My and my Camera

[felter]

So a few years ago in a matter of 6 months or so, I was nearly ran over 4 times. Twice at pedestrian crossings, one of them the guy driving actually flipped me the bird as he nearly ran me over, the second time was a young female who was actually texting at the time and did not even see me or anyone else for that matter. Then there was the time at some traffic lights, where the red light for the traffic and that the nice green man for crossing the road telling me it should be safe, I started to cross the road when a car flew through the red lights narrowly missing me by mere millimetres all the other vehicles had stopped and they were all shaking there heads in amazement that they missed me. Finally I was walking past our local football ground going around a corner onto a footpath when this car comes past me once again narrowly missing me I shook my head at the driver who then got out of his car and tried to start an argument with me asking me what the eff I was shaking my head at, when I pointed out he was driving down a footpath and nearly ran me over he grumbled something at me jumped into his car and drove off up the rest of the footpath.

Ever since that day I have a small action camera mounted onto the shoulder strap of my backpack, it's there purely for my own personal security and it is only used to film when I'm out walking. The battery life is only about 50 minutes or so which is normally perfect for me, but I do have a spare battery if needed. I have the camera on me at all times I think I use it more for the time or date than actually filming with it, so most of the time it is turned off. Most people are fine with it, I do sometimes get asked why I have the camera while some kids will act up even waving at it, where I'll tell them they are wasting their time as it is turned off, they can get upset at that. I have been asked to take it off once in the gym where I did cause the guy problems, as I was not filming and it was only on display from the entrance to the lockers about a 20 step walk, where they had folk walking around filming with their phones. His boss's were okay about it so long as I was not filming, which I'm happy to show and no one had ever complained or even mentioned it till then. I was asked in a shop once if I was filming by management, I showed them I was not and they were okay about it too, kind of, but they didn't ask me to leave the shop or remove it just that I couldn't film which I don't do.

I do know that these shops or even the shopping centre can ask me not to film, which none of them have ever done, their security have looked at the camera but none of them ever say anything against it. The thing is I'm not breaking any laws, it is actually legal to film in a public area, there is no right to privacy in a public area. I have checked these things up to make sure I'm in my legal rights and I am. The main thing is I do not hide it, the camera is in plain view, trust me if I wanted to film without people knowing it I do have another camera it's a tiny little thing, I can fit it on and you would never know it was there.

So here I am in the shops today, like every Friday doing some weekly shopping minding my own business, when some random bloke comes up into my face tells me to remove my camera and put it in my bag, I told him it's okay I'm not filming it's not turned on he was like, no you can't have that camera you have to put it away, I was like go away I am in my right to do what I was doing wearing a camera. He walked away turned back towards me and said I'm going to security to report you, where I pointed and said they are right down there, pointing out where the main public security place was. I also told him to look it up on the internet. I don't know if he went to security or not but I walked past them twice after that and the shops security never said a word to me. (there was a little bit more to it.) I was calm, polite and respectful he was angry, arrogant, in my face and rude.

Here is what David McCall, Assistant Chief Constable, of British Transport Police in Scotland told his officers back in 2010, I think it was after several instances where the police had tried to stop people from filming and taking pictures in a public place of police officers. As I said I only film when I'm out walking for my own personal security, and by the way it works as I have even had a car screech to a stop at that same crossing where the guy flipped me the bird, you can see it when they see the camera they react differently, which is wrong you shouldn't have to see a camera to do the right thing. That guy today really got in my face and the thing is, if I had been filming it would have made for some good YouTube material.

Here in Scotland it doesn't matter where you go someone some place is filming you, cars have cameras, buildings have cameras, even some of my neighbours houses have cameras, when you are shopping you are being filmed, if you walk down a city street you are being filmed, those phone zombies that walk past you, are you sure they are not filming, I suspect some of them are. I may have a camera on me but that doesn't mean I'm filming and that doesn't give anyone the right to verbally assault me which that guy did today, if it came down to it he was the one in the wrong, not me.

[Morkonan]

So a few years ago in a matter of 6 months or so, I was nearly ran over 4 times. ..

You're not paranoid if they really are trying to get you...

