Posted: 5/5/2002 2:17:09 AM EDT
|
Since it has been eagerly discussed recently, here is another article: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1953000/1953770.stm[/url] Critics argue that existing CCTV cameras are failing to stop crime; they merely move it to areas that are not covered by the cameras. Civil rights organisation Liberty is concerned that such systems will not be properly regulated. "It is not so much the technology but how it is used that concerns us, and how to keep the balance between protecting safety and protecting privacy," said a spokesperson for Liberty. "If software is going to be looking at behavioural patterns, who defines what behaviour merits further attention?" he asked. |
|
I have posted here about public cameras (like anyone actually reads this stuff). The Brits have had analogue cameras using tape in their public areas for years . These are very old technology and really no more than your VHS. They caught pictures of that very young child just before his young "friends" murdered him. Many malls and parking lots in the USA have similar cameras now. But what may be of interest (and possibly troubling) is that digital cameras are getting very inexpensive and have the potential of the wild sci-fi technologies in the recent movie "Enemy of the State". Digital cameras only need very, very high quality lenses and the camera operators could monitor our every public move. These inexpensive lenses may not be far off. The computers today are capable of panning and zooming and following an object (or person) without much input from an operator, and without the camera moving itself. The recordings are recoded in digital form and are instanly availble by computer interface. The compression technologies mean very small files with very high quality pictures. I don't see how this can be avoided, or if we as a (somewhat) free people should fear this so long as only public spaces are monitored. But I am still collating... |