Which of the two security methods do you prefer between how your new country and how Britain does it? Do you think in this "new age of global terror" (global obviously meaning that Americans have heard about it now) that security works where you are?
What I mean is that when in Britian you are filmed all the time, told you are being filmed, but can go pretty much anywhere without being searched. In the US the idea of being on CCTV at all times horrifies people, yet I'm asked to show someone the inside of my shoes to get into certain buildings. Instead of surveillance it's more intrusive - they want to see inside my bag, find out what I've been reading, what I like to eat, etc. I like the British version much more - we've had far more experience with terrorism than the US, and seem to have accepted that if someone wants to blow up a bus they will. So we're much more comfortable with security, and don't seem to really mind police watching every street corner without thinking we live in Stalin's Soviet Republic. In the US security is a bogus issue - it's all a front. It leads to people in weird places thinking they're in danger. I stay in Old Forge in the Adirondack Mountains very often. Even up there they are convinced terrorists are planning to blow up the local pancake house. At the same time the kids up there get drunk and drive up and down like idiots and causing a nusiance. A few CCTV cameras and it'd be sorted out and the town at night would be much happier. Indeed, stick a few cameras in downtown American cities and perhaps they wouldn't all be so horrifying.
I too was surprised when I came here to find few, or no CCTV cameras. To be honest, I thought when I was in the UK that this was something we had "pinched" from the Americans!
Personally, I believe surveillance is far better and less intrusive that having to let someone oogle the (sometimes dubious) contents of my handbag or check out how smelly my trainers get! Don't they seem to want to check you out at the weirdest places too. I wonder how long it's going to be before the greeters at my local WalMart point one of those wand things at me! shock
Rather have a bag search. Not too keen on cameras everywhere, and this is what shocked me per se, when I went back to the UK last year....
(In fact I was going to comment on UUF's new Porsche about how sad it is to have such a fine vehicle in a country where you can't even fart crooked without someone "capturing you")
The lack of cameras here is comforting, aside where they should be (banks, govt office, malls).
It doesn't bother me someone looking in my bag (which happens a lot with what I carry)
Andrew )
I have absolutely no problem with the cameras, the more the merrier. Goes back to the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" my life is not so interesting that I would be worried about people knowing where I have been.
Freedom is not free, is what I keep hearing, I happen to agree.
CCTV's rule !!
Americans worried about civil liberties being infringed are very selective about when and why they want them infringed. If it could be shown that evidence from a CCTV could convict a terrorist I wonder if they would say "noooo, cameras are evil, let Abdul go free, he is just misunderstood and loves his Mum"
Last time I was in the UK was how they had those bloody CCTV and speed traps everywhere and what a pain they were.
If I remember right there was lots of complaining when they introduced them but goevernment rules there too.
The biggest complaint there seems to be the giant golf ball station up north that listens to every conversation going on in the country. Complete b***ocks of course.
Here of course the media scares everyone into thinking there is a terrorist around every corner, even in the remotest areas and the stupidest so called targets.
I was just thinking that Bush is starting to sound and react more like Hitler every time he opens his mouth on his reasonings of invasion and terrorism.
I prefer the CCTV too. No worries if you're not doing anything wrong.
You have to consider the differing histories. Britain has a history of gradually moving from oppression towards freedom. The United States was, at it's founding, as free as they could make it. Security means giving up freedoms once held.
Prior to the Revolution, the authorities would enter the houses of "enemies" and find something, anything, as an excuse to arrest them. On the way to the station, they would be roughed up and accused of resisting arrest. Just like it used to happen around "the Bush" when I hung around there.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, prevented search and seizure unless there was probable cause established before a magistrate. It is acceptable that the managers of a building establish their level of security. If you don't like the security system of a place, you don't have to go there. But don't follow me on CCTV, that is illegal search.
The UK has experienced a much different history, bombed in WW2, subject to terrorist activities for years, where the USA has not.
I feel that I'm not saying this well. It simply is that the two countries, and the things that are considered normal in them, have been molded by different sets of events.
Interesting subject - We went to philidelphia over the weekend, before it all went on strinke, and had a great time- I recommend a bar called Monks, great seafood and a reasonably extensive belgian beer list. Anyway, we went to see the Liberty Bell, which is a big, er, Bell. In order to do this we had to go through a security check. It was fairly thorough - metal detectors, x-rays etc.. stern gentlemen ordering you to strip etc. etc.
Anyway, the thing was, some kid pulled the fire alarm and nobody seemed to know what to do. It was weird, i looked for fire exits but there was only one of these, at the far end of the building. We all plodded out, only to be held up at the gate by another stern looking gent in a big hat.
My point being, i guess, is that despite whatever precautions you take, somebody can get through if they really want to. Like the discussion about handguns in Britain, if somebody really wants a gun, they can get one. Likewise, if they want to blow something up, they can do it.
Of course, security is a GOOD THING - but only in the right places. Remember the tanks they parked up at Heathrow? Now thats really going to make you feel safe. As for cctv, i think its nice to know somebody's looking out for you.
What's wrong with CCTV? I've never worried about it back in UK and its helped prosecute a lot of thugs and criminals.
How many of you who dislike it refuse to shop in your local supermarket or stores like Wal-Mart or Krogers, because you obviously realise that they have security operatives watching you on CCTV, not to mention store detectives that sweep the floor.
I got a tour of a store's security room once in Salem and it was amazing. Just a smaller store really but they had about 20 monitor feeds, recording everything and compiled "highlights" tapes with some of their best arrests/people doing funny or stupid things in the store.