The Phora  

Go Back   The Phora > The Academy > Miscellaneous
User Name
Password
Blog Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Miscellaneous Discuss topics that don't fit into any specific forum.

View Poll Results: Which do you consider a priority?
Security 7 46.67%
Privacy 6 40.00%
Other 2 13.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-24-2006, 01:32 AM
Sandee's Avatar
Sandee Sandee is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,619
Country: Canada
Default Security versus Privacy

Quote:
What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?
The Four Problems with Public Video Surveillance

Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life. Fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more. The use of sophisticated systems by police and other public security officials is particularly troubling in a democratic society. In Washington, for example, the police are in the process of setting up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view video from schools, neighborhoods, Metro stations, and prominent buildings around the city.

Although the ACLU has no objection to cameras at specific, high-profile public places that are potential terrorist targets, such as the U.S. Capitol, the impulse to blanket our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is a bad idea. Here are four reasons why:


1. Video surveillance has not been proven effective
The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video surveillance is the terrorist attacks of September 11. But it is far from clear how the proliferation of video cameras through public spaces in America would stop a plot like the attack on the World Trade Center. Even supporters of CCTV like the Washington police do not argue that it would.

The real reason cameras are deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes, such as auto break-ins. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. "Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences," criminologists found in one study, "reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre." A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study, also for the British government).

In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels."


2. CCTV is susceptible to abuse
One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. There are five ways that surveillance-camera systems are likely to be misused:

Criminal abuse
Surveillance systems present law enforcement "bad apples" with a tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a top-ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police databases to gather information on patrons of a gay club. By looking up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and researching the backgrounds of the vehicles' owners, he tried to blackmail patrons who were married. Imagine what someone like that could do with a citywide spy-camera system.

Institutional abuse
Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire law enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends. That is especially prone to happen in periods of social turmoil and intense conflict over government policies. During the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, for example, the FBI - as well as many individual police departments around the nation - conducted illegal operations to spy upon and harass political activists who were challenging racial segregation and the Vietnam War. This concern is especially justified since we may be entering a similar period of conflict today.

Abuse for personal purposes
Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press, for example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.

Discriminatory targeting
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. In Great Britain, camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were operated, "Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population."

Voyeurism
Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the researchers found.


3. The lack of limits or controls on cameras use
Advanced surveillance systems such as CCTV need to be subject to checks and balances. Because the technology has evolved so quickly, however, checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses outlined above don't exist. Two elements in particular are missing:

A consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems.
Unfortunately, history has shown that surveillance technologies put in place for one purpose inevitably expand into other uses. And with video technology likely to continue advancing, the lack of any clear boundaries for what CCTV systems should be able to do poses a significant danger.

For example, a recent ACLU visit to the Washington police department's new central video surveillance center showed that the system currently consists largely of long-range cameras focused on traffic and public buildings that are not suitable for identifying individuals. But the infrastructure for a far more sophisticated and integrated system is being established. Now that the surveillance facility has been put in place, the department will be in a position to increase the quality of its technology and the number of its cameras - and will inevitably be tempted or pressured to do so. Do we want the authorities installing high-resolution cameras that can read a pamphlet from a mile away? Cameras equipped to detect wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, allowing night vision or see-through vision? Cameras equipped with facial recognition, like those already installed in airports and even on the streets of Tampa, Florida?

As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of evolving into a surveillance monster.

Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems.
A societal consensus about how cameras should be used is important, but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems. Rules are needed to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators.


4. Video surveillance will have a chilling effect on public life.
The growing presence of public cameras will bring subtle but profound changes to the character of our public spaces. When citizens are being watched by the authorities - or aware they might be watched at any time - they are more self-conscious and less free-wheeling. As syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum has pointed out, "knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don't want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself." Eventually, he warns, "people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers." Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that people deemed to be "out of time and place" with the surroundings were subjected to prolonged surveillance.


The bottom line: a lack of proportion between benefits and risks
Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This technology (a) has the potential change the core experience of going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and "mission creep," and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given that, its benefits - preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none - are disproportionately small.

Link


Positive aspects:

Quote:
Workplace Violence Prevention

A Comprehensive Guide for Employers and Employees
Developing and implementing a workplace violence prevention program and policy

2.1 Environmental designs
Commonly implemented cash handling policies in retail settings include procedures such as using locked drop safes, carrying small amounts of cash, and posting signs and printing notices that limited cash is available. It may also be useful to explore the feasibility of cashless transactions in taxicabs and retail settings through the use of machines that accommodate automatic teller account cards or debit cards. These approaches could be used in any setting where cash is currently exchanged between employees and customers.

