PDA

View Full Version : Video surveillance is dangerous


waves
04-03-2009, 05:38 PM
Government video cameras are dangerous for two reasons. (1) They change the nature of policing by taking power away from citizens, and (2) they restrict or eliminate the possibility for alone time out of doors.

(1) Video surveillance radically strengthens the power of the state. Without cameras, victims or nearby people who empathize with victims are the ones who report crimes. This is an incredibly important natural safeguard on police power, because people can choose to not report violations of unjust laws. This is why black people could sometimes escape slavery, unions could organize, and people today can do recreational drugs if they so choose. Video cameras destroy this natural safeguard. When the government records all activities outside of the home, the state can pick and choose which crimes it wants to go after, and it can easily prosecute innocent people who normally would have been protected by their fellow citizens.
That shift is incredibly important. Any governmental abuses will be greatly intensified when the police see everything outside homes. The power to turn in criminals should stay with victims and concerned citizens. Otherwise governmental abuses will become much harder to combat.

(2) Video surveillance makes life worse by eliminating privacy. While misinformed people love to say that we have no expectation of privacy in public, this is not correct. We always have had privacy in public. Public property includes every street, every park, every beach, and nearly every place you spend time when you are not at home or working. Almost everywhere, it has been possible to be by yourself without other people watching, or to meet with a group of people without policemen observing you. Even the privacy of the home is in jeopardy, because cameras can record who is entering which dwellings, threatening free association. With widespread video surveillance, that part of life is gone, and being alone out of doors is a thing of the past. Worst of all, there is a doctrine that if signs warning people are in place, then the government can record audio. The public buses where I live in Michigan have audio surveillance in them. We have always been able to have private conversations outside of our homes, and there is no reason we should give that freedom up.

Video surveillance does not come all at once, so it is easy to ignore. Britain has already slipped into a surveillance society with entire cities completely covered by cameras. New York, Chicago, and D.C are threatening to do the same. If you are not ready to give up your privacy and freedom to the state, then fight against surveillance by passing city ordinances where you live and pushing for controls at the state, provincial, or federal level. If you have any other ideas for how to stop this evil, please share them.

Some Old Drunk Guy
04-03-2009, 07:44 PM
No shit. Your second point is more important than your first one. I read an article about a Florida city utilizing UAV's with cameras on them. The potential for abuse is too high. Unfortunately, people won't start caring and saying something until it's illegal to do so.

IIIII
04-03-2009, 08:34 PM
I read once that a person driving from one end of England to the other - South to north - could be caught on video for the entire trip. And I wonder what the advantage of the cameras are since England has the worst crime rate to crimes solved in the world.



England has worst crime rate in world
By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 01/12/2002 - That's Dec 1, 2002 -doh)

England and Wales have the highest crime rate
among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.

According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.

During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table. An analysis of total recorded crime figures before 1998 also suggests that England and Wales have moved sharply up the league table since Labour came to power in 1997. Crimes fell from 5.5 million in 1993 to 4.5 million in 1997. By 1999, total crimes had risen again to 5.3 million.

Last night Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said: "This does rather blow a hole in David Blunkett's claim that New Labour has crime under control. It is a ****ing picture."

The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.

Criminologists believe that a note of caution needs to be introduced into analysis of the data, because of the different ways in which UN member countries record crimes.

A Home Office spokesman said that officials had not yet seen the report and so could not comment.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...01/ixhome.html

Cory
04-04-2009, 01:16 AM
No shit. Your second point is more important than your first one. I read an article about a Florida city utilizing UAV's with cameras on them. The potential for abuse is too high. Unfortunately, people won't start caring and saying something until it's illegal to do so.

Yep. The Proleterian masses seem content to simply sit and let these people control them, so long as they are kept content with bread and circuses. :facepalm:

Valkoinen Kuolema
04-04-2009, 08:15 PM
Video surveillance is a good thing provided that the Government in question is very strict against corruption.

Video surveillance would not be needed in many places if they were ethnically pure, it is a known fact that whites cause less crimes.

Some Old Drunk Guy
04-05-2009, 01:51 AM
Video surveillance is a good thing provided that the Government in question is very strict against corruption.

Video surveillance would not be needed in many places if they were ethnically pure, it is a known fact that whites cause less crimes.

People like you are why Zok added the :facepalm: smiley.