"national security exemption"
On 30 September, the Chief Constable of West Midlands went on TV to apologise for its plans to undertake comprehensive and overt CCTV surveillance of all cars and individuals who entered or left the Sparkhill area of Birmingham. This apology comes even though “No cameras associated with the Project have ever been used” and the …
CCTV stands for closed circuit television. If it's visible to the public, it's not closed circuit. This is supposed to be a technology article. Please check for basic mistakes.
"Closed circuit" does not mean private or concealed. Closed circuit basically only means that it is not broadcast through the air and that video images are only transmitted along wires with known endpoints. It does not equate to the endpoints being private or the cameras being concealed.
If what's visible to the public; the cameras or the footage?
Hint: Closed Circuit refers to the _circuit_ that the data travels on, not to the physical presence of the cameras. This is supposed to be a technology forum. Please check for basic mistakes.
Back on topic, I think the author makes a good point, that the pseudo-wrist-slap that comes from the report into the project basically tells us what we (the public) want to hear, (did not consider legal/regulatory frameworks yadda yadda) while leaving the door wide open for the same thing to happen again. A cunning ruse.
"Olive can ..... conduct effective counter surveillance measures"
What's that all about ?
I bet you can paint over the camera's faster than they can replace them. Should you wish to.
"You have all these rights, apart from when we decide that you don't..."
We must stop trying to figure out what the person in charge --and therefore the person ultimately responsible-- knew at what time. That really misses the point quite spectacularly and allows anyone in politics to claim ignorance and incompetence as valid job requirements.
That must stop.
Whoever is in charge, must shoulder the responsibility and make sure he or she has the means to be responsible. This makes it their job to bloody well find out what is going on. Somebody has to be responsible, and the buck stops at the top. So. No more excuses.
the policeman who apologised, and who said they had never been turned on, could STILL be lying (sorry, misleading the councillors and public) and the certificate would make that OK?
I suppose there is no way to check if they are in fact on or not.
Further comment is superfluous
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017