Hacker News Reader

Comment by account-5 | Hacker News Reader

I think that's a little harsh. Do you live in the UK?

In the UK if you want to buy food in the supermarket you have to have a HD video camera pointed in your face (often two cameras). When all major supermarkets introduced these cameras a couple of years back no one even discussed it, or thought it was odd, because here there is no assumption of privacy.

I was telling a coworker recently that I always use a VPN while browsing the internet. He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have something to hide. And this isn't just one person. I've had similar reactions when I've told people I only use signal, or refuse to use cloud storage, or won't list employment history on LinkedIn for privacy reasons. I get that I have an extreme preference for privacy, but people in the UK don't even understand why someone like myself value privacy.

This attitude is also adopted by our leaders and businesses, who by various means, mass surveil the public, typically citing "safety".

The issue with the UK isn't just that our government don't value privacy, it's that as a people we don't even understand the value of privacy.

"In the UK if you want to buy food in the supermarket you have to have a HD video camera pointed in your face"

That's also the situation in the US if you go through any kind of self checkout. Maybe not in your face but just slightly above it.

Target literally has a camera on every self check out kiosk to show you're on video.

>stores have cctv to make sure people aren't stealing Lmao, is this really that surprising? Shops have had CCTV for ages now.

Self-checkout has more obvious cctv because you're giving more power to the shopper; self-checkout is just one step away from allowing someone to just walk out with the product a la Amazon Fresh (which has a literal FIELD of cameras).

Businesses have CCTV for the same reason that people have cameras fitted to their houses. 99.99999% of the time things will be fine, but the time something isn't, it's sure nice to have the evidence.

In the UK if you want to buy food in the supermarket you have to have a HD video camera pointed in your face (often two cameras).

Which supermarket is that? I've never seen anything overt like that where I usually shop and doing it covertly would be risky in multiple ways.

Doesn’t London have one of the most extensive surveillance systems in the world sans china?

I remember Xi or an official even praising London about that though I cant find a citation.

The UK has most CCTV cameras per capita in the western world. But they're pretty much entirely private cameras, including in London.

The government has no real ability to gain access to those cameras beyond asking nicely, or getting an actual search warrant. Even then the police still have to visit the site with the CCTV camera, and mostly capture the footage by filming the screen of the CCTV system with their phone (I've talked to Met police officers about this, and seen the footage). Most of those cameras barely work, point in the wrong direction, aren't recording, are so fuzzy you can't see anything. So comparing it to China is an apples to orange comparison.

The idea that these CCTV cameras could be used by the state for surveillance is laughable. The police struggle to get hold of the footage for actual in-progress investigations where they have real leads, and pretty much know what the footage is gonna show them already. So there's not a chance in hell the state could ever hope to get some sort of live feed of this data.

But they're pretty much entirely private cameras

I don't think so, they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.

Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.

Here some sources to backup my personal experiences working on CCTV tech with the Met police.

> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30978995.amp

Article on how much useless CCTV exists in the UK.

> https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in...

Estimates 4.4 million cameras in London, only 20k run by councils.

> they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.

Perhaps you can provide some sources for your assertions?

> Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.

That’s an entirely separate discussion.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-017-9341-6

That’s an entirely separate discussion.

It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.

> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-017-9341-6

Your source seems to support my position more than yours. Perhaps you could explain how research showing that CCTV is frequently of low quality, and doesn’t seem to improve crime solve rates, demonstrates the UK governments extensive CCTV capabilities?

> It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.

Your original point, which I refuted, is that London has a surveillance system which would make china proud. I think I’ve shown that no such surveillance system exists in reality. You’re free to move the goal posts, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not interested in chasing them.

I got mugged just a short walk away from a tube station in London (after having lived here for 4 years already, pretty good track record ruined by my propensity for enjoying night walks early in the morning; won't be doing that again).

But the police didn't have any footage of the event. Not even a business had a camera pointed in the right direction.

  >Doesn’t London have one of the most extensive surveillance systems in the world sans china?

