tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7457830999401091234.post3391826832772567329..comments2023-10-07T01:19:58.803-07:00Comments on ghosts in the machine: Smile... you're on Candid CameraSharon E. Herberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14409428180680216979noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7457830999401091234.post-40753370743033345932007-04-23T10:13:00.000-07:002007-04-23T10:13:00.000-07:00Thanks for the comment, Lester. As you say, David ...Thanks for the comment, Lester. As you say, David Brin makes an excellent point in his book The Transparent Society, about ensuring that the public has the same access to surveillance technologies as those in power. I'm interested in reading his fiction book, Kiln People, on this topic.<BR/><BR/>I worry about how cameras in public places will affect people's willingness to protest publicly ... or to do anything publicly for that matter. Whether or not you're doing anything wrong may become irrelevant if "someone" watching decides that you are doing something wrong.<BR/> <BR/>So far, Canada has not developed the proliferation of surveillance cameras that the UK has. When cameras have been installed, by the RCMP or by the private sector, there have been challenges to the Privacy Act. <BR/> <BR/>Thanks again for your comments,<BR/>SharonSharon E. Herberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14409428180680216979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7457830999401091234.post-6279750610462499462007-04-22T08:17:00.000-07:002007-04-22T08:17:00.000-07:00The question of whether you have "anything to hide...The question of whether you have "anything to hide" is itself a political one. It shouldn't be hard to imagine a circumstance in which Tories for example were more likely to be surveilled even though they've nothing to hide...except presumably their political party. The power to surveil citizens almost automatically puts some citizens on constant guard.<BR/><BR/>David Brin suggested that something like this is a natural consequence of technological development and that we can't turn back the clock. What we can do though, is open the cameras up...by allowing everyone to use them. And also by putting them in a number of different places--like in police cars for example.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925758029865127038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7457830999401091234.post-29365434251483381952007-04-22T08:13:00.000-07:002007-04-22T08:13:00.000-07:00The question isn't and shouldn't be about whether ...The question isn't and shouldn't be about whether the individual "has anything to hide."<BR/><BR/>But at the same time technological developments have progressed to a point where surveillance is not going anywhere soon.<BR/><BR/>David Brin has suggested that perhaps one way to deal with this is to empower EVERYONE to use the cameras...and to put the cameras in more places than just the public streets. In police cars for example.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925758029865127038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7457830999401091234.post-64674659683215250752007-04-18T15:41:00.000-07:002007-04-18T15:41:00.000-07:00I've visited London 4 times in the past 15 years a...I've visited London 4 times in the past 15 years and noticed the cameras were more prevalent with each visit. I guess the question we all need to ask is: how far is too far? Many like yourself, feel the privacy trade-off is worth the gain in public safety. I liked photo radar, when we used to have it, for a similar reason - everyone slowed down, the drive to work was much more relaxing and safer. Privacy is like a rubber band - it's very elastic, depending on the person and the circumstances. Thanks for dropping by LB.Sharon E. Herberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14409428180680216979noreply@blogger.com