Every so often an article like this appears in the newspapers. I somehow get the feeling that it’s done to test public opinion. I currently live in what is called the greater London area, where just last week they put up two poles for more CCTV cameras to be installed. Very sneaky of them to do it in the middle of the night.
CCTV a ‘threat’ to our privacy – metro.co.uk: Private life is suffering from too much CCTV surveillance of public places, a European human rights watchdog has warned.
Surveillance by private operators was a threat to personal freedoms, the report from the Council of Europe’s Commission for Democracy said on Wednesday.
The report recommended that anyone subject to such surveillance should be allowed access to the data collected and be informed of the use to which it is put.
Britain is one of 47 members of the Council of Europe. The group’s reports are purely advisory but the views on CCTV will be seized upon by opponents of surveillance. Britain has more ‘spy-cameras’ than anywhere else in Europe.
A Home Office spokesman said a review was under way into the issue of CCTV and how it can be used most effectively and fairly.
But he added: ‘There is no doubt that CCTV plays a vital role in the fight against crime.’
Round Two of “Who is more paranoid?”===Those who fear for their personal safety, or those who fear their privacy rights are being invaded?
The referenced news item does not give a single example of how being filmed in a public area is a violation of rights under the law===which “logically” it can’t be or it wouldn’t be allowed?
So the equation is Added Security and Better Law Enforcement compared to NO invasion of personal liberty ((you just cant do stupid things in public and complain when its caught on film)).
Few days ago when this came up, the equation argued for was cameras=invasion of rights. I hope that is obviously not true to most readers here?
Please post any even hypothetical way camera security is an invasion of privacy or other rights?
1 – bobbo
Please post any even hypothetical way camera security is an invasion of privacy or other rights?
Well, here’s one non-hypothetical way camera security is an invasion of my privacy:
I don’t want anyone recording everything I do, every minute of the day I happen to be in a public place, whether it is walking, talking on the telephone or laughing with my friends. I feel oppressed when I can see (or know) I’m being recorded. I want to be left alone, so I feel as if I can breath.
How’s that?
#1, Riiiiiight, well, there’s this little story here:
Germans probe Merkel spy camera, where it was found that a security camera in Berlin had been moved to spy the recently elected chancellor of Germany in her own home.
The thing about all this surveillance is who is behind those monitors.
It all depends on who is monitoring the cameras. (I know, here he goes again…) The 9/11 Pentagon attack was captured by several video cameras in the vicinity but the FBI confiscated them and has refused to show them to the public. WHY? If a Boeing 747 really crashed into the Pentagon that day then why not release the tapes so that the “truth” could set people free (stop the conspiracy theories).
We do not have honest people in power. Last night I got a booty call at 11pm while I was sleeping. So the babe comes over and we start chatting. She starts divulging secrets of several celebrities of whom she has access to files at her job. Pretty fucked up. Privacy is an inalienable right. You know you live in a CORRUPT society when privacy is breached. It doesn’t matter if it is being breached by politicians, the State, or an office worker.
2–Not even close. There is no expectation of privacy in a public area. Get used to it, or don’t go out in public. “Privacy Right” does not go to your preferance for privacy. The public in general should not compromise their safety so that you can feel comfortable doing something you probably shouldn’t be doing in the first place?
3–Very good example, probably the best that can be cited. But, that is not the use of Security Cameras In Public Areas–that is a misuse that was prosecuted when discovered. Not the same thing. That activity is like the guy with the fake badge using it to stop people. A misuse of a public security device. The solution is NOT to take badges away from “real cops” but to prosecute those who violate the law. Thanks for the effort though.
#5, the fact is that with greater use the potential for misuse increases, and with it the damage that can be done. It is a fact that governments will misuse their powers as long as they can get away with it. If you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t be afraid to be watched 24/7 every time you step out of your home? Then why don’t you see people walking naked on the street if they have nothing to hide?
6—No Fair. Thats a reverse knuckle-ball. I agree that personal freedom should permit anyone who wants to to walk in public in the nude. It is however a “privacy right” that prevents perverts (in most places) from filming the naughty bits even if in public without the consent of the one photographed.
With greater use comes greater potential for misuse==yes, thats kinda mathematical isn’t it?? But also comes the greater potential for reduced crime??? ((Seriously–in your opinion, do the cameras in London help fight terrorists and other types of crime or has the intrusion not been worth catching those criminals?))
The EGO of the paranoid to think that anyone else cares about what they do==in public or in private.
The extent to which people’s attitudes toward this question have changed always surprises me. In the 1970s Arizona installed cameras at select spots along the roads the curl through the deserts to photograph speeders. Made a few bucks that way and slowed the traffic a bit. After a few too many husbands got caught taking joy rides with their secretaries, the hubub over the lack of expected privacy got loud enough that the authorities took the cameras back down. (I remember that story from when I lived in southeast Arizona for awhile so the dates, like my memory, are approximate.) What a different time that was.
8–I dont think much has changed. Dont know about the readers of this blog, but I’d say more than half the posters want their privacy in public to be protected. In THIS thread, only I am posting in favor of security cameras, #2-3-4 are against them.
I might add that I don’t see the issue as black vs white, right vs wrong, but rather comfort level. I am comfortable in public therefore wouldn’t mind some more security. Those that feel differently, feel differently. I will resent it however if my safety actually is put at risk just so some hypocrites can squire their secretaries around.
Anyone here remember the TV show “The Prisoner” with the cameras inside Number 6’s apartment monitored by Number 2 and the Village’s security department?
This is what we have to look forward to. Outdoor cameras are the thin edge of the wedge.
#9 – I might add that I don’t see the issue as black vs white, right vs wrong, but rather comfort level. I am comfortable in public therefore wouldn’t mind some more security. Those that feel differently, feel differently. I will resent it however if my safety actually is put at risk just so some hypocrites can squire their secretaries around.
Well, we have learned that you have irrational fears in the past, so there is no point in pointing out that these cameras do not prevent crime or add to your security.
I really don’t have an issue with the passive cameras at busy traffic intersections or the private cameras in stores. Many of these cameras have very practical purposes.
But the trend toward blanketing the land with cameras has pretty severe and historically dark overtones. We are breeding a land of suspicion where freedom and liberty (which are little more than marketing buzzwords these days) is gladly exchanged for the paternal gaze and authoritarian control over our lives, resulting not only in false security, but in sheep like compliance with a ruling class who does not serve us, but rather enslaves us for the good of their own selfish and nefarious whims.
Cameras are nothing more than cold and unintelligent replacements for the human network of domestic spies that plagued Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany. Invoke Godwin’s if you like, but I’m right.
My government has no moral authority nor compelling interest in watching my every move, and by extension, no authority or interest in watching yours or anyone else’s. We surveil suspects of crimes. We do not presume non-criminals will be criminals. This is how we’ve run things and its been to our benefit to do so. Changing that philosophy in response to fear serves us in no way at all other than to wreck our society.
And when I hear, (as you said in #5) “Get used to it, or don’t go out in public.” what I hear is, “fuck you and submit to our authority.”
I am an American. I do not submit to authority unless that authority is just. The secret nature of surveillance, the closed systems, the hidden agendas, these do not a just authority make.
If you really want to smother the land with cameras and destroy privacy, which is an essential emotional component of humanity, then place every feed online where anyone, anywhere, at any time, can look at them and watch.
If I cannot escape the paternal gaze of the watchmen, then I shall goddamn well watch the watchmen… Because only a fool would trust them.
Why is this a problem?
I hate criminals. I want criminals to be caught and thrown in jail.
If this means I will be videotaped as I use an ATM, walk into a train station or shop in a store, fine.
I don’t feel oppressed when I am videotaped. I feel oppressed when my stuff is stolen, when I worry about my family members safety and when I hear about unsolved murders. They should put cameras on every utility pole in the country as far as I’m concerned.
What super secret things are you people doing in public places that you do not want videotaped?
#5 “The public in general should not compromise their safety so that you can feel comfortable doing something you probably shouldn’t be doing in the first place?”
#12 “What super secret things are you people doing in public places that you do not want videotaped?”
The witty one-line responses: I’m not doing anything wrong, so why am I being watched? I’m not doing anything wrong, but the government determines what is wrong, and they keep changing the definition. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (This has been addressed already a bit in 5).
#7 “Seriously–in your opinion, do the cameras in London help fight terrorists and other types of crime or has the intrusion not been worth catching those criminals?”
Recent articles in The New York Times cite data that do not show a reduction in crime after the cameras have been installed.
Here’s an article that discusses the “Nothing to Hide” argument in a more scholarly fashion:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565
I think that if you don’t want to be on camera then you need to find a way to be hidden from the “all seeing eye”. For every technology solution there needs to be a counter solution. Think of cops getting radar then radar detectors coming out to thwart them which is way more interesting then the “leave me alone” arguments or the “I have nothing to hide” response.
OK whats the score now? Me, and #12, are for cameras although I don’t much care either way /// #2-3-4,10,11, are against /// 8,13,,14 dont offer a direct opinion==why not make the list??
So the score for the posters is 5 to 2 agaisnt using cameras.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
#10-Slippery slope argument is invalid for a discussion of facts and only illuminates how active an imagination one might have. Yes–I love the Prisoner and have the series on DvD. Gothic, existential mystery, just excellent.
