NationStates Jolt Archive

I still don't understand the opposition to surveillance cameras...

How is it that a surveillance camera on the street is any more of an invasion of privacy then some random guy walking on the same street you are.

As soon as you leave your house, you are going to be in the sight of some people, you can't stop that. Whats so bad about one extra person being able to see you through a pixilated camera.

There is so much more i could say but i wan't to see some of the main arguments against surveillance cameras first...

Have you heard of the red light cameras? The ones that monitor busy intersections and catch people who run red lights? Well, they were taken down because drivers said it was an invasion of their privacy. that is retarded!:mad:

The fact that you are under CCTV coverage from the moment you leave your street to the moment you return home, suggests to me that there should be some place where you are not under surveilance.

Heh the OP argument looks like one of 'em given in the actual NS issue.

The fact that you are under CCTV coverage from the moment you leave your street to the moment you return home, suggests to me that there should be some place where you are not under surveilance.

Hmm, well I disagree. Unless you are living right in the center of town (which is normal crowded with people anyway so people will still see you), i don't think there is surveillance cameras on every street.

Have you heard of the red light cameras? The ones that monitor busy intersections and catch people who run red lights? Well, they were taken down because drivers said it was an invasion of their privacy. that is retarded!:mad:
Cameras like that are an invasion of privacy and rights as they cannot take into account circumstances surrounding the offence and therefore turn 'innocent until proven otherwise' the other way round. They don't know you didn't go through the red light to let an ambulance past or were speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital; they just assume your guilt and it's up to you to disprove that assumption.

The other day I say a woman turn right at a 'no right turn' set of traffic lights. She was clearly completely lost and confused. A police car saw it too, pulled her up, told her what she had done and sent her on her way. Unlike a camera, the Policeman is capable of making a rational judgement on when an offence has been committed.

Hmm, well I disagree. Unless you are living right in the center of town (which is normal crowded with people anyway so people will still see you), i don't think there is surveillance cameras on every street.
There are in most towns and cities. If you live in a suburb, you are probably only one or two streets away from a "high street" with CCTV coverage, and you will probably have to walk or drive through it or along it to get to work or a motorway.

There are in most towns and cities. If you live in a suburb, you are probably only one or two streets away from a "high street" with CCTV coverage, and you will probably have to walk or drive through it or along it to get to work or a motorway.

Well thats not the case down here in jolly old Brighton. However, if it helps lower crime then I don't care if some guy can see me in the street.

It isn't so much the fact that you are being seen by someone through a camera or anything like that, but the fact that when you are on a camera you can be recorded which seems to upset many people.

I still don't understand the opposition to surveillance cameras...

i can help - as a first step, imagine that stalin has taken control of your government.

i can help - as a first step, imagine that stalin has taken control of your government.
Well, that's a bit of an odd argument, because a) Stalin hasn't taken control of my Government, and I'd be really quite surprised if he did b) if a Stalin type character did take control, he'd put up cameras anyway and wouldn't let you argue about it.

i can help - as a first step, imagine that stalin has taken control of your government.

Well thats a different situation, since this is a democratic society, i don't feel under any danger.

It's the fact that minor things, like jay-walking, giving a bit of lip to an asshole, whatever - things you wouldn't do infront of a police officer in public, now are always going to be infront the police.

Well, that's a bit of an odd argument, because a) Stalin hasn't taken control of my Government, and I'd be really quite surprised if he did b) if a Stalin type character did take control, he'd put up cameras anyway and wouldn't let you argue about it.

Perhaps a Stalin-type character has taken control and just done a good job of hiding it. Or, perhaps a Stalin-type character will gain control later and use the existing cameras to know who to eliminate.

Perhaps a Stalin-type character has taken control and just done a good job of hiding it. Or, perhaps a Stalin-type character will gain control later and use the existing cameras to know who to eliminate.
That assumes that everything ever recorded on camera is stored indefinately, that some poor sod sits down and watches the whole thing, and that political 'crimes' are somehow visible while you're shopping for apples.

Cameras like that are an invasion of privacy and rights as they cannot take into account circumstances surrounding the offence and therefore turn 'innocent until proven otherwise' the other way round. They don't know you didn't go through the red light to let an ambulance past or were speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital; they just assume your guilt and it's up to you to disprove that assumption.

The other day I say a woman turn right at a 'no right turn' set of traffic lights. She was clearly completely lost and confused. A police car saw it too, pulled her up, told her what she had done and sent her on her way. Unlike a camera, the Policeman is capable of making a rational judgement on when an offence has been committed.

True, but something still needs to be done about people running red lights. I've witnessed so many close calls and crashes from people doing that. And, if the camera saw the people running the light for an ambulance it should also notice the flashing light on the street light. The cameras don't arrest you, they just show what you've done, so you could still put up a defense. People get caught by eye witnesses in the act of supposedly comitting a crime. They don't always get hammered for it, they can still be found innocent.

Well thats a different situation, since this is a democratic society, i don't feel under any danger.

so you don't fear the state because it is currently democratic (at least nominally)? despite the fact that we have seen time and time again that
1) democratic government alone has not been enough to prevent tyrants from gaining power, and
2) even the leaders of stable democratic states have consistently shown that they will gladly use and abuse whatever power they have access to?

