What the hell were the last two decades?

[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?

Are you serious?

Very serious.  Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.

[Fate]

Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. 

[jimmy olsen]

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?

Are you serious?

Very serious.  Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.

You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be guarded in no other way.

Fate, he couldn't be a Democrat either with a position like that. The career of any prosecutor in America would be crippled after saying something like that.

[Barrister]

You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.

Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.

You are correct.  In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion.  But you have put the cart before the horse.  What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?

Edit: at least you are correct in a Canadian constitutional analysis, where we have s. 1 of the Charter.  Any infringement of a Charter right can be justified if it can be shown to be consistent with the values of a free and democratic society.

[Neil]

A free society is a thing of the past.  Quite frankly, I'm glad to see it go.

[Barrister]

Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. 

Since I've never been a Republican, but only a member of the Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Allaince -> Conservative Party of Canada, I am content with my political allegiance.

[Sheilbh]

I generally agree with BBoy on this and on the CCTV.

Though I also agree with RH's general dissatisfaction at the illiberal Home Secretaries we've had since Michael Howard.  What annoys me most, though, is the erosion of little freedoms and differences, and in councils the sort of hesitance and ungenerousness that a fear of litigation produces.

[Razgovory]

Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. 

Since I've never been a Republican, but only a member of the Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Allaince -> Conservative Party of Canada, I am content with my political allegiance.

Is the Reform Party of Canada anything like the Reform party in the US?

[Jaron]

The government exists to serve its people. There is no good reason that could justify the need for such cameras. They would be expensive to implement and maintain, and would have a negligible effect on crime. In short, it would punish the innocent.

[Sheilbh]

It's a psychological thing. Besides, if someone mugs you a cop can step in right away. With a camera the perp could be long gone by the time the footage is looked at by authorities - in the case of a city like Vienna that'd mean he could be two countries away.

Yeah the cameras, especially private ones are less useful.  There were three cameras (from three clubs/bars that were next to each other) that were in the area when my friend was bottled in the face.  None of them saw her attacker because they were dirty

I think the DNA database is far more problematic which is why it's being addressed by the ECHR while the cameras aren't.

But also we don't actually know how many CCTV cameras there are, it's not been made public.  But my suspicion would be that the vast majority are private.

If you, a student, takes a barf in the street because you got sick from drinking and a cop walks by, he at best would give you a ticket or wag his finger at you. If on the other hand this goes on a CCTV, the video may resurface in 20 years when you are an influential politician and the powers that be want you to vote in a specific way or the video goes public, undermining your chances of reelection etc. This is but one example how it could be used - even against people who, at the time the video was taken - were nobodies and thus would not cause the cop in question to run to the Daily Mail to sell the story for example.

Again I think this is about illiberal or intolerant societies.   No-one would hold a public vomit against a drunk student - on that rock did Prince Harry build his popularity - certainly not 20 years after the event.  Far more dangerous than CCTV, for what you're talking about, is the omnipresence of digital cameras and things like Facebook.

But you know Cameron's been plagued all the way through by allegations that he did coke at Uni - I don't think people care.  George Osborne did do coke at Oxford and was close friends with a call girl - again no-one cares.  What you did 20 years ago is generally your own business.  In this country it makes good copy but it doesn't destroy careers.

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?

Apparently they come under the Data Protection Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998
They seem to have to report to the Information Commissioner.  The last one actually wrote a few articles about how Britain was sleepwalking into a surveillance state and that people needed to be made aware of the potential cost to their civil liberties.

[Barrister]

Barrister can no longer be a member of the Republican party. 

Since I've never been a Republican, but only a member of the Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Allaince -> Conservative Party of Canada, I am content with my political allegiance.

Is the Reform Party of Canada anything like the Reform party in the US?

Very very loosely "like" it.  I can't say they have nothing in common, but since one party dissolved into irrelevance and the other party merged with a second party and is now the government the similarities are somewhat vague.

Although I still H. Ross Perot in 1992 before he backed out the first time.

[dps]

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?

Are you serious?

Very serious.  Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.

Because recorded conversations can be editted and bits and pieces used out of context. True, a witness who overhears a conversation might only hear part of it and miss the context (many set-ups in sit-coms use this) or might remember it incorrect (or even deliberately lie about it) but at least you can cross-examine a witness.  I think it would be easier to convince a jury that a witness misheard, remembered incorrectly, or was lying;  than it would be to convince them that recorded evidence was true, even if the recording had in fact been altered.

[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?

Are you serious?

Very serious.  Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.

Because recorded conversations can be editted and bits and pieces used out of context. True, a witness who overhears a conversation might only hear part of it and miss the context (many set-ups in sit-coms use this) or might remember it incorrect (or even deliberately lie about it) but at least you can cross-examine a witness.  I think it would be easier to convince a jury that a witness misheard, remembered incorrectly, or was lying;  than it would be to convince them that recorded evidence was true, even if the recording had in fact been altered.

Again you are falling into the Martinesque "it's bad because it could be misused".

What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?

In particular your example that a recording could be altered.  We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls.  Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue.  Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Martinus: if you could design some regime (and what that regime is up for discussion) that would protect the general privacy of those observed, and would protect from deliberate tampering of the data, would you withdraw your objection?  Or are you opposed on a more emotional level, no matter what safeguards might be put in place?

[Sheilbh]

Weirdly we're, I believe, the only country where wiretap and intercept evidence is wholly inadmissible in Court, though it can be used in gathering intelligence.  Bizarrely, though, if the evidence comes from a bug then it is admissible.  I believe the reason is that under British law you would have to store all of the conversations and e-mails reported so that the defence would have access to that, which makes it unfeasible.  Every phonecall and e-mail would have to be stored, saved, catalogued and transcribed which for each case would be crippling.  Also it would require that the police and intelligence services to reveal how they gathered the evidence, which they don't want to do.

[dps]

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?

Are you serious?

Very serious.  Please provide a coherent objection to why conversations in a public place, that can be overheard by anyone, should not be recorded by government.

Because recorded conversations can be editted and bits and pieces used out of context. True, a witness who overhears a conversation might only hear part of it and miss the context (many set-ups in sit-coms use this) or might remember it incorrect (or even deliberately lie about it) but at least you can cross-examine a witness.  I think it would be easier to convince a jury that a witness misheard, remembered incorrectly, or was lying;  than it would be to convince them that recorded evidence was true, even if the recording had in fact been altered.

Again you are falling into the Martinesque "it's bad because it could be misused".

What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?

In particular your example that a recording could be altered.  We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls.  Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue.  Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Martinus: if you could design some regime (and what that regime is up for discussion) that would protect the general privacy of those observed, and would protect from deliberate tampering of the data, would you withdraw your objection?  Or are you opposed on a more emotional level, no matter what safeguards might be put in place?

I'm an American;  we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.