CCTV and other issues of "Security"

[blood imp]

Oh yeah, the title rhymes with itself. On a more serious note, I don't believe we ever discussed this on NewDoom. So apparently the UK has around 4 million or so CCTV Cameras, with an average person being caught on camera 300 times a day. Some say that it is a security benefit what with criminals being discouraged by cameras and making catching the culprit easier. Chicago and other cities have many, many CCTV cameras, especially on corners, with Daley suggesting to put them on every intersection in the city.

Today in class we discussed the possibility of future cameras having infra-red or x-ray or whatnot capabilities, not allowing privacy within a home or office or other buildings. And that's not the most far-fetched theory I've heard. Some cities are also introducing automated systems that are programed to highlight certain behaviors. In Chicago, for example, the video is kept for 30 days in the case it is needed in court or security situations or whatever.

Is this an invasion of privacy (especially the possible infrared/x-ray cameras)? According to many sources, it has not deterred crime at all. Who's watching the watchers? Who's behind that camera, and what are they doing with the information? I probably sound like a conspiracy theorist or a paranoid fuck, but this stuff moderately interests me, so whatever.

Then a whole different topic, wire tapping/phone tapping/listening in on conversations (and scanning e-mails as well). I'm not 100% certain whether this is really done on a massive scale, but according to many sources and other stuff, it is. If yes, then once again, do we want to have our conversations heard and our e-mails read by complete strangers (or anyone not in the conversation, really). In most cases, I would say that the person or computer reading or listening in doesn't give a shit about what is said, but still.

As has been said many times before, how many rights are we willing to give up for "security"? What right does an ISP have to give out addresses of people to the RIAA or other organizations? Just what can the police claim is sufficient evidence for warranting a search or seizure? I'm sure we've all seen some movie or read some book or played some game in a dystopian future where the authorities can pull some warrant out of their ass and storm into someone's home. Or like in 1984, where they disappear you just for shits (basically).

Once again, I don't want to sound like some conspiracy nut or paranoid retard, I'm just interesting in your opinions on this topic. Where do you think security stops and control begins? How far are you willing to go for the sake of the greater good? etc. etc.

[Aliotroph?]

If they're going to have cameras the data should be public. No exceptions. Public money, public place, public data.

Better they don't waste money on this crap. You don't get a right to privacy in public places but it doesn't mean the government gets to burn money peeking at everything. For things like e-mail and phones, those are supposed to be private, meaning no entity should ever be trusted to snoop on them and keep the data safe. Even if they would have a reason to do it, they can't be trusted to keep the data safe. The UK government is always losing stuff like that.

Any organization with more than about 100 people in it should be distrusted. Any government should have ALL of their data public at all times. Their internal messages should be open to public watching, for free, with no restrictions. Company data should have no restrictions for shareholders.

[g6672D]

This sort of thing is only effective for catching criminals who have already done something, or monitoring known suspects. But those two can be done just as well by actual humans.

You can't really look for logic in these people though. :p

[+Acyclitor+]

cameras in public areas are not a violation of privacy. but it is a creepy step towards the dystopia scenario. cameras that use x-rays and infrared to see inside buildings, however, would violate privacy and should not be tolerated. these cameras' data should be as publicly accessible as any police records.

as for the wiretapping, it is completely wrong. it has been proven and admitted to have been abused by the FBI, and there is evidence that the online tapping indeed is widespread. the Bush administration illegally destroyed evidence they were ordered by the supreme court to produce for review of these programs - what does that tell you?

furthermore, I think ISPs should be blind and indifferent to their user's traffic. they are not the police, they should not be policing the internet. they should neither help nor hinder their users. let the authorities hunt down criminals, and keep the ISPs out of it.

[Sigma]

I am not especially concerned about it. The United States has seen its capacity in surveillance increase dramatically with the Patriot Act, Anti-money Laundering and Privacy Laws, but their usefulness (in terms of cameras, I mean) is dubious even amongst most government officials.

Not to mention, the cost of putting infrared cameras up everywhere would be so high and difficult to maintain (both financially and legally). Furthermore, their usefulness would probably be even more questionable since half of the time you wouldn't be able to discern what was actually going on with only heat signatures. This is amplified many, many times when you start talking about X-Ray cameras as the cost would certainly limit it to highly sensitive areas and most people who pass by that particular area would more than likely be aware of its presence anyway. Again, the legality of it all would be a hard battle (even for the government), unless they did it without our knowledge, which is not completely unreasonable but also not something, as I said, I'd worry about.

Having cameras in public places is, as others have stated, perfectly legal. I suppose whether or not those are useful or not is subjective.

Wire-tapping is its own thing entirely and I'm not going to bother with it now, but perhaps later.

[jetflock]

Yeah, you can't tell what is going on with most cameras, but thats all evidence they need to mess with you. So it is a violation of privacy.
On a smaller scale, I have worked at many places loaded with cameras. My bosses all had the feed leading directly into they're offices and some into they're own homes. You could never really tell what was going on, so the owner and/or manager (with nothing better to do than swing his man meat around) would pop out every 10 minutes accusing the employees of stealing. Makes it a little hard to work with someone constantly breathing down your neck.

[blood imp]

While cameras in public places, I agree, aren't as bad (as anything you do in public isn't exactly private anyway), heat signature ones (even if they're not entirely accurate) and x-rays (as expensive and rare as they'd be) are a breach of personal rights in my book. Cameras in stores and such are fine, as once again you're in a public place. Now, bugging public places, I don't know about that. Conversations, even in public spots like parks or street corners or what have you, are in most cases meant to be private (as most other people won't much pay attention). No, bugging is quite a wrong thing in my opinion.

Wiretapping and online monitoring is, however, way beyond the line. I expect my online activities and conversations to be 100% between me and the person(s) on the other line or my computer. And even if the FBI or Bush Administration or any other government entity are accused (and/or found guilty) of abusing these rights, would anything be done?