Big Brother is watching? Do you care?

[William Ashley]

Just read an interesting article outlining the spread of public monitoring. It seems in Major Cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Vancover and Montreal you have them in Taxi's, on the subway, and various places, not to mention every single bank, and often other buildings. Do you care, or is this just part of life, where your online and offline activities in the "public space, whether virtual or real" are fair game for uninhibited monitoring. Where privacy only exists in your dugout under your house where no public light can creep in, for however long it lasts before you run out of that semi private air.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2442416

Are antiprivacy laws proposed and fielded by the conservatives, more of these we don't care if you monitor us fad.

Edited January 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[kimmy]

I have no idea whether surveillance cameras are an effective deterrent to crime.

However, I'm baffled that people think they have a right to privacy while walking down a public street.

-k

[nicky10013]

Just read an interesting article outlining the spread of public monitoring. It seems in Major Cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Vancover and Montreal you have them in Taxi's, on the subway, and various places, not to mention every single bank, and often other buildings. Do you care, or is this just part of life, where your online and offline activities in the "public space, whether virtual or real" are fair game for uninhibited monitoring. Where privacy only exists in your dugout under your house where no public light can creep in, for however long it lasts before you run out of that semi private air.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2442416

Are antiprivacy laws proposed and fielded by the conservatives, more of these we don't care if you monitor us fad.

In Toronto there isn't a bank of people watching each camera on every bus, subwaycar, streetcar etc. It's mainly to go back and catch evidence of a crime and to serve as a deterrent. It's worked. They've solved a few high profile crimes due to security footage. If I'm correct I believe they have a policy of deleting footage like 48 hours or older.

It started as a pilot project with police camera's in the entertainment district. The cameras on the TTC is only a recent thing. I don't really view it as that big of a deal. What's the difference between that and going into a private store that has security cameras?

[GostHacked]

England is a good example of Big Brother taking over.

If you don't want to go down this road, we should learn how the British do it, and then do the opposite.

Kimmy, you are right for the most part. Cameras do not deter crime. They are just there to capture the crime and convict the person who did the crime. It's good for law enforcement, it keeps them busy, but it does not prevent crime at all. The baseball bat under the clerks counter is one of the best deterrents.

There was a huge stink over the use of the cameras in taxis here in Ottawa. The cabbie ends up footing the whole bill to have the camera purchased and installed. For the first while the cameras were not even compatible with the police's systems, which made their initial use completely useless. It only pisses of the cabbie because he is paying for a system the government tells them they must have or face fines, but it did not even work at the start. I used to take many cabs before I got a car. Trust me, there were lots of complaints about them.

The cameras were put in due to an incident where a cabbie was robbed at gunpoint. That simple plexiglass like window between the front and back seats would have prevented this. Not only that rates for cabs in Ottawa went up to cover the cost of these cameras. The customer gets shafted again.

Many cabbies got together to protest.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/12/ot-camera-080212.html

Cameras do not prevent crime. They only document the crime.

[GostHacked]

It started as a pilot project with police camera's in the entertainment district. The cameras on the TTC is only a recent thing. I don't really view it as that big of a deal. What's the difference between that and going into a private store that has security cameras?

The store is a private business/property and has the right to secure their business.

I think there are already too many cameras out there everywhere. How many of you have a cell phone with a camera? How long before that is tapped into and used as a resource to do monitor people? That might be extreme but I can see it eventually happening. That will be the new wiretap, not only audio, but video too!!

[eyeball]

The public clearly doesn't trust me and to counter this I willingly subject myself to surveillance at work all day. Its a condition of my employment. The intent is to keep me honest, its not to protect me from crime but to prevent me from committing it.

I don't really care, but I do think simply saturating society with surveillance cameras is a colossal waste of time. It needs to be focused on specific things and people to be effective - the biggest concern I have is that the sheer amount of data being collected is so great that its unmanageable.

I got used to being recorded very quickly and don't even think about it now unless I'm about to pick my nose or take a leak or something. Even then its a big so-what. I've talked to people who watch these tapes and they've told me that after reviewing even a few hours of recordings they don't even notice people's personal peccadilloes. People are humans too after all it seems.

