Privacy / CCTV

[Meg 368]

The thread about the Iowa caucus has turned into something else.  So let's continue that discussion here.

[Micah 16]

If I wanted to have a government that spied on me and called it okayquote>

Your point doesn't make sense. Some European countries, for example England, almost have a complete lack of privacy.

stand in long lines for immigrationquote>

That's a bad thing? That just proves there's millions trying to get into the US.

have my shoes sniffed on in airports or pay indecent sums for health care insurance I would be denied if something happened to me (I'm an epileptic)quote>

A decent point.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: Micah

If I wanted to have a government that spied on me and called it okayquote>

Your point doesn't make sense. Some European countries, for example England, almost have a complete lack of privacy.quote>

BRITAIN!!!

I'd say we had slightly more privacy than the US, but not much. Government CCTV is put in Public places wich isn't really invasion of privacy at all. As for tapping the Phonelines, reading emails and stuff like that... wouldn't surprise me... Gov can do whatever the hell it wants. No need to fear it if your Innocent

have my shoes sniffed on in airports or pay indecent sums for health care insurance I would be denied if something happened to me (I'm an epileptic)

A decent point.quote>

Happens all too often. And the costs... £70 [$140] for an Asthma inhaler? My Phone bill for the past 5 months wasn't even that...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Government CCTV is put in Public places wich isn't really invasion of privacy at all. quote>

It isn't?  Why is it the government's bleeping business where I go and when I go there?  If they are concerned about people who go to ---insert name of dangerous place here---, then put  cameras there.  Putting them everywhere is just Big Brother-ish.

As for tapping the Phonelines, reading emails and stuff like that... wouldn't surprise me... Gov can do whatever the hell it wants. No need to fear it if your Innocent quote>

How to you figure there is no need to fear it if you're innocent?  As you pointed out, the government can do whatever the hell it wants.  So why hand it data so it can do more damage?  Why do people believe that the government is benign?   As history shows, power corrupts.

But, for sake of argument, let's assume that the current government of whatever country is benign and has no intentions of misusing the data.  What happens when the government gets taken over by someone else?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: El Burro

Government CCTV is put in Public places wich isn't really invasion of privacy at all. quote>

It isn't?  Why is it the government's bleeping business where I go and when I go there?  If they are concerned about people who go to ---insert name of dangerous place here---, then put  cameras there.  Putting them everywhere is just Big Brother-ish.quote>

Well, not really... privacy implies that your away from the view of others, and in the centre of a large UK city like London or Manchester I wouldn't exactly say your alone

CCTV is there to make things safer... it doesn't stop crime but it does prevent it. I agree that maybe instead of putting more CCTV on the streets maybe they should put more Police on the streets... a visible Police presence seems to be the greatest deterrant of them all.

How to you figure there is no need to fear it if you're innocent?  As you pointed out, the government can do whatever the hell it wants.  So why hand it data so it can do more damage?  Why do people believe that the government is benign?   As history shows, power corrupts.

But, for sake of argument, let's assume that the current government of whatever country is benign and has no intentions of misusing the data.  What happens when the government gets taken over by someone else?

quote>

Your under the illusion that the Government is out to get you. In the Western world, the Governments are the most benign... wich makes you wonder how bad the rest of the Planet is. They need the Knowledge to keep the people safe, without it, the country would just crumble. Your screwed from Birth, I mean, your Born and can't do anything about it... your name is registered and you instantly become a citizen of that country and the Gov instantly starts gathering information on you... they know the Schools you went to, the houses you've lived in... when I reached 16 they sent me a National Insurance Number without me filling in any forms meaning they know my age. As you get older your name gets added to million more databases, sometimes your merely but a number. You photo is on your Passport and driving licence so they know what you look like, they know if you work and where you work, they know the colour of your car and the number of your licence plate... I could go on forever, and thats all without Phone Tapping and CCTV... if Knowledge is Power, and Power Corrupts, does that mean we're all corrupt?

The fact we don't know how many databases we're on makes us all the more ignorant, but we tend to prefer it that way... if it were all to suddenly become clear after the Government gets taken over and then starts misusing data, there would be a Revolution within a week.

[Glenni 1,447]

Which is very unlikely to happen

I can hardly imagine the Norwegian Gov or the UK Gov to be out to get you.

We both have CCTV , well Norway's is probably called something else, but i can hardly remember hearing ANYONE say that they feel oppressed by our goverment, the real world is not SCS, it's not like if you put a few cameras up, then the whole country will turn Authorian.

As for the American Gov, well, since most Americans don't trust the Goverment, doesn't that mean that the Goverment in USA can't be trusted then? That it is infact out to get you?

