From: Damaged Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:43:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain
Message-ID: <199707152143.RAA22086@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text




-- forwarded message --
Path: wmich-news!gumby!newspump.wustl.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!rutgers!usenet.logical.net!news-out.internetmci.com!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!computer-privacy-request
From: David Alexander <davea@caplin.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain
Date: 14 Jul 1997 16:05:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
Lines: 71
Sender: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Approved: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Message-ID: <comp-privacy11.3.12@cs.uwm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.6
X-Original-Submission-Date: 10 Jul 1997 11:33:18 +0100
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 003, Message 12 of 16
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy
	iQBFAwUBM8oxCjNf3+97dK2NAQF46gF/RZ6tN/V6TQwOCyyAzJeCTngaqMu4IW9h
	Wm81iJFNAWYI59zJGoRVjd+b9u3TefKX
	=im9q
Originator: levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu
Xref: wmich-news comp.society.privacy:424

I read with interest the comments about CCTV cameras that were in the
last 2 mailings. I note that Steve does not live in the UK, and I would
like to present a residents' view of these cameras.

    Privacy International says that in Britain, there are an estimated
    300,000 CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, housing estates,
    car parks, public facilities, phone booths, vending machines,
    buses, trains, taxis, alongside motorways and inside Automatic
    Teller (ATM) Machines. Originally installed to deter burglary,
    assault and car [...] Do we try to protect Democratic freedoms by
    legislating safeguards against the abuse of private data? Must we
    accept that the mightiest individuals and institutions cannot be
    held accountable, and there is no use in trying? Or do we simply
    acquiesce, and accept that privacy is an outdated concept when
    cheap technology makes everyone vulnerable, wolves and lambs
    alike?  The choices are not easy, but in the words of David Brin,
    "asking questions can be a good first step".

Yes, there are many cameras, and more going up all the time. The vast
majority of the population is glad that these cameras are being
introduced. Ordinary crime has been reduced greatly in those areas
(proven fact) where the cameras are in use. We also have a big problem
with Terrorism by the Provisional IRA over here, and the same cameras
have been instrumental in the foiling of numerous terrorist operations
and capture of those responsible for others (we have had 3 bombs
detonated in England larger than the one at Oklahoma in the last 3
years).

A very popular and effective program on UK TV is called 'Crimewatch'
where video footage, from these cameras, of crimes and suspects is
shown not for sensationalism and ratings but in order to ask for help
identifying the perpetrators.  It is very effective and crimes featured
have a very high clear-up rate.

    One of the instruments needed to thwart such surveillence is the
    adoption of 'masks' which are socially acceptable for public use.
    Ideally they should all look alike, sort of something out of The
    Prisoner. Once a certain threshold of adoption has been passed the
    only option for law enforcement will be to remove the offending
    devices or declare maks illegal for public use (a real stretch for
    civil liberties).

Yeah, right, get real. The only reason you might want to avoid being
identified is if you have something to hide. Wearing a mask is only
going to draw attention to you, and if you think everyone is suddenly
going to start wearing masks...like I said in paragarph one, most
people over here welcome the cameras.

Please don't misinterpret my motives. I would be the first to celebrate
if no threat to privacy existed. Unfortunately there are immoral,
irresponsible and downright antisocial (not to mention the
psychologically unsound) people who will not abide by the law, or to
what we regard as social norms and persist in infringing our rights.
As long as those people exist, and no better way of deterring and
tracking them down after the (often tragic) offence has been committed,
then we need such laws and technology.

I would feel very ashamed if my attempts to protect my rights caused
the death of innocent people because security against those who are
irresponsible had to be drastically cut back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Alexander    AIX Support Professional V3 & V4, SP Certified
Technical Manager
Caplin Cybernetics Corporation           E-mail: davea@caplin.com
Windmill Business Village                Tel:        01932 778172 
Brooklands Close, Sunbury-on-Thames      Fax:        01932 779606
Middlesex  TW16 7DY, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-- end of forwarded message --