When I see gov't CCTV cameras, I think:
Displaying poll results.14696 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6288 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
London (Score:3, Insightful)
London.
Re:London (Score:4, Funny)
London is spying
and I live in a van down by the river.
Re:London (Score:5, Informative)
London is spying
and I live in a van down by the river.
Orwell, The Clash, and Chris Farley, and all of it in 13 words. Well done.
Re: (Score:3)
London.
Why? Most cameras in London are private.
Researchers counted 12,333 cameras in Cheshire (county in north west England), of which 504 were government-owned: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watching-surveillance [guardian.co.uk]
London will be a bit different -- there are many cameras on the Underground, which is run by a government body -- but not that much different.
Re:London (Score:5, Insightful)
London.
Why? Most cameras in London are private.
Exactlty. Why is the poll about "gov't CCTV cameras"?
We control the government.
The "private" ones are much more sinister.
How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't care.
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
or...
"Is anyone actually watching this?"
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
Just smile to them, it makes it harder for them...
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
Software can now recognize a face in a database of 100,000. This is no need of someone watching.
Just smile to them, it makes it harder for them...
Walking around with an A3 sheet containing pictures of a bunch of wanted people would cause a few problems with their facial recognition software...
Re: (Score:3)
Walking around with an A3 sheet containing pictures of a bunch of wanted people would cause a few problems with their facial recognition software...
Absolutely brilliant! Thank you!
I guess t-shirts would do as well.
Re:How about dazzle paint (Score:5, Informative)
Dazzle face paint defeats virtually all CCTV database face recognition programs.
You can also get kerchiefs that have dazzle patterns on them.
Re:How about dazzle paint (Score:5, Informative)
Anti-mask laws, possible reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
North Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
.
Note the geographic clustering of the anti-mask/anti-hood law states in the SouthEast United States of America: In some cases these laws originated as anti-KKK laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't care if the software 'knows' I'm there, if no one else ever knows. If no one looks at the recordings, no one really saw me.
Now, that assumes I'm not also mugging an old lady at the time, but if that's the case I probably have other issues I should be worrying about...
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
or...
"Is anyone actually watching this?"
I answered "Ah, perfect safety and security." The only problem is the poll doesn't have the massive sarcasm tags that surround that phrase when I think it....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To my knowledge I've never seen such things, or been where they are located. (Sometimes I joke that Galion is a risky place to live, because we're only a few miles down the road from North Robinson, which is one of the four top targets for terrorists who want to strike a blow to the US. They'd hit New York, New York; Los Angeles, California; Washington D.C.; and North Robinson, Ohio. This is exactly the kind of joke you think it is.)
However, if I *did* see surveillance cameras around here, I'd jus
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if I *did* see surveillance cameras around here, I'd just continue to go about my business as usual, because I'd be pretty sure nothing I was planning on doing is the sort of thing they're looking for, anyway
Thursday, December 6th, 2:45 pm, suspect failed to come to a complete stop before turning right. $125 ticket issued.
Thursday, December 6th, 2:50 pm, same suspect walked into crosswalk before light changed to green, $75 ticket issued.
Thursday, December 6th, 2:52pm, same suspect placed what appears to be household trash in corner trash receptacle, $55 ticket issued.
Hey, these things eventually have to pay for themselves.
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
Your repeated violations of the verbal morality statute have caused us to dispatch the police to deliver corrective suggestion, please remain at your current location.
Re: (Score:3)
You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute. You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute. You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
Your repeated violations of the verbal morality statute have caused us to dispatch the police to deliver corrective suggestion, please remain at your current location.
"But I don't know how to use the seashells!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing that with the sheer amount of minor traffic and littering violations that occur in almost every larger city in the world, I don't think those measures are bad. At all.
Here in my country the fines for the above infractions are mild and the law is never applied. There's plenty of occasions where I am the only guy waiting at the pedestrian red light. I celebrate whenever I see someone who walks their dog and actually picks up the feces. I have seen policemen littering the sidewalks with empty cigarette packs.
