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

[Larry/Spamhaus <lr () spamhaus org>]

At 06:31 PM 2/20/06 -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >>"if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"
>
> I've heard some talk about putting cameras in private places, but that's a
> straw man. The real question is about cameras in public places.
>
> 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.

Please be careful with the use of an absolute like "nobody".  Some may 
rather not live in a police state.

There's a difference between a human's ability and memory and an archive of 
30fps video.

> What interest is threatened, what right violated? I just don't get it.

With my friendly ties to LE, I've managed to arrange for policemen to be 
stationed outside your home (on a bloody public street) for the next 
several months.  They will be able to keep an eye on your bedroom and 
bathroom windows, and also see what may be on your TV and computer 
screens.  They will be able to make sure it's only you and your family in 
your car as it comes and goes and will log the times just to help make 
sure.  They may even follow it, or attach a GPS tracker to keep you 
safe.  As domestic violence is such a problem, any loud arguments coming 
from inside will also be noted.

> As for criminals going to where the cameras are, there are a few answers: 1)
> this will just show where more cameras are needed; 2) If ordinary
> non-criminals also know where the cameras are they know where they will be
> relatively more safe; 3) police can concentrate more on the uncovered areas.

IF more cameras = more safety ; THEN total camera coverage = total safety.

...I feel so safe knowing that worldwide governments may like and sell this 
"formula" to the populace.

> It's mostly about making the police more effective, but I think there's
> exculpative potential too. A camera can be used to show that a person was
> *not* at a particular place at a particular time. Also, given a choice
> between an individual or police officer's testimony that they saw me at a
> location and an actual video of what happened I'll choose the video.

Oh yes, and I think we'll start taking samples of everyone's DNA too.  You 
know, we just want to protect all the innocent.

:-)p

Sorry, I think this "nobody" will have to disagree.

_______________________________________________
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.