Sherbrooke will use surveillance cameras

[Svante]

Maire Serge Paquin say surveillance cameras will b e use centre ville, parciing lots, library,parcs. programme begiin 3 years befojr but he annoncer today and any crime i s give to police. the surveillance cameras have tape. the Commission d’acces à l’information make the rules for videotapeing in public areas in Quebec say police videotape if there i s to belieave a crime.what abaout rights and freedom of people? Commissaire Martin Carrier he say that video surveillance cameras are effective to fight crime. Maire Paquin say that citizens d o not like the cameras when there were first install but have now accepte them. so camera will b e averywere. d o we have any choice and d o othre city use this?

 

[Diuretic]

Everywhere in our downtown area. Saturday nights we sit and watch "feral cam"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the United States you have no presumed right to privacy in public places. Cameras are acceptable and used in a lot of places. Hell you can get a ticket for speeding or running a light from JUST a picture of your license plate at intersections and listed speed monitoring areas.

 

[Said1]

They're just doing this now?

 

[editec]

More people = less privacy.

This is a trend I expect to see grow more common over time.

 

[Amanda]

I don't see any problem with it. Don't do anything in public you don't want anyone to know about and it won't be a problem.

 

[Gurdari]

Hmm... who can film? Anyone? I guess so. Why not a private corp. set up cameras all over a city and stream it live online - could be an interesting site/channel. No more Private Eyes, just people at home watching to see if their wife/husband's car really is at work haha

 

[Said1]

More people = less privacy.

This is a trend I expect to see grow more common over time.

More people=more poverty=more crime=less privacy.

Scarborough is huge part of the GTA (might even be the largest), so naturally there would be more crime happening in that location. I'm still surprised they're just doing this now.

 

[Svante]

In the United States you have no presumed right to privacy in public places. Cameras are acceptable and used in a lot of places. Hell you can get a ticket for speeding or running a light from JUST a picture of your license plate at intersections and listed speed monitoring areas.

why dont people d o something abaout this? this should not happen.the gouvenement i s take away the freedom.

 

[eots]

I don't see any problem with it. Don't do anything in public you don't want anyone to know about and it won't be a problem.

its not that simply..and once we openly accept it in public it wont belong before it occurs in private..and it can and will be used for political purpose ..it is not the answer to crime ..britain is proof of that

British police may remotely hack into personal computers and e-mail without warrant
Posted by Rob Beschizza, January 4, 2009 7:54 AM | permalink
Britain's Home Office will allow police to remotely hack into anyone's computer without a warrant. From the Times:

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.
Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.



The move follows a green light from the European Union, and also permits British police to access U.K. residents' computers at the behest of investigators from other countries. This could allow the British to conduct searches on behalf of local agencies bound by more restrictive policies, sharing the results back with them.

British police may remotely hack into personal computers and e-mail without warrant - Boing Boing Gadgets





British Study Says CCTV Cameras Don’t Deter Crime
LONDON (AP) - The web of security cameras monitoring Britain’s streets, stations and shopping centers has done little to reduce crime or make people feel safer, according to a government study to be released Thursday.

The government, which spent 170 million pounds (US$325 million, euro250 million) on CCTV cameras between 1998 and 2003, said it had no plans to fund any more.

Video cameras have blossomed in Britain since the 1990s. An estimated 4.2 million cameras now observe the country’s 60 million people going about their everyday business, from getting on a bus to lining up at the bank to driving around London. It’s widely estimated that the average Briton is scrutinized by 300 cameras a day.



» British Study Says CCTV Cameras Don’t Deter Crime

 

[Amanda]

its not that simply..and once we openly accept it in public it wont belong before it occurs in private..and it can and will be used for political purpose ..it is not the answer to crime ..britain is proof of that

Uh oh... you mean when you become president I'll be your Monica because we talked about sex and they will know? You're ruined.

Seriously, don't do anything that will get you in trouble and you won't get in trouble. If seems pretty easy to me.

 

[eots]

Uh oh... you mean when you become president I'll be your Monica because we talked about sex and they will know? You're ruined.

Seriously, don't do anything that will get you in trouble and you won't get in ...

I MAY NOT TO BE OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT MYSELF ..BUT iHAVE EVER REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT MANY PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT AND OTHER SPHERES OF INFLUENCE BEING COMPROMISED ..WHEN ELEMENTS WITHIN IN THE GOVERNMENT CAN TRACK EVERY MOVEMENT TRANSACTION AND KEY STROKE ON A COMPUTER

 

[Amanda]

I MAY NOT TO BE OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT MYSELF ..BUT iHAVE EVER REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT MANY PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT AND OTHER SPHERES OF INFLUENCE BEING COMPROMISED ..WHEN ELEMENTS WITHIN IN THE GOVERNMENT CAN TRACK EVERY MOVEMENT TRANSACTION AND KEY STROKE ON A COMPUTER

Did your caps lock get stuck or are you trying to emphasize the "KEY STROKE ON A COMPUTER" aspect?

Again, seriously, what's the problem? If some government official is doing something they shouldn't be doing don't you want them caught? I do.

 

[dilloduck]

Uh oh... you mean when you become president I'll be your Monica because we talked about sex and they will know? You're ruined.

Seriously, don't do anything that will get you in trouble and you won't get in trouble. If seems pretty easy to me.

but it wrecks everyone's right to try to avoid getting caught committing a crime ! It's SO wrong.

 

[Amanda]

but it wrecks everyone's right to try to avoid getting caught committing a crime ! It's SO wrong.

I bet people can come up with new and inventive ways to hide what they do.

 

[dilloduck]

I bet people can come up with new and inventive ways to hide what they do.

LOL ya --but the government shouldn't force them to find creative new ways to be a crook .

 

[eots]

but it wrecks everyone's right to try to avoid getting caught committing a crime ! It's SO wrong.

except it does not reduce crime..and surly you aware enough to recognize many people in positions of influence or dissenters could be black mailed or compromised without having to commit a crime...but hell we accept and celebrate fascism now so why not invasion of privacy..for the good of the whole of course...

 

[Said1]

its not that simply..and once we openly accept it in public it wont belong before it occurs in private..and it can and will be used for political purpose ..it is not the answer to crime ..britain is proof of that

British police may remotely hack into personal computers and e-mail without warrant
Posted by Rob Beschizza, January 4, 2009 7:54 AM | permalink
Britain's Home Office will allow police to remotely hack into anyone's computer without a warrant. From the Times:

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.
Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.



The move follows a green light from the European Union, and also permits British police to access U.K. residents' computers at the behest of investigators from other countries. This could allow the British to conduct searches on behalf of local agencies bound by more restrictive policies, sharing the results back with them.

Could that be a nicer way of saying 'without the adequate technology to do it themselves'? Now that would bother me, more so than the cameras.

 

[dilloduck]

except it does not reduce crime..and surly you aware enough to recognize many people in positions of influence or dissenters could be black mailed or compromised without having to commit a crime...but hell we accept and celebrate fascism now so why not invasion of privacy..for the good of the whole of course...

I have bad news for you----you cannot stop the people who already have the ability to do this.

 

[Amanda]

..and surly you aware enough to recognize many people in positions of influence or dissenters could be black mailed or compromised without having to commit a crime..

I was hoping you'd bring up blackmail. So you're saying that if for example a conservative politician was noticed to be viewing gay porn it could be used against him even though it's not an illegal activity? Is this basically right or am I missing something?