Fine all those motherfuckers. Also fine me if I'm in the wrong, because I want to become more civilized than I am and I know I have bad habits too.
Re: (Score:2)
Thursday, December 6th, 2:54pm red bike doing 3x time the speed of light, Picture taken, Software: "no plate on the front side and wearing a helmet " ticked failed to find delivery address.
Re: (Score:2)
Right - it's a matter of degree. If they were sprouting up absolutely everywhere, clearly for the sole purpose of tracking, I'd have an issue with it. But where I live, there are a only a few government-owned CCTV installations around. Only in downtown cores or on streets with nightclubs with a particular history of drunk idiots or crime etc. They aren't installed as a matter of course - just in 'risky' areas. And they're always signposted ("this area is covered by CCTV" signs). They do prove useful in arre
Re: (Score:2)
What does "a tool in specific places for specific purposes" have to do with anything? That test is positive for both warm fuzzy pillows and medieval iron maidens.
Cameras will never be absolutely everywhere, since that is physically impossible, nor will they be "clearly for the sole purpose of tracking" since government will always claim they are for legitimate law enforcement. Which tracking may soon become.
" If it starts growing towards a big network of surveillance-for-surveillance's sake, then yeah, I
Re: (Score:3)
That's called a "slippery slope" argument. Do I care about my private phone calls/internet history? Yes. Do I care about cameras in a public space? No, not really. I'm actually able to do this amazing thing called "make a distinction". Apparently, you are not.
Actually, I care a very little about cameras in a public space. I certainly don't love them, but I don't think they're really a big deal, as long as I'm also allowed to take pictures in a public space. Of, say, cops. But public space is a very differe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about (Score:4)
It's hard to take arguments like that seriously.
Do you want your wife to know you're a cheating asshole?
How about not being a cheating asshole?
Do you want the government to know about your sexual fetishes?
Why should I give a fuck as long as it's legal?
Do you want the government to know you did something illegal?
If you're going to purposely break the law, it's your own responsibility and you'd better take appropriate precautions. Of course you don't want them to know you did something illegal. And that's part of the point of the cameras. To keep certain areas free of drug dealers and other such predatory scum.
If the law changes in the future, it doesn't matter what you've done in the past. If you can't agree to a proposed new law, then the onus is on you to either campaign against it, change your behaviour or move somewhere else. That's just how society works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yep, nobody is perfect, but people should still be held accountable to their own actions. Skipping the gym is only hurting yourself, not other people. If I've made a promise to someone, I'm going to do my best to keep that promise. If I fail to keep a promise, I deserve what's coming to me.
I don't know what you're talking about with the McCathy thing. Do you mean McCarthy? I'm not a privacy nut, so I don't know what you're referring to even if it's McCarthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much information is damned risky. It requires standardised behaviour. Any deviation from that standardised whether it be in the past, in the now or in the future marks you.
As to McCarthy, well that episode is one by anyone who remotely follows politics. Google "The McCarty Era" and read it and weep.
Re: (Score:2)
What if my insurance company monitors it to decide how much they will charge. It depreciates the value of insurance against your mistakes.
Well, that sounds pretty reasonable. Insurance should be based on your risk level. I don't see an insurance company monitoring CCTV though. Maybe looking at a list of crimes or accidents.
Yeah, I hate politics and I'm not American, so I didn't know about it :p Things like that can happen with or without CCTV. As for profiling and America's extreme attitude with foreign and political policy, it's a separate issue IMO.
Thankfully these days the ease of communication and the fact that public lives are even more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about GORGON STARE, or maybe CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN?
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to shoot for "Meh", but I guess the modern internet is made for people who grew up in a "with us or against us, pick a side NOW" political environment, leading to the given choices of "must devote absolutely every waking second to destroying these obvious eldritch abominations against all that is sane and just in our perception of reality, nay, in any possible concept of reality that can exist in the cosmos" or "HERRRRRRP A DERP ME LOVES TEH GUMBERMINTS CUZ ME SO DUMB AND PART OF TEH PROBLUMS DERP". Oh, well. The internet was good while it lasted!
meh,
Re: (Score:2)
If you think "meh" when you see a security camera, the proper option is to just not vote in the poll.
