Lords: rise of CCTV is threat to freedom
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well you have to make a distinction between state owned CCTV systems and privately owned CCTV systems. The report says "we" have 4m cameras, well does that mean 4m owned by the government (police) or does that include all the ones you get in shops etc? If it includes all the shop CCTVs then it fudges the figures and we don't really have any right to tell people what they can and cannot do to protect their own property. This debate should solely be about government run CCTV systems and I'm not sure whether that is the case?
Anyway, I don't think CCTVs are necessarily a bad thing, especially in city centres
Anyway, I don't think CCTVs are necessarily a bad thing, especially in city centres
rapattaque
At fighting weight
It suprised me too, because the Lords are usually so good at keeping their wizened, bony fingers on the nations pulse!
The report is about the Big brother culture in general and CCTV is one aspect that has been picked up on within the report.
The 4.2m cameras figures is an estimate, and as far as I’m aware includes those privately owned.
Property rights over buildings or lands does not give you divine right to do what thou will. CCTV setup by private indivduals still has to comply with laws such as the Dataprotection Act. If anything private cameras are the worse, for instance someone could setup a camera that partialy overlooked the street and they would be capturing people's private data without consent or warning. This would be in breach of the data protection Act.
The report also mentions centralized database systems, so the National ID card scheme is probably the most prime example of the survillance society in my view. Interestingly though in Spain a lot of people take more offense at CCTV then ID cards (which they have allready). So I suppose there is a cultural and historical aspect about what we consider a step to far.
I think these Lords are spot on and many people in the country will be glad to hear them say it.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well obviously they have to abide by the law, but I don't think many people will argue that it is a breech of their human rights that Tescos have security cameras to stop people nickin food!
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
they might well argue that it is breach of their rights if the cameras are used to keep an eye on staff, and passers-by (both of which happen)
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
As much as that might happen, that wouldn't be an example of the "Big Brother State" would it?
To some extent I think you are right, people can and do choose not to shop in Tesco for whatever reason. If Tesco was keeping the footage for ever and building up profiles on shoppers and workers would you have a problem with it then?
The figure of 4.2 million CCTV camera is employed as an illustration of the prevalence of the surveillance state. It’s true that we are amongst the most watched people’s on earth. As yourself has this resulted in a stronger society? Or a society divided by distrust and fear?
Taken in context with the widespread increase in CCTV within public spaces, ID cards, Councils snooping on people for the most minor offense I would say that it all starts to add up.
CCTV in retail environments is just one aspect and as you point out perhaps not the worse. Bear in mind however that it's quite easy for the state to acquire private CCTV images so the private/state divide you highlight isn't always so black and white.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I would have a problem with it but a) I'm not aware that they are doing that and b) I'm not sure it would be legal for them to do that anyway
Well I'm arguing that you can't really count privately owned CCTVs as part of the "surveillance state" as that tends to mean "Big Brother State", hence, government operated. The 4m figure is usually put about by the media to give the impression, as civil liberty groups also do, that it is the government spying on us, not a suspicious Tesco security guard.
So are we the most spied upon nation on Earth? Yes we are. Is this evidence of the "Big Bother State"? For the most part probably not...
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well as I said above, imo, the only things that can "add up" are publicly owned systems, not private systems, as even tho the government can obtain the footage, they don't control what footage is taken...
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
It's not just CCTV cameras. The whole system is riddled with control freakery, from top to bottom.
Leopards don't change thier spots, just their political affiliation.
Leopards don't change thier spots, just their political affiliation.
No, but they do create the legislative framework that governs how private CCTV cameras are operated. I take your point that these private cameras are not directly part of the big brother 'state', but this report I think is more focused in surveillance 'society'. Private companies are obviously part of society and the surveillance culture is the real issue.
To be honest I don't have such a problem with private companies running CCTV, so long as there are laws in place to govern their use and the retention of data that protects the rights of an individual to privacy. I do have issue with legislation that allows the state to acquire the collected data and footage for it's own uses.
CCTV has now become ubiquitous and in doing so has lost lot's of it's power as a deterrent.
I used to work in an off-licence did we have CCTV - yes. Did I still get done over twice whilst working there - yes, did the CCTV help catch the culprit - no.
Indeed I think the criticsm I would have about this report is that it focuses too much on CCTV as an example rather than the 'database state'.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well as ever there's usually a Catch 22 when discussing freedoms. Not many people will argue that people shouldn't be free to protect their property as they see fit, as long as they're abiding by the laws. As you say below, I don't have a problem with private CCTV security systems either, and I don't think many people will have. But these are the vast majority of cameras in the UK, and therefore fudge the "Big Brother" figures, which people assume to mean government operated.
Well I've had the "effectiveness" argument before, but the fact is, even if it's minimal, there are lots of police cases where CCTV has helped
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Doesn't automatically make them a bad idea either!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What I don't get is how the whole CCTV industry is essentially unregulated, with no real standards when it comes to tech, access rights under the DPA etc.
I don't have an issue with CCTV as a concept; my issues start with whether it's any use (most LA CCTV isn't any good in court as the resolution is too low to confirm identity, for example); who is allowed to have them; how easy it is to access the data; who gets to see the data; how long it's stored (for example, many small stores that use a VHS or Beta tape will keep them for a short while before reusing the tape - I really can't get irate about that!).
The issue is about creating a balance between privacy and the use of the technology where it's useful. This is the debate that needs to happen, and it's largely ignored by those who think that the pre-digital model of privacy is still possible and those who think that anyone should be able to access anything at anytime.
I don't have an issue with CCTV as a concept; my issues start with whether it's any use (most LA CCTV isn't any good in court as the resolution is too low to confirm identity, for example); who is allowed to have them; how easy it is to access the data; who gets to see the data; how long it's stored (for example, many small stores that use a VHS or Beta tape will keep them for a short while before reusing the tape - I really can't get irate about that!).