Yes. But, to be fair, it has worked. London is lauded throughout the rest of the UK for its complete lack of violent crime

</sarcasm>

Indeed. When I was attacked near Clapham Junction and had a bottle smashed on my head, the police said it was too much trouble/costly to pull the video footage.

A friend had his bike stolen from outside Sainburys. They have high resolution viedo of it happening but refused to shared it with the local police without a court order.

Similarly a friend that runs a bike shop near a Tesco can't get Tesco to share high resolution video of burgalars breaking into his shop. They have it but it's their corporate policy not to share it.

On the one hand I guess right now all this surveilence is siloed to some degree and so less likely to be abused. On the other these seem like perfectly ligitimate uses of video to fight crime.

> people in the UK don't even understand why someone like myself value privacy

When you do have such a conversation, what would you typically give as reason?

  >He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have something to hide...

That's so oft-repeated it's become a cliché when someone is making a disparaging impersonation of a typical Daily Fail[0] reader. "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!" said in a braying upper class Tory accent.

Of course, the ultimate irony was when David Cameron was PM and the Panama pepers came to light, exposing all his dad's shady dealings and secret offshore bank accounts [1]. Cameron's spokeswoman told the press "A family's finances are their own private affair" This kind of sums up what life in the UK is like. A priveleged ruling class, with utter contempt for the electorate; "Do as we say. Not as we do!".

[0] Daily Fail = The Daily Mail. A right-wing tabloid newspaper which is a by-word for the kind of zzz-elebrity gossip mixed with anti-immigrant "hanging's too good for them" ranting that [unfortunately] appeals to a large enough percentage of the British population, to keep the Tories in power, seemingly for the foreseeable future.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-d...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-a...

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-camero...

[1] https://archive.is/T32k4

So why do you care about privacy if you have nothing to hide, then?

You have plenty to hide. Fortunately, nobody cares about you, at least not at the moment.

Put another way: the question of whether or not you have "something to hide" isn't yours to answer. Your user name is German; you should understand this better than anyone.

Can you post your credit card information here? If not, congrats, you have something to hide.

Privacy is a human right that needs no justification.

Why do you care about what I do if you aren't a snooping pervert?

What's your address and phone number? We can help you understand.

  >I think that's a little harsh. Do you live in the UK?

I live in the UK and I agree with that. It feels like living in a country which is trying to commit national suicide.

Not helped by the fact there seems to be nothing we can do about it. We're so much a vassal state to the USA that we don't even get to decide our own policies. So maybe better to say "It feels like living in a country which is being ordered to commit national suicide".

Respectfully, I don't think you can blame the US for electing Tories who are swerving towards the cliff.

Boris Johnson wasn't our doing. Brexit wasn't our doing. Neither was the cavalcade of morons to follow.

We do plenty of dumb and awful things, but this is self-imposed.

  >Respectfully, I don't think you can blame the US for electing Tories who are swerving towards the cliff...

No. I don't blame the US for Brexit or the Tories. But, as if those were not bad enough, there are the endless foreign policy decisions where the UK just immediately follows whatever the US does, even if it is economically suicidal.

> endless foreign policy decisions where the UK just immediately follows whatever the US does

That more the result of stupidity and Napoleon syndrome than some magic hold the US has over the UK. The UK, in particular our government, still wants to believe we're a geopolitically important country capable of projecting power and influencing the world. While there's some small element of truth in that belief, our actual relevance on the world stage is far small than our government wishes it was, and is only getting smaller thanks to wonderful incompetence of past 10 years of government.

Stop electing the people who follow them. Either way, it’s not the fault of the US if the UK acts as a vassal state.

  >Either way, it’s not the fault of the US if the UK acts as a vassal state...

Maybe not totally. But history is litttered with unfortunate "happenings" to countries which refused to ask 'How high? when the US said 'Jump!'

It's only in the US and amongst a self-deluding swathe of British society that this "relationship" is seen as one of equals. The reality is that we're sucking up to the playground bully because we've seen what he does to the kids who won't hand over their dinner money. And we're trying to kid ourselves we're best buddies.

> Stop electing the people who follow them.

