[Flipside]

Heh, at the end of the day, nobody is a criminal until they commit a crime. Some do it for a 'buzz', others do it because it is the only way to survive, and some other crimes are done for more passion-based reasons.

Cameras will help identify someone who is in the act of offending, but will almost always be too late to help the victim in that particular case.

Getting back to the London bombings case, it needs to be remembered that those videos used to catch the bombers, also, because of their poor quality, led to an innocent Brazillian being shot dead. That is one of my concerns about that 'Big Brother' environment, CCTV Video is not even remotely close to the quality or security it needs to be to relied upon as a source of positive identification, and the options for abuse run high.

[dizzy]

1. history has proven that all dictatorships have waived citizens rights on the reasons of "doing good" (for them, for the society, for the human kind, etc); don't you EVER think that when one right was waived from a society the people in command which decided this advertised it as to do harm to the people

2. history has proven that adding security and tightning control over people never actually helped into solving the real issues; it's like you want to defeat computer viruses with anti virus programs, sure for most of the people it works but it still bites some hundred computers before the main AV companies know about it and add it's signature; and in the real world those few computers which got the virus means actually some terrorists attacks (few still), meaning loss of life so it's NOT acceptable!

Humans whould have a LOT better life if they whould just know their own history and learn from their own mistakes. Sadly it seems that someone was very clever for saying: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

No, I am not trying to say what we should do, I am trying to say what we should NOT do

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by StratComm
Yeah, but I don't see Trashman ignoring that though.  As is becoming quite an annoying trend, if he'd just acknowledge that the system can be abused, then we could leave this as a difference of opinion.  As it stands, I'm saying that I don't want it in my country and he's saying it's fine in his.  When it shows up in local politics and we both have a say into it, then the discussion can come back up, but I don't anticipate HLP installing a blanket CCTV system around here anytime soon.

I never said it cannot be abused. In fact, I specificly said that ANY system can be abused. But a system like this, with enough control would be hard to abuse and not worth the trouble of trying the abuse for hte potential benefits.

If you have 10 people on the monitors and another 10 monitoring them, all in the same room + storded tapes that can be acessed only by a special clearence then the chances for abuse go down.

and of course, I said before that this sytem would be of little use unless it's high-quality.

On another note the question is not being watched in hte public a right at all? You can't forbid someone to look at you while you're on the streets anyway..so what's the point?

I fully understand and support the concept of human freedoms & rigths but this whole thing gives me the feeling of spoiledchildren complaiing over nothing.. (no offense anyone)

[mikhael]

This is a case where the drawbacks outweigh the potential for good. On the plus side, it would make investigating crime marginally easier in very specific circumstances (it would be unfeasible in a city like New York or Chicago, for example, just due to the scale of the city and the fact that you'd have to have cameras in a grid with a resolution of about 2m to prevent large blind spots). On the negative side, it will be abused (see below), and it will cost a ridiculous amount of money (more than the crime its supposed to help solve actually costs).

You can watch me in public. Police do so all the time. You can't have a system designed to FILM me in public without my consent. You will never get that consent. I will never give it.

I find it particularly telling that you consider people to be "spoiled children" for nothing more than wanting to keep their already guaranteed civil liberties. This isn't spoiled children complaining about nothing, this is people being vigilant and making sure their rights are not infringed. History has several examples of things that seemed like good ideas (tracking of the citizenry, or just particular classes of the citizenry) turning into bad things (the mistreatment of specific subgroups of the citizenry at the hands of the government, made easier because they are tracked).

[TrashMan]

This is a case where you think the drawbacks outweight the potentials. I say it's the other way around.

Weather you know it or not you are filmed in public aèllmost every day. Other people with their digital cammeras, cell phones, or just securitycammears from some buildings or ATM machines tape you. And everything of those can be used in court - no one is asking you concent anyway.

I don't see the right not to be filmed on the street as a right. You on the other hand do. Oh well, oppinions do differ.
I'll tell you what I do see...too many pople hiding behind words "liberty" and "right" and "freedom" every time they feel uncomfortable.

[Kamikaze]

I'll tell you what I do see...too many pople hiding behind words "liberty" and "right" and "freedom" every time they feel uncomfortable.

Maybe because the US constitution is founded on those principles? I think this security camera dealy is completely against the spirit of the constitution, if not the literal text.

[aldo_14]

Part of the human right to identity is the right to anonymity.  A system that allows for the cohesive tracking, monitoring or otherwise observation of individuals creates the framework for abuse.  

With certain cases - like ATM or security cameras - there is an implicit permission given by you; in others - like personal cameras - you have a degree of safety for logistical reasons (unless it's a professional surveillance operation - which requires justification, time and resources - it's hard to track a population by that method).

