Police secretly snapping up to 14m drivers a day

No hiding place??
Story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7086783.ece

 

There's a problem with this sort of thing. Being a camera on the street or highway, it's practically impossible to not record innocent bystanders. As far as faces, well, that depends on the camera position of course. The one thing they CAN do is to just delete "non-events", and keep records of actual incidents such as traffic violations. Other than that, there just is no way to make camera recording more private. Cameras make it near impossible to balance security and privacy, but they are invaluable to security.

We all value privacy, it's just natural to not want to be spied on. But, with complex security threats comes equally complex security solutions. And, sometimes, that means a bit less privacy than we'd all prefer. As far as the cameras in the home, well, if the owners consent then that is their right. Really if there is consent, cameras are at least visible, and they can be manually shut off, there is no invasion of privacy, imho.

 

or not
http://www.schneier.com/essay-225.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/25/schneier.security.cameras/index.html

 

One day these Big Brother systems will be hacked and then there will be trouble!

 

Point taken, but if you're looking for perfect tech, you're out of luck. The only way crime isn't sometimes going to be missed or criminals avoiding capture right on the spot is if we're all followed around by cops on foot and in cars 24/7, and then what kind of outcry and complaining about privacy do you think would occur? Scheier can have an opinion just as well as anyone can, but, sometimes the question that needs to be asked is what would happen if we DIDN'T have some of this tech?

I'll tell you right now that the idea of Big Brother bothers me, just like it does most others. But I also remember there was a time before DNA evidence, almost non-existent forensics that was easily, laughably easily countered, no cameras that at least MAY prove fruitful to an investigation, and so on. I'm not trying to rally against this sort of stuff nor defend it vigorously, I'm simply saying there is more than just one side to look at.

 

One of these days larger national/international infrastructures will end up hacked, and THEN there will be real trouble. I don't think many stop to think about or realize just how much humans rely on computers and the internet now.

 

Yeah, I just threw it out there because I agree with him. I'm in the US, not China or the UK or some other place, and we were founded on principals of freedom and privacy. I disagree with the folks who think it's okay to start trading them off in the name of security. I won't pull out the oft-used quotes from Franklin or Jefferson, but those were the ideals this country was supposed to be about. If things are a little more dangerous because if that then so be it.

 

Amen, brother! I especially liked your last sentence. We cannot expect to be protected from everyone out to get us anywhere and everywhere. The logical extension of the argument for "doing what it takes" is simple: If you want complete safety, you will just never leave your home!

I first heard the slogan here at Wilders and I believe it:

Freedom=Privacy
Privacy=Freedom
You can't have one without the other.

And remember, there wasn't a lot of street crime in the old Soviet Union. But at what price?