I've never understood people who see an opinion poll and choose the "I have no opinion" option. Unless they're trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Best Slashdot Poll (Score:4, Funny)
5/6 answers are basically the same. What's next, a poll about which swear word we yell when we get pulled over for speeding? A poll about what the deal is with airline food?
Where's my cardboard box? (Score:5, Funny)
Really, if they don't see you move you are invisible right?
Re: (Score:3)
Really, if they don't see you move you are invisible right?
Snaaaaaake!
Don't watch this (Score:3)
I try and estimate what their coverage is. and how/if you could get away with doing "stuff".
Although when I see tourists taking pics/video and I know I am going to be in the picture I do have a penchant for sticking out my tongue and making faces.
I Live In the United States (Score:5, Funny)
I wish Slashdot would remember that it has a global community of readers and be more considerate!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I think the country with the best CCTV [english.cntv.cn] coverage is China. Just switch on the TV, and you get easily 10 channels, including the English-language CCTV-9.
Re: (Score:2)
What 'Merica do you live in?!?!?
There are CCTVs on each-and-every goverment building, school, police car, and any intersection with traffic lights.
Not to mention the individual people and businesses that use CCTVs.
And the worst part about those CCTVs is that every one of them is somehow attached to TripWire, aka Big Brother.
mastershake82.... I really like your username but you need to get out from underneath the rock that you live under and stand up for your rights.
AC, meet sarcasm. Sarcasm meet AC. I am sure you will become great friends once you get to know each other!
Re: (Score:2)
There are CCTVs on each-and-every goverment building, school, police car, and any intersection with traffic lights.
Maybe, no, probably, and no. Our town has schools with no CCTVs and almost no traffic lights with CCTVs. (Actually, isn't this the case most places -- red light cameras are still cameras, not video.)
Not to mention the individual people and businesses that use CCTVs.
Which aren't government CCTVs, the topic of the poll.
And the worst part about those CCTVs is that every one of them is somehow attached to TripWire, aka Big Brother.
[citation needed]
Re:I Live In the United States (Score:4, Interesting)
it's not Tripwire, it's Trapwire [gawker.com]. And it ain't picky about what systems it hooks into.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's on gawker. Must be true.
Is there centralized monitoring and sharing of some non-govermental CCTV feeds? Sure, there probably is. Is EVERY private CCTV system integrated into it? Of course not. Most aren't even networked.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's on gawker. Must be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrapWire [wikipedia.org]
Is there centralized monitoring and sharing of some non-govermental CCTV feeds? Sure, there probably is. Is EVERY private CCTV system integrated into it? Of course not. Most aren't even networked.
Not networked yet. Do you think that number will go up or go down as time goes on, if things remain the same? Do you think the NSA is going to ask permission or inform the systems' owners if they decide to intercept some private web-connected CCTV video stream?
You may want to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM [youtube.com]
Besides, many(most?) people carry around their own wireless electronic locator and audio/video monitor with them. Will even return home to ret
Missing option: grumble and moan (Score:5, Insightful)
How about grumble and moan about lack of privacy & trust, and the absence of any true security... but yet roll over and do nothing about it? Except maybe gripe about it on the Internet somewhere?
