Author Topic: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?  (Read 1188 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« on: November 25, 2008, 10:40:55 PM »
Social services 'set up CCTV camera in couple's bedroom'
By Martin Beckford, Social Affairs Correspondent

Social workers set up a CCTV camera in the bedroom of a couple with learning difficulties in order to monitor their behaviour, a new report claims.
 
Council staff are said to have spied on the young parents at night as part of a plan to see if they were fit to look after their baby, who was sleeping in another room.

The mother and father were forced to cite the Human Rights Act, which protects the right to a private life, before the social services team backed down and agreed to switch off the surveillance camera while they were in bed together.

The case is highlighted in a new dossier of human rights abuses carried out against vulnerable and elderly adults in nursing homes and hospitals across Britain.

It comes just days after the Government admitted town halls have gone too far in using anti-terror laws to snoop on members of the public.

Recent figures show three-quarters of local authorities have used powers granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to spy on residents suspected of putting their bins out on the wrong day, allowing pet dogs to foul the pavement or breaking school catchment area rules.

In the latest case, documented in a report published by the British Institute of Human Rights to mark the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights Act, an unnamed council used CCTV to keep an eye on a mother and father with learning difficulties as their parenting skills were under question.

Social services departments are allowed to place adults in units known as "residential family centres" if they fear their children could be at risk of abuse or neglect. Staff assess the families in a controlled environment to determine whether their children should be taken into care.

The centres can use CCTV cameras as well as listening devices but Government regulations state that staff must "respect parents' and children's privacy".

However, the BIHR report claims that the centre in question breached the couple's right to respect for private and family life, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that was incorporated into English law a decade ago.

The study states: "A learning disabled couple were living in a residential assessment centre so their parenting skills could be assessed by the local social services department.

"CCTV cameras were installed, including in their bedroom. Social workers explained that the cameras were there to observe them performing their parental duties and for the protection of their baby.

"The couple were especially distressed by the use of the CCTV cameras in their bedroom during the night.

"With the help of a visiting neighbour, the couple successfully invoked their right to respect for private life.

"They explained that they did not want their intimacy to be monitored and that, besides, the baby slept in a separate nursery.

"As a result, the social services team agreed to switch off the cameras during the night so that the couple could enjoy their evenings together in privacy."

The BIHR said the case illustrated the way in which the much-maligned Act, which has given birth to a new industry of specialist lawyers and led to convicted murderers and terrorists winning the right to remain living in Britain, had also made it easier for innocent people to have their rights protected without the need for costly court cases.

Ceri Goddard, its acting director, said: "The Human Rights Act is 10 years old and should be celebrated for the positive changes it is making to people's everyday lives ? in our hospitals, care homes and schools."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3507238/Social-services-set-up-CCTV-camera-in-couples-bedroom.html
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2008, 11:55:00 PM »
The study states: "A learning disabled couple were living in a residential assessment centre so their parenting skills could be assessed by the local social services department.

"CCTV cameras were installed, including in their bedroom. Social workers explained that the cameras were there to observe them performing their parental duties and for the protection of their baby.


======================
Camera observation of this couple was not protecting their human rights. Nor was it in any way related to preventing terrorism.

It is nice to know that they decided to turn the cameras off.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8040
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2008, 01:20:48 AM »
see
that`s the rub about worrying about security over privacy
people keep saying it`s the price for keeping our country safe but notice none of this has stopped drugs from entering our country.
it seems if we can`t keep illegal stuff from entering our country we should divert our attention from bedroom peeping to border controls
or is cocaine not a security risk
most U.S. pot is imported from my country,due to high consumption that totally depletes local supplies

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2008, 01:43:55 AM »
Looks like a case of over eager child protection workers. And no the cameras did not need to be in the bedroom.

But i don't see what this has to do with national security issues.

Looks more like a welfare case to me.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2008, 05:47:41 AM »
It takes a village to protect a child from its parrents, but then the child grows up with little expectation of privacy.

Twenty years later the child gets a job monitoring your bedroom camera , and he doesn't know why not.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2008, 11:51:47 AM »
It takes a village to protect a child from its parrents, but then the child grows up with little expectation of privacy.

Twenty years later the child gets a job monitoring your bedroom camera , and he doesn't know why not.


==============================================
You seem to be suggesting that Hillary Clinton was responsible for this: she wasn't, it happened in the UK. At no point did Hillary ever claim that surveillance cameras should be used by the village to spy on suspected parents.

In any event, they decided not to watch them.

Surveillance cameras are overrated. Once I worked in King's Dominion, an ersatz Disney Wannabe amusement park near Richmond, VA. I was in the cash control facility. One day, receipts would be $200 shot, and the next day, they would be $200 over. They raked in around half a million on a good day, over a million on July 4th. When they would come up over $200 short, one of the administrators would show up and remind us that they were watching us on these cameras they had all over the place, and they could make us all take polygraph tests or fire us for not taking them. Usually the money was not exact because of a faulty bill counter, slugs and foreign coins in the skeeball machines and stuff like that.

As a rule, the weekly totals were within $50. It was the daily totals that would go up and down.

They never got around to the polygraph bit, because I think they would have had to pay a lot more than they were losing. I don't think anyone stole anything.

Anyway, one day, one of the guys found this huge spider, and they put it inside the lens of the surveillance camera trained on the main vault.  We expected someone to appear immediately, we checked the monitors, and the thing was unhappy and was bouncing around all over the place, a huge spidery shadow. No one appeared. A week later the spider died, on its back, with its feet in the air.

One MONTH later, the head of security popped in and found the spider. He was really mad. Most of the people on the day shift had not been there when the night shift put the spider in the camera, but not a soul confessed.  Still no polygraph, either. 

The honchos CAN watch people if they want to, but they won't normally be bothered to do it, and entrust it to underpaid flunkies, who do what underpaid flunkies normally do.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you really sure you want to trade privacy for security?
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2008, 02:39:39 PM »
Quote
But i don't see what this has to do with national security issues.


It wouldn't, normally. But they are apparently using the laws that were enacted to prevent terrorism to justify putting the cameras in the bedroom, and other stuff.

Quote
It comes just days after the Government admitted town halls have gone too far in using anti-terror laws to snoop on members of the public.

Recent figures show three-quarters of local authorities have used powers granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to spy on residents suspected of putting their bins out on the wrong day, allowing pet dogs to foul the pavement or breaking school catchment area rules.

All ya gotta do is read.

"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016