Local Governments Requiring Businesses To Spy On Patrons?
from the seems-a-bit-orwellian dept
We've all heard stories about how surveillance cameras are just about everywhere these days, with both private companies and government organizations taking party in surveillance nirvana. However, some companies still don't see the need to spy on all of their customers -- and to them, a bunch of politicians are saying "too bad." New laws are being proposed in a variety of places, including Chicago, that would require many businesses to install security cameras, even if they're not wanted by the business owners. Also, can someone please come up with the equivalent for Godwin's Law concerning any discussion on potential privacy violations? Here, I'll take a shot: in any discussion about potential privacy violations, it's only a matter of time until someone says: "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
To which I say, "Fine. Let me install cameras in your bedroom and your shower." It's not a matter of whether or not I'm doing something wrong, it's a matter of "I don't want you watching me." Quite similar to the way many people hate somebody reading over their shoulder. With the plethora of cameras in modern society, somebody is *always* looking over your shoulder, for no good reason.
Not to mention the fact that there are so many laws out there, I could be doing something illegal and not even know it. Like failing to disassemble my car and hide it in the bushes when a horse approaches. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Freedom doesn't really cover ripping off stores, selling drugs in a public parking lot, leaving a bar with the girl you intend to rape then kill, etc.
It doesn't happen often, but I agree with the gov on this one! I'm a mom of 3. I think it sucks that we've degenerated our society to this, but I'd rather have a few cameras over my shoulder.
If you want to do something questionable, stay at home. You still have your freedom and it's not as likely to infringe on the freedom of others.
If you have a problem shopping in an establishment with cameras, shop online...unless you were planning on stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The problem here is not the cameras but the government requiring cameras. I could care less if the grocery store has cameras but the government can not require them to have them. It is private property which mean they put up the security that they deem fit. If you want to keep your kids safe just teach them how to handle people in public. I know for a fact thats all it takes I myself was alomst abducted at the age of 7. The only reason the pervert couldn't get me in his car was becuase I wouldn't go near him and when he approached me I yelled for help and ran towards the park across the street. There were lots of people there that's why I went that way. Too many kids don't know how to react to people. So again it is your job to watch your kids not the government. if you feel your kids are not safe someplace then they shouldn't be there, that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
A business, however, even if it is privately owned, is still a public place. I wouldn't agree with the gov forcing owners to place cameras in the back or other private areas. But the actual sales floor is PUBLIC.
Also, even if a child is raised the right way, taught the right thing to do in every situation, things can still happen, things can still go wrong. I would feel better knowing there's a possibility of finding/figuring out whatever happened.
An example...though I really don't want cameras in public restrooms...
Our top news story last night...
33 year old man arrested in Walmart. He entered the restroom after an 11 year old boy went in. Waited for the child to begin urinating, stuck his mobile under the stall door, and snapped a picture.
The boy told his mom who told store authorities, who detained the man for police, but that could cause some trauma for a child. Should the mom have escorted her son to the bathroom? Or stood gaurd at the door so no one could enter until her son came out?
Seriously, things are getting a bit out of hand. If cameras can reduce it, even by a small percentage, I'm all for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given (in response to Dani)
I would offer up to you the fact that the only thing that will "protect" children is teaching them to avoid and diffuse potentially bad situations, the only thing more security cams will do is MAYBE help find the sicko after he's already violated the child.
I have a 4 year old and I already teach him that if a situation doesn't feel right, get away and find an authority figure. That will protect him far more than attaching a security camera to his shoulder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
dani, by that logic, you should have no problem if the gov't mandates that you install cameras on your front lawn and on your garage. You might not mind installing them yourself in order to be secure in your person, but do you really want someone else to be in control of that? I believe this is truly the heart of the issue being discussed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I agree with you.
There is a choice and the choice should be yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
if the government tells private businesses that they have to put cameras in their stores what's to stop them from telling them that they have to put the cameras in the dressing rooms? Would you like to checked out while you're changing in a dressing room?
Unfortunately, you have to take the bad with the good when it comes to freedom. We shouldn't abandon the rights of all just because there are a few people out there taking advantage of the meaning of freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
That's a good example of the problem with the whole "if you have nothing to hide�" argument - it's just another way of saying: "guilty until proven innocent."
One constitutional amendment I would support is to expand the bill of rights to include: "Every citizen is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty". I'm not a lawyer but it's my understanding that the presumption of innocence isn't an actual right, it's simply a legal convention and thus can be eroded over time.
Back on topic - if a business doesn't feel a need for security cameras the government shouldn't even care, let alone edict a requirement. If this law is such a great idea, require the taxpayers pay for the mandated cameras and see how fast this bill gets shot down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I've seen tax money go to worst things...
As a small business owner and past retail manager, I don't see why any owner would object other than the expense. Maybe the business owners should negotiate some financial breaks with the gov.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I�m sorry Dani, I don�t mean this to be pejorative, but you are the perfect example of why democracy is a shitty form of government.
You are so completely paranoid and hysterical about �protecting� your children that you are obviously incapable of making an informed decision. But it is not completely your fault � you have simply been well programmed by the media and your government to believe that there is threat, and terror around every corner. Well publicized Amber alerts, Perverts with cameras in bathrooms, and kidnappings have all done their job � to make you afraid.
All the while the prevalence of crimes against children have been dropping. But you are more afraid.
