>He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have something to hide...
Of course, the ultimate irony was when David Cameron was PM and the Panama pepers came to light, exposing all his dad's shady dealings and secret offshore bank accounts [1]. Cameron's spokeswoman told the press "A family's finances are their own private affair" This kind of sums up what life in the UK is like. A priveleged ruling class, with utter contempt for the electorate; "Do as we say. Not as we do!".
[0] Daily Fail = The Daily Mail. A right-wing tabloid newspaper which is a by-word for the kind of zzz-elebrity gossip mixed with anti-immigrant "hanging's too good for them" ranting that [unfortunately] appeals to a large enough percentage of the British population, to keep the Tories in power, seemingly for the foreseeable future.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-d...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-a...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-camero...
I remember Xi or an official even praising London about that though I cant find a citation.
>Doesn’t London have one of the most extensive surveillance systems in the world sans china?
</sarcasm>
Similarly a friend that runs a bike shop near a Tesco can't get Tesco to share high resolution video of burgalars breaking into his shop. They have it but it's their corporate policy not to share it.
On the one hand I guess right now all this surveilence is siloed to some degree and so less likely to be abused. On the other these seem like perfectly ligitimate uses of video to fight crime.
The government has no real ability to gain access to those cameras beyond asking nicely, or getting an actual search warrant. Even then the police still have to visit the site with the CCTV camera, and mostly capture the footage by filming the screen of the CCTV system with their phone (I've talked to Met police officers about this, and seen the footage). Most of those cameras barely work, point in the wrong direction, aren't recording, are so fuzzy you can't see anything. So comparing it to China is an apples to orange comparison.
The idea that these CCTV cameras could be used by the state for surveillance is laughable. The police struggle to get hold of the footage for actual in-progress investigations where they have real leads, and pretty much know what the footage is gonna show them already. So there's not a chance in hell the state could ever hope to get some sort of live feed of this data.
I don't think so, they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.
Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30978995.amp
Article on how much useless CCTV exists in the UK.
> https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in...
Estimates 4.4 million cameras in London, only 20k run by councils.
> they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.
Perhaps you can provide some sources for your assertions?
> Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.
That’s an entirely separate discussion.
That’s an entirely separate discussion.
It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.
Your source seems to support my position more than yours. Perhaps you could explain how research showing that CCTV is frequently of low quality, and doesn’t seem to improve crime solve rates, demonstrates the UK governments extensive CCTV capabilities?
> It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.
Your original point, which I refuted, is that London has a surveillance system which would make china proud. I think I’ve shown that no such surveillance system exists in reality. You’re free to move the goal posts, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not interested in chasing them.
But the police didn't have any footage of the event. Not even a business had a camera pointed in the right direction.
Put another way: the question of whether or not you have "something to hide" isn't yours to answer. Your user name is German; you should understand this better than anyone.
Which supermarket is that? I've never seen anything overt like that where I usually shop and doing it covertly would be risky in multiple ways.
When you do have such a conversation, what would you typically give as reason?
Self-checkout has more obvious cctv because you're giving more power to the shopper; self-checkout is just one step away from allowing someone to just walk out with the product a la Amazon Fresh (which has a literal FIELD of cameras).
Businesses have CCTV for the same reason that people have cameras fitted to their houses. 99.99999% of the time things will be fine, but the time something isn't, it's sure nice to have the evidence.
I was telling a coworker recently that I always use a VPN while browsing the internet. He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have something to hide. And this isn't just one person. I've had similar reactions when I've told people I only use signal, or refuse to use cloud storage, or won't list employment history on LinkedIn for privacy reasons. I get that I have an extreme preference for privacy, but people in the UK don't even understand why someone like myself value privacy.
This attitude is also adopted by our leaders and businesses, who by various means, mass surveil the public, typically citing "safety".
The issue with the UK isn't just that our government don't value privacy, it's that as a people we don't even understand the value of privacy.