.
But if privacy in the public domain is the issue, and the only expectation of privacy one has is in their homes, then why should one expect that their calls, transmitted outside their homes, should be off limits to governmental detection anymore than a street thug's expectation to privacy outside her home.
Not trying to pick an argument here. Or to say that one is and one isn't. Just wondering what the reasoning might be.
If it's the distinction I mentioned --spying beforehand, as opposed to taking a look after the allegation -- then that seems a little bit trivial to me, when you consider that a street thug has a "presumed innocence" before his incriminating past is spyed on.
On the other hand, most anyone with any vague sense of a link between freedom and privacy, would probably agree that in either case, the focus of the detection should be the only prosecuted offense. A suspected terrorist who only makes a drug deal for instance.
Personally, I don't expect privacy in either case.
146 - Dr Dreadful
Colin, if you have any more buns you'll explode.
147 - Dave Nalle
Dan, I gave up expecting privacy years ago when I knew the KGB was monitoring everything we did, and then later when the FBI was tailing me as a 'subversive' or some silly shit like that. But that doesn't mean that I don't WANT to have that privacy. It's why I moved to my current semi-rural small-town community, where I know the local cops, and everyone looks out for everyone else, and everyone is armed, and big government is none too popular.
But despite all that, the county has put cameras at the intersection at the end of our road, and while I suppose it makes me feel a bit violated, it bothers me more because of the mindless waste of money and resources which it represents, to provide a service and a protection which no one wants or needs, except maybe the government bureaucrats who raise money from issuing tickets remotely, and maybe the insurance companies looking for opportunities to raise rates.
Dave
148 - Silver Surfer
Dave, you have this thing about cameras in public places that are actually designed not just to prevent crime but to attack it while it's happening.
It works, and I don't have a problem with it.
I'll tell you why ... laws exist to stop people misuing it (ie, perving on women etc) and I know there have been prosecutions in regard to it.
Just because Ben Franklin uttered some bollocks about giving up freedom for security, doesn't mean it's right.
He was just a man, not a fu.king saint. This is where you blokes fall down with this stuff.
You'e stuck in the late 1700s (especially with the 2nd amendment, which if you were to apply it like everything else you do to 200 years ago, you'd all be walking around with muzzle loading single shot muskets ... actually, not a bad idea).
If I'm walking around in PUBLIC space known for its high-crime rate, I'm glad to have the cameras.
I guess the choice comes down to a proliferation of guns and the highest gun murder rate of any western nation and no one looking out for me, or a couple of cameras keeping an eye out for idiots.
I know which one hurst my sensibilities most.
I still maintain I have a right to walk around without being harrassed, and if cameras are needed to do that, so be it.
And I'll say it again: the only people I know of who've been arrested as a result are people who deserve to be.
I'll say this again: the notion that America has more freedoms than a country like this are a myth.
You don't, and the reality is you might actually have less.
149 - Dave Nalle
Dave, you have this thing about cameras in public places that are actually designed not just to prevent crime but to attack it while it's happening.
The police CANNOT prevent crime. They can't do it even with a video camera. Response time still factors in and most crimes are done and gone before they could react even if notified by video.
The police can follow up on a crime arrest the perpetrator and see that he's punished and therefore commits no further crimes, but that's really all we should expect from them.
It works, and I don't have a problem with it.
Does it? Britain's crime statistics have not gone down since cameras were put in place.
Just because Ben Franklin uttered some bollocks about giving up freedom for security, doesn't mean it's right.
It's not right because Franklin said it, it's right and he was wise enough to see it and express it well. He's hardly the first or the only person to express the concept that freedom comes with responsibility.
You'e stuck in the late 1700s (especially with the 2nd amendment, which if you were to apply it like everything else you do to 200 years ago, you'd all be walking around with muzzle loading single shot muskets ... actually, not a bad idea).
Actually the usual conclusion from that exercise in reductio ad absurdam is that we'd all have our own personal battle tanks and nuclear weapons.
If I'm walking around in PUBLIC space known for its high-crime rate, I'm glad to have the cameras.
I'd rather have a gun. Having a video of getting murdered is not a hell of a lot of use after you're dead.
