Thread: Mass video surveillance to change Australia

Originally Posted by Tombie

Are you saying then, that if cameras in public areas had been able to identify those involved in the execution of the attack, and avert it, you would still be against them?

Or is it more from a fear of what other uses it could be put to?

The UK has more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world. They did nothing to prevent the attack. Electronic surveillance isn't a substitute for community policing and intelligence work.

And yes, I would still be against them because we all shouldn't be treated as suspects which is what these systems imply.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Until one of your family is attacked or worse, and they can’t locate the culprit.

Then views Shift

cameras do nothing to prevent an attack.
prevention is more important than "justice"

Originally Posted by Eevo

cameras do nothing to prevent an attack.

Terrorist attack? No they don't.

Crime - they do seem to have a deterrent effect.
Ipswich in QLD installed an extensive public CCTV network and street crime rates (in the covered areas) did fall.
It also allowed rapid police response to violent incidents which may otherwise have ended much worse.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

Terrorist attack? No they don't.

Crime - they do seem to have a deterrent effect.
Ipswich in QLD installed an extensive public CCTV network and street crime rates (in the covered areas) did fall.
It also allowed rapid police response to violent incidents which may otherwise have ended much worse.

it didnt fall, it just went somewhere else and wasnt observable.

Yep, that's exactly what happened in the UK.

But this system isn’t just surveillance- it’s scanning... just like Safety Cameras, it essentially ignores everything it sees until such time as a face (of an already flagged individual) is recognised.

I agree it’s a fine balance between freedoms and security- however, innocent people have nothing to hide (usually) and therefore go essentially ignored as noise in the system.

I can see the good and bad in the concept...

There are already hints that facial recognition is racially-biased: Facial-Recognition Software Might Have a Racial Bias Problem - The Atlantic

Other systems are being developed to spot who 'looks' like a criminal: A New Program Judges If You’re a Criminal From Your Facial Features - Motherboard

And China is working on facial-recognition AI which supposedly can predict if someone if likely to commit a crime: China is using AI to predict who will commit crime next

It can also be used to identify whether someone is gay or straight apparently: AI can tell if people are gay or straight with one photo of their face

But of course authorities with access to powerful technology have never abused that power.

Originally Posted by Tombie

But this system isn’t just surveillance- it’s scanning... just like Safety Cameras, it essentially ignores everything it sees until such time as a face (of an already flagged individual) is recognised.

I know your not naive enough to believe that.

Originally Posted by Tombie

I agree it’s a fine balance between freedoms and security- however, innocent people have nothing to hide (usually) and therefore go essentially ignored as noise in the system.

everyone has something to hide.
We have privacy for a reason.

Originally Posted by Tombie

I can see the good and bad in the concept...

technology used correctly and with thought always has potential.
technology can also be abused.