which would you rather have?

hehe, Merlin

Well, nobody thought that brinking drinks on planes would do harm. But someone tried to make a gel bomb

 

Well, it is well known that my country is dubbed a benevolent dictatorship by an almost single party government with crappy oppositions.


However, ask me and i will tel you i am happy to be in a country where crime rates are low,spitting would cause u to part with some cash and everyone has a roof voer their head...and a decent roof at that! Literacy is close to 100%. Our country is strong economically and socially.

Hence you know what i would choose.

 

Just to re-stimulate debate...

CCTV (and any other security cameras etc etc) -

How does this represent any infringement of freedoms?

 

It depends on how they are used.People are real good at abusing anything they can.

 

But how can they be misused? The only thing I can think of is installing them in inappropriate places (ie: toilets, changing rooms etc) which is (as far as I know) illegal and therefore they will be removed as soon as they are seen/reported.

Other than that...?

 

Politicians looking for more money will find a way.The cameras will be installed for one purpose,then be used conveniently for another.
I think the problems most people have with cameras all over the place is a privacy issue.Even in public.

 

But surely there is no 'privacy issue' if you're in public, because the general public will be watching you anyway. From a law-enforcement viewpoint (which is the official reason for CCTV) the alternative is to simply have actual policemen wandering round watching you.

If you're doing something you don't want anybody to see... why are you doing it in public?

 

It's not just a matter of doing things you don't want anyone to see. It's perfectly possible that you just don't want to be seen, or that you don't want the government to know exactly where you are and what you are doing whenever you go out in public.

This is what privacy is all about. Of course you don't want people watching you while you're in the shower, but does it make you any more comfortable to know you're 'only' being watched while you're having lunch, or while you're meeting with friends?

 

The issue is a complex one. When you go to the store, most if not all of them have security cameras mounted to combat shoplifting or other types of theft; is this wrong? The idea of cameras monitoring public areas is not a bad one, IMHO, since it's not like they are being to used to specifically spy on a particular someone. If someone attacks me in public, the fact that the cameras can alert the police to what's going on might just save my life. And if you're behaving yourself and not causing a disturbance of some kind, then whoe ver is watching the cameras is not going to pay you any attention, so what is the big deal? It's easy to say that the government might use such systems against the people, but the question then becomes why would they do so? Such widespread surveillance would be expensive and difficult to maintain, so why bother?

 

Of course, if you have nothing to hide, there's little chance that anyone might abuse surveillance systems to keep an eye on you. However, I can fully understand that people might feel uncomfortable with the fact that it is technically possible for their every action on a given day to be tracked by cameras, not because they're doing anything they don't want anyone to know but simply out of principle.

Cameras in stores greatly help the police to find shoplifters, to give one example of a benefit of security cameras. However it gets somewhat more unsettling if you realize that you can walk through a store, out onto the street, across the square, walk five blocks up and enter a library (just making up a random scenario here) without ever finding a moment in which you're not being watched by someone's security camera.

Edit: I just realized that this post is an exact recount of my previous one, using different words. I'm not sure if it will make anything any more clear.

 

'Don't want to be seen' is an odd concept for anybody who is out in public...


And do you honestly think that we are in a 1984-type scenario where the government employs millions of people monitoring millions of cameras to track every person's movements? Most cameras are not even government cameras, but owned by shops etc. There would have to be a heck of a lot of co-operation going on to actually allow somebody to track your movements as in your scenario.

 

The politicians in Chicago,Cook County,and Illinois are currently looking for MORE ways to rake in cash.I don't want to give the pricks a new tool to do sn the way to work last night,it was mentioned on the radio how 'King Richie',Chicago's Mayor,wants to install cameras on street cleaning vehicles.This way video evidence is available even if your car is gone when Johnny Law shows up with his ticket book.In some areas of the city,it is simply impossible to move half the cars somewhere else.
As an example of the politicians finding new ways to get your cash,check this out.It is illegal in Chicago to run your car unattended in the winter to warm it up.A common practice worldwide I'm sure.The city says this promotes car theft.If the police catch you involved in this heinous act,you'll get a 75 dollar fine.By now it's probably more.
Like I said,I don't want to give them any more tools to take my money.

 

so......................just dont to anything illegal its not that hard.

 

You probably do something at least once a day that is technically illegal.You just don't realize it.

 

I don't know about the 'common practice' bit, but I agree that it makes a hell of a lot of sense to not leave a running car unattended.

While I sympathise with the problems involved with moving cars (my parents have this problem) there is also the other side of the coin - how much flak does the mayor get when roads are not cleaned? That actually sounds like quite a creative way of using a camera, and much 'fairer' than simply writing down a list of license plate numbers, which you could argue is open to abuse (including or excluding vehicles) or at least to claims of such abuse.

 

Believe me,these days,it's all about money in Illinois.

 

Again, it is not a matter of practice but of principle. Of course you can't not be seen in public. Of course no one controls that hypothetical string of cameras. But wherever you go, there's evidence that you were there, how long you stayed, and where you went afterwards.

 

Which could also be achieved just by asking people who saw you (though with less accuracy). I still can't see how it restricts any freedoms. It doesn't stop you from going where you please when you please and how you please (provided you stay within the law, which you should anyway).

In addition, the information is never released unless a crime happens - which can be a very good thing. Got mugged? We have a picture of your attacker. Need an alibi? We can see where you were and what you did.

And just how long do you think the recordings are kept for?

 

Ultimately I don't believe anyone wants the government constantly looking over your shoulder.
I just remembered this.A Chicago alderman proposed installing cameras in the the down-town Chicago area to record license plate numbers.Why.....so they can send you a bill for $15 for simply driving downtown.Ofcourse this is meant to reduce heavy traffic by deterring one from driving there,not to increase revenue for the city.
As for leaving a running car unattended,there is a remote start option available.You can start your car to warm it up,but it is unable to be driven without having a key.

 

Probably not - though this in itself does not actually limit your freedoms. Besides, as I stated before most surveillance is privately-run.

Sounds like the congestion charge in London. That's been in force for a couple of years now. Controversial when it started, nobody pays it a thought now. It would be interesting to see how well it has worked...

Then I agree that the law should be updated to reflect that.