If I was to film my neighbours every movement, that would be illegal.

 If the government was to do the same, what would justify it?  Legitimate suspicion, after all, would be enough for proper surveillance.

As an aside, it's a fallacy that video cannot be falsified or is sacrosanct.  Both video and still (and indeed audio) can be digitally manipulated.

Additionally, I believe work has and is being done on facial recognition software (perhaps using biometrics of the unique blood vessel patterns on a face and an IR camera link?), so digital tracking is not so far-fetched.

[TrashMan]

Not every movement - only when you're onthe streets.

And for logistical reasons, tracking someone in real-time would be hard and prolly used only in specia lcircumstances.

How the system would work is when a crime is reported the records of the location are looked over and the suspects indentified and their movement tracked.

Video can be falsified, yes, but only a very limited number of pople would have acess to those tapes and court experts can in most cases tell if it was doctored or not.

on the other hand - if youre telling me about a large conspiracy where the tapes were acessed, altered and the court experts influenced/mislead, then whoever has went to all thet trouble to incriminate someone doesn't need this sytem to do it. In fact, it would be easier to simply plant some flase evidence at the guys house or something...

[mikhael]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I'll tell you what I do see...too many pople hiding behind words "liberty" and "right" and "freedom" every time they feel uncomfortable.

Hiding? How about just appealing to the rights enshrined in our Constitution (the "supreme law of the land", in the case of the United States):

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Surveillance such as the Camera System you describe falls under this particular amendment--and in fact the Supreme Court of the United States has, in the past, overturned convictions based on evidence obtained through such unlawful surveillance. In other words, the weight of law and precedent protects my right not to be watched by the police unless I've done something wrong (probable cause and all that). In fact, the very first case in which the Supreme Court examined the 4th amendment resulted in a statement from the bench recognized recognized an "indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property" against "all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." Careful readers will note the logical use of the word "and" here, thus ensuring that the there would be no way to tie privacy solely to the concept of 'home'. In other words, privacy goes where you go. You don't leave it at home when you walk out into the street.

Further, the 14th Amendment bears consideration here:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun specifically wrote in a court decision, "...the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... protects against state action the right to privacy..." Thus, as it stands in this country at least, my privacy is indeed protected.

I'm sorry Trashman, I think I've said my final word on the subject. My rights are enshrined in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. My rights are mine and I will continue to demand them, even at the cost of a little 'security', and I will use every legal means available to me (meaning the courts, and the voting booth) to make damned sure that I only have to worry about the possibility of an Orwellian security state instead of the reality of it.

[TrashMan]

Yes, yes..the fabolous constitutuion of hte US.. I know...
I still think that part is crap...

Morevor, who ever said that system being installed in the US. I was saying a system in general.

[Kamikaze]

Y'know TrashMan... I think you might like living in China. Maybe they'll even hire you as s Police State Systems Consultant.

[TrashMan]

Oh yeas..you know what's hte difference here?

I for once don't think the system I can come up with is perfect. All the things I belive in I take with a small dose of reserve, as I try to keep open to the possiblity that I might be wrong.

You on the other hand are sure that the American Constitution(TM) is the pinnalce of hte universe and that anyone who doesn't want to follow it to the letter is a tyrant, idiot, bigot and god knows what else..

Wakeup call - hte Us in not perfect and neither are it's laws..

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Not every movement - only when you're onthe streets.

So any movement between buildings; i.e. when you go to the bank, to a mates house, to the shops, etc would all be survey-ed.  That's tantamount to invasive police surveillance.

Originally posted by TrashMan
And for logistical reasons, tracking someone in real-time would be hard and prolly used only in specia lcircumstances.

Why? What logistical reasons?

 With facial recognition software, it'd be easy to automate.  hook up, say,  a biometric IR camera to the CCTV, turn on the central network to recognise a blood vessel pattern, and Roberts your fathers brother.  (or just use good old facial recognition; I have a feeling blood-vessel is more reliable at present, which I why I chose that example)

This is, after all, technology being developed right now.... if it's not possible already, the presence of a CCTV network would make it easily facilitatable and automatable.

Originally posted by TrashMan
How the system would work is when a crime is reported the records of the location are looked over and the suspects indentified and their movement tracked.

So it wouldn't prevent crime, then.  Unless you plan on having a national ID database, it probably wouldn't be massively useful for tracking suspects, either.

It'd also mean records would be stored for a very long time (not all crimes are immediately reported).  You'd presumably have an inherent tracking system, which again throws up the issue of tracking individuals.

