Duplicating my comment across from White Rose:

How is this any different from "Joe over here thought he saw you do it"? Except that, with the tape, Matt was actually able to prove his innocence!

I am divided about this 'Big Brother Is Watching'
debate. I don't like the loss of privacy that results from being watched, but the cameras have helped catch criminals.

I agree with the point Julian Morrison made. Human eye witness testimony has placed innocent people behind bars. At least with film there is a chance to review it and use it to prove your innocence. This possibility rarely exists with human witnesses.

As for some of the points made on White Rose: caught in adultery, outed as a homosexual, fleeing a violent spouse, etc. I don't see cameras alone put someone at additional risk for this exposure. The ability to reveal private non-criminal behavior exists *if* clear stipulations about the use of captured images is not made clear.

The biggest problem I have with using cameras is who will be allowed access to the images and under what conditions. If access to the images is not restricted then it does bother me.

Private citizens should not be prevented from having cameras - because they are merely another type of physical-matter property, they aren't even weapons that might be dangerous to bystanders. People were perfectly capable of being snooping bastards long before fancified technology. Banning cameras is like cutting off people's ears to prevent them listening at doors. Prior restraint is not libertarian.

Governments should not exist, period. This then neatly solves the problem of their coopting the cameras for evil ends.

Chris Josephon writes: "As for some of the points made on White Rose: caught in adultery, outed as a homosexual, fleeing a violent spouse, etc. I don't see cameras alone put someone at additional risk for this exposure. "

They do add to the risk because more people know about what you do. It isn't just "the state" looking at the cameras but this or that policeman or security guard. Even when they don't pass it on to their bosses for purposes of semi-blackmail, as my post argues will often happen, they will certainly talk about it to their mates in the pub. Even now there are funny or lewd videos taken from security cameras doing the rounds.

"The ability to reveal private non-criminal behavior exists *if* clear stipulations about the use of captured images is not made clear."

Clarity in rules is not enough. Once people in power have the information it is awfully tempting to use it. Promises not to do so have been broken before, again and again.

To Julian Morrison: I don't think anyone here wants to ban private individuals from having security cameras. Also, your statement about how the real solution is no government strikes me as a counsel of perfection. It may well be true, but the option is not currently available.

Re: Julian Morrison's comments -- point taken. For me, the camera cut both ways.

I definitely agree that the garage, a private entity, has the right to use the cameras. If I don't like their policy, I shouldn't park at their garage. (I'm taking my chances on the street from now on.)

You may be able to use the tape to prove your innocence, if you have access to the relevant tape, and if the relevant acts were caught on tape.

On the other hand, given the way they were using the camera -- keep looking through the tape until you see someone suspicious near the car -- the odds that they would settle on someone were fairly high. The cameras are a known witness: if something happens, instead of waiting for a witness to come forward, you go to the cameras and start searching. This greatly increases the odds of finding what you're looking for; I believe that this also increases the odds of a false identification.

The cameras are a different kind of witness in another way: much more information, much less filtering. With the tape, it's easier to focus on the 5 seconds of tape before you, and forget the 80 hours of tape you haven't seen. If a human witness saw me and saw the teenagers, he or she might lead with the teenagers.

Susbtitute "telephones" for "CCTV cameras" - does the argument against still hold up?