To be fair, most voters in the UK didn't vote for the current government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_el...

> UK just immediately follows whatever the US does, even if it is economically suicidal.

What is a good example?

  >> UK just immediately follows whatever the US does, even if it is economically suicidal.

  >>What is a good example?

Well, the best example is playing out in Eastern Europe at the minute.

But there are plenty of others, including needlessly antagonising China and sabotaging our previously beneficial economic relations, because the US is spoiling for a fight with China. Ergo UK must do likewise.

The US didn't want you to Brexit and you did that.

No one is talking about Brexit here.

I had money disappear out of my NatWest account several years ago, when I lived in the UK. No transaction was present to show where it went. Nobody at the bank would speak to me about it, not to this day. I'm talking making it obvious that they didn't want to speak to me about it. That was one of many incidents where I was blatantly ripped off. Nobody there cared one bit.

EDIT: thanks for all the replies! That means something to me, I'll see if I can't get this sorted out. It's just weird that even the NatWest Twitter customer support account ignores my DMs.

I've heard this can happen where money laundering is suspected. Apparently the banks aren't allowed to tip off the account owner that they're being investigated, with the result that the account owner's subsequent interactions with the bank become kafkaesque.

AML rules are sadly very Kafkaesque. Having worked in finance for over a decade I've done enough compliance training to know that, yes, if money laundering is suspected you literally are not allowed to help the customer. You're not even allowed to tell them WHY you're unable to help. Failing to do so can make you, personally (the worker), criminally liable.

Telling the client "I'm sorry, your account is frozen pending an investigation" might land you in jail. You literally MUST lie to them and feed them a bunch of bullshit.

It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was developed by the EU, not specifically the UK.

Your options are; wait until some nameless government agency realises they've made a mistake, and releases your funds, or start a lawsuit and spend lots of time and money fighting to get your money back.

Punishment as part of a secret investigation, that you're not notified of or have a chance to defend yourself against in court, sounds rather undemocratic*.

*This word is sadly misused to mean "any unjust system of government". E.g. it is perfectly possible to have a constitutional monarchy, the antithesis of democracy, that respects the right to a fair trial and to face your accuser. Conversely, things people vote for are routinely dismissed as "undemocratic" - in that case, it gets called "populism". As far as I can tell, the words, as (ab)used, have nothing to do with the method of government, and everything to do with the outcome.

I've seen a lot of undemocratic actions by democratic countries. Democracies can be of a very weak form, that name alone is not enough.

What are you talking about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is doubleplus good Korea.

  >It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was developed by the EU...

Ahem. As with most of these things. AML and KYC actually originated in the US. And [as ever] was then adopted by other countries. The present setup was a G7 creation. Not specifically EU. I'll let my learned colleague ChatGPT elaborate:

The first country to propose anti-money laundering (AML) rules is difficult to pinpoint with certainty as different countries developed their AML laws at different times and for different reasons. However, one of the earliest examples of an AML law is the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970...

The "Know Your Customer" (KYC) rules originated in the United States in the 1970s, along with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970....

Other countries began developing their own AML laws in the 1980s and 1990s, with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) established in 1989 to coordinate international efforts to combat money laundering...

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is the global standard-setting body for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) policies. It was established in 1989 by the G7 countries, and its recommendations have been widely adopted by countries around the world....

Did you check if your colleague wrote truthfully?

My colleague wouldn't lie to me. We're terrific chums.

On the other hand, US didn't get contactless payments until much later than everyone else and as far as I know still does that thing where a credit card is pressed against some paper to capture the number; I haven't even _seen_ this done in person (I've never been to the US).

> It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was developed by the EU, not specifically the UK

As much as, for the dismay of the average hacker news Joe, don't pray to the holy EU altar, I suspect sure those guidelines were sketched by FATF, an American institution at heart, ironically where such measures are not applied.

The AML framework is xenophobic and goes against things we consider basic rights like being innocent until proven guilty. However, it is not only ignored but applauded by the most progressive crowds that think its defending their countries from barbaric $place_from_the_east_or_south.

