David Oswald wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up
all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my
personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public
a false sense of security, and I object to both. However, if a hobby
photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in
public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by
Little Brother, if you know what I mean...
Before 7/7 in London I would have tended to agree, but the speed with
which the bombers were identified and caught was partly a result of CCTV
images. I've decided that the threat to life from mass murderers
outweighs the personal freedom issue. I'm happy with it.
Since I already have no expectation of privacy in public, the
surveylance cameras aren't infringing on any expectation of privacy.
I would have been greatly relieved to have been observed by
surveylance cameras as I was threatened by druggies near Waterfront
Park in Portland a few years ago, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Had surveylance cameras been there they wouldn't have been so bold,
and in fact, may have even chosen somewhere less public to hang out
intimidating people.
Well, what I'm trying to say is among other things that I'm far from
convinced that druggies and other more or less desperate people do give
a toss about the cameras. Less desperate/more cynical criminals have
been known to evade notice at least until after they have done their deed.
- Toralf
- Re: The Photographer's Rights Toralf Lund
-
