[QUOTE=acsenray]
So, because some small percentage of people will engage in bad acts, that justifies constant surveillance of everyone? We’re all presumed criminals? How is this any different from letting the government constantly monitor everyone’s movements? The result in society is essentially the same.
[/QUOTE]
How did we move from locking doors to debating surveillance rights? Or do you believe the pass is being used to track your movements?
My employer is not a government entity. They own/lease the property, and have the right to decide upon the surveillance. They must follow the law (e.g. no cameras in bathroom stalls), but beyond that, they have as much right to surveil their property as you do your own home.
Regarding workplace surveillance, it is time consuming, expensive, and non-profitable. Bosses who constantly review tapes are raging assholes. However, when you do get complaints about a weird taste in the coffee and find that it is because some guy has been pissing in it (real situation, in case someone is wondering), it is very good at providing “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
The ‘government’ can monitor your movements. I’m assuming you were born in the late 20th century sometime - they’ve always been able to monitor your movements. Year over year, it just becomes easier and they can handle more data. Unless you switch to all cash (including getting paid in cash from an undocumented job), your movements can be followed. Personally, I’m not especially happy that if they were to find my metrocard, ez-pass, and credit card, someone could probably figure out when and where I took my last dump, but that is how soceity has evolved. It isn’t turning back. Again, the only thing in our favor is that it is expensive and time-consuming, even with modern technology, to monitor every Tom, Dick, and Harriet. They can’t even proactively track paroled and probationary convicts effectively…yet. Technology is producing some very scary ways for people to be tracked (embedded RFID anyone?). I don’t doubt that this ability will be abused, both in the private and public sectors.
So the question is, at what point does surveillance go over the line. If I’m a 7-11 franchisee, I want to prevent as much as possible losses due to stealing, both by employee and customer. As a homeowner, perhaps I want motion sensitive cameras (I only have motion-sensitive lights right now) on my doors and windows, especially those not viewable from the street. Unfortunately, the same technology can be used to tape the girl’s shower at the HS. Are we going to stop technology? Are we going to outlaw its use so that the camera at my back door is as illegal as the camera in the girl’s locker room? Are we going to tell a business owner that he can’t watch over his investments?
For the record, yes, I do assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Fortunately, I work on the “preponderous of evidence” standard versus “beyond a reasonable doubt”. As I am not a judiciary except where my children are concerned, I’m allowed to do so. 