Apathy over mass surveillance - Guardian article/discussion

When has it been used to prevent terrorist attacks?

It's a bit more complex than that. From what little research I've looked at, camera surveillance may decrease crime if things are set up so authorities are alerted immediately and can arrive faster on the scene. But that means you're going to need people who watch those cameras and report anything immediately.

Usually that is not what happens, so most of the time what we get is surveillance for the sake of surveillance (or worse, surveillance for the sake of keeping tabs on people).

Most surveillance is there for social control.
And there have been no cases, that I am aware of, where surveillance cameras prevented terrorist attacks.
Does it not bother you that your government (via the NSA) monitors all your phone calls, your emails, your online activities etc?

People are apathetic about surveillance because they can't see it. They see discreet cameras on street corners, but they don't appear threatening in any way. There's a disconnect. It's like one-way mirrors in police stations. The people being questioned know what they are, and they know they are being watched by people in the next room, but they can't help behaving as if they were normal mirrors. Unless you can see something, it isn't real. If, instead of surveillance cameras, there were police spies perched in observation towers on every corner, people would be outraged because it would be clear to them that they were effectively living in an open prison, their every move monitored and assessed. And recorded, incidentally.

One summer night, after I'd locked up my clinic, I decided to walk into the city centre - less than a mile distance - to meet up with some of my friends. It was around 11.30pm. I walked for a few minutes (it was a fairly busy main street), and then I felt a drop of rain on my face. Now, if you're familiar with Irish weather you know that a drop of rain on your face is the prelude to a downpour. Always. So, as I was wearing only a light jacket, I stopped, turned, and headed back in the opposite direction, towards the taxi rank.
Two minutes later a car screeches to a halt beside me, and a group of men wearing flak jackets jump out and surround me. One of them is shining a bright torch in my face. I don't need to see any identification to know they are plain-clothes policemen. Within seconds a marked police car also pulls up, and three uniformed policemen jump out.
So I'm thinking they've obviously mistaken me for somebody else. Their demeanour is aggressive. They ask me if I have any ID. I tell them no, and that I don't need to carry ID. They demand to know my name, so I give them a name. They demand to know where I'm coming from, and where I'm going. I tell them that's none of their business, and I ask them what all this is about.
"Why were you behaving suspiciously?"
"What are you talking about?"
"You were walking, and then you stopped and went back the way you'd come. We were watching you on CCTV. Why did you do that?"
"You're kidding."
"No, we're not kidding. Do we look like we're kidding? Why did you suddenly stop and turn back?"
"I was going to walk into town, but I changed my mind."
Why should I tell them the reason?
"You changed your mind!"
"Yes, I changed my mind."
"Just like that? For no reason?"
"That's it."
"And you expect us to believe that?"
"That's up to you."
"Why are you out so late?"
"It's half eleven!"
It went on like this for a good ten minutes. On the one hand - now that I knew why they'd stopped me - I thought it was hilarious. On the other hand, I was well aware that these Special Branch guys weren't above "finding" illicit substances in your pockets, or breaking your arm because you "resisted arrest".
And while all this is going on there are flashing lights, radio conversations with police HQ etc. Anyone passing by would have thought it was the scene of a major sting operation.
They gave up eventually, and got back in their cars. But not before warning me that they would be "watching me" in future.

Now, you might think that situation was farcical; and so it was. However, I have no doubt at all that if the same thing had happened to someone who was more easily intimidated by the police, they would probably have spent the night in the cells, and possibly have been charged with "loitering with intent" or some other trumped-up charge. They backed off me because I had the right accent and I was able to argue with them - in other words I was more trouble than I was worth. But someone with the "wrong" accent, or who was the "wrong" colour, could easily have been railroaded for some unsolved case, or beaten up or whatever.

Well, it would sure prevent that particular perp from committing another crime while incarcerated, wouldn't it, Markus? 

