Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Society
An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to a Wired story, a company called Pedagog USA wants to have its cameras be as ubiquitious as cell phones and computers, except that the cameras would be spying on the public. These cameras are pretty cheap and easy to install. Scott Fry, of Pedagog USA, appears to think that if they like it in England, it must be loved here!" The story mentions the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
I want the camera images accessible in real time to the public. It has a few advantages:
(I'm not saying I want the cameras, but if we have them, these are my terms)
the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
/. community is well aware of the dangers of the misuse of technology, but the average public only cares about the perception of security.
Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived record levels. The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date. The
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Has anyone here read The Transparent Society by David Brin? He presents the interesting tactic of demanding "reciprocal transparency." I.e., if the state/a company/a person/etc. demands that you give up some personal information, demand that they do as well.
He covered the idea of ubiquitous cameras in some of his other books -- his version of cheap cameras were called "TruVue."
Essentially, the idea is, i the government gets to spy on you, you get to spy on the government.
He also advocated citizen teams that were given free passes into any area of government, at any time, for six month (or was it week) periods. See and hear whatever you want. Surprise people. Ater all, the government gave itself the authority to do that to you.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
micheal said:
The story mentions the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
We must have read different articles. I looked at the links to Scottish crime statistics in the Wired article and although critical it admits that the incidences of certain crimes have dropped and the loss of life has been prevented on several occassions by the surveillance cameras.
I am opposed to surveillance cameras for a number of reasons chief of which is the one mentioned in the article (camera operators usually focus on minorities or young people in "hostile" outfits) as well as the loss of privacy but even I don't delude myself into thinking that they don't prevent crime.
If you want to oppose to installation of cameras, complain about the potential rights violations or 4th ammendment violations. of course with the growing rise of reality television in the U.S. if there ever was a time that this kind of action would be gotten away with, this is it. Trying to pretend that crime isn't prevented is hiding your head in the sand and won't win you any supporters if the battle against them is fought in the U.S.
Establishment of the US Dept of Surveillance: 330 million dollars
Installation of 1.7 million CCTV cameras at strategic urban locations: 1.2 billion dollars
Yearly operation and maintenence: 2.9 billion dollars
The look on Congress' face when they realize their system is being systematically destroyed by teenage graffiti taggers with $1.95 spray paint cans:
Priceless
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein