In most of the western world today people are being watched by millions of video cameras often without being aware of it. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? As a practice for the final exam you are going to write a discussion essay about surveillance. Read the articles and make a list with as many pros and cons as you can come up with and later us them when writing your essay.
- Introduction: what do you think about when you hear the term “The Surveillance society”? Are you for or against surveillance?
- The Surveillance Society: 1984 Came 25 Years Late
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KYbaxmYlkg - Read the article “Orwell Rolls in his Grave” and answer the questions.
- Make a mindmap of pros and cons of Video Surveillance.
- Watch the video “Britain pushes for mass surveillance society”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTBlir1oGco
- Read the rest of the articles and continue to write down pros and cons of video surveillance. Write at least three of your arguments on: http://sv.padlet.com/wall/qvjaw2nrv6kr
- Read the instructions for writing a discussion essay on: https://smedjeback.wordpress.com/discussion-essay/
- Read Rupert Cornwell: “Home on the range, where the spy drones fly” and try to write more arguments on your mindmap based on the article.
- Write your own essay with the title: “The Pros and Cons of Video Surveillance”.
- Send in your article.
Orwell rolls in his grave: Britain’s endemic surveillance cameras talk back
| Will Byrne Published: Wednesday May 30, 2007 |
|
Observed by over 4.2 million closed circuit or CCTV cameras across the country, Britain is already the most surveilled industrialized state in the Western world. It was recently estimated that the average Briton is captured by electronic eyes more than 300 times on a typical workday.
Yet the country’s surveillance network, which boasts one camera for every fourteen citizens, is no longer merely facilitating observance: It has now begun talking back. In a scene eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s dystopian vision of 1984, loudspeakers in one small-town center in northern Britain scold anyone they catch engaged in anti-social behaviour, including littering, drunkenness, or fighting.
Observing a bank of monitors in the council control centre, Middlesbrough town officials use the technology to broadcast warnings to deviants in real-time. The crime-fighting strategy behind the speaker cam draws upon the humiliation of being rebuked in public. A representative explained its function to the BBC in April as being to embarrass misbehavers into following the rules. Reports of wrongful chiding have been plentiful.
In one case, a young mother named Marie Brewster was falsely reprimanded for littering. She recounted her experience for The Guardian. We were in the town centre and I’d got some chips at McDonald’s for my daughter Ellie, but they were hot so I tipped them into a box and crumpled the packet up. I put it on the bottom of Ellie’s pram to take home but then heard this voice say: ”Please place the rubbish in the bin provided.” She filed her complaint when she saw footage of the event in a televised news piece advocating the effectiveness of the new innovation in combating crime.
The British government, it would seem, harbors little doubt about the system’s efficacy. On the same day that authorities in Middlesbrough issued an official apology to Ms. Brewster, the Home Office, the UK’s governmental branch on security and crime, announced its intent to distribute $1 million for the outfitting of such talking cameras in 20 other city centers. In one of the selected towns, local officials have opened up a contest for schoolchildren in which youths will compete to provide the recorded warnings to be broadcast in cases of infraction.
The speaker cam may be only the first in a row of new surveillance techniques to emerge in the British public sphere. A range of novel pre-emptive security technologies is being considered for addition to the CCTV arsenal throughout the country. In London, police and officials are discussing the widespread installation on pre-existing cameras of highly sensitive microphones that can detect aggressive tones based on the decibel, pitch, and speed of words spoken. More than 300 of these listening devices are already being piloted in offices and public spaces.
Citing a leaked memo from a January meeting of the Home Office, the London based daily The Sun recently revealed that the government was also considering the installation of X-ray cameras in lampposts on public streets. Detection of weapons and explosives will become easier the memo read, but added bluntly, Privacy is an issue because the machines see through clothing.
The British technology review Electronic Design reported in late April that the Home Office is interested in utilizing new lip-reading technologies which, triggered by key words and sentences, could act to automatically alert authorities to criminal or terrorist intent. Research on the technology, part of a three year venture undertaken by a computer vision scientist, is already being funded by a $780,000 grant from the British government.
On Monday, police in the county of Merseyside unveiled Britain’s most dramatic surveillance contrivance to date: a CCTV camera that flies. Propelled by helicopter-style rotors and directed either by remote control or pre-programmed flight plans, the nearly silent two-foot drone can be outfitted with thermal-powered cameras and loudspeakers. Assistant Chief Constable Simon Byrne explained the primary purpose of the device as to support our anti-social taskforce in gathering all-important evidence to put offenders before the courts.
As the observation of behavior takes on bizarre new forms, and data collection on the public continues to lose transparency, red flags have begun waving among privacy groups. Many have expressed wariness over the potential for undemocratic abuses of personal information, a concern that has also been raised with regard to the UK’s police-controlled DNA databank, which now contains over 3.5 million profiles.
A study published by human rights watchdog Privacy International in November placed Britain among the five worst countries in the industrialized world at protecting individual privacy, ranking alongside China and Russia as exercising endemic surveillance. In an interview with RAW STORY, Privacy International’s Gus Hosein explained that the grounds for the grim assessment were by no means limited to Britain’s expansive fleet of cameras. He noted that, among western democracies, the UK is the only country in which judicial authorization is not required for third-party interception of communication, making governmental or corporate observance of an individual’s data all but impossible to regulate.
And despite giving rise to a corporate and law enforcement procedure that is singular to Britain among its democratic peers, Hosein stated that the issue has received no coverage in the press. Last year, he added, police accessed traffic data of communications information on who emails whom, who calls whom, or an individual’s location at the time of mobile phone use 439,000 times, all without a warrant.
Since his group released its stunning conclusions on privacy in the UK, Hosein said, things have only gotten worse. He described Britain’s new identity card scheme, an unprecedented endeavor in which all citizens and residents will be fingerprinted to allow for immediate identification, as the country’s most invasive yet. He also drew attention to Tony Blair’s call on Sunday to grant broader police powers nationwide, allowing officers to stop and question any individual without requiring suspicion of a crime. Under the proposed changes, which Blair plans to push into law over the next few weeks, individuals who refuse to answer police inquiries which would cover anything from identity to destination would run the risk of arrest or a fine. Such policy has never been implemented in Britain outside of wartime.
Hosein closed by saying that, with respect to privacy in the democratic world, whatever bad policy is out there, Britain does it worse.
The British political arena houses its share of critics as well, the most prominent being the government’s information commissioner, Richard Thomas, who warned a year ago that Britain might sleepwalk into a surveillance society. He has more recently stated that the country is committing a slow social suicide with its CCTV proliferation.
Early this month, Thomas went before members of Parliament to voice his concerns over governmental and corporate intrusion into the lives of citizens and to push for increased safeguards, such as routine privacy impact assessments and greater regulation of the companies that supply surveillance technology. No one wants their electronic footprint to expose every aspect of their daily life, he said.
The UK, which has no written constitution, first enacted ground rules with respect to governmental security procedure in 1994 and passed its first comprehensive Human Rights Act in 1998. But some legal experts say that, in the actual process of pursuing and realizing security policy, the new regulations carry little weight. In an interview with RAW STORY, Bill Bowring, a senior professor of law at the University of London and a member of the human rights group Council of Liberty, suggested that the statutes are often circumvented or ignored altogether. The present surveillance situation certainly transgresses both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention for Human Rights, he said.
Bowring, troubled by what he called the government’s constant scare-mongering in its furthering of draconian security measures, stressed the need for a written constitution with entrenched provisions on human rights and civil liberties.
Others see the issue quite differently. Home Secretary John Reid, perhaps the most ardent public proponent of surveillance in Britain, has often cast opposition to CCTV expansion as misguided priggishness about personal privacy, arguing that such a system is the only way to ensure individual security and comfort in a society beleaguered by violent crime. In a statement to the BBC about the speaker cam initiative, he predicted that there would be those in the minority who will be more concerned about what they claim are civil liberties intrusions.
But many detractors positions have nothing to do with questions of ethical or democratic transgression. Some of the more vocal opponents of the CCTV arsenal have set aside concerns about civil liberties to argue that the eye in the sky approach simply isn’t working against crime.
One of them is Martin Gill, a criminology professor at the University of Leicester, whose 2005 study of 13 CCTV community initiatives found that in a majority of the neighborhoods, criminal activity actually increased. The Home Office’s own comparative studies have found lighting in public areas to be a more effective tool in lowering crime levels than surveillance cameras. Many opponents have pointed to London, where the CCTV’s greatest concentration of cameras was ineffective in halting the terrorist bombings in July of 2005, and where a sharp rise in the past six months has put the city’s murder rate at one of its most critical levels ever.
