CCTV cameras

[Jack]

Do you feel safer knowing that big brother is watching your every step??

It's neither a feeling of more or less safe. It's not really a matter of disagreement, but an inability to understand the rationale of opposition in a world where the general public use the exact same practices as the government. Of course, the government does have capabilities the general public doesn't, and can completely understand opposition to that because those things can tip into monitoring individuals in their own personal space. My confusion is when it comes to public spaces. 

[Parts]

Do you feel safer knowing that big brother is watching your every step??

It's neither a feeling of more or less safe. It's not really a matter of disagreement, but an inability to understand the rationale of opposition in a world where the general public use the exact same practices as the government. Of course, the government does have capabilities the general public doesn't, and can completely understand opposition to that because those things can tip into monitoring individuals in their own personal space. My confusion is when it comes to public spaces.

That is the key here,  the general public can use these same things but nowhere near to the same level nor are they generally concerned about the peoples politics.  The shear scope of what the government can do with this information because of scale and interactivity is troubling.  In my town there are some cameras but not a lot most are in a park that has had trouble in the past but they are not monitored and overwrite after a week or so they are only checked if something happens so they don't particularly bother me. 

[Jack]

Do you feel safer knowing that big brother is watching your every step??

It's neither a feeling of more or less safe. It's not really a matter of disagreement, but an inability to understand the rationale of opposition in a world where the general public use the exact same practices as the government. Of course, the government does have capabilities the general public doesn't, and can completely understand opposition to that because those things can tip into monitoring individuals in their own personal space. My confusion is when it comes to public spaces.

That is the key here,  the general public can use these same things but nowhere near to the same level nor are they generally concerned about the peoples politics. The shear scope of what the government can do with this information because of scale and interactivity is troubling.  In my town there are some cameras but not a lot most are in a park that has had trouble in the past but they are not monitored and overwrite after a week or so they are only checked if something happens so they don't particularly bother me.

Agreed, that's probably the key, and certain aspects are unsettling simply because it reaches into people's personal property and homes; some of those practices go well beyond the scope of cctv. It's illegal for the general public to monitor people in their own private space, so it's a completely rational argument the government shouldn't be any exception to that. Though oppositional arguments to cctv are generally rather wide sweeping concerning governmental usage while not equal to people's rights to monitor personal spaces. 

['andersom']

Almost two years ago, a dad ran off with his kids The dad was found dead later, suicide, without his kids.

CCTV is in a lot of places here, also over high speed roads to check on cars. Police was not allowed to use that footage to see where the dad had taken the boys.
I do not like those cameras everywhere. But once they are there, I don't get why everything can not be used if the life of young kids is at stake.

Makes no sense.

[Jack]

Almost two years ago, a dad ran off with his kids The dad was found dead later, suicide, without his kids.

CCTV is in a lot of places here, also over high speed roads to check on cars. Police was not allowed to use that footage to see where the dad had taken the boys.
I do not like those cameras everywhere. But once they are there, I don't get why everything can not be used if the life of young kids is at stake.

Makes no sense.

Agreed, makes no sense.

[Parts]

Almost two years ago, a dad ran off with his kids The dad was found dead later, suicide, without his kids.

CCTV is in a lot of places here, also over high speed roads to check on cars. Police was not allowed to use that footage to see where the dad had taken the boys.
I do not like those cameras everywhere. But once they are there, I don't get why everything can not be used if the life of young kids is at stake.

Makes no sense.

Sure that would be great if the government or it's employees didn't have  a record of abusing these sorts of things.  If they have full access they will use it more and more till it becomes the norm and it will be used for increasingly lesser crimes. 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Do you feel safer knowing that big brother is watching your every step??

It's neither a feeling of more or less safe. It's not really a matter of disagreement, but an inability to understand the rationale of opposition in a world where the general public use the exact same practices as the government. Of course, the government does have capabilities the general public doesn't, and can completely understand opposition to that because those things can tip into monitoring individuals in their own personal space. My confusion is when it comes to public spaces.

With the technology that's coming online, the only privacy you will have is in the privacy of a house. The second you step outside, big brother will know about it and record it.

This isn't a world that I want to live in.

[Jack]

With the technology that's coming online, the only privacy you will have is in the privacy of a house. The second you step outside, big brother will know about it and record it.

This isn't a world that I want to live in.

Not certain what technology is being referenced but there's no 'will' to it, and have been living in that world for some time. Can't remember if it was a documentary on satellite technology or some dateline special, but it's been at least a decade since first watching a report demonstrating the accuracy of satellite cameras which zoomed in on the journalist to a level of accuracy and clarity equal to the tv camera directly in front of him. Satellite technology falls outside of the scope of cctv, and tend to believe that level of technology is more likely to be used for intercontinental spying than giving a crap about the average citizen. Though it's illegal for a neighbor to spy over the fence so agree it should also be illegal for them to monitor my private space from the sky; the government should be no exception to that. The ability to tap into any cctv signal is probably also not new. Don't really know of any legalities related to that. A quick search only yields results for how-to's, some claiming it's not illegal, but not sure if that's true because it seems to fall into the realm of hacking. If it's not illegal, open doors like that make it difficult to hold government to standards that don't exist for the public. Could just be rambling though, and not understanding what technology being referenced.

['andersom']

Almost two years ago, a dad ran off with his kids The dad was found dead later, suicide, without his kids.

CCTV is in a lot of places here, also over high speed roads to check on cars. Police was not allowed to use that footage to see where the dad had taken the boys.
I do not like those cameras everywhere. But once they are there, I don't get why everything can not be used if the life of young kids is at stake.

Makes no sense.

Sure that would be great if the government or it's employees didn't have  a record of abusing these sorts of things.  If they have full access they will use it more and more till it becomes the norm and it will be used for increasingly lesser crimes.

It is a slippery thing, I agree. At best not all those cameras were there in the first place. I am not a fan of policies based on fear.

But once they are there, I could imagine that in cases of life threatening stuff, everything can be used. And only in cases of life threatening stuff. With repercussions afterwards if used in the wrong way, and discarding of evidence thus gained.