NationStates Jolt Archive

In the UK we here a great many people complaining about speed cameras, CCTV cameras etc in short the increased use of technology to make law enforcement more and more ubiquitous. People complain that speed cameras and CCTV cameras themselves are somehow threatening our civil liberties. Let me ask this.

Why and How?

All CCTV and Speed cameras do is enforce laws which you should be obeying anyway. Basicly what they do is make it harder to break an existing law. And I dont know if you noticed, but you dont have a right to break the law. While I can understand people complaining about the use of CCTV footage outside of the courtroom as evidence, I cannot understand how the increasing ubiquity of cameras in the public sphere designed to enforce laws are dangerous to our civil liberties. As long as they are in the public sector where people would be watched by other people anyway they arnt a threat. When it moves into the private sector I agree that is breaching our right to privacy. The only time suveliance technology should be used in the private sphere of a persons life is when evidence has been gathered in the public sphere to merit it. These camera's however are not a danger. They just make it harder to break the law. Gasp! How terrible

The problem with CCTV and such is that it makes it possible for people to pursue you whether you have or haven't broken a law. This is dangerous for two reasons:
-You might be pursued and surveilled even when you are within the law. If someone abuses those powers, there is little that can be done to prevent them from doing so, if you're a simple civilian.
-The surveillance system can be used to uphold unjust laws. Maybe they serve a good purpose today, but all of a sudden, times change, and the police state replaces the free society. Instead of having to set up an extensive surveillance system, it already has one to crush opposition with.

Because of the massive potential for abuse.

The problem with CCTV and such is that it makes it possible for people to pursue you whether you have or haven't broken a law. This is dangerous for two reasons:
-You might be pursued and surveilled even when you are within the law. If someone abuses those powers, there is little that can be done to prevent them from doing so, if you're a simple civilian.
-The surveillance system can be used to uphold unjust laws. Maybe they serve a good purpose today, but all of a sudden, times change, and the police state replaces the free society. Instead of having to set up an extensive surveillance system, it already has one to crush opposition with.

I can see your argument for generic CCTV cameras, but calling speed cameras instuments of tyranny is a little ott. If you can make the technology used to target specific crimes (like speeding) I see no problem with that

Because of the massive potential for abuse.

Abuse of speed cameras?

I think the arguement is something along the lines that the government doesn't always have the best of intentions.

The question is, when does government surveilance become too much. I know Bradford has, and London will have, CCTV cameras on all the road networks into and out of the city. The CCTV cameras can automatically pick up numberplates and alert the authorities if a car their looking for has recently crossed the city border or has just done so. I know the Bradford system was instrumental in the capture of the killers of PC Sharon Beshenivsky.

When considering any new idea, the idea should not be thought of in what benefits it will bring, but what problems it will cause. The increasing level of surveilance coupled ID cards will allow the government to the movements and activities of those that oppose them, and implicate them in thing that perhaps, weren't involved in (The camera does indeed lie, infact it is a prolific deceiver).

A government is theoretically supposed to work for the good of the people it represents. However, it is comprised of falible humans. Perhaps it is not a good idea to give it the tools that would allow it act with impunity.

when has it ever been wise to trust the state with even more power and ability to control people?

A government is theoretically supposed to work for the good of the people it represents. However, it is comprised of falible humans. Perhaps it is not a good idea to give it the tools that would allow it act with impunity.

to put it another way - if humans were angels, then it might be ok to give the state such power. but they aren't, and typically the worst of the lot are the ones drawn towards (or best at getting) power.

to put it another way - if humans were angels, then it might be ok to give the state such power. but they aren't, and typically the worst of the lot are the ones drawn towards (or best at getting) power.If humans were angels then we wouldn't need such technology anyway. :P

"Speed cameras, CCTV cameras and the stupidity of the "Police state" scaremongeres"

Tempest in a teapot. I have real trouble understanding how people can get riled up over this unless they think they may have something to hide. After all, there are now cameras everywhere, both publicly and privately owned. Getting rid of them would be a major undertaking and not worht the effort, IMHO.

