In virtually all urban areas, you are being photographed

[Cyrano]

We've reached the point where there is almost nowhere in any town/city in America where you can't walk down the street without being caught on camera.

Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Well, if you're a mugger, or anyone who is openly attacking/victimizing others, I suppose it's a good thing.

But what about everyone else? Is this an "invasion of privacy?"

I'm on the fence about this. Are those millions of cameras helping to improve our safety and protect us from crime? Perhaps they are. But on the other hand, what about our every movement being monitored by a would be "Big Brother."

I guess that, once upon a time in America, my conclusion may have been our government's concern for safety and protection. Yet, in today's environment, all of my instincts scream, "Big Brother."

It seems that the reality is somewhere between safety, and the intentions of those who finance the people in power. I fear that our being watched almost 24/7 does not bode well for humanity. After all, why does anyone need to know our every movement?

China is in the process of building a facial recognition system that will analyze and perhaps identify each and every face picked up by any camera, at any time, anywhere in China.

I find that scary. Can our government do that? Are they working on it? Do we want them to?

My answer is, no. It seems to me that the dangers outweigh the benefits.

For example, what if you did on online post that, at one time or another, disparaged our president? And what if she/he could uncover your name? And what if your face was in government files? And what if that president was paranoid, and intolerant of any perceived insults? And what if your daily movements were available because of a nationwide surveillance system?

Okay, that sounds a bit extreme. Right now. But would you really want to live in a world in which privacy is an illusion? (Perhaps we're already there.)

What do you think?

[MineralMan]

1. Well, one thing is certain.

All those cameras make it easier to catch criminals. Show a still clip on the local news of someone, and the next thing you know, there's an arrest.

Thing is, most criminals are assholes. Someone they've pissed off sees the clip and calls the cops.

That's what I've noticed, anyhow.

Public places are, well, public. There's no real expectation of not being seen in a public place. By other people or a camera. Privacy in public view is an oxymoron.

[Cyrano]

2. Hi, MM. I've updated my post since your reply.

Sorry about that. My additional comments highlight the downside of the ongoing monitoring of us all. Perhaps that changes your opinion. Or not. But I do agree with the upside that you express.

[MineralMan]

3. Well, in general almost all of those cameras are unmonitored.

What they see is recorded. If something happens, the recording can be replayed. At some events, and in places like casinos, there is live monitoring, of course. But that's expensive, so it's not done in most public places.

There is some automated video surveillance, like vehicle license plate scanning at some intersections, but that's costly, too.

A lot of people are installing motion-activated doorbell cameras on their homes. Eventually, more and more video will be recorded. So much, in fact, that live monitoring will become impossible. But evidence is still being collected of what happens. If a crime occurs, it'll be there.

Meanwhile, smile when you're in a business or at an ATM. You're on camera.

[Backseat Driver]

4. Some retail employers are using "camera evidence" to

eliminate whole shifts of employees though only one is purported to be guilty of breaking the law. These hard-working men and women are told management would replay the tape to determine WHO did the deed. The whole shift was put on what is termed "indefinite suspension "until the tape can be reviewed, but the tapes evidently are never reviewed, and the shift of workers are never again contacted about the findings. It's not a "lay off", not a definite "termination" for the cause cited (because there's a tape revealing who did the deed, right?) Management won't take calls from them, either. Just three or four workers never again contacted to come back to work even though they did not commit the crime. Unemployment benefits get put on hold because technically they are not laid off or terminated. In some states, workers won't even qualify for benefits, small those they'd be on such low pay though, of course, employers paid into the fund (or did they?) and the employee can't find that out unless they question it with, IDK, maybe the state AG? Geesh, under management like that, who would want to come back to work for such manipulative liars?

Edit for spelling.

[Beringia]

5. Facebook and google images already have this capability

I found it freaky to upload pics and have facebook identify them for me.

[Bradical79]

6. Not really extreme, retailers do this already.

Lowes, for example, has the tech in place and uses it already. It's claimed it's used only for shoplifters, which may be the case at the moment, but the end goal is analytics and targeted advertising.

This is well within the government capabilities, it's just a matter of cost and utility. I'd be surprised if this isn't already done to an extent.

[myohmy2]

7. and...

...we used to pick on Ceausescu's Romania...

...most people walk around with a government surveillance device in their pocket every day...and they like it that way...

...I don't, I don't like it that way...

...avoid urban areas...

[not_the_one]

8. this may seem extreme, but

cowards and the guilty hide behind anonymity.

Assume you are always on camera. Does that change the way you act, or what you do? If so, then..... (Trust me, I have done a LOT of things that I am ashamed of.)

We have to, at least, get over expectations of PUBLIC privacy. It is a contradiction. There are too many out there who want to hurt others. Times have changed, and we need to meet the challenge.

We also need to get past voting privacy (we may need to PROVE who we voted for), and the Democratic party needs to step up to the plate to be prepared to do just that.

Plus, having everything done behind closed doors (in our name and on OUR dime) means that we may not like what is being done in our name. I want to know WHO is making WHAT decisions in MY name. Again, cowards and the guilty.

Regarding the current situation with the Mueller report and supporting documentation, is one single source, or intelligence process, worth the destruction of our country? I don't think so.

Absolute transparency is required for us to get our democracy back on track.

[Mister Ed]

9. I sure hope voting privacy is never eliminated.

For a long time in the US, one's vote was public information, and not private. The reason we changed to the secret ballot was to reduce the possibility of people being hired or bribed to vote a certain way.

With the secret, or "Australian" ballot, bribed voters could never prove to their paymasters that they had voted the way they were hired to vote, and so there was little incentive to bribe them.

Additionally, the secret ballot protects voters from threats, intimidation, and possible violence over their voting choices.