5 ms·

I won't be asking that until places like London get rid of all the police cams. Although, apparently they are highly effective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/82190

by nhebb 16y ago

I won't be asking that until places like London get rid of all the police cams. Although, apparently they are highly effective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8219022.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8219022.stm While I applaud the EU's efforts on this, it seems a bit of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. The bigger battles for privacy still need to be fought.

patrickg 16y ago
We can find numerous examples where there are things (like the cameras you mention) that contradict the privacy regulations. But I hope that we don't get into a "well, it's all hopeless" mode. Thanks for the good pointer.
Silhouette 16y ago
> The bigger battles for privacy still need to be fought. They do, but you have to start somewhere, and at least this is a step in the right direction. My personal view is that a privacy backlash is building. For the past decade or so, we have lived under an unwelcome combination of commercial interests who now have the technology to conduct mass surveillance and government interests whose politics is governed by fear, which in turn drives the surveillance state. I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that the cost/benefit in both cases doesn't justify the price we're paying, and it's starting to be the common guy or girl in the street who is asking questions and not just the privacy advocates and civil liberties campaigners. As debates like this one start to hit mainstream media like the BBC, the political winds will shift, helped by the fact that many of the over-reactionary post-9/11 government administrations have now been shown the door so the political resistance is lower. As long as those of us who care can keep building the momentum, and the global picture remains more one of hope as dubious governments are falling than one of fear after a string of terrorist attacks, I think we'll start to build a more reasonable regulatory framework for protecting privacy when it's important to do so, without unduly disrupting useful innovations.

by nhebb 16y ago

patrickg 16y ago

We can find numerous examples where there are things (like the cameras you mention) that contradict the privacy regulations. But I hope that we don't get into a "well, it's all hopeless" mode. Thanks for the good pointer.

Silhouette 16y ago

> The bigger battles for privacy still need to be fought. They do, but you have to start somewhere, and at least this is a step in the right direction. My personal view is that a privacy backlash is building. For the past decade or so, we have lived under an unwelcome combination of commercial interests who now have the technology to conduct mass surveillance and government interests whose politics is governed by fear, which in turn drives the surveillance state. I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that the cost/benefit in both cases doesn't justify the price we're paying, and it's starting to be the common guy or girl in the street who is asking questions and not just the privacy advocates and civil liberties campaigners. As debates like this one start to hit mainstream media like the BBC, the political winds will shift, helped by the fact that many of the over-reactionary post-9/11 government administrations have now been shown the door so the political resistance is lower. As long as those of us who care can keep building the momentum, and the global picture remains more one of hope as dubious governments are falling than one of fear after a string of terrorist attacks, I think we'll start to build a more reasonable regulatory framework for protecting privacy when it's important to do so, without unduly disrupting useful innovations.