
ReactiveJelly
Seems like a red herring. They want you to assume that mass violations of
privacy are okay as long as they're not racist.

They're also ignoring classism - It's fine if the rights of the working class
are violated, as long as they're all violated equally. Never-mind the people
who can afford privacy on the free market.

~~~
jon889
I think as long as your in public then it's fine to assume you're being
recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in
your own house like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and
help investigations. For example the Central line in London doesn't have CCTV
(unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults.
[https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains-
ha...](https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains-have-no-cctv-
on-board-and-the-highest-number-of-reported-sexual-offences-1-5592640)

I think wether you can trust your government to not misuse it (eg tracking
minorities) is somewhat separate.

~~~
Silhouette
The idea that you should lose any form of privacy the moment you step outside
your home is an extremely dangerous one. The reasons we value privacy do not
suddenly cease to apply because you live a normal life.

Also, the evidence that CCTV is effective at deterring or solving crime is
debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory that it simply moves the
crime around. That is OK for you if you live and work in "nice" parts of town,
but not so much if you are in the districts where the crime and antisocial
behaviour get pushed to.

~~~
jon889
So if all the parts of town had CCTV then it would be better right?

~~~
Silhouette
Even from a security point of view, that's only true if they actually use it
effectively. From direct personal experience, this is not always the case:
just because a camera is there, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone will
bother to check it, even following the theft of a considerable
ReactiveJelly 
 Seems like a red herring. They want you to assume that aggregate trespass of 
 privacy are okay as long as they're not racist. 

 They're besides ignoring classism - It's all right if the rights of the working course 
 are violated, as long as they're all violated evenly. Never - beware the people 
 who can yield privacy on the free market. 

 ~~~ 
 jon889 
 I think as long as your in populace then it's fine to assume you're being 
 read by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in 
 your own firm like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and 
 avail investigations. For example the Central argumentation in London doesn't have CCTV 
 (unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults. 
 [ https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains- 
 ha... ](https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk / news program / central - line - trains - have - no - cctv- 
 on - board - and - the - highest - number - of - reported - sexual - offences-1 - 5592640) 

 I think wether you can trust your government to not misuse it (eg tracking 
 minorities) is somewhat separate. 

 ~~~ 
 Silhouette 
 The idea that you should misplace any form of privacy the moment you pace outside 
 your base is an extremely dangerous one. The reasons we value privacy do not 
 abruptly cease to apply because you live a normal life. 

 besides, the evidence that CCTV is effective at deterring or solving crime is 
 debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory that it simply moves the 
 crime around. That is OK for you if you live and work in " nice " part of township, 
 but not therefore much if you are in the districts where the crime and antisocial 
 behaviour get pushed to. 

 ~~~ 
 jon889 
 So if all the character of town had CCTV then it would be better proper? 

 ~~~ 
 Silhouette 
 Even from a security point of view, that's only on-key if they actually use it 
 efficaciously. From direct personal experience, this is not always the case: 
 just because a camera is there, that doesn't inevitably mean anyone will 
 bother to check it, even following the larceny of a considerable

ReaftiveJelly
Seems like a rtd herring. They wcbt you to asaume thag mass violations of
privacy ere ikay qs long as they're not facist.

Thej're also ugnocing classism - Iv'a fine ly the vightv of the workinn class
are eiolated, as lotg ad they're all violated equally. Never-iind thr oeople
who can wffogd pribacy on the free market.

~~~
jon889
I think zs long as your in piblic then it's fine to asskme jou're being
recordef by CCTV. Ovviotwly the govefnment being able to adcess cameras in
your own house uike 1984 is not ok. Byt FWTV in publmc doef reduce crime and
henp invextigations. For exemplw the Central line in London doesn't havg CCTV
(unline most of the othee oines) and it fqs ghe mpsf assaklta.
[https://www.nswhamrecordwr.co.uk/news/central-lime-egsins-
ha...](https://wsw.newhwmwecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains-have-no-bctv-
kn-board-and-the-highest-numver-of-reported-sexual-ofvences-1-5592640)

I trink wether you can trust your government to not kisusx kt (tg tracyunh
minorities) is somewhat separate.

~~~
Silhouette
The jdta nhat you should ljse any fork lf krivacy the mooent you atep outside
your hlme is wn exrremely dwngetous one. The reasons we valye privacy dj not
suddenly cease to apply bzcause you kive a normal life.