 If you'll note, one of the main fears over CCTV is the ability it gives to track individuals movements.  For what may be the ability to solve a miniscule amount of crimes (bearing in mind there is such a thing as evidence, and it's quite possible a suspect would disguise their appearance against a non-invasive CCTV system*, the number of crimes needing CCTV to solve them probably wouldn't be that high, especially in quiet residential areas), there is a massive threat to civil liberties.


*i.e. a suspect commiting a crime planned not to leave any evidence would disguise themselves; a non-  or more correctly, less - invasive CCTV system would not be using, say, biometric UID data, making it impossible to track well disguised individuals.  An 'invasive' system, using UIDs, would allow automatic tracking and thus automatic surveillance of innocent people.

(note that the definition of invasive is within context to global surveillance)

Originally posted by TrashMan

Video can be falsified, yes, but only a very limited number of pople would have acess to those tapes and court experts can in most cases tell if it was doctored or not.

on the other hand - if youre telling me about a large conspiracy where the tapes were acessed, altered and the court experts influenced/mislead, then whoever has went to all thet trouble to incriminate someone doesn't need this sytem to do it. In fact, it would be easier to simply plant some flase evidence at the guys house or something...

But that system isn't infallible.  That's the point I'm making; you cannot hold up video evidence as a sacrosanct solution or evidence.  If you accept the possibility of evidence being doctored by police, video is equally susceptible.  But by regarding it as being unimpeachable, the value of doctoring video increases.  

Again, the point being that video is no more reliable than conventionally gathered evidence.  No assumption of security can override that.

It's quite simple, really.  The more 'useful' a CCTV system becomes for combating crime, the more invasive and intrusive it becomes.  If we all had RFID chips implanted at birth and monitored by satellite we'd never have to worry about kidnapping, but how many people are calling for that?  

I'll accept CCTV in private locations (i.e. shops - but not in the changing rooms, malls, banks), and in very densely populated areas (busy city streets, i.e. where the crime is high and density of traffic makes it hard to track individuals), but not a blanket system that allows my daily movements from private residence to other places to be logged, and certainly not one where all that information can be centrally stored and pored over.  That is a recipe for abuse.

[mikhael]

Because I suck at leaving well enough alone:

Originally posted by TrashMan
You on the other hand are sure that the American Constitution(TM) is the pinnalce of hte universe and that anyone who doesn't want to follow it to the letter is a tyrant, idiot, bigot and god knows what else..

Wakeup call - hte Us in not perfect and neither are it's laws..

Originally written by the Founding Fathers...Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

0wnt.

[aldo_14]

NB:  I believe the UN Convention on Human Rights and Covenant on Human Rights define a right against 'arbitrary interference with his(sic) privacy'.

[TrashMan]

It is debatable if cammeras pointed on the streets (government property, mind you) can be called interfereance with privacy...

[aldo_14]

Well;
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/23378a8724595410c12563ed004aeecd?Opendocument

[q]
7. As all persons live in society, the protection of privacy is necessarily relative. However, the competent public authorities should only be able to call for such information relating to an individual's private life the knowledge of which is essential in the interests of society as understood under the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that States should indicate in their reports the laws and regulations that govern authorized interferences with private life.

8. Even with regard to interferences that conform to the Covenant, relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted. A decision to make use of such authorized interference must be made only by the authority designated under the law, and on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with article 17 requires that the integrity and confidentiality of correspondence should be guaranteed de jure and de facto. Correspondence should be delivered to the addressee without interception and without being opened or otherwise read. Surveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, interceptions of telephonic, telegraphic and other forms of communication, wire-tapping and recording of conversations should be prohibited. Searches of a person's home should be restricted to a search for necessary evidence and should not be allowed to amount to harassment. So far as personal and body search is concerned, effective measures should ensure that such searches are carried out in a manner consistent with the dignity of the person who is being searched. Persons being subjected to body search by State officials, or medical personnel acting at the request of the State, should only be examined by persons of the same sex.
[/q]

Part of a persons private life would, of course, include their movements from place to place.  Even if that occurred across public areas.

[TrashMan]

As I said, debatable....It's up to the people and the governemt of the nation entirely.

I don't care what a couple of dorks in suits wrote...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
As I said, debatable....It's up to the people and the governemt of the nation entirely.

I don't care what a couple of dorks in suits wrote...

Perhaps you'd care more what the guys in jackboots do when they kick in your door?  After all, that's what the 'dorks in suits' were working to prevent.

[Janos]

Originally posted by TrashMan
As I said, debatable....It's up to the people and the governemt of the nation entirely.

I don't care what a couple of dorks in suits wrote...

You're not a very big fan of western democracy, right? You know, the one which has laws binding the decision-makers, not the other way around.