[orokusaki]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. It's OK for the state to have 120 cameras on each street corner watching your every move (see London), but it's not OK to share your Facebook posts?

Disclaimer: I'm very much against any invasion of privacy, and am only being facetious to point out the obvious, which is that people should stand up for their rights when it becomes obvious, not just when it becomes sensational news

[hermaj]

The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned and have no connection to the state.

The 4 million+ cameras in the UK statistic which has been floating around for about 10 years now was extrapolated from two streets in Wandsworth and was only ever really media bait. If you believed all these statistics the number of cameras in the UK would have dropped by more than half (over the past 10 years), since the last large scale estimate was under 2 million.

[orokusaki]

Sure, but what if I place a camera on each side of your property (outside the property line) of your house, pointing to the edge of your property, then use your tax dollars to pay employees to watch you on the cameras every time you leave your property? Would you enjoy that? If not, why would you put up with it? It's your state, not the government's state. The government are your employees, not your owners, so you have to decide which rights you want, not just which rights can still be defended by existing laws.

[hermaj]

I'm not sure if you're serious here. The UK government doesn't own the vast majority of the cameras in the UK which make up this 'huge' number. The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are not connected to a grand network. The majority of cameras are in small shops / stores and are used to provide evidence for shoplifting or other types of theft. It's the owners choice as to whether they are there or not.

The UK government doesn't employ vast numbers of people to watch the live output of the minority of CCTV cameras they do own. The state owned CCTV is almost never used in a proactive sense. You can probably safely commit most crimes in full view of a CCTV camera in the UK. If someone reports you or you leave obvious evidence of the crime the CCTV tapes will be reviewed.

There is a massive difference between the man power requirements of analysing video footage compared to analysis of text.

[octagonal]

There is no right to privacy in public spaces and no expectation thereof either. The only thing those cameras do is replace police officers. Another thing you are also forgetting is that people were aware of those cameras the second they were installed. No secret court bullshit. With personal correspondences on the other hand, people expect the contents of their messages to be entirely private. That secrecy should only be invaded upon within the confines of a morally justifiable law, especially when a foreign agency is doing the invading.

[maxerickson]

I think you mean there is no reasonable legal expectation of privacy on a public street. I certainly expect that you will not follow me around videotaping me.

[maaku]

People can't follow me around and videotape me, even in a public place. That's stalking or harassment.

But somehow if it's online, done by robots (no less creepy), and at the direction of the government, such laws don't apply.

[mrmekon]

I don't know about the EU, but in the U.S. your statement is simply not true. Somebody absolutely can follow you around taking photos or videos, as long as you are in a public space and they can come up with any non-malicious excuse (i.e. it's an art project!).

Stalking laws vary state-to-state, but you generally have to prove it is specifically "for the purpose of harassing and intimidating".

See also: paparazzi

See also: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource...

[claudius]

> I don't know about the EU, but in the U.S. your statement is simply not true.

Ah, I forgot that we are taking US data protection laws into account when an Austrian group files a complaint against an Irish subsidiary.

E.g. in Germany it is forbidden to take photos in public where people who did not agree to it are the main subject – you can still photograph buildings, scenes etc., just not individual people.

[mrmekon]

Very late response: this comment thread was a general discussion about privacy, it wasn't specifically about the article.

And a maaku on HN could easily be this maaku on github from California: https://github.com/maaku

And the 'online robots' and 'direction of the government' almost certainly refer to the recent NSA case, which is an American issue.

So, yes, the US data protection laws do seem relevant to the conversation.

[PedroBatista]

Your are in a public space, people can videotape you the same way they can look at you instead of everyone closing their eyes the moment put your feet on a side-walk.

Just look at all the photos you have taken, how many strangers are in them?

[maxerickson]

Sure, my point is that there is a technical legal argument and then there are social mores. We shouldn't let the legal argument start leading our values.

I invite you to actively start photographing or videotaping some strangers if you think such behavior is entirely within people's expectations.

[hfsktr]

I thought it was linked from HN somewhere but I can't find it. There are several videos from this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym7x7twSoqc

Some of them he is clearly in a school or something, which may not be public. In others he is outside.

I believe this is how you expected people to react?

Edit: found it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739152

[criley2]

It gets murky.

I can sue you for using my likeness depending on how you utilize your footage.

You certainly don't have carte blanche to use images of me you took in public.

[PedroBatista]

That's why i said "videotape" not "videotape and sell/distribute it".

But even if you publish it (in Facebook for example) you are protected by some "fair game" clauses, just as you have the right to request that particular photo to be taken down. Either way nothing is absolute and as you said, it gets murky pretty fast.

[rmc]

I will point out that this complaint against Facebook was filed in Ireland with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, whereas you're talking about a different country, the UK.

[jbooth]

Obviously the Austrian student group who filed this lawsuit are total hypocrites based on what the UK does.

[jbooth]

Guys, that was sarcasm. I wasn't claiming that the Austrian students are responsible for UK CCTV policy.

[kjjw]

I'm sorry but there is a very obvious and clear distinction between these two forms of surveillance. The first monitors public space, the second does not.

To me it is not obvious that "my rights" have been affected by the monitoring of public spaces.

[pyre]

I disagree with the "CCTV everywhere" movement, but I agree that it is preferable to the invasions put forth by the NSA/US Government.

[pilsetnieks]

UK is not representative of the whole EU.

[rmc]

especially when it comes to EU-wide things or EU law. UK often implements the mininum, or opts out of parts (e.g. euro)