Security cameras : why are people against them?

[MissCatholic]

Alot of people refer to 1984. But i think it is a good thing if every street had a security camera. It would identify criminals whether the crime takes place at 5.00am or 5.00pm. It would make me feel much more safer. Yes there is a strong case against it but surely the benefits outweigh the negatives.

St.Petersburg, Russia are going to install around 5,000 surveillance cameras in an attempt to reduce crime. London would never have caught the bombers. So would support more cameras on Americas Streets.

I am not a criminal and i have nothing to hide so i have no problem.

[John Dibble]

I am not a criminal and i have nothing to hide so i have no problem.

Maybe not, but some people don't like the idea that they are constantly being watched.

[Moooooo]

Maybe not, but some people don't like the idea that they are constantly being watched.

^^^

[© tweed]

They have them in our school and when I pass them I sometimes make an obscene gesture.  I don't really mind them except for it can limit the options you have when lying about where you were at a certain time.

[minionofmidas]

Alot of people refer to 1984. But i think it is a good thing if every street had a security camera. It would identify criminals whether the crime takes place at 5.00am or 5.00pm. It would make me feel much more safer.

They make me feel less safe. Anything that could previously happen can still happen, plus the cops can identify me? No thanks. (and yes, they do work for stuff like identifying these bombers. I'm not denying that. If you'd have one on every street you wouldn't get that nasty effect of crime just spilling into the next road instead that you do get wherever you got surveillance cameras in Frankfurt.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No relation between parts one and two. Would you like a police surveillance camera in your bathroom? Since you got nothing to hide?

[minionofmidas]

Oh, might I add that there is one office building in Frankfurt that's got pretty prominent surveillance cameras on the front and I know for a fact that they are not working, never have been, are in fact beyond repair if you don't want to tear half the facade down, because I know the guy who installed them.

[Ebowed]

No.

1.) Waste of taxpayer money, a camera on every street is gonna be damn expensive;
2.) I don't like being constantly watched.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On every street? Er... do you know what a boundary effect is?

[MODU]

I have no problems with security cameras.  They aren't an invasion of privacy in my book, especially since they are erected in public.

[Gabu]

I am not a criminal and i have nothing to hide so i have no problem.

Maybe not, but some people don't like the idea that they are constantly being watched.

To play devil's advocate, you're already kinda visible as it is out in public, and anyone who wants to watch you can easily do so already.  If the government wanted to watch every single citizen on a 24-hour basis à la 1984, they would have to hire no less than 50% of the total population of the United States to do so, and probably even more than that, given that the workers would have to sleep at some period of time.  This is not even mentioning the fact that the workers would also probably like to do something other than watching one single person for hours on end - where would they find the people to watch you?  The bottom line is that a security camera out in public is not exactly going to make you be constantly watched by the government.  It's simply not even physically possible for the government to do so with the limited resources they have available to them.

Of course, the above argument could also be used to argue against the effectiveness of security cameras on every street, but that's a completely different story.

[Emsworth]

No. It's totalitarian, ineffective, and expensive.

[Speed of Sound]

i absolutely would not. that would be insane, a massive invasion of privacy,and as emsworth said, very expensive.

[Gabu]

i absolutely would not. that would be ... a massive invasion of privacy

This is the one thing I've never understood: why would security cameras be an invasion of privacy?  I'm against them for other reasons, but really, you're out in a public place where absolutely everyone can see you; how is adding one more person who is able to see you suddenly invading your privacy?

[Speed of Sound]

i absolutely would not. that would be ... a massive invasion of privacy

This is the one thing I've never understood: why would security cameras be an invasion of privacy?  I'm against them for other reasons, but really, you're out in a public place where absolutely everyone can see you; how is adding one more person who is able to see you suddenly invading your privacy?

yes but theres a difference between Joe Schmo and Big Brother. Big Brother has a sniper and a trigger happy right hand

[Ebowed]

i absolutely would not. that would be ... a massive invasion of privacy

This is the one thing I've never understood: why would security cameras be an invasion of privacy?  I'm against them for other reasons, but really, you're out in a public place where absolutely everyone can see you; how is adding one more person who is able to see you suddenly invading your privacy?

