What the hell were the last two decades?

[Martinus]

The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).

Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?

[Martinus]

From a U.S. perspective, the Federal government is supposed to only have the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution but the courts have often interpreted those powers so broadly that I'm not sure that it means anything. 

The individual states, however, aren't bound to expressly granted powers even in theory.

Where do the powers of the states come from?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

[
Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.

irrelevant as the issue is that no institution, be it government or private, should have all that data on people.
As far as I see it the position you're taking could be taken just as easily to install a STASI-system. After all, the safeguards are there.

[Martinus]

You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.

Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.

You are correct.  In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion.  But you have put the cart before the horse.  What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?

Why are you talking about CCTV when the question was about recording conversations?

I love the fact that BB ignored this question.

[jimmy olsen]

So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records?  Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks?  Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?

Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.

With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.

[Neil]

With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.

Why do you wish to retard public order?

[garbon]

We need this smily!

At least some US smiley.

[Strix]

The government exists to serve its people. There is no good reason that could justify the need for such cameras. They would be expensive to implement and maintain, and would have a negligible effect on crime. In short, it would punish the innocent.

Sorry for jumping in the middle of the discussion without reading much but I call BULLSHIT on this idea.

We use CCTV on a regular basis in the City of Rochester to monitor criminal activity. They are not expensive to implement and maintain. They have a tremendous impact on crime. They force criminals away from specific areas while also allowing the capture of those idiots dumb enough to continue their activities in view of the cameras. I also have yet to hear of a single incident where someone innocent was punished. Several murders and rapes have been resolved because of them but John Q Public hasn't been Big Brother'd yet.

We also have a Gunshot Triangulation System (not sure official name of it) in the city that allows law enforcement to respond faster to shootings. There are going to start adding Red Light Cameras but I am not too thrilled about that one because it will cut down on the number I can run.

[Barrister]

You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.

Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.

You are correct.  In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion.  But you have put the cart before the horse.  What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?

Why are you talking about CCTV when the question was about recording conversations?

I love the fact that BB ignored this question.

I answered about 5 questions in a row, and you're criticizing me for not answering one post?  That's delicious since you already avoided a bunch of my questions by saying you weren't going to debate me any further, only to jump in again a few hours later.

What various governments have put in place (didn't know Rochester, thanks Strix) is putting CCTV cameras.  Conceptually there's no difference between recording sounds and recording images that take place in a public area, although the cost/benefit analysis might be somewhat different.

[Barrister]

The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).

Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?

Parliament (and the government) can do anything.  You said there is some list of enumerated powers that government can't go beyond.  There isn't.

[Barrister]

So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records?  Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks?  Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?

Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.

With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.

That's not how it works at present.  Fingerprints are retained of anyone who is merely arrested.  All police notes are maintained, whether there are charges laid or not.

[Neil]

So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records?  Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks?  Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?

Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.

With the exception of convicted felons or records for on going investigation, yes. The cameras aren't different, I don't want the government to have any of that.

That's not how it works at present.  Fingerprints are retained of anyone who is merely arrested.  All police notes are maintained, whether there are charges laid or not.

And if they weren't, Tim would snivel about that, too.

[Martinus]

The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).

Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?

Parliament (and the government) can do anything.  You said there is some list of enumerated powers that government can't go beyond.  There isn't.

You do not recognize a difference between the "sovereign" and the "government"? 

[Barrister]

The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).

Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?

Parliament (and the government) can do anything.  You said there is some list of enumerated powers that government can't go beyond.  There isn't.

You do not recognize a difference between the "sovereign" and the "government"? 

And what point do you think you're making?

I understand the theoretical distinction between them (although they are often used synonymously), and I can't understand what distinction means in this context.

[Sheilbh]

Err, could you explain what the difference between this and the principle I quoted is? This seems to me the same principle, although differently worded. The sovereign (the "people" etc. - who speak through the Parliament) can grant certain powers to the state (i.e. the government) - does the government have powers that were not granted to it in the first place by the sovereign?

In the UK, in theory, Parliament can make any law regarding anything.  No Parliament is bound by its predecessors and cannot bind its successors to anything.  And, so far as I know, no court can invalidate an act of Parliament - this may have changed with the creation of a Supreme Court, but I'm not sure.  But that's just the theory.

I'm also not sure if the people are 'sovereign' in the UK.  I was always taught that Parliament (meaning the elected representatives, the Peers and the Monarch) are 'sovereign' in our system.