I don't particularly believe we should have an expectation of privacy while in public. Right now, there are nowhere near enough camera watchers to know what people are doing. There are millions of hours of tape, but no government has the money to pay employees to review or watch them, unless you are already under suspicion.
As AI is trained to watch FMV, this will become more of an issue.
My perspective doesn't come from a constitutional or civil liberties position, but more of a logical stance. I think the constitutional debate comes into play when we start talking about government compelling private institutions to integrate their feeds or to hand over video.
Good point regarding private institutions. I’m unsure about the US but here there’s no right to privacy which everyone seems to assume there is.
Additionally, how good is a system that tracks two guys on mopeds for 12 months but fails to nab them? There may be other issues here but if you’re spruiking a system that’s not a good argument.
Better late than never I guess. But my main question is why is there such a disinterested and lethargic response to an ever increasing loss of privacy from the general public/MSM? We sound the alarm and cling to our guns if stricter forms of gun control are talked about. However when the one thing a free people can truly claim atleast in my opinion, is dying a slow and quite death not a word is spoken about it?
We often put things on the ever present "slippery slope", so why is it when it comes to the more abstract idea of personal freedom we're ok with losing it hand over fist? In the past the counter argument was always "you have nothing to be worried about if you've done nothing wrong".
That's the same style of argument that the left uses when it comes to gun control "why do you need an AR-15?". As has been repeated here by other members, myself, and people all over the country "it's our right to". So is it because we cant hold it in our hands, that we can't "see it" so to speak we're more ok with it being eroded away?
While I'm talking more about our own individual privacy, the same "slippery slope" still applies to in public places at least in my opinion. Just because someone isn't watching or that at this moment it costs too much money to actively monitor it on a grand scale still doesn't make it ok in my opinion. The framework is in place, all it takes is for someone to pull the trigger.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, I understand that the NG article was about CCTV use in London paired with other systems developed for monitoring and crime tracking/prevention. But I was applying my post to America, this was probably the wrong thread to do so, since this was about London in particular. I just thought that the overall theme was still applicable.
In terms of the expectation of privacy in public, I get that, however if every singular thing you do is recorded and documented even if it is in public like its some early rough draft of 1984. Does that mean we're actually free? While private companies use your private information and shopping habits, daily practices, and search history to buy and sell as a commodity, the government plays no small part in documenting private practices through your web browsing and communication. Take a crap in one hand and wish in another when it comes to saying which one is the "worst" offender.
I'll leave it at that so that the thread doesn't derail from the original subject matter further.