The OP questions what is so bad about one other person seeing you through a pixelated camera. The low-quality of a camera shouldn't make it any more correct or permissible. Facial recognition software is being developed that could identify people without the need for a person to watch the camera. As technology advances, the systems running the computer could have digital examples of what the crimes "look" like, allowing people to be caught commiting a crime again with no person deciding. Said cameras could be used to clear the streets of any "undesirable people". Terrorists, jaywalkers, thieves, and litterbugs could all be stopped. The first advocacy for these cameras is as an anti-terror defense, only "known" terrorists will be included in the database that is scanned. However, what is to stop The Powers That Be from expanding the database to include all citizens and offer protection from all crime?

so you don't fear the state because it is currently democratic (at least nominally)? despite the fact that we have seen time and time again that
1) democratic government alone has not been enough to prevent tyrants from gaining power, and
2) even the leaders of stable democratic states have consistently shown that they will gladly use and abuse whatever power they have access to?

It is incredibly unlikely that a dictator will ever make it into power in the UK. And even if he did, he would just build cameras if they wern't there anyway.

It is incredibly unlikely that a dictator will ever make it into power in the UK. And even if he did, he would just build cameras if they wern't there anyway.

so we might as well do what we can to help out, just in case?

so we might as well do what we can to help out, just in case?

I don't think it is worth it if the crime rate goes up.

I don't think it is worth it if the crime rate goes up.

up? from what?

up? from what?

If by taking away surveillance cameras means the crime rate goes up..

I don't think it is worth it if the crime rate goes up.
But is there any proof that crime will go up without the cameras there? The London Bombers were caught on camera last July, but that didn't stop them from carrying on with their mission. The same goes for many of the 9/11 hijackers. Society has functioned without these cameras for decades, and the best argument for them after a few decades is that crime will go "up".

But is there any proof that crime will go up without the cameras there? The London Bombers were caught on camera last July, but that didn't stop them from carrying on with their mission. The same goes for many of the 9/11 hijackers. Society has functioned without these cameras for decades, and the best argument for them after a few decades is that crime will go "up".

They are exceptions, have you ever watched a program called street wars? It has countless examples of crime being stopped using surveillance cameras. Crime with no witnesses, crime that would become much worse if it was not stopped. lt also helps do identify, unidentifiable criminals.

They are exceptions, have you ever watched a program called street wars? It has countless examples of crime being stopped using surveillance cameras. Crime with no witnesses, crime that would become much worse if it was not stopped. lt also helps do identify, unidentifiable criminals.
Crimes with no witnesses? What types of crimes are these that are being caught? Who are the victims of these crimes? Individual people on the street? Yes, they can help identify otherwise unidentifiable criminals, but the same technology could be used to identify people who commit victimless crimes.

I have no problem with surveillance cameras in banks, malls, hotel lobbies, etc. because you surrender your right to privacy when entering a private "business." They have the right to protect thier property and assets and security cameras are one way to do that.

But can these public cameras be trusted to be used only for the purposes that are claimed? I personally don't think so; there are some in power who would be happy to use what exists in ways that they were not given "permission" to as a means of increasing control. I'm not sure if the potential positive effects are worth the potential negative effects that surveillance devices could have.

I have no problem with surveillance cameras in banks, malls, hotel lobbies, etc. because you surrender your right to privacy when entering a private "business." They have the right to protect thier property and assets and security cameras are one way to do that.

You have no right to privacy in public spaces. If you want to be unobserved then stay on your personal private property. Elsewhere your image is in the public domain. (Ask all the celebrities that have tried to limit the actions of the paparazzi.)

Can any form of technology be guarenteed to never be used for wrong? No.

These cameras can be used to detect crime, see traffic accidents, keep an eye on traffic and tons of other things. As long as they are pointed out to the streets and not into our homes, you can keep the tinfoil hats off.

You have no right to privacy in public spaces.

not entirely true. especially when it comes to actions by the state (such as searches and the like).

As long as the surveillance camera is in a public place (and I can't really think of any that are not) then there is absolutely no privacy issue.

As long as the surveillance camera is in a public place (and I can't really think of any that are not) then there is absolutely no privacy issue.

even if it was at ground level and aimed up?



what if it was linked to facial recognition software and a big ol' database of your movements?

how about a camera that is actually heat detecting and 'just happens' to be able to see inside your house?

not entirely true. especially when it comes to actions by the state (such as searches and the like).

Anything in plain sight does not need a search warrant. Your image, when you are in a public area, is in the public domain - legally. This has been tested over and over. So it is true.
Who is making use of your image is irrelevant to this fact.

even if it was at ground level and aimed up?



what if it was linked to facial recognition software and a big ol' database of your movements?

how about a camera that is actually heat detecting and 'just happens' to be able to see inside your house?

If it were capturing image of you in your private property, then that would be an invasion of privacy. If it were set in such a manner so as to deliberately remove your modesty, then that could be an issue, but it would have to be tested in court.
The database issue is one of computerised records, not one of your image being captured. A completely different matter.

even if it was at ground level and aimed up?



what if it was linked to facial recognition software and a big ol' database of your movements?

how about a camera that is actually heat detecting and 'just happens' to be able to see inside your house?
They don't exist in New Zealand. When I said surveillance cameras, I was talking about ones which are on polls, looking down or over a square/street.. Those are the only ones I have encountered.

However, if there were cameras like you said, then yes. That definitly does invade privacy.

CCTV cameras all over the place are great if you need a nanny to watch you.

CCTV cameras all over the place are great if you need a nanny to watch you.

In what way? Are you suggesting that the images captured are actually monitored, rather than recorded for reference if anything untoward happens?