And now you are perfectly willing to trade my liberty, and your own liberty, and ironically the liberty of your own children, for a bit of perceived � but not real � protection.
What you don�t realize is that in trying to �protect� you are doing more harm than what you are protecting from could ever do.
You should not be allowed to vote. You obviously cannot be trusted with the responsibility to make educated, rational, decisions. Thankfully � according to polling data, chances are that you will not vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
First of all, who exactly are you to decide who to take voting rights away from? Seems to me, people with your attitude are the ones ruining democracy.
And what "category" do i fall into for your data on my voting habits? You know nothing about me and, I'm not wasting my time to check, but I would say my "type" probably always votes.
I am not "so completely paranoid" that I would give up my freedom. I personally have enough respect for my fellow human that I'm not going to let my imperfections interfere with their lives. Everyone, however, is not so respectful.
Why, exactly, do you feel crimes on children have dropped? I haven't done any research recently on statistics so I'm not going to doubt it, but if the rate of crimes against children has in fact dropped, would you not say it's probably due to all the extra laws, publicity, registries, etc. that have come into being in the past few years, not to "scare" us and warp our poor, naive, vulnerable little female brains but to actually PROTECT our children (the job they've done if the rate has decreased)?
I will make a point to cast a vote next election. I don't know if I'll vote for jackass no. 1 or jackass no. 2...maybe I'll go out on a limb this time and vote for that other jackass noone's heard of...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communism
This is where the communism correlation comes into play. When gov't tries to start controlling private business in this manner it is getting dangerously close.
Communism
1: a theory advocating elimination of private property(i.e. the gov't tells you what you will or will not do with your property as it is now theirs not yours)
2: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production(If they mandate cameras, can they next mandate how/what the business can produce?) This is the farther reaching of the two, but things tend to start small here and there and before you know it, it is everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communism
The more doors the government opens for it self the more control over our Freedom they gain. The government tries to say it is to better our life�s but if you can�t see the potential for this type of control forcing businesses to do something they don�t want then where is the Freedom in that? This country seems to pride it self on trampling the rights and freedoms of everyone to suit their control needs.
Maybe I missed it but what is the reason for making businesses to install these cameras? To spy on all of their customers I just don�t see why everyone needs their every move watched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
question
how is this much different? they are trying to require cameras so they can get data (video footage) that the store owners will accumulate of the "browsing" (activities) habits of consumers.
i dont have anything to hide and if a business wants to do it so be it. but for the government to want this so they can data mine, profile, etc ... i say no.
big brother ... ? ... ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Should be: "So, the Jews, under Hitler, were doing something wrong and deserved to be tagged and have the movements tracked?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Would store owners become agents of the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem w/ cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ladies, And Gentlemen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ladies, And Gentlemen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ladies, And Gentlemen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i would accept it with a couple conditions
1- Cameras installed in the white house (including bathrooms, vehicles and secret annexes) and all other establishments and vehicles the president uses while working or resting that all citizens can access from the internet anytime without interference what-so-ever.
2- We can expand the borders of Mexico and Canada at will within the current US borders. Taking my home as an example, it would mean that it could be Mexico in my back yard and Canada in my front yard divided by a line running through my kitchen. The US borders within my privately owned land starting at the center of my dog's food bowl and ending at it's perimiter.
3- I don't have to pay for the cameras.
4- We change the laws of gravity too because wouldn't it be safer for our kids if gravity didn't pull them to the earth so quickly?
On acceptance of these conditions, i accept to have cameras anywhere, everywhere, and at all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Don't try and say it is different, because police are doing it for my own safety* - if anything, as public servants, cops should be more accountable to me than I am to them.
*They aren't. Cameras don't stop crime, they allow analysis of committed crimes. I've seen no coherent statistics that show a deterrent effect, and if anything, they sometimes increase accidents when employed at stoplights. Widely deployed they lead to an arms race, like any other technology deployed between adversaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Local Governments Requiring Businesses to 'spy
As with newer technologies (yes, cameras and cctv has been around for a long time, but now we're in a digital age) there has always been a big hype before it all plateaus and we as a community settle down, to enjoy the lowered crime rate - which you would not otherwise see. Video doesn't have to be all security and surveillance. It can be the best Information Tool a person could own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Spying ON Americans in their bathrooms
you that you are VERY WISE to be concerned about
the US Federal Government spying on you within your own homes, including your bathroom and bedroom.
However, forget about looking for hidden cameras.
The spying is now being done by way or remote satellite. The National Security Agency has a covert
program used for spying on the American people.
It's called SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE and can be used to spy on any American at any given time, and without their knowledge or consent.
It is done by way of advanced computer technology
and satellites.
Even more disturbing is that the only tracking device the NSA needs to target an American citizen is the
electromagetic flux waves given off by their own body. This EMF acts as a biofinger print which is as
unique to each person as their own finger prints.
Once the NSA has targeted them the person is
no longer able to avoid detection.
To learn more about this diabolical technology and other violations of Civil Rights that it's capable of
read John St. Clair Akwei's lawsuit against the NSA
which can be found on the Google search engine.
Please circulate John's lawsuit to every American you know, since they can be targeted for the NSA's
Remote Neural Monitoring technology at anytime
and never know that they are being watched and judged.
James F. Marino
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/Lyme/page700.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government Spying ON Americans in their bathro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suggested names
The Ostrich's View.
The (_*_).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]