I find it funny how USA is supposed to be "the land of the free", yet you can't trust the goverment

As for invasion of private space, WHAT private space, if there's a CCTVs in a Plaza with large crowds passing by every day, how is that a private space? Would you call a room with 90 people in it "private space"?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Yeah, many Americans seem to be very afraid to the Government... well, Federal Gov anyway... maybe its just that generally Politicians can't be trusted since Politic's is generally a bunch of backstabbers backstabbing other backstabbers... then you get the fearful and oppressed masses to pick the backstabber they think is the best. Its like getting a bunch of dog turds and asking a guy with Anosmia to tell us wich is the best smelling...

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Micah

If I wanted to have a government that spied on me and called it okayquote>

Your point doesn't make sense. Some European countries, for example England, almost have a complete lack of privacy.quote>

Actually, it does.¹. Denmark hesitated for a long time allowing cameras in buses and trains because of privacy issues, although neigbouring countries only have good experiences with it. As of now, Denmark has no speeding cameras as the government parties don't really like them, but they've changed on this issue because of the recent rise in road deaths.

stand in long lines for immigrationquote>

That's a bad thing? That just proves there's millions trying to get into the US.quote>

[Meg 368]

Note:  This post was by Boggy1.   I have split his post in two while spliting the two topics

I think this is probably another one of those cultural difference things. The United States seems to distrust their Government constantly, and second-guesses and questions everysingle little thing they do. Though I find it funny that you all quail and scream "Violation of privacy!!" when someone puts up CCTV, but the US has some of the largest phonetapping (etcetera) and breaches of privacy in the world.

I guess over in Europe we trust the Government because our ideaology is that the Government is there to serve the people, by the people. And of course, Europe is fundementally socialist.

In 3 years time Europe will be able to track your everysingle movement through the use of locater chips inside Cell phones and cars. There may be a national DNA database in the UK soon. There have already been a number of prototypes for hovering police cameras that are able to fly around the streets. Are those things a breach of privacy? To the majority of us Europeans; no, they are not.quote>

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: Boggy1There have already been a number of prototypes for hovering police cameras that are able to fly around the streets..quote>

Haha, is that true? Thats not invasion of privacy, thats just... awesome

Hope they look like the Combine Scanners...

I'll end that pipe dream right here and now...

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: Boggy1There have already been a number of prototypes for hovering police cameras that are able to fly around the streets..quote>

Haha, is that true? Thats not invasion of privacy, thats just... awesome [..]quote>

Honeywell has one. And the British Police apparently have a prototype. This is actually pretty scary, if I remember correctly some bearded writer on an abandoned island wrote on this...

But American politics, that's why we're here! How come that there are some many different methods to choose a candidate? Iowas caucasuses, primaries which Independents may participate in, primaries Independents may not participate in, Wyoming just dividing their few remaining delegates between some... Why don't the parties want a fair (ie. same for all, it doesn't matter where in the country you live) and streamlined process?

[Taylor1 0]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: Boggy1There have already been a number of prototypes for hovering police cameras that are able to fly around the streets..quote>

Haha, is that true? Thats not invasion of privacy, thats just... awesome [..]quote>

Honeywell has one. And the British Police apparently have a prototype. This is actually pretty scary, if I remember correctly some bearded writer on an abandoned island wrote on this...

But American politics, that's why we're here! How come that there are some many different methods to choose a candidate? Iowas caucasuses, primaries which Independents may participate in, primaries Independents may not participate in, Wyoming just dividing their few remaining delegates between some... Why don't the parties want a fair (ie. same for all, it doesn't matter where in the country you live) and streamlined process?quote>

Because, to many people would complain.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

OK

Some people seem to believe that the UK government track and spy on their people. That is total bulls***.

Firstly your mobile phone can already be tracked.....ahh how else do you think you can make call in different areas, your phone is actively seeking new network connections from various transmitters, so you can already be easily found.

The use of CCTV is a very good things, it reduces crime, makes the streets safer and makes people feel safer also. I for one feel much much safer when I see CCTV cameras, I know that in the awful event I am robbed, attacked or assaulted the person most likely will be caught and sent to jail. Also as Glenni mentioned, buses, trains, plazas, streets and every building bar your home is NOT your private space and the if the council, government, police or owner wants CCTV then they can and you can do nothing about it, so live with it. Unless you are committing a crime of acting in a suspect manner then you are not being actively tracked from home to work then back, a very distorted and exaggerated view of CCTV. If you fear it then maybe the problem is with you and what ever it is you are doing.

