5 ms·

I don't like to pick apart articles on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but I have to take issue with this bit: >In Britain, for example, the government has insta

by jgroome 14y ago

I don't like to pick apart articles on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but I have to take issue with this bit: >In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television. "The government"? Very tricksy linguistic sleight of hand makes us sound like an police-state-controlled surveillance society with no privacy and a tyrannical government. What rot. By far the vast majority of CCTV in the country is owned and operated by private companies on their own private property. This is a huge difference. >In a campaign slogan for the program, the government declares: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Come on now. That's almost cartoonish levels of sloppy writing. No such slogan has ever been used by either our government, or, as far as I know, any organisation concerned with security.

briandon 14y ago
Fair point w/re to most of the UK's omnipresent CCTV cameras being privately owned: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362493/One-CCTV-camera-32-people-Big-Brother-Britain.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362493/One-CCTV-cam... The research involved police community support officers counting every camera in Cheshire and extrapolating the results nationwide to provide a reliable estimate of the level of CCTV surveillance in the UK. Officers counted 12,333 cameras in the area, according to a study published in CCTV Image magazine, the majority of which were inside premises, rather than facing public street. The research also found that most CCTV cameras in the UK are likely to be privately owned, with only 504 of Cheshire’s cameras run by public bodies. In a county of about a million people, only 500+ of the 12,000+ cameras were owned by a government body. Of course, one would think that it wouldn't be very difficult for the authorities to obtain footage from privately-owned cameras.
- jfno67 14y ago
  The fact that the majority of camera is privately owned is not relevant. The question remains: "Is 500 cameras too many, too little or just about right, for a county of 1 million?". I have no idea, but I don't see why the ratio public/private is important.
  - rmc 14y ago
    The public/private aspect is important because the question changed from "Is 12,000 cameras …" to "Is 500 cameras …"
    - jfno67 14y ago
      The article cited never asked "Is 12,000 ...". They say "Look cameras are not that bad since most are on premise and are privately owned and operated." I find that this comparison is dishonest and is not relevant. edit: changed "you cite" to "cited", The response is not to the OP.
- smu 14y ago
  It might be important to note that government owned cameras are by definition pointing to public property (where everybody passes), whereas private cameras should be targeted at some private property (enforced by law, at least in some countries). If this distinction remains true in practice, it would at least seem that privately owned cameras are "morally" a bit more in their right. (You submit to the house rules when visiting vs being filmed when doing something that is nobody's business, like just passing by) Regarding the "processing" argument in the original article. It seems to me that government owned cameras are a bigger concern, if we assume that they can provide a general combined view (while privately owned cameras provide a lot of isolated views). EDIT: spelling
- pessimizer 14y ago
  They're also looking at indoor cameras on private property, which were the majority of cameras in the final number.
- scoot 14y ago
  > "Of course, one would think that it wouldn't be very difficult for the authorities to obtain footage from privately-owned cameras." As an individual I've easily been able to obtain stills from privately operated security cameras, once when I left something in a taxi, and needed to track down the operator (got that within minutes), and another in relation to a no-fault car accident (feckin' motor-cycle courier!), in both cases just by tracking down the owner of a public facing camera and asking nicely. On that basis, I doubt the police would have any more difficulty doing the same, but there is still a significant difference between this and the "police state" image this article portrays.
  - kstenerud 14y ago
    Yeah, for it to extend to "police state", you'd need to have cops manning the cameras at all times, ordering people around via a mounted speaker. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6524495.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6524495.stm
- excuse-me 14y ago
  It's also "economical with the actualité" to put it in parliamentary langauge A number plate recognition camera logging everyone entering London is owned and operated by the contractor providing the billing for the congestion charge - so it's not a government camera. But you don't think the government could have access to the data? It's like saying there is no government cell phone monitoring - the monitoring is all done by commercial cell phone companies.
jellicle 14y ago
It's not an either-or. The UK has many private surveillance cameras. The UK also has many governmental entities at all levels that have undertaken specific programs to install large numbers of publicly-owned surveillance cameras. If I type "UK to install" in Google, the four autocomplete suggestions provided are all about surveillance cameras. To a first approximation, the UK isn't known for installing roads, or daycares, or traffic lights, or dictators, or shelters for the homeless, but only for surveillance cameras. Congratulations. The UK just passed a law appointing a Surveillance Camera Commissioner to oversee all the uses of such cameras nationwide. I am not aware that any other countries have found such an appointment necessary.
- jlangenauer 14y ago
  It's even worse than that. Camden Council (in northern London) where I live has "CCTV vehicles", which drive the streets recording what goes on around them (imagine a Google maps car). A more creepily fascist thing I've not yet seen. Link to a picture: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2469622 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2469622
  - jgroome 14y ago
    We also have these Police CCTV vans: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4520733969_f3cf546624.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4520733969_f3cf546624.jp...
    - kamjam 14y ago
      And also CCTV cameras to make sure you aren't parking illegally or stopping in a bus lane. You name it, we have a CCTV for it!
- withad 14y ago
  I just did the same thing on Google and got different results, probably because Google adjusts results and auto-completion based on previous search history. Using Chrome and incognito mode, "uk to install" without quotes got me suggestions for the UK installing wind and solar power. With quotes, I got two suggestions for installing programs (iTunes and Skype) and two about installing cameras in private homes. The latter seem to be referencing a tabloid scare from two or three years ago about supervised housing for families of repeat offenders (which wouldn't necessarily have involved cameras, according to the top result). There are also some results about the legality of installing cameras in private homes in the UK, which makes sense as a search. Anyway, you would never really talk about "installing" roads, daycares, or homeless shelters. Traffic lights and dictators, maybe, but Google's auto-suggest is not an objective measure of anything.
Symmetry 14y ago
Personally, I don't really think of CCTV cameras as a privacy issue at all. If you're in a city street you should expect that nothing you do is actually private. Its always been perfectly legal for a cop to stand in the street and notice who enters or leaves a particular building, and in a small town they'd be able to figure out just as much about you from that as a CCTV system with face recognition could in a big city. The important this is that people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects", not whether the police can see you walking down the road.
- drcube 14y ago
  Technology makes a difference here. For example, it is not illegal to follow someone on a public street. But attaching a GPS device to their car is going over the line, even though the concept is the same. The difference is the lack of physical limitations. You no longer have to follow one car for a short time from another, you can follow hundreds of cars for long periods from your living room. Similarly, if someone is speaking out loud in public, you can listen, but wiretapping is still wrong. And just because someone can view your actions in public doesn't make it okay to monitor and log every person on every square foot of public space continuously.
  - jes5199 14y ago
    It might not be possible to make such a distinction in the near future. In a world where quadrocopters are cheap, and everyone is wearing Google Glass with a camera right in front of their faces - the assumption should be that you're being recorded. We'll need to figure out what the social rules are, but I'm pretty sure "don't record strangers" isn't going to be one of them.
- mattmanser 14y ago
  This is part of the same argument that allowed the FBI to start whacking GPS trackers on people's cars willy nilly. The difference is that the real person costs a lot which mean its guaranteed to be small-scale and overseen and they couldn't keep it up indefinitely nor go back over their old recordings. A cctv camera represents a completely different threat and has long-term implications compared to a plain clothes policeman.
lnanek2 14y ago
Last time I was in London I did see a bunch of signs trying to convince me the eyes in the sky where such great things that enhanced my safety and should make me feel comfortable...there definitely is propaganda out there supporting them...
- excuse-me 14y ago
  And they do - there hasn't been a single Zeppelin raid on London since the introduction of CCTV

