Traffic Cams Co-opted for Surveillance

Aardpig writes "The Register has a brief piece reporting that some traffic-monitoring CCTV cameras in London are offline today, for "operational reasons so that maintenance can be performed". Coincidentally, or not, the offline cameras happen to lie along the route of today's May Day demonstrations. As The Reg points out, the same happened earlier this year, during two of the anti-war demonstrations which took place in the capital. The UK is already one of the most monitored states in the world, as far as CCTV monitoring goes. Does this bode ill for our future privacy, or is this a necessary measure to maintain safety at large protests?"

Comments

No Privacy Possible in a Public Place.

[cloak42]

If you're in public and you're doing something, it's not a matter of privacy. It is by definition impossible to have privacy when everybody else is there, too.

So if the government wants to preempt the use of a surveillance camera to keep tabs on a public location, I see no problem with that.

Now, if the government turned one of those cameras toward my bedroom window, I might get a little miffed.

Re:No Privacy Possible in a Public Place.

[missing000]

Privacy is not the issue.

Access to information is the issue
The government either wants to keep the parade quiet, and / or they want the ability to beat and gas the crowd without people watching it live.

Any government that abuses people in the name of "privacy" is really evil.

seems logical...

[jeffy124]

police in many cities worldwide do video surviellence of major demonstrations/protests/etc - but as part of their own defense. Some protest groups, for whatever reason, are quick to say there was undue police force involved if they get arrested, deny things like resisting arrest, etc. The tapes are used to counter those arguments.

Think I'm off my rocker? Guess what - protest groups bring their own cameras to do their own surveillence of the police. It's used both ways to keep everyone (protesters and police) in check.