I subscribe to a trickle down theory of honesty and venality. I can't help but feel that a good amount of crime committed by petty criminals is motivated by a barely subconscious feeling of spite and a sense that more serious crimes are being committed by people who already have everything they need. To many, crime is probably like a form of compensation. Perhaps concentrating and focusing our surveillance near the top of society will cause more honesty and decency to trickle down through the rest instead of the steady stream of venality that seems to be washing down now from on high.

Its the auditing of surveillance and the validation of these audits that are the real key to making surveillance work. I also think Big Brother could set a good example of social responsibility by allowing itself to be the subject of public souveillance. Perhaps if the view from below was as clear and transparent as the view from above, society might feel more relaxed and less paranoid about the issue.

Edited January 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Shady]

Cameras do not prevent crime. They only document the crime.

That's not true. Cameras can also prevent crime, as well as document it.

[GostHacked]

That's not true. Cameras can also prevent crime, as well as document it.

It can act as a deterrent for petty criminals, but it won't stop the determined ones. It does not outright prevent crimes.

[Shady]

It can act as a deterrent for petty criminals, but it won't stop the determined ones. It does not outright prevent crimes.

What's wrong with stopping petty crime, or less-than-determined criminals?

[eyeball]

It can act as a deterrent for petty criminals, but it won't stop the determined ones. It does not outright prevent crimes.

It takes more than just cameras. Data auditing and validation are the key.

If you manage to deter the petty criminals you'll be able to bring more time and resources to bear on the more determined one's.

[Michael Hardner]

That's not true. Cameras can also prevent crime, as well as document it.

That's what I was thinking too. Criminals are generally stupid, so it will take them awhile before they figure out to not commit crimes where there is CCTV.

[eyeball]

That's what I was thinking too. Criminals are generally stupid, so it will take them awhile before they figure out to not commit crimes where there is CCTV.

Imagine how more effective monitoring will be against smart criminals.

And again, CCTV is not the end all and be all of security or surveillance, its merely one tool amongst many that can be employed. There are also many reasons for surveilling different people - building trust for example is probably even more important then simply dispelling mistrust.

Edited January 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't really care, but I do think simply saturating society with surveillance cameras is a colossal waste of time. It needs to be focused on specific things and people to be effective - the biggest concern I have is that the sheer amount of data being collected is so great that its unmanageable.

Its the auditing of surveillance and the validation of these audits that are the real key to making surveillance work.

Good post and this makes me think of how we are in a new age, the age of information overload. so much data is being collected that there is not enough time for anyone to analyze it, and make intelligent decisions about its validity or significance. This is causing some real problems, for example if you are unlucky enough to have the same name as some wanted criminal. But the problem is not a static one, it's expanding geometrically so that in the long run, everyones name ends up on these lists. And it's far far easier to get your name on one, than it is to get your name removed. In some cases people who have tried to exonerate themselves have had no option, other than to change their name!

Case in point-

N.J. Boy, 8, on Terrorism Watch List

demonstrates how absurd and difficult the problem is becoming, for some.

Perhaps concentrating and focusing our surveillance near the top of society will cause more honesty and decency to trickle down through the rest instead of the steady stream of venality that seems to be washing down now from on high.

I think that would be a remarkable achievement. But realistically, its being far too honest and accountable. One never cuts off one's own head.

[eyeball]

I think that would be a remarkable achievement. But realistically, its being far too honest and accountable. One never cuts off one's own head.

I wouldn't expect the existing establishment to ever willingly subject itself to monitoring. The only solution I see at this point is that the establishment or at least the civil/governing side, be replaced by politicians or parties that campaign and govern on a principle of total transparency.

Imagine for example a special interest lobbyist trying to slip something past representatives outfitted like Rob Spence.

We certainly have all the reasons and technology we need for a more top down approach to a more honest society.

Edited January 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Argus]

That's not true. Cameras can also prevent crime, as well as document it.

It could prevent it by catching the ones who do it. I have seen some instancews on TV where monitored CCTV cameras in the UK have directed police to the scenes of crimes to put a stop to assaults and the like.

