Time to take off and nuke the Oxford city hall from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

That's just silly.

And now, for the benefit of the people who read my e-mail, Osama anthrax federal building congress white powder ammonium nitrate fuel oil wedding party yellow cake king fiesal embassy subway airport hotel rental truck hydrogen peroxide botulism sarin tabun phosgene oxime d-day h-hour normandy beach clowns clowns clowns clowns will eat your eyes

Sax, too sarcastic / not understood.

I agree, the only logical thing is just to record everything everyone says, just in case. The innocent need not fear anything. I believe an Englishman anticipated such a paradise in his novels.

What a load of CRAP!!

Recording everybody just to see if you've got a wanted criminal on your hands, no. Hell no.

But for keeping taxi drivers safe, yes. Driving a taxi is a hugely dangerous job, otherwise I'd be doing it. For keeping bus drivers and passengers safe, yes. On planes, yes. In parking garages, yes. Elevators, yes. Anywhere a woman has to be on high alert against strangers, yes. Eyes and ears need to be there as deterrents.

I'd also like wiretapping laws changed so that I can attach a little camera to myself as I walk to work just in case anything untoward happens. (Like what, you may ask.) Well, like the rape that happened in broad daylight on my exact route to work. No, I can't change my route--it happened in the plaza I work in. No, I'm not driving. I live a block from my work. It's stupid and it kills my battery. Yes, they did catch the guy. Illegal Mexican immigrant, deported several times, kept coming up here and committing violent crimes. But that's another subject for another day.

While stranger on stranger assaults are fairly rare and in decline, they would stop almost entirely if people knew they were likely being filmed by their intended victim, no?

We have all this cool technology, and I can't use it to keep myself safe. Just like a huge dossier exists on each and every one of us and I can't get myself a "Hey, copper, I'm a good guy so shut the fuck up" card.

Just another reminder that if we frak up the US (more than we already have), there isn't any better place left to escape to...

You are likely already being recorded on a city bus, btw, both for your protection and the driver's protection.

Many school buses have cctvs as well, again, to protect the driver from the children, the children from the driver and the children from each other, aka bullying. We cannot decry bullying on this site and then turn around and decry a technology that would prevent the crime. Hypocrisy and all that.

And ladies, you know how there's a nurse in the room when you get an exam from a male gyno? She's there to prevent the Dr. from *your* allegations, not to prevent the Dr. from sexually assaulting *you.*

Not a big change, as I see it. They already video tape everything in public there, for the same reason. Just another step on the slippery slope.

Why would a criminal discuss his criminal activities in a taxicab?

Why stop at public spaces?

"While stranger on stranger assaults are fairly rare and in decline, they would stop almost entirely if people knew they were likely being filmed by their intended victim, no?"

Yay its the good ol safety over liberty argument that ultimately gets many killed. Banning guns has done such a bang up job reducing murder hasn't it? Is that why I saw a big trash can (bin) in London 3 months ago for people to anonymously throw away their knives. "Get a life, bin that knife!". That was a couple of weeks after the riots in London mind you.

Meanwhile the NYC city council has has ruled that every taxicab has to be driven by Ben Bailey.

Driver, can you please hurry? I simply must get back to my hotel to copy these royal family sex videos.

Why would a criminal discuss his criminal activities in a taxicab?

This is the type of question that everyone should be asking.

Nicely done, Patrick.

Ian

"While stranger on stranger assaults are fairly rare and in decline, they would stop almost entirely if people knew they were likely being filmed by their intended victim, no?"

This is perfection, sheer perfection.

Because the affiant never thought of effective self-defense as the actual remedy.

"Stranger on stranger assaults"? You mean violent crimes.

And the only constant in such a thing is that there is a victim. No camera can reverse that.

The camera may make it worse. They decide they need to get the camera and destroy it so there is no record of the crime.

While stranger on stranger assaults are fairly rare and in decline, they would stop almost entirely if people knew they were likely being filmed by their intended victim, no? -- deathbysnoosnoo at November 15, 2011 9:28 AM

Are you talking about violent crime?

I go to my local renaissance festival every year. About a a third to half of the people, in costume, are carrying some sort of weapon of mayhem. The rest can readily buy one in about 10 minutes.

I think the last time someone, that wasn't an actor, pulled a weapon was about 20 years ago. He ended up facing about 15 others with weapons pulled. They talked him down before he was turned into a pin cushion.

The same thing happens in states with very reasonable (i.e. shall issue v. may issue) concealed carry laws. The rate of violent crime drops steadily with very rare spikes.

An armed society is a polite society.

Back on topic:

If this were to be implemented in the U.S. it could (should) quickly be killed.

There is no legal precedent in the U.S. for private companies to have security of any kind let alone voice recording. (I'm going to ignore nuclear facilities, explosive manufacturing, and similar activities as an exception.) The places that have security and cameras do it of there own volition or because of insurance.

There was a bar that I used to go to. The owner had cameras put in that saw everything. It became a ghost town for two months until he dropped the cameras back to the entrances and by the cash register.

There is a new Progressive insurance plan:

Snapshot Discount

With Snapshot, Progressive’s Pay As You Drive® (PAYD) program, you can turn your good driving into huge savings on car insurance. Your Snapshot Discount could be as much as 30 percent!*

What this does is put a USB and a 3G transmitter in your car hooked up to your onboard computer. Essentially it monitors every single braking action, what your speed is, what error codes are going by, etc. Typically if you are in an accident that the fire department shows up for, one of the first things they do once the hood is open is cut the battery cables. (If the airbags have not all gone off they want them shut down.) This also cuts the power to the onboard computer and all history is lost. The little USB is "permanent" memory. So that little USB can now be subpoenaed by the court to reconstruct the accident. Essentially it can be subpoenaed to prove you were speeding or any other activity.

I've never delved into what the OBD-II (OnBoard Diagnostics II) standards record and the special codes for a individual car manufacturer have. (Such as if you go to Autozone and use their device it will give you a general error for the EGR system for your Dodge, but also have specialized codes that are proprietary to Dodge.) But I rented a GM and it was telling me that the left rear tire pressure was low. I don't know if that is recorded or not.

The whole point is that if you use the system you are putting yourself at risk of having your driving history look Jim Carrey's confession to the cop when he was stopped in Liar, Liar

We need more cameras! We'll all be safe! Throw the liars in jail!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/

However, you must never ever video tape police or TSA personnel.

Next theft of privacy in the UK: no smoking in your own car ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15744352

With Snapshot, Progressive’s Pay As You Drive® (PAYD) program...

I saw a commercial about this and thought two things: 1) what a horrendous invasion of our privacy, 2) it is only a matter of time until attaching such a device in your car is a condition of getting insurance.

The statutory road authority where I live, VicRoads, have an extensive CCTV network for managing the road network. This really does help, they can get response people out to accidents, shift broken down cars, etc, much faster.

However, at least last time I talked to their operations people, they point blank refuse to record any of it. The reason is they don't want the hassle of constant subpoenas from the cops, civil suits, whatever. Anyone who asks, they can just say "we don't have recordings, sorry". It would be helpful to them for training and review, but their view is it's not worth it. Surprisingly sensible for a govt department!

I know a couple of other, private, road operations companies that have to allocate a reasonably senior person to spend around 2 days a week testifying in court.

Have Oxford City Council thought about the burden they are forcing on the taxi operators, and will they pay the costs?