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?
Off the top of my head: To see which government employee met with a reporter to be an anonymous whistlerblower. To track who attended a legal protest to harass them later.
The possibilities for abuse are rather large, and while they would probably be illegal, that's not exactly an ironclad protection (its from the US, but look at how the FBI has used the Patriot act for example)
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?
Off the top of my head: To see which government employee met with a reporter to be an anonymous whistlerblower. To track who attended a legal protest to harass them later.
The possibilities for abuse are rather large, and while they would probably be illegal, that's not exactly an ironclad protection (its from the US, but look at how the FBI has used the Patriot act for example)
So basically it's back to the "if the government were to turn evil it could be used for evil" argument.
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?
Off the top of my head: To see which government employee met with a reporter to be an anonymous whistlerblower. To track who attended a legal protest to harass them later.
The possibilities for abuse are rather large, and while they would probably be illegal, that's not exactly an ironclad protection (its from the US, but look at how the FBI has used the Patriot act for example)
So basically it's back to the "if the government were to turn evil it could be used for evil" argument.
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?
Off the top of my head: To see which government employee met with a reporter to be an anonymous whistlerblower. To track who attended a legal protest to harass them later.
The possibilities for abuse are rather large, and while they would probably be illegal, that's not exactly an ironclad protection (its from the US, but look at how the FBI has used the Patriot act for example)
So basically it's back to the "if the government were to turn evil it could be used for evil" argument.
What's this business about "turning" evil?
That's when you're not evil and then you become evil. Like what would have to happen with our government for any of these fears to have any practical value, since our government isn't evil. It's misguided and seflish at times, but not evil.
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.
My sentiments exactly. Law enforcement at every level have shown that if given power they abuse it; the great the power, the greater the abuse, see the recent findings about abuse of the Patriot Act for examples.
Also of concern is that those with political power are the ones who control the cameras. Here in Washington, we have many security cameras in public places. Interestingly enough, many are only on (or at least we are told— there is little if any oversight of them) when the various police forces and their masters consider it important to have them on. If we allow our government to operate like this on a national scale, video footage will become so common at trial that it will be hard to obtain convictions without it, allowing those who can prevent footage from being recorded to commit certain acts with impunity. Further, because our Habeus Corpus rights have been taken and will not be returned until a case comes before the Supreme Court, we could even come to a point at which a person can be held without charge or trial simply because the government claims to have seen a crime on camera, without ever having to produce footage of the crime.
America is slowly slipping away and there are few better signs than the constant intrusion of an automated police state into our everyday lives. There needs to be a correction soon, because if there is not, it will be too late for any resistance whatsoever.
That's when you're not evil and then you become evil. Like what would have to happen with our government for any of these fears to have any practical value, since our government isn't evil. It's misguided and seflish at times, but not evil.
It's either completely retarded or pretty much evil at this point. I have too much faith in humanity to favor the former option.
That's when you're not evil and then you become evil. Like what would have to happen with our government for any of these fears to have any practical value, since our government isn't evil. It's misguided and seflish at times, but not evil.
It's either completely retarded or pretty much evil at this point. I have too much faith in humanity to favor the former option.
Sadly, I don't. And I find it weird that you'd rather believe that Humanity is pointedly evil than merely stupid. I know this is a tangent, but basically your faith in Humanity is spent on their intelligence and not their moral integrity...I dunno man.
Also of concern is that those with political power are the ones who control the cameras. Here in Washington, we have many security cameras in public places. Interestingly enough, many are only on (or at least we are told— there is little if any oversight of them) when the various police forces and their masters consider it important to have them on. If we allow our government to operate like this on a national scale, video footage will become so common at trial that it will be hard to obtain convictions without it, allowing those who can prevent footage from being recorded to commit certain acts with impunity.
Do you not think it will be seen as more than a little suspicious if the cameras are turned off for the hour a crime was committed?
Isn't oversight going to be easier though with the computers doing the recognition and crime spotting - long as they aren't set up whilst the government is evil and no idiocy creeps into the early planning steps (e.g Muslim spotting) then I think most people might feel safer than if the police was doing it.
No, with second thoughts they wouldn't because they would be thinking Skynet more than Culture or Polity. I'm sure there would be less options open for abuse though
That's when you're not evil and then you become evil. Like what would have to happen with our government for any of these fears to have any practical value, since our government isn't evil. It's misguided and seflish at times, but not evil.
