In-flight Camera Surveillance? Going too far?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I wanted to share the following article from RT.com:

Britain looks into in-flight surveillance cameras



rt.com...


Human rights campaigners are alarmed in Britain over EU plans to install surveillance cameras on airplanes.
The project is aimed at preventing terrorism, but some believe more cameras will only further undermine democracy in the country that is already the most watched in the world.


So it all boils down to the following:


Are you scared?

Are you willing to give up privacy to feel 'safe'?

How much privacy are you willing to give up?

If there are suicide bombers exploding in apartment complexes, do you want cameras there too?

In your homes?



What do I think? I think that we're so fearful that the majority of the population will be able to be convinced that something like this is a good idea.
If you haven't already read it, I highly suggest looking into the following thread which is very relevant to this discussion:

"The Global Meltdown of FEAR: Eliminated by 60+ visual aids."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've steered the discussion in a certain direction with my questions but I want to stress that there are a lot of elements to this topic. Some detail, article specific and other more global concerns.


How do we defend ourselves in airplanes?

Should we defend ourselves in airplanes or let others do it for us?

Is there some alternative to this method of safety? Can we initiate a pro-active defense or will we continue to go down these re-active methods of fear, violence and the threat thereof?


Finally I would like to stress that the focus of this thread is on surveillance within airplanes, not the Iraq/Afghanistan war. While it is relevant, please only make references in an effort to stay on target.
Also: please be kind, this is my first thread.








posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
To hopefully give this thread a bit of life, I'm going to add something to fuel the discussion (of which there is none haha).

Whenever I think about surveillance I always drift to the theory of the Panopticon. It's a very well known and often associated prison design that's quite symbolic of too much surveillance and its consequences.

I'm going to link to a wiki article on it simply because it's the quickest rundown I found for it in my few minutes of google'ing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Have a read.

Basically, there's a circle of cells facing an empty courtyard type space in the middle. In the center of this courtyard, there's a watchtower with a guard or multiple guards. This watchtower has many, high power spotlights directed towards the cells, blinding the prisoners.

If you ever tried to look at people standing behind strong sources of light you know that you can only really make out vague outlines. The idea of the panopticon is to instill uncertainty in the prisoners. They never know when they are being watched by the guards. All they see are silhouettes moving around on the center watchtower.

The guard sees all while the prisoners don't see anything. This imbues the prisoners with fear and subdues them. Making them more compliant and cooperative. Pacification essentially.

If you extend this line of thinking towards an increase of surveillance in our society you can see why the connection is both obvious and disturbing. Sure it might just be on board airplanes for now, but what's next? Where does it stop?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Can you get to the plane without going through the airport?
Are there cameras in the airports?
Is it your plane?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Is there really any privacy in public?

As with most tools and technology, if used for the purpose they are intended for, they're fine. Problem is there's always room for abuse or abusers.

So...sacrifice the use of the tools and technology altogether? Even with the good they can do? Or use them and keep an eye out for abuse? Guess we have choices. Cameras for protection on planes or anywhere don't really bother me all that much even though I don't think we really need them and see potential for abuse.

I suppose if someone were on a plane with someone they weren't supposed to be with and that video got around, it could be an issue. Or if they did something they shouldn't have and got caught.

The principle of cameras everywhere is sort of like the principle of everyone having a gun...if everyone has them, chances are people might behave better or think before they do something stupid or harmful to others.

I can see both sides.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
This has to be complete bollocks as it would serve absolutely no practical purpose at all!

The primary reasoning for using CCTV is that it's presence is a deterrent due to the likelihood of capture after commiting a crime through being identified through the pictures taken.

Terrorists really couldn't give a toss about being identified, in fact it might actually appeal to some.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


True but they are very untainted scenarios. Meaning that there's usually some sort of abuse that goes on of the technology as it exists.

hflibdems.org.uk...


Lib Dems in the Borough have had reports that CCTV cameras installed for fighting anti-social behaviour and street crime are being used by the Council to enforce parking regulations and issue tickets instead.
Paul Kennedy said "I don't have much sympathy for drivers who park illegally. But we are told that we must be watched to protect us from criminals. But when the police want to view the tapes for evidence of a crime, all they see is car registration numbers.
I want to make sure that CCTV in Town Ward is used to protect residents and not to just raise money."


Example of abuse. Just because it hasn't happened to us or someone we know doesn't mean it's not going on...


cctvmonitors.org...


When you installed surveillance cameras complete with CCTV in your home as a precaution against nanny abuse and against burglar break-ins, you never thought that sibling abuse could also be captured on film. You simply thought that the long-standing sibling rivalry between your two children was just that – simple sibling rivalry.