by jgroome 14y ago

briandon 14y ago

Fair point w/re to most of the UK's omnipresent CCTV cameras being privately owned: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362493/One-CCTV-camera-32-people-Big-Brother-Britain.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362493/One-CCTV-cam... The research involved police community support officers counting every camera in Cheshire and extrapolating the results nationwide to provide a reliable estimate of the level of CCTV surveillance in the UK. Officers counted 12,333 cameras in the area, according to a study published in CCTV Image magazine, the majority of which were inside premises, rather than facing public street. The research also found that most CCTV cameras in the UK are likely to be privately owned, with only 504 of Cheshire’s cameras run by public bodies. In a county of about a million people, only 500+ of the 12,000+ cameras were owned by a government body. Of course, one would think that it wouldn't be very difficult for the authorities to obtain footage from privately-owned cameras.

jfno67 14y ago
The fact that the majority of camera is privately owned is not relevant. The question remains: "Is 500 cameras too many, too little or just about right, for a county of 1 million?". I have no idea, but I don't see why the ratio public/private is important.
- rmc 14y ago
  The public/private aspect is important because the question changed from "Is 12,000 cameras …" to "Is 500 cameras …"
  - jfno67 14y ago
    The article cited never asked "Is 12,000 ...". They say "Look cameras are not that bad since most are on premise and are privately owned and operated." I find that this comparison is dishonest and is not relevant. edit: changed "you cite" to "cited", The response is not to the OP.
smu 14y ago
It might be important to note that government owned cameras are by definition pointing to public property (where everybody passes), whereas private cameras should be targeted at some private property (enforced by law, at least in some countries). If this distinction remains true in practice, it would at least seem that privately owned cameras are "morally" a bit more in their right. (You submit to the house rules when visiting vs being filmed when doing something that is nobody's business, like just passing by) Regarding the "processing" argument in the original article. It seems to me that government owned cameras are a bigger concern, if we assume that they can provide a general combined view (while privately owned cameras provide a lot of isolated views). EDIT: spelling
pessimizer 14y ago
They're also looking at indoor cameras on private property, which were the majority of cameras in the final number.
scoot 14y ago
> "Of course, one would think that it wouldn't be very difficult for the authorities to obtain footage from privately-owned cameras." As an individual I've easily been able to obtain stills from privately operated security cameras, once when I left something in a taxi, and needed to track down the operator (got that within minutes), and another in relation to a no-fault car accident (feckin' motor-cycle courier!), in both cases just by tracking down the owner of a public facing camera and asking nicely. On that basis, I doubt the police would have any more difficulty doing the same, but there is still a significant difference between this and the "police state" image this article portrays.
- kstenerud 14y ago
  Yeah, for it to extend to "police state", you'd need to have cops manning the cameras at all times, ordering people around via a mounted speaker. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6524495.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6524495.stm
excuse-me 14y ago
It's also "economical with the actualité" to put it in parliamentary langauge A number plate recognition camera logging everyone entering London is owned and operated by the contractor providing the billing for the congestion charge - so it's not a government camera. But you don't think the government could have access to the data? It's like saying there is no government cell phone monitoring - the monitoring is all done by commercial cell phone companies.

