[design219]

YouTube - Alien captured on CCTV

A slightly funny video, but I never heard that the UK was the most video surveillanced country with 4 million cameras. The video says in London you are filmed 300 *(times) every day on closed circuit tv.

Wow, I thought surveillance was something paranoids in America worried about, but that looks nuts. Does this not bother you Brits?

[- - e r i k - -]

How to Change the World: OPC (Other People's Cameras)

[turtle777]

Only in Am..., uh, wait, nevermind

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Only in Am..., uh, wait, nevermind

-t

LAWL

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by design219 

. The video says in London you are filmed 300 every day on closed circuit tv.

And here I thought 300 was all CG

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

And here I thought 300 was all CG

Sorry, thats a fail.

[NZFL]

Scary stuff eh? In the UK there are cameras that take a pic of you if you use your mobile phone whilst driving. Only hands free allowed. There are cameras set up just to monitor road tax charges. Cameras for face ID, cameras for number plates, speed cameras, red light (traffic light) cameras, cameras in every shop in every high street which are all connected to the main network, should the police wish to use it. The Guy who introduced CCTV to the UK subsequently made so much money he bought his own country somewhere.
It's anti social and a lazy way to police. Putting a Bobby (Cop) on the street as a member of the community like in the old days, was a respectful way of providing a service. CCTV is Fascist and is an infringement of all privacy laws and civil rights!

[Face Ache]

Never leave home without it.

[moonmonkey]

That policeman was smoking, he should be fired.

[design219]

Haha, we should feel more secure according to the contextual ad I get at the top of this page.

[red rocket]

I hate Big Brother. Can’t believe I’m no longer getting Scrubs because of this garbage.

[design219]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I hate Big Brother. Can’t believe I’m no longer getting Scrubs because of this garbage.

What do you mean? Are you talking about the TV show? If so, why are you not getting it?

[James L]

Originally Posted by NZFL 

Scary stuff eh? In the UK there are cameras that take a pic of you if you use your mobile phone whilst driving. Only hands free allowed. There are cameras set up just to monitor road tax charges. Cameras for face ID, cameras for number plates, speed cameras, red light (traffic light) cameras, cameras in every shop in every high street which are all connected to the main network, should the police wish to use it. The Guy who introduced CCTV to the UK subsequently made so much money he bought his own country somewhere.
It's anti social and a lazy way to police. Putting a Bobby (Cop) on the street as a member of the community like in the old days, was a respectful way of providing a service. CCTV is Fascist and is an infringement of all privacy laws and civil rights!

While I don't disagree that the presence of physical police officers is a great deterrent, how is having your picture taken in public an infringement on your privacy? You can't put yourself in the public eye and have an expectation of privacy at the same time.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by James L 

While I don't disagree that the presence of physical police officers is a great deterrent, how is having your picture taken in public an infringement on your privacy? You can't put yourself in the public eye and have an expectation of privacy at the same time.

There is a very real difference between the potential to be observed, and the certain knowledge that all your movements will be recorded.

[James L]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There is a very real difference between the potential to be observed, and the certain knowledge that all your movements will be recorded.

In virtually every area I have researched it there is no legal expectation of privacy in public places. Regardless of where you are if you are in a public place your actions are open to others. Whether it is recorded or not does not change the fact that you usually do not have an expectation of privacy when out in public.

On a related topic you are already being recorded in private venues all the time... bank machines, banks, stores, gas stations, etc. If you own a home it is easily accessible public knowledge. If you have a criminal record it is easily accessible information.

The debate over widespread use of cameras is a valid one, but it is misleading to say it is an invasion of privacy in my opinion.

[peeb]

I agree the law is not strong enough in this area - but I think that you will agree that there is a practical difference between a lack of strict privacy, and knowledge that every time you go into London you will be recorded hundreds of times.
Privacy laws have not kept up with invasive technology here.