I trust the British Government a hell of a lot more than I trust the US government, Patriot Act anyone????? As already mentioned the American government is one of the worst in the developed world at respecting privacy.....

Also, by law, the British and I'm pretty sure European governments cannot not tap your phones and emails, it's illegal. You gave to be a terrorist suspect before a court would grant such a thing.

Anyway....

I was somewhat disgusted to hear a Fox News interview with Huckabee last night, some was broadcast on the BBC, where he believed the the people at Camp Delta had it pretty good and their living conditions were better than some in the prisons of the state where he was governor and they should not have it so good.

Now.....

Is that really the person some republican bible-bashers want as their president???

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy OK

Some people seem to believe that the UK government track and spy on their people. That is total bulls***.quote>

If I may ask, does the UK consider all information it receives, no matter how potentially sensitive, as public domain?  If it does maintain classified information, how is it possible to be 100% sure that they don't maintain information that you'd rather they not see?  I understand that my comment sounds conspiracy theory-ish, but I simply fail to see how it is possible to conclusively know your private information is not being tracked if you don't know everything that is maintained.

Firstly your mobile phone can already be tracked.....ahh how else do you think you can make call in different areas, your phone is actively seeking new network connections from various transmitters, so you can already be easily found.quote>

While we can debate the schematics of how your mobile phone works, the ability to track the phone is not the same as the ability to track the person.  If a person finds the ability to be tracked by his phone that intrusive, he can continue to handle basic life responsibilities without a phone.  If a person is unable to step outside his home without being caught on a government camera or another monitoring device, it is no longer feasible for him to travel freely without his location being recorded.  I, like many other Americans, consider the government's ability to be able to monitor my goings as being a form of privacy violation.

The use of CCTV is a very good things, it reduces crime, makes the streets safer and makes people feel safer also. I for one feel much much safer when I see CCTV cameras, I know that in the awful event I am robbed, attacked or assaulted the person most likely will be caught and sent to jail. Also as Glenni mentioned, buses, trains, plazas, streets and every building bar your home is NOT your private space and the if the council, government, police or owner wants CCTV then they can and you can do nothing about it, so live with it. Unless you are committing a crime of acting in a suspect manner then you are not being actively tracked from home to work then back, a very distorted and exaggerated view of CCTV. If you fear it then maybe the problem is with you and what ever it is you are doing. quote>

So potentially 200 million Americans are breaking the law every day?   I don't think that up to 2/3 of the American public dislikes public CCTV simply because it ran out of the Stop 'n Go without paying for that last coffee.  (Bold text added for proper emphasis on selected text.)

I trust the British Government a hell of a lot more than I trust the US government, Patriot Act anyone????? As already mentioned the American government is one of the worst in the developed world at respecting privacy.....quote>

SkiGeek said it well, so I'll simply state that her question is my question.

[fukuda 351]

Someone talked abot cultural differences. Well, privacy seems to be one of them, at least in the UK and the US, people seem to be very concerned about privacy and secret govern conspiracies. Here, no one complains abot CCTV or databases, they even feel safer with them, they are eager to use them as they already shown their good results (We have CCTV in almost every public place, trains, buses, squares..) Databases speed up bereaucracy and law, and they also shown their utility, unlike some years ago, bureaucracy goes way more faster (In a country that was known for it's really slow bureaucracy).

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The use of CCTV is a very good things, it reduces crime, makes the streets safer and makes people feel safer also. I for one feel much much safer when I see CCTV cameras, I know that in the awful event I am robbed, attacked or assaulted the person most likely will be caught and sent to jail. quote>

I hear ya.   That's just not the prevalent point of view around here.

I trust the British Government a hell of a lot more than I trust the US government, Patriot Act anyone????? As already mentioned the American government is one of the worst in the developed world at respecting privacy.....quote>

and people wonder why we don't like the government tracking us? 

[belfastuniguy 18]

If a person is unable to step outside his home without being caught on a government camera or another monitoring device, it is no longer feasible for him to travel freely without his location being recordedquote>

All CCTV in the UK is not government owned or run. They certainly do nor have the ability to track over 60 million people as they leave home everyday for work or to go to school. I am aware that people are tracked, but these people most likely pose a threat to society and as such I don't care about them. If you suspected of terrorism or criminal activity then the police and government have every right to monitor you.

