National Geographic article: High-tech surveillance

[Tuor of Gondolin]

The November, 2003 National Geographic Magazine has a provocative article about the way aspects of George Orwell's "Big Brother" surveillance seem to be intruding more on peoples lives, largely with their approval or acquiescence. I wonder what some 'mooters views are, especially U. K. citizens, since the article notes

The United Kingdom has become perhaps the world's most surveilled nation, with more than four million closed-circuit television cameras, including fancy rotating models with wipers to clear the rain

Another quote

Cameras are becoming so omnipresent that all britons should assume their behavior outside the home is monitored.

.
The artcle also makes an interesting historical citation of Jeremy Bentham's 18th cenury imagining of a "panopticon" which would monitor all citizens from a giant central tower.

The artcle is balanced, giving reasons for surveillance as well as troubling aspects, and some interesting ideas by cicil rights lawyer Norman Siegel of policy suggestions for such high-tech surveillance.

In the long run are people better off with or without high-tech surveillance? Perhaps difficult to say given the state of thepresent day world

[jerseydevil]

I am against high tech surveillance - and I've seen the surveillance stuff in Britain before.

There was a city in New Jersey that tried to put in cameras and there was such an outcry that they were removed. In Florida there were cameras set up and people started wearing masks around them and giving the cameras the finger.

Traffic cameras are fine - I like being able to see what the traffic is like in different cities around the country. But cameras that allow a person in a room to follow me down the street - is an invasion of my privacy. As Ben Franklin said... "Anyone who would trade their freedom for safety deserves neither freedom or safety."

Big brother is happening and I don't like it. I don't like cameras that give people tickets, I don't like cameras which can follow me down the street, I don't like cameras that follow me throughout a store.

[Sister Golden Hair]

There are several places in Akron that put cameras outside their businesses, such as in parking lots for security purposes. They can be quite helpful at times. For instance. There was a doctor murdered in the parking lot of Akron General Medical Center. The biggest contributing factor in the apprehension of the killer, was that a business next door to the hospital had security cameras in their parking lot which panned the area, catching the whole thing on tape.

[Spock]

Let us not forget "dorm cameras"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
There are several places in Akron that put cameras outside their businesses, such as in parking lots for security purposes. They can be quite helpful at times. For instance. There was a doctor murdered in the parking lot of Akron General Medical Center. The biggest contributing factor in the apprehension of the killer, was that a business next door to the hospital had security cameras in their parking lot which panned the area, catching the whole thing on tape.

I forgot to respond to this after reading it. I don't feel there is anything wrong with cameras in parking lots for PROTECTION. I have a problem with the surveillance cameras like you find in England - that can follow me down the street, moving from camera to camera, following my every move and can even zoom in. I do not think that is necessary.

Call me strange - but I'm not a big fan of Big Brother and America turning into 1984.

[Spock]

Sorry to disagree (actually not) but to prevent crime this type of stuff is necessary unless you want armed police on every corner. People want protection but don't want intrusion, it can't be done that way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Spock
Sorry to disagree (actually not) but to prevent crime this type of stuff is necessary unless you want armed police on every corner. People want protection but don't want intrusion, it can't be done that way.

There doesn't have to be cameras that follow you whereever you go for protection. I've already quoted Ben Franklin - I used to have that quote in my sig. It's how I feel. If you are willing to give up your freedom for security - then you deserve neither. And a visible police presence does more than just prevent crime.

[Spock]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There doesn't have to be cameras that follow you whereever you go for protection. I've already quoted Ben Franklin - I used to have that quote in my sig. It's how I feel. If you are willing to give up your freedom for security - then you deserve neither. And a visible police presence does more than just prevent crime.

NOPE! Crime in Franklins day was totally different and simpler. Today we need more help preventing crime and if you're in a pubic place the public has a right to know what the heck you are doing and you do not have any right of privacy. So if the cameras follow you after you commit a crime that's good. It is not giving but receiving more security from those who would take yours.
Let's be honest, money is tight and no city anywhere on earth has enough police to prevent crime. Heck they can't even solve all crime as it is. Tools help...use 'em.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Spock
NOPE! Crime in Franklins day was totally different and simpler. Today we need more help preventing crime and if you're in a pubic place the public has a right to know what the heck you are doing and you do not have any right of privacy.

if I live in say NY - I don't think it is someone's business when I enter or exit my apartment building. I don't trust the prupose of the cameras.

So if the cameras follow you after you commit a crime that's good. It is not giving but receiving more security from those who would take yours.
Let's be honest, money is tight and no city anywhere on earth has enough police to prevent crime. Heck they can't even solve all crime as it is. Tools help...use 'em.

Well - a lot of the US cities do fine without the cameras.

Why don't we do this (since the technology is availlable and you said if the technology is there - use it), why don't we embed GPS sensors in everyone's body when they are born. Then set up monitoring stations that track everyone in America. If a crime happens - we get the info out of the computer - find out all the people who were in the area when it happened. Search their homes, interogate them, etc. Hey - the technology would also help with missing persons, etc. So you think we should? The technology exists and it will help prevent crime.

[Spock]

Search their homes, interogate them, etc. Hey - the technology would also help with missing persons, etc. So you think we should? The technology exists and it will help prevent crime. [/B][/QUOTE] A yes, but if someone who doesn't belong comes along you might be interested in knowing who they are. Yes they do but only because they haven't tried it to reduce or solve crime.
I think tracking of individuals may come eventually, they already have chips to imbed in pets and of course the OnStar network for cars. hmmm, maybe 1984 is just late in coming, eh?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Spock
A yes, but if someone who doesn't belong comes along you might be interested in knowing who they are. Yes they do but only because they haven't tried it to reduce or solve crime.
I think tracking of individuals may come eventually, they already have chips to imbed in pets and of course the OnStar network for cars. hmmm, maybe 1984 is just late in coming, eh?

The New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway have EZ Pass - it was made a law that the system could not be used to track the speed of motorists and be used to give out speeding tickets. It was one of the concerns of citizens of NJ that the system would be abused by law enforcement and the state.

And yes - you can embed pets right now and the OnStar system can be used to technically track your vehicle. The thing is - currently we have laws that generally prevent most things from being given to law enforcement without a subeona. AOL has repeatedly refused to give out customer's names and information because they have an obligation to their customers. AOL will only give out customer's name with a subeona.

By the way - they are currently working on face recognition software to go nicely with those cameras.

[Spock]

oh good, some days I can't recognize myself.

we're just across the line from agreeing but not as far as some.

good holidays to you.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Spock
Sorry to disagree (actually not) but to prevent crime this type of stuff is necessary unless you want armed police on every corner. People want protection but don't want intrusion, it can't be done that way.

Crime is only after it has been committed. To have surviellance on people at all times is to assume that each one is a criminal with the intent to commit a crime. I'd like to believe that the person standing in front of me at the check out counter is an honest citizen just waiting their turn to buy a bag of cheetos and a coke. Not someone about to pull a gun on the clerk. And I, being watched by the cameras too, am not a crook either.

[Spock]

The concept of "prevention" is more important to some.
Personally I don't want a crime committed against me.
I do want it prevented if possible.
If not,I want a good deterrant and lastly if that isn't available I want a good chance of apprehension.
This is MO.