Physical separation of employees from customers, clients, and the general public through the use of bullet-resistant barriers or enclosures has been proposed for retail settings such as gas stations and convenience stores, hospital emergency departments and social service agency claims areas. The height and depth of counters (with or without bullet-resistant barriers) are also important considerations in protecting employees, since they introduce physical distance between employees and potential attackers. Consideration must nonetheless be given to the continued ease of conducting business; a safety device that increases frustration for employees or for customers, clients, or patients may be self defeating.

Visibility and lighting are also important environmental-design considerations. Making high-risk areas visible to more people and installing good external lighting should decrease the risk of workplace assaults (NIOSH 1993).

Access to and exits from the workplace are also important areas to assess. The number of entrances and exits, the ease with which non-workers can gain access to work areas because doors are unlocked, and the number of areas where potential attackers can hide are issues that should be addressed. The issues have implications for the design of buildings and parking areas, landscaping, and the placement of garbage areas, outdoor refrigeration areas, and other storage facilities that workers must use during a work shift.

Numerous security devices may reduce the risk for assaults against employees and facilitate the identification and apprehension of perpetrators. These include closed-circuit cameras, alarms, two-way mirrors, electronic control access systems, panic-bar doors locked from the outside only, and trouble lights or geographic locating devices in taxicabs and other mobile workplaces.
Personal protective equipment such as body armor has been used effectively by public safety personnel to mitigate the effects of workplace violence. For example, the lives of more than 1,800 police officers have been saved by Kevlar protective vests (Brierley 1996).

More..


Are you personally bothered by the use of surveillance cameras, two-way mirrors and other such security gadgets in public/work places?

Do you think that such security gadgets could come in handy to reduce the risk of violence in public/work places but could be used for ulterior motives as well (breach of privacy)?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-24-2006, 01:46 AM
Berianidze's Avatar
Berianidze Berianidze is offline
gay porn spammer->banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: თბილისი, საქართვ
Age: 30
Posts: 2,396
Country: Georgian SSR
Default

No, privacy is a myth. Even in the United States Constitution, privacy is only an implied right. There's no such thing as privacy, and it's well within the scope of any government to utilize as pervasive an intelligence policy as it sees fit.

Even in the United States, while I personally despise the bourgeois state, I don't expect them to recognize any sense of privacy on my part as an individual. Nor would I be so foolish as to think I would have a legitimate claim to such. Best to keep an eye out and watch your back, and watch what you say on any medium that can be easily monitored (internet!).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-24-2006, 10:49 AM
VAMPIR's Avatar
VAMPIR VAMPIR is offline
The lord of the night
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Crna Gora
Age: 32
Posts: 2,729
Country: Montenegro2
Wink

Privacy, no question. But real privacy, 'cause all other aspects are just mask for uncomplete security....
__________________
The blood is the life... and it shall be mine.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-24-2006, 10:55 AM
funderbunked's Avatar
funderbunked funderbunked is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Korea
Age: 49
Posts: 367
Country: South Korea
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoshvili
No, privacy is a myth. Even in the United States Constitution, privacy is only an implied right. There's no such thing as privacy, and it's well within the scope of any government to utilize as pervasive an intelligence policy as it sees fit.

Even in the United States, while I personally despise the bourgeois state, I don't expect them to recognize any sense of privacy on my part as an individual. Nor would I be so foolish as to think I would have a legitimate claim to such. Best to keep an eye out and watch your back, and watch what you say on any medium that can be easily monitored (internet!).

No. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution sez that no powers that have not been granted explicitly (by the letter; verbatim) to FedGov, is designated to the states (the individual states) and/or The People (the sovereign individual).

You're wrong here.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-24-2006, 11:53 AM
Berianidze's Avatar
Berianidze Berianidze is offline
gay porn spammer->banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: თბილისი, საქართვ
Age: 30
Posts: 2,396
Country: Georgian SSR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funderbunked
No. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution sez that no powers that have not been granted explicitly (by the letter; verbatim) to FedGov, is designated to the states (the individual states) and/or The People (the sovereign individual).

