I think privacy is the biggest concern. This should be regulated by the government, as privacy laws impose on it, unless it is a grave danger to the country or if he/she is a suspect of something. I found an article on internet privacy have a look at it. Http://blog.ted.com/2013/11/07/reading-on-the-state-of-digital-privacy-nsa-surveillance/

Though this is a rather 'political' question, except for criminologists, it is an important question, but a difficult one.

How to regulate digital surveillance (camera's, sound interception, etceteera) in public (and private) spaces. It's like trying to regulate illegal hunting.

A true and direct democracy does not need surveillance. Nevertheless in many so-called democracies, digital surveillance is all over the (public) places and spaces.

In my country you will be followed by cameras in shops, public market places and busy streets, parking lots, tunnels, banks, public administration buildings, musea, restaurants especially the expensive ones, stadions, highways, trams, buses, trains and even from space. My government detects illegal swimming pools (people have to pay taxes when they build a swimming pools, and some citizens don't like to pay taxes). Hence each year an inventory of swimming pools is made using satellite remote sensing. If the local government sees discrepancies from one year to another, you'd better pay that tax, or get a fine, whch will make you sick.

So survaillance is there and eveywhere. I am not even speaking about the private space in our societies. When go into a bank, a parking lot or a Zoo, you are entering private space. Also there surveillance is omnipresent in all its emanations. I really wonder how one can regulate surveillance, which has already grown into a jungle of applications on which no soul has a grip, especially not the government. In the jungle the only law counting is that of being hunted or hunt yousrelf.

In France a system has been established and commercialized with which one can become a member of a hunter community. In traffic a lot of cameras have been installed along busy roads to control if someone is speeding or not. The French have put up an electronic system of crowd sourcing called 'Coyote'. This system warns you where and when the police is doing mobile obervations for speeding among other types of information like traffic jams, incidents on the road etecetra. The exchange of this type of intelligence can go quite far. When you approach with your car, for example a spot observed by the traffic police in a mobile mission, your Coyote will warned you to step on your brakes. When you pass the observation spot, the system asks if the cops are still there. The answer then is yes or no. If it is yes, the member of the Coyote hunting community behind you will know that he (women don't speed) has to step on his brakes as well. When the answer is no, no need to step on the brakes. Full throttle, full speed, the German way.

What happened in France next? The French Goverment has forbidden the use of the Coyote crowd sourcing system! Yep that's democracy. You cannot become a hunter.In the other EU countries the system is not forbidden at all. In Germany it is not even used at all. Why is thta? Well, because on the 'autobahn' (highway), in many locations, there is simply no speed limit at all. Hence no need for Coyote. And when a German leaves the autobahn, German discipline takes care of it that nobody (or almost nobody) speeds on secondary roads.

This shows how complex maters of surveillance can become.

I think for regulation it is too little and too late. The only thing one can do is to exert some type of self-defence like the French did, or just be disciplined like the Germans are on places where speeding is dangerous, and go full speed, where it is not dangerous, at least not with a German car ;-). For women in traffic, strangely enough, they are dsicplined like male Germans. This must have some origin in mans evolutionary tractus. Do you understand now why I have so much respect for women?

They are in many ways the victims of manly testosteron society, also at the level of losing their privacy due to manly undisciplined behaviour and sometimes excessive violence.

Cheers,

Frank

It seems as if there are two ways to look at this. If you believe you cannot regulate surveillence, then there are two extreme solutions to the surveillance problem: outlaw all surveillance activities or allow every possible surveillance activity. I don't believe either solution is optimal. Thus, regulated surveillance implies that there is a line that can be drawn between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable for public space surveillance.

I am curious as to what the community thinks is acceptable and unacceptable for public space surveillance, and whether or not those expectations are being met or violated.