Nooo. I never said that. The UK is 100 times more surveilled than the US. And Ireland only slightly less than the UK. You're lagging behind the mass surveillance curve by a decade or so. You still have time to nip it in the bud over there. But will you? I doubt it. There has been no great outcry in the US about the NSA listening in to Americans' phone calls, or collecting millions of recordings from "private" videocams in people's homes.

I think I understand you now...you believe that surveilance is to catch the inncent, whereas we see it as proctection. If enough criminals are caught by cameras, they might think twice before commiting that stuff. 

In my opinion the relationship between the security industry and the government is far too cosy. Governments want more surveillance and other security technology to monitor and control the population, and the security industry - which overlaps with the arms industry - is worth trillions of dollars annually, and essentially bribes government officials into investing in security technology, whether it be CCTV cameras, facial recognition software, "crowd control" (ie, dealing with protesters) weaponry, security barriers or whatever. It suits the government - not just the US government, but governments in general - to either privatize security, or leave it in the hands of (largely) unanswerable and unregulated agencies like the NSA and the CIA. So, for instance, there are tens of thousands of "private soldiers" in places like Iraq, working for the US government, but not subject to any of the rules and regulations that apply to members of the regular army. By hiring private contractors to do the dirty work, governments remove themselves from direct responsibility. Similarly, the vast majority of the people who monitor CCTV images and "private" phone calls - are hired on a contractual basis. They are not members of any police force.

Security measures - including street CCTV - are sold to the public as being in the interests of increased safety, crime reduction etc. However, a number of studies have shown that the benefits are tiny compared with both the amounts of money invested in these systems and the level of intrusion they represent. For example the presence of CCTV cameras has almost zero effect on the number of crimes committed on the street. Even in large stores with prominent CCTV cameras, there is virtually no reduction in shoplifting. The reality is that most criminals don't pay any attention to CCTV. They just regard it as an occupational hazard. And CCTV is only very rarely introduced as evidence in serious crime trials.

The real reason behind the push for increased surveillance is social control. Especially since the advent of the web, it is easier for people to organise, to share information, to set up campaigns and protest movements. From the government's perspective, the people now have too much power. This was highlighted in the early days of the US occupation of Iraq, when Donald Rumsfeld railed against the web and the freedom it gave people to report cases of torture, expose the government's lies etc. Surveillance is all about the government maintaining control over the people. It has nothing at all to do with keeping people safe. Of course there are cases where CCTV can be used to identify murderers, robbers etc. But that's not the reason for the surveillance. That's merely a side benefit.

If public safety was the issue, CCTV cameras would be "live" only. Or the tapes would be kept for a few days. In fact they are stored permanently, and have been since they were first introduced. Why? Because facial recognition technology is being improved all the time, and soon it will be possible to type a person's name into a computer and track their movements on a TV screen, not just in real time - it is already possible to do that - but retrospectively, going back 10, 15 or 20 years.

So, in other words, you don't care one whit what I have to say about this topic. Of course, you never asked my opinion, so I can't actually complain. So I won't complain anymore. I'll just  think it. Just let me know when you believe that my thoughts are wrong. Then we will really have something to talk about. 

This proves you do read minds. Because  thought (hoped) this is what you really thought. I'm trying to "get it" but so much of it, is so hard to know what is right. 

Sure, but in my experience that's not what people mean when they talk about crime prevention. If that is what you meant, sure I agree.

But that still requires that people actually sift through all that surveillance data to get those couple minutes where they can see the crime being committed. It's not something that happens magically just because somebody puts up a camera, but that's how a lot of people seem to think surveillance technology works.

I could scream! I just wrote a three-paragraph posting just when I clicked on create, FACTS went down and a screen came up saying sorry, they were having a problem at the moment. Well, I'm having a problem now! Arrrrrrgh! 

I know you're right. I've done that before, but I guess I'm just too lazy. Anyway, I thought I was safe because I chose the feature in my profile where the last thing you wrote without it being posted comes back to you in a screen where you can use it again or not. I feel personally persecuted now, haha.  Anyway, when I write directly on FACTS, I will continually copy and paste before I post. 

I'll re-do my post later. It's about my personal experience with Cyber Crime.