I guess the choice comes down to a proliferation of guns and the highest gun murder rate of any western nation
Are you more dead if you're killed with a gun than if you're killed with a knife or a stick?
They have gun control right next door to us in Mexico yet they have a higher rate of violent death there than they do in post-invasion Iraq.
and no one looking out for me, or a couple of cameras keeping an eye out for idiots.
What happens when the government decides it's time to keep an eye out for whether you're smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer or feeling up a woman who's not your wife?
And I'll say it again: the only people I know of who've been arrested as a result are people who deserve to be.
If the police could read peoples thoughts and sense in advance the intent to commit a crime would you support having them arrested on that basis?
I'll say this again: the notion that America has more freedoms than a country like this are a myth.
I would say that we have some different freedoms and value various freedoms more and others less than you do.
Dave
150 - Dan
Dave, I agree completely with you about the cameras. Although private cameras in 7-11's or Wal-mart parking lots don't bother me at all.
Those Brit's have it all backward. Nothing enhances one's security more than the freedom to carry a decent, sufficiently lethal weapon. More precisely, it's the simple fact that the freedom is there, not the weapon itself, that keeps the criminals at bay.
Great Britain's extremely stupid defiance of common sense, (even by liberalism standards), by enacting the 1997 gun ban, is the reason they now need security cameras.
I guess the next logical step for Brit's, is to install Gov-cams in their homes since home invasion stats are skyrocketing. Although, I don't know how much higher they could go.
Perhaps Britains liberal folly could increase our security though. Their gun control laws combined with their suicidal immigration policy could be a strong inducement for our criminals to relocate there. It would be a much safer working environment for them.
151 - Silver Surfer
Dan, you are proof positive that you don't have to have a long neck to be a goose.
Britain's crime rate is STILL lower than that of the US, the murder rate is still VERY low compared to that of the US ... so I'd say the cameras probably do fulfil some useful purpose.
If I lived there, would I rather they weren't there. Of course.
As for them being a nationwide netweork, well ... yes. I suppose if you are talking traffic.
But the truth is, for surveillance purposes, they are in a number of town and city centres notorious for their high-crime rates and public drunkeness (one of the major causes of crime).
They aren't there to monitor the actions of ordinary people - they are there to prevent and catch crims. (And mate, honestly, if you want to meet up with a woman who's not your wife, well do it somewhere where you know you aren't going to get caught or better still, not at all.)
Bear in mind too that they are monitored by police officers who will direct patrol cars and patrolling vans to the scene of a crime very quickly, and bear in mind too that most police officers in Britain still don't carry firearms.
Dan's obviously never lived there judging by his comments (easy to pick stuff up off the internet even when it's not right), and you lived there a few decades ago Dave, so that doesn't count either, does it?
Perhaps we have differing views and we'll have to agree to disagree, but you once described to me that doing something was like "trying to kill a tapeworm by feeding it".
Well, I see the convoluted and deluded "logic" of reducing gun crime by making MORE guns available in the exact same light.
Cameras compared to that? The lesser of the two evils in my book.
152 - Dave Nalle
SS, Britain's crime stats have ALWAYS been substantially lower than in the US, even when guns were legal in both places. The point you're missing here is that the more Britain cracks down on individual liberty, the WORSE their crime rate gets, not relative to the US, but relative to their own past history. THAT is the statistical comparison which matters.
Dave
153 - Dr Dreadful
Good point about the crime stats, Dave, but in the same light, guns have never been as widespread in Britain, even when they were legal.
I'm also not convinced there's a correlation between individual liberty and crime rates - at least not in the direction you say there is. I understand that crime in the USSR was very low. I may be wrong. You and Stan both lived there for a time, so you may be able to enlighten me.
154 - Dan
“[A] United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 ... found England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.”
"In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.... "
Your just wrong silver.
Of course a lot of the spiralling crime rate in Britain has to do with recent immigrants and the enhanced criminal proclivities of certain ethnic groups. Great Britain is still much "whiter" than the US, but that gap narrows in a pretty direct correlation to the rising crime rates.
Though I'm confident you're in denial of that as well.