It's either completely retarded or pretty much evil at this point. I have too much faith in humanity to favor the former option.
Sadly, I don't. And I find it weird that you'd rather believe that Humanity is pointedly evil than merely stupid. I know this is a tangent, but basically your faith in Humanity is spent on their intelligence and not their moral integrity...I dunno man.
Evil is by far the most rational path. If I am to believe that humanity is intelligent, it is assumed that a large portion of it is decidedly evil, and most of the rest passively so.
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?
Speaker: Citizen, you are outside after curfew. Return to your home or be arrested.
Seriously, it will happen. If given an inch the government take a mile. Cops can be right there and people continue to fight so yelling at them from a distance isn't going to help. I mean you're entrusting these things to people. Officials or not they're human and as corruptable as the rest of us. I mean look at our politicians. The people who make the laws we have to obey.
Also of concern is that those with political power are the ones who control the cameras. Here in Washington, we have many security cameras in public places. Interestingly enough, many are only on (or at least we are told— there is little if any oversight of them) when the various police forces and their masters consider it important to have them on. If we allow our government to operate like this on a national scale, video footage will become so common at trial that it will be hard to obtain convictions without it, allowing those who can prevent footage from being recorded to commit certain acts with impunity.
Do you not think it will be seen as more than a little suspicious if the cameras are turned off for the hour a crime was committed?
Not if nobody outside law enforcement knows when the cameras are operating—as is currently the case in Washington, DC. All we get are signs stating that an area may be under surveilance; and that’s only for the local PD. The Secret Service, FBI police, military, and private security firms run cameras with no external oversight or explanations to the public. If people get used to cameras just being on some times and off at others, we’re in trouble.
Another true story about living in a CCTV friendly country. The whole police monitoring cars driving around with automated software, yeah, that's already common place in most cities in South Korea. They use it to deter speeding. They take a picture of the person driving the car and the license plate for verification.
The problem? They would mail this picture from the camera to people's houses. Too many people were getting busted having affairs while driving their mistresses around and getting caught speeding, and this was sending a picture of them caught in the act to their homes. Now, when the cameras take pictures, before the image is sent home everyone in the car but the driver is blurred out. I don't know if this is done by the software automatically, or by an officer, and I don't know if they keep the non-censored version on file somewhere too.
@Violent Chemistry: If you think "cameras are detrimental to children's health" is the worst thing the private schools in Asia are doing to children, you don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about. At least cameras can prevent teachers beating students (which is fairly common in public schools).
So which is better: catching people in subvert acts making them deal with the consequences, or sparing the innocent people from excessive control?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
So which is better: catching people in subvert acts making them deal with the consequences, or sparing the innocent people from excessive control?
Which is bigger: water or pillows?
The question can't be answered without specifying how much of each we're talking about.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
Furthermore, I think there is some presumption of privacy in public places. I've had personal discussions in public, gone to private places where I wouldn't want to be seen via public routes (planned parenthood, anyone?), and so on. Now, it seems unlikely that public cameras would lead to the police watching your every move and piecing together your sordid affairs: there's just too much data for a bored public servant to isolate your daily routine. Still, I think it's important to realise that just because there's no Constitutional right to privacy in public areas doesn't mean that we don't normally have anonymity, or that losing it wouldn't be a bad thing.
You can argue about the right to anonymity all you like - personally, I'm in favor of it - you have no right to force people conversing near you to speak up, or speak english, you have no right to use a camera to attempt to intimidate people travelling to controversial events or locations, you have no right to aim your binoculars at your neighbours yard or living room window. But that's not the same as a public right to privacy, which would extend to forbidding eavesdropping in any form, forbidding the use of recording devices, and forbidding the use of eyewitness testimony.
I'd be in favor of this provided that the method is completely open to scrutiny. My main problem is the potential for abusing this new technology. Once a city is completely engulfed in cameras, it becomes easy to single out someone and track them. That kind of power demands stringent oversight, lest we wander into, well, the kinds of abuses that are taking place right now at the NSA and FBI. Basically, imagine a scenario where some dumbass from Homeland Security wanders in and starts using a guy at some monitors to follow around the local chapter of [insert hippie group] for no valid reason, without a court order.
