Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The right to privacy in public places

TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Thought I would make a new post rather than possibly drag the Britain: An International Perspective thread off topic but it seems that a lot of people feel very strongly about the amount of CCTV and similar things (ID cards etc).

Now to me I can't really see the big deal about CCTV, the idea that you have a right to privacy in a public space seems a little wierd, or at least no more wierd than the 'if you throw it away its public property' thing that turns up all the time in US cop shows which I can see having far more serious complications. Additionally, whilst I can see people feeling a bit uncomfortable when there is a couple of cameras (or the new ones they are trialling in a few town centres that have speakers attached so the police can shout at you if you start causing trouble on a friday night) with the more conventional cameras doesn't the amount of privacy you effectively have almost revert back to normal - there is just too much data to trawl through just looking for crimes, it becomes purely a reference for the police to go back to when they are aware of when and where a crime occured. I would be a little more wary of them if there was some computer program monitering the events in all the cameras but I think we're a fair bit away from that.

What are the main arguments against widespread CCTV? Are people against it in principle or is it more a slippery slope/wedge strategy thing or just the way its being implemented?

Tastyfish on
«134

Posts

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Thought I would make a new post rather than possibly drag the Britain: An International Perspective thread off topic but it seems that a lot of people feel very strongly about the amount of CCTV and similar things (ID cards etc).

    Now to me I can't really see the big deal about CCTV, the idea that you have a right to privacy in a public space seems a little wierd, or at least no more wierd than the 'if you throw it away its public property' thing that turns up all the time in US cop shows which I can see having far more serious complications. Additionally, whilst I can see people feeling a bit uncomfortable when there is a couple of cameras (or the new ones they are trialling in a few town centres that have speakers attached so the police can shout at you if you start causing trouble on a friday night) with the more conventional cameras doesn't the amount of privacy you effectively have almost revert back to normal - there is just too much data to trawl through just looking for crimes, it becomes purely a reference for the police to go back to when they are aware of when and where a crime occured. I would be a little more wary of them if there was some computer program monitering the events in all the cameras but I think we're a fair bit away from that.

    What are the main arguments against widespread CCTV? Are people against it in principle or is it more a slippery slope/wedge strategy thing or just the way its being implemented?

    I'm only against it being leaked to the media, unless it is part of an actual criminal event. Like, CCTV feeds shouldn't be given to media as part of some kind of blooper reel or "hey, look, this guy was flirting with this chick outside the club and she dissed him" or any of that crap. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what people see me do. I just don't think anyone should broadcast it for nearly any reason.

    steam_sig.png
  • desperaterobotsdesperaterobots Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It's problematic, for all the obvious Orwellian reasons.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    It's problematic, for all the obvious Orwellian reasons.

    pffft. naive. We've always lived in the public eye, it just wasn't so obvious before now.

    tmsig.jpg
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The only difference between a camera filming how you pissed in public and a random person passing by, is that the camera is 100% reliable.

    I think most people fear for a slippery slope. For example; we had a thread here a week or so ago on "why the future will suck" and the guy rambled about microphones in the pavements recording everything we say. And then there is the good ol' -ism argument, see ege02's "random searches" thread for reference.

    Me for me, I don't trust the police/government enough to let them record everything I do, we'll just have to wait for CCTV feeds to show up on the internet showing funny things/sex. By accident, of course.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I have no problem with the Orwellian future as long as you get rid of the obscene amount of control. Being observed doesn't bother me. But the problems presented in 1984 weren't really due to extreme observation of the citizenry, it was in controlling it to an excessive degree. You could easily have "visiplates" everywhere without the government forcing you to do things. I mean except for a few ridiculous laws - like that you can't use weed in your own home or gamble or whatever - you really are King and Queen of the Castle on your own property, so as long as THAT doesn't change, I don't really see much of a problem.

    steam_sig.png
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    As long as it isn't done on private property then there really isn't a constitutional problem with it.

  • desperaterobotsdesperaterobots Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It's problematic, for all the obvious Orwellian reasons.

    pffft. naive. We've always lived in the public eye, it just wasn't so obvious before now.

    I do think theres a difference between the public eye and the thousands upon thousands of high definition shout at you if you're being naughty digital memory eyes.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It's problematic, for all the obvious Orwellian reasons.

    pffft. naive. We've always lived in the public eye, it just wasn't so obvious before now.

    I do think theres a difference between the public eye and the thousands upon thousands of high definition shout at you if you're being naughty digital memory eyes.

