Quote:
The judge, Mr Justice Harrison, ruled in November 1997 that the council was within its rights under English law to release the film and had not been acting irrationally.
But he added: "Unless and until there is a general right of privacy recognised by English law - and the implications are there may soon be so by the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into law - reliance must be placed on effective guidance being issued by codes of practice in order to try and stop such undesirable invasions of a person's privacy."
|
Guidelines. The judge is suggesting that unless privacy is protected by law, there should be stricter guidelines. he has not said CCTV are dangerous and should be fought against.
It is standard practice in this country to disguise people's faces if they are being shown on TV or in newspapers, unless the footage is being shown to help apprehend a criminal (e.g the TV show crimewatch may show cctv from inside a shop during a robbery), or permission is sought and given. What went wrong on this occassion is that CCTV footage was shown in which this gentleman's face had not been properly disguised.
In what way is this a route to a Big Brother state?
I'd also like to point out that the CCTV in question was placed by a local Council as part of its LAA (Local Area Agreement), a document which is available for any citizen to read and comment on. IN most areas of the country, Councils are struggling with the fact that properly managed CCTV is expensive and yet their constituents want more of them.
Cic, I said you were an outsider as in you have an outsider's perspective on Britain. In much the same way I have an outsider's perspective on America. On an intellectual level I understand the American approach to gun laws and medical provision. On a gut level I do not fully understand it. These things clash with my cultural understanding of the world. They do not fit into my mentalite.