Julia wrote:
2001, and everywhere I go on the rail network and the London Underground, there are security cameras "for the protection of our customers and staff".
I guess it depends whether hypothetical member of the public encounters them in the context of 'privacy invasion' or 'protection'. I've exited the London Underground at non-busy stations carrying several thousands of pounds-worth of computer equipment (on business) and been bloody glad of the security cameras on those dark deserted stairwells. Ditto airport car-parks. And I would probably rate myself on the personal privacy end of the spectrum.
It's given me an insight into one of the aspects of TWB that I personally find deeply disturbing - that the population seem to accept what's going on.
I guess the Federation administration just has to persuade the average plus/minus law-abiding citizen that each *particular* usage lies on the protection end of the spectrum...
Tavia
In message 01C0BA16.9E554890.tavia@btinternet.com, Tavia tavia@btinternet.com writes
Julia wrote:
2001, and everywhere I go on the rail network and the London Underground, there are security cameras "for the protection of our customers and staff".
I guess it depends whether hypothetical member of the public encounters them in the context of 'privacy invasion' or 'protection'. I've exited the London Underground at non-busy stations carrying several thousands of pounds-worth of computer equipment (on business) and been bloody glad of the security cameras on those dark deserted stairwells. Ditto airport car-parks. And I would probably rate myself on the personal privacy end of the spectrum.
Don't get me wrong, I've been bloody glad of those cameras myself. Especially one night waiting outside Central Station in Belfast for a bus that never came - I made damn sure I was within the field of view of the camera watching for illegally parked cars. I think, on the whole, they do more good than harm in the society I live in. But I do wonder about the way these systems have been accepted without any public discussion (at least, that I've noticed outside the pages of New Scientist) of the potential for abuse.
They *have* been abused in this country, although middle England probably thinks it a jolly good thing that the people who've been followed this way have been under surveillance even though they haven't committed any criminal offence. At least, some parts of middle England did until they found that their concern for the welfare of veal calves in the live export trade made *them* worthy of surveillance.
It's given me an insight into one of the aspects of TWB that I personally find deeply disturbing - that the population seem to accept what's going on.
I guess the Federation administration just has to persuade the average plus/minus law-abiding citizen that each *particular* usage lies on the protection end of the spectrum...
And it seems to be very easy to do. Witness the RIP bill, which I have been known to bang on about... After all, a good law-abiding citizen has no reason to complain about someone reading her personal mail, she'd be quite happy for employees of the post office to steam open her letters and read them before delivering them.
-
Julia Jones -
Tavia