Re: (Score:3)
How about grumble and moan about lack of privacy & trust, and the absence of any true security... but yet roll over and do nothing about it?
just what are we supposed to do? Here in the US it's not like you can actually vote against the oppressive surveillance state. Your average citizen doesn't have anywhere near enough to buy our politicians back from the corporate interests. One of the things I hoped when Obama was elected the first time was he would roll back some of the more obtrusive illegal internal spying programs initiated by Bush after 9/11 and actually make the government more transparent as he promised. Instead he's been far worse th
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we have to start voting third-party wherever possible. Are a lot of them potentially dangerous fanatics that would destroy our way of life if given the chance? Sure. Will they ever get the chance? Almost certainly not. Are fanatics harder to buy than "normal" politicians? Almost certainly. Moreover even if the Libertarians (for example) managed to somehow get a majority in congress, the party itself is so fragmented that they would be unlikely to be able to agree on much beyond dismantling
Defense vs offense (Score:2)
Attacking the cameras seems really stupid and draws more attention to yourself as they find out who committed that vandalism or obstruction.
My line of thought would be along the lines of big sunglasses and a fake beard.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The next person will have an interesting time wondering why big sunglasses and a fake beard are on a security camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I often wondered that about the CCTVs in my neighborhood. What do they have to hide?
Easy. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My line of thought would be along the lines of big sunglasses and a fake beard.
I have a beard and wear sunglasses outside ... I never get away with anything.
Perfect (Score:2)
Another video camera ready to feed me crazy videos of people being beat up, shot, run over, or luck out and survive. All courtesy of LiveLeak and Youtube.
That and russian dash cams.
What I don't think.. (Score:2)
Humor and a pimply ass are your best defense. (Score:3)
All in the name of your rights of course. Moon a camera today!
This is disturbing (Score:4, Informative)
CCTV in schools [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] are in bathrooms and changing rooms. The GOVERNMENT controls these cameras and tries to assure us that the footage from these cameras is secure. Bullshit.
I've seen websites which show photographs and map locations of CCTV cameras covering public spaces and coverage areas. Problem is I think they've been taken down citing national security concerns, and I can't remember URLs. I would like to see such sites up again.'Cos you know what? CCTV cameras have NEVER been the single deciding factor in solving crime. Why? Because they're too low resolution. At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage (and that's pretty narrow for a CCTV eye). They do NOT prevent crime, as the Home Office's own figures show, that since the most CCTV'd city in the world - London - has never had a year in its history where the crime rate has dropped.
CCTV Resolution (Score:2, Interesting)
At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage
At that distance and angle of view, even 1920X1080 (1080p HD) won't be able to separate the eyes on a face. Put a 15X optical zoom on either of those cameras and you'll be able to count their teeth, but that camera will have to be manually operated.
16 or more megapixel cameras are available that can do the job really well. But, 16MP network cameras run in the $7-10,000 range.
The solution? Lots of low res cameras so that there is one close to the action.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cameras are as useless as you claim, why are they being installed? I thought it was so big brother could monitor us all and invade our privacy? So how does that work if they can't tell us apart?
And according to this [wikipedia.org] various categories of crime in London (e.g. murder, robbery) have certainly gone down in recent history (I don't see stats for all crime, and don't think they'd be relevant to a discussion of street based cameras). Whether that's because of or despite the presence of cameras I have no ide
Re: (Score:3)
If the cameras are as useless as you claim, why are they being installed?
The TSA is useless and it manages to stick around...
Re: (Score:2)
CCTV cameras are mostly targeting petty crimes - at least, that's the official line. And in a way it makes sense, for a shop a CCTV camera can be useful to keep an eye on those hidden corners, and to detect shoplifting. In that way it may prevent would-be shoplifters.
On the streets, CCTV cameras may help police reacting faster to say street fights, that is, as long as someone is actually watching those video feeds in real time. Which usually doesn't happen, maybe with an exception of known trouble hotspots
Re: (Score:3)
CCTV in schools [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] are in bathrooms and changing rooms. The GOVERNMENT controls these cameras and tries to assure us that the footage from these cameras is secure. Bullshit.
I've seen websites which show photographs and map locations of CCTV cameras covering public spaces and coverage areas. Problem is I think they've been taken down citing national security concerns, and I can't remember URLs. I would like to see such sites up again.'Cos you know what? CCTV cameras have NEVER been the single deciding factor in solving crime. Why? Because they're too low resolution. At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage (and that's pretty narrow for a CCTV eye). They do NOT prevent crime, as the Home Office's own figures show, that since the most CCTV'd city in the world - London - has never had a year in its history where the crime rate has dropped.
