How are security cameras a violation of Civil Rights?

[Trippoli]

It seems to have a negative affect in Nationstates Issues with Civil Rights.

But in Real Life. Why would it be a problem to setup security cameras in parks or Malls? How is it a invading your privacy when YOUR IN PUBLIC? If someone has a problem with it, they are probably up to something. Thoughts?

[The South Islands]

It seems to have a negative affect in Nationstates Issues with Civil Rights.

But in Real Life. Why would it be a problem to setup security cameras in parks or Malls? How is it a invading your privacy when YOUR IN PUBLIC? If someone has a problem with it, they are probably up to something. Thoughts?

You don't mind if I go through your Emails, or tap your phones, right? After all, if you have a problem with it, you might be hiding something.

[Trippoli]

I am talking about public security cameras. Not tapping teles or Email addresses...

[Lizardiar]

Who thinks security cameras are a violation of civil rights?

[Chumblywumbly]

Why would it be a problem to setup security cameras in parks or Malls?

What would be the reasoning, especially in parks?

How is it a invading your privacy when YOUR IN PUBLIC?

Because being out in public does not equate to being under surveillance.

If someone has a problem with it, they are probably up to something.

What obvious nonsense.

[The South Islands]

I am talking about public security cameras. Not tapping teles or Email addresses...

But your reasoning is the same. Which is disturbing.

[Megaloria]

Security cameras are just that - for the security of the public zone they are in. They do not interfere with your privacy because the public is not, by definition, private.

[South Lorenya]

I am talking about public security cameras. Not tapping teles or Email addresses...

Does that mean you're more than willing to share the passwords used for NSG and other PUBLIC messageboards?

[Trippoli]

So if someone destroys benches or vandalizes park property, because somehow, that invades privacy, or whatever. So too bad, you will never catch the criminal. I fail to see why it is a problem to put a camera at a Public park OR a store to avoid robbery or vandalism...

[Techno-Soviet]

I am talking about public security cameras. Not tapping teles or Email addresses...

But your reasoning is the same. Which is disturbing.

What about security cameras in banks, stores, etc.?

[Chumblywumbly]

They do not interfere with your privacy because the public is not, by definition, private.

Yet the public is not by definition under scrutiny.

[Trippoli]

If there is no cameras, Bank robberies would go up, vandalism would increase, just because somebody IN PUBLIC, being watching by other people has a problem with some lens popping out of a tree or ceiling.

[Rolling Dead]

I don't complain about the Camera in my shower. I just hope those that are watching enjoy the show.

[Trippoli]

I don't complain about the Camera in my shower. I just hope those that are watching enjoy the show.

Since when did they start doing that? Can anyone tell the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVACY? I'm not talking about your own house here...

[Cosmopoles]

If there is no cameras, Bank robberies would go up, vandalism would increase, just because somebody IN PUBLIC, being watching by other people has a problem with some lens popping out of a tree or ceiling.

I agree. That's why I'm going to follow you around while you're in public places. Maybe make some notes on what you're up to, who you associate with, that sort of thing. After all its in public and therefor everyone's business, right?

[The South Islands]

I don't complain about the Camera in my shower. I just hope those that are watching enjoy the show.

Since when did they start doing that? Can anyone tell the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVACY? I'm not talking about your own house here...

Think of it like a guy stalking you in public. Would it be reasonable to have a police officer follow you around everywhere in public?

[Greed and Death]

Camera's should depend on how they are used.
If a Camera just records an area and people come review the cameras and try to see if illegal activity is being recorded, then try to match my face up to recorded image. I have an issue with that.

If they are used after the commission of a crime, then use the camera to figure out clue to that crime

[Megaloria]

They do not interfere with your privacy because the public is not, by definition, private.

Yet the public is not by definition under scrutiny.

Who said anything about scrutiny? This is a preventative measure. Only two types of people should be concerned about public security cameras: the paranoid and the criminal.

[Chumblywumbly]

If there is no cameras...

I don't see why we need to choose between the current situation in places such as the UK and no cameras.

---

Who said anything about scrutiny?

Anyone talking about CCTV.

Only two types of people should be concerned about public security cameras: the paranoid and the criminal.

Fallacious nonsense.

[Maurepas]

It hurts your right to privacy...whether you think privacy rights extend to those areas in the sense of how it affects your Civil Rights rating is largely irrelevant, as it does in the tallying of Civil Rights for the game...

Personally, I dont have a problem with cameras in malls, or private institutions, but Public spaces like streets or sidewalks is taking it a little far imo...

[Antilon]

I don't really mind security cameras in public areas. I don't expect any reasonable degree of privacy in public areas, so it's not really a problem. I just wear my tin foil hat UAV jammer to keep those pesky UAVs and satellites away from my business.

[The Crusnik]

Here's a thought. Police are already allowed to drive around and patrol public areas, am I right? Given that, is a camera any different, provided it's handled by elected public officials (police)? Obviously, lines must be drawn, but anywhere a police officer can walk into anyways (disregarding the fact that some people wouldn't stop somebody with a badge from going somewhere they shouldn't) could absolutely be monitored by cameras. What's the difference, besides an extra responsibility for the public officials to carefully handle any recorded material?

EDIT: Aren't police cruisers outfitted with cameras anyways?

[Enadail]

I'll try to find the study, but I remember reading about how often, the perception of surveillance is enough to deter crimes. Frankly, I think having a camera in a public place is no different then having a police officer in a public place.

[Maurepas]

I'll try to find the study, but I remember reading about how often, the perception of surveillance is enough to deter crimes. Frankly, I think having a camera in a public place is no different then having a police officer in a public place.

Both should be gotten rid of,

[Grave_n_idle]

They do not interfere with your privacy because the public is not, by definition, private.

Yet the public is not by definition under scrutiny.

On the contrary, by definition, the public IS under scrutiny...