Spike writes, rearding surveillance:
> So how do we prevent it from invading homes? Not by police but
> by nosy or horny neighbors for instance, in the form of microcams
> carried by insects or mice.
I think this is less likely to have as much impact as public cameras, for
a few reasons. First, the current trend is towards public installations,
and police cameras will have more impact on people's behavior than illegal
peeping toms. Second, the technological improvements necessary to have
cameras that would be this small and yet still have power, transmitting
and/or recording capabilities will take longer than those for stationary
and human carried cameras. And third, by the time you have insect-sized
cameras invading people's homes there may be technological countermeasures
that are possible.
> And regarding public places, how about
> restrooms and locker rooms? Do we just blow off ever expecting to
> cover our nudity? Im OK with that. Are you? spike
That's a good question. There have been a number of cases in recent
years in which people secretly placed cameras in such places and then
put the photos on the internet. This is presently illegal and when
caught these people are prosecuted.
We all remember the sad 1997 case in which 7 year old Sherrice Iverson
was killed in a Nevada casino bathroom by Jeremy Strohmeyer. As it
happened, Strohmeyer was caught due to the video surveillance system
in the casino outside the bathroom, which of course exists primarily to
catch gambling cheaters. His photo was publicized and people recognized
him and turned him in.
It could be that cameras will not have to invade bathrooms and locker
rooms in order to deter crime, if there are systems which can see people
going in and out. Or maybe just the "public" areas of bathrooms outside
the stalls would be covered. Based on longstanding American standards
of morality, I don't think we will see video surveillance of locker
rooms and the insides of toilet stalls in this country. Some European
countries have less of a nudity taboo (and perhaps more tolerance for
observation) so the answer may be different there.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT