Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Invasion of Privacy? Ref: Pg 18 (Page 3)

MagixX IF-Rockerz
MagixX
MagixX

Joined: 24 January 2010
Posts: 6273

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 11:20am | IP Logged
Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by .Doe.

Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by .Doe.

Depends on where the "Cameras" are put. Smile


The camera.. to my Fav! subject...<lol>
There are 'surveillance' cameras everywhere, schools, banks, sidewalks, airports, office buildings,  washrooms, locker rooms, etc.. There is no limit under the laws which govern these facilities to put up cameras. Some think that having camera is great monitoring device to prevent criminal activities but I think it's an invasion of privacy.



Ahh, okies. I get it. While cameras are needed in some of the above places like mentioned - Banks, schools, etc..I somehow cannot comprehend why are they in washrooms. That is taking it a bit too far, and yes, it's the invasion of privacy.

Recently too, as we saw in the Royal wedding, it is invasion of privacy. While I accept I enjoyed the wedding, at the same time, if I sit down and think, would I want my wedding to be broadcast that way, the answer would be no. Maybe it's because they are Royalty & stuff, I still cannot justify it. I enjoyed it though :P
And don't get me started on what cameras did to Diana, it is horrible. Dead


There is a fine line between when you choose right to privacy vs your privacy is invaded. The royal-wedding was a public event as their position and responsibility towards the public and the right to view the event in open.

I totally agree with you on the Princess Diana's death was an horrible event.


@Bold: Does their responsibility towards public include taking marriage vows in front of the cameras? Tongue
I am not sure.
Besides that, monarch doesn't rule Britain anymore. So, why should it be made public? It is an invasion of Will & Kate's privacy. Now even their honeymoon is going to be a public event..wait & watch. Tongue


Edited by .Doe. - 10 May 2011 at 11:23am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

monar

-Aarya- IF-Dazzler
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 2702

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 12:32pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by -Sookie-

Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by -Sookie-

Originally posted by night13


I feel as though privacy is on a fence between freedom of speech and others which require public to disclose private information! Do we still have the right to be let alone!



I think you have somewhat answered the question in above few lines.

Except for lockers and washrooms, I guess most of the places where cameras are installed are fairly public right? I do not expect privacy in public places thus I do not see any harm in those places except for lockers and washrooms. Even though they are for public use, people who use it would definitely prefer it to be private about their business. But assuming (the worst) that one in five who uses that locker is a criminal, then entire private affair becomes a moot point, no?

I am more paranoid about misusing this information about public which is far more dangerous than disclosing it. Every ATM machine has a camera installed in front of it which totally freaks me out. I know that they are not aware of what we type and stuff, but still!

In the end its all about balance I guess.

S


This was surely an unexpected surprise visit... though a good one! :)

Agree with you to some extend but not full, as I do mind being watched and that too without my knowledge.  The free society we trust  with freedom of movement, choice and self-reliance, thus is invaded and it gives a false sense of security.

With current state-of-art that technology offers to withdraw money from an ATM with simple scan of your eyes, and no bank cards are needed! To your point, it is pretty freaky. :)



Night, true I agree everything about freedom, choice and self-reliance. But with the amount of stuff that happens around us, there has to be some amount of regulation which governs safety of the citizens.

(Please, lets not even start about ATMs. Who said its safe!)

Moving away from cameras, think about internet. Take India-Forums website for example. For every post we make there are these words written - "IP Logged". That pretty much gives out my location, my internet service provider and of course my IP!  How safe is it anyway!!!

I know that in the beginning it was to track everyone from pranksters to cyber criminals but now everyone is under the radar.

With cell phones, we have GPS to track.

So where is privacy anyway? We are watched, tracked and monitored.

All there is left, is a stamp of bar code or something on the base of our necks :-) (Remember Dark Angel?) Stern Smile

S


In some cases the camera systems are abused either by authorities or the hackers, which again we are the victims. We are at constant risk of abuse: are we really in safe hands?

With respect to Internet: it's merely our choice to join, either IF, Facebook, etc. We are bound by the rules and regulations of each forum and thus I feel we can not complain as the choice was our to make. I guess freedom does come with a price!

