We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A cautionary tale After reading Natalie Solent’s article, posted both here and on White Rose called A law-abiding person has nothing to hide?, reader Matt Judson wrote in with a cautionary tale of his own as a case in point.
Check out his close encounter with the reality of CCTV over on White Rose.
CCTV is not your friend.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Duplicating my comment across from White Rose:
I am divided about this ‘Big Brother Is Watching’
debate. I don’t like the loss of privacy that results from being watched, but the cameras have helped catch criminals.
I agree with the point Julian Morrison made. Human eye witness testimony has placed innocent people behind bars. At least with film there is a chance to review it and use it to prove your innocence. This possibility rarely exists with human witnesses.
As for some of the points made on White Rose: caught in adultery, outed as a homosexual, fleeing a violent spouse, etc. I don’t see cameras alone put someone at additional risk for this exposure. The ability to reveal private non-criminal behavior exists *if* clear stipulations about the use of captured images is not made clear.
The biggest problem I have with using cameras is who will be allowed access to the images and under what conditions. If access to the images is not restricted then it does bother me.
Private citizens should not be prevented from having cameras – because they are merely another type of physical-matter property, they aren’t even weapons that might be dangerous to bystanders. People were perfectly capable of being snooping bastards long before fancified technology. Banning cameras is like cutting off people’s ears to prevent them listening at doors. Prior restraint is not libertarian.
Governments should not exist, period. This then neatly solves the problem of their coopting the cameras for evil ends.
Chris Josephon writes: “As for some of the points made on White Rose: caught in adultery, outed as a homosexual, fleeing a violent spouse, etc. I don’t see cameras alone put someone at additional risk for this exposure. ”
They do add to the risk because more people know about what you do. It isn’t just “the state” looking at the cameras but this or that policeman or security guard. Even when they don’t pass it on to their bosses for purposes of semi-blackmail, as my post argues will often happen, they will certainly talk about it to their mates in the pub. Even now there are funny or lewd videos taken from security cameras doing the rounds.
“The ability to reveal private non-criminal behavior exists *if* clear stipulations about the use of captured images is not made clear.”
Clarity in rules is not enough. Once people in power have the information it is awfully tempting to use it. Promises not to do so have been broken before, again and again.
To Julian Morrison: I don’t think anyone here wants to ban private individuals from having security cameras. Also, your statement about how the real solution is no government strikes me as a counsel of perfection. It may well be true, but the option is not currently available.
Re: Julian Morrison’s comments — point taken. For me, the camera cut both ways.
I definitely agree that the garage, a private entity, has the right to use the cameras. If I don’t like their policy, I shouldn’t park at their garage. (I’m taking my chances on the street from now on.)
You may be able to use the tape to prove your innocence, if you have access to the relevant tape, and if the relevant acts were caught on tape.
On the other hand, given the way they were using the camera — keep looking through the tape until you see someone suspicious near the car — the odds that they would settle on someone were fairly high. The cameras are a known witness: if something happens, instead of waiting for a witness to come forward, you go to the cameras and start searching. This greatly increases the odds of finding what you’re looking for; I believe that this also increases the odds of a false identification.
The cameras are a different kind of witness in another way: much more information, much less filtering. With the tape, it’s easier to focus on the 5 seconds of tape before you, and forget the 80 hours of tape you haven’t seen. If a human witness saw me and saw the teenagers, he or she might lead with the teenagers.
Susbtitute “telephones” for “CCTV cameras” – does the argument against still hold up?