NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, in October there will be local elections in my fair home city of Lisbon. The socialist candidate has called for a citywide networking of surveillance cameras, as to prevent and deter crime, and to serve as a useful proof-gathering instrument. The candidate of the right-of-center party/conservative party coalition has strongly scolded such proposal, stating that it amounted to Big-Brother-like action.
So, do you think that the left candidate is right? Or is the right candidate showing more respect of civil liberties than his opposer?

Most cities in England already have them. How do you think we tracked down the July 7th blokes? It makes sense to have them in busy areas, or in car parks, etc.

You get used to them.

Fucking useless most of them, the quality is generally too shit to stand up in court.

No, there shouldn't be surveillance cameras on the streets. As much as I probably agree with the Socialist politician on other issues, he's wrong here. It's far too bigbrotheresque.

In my city of Leuven they're newly installed, adn we're already planning to destroy them, really I don't like the idea

Can't see the need for there to be surveillance cameras about the place. It always used to be the case that permission had to be asked before an image was taken of you. Now it seems that authority has decided that simply going out of your front door constitutes permission. I would be more than happy to see most of these cameras torn down and the money spent on something more useful. I have no idea at the moment, but I'm sure there's something of far more use than spying on law-abiding citizens going about their lawful business. While we're talking about cameras, I'd tear down all the speed cameras on Britain's roads and insert them in the Transport Secretary.

Everytime I'm in the UK I appreciate knowing that when I get back home to Sweden, there will be no fucking CCTV cameras to hound me. I hate them so much. Scary, pointless integrity violators is all they are.

Everytime I'm in the UK I appreciate knowing that when I get back home to Sweden, there will be no fucking CCTV cameras to hound me. I hate them so much. Scary, pointless integrity violators is all they are.

I was wondering why my feet were cold. Hell has officialy frozen over. Fass and I agree on something.

I was wondering why my feet were cold. Hell has officialy frozen over. Fass and I agree on something.

Why do people fear doing that so much? The light side is nice to be on, after all.

Why do people fear doing that so much? The light side is nice to be on, after all.

See, now I feel that I'm "in the light" as well. Our spectrums are different.

See, now I feel that I'm "in the light" as well. Our spectrums are different.

You can't be "in the light" if you are evil. It doesn't work that way. :p

On the transit system it is handy.

The taxis here in Toronto have security cameras. They have reduced the number of crimes against taxi drivers. The city is also planning to use them in buses and in the subway.

In 2004, at Jane and Finch, there was a shooting incident on a bus, which resulted in a man being shot and an innocent young girl getting a bullet at the head... Fortunately it didn't do any long term damage, but people didn't come forward and the police struggled to get witnesses. There were 40+ people, only 5 of which came forward with information...

did you know you can ask for a copy of the CCTV video and speed camera photo's if at that any particular time your in it? (could be fun on a Saturday night video)

CCTV stops crime even if the camera don't work! (would you be stupid enough to commit a crime in front of a camera?)

No.

Finita è la commedia.

They're useful. Simple as. To quote "Big Brother" arguments is to suggest that the security services are actually using the security cameras to watch the movements of innocent people for the sake of... well, just for the sake of it. Just to exercise power over them. They help police coordinate efforts when chasing, and though they may not stand in court on their own, if you have a controller who spots the guy you're after and you catch him with the goods in his pockets then that's one arrest made.

It's a public space. It's legal to take private photographs in that space, and you can't be sued by the people on them for violating their right not to have their image used. Just don't do anything illegal in said public space and you should be okay.

Never thought I'd hear myself arguing against the right to privacy, but in a sense, it's not about that. By going into a public area you're allowing yourself to be viewed by anyone who happens to be there anyway, including police, who are, of course, agents of the government, the very same people who man the cameras. Accept that you are not being monitored, that they're there to help catch criminals, and the police are not out to get you.

I think a NationStates issue best summed up my argument:

"When you are in public, people can see you."

So these cameras are doing what everybody else can do and they can help against crime.

Big Brother? Only if the camera is in your house.