Sookie, thank you for stopping by. :)







Edited by night13 - 10 May 2011 at 1:51pm
MagixX IF-Rockerz
MagixX
MagixX

Joined: 24 January 2010
Posts: 6273

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 12:37pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by night13



In some cases the camera systems are abused either by authorities or the hackers, which again we are the victims. We are at constant risk of abuse: are we really in the safe hands?

With respect to Internet: it's merely our choice to join, either IF, Facebook, etc.We are bound by the rules and regulations of each forum and thus I feel we can not complain as the choice was our to make. I guess freedom does come with a price!

Sookie, thank you for stopping by. :)


At WHAT price? I am sorry, but I have heard many stories regarding people who have stalked others on IF. It's creepy when you read those.
This whole IP think can be avoided on IF, and even if it IS used, it has got to be restricted. 
There are more & enough rules on IF, not that there is freedom to say & do whatever you like, and if now, that isn't enough, we have this as well.
Think IF can avoid this. It's more of a loss than gain.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

hindu4lyf

-Aarya- IF-Dazzler
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 2702

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 12:39pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by angie.4u

Originally posted by night13



Agree with you to some extend but not full, as I do mind being watched and that too without my knowledge. 

Most of the offices and shops under CCTV surveillance do have displays put up informing the public about the surveillance.
What irritates me most is the pesky unsolicited sms and tele marketing calls! I consider that as gross violation of my privacy. Phone tapping and shadowing  someone would also constitute invasion of privacy. Unless done for security reasons that too after sufficient circumstantial evidence it needs to be curtailed.


Do you think just because the sign states that the premises is under surveillance it's should be accepted by us?  This is where my thoughts differ ...!

Agree, and feel the same annoyance with phone tapping.  All should be governed and justified under some legal cause.



Edited by night13 - 10 May 2011 at 12:40pm
hindu4lyf IF-Rockerz
hindu4lyf
hindu4lyf

Joined: 25 March 2008
Posts: 9353

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 12:59pm | IP Logged
Did someone mention security cameras in washrooms?! Say what!
In the UK you aren't allowed to keep cameras in washrooms because it's a huge invasion of privacy.

I actually have no problem with security cameras being used at my school or my corner shop..my main problem is infact the inefficiency of these CCTV cameras and maybe this fear arises because I used to live in an area with an extremely high crime rate.
A couple of years ago the head of the Metropolitan Police came to my college to ask for any witnesses to come forward about the death of a young boy who was on his way back from the cinemas. It was around 8pm and he was mugged and then stabbed to death by a group of boys who then ran away and drove off in their car. There were several CCTV cameras on the street yet the quality of these cameras are really bad! It was extremely difficult to make out the number plate of the car, let alone identify the faces of those that escaped. So why does the govt spend so much money on these so-called 'security' cameras if they're not doing their job properly?

In stores like Tesco (largest supermarket over here) they too use security cameras but obviously for their own purpose and they very rarely share those videos with members of the public.

Speaking of invasion of privacy..I'm sure most people here have heard of the 'google street view' feature. It pretty much shows the entire front and backyard of a house, including any parked cars at the time where the number plates can be seen too. :| Not too long ago some guy was caught via google street view entering a p**n shop. :P I'm guessing he wasn't too happy about that! Lol

Edited by hindu4lyf - 10 May 2011 at 1:05pm
-Aarya- IF-Dazzler
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 2702

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 1:13pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Doe.

Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by .Doe.

Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by .Doe.

Depends on where the "Cameras" are put. Smile


The camera.. to my Fav! subject...<lol>
There are 'surveillance' cameras everywhere, schools, banks, sidewalks, airports, office buildings,  washrooms, locker rooms, etc.. There is no limit under the laws which govern these facilities to put up cameras. Some think that having camera is great monitoring device to prevent criminal activities but I think it's an invasion of privacy.



Ahh, okies. I get it. While cameras are needed in some of the above places like mentioned - Banks, schools, etc..I somehow cannot comprehend why are they in washrooms. That is taking it a bit too far, and yes, it's the invasion of privacy.

