What the hell were the last two decades?

[Martinus]

But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.

So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.

I think that's an excellent point.  Every point and stop in the criminal justice system, from police to prosecutors to judges, have the potential to be corrupt and misused.  The potential for something to be misused is rarely, by itself, grounds to not use something.  You should look at the history of something being misused, the safeguards in place to prevent it, and the potential for catching and prosecuting such misuses.

The problem is there are no safeguards that could be put in place to prevent the misuse I quoted, and any independent oversight would be impossible. The government is already incapable of preventing leaks of the little information it is allowed to collect.

Seriously, you can be such a authoritarian tool, I'm surprised you didn't go back to Ukraine. I bet you would shine under Stalin.

[Barrister]

Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.

Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?

I can't.  Can you?

Wow. Just wow. 

That's not really a response Marty.

As TMZ has shown us there is absolutely no privacy when you are in public places.  People have a very mistaken view that what they do on the street is private.  It isn't.  So given how everything that happens in public is, well, public, I would be interested if you could provide a "coherent objection" to such actions being recorded.

I understand people seem to have a visceral reaction against it, but there's no logical basis for that reaction that I can see.

Although perhaps it's something you get more comfortable with living in a small centre.  In big cities you can have the illusion of being "lost in the crowd".  In a small town I have already come to the realization that nobody where I go someone I know is likely to see me.  There is no privacy for me going into a bar, movie, restaurant, etc.

[Martinus]

But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.

And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? 

Liberal societies do not stay liberal because people who live in them are nice - the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

[Barrister]

But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.

So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.

I think that's an excellent point.  Every point and stop in the criminal justice system, from police to prosecutors to judges, have the potential to be corrupt and misused.  The potential for something to be misused is rarely, by itself, grounds to not use something.  You should look at the history of something being misused, the safeguards in place to prevent it, and the potential for catching and prosecuting such misuses.

The problem is there are no safeguards that could be put in place to prevent the misuse I quoted, and any independent oversight would be impossible. The government is already incapable of preventing leaks of the little information it is allowed to collect.

Seriously, you can be such a authoritarian tool, I'm surprised you didn't go back to Ukraine. I bet you would shine under Stalin.

I'm so glad you decided to discuss this calmly and rationally, and not resort to ad hom attacks.  I know you find it funny and part of your schtick, but I find they really detract from any otherwise interesting discussion.

I'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras.  Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?

I would certainly be in favour of putting some safeguards with respect to the use of such recordings.   Off the top of my head restrict who has access to such recordings, limit the time that it the recordings are kept, and probably criminalize the misuse of such recordings.

Marty - if such safeguards were put in place would you support the idea of CCTV cameras in public places?  It seems to me (although feel free to correct me) that your objection is not based on the lack of safeguards, but around the entire concept.

[Razgovory]

Liberal societies do not stay liberal because people who live in them are nice - the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Is that what the CCTV is for then?

[Barrister]

And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? 

I think you have entirely mischaracterized Arky's comment.  He certainly did not say that court supervision is unnecessary.

[Barrister]

Liberal societies do not stay liberal because people who live in them are nice - the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Is that what the CCTV is for then?

Your comment was meant as a joke, but you're quite right.  The prevalent use of cell phone videos have on numerous occasions provided proof of police and official misconduct that otherwise would have gone undetected.  Prevalent video recording does not only aid the agents of the state.

[Martinus]

I'm so glad you decided to discuss this calmly and rationally, and not resort to ad hom attacks.  I know you find it funny and part of your schtick, but I find they really detract from any otherwise interesting discussion.

I'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras.  Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?

I would certainly be in favour of putting some safeguards with respect to the use of such recordings.   Off the top of my head restrict who has access to such recordings, limit the time that it the recordings are kept, and probably criminalize the misuse of such recordings.

Marty - if such safeguards were put in place would you support the idea of CCTV cameras in public places?  It seems to me (although feel free to correct me) that your objection is not based on the lack of safeguards, but around the entire concept.