They're useful. Simple as. To quote "Big Brother" arguments is to suggest that the security services are actually using the security cameras to watch the movements of innocent people for the sake of... well, just for the sake of it. Just to exercise power over them. They help police coordinate efforts when chasing, and though they may not stand in court on their own, if you have a controller who spots the guy you're after and you catch him with the goods in his pockets then that's one arrest made.

It's a public space. It's legal to take private photographs in that space, and you can't be sued by the people on them for violating their right not to have their image used. Just don't do anything illegal in said public space and you should be okay.

Never thought I'd hear myself arguing against the right to privacy, but in a sense, it's not about that. By going into a public area you're allowing yourself to be viewed by anyone who happens to be there anyway, including police, who are, of course, agents of the government, the very same people who man the cameras. Accept that you are not being monitored, that they're there to help catch criminals, and the police are not out to get you.
Yes, but who polices the policemen?

Yes, but who polices the policemen?
Well, yes, that's the issue, but I still agree with New Watenho. You're in public, everyone can see you. What's the difference between cameras scanning a crowd and actual cops scanning a crowd? If they're looking for thieves and bombers, no problem. If they're looking for people talking politics to each other, that's a problem.

I read a newspaper story a while back about New York instituting random searches (which I am totally against) and using bomb-sniffing dogs in the subways. A passenger stopped to pet a dog and asked the cop if it sniffed drugs. The cop said, no, only explosives, and the passenger smiled and said, well, that's a relief, and walked away. The cop smiled, too. But maybe that's just New York. ;)

Well, yes, that's the issue, but I still agree with New Watenho. You're in public, everyone can see you. What's the difference between cameras scanning a crowd and actual cops scanning a crowd? If they're looking for thieves and bombers, no problem. If they're looking for people talking politics to each other, that's a problem.

I read a newspaper story a while back about New York instituting random searches (which I am totally against) and using bomb-sniffing dogs in the subways. A passenger stopped to pet a dog and asked the cop if it sniffed drugs. The cop said, no, only explosives, and the passenger smiled and said, well, that's a relief, and walked away. The cop smiled, too. But maybe that's just New York. ;)
Oh, man, thats priceless...
with these kind of surveillance apparatus, one always fears that it will be used to serve other purposes, not as noble as public safety and crime deterrence.

I read a newspaper story a while back about New York instituting random searches (which I am totally against) and using bomb-sniffing dogs in the subways. A passenger stopped to pet a dog and asked the cop if it sniffed drugs. The cop said, no, only explosives, and the passenger smiled and said, well, that's a relief, and walked away. The cop smiled, too. But maybe that's just New York. ;)

Brilliant. It's a joke, yet it's real.

Well, yes, that's the issue, but I still agree with New Watenho. You're in public, everyone can see you. What's the difference between cameras scanning a crowd and actual cops scanning a crowd? If they're looking for thieves and bombers, no problem. If they're looking for people talking politics to each other, that's a problem.

well there is something,these are cameras.while actual police can listen in on your conversations a camera cannot,unless its fitted with a mic

No, there shouldn't be surveillance cameras on the streets. As much as I probably agree with the Socialist politician on other issues, he's wrong here. It's far too bigbrotheresque.
So what excactly do you have to hide, huh? I'm glad they're watching you, so they can find out! If its just because it makes you "uncomfortable", well, too damn bad. I don't mind them, because I'm a good person, and I don't break the law (in public, anyways)

So what excactly do you have to hide, huh? I'm glad they're watching you, so they can find out! If its just because it makes you "uncomfortable", well, too damn bad. I don't mind them, because I'm a good person, and I don't break the law (in public, anyways)

You'd think people learn from history not to relinquish their liberties and rights for security, or in this case the illusion of, but I guess there will always be those naïve enough to drudge out the old inanity that is "I have nothing fear, because they're not after me." :rolleyes:

I'm sorry.. what right are you relinquishing?
The right not to be watched while in a public place?

I take it you walk down the street with a pointy-stick to blind all those who might infringe on this "right" of yours normally?

We have them in Belfast, in the city centre, but that's kind of through necessity.

While cameras may be useful to help identify criminals, I feel that most of the time they are used as an excuse to save money on more effective (but expensive) methods of prevention.

