Re: "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

["David Lodge" <dave () cirt net>]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:31:33 -0000, Larry Seltzer <larry () larryseltzer com>  
wrote:
> > > "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"
> I've never understood what the problem was with cameras in public places,
> taking pictures of public places. I don't even know why anyone would be
> bothered by them. It's a bloody public place, like a street corner,  
> nobody
> has any reasonable expectation of privacy there. Nobody would object to a
> policeman standing there looking at the same area covered by the camera.
> What interest is threatened, what right violated? I just don't get it.

As a person who lives in the most CCTV'd country in the world I've got  
mixed feelings about camera's in public places:
1) They can be useful as a safety feature especially if one is walking  
through a dodgy part of town
2) They can help in the solving of crime

But at the same time there are flaws:
1) Information overload for the observers
2) Poor quality and bad positioning of cameras may mean that the visual  
evidence is not of a quality to use or may even lead to misinterpretation  
(leading to being accused of a crime because it looks like you)
3) Malicious use for non-criminal means (e.g. identifying people going  
into a store for marketing information)
4) Malicious use by bored camera operators to gain jollies (I remember a  
security guard at old place of work regalling us of his times on long  
night shifts when they discovered that they could refocus the security  
cameras on the local prostitute run; c.f. recent stories about people  
using cameras to spy)
5) Ill thought out schemes (such as one London borough's plan to make a  
chav TV, by putting the cameras in the control of the local populace)

But most of the misuses can be mitigated - most cameras are visible and  
come under the Data Protection Act. I can also wear headgear as well  
(unless it gets banned cf the Bluewater shopping centre). The negative  
side is that the shady element of society can use the same measures.

The concerns for privacy mostly follow the latter three of the flaws I  
listed - what gives police, private industry and local residents the right  
to know where I go, which shops I go in and who I meet?

This is where the line in the subject falls down - I may be doing  
something not illegal, or even morally wrong that I do not wish police,  
private industry or the community to know about.

The final stage is of course the linking of technologies together and that  
is scary - that a private company can match up CCTV footage with my credit  
and address details.

Another major problem I have with this and similar 'security' measures  
(e.g. copy protection) is that they cause more problems for the average  
individual, while just slightly delaying the criminal elements: they move  
to new locations to perform criminal acts.

dave
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.