Security cameras in public?

[zyncod]

Well, if we are going to logical extremes, why should you have any right to privacy at all? I'm not simply speaking in legal terms, because the Constitution and other laws set out the limits of your privacy fairly well. I'm asking why shouldn't the government have the right to monitor you 24/7 a la 1984? Theoretically, it only becomes a problem when you commit a crime. Otherwise, nobody should be looking at you. But if you had cameras in people's houses, you could catch many, many more criminals.

 

The reason why it's ok to put a policeman on every corner and not a video camera is because the policeman's memory is limited. Even with a policeman on every corner, the government will not be able to track you specifically, because the policeman's memory is fallible and limited. With the policeman, you're only visible while you're committing a crime or acting suspiciously. With a camera, there is a lasting concrete record, and the day is not far off when computer software will be able to search through the records and pretty much track you as you're walking or driving around during the day.

 

I don't have a problem with video cameras per se. I think that we should, however, set strict access limits on the part of law enforcement agencies. Just as with wiretapping, I feel that the police should be required to obtain a warrant to have access to the video record, unless it's an emergency.

[ecoli]

Well, if we are going to logical extremes, why should you have any right to privacy at all? I'm not simply speaking in legal terms, because the Constitution and other laws set out the limits of your privacy fairly well. I'm asking why shouldn't the government have the right to monitor you 24/7 a la 1984? Theoretically, it only becomes a problem when you commit a crime. Otherwise, nobody should[/b'] be looking at you. But if you had cameras in people's houses, you could catch many, many more criminals.

 

A right has to be protected because of the potential for it to be abused. Why should the government be allowed to see private acts? Besides for the fact, and I think that the framers of the constitution would agree, that my home is my private land, and that I should be allowed to do nearly anything I want within the confines of my home without anybody knowing.

[Sisyphus]

I'd just like to reiterate that that is already illegal, and constitutes a search without warrant. Also, that "it's only a problem if you commit a crime" has always been the defense of totalitarians. There's a major difference between public cameras and surveillance of private property, and it's a line that won't easily be crossed.

[YT2095]

if a camera is in a public place monitoring 24/7 I can`t see a problem with it, what are they going to be watching you do?

walking down the road, maybe shopping, perhaps eating etc...

so what! anyone can watch you doing that anyway

it`s only criminals that won`t like this idea, the only problem is, that sometimes when these crimals KNOW there`s cameras about, it doesn`t stop them.

I think it`s a great idea personaly

[Dave]

I'm sorry if this takes the discussion off on a bit of a tangent, but some of you in the UK may be aware of a scheme called ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). ANPR equipped CCTV devices are placed along a road or motorway, allowing the police to check the numberplate of every vehicle that passes by. In the process, any cars marked as stolen can be flagged up and an officer deployed to intercept and detain the car. At the moment, there are in the region of a few thousand cameras set up at strategic points; e.g. on motorway bridges, alongside roads, etc.

 

Now, it's recently been announced that the guys behind this plan to expand the system, and place cameras every 400 yards on the motorways, as well as have ANPR cameras in car parks and other strategic locations. The consequence of this is that vehicles will be able to be tracked - moreover, they want to keep the records for up to 2 years.

 

Frankly, I'm getting to the end of my tether with the whole thing. It's like one thing after another with the UK roads. Firstly, we have to pay road tax and an extortionate price for fuel. Then, on top of that, the government introduces speed cameras and expands the scheme to make a nice little earner on the side (this alone I could rant on and on about for years). And now, ANPR to track everywhere we go.

 

The idea is absurd. Setting aside, for a moment, the immense technical difficulties, there is the issue of abuse. For example, who is going to have access to this system? It's not unreasonable to assume that an organised gang could get access via a perfectly respectible officer (by extortion or some other method). The database could be used to track the routes of security vans, and moreover help the gang to take down multiple shipments at any one time.

 

As far as I can see, it's a complete and utter waste of billions of pounds of taxpayers money that could go into far better causes.

[Dak]

Then, on top of that, the government introduces speed cameras and expands the scheme to make a nice little earner on the side

 

I never understand it when people say this... speeding is illegal, and no-one has any right to complain at being punished for breaking the law, or at the govournment for wanting to introduce measures to stop people breaking the law, unless that law is unjust or unfair.

 

Its not as if the speed laws are unwarranted -- the faster you go, the more chance you have of killing someone if you hit them.

 

Although i do agree with you concerns as to the security of the system.

[ecoli]

I never understand it when people say this... speeding is illegal[/b'], and no-one has any right to complain at being punished for breaking the law, or at the govournment for wanting to introduce measures to stop people breaking the law, unless that law is unjust or unfair.

