Big Brother in Britain

Dear Evie

As a Brit member ...

I posted several months ago an article that suggested that (from memory) we were en-camera something like 130+ times every day. Your linked article suggests this has now risen to 300 times per day in high-profile areas.

How do Brits feel? I don't know - I personally got used to the idea when it was 10 times a day, whether it be from a store or bank camera, a building-surround camera, a traffic camera - or let's face it, the satellite camera in the sky which can focus to within 3ft (1 metre) of the chosen subject. I think I said at the time that personal things like dressing rooms in department stores (to prevent pilfering) are the least acceptable.

Of course, "button-hole" cameras are freely on sale, so one can only be aware that cameras exist - and whether potentially everywhere, or actually everywhere, the knowledge effect is the same. Enforcing any legal rights will have little effect IMO.

In anti-criminal terms, the cameras show, rather than prevent, what is happening (assuming they are being viewed in real-time and many are not) and, acknowledging the deterrent argument, the question to me is the cost / benefit paradox in terms of public tax money, i.e. is there a police car or ambulance available when a crime is committed, or is there a shortage because all of the resources were diverted to cameras, but without the cameras...

I guess cameras ain't gonna go away - there are likely to be more rather than less in the future whether we like it or not.

Regards
Mo

The goal is to find drivers who don't stop, and/or run red lights. They are now being modified to include 'gun shot' detectors. Again, computer monitored with alerts passed to the police.

It does sound OK to me. I particularly like the computer aspect although the civil liberties types will eventually complain and/or sue. If the programmimg can be improved to spot additional troubling situations, I think it would go a long way to make things more cost effective.

Using cameras on nannies, IMO, is a great thing to do. The need for protection is obvious, and the nanny or babysitter should not expect privacy. I remember trying to help a neighborhood girl from a very troubled family by letting her babysit. After the first attempt, my daughter seemed to be upset by the girl. We don't know if anything happened, but there were no additional babysitting jobs for the girl.

Hi, Evie -- you saved me the post!

Those who think "it can't happen here," remember that the SCOTUS has ruled there's "no expectation of privacy" in a public area

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I feel a great deal safer with the cameras.
This guy summed it up nicely at the end of the link:
"I don't see a problem with the cameras," Codrington says. "If you're not breaking the law, then you have nothing to hide, right?"
Yep! I agree with that.

Hi Evie;

They use these cameras quite extensively along the border in Canada also. Long before 911 back in the 70's I used to cross the border out of VT. At the border they asked where you were going and you had better take the right roads to get there, or the border partrol would show up along the way and guide you. They called it the eye in the sky.

The security up there is real tight now. More so coming back into the US

George