[NZFL]

In the film industry the legalities of using someones image is very strict. A release form needs to be signed by the person(s) or property(s) agent.
I don't believe this is the case with CCTV although it lies in the same field of having ones image used in a commercial outfit. The compnies running CCTV are all private orgainisations who work for a profit, so in theory your image is being used for profit, even if you do not commit a crime they are using your image for many different researches. Very often footage finds itself in the public domain for many reasons and there is serious money involved. Slowly but surely we are loosing all rights to privacy. It is a basic human right to go wherever and whenever one want's without it being anyones business other than oneselves. It's in the Magna Carta, a 800 year old document that established what we recognise as government and common law. These laws stand unchanged to date so this type of monitoring is totally in breech of common law and the right to have privacy.
Below is a film release form.

RELEASE

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby consent to the photographing of myself and the recording of my voice and the use of these photographs and/or recordings singularly or in conjunction with other photographs and/or recordings for advertising, publicity, commercial or other business purposes. I understand that the term "photograph" as used herein encompasses both still photographs and motion picture footage.

I further consent to the reproduction and/or authorization by ___________________to reproduce and use said photographs and recordings of my voice, for use in all domestic and foreign markets. Further, I understand that others, with or without the consent of ________________ may use and/or reproduce such photographs and recordings.

I hereby release _____________________, and any of its associated or affiliated companies, their directors, officers, agents, employees and customers, and appointed advertising agencies, their directors, officers, agents and employees from all claims of every kind on account of such use.

If Model is under 18: I, ____________________, am the parent/legal guardian of the individual named above, I have read this release and approve of its terms.

Print Name: ___________________________

Signature: ___________________________

Date: ________________________

[villalobos]

Them Londoners are amateurs. This is the way to do it.

"The closed-circuit TV cameras will soon be connected to a single, nationwide network, an all-seeing system that will be capable of tracking and identifying anyone who comes within its range — a project driven in part by U.S. technology and investment. Over the next three years, Chinese security executives predict they will install as many as 2 million CCTVs in Shenzhen, which would make it the most watched city in the world. (Security-crazy London boasts only half a million surveillance cameras.)"

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by design219

What do you mean? Are you talking about the TV show? If so, why are you not getting it?

UK tv station E4 used to show two consecutive episodes of ‘Scrubs’ every weekday evening, but have just replaced it with the new series of ‘Big Brother’, as a consequence of which I can now only get one episode of ‘Scrubs’ a week, instead of eleven.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by NZFL

In the film industry the legalities of using someones image is very strict. A release form needs to be signed by the person(s) or property(s) agent.
I don't believe this is the case with CCTV although it lies in the same field of having ones image used in a commercial outfit. The compnies running CCTV are all private orgainisations who work for a profit, so in theory your image is being used for profit, even if you do not commit a crime they are using your image for many different researches. Very often footage finds itself in the public domain for many reasons and there is serious money involved. Slowly but surely we are loosing all rights to privacy. It is a basic human right to go wherever and whenever one want's without it being anyones business other than oneselves. It's in the Magna Carta, a 800 year old document that established what we recognise as government and common law. These laws stand unchanged to date so this type of monitoring is totally in breech of common law and the right to have privacy.

Quite right.

If I walked around the streets with a video camera, filming people without consent, I’d be rightly challenged about it by the subjects, and if a policeman saw me, I would expect to be ordered to cease doing it.

People who are obviously Chinese or Japanese tourists may get away with it to a certain extent, and the situation has been complicated by the ubiquity of mobile phones with cameras, but if I do not want to be filmed by private individuals, at least I can dodge out of view and take further measures if they persist in filming me against my will, but start evading CCTV cameras or try to get your image deleted from the records, and you’ll be treated like a terrorist.

If I’m observed all the time, I’m not free, I’m in prison.

[Tiresias]

People who worry about Big Brother presuppose that they are somehow interesting or important enough to be monitored.

