The problem people have - universally in my limited experience - is with the people and institutions behind the cameras, not the cameras themselves. If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?
East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing.
>If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?
Neighbourhood watches aren't centralized and funded to the degree that state surveillance is.
Street CCTV is not the same as a microphone hidden in your light switch, without you knowing about it. Not nearly the same thing.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html
Street CCTV can augment traditionally eavesdropping intel, tracking movements and, from that, extrapolating relationships and activities.
There are different uses and different situations. People can have different opinions about them too. I believe for example that CCTV is exactly as legal as anyone taking a photos / movies of the police for example (and the other way around), while bugging phones by law enforcement needs to be very tightly regulated. But those scenarios should have very little in common.
The thread started with someone positing that panopticons aren't a bad thing, hence the mention of East Germany (a low tech attempt at a state panopticon) and segued to discussion of the modern state's surveillance capabilities in comparison with East Germany.
>I believe for example that CCTV is exactly as legal as anyone taking a photos / movies of the police for example (and the other way around)
They both fall under similar laws, yes, but the big difference between ad-hoc amateur surveillance and centralized, automated surveillance is the capability of realtime analysis of location, association, etc.
By that you seem to be implying we don't have both
http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/san_francisco_s...