> I always heard about London being over-surveilled
In London it's not the government that's spying on you. The reason there are so many cameras is that it was established policy for insurance companies give discounts if you have comprehensive camera coverage, and then digital cameras got so cheap that it's simply a great deal for any business owner to acquire enough cameras to surveil the entirety of their business and all the surroundings. And since there's often no co-ordination, if you are walking in Central London you are always in the field of view of at least half a dozen cameras with different owners.
Of course, it did turn out to be very convenient to the police that if something happens, it almost certainly happened on video and they just have to go talk to all nearby business owners to get a copy of it.
Sounds nice if the police doesn't have direct access to all cameras, but instead needs to talk with the nearby buildings. Some balance between capturing crime on camera, and not having a surveillance state -- from the so-many-cameras point of view.
But I suppose there are things I don't know (and wouldn't like), related to this
If the cops can demand, rather than request, the video, that's not really a check or a balance on the surveillance state. All it functionally means is that collecting footage is not automated, and there is some small back flow of information about what is being looked at.
The stasi didn't need that much information, or automation tech, to suppress dissent and ruin lives. I'm not complaining that those checks exist, but I am saying we definitely need more than that to protect us from a surveillance state.
Stasi had like 200 000 informants and we're drowning in the shear weight of their paper archives. There was a practical limit on how much they could surveil even with total commitment.
Which is relevant to my point that the police should have some work to gather data to keep down the scale.
Obviously, Stasi did persecute people in far worse way than Google et al. do right now.
> secret citizen spying program that's active in the Austin area and across the country ... Threat Liaison Officers (TLOs), who report suspicious activity or behavior ... each TLO must sign a nondisclosure agreement with ARIC, including those not working in law enforcement, essentially creating secret citizen officers. These informants, known as For Official Use Only TLOs, are able to access the fusion centers' national intelligence database (excluding personal identifying information). The FOUO TLOs include private security officers with local hotels, malls, large venues, and local semiconductor companies.
Those may not be adequate checks, but they are checks, and personally I think it's worth worrying that the day could come when we'll look back with nostalgia on "not automated, and there is some small back flow of information about what is being looked at."
Living in London, if anything the police lean towards not looking at enough surveillance video rather than too much. There are not many police doing this compared to the number or crimes. I had my phone snatched in central London and mistakenly ran to the nearest police station thinking they might go after them. But no - sit and wait an hour or two, fill a form. I said it was outside a business with a camera but they wouldn't apply to the owner and go through the vids because it was too much work.
Funnily enough they did have a look at bus footage - apparently all London busses have cameras - in spite of me saying there wasn't a bus near at the time. Guess that was easier for them to get.
They can request and 99% of the time people just give it to them - all completely legal. However you can also legally refuse and then they need a warrant from magistrate's court.
I believe they can demand you don't destroy it though as that will be a criminal offence once they've told you.
In London it's not the government that's spying on you. The reason there are so many cameras is that it was established policy for insurance companies give discounts if you have comprehensive camera coverage, and then digital cameras got so cheap that it's simply a great deal for any business owner to acquire enough cameras to surveil the entirety of their business and all the surroundings. And since there's often no co-ordination, if you are walking in Central London you are always in the field of view of at least half a dozen cameras with different owners.
Of course, it did turn out to be very convenient to the police that if something happens, it almost certainly happened on video and they just have to go talk to all nearby business owners to get a copy of it.