...So here I am in the shops today, like every Friday doing some weekly shopping minding my own business, when some random bloke comes up into my face tells me to remove my camera and put it in my bag, I told him it's okay I'm not filming it's not turned on he was like, no you can't have that camera you have to put it away, I was like go away I am in my right to do what I was doing wearing a camera. He walked away turned back towards me and said I'm going to security to report you, where I pointed and said they are right down there, pointing out where the main public security place was. I also told him to look it up on the internet. I don't know if he went to security or not but I walked past them twice after that and the shops security never said a word to me. (there was a little bit more to it.) I was calm, polite and respectful he was angry, arrogant, in my face and rude.

There are very few laws out there against being a jerk... In the U.S., there is still a lot of controversy over "wearable cameras" carried by private citizens, mostly due to "perverts." Remember "Google Glass?" Yeah, people nutted up over that, not least due to the fact that some weirdos were, in fact, using them to film people/kids/etc.

In the U.K., though, from the viewpoint of an American, everybody is filmed by the gubbermint, anyway, so what's the big deal if a private citizen carries a GoPro? /shrug

Question - A Private Business, though, might have "Rights" too, like the Right to refuse customers entry or to eject customers that were filming or even carrying a camera obviously used for such purposes. They could, perhaps, request you obscure the camera or put it away for the comfort of its patrons. That might be something that is covered under the law, since a private business may not necessarily be a "public space." A public park, however, would be or any public roads, crossways, and walkways. Check up on that, just to be sure. According to the .pdf, there is only the mention of "public spaces." How that is defined in the UK may be critical.

[Observe]

People don't like being at a disadvantage. Carry some dummy camera's that look like yours and give one to those who complain about yours. Some may even thank you for the fake gift.

[Morkonan]

People don't like being at a disadvantage. Carry some dummy camera's that look like yours and give one to those who complain about yours. Some may even thank you for the fake gift.

Hmm... That's a pretty decent plan, but with a twist.

With 3D printing one could easily make a mold for what appeared to be a small camera. A home-made vacuum forming machine isn't too difficult to make. So, you could create a bunch of cheap, realistic, looking and small "security cameras" and then just go around putting them on shelves everywhere. Glue some cheap magnets to them and stick them on lamposts, mailboxes, etc.. Everywhere.

The point is that the UK is the most "observed" place in the world. Teh Gubbermint cameras everywhere, but I would assume that others have joined the "camera crusade" too with businesses installing them as well. So, make an artistic statement - Hundreds of fake observation cameras everywhere. T-shirts... fake "shoe cameras" to unsettle people, etc..

Raise awareness.

I don't want to be filmed anywhere without my express permission. It is assumed that commercial cameras do not retain footage past a certain point and that they're used for security/litigation purposes. I'm fine with that. But, personal filming? I find that a bit unsettling, especially if it's not easily noticeable. Gubbermint filming and then analzying all the footage for facial recognition purposes and tracking? Uh...

[red assassin]

The point is that the UK is the most "observed" place in the world. Teh Gubbermint cameras everywhere, but I would assume that others have joined the "camera crusade" too with businesses installing them as well. So, make an artistic statement - Hundreds of fake observation cameras everywhere. T-shirts... fake "shoe cameras" to unsettle people, etc..

The idea that there are government cameras everywhere in the UK is nonsense - all the figures you see quoted for how many CCTV cameras there are in the UK include privately owned cameras, which account for the vast majority. "According to 2011 Freedom of Information Act requests, the total number of local government operated CCTV cameras was around 52,000 over the entirety of the UK. An article published in CCTV Image magazine estimated the number of private and local government operated cameras in the United Kingdom was 1.85 million in 2011."

[Alan Phipps]

.. and a lot of those official ones in the UK are automatic vehicle registration readers and vehicle speed cameras. Hardly intrusive personal surveillance devices - if you are driving legally.

[Grim Lock]

I'd personally wouldn't be too amused with someone walking up to me with a camera pointed at me, even if you'd tell me its not recording or you wouldn't put it in a public space, i'd only have the word of someone i don't know at all to take for it, so i personally definitly go out of my way to get out of your way, and well if i was a store owner, you wouldnt be allowed to have it out in the open in my store.

[Golden_Gonads]

The semi-constant mainly US based reports of the billions of cameras watching the UK has never ceased to amuse me. It simply isn't true. The figures touted include shop CCTV for christs-sake. Hardly big brother peering through the window of every home.

[CBJ]

I'm with Grim Lock on this, I'm afraid. While I understand that you have a right to be concerned about your personal safety, I also have a right to be concerned about my privacy, and I do not take kindly to being filmed or photographed without my consent. You can say that it's switched off all you like but sadly people are not always honest, so I reserve the right not to believe you (not you personally, you understand, but any random stranger who assures me that the camera they have pointing at me is not filming me).

