[Elvenblader]

After the london bombing attacks, I decided to do a little research into the surveillance of england. And what I found was quite amazing, it seems that there are surveillance cameras all over london and in some places you get photographed some 400 times a days. So my question is do you think government should have the right to spy on a person and invade their personal privacy without that persons consent, for the sake of national security?

This post has been edited by Elvenblader5: 30 July 2005 - 10:10 AM

[Kaezion]

a respectable nation exists to protect its people's rights. if that nation violates its people's rights, then there's really no purpose for its own existence, is there?
the problem lies not with the government, but with the people. the media should be doing all it can to accurately present the danger, not horrify the crowds whenever something like this happens and a week later make them all forget about it with a story of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston's breakup. the media has to rearrange its priorities, while the people who watch it also have got to stay on a constant vigilance - this could be along the lines of reporting suspicious people. the government hasn't got the time, resources, nor the RIGHT to watch suspicious people in every neighborhood in the nation. the people living in that neighborhood are far better suited to know if someone's acting suspicious - for example, someone who's never been seen around suddenly is making many trips in and out, carrying suspicious packages. it's up to the people who live in those parts to report that person. however, the people, for their own sake, should not act on racist whims and persecute people of any certain race or religion that might be associated with terrorists, because this might actually provoke the terrorists further (and it's also just wrong).

[Crescens]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. While your views certainly have merit, the fact remains that for the sake of security, cameras can help. You state that having security cameras everywhere will violate people's privacy, but does it really? Security cameras aren't placed in people's homes; they're placed in public areas. Since I live in the Southern Maryland / DC area, I know very well what a "high crime" area is like, however, the DC Metro has no crime at all because everywhere on it has security cameras all the time (hence why there are no bathrooms whatsoever). True, the monitoring of people itself infringes on a minor right, and allows people to be seen walking innocently past a camera every day on their way to work. However, this minor infringement serves to protect people from much greater infringements that the government would be unable to control without security cameras, such as pickpockets, muggings, or even rapes and murders. Which is more infringing upon rights, the protective security cameras or the crimes they prevent?

What's so invading about security cameras anyway? A friend of mine is a security fanatic, and has about a thousand security cameras by his house; such cameras have become a subject of jokes for me, as I frequently wave or make faces at them. Provided that someone is not doing anything wrong, the fact that a security camera photographs or videotapes them should not be of great concern.

[Kaezion]

hmm... seems like there's been a misunderstanding.
your argument would of course have overshadowed mine, except that i wasn't arguing that surveillance cameras do in fact infringe on privacy (which i believe that they don't). actually, i believe that security cameras should be installed even in areas such as locker rooms - i owe this opinion to a personal experience of mine; once i had left my bag out, seeing as how i couldn't stash it in the small locker, and taking advantage of this, someone had stolen everything valuable in it.
anyways, yes, by a violation of the people's rights, i was referring to something more like the Patriot Act by Bush. i will not pretend that i know much about it, but from what i hear about it, it allows the government to spy on suspicious people by tapping their phones and such. this is the privacy infringement that i argue against.

[Crescens]

The Patriot Act is not nearly what it's propagandized to be. The techniques that it allows law enforcement to use against suspected terrorists are techniques that could already be used against drug dealers and other petty criminals. The Patriot Act also simply allows the intelligence community to share more information between agencies, as that was one of the major problems that culminated in the September 11th attacks. Simply put, it hasn't even really increased a crackdown upon crime, but has simply readjusted our nation's priorities toward more important threats to society.

As for locker rooms ... people expose themselves in those, and that's where I'd personally want to draw the line on cameras. It's one thing to see someone walking by at a train station; it's quite another to videotape someone taking a dump.

[Kaezion]

The Patriot Act is not nearly what it's propagandized to be. The techniques that it allows law enforcement to use against suspected terrorists are techniques that could already be used against drug dealers and other petty criminals. The Patriot Act also simply allows the intelligence community to share more information between agencies, as that was one of the major problems that culminated in the September 11th attacks. Simply put, it hasn't even really increased a crackdown upon crime, but has simply readjusted our nation's priorities toward more important threats to society.

As for locker rooms ... people expose themselves in those, and that's where I'd personally want to draw the line on cameras. It's one thing to see someone walking by at a train station; it's quite another to videotape someone taking a dump.

lmao

well, i hadn't quite addressed that issue. in my school, and in the gym that i go to, the bathroom and the locker room is separated. of course, at the gym, people still do undress in locker rooms. a little controversial, but i don't think it would be much to be surveilled by same-gender personnel (they already have a system like this in the changing rooms in department stores), especially when it ends up preventing a lot of theft.
and also, the tapes from the cameras would not be monitored by people 24/7 - that is, the cameras would not be used in a peepshow-type fasion. only when someone reports something stolen or some kind of crime would the tapes be reviewed. how would this prevent theft? well, some potential thieves, just by the knowledge that the camera is watching, would be too scared to steal.

and i didn't quite know that about the Patriot Act. i should brush up on my facts before i post
i still dislike Bush.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 02 August 2005 - 05:47 AM