Skip to main content

The UK's surveillance state must not be accepted

So it happened. London's Met police announced that the city will get its first permanent camera equipped with facial recognition. The first one will be deployed in Croydon, with the Met police saying they could extend the surveillance to other areas.

This is another step towards the UK's recent ambition to become a surveillance state -- some of you might have noticed that the government is also trying to gain access to Apple users' end-to-end encrypted data.

This isn't fine, and it doesn't matter how lofty the intentions behind these attacks on people's privacy are. "We're fighting crime" isn't a good enough excuse, not when crime in the city is going through the roof and the police is doing nothing about the amount of stabbings, thefts, and phone snatching that is going on in the capital. There are many ways to fight crime, but the Met seems to be more interested in merely logging crime and producing nice charts at the end of the week, something that can be comfortably be done from home.

Today's government is democratic, but we cannot give something as important as our freedom for granted. If permanent cameras are installed today, we don't know how they will be used in the future. We are deploying a technology that can track every citizen everywhere they go, with absolutely no guarantees on its future uses. Not to mention that one permanent camera in Croydon isn't going to change anything. The trials with facial recognition cameras were extremely successful because they were deployed in areas where people (including criminals wanted by the police) weren't expecting them: it is by accident that they ran into the cameras. One permanent camera in Croydon will not have the same type of advantage.

Unless, of course, the goal is to deploy so many cameras that they become unavoidable. And that is in itself a worrying prospect. As citizens, we should try not to give the government the kind of power that we wouldn't want to be used against us. By allowing the police to be able to track anyone, anywhere in London, I am afraid we're signing up to a much more dangerous future than we intend to. I could even be open to consider the temporary deployment of facial recognition cameras in targeted areas for specific purposes, but permanent cameras are an unacceptable breach of our privacy.

We already have extensive CCTV coverage in London, which makes it one of the most surveiled cities in the world. But for some reason, the Met police still can't fight crime effectively and fails to solve over 90% of car thefts and over 80% of burglaries. I can tell you right now, all the AI in the world will not solve London's crime problem: it will only improve the overreaching state's capabilities to monitor the average citizen. Do not ignore the warning signs of a state that is turning into the Big Brother: we are the only thing that stands between a free country and a totalitarian one.

Popular posts from this blog

Is CANZUK the UK's natural home?

We've all heard about CANZUK. Or have we? There has been some recent interest in the concept of CANZUK - an alliance between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The reason for this recent uptick in interest (which can interestingly be verified on Google Trends) is, considering the unprovoked trade war started by the US against Canada, not accidental. The world order is changing, and so the Anglosphere needs to adapt, too. The US has not only become an unreliable partner -- Americans have shown the world that they are willing to put in charge a dangerous man freelancing as a clown, twice. It is clear that the pax americana is coming to an end, and western democracies need to realign and decouple from America - fast. This isn't to say that America has become an enemy, not at all. It is still a strong Western ally, but its support for NATO, freedom, democracy and the West in general cannot be taken for granted anymore. And so the countries that still care about western valu...

The root cause of all American evils

TL;DR:  it's the two-party system. Longer version: it's the two-party system. Yes, really. Full version: When Americans go to the supermarket, for every product they want to buy they are overwhelmed by choice. Cereals, tomato sauce, apples -- everything is available in all shapes and flavours, with multiple brands competing with each other and products coming from all over the world. I am writing this before the tariff-induced famine. When Americans go to the polls, it looks a little bit different. There are, realistically for most of the country, only two options. This is a problem because when choice is limited, quality isn't incentivised. Going back to the supermarket example, imagine that there are only two brands of cereals you can buy: well, that isn't really a lot of options, and you might very well end up buying the cereals that you "dislike the least" rather than the ones you "like the most". As if that was not bad enough, the only two brand...

Italy’s love for the big state is a cultural remnant of fascism

 Today we are going to make Italians mad. And no, we will not be breaking spaghetti – something that my Italian family has been doing for generations, no, centuries, before TikTok videos started circulating claiming that Italians don’t break spaghetti. We do, in fact, break our spaghetti, just like any sane person with a functioning brain would do when the spaghetti clearly doesn't fit into the pot. I actually used to sometimes not break my spaghetti, but now I always do so out of spite: it gives me both physical and emotional pleasure to know that the Italian gods are frowning upon my heartless breaking of spaghetti. As much as I would love to talk about how only people living in a hopeless country could get brutally angry about other people’s freedom to break spaghetti, and how this relates to Italy still being a fundamentally fascist-loving country at heart, the topic I suggest for today is the following: the link between Italians loving the big state and Italy having experienc...