Is it Orwellian? I'll tell you what I think because I can and here I go. I think I don't *care* what a camera sees me do in a public place...it's public! Anything I'm willing to do or say in Times Square is something I don't mind being caught on tape! Why are people concerned about the govmint seeing them go about their shopping? It's just a computer watching anyway.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
I'm with you on that. They say that here in the UK, every time you go out in public, you're recorded 300 times on camera. As for me, I couldn't care less if I'm seen on camera.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It does not matter in public. It eases the burden of having the neighbors snitching and getting the money from crime stoppers. Plus, if you aren't committing any crimes you shouldn't have to worry.
The Nazi's had informants and we have cameras, what's the big deal?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Aren't most of those tapes reviewed when there is a chance that they caught a crime in action? Like if there is a robery, they check the tape/ photos from that area to see if it was caught. Right?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
In New York City, I would say that most cameras aren't even owned by the city government. They're owned by private businesses.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by OverRon: I'm with you on that. They say that here in the UK, every time you go out in public, you're recorded 300 times on camera. As for me, I couldn't care less if I'm seen on camera.
They have software now that employs face-recognition technology. It can't do a 1 for 1 match but can easily round you down to 10 likely people. I was watching a Discovery Channel doco on Casinos the other night - and they showed the security woman at work. She suspected someone - ran the screen cap through the database and then presto - 10 'likely' people - and she just picked the one that matched the cam grab the closest. It was someone she had a hunch that had - I guess tried cheating at the casino.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
If you want to talk about Orwellian standards, what about those CCTV cameras that have speakers so the people at the controls can give verbal warnings?
Telling someone to pick up the rubbish they just dropped, or informing them that authorities on are on the way if there's been an accident seems like a good enough idea, but disembodied voices coming from camera lenses are still pretty creepy.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I've got no problems as long as we don't live in a country with a police like the Statzi in East Germany - scary stuff they were!
I would like to know who's watching, but if it is some spooky wooky spy crap, I guess telling us would kind of give up the game.
Have you all heard of that ultrasonic noise thingy that emits a whining that you can only hear if you're under 25? That's offensive. The idea is that it drives away the hoodie wearing bastards from hanging around intimidating people, but it is a rather blunt weapon - I can hear it, and I don't loiter outside the off licence drinking White Lightning and swearing at passers by.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I just re-read that. I sound like Alan B'Stard.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
There was a big fuss about the city of Fredericton putting up surveillance cameras in a section of the downtown known as "The Tannery"; its a little square with about a dozen or so bars around it... sound thinking, if you ask me. But there was an uproar. The cameras were put up anyways.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I've got all my security cameras up in the Flameboard.