Should security over take privacy? - [Closes 21/05/07]

[---MAD---]

More and more cameras are being set up on streets, in malls, in shops. Soon enough, there will be no place for true privacy. In some countries such as the USA, telephone lines and email's are also checked for any threats from terrorists etc.

Should security over take privacy or should there be a limit to how far goverments can go?

Happy debating!

[Blinger1]

Yes*makes longer*

Edit by Seacat - When posting in the debates forum please back up your post with facts/opinions e.t.c. Do not just post short, pointless comments. - http://habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=125783

[Niall!]

Hell no

Edit by Seacat - When posting in the debates forum please back up your post with facts/opinions e.t.c. Do not just post short, pointless comments. - http://habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=125783

[Charlie]

Well, I guess they want to keep places safe and sercure, but there has to be a limit to how much you can do, especially with cameras, as then you'd have no privacy to do whatever you wanted to do, without others knowing, obviously that wouldn't be a breach of the law or whatever.

They should have something else other then cameras, so they have sercurity, and people still have their privacy. Like sercurity guards instead of cameras.

[Ashhizzle]

They are keeping us safe, but they shouldn't be put in toilet's, from where the can see things we may not want them to.

[The Professor]

Yes. There arent people sitting there watching the cameras for anything interesting happeneing, and the tapes are only used if they need to be. I dont see what you'd do in the streets that you dont mind people seeing but dont want cameras to see.

[Ed.]

Personally I think security should take over privacy. If a suspect terrorist is talking on the phone to someone else - the police should have the right to listen to what he is saying. If they were not allowed then the terrorist could be organising another attack which could result in the death of hundreds.

[Immenseman]

Hmm, yeah I guess it should, i'd rather be safe then sorry.

[Ed.]

Another reason they should film all the streets etc. is that muggers will be easily caught and off the streets.. I would feel safer

[DiscoPat]

not sure, there are pros and cons for either.

[Ed.]

Yes but there seem to be more pros then there are cons.

[BL!NKEY]

Yes


Soon enough, there will be no place for true privacy.

They wont ever put cameras in everyones house so I dont see that as a problem. Everywhere the cameras would be, would be visible to other people. So if you have problems with cameras seeing you then just dont go outside because there are people that will see you too. I dont know if that sentence made that much sence but I think you understand what I mean.

I also have no problem with the government recording all phone convertations. The only thing they would use it for is to catch people doing bad things. Do you think people should have privacy while organizing a shooting?

The government is not going to find out that Joe likes Sally and show it on the news.

They will only moderate suspicious convertations.

Like when certain words are picked up.

[Caution]

well, yes. i'd rather be safe.

[Luckyrare]

I dont see why anyone would worry. I think cameras should be in toilets, as long as they are not able to see "things". The UK has a lot more CCTV that anywhere else, I am glad about that.

[Ed.]

I dont see why anyone would worry. I think cameras should be in toilets, as long as they are not able to see "things". The UK has a lot more CCTV that anywhere else, I am glad about that.


Not so sure they should be in toilets as they could be abused and moved etc.

OFF TOPIC : Uploadz.co.uk rocks - I always use it!

[VPSwow]

The goverment do have a small right to place security cameras and other devices to check for our safety but more often than not they are invading our our privacy. Placing a CCTV camera in a shop is ok but placing them in changing rooms are taking it over the top. There is a law against placing them in changing rooms, but there is a fine line where it allows the owners to place it in a certain place. I think there should be a limit on the security they place around. Yes... i would like to feel safe but if invading my personal privacy is an issue i dont think security should take over pricacy.

[Mentor]

Yes. There arent people sitting there watching the cameras for anything interesting happeneing, and the tapes are only used if they need to be. I dont see what you'd do in the streets that you dont mind people seeing but dont want cameras to see.

o.0 yes there are, most outdoor cctv cameras are all linked to to a network which is monitored around the clock by a small team, whom then alert the police if anything suspicious is noted. 2 3 people will usealy be in charge of monitoring quite a large number of camra feeds.

Now days more and more of it is done by computers whom pick up on behaviors seen as being supisuous automatically.

Although im not completely against this, i am against the government haveing any roll in it. That governments powers are limited by the very basis of british law, which is there to stop any government being able to abuse its position. These laws and regulations are slowly being eaten away at which i believe to be very dangerous. The police having the power to monitor people through cctv is ok, as long as its upfront, as long as people know there being watched i dont have a problem with it. Its when its done covertly without peoples knowledge that i think it becomes a problem "/

The police are there to protect people, not the control them. That shouldnt be forgotten.