 

I think the complaint was coming because the government is trying to use this system to earn some extra bucks, not just catch lawbreakers

[H W Copeland]

As long as it seems to be OK-at least to some of us-to place cameras in public places, with rationale ranging from "only the criminal has anything to fear," to "after all, one's right to privacy is givin up once he goes out in public," How many of us think it is OK for that same government to access library records, as has been part of the objection to the Patriot Act?

 

A library is, after all, a public place, no?

[YT2095]

what`s wrong with them knowing what books you read?

 

LOL, you have to take them to a PERSON to be stamped and checked out anyway, so what`s the big deal here?

 

if they`re interested in that, then other than "Get a life! .Gov" what`s the harm?

[Dave]

I never understand it when people say this... speeding is illegal' date=' and no-one has any right to complain at being punished for breaking the law, or at the govournment for wanting to introduce measures to stop people breaking the law, unless that law is unjust or unfair.

 

Its not as if the speed laws are unwarranted -- the faster you go, the more chance you have of killing someone if you hit them.[/quote']

 

I'm not going to go into this, since it's completely off-topic and I'll get very annoyed about it, but in general I agree with you. However, the fact of the matter is, a lot of the 30mph zones and new (very slow) speed limits are just completely unwarranted.

 

Moreover, take a look at the test ANPR section of the M42. There are speed cameras every 500 yards along the motorway constantly monitoring your speed. Now, if you go through a few of those faster than 70, then you're going to end up losing your license very easily. Frankly, a much bigger problem than speed on the motorway is tailgating which does get people killed.

[YT2095]

Tailgating IS a killer!

sadly it`s often Thrust upon a good driver by the bad ones, they overtake and cut infront of you so you have no choice but be up the idiots arse for a while until you can slow down enough to leave a long enough gap again, but that again depends on the guy Behind You! will he let ya do that when He`s just as close ya could pass him a cigarette!

and then it`s only a matter of seconds before it all starts and happens over again!

lane changing`s ok and perfectly valid, but CONSIDERATION is Soooo lacking today, people are Literaly "Dying to get to where they want to go" (pun intended).

changing lanes at the last second to get to your Exit Ramp is another tw@ish behavior too, lets hope the cams spot THIS type of activity also!

[Dave]

The trouble is it's very hard for a computer system to distinguish between tailgating and normal travelling. It's a very compelling case to keep police on the roads instead of having computers monitoring every single move.

 

I have to say that I couldn't live in a country where everything (public, at least) was monitored by an overlooking AI, as suggested by Mokele. There is just no tolerance that way - at least with police, they have the power to show a small amount of compassion.

[YT2095]

oh I agree entirely! these news systems should only be used as an ajunct to existing systems and is no competition to boots on the ground and never will be.

 

but the times I and others I know have said "where`s a copper when ya need one" after observing a blattent crime, well it`s my hope that such systems will serve such a purpose, hence I`ve no objection to it at all

[ecoli]

Then there's always the valid excuse for speeding on a roadway... like your wife is labor.

[H W Copeland]

what`s wrong with them knowing what books you read?

 

LOL' date=' you have to take them to a PERSON to be stamped and checked out anyway, so what`s the big deal here?

 

if they`re interested in that, then other than "Get a life! .Gov" what`s the harm?[/quote']

 

That is what I think too, but there has been a lot of negitive talk in the US about this being an intrusion one's right to privacy.....

[YT2095]

there`s no privacy in going to a PUBLIC library anyway, it`s a great big fuss over nothing

[Sayonara]

Yes, let's get back on topic (i.e. why should anyone object to being videoed in public, and why is that any different to being watched by a policeman whose word is classified as A11 - tested source, information believed to be true, distribute to any office or external law enforcement agency.)

[Phi for All]

Yes, let's get back on topic (i.e. why should anyone object to being videoed in public, and why is that any different to being watched by a policeman whose word is classified as A11 - tested source, information believed to be true, distribute to any office or external law enforcement agency.[/i'])

A policeman can hear what's going on as well as seeing it. He has other senses and training that make him better than a static camera. Plus he's right there which acts as a better deterrent to crime.

 

However, the static cameras can't be tricked to into reacting to a staged scuffle while the real crime happens where the policeman used to be standing. The camera sees everything that isn't blocked from view. I think a smart mixture of both real presence and video surveillance is the answer.

 

Unlike most logical fallacies, which usually aren't correct, I tend to lend more credence to the slippery slope than most people do. I happen to believe that burning one book makes it easier to justify burning the next. And while I don't think video surveillance would make the jump suddenly from the public streets to our homes, I think there are easier places in public that seem private where video surveillance will cross over.

 

What about public restrooms? Vandalism, drug use, and other crimes happen there because they are public but not usually part of video surveillance. Dressing rooms in clothing stores are refuges for shoplifters. How much easier will it be to enact a law that makes it legal to put a hidden camera in a dressing room because it's an accepted practice for catching thieves in other public places? Do the authorities get to view those tapes every time a piece of lingerie goes missing?