What if you do not have control over the CCTV in your house?


www.guardian.co.uk...


More worrying is the way in which CCTV is being used by the police. Demonstrator Jake Smith was charged with two counts of violent disorder. These charges were later dropped when Smith's solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage and discovered that the police video had been edited to show events out of sequence, at one point implying another man was Smith while omitting footage showing Smith being assaulted by a police officer without provocation.


Police gaining more power.



I realize that these are solely negative events involving CCTV, but there are so many of them. Yes they do indeed prevent incidents and are effective deterrents. But my worry is that an increase in CCTV usage could be very dangerous.

What if the government starts issuing new laws to prevent you from doing certain actions/behaviours that aren't really that bad?

It also reminds me of the movie Demolition Man where you get fined anytime you say any curse, or offensive word.

I would link the video of that particular clip I have in mind, but it contains offensive language. If you still want to look it up type in "Demolition man - Verbal morality Statute"

So my point is that it forces you to give up freedom by potentially (key word here) increasing the control and the enforcement of said control over you.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tarrok
 

Nothing new to me, personally, there but a good addition to the topic. This just isn't at the top of my To Get Angered About or Take Action Against list today. If I want privacy I'll spray paint or shoot out the lens.


[edit on 8/16/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Originally posted Tarrok

Are you scared?

Are you willing to give up privacy to feel 'safe'?


No, but if this "protective" EU, Big Brother, thing, takes one more step toward us, I wouldn’t be surprissed if people started resorting to terrorism. Probably, mainly so that we could regain freedoms against these e.g. (security industry, lobbyist, inspired) invasions of our privacy & birth given, freedom. The cost of these invasions are also truly a demented waste of taxpayers money!!).

And wasen’t most freedom built apon the threat (or more often, just fear) of violence?
Of course if anyone does use terrorism (then with the exception of targetted assassination) they’ll probably be playing straight in Big EU’s hands. Such is the state of play.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
how would a camera on a plane prevent something like 9/11?

this makes no sense if someone's hijacking a plane i highly doubt they give a # if there's a camera



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
It really depends. Are the airlines for it? Is this something they're wanting to do? If so, then I don't see the big deal. No different to me than any other place that installs cameras.

But if the government is mandating the installation of cameras against the airlines' will, then I would think that would be very alarming. The article was so short so I don't know but it *sounds* like this is a new regulation the government is imposing. If so, I'm against it.

But if not, then I don't care.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
lets see
Re:the Underwear/Christmas bomber..
According to witnesses:
He was let through all levels of security with out a passport after relevant agencies were warned he was coming by his father.
He was filmed all the way through the flight by a camera man.
Did that stop him from an inflight roasting of a couple of chestnuts on an open fire?
nope...
All the relevant agencies were caught lying.
The x head head of homeland security Chertoff who was financially invested in airport screening machines got to implement year old orders for scanners that couldn't see the underwear or boobie bombs anyway.

"They" said that they couldn't save the kiddy porn x rays from the airport scanners, now it comes out that they lied, and they are saving and sharing the nudie pix...on hackable systems to boot.
Maybe we should put cameras on them liars instead.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
This is going a little far. The aircraft can only output so much power. Also cameras are weight and take up room, so do the recordering devices. Where will they put them ?( hidden places ) How will the electronics survive above 30,000 feet if there hidden above the cabin. You will need to provide heat for that area that contains the cameras, which also takes more power and fuel. its get very cold. Ever ride in aircraft with no heat and insulation at 45k feet. Its get very cold my feet got numb. I know your thinking is only a camera, but think about the weight , heat, how long will the camera last. what recording media will work in that harsh cold enviorment with out a malfunction. the list goes on , on. its not like putting a camera in your car or home.

Sure it can be done. It will cost your more at the ticket counter. The airlines will not be happy about this. 100K per aircraft at least. then the airline have to hire someone to review the media.

last, but not least . Passenger profiling begins on a whole new scale.

It makes no sense to do this.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by SJE98]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by SJE98]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
somehow this got double posted. delete this post one

[edit on 29-8-2010 by SJE98]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Human rights campaigners are alarmed in Britain over EU plans to install surveillance cameras on airplanes.
The project is aimed at preventing terrorism, but some believe more cameras will only further undermine democracy in the country that is already the most watched in the world.


I would really like to hear there opinion as to how this will combat terrorism, it seems a little ludicrous to me.

99.9% of terrorist don't intend on landing the plane and surrendering, so I can't gather how this will achieve anything.

On a side note, I believe the amount of airport security is no longer necessary any more. The chance of another airplane hijacking is low because the power of surprise is no longer there.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
If the owners of the aeroplane wish to do this, that's up to them. You're on their property- if you don't like it, you don't have to fly.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join