Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain

-- forwarded message --
Path: wmich-news!gumby!newspump.wustl.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!rutgers!usenet.logical.net!news-out.internetmci.com!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!computer-privacy-request
From: David Alexander <davea@caplin.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain
Date: 14 Jul 1997 16:05:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
Lines: 71
Sender: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Approved: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Message-ID: <comp-privacy11.3.12@cs.uwm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.6
X-Original-Submission-Date: 10 Jul 1997 11:33:18 +0100
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 003, Message 12 of 16
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy
	iQBFAwUBM8oxCjNf3+97dK2NAQF46gF/RZ6tN/V6TQwOCyyAzJeCTngaqMu4IW9h
	Wm81iJFNAWYI59zJGoRVjd+b9u3TefKX
	=im9q
Originator: levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu
Xref: wmich-news comp.society.privacy:424

I read with interest the comments about CCTV cameras that were in the
last 2 mailings. I note that Steve does not live in the UK, and I would
like to present a residents' view of these cameras.

    Privacy International says that in Britain, there are an estimated
    300,000 CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, housing estates,
    car parks, public facilities, phone booths, vending machines,
    buses, trains, taxis, alongside motorways and inside Automatic
    Teller (ATM) Machines. Originally installed to deter burglary,
    assault and car [...] Do we try to protect Democratic freedoms by
    legislating safeguards against the abuse of private data? Must we
    accept that the mightiest individuals and institutions cannot be
    held accountable, and there is no use in trying? Or do we simply
    acquiesce, and accept that privacy is an outdated concept when
    cheap technology makes everyone vulnerable, wolves and lambs
    alike?  The choices are not easy, but in the words of David Brin,
    "asking questions can be a good first step".

Yes, there are many cameras, and more going up all the time. The vast
majority of the population is glad that these cameras are being
introduced. Ordinary crime has been reduced greatly in those areas
(proven fact) where the cameras are in use. We also have a big problem
with Terrorism by the Provisional IRA over here, and the same cameras
have been instrumental in the foiling of numerous terrorist operations
and capture of those responsible for others (we have had 3 bombs
detonated in England larger than the one at Oklahoma in the last 3
years).

A very popular and effective program on UK TV is called 'Crimewatch'
where video footage, from these cameras, of crimes and suspects is
shown not for sensationalism and ratings but in order to ask for help
identifying the perpetrators.  It is very effective and crimes featured
have a very high clear-up rate.

    One of the instruments needed to thwart such surveillence is the
    adoption of 'masks' which are socially acceptable for public use.
    Ideally they should all look alike, sort of something out of The
    Prisoner. Once a certain threshold of adoption has been passed the
    only option for law enforcement will be to remove the offending
    devices or declare maks illegal for public use (a real stretch for
    civil liberties).

Yeah, right, get real. The only reason you might want to avoid being
identified is if you have something to hide. Wearing a mask is only
going to draw attention to you, and if you think everyone is suddenly
going to start wearing masks...like I said in paragarph one, most
people over here welcome the cameras.

Please don't misinterpret my motives. I would be the first to celebrate
if no threat to privacy existed. Unfortunately there are immoral,
irresponsible and downright antisocial (not to mention the
psychologically unsound) people who will not abide by the law, or to
what we regard as social norms and persist in infringing our rights.
As long as those people exist, and no better way of deterring and
tracking them down after the (often tragic) offence has been committed,
then we need such laws and technology.

I would feel very ashamed if my attempts to protect my rights caused
the death of innocent people because security against those who are
irresponsible had to be drastically cut back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Alexander    AIX Support Professional V3 & V4, SP Certified
Technical Manager
Caplin Cybernetics Corporation           E-mail: davea@caplin.com
Windmill Business Village                Tel:        01932 778172 
Brooklands Close, Sunbury-on-Thames      Fax:        01932 779606
Middlesex  TW16 7DY, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-- end of forwarded message --

>     only option for law enforcement will be to remove the offending
>     devices or declare maks illegal for public use (a real stretch for
>     civil liberties).
> 
> Yeah, right, get real. The only reason you might want to avoid being
> identified is if you have something to hide. 

And surely the only reason anyone would want to encrypt anything was if 
they had something to hide.

I regularly walk very close to shop fronts in the towns near me so I stay 
out of the field of vision of the CCTV cameras, arrest me now, I must be 
dangerous....

> Wearing a mask is only
> going to draw attention to you, and if you think everyone is suddenly
> going to start wearing masks...like I said in paragarph one, most
> people over here welcome the cameras.

I think if enough people wore suitable hats it would make it more 
difficult for individuals to be identified on CCTV tapes.

> Please don't misinterpret my motives. I would be the first to celebrate
> if no threat to privacy existed. Unfortunately there are immoral,
> irresponsible and downright antisocial (not to mention the
> psychologically unsound) people who will not abide by the law, or to
> what we regard as social norms and persist in infringing our rights.

