onsdag 5 oktober 2011

The safety perspectives about surveillance.

I just came home from a trip to London last week. Lovely weather 29.9 C in the shade (English record in October!). But that's not the point, the point is, whether I was at the subway, walking at the canals, during night home from the pub. We still felt safe due to all surveillance there is in London (Maybe not the darkest street but most of them!). The times I've visited London and travelled by the tube. I've never seen any fight, stealing, arguing – nothing. Maybe it's because Londoners are calmer than Swedes, but I still feel that the cameras has made it a safer place to be.
Then we have the football matches. England was infamous for their hooligans at football matches. Now they have really good surveillance and the penalty for starting fights or anything like that are huge. Something Sweden has failed in when there's many matches last season that got cancelled due to hooligans.  Hopefully we can take after here so that people can feel safe during a football match!

3 kommentarer:

  1. I can agree about it’s sometimes very good for the safety with cameras and surveillance. As long as it’s just in the public areas and not espionage at your job and in your home I think its good with this extra safety cameras and so on. It is only when the surveillance begins to intrude on people's privacy as I feel that it is becoming a problem. But of course it’s a good way to avoid violence.

  2. I really like your blog because it made ​​me think about the problems that exist in my Country who have been almost solved with the help of surveillance. I had not thought about this, this is another 'good use' of new technologies, such as monitoring of elderly or sick, fighting crime and terrorism or child pornography. Recently in Italy there have been many cases of violence, rapes and robberies in the street that have been discovered thanks to surveillance systems. I'm not a big fan, but also many Italian football matches got cancelled due to holigans, but I do not know if in the Italian matches surveillance has been stepped up, I hope so.

  3. You got a point when you say that the surveillance cameras sometimes are doing it safer. The football matches will be safer and also places with a lot of tourists, but how much surveillance do you think is good? Should it be in every corner?

    Is it good to have it in schools, to control the recess, preventing fights? If so, who should be able to look at the films? Should you let the parents look to see how their children are behaving? (there are schools that have cameras I class rooms and recess areas, and the parents have a password so they might log on to the surveillance system and check their children.)

    This was just an example from school, but the same aspects might be in the “real” world too. Who should be able to look at the cameras? Who will control the people controlling the cameras? We are living in a democratic country, but what happens if the leaders start using the cameras to get more control than they should have? J Edgar Hoover in the US had the possibility to get information not meant for everyone, and he used it to get power and indirect control the country. Don't you think we have to be carefully with too much surveillance?
    Where should we draw the line, and how shall we prevent the surveillance from being used wrong way?

    Now to some linguistic issues:
    It would have been good if you mentioned the article you write about. Then the reader will understand why you write.
    Your punctuations and commas are put strange sometimes, making it harder to understand the point. I had to read the text some times to get it.
    The last sentence sounds swenglish. I would have written “Hopefully Sweden will follow them so people will feel safer during the matches.”