    I am thoroughly failing to see how that's any different from living in, say, the 1850's midwest, where everyone watched how everyone else acted with their good ol' MK1 eyeballs and were pretty fucking forthright in 'shouting at 'people doing the wrong thing. I mean, which culture invented the scarlet letter? You don't need high-tech to be a privacy-invading, rigid-conformist society. Its just an excuse.

    tmsig.jpg
  • WillyGilliganWillyGilligan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Not an excuse so much as a facilitator.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Not an excuse so much as a facilitator.

    and yet, somehow,we've managed to create a long-term societal trend in this century towards greater individual freedom than the world has ever seen. The only 'freedom' impinged on by CCTV is the 'freedom' to commit illegal acts without being thoroughly observed.

    tmsig.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Not an excuse so much as a facilitator.

    and yet, somehow,we've managed to create a long-term societal trend in this century towards greater individual freedom than the world has ever seen. The only 'freedom' impinged on by CCTV is the 'freedom' to commit illegal acts without being thoroughly observed.

    I rather agree with this. I think people define privacy simply as the right not to be observed. I don't really agree with that definition.

    steam_sig.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    basically, my whole reaction to this topic is "there is no right to privacy in public, there never was, and hell, the very question is oxymoronic. Don't want to be seen doing something? Rad. Go home and draw the blinds".

    tmsig.jpg
  • desperaterobotsdesperaterobots Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I guess then my worry would be that should the scope of what's illegal become too broad, them camera eyes are going to become very useful in dissuading or prosecuting those carrying out the acts. No democracy without dissent, that old chestnut. I'm not saying it's likely. But the potential is bothersome. I suppose it isn't all that different from your example.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Not an excuse so much as a facilitator.

    and yet, somehow,we've managed to create a long-term societal trend in this century towards greater individual freedom than the world has ever seen. The only 'freedom' impinged on by CCTV is the 'freedom' to commit illegal acts without being thoroughly observed.
    Yeah I think even though technology facilitates infringement of privacy, that technology also makes people more aware and active about their privacy.

    Edit: And it's funny how people are so selfish about their personal rights in general. I mean there's dudes getting locked up without trials and we're bitching about the cameras that watch us peeing in public. If you want to do something about your rights then protect someone else's.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    That's not really a fault of the cameras though, you would still need the evidence of when and where the crime took place if you wanted to make use of any of the camera footage - except in rare cases there just too much to use them to go looking for crimes.

    One arguement against them I suppose might be that they decrease the need to have as many visible police on the street which has all sorts of odd effects on crime rates and people's perception of crime (which in turn effects the crime rates again). Though it seems like the cameras do exactly the same thing - don't reliably alter the crime rate but almost always lower the perception of crime.

  • MBVMGBMBVMGB Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.
    o_O You make no sense. Or your point is very, very, very well hidden.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.
    o.O You make no sense. Or your point is very, very, very well hidden.
    As hidden as the cameras in our teeth.

    But not really...he's just saying that government-regulated/-controlled CCTV makes him less uneasy than random citizens walking around with cameras, because the government will likely always have some very strict guidelines about what they can use CCTV for. I can understand that.

    steam_sig.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.
    o.O You make no sense. Or your point is very, very, very well hidden.

    His point is that he trusts the government complicitly but fears the general populace and wants to make it so that only the government can have or use cameras.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hi Drez
    Aldo wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.
    o.O You make no sense. Or your point is very, very, very well hidden.

    His point is that he trusts the government complicitly but fears the general populace and wants to make it so that only the government can have or use cameras.

    Oh right

    And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.
    o.O You make no sense. Or your point is very, very, very well hidden.

    His point is that he trusts the government complicitly but fears the general populace and wants to make it so that only the government can have or use cameras.

    What if they outlaw cameras but the government USES cameras to enforce the no-camera rule?

    That could be a good plot for a new 1984-type book.

    steam_sig.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Hi Drez
    Aldo wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Of course, those of us who don't live in big cities still get to pee on the sidewalk without fear of it being recorded by The Man. I'd be more concerned with someone taking pictures of me with their cell phones than any sort concern over big brother. One only cares when you do something illegal. The other only cares when you do something illegal, embarrassing, funny, etc.

    One has a legal framework to go through and they aren't going to be spreading anything around. The people have Youtube.

    I'm not saying that the government should be able to record you constantly because they'll keep it a secret. I just think they fear a lawsuit much more than some anonymous dude with a camera.
    o.O You make no sense. Or your point is very, very, very well hidden.

    His point is that he trusts the government complicitly but fears the general populace and wants to make it so that only the government can have or use cameras.