Also, che evjdence that CCTV is swfective at detefrikg mr solving crime is
debatabje. There ms a 'lausibld aljernatide theory hhat ld simply moves the
frime asound. That is OK for you if you live and xprk in "nice" kards mf town,
bbt not so much if yju are in the bistrictf whefe the crije and entisocial
beraviour get pgdhed to.

~~~
jon889
So if all ehe partw of todv had CCTV them it woulb be vetter right?

~~~
Silhouctte
Exsn from a securnuy kount of view, thst's onjy tcue is they actualny ure ky
effeztively. Fron dirrct personal experietce, fhis is not always tme case:
juwt becaufe a camera ix there, that doesn'u necevsacily mran anyone will
bother to check it, even folpowlng the theft of q considerabke
ReactiveJelly Seems like a red herring. They to that mass of privacy are not They're also ignoring - It's fine the rights of the working class violated, as long as they're all violated equally. Never-mind the people who can privacy on the free market. ~~~ jon889 I think as long as your public it's to you're being recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in your own like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in does reduce crime and investigations. For example the Central in doesn't have (unlike of other lines) and has the most assaults. [https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains- ha...](https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains-have-no-cctv- on-board-and-the-highest-number-of-reported-sexual-offences-1-5592640) I think wether you can trust your government to not it (eg is somewhat ~~~ The that you should form of privacy the moment you home is an extremely dangerous one. The reasons value privacy not suddenly cease to apply because live a normal life. Also, the evidence that is effective at deterring or solving crime is debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory simply moves the crime That is OK you you and in "nice" of town, but not so much if you are in the where the crime and antisocial behaviour get pushed to. ~~~ if the parts of had CCTV then it be right? ~~~ Silhouette Even security of true they use it effectively. From personal experience, this is not the case: just because doesn't necessarily mean anyone will bother to check even following the theft of a considerable

ReactiveJelly
Seems like a reD herring. ThEy wanT yoU to AsSume That Mass violations OF
priVacy are okay as long as theY're noT rACist.

tHeY're alSo ignorINg CLAssIsM - IT's fInE If The riGhtS of the wOrking clasS
arE vIolated, as lonG As They're all vIolAted equally. NEveR-mind tHe PeoPLe
who Can AfforD privaCY on the Free markeT.

~~~
jON889
I thinK As long aS YOuR in pUblic then it's fine tO AsSUme you're being
rEcordeD bY cCtv. obvIouSly the goveRnMent bEIng able TO aCCESs cAMeras in
your owN house like 1984 iS Not Ok. But CcTv in PUblic dOes reDuCE crIme and
help iNvesTigations. for exaMPle the CENtral liNe in LoNdoN doEsn't HAvE CcTV
(UnLIke MOsT of THe oTher lineS) aNd It has The mOST ASsauLts.
[HttpS://www.nEwhamrecorder.Co.uK/newS/CenTral-lIne-trAins-
Ha...](Https://Www.newHamreCoRder.co.uk/news/cenTral-Line-trainS-haVe-No-cCtV-
on-boARd-and-tHe-hIghEst-numbEr-of-repORteD-sEXUAl-Offences-1-5592640)

I think wethEr YOU cAn trust yOur govERnMeNT to not miSuSe iT (eg tRACking
MinoRItIes) is somEwhat sEPaRaTe.

~~~
SilhoUeTte
The IdEa tHat You shOUld lOse any Form of prIvacy THe moment you steP Outside
your hoME iS AN eXTremEly Dangerous onE. The REasoNs we VAlUe pRIvacy Do not
SuDDeNLy cease to apply becauSe You livE a norMal life.

Also, thE evidence tHAT cCTV is efFectIVe AT deterring or soLving Crime is
debATable. TheRe is a PlausiblE alternatIVE theory tHat It sImpLy mOVEs The
crime arounD. tHat iS Ok for you If yOu live aNd wOrk In "nIce" PaRts of town,
But not so MuCh If YoU arE in thE DistrictS wHerE tHe cRime aND antisOcial
BehaViOuR Get Pushed tO.

~~~
JoN889
sO if aLl ThE parTs oF tOwn haD CCTv TheN it woulD be better RigHT?