You're wrong here.
Ugh, that was in reference to the "police powers" that were to be designated to the states in the name of issuing licenses, protecting public morality, health, and welfare. This is by no means an interpretive clause calling for privacy. Hence, it's an implied right.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-24-2006, 11:56 AM
funderbunked's Avatar
funderbunked funderbunked is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Korea
Age: 49
Posts: 367
Country: South Korea
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoshvili
Ugh, that was in reference to the "police powers" that were to be designated to the states in the name of issuing licenses, protecting public morality, health, and welfare. This is by no means an interpretive clause calling for privacy. Hence, it's an implied right.

Um. Wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-24-2006, 11:58 AM
Berianidze's Avatar
Berianidze Berianidze is offline
gay porn spammer->banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: თბილისი, საქართვ
Age: 30
Posts: 2,396
Country: Georgian SSR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funderbunked
Um. Wrong.
How so? It is now upon you to demonstrate where the Constitution explicitly lays out a fundamental right to privacy?

And no, the protections against illegal searches and seizures do not count.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-24-2006, 12:08 PM
funderbunked's Avatar
funderbunked funderbunked is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Korea
Age: 49
Posts: 367
Country: South Korea
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoshvili
How so? It is now upon you to demonstrate where the Constitution explicitly lays out a fundamental right to privacy?

Ho ho. That's not how it works in a Constitutional republic. The 10th amendment (part of the original Bill of Rights--the Foundation Document) states that, unless something is given to FedGov, FedGov don't have shit to do with it.

Selah.

Quote:
And no, the protections against illegal searches and seizures do not count.

Why not, ----? What you got against the 4th amendment?


Less of the flames.

Last edited by Geist : 10-24-2006 at 03:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-24-2006, 12:18 PM
funderbunked's Avatar
funderbunked funderbunked is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Korea
Age: 49
Posts: 367
Country: South Korea
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoshvili
How so? It is now upon you to demonstrate where the Constitution explicitly lays out a fundamental right to privacy?

And no, the protections against illegal searches and seizures do not count.

This is fun [This is highbrow]. I did the same thing in my Bachelor's degree at Arizona State University (Criminal Justice) against a professor from the University of Chicago, named Jonas Goldberg. He was my professor in a senior-class class on Constitutional Law.

I challenged him to a debate on the "Jury Nullification" (Jon Peter Zenger case). He accepted.

Blew him stone away. In 14 pages of research, he couldn't believe what a 21-year old had done. Told me it was the most impressive work he'd ever seen in law practice (as a Bar-granted attorney).

Got an A+ in his class.

---

Last edited by Geist : 10-24-2006 at 03:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-24-2006, 12:44 PM
Berianidze's Avatar
Berianidze Berianidze is offline
gay porn spammer->banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: თბილისი, საქართვ
Age: 30
Posts: 2,396
Country: Georgian SSR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funderbunked
Ho ho. That's not how it works in a Constitutional republic. The 10th amendment (part of the original Bill of Rights--the Foundation Document) states that, unless something is given to FedGov, FedGov don't have shit to do with it.

Selah.
The 10th Amendment was simply a concession to the Jeffersonian anti-federalists (as was the entire Bill of Rights) in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. The 10th Amendment simply states that the Federal Government cannot extend beyond its explicitly detailed powers throughout the Constitution. Privacy has nothing to do with it, nor has their been a constitutional upswing regarding the decreasing amounts of privacy in the lives of American citizens in the last 100 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funderbunked
Why not, pussy? What you got against the 4th amendment?
Because this isn't a privacy matter in the general sense; it's an extrajudicial matter.

And it is a trademark of pussy constitutional republics.

Quote:
E.g., : Bolshie-troll.
That's ironic.

Quote:
This is fun (debating with a Bolshie). I did the same thing in my Bachelor's degree at Arizona State University (Criminal Justice) against a professor from the University of Chicago, named Jonas Goldberg. He was my professor in a senior-class class on Constitutional Law.
I highly doubt A) you went to Arizona State University, B) you debated with a Jonas Goldberg from Univ. of Chicago, and C)you ever took a class in Constitutional Law.

Quote:
I challenged him to a debate on the "Jury Nullification" (Jon Peter Zenger case). He accepted.
Why did you go back to a seditious-libel case such as the Zenger one in order to debate "Jury Nullification?" There are more prominent, more recent cases than this one.

Quote:
Blew him stone away. In 14 pages of research, he couldn't believe what a 21-year old had done. Told me it was the most impressive work he'd ever seen in law practice (as a Bar-granted attorney).
Post this research then.


Quote:
Got an A+ in his class.
I'm doubting that.

Quote:
Fuck you.
...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.38549 seconds with 10 queries