When considering any new idea, the idea should not be thought of in what benefits it will bring, but what problems it will cause. The increasing level of surveilance coupled ID cards will allow the government to the movements and activities of those that oppose them, and implicate them in thing that perhaps, weren't involved in (The camera does indeed lie, infact it is a prolific deceiver).


This is the thing though. Define opposition. If opposition means political oponents, then it is probelmatic. If however it means suspected terrorists then no it isnt. Its less to do with the system itself and more to do with what it is used for. What we should be more concerened with is how what the camera system is used for being controlled and less concerned with the widening ubiquity of the system

when has it ever been wise to trust the state with even more power and ability to control people?

When the control is applied to a law that is already universally agreed to not be unnsessecarly supressive. I dont think we should be worried about speed cameras threatening our civil liberties to break the law. What we should be worried about is when the laws that are written threaten our civil liberities.

This is the thing though. Define opposition. If opposition means political oponents, then it is probelmatic. If however it means suspected terrorists then no it isnt. Its less to do with the system itself and more to do with what it is used for. What we should be more concerened with is how what the camera system is used for being controlled and less concerned with the widening ubiquity of the systemIt means both, and everything inbetween. I think the current debacle that both main political parties have shown themselves to be part of, though only one has the power to give peerages, is evidence to suggest that they have less than perfect intentions.

I have real trouble understanding how people can get riled up over this unless they think they may have something to hide.

imagine that one day the democrats come back to power and are hell bent on expanding the government into a massive, oppressive, nanny state intent on crushing all opposition. would you want them to have access to a vast surveillence network to keep track of anyone who would stand up to it or organize opposition?

all good people will have something to hide when it a government becomes destructive of the ends of life and liberty, etc., and they have to exercise their right to alter or to abolish it.

you don't have to restrict the power of the state because you fear what it will do now. but everyone should be on board with restricting it because of what it might do with broader power later.

It means both, and everything inbetween. I think the current debacle that both main political parties have shown themselves to be part of, though only one has the power to give peerages, is evidence to suggest that they have less than perfect intentions.

Isnt it better to prevent the state from turning into the power that would abuse the powers you describe rather than complaining when the power is used legitmately. People dont have a right to rape people, to vilonetly assult them or to speed. So if that is what the CCTV's are being used to gather evidence against to prosecute then yes they should be supported. When however the system changes then they should be opposed. But we shouldnt complain when the technology is used for the proper puroposes.

Isnt it better to prevent the state from turning into the power that would abuse the powers you describe rather than complaining when the power is used legitmately. People dont have a right to rape people, to vilonetly assult them or to speed. So if that is what the CCTV's are being used to gather evidence against to prosecute then yes they should be supported. When however the system changes then they should be opposed. But we shouldnt complain when the technology is used for the proper puroposes.How would you propose to stop a state from turning into such a power. In eyes of a fair few people we are currently on a slow but steady course to such a state.

the only people that should be worried is "wrong-doers"

obey the law, and everything is good

the only people that should be worried is "wrong-doers"

obey the law, and everything is goodIs the law always good though?

Is the law always good though?

most of the time, yes

but when laws are enacting such as "It's illegal for White people to marry non-whites" or "Non-White's cannot own a car or house", then the law is bad. That law affects everyone, including innocents.

When you're speeding, that law affects you, not everyone who obeys the law. Anyone can speed, not everyone can be white.

most of the time, yes

but when laws are enacting such as "It's illegal for White people to marry non-whites" or "Non-White's cannot own a car or house", then the law is bad. That law affects everyone, including innocents.

When you're speeding, that law affects you, not everyone who obeys the law. Anyone can speed, not everyone can be white.I agree with you there. Most of the time the law is good, but it should never be taken for granted that it is. Laws are to create order, not good. Order is morally neutral, it can help facilitate good or bad, depending on the facilitator. We live in a world in which sometimes our politicians are less than truthful or honourable. I think perhaps it is better to prevent complete public surveilence.

Besides, which I do not see how the logic of 'if you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear' could be used to defend the right to privacy against surveilence of our private lives.

On the whole I don't care about speed camera's, but am against increased use of CCTV and compulsory ID cards. I think I'm even a member of the the NO2ID campaign