Camera Time: How London Will Change the Privacy Debate

British police appear to have made some major breaks in the case, thanks largely to surveillance cameras:

The four men arrived together at the King's Cross station and were seen together on closed-circuit television only 20 minutes before the subway explosions, the police said.

As has been widely noted, London's Underground has thousands of such cameras.  New York by contrast has bubkas, cameras at just 17 subway stops.

As a subway rider myself, I know which I'd prefer to have:  plenty of cameras, watching every move of mine and everybody elses.  I have to imagine other people feel similarly. Which is why I'm guessing that concerns like this aren't going to be resonating much nowdays. And in my opinion that's a good thing. *

* Yes, of course  there should be policies guarding against abuse--just create them along with the thousand of thousands installed cameras please.

P.S. This is the kind of paranoid pointelss freaking that  I'm guessing won't have much traction nowadays.

Comments

[Cal]

I'm sure you're right that privacy concerns won't have much traction with the public. Most people don't seem to care very much about their freedoms, and maybe on this issue some security is worth a little liberty.

But why is the Democracy Now link "pointless paranoid freaking?" She's talking about using modern surveillance tools to more effectively bust unions. I don't see why that concern should be dismissed out of hand, even if the majority is untroubled by it.

[Ben]

Your proposal doesn't go far enough. Cameras in public places will generally be useful only after a terrorist attack has occurred, in carrying out the investigation. In order to stop attacks before they happen, cameras should be required in every home and place of employment in the country, along with audio monitoring devices which can use computerized speech recognition to alert authorities to any "flagged" words which come up in conversations. Only people who have something to hide will worry about this.

Also, since terrorists are adept at disguising themselves and thus thwarting mere camera surveillance, microchips need to be implanted in all adults, children, newborns, and pets --whether that person (or pet) is already a citizen or resident, or even merely here for a short visit. That way we will know who is on the subways -- or, well, just about anywhere-- at any given time.

The above suggestions amount to a small price to pay to protect the freedoms that we don't really care about.

[orwellian]

For some the prospect of increased surveillance is a good thing, for others it hasn't been working for years.

For those of you who are unaware, London has had CCTV cameras for many many years (remember the IRA?). London has had increased security at airports, train stations and subway stations since 2001. London, as well as the rest of the UK have already had 'Anti-terrorism' laws passed in the wake of a previous 'attack'. London also holds citizens without charge or trial for an indefinate period. The UK was also part of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, both touted as 'safehavens' for terrorists.

All of the above, all of the lives lost, all of the lies told, all of the desperately needed money spent and yet once again, one of the most powerful countries in the world was caught 'off guard'.

Think LOGICALLY.