Recently too, as we saw in the Royal wedding, it is invasion of privacy. While I accept I enjoyed the wedding, at the same time, if I sit down and think, would I want my wedding to be broadcast that way, the answer would be no. Maybe it's because they are Royalty & stuff, I still cannot justify it. I enjoyed it though :P
And don't get me started on what cameras did to Diana, it is horrible. Dead


There is a fine line between when you choose right to privacy vs your privacy is invaded. The royal-wedding was a public event as their position and responsibility towards the public and the right to view the event in open.

I totally agree with you on the Princess Diana's death was an horrible event.


@Bold: Does their responsibility towards public include taking marriage vows in front of the cameras? Tongue
I am not sure.
Besides that, monarch doesn't rule Britain anymore. So, why should it be made public? It is an invasion of Will & Kate's privacy. Now even their honeymoon is going to be a public event..wait & watch. Tongue


The royals are still considered public figures and are very much part of the parliament democratically elected in Britain.  

I think when it comes to Will and Kate they have made the decision to make their marriage a public event, so if honeymoon is also part of the same decision... I surely can't get to get some dirty details on that..
. Wink


MagixX IF-Rockerz
MagixX
MagixX

Joined: 24 January 2010
Posts: 6273

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 1:21pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by night13



The royals are still considered public figures and are very much part of the parliament democratically elected in Britain.  

I think when it comes to Will and Kate they have made the decision to make their marriage a public event, so if honeymoon is also part of the same decision... I surely can't get to get some dirty details on that..
. Wink



The Queen as far as I know is the nominal head of the country. That isn't saying too much anyway..

Question is, did Will & Kate have a choice? This public royal marriage thing seems to have been there since long, even before Diana and that joker, Charles.

They are going to Seychelles I guess. Tough chance they don't get photographed or followed over there. Dead


Edited by .Doe. - 10 May 2011 at 1:25pm
hindu4lyf IF-Rockerz
hindu4lyf
hindu4lyf

Joined: 25 March 2008
Posts: 9353

Posted: 10 May 2011 at 1:27pm | IP Logged
The topic regarding IP addresses that is available to all members of the DT was created 6 months back and it's funny how it took the admins 6months to respond while all they said is 'we are looking in to it'. I wouldn't be too hopeful about when some action will finally be taken.
Btw there was actually a topic made before that regarding privacy issues that members had where vijay made a post implying that he thinks members are making a fuss over nothing. It's only recently when another topic was made that he said he will look in to it. Wonder why the sudden change of mind? Or maybe he was made aware of what happened to Madiha?

The monarch does indeed no longer rule Brtitain yet the Queen still gives a speech every Christmas at 3pm, civil servants also get a public holiday on the day of the Queen's birthday and we still celebrate the Royal Wedding. The Royal Family will always be under the spotlight, if they wanted to then they could have stopped cameras from rolling while the said their marriage vows but they didn't and that was for a reason.

Regarding phone tapping..this can be a good and a bad thing but either way it is still an invasion of privacy. I can't quite remember from the top of my head which tabloid newspaper it was that is being ordered to pay out huge payments to people like Max Clifford for tapping their phone. Now had they somehow manage to pick up some important information like bribery in the Shrien Dewani case or fraud or something else, then the paper's actions would seem completely justified but seeing as they didn't, the whole moral issue arrises.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

MagixX

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Aryan invasion theory - why they faked it

2

Author: saturn001   Replies: 10   Views: 2465

saturn001 10 2465 27 September 2012 at 11:09am by The-Voice
Aryan invasion theory

Author: mijanur   Replies: 2   Views: 507

mijanur 2 507 25 December 2011 at 5:36pm by Summer3
Interference and Privacy

2 3

Author: -MOTHER-   Replies: 19   Views: 2260

-MOTHER- 19 2260 20 December 2010 at 10:47pm by -Believe-
Is invasion good for a nation?

2

Author: Dazlingflower   Replies: 11   Views: 1123

Dazlingflower 11 1123 09 February 2007 at 9:50pm by Singh23
Invasion of Privacy??

Author: MonicA#1Actress   Replies: 6   Views: 882

MonicA#1Actress 6 882 02 August 2006 at 7:40pm by usachick821

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index