CCTV and the UK

[Solver]

Private investagators do it all the time, and most of them don't have anymore resources then you.

You'd be surprised. Private investigators are expensive to hire - they'll have better equipment than you, probably. If they're serious about following a target, it won't be one investigator doing that, but a group of investigators - so, manpower resources. Finally, most jurisdictions require a license for private investigators, which would make their actions legal, unlike you if you were following someone.

 

[nivi]

Sure enough, but some things can be abused in more ways and easier. Survelliance is easy to abuse. Be it cameras or, theoretically, positioning beacon chips on every person, or records of all phone calls and Internet communications - that sort of stuff is pretty easy to abuse. And I can think of many ways how it can be abused.

Again, everything in the goverment is abusable, lets wait to see if it acutally is abused and how much before passing judgement? Meanwhile the CCTV seemed to have been helpfull

You'd be surprised. Private investigators are expensive to hire - they'll have better equipment than you, probably. If they're serious about following a target, it won't be one investigator doing that, but a group of investigators - so, manpower resources. Finally, most jurisdictions require a license for private investigators, which would make their actions legal, unlike you if you were following someone.

Your'e right of course, but anyone could do it on his own without much effort, but we wouldn't, because...What's the point.
License? Gee I wonder where that comes from?

 

[Solver]

I didn't say I am against CCTV. Like I said, I believe it does help against crime, so I don't currently mind CCTV. But you don't really expect to know if it's being abused, do you? For example, you sure won't know if the records don't get destroyed like they're supposed to.

My example with an individual following you has another critical difference - he first picks you, then he follows you. It's possible, though it takes considerable effort to do so effectively. But he can't follow a thousand people like that, let alone a couple million. With CCTV records that record a million people, one could later pick any one from them and start inspecting the person.

I recognize, however, that for abuse to become truly a dangerous possibility, some technological breakthroughs are required. Such as computers being able to effectively recognize & search for faces. Then the possibilities are scary. Someone in possession of the tapes, by finding you once, could easily search for whereever else you appear.

There is a good essay by Professor Solove about privacy and the "I have nothing to hide argument". I recommend interested parties to read it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565#PaperDownload

 

[mdwh]

I'm not too bothered by CCTV, but there are some concerns. Things will also be worse in the future if it's possible to do things like face recognition, and tracking everyone's movements.

I also dislike the culture that goes with it, the idea that we must be visible on CCTV (e.g., the argument that it's necessary to ban hats/hoodies in an area, so you can be identified by the CCTV).

I'm far more concerned about all the other pro-authoritarian moves we've had; curious that it's CCTV which gets most publicity.

Again, everything in the goverment is abusable, lets wait to see if it acutally is abused and how much before passing judgement?

There are different degrees of abuse. Not everything would be a powerful tool in turning the country into a police state.

I'm not sure that "wait and see" is a sensible idea, because afterwards it's too late. Today's Government may be benign, but what about a future one?

 

[nivi]

How many modern democratic countries have turned totalitarian (No the US doesnt count ) ?

It just doesn't happen, once people have freedom, they won't quickly let go, and if the goverment tryed to do it slowly, they'd be voted off.

 

[skadistic]

CCTV doesn't make you safer as it can't stop a crime. It is an invaluable tool in the aftermath of a crime during the investigation phase.

 

[nivi]

CCTV doesn't make you safer as it can't stop a crime. It is an invaluable tool in the aftermath of a crime during the investigation phase.

Most crimes is done by repeat offenders, catch them, you'll be safer.

 

[GinandTonic]

I once felt my civil liberties were being infringed while people were actually watching CCTV. Now there are so many that they can only be used retrospectivly I feel a lot better about it. A crime has to be quite serious for the cops to bother to wade through 2,000 houres of footage. The amount of cameras both gives great coverage and effectivly precludes it's mundane use.

When they finally get the computers to recognise people, I may well change my mind.

 

[Solver]

How many modern democratic countries have turned totalitarian (No the US doesnt count ) ?

It just doesn't happen, once people have freedom, they won't quickly let go, and if the goverment tryed to do it slowly, they'd be voted off.

Not saying it will happen, but give it some time. Democratic countries are, in historical terms, a pretty new thing. The US isn't even that old, and in Europe, most countries were monarchies in the beginning of the 20th century. I think many people would be too stupid to notice / wouldn't care enough to notice that the country is slowly turning totalitarian. Again, not saying it will happen, but with gradually increasing surveillance measures and such, it'd be possible to turn a democratic country into, if not a police state, then a country where civil liberties are severely limited, in 2-3 decades.

 

[skadistic]

Most crimes is done by repeat offenders, catch them, you'll be safer.

True and with the relatively week punishments in most of Europe the offender will be out in no time to re-offend. where again the cameras wont save you but will aid in the aftermath.

 

[mdwh]

How many modern democratic countries have turned totalitarian (No the US doesnt count ) ?

It just doesn't happen, once people have freedom, they won't quickly let go, and if the goverment tryed to do it slowly, they'd be voted off.

Yes, I can't think of any countries in the last century that quickly went from a democracy to totalitarian dictatorship. None at all. Obviously if it did happen, people could just vote them out, no need for any wars.

(If you're saying that the obvious example doesn't count as modern, then you're arbitrarily limiting it to a very short time period when it hasn't happened, even though we know it has happened in the past, and with devastating worldwide effects.)

Voting a Government off is hard to do when the Government is in control, and already has all the means in place to keep control, because people thought they'd never be abused.