In some cases it may work (e.g. banks: if somebody steals some money and escapes without harming anyone, catching him afterwards can be enought for society), but with most violent crimes knowing the face of the criminal does not help much the victim.

they can put up as many cameras as they want to.

gives me something to shoot at.

:sniper:

I'm sorry.. what right are you relinquishing?
The right not to be watched while in a public place?

The right not to be treated like a criminal when I haven't been convicted of any crime, and the right not to have my privacy invaded by the government. Not to mention the basic liberty of integrity.

But I don't expect certain people to value their rights, liberties, and to realise the necessity to limit the power of government.

I take it you walk down the street with a pointy-stick to blind all those who might infringe on this "right" of yours normally?

I take it you'd like a chip operated into you so that they can track you wherever you are? I mean, you've nothing to hide, right?

The right not to be treated like a criminal when I haven't been convicted of any crime, and the right not to have my privacy invaded by the government. Not to mention the basic liberty of integrity.

But I don't expect certain people to value their rights, liberties, and to realise the necessity to limit the power of government.



I take it you'd like a chip operated into you so that they can track you wherever you are? I mean, you've nothing to hide, right?

I dont think you're being treated like a criminal just because your image is being captured in a public setting. I dont see it as an invasion of privacy because you arent in a private area. There isnt any liberty I'm aware of that states you have the right not to have you image recorded on city streets.
I do value my liberties-and I dont love being filmed out on the streets. I also dont like being vigorously patted and searched going into court or through an airport-I'd love it if they just took my word for it. I usually have nothing to hide.
Many of these cameras arent going to prevent a crime, so much as provide damning evidence if one occurs in their scope.
The facial recognition programs will be interesting when a computer starts to see and recognize known and wanted criminals. That will be come popular very soon.

And-oh yeah- No chip implant for me, thanks. Maybe for paroled felons though?
I think there are a few parents out there that wish they had their missing children equipped with a chip though. This will be more of an issue soon too.

Well, the only effect I saw in my city was that the response times in the event of front-of-the-bar fights radically lessened, because the police didn't have to wait for someone to call. The result was that people virtually stopped fighting in the city center. Security increased, and the police could have one guy sitting inside eating donuts and watch the center-square. Everybody wins.

And-oh yeah- No chip implant for me, thanks. Maybe for paroled felons though?
I think there are a few parents out there that wish they had their missing children equipped with a chip though. This will be more of an issue soon too.

First it will be voluntary, then encouraged, then mandatory for children. By then, gov't and businesses will use it as a form of ID so you won't be able to have it realistically removed.

All in the name of "safety".

Personally, I am quite ok with the idea of cameras in a city. If we didnt had cameras in a town square, but 20 cops all staring at the people, would not the end result be the same? For me, a camera works has a cop with two eyes. Ence, i have no problem with cameras in public grounds, has i have no problems with a cop in public grounds. I would have problems with cameras in my house, or a chip tracking me, has I would have problems with a cop inside my house 24/7, or a cop following me everywere i went..

Lets face it: If any of our goverments wants to track any of us, they dont need cameras in the streets, they can do it with the current technology. On the other hand, cameras through a city generate so many information, that it is impossible to keep track of it all. I mean, if you install 2000 cameras, what are you going to do? hire thousands of people to stare at the camera feed every day, waiting for crimes that may even not happen? No.. they just store the information, and see it if a crime has occurred in a particular area. Just like a witness.

Like, I have lots of things to hide, but if there is, or not, a camera in a public ground is totally irrelevant, since what I have to hide, i would not bring to public ground, has if it isnt a camera to spot me, its a bystander or something.

cameras in the streets dont bother me. they would actually make me feel safer as they will cut down the crime rate. As long as people are not doing what they aren't supposed to be doing, they should not have a problem with the cameras either.

Well, in October there will be local elections in my fair home city of Lisbon. The socialist candidate has called for a citywide networking of surveillance cameras, as to prevent and deter crime, and to serve as a useful proof-gathering instrument.
Wow and I thought my politicians were bad :eek:

So, do you think that the left candidate is right?
He's right-[wing] in the sense of the major authoritarianism. The right candidate is indeed (excuse the pun) right.