[ecoli]

What about public restrooms? Vandalism' date=' drug use, and other crimes happen there because they are public but not usually part of video surveillance. Dressing rooms in clothing stores are refuges for shoplifters. How much easier will it be to enact a law that makes it legal to put a hidden camera in a dressing room because it's an accepted practice for catching thieves in other public places? Do the authorities get to view those tapes every time a piece of lingerie goes missing?[/quote']

 

Good point, Phi. Cameras in public restrooms are, of course, illegal. But if one thing leads to another, perhaps this could happen, and after that... who knows.

 

I think, in order for camera survellience to be put in place, certain safeguards against this sort of thing should be introduced. The question is, where should it stop?

[Pangloss]

I think Phi's point addresses the issue of which is more accurate/useful, but it may not fully address the issue of why we're more comfortable with policemen vs cameras. I think it might be a little deeper (or perhaps a little more superficial) than that.

[Dak]

I'm not going to go into this, since it's completely off-topic and I'll get very annoyed about it, but in general I agree with you. However, the fact of the matter is, a lot of the 30mph zones and new (very slow) speed limits are just completely unwarranted.

 

ah, thats a different issue. if you think that the go-slow zones are unwarrated, then I see your point.

 

Moreover, take a look at the test ANPR section of the M42. There are speed cameras every 500 yards along the motorway constantly monitoring your speed. Now, if you go through a few of those faster than 70, then you're going to end up losing your license very easily.

 

Don't go faster than 70mph then

 

The trouble is it's very hard for a computer system to distinguish between tailgating and normal travelling. It's a very compelling case to keep police on the roads instead of having computers monitoring every single move.

 

Why couldnt a computer spot it? they can measure distance and speed; surely safe stopping distances are just a function of speed? (ok, road conditions too, but a computer could atleast spot the blatant tail-gaters and flagg them up for a police constable)

 

I have to say that I couldn't live in a country where everything (public, at least) was monitored by an overlooking AI, as suggested by Mokele. There is just no tolerance that way - at least with police, they have the power to show a small amount of compassion.

 

Yeah, i dont like the idea of computer programs auto-fining people, for example. i'd like the computers to flag everything that they find for review by an actual policeman, for the reason you mentioned above.

 

---

 

if we put aside the question of wether the speedlimits/go-slow-zones etc are justified and assume for the sake of argument that they are, then the speed laws are a good argument for CCTV.

 

We'll never have enough police men to assure that noone ever speeds; CCTV -- especially with some kind of computer program to highlight the speeders -- is the only feasable way of attaining a near 100% enforsment of the speed laws.

 

i think the main problem people have is not with being filmed -- it happens whenever we go into a shop, usually without a complaint -- but with being filmed 100% of the time, which i dont understand to be honest

 

and reguarding the toilet CCTV: id have no problem, as long as i was assured that the tape wouldnt be viewed unless a crime was commited in the toilets... although I wouldnt really be that bothered if they were viewed -- it wouldnt affect me if someone watched me taking a dump, so i dont see the problem.

 

[edit]actually, i can see ecoli's slippery slope arguemt more now i think about it... if CCTV could be viewed by AI that would flag any crimes, but not viewed by a human in the abscense of any crime, then i can see the possibility of them being compulsary within certain peoples homes; people with criminal records, known drug addicts... I can't see people complaining at the prospect of paedophiles having to have the AI-CCTV in their homes. I suppose the slippery-slope argument is a bit disturbing...[/edit]

[Phi for All]

I think Phi's point addresses the issue of which is more accurate/useful, but it may not fully address the issue of why we're more comfortable[/i'] with policemen vs cameras.

I didn't have much to add beyond what others had already said. I think it's purely the human factor. An unblinking, unthinking eye in the sky that has virtual omnipresence is scarier than a living, caring policeman who is there to protect and to serve.

 

If you can see the policeman you can tell whether or not he's looking at you. He has limits, but he also has judgement. If you're in a bank that is being robbed and you escape and rush outside and see a policeman, you can tell him about what's happening. A surveillance camera just sees YOU fleeing from a bank that was just robbed.

[Pangloss]

Interesting point.

 

You know what this discussion reminds me of, by the way? That old axiom: "An armed society is a polite society."

 

Only this way you don't need the "arms".

[john5746]

A watched society is a polite society?

 

One problem with cameras is they retain a history. 10 years from now, someone can claim you are on tape with so and so, etc. People who are under protective custody might have an issue. They can't shoot you by mistake though.

 

Public domain is not private. People shouldn't be harassed, but this isn't harassment. I think the benefits far outway any potential problems.