For other CCTV critics, it is not a loss of liberties or even of lives that they bemoan, but rather the huge price tag. In the last ten years, the Home Office has spent more than three quarters of its crime prevention budget on technology of record, and $500 million has been spent since 1994 on the CCTV system alone.
Still, most Britons have shown little concern about the broadening surveillance of their lives. In the case of the CCTV surveillance apparatus, in fact, they have been overwhelmingly supportive. In a recent survey carried out by The Guardian, a miniscule 2 percent of UK citizens reported that they object to the CCTV system in principle, 45 percent even consented to the installation of cameras in public toilets. In another poll, 70 percent listed their explicit support for the advancement of the surveillance network.
Even Ms. Brewster, who watched her own unwarranted reproof at the hands of a speaker cam on the evening news, remained assenting. I still think the cameras are a good idea, she told the BBC, but I have to say when you haven’t done anything wrong it’s annoying to appear like this.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Orwell_rolls_in_his_grave_0530.html
Discussion topics to “Orwell Rolls in his Grave…”
Questions to answers after having read the article
-
- Give examples from the article how surveillance is used. Be specific!
- Why is there so much surveillance in the UK? What is the government’s aim with it?
- Give example of arguments against surveillance from the article.
- What does the average Briton have to say about the growing amount of surveillance technology in Britain?
Discussion questions to “Orwell Rolls in his Grave…”5. “In a scene, eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s dystopian vision of 1984…” Why is George Orwell’s novel often mentioned in articles about surveillance?’
6. Some cameras should register “anti-social behavior”. What is that? Could definitions differ from person to person or between different cultures? Do we need new/additional legislation with more exact definitions to be able to use/judge from the information received from cameras?
7. Do you think that being a subject to “the humiliation of being rebuked” is an efficient way to fight minor crimes? Do you think people care?
8. “Britain’s new identity card scheme, an unprecedented endeavor in which all citizens and residents will be fingerprinted to allow for immediate identification”. Why do you think a country uses such extreme measures to control its citizens? Would you accept such demands for identification?
Rupert Cornwell: Home on the range, where the spy drones fly
Rupert Cornwell, Sunday, 18 December 2011
It all started when the Brossart family refused to give back half a dozen cows that one day last summer strayed on to its 3,000-acre spread near Grand Forks, North Dakota. Kelly Janke, the Nelson County sheriff, went to get them back, but was chased off by three of the Brossart children, wielding shotguns. So Mr Janke called in reinforcements: three deputies, a crack Swat team, ambulances, a bomb-disposal squad – and a $10m unmanned Predator drone, of the type the US military uses to hunt down enemy fighters in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.
And over America’s vast prairies, the Predator also did the business. From two miles up in the sky it located the three brothers and established they were unarmed, enabling police to move in and arrest them (and presumably retrieve the cows).
Drones have been much in the news lately, what with Iran’s claim to have brought down a Sentinel stealth drone operated by the CIA, and the crash of a Reaper drone, deployed to combat piracy off east Africa. But the wandering cows of North Dakota constitute a historical first. Never before, it appears, has a drone been used to make arrests in a purely domestic law enforcement case. And a new chapter in America’s eternal debate on privacy has been opened: where should the line be drawn between an individual’s right to go about his business unmolested, and the right of the state to intrude on that business in order to protect society?
Military drones, in fact, have been around since the mid-1990s, while the Department of Homeland Security – from whom Sheriff Janke called in the Predator – has been using them for a while now in US border areas to fight illegal immigration, and to help with disaster relief. Even so, when the Los Angeles Times broke news of the Brossart affair, it came as a real shock. It should not have been.
With drones, as with every branch of consumer electronics, the technology grows more powerful and user-friendly every year, while costs fall. Police departments have been itching to get their hands on drones for surveillance operations that would be far more expensive if carried out by humans. For their part, the companies (all of them part of the powerful defence industry lobby) that make the things are only too eager to tap into a lucrative domestic market.
The real worry of the North Dakota case is not that the process has started. Rather, it is that it may herald military-style “mission creep” – only on home soil. First border protection, then help with a criminal case near that border – what’s to stop drones being routinely used for every sort of police operation? After all, Sheriff Janke’s warrant seems to have made no mention of aerial surveillance. Word that the FAA, the body that runs American civil aviation, is about to bring in new rules allowing unmanned drones to fly more frequently has only increased such anxiety.
Nor is police work likely to be the end of it. Drones are flying video cameras, the difference being they can perform that function more cheaply, and for longer stretches, than any police helicopter. As such they are the paparazzi’s best friend. What celeb would ever be safe from invisible but permanent scrutiny a mile aloft?