In order to implement this properly, extreme precaution needs to be taken. Essentially, the standards for 'tracking' someone who isn't actively committing a crime should be higher than just "we have a hunch." I get very uncomfortable thinking about rows of techs at monitors arbitrarily 'flagging' people for constant surveillance.
So, pretty much everyone here has no problem with observation, but many problems with the people at the other end of the observing devices and the institutional rules they operate under? Rad. Lets keep the distinction clear. "People might do [X] so we need to ban [Y] unrelated thing" isn't an argument.
The Cat on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
In Australia it is illegal to take upskirt photos and the like in a public place without the subject's permission due to a right to public privacy.
Which piece of legislation defines this? We have no bill of rights in this country. Our rights comprise whatever is left over after the various levels of government have taken their cut, along with whichever rights we sign away in order to access employment and the services of various companies, like utility providers. As far as I recall, the upskirt issue was made illegal by classing it as a form of sexual assault, not a privacy violation.
The Cat on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
But that's not the same as a public right to privacy, which would extend to forbidding eavesdropping in any form, forbidding the use of recording devices, and forbidding the use of eyewitness testimony.
I'm not arguing for a public right to privacy. I'm simply saying that we normally enjoy a degree of anonymity in public that I, personally, am in no hurry to relinquish. To bring up Planned Parenthood again, I don't necessarily think that one has a right to visit them in secret, however, I can think of several people who wouldn't want their visits know to their parents or relatives, and so despite the fact that they don't have the right to go unobserved, I don't feel it's warranted to shout their whereabouts from the rooftops.
It's kind of like how students don't have a right to private lockers, but it's still nice to not have school officials going through them on a lark, or telling Joe that you have a crush on him.
So, pretty much everyone here has no problem with observation, but many problems with the people at the other end of the observing devices and the institutional rules they operate under? Rad. Lets keep the distinction clear. "People might do [X] so we need to ban [Y] unrelated thing" isn't an argument.
If Y allows them to do X, then yeah its a valid argument.
So, pretty much everyone here has no problem with observation, but many problems with the people at the other end of the observing devices and the institutional rules they operate under? Rad. Lets keep the distinction clear. "People might do [X] so we need to ban [Y] unrelated thing" isn't an argument.
If Y allows them to do X, then yeah its a valid argument.
The point, as I and others have repeatedly made, is that cameras do not 'allow' the problematic behaviour described. They're just another way of carrying out the same old abuses of power that have been carried out ever since we figured out how to walk upright and set fire to shit. Banning them or restricting their use does nothing to address the root problem, it just lends a false sense of security to people who don't think very clearly.
Is it acceptable then to give the abusers access to better tools that could concievably allow them to render that abuse more efficiently because, look, if it's gonna happen it's gonna happen no matter what?
Is it acceptable then to give the abusers access to better tools that could concievably allow them to render that abuse more efficiently because, look, it's just gonna happen anyway?
Please tell me you're going to concurrently argue for the banning of all weaponry since it makes it easier to kill someone, as well as banning the internet for making it easier to harass, bully, and track down people you don't like, or I'm going to dismiss your position as internally incoherent.
The Cat on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Which piece of legislation defines this? We have no bill of rights in this country. Our rights comprise whatever is left over after the various levels of government have taken their cut, along with whichever rights we sign away in order to access employment and the services of various companies, like utility providers. As far as I recall, the upskirt issue was made illegal by classing it as a form of sexual assault, not a privacy violation.
Um, I was just being random. I have nothing of substance to add.
I'm not arguing for the right to privacy in public places. I agree you've never really had any. I'm arguing against anything that places more power in the hands of corruptible authorities, which I believe CCTV does. I don't see how a balance is maintained when CCTV and panoptic surveillance at best create an atmosphere where challenges to a corrupted authority are less likely.
On grounds of practicality I can't argue for the banning of all weaponry, but I'd argue for restricted access to weapons. But if we're allowed access to weapons, I'd argue against any move to restrict ownership of arms to authorities only because it disrupts the balance of power between a government and its citizenry.
I wouldn't argue for banning the internet, but I'd argue against actions such as the Chinese governments active restrictions on internet access for its citizens. The internet can be misused to monitor people. CCTV serves no other purpose.