[piddle2k6]

I would like it aslong as it isnt obsessive.. and no private things ie watching you peee etc

[RedStratocas]

It depends on what privacy is and what you would consider crossing the line. Putting up cameras in the street really isnt invading your privacy because the streets are public.

Im for public security. Security stuff, cameras whatever, but the public has to be told about it and there have to be signs etc that say they are there. Once the government or whoever is running the security starts to hide what it's doing, I think that's over the line.

[GommeInc]

I am ok with it. My e-mails are un-interesting, my phone calls are boring and I am not paranoid about being watched walking down the streets. So I am ok with it really. It would be annoying with MSN conversations though, and with houses which are in the middle of no-where. It would be annoying for people who live in towns or cities where cameras would likely be outside your house, but that's I guess a disadvantage.

[Tash.]

I'm against it. I mean fair enough there does need to be some level of security over privacy but having your e-mail, phone and even privacy of a toilet overtaken? No thank you. I would not like the feeling that I was constantly being watched/listened to. Also, as people have said the government should not control it.. i'd feel like I was living in a dictatorship, not doing/saying anything without being monitored.

[GommeInc]

I am certain you are not actually watched, more like recorded. When a murder has happened, they review the recordings from cameras to see your "final steps." Unlessit has changed?

[T0M]

Im happy to have cameras in public areas as people have said.

But what we say on our own phones/emails is our own business and nobody elses, nobody should have the right to control our lives and make us scared to say our true feelings to our friends/family on the phone/email

[Concentric2]

Personally I think security should take over privacy. If a suspect terrorist is talking on the phone to someone else - the police should have the right to listen to what he is saying. If they were not allowed then the terrorist could be organising another attack which could result in the death of hundreds.
But at the same time many other millions of people will be using their telephones quite legitimately to have what they feel should be a private conversation. Do you really think the government should be able to listen to everything you say on your phone, read every text message you send, every email you write, and so on, just in case you're a "terrorist"?

[RedStratocas]

Personally I think security should take over privacy. If a suspect terrorist is talking on the phone to someone else - the police should have the right to listen to what he is saying. If they were not allowed then the terrorist could be organising another attack which could result in the death of hundreds.

The key word there: Suspected terrorist. Of course if there's a suspected terrorist, the government is going to listen in on his conversation whether they're allowed to or not. But should government be listening to what people are saying just for the hell of it? Just to make sure they arent doing anything bad? They dont suspect anything, they just want to know.

I think if it gets to that point, itll be scary.

[BL!NKEY]

But at the same time many other millions of people will be using their telephones quite legitimately to have what they feel should be a private conversation. Do you really think the government should be able to listen to everything you say on your phone, read every text message you send, every email you write, and so on, just in case you're a "terrorist"?

They wont read your or anyone's emails or listen to phone convertations if you are not suspicious. If a computer picks up words like hijack, bomb, or terrorist then they might see what is going on. If they see that in contex, it is just a 14 year old boy joking with their friends nothing will happen. If it is some dude named Muhammad AlMundo organizing a terrorist attack then they might take some action.

The government wont find that on MSN you said you had a crush on someone and they will print it in the news. They will only act on illigal behavior.

And what problem should we have on stopping people from doing illigal stuff.

[Concentric2]

They wont read your or anyone's emails or listen to phone convertations if you are not suspicious. If a computer picks up words like hijack, bomb, or terrorist then they might see what is going on
Yes but to do that they have to monitor all calls to find the dangerous ones. I'm not saying that they are going to read every email/text etc but with that legislation in place they have the power to if they wish, and that's the important part.
My point is that you have to watch what power you allow the government to give themselves. Just because in very odd cases it will give them the advantage of being able to intercept a dangerous message doesn't mean it's a good idea - for the vast majority of people it affects (basically everyone) it's an invasion of privacy.

[-Soph-]

Yes.

Although i'd prefer it if the cops weren't listening to my boyfriend and mines conversations i'd prefer that than get blown up tbh.

(I know being part of a terrorist attack is very unlikely, but its definatly not impossible)

[lAdmire]

I think that is too far. But... I believe they are trying to make a change to try && protect the country from any terrorism act that can happen in their country. I go with both sides. One side I say privacy is privacy && no one should try && interfere in your privacy. Then the other side is that their trying to make an improvement in their safety against terrorism.

[Mentor]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Franklin

A good quote, i dont belive we should give up are privacy just becuse someone minght possibly do somthing bad in the future.
Where giveing up what we are trying to protect in order to protect it.
Doing so is only going to leed to worse things.

[velocity]

human rights should stop it getting too extreme, however, things are getting stupid now, the worlds so corrupt.