Oh and one more thing...

[susandennis]

This morning on NPR there was a story about cameras installed all over Washington, D.C. mainly for crime surveillance.  They interviewed a lawyer who explained the right to privacy which is not currently granted in public spaces needs to be re legislated in light of new technology.  She said that anyone who hasn't realized what a horrible invasion of privacy having all these cameras around is, just has not thought about it.

I heard this story twice.  The first time it annoyed me and by the second time it started to piss me off.  I wanted her number so I could call her and tell her she was wrong.

I have thought about it.  And my privacy is fine, thank you very much.  I think it's quite handy to have cameras everywhere.  I think we need more and I'd welcome them.  I always smile big and wave at every ATM.

Since I don't have her number, this will have to suffice.  You are wrong, lady.

Comments

*what right to privacy?*

[henare.livejournal.com]

i didn't realize that was in the constitution and bill of rights ...

Re: *what right to privacy?*

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

From Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Privacy is regulated in the US by the Privacy Act of 1974."

Re: *what right to privacy?*

[henare.livejournal.com]

"implicit" means the "right" is only as good as the next supreme court case that addresses the issue.

furthermore, the case and legislation cited don't particularly address this privacy issue.

Re: *what right to privacy?*

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

While technically true, "penumbral" rights are those that can be inferred from the existing rights in the constitution. In order to overturn that precedent, the supreme court would have to come up with a reason why something like the right to privacy isn't logically inferred from the constitution. They do exist in something of a grey area, but it's not the same as a precedent that exists sufficiently removed from specific areas of the constitution so as to be more easily overturned.

While, my comment doesn't address the specific issue that was originally brought up, your statement that "the right to privacy" isn't in the constitution, or bill of rights is specious. All one has to do to address the original issue is to observe that there is no "right to privacy" wrt to actions that are undertaken in public although you are still protected from unreasonable searches an seizures (although the definition of reasonable is becoming frighteningly broad) The key concept however, being "in public"

Interestingly enough, some jurisdictions have passed laws making it illegal for citizens to do things like recording the actions of uniformed police officers, in public. There are also some cases where police have used wiretapping laws to prosecute people who happen to catch them, in public, doing things that might be questionable. It's also not unheard of for people who are observed photographing or filming police actions, in public, to be harassed, threatened, and even arrested (although rarely prosecuted).

Personally, I'm not thrilled with the prospect of having all of my actions, in public, recorded and kept by someone for posterity, but as an avid photographer, I recognize that public spaces are much different than private ones. That being said, I find it curious how often the powers that be are strongly opposed to being filmed the same way that average citizens can be. It reminds me of a court case from the Washington state area from a while back where police officials who were pursuing a case against an officer rummaged through her trash to find evidence to use against her but then were amazingly offended when other people (from a newspaper iirc) did that to their trash and simply documented what they found. I think Susan is one of the few people I've known who is genuinely ok with the concept of recording and being recorded in kind. A curiously large number of people who are strongly in favor of being able to record, rummage through trash, collect fingerprints etc... are also remarkably resistant to having those same things done to themselves. Apparently, in their opinion, what's good for the goose, is not always good for the gander.

Re: *what right to privacy?*

[susandennis]

I just don't understand why everyone is so opposed to it. I keep looking for a good reason and not finding one.

Re: *what right to privacy?*

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

Well, if I look at say, police officers, I can see why they might not want someone recording their actions that might be "legal" but don't necessarily look good (all you have to do is look on youtube to see various examples of questionable, but probably not illegal police behaviour).

By the same token, I think for a lot of people, (illegal actions aside) privacy is a necessary social lubricant of a sort. It's what let's people do what they want/need to do without worrying about repercussions from family, friends or society at large. Maybe it's not so apparent to you because you've put together a life that gives you almost perfect control over your privacy. You can be as social or anti-social as you want and you don't have to worry about anyone being judgmental about it. You've done what a lot of people probably should and you've cut people out of your life when they aren't positive aspects of it. It's interesting, but I not so long ago, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about how she should stand up to her parents/family and stop letting them stomp all over her feelings and self-esteem. Much to my shock and dismay, she just couldn't imagine a life where she kept her folks on a short leash and made them behave like decent human beings instead of the sanctimonious bible thumpers they are.

Heh, I'm going off on a tangent, a bit but I just wanted to point out how it seems like a lot of people aren't comfortable being "out" about their lives and many of them can't or won't take control over who is in their lives so they have to rely on some amount of privacy so that they can be themselves comfortably. I think that's what bothers people about cameras in public, in the US we've come to expect a kind of privacy through anonymity when we're out in public and the idea that someone might catch us doing something that they disapprove of tends to bother a lot of people.

Add to this the fact that until you incorporate cameras into 100% of public spaces (and you invest in the correct equipment etc...), they don't actually do a great deal to reduce crime overall. Just this last week I came across a report from London's Home Office that detailed how CCTV cameras didn't seem to really reduce crime overall and iirc they also seemed to only move certain crimes down the street a way. So, even though they may work great at protecting an ATM machine (and you while you're at it) they don't necessarily protect you from being robbed by someone after you walk away from that camera.

But these are just my rambling notions as an observer of human nature, I'm certainly not a social scientist or anthropologist so I may be completely off the mark.

Re: *what right to privacy?*

[susandennis]

Really interesting points... all of them. Yeah, my situation is different. I do feel very strongly about being in control :)

I guess I would lean towards more cameras and not fewer but I should get used to being in the minority...

Thanks for the ramble it provides far more insight than I've run into before. I appreciate it.