    Oh right

    And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

    Man, you can't expect me to have all the answers.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Man, you can't expect me to have all the answers.
    But the camera is running! :(

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Man, you can't expect me to have all the answers.
    But the camera is running! :(

    Good thing I wore my camera-proof vest today.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Man, you can't expect me to have all the answers.
    But the camera is running! :(

    Good thing I wore my camera-proof vest today.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    steam_sig.png
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    This is an area where I feel "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about" really applies. The government don't care what I do in public; I don't care if I'm watched a bit on camera. Any nightmare discussion about this generally assumes that the government can afford to have thousands of officers watching monitors - there's not going to be enough to watch you leave your house every day.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck ill-ass lemony snicket Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    I have no problem with the Orwellian future as long as you get rid of the obscene amount of control. Being observed doesn't bother me. But the problems presented in 1984 weren't really due to extreme observation of the citizenry, it was in controlling it to an excessive degree. You could easily have "visiplates" everywhere without the government forcing you to do things. I mean except for a few ridiculous laws - like that you can't use weed in your own home or gamble or whatever - you really are King and Queen of the Castle on your own property, so as long as THAT doesn't change, I don't really see much of a problem.

    But if you have CCTV or other types of observation devices in every public place, don't you get into a panopticon sort of situation? About the only thing I've read on it is Foucault, but from what I understand, he would argue that the observation is the control:
    Foucault wrote:
    Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary. . .

    So just being observed (by a camera), whether there is a person manning it or not, is enough. Which is not quite the same, because our residences are still private, but what if workspaces are considered public places?

    I dunno, it gives me the heebie jeebies because I can see it regulating something like free speech zones.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    But if you have CCTV or other types of observation devices in every public place, don't you get into a panopticon sort of situation? About the only thing I've read on it is Foucault, but from what I understand, he would argue that the observation is the control:



    So just being observed (by a camera), whether there is a person manning it or not, is enough. Which is not quite the same, because our residences are still private, but what if workspaces are considered public places?

    I dunno, it gives me the heebie jeebies because I can see it regulating something like free speech zones.
    But what is wrong with it, if you have trust in your government and/or jurisdictional system?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck ill-ass lemony snicket Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I guess because I believe that power corrupts -- and I don't feel that my government has shown much restraint in terms of curtailing its own powers without intense pressure from outside forces.

  • TorgoTorgo Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I work at a school with CCTV in every classroom, as well as in the teacher's office. This is fairly common in South Korea for private schools. The teacher's office didn't matter much, until they upgraded the capacity of the CCTV and made it Internet accessible and have it record 24 hours a day. Now I have no privacy at work, unless I go out into a hallway or a bathroom. I don't like the loss of private disclosure about students in my office, but other than that, it's been okay.

    I told my director that if the Internet feed ever got into the hands of parents I'd quit. Parents have to at least show up to the school to watch my class, and the parents have no way of recording me. (I have a few parents that watch a few times a week. Never a complaint from them.)

    I'm uncomfortable about the recording being available, but there are distinct advantages when it comes to removing the "Teacher said/student said" sort of incidents that happen at other schools. All I have to do is point to a camera to remind students that their parents can be show a recording of everything they do. It improves behavior tremendously on everyone's part, even my own.

    As offensive as the idea of being monitored all the time, there are some environments where it can have good effects and good results from my experience.

    History is a spoiler for the future. (Me on Twitter)
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Making schools even more like prisons sounds like an awesome idea that can't possibly have any as-yet unseen psychological side-effects.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I guess because I believe that power corrupts -- and I don't feel that my government has shown much restraint in terms of curtailing its own powers without intense pressure from outside forces.
    Well I have to ask: what kind of government do you have in Masturbatorium? Is it a pornocracy? Because, yes, I could see the "power corrupts" thing being a problem in such a government.

    For me, it comes down to enforcement issues and how I define privacy. Privacy, to me, isn't the same thing as secrecy. You do not have a right to act illegally simply because you are out of the government's line of sight. Whether they can detect you or not, if you are doing something illegal, you are doing something illegal. An invasion of privacy is using your non-illegal activities against you in some way: publishing them, treating you differently in some manner, leaking the media, etc. I don't really care if anyone sees me doing what I'm doing as long as I'm not treated any differently for it and it's not "spread."

    steam_sig.png
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Funny that you mention recordings of classes: http://limedforthetruth.com/?p=88#more-88

    Anyway, the point that mostly everyone is making is that they have no problem with being on tape, just as long as no creepy/corrupt people have access to it.

    This is of course not really something we can debate about here, because all arguments boil down to "but what if ___?"

