In the United Kingdom, home to twenty percent of the rooms of CCTV in the world, it is always about the invasion and the absence of such regulation. "Campaign UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation."
Thought questions to ask are good.
They want to know, for example, why, when television and licensing in the United Kingdom is that the legislature governed not even looked for licensing the use and installation of CCTV? She also asked whether the crime statistics touted by proponents of CCTV are correct, or if criminals are not only no longer on how to commit crimes elsewhere.
They want to know whether civil liberties are taken, or are ignored and violated both. They want to know whether the video surveillance is really worth what they pay for it. Really, for example, to prevent crime, a quick test of the debt and reducing the number of police necessary to maintain careful surveillance?
Also consider whether these cameras, once available, are effectively monitored. If, yes, there are enough people to make the observation that rapid response can be affected when the crimes of the action is the camera. If this is not the case - if so, as is supposed, will pay a person to see a large number of monitors at once, then the cost of the equipment can not be truly compensated by the availability of positions in the scene, police arrived at the right time.
There are many concerns regarding the rights of citizens on the tape also caught. What, for example, is a policy, what are the right and how long these faces on the tape looks and where?
What other business applications and external information from closed-circuit television is produced delivered? Is racial profiling neighborhoods that are sold, for example, to marketing companies business? If these videos are companies who sell outside of what prevent its use on a commercial basis, including the display of photos? Can an advertising agency, for example with a photo of a person in the eyes, as an artist or a politician, as part of a campaign? And if so, what about the rights of the artist or politics? What about her or their rights to financial support of the company?
These questions and many others have this issue of the British public to see the CCTV, as potentially invasive if not controlled in demand, and in the wrong hands.
In addition, note that Mai confirmed in 2000 with a zeal Declaration of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the illegality of the use of video surveillance unregulated and undisclosed. Article 8 states that the applicant be entitled to an expectation of privacy, interference, and that this interference was a direct result, not regulated by a government agency .
สมัครสมาชิก:
ส่งความคิดเห็น (Atom)
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น