The analogy of killing a tapeworm by feeding it would imply giving more guns to criminals. It's criminals that commit the crimes, not the guns themselves. Giving guns to law abiders kills the tapeworm.
155 - alessandro
"What have the Romans ever done for us..?"
I absolutely adore dry British wit and humour.
#11 - "The US - as a political entity - shows ignorance, aggression, ruthlessness and poorly veiled hidden agendas further decrease its credibility."
If Machiavelli was to rise from the dead and came to examine America he would refute the above statement. Though I wonder what De Toqueville would have thought of American democracy in its current form.
#66 - "The international community is cynically avoiding taking responsibility for any real action in international affairs while reserving the right to criticize US actions required by the inaction of the internationals. What a bunch of twerps!"
Wow, never thought Bliffle had it in her. Him?
CR: Depends what you mean by "world." Let's face there are many deadbeats out there.
#81 - As a Canadian, I have seen this first hand myself with my own interactions with them. If I started my businesses in the USA I'd be further along much quicker. Heck, Simon Cowell observed this on AI. Americans are amazing that way. Europeans less so.
#102 - "Dave, when the USA accepts that it is just another voice in the crowd and conducts itself accordingly rather than somehow thinking it is better than all the rest, then your country would be a fit member of the UN and possibly more appropriate to be considered as a world citizen or leader. As it is, it's current juvenile pretention that it is somehow more deserving than any other country and doesn't need to follow the customs and manners of the entire rest of the planet disbar it from that role or status."
Chris, you're kidding right? I mean really, read your first sentence lad. Be realistic!
#116 - "And Canadians. They don;t like Americans because Canadians KNOW they won the war of 1812 and Americans still deludely think the US did."
STM, oof odd that we pacifist Canadians hang on to a war like 1812 so tightly is odd. Nonetheless, we also hate them for taking Wayne Gretzky and Lorne Michaels.
#148 - I fear you miss the profoundness of Franklin's words. Think about what he is saying harder...Look, the invasion of government in whatever form is patently offensive. Go and "rationalize" it all you want.
Cameras on the streets to protect citizens is a swell idea (and it may very well work and Chris may bot be bothered by it) but what are the unintended consequences of this? What if it is abused? Who will watch the guardians as Juvenal used to say? It's a form of power. Les makes a good point on this one.
Having cameras for "surveillance' purposes wreaks of '1984' people. It's this logic that leads to a police state. We assume that the "noble intent" of the idea will remain intact. We all know it won't end up that way.
156 - alessandro
Heck, didn't realize most of the comments were from a couple of years back. Yeesh.
157 - alessandro
Of course, Europeans will always take the view that America is infantile. Imagine what they think of us Canadians! As long as we all get along, right? It is what it is. Greeks hated Rome as they had to adjust to the new world power in ancient times.
But Europeans had their fun in the realpolitik sun, creating balance of power alliances, building empires, plundering wealth abroad while leaving behind (ironically) notions of (for example) social justice, smashing meek nations etc.
Basically being every bit as ethno-centric (but sometimes with a conscience) as America is accused of being. Lucky them. Now they have suddenly become peaceful multilateralists - albeit comically indecisive ones.
That's what happens when power erodes; you become peaceful and listen to Joan Baez music.
My perceptions and observations lead me to accept that America tries with all its heart to be benevolent but sometimes reality sets in. Life and humans are fluid. We don't live and operate in a fixed state. Shit will happen. We will make mistakes and get some right.
Indeed, when compared to all the great empires, America tries probably than most to be so. But as one poster pointed out: it is also an economic - or more specifically a financial - empire. So, they don't necessarily need to invade nations to control them. Then again, weren't and aren't Rome, Florence, Venice, London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Lisbon, Brussels and Amsterdam all financial empires at some point in history in their own way?
As for arrogance, it's all driven by perceptions. Man, I've met my share of incredibly stupid and arrogant Europeans. As well as Canadians and Americans. But the reverse has been true too. Interestingly, every African I ever met was cultured, multilingual, thoughtful and respectful. Yet, they there are butchering each other up. Go figure.
I blame...Norway.