My and my Camera

[Chips]

Really quickly... as it's clear you've got some very different ways of presenting "facts"

..Where's this 2.2 billion coming from as well?

It's in a government report .pdf linked and in one of the article links. It's a direct quote from the Commissioner/Administrator/Titled person. (Just another reason I hate "link wars" stuffs. )

Okay, cheers, read it - ah here it is.

Surveillance camera technology costs approximately £2.2 billion a year in the UK. The strategy will produce a ‘Buyers Toolkit’ that will seek to ensure that every pound spent is spent wisely, in line with the regulatory landscape and in a way that matches public expectations of what surveillance cameras are there to do.

How to you interpret that cost of 2.2 billion? Lets look - it was

2.2 Billion Monies spent on Monitoring CCTV cameras, which is a sizeable comparative portion of the entire budget of some other UK Budgetted Agencies...

1) The camera technology costs approx 2 billion a year. This is not "watching cameras costs 2 billion a year". Unless you mean "Monitoring CCTV Cameras" to imply all costs associated by the entire nation's CCTV installers/operators etc? Bit misleading if so
2) This is not specific to the Governments cameras and that it costs the Government 2 billion a year to monitor them. It's the spend of an entire country on installation, repairs, replacements, maintenance, monitoring, storage, electricity, the works.


Then

Basically, in the EU ruling report, and if one looks at other direct source articles, it's discussed that UK e-int agencies basically have legal authority to record/monitor/snoop any traffic from UK citizens that has a connection/destination point outside of the UK. In short - There's no privacy past that boundary.

A reference to the Yahoo scandal from several years ago where the UK accessed private Yahoo accounts and their associated webcam pics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ)

Familiar with the Yahoo statement. But also, addressed that as I actually read the EU ruling. I did make specific reference to it - and the ruling did mention the inability to prevent picking up info on UK citizens communicating with stuff outside the country, but again, I refer you to what it said about it as I highlighted...

"The EU ruling did mention adequate safeguards surrounding those who aren't specifically targeted when bulk data was being hoovered up"

Your interpretations appear to include a healthy dose of exaggeration - which is precisely what several others have said.

[Morkonan]

...
Your interpretations appear to include a healthy dose of exaggeration - which is precisely what several others have said.

You're right.