Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain

[Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>]

At 5:43 PM -0400 7/15/97, Damaged Justice wrote:
>-- forwarded message --
>From: David Alexander <davea@caplin.demon.co.uk>
>
>    Privacy International says that in Britain, there are an estimated
>    300,000 CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, housing estates,
>    car parks, public facilities, phone booths, vending machines,
>    buses, trains, taxis, alongside motorways and inside Automatic
>    Teller (ATM) Machines. Originally installed to deter burglary,
>    assault and car [...] Do we try to protect Democratic freedoms by
>    legislating safeguards against the abuse of private data? Must we
>    accept that the mightiest individuals and institutions cannot be
>    held accountable, and there is no use in trying? Or do we simply
>    acquiesce, and accept that privacy is an outdated concept when
>    cheap technology makes everyone vulnerable, wolves and lambs
>    alike?  The choices are not easy, but in the words of David Brin,
>    "asking questions can be a good first step".
>
>Yes, there are many cameras, and more going up all the time. The vast
>majority of the population is glad that these cameras are being
>introduced. Ordinary crime has been reduced greatly in those areas
>(proven fact) where the cameras are in use. We also have a big problem
>with Terrorism by the Provisional IRA over here, and the same cameras
>have been instrumental in the foiling of numerous terrorist operations
>and capture of those responsible for others (we have had 3 bombs
>detonated in England larger than the one at Oklahoma in the last 3
>years).

Yes, well initial reaction to such Big Brother measures are often greeted,
initially, by the sheeple as in their best interest.

As for the IRA, although I am not a UK resident I did live there for some
time, I think most of the violence is a result of mean intentioned English
policies in the later part of the 19th and early 20th century.  I doubt the
surveillence can put an end to terrorism without doing away with much of
the English population's privacy.

>
>A very popular and effective program on UK TV is called 'Crimewatch'
>where video footage, from these cameras, of crimes and suspects is
>shown not for sensationalism and ratings but in order to ask for help
>identifying the perpetrators.  It is very effective and crimes featured
>have a very high clear-up rate.
>
>    One of the instruments needed to thwart such surveillence is the
>    adoption of 'masks' which are socially acceptable for public use.
>    Ideally they should all look alike, sort of something out of The
>    Prisoner. Once a certain threshold of adoption has been passed the
>    only option for law enforcement will be to remove the offending
>    devices or declare maks illegal for public use (a real stretch for
>    civil liberties).
>
>Yeah, right, get real. The only reason you might want to avoid being
>identified is if you have something to hide. Wearing a mask is only
>going to draw attention to you, and if you think everyone is suddenly
>going to start wearing masks...like I said in paragarph one, most
>people over here welcome the cameras.

Youth is always looking for a way to make a statement or stand out in the
crowd.  This could be an effective means to both poke the surveillence
state in the eye and be noticed.

>
>Please don't misinterpret my motives. I would be the first to celebrate
>if no threat to privacy existed. Unfortunately there are immoral,
>irresponsible and downright antisocial (not to mention the
>psychologically unsound) people who will not abide by the law, or to
>what we regard as social norms and persist in infringing our rights.
>As long as those people exist, and no better way of deterring and
>tracking them down after the (often tragic) offence has been committed,
>then we need such laws and technology.

That's what personal firearms are for...

Its no coincedence that the incedence of 'hot' bugluries (that is one's in
which the owner is in residence during the incident) are about 60% for the
UK and 15% for the US.  Sentenced US criminals are much more careful in
'casing' a residence and, unlike their UK counterparts, rarely enter in the
evening when they are much more likely to get shot.

>
>I would feel very ashamed if my attempts to protect my rights caused
>the death of innocent people because security against those who are
>irresponsible had to be drastically cut back.

I wouldn't.  Its the state's duty to protect my liberties and if they can't
or won't the obligation falls on me.

The product of liberty and security is a constant.


--Steve