[Ezarkal]

You're reminding me I should really get a dash camera.
1- For all the crazy drivers around.
2- For all the unconscious cell-phone addicted pedestrians, too.

99.5% are polite, courteous, careful, and share the road with the other users in mind.
The problem is, in a big city, there are always more people around you, and while in a smaller town that 0.5% means you'll see an idiot per week, in the city you'll see 3-4 per commute.

Or, and also
3- For the general state of the roads here in pothole city (more officially known as Montreal). This is just one of the many examples... although a spectacular one.

[Antilogic]

I understand and encourage the use of a dashcam, but the idea of a personal walking camera seems extremely excessive and I can understand why some people would not appreciate it. It doesn't mean that being verbally assaulted for it is correct, but it's certainly not the right approach to take in my book.

From your post you seem to be creating a silly amount of hassle for yourself for no gain.

[Morkonan]

The point is that the UK is the most "observed" place in the world. Teh Gubbermint cameras everywhere, but I would assume that others have joined the "camera crusade" too with businesses installing them as well. So, make an artistic statement - Hundreds of fake observation cameras everywhere. T-shirts... fake "shoe cameras" to unsettle people, etc..

The idea that there are government cameras everywhere in the UK is nonsense - all the figures you see quoted for how many CCTV cameras there are in the UK include privately owned cameras, which account for the vast majority. "According to 2011 Freedom of Information Act requests, the total number of local government operated CCTV cameras was around 52,000 over the entirety of the UK. An article published in CCTV Image magazine estimated the number of private and local government operated cameras in the United Kingdom was 1.85 million in 2011."

PDF - Surveillance Camera Commissioner Annual Report 2016/17"

"...The surveillance camera sector includes CCTV, body worn video, automatic number plate recognition, vehicle borne cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). In 2013 research estimated the number of CCTV cameras in the UK at up to 6 million 13 yet these only cover part of surveillance camera coverage and capability. I believe the figure may now be much higher than this estimate given the proliferation of cameras being adopted by such a wide range of organisations and the increasingly intrusive nature of new and emerging technologies. I am concerned at the incrementally intrusive development of surveillance cameras in the everyday lives of citizens. The constraints of my regulatory mandate outside of those organisations that are ‘relevant authorities’ as described in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) significantly undermine my ability to bring the necessary influence and leadership where it is sometimes most needed..."

So, as of 2017, this "Surveillance Commissioner" believed there were "up to 6 million" cameras that could be found in a report, but believed the "figure may now be much higher" and later lists a collection of government agencies, etc, as well as concerns effecting privacy, etc. Interesting report.

Mind you I should have rather written "surveiled" to more appropriately cover the range of government monitoring of U.K. citizens and others that would include means outside of CCTV cameras.

As long as the government official above wasn't lying and is competent enough to examine suitable reports from other sources, they maintain that it's over Six Million CCTV cameras. If they're lying or incompetent, someone should contact the UK government. I do realize that some of those may be privately owned, but there is also a section on the impacts of subverting/hacking cameras as well. There are also other uses, like cameras in schools and hospitals. But, the Commissioner is also concerned about those, too.

[red assassin]

I do realize that some of those may be privately owned, but there is also a section on the impacts of subverting/hacking cameras as well. There are also other uses, like cameras in schools and hospitals. But, the Commissioner is also concerned about those, too.

As I pointed out, "some of those" are not privately owned, the vast majority are privately owned. There are certainly a lot of cameras around in the UK, but there's this bizarre fashion for suggesting that the UK is somehow different from any other Western nation by blatantly misrepresenting the data. Every single article making claims about the UK being the "most watched nation" and so forth runs exactly the same way: a) find estimate of total number of cameras in the UK; b) imply the government runs them all to watch the population's every move; c) make no effort to find equivalent estimates for camera counts anywhere else. It's hard to get good figures for anywhere, the UK included, but I'm not seeing any actual basis to suggest there's a meaningful distinction. This article from 2009 claims 30 million cameras in the US. Is it accurate? No more idea about that than any of the figures for the UK, but it's roughly in line with the number of cameras per person for some of the higher estimates for the UK.

