Big Brother is Watching!
Too many CCTVs in the streets
We are deploying more CCTV (closed circuit televisions) on our streets. Such CCTVs are actually high-tech cameras in disguise.
They are well poised to catch all the ‘live actions’ that goes on daily by keeping watch on places such as Orchard Road, Boat Quay, Little India, Geylang and the surrounding area of Raffles City and Suntec City.
In fact, the Singapore police force is looking into new "SMART" cameras that can recognize suspects by their facial features.
We could rationalize if thousands of surveillance cameras are in used for occasions such as the Beijing Olympics Games. The live video-stream from surveillance cameras could be fed into the system software to monitor acts of terrorism or other serious crimes.
But what I cannot understand is the usage of CCTV cameras in, say, Orchard Road, a shopping haven? Are we keeping watch on shoplifters? Or are we trying to spy on the people or tourists who shop there?
What about the thousands who throng streets in Chinatown and Little India day and night? What good will it do even if we can capture petty crimes live in action?
Human rights groups in America and Europe are concerned that new CCTV technology is hastily applied with little regard for privacy.
With the increasing power of such cameras, many people may be unaware that they are subjects of intrusive surveillance. The development of such advanced automatic recognition technologies could also potentially be used monitor human movements and actions.
There are still unresolved issues pertaining to CCTV’s effectiveness. Overseas studies done couple of years back on its effectiveness as a crime reduction measure produced mixed results.
From the police’s point of view, CCTV cameras served as a form of deterrence and crime prevention.
Rather than a crime preventive measure, I see installing CCTVs as a pervasive act of intrusion into lives of private citizens. After the criminal acts are committed; victims’ scarred, money robbed and lost, property damaged beyond redemption; what are the use of CCTV cameras for such state of affairs?
There are concerns the surveillance system installation in the streets will do little else than create a false sense of security while infringing individual’s privacy. Reeking of an Orwellian nature, we are akin to living in a Big Brother state; the pervasive and omnipresence surveillance of the populace greatly frowned upon on.
Perhaps in view of humanitarian concerns, we must know where to draw the line.
One solution to circumvent the privacy issue is to install face recognition cameras on public streets only during special occasions. For example, staging of large-scale events like F1 or visits by foreign dignitaries.
Unless Big Brother likes to watch F1 races, too.
We are deploying more CCTV (closed circuit televisions) on our streets. Such CCTVs are actually high-tech cameras in disguise.
They are well poised to catch all the ‘live actions’ that goes on daily by keeping watch on places such as Orchard Road, Boat Quay, Little India, Geylang and the surrounding area of Raffles City and Suntec City.
In fact, the Singapore police force is looking into new "SMART" cameras that can recognize suspects by their facial features.
We could rationalize if thousands of surveillance cameras are in used for occasions such as the Beijing Olympics Games. The live video-stream from surveillance cameras could be fed into the system software to monitor acts of terrorism or other serious crimes.
But what I cannot understand is the usage of CCTV cameras in, say, Orchard Road, a shopping haven? Are we keeping watch on shoplifters? Or are we trying to spy on the people or tourists who shop there?
What about the thousands who throng streets in Chinatown and Little India day and night? What good will it do even if we can capture petty crimes live in action?
Human rights groups in America and Europe are concerned that new CCTV technology is hastily applied with little regard for privacy.
With the increasing power of such cameras, many people may be unaware that they are subjects of intrusive surveillance. The development of such advanced automatic recognition technologies could also potentially be used monitor human movements and actions.
There are still unresolved issues pertaining to CCTV’s effectiveness. Overseas studies done couple of years back on its effectiveness as a crime reduction measure produced mixed results.
From the police’s point of view, CCTV cameras served as a form of deterrence and crime prevention.
Rather than a crime preventive measure, I see installing CCTVs as a pervasive act of intrusion into lives of private citizens. After the criminal acts are committed; victims’ scarred, money robbed and lost, property damaged beyond redemption; what are the use of CCTV cameras for such state of affairs?
There are concerns the surveillance system installation in the streets will do little else than create a false sense of security while infringing individual’s privacy. Reeking of an Orwellian nature, we are akin to living in a Big Brother state; the pervasive and omnipresence surveillance of the populace greatly frowned upon on.
Perhaps in view of humanitarian concerns, we must know where to draw the line.
One solution to circumvent the privacy issue is to install face recognition cameras on public streets only during special occasions. For example, staging of large-scale events like F1 or visits by foreign dignitaries.
Unless Big Brother likes to watch F1 races, too.
Comments