Although hey, I might be changing my mind on the subject since my friend brought up the example that if I were beaten close to death and surveillance footage caught the perps, I'd marry Mr Telescreen. Here's to being a hypocrite!
I'm amazed how little opposition CCTV is getting in this thread. I'm all for CCTV (within reason obviously) and last time I spoke to a group of Americans about it they were amazed at how I was happy with my country falling down the slippery slope to having cameras in our living rooms. I like to think that people would realise things had gone wrong before that point, perhaps that makes me naive but I know I wouldn't stand for it.
When I'm walking back through town late at night I find it quite comforting to know that if I get mugged there's going to at least be some of it captured on film. Frankly I don't care if the government knows where I'm driving my car. If I'm off doing something illegal in public then I can hardly complain when they try and catch me out.
I caught a glimpse of this phenomena on Discovery. Unfortunately, the video is not on their site anymore or I can't find it.
The gist of it was that they were running a pilot project where you'd have a security guard monitoring a street via CCTV. The only catch was that he'd also have access to a PA system. These security officers were encouraged to intervene not only for major infractions but minor ones as well.
The video showed a woman haphazardly discarding litter on the ground only to be surprised by a loud booming voice asking her curtly to pick her shit up and put it in the trash that's not even 10 feet from her.
They also mentioned that it had prevented an altercation between 2 groups of people. The guy simply came on the PA, told them to disperse and they did.
I can't think of a good reason not to have this here in Canada.
I caught a glimpse of this phenomena on Discovery. Unfortunately, the video is not on their site anymore or I can't find it.
The gist of it was that they were running a pilot project where you'd have a security guard monitoring a street via CCTV. The only catch was that he'd also have access to a PA system. These security officers were encouraged to intervene not only for major infractions but minor ones as well.
The video showed a woman haphazardly discarding litter on the ground only to be surprised by a loud booming voice asking her curtly to pick her shit up and put it in the trash that's not even 10 feet from her.
They also mentioned that it had prevented an altercation between 2 groups of people. The guy simply came on the PA, told them to disperse and they did.
I can't think of a good reason not to have this here in Canada.
Not really. They didn't actually have to do what he said. There's nothing neccessarily evil about playing off natural deference to authority. Plus, litterers are gits.
I caught a glimpse of this phenomena on Discovery. Unfortunately, the video is not on their site anymore or I can't find it.
The gist of it was that they were running a pilot project where you'd have a security guard monitoring a street via CCTV. The only catch was that he'd also have access to a PA system. These security officers were encouraged to intervene not only for major infractions but minor ones as well.
The video showed a woman haphazardly discarding litter on the ground only to be surprised by a loud booming voice asking her curtly to pick her shit up and put it in the trash that's not even 10 feet from her.
They also mentioned that it had prevented an altercation between 2 groups of people. The guy simply came on the PA, told them to disperse and they did.
I can't think of a good reason not to have this here in Canada.
That's a bit...totalitarian, no?
No, not at all.
1) Littering is a crime. There's nothing totalitarian about enforcing non-littering policies.
2) Police officers tell people to disperse all the time even if they aren't doing anything wrong. THAT I rather have a problem with. Now I haven't seen this Discovery Channel special, but the way Meiz described it, it sounds like the two were about to get into a fight which IS illegal and cops break fights up all the time whether they've started or not. THAT I am fine with. Mind you, loitering is also criminal activity in many areas.
I don't see how enforcement of "little laws" that nobody pays any mind to suddenly makes the whole thing totalitarian. You can argue about the laws themselves, but enforcing them? Nah.
1) Littering is a crime. There's nothing totalitarian about enforcing non-littering policies.
2) Police officers tell people to disperse all the time even if they aren't doing anything wrong. THAT I rather have a problem with. Now I haven't seen this Discovery Channel special, but the way Meiz described it, it sounds like the two were about to get into a fight which IS illegal and cops break fights up all the time whether they've started or not. THAT I am fine with. Mind you, loitering is also criminal activity in many areas.
I don't see how enforcement of "little laws" that nobody pays any mind to suddenly makes the whole thing totalitarian. You can argue about the laws themselves, but enforcing them? Nah.
I dunno, I connect those speakers to communism, but it's a slippery slope, so I'll knock it off.
