Public Warnings For Public Video Surveillance

pipingguy writes "The standards project aims to develop a sign which will make apparent surveillance operations using video cameras in public spaces and provide details of the body responsible for the data recorded. It is hoped to produce a simple, easily understood symbol, possibly using design elements already used in other standardised signs. An image (e.g. a camera) and text could be combined, and agreement will have to be reached on the typeface, size and colour of the wording to be used, as well as on its contents."

Comments

False sense of privacy

[cloudless.net]

When the sign gets implemented, I think we will be surprised by how we are being closely watched. But when we don't see a warning sign, can we really assume there is no camera?

Re:These warnings appear to only apply to Germany

[TheRoss]

exactly. I put together a few glyphs here.

Re:Not Enough.

[bellings]

You would prefer that ANYONE can watch your public actions

You've perfectly defined "public actions." Was this intentional?

You're perfectly happy letting some $11 an hour security guards build their own person "america's raciest street videos" for their own wanking pleasure?

You would have no problem with someone following you around every moment you're in public, watching you closely, and keeping notes, as long as that person has a shiney badge on. However, you want to be absolutely certain that no-one without shiney badges be allowed to follow around the people with the badges.

You have far more trust in shiney badges than I do.

Re:Not Enough.

[hether]

Who said anything about allowing copies? I think the post is referring to something like the open records law that gives us access to public documents. You could go to the courthouse and ask to watch a copy of the tape if you so choose, not make copies and distribute it to your friends. He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.