[James L]

I agree the law is not strong enough in this area - but I think that you will agree that there is a practical difference between a lack of strict privacy, and knowledge that every time you go into London you will be recorded hundreds of times.
Privacy laws have not kept up with invasive technology here.

I can definitely see people being concerned with the ethics of widespread camera use... I'm just saying it isn't a privacy issue.

If you walk down the street past people's houses, get on a bus, walk through a park, sit outside on the steps of the town library and eat lunch, etc you are in the public domain. You are putting yourself out there, and therefore usually have no right to privacy.

Personally, I could care less if I am filmed. I am an insignificant citizen in the grand scheme of things. If they want to watch me walk down the sidewalk feel free.

The ethical debate is an interesting though for sure.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by James L 

Personally, I could care less if I am filmed.

Don't you mean, couldn't care less?

[James L]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Don't you mean, couldn't care less?

Sure. That too.

[PaperNotes]

No one is watching surveillance recordings until a crime or suspect is flagged. Everything else goes by unnoticed. Security personnel couldn't give a **** about innocent people unless they happen to have a decent set of boobs and pins.

[Eriamjh]

What are Groucho Marx lookalikes supposed to wear?

[abe]

Originally Posted by design219 

YouTube - Alien captured on CCTV

A slightly funny video, but I never heard that the UK was the most video surveillanced country with 4 million cameras. The video says in London you are filmed 300 *(times) every day on closed circuit tv.

Wow, I thought surveillance was something paranoids in America worried about, but that looks nuts. Does this not bother you Brits?

Britain has no better way of maintaining order and safety. The threats to a free society from without and within are increasing. And with the current attitudes in America we will be forced to employ similar methods before long. A liberal, overly permissive society without any moral self restraint requires the government to take extraordinary measures to do its job of maintaining order and safety.

We all want to have security, safety and order and we all want the freedom of children. Fine. But SOMEONE has to watch out for us and as we make their job of watching out more difficult this is how it will be done. Despite the cost of such systems the cost of gasoline makes surveillance cameras a viable cost saving tool in crime fighting.

[abe]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No one is watching surveillance recordings until a crime or suspect is flagged. Everything else goes by unnoticed. Security personnel couldn't give a **** about innocent people unless they happen to have a decent set of boobs and pins.

Law enforcement relies on catching up with offenders more than catching them in the act.

You can run but you can't hide.

[abe]

Originally Posted by James L 

I can definitely see people being concerned with the ethics of widespread camera use... I'm just saying it isn't a privacy issue.

If you walk down the street past people's houses, get on a bus, walk through a park, sit outside on the steps of the town library and eat lunch, etc you are in the public domain. You are putting yourself out there, and therefore usually have no right to privacy.

Personally, I could care less if I am filmed. I am an insignificant citizen in the grand scheme of things. If they want to watch me walk down the sidewalk feel free.

The ethical debate is an interesting though for sure.

The expectation of privacy is a legal concept which is crucial in the defining of the scope of the applicability of privacy laws.

A subjective expectation of privacy is an opinion of a person that a certain place or situation is private.

An objective, legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy is an expectation of privacy recognized by society and protected by law.

Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person's residence and public places which specifically provided to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[1] or a phone booth.[2]

In general, one cannot have an expectation of privacy in public places, with the exceptions mentioned above. A popular example is denial of privacy for garbage left for collection in a public place.[1]

Expectation of privacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No one is watching surveillance recordings until a crime or suspect is flagged. Everything else goes by unnoticed. Security personnel couldn't give a **** about innocent people unless they happen to have a decent set of boobs and pins.

I wonder why you are so against the government being involved in health care, but so casual in allowing them to track you everywhere you go? Would you consent to being tagged for this purpose, just in case you committed a crime, too?

[Face Ache]

Hats banned from Yorkshire pubs over CCTV fears - Telegraph

Hats banned from Yorkshire pubs over CCTV fears
06/06/2008

Pubs in Yorkshire have been ordered to ban people from wearing flat caps or other hats so troublemakers can be more easily recognised.