I was talking to Mordrack on Vent the other night when put a link to a video in his comment. Some guy thought it wise to take a shit in a potted plant at a mall. This was while people were walking by him.
If anything, it's good to keep a general eye on the general public because sometimes people just have excessively poor judgment.
Although hey, I might be changing my mind on the subject since my friend brought up the example that if I were beaten close to death and surveillance footage caught the perps, I'd marry Mr Telescreen. Here's to being a hypocrite!
Or you're beaten to death. Does anyone else get a mental image of parents and their kids in waiting rooms? "Stop beating desperaterobots you guys. No really, you better stop. Don't make me get out of my chair and walk over there. (into cell phone) I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you back."
Not really adding anything, just thought it was funny.
Posts
Off the top of my head: To see which government employee met with a reporter to be an anonymous whistlerblower. To track who attended a legal protest to harass them later.
The possibilities for abuse are rather large, and while they would probably be illegal, that's not exactly an ironclad protection (its from the US, but look at how the FBI has used the Patriot act for example)
So basically it's back to the "if the government were to turn evil it could be used for evil" argument.
What's this business about "turning" evil?
That's when you're not evil and then you become evil. Like what would have to happen with our government for any of these fears to have any practical value, since our government isn't evil. It's misguided and seflish at times, but not evil.
My sentiments exactly. Law enforcement at every level have shown that if given power they abuse it; the great the power, the greater the abuse, see the recent findings about abuse of the Patriot Act for examples.
Also of concern is that those with political power are the ones who control the cameras. Here in Washington, we have many security cameras in public places. Interestingly enough, many are only on (or at least we are told— there is little if any oversight of them) when the various police forces and their masters consider it important to have them on. If we allow our government to operate like this on a national scale, video footage will become so common at trial that it will be hard to obtain convictions without it, allowing those who can prevent footage from being recorded to commit certain acts with impunity. Further, because our Habeus Corpus rights have been taken and will not be returned until a case comes before the Supreme Court, we could even come to a point at which a person can be held without charge or trial simply because the government claims to have seen a crime on camera, without ever having to produce footage of the crime.
America is slowly slipping away and there are few better signs than the constant intrusion of an automated police state into our everyday lives. There needs to be a correction soon, because if there is not, it will be too late for any resistance whatsoever.
It's either completely retarded or pretty much evil at this point. I have too much faith in humanity to favor the former option.
Edit: Besides, they both have the same result.
Sadly, I don't. And I find it weird that you'd rather believe that Humanity is pointedly evil than merely stupid. I know this is a tangent, but basically your faith in Humanity is spent on their intelligence and not their moral integrity...I dunno man.
Do you not think it will be seen as more than a little suspicious if the cameras are turned off for the hour a crime was committed?
No, with second thoughts they wouldn't because they would be thinking Skynet more than Culture or Polity. I'm sure there would be less options open for abuse though
Evil is by far the most rational path. If I am to believe that humanity is intelligent, it is assumed that a large portion of it is decidedly evil, and most of the rest passively so.
Speaker: Citizen, you are outside after curfew. Return to your home or be arrested.
Seriously, it will happen. If given an inch the government take a mile. Cops can be right there and people continue to fight so yelling at them from a distance isn't going to help. I mean you're entrusting these things to people. Officials or not they're human and as corruptable as the rest of us. I mean look at our politicians. The people who make the laws we have to obey.
Not if nobody outside law enforcement knows when the cameras are operating—as is currently the case in Washington, DC. All we get are signs stating that an area may be under surveilance; and that’s only for the local PD. The Secret Service, FBI police, military, and private security firms run cameras with no external oversight or explanations to the public. If people get used to cameras just being on some times and off at others, we’re in trouble.
The problem? They would mail this picture from the camera to people's houses. Too many people were getting busted having affairs while driving their mistresses around and getting caught speeding, and this was sending a picture of them caught in the act to their homes. Now, when the cameras take pictures, before the image is sent home everyone in the car but the driver is blurred out. I don't know if this is done by the software automatically, or by an officer, and I don't know if they keep the non-censored version on file somewhere too.
@Violent Chemistry: If you think "cameras are detrimental to children's health" is the worst thing the private schools in Asia are doing to children, you don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about. At least cameras can prevent teachers beating students (which is fairly common in public schools).