Define law, and define social norms and why they should be adhered to. On 
second thoughts, don`t even bother, just think it over for yourself, I am 
uninterested in your perspective.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

At 5:43 PM -0400 7/15/97, Damaged Justice wrote:
>-- forwarded message --
>From: David Alexander <davea@caplin.demon.co.uk>
>
>    Privacy International says that in Britain, there are an estimated
>    300,000 CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, housing estates,
>    car parks, public facilities, phone booths, vending machines,
>    buses, trains, taxis, alongside motorways and inside Automatic
>    Teller (ATM) Machines. Originally installed to deter burglary,
>    assault and car [...] Do we try to protect Democratic freedoms by
>    legislating safeguards against the abuse of private data? Must we
>    accept that the mightiest individuals and institutions cannot be
>    held accountable, and there is no use in trying? Or do we simply
>    acquiesce, and accept that privacy is an outdated concept when
>    cheap technology makes everyone vulnerable, wolves and lambs
>    alike?  The choices are not easy, but in the words of David Brin,
>    "asking questions can be a good first step".
>
>Yes, there are many cameras, and more going up all the time. The vast
>majority of the population is glad that these cameras are being
>introduced. Ordinary crime has been reduced greatly in those areas
>(proven fact) where the cameras are in use. We also have a big problem
>with Terrorism by the Provisional IRA over here, and the same cameras
>have been instrumental in the foiling of numerous terrorist operations
>and capture of those responsible for others (we have had 3 bombs
>detonated in England larger than the one at Oklahoma in the last 3
>years).

Yes, well initial reaction to such Big Brother measures are often greeted,
initially, by the sheeple as in their best interest.

As for the IRA, although I am not a UK resident I did live there for some
time, I think most of the violence is a result of mean intentioned English
policies in the later part of the 19th and early 20th century.  I doubt the
surveillence can put an end to terrorism without doing away with much of
the English population's privacy.

>
>A very popular and effective program on UK TV is called 'Crimewatch'
>where video footage, from these cameras, of crimes and suspects is
>shown not for sensationalism and ratings but in order to ask for help
>identifying the perpetrators.  It is very effective and crimes featured
>have a very high clear-up rate.
>
>    One of the instruments needed to thwart such surveillence is the
>    adoption of 'masks' which are socially acceptable for public use.
>    Ideally they should all look alike, sort of something out of The
>    Prisoner. Once a certain threshold of adoption has been passed the
>    only option for law enforcement will be to remove the offending
>    devices or declare maks illegal for public use (a real stretch for
>    civil liberties).
>
>Yeah, right, get real. The only reason you might want to avoid being
>identified is if you have something to hide. Wearing a mask is only
>going to draw attention to you, and if you think everyone is suddenly
>going to start wearing masks...like I said in paragarph one, most
>people over here welcome the cameras.

Youth is always looking for a way to make a statement or stand out in the
crowd.  This could be an effective means to both poke the surveillence
state in the eye and be noticed.

>
>Please don't misinterpret my motives. I would be the first to celebrate
>if no threat to privacy existed. Unfortunately there are immoral,
>irresponsible and downright antisocial (not to mention the
>psychologically unsound) people who will not abide by the law, or to
>what we regard as social norms and persist in infringing our rights.
>As long as those people exist, and no better way of deterring and
>tracking them down after the (often tragic) offence has been committed,
>then we need such laws and technology.

That's what personal firearms are for...

Its no coincedence that the incedence of 'hot' bugluries (that is one's in
which the owner is in residence during the incident) are about 60% for the
UK and 15% for the US.  Sentenced US criminals are much more careful in
'casing' a residence and, unlike their UK counterparts, rarely enter in the
evening when they are much more likely to get shot.

>
>I would feel very ashamed if my attempts to protect my rights caused
>the death of innocent people because security against those who are
>irresponsible had to be drastically cut back.

I wouldn't.  Its the state's duty to protect my liberties and if they can't
or won't the obligation falls on me.

The product of liberty and security is a constant.


--Steve

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03102805aff1c360c471@[10.0.2.15]>, on 07/15/97 
   at 05:43 PM, Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com> said:

>As for the IRA, although I am not a UK resident I did live there for some
>time, I think most of the violence is a result of mean intentioned
>English policies in the later part of the 19th and early 20th century.  I
>doubt the surveillence can put an end to terrorism without doing away
>with much of the English population's privacy.

There is a simple solution to the IRA problem: The English need to get the
fuck out of Ireland!!!

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM8wd/o9Co1n+aLhhAQGi0QP/d/b17dIGAAoR+XyvGCILV1ijD1g1qJZ0
cGo5pKmmzMlo+MPry4YqU5U+hz1pDRJd29QNC5dqthaDbYglurnnGSQ5C5Mg/abo
W6USVQanU3ICWI/MHjsJ0KBIkQpBBoUYzPkvUJzpaWGLqoFw8ab7z2JWdSi08Nfw
zY3XRhxZJxo=
=tLSg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 05:43:59PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
[.deleted.]
> 
> I wouldn't.  Its the state's duty to protect my liberties and if they can't
> or won't the obligation falls on me.
>
> The product of liberty and security is a constant.

