Are Cctv's Invading People's Privacy?

Courtesy of wikipidea




My debate

I have recently seen alot of CCTV'S been put up in my area of where I live. From what I know yes, crime and theft and stabbing has increased from the time which I have lived in the area, but my question is; since the CCTV's have been put up, there hasn't been any reports confirming that there has been less crime/theft and so on but instead it has taken most people's privacy when in their own house's because some CCTV's on a block of flats which maybe pointing in a direction that it face's the people's flats and can be easily motorised elsewhere such as the streets.

I wanted to see if anyone else agrees with me that the goverment are taken people's tax's and are wasting it on system that may not help. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that CCTV's are a bad thing, but the money that has been invested to be put up and controlled by operators is useless in my opinion.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Well, i certainly do think it is an invasion of privacy, but living in a country area, am not greatly effected by it where i live.
they suposedly do greately decrease the amount of crime in some areas. I think, that if they ork, then it is fine that they are there, watching, but, i think the people running them should not use wireless technology, but only secure cables carrying encrypted data, as it would not be good for someone to intercept the data and use it.
Second, i think, that recordings should only be kept for a week or someth9ing, i know they can be used much later than that, but its not nice to think, that anything you do on the street, is going to sit in an office for years on end.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I can see the positives in both sides of this debate, and I am probably going to find it hard to choose a side, so please forgive me if I wander from one side of the argument to the other like a drunken monkey.

One concern that I have is when CCTV technology is matched with facial recognition software, so that not only are you recorded, but you are also possibly identified. This could be an even greater invasion of privacy. In fact, the UK organization Liberty has released a 137 page report in PDF format called Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain which was published in 2007. This report looks at To quote from their website....


We have some issues with surveillance and privacy here in New Zealand, but I haven't come across facial recognition being used in public (yet). I work in a situation where we depend on the information obtained by some of these surveillance systems, so I have an appreciation of what can be achieved with them. Big Brother is really watching you!

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

i don't think they are. i mean there are only cctv cameras in public places really i mean there not in your house or something. they only record in places where other people can see you anyways so how is it invading peoples privacy. but i do think there anoying i mean someones watching you all the time but its still no invading your privacy its just anoying lol.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Yes, but many are put up in locations where they can see into private homes and offices. There have, in fact, been one or two cases where a CCTV operator has been prosecuted for spying into certain rather personal aspects of people's lives. The problem is that no-one is really watching the CCTV operators. And if someone was watching them, who would watch those people. It is the "Who watches the watchers?" scenario.



Other people may watch me in the street, but they don't use directional microphones to pick up my conversations or facial recognition software to track me throughout the day.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Okay, here's the issue with the CCTV's...It is a two sided sword.

On one hand, it helps out because it cuts down on crime, or although reactively, rather than proactively.

Reactively = solving issues after they occur. Things such as wrecks, murders, etc. fall under this.
Proactively = before they occur. This is things such as drug raids, bombs, etc.

So it is only half-efficient. Some may argue that it's good enough to warrant being put into effect, which is okay.

But on the other side we have the fact that it is the 'step in the door' trick. First they will be used for general purposes, like streets, main building areas, etc. After time, they will end up pushing it farther, to things such as restrooms, with the argument that "It helps because people now hide in the restroom!" After this, it will transition into more private places, like actual stalls, with the same argument.

So it really boils down to the question of "What are they planning on doing with this in the future?" rather than "What do they want to do right now?"

Because of this, I'm against it. Our privacy even in our houses is getting near the point of extinction.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)