Indeed, evolving technology makes that more likely. Compared with the industry’s latest offerings, the Predator is a lumbering giant. Take the Qube, a drone that weighs just 5lb, with launch equipment you can fit in a car boot. The device, buzzing like a hornet as it flies 200ft above the ground, has been developed specifically for law enforcement by AeroVironment, the California-based company that is the biggest supplier of small drones to the US military.
The one unsolved technical problem is that drones are far more apt to crash than manned aircraft – by one estimate, 25 large drones worldwide have crashed this year alone. But if the FAA is persuaded they are safe, the Qube could soon be coming to state police departments across the land. “This is a tool that many law-enforcement agencies never imagined they could have,” an AeroVironment executive proclaims.
And the Qube is not the end of it. Even smaller are so-called “hummingbird” drones that can fly into buildings unobserved and provide a live video feed of what’s going on inside: electronic wiretapping, but with pictures as well. Small wonder that the ACLU, the leading US civil liberties group, demanded in a report last week that “hummingbirds” be subject to the same regulation as police wiretaps.
And if unarmed drones replace human surveillance, then why not armed drones instead of armed human police? This is but a distant nightmare. But just in case, AeroVironment can offer the Switchblade, a so-called “kamikaze” drone that fits inside a backpack. Like a switchblade knife, the wings of the device pop out when it is removed from its case. The company describes its product as a portable, single-use “loitering munition”. The Switchblade hunts down and destroys its target, destroying itself in the process. Who needs police sharpshooters?
But a drone-infested future need not be Orwellian. The advantages, in terms of disaster assessment and missing person searches are obvious. And it might actually lead to more effective privacy laws. Despite technology’s giant strides over the past quarter of a century, the use of electronic surveillance is still governed by a 1986 statute. If the cows of North Dakota produce an overhaul of that regulation, they will not have strayed in vain.
Arguments Against Video Surveillance
January 13, 2010 by cbartell
As the use of CCTV cameras increases across the United States and globe, so does the debate over their numbers and motives. In a previous post, Arguments for Video Surveillance, we looked at four arguments for video surveillance. These arguments included peace of mind, loss prevention, crime deterrent, and crime solving.
But what about the other side of the fence? The ACLU has an entire Web site, You Are Being Watched, devoted to the “high costs of camera surveillance systems, both in terms of money and civil liberties,” and there are a large number of individuals and other groups out there that oppose “big brother” watching our every move.
So, what are some of the arguments against the use of CCTV surveillance systems?
- Invasion of Privacy – This is the most common argument against surveillance systems. While video surveillance is more commonly accepted in public areas, this sentiment comes into play with the use of covert and hidden cameras in almost every case.
- Mistrust – The use of security cameras in your home or business can make its occupants feel mistrusted. If your family members or employees are under constant surveillance, there is likely to be hostility and animosity in the air.
- Not Proven Effective – Studies done in California and London have found that security cameras had little to no effect on reducing the crime rate. With an increase in the sheer number of cameras in many large cities, many replacing human security guards, this is a strong argument that will be the main target of many opposing groups.
- Misuse and Abuse – The footage captured by CCTV cameras becomes susceptible to abuse and misuse by those who have access to it. For instance, the footage can be used to discriminate against people and for voyeurism. In the age of the internet, this is another huge deal, as can be seen by all of the “hilarious” YouTube videos out there. I doubt the subjects would find most of them as funny.
All of these reasons are valid arguments against CCTV surveillance. There are many cities and countries that have massive surveillance systems, and we will likely see a large increase in public monitoring in the near future, so the more the public knows about the industry and their rights, etc, the more everyone can prepare for when it happens in your little corner of the globe.
Do you have any additional arguments against the use of security camera systems? What are your thoughts? Will you fight them, or open your “public” life up willingly to being observed? Let us know – we’d love to hear from you.
http://www.thecctvblog.com/arguments-video-surveillance-2
Arguments and Reasons For Using Video Surveillance
By Christine Bartell, January 12, 2010
According to a recent survey by the Harris Poll, 96 percent of Americans support the use of video surveillance in public places by the government and law enforcement agencies to prevent terrorism. Of course we all know that video surveillance is used for more than just preventing terrorism, but also to keep watch in our homes and businesses, on streets, in parks and in several other places.
So what are some of the arguments for the use of CCTV surveillance systems across the country?