If a bank takes your money and won't tell you why, that lawsuit should be to get your money back and treble damages. As long as you can get in front of a jury, the jury will be very sympathetic....

Hopefully that's what happened, then perhaps there's a small chance I can find out what did happen and maybe even see that money again. But it was more than 10 years ago, I think.

This is how it works in the US as well.

Well it's possible someone tried to make me look suspicious. But I think it's very unfair and even deceitful not to tell me anything at all.

  >Well it's possible someone tried to make me look suspicious.

You don't need to have done anything suspicious. I've been a victim of this myself. Several years ago, I had a Shares ISA [0] account, into which I invested a couple of hundred £££ every month out of my wages.

After about 5 years I was out of work and needed to cash it in. But, when I tried to withdraw the money, I got hit with an "Unexplained Wealth Order" [or somesuch term], telling me that under AML I needed to fill in some disgustingly intrusive form explaining where I'd got this sum of money from [it was only a few thousand £££, not a fortune]. And, as I said, this was from the savings company which already knew exactly where the money had come from. As they'd watched it build up in small amounts over the previous 5 years or so.

I refused to comply with their AML/KYC. It then took me at least a few months and several letters, threatening them with legal action before they finally agreed to just close my account and return my money.

I also closed my eBay account when they started asking for people to upload scans of their passports to verify their identity.

These companies can fuck right off, as far as I'm concerned. AML/KYC is disgusting and I just wish more people would make a stand and refuse to comply with it.

[0] https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/savings/investing/stocks-a...

It was a long time ago, but I think I remember something about an Unexplained Wealth Order. It could be that my explanation wasn't good enough for them. I need to chase this up again.

I worked as a consultant (permanent position) and had expenses that frequently needed to be refunded by the company. Perhaps they thought this was money laundering??

I mean, this isn't a UK-specific problem at all. PayPal in the US will happily do the same thing to you.

PayPal isn't a bank. Banks are held to higher standards regarding customer funds.

In Europe, PayPal is a bank: https://edesk.apps.cssf.lu/search-entities/entite/details/70...

That's... quite spooky, do you have any theories as to what happened? I hope you at least changed all your security info.

I think this is related to corruption - of which I am a target, which started in South Africa (where I'm originally from and have now moved back to), which seemed to spread to the UK when I moved there. I can't get anything in black and white either.

Raise it with the ombudsman!

I'll try again. Everything I've done seemed like a dead-end, but I'll try.

I’m curious how the appeared on your statement. Did a transaction of money coming into your account disappear?

There was no transaction. It looked like the money had never been there.

I don’t understand. Doesn’t your balance equal the sum of your transactions on your statement? I understand there is no outgoing transaction, but unless some “money in” lines were removed then how does it add up?

I don't know. The bank should explain that to me, but I haven't had anything from them.

This is the country where the health service, transport department, fire brigade (amongst a whole host of other government departments and public bodies) are allowed to access your complete internet history *without a warrant*.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...

This is also a country with a health service.

if you dont mind waiting years for a life saving surgery

How many people in the UK need a life saving surgery (urgently, otherwise they’ll die), but don’t get it and are left to die?

Sure you can pay for private if you can afford it but at least you don't need to for less urgent things

Not untrue about many parts of the US too by the way.

I do. It’s harsh but accurate in my opinion.

A bit harsh, but doesn’t miss the point entirely. The first time I was in London I was shocked at the number of in-your-face surveillance cameras. Now I grew numb, but it’s still bad, actually worse. An estimate puts their number to 1 camera for every 10 people.

I do. Sounds completely fair to me.

If you take your democracy and rights seriously.

That applies everywhere in the world then; I can't think of an exception.

Is that acceptable then because it's "happening everywhere" in your estimation?

That should raise even greater alarm bells for you then.

Perhaps it's both absolute and relative.

Either way, as a nation, I'm quite sure we've jumped off at the deep end compared to where we were.

And that's not just a feeling. Take one look at the idiots in charge, peel one layer back, and you'll see for yourself.

I don't think it's as bad as all that, but it's certainly heading that waym

Reply on news.ycombinator.com