The issue is about creating a balance between privacy and the use of the technology where it's useful. This is the debate that needs to happen, and it's largely ignored by those who think that the pre-digital model of privacy is still possible and those who think that anyone should be able to access anything at anytime.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I have concerns over some intrusive policies, such as compulsory finger prints, dna samples, etc. However, I don't have a problem with CCTVs.
As for the "essential point" of the Lords, I do not desire to live in a "pure" democracy, my ideal society is one that balances freedoms with security. I also view democracy simply as one means of implementing desirable policies (tho it often results in the implementation of undesirable policies) - not as an end in itself. But my view of democracy is another thread altogether and one day I would like to put my thoughts to paper (or keyboard button)
As I desire a balance, I can pick and choose over which "authoritarian" systems I would welcome, and which I oppose. If we go too far in the authoritarian direction, then I will become concerned (and gave you some examples of what I consider "too far" above), but I think CCTV can be useful for my security (despite the very real danger they can be abused for "non-security" purposes)
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Excellent point. I've very concerned about creepy council spy-cameras (we've got a 25ft mast in the middle of our highstreet now!) and in Ilford, there's actually a sign that says (and I'm not making this up) "We are watching you!" with intent eyes staring down. Talk about irony bypass.
But I'm not the slightest bit concerned if, say, Mr Patel in his corner shop has a camera out the back. I'd be slightly more concerned if Tesco do, but it's the seperation between them and the state that's key. They have to call the police in, and hand over the tapes of a specific incident: as opposed to having all the data at hand to trawl through on a fishing trip.
The reason we have CCTV, however, is because the beat system has ended. It's a high-tech solution to constables on the street. People who campaign against CCTV need to have an alternative ready.
Freedom and Security are not opposing forces that need to be balanced. This is a common false dichotomy perpetrated by the current administration to justify all sorts of authoritarian measures.
True Security comes from maintaining principles of freedom. As soon as we lose sight of those principles and focus on security we destroy trust and the social bond that holds communities together. It is not the fear of punishment that prevents most crime, but rather the value most people hold that tells them why committing the crime is wrong.
Furthermore we increase the risk of the state as being a threat to your security, for instance new measures that allow bailiffs to break and entry threaten all of our security. In the current economic climate any of us could if unlucky soon find ourselves in such economic troubles.
The Security of millions of people has been put at risk by the desire to collect and centralize all data owned by the government. Just think of all those people whose details have been lost.
The Security of people participating in protests has been put at risk by aggressive policing.
The Security of children has been put at risk by the ContactPoint Database.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I have to disagree with this old canard. There is no "balance" between freedom and security. Becoming less free doesn't make you safer. Just the opposite. Accepting that there's a "balance" between freedom and security accepts that increasing state power automatically makes us safer, which is bunk.
Liberty is security.
The society that trades a little freedom for a little order will loose both, and deserve neither, as a wise man once said.
Yes your right about why we now have so much CCTV. How about spending the vast amount of money spent on CCTV on more police officers on the street then that's one good alternative!
Yes we are right to make the distinction between private/state CCTV, especially when talking about Big Brother state, but as I have pointed out this report is about the Surveillance society. I think there is a need to ensure that even private CCTV is a bit better regulated, but private CCTV is not the main thrust of this report and it's a bit of a diversion.
Indeed the myth of a security/freedom trade off is one that needs to be torn apart. Furthermore in recent correspondence I have had with the Home Office Meg Hiller has been claiming that there is a balance between security/privacy. This is even more misleading as keeping your personal data private is the best way of keeping it secure. Sharing your data around is the antithesis of data security as any IT security expert will tell you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7872425.stm
"According to a 2004 European Commission report, Britain has the highest density of CCTV cameras in Europe. It found 40,000 cameras monitored public areas in 500 British towns and cities, compared to fewer than 100 cameras in 15 German cities and no open street CCTV at all in Denmark."
Denmark and Germany are not I presume suffering from a crime epidemic resulting from having less CCTV
"According to a 2004 European Commission report, Britain has the highest density of CCTV cameras in Europe. It found 40,000 cameras monitored public areas in 500 British towns and cities, compared to fewer than 100 cameras in 15 German cities and no open street CCTV at all in Denmark."
Denmark and Germany are not I presume suffering from a crime epidemic resulting from having less CCTV
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
We've got more than enough already: in raw numbers and proportionately, we have more police than at any other time in our history.
The problem is that they're doing the wrong thing: driving around in cars reacting fire-brigade style to 999 calls, or else filling in the endless PACE forms. Getting police on our streets with their current powers and restrictions would be nigh-on useless: a simple caution can get an officer off the street for five hours or more.
Abolish PACE, abolish draconian powers, restore ancient liberties, and then get police back on the street. Otherwise they'll be far worse than CCTV.
I'm all for regulating private CCTV, but I can't say I'm too bothered if Mr Jones has an image of me walking past his shop.
Private surveillance cameras might contribute to the perception of a "surveillance society" but we should separate the components and abolish state power.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Couldn't agree more. Problem is we have a government wedded to the left-wing idea of a benevolent state; they're incapable of grasping that state power is inherently dangerous. Why would you need to be secure from "good people"?
The endlessly wet Shami Chakrabarti accepts the false liberty/security choice, and Liberty explicitly say on their website that you need to balance the two. It's a fundamentally left-wing notion, rooted in collectivism and the need to "balance" the rights of individuals with the rights of the group, so, depressingly, I can't see it being challenged by the so-called champions of freedom.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
In which case the NHS should hand everyone's medical records over to them, if keeping such data private is the best way of keeping it secure.
Similar threads
