Surveillance, privacy and power

Welcome to my clas, unpopular opinion 101

Yes I am overall ok with surveillance. I have nothing to hide and if it can help catch criminals I am all for it. I do not judge those who prefer their privacy and don't say they are wrong.

In fact...I go so far as to say I am probably biased because of my work on nuclear weapons. I fear terrorism, dirty bombs, and the like so no I am not upset. If the government wants to see that I seach for porn then have at it!

but again...I do not judge those who feel opposite of me

 

I don't agree with the argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
Since I don't trust governments or corporations with all our info and the power that comes from being able to get that data. With CCTV cameras I feel conflicted, if I am mugged or beat up on the street I want that person to be caught. At the same time I'm not comfortable with all those eyes watching me.

 

I kind of agree with FoxFace. While it is weird that the government can see anything basically, it's not like they are ever going to do anything with that information unless you are a threat to society.

 

As for google, or other search engines, they can only get what you post online. I have always treated online posts as: if I am OK with my grandmother seeing it on the front page of the sunday paper, it is OK to post.

As for security cameras, or cameras in general. If you are on private property (homes, businesses, etc) you are agreeing to the policies of the owner. If they have security cameras so be it. I have noticed that our local walmart for instance has hundreds of cameras inside and out. If I don't want them to photography me, I won't even enter their parking lot.

Also because I am a photographer I have no problem with cameras that are photographing public spaces. In the USA, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space, or a space that can be seen from a public space. A street photographer can legally photograph anyone that he can see from either his own property, a public street or sidewalk, or other public space, such as parks. The only time he actually needs permission is if he is going to sell that photograph for a profit. He can use it in a contest or gallery without permission.

Point being if you are paranoid about being photographed stay at home with the curtains closed.

 

a threat to society? what constitutes a threat and who decides? people who march for causes, environmental and the like, to change laws are monitored more closely as a potential threat because they challenge the status quo.

 

Honestly, its the use of resources that bothers me. The government's got huge debts, and they're using all this manpower on an invasive method of terrorism prevention that hasn't even been very good at preventing terrorism. Its a large waste of our tax dollars.

 

This is basically what I feel. The libertarian in me screams "4th Amendment!!!" but the normal side of me says "they don't give a fraction of a fuck what I do day to day." I do strongly dislike the wastefulness though, and I think their attention should be refocused towards *helping* the struggling country of ours, not prowling about it looking for minute indicators of terrorism they won't be able to root out anyway.

And George Orwell's 1984 was meant to be a warning, not a how-to manual. -.-

 

I am okay with some very limited surveillance, but I am afraid Big Brother may always try to go too far (during both Republican and Democratic presidencies).

 

I want surveillance to increase, but I want individuals to be more empowered by it, not the State. Earlier, I posted a thread about wearable cameras that nobody was interested in.

I call these "I don't need witnesses" glasses. They have an application for the legal side of self-defense, but also for documenting police, especially during peaceful demonstrations or encounters with the public during stops.

Similarly, surveillance has been used by the State against its own agents, and I think we should acknowledge and rejoice at this prospect. In parts of the UK I believe, peace officers now have to wear their own cameras. Obviously, this documents the public more, but it also protects the public more against police, since an accusation of misconduct is not your word against the officer's and you lose. It's the crooked officer's word against his own camera. Or it's a citizen allegation of misconduct versus a turned off camera. The officer looks bad in both scenarios.

I remember when people got all pissed off about Google Glass because they felt it was "more surveillance."

But what should worry us about surveillance is not the what or even the how much. It's the who and the why! It's being done by the State for control of the citizens.

That doesn't mean surveillance per se is evil. It means that there's an asymmetry of power. Let's start pointing our own cameras at State employees. (*hug*)

 

This is catching on in the US too. As a candidate for a future police officer, I don't like the idea much because they might use them to fire us for stupid stuff as well as serious infractions, but it is necessary. I can't decline to see that authority must be watched with escalating closeness the stronger it gets.

 

I think the biggest danger, is that people don't really understand how easy it is to use their PII (personally identifying information) against them. The fact is, that pictures, addresses, phone numbers, signatures, all of these things make it easy to do things like getting credit or filing fraudulent tax returns in your name. People have had fortunes taken from them and their lives destroyed just because they overshared. The only reason this is not more of a problem is because there are relatively few criminals to a large population, and because most people with the dedication and resources to learn the tricks of this particular trade end up being more honest, and because the ones that aren't are usually good at covering their tracks.

People say they have "nothing to hide", but if you have a bank account, you have something to hide.