I don't see any problem with having a few more security cameras in public places. If I'm in a public place people can see me. Not having a camera around doesn't make it any more private.
"So you don't think the presence of cameras would modify behavior? "
I think it will lull people into a false sense of security. If cameras deterred crime then theoritically there should be no crime in the areas of Britain where there are cameras and that isn't happening is it? I really don't like the idea of Big Brother watching our every move.
"I'm sure that you don't expect privacy in a public place do you? Isn't this what we're talking about? "
I don't expect the level of privacy that Iwould have in my home, but I certainly don't think it is right to be filmed every second that I'm out in public. I think there should be freedom of movement and a person wouldn't have that if they could be on camera everywhere they went.
I can ask them to not film me if I am uncomfortable with it, but I highly doubt anyone would want to film me. I have less of a problem with it if it is a private citizen vs gov't intrusion.
Guess so. But a private citizen can upload it to the net for the world to see. Government info will just sit idle or get overwritten unless a crime occurs at the time you're in the area. What about ATM cameras? Or retail stores?
<blockquote>"I'm sure that you don't expect privacy in a public place do you? Isn't this what we're talking about? " </blockquote> Maybe I'm having a hard time with what is private and what is public. But maybe not.
Anyhoo, here's what I think... <b>private</b> Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others: (a private hideaway). Designed or intended for one's exclusive use: (a private room).
<b>public</b> open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public: (a public dispute). In public, not in private; in a situation open to public view or access; publicly
<blockquote>I can ask them to not film me if I am uncomfortable with it, but I highly doubt anyone would want to film me. I have less of a problem with it if it is a private citizen vs gov\'t intrusion.</blockquote>
Thats nice. However legally he doesnt have to stop.
Just the whole idea of govt' being able to "spy" on you wherever you are bothers me. As for stores and ATM machines, those are private, and if I don't want to use those services than I don't have to. I do so knowing full well that I am being monitered. I don't think Canada needs to be turned into a police state. I don't beleive that the ends justify the means.
Our Illuminati masters and proponents of a one-world government want us to beg them to dramatically increase surveillance on us in order to catch bad guys.
While this sounds crazy, at the same time, the good book has already said that everyone will be tagged in order to have the ability to buy or sell, or something like that.
A dramatic increase in surveillance is inevitable and unstoppable.
They can ALREADY tag and record phone calls in which keywords are spoken that are from their "dictionary." It's already been reported on 60 Minutes how they have been quietly monitoring Internet communications with the full cooperation of the ISPs.
It can't be stopped but it's important to be AWARE of it. Why? Because the danger will come when they decide, without our public knowledge, to expand the scope of their surveillance. It's the thin edge of the wedge. They continue to expand breadth of their monitoring as they will not hear a backlash from the last time it was expanded. When we elect the "morale police" politicians, they will have the mandate to intrude on our lives even more because they will believe they will have had a mandate from the public and the implicit consent of God.
The police state is coming. It's already has been implemented in parts of the UK.
I am sorry but I do not understand what we are arguing about! cameras are being used to catch muggers, bombers, bad people with backpacks full of explosives. Libermom, you are of no interest to the police because you are not breaking the law. Government being able to spy on you? I do not think that makes any sense at all! You are obeying the laws, so you aren't a person of interest. We do not have enough cameras going because we are too poor a city to afford them- If the city could figure a way to make the cameras pay for themselves, like they do the red light cameras, you can be sure that we would have cameras everywhere. Rob someone on main street and get a $1000 fine- wow what a great idea! I do not know the figures, maybe someone can get some research on what the outcome was with cameras in London, or in Germany with the soccer violence and the fact that cameras cover all of the soccer stadium. I saw a documentary on both and it was very interesting! They prevented soccer "ruffians" from getting on the boats on the great Britain side in even going over to try amd get into the soccer game in Germany, and they prevented others from getting into the stadium, and they tossed out others during the game. I assume that they had been banned previously. If Wpg wanted to prevent hookers from working an area, they can leave the police in that area, or install cameras and hope that they don't get smashed. Or better yet, send in the CBC camera crew, the one that they arrested for taking pictures last week!
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Sputnik</cite><blockquote>\"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.\"</blockquote>
Not exactly a valid point considering that liberty has nothing to do with privacy in a public place.</blockquote>
It is a valid point when these cameras infringe upon human rights.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Triniman</cite>The police state is coming. It's already has been implemented in parts of the UK.</blockquote>
There's tons of stories every week in the UK about how CCTV is abused. Google it.
<blockquote><cite>grumpy old man</cite>Yes, if you are not doing anything illegal then there is nothing to worry about.</blockquote> Except what's perfectly legal today may become totally illegal tomorrow.
Triniman- Police state? I disagree with you! You are looking atCuba, the African states, and the countries that have a dictator, or a president for life or a King in the arab states. In a democracy, it cannot happen. When there is abuse of process, we have the legal system to correct the situation. Our system is not perfect, but on a per centage basis, I bet you we do not have a 1% failure! And when we have a failure, over time some of those are corrected, and the victim is compensated, like those innocents convicted of crimes!
Great Britain has millions of security cameras, and they are cetainly a help in crime solving! A 4 year old boy was taken from a shopping centre and found murdered. There was a search for the adult killers, until the security camera tape led to the realization that the height of the abductor's indicated that the abductor's were other kids! How can you complain about being in the view of a camera when you are out and about? Picking your nose in public has decreased 78% since the cameras were installed! Certainly that fact alone makes it worthwhile!
Having a democracy allows the people the ability to vote themselves out of a democracy if that what the majority decides. I believe the people did just that in Russia. Rosencrentz if you think that haveing a democracy in place somehow protects you from tryanny, then I think you are naive.
Libermom.. I have edited your comment for accuracy
"Having a democracy allows the people the ability to vote themselves out of a democracy if that what the majority decides. I believe the people did just that in USA. Rosencrentz if you think that haveing a democracy in place somehow protects you from tryanny, then I think you are naive"