jellicle 14y ago

It's not an either-or. The UK has many private surveillance cameras. The UK also has many governmental entities at all levels that have undertaken specific programs to install large numbers of publicly-owned surveillance cameras. If I type "UK to install" in Google, the four autocomplete suggestions provided are all about surveillance cameras. To a first approximation, the UK isn't known for installing roads, or daycares, or traffic lights, or dictators, or shelters for the homeless, but only for surveillance cameras. Congratulations. The UK just passed a law appointing a Surveillance Camera Commissioner to oversee all the uses of such cameras nationwide. I am not aware that any other countries have found such an appointment necessary.

jlangenauer 14y ago
It's even worse than that. Camden Council (in northern London) where I live has "CCTV vehicles", which drive the streets recording what goes on around them (imagine a Google maps car). A more creepily fascist thing I've not yet seen. Link to a picture: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2469622 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2469622
- jgroome 14y ago
  We also have these Police CCTV vans: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4520733969_f3cf546624.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4520733969_f3cf546624.jp...
  - kamjam 14y ago
    And also CCTV cameras to make sure you aren't parking illegally or stopping in a bus lane. You name it, we have a CCTV for it!
withad 14y ago
I just did the same thing on Google and got different results, probably because Google adjusts results and auto-completion based on previous search history. Using Chrome and incognito mode, "uk to install" without quotes got me suggestions for the UK installing wind and solar power. With quotes, I got two suggestions for installing programs (iTunes and Skype) and two about installing cameras in private homes. The latter seem to be referencing a tabloid scare from two or three years ago about supervised housing for families of repeat offenders (which wouldn't necessarily have involved cameras, according to the top result). There are also some results about the legality of installing cameras in private homes in the UK, which makes sense as a search. Anyway, you would never really talk about "installing" roads, daycares, or homeless shelters. Traffic lights and dictators, maybe, but Google's auto-suggest is not an objective measure of anything.

Symmetry 14y ago

Personally, I don't really think of CCTV cameras as a privacy issue at all. If you're in a city street you should expect that nothing you do is actually private. Its always been perfectly legal for a cop to stand in the street and notice who enters or leaves a particular building, and in a small town they'd be able to figure out just as much about you from that as a CCTV system with face recognition could in a big city. The important this is that people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects", not whether the police can see you walking down the road.

drcube 14y ago
Technology makes a difference here. For example, it is not illegal to follow someone on a public street. But attaching a GPS device to their car is going over the line, even though the concept is the same. The difference is the lack of physical limitations. You no longer have to follow one car for a short time from another, you can follow hundreds of cars for long periods from your living room. Similarly, if someone is speaking out loud in public, you can listen, but wiretapping is still wrong. And just because someone can view your actions in public doesn't make it okay to monitor and log every person on every square foot of public space continuously.
- jes5199 14y ago
  It might not be possible to make such a distinction in the near future. In a world where quadrocopters are cheap, and everyone is wearing Google Glass with a camera right in front of their faces - the assumption should be that you're being recorded. We'll need to figure out what the social rules are, but I'm pretty sure "don't record strangers" isn't going to be one of them.
mattmanser 14y ago
This is part of the same argument that allowed the FBI to start whacking GPS trackers on people's cars willy nilly. The difference is that the real person costs a lot which mean its guaranteed to be small-scale and overseen and they couldn't keep it up indefinitely nor go back over their old recordings. A cctv camera represents a completely different threat and has long-term implications compared to a plain clothes policeman.

lnanek2 14y ago

Last time I was in London I did see a bunch of signs trying to convince me the eyes in the sky where such great things that enhanced my safety and should make me feel comfortable...there definitely is propaganda out there supporting them...

excuse-me 14y ago
And they do - there hasn't been a single Zeppelin raid on London since the introduction of CCTV