SkiGeek said it well, so I'll simply state that her question is my question.quote>

The United Kingdom (to some people that is how we prefer to be known as, not 'England') has one of the longest and most stable liberal democracies in the world. We have never had a history or repressive government and as such we do not fear our government, bar the normal nutjobs that live here. I'm not saying that we remain the case, no one knows what the future holds. I can be pretty certain the British people will not vote a party into power that they feel they cannot trust. Politics in the UK is much more connected with the general population, our politicians place an importance on listening to their constituents, pretty much all live in the areas they represent and as such as accountable. The government itself is accountable through Parliamentary committees and review bodies. So for the minute and long foreseeable future I have nothing to fear whatsoever from British government, as do many.

So potentially 200 million Americans are breaking the law every day?quote>

I am sure you are in some way aware of what I was saying. I shall rephrase for you though. By acting in a suspect manner I mean people that are not displaying normal behaviour around sensitive targets or in large crowds of people. CCTV in the UK, esp in stations, airports and underground (subway) stations are programmed to detect such behaviour. While of course some people who are not a threat act in unusual ways, those people can be quickly ruled out after watching them and maybe directing police to them. CCTV has protected the UK from terrorist activity, tracked suspicious vehicles and as a result prevented car bombs. It has proved very successful in combating car crime and crime on the streets and has been used to catch and convict thousands of criminals.

As Fukuda stated there are cultural differences. People in Europe do not have the large array of conspiracy theories like some in America. I have no idea why that is. Privacy is very important and despite the large levels of crime surveillance in the UK I do not feel as if the government are infringing on my rights, I feel safe and I have no problem with the government having some info on me as they would know I am not a threat. I have never had my DNA taken, my fingerprint taken nor am I tracked, just like the vest majority of people that live here. You only have all that taken if you break the law, so you can't really complain about it, can you.

[Meg 368]

The above posts were moved from the "Huckabee and Obama Win Iowa" thread.

Since privacy and CCTV are a separate issue, let's continue that discussion here.

[Yoman3 5]

Though this doesn't reflect my view on the subject at all, I can't help but say.....19, 19, 1984

[Boggy1 45]

I'll just paste over some of what I said from a thread I made a while ago, which sums up some points nicely.

Ever since the advent of DNA reading, and accurate DNA profiling in the early 90s, there have been calls for a National Database showcasing every single DNA profile of every single person in the United Kingdom.

As most of you know, the UK is the country with the most number of CCTV and general surveillance cameras in the world. It is reported that somewhere on the vast amounts of video, if you live in a major city you are able to find a record showing almost your ever movement from leaving the house in the morning, to returning in the evening, and everything in-between. Some CCTV cameras now even have mic's attached to record your conversations too.

Just a few months ago, the EU approved a new GPS system (The Galileo Positioning System) which will have a chip inside every car and mobile (cell) phone, so that the satellites will be able to locate your every movement, show accurate routes, and even see your position inside a building, complete with an accurate map of rooms and corridors. The system is scheduled to be completed by 2013.

A natural progression from this is to record the DNA profile of every person, and place it into a database.

Currently in the UK, our National DNA Database, which was started in 1995, is growing by approximately one person per minute, with over 4 million profiles so far on permanent record, and is already the largest DNA database in the world.

In the UK, your DNA (and fingerprint) is recorded (by taking a swab to the cheek) if you are suspected to have committed a recordable offence. Recordable offences include drunkenness, public nuisance, and other innumerable petty offences that are extremely common, as well as those more serious offenses such as joyriding, GBH, etcetera.

Police officers are able to swab DNA without a superior officer's permission, and, if you refuse to take the swab, then up to ten pieces of hair is extracted from your head. This is mandatory. If you are found innocent of the offence, then your DNA is still kept on permanent record (except if you live in Scotland; where it is removed).

The DNA Database has been extremely useful in solving crimes that, without it, would be unsolved even today. It is 3x more likely for a, for instance, burglary, to be solved with a DNA profile of suspects on record.

Another case is that of Louise Smith, who vanished after a party in 1995. After an extensive search in which over 10,000 people assisted in, her body was found, raped and murdered, in a local quarry. DNA was found on the body, and almost the entire town's population volunteered to have their DNA recorded and tested, to clear their names. It created an almost Universal Database in the town. After a process of elimination, a match was found, and a man, who had never committed any kind of crime before, was found and convicted of murder.

But DNA testing doesn't always work. Ray Easton, a suffer of the sever motor-neuron disease Parkinson disease, was surprised one night to have police burst into his house and accuse him of burglary in a town 200 miles away. This was of course impossible in his current condition (constant, violent muscle spasms and tremors), and was made even less unlikely by the fact he had a full-time carer who swore he had never been out of her sight. And yet the DNA found at the site of the burglary matched his.

The chance of DNA profiles that are the same is very very rare, but can happen, as is evident from the above case. His DNA marker points matched almost exactly with the DNA marker points on the burglar.

