On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:46:10AM +0530, shiv sastry wrote: > http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bb.htm > "The statistics show that video surveillance can improve security. With 90 %
I don't trust these data. > of banks now fitted with cameras, 50 % of robbers are identified and arrested It's much easier to have money in delay-release safes. > within two years. Thanks to video surveillance in the Paris metro, 83 % of > incidents are now detected, and arrests have risen by 36 %. The use of this There are no damn incidents in our subway. So why are there surveillance cameras? > technology in department stores has reduced shoplifting by two thirds. " I can see some limited use surveillance by private parties in their private spaces, and requiring a judge's order to release such to LEOs. > But what is more interesting is that shoplifting is done by shop-staff in > about third of cases, and surveillance affects their privacy and is used to > watch them. A potential shoplifting staff member would have everything to > gain by protesting that his privacy is being violated. Maybe the shops should pay their employees enough, so that shoplifting is not worth it. > I note that anyone who words in the "IT sector" works in a kind of fortress > in > which (as far as I know) he is not allowed to take in or take out data or Not true in the blanket sense. My main hat is a system administrator at a software development shop, and we don't have any such silliness. > data storage devices. His access to the world outside is limited by firewalls > and his communication could be monitored by a system geared to do that. Rubbish. If you don't trust your employees, you shouldn't have hired them. > This kind of monitoring is done by the employer in a private company, and not > by the police. Now surely an educated and well paid person should not be > monitored in this way. Is this employee surveillance ineffective in > preventing crime? Is this intrusion of privacy necessary at a all? Absolutely not. If the employee is not performing, according to objective periodic performance evaluations, you either cut back his pay or fire her. > I work in an environment in which nothing is monitored and have no idea how > it > feels to be honest and yet considered dishonest by default. I would like to > see more security systems so I do not lose my cellphone, watch or money when How about lockers with keys. > I change into theater clothes and attend to an emergency. Some employees are > surely the culprits in the absence of members of the public in the areas in > which such losses occur, and they need to be identified. The loss of privacy > that entails is acceptable to me. People who know they're under constant surveillance behave differently. That alone is a sufficient reason to ban it. My main beef with surveillance is that you can build full profiles of people by data-mining of realtime gathered data, and start dispatching LEOs if there's a deviation (and if we say there's a deviation, who are you to question us? No, you can't see the data. It's secret. Who are you, to ask, some kind of dissident?). I don't have to tell you what this means to a democracy. Once you've fallen into the potential well of a totalitarian system, you won't come out again so easily, thanks to modern surveillance and enforcement. Quis custodiet and "the troops will rebel" no longer applies. Hardware doesn't rebel. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