This is obviously false.  Zero liberty and zero security is a quite
possible situation (laying strapped to the table, waiting for your 
lethal injection, for example), as is some liberty and some security (the 
normal situation).

Of course, in this context "liberty" is a religious word, with little 
semantic content.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 05:43:59PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> [.deleted.]
> > I wouldn't.  Its the state's duty to protect my liberties and if they can't
> > or won't the obligation falls on me.
> > The product of liberty and security is a constant.
> This is obviously false.  Zero liberty and zero security is a quite
> possible situation (laying strapped to the table, waiting for your 
> lethal injection, for example), as is some liberty and some security (the 
> normal situation).

	I would say that in the above situation, one is rather well 
secured...


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

>>>Rick Morbey <rmorbey@morbey.com>, wrote:
>>Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>, wrote:
>David.K.Leucht.1@gsfc.nasa.gov, wrote:
>>>Privacy International says that in Britain, there are an estimated
300,000 CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, housing estates, car
parks, public facilities, phone booths, vending machines, buses,
trains, taxis, alongside motorways and inside Automatic Teller (ATM)
Machines. Originally installed to deter burglary, assault and car
theft, in practice most camera systems have been used to combat
'anti-social behavior'. including many such minor offenses as
littering, urinating in public, traffic violations, obstruction,
drunkenness, and evading meters in town parking lots. They have also
been widely used to intervene in other 'undesirable' behavior such as
underage smoking and a variety of public order transgressions. Other
innovative uses are constantly being discovered.

>>>These 'military-style' cameras are often installed in high-rent
commercial areas. Crime statistics rarely reflect that crime may merely
be pushed from these high value commercial areas into low rent
residential areas. Richard Thomas, Acting Deputy Chief Constable for
Gwent, in his interview with 20/20, said "Certainly the crime goes
somewhere. I don't believe that just because you've got cameras in a
city center that everyone says 'Oh well, we're going to give up crime
and get a job".

>>>In one survey commissioned by the UK Home Office a large proportion of
respondents expressed concern about several key aspects of visual
surveillance, says Privacy International. More than fifty per cent of
people felt neither government nor private security firms should be
allowed to make decisions to allow the installation of CCTV in public
places. Seventy-two per cent agreed "these cameras could easily be
abused and used by the wrong people". Thirty-nine per cent felt that>people
who are in control of these systems could not be "completely
trusted to use them only for the public good". Thirty-seven per cent
felt that "in the future, cameras will be used by the government to
control people". They already have. British CCTV surveillance systems
were used by the Chinese government at Tienamen Square to suppress the
student Democracy movement.

>>>The fact is that FastGate and CCTV surveillance systems represent the
tip of the technological iceberg. It is already far too late to prevent
the invasion of surveillance and database systems which are getting
faster, smarter, and cheaper every year. Innovation and miniaturization
have created systems which can take pictures through the walls of your
building and record every sound you make with satellites and blast the
information to the other side of the world in a millisecond.  Computers
may already hold the financial, educational, medical and DNA records of
each and every one of us. If not, they soon will. Strangers may already
be collecting information on our whereabouts and cruising through our
most personal information with impunity. We may have already created a
world in which nothing is private.

>>>Do we try to protect Democratic freedoms by legislating safeguards
against the abuse of private data? Must we accept that the mightiest
individuals and institutions cannot be held accountable, and there is
no use in trying? Or do we simply acquiesce, and accept that privacy is
an outdated concept when cheap technology makes everyone vulnerable,
wolves and lambs alike? The choices are not easy, but in the words of
David Brin, "asking questions can be a good first step".

>>One of the possible instruments needed to thwart such surveillence is the
>>adoption of 'masks' which are socially acceptable for public use. Ideally
>>they should all look alike, sort of something out of The Prisoner. Once a
>>certain threshold of adoption has been passed the only option for law
>>enforcement will be to remove the offending devices or declare maks
>>illegal for public use (a real stretch for civil liberties).

>I was living in Malaysia at the end of the 70's. I was told by locals,
>that people were prohibited, by law, from wearing motorcycle helmets (or
>similar headgear) which had tinted facemasks. The rational was that a
>significant number of bank robbers had worn the helmets to obscure their
>faces from cameras and eye-witnesses at the time of their robberies.

It is true that many countries and many US states (e.g., California)
prohibit certain forms of dress.  The logic seems to be that the state has
a more significant interest in public safety than citizens do in their
apparel.  It is noteworthy that, in the US, the wearing of masks is
tolerated during Halloween.  Also, Moslem woman aren't forced to disrobe or
uncover their heads.  I'm confident that if a new-age religeous sect took
to wearing masks it would be difficult for law enforcement, at least in the
US, to overcome.

--Steve