- 1. Peace of Mind – A security camera system can provide peace of mind for you, your family, employees and customers. Because they always watch, you do not have to worry about your loved ones or property while away. They help people to feel more secure in their surroundings and to know that if something did happen help can arrive quickly.
- Loss Prevention – CCTV cameras can help keep personal belongings, merchandise and money where it belongs. The systems can monitor employees and customers to make sure nothing is out of place and reduce theft. A huge part of retail theft is due to internal losses, so this is a huge part of the industry.
- Crime Deterrent – Security cameras can make a target less attractive. If would-be criminals spot a camera, they may reconsider their plans. It can prevent your family, customers and employees from being victims of a crime. Often, dummy cameras are used as such deterrents, but one has to weigh the risks of gambling their assets on a “hoax.”
- Solving Cases – Number 3 brings us here; if the cameras do not work as a crime deterrent, then the footage video surveillance systems capture can be used as evidence and help ensure that the proper arrests and prosecutions are made in case of a theft, vandalism or assault.
- 5. Monitoring Productivity – Many companies use multiple security cameras in breakrooms, on sales floors and in hallways to monitor employee productivity. While practical, some people definitely do not agree with this use of CCTV Cameras because they believe it fosters ill will and animosity between the worker and employer.
- Analyzing Trends – Perhaps one of the most practical applications, if none of the others are considered so, is the use of Security Cameras for monitoring and analyzing trends in retail situations where one needs to know how many people to schedule during a specific part of the day or where they should place certain merchandise on the sales floor. Monitoring a surveillance system can allow a business owner to make educated decisions on these matters.
These arguments are among the most common ones made for CCTV surveillance. There are sure to be others, and there are most certainly arguments against its use, so feel free to comment and let us know what your thoughts are. We are seeing a growth in the physical security industry, and will likely see an increased use of cameras in public places in the coming years, so it is becoming increasingly important for the public to be aware and knowledgeable regarding what will be out there watching them.
Written By: Christine Bartell & Jason Oeltjen.
Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Arguments-and-Reasons-For-Using-Video-Surveillance&id=3564360
In America’s most dangerous city, fighting crime with surveillance tech
By Andrew Nusca | February 10, 2012.
Camden, New Jersey is generally not a place you want to find yourself late at night. But local law enforcement are using extensive surveillance technology to transform what has been thrice named “America’s most dangerous city” into something more suitable for families.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on how the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office and Camden Police Department are using a surveillance network nicknamed “Eye in the Sky” to monitor high-crime street corners in an effort to stymie criminal activity.
It’s not just a matter of using cutting-edge tools to fight the worst drug-related crime in the country; rather, it’s an efficiency maneuver to retain crime-busting performance after deep personnel cuts last year.
Claudia Vargas reports on the $1.8 million, 81-camera system:
During the last four weeks, Big Brother in Camden has taken note of 624 vehicles whose occupants did something suspicious near one of the city’s busiest open-air drug markets, Sixth and York Streets.
The owners of these vehicles will receive letters next week warning them that their vehicles were seen – by the city’s Eye in the Sky surveillance network – in the high-crime and drug-trafficking area.
“Not only has your vehicle and tag number been recorded, appropriate criminal and/or traffic offenses may be charged if our investigation reveals your vehicle and occupants to be involved in illegal activity,” the letter reads.
The debate around personal privacy as it pertains to surveillance remains alive with this program — what if the system is wrong, is it unethical to tell you where you’ve been, et cetera — but what is perhaps just as interesting is how the surveillance system impacts regional policing efforts. The surveillance data is shared with other area police departments in an effort to break down silos between local law enforcement.
Early data results suggest that Camden’s drug problems are really the Delaware Valley’s drug problems: the majority of suspicious activity flagged by the operation was caused by residents of the suburban communities that surround Camden, such as Cherry Hill and Sewell.
For now, the system won’t be used in neighboring Philadelphia, which has three times as many surveillance cameras of its own but 14 times the land area and 20 times the population. Nonetheless, it wouldn’t be surprising if Camden’s surveillance data was shared across the river in an effort to curb interstate drug trafficking.
Photo: Michael Hicks/Flickr
Mr Smedjeback's English Class 
Wonderful article and discussion but I still have a question! In which level can this article and film be used ? I mean in English six or seven? thanks in advance
Hi Nidal! I’m glad you liked the article! I have used it in English 7, but it might also work in English 6. /Kristian.