That's probably true ....but CCTV is hardly giving up any liberties. What people do in public is seen by anyone who happens to be there with a pair of eyes. The CCTV is just another pair of eyes. Where's the loss of liberty?
Baron Max
CCTV? Good Or Bad?
- Thread starter lucifers angel
- Start date
That's probably true ....but CCTV is hardly giving up any liberties. What people do in public is seen by anyone who happens to be there with a pair of eyes. The CCTV is just another pair of eyes. Where's the loss of liberty?
Baron Max
Pick one:
1. My mother frequently dropped me on my head when I was a baby
2. My perspectives on some matters are impossible for you to be objective about, or you simply hold a different point of view
3. We can't possibly agree on everything, coming from widely disparate backgrounds and cultures.
The problem with his statement, which I agree with, was it was made before the inventions we have today and with the new types of problems that beset ours as well as others nations. To just say not to use a technology that could prevent deaths, murders and other crimes passively without major intrusion, would be more a travesty of justice than using them. Your opinion is shared with countless others but I'd think the majority of people that want to feel safer do like this technology or we would be hearing clamors from the multitudes.
Last edited:
Well, maybe you'd like to tell me? I mean, if you're out in public where anyone can see you, see what you do and where you go, what's the difference with CCTV? It's just two more eyes out of millions ....
Where's the loss of liberty? Instead of making snide remarks, just give me a few examples or reasons why anyone would lose their liberty?
Baron Max
I agree with you, Max. What these thick-headed people can't seem to understand is that they are already in public view!!!! At any given moment they are in the presence of dozens if not hundreds of people who are quite able to see their every move. And as you say, given that fact, what can it possibly matter that a TV camera can also see them?
They don't realize it but their objections and position is completely absurd!
No for that there is that show called "Cheaters" where this guy and his camera crew follow and film ppl in the act. Then they show it to their partners. Then they with the partner and camera crew confront the cheaters. I used to quite enjoy the looks on the ppls faces as they were
running trying to get away fromt the camera lolol ( I dont get the show anymore)
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
CCTV is useful, no doubt about it.
but Total Information Awareness is another thing.
Could the government,if given the power to do so by say another Patriot Act (v2.0) call up all the records of those that oppose them and then exploit it ?
Could they use CCTV to keep a watch on you to ensure you don't do what you should ? say report a crime done by a government official ? If there is no way they can use CCTV and TIA for vendettas against certain groups or individuals, then its good to have TIA.
CCTV however is useful in solving crimes.
but Total Information Awareness is another thing.
Could the government,if given the power to do so by say another Patriot Act (v2.0) call up all the records of those that oppose them and then exploit it ?
Could they use CCTV to keep a watch on you to ensure you don't do what you should ? say report a crime done by a government official ? If there is no way they can use CCTV and TIA for vendettas against certain groups or individuals, then its good to have TIA.
CCTV however is useful in solving crimes.
Any type of technology, all the way back to the original clubs, spears and knives use for hunting have had the potential to be abused. So is with modern forms as well. BUT the opportunities for such abuse in CCTV systems would be so low as to be negligible compared to the benefits of identifying and catching the bad guys.
Personally, I'd think the odds of the system being used against YOU (anyone) as an individual are much, much less than being struck by lightning. And probably also far less than being attacked by someone the system might help catch.
nuh uh
i rather you dust of yer brain
y'know bring it out of mothballs and whatnot
snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good snide is good
Remember when the UK police shot an unarmed guy 11 times, and all four of the CCTVs covering that area happened to be experiencing "techincal difficulties" that prevented them from recording the incident?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/19/listening_post/main788718.shtml
In my opinion we should make sure that all police officers are equipped with small, wireless cameras and microphones that record everything the officer says and does while on duty – and the information should be stored somewhere were the police can’t access it. Once we get that system worked out, maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with CCTVs everywhere.
No, that's not what he said. Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The question, then, is whether you consider being free from having your actions in public recorded to be an "essential" liberty, and/or whether CCTVs provide more than "a little temporary" safety.
Your point is well taken but I think it also needs to be pointed out that the version of the the story you presented here does NOT match what's in that news release. First off, it says he ws shot seven times - not the eleven you state - and there is absolutey no mention of "all four of the CCTVs covering that area happened to be experiencing "techincal difficulties" that prevented them from recording the incident."
In the spirit of fairness, perhaps you can provide another link that tells the story your way?
If you'd do some checking, you'd find that police officers are the most watched, videoed and recorded people in the entire nation!
I still can't grasp what people think they'd do in public, before the eyes of thousands of individuals, that they'd be aghast to have recorded by CCTV? It makes no sense to me.
Baron Max
Here is a link with more details about the CCTV cameras. The UK police claimed that the CCTV tapes that were supposed to have recorded the shooting were blank. The security company that maintains the cameras claims that they were working properly and that they handed the recordings over to the police as evidence:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article558109.ece
Regarding the number of shots fired, apparently I was remembering it slightly wrong; the police fired eleven shots, only seven of which actually struck the poor guy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1556856,00.html
And yet, those recordings sometimes disappear when they might implicate the police in any sort of wrongdoing. The police seem fine with recoding themselves, so long as they get to control who sees the recordings. When someone else (ie, a private citizen) tries to record them, they often completely flip out and arrest the person simply for trying to record them, even if the person wasn’t engaged in any illegal activity.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html
Last edited: