I have to say, I'm really not against this. I used to read about privacy people getting pissed at all the CCTV surveillance in London, etc. And it concerned me.
But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I agree with this. You can't make laws forbidding photographing a particular building, for example.
That got me thinking, if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in public, why should we forbid our government? In fact, when crimes happen, most of the time these days, video surveillance is a huge help.
If that data were made publicly accessible, would it be a problem that it was being recorded? What are the drawbacks of public surveillance?
>if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in public, why should we forbid our government?
I don't understand this comparison. The very fact that the surveillance is being done by the government changes the meaning of the action. Citizens don't have the power to do anything with the information they might gather through surveillance. Citizens don't have the ability to force all other citizens to pay them more money for funding surveillance programs of ever-increasing scope. Citizens have jobs which exist to serve a real need that exists in the economy, and so realistically wouldn't be doing anything of the same magnitude unless there was popular demand for it.
You're poisoning the well here. There's no evidence that the government is gathering surveillance for any nefarious purpose, or that they're doing it just for the fun of spending your (the taxpayer's) money.
In fact, your argument is somewhat ironic, as it is the same logic used by the police to prevent photographers from photographing in public, as descibed by the OP.
Citizens can't build a case against other citizens based on their photos. They also can't photograph tens of thousands of other citizens, tracking their exact locations and movements over hours and days.
We should forbid our government because they have power, and it ought to be limited.
What exactly are you saying they are doing? Is there any evidence (or even suspicion) that they are doing this? They say that these flights are used for "specific, ongoing investigations".
I think the question is how the character of the surveillance changes when technology allows it to be done at larger scales with longer retention and more data mining. I think this a central question in modern privacy policy. You could argue that since its appropriate for the cops in a patrol car to look around, and cite someone they see jaywalking, it would be appropriate to install 360° high resolution cameras, to programmatically analyze the footage to cite everyone for jaywalking and other similarly trivial offenses, and to retain the footage indefinitely. Or you could argue that the aggregation and automation changes things.
It has taken society centuries to come to the notions of privacy and public rights against the state that we have today. If the aggregation, retention and analysis enabled by technology changes things, as I think they do, and I think many of us here think they do, then we as a society have our work cut out for us to update our notions of privacy.
Something like this is happening in Surrey, BC. They are in the process of installing 400 traffic cameras purely to stop crime, and the police will have 24 hour access to all cameras. Pretty much everyone is in favour of this, as they are fed up with the almost daily shootings.
The people in Surrey had to make a decision as to whether they prefer living in a crime-ridden shithole, or if they prefer 24-hour surveillance. They chose the surveillance.
It's interesting that my purely factual example got downvoted. Presumably because the facts of the situation in Surrey doesn't fit with some poeople's worldview?
The reality is that most people are happy with some level of surveillance if it is done to reduce crime. There seems to be an automatic presumption by some people on HN (which appears to be a majority of HN users, based on upvotes/downvotes) that the US government is like some kind of Stasi police state. The reality is that there is always pushback when the government oversteps its bounds. Some examples: investigations into torture by the CIA, the FBI now getting warrants for Stingray operations, the Snowden fallout, etc. I guess it's good that there is a strong libertarian contingent in the USA, which helps keep your government in check.
There is a large libertarian contingent on HN who automatically think the government is out to get them, so any time anything like this comes up you always get the inevitable "fuck the FBI" type comments, and downvoting of any attempt to look at the facts logically.
I agree to an extent, but doesn't the NYPD have trucks that go around and scan on the inside of buildings? There's no checks and balance in place right now to prevent them from abusing people's privacy...
But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I agree with this. You can't make laws forbidding photographing a particular building, for example.
That got me thinking, if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in public, why should we forbid our government? In fact, when crimes happen, most of the time these days, video surveillance is a huge help.
If that data were made publicly accessible, would it be a problem that it was being recorded? What are the drawbacks of public surveillance?
reply