DNA profiling is not an exact science, and depends on probability. If two DNA sample marker points match within a certain boundary, then there is a good chance that the DNA samples are from the same person. But it is, however, fa

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

However, look at how Ross Perot ended...

Barbarossaquote>

 

 *in Perot voice*   Now, now, I got a chart right here Larry, that shows just how many times Cuban hitmen disrupted my daughter's wedding...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Generally, the uses of CCTV is restricted to banks, convenience stores, gas stations, etc.  which are subject to theft or hold-up.  There are also red-light cameras in some cities, but these are triggered by a car in the intersection having passed a red light.

There is serious privacy legislation in Canada.  Recently there was a change and everyone in some businesses had to have its customers sign off on their privacy policy.

Getting something out of the Government under the "Freedom of Information" provisions is not exactly easy.  Even the press has problems there.  Fishing expeditions just don't work.

However, we do have to guard against the "set up a camera and watch everything" mentality.  This sort of paranoia has brought into being outfits like the U.S. Homeland Security Department.  If the existing law enforcement groups and intelligence groups (FBI, CIA, Secret Service, NSA) couldn't handle it, why not just beef them up and sit an administrator on top of them, rather than a whole new enforcement arm?  Quem Ipsos custodes custodiet? (Who will watch the watchers?).  Even the Romans had this problem.

We have CSIS, which grew out of the RCMP Security Service failures.  These guys are super-spooks equipped with lettres de cachet whereby they can hold anyone without charges for as long as they want if they say this person is a security threat.  Sound familiar?  Think of the agents of the French Directory during the revolutionary period.  "There is nothing new under the sun."  (Ecclesiastes)

And so, every citizen of a democracy has the duty to look after privacy and freedom.  Freedom is not free, and it must be guarded, with our lives if need be.

[saltandsauce 0]

CCTV in my opinion is just a way of stalking people without them being able to (legalling) stop them that is how i view CCTV

plus they probably do sniff forums and close down ones that are particularly "we hate the government" people to stop them comunicating or causing a riot

freedom of speech isn't very well protected here in the UK since any remotley controversial issue is silenced by an "Ism"

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Security Cameras in stores and other commercial buildings are fine, so long as it's the building's owner that has them set up. Security cameras set up by the government- that's the no-no. This way the government doesn't have all the tapes to scan for whatever they want, they only get the tape from where and when a crime was committed as evidence (if the building has cameras). So it's many seperate eyes independent from the government as opposed to one centralized big brother thing.

[belfastuniguy 18]

CCTV in my opinion is just a way of stalking people without them being able to (legalling) stop them that is how i view CCTV

plus they probably do sniff forums and close down ones that are particularly "we hate the government" people to stop them comunicating or causing a riot

freedom of speech isn't very well protected here in the UK since any remotely controversial issue is silenced by an "Ism"quote>

I disagree completely.

The Government do not go round and close forums that criticise them, for some reason you seem to have a long history of posting such inaccurate information and actually the UK has very strong laws on protecting freedom of speech, we have had the right to say what we want for a very very long time. I would give you all the links to the laws that protect the freedom and privacy of British people, but feel that would be a wasted effort.

[screamingman12 30]

I, for one, have no problem with putting up CCTV cameras on streetcorners. Does anyone have any idea how many carjackings, drug deals, pickpocketing, theft, gang meetings, etc. go on behind their backs (and the backs of the police, for that matter)?

Take a moment to think about this, how much do you think that the crime rate would be reduced if the police put up cameras on streetcorners? They are used to prevent crime, not to wrongfully accuse people of something, and if someone says that this can happen, I reply by saying "pass a law against it", it wouldn't be a hard thing to do. As an American, I will agree with many when I say that the government is screwed up, and if this problem continues to persist, you vote the suckers out, if people get lobbied, you pass a law against it. The patriot act (and those who support it) scare me more then a couple of white boxes on the lamp post.

[hamsterTK 93]

depends on how truly public or private an area is, regardless of legal definition. A busy location is truly public and you can't be anonymous. But then a residential street may be more private than not even if it's technically a public thoroughfare. I really see this as an area where situations are best judged on a case-by-case basis.

Of course whatever laws come out also need to address photographers rights and the rights of those to defend their property. It's a two way street.

Anyways, those hover cams are f'ing scary, what are you guys happy about again?

freedom of speech isn't very well protected here in the UK since any remotley controversial issue is silenced by an "Ism"quote>

I have the same attitude

What would the US be like today had this technology existed and had been implemented during, say, the Nixon/Vietnam era?