There's a separate discussion about whether having privately owned CCTV everywhere is a good thing for society or not, of course, especially as the rise of machine learning powered video analysis means that it's much more likely to be used for marketing purposes and so forth now, rather than just sitting around on a disk somewhere unless there happens to be an incident. But lazy narratives implying that it's all the government and that it's isolated to the UK reduce the ability to have that discussion in any meaningful way.

[Morkonan]

As I pointed out, "some of those" are not privately owned, the vast majority are privately owned. There are certainly a lot of cameras around in the UK, but there's this bizarre fashion for suggesting that the UK is somehow different from any other Western nation by blatantly misrepresenting the data. Every single article making claims about the UK being the "most watched nation" and so forth runs exactly the same way: a) find estimate of total number of cameras in the UK; b) imply the government runs them all to watch the population's every move; c) make no effort to find equivalent estimates for camera counts anywhere else.

You can't legitimately start out by implying someone is using these numbers in some disingenuous or devious way without at least offering up some kind of reasoning for that, can you?

It's hard to get good figures for anywhere, the UK included, but I'm not seeing any actual basis to suggest there's a meaningful distinction. This article from 2009 claims 30 million cameras in the US. Is it accurate? No more idea about that than any of the figures for the UK, but it's roughly in line with the number of cameras per person for some of the higher estimates for the UK.

The US has different laws than the UK. It's not just the "number of cameras" but how they're used. If you'd really want a good comparison it would be not based on people, but on area viewed and the amount of people passing through that area over a period of time or something like that. It does nobody any good to count CCTV cameras that are staring from inside a closet or something.

I hate "look at this link" discussions and would rather have direct one-on-one stuff with references as needed, so I'm not trying to further the former, but assist in the latter.

First: For resources, BigBrotherWatch - Surveillance State 2018. Disclaimer - It's not "crackpot anit-gubbermints" stuff. The figures from here have been used in government documents and were even referenced in the official gubbermint one I linked earlier.

...In the Report, the Commissioner lays out the vast amount spent on watching the UK public through CCTV and other surveillance camera technology: estimated at £2.2billion per year. ..

Assuming that is true.

Second: UK Budget Breakdown 2018

Compare spending on random_stuffed_animals at 2.2 Billion vs other line-item, Official Budget Entries... I guess for the lowest, which is Budget Deficit Spending, it would be kind of close to a third of that total. A third. Against General Government expenses, it'd be more like 15% of that budget? OK, now translate random_stuffed_animals to CCTV Surveillance and Monitoring programs and what do you get? A sizeable, significant, amount of the UK budget is being spent on CCTV Surveillance stuffs.

(When one needs "numbers" intel, one goes to things created to track numbers, like budgets. )

There's a separate discussion about whether having privately owned CCTV everywhere is a good thing for society or not, of course, especially as the rise of machine learning powered video analysis means that it's much more likely to be used for marketing purposes and so forth now, rather than just sitting around on a disk somewhere unless there happens to be an incident. But lazy narratives implying that it's all the government and that it's isolated to the UK reduce the ability to have that discussion in any meaningful way.

I do not believe such a discussion can not be had "in any meaningful way." After all, we don't care about how many cameras there are, do we? I don't. You probably don't. But, what we do care about is how they are being used, right?

The most disturbing part of the report can be summed up in the BBWatch article: "One particularly worrying note in the Commissioners report is his uncritical consideration of the idea that all surveillance cameras run by local authorities, the 43 police forces across England and Wales and the thousands more owned by private and public sector organisations could be “joined up to provide a more holistic and smart approach to surveillance” in a colossal, unified surveillance network. The Commissioner is responsible for providing advice on the effective, appropriate, proportionate and transparent use of surveillance camera systems – surely he should recognise that the suggestion of such a network of nationwide surveillance cameras is absurd."

So, the guy responsible for heading up the appropriate used of such systems suggests tying them all together for a huge mass surveillance system?

What manuals is he reading and how did such a suggestion make it through his advisors and other participants who likely helped him with his report? Importantly, what "culture" promoted ideas that led such a suggestion? If someone suggested doing that in the US, there'd be a riot... Imagine private companies getting visits from black-box-toting gubbermint officials asking where they could plug it in? NOT that such a thing hasn't happened in the US and doesn't continue to occur with certain systems. But, in those cases, there are laws on the books and enforced to protect citizens. Even so, we still have our own battles to fight there.

[Observe]

I see the day coming, when we have "smart cameras" that can detect the emotional and mental state of those in our immediate area. Would you wear such a camera that could signal you, if a person of violent intent was nearby, or if the guy trying to sell you a car is a lair, of if your school instructor is telling you something that isn't true?

