Indian Politician Plans To Install Surveillance Cameras In His Ministers' Homes And Offices
from the do-as-you-would-be-done-by dept
Recently, Tim noted that, for some strange reason, politicians don't like having the same level of surveillance applied to them as they wish to inflict on the public. Here's a nice case from the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India, found via Evgeny Morozov, where politicians aren't being given any choice:
UP [Uttar Pradesh] chief minister Akhilesh Yadav has decided to install CCTV cameras at the residences and camp offices of all the ministers in his cabinet.
As usual, the politicians are up in arms:
But a minister told Mail Today on the condition of anonymity that many of his colleagues including Raja Ram Pandey, khadi and village industry minister, Paras Nath Yadav, animal husbandry minister, Awadhesh Prasad, social welfare minister and Durga Prasad Yadav, stamp and registration minister, have opposed it.
The reasoning behind the move is interesting:
'the CM [Chief Minister] found the idea exciting mostly because he could boast of this action during Lok Sabha election campaign to claim that his ministers were observing complete transparency in their activities,' a source close to the CM said.
It's clear from this that there are some ulterior political motives behind this extreme form of governmental transparency. But equally, assuming that Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister goes through with his plans, there's no denying that it would give politicians a unique insight into the reality of surveillance, and that can't be bad thing.
Indeed, what we need is a general rule that politicians anywhere who are contemplating increased snooping on their citizens must be put under 24x7 surveillance in their homes and offices before they are allowed to enact any such laws. If that were the case, I predict their enthusiasm for spying might well evaporate.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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
Filed Under: cctv cameras, india, politics, privacy, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It reminds me of the episode of Aeon Flux about "the new transparency" that Trevor Goodchild institutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gov't workers need to lose rights, not gain privileges.
So I hold that when anyone goes into gov't, elected or employed, they should lose some part of rights of the citizens whom they're supposed to be serving. We The People need to be able to keep watch on known power-mad thieves. They should most of all lose the right to presumption of innocence for any officical act, and have to PROVE themselves innocent. -- I'd make gov't work -- I mean shirking -- undesirable, and might even have to institute a draft to provide its (few) necessary services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How comprehensive?
Surveillance that stops short of the top just redefines where the line of privilege is drawn; it doesn't erase that line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So this move can be viewed as one for gaining publicity (rather a cheap one coz everyone knows the outcome).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you planned to break the law and knew these devices were there to record it, what ever would you do? First thing that occurs to me is to be elsewhere out of the watchful eye when actually doing the planning and execution.
This is the same great idea that was done for congress with cameras. You know, let the public see how its' done. What happens? When it gets sticky as the last time, Boehner decides to pull the plug during the live camera time so as not to record the 'evidence' of being caught on camera and in doing so totally defeating the purpose the cameras were put there for in the first place.
It is now used to orate to the public but it is not a serious tool to educate the public in the workings of congress.
Pray tell, how will this be any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
ones that they don't know about...
Hmm...
Anyone up for it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seconded
I'll second that motion!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This feedback method should be applied to the members of congress at federal and state levels and those who wish to influence them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gov't workers need to lose rights, not gain privileges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gov't workers need to lose rights, not gain privileges.
I think the better way to handle politicians would be to take away some of the prestige and special rights they gain. If it's seen, and treated as, less as one step short of nobility, and more as what it is supposed to be, namely serving the public, that right there would weed out a number of those that should never be put in a position of power.
Also, as I've noted in another comment, if it was required that any law with a potential negative impact had, as it's first targets the ones passing it, that would pretty much guarantee that politicians would be a lot more careful about passing overreaching laws, since they would know they would be affected first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know what else would be good?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]