![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
NationStates: Dominion of Caramida
The Issue:
The Police department is considering installing surveillance cameras in all major public areas, in an effort to crack down on crime.
The Debate:
The Government Position:
- "This is a blatant invasion of the right to privacy!" says libertarian web site operator Melbourne Dredd. "Now I can't even go out in public any more without being watched? And you know this is just the beginning. Today there are cameras in city streets. Tomorrow they're peering through your bedroom window."
- "Hey, I've got news for you," says Police media liaison Freddy Thiesen. "When you're out in public, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. These cameras will be extremely helpful in reducing the national crime rate. Frankly, I can't see what the fuss is about."
- "This 'slippery slope' argument has got me thinking," says Police Minister Roxanne Barry. "You know, it would be a lot easier to fight crime if we watched people all the time. Not with cameras, of course. That's clearly an invasion of privacy. But how about a national database of our citizens, coupled with compulsory ID cards and barcoding? It would stop crime dead in its tracks."
The government has indicated its intention to follow the recommendations of Option 2.
My thoughts:
Where does one draw the line between public behavior and private behavior? If I am in a public place like a street corner is there a substantial difference between a cop standing on the corner, and a camera with a cop behind the lens? I propse ubiquitous public surveillance with camera records publically available to all citizens, so sure, the cops can see what you do in public places, but you can also see what the cops are doing in public places. We'll put these public cameras in police stations as well, to make certain that in public buildings everyone has the same rights. In private of course, privacy should be nigh-inviolable. This is where the "Big Brother" analogy fails, because there are no government cameras in homes, only in public areas. Winston would be safe in his home from prying eyes, but he would also be safe outside from prying cops and preying crooks.
What do y'all think?
no subject
no subject
I especially like these discussions because they're not really about rogue states or dominions but really about politics here and now, too.
Jury System pros and cons
I might have to decline membership in the UN if I choose to eschew the jury-trial system. Is it just to entrust a citizen's freedom to the measured judgement of twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty?
no subject
I can mostly only speak from a UK perspective - but in the UK the Data Protection Act means that if ANYONE has video, audio, or any data on you they MUST be able to provide you a copy of that data (they are allowed to charge a small fee, but the fee is limited to like.. 10 pounds I think).
I agree that if it is a public place there is no problem. Street CCTV cameras cut down crime a LOT they also increase response times to incidents an incredible ammount.
no subject
no subject