In other words, how cyber-human are you willing to go? What felter is doing, is just the beginning of where this technology will lead in a very short time. It won't be long, before smartphone are passé and all the hubbub will be about the latest personal camera communications and area security devices. Incognito eye implants will cost extra of course.

Felter, you are on the vanguard of the beginning of a new species.

[CBJ]

You can't legitimately start out by implying someone is using these numbers in some disingenuous or devious way without at least offering up some kind of reasoning for that, can you?

I'm struggling to work out how you've managed to misunderstand red assassin's post so badly. Following the link you posted and going the source document if cites for the 6 million figure, it is quite clear from the explanatory information that a very high proportion of the cameras counted are privately-owned security cameras in shops and petrol stations, and the like, not government surveillance cameras. The point red assassin was making was not that your source document was false or misleading; what is misleading is that that 6 million figure is frequently used in the press as supposed evidence that the UK is some kind of police state with the government watching every corner. The reality, as he points out, is that we are much like any other country. There are some cameras controlled by local authorities at places like busy intersections to monitor traffic, at level crossings for safety purposes, and in some city centre areas with nightclubs and shops, where it is beneficial to be able keep an eye on what is happening without constant police patrols. The rest are private security cameras, which have nothing to do with the government.

[Alan Phipps]

My niece is a data protection officer for a widespread corporate chain in the UK and she tells me that even the police (and personal representation solicitors) have to jump through significant justification and safeguarding hoops to gain access to firms' private CCTV footage (whether relating to external or internal views regarding the firms' premises) when hoping to recover evidence of criminal activity or negligence, etc that might be caught on their security cameras. It is her job (under relevant confidentiality and non-disclosure coverage) to vet the request and justification, review the relevant footage and then advise the management board whether or not to release footage in whole or part under specified safeguards.

There is no way that some random government department has rights or access to that footage as part of some greater public surveillance conspiracy. It is not like on TV or in the films where some random police officer just walks in without the necessary authority and paperwork and says 'Give me or show me your CCTV footage'.

[Morkonan]

You can't legitimately start out by implying someone is using these numbers in some disingenuous or devious way without at least offering up some kind of reasoning for that, can you?

I'm struggling to work out how you've managed to misunderstand red assassin's post so badly. Following the link you posted and going the source document if cites for the 6 million figure, it is quite clear from the explanatory information that a very high proportion of the cameras counted are privately-owned security cameras in shops and petrol stations, and the like, not government surveillance cameras. The point red assassin was making was not that your source document was false or misleading; what is misleading is that that 6 million figure is frequently used in the press as supposed evidence that the UK is some kind of police state with the government watching every corner. The reality, as he points out, is that we are much like any other country. There are some cameras controlled by local authorities at places like busy intersections to monitor traffic, at level crossings for safety purposes, and in some city centre areas with nightclubs and shops, where it is beneficial to be able keep an eye on what is happening without constant police patrols. The rest are private security cameras, which have nothing to do with the government.

It was also mentioned by red_assassin that it is very difficult to get accurate numbers of who owns what and who is using what for what... OK, fine, then further citations of "numbers managed/owned by ___" doesn't really have much validity does it? There is no way to form a "common ground" basis for a discussion if we can't actually define what it is we're talking about, is there? OK, so, instead, we can look for quantitative evidence published by sources who's authority is, or should be, relevant. Yes? That way, we can perhaps determine how significant the issue really is and whether or not it merits further discussion. If, for instance, not having hard numbers or official statements regarding the number of cameras accessed by the UK government is a failure-point for further discussion, then maybe how much the government spends on monitoring CCTV systems relative to other budget items may be an acceptable approach?

And, to further that sort of discussion, should someone accept the common ground offered, I offered the quote from a Minister/Commissioner about their suggestion to create a network of public and private CCTVs to create a "One CCTV Monitoring Network to Rule Them All" kind of approach... Which is such an insanely overbearing suggestion that one must be forced to explain a government or department culture that would be capable of birthing it.

IOW - OK, the stated number will be disputed because of an unknown amount of exclusively private ownership of CCTV cameras. That's fine. Then, let's find hard numbers and government positions regarding the use of CCTV for internal monitoring instead and see if there is anything significant there worthy of discussion.
[/quote]

...There is no way that some random government department has rights or access to that footage as part of some greater public surveillance conspiracy. It is not like on TV or in the films where some random police officer just walks in without the necessary authority and paperwork and says 'Give me or show me your CCTV footage'.

