Comments for Word4women's Blog

Comment on Who’s Watching You Now? by Jake Tankard

Jake Tankard — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:05:23 +0000

If you remain very, very inconspicuous, there are places where you may never, never be fully noticed…no, not ever. Do you get bored with the same old hackneyed answers to the problems of life? Do you like to question the accepted wisdom of those whom are considered your betters? Do you like to take the process of personal enlightenment with a pinch of salt? Do you like to read witty, worldly-wise aphorisms to pass the time? Then if so, and as in the next few seconds (if you decide to decide right now) you do have a completely free choice, whatever you do next inevitably you may either don’t or you do go to: http: //swamiraj.wordpress.com/ maybe simply because you can rather than you can’t—so don’t you go and do it just on any old account without thinking about it first.

Comment on Feminism Unfulfilled–Why Are So Many Women Unhappy? by Time Magazine U.S. « Lifesnapshotz

Time Magazine U.S. « Lifesnapshotz — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:57:04 +0000

[...] Feminism Unfulfilled–Why Are So Many Women Unhappy? [...]

Comment on Who’s Watching You Now? by word4women

word4women — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:43:00 +0000

Thanks very much. It is good to know that it is harder to pull the info together than it seems. It is a great to see this technology used to catch criminals.

Again I appreciate your comments on this or any of the blog articles.

Comment on Who’s Watching You Now? by controlware

controlware — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:14:31 +0000

I can accept what you mean about the vehicle being there.

One thing I would say though about the July 7th bombings, yes police can gather data together in one place but it would mean physically taking recordings from seperate systems (with the right permissions) to a single location.

The ability to access multiple CCTV systems remotely is not possible today mainly because the CCTV systems are closed systems, provided by different manufacturers.

Comment on Who’s Watching You Now? by word4women

word4women — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:37:03 +0000

Thank you for your comments on the blog book review of Grant Jeffries new book, Shadow Government. I would like to respectfully address some of your comments as I believe some of what was written may have been misunderstood.

~ While using the quote from 1984 which references the “thought police,” it was my intention by my comment: The scary thing about both of the above quotes is how close to fact they are today in 2009.
Only to draw attention to some of the things going on as illustrated in Shadow Government and was not meant to be construed as fact, while the CCTV recordings may be protected under the Data Protection Act of 1998 through Office of Public Sector Information. The ability to gather data in one location is and has been available for many years. For example the police examined 2500 items of CCTV in the July 7th bombings.

~ Again the use of the quote is made to indicate what can happen. I have in no way stated that CCTV is recording sound and have never researched the legality of such an act. My point is that the technology has grown to such a degree that our privacy or lack of privacy rests in the hands of a few public servants. Would any of these individuals use the CCTV in a manner contrary to the Data Protection Act, I do not know. What I am sure of and what Grant Jeffries states is that the vehicle is there. As you have stated it would be illegal to use CCTV in certain situations, but it would not be the first time any individual or entity has deemed their “purpose” greater than the law.

~ I heartily agree with you that we live in a society in which our information on shopping, video rental, book choice etc is being accumulated at an alarming rate.

~ May we pray that those public officials whose job is to enforce the law, do not at some
time determine to take the law into their own hands.

Again thanks for the comments.

Comment on Who’s Watching You Now? by controlware

controlware — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:09:54 +0000

I don’t think that the first Orwell quote is accurate.

Firstly yes there are many cameras in the UK but they are not actively monitored. They are generally recorded for review if an incident occurs. All this is strictly controlled by the data protection act.

Secondly it is not possible for “thought police” to jump CCTV systems – so the idea that a single pair of eyes can track you across the UK is not correct. Entry to council controlrooms is strictly controlled, police have to apply for access.

Thirdly it is illegal for public CCTV to record sound so the claim about every sound you make being overheard and monitored is not correct.

Fourthly the big thing about 1984 was CCTV in private homes – this does not happen.

As for Grant Jeffrey’s passage of course there is CCTV at airport immigration. Immigration officers are looking for people who are falsely trying to gain entry to the country. They profile what these people do if they have something to hide so CCTV in this instance is an important tool.

One other thing CCTV is very good at is bringing suspects to the attention of the general public. Without them we would be left with potentially confusing physical descriptions that could be easily confused between each other. CCTV has helped in a lot of high profile cases including Jamie Bulger and the Suffolk Strangler providing valuable evidence to the investigative teams.

I don’t believe in the Orwellian argument about CCTV managed by a thought police who want to brainwash people. I think CCTV is more a symptom of the blame and claim culture that we live in today. CCTV at least ensures that local authorities, businesses and other organisations are acting in good faith in the event of an accident, crime etc.

More worrying than CCTV is the growing amount of personal data that supermarkets have amassed on buying habits through their club point cards.

Comment on Scraps and Garbage or Rare Jewels from God? by word4women

word4women — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:55:35 +0000

Praying that others will read and that the Word of God may open their hearts and lead them to abundant life

Comment on Scraps and Garbage or Rare Jewels from God? by word4women

word4women — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:54:47 +0000

God’s Gifts Keep Giving!! Great Word Cynthia!

The above was posted by Tracy @ Facebook

Comment on Should A Wife Submit To An Abusive Husband? by word4women

word4women — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:45:01 +0000

Thank you for your comments. To explain the source of my “odd approach” I will begin by saying (from personal experience) if in fact your husband is abusive a firm “no” would be highly inflammatory. An individual who is abusive and/or controlling will react against what they percieve as your defiance of their command. Thus it will be to them like a slap in the face, requiring retaliation. On the other hand if you approach a request to sin in a gracious manner that does not confront but communicates your willingness to follow his lead, while at the same time expressing the “why” behind the no, then you have answered his sin biblically.
As Jesus was gracious with the woman at the well in John 4 and with the woman caught in adultery. So we should be gracious in our manner of communication with our spouse.
It is not as easy to do as it is for me to write, but to act biblically we must answer with graciousness and not anger or wrath. This glorifies our Lord and prayerfully will turn away wrath.
The comments in the article are directed at an abused wife.
Again I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to clarify any statements I have made in this blog.

Comment on Should A Wife Submit To An Abusive Husband? by D

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:24:14 +0000

I would not go to my husband in a very kindly manner if he asked me to do something that is a sin against God. I would say no and that would be it. I agree abuse is wrong but your a little odd with your aproach.