 

[Nobody]

Nobody is a nobody. I know it sounds corny, but it's true. If you truly believe you're an idiot, you're a defeatist idiot.

well i had to reply

 

[Samson]

I recognize, however, that for abuse to become truly a dangerous possibility, some technological breakthroughs are required. Such as computers being able to effectively recognize & search for faces. Then the possibilities are scary. Someone in possession of the tapes, by finding you once, could easily search for whereever else you appear.

I do not want to fritghen you or anything, but I think it is not facial recognision that you need to be worring about. To do facial recognition you need pretty high resolotion cameras. To do "stance" recognition you only need low resolotion cameras. I am talking about recognising you from the way you walk. It is a proccess that is being worked on, and from a rather uneducated standpoint sounds like it is not far away.

As I said, I am more worried by automatic number plate recognition cameras and internet records being legally forcably kept, but CCTV cameras at a pretty big thing too. And next to noone in the public eye is complaining about them.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

G&T's point is a good one - there is so much CCTV recording in the UK that there is practically no way it can be used for the 1984 type scenarios some envisage. And to talk to a possible misconception that some non-UK posters might have, very little of the CCTV in the UK is operated by the central government. Local government authorities use them, but then again they don't co-operate with each other or with central government. Companies use them. Shopping malls use them. Schools use them.

My only encounter with a CCTV is, given that I'm broadly (but not strongly) against the things, embarrassingly positive. A youth deliberately ran over my car, damaging it. A key factor in bringing the case to court and his acceptance of his guilt was that the location concerned (a local educational establishment) had a film of him, clearly and deliberately, performing the act. Thus my car repairs were paid for out of his pocket, not mine.

 

[Elrohir]

How many modern democratic countries have turned totalitarian (No the US doesnt count ) ?

It just doesn't happen, once people have freedom, they won't quickly let go, and if the goverment tryed to do it slowly, they'd be voted off.

The Weimar Republic is one. You're assuming the government is in a position where it can be overthrown by the people - if it cannot be easily overthrown by the people, then it doesn't matter whether they have freedom currently or not - they will only have it so long as the government tolerates them.


I can't take issue with a lot of the CCTV issue individually. I can't say that having a camera in front of city hall is a violation of civil rights. I can't say having cameras on traffic lights that only record the license plates of cars that run red lights is a violation of civil rights. A lot of this is innocuous if taken individually. But taken as a whole, it's rather creepy.

 

[Thorbal]

Somehow I just don´t like CCTV. I have been in London again last year and I was outright shocked by the amount of cameras I saw. I got used to it, but i felt really bad at first.
I have been wondering since then why England, of all possible places, has adapted this kind of crime prevention. I would not be surprised if they did this in Germany, but England?! Surveillance cameras are increasingly used over here, as well, to be fair. But I don´t see what they are good for. Studies I have read seem to show that these installations just tend to push the criminals to different places with less cameras. The only solution would be to extend the surveillance nationwide, but that´s definitely not something I´d like to see. We should not get out liberties taken away step by step everytime something explodes. Okay, we have not had any terrorist attack here in Germany so far, perhaps that would change public opinion quite a bit, but I would not want that anyway. The Government should not treat every of it´s citizens as a possible criminal in the first place. It´s not the fear of it being abused but a general dislike of the view of humans it stands for.

 

[Samson]

G&T's point is a good one - there is so much CCTV recording in the UK that there is practically no way it can be used for the 1984 type scenarios some envisage.

Perhaps I have not made my point clear. From what I have read (that I fear I cannot quote here because I cannot find it, but it was in the new scientist in the last few years[1]) it is quite possible that either now or within the next few years it will be possible to computationally identify an indavidual to a significant accuracy by their stance as recorded by CCTV. If these files can be sorted by a computer there is next to no cost to do it, so many sensible govenments would do (perhaps on the quiet). For example, they could quite possibly identify the "central nodes" in a scale free network type social structure. I would want this sort of data if I was runnign the country.

If we are going to give the govenment these powers there has to be a serious debate about these issues. Has ANYONE here heard a presentation of a worst case secnario on popular media?

And to talk to a possible misconception that some non-UK posters might have, very little of the CCTV in the UK is operated by the central government. Local government authorities use them, but then again they don't co-operate with each other or with central government. Companies use them. Shopping malls use them. Schools use them.

Their has to be a possibility at least of this being much better run centrally (see above for the possibilities) so this data is likely to be concentrated, and thus usable. Many city centrers these days are covered by one network of CCTV cameras, It is easy to imagine this speading further, esp. within govenment (possibly via the police force).

[1] I may have a bit more of a look for it, but I am going to be very busy the next few days, possibly the next few months, so if anyone else fancies finding it....

 

[Godwynn]

Most crimes is done by repeat offenders, catch them, you'll be safer.

 

[warpus]

I don't want 20 cameras in my face as I'm walking down the street.

That's just ridiculous.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Perhaps I have not made my point clear.

Actually, I think you have. I just don't agree that it's a real risk now or in the short or medium term future.

I would want this sort of data if I was runnign the country.

There's quite a difference between data and information. And I can't imagine this sort of morass of data being at the top of the priority list of any serious contender for running the country.

If we are going to give the govenment these powers there has to be a serious debate about these issues. Has ANYONE here heard a presentation of a worst case secnario on popular media?

I'd argue that we're not about to give the government these powers.

Worst case scenarios on the popular media ? Have you tried The Today Show on Radio 4. Or flicked through The Daily Mail or The Independent. They all cover this sort of death of civil liberties type thing quite often.