Another of the cannards the Redzoneophiles like to pull is CCTV camera surveillance which is so much more intrusive than their spyware.
Whilst two wrongs don’t make a right (although three lefts do), let’s look at this one quickly. Here is an example:
The moment your car pulls into the store or mall’s parking lot, their security cameras are watching you
Now in Europe, at least, we have data protection law. For instance, in the UK, all such cameras are covered by the data protection act. You will remember the principles of the act, if you have been following this blog. But in brief, data collection must be fair, and within that definition, those under surveillance must be made aware of the “data collection” (i.e. the filming). So warning signs are important and no hidden cameras.
But more importantly, you retain the right to access to all data pertaining to yourself. Thus under the DPA, I can request a copy of any surveillance tape that includes my image. Moreover the images of others on the tape should be edited out. The cost of this must be born by the data controller although they may charge me up to £10.00 in costs.
In cases where I feel a camera is entirely unwarranted and intrusive, I have been known to make use of my entitlement under the act. In all cases to date, the data controller has agreed to voluntarily remove the camera rather than pay for editing of the tapes to meet request.
So, you see, CCTV – in Europe at least – comes with some very important privacy protections. They may be underused, but they exist.
zFire’s database is subject to the same rules, but thus far he has failed to reply to me as to how I may access a copy of all personal data he holds on me.