What, you mean investigators can't magically increase the pixel density on a digital image by shouting "ENHANCE!" at the computer screen over and over???
CURSE YOU, JERRY BRUCKHEIMER!!!!
BART CCTV: True Story (Score:3)
Once I was sitting on a train in Oakland (MacArthur station) and a homeless couple walked / rolled (one was disabled) onto the train.
First thing, dude gets up, spits onto a folded up piece of paper and then sticks it to the train's CCTV camera. Then they pull out a fifth and start taking pulls.
lack of choices? (Score:2)
It seems that the choices are to think:
1) I will damage this.
and
2) This makes me feel better.
What I think when I see CCTV of any sort is first, to check if something valuable is around and then second, when I realize it is not a bank or something, I get a creepy feeling that someone wants too much control and thinks that monitoring is a good way to help them achieve those ends.
For myself, I can easily destroy any monitoring equipment if it becomes necessary to do so, so why do they infringe on my desire t
That they are a waste of money (Score:2)
CCTVs could be used right but in most cases the police just puts them up in dangerous areas so they can have an excuse for not having a cop on the corner. People get mugged in front of them every day. They do provide some evidence now and then though, provided that a case gets to court.
False Choice (Score:2)
When I see a young child littering I think:
1. They should be publicly tortured to death
2. They should get off with no punishment at all
Does anyone else see the problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
I voted the last option, reading it as being pure sarcasm. Can't say that for your example.
Cheaper than cops on the street (Score:2)
I grew up in the 80's crime wave
Back then Uncle Sam gave cities money for 50,000 more cops in the street
Cameras are cheaper than having cops walk the street
Re: (Score:2)
One camera may be cheaper than one cop. Twenty cameras may be cheaper than one cop. But do they also have the same amount of 1) crime prevention and 2) increase of sense of security? That should be the real calculation. But somehow I have the feeling that it has never been done like that.
Oh and assuming you're talking about the US: one thing that also may help there is for cops to start walking/cycling like they do in other cities while on patrol. Not just driving around what I've been told many times is th
I haven't logged into that one yet! (Score:5, Interesting)
That is my usual reaction. Many cameras actually have a tiny web server on them, and are hooked up on IP/PoE networks. There are several in my city that are accessible because they were never locked down correctly :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of information in this thread http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/01/18/1829230/Unsecured-IP-Cameras-Accessible-To-Everyone [slashdot.org]
When I see gov't CCTV cameras, I think: (Score:2)
"Wow... someone around here must be very important. Or rich."
Surprisingly; I feel safer (Score:2)
I know its totally the wrong feeling to have, but when I see a CCTV camera I look around and feel safe.
The caveat on this is that I still see cameras in some places and think "OMG, They can see me naked!" But if I'm wandering around in (most) public places I find my brain thinking "Oh wow.. well, if I get roughened up by some nice gentlemen at least the police will be able to find the gents who did this to me and give them a stern talking to and a discouragment for that sort of future activity" [1]
I then
Second Amendment and Sic Semper Tyrannis (Score:2)
Second Amendment and Sic Semper Tyrannis
Projectile weapons... (Score:2)
None of the above (Score:2)
I think "Scorpion Stare" and make sure I'm not in the line of sight of two of them.
bad habit (Score:2)
I can help but wave or smile at CCTV cameras. It's a reflex action. I actually don't care.
What eve happened to the 'other explained later' option.
They're going to arrest me (Score:2)
The case for security cameras (Score:2)
In a recent online poll, nearly 20% of computer freedom privacy experts agreed that government cctv cameras provide safety and security.
Re:Missing Option: Don't Care (Score:4, Insightful)
It must be nice to live under a political system that actually has opposition parties which have a non-zero chance of getting voted in.