Because that one more person works for the government.

[Gabu]

i absolutely would not. that would be ... a massive invasion of privacy

This is the one thing I've never understood: why would security cameras be an invasion of privacy?  I'm against them for other reasons, but really, you're out in a public place where absolutely everyone can see you; how is adding one more person who is able to see you suddenly invading your privacy?

Because that one more person works for the government.

And...?  If a government worker saw you out on the street, how would that be any different?

I'm failing to see why the government would be watching you and specifically you the whole time as they do in 1984.  How is it different from a security camera in a private establishment?  Is it an invasion of privacy for a company to hire a security guard to monitor its employees and customers?

[MissCatholic]

I think the majority of people would change their minds if a crime was commited and they caught the guy/girl who did it through surveillance.

[Gabu]

I think the majority of people would change their minds if a crime was commited and they caught the guy/girl who did it through surveillance.

I'm against it because, if you think it through logically, you have two options: not putting out enough cameras, or having it cost way, way too much money and manpower.  That wouldn't change, even if it did catch someone - of course there would be the odd person caught by it, but it's not likely that it would be effective enough to be nearly worth the money it would cost.

[MissCatholic]

I think the majority of people would change their minds if a crime was commited and they caught the guy/girl who did it through surveillance.

I'm against it because, if you think it through logically, you have two options: not putting out enough cameras, or having it cost way, way too much money and manpower.  That wouldn't change, even if it did catch someone - of course there would be the odd person caught by it, but it's not likely that it would be effective enough to be nearly worth the money it would cost.

You do make valid points. Its a difficult issue. But my personal opinion is that i would feel alot safer shopping in areas or walking down the street if i knew cameras were looking at me.

The two things that i am constantly thinking about is my health and my safety. Any ideas that could improve them i would support. The cost would be a problem but the arguement that it invades privacy is absurd as other posters have pointed out.

[MODU]

I think the majority of people would change their minds if a crime was commited and they caught the guy/girl who did it through surveillance.

That is why stores and airports already have their own cameras.  They catch their crooks, and no one in those areas seem to care.   If people have problems with camera's on the street, I hope they don't fly or shop.

[??????????]

I think the majority of people would change their minds if a crime was commited and they caught the guy/girl who did it through surveillance.

That is why stores and airports already have their own cameras.  They catch their crooks, and no one in those areas seem to care.   If people have problems with camera's on the street, I hope they don't fly or shop.

Your exactly stating the reasons for why I don't think it's any problem to begin with. We already have them in malls, parking lots, grocery stores, heck even where I work has cameras. Why should you fear being watched if you're not doing anything wrong? If a city was to put up funds to have such camers in its' particular business districts then I really couldn't have any problem with it. Many cities/towns have cameras at stop lights as it is now.

[opebo]

This constant concern over crime is a mental illness - a sick desire for the impossibile goal of Total Control.  I have never experienced any crime in a my life..  well other than a few cars stolen and one partial pickpocketing, but no big deal.  I'm a hell of a lot more fearful of the State than some criminal.

[Ebowed]

You're rich, of course it doesn't matter to you when some ass steals your car.

[MasterJedi]

I voted unsure. We should have them in some places but not all. And where they're put they should be protected with bullet proof glass because some idiot would try to break them.

Ghettos would be the best place to put them, lots of murders happen in run down areas. Easier way to catch the people and may make some people think about what they're doing before it happens.

[2952-0-0]

Well, this is on private property (for example in Las Vegas casinos they can watch everyone at every time) and my tax dollars aren't being spent so I don't care. If the FBI keeps harassing private businesses to hand over security tapes for no reason that would be another matter.