More importantly, there are TON of such cameras in the UK, and many agencies are working on facial recognition programs to considerable success. When they have those programs operating in conjunction with the cameras it's going to be very hard for a wanted criminal to move around in the daylightin the UK.

[Argus]

The public clearly doesn't trust me and to counter this I willingly subject myself to surveillance at work all day. Its a condition of my employment. The intent is to keep me honest, its not to protect me from crime but to prevent me from committing it.

You're a member of parliament?

[eyeball]

You're a member of parliament?

No, I'm just a ordinary Canadian who can't be trusted to harvest a public resource without rigorous oversight.

I fail to see why the Cabinet ministers or senior bureaucrats responsible for managing or allocating public resources should be regarded as being any more trustworthy. The public has even more at stake given the potential for adverse impacts stemming from decisions made and actions taken at that level.

[cybercoma]

Let me tell you something: if state executions don't deter crime, a camera sure as hell isn't going to deter crime.

[eyeball]

Let me tell you something: if state executions don't deter crime, a camera sure as hell isn't going to deter crime.

No, a camera is just for back up. Preventing crime from occurring in the first place is the better way to go. The best way to do that is to set better examples for society, hence the trickle down theory of decency and honesty.

I also bet a shrinking income gap as a result of less influence peddling and wheeling and dealing near the top of society would do wonders for cultivating a sense of transparency, trustworthiness and individual responsibility throughout the rest of society.

Boy its just a good thing for me this forum isn't hosted in China isn't it?

[kimmy]

Let me tell you something: if state executions don't deter crime, a camera sure as hell isn't going to deter crime.

That's a terribly flawed argument.

First off, one is a form of punishment and the other is a means of crime detection. To argue that the latter won't work because the former doesn't work is just bad logic.

For example: I often jaywalk. I'm habitual. I'm chronic. I just can't stop jaywalking. I believe there might be some sort of fine if I get caught, but I just don't care. I am not deterred by the fine.

However, if there is a police car coming down the road, I don't jaywalk. I go right to the corner and use the crosswalk.

See? It's not the punishment for the jaywalking that prevents this terrible criminal behavior, it's my likelihood of being caught. In most situations I feel highly confident jaywalking without fear of paying a fine, but when my chance of being caught rises dramatically, I obey the law.

Secondly, I'm not actually convinced by the claim that state executions (or other harsh punishment) don't actually deter crime.

I have heard this argument made before in arguments regarding capital punishment. I suspect the claim is made that American states with the death penalty have the same murder rate as states without the death penalty, so the conclusion is that the harsher punishment is not a deterrent.

My disagreement is this: I think that some people are deterred by punishment, and some people are not. I think that the people who would be deterred by the death penalty are probably the same people who would already be deterred by the prospect of spending the rest of their lives in prison. I think that the people who are not deterred by life imprisonment are not deterred by the death penalty either. I think people who are not deterred by the death penalty or by life imprisonment fall into two groups: people who simply don't care what happens to them, and people who believe they will not be caught.

I believe that if you took something that many people do, say jaywalking, and made the punishment for it harsh (instead of a pocket-change fine, you spend a day in jail) and show people that the crime *will* be detected and that the punishment *will* be applied, people will stop doing it. I am extremely confident of that.

-k

[Shady]

Let me tell you something: if state executions don't deter crime, a camera sure as hell isn't going to deter crime.

You're wrong. When I used to work at Staples, the store had a big problem with people stealing printer ink. We always had a camera on the ink wall, but only those of us that worked at the store really knew about it. Customers probably figured, but didn't know forsure. However, when we switched the feed of that security camera to some of the monitors on the monitor wall, ink theft dropped dramatically. People could see themselves on video, and on display on some of the monitors. People could also see that their actions at the ink wall were being broadcast to some of the monitors other people were browsing. It was a very successful deterent.

[cybercoma]

All of your points may very well be true; however, when cameras are put in public and people become comfortable with them around, I believe they will still commit the crimes without thinking about their presence. Hey. Maybe I'm wrong and crime in the UK has dropped significantly since they've been installed. Does anyone have the numbers?

Edited January 17, 2010 by cybercoma