Greetings from the USA. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
I know that I will suddenly care when, one day, it directly involves me. But right now, I don't.
So you'll foolishly wait until it's too late?
Re: (Score:2)
Too late? Really? I think not.
Maybe you've read about those red-light cameras that were all the rage a while back. I've never seen one, and it wouldn't matter if I did - I don't run red lights, so it's not an issue. If you really followed those stories, you also read about the large number of communities where the citizens got pissed off and decided to have them removed. So the towns did. Not everywhere, certainly, but in enough places to convince me that after they were put up, it wasn't "too late".
T
Re: (Score:2)
When they do, they'll be removed
Like the TSA and the Patriot Act?
I don't run red lights, so it's not an issue.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. But the thing about red light cameras is that they end up with people sometimes getting tickets, and not 'just' a loss of privacy.
If no one cares, they'll stay.
And that's exactly the problem: not many people seem to care, including that guy above.
If they aren't causing problems, what's the issue?
Well, their mere existence is causing problems for me.
But I definitely hope you're right. I do hope people really get rid of them like they did to those red-light cameras in those communities. The problem is, although it might t
Re: (Score:2)
You have the right to anonymity. You have the right not to be photographed. Argue with me: Muslims get to wear full face coverings so they don't get photographed for "religious reasons", why can't I as a white man who values his privacy do the same, only with an LED that you can't even see when it's switched on?
Oh, here [maplin.co.uk]'s a decent little gadget. You can use a timer circuit to pump a higher voltage through without causing damage, it'll also give you the opportunity to try and make it lase which will vastly i
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the d-bags who are more than happy to tell you how crazy a philosophy it is, in spite of the fact that their knowledge of the party approaches zero.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, voting third party IS throwing your vote away
You don't get to decide that for other people. If you think it's a waste, then it is a waste for you. However, if someone else doesn't think it's a waste, then it isn't a waste for them. I personally think any vote for a party I don't actually like is a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is a statistical FACT that voting third party means voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning.
Virtually no chance, anyway. Agreed. However, I still find voting for the two main parties to be a waste.
It's an idealistic choice, and idealistic choices by their nature are wasteful.
It's as idealistic as any other choice. To me, the two main parties are completely worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on what your goals are.
Re:Living in a democracy (Score:5, Funny)
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Re: (Score:2)
I think that depends on the timescale.
If you don't like the common agenda of the main parties and you keep voting for one or another of them, you send the message that what they are doing is acceptable. At one time you could have responded to this by boycotting the election or spoiling your ballot, but that doesn't work any more. Not voting at all is simply seen as apathy, and spoiling your ballot makes
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the political landscape to change, you have to vote for third-party candidates. It won't happen overnight; it may not happen in your lifetime. But if you want change it's a lot more pragmatic than validating existing practice.
In the last year, the UK has seen a massive rise of "fourth-party" (not what we call them) candidates. The Liberal Democrats used to be the choice of many people who didn't want to vote for the largest two parties (Labour and Conservatives). They got into government at the last general election, but they've fallen out of favour for most people, and some much smaller parties have gained.
Most recently, there was a 15% rise for UKIP in Rotherham [wikipedia.org], and smaller increases at the other two elections on the same d
Re:Living in a democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
And yes, voting third party IS throwing your vote away
Depends on your goals and values. Sure, a third party candidate is vanishingly unlikely to win, on the other hand your vote may help their party cross the tipping point to qualify for federal campaign funds in the next election and perhaps get the media attention necessary to start making a real difference - after all they don't even have to field a candidate with a realistic chance of winning to start affecting policy, they just need to attract enough of the vote that the major parties worry about losing crucial support and try to change their policy to appeal to the "renegade" voters.
And if you don't perceive either major candidate as being significantly less bad than the other then your vote is wasted by voting for either, whereas working toward adding a new voice to the debate might actually be worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CCTV is the least of your worries, Serfs.
That's "@Serfs," verified account, thank you very much. Be sure to subscribe to my youtube channel too!