[nickbarone]

Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing. They're actually a really good thing, because they, theoretically, let you get a lot more security without losing a lot of liberty (instead, you lose privacy).

The problem people have - universally in my limited experience - is with the people and institutions behind the cameras, not the cameras themselves. If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?

[mcantelon]

>Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing.

East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing.

>If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?

Neighbourhood watches aren't centralized and funded to the degree that state surveillance is.

[viraptor]

> East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing.

Street CCTV is not the same as a microphone hidden in your light switch, without you knowing about it. Not nearly the same thing.

[mcantelon]

The ability to eavesdrop through cell phones, even where they're not making calls, is pretty similar (although probably more effective) to the capability of bugging light switches:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html

Street CCTV can augment traditionally eavesdropping intel, tracking movements and, from that, extrapolating relationships and activities.

[viraptor]

I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore, sorry. Passive CCTV is one thing. Massive spying on unrelated civilians is another. Bugging criminals' phones if you have a warrant is yet another. I don't believe any reasonable discussion can take place if you throw every possible reason and means of recording anything into one bucket.

There are different uses and different situations. People can have different opinions about them too. I believe for example that CCTV is exactly as legal as anyone taking a photos / movies of the police for example (and the other way around), while bugging phones by law enforcement needs to be very tightly regulated. But those scenarios should have very little in common.

[mcantelon]

>I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore, sorry.

The thread started with someone positing that panopticons aren't a bad thing, hence the mention of East Germany (a low tech attempt at a state panopticon) and segued to discussion of the modern state's surveillance capabilities in comparison with East Germany.

>I believe for example that CCTV is exactly as legal as anyone taking a photos / movies of the police for example (and the other way around)

They both fall under similar laws, yes, but the big difference between ad-hoc amateur surveillance and centralized, automated surveillance is the capability of realtime analysis of location, association, etc.

[Zigurd]

> Passive CCTV is one thing. Massive spying on unrelated civilians is another.

By that you seem to be implying we don't have both

[krapp]

<paranoid>Within a surveillance society, however, most of the effort involved with the loss of liberty is taken care of by the loss of privacy. Once you can track someone's whereabouts constantly, in realtime, and gain access their communications, know where they've been, where they plan to be, what assets they have, and who their friends are, ending their liberty becomes a minor exercise in telling the black vans where to be and when.</paranoid>

[prodigal_erik]

We must negotiate with nosy, judgmental primates for food and shelter. "Liberty" to ruin my life is meaningless; I can't actually do or say anything sufficiently controversial without privacy.

[skreech]

It seems you don't get security from cameras.

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/san_francisco_s...