Hi Dave
I take your point and agree that in certain parts of our troubled world, we need surveillance - London has been at the hands of "terrorist" activities from the IRA since the 70s, so there's a need. It's the downside of the surveillance I worry about - who exactly is "manning" the CCTV? Are there standards? what's done with the footage? is there profiling going on? The upside as you state is tracing networks etc.
At least I'll have a good lie down over Xmas :)-
Kim

Interesting juxtaposition of the Welsh anthem and a posting that assures us "Having someone taking photographs of me as I walk around the streets really does not worry me - why should it?"

Interesting also in that I was entering the local post office yesterday and saw two men mounting two remote-control directional cameras on a roof top across the street. I live in Arlington, Virginia (home of the Pentagon, which is about 2 miles from my house) and personally I find it offensive and dangerous to have cameras looking down from random roof tops. I just don't trust my government to have that kind of ability to surveil.

Civil liberties have already begun to be aggressively eroded in the name of protection and I fear they are on a quick descent. A descent that I WILL NOT reply to - "does not worry me - why should it?"

Thanks for the contributions (Kim and Wayne). I think we need to get realistic here, one of the features of the information/knowledge age is that we leave traces of our passage wherever we go. Google have more information on me that the worse fears of the civil liberties movement in my parents generation and I have freely given them that. CCTV cameras are an extension of that and in public places I really don't find them offensive or dangerous. I might have in the 60s or 70s, but now I think they are necessary to preserve democracy. Of course if you live in a police state then they will used against you. However in that case they will be a minor part of the problem. Are you saying that the US is a police state Wayne? Personally I trust the democratic structures of the UK and would prefer to fight over more substantial issues (the length of time you can be held without trial for example). In a sense I could argue that, just as DNA sampling has freed many an innocent so the greater objectivity of CCTV over witness (and possibly corrupt police witness) statements is in the broad interests of liberty.

Which brings me back to issue of Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau; that speaks of freedom for a nation or a tribe in effect. One of the curiosities of the US is that there is an uncurrent which equates maximum individual freedom with freedom for a society. I don't buy that as the effect in both theory and practice is to increase inequality.

Impressive non sequiturs!!

In response to your first question - I'm not sure what you mean by a police state. If you mean "Am I afraid of what my government may do to me or other people that may simply disagree with it?" then the answer is yes. If you mean "Government agents act without any restraint, supposedly in the name of law." then the answer is no.

I think it is already obvious that the issue of being held without trial is far closer to reality than I care to think. Again, all in the name of being protected.

To argue that Google knows more about you than was known in general about your parents is of absolutely no relevance. Unless Google is compelled, which I would suspect it has, to deliver that information to the government.

And DNA sampling in relation to a criminal trial is a VERY different thing from mandatory DNA screening for all citizens, etc.

There is a political strain referred to here in the US as "Libertarian", that suggests the individual is the final arbiter of what is right, etc. I would not consider myself one of those. (BTW - The Ron Paul candidacy, and it's appeal, is an emotional appeal to that US metanarrative). Do I feel that I would much rather err on the side of individual freedom at the expense of some undefined concept of equality? Oh very much YES!!

Certainly there are issues in the US, and serious issues of equality are significant issues here. But, again, I am really not convinced that the issue of widespread governmental surveillance is related to this issue. And I would certainly find the argument that government surveillance will somehow lead to more equality to be a bit bizarre.

One person's non-sequitur is another person's logical flow! However thanks for the clarification, I would have worried if you were taking the Libertarian position (which scares the living daylights out of me).

I do understand that the US may be a different context from the UK. There is no debate here over the need for people to be detained without trial, the debate is how long. I don't think we could ever tolerate, nor do I think our government would seriously contemplate a Guatelamo Bay. If it ever did then I would worry more about issues such as CCTV.

My point on Google was simply that we volunteer transaction data without restraint all the time. Google can use that for material advantage, and would I am sure (given China) hand it over to the US Government if required. This is no different from CCTV, you accept the first by using Google, therefore it is incongruous to object to the second (CCTV).

My point on DNA as one of objectivity, and yes I might (I am thinking about this one) be open to mandatory testing as I can see civil liberties arguments for it. However that is an aside. The point here is that CCTV if present creates transparancy for the police as well as for the citizens and changes the dynamics of proof. Not a non sequitur by any means.

Washington has been hit once by terrorists. London many times, it may create a different culture

OK, assuming the IRA terror in London was bad (wasn't there, so I don't really know) was the total toll any worse than the murder rate over here? If murder is worse (I am betting the numbers are far greater just in DC than were killed by all the IRA bombings in London, although I am not positive) should we be willing to tolerate a sacrifice of our individual liberties in order to ostensibly combat said crime? Although I think that introducing our strange love of violence opens many new cans of worms (but the 3rd glass of wine is kicking in! Australian, BTW.)

And I can choose not to use Google. Or to use it from a public computer that, if it weren't for the cameras in the library, would have no record of who I was. I can't choose not to have my photo taken by cameras as I walk around my neighborhood Again, I don't see the connection. Likewise I would have very strong objections against mandatory DNA.

The time difference means that for me it is my second cup of coffee rather than third glass of wine.
I think the real point here is that I don't really see CCTV in public places as a sacrifice of individual liberty. If someone wants to film me walking through the streets of London so what? If google keep data on me, so what? I just can't get worked up about and the benefits for detection in crime, deterrence of street violence seems to me sufficient justification. Now put those cameras in my home I might take a different view.
Mandatory DNA is an interesting one. If it had been in place a lot of people would not have been sent to prison on unreliable testimony (or executed in the US which is a bit more final). My overall feeling here is that objectivity on information flows is overall a good thing.

I have to say .. I understand both perspectives advanced here, but I did find it somewhat creepy walking along the seaside promenade in Brighton recently and having a little yellow van with the letters CCTV boldly printed on the side slowly idle past me.

I have always wondered when the British government would mandate that at least one CCTV unit would be installed in every living room or kitchen, by law (only half-joking).