Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Perhaps privacy is the wrong concept?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Graham Hill < >
  • To: Kevin Cox < >
  • Cc: ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Perhaps privacy is the wrong concept?
  • Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:56:48 +0100
Hi Kevin

There are over 5.5 million CCTV cameras in the UK, that is one for every 11 people!

Frredom from surveillance is clearly not the norm any more.

The few studies on the effects of CCTV on citizen behaviour that I have seen (I am not involved in the security industry in any way) suggest small positive affects on citizens perceptions of their well-being, small reductions in non-impulsive crime and that citizens don't noticeably change their behaviour. 
The evidence somewhat refutes your behaviour in a feudal/totalitarian society argument.

Do you think it is consequentially reasonable to insist that you remain free from surveillance when its introduction may protect others less able to protect themselves from harm? 
Does being a member of society brings a responsibility to consider more than just one's own interests? 
How should you, and society decide?

Best regards from Cologne, Graham

On Sep 22, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Kevin Cox < "> > wrote:

Graham,

Surveillance  - Close observation, esp. of a suspected spy or criminal

I for one expect freedom from surveillance to be the norm.  

The reason is that if surveillance is the "norm" then people will simply stop doing anything that could be construed as different to the party line of those in control.  We see this in all feudal and totalitarian societies.  This is reason enough to stop routine close observation (surveillance).  

Kevin


On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Graham Hill < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Iain

There are plenty of words expended on the VRMProject list extolling the virtues of privacy and freedom from surveillance. But nobody has explained why one should expect privacy or freedom from surveillance to be the norm. 

Upon what basis can one expect one's dealings to be 'private' amongst the members of the society in which we have chosen to live? Does living in a society inevitably mean that our privacy should be constrained. And how much should privacy be constrained?

Upon what basis can one expect one to be 'free from surveillance' by other members of the society in which we live. Is some surveillance necessary e.g. to prevent crime, enforce societal norms and prevent free-riding? If it is, who decides how much and in what forms?

Just a thought.

Best regards from Cologne, Graham


Great idea Kevin, it's a lot easier to play with words and get around accusation of breach of privacy than it is an accusation of surveillance.

Iain


On 21 Sep 2013, at 20:28, Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

From Wikidpedia
Noun
• The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
• The state of being free from public attention.

As soon as someone reads this email my privacy has been broken.  I hope someone will observe me through the email so I am not worried about my privacy with respect to this email.

A better word to use may be surveillance.   

Surveillance

Close observation, esp. of a suspected spy or criminal

Perhaps

Freedom from surveillance

rather than

Right to Privacy


Kevin




e-mail: " target="_blank">
blog: www.iainhenderson.info
twitter: @iainh1

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.

<a href="http://miicard.me/b0F1Jsy5">Identity assured by miiCard : Click to Verify</a>









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.