In principle, I agree. In that situation I'm sure there are plenty of safeguards and protections in place to protect the ownership of CCTV footage and to prevent its misuse.

But, lest we forget - UK spies on Millions of Yahoo Webcams. They didn't need to go to the owners of that footage and didn't need to offer up official documents or observe privacy laws and legislative protections there, did they?

...In a statement, a GCHQ spokesman said: "It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters.

"Furthermore, all of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

"All our operational processes rigorously support this position...."

So, it was all done legally according to that government agency. "Nothing to see here, move along please..." ( Guardian Source Article )

In the above, as far back as 2009 I know, they were discussing factial recognition and imaging technology testing and using it in this fashion. In the post I made earlier, the report from 2018 has that as a major component. IIRC, recently, there was a hullabaloo about police using CCTV cameras at a some sort of concert event to search for potential notable persons, targets of interest, people on a watch list, etc.. (UK Citizens may have good resources there as I don't know how that argument ended up, yet.)

The point is that protections that involve an adversarial system, like the one you mentioned where a live person is charged with ensuring such protections and a government or other agency must present legal cause, seem to be fairly secure. However, that does not mean that in situations where there are no adversarial protections such security exists. Nobody can offer adversarial, protective, resistance of privacy intrusion if they are not aware it is taking place. Further, a great deal of CCTV camera footage is not stored locally and many systems use teh interwebz... If the "Yahoo" incident is any indication of general standards and practices, anything that crosses the boundary in the UK is wide-open for government observation no matter who is involved. And, it's likely not limited to out-of-country hosts, either, given the very powerful capabilities of UK E-Int Surveillance. (The UK is pretty darn "badass" when it comes down to how much data they can get. They are no joke. That's due in a large part, IMO, to UK privacy laws that simply don't afford much personal citizen privacy where National Intelligence is concerned.)

NYT - From Mountain of CCTV Footage, Pay Dirt: 2 Russians Are Named in Spy Poisoning. A wonderful use of CCTV, right? Right! But...

...Investigators released a cache of evidence, including security camera images that captured the progress of the two men from an Aeroflot flight to the scene of the crime, and from there back to Moscow....

From arrival, to the scene of the crime, to their departure back to Moscow? The... whole trip? On CCTV? Sun - Some released footage

...“It’s almost impossible in this country to hide, almost impossible,” said John Bayliss, who retired from the Government Communications Headquarters, Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, in 2010. “And with the new software they have, you can tell the person by the way they walk, or a ring they wear, or a watch they wear. It becomes even harder.”...

Uh... wow. Rings? Watches? How they walk?

It's all for a good cause, right?

[Alan Phipps]

I would imagine that in the Salisbury Nerve Agent attack case, the police were indeed able to provide the necessary justifications for obtaining willing release of private CCTV coverage from all sources that might have captured images of the suspects. It also took a long time to complile it all. That's rather a no-brainer.

Now try to get the same access to comprehensive coverage for the movements of some person or group that the police might have some occasional or minor interest in for say petty crime. That's just not in the same league as the first example.

The Salisbury attack tied up major investigative and evidence-protection police resources, drawn from right across the nation, for months and months at great inconvenience and overstretch to themselves and at significant taxpayer expense. That's just not available nor even viable to consider for minor crime or just random general surveillance.

Private surveillance footage also generally has a lifetime before being overwritten. Unless a timely reason or request causes it to be preserved for later scrutiny, it is relatively soon deleted.

Sorry Mork, but your conspiracy theories in this respect at least just do not hold up.

[Morkonan]

...Sorry Mork, but your conspiracy theories in this respect at least just do not hold up.

Please point out the "conspiracy theory" you're accusing me of.

Is anything there that I posted valid information? Is any of it untrue? Are the sources suspect? Ficticious? They don't have to be addressed, of course. It's a free world, for the most part, so nobody has to even read them.

But, you can't just say "Nuh uh" and declare victory when the discussion hasn't even arrived at an arguable point.

PS - There doesn't have to be a discussion. I don't demand one at all, btw. It's just that the notion that the UK just might at least be the most broadly surveilled democracy on Earth could possibly have some merit. If, despite the sparse bits of stuff I posted isn't enough to support that in your mind, that's fine too. After all, it's your government reading your posts, not mine. My government will be happy just to read the reports about me that your government provides them.