My house is on Google. My jaw is on the floor.

Quite possibly the first and last time ‘sperm powered nanobots’ is seen in conjunction with Google Street View, thank goodness.

Freaked me out too, to see my house (and my Ford Fiesta) on Google Street View. My front garden was a real mess at the time.

Living in Ely I can’t see my home! Sobs…

@Steph – the first, but surely not the last.

@Martin – Ely is a place?

Ely is a city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely

And a beautiful city at that.

On the pic of my house, they took the photo when my kids were on their way out – they’re chuffed to bits about it.

Leaving aside the libertarian lunacy of your objection to sperm-powered nanobots, I’d be interested to read your line on ID cards. I’m agnostic on the subject, but it’s quite rare to find someone in this milieu who is in favour.

Neil said:

(But then, I’m in favour of national ID cards, CCTV…

Fascist.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ”

Benjamin Franklin

It wasn’t Franklin who said that a little learning was a dangerous thing, was it?

The idea that anyone who is in favour of ID cards is a fascist is just pure idiocy. Carrying ID cards does not necessarily infringe essential liberty, and neither does CCTV.

I believe it was Alexander Pope who coined that one -

“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.” An Essay on Criticism

- but I take your meaning. Anyway, it was not a serious comment. I have know the owner of this web site for many years and I do not really think he *is* a fascist. It was a playful poke at him. However, there is a speck of truth in here somewhere. I am not keen on the idea of identity cards. I do not like the new Intercept Modernisation Program. I dislike the proliferation of CCTV. I don’t like Jacqui Smith’s proposed uberdatabase, which is lurking on the legislative agenda. I don’t like the slow post-9/11 encroachment on civil libeties in general. I don’t think it is balanced, proportionate or even necessary in some cases. It is a fearful knee jerk into dangerous territories.

I will conclude with this quote, which is rather apposite I think:

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson

Fair enough Mark. Sorry I bit – I see a fair bit of trollery on this subject and I didn’t pick up the ribbing undertone.

One thing – I’d argue that it doesn’t do to fetishise liberty in the way that I think some commentators do at the moment. Democracy and liberty are often in tension with each other, and sometimes in demanding more of one, you implicitly ask for less of the other.

I outlined this one in a bit more detail here:

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/02/23/time-to-defend-politics-not-liberties/

No problem Paul. I should have put an emoticon in my original post to signal my tone

Anyway, I certainly take what you say on board. I agree that it is probably a mistake to fetishise anything, be it democracy, security, liberty, individualism, the State or whatever. This seems to be how bad decisions get made. And yes we do exist in a tangle of oppositions and tensions that must be reconciled, and that is completely valid and part of the process of government and modern life in a democracy. However, and this is my personal opinion on the matter, I am concerned that voices speaking in favour of our civil liberties are being drowned out by government ministers peddling fear in return for greater powers of surveillance. For a good example of this sort of thing, see Geoff Hoon’s comments on the (now shelved) Communications Data Bill, where he stated that refusing to extend the governments powers of surveillance would be giving ‘terrorists a licence to kill people’. I just don’t think that this sort of language is helpful. We run the risk of pushing through legislation that is questionable in terms of individual liberties in a state of frantic acquiescence induced by moral panic.