#11-Thank you. You gave actual examples of the abuse of cameras. Historical and by analogy, but I see the validity of your concern. YES, cameras do act as the eyes and ears of an actual person–so streets flooded with government spies is a good analogy. So, we come back to whether or not the given function is appropriate or not versus the fear of the technology being misused.===as I said, your comfort level.
Was it Bohrs or Oppenheimer or Einstein or “everybody” that said “if you have a technology, it will be used?” I agree with that. Maybe another analogy. Guns. I don’t like them, think they should be outlawed, they kill people when other means are available to stop crime. So==the police have them and they get misused all the time. On balance, I presume the great majority of people would say cops should keep their guns and their misuse should be prosecuted. Same with cameras.
13–I’ll read your article with interest and post back if appropriate. As this is a law article, I will presume it wont make the crucial error as most do herein of confusing/not making the distinction between privacy and “privacy rights” or in other words—reasonable and unreasonable expectations of privacy? If you don’t know the clear distinction, you really aren’t linguistically equiped to engage the subject.
#15 – #10-Slippery slope argument is invalid for a discussion of facts
And why are you the judge of what is valid or invalid? The slippery slope is very valid.
We aren’t changing the world. We are just having a discussion.
And I’m not worried about the technology being misused. I know the technology will be misused. I think banks should install cameras at ATMs and I think shops and parking garages are well served by cameras. I think most places we use cameras now, generally, are good… But if we are envisioning wall to wall coverage of every nook and cranny… then no. It’s not a good idea.
He is another point totally unrelated.
Who is paying for it? Me and you and everyone else… That’s OUR money. Let’s decide how to spend it. I say health care and education, not cameras.
Anyway… I’m leaving for the weekend, so instead of responding, just change your opinion to agree with me because I won’t be back till Monday 🙂 so this thread is over for me I’m afraid….
16—Enjoy your time away. Good point. Cameras are cheaper than people. Rather have cameras than people flood the streets. Was going to add that using actual people carry the added reasonable burder of abuse and intrusion and even physical interference—so camera’s win all around.
13–Gawd that was boring. Other than use of cameras being used in London, no analysis at all of public camera surveillance programs. Thats important because the article does say that each privacy issue is seperate.
Its main point as best as I can find it is that invasions of privacy create a Kaufkaesque world where individuals are de-humanized? Well, so does living in a crime ridden neighborhood. So again, which kind of torture do you prefer? I still would go with cameras because unlike most of the issues discussed in the paper, the surveillence is totally in public. No reasonable expectation of privacy there.
If anyone downloads the pdf document, the analysis doesn’t really start until page 16. I don’t think the author really came to grips with the pros and cons of the general issue, rather he just states and assumes his comfort level of being more secretive in order to prevent abuses. Not much to go on.
#18
It isn’t the best paper in the world, but it does point to some interesting decisions. Still, I’d like to see some crime prevention statistics lest this all be a waste of (metaphorical) breath and (real) money.
5 – bobbo
There is no expectation of privacy in a public area. Get used to it, or don’t go out in public.
I didn’t say I expected privacy in a public area. By its very nature, a public area isn’t private. What are you talking about? On the other hand, ‘viewing’ is a lot different than ‘recording’, don’t you think?
Maybe if you’re afraid to go out in public without nanny cameras following you around, you should be the one who doesn’t go out in public?
“Privacy Right” does not go to your preferance for privacy.
In some countries, we specifically have a right to freedom. I don’t believe I’m free when anyone, especially government tracks and records my every move. I don’t care why they’re doing it.
In a free country, can’t we get together and tell the government to stop doing something we don’t like or do we have to put up with it because a few people are frightened by their own shadows? What’s happening in the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave’ these days?
The public in general should not compromise their safety so that you can feel comfortable doing something you probably shouldn’t be doing in the first place?
As I said in #2, I don’t want them recording me when I’m walking, talking on the telephone or laughing with my friends. Are those things I shouldn’t be doing in the first place? Where the hell did you get that?
Finally, YES, the public in general should compromise their safety in a very small way so that I can feel comfortable. Isn’t that inferred by the U.S. Constitution and what America is all about – individual freedom?
20–I wont untwist your words or perhaps the ideas that they reflect. Most of your replies are infact answered in the thread above.
You do introduce another factoid though–the fact that we presume the cameras will all be attached to recorders. I would hope so–can’t make a court case out of someone reporting what they saw on a camera, much better to have the video tape to show everyone what was at issue.
A large step in this direction is use of dash-board cams in police cars. That sword has been cutting both ways operating at times to show police misconduct. That is a good thing.