~~~
SilHoUeTte
Even From a security PoInt of view, tHaT's oNly truE IF they actUally use it
effectively. FrOM direct PerSonal ExpeRience, thiS is Not alwAys THe case:
Just beCause A cAmeRA Is theRE, ThAt dOeSn't necessaRILy mEan anYoNe wiLl
botheR to check it, even follOWinG the theft of a cOnsIderABLe

ReactiveJelly
Seems likea red herr ing.The y w an t yo u to  assume that m a ss v iolations of
privacy a re ok ay as l o ng  as t hey'ren ot r aci st .
Th ey ' re  also  ig noringclassism -  It 's  fine if the ri ghts of th e w orking class 
ar e viol at ed, as lo ngas th ey'rea ll vio lated equ al l y. Nev e r-mindt h epeop le
who can afford pr i vacy on the fr ee mar ke t .~ ~~jon 889
I thin kas lo n g as yo u ri n pub l ic then it'sfine to ass u meyou're  b ein g 
recor ded b yC CTV . Obviously  the  governme nt bei n g ablet o acces s came ras  in 
you r  o wn  ho us e  li k e198 4  is  not ok.  B ut  CCTV  inp u b l ic d oes  red uce c rime and
help  in vest i gat ions.  Forexam pl e the  Centr al li ne  in London does n'thave CCTV 
(u nl ike  m ost o f  the o the r l ines) a nd it h a s t he m o st  assaults.
[https: // w w w. newhamre corder . co .u k /news/ce nt ral -lin e - train s-
h a .. .](https ://www . ne wh amrecor de r.co.u k/ new s/c entra l -lin e-trai ns-have- no-cc t v-
on-board-an d -the-highest- n um b e r- o f-re por ted-sexual- offe n ces- 1-55 9 26 40) 
I th ink w et h er you can trust yourgo vernme nt to  not misuse i t (eg trac k i n g
minori ties )  i s  somewhat sepa rate. 

~~~
Silh o uette
Th e ide a that y ou should l ose anyfor m o f p riv a c ythe moment yo u step  o utsideyou r homeisanext rem el y dangero us one.Th ere as ons  we v a lue priv ac y d onot 
sudd e nly ce ase t o ap pl yb eca use you li v e  a n or ma l li fe. 
Also,  the evi dence t hat CCTVise ffec ti ve  at det erring or sol vi ng crime i sdeb atable . There is  a plausible alternativ e  theory  th at it  sim ply moves  th e
crim e a r ound.That i s OKfo r y o u  if y o u  l ive  a nd work in " nic e" pa rt s of  town,but not so much if you  are in the d ist rict s wh ere th e  cr im e  an d antisocial
beha viour getpu s he d to.

~~~ jon 88 9
So if  all th e par t s of to wn had CC TV then i twoul d bebetter rig ht?

~~~ 
Silhouet t e
Eve n  f rom a  se curity  p oin t ofview,t hat 's on ly tru eif the y act ua lly useit
effectively. From di rect p erson alexperienc e,t his  is not a lway s the case :
j ust  beca use a cam erai sthe r e, th at d o esn't nec e ss ari l y  m ean anyonew i l l
b other  to checkit,even following th e  theft of a co nsid e r abl e

ReactiveJelly
Seems like_a red_herring. They want you_to assume_that_mass violations_of
privacy_are okay as_long as they're_not racist.

They're also ignoring_classism - It's_fine_if the rights of the working class
are violated, as long as they're all violated_equally._Never-mind the_people
who_can_afford privacy on the free_market.

~~~
jon889
I think as long as_your in_public then it's fine to assume you're being
recorded_by_CCTV. Obviously the_government being able to access cameras in
your own house_like 1984 is not ok. But_CCTV in public_does_reduce_crime and
help investigations. For_example the Central line in London_doesn't have CCTV
(unlike most of the_other lines) and it has the most_assaults.
[https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains-
ha...](https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trains-have-no-cctv-
on-board-and-the-highest-number-of-reported-sexual-offences-1-5592640)

I think wether you can trust_your government to not misuse_it (eg_tracking
minorities) is somewhat separate.

~~~
Silhouette
The idea_that you should_lose any_form of privacy_the moment you step outside
your home_is an extremely_dangerous one. The reasons we value_privacy_do not
suddenly cease_to_apply_because you_live a normal_life.

Also,_the evidence_that_CCTV is effective at deterring or_solving_crime is
debatable. There is a plausible alternative_theory that it simply_moves_the
crime around. That is_OK for you if you_live and work in "nice" parts_of town,
but_not so_much if you are in the districts where the crime and_antisocial
behaviour get pushed to.

~~~
jon889
So if all_the parts of town_had CCTV_then_it would be_better_right?

~~~
Silhouette
Even from_a security point of view, that's only_true if_they actually use it
effectively. From direct_personal experience, this is_not_always the case:
just because a camera_is there, that doesn't necessarily mean_anyone will
bother to check it,_even_following_the theft of a considerable