First it will be voluntary, then encouraged, then mandatory for children. By then, gov't and businesses will use it as a form of ID so you won't be able to have it realistically removed.

All in the name of "safety".


I dont see that happening.

Absolutely they should be allowed. Generally, I'm against invasions of privacy; however, this isn't an invasion of privacy because the cameras are in public areas. :)
Against ID cards, though, for a variety of reasons. Cameras in public places, though, are basically the state doing with its property what shop owners do with theirs.
Adverse side effects? Please, name some, I can't.

Brilliant. It's a joke, yet it's real.
It's 115% true. I know New York cops. What can I say, baby, there are 8 million stories in the naked city. (prize to whoever gets that reference ;) )

Here's my take:

Cameras in public -- OK. They may not save your life, but they often help catch the criminals later, which is good for society. Think of others, for a change.

Cops on street/transit patrol -- OK. They might save your life (maybe), and are a deterrant.

Explosives-Sniffing Dogs -- OK. They can scan a crowd/bags more effectively and less intrusively than any other method. If you're afraid of them or allergic, well, I'm afraid of and allergic to bombs.

Pat down searches; random bag searches -- NO. They violate probable cause, and if you use dogs, you usually don't need to touch people (ick).

Listening devices; wire taps; email/web monitoring -- NO. Get a warrant, bitch.

Chips -- NO, NO, A 1000 TIMES NO. The idea of chips in merchandise makes me paranoid. In humans? Quick, where's my militia?

See, the trick to preserving your rights while not getting blown up is knowing where to draw your lines, and once they're drawn, never, never waiver from them. If Americans hadn't waivered, we wouldn't have a Patriot Act to repeal.

The right not to be treated like a criminal when I haven't been convicted of any crime, and the right not to have my privacy invaded by the government. Not to mention the basic liberty of integrity.
Wow. Touchy aren't you. So the very act of filming someone is treating them like a criminal. By god, make sure you sue those tourists for their false accusations.

But I don't expect certain people to value their rights, liberties, and to realise the necessity to limit the power of government.
Just as I don't expect people to think in black and white. Unfortunately, it seems I'm often dissappointed.

I take it you'd like a chip operated into you so that they can track you wherever you are? I mean, you've nothing to hide, right?Your analogy fails in several key respects: a chip not only involves invasive surgery into my personal property, but also is monitoring me on my private property. Both of which are key issues.

A camera on the street pointing into your window? Yeah.. that's flat out wrong, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about cameras pointing into the public streets. I'd far rather that than spending the money on hiring an actual cop to do the same thing.. or do you feel somehow personally invaded every time you chance to walk by a police officer? Because essentially all the cameras are doing are multiplying the effectiveness of the tax dollar in policing.

Well, in October there will be local elections in my fair home city of Lisbon. The socialist candidate has called for a citywide networking of surveillance cameras, as to prevent and deter crime, and to serve as a useful proof-gathering instrument. The candidate of the right-of-center party/conservative party coalition has strongly scolded such proposal, stating that it amounted to Big-Brother-like action.
So, do you think that the left candidate is right? Or is the right candidate showing more respect of civil liberties than his opposer?

I do not have a problem with CCTV cameras. I think it makes people behave themselves better from my experience. I live in the city centre, and if I go out at night and have to walk home some female friends or by myself, I feel much knowing that there are cameras around because even though about 1/2 the people are totally drunk, they generally will leave you alone because of the cameras. I figure I am not doing anything wrong so I am not worried about the CCTV cameras. Now, if the government wanted to put them in my building, I would not stand for it, but that is the difference of being in public place and in private place. When you are in public place, anyone can see what you are doing so it does not make sense to me to expect privacy.

As someone mentioned earlier, they were able to find the Tube bombers in London because of the CCTV cameras. They have been able to solve several murder cases or other crimes with footage from the cameras. I think those things alone are enough to make up for making a few people uncomfortable.

Wow and I thought my politicians were bad :eek:


He's right-[wing] in the sense of the major authoritarianism. The right candidate is indeed (excuse the pun) right.
hey, authoritarianism isnt a monopoly of the right.