Well, except the ineptitude of your government and it's perversion of your legal system anyhow.

I do rather think that "London based" Privacy International have shot themselves in the foot somewhat though -- it's their survey and it shows what they're campaigning about to be true.

It would take at least a dozen security cameras to cover just my own 3+ acre forested and topographically-interesting suburban residential property. On average, even weighted by population density (a generous allowance), video surveillance within Canada is a hilarious concept.

99.99999% of video surveillance in Canada is fed back only to the security desk of the building in question where it is occasionally viewed by the elderly and mostly harmless Commissionaire on duty.

The only exception to this rule would be several square blocks of downtown Protestville (Ottawa, our Nation's Capital) where 'The Man' has installed an extensive video surveillance system (a couple of dozen cameras)

Happy New Year.

We're watching your mountain bunker with our fancyy military sattelites.

Teh Gov

All you have to do is let them know you are definitely a subversive and they will avoid you like the plague after all there's no good investigating known subversives only those they suspect may be. Once their sure you join the ranks of the other 80% of the population who think they are worthless.

It's not just about video surveillance, it's about the protection of personal data. Canada has good laws on the subject, unfortunately enforcement is spotty at best and difficult to obtain. Given that the federal privacy commissioner can only recommend action, and cannot take direct action (unlike, say, the B.C. privacy commissioner), the federal law is a bit of a joke even if it does look good on paper.

The US, on the other hand, has few if any real privacy laws, and what laws they have are completely ignored by their government. As for the UK, well, the less said the better. I'm wondering when they're going to try introducing subdermal RFID chips for all residents.

Fsck me - *truly* frightening stuff.

All the more frightening when understanding that this sort of 'crime free' Brave New World is the *real* reason behind the DNA database. Then, or so the NuLabour science-fiction-as-fact legislating mindset seems to be operating in, it's just a case of matching DNA found at the scene to someone on the database - simple; crime solved and miscreant nabbed. After all, DNA is unique and provides irrefutable evidence linking a person to a crime.

Er, or not - as yours and many more cases will continue to prove. I wonder how many innocent people will need to rot in jail, having been damned by the DNA 'evidence', for sheeple to realise just how much they've been duped by lying/utterly dense politicians and an infantile media?

A while ago I was at my friend's house when I got a call on my mobile. It was Plod, informing me that my parked car was causing an obstruction to a school entrance. I'll gloss over the fact that it was around 10pm and thus not likely for my car to be much of a threat to anyone. But it worries me that through the use of some database or the other, Plod was easily able to link my car to my mobile phone number.

Plod will automatically make use of any advance in technology. In addition to mobile CCTV units routinely patrolling the streets of London, foreign readers may be horrified to learn that UK Plod have recently deployed legions of mobile Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems that will cause officers to pounce on passing vehicles if they are flagged as being without insurance. In order for that to work, several databases HAVE to be joined together to form a patchwork quilt of intelligence about you. And if the intelligence is wrong, current default behaviour is to seize the vehicle and argue the toss afterwards. Even though it is *people* that are insured on UK roads - not vehicles - it's an irresistible technology for our boys in blue.

It's pretty much inevitable that excellent face recognition systems will be developed in the near future so They will know about Us nearly all the time. In the UK at least we can all look forward to a world not even dreamed about by George Orwell.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Fair enough. If you truly believe this, please post the following personal information: Full address, Phone number, Salary, Credit card numbers, social security, etc.

You won't do this because you don't trust the people reading this. Rightfully so, may I add.

So if you're confident that complete and full disclosure is not a problem, then you are really saying that you have a complete confidence that your government is perfectly trustworthy, which is to say that every single person part of that administration is flawless, always competent and completely incorruptible. This applies to any country, BTW.

Even if you discount the possibility of a government going sour a few years or decades from now, there's still the risk of breach of data security.

I once did a project for a police department which involved the database of all their current and past officers, complete with social security IDs. Are these people doing anything wrong that they want to hide? Presumably not. But nevertheless, when that project was over, I destroyed all the copies I had of that database: no data = no leaking of data. That protects me and protects them.

A.

It is always a *person* that is insured. There are many people, for example, who are insured to drive any of a number of haulage trucks. This will not show up in an ANPR check. Even if it's being driven by an illegal immigrant terrorist. But Granny out doing her shopping who got her insurance courtesy of a broker this morning is a big red target for Plod.