My point was (which I thought I made clear, but I guess I didn't, judging from your post) that considering the sheer scope of information stored on CCTV records, and the type of misuse I gave as an example, it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise safeguards preventing against that kind of misuse. Don't try to dodge the question by saying there must be some safeguards in place (your faith in the crown you are serving is remarkable but I do not share it), tell me what safeguards can reasonably be put in place that would address the concerns I raised.

[Martinus]

And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? 

I think you have entirely mischaracterized Arky's comment.  He certainly did not say that court supervision is unnecessary.

Well, that was the gist of his argument. He argued against my concern that CCTV is at risk of a gross misuse by saying that court-supervised investigation and search is also capable of being misused. If that argument was to have any relevant and sense, clearly he must consider both situations to be equivalent.

[Barrister]

I'm so glad you decided to discuss this calmly and rationally, and not resort to ad hom attacks.  I know you find it funny and part of your schtick, but I find they really detract from any otherwise interesting discussion.

I'd be surprised if there are "no safeguards" put in place for British CCTC cameras.  Can any of our British posters confirm or deny?

I would certainly be in favour of putting some safeguards with respect to the use of such recordings.   Off the top of my head restrict who has access to such recordings, limit the time that it the recordings are kept, and probably criminalize the misuse of such recordings.

Marty - if such safeguards were put in place would you support the idea of CCTV cameras in public places?  It seems to me (although feel free to correct me) that your objection is not based on the lack of safeguards, but around the entire concept.

My point was (which I thought I made clear, but I guess I didn't, judging from your post) that considering the sheer scope of information stored on CCTV records, and the type of misuse I gave as an example, it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise safeguards preventing against that kind of misuse. Don't try to dodge the question by saying there must be some safeguards in place (your faith in the crown you are serving is remarkable but I do not share it), tell me what safeguards can reasonably be put in place that would address the concerns I raised.

How can you say it is impossible to put safeguards into place?  That's quite a remarkable statement.  Can you back it up.

I didn't say there must be such safeguards.  I said as (as you so kindly quoted) that I'd be surprised if there weren't safeguards, but invited people with greater knowledge than I to chime in.

As for what safeguards could be put in place?  I know this might sound crazy, but you might want to re-read my post that you so kindly posted...

[Martinus]

I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.

[Barrister]

And yet they are put in place for a reason - to make such invasion of privacy both rare and highly supervised. You are essentially making an argument that since abuse is possible both under a court supervision and without it, then court supervision is really unnecessary - do you even realise what you are saying, really? 

I think you have entirely mischaracterized Arky's comment.  He certainly did not say that court supervision is unnecessary.

Well, that was the gist of his argument. He argued against my concern that CCTV is at risk of a gross misuse by saying that court-supervised investigation and search is also capable of being misused. If that argument was to have any relevant and sense, clearly he must consider both situations to be equivalent.

Again, that does summary does not in any way follow from:

The problem there is not with CCTV, but with an illiberal society and laws that does not tolerate gays.

But in this content, a whole host of otherwise innocuous things could be threats to civil liberties, including search warrants and police surveillance carried out within purely legal parameters.

So in your example CCTV is just a tool that can be misused, like any other.

[Razgovory]

I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.

Barrister is from Canada.

[Martinus]

As TMZ has shown us there is absolutely no privacy when you are in public places.

I thought about it and I think this is the crux of our disagreement - I think your statement is simply wrong.

There are varying degrees of privacy one can expect in different places, that is true, but in the absence of technology allowing that, our civilization has developed certain expectations of privacy, including in public places, which admittedly rely on the failing nature of human perception and ability to process data. However, your argument - that as technology develops, this expectation of privacy (and privacy itself) will shrink is what I find abhorrent and unacceptable. If we go your route, there will be no privacy left soon whatsoever - after all it is already possible to use a technological device to overheard a conversation happening inside a building from outside - so why not say there is no privacy there either?

My argument is that as technology develops, restrictions should be put on technology to maintain the same level of privacy that we have always enjoyed - and not vice versa, to restrict the sphere of privacy to accommodate new technology.

I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.

[Martinus]

I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.

Barrister is from Canada.

He has strong cultural ties to Ukraine and its narrative, which informs his views e.g. about Stalin and communism. So in this sense he "comes from Ukraine" even if he hasn't been there himself.