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Torgo wrote: »
    I work at a school with CCTV in every classroom, as well as in the teacher's office. This is fairly common in South Korea for private schools. The teacher's office didn't matter much, until they upgraded the capacity of the CCTV and made it Internet accessible and have it record 24 hours a day. Now I have no privacy at work, unless I go out into a hallway or a bathroom. I don't like the loss of private disclosure about students in my office, but other than that, it's been okay.

    I told my director that if the Internet feed ever got into the hands of parents I'd quit. Parents have to at least show up to the school to watch my class, and the parents have no way of recording me. (I have a few parents that watch a few times a week. Never a complaint from them.)

    I'm uncomfortable about the recording being available, but there are distinct advantages when it comes to removing the "Teacher said/student said" sort of incidents that happen at other schools. All I have to do is point to a camera to remind students that their parents can be show a recording of everything they do. It improves behavior tremendously on everyone's part, even my own.

    As offensive as the idea of being monitored all the time, there are some environments where it can have good effects and good results from my experience.

    Well I certainly don't agree with the feeds being fed to a publicly-available website. I just don't see that ever happening in the US, so I'm not too worried.

    steam_sig.png
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Recording of someone at their job is a little more problematic, simply because being observed constantly can have a detrimental effect on a person's mind - it's like being on stage, all the time. I guess you'd get used to it though.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • redxredx Bow Down! Before the power of Santa!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Not an excuse so much as a facilitator.

    and yet, somehow,we've managed to create a long-term societal trend in this century towards greater individual freedom than the world has ever seen. The only 'freedom' impinged on by CCTV is the 'freedom' to commit illegal acts without being thoroughly observed.



    ehhh.... yes and no.

    I don't worry about lots of cameras. I worry about lots of cameras, networked together and running biometric recognition software. So, you end up with everything been seen, and potentially every move being noted and indexed.

    Ok, so right now the software is kinda shitty, but there are a lot of smart folks working on it. Eventually you get to the point they are at now with e-mail and cellphones, which is near total surveillance with automation to look for 'suspicious' behavior or individuals. All going on pretty much constantly and without legal protection like warrants.

    Eventually not only do you loose privacy, you also loose anonymity. It is a system too prone to abuse, or if it is abused to it's fullest extent too dangerous for my taste.

    Bow Down, Bow Down
    Before the power of Santa
    Or be crushed, be crushed
    By his jolly boots of doom.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Not all laws are fair, and not all applications of the law are fair. I worry about lazy cops who see a vague image of some dude on a crappy $100 security camera in low light from 30 yards away deciding that this guy looks kind of maybe sort of like me and hauling me in for something I didn't do. This would go double if I were black or brown. And now it's harder to fight because it's on camera which lends it a more objective aura than eyewitness accounts. I worry about this far more than I worry about getting mugged running in the park.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    What bothers me most isn't the CCTV in town centres as they can help Police get to incidents before they escalate and as long as there is strong oversight on what the operators are looking at in can be a useful tool. The real worry is the Automatic Number Plate Recognition that the police want to put in place. It would give them a record of the movements of every single vehicle on the road.

    If they were using this to actively search for a specific vehicle it probably wouldn't bother me, but they intend to keep the records so that they can data-mine them later.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    What bothers me most isn't the CCTV in town centres as they can help Police get to incidents before they escalate and as long as there is strong oversight on what the operators are looking at in can be a useful tool. The real worry is the Automatic Number Plate Recognition that the police want to put in place. It would give them a record of the movements of every single vehicle on the road.

    If they were using this to actively search for a specific vehicle it probably wouldn't bother me, but they intend to keep the records so that they can data-mine them later.

    Data-mine them for what?

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    What bothers me most isn't the CCTV in town centres as they can help Police get to incidents before they escalate and as long as there is strong oversight on what the operators are looking at in can be a useful tool. The real worry is the Automatic Number Plate Recognition that the police want to put in place. It would give them a record of the movements of every single vehicle on the road.

    If they were using this to actively search for a specific vehicle it probably wouldn't bother me, but they intend to keep the records so that they can data-mine them later.

    Data-mine them for what?

    Anything they want?

    If they raid a house to arrest them they can search back and find all the cars that parked outside that house say, or they might arrest someone and want to track back all the places they've driven. There are numerous ways they can end up profiling individuals instead of following evidence and given their track record they'll inevitably end up victimising someone innocent.

    It's also linked to the new plans for road pricing. If you want to charge people by when and where they drive then, by definition, you need to know where they've been and when.

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.