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Which is bigger: water or pillows?
The question can't be answered without specifying how much of each we're talking about.
In order to implement this properly, extreme precaution needs to be taken. Essentially, the standards for 'tracking' someone who isn't actively committing a crime should be higher than just "we have a hunch." I get very uncomfortable thinking about rows of techs at monitors arbitrarily 'flagging' people for constant surveillance.
In the US it is not.
How does this make you feel now?
I'm not arguing for a public right to privacy. I'm simply saying that we normally enjoy a degree of anonymity in public that I, personally, am in no hurry to relinquish. To bring up Planned Parenthood again, I don't necessarily think that one has a right to visit them in secret, however, I can think of several people who wouldn't want their visits know to their parents or relatives, and so despite the fact that they don't have the right to go unobserved, I don't feel it's warranted to shout their whereabouts from the rooftops.
It's kind of like how students don't have a right to private lockers, but it's still nice to not have school officials going through them on a lark, or telling Joe that you have a crush on him.
If Y allows them to do X, then yeah its a valid argument.
The point, as I and others have repeatedly made, is that cameras do not 'allow' the problematic behaviour described. They're just another way of carrying out the same old abuses of power that have been carried out ever since we figured out how to walk upright and set fire to shit. Banning them or restricting their use does nothing to address the root problem, it just lends a false sense of security to people who don't think very clearly.
Please tell me you're going to concurrently argue for the banning of all weaponry since it makes it easier to kill someone, as well as banning the internet for making it easier to harass, bully, and track down people you don't like, or I'm going to dismiss your position as internally incoherent.
Um, I was just being random. I have nothing of substance to add.
On grounds of practicality I can't argue for the banning of all weaponry, but I'd argue for restricted access to weapons. But if we're allowed access to weapons, I'd argue against any move to restrict ownership of arms to authorities only because it disrupts the balance of power between a government and its citizenry.
I wouldn't argue for banning the internet, but I'd argue against actions such as the Chinese governments active restrictions on internet access for its citizens. The internet can be misused to monitor people. CCTV serves no other purpose.
Although hey, I might be changing my mind on the subject since my friend brought up the example that if I were beaten close to death and surveillance footage caught the perps, I'd marry Mr Telescreen. Here's to being a hypocrite!
When I'm walking back through town late at night I find it quite comforting to know that if I get mugged there's going to at least be some of it captured on film. Frankly I don't care if the government knows where I'm driving my car. If I'm off doing something illegal in public then I can hardly complain when they try and catch me out.
So there's my simplistic view on the whole thing.
SoogaGames Blog
The gist of it was that they were running a pilot project where you'd have a security guard monitoring a street via CCTV. The only catch was that he'd also have access to a PA system. These security officers were encouraged to intervene not only for major infractions but minor ones as well.
The video showed a woman haphazardly discarding litter on the ground only to be surprised by a loud booming voice asking her curtly to pick her shit up and put it in the trash that's not even 10 feet from her.
They also mentioned that it had prevented an altercation between 2 groups of people. The guy simply came on the PA, told them to disperse and they did.
I can't think of a good reason not to have this here in Canada.
No, not at all.
1) Littering is a crime. There's nothing totalitarian about enforcing non-littering policies.
2) Police officers tell people to disperse all the time even if they aren't doing anything wrong. THAT I rather have a problem with. Now I haven't seen this Discovery Channel special, but the way Meiz described it, it sounds like the two were about to get into a fight which IS illegal and cops break fights up all the time whether they've started or not. THAT I am fine with. Mind you, loitering is also criminal activity in many areas.
I don't see how enforcement of "little laws" that nobody pays any mind to suddenly makes the whole thing totalitarian. You can argue about the laws themselves, but enforcing them? Nah.
If anything, it's good to keep a general eye on the general public because sometimes people just have excessively poor judgment.
Or you're beaten to death. Does anyone else get a mental image of parents and their kids in waiting rooms? "Stop beating desperaterobots you guys. No really, you better stop. Don't make me get out of my chair and walk over there. (into cell phone) I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you back."
Not really adding anything, just thought it was funny.
Never been to East-Berlin?
They had those speakers everywhere, screaming communist propaganda at you nearly 24/7.
*edit: As I said: slippery slope.