If you've got nothing to hide...

[lpdotcom 0]

This is mainly for UK members, but anyone can chip in. This week Tescos plans to install security cameras to check who buys razor blades. Now proponents claim that if you've nothing to hide then you have no need to worry. Well last time I checked Britain is a free country and my understanding is that you can do anything so long as it is not illegal, right? So why do we always get ideas to spy on people even if they have not committed a criminal offence. What do you guys think?

[Dauragon 0]

you can ask the french if they can give you a present

and then they might remove those cameras

[Harnu 0]

The city of Chicago (Which I live right by) is installing cameras for the police department in various locations. They put up only a few for now in the past few weeks it's been put into action. However the only person they've caught is a guy smoking marijuana. The system was only recently emplaced, so it takes time to work.

About the original question of the topic. What is Tescos and where are they installing these cameras?

[lpdotcom 0]

They are a supermarket and if you take a packet of razors from the shelf, they photo you, you are then guilty of shoplifting until proven innocent. ie paying.

[Dauragon 0]

They are a supermarket and if you take a packet of razors from the shelf, they photo you, you are then guilty of shoplifting until proven innocent. ie paying.

lol wtf

i think the world's gone crazy, what will it look like in 20 years, i can't even imagine...

[Harnu 0]

Well it's a supermarket. They already have cameras there for security. And since they are for security, can't exactly use them for market research.

While I think surveys and such are a better way to go, I don't think there's anything wrong with cameras at the razor stand.

It's not exactly and invasion of privacy. They aren't "spying" on you in a private place. It's a public store and they just want to see who buys them.

[FSPilot 0]

It's not like they don't have access to your credit card bills anyway.

[Badgerboy 0]

If it means there are actually Gilette Mach 3 blades on the shelf when I go in, then its a good thing. Those things get nicked constatly as they are easy to smuggle out, and worth £8 a pack.

[Renagade 0]

but they shave sooooo good

Quote[/b] ]They are a supermarket and if you take a packet of razors from the shelf, they photo you, you are then guilty of shoplifting until proven innocent. ie paying.

how`d u mean,what happens if u pick it up and realise u dont have enough cash on u for eveything so u put back the razors?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

It's like this: yes, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. However, that statement operates on the assumption that the government will only use it against real criminals, and not dissidents and political opponents as well. The possibilities of abusing such a system are worrying, to say the least. Some folks trust the government with that kind of power (usually these folks work for the government), but I don't.

[Major Fubar 0]

There's always a fine line between the authorities keeping an eye out for potential trouble and "big-brother" monitoring of the population.

My 2 cents: let surveilance occur to a reasonable level (ideally this level being set by a ballot or public referendum), and, if it is abused by anyone in power, come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Personal story: an ex-school friend of mine went on to become a police officer, and thought it would be fun to use his position to check up on his mates' records to find anything about them he might find amusing. End result: he got busted doing this, and kicked off the force. Sometimes the system does work - but only sometimes... ]

[Shashman 0]

Personally I never understand the big hoohah whenever news of a new surveillance system/CCTV rig hits the streets.Who gives a flying monkey's?!

Lol...Do you have a problem with being filmed? I'd feel safer knowing that there's someone 'watching out' for me as I walk down the street or whatever...

I never understand how the 'infringement of privacy' and the 'human rights' come into it.If you're in a supermarket there are thusands of people who can see you, so what's the biggy if there's a camera watching you too?

At the end of the day, CCTV works and is a deterrent, so good  

Oh and here in Belgium, in most supermarkets and shops you can only buy razor blades at the cash desk  

[Renagade 0]

It doesn`t work and isn`t a detterent otherwise u wouldn`t have all this funny cctv shows about ppl would u

Chances are u`ll be the star of ur own snuff film due to cctv and not much else.

[Major Fubar 0]

Some security guys at our biggest casino got busted using the surv. cameras to perv on women in the casino...down their tops, focusing on the bums when they were beding over. Someone leaked the footage to the press, and there was a big hoohah for a little while.

Like any other technological device known to man, cameras can be used to help or harm people. You can't fight human nature...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You can't fight human nature...

Which is why public surveillance cameras are a bad idea

[wizzywig 0]

Well it's a supermarket.  They already have cameras there for security.  And since they are for security, can't exactly use them for market research.

While I think surveys and such are a better way to go, I don't think there's anything wrong with cameras at the razor stand.

It's not exactly and invasion of privacy.  They aren't "spying" on you in a private place.  It's a public store and they just want to see who buys them.

on this its be told that market research id the main point to the tagging also hidden in side is not only a alarm to stop shoplifters but a chip that tracks your movements with GPS up to 1 mile this is placed under the white tag but a simple pen knife sorts out all your needs as chip sticks out one flick and your away I'm not a shop lifter as they are to heavy but i also think this is an invasion of privacy in a very big way

[ZIKAN 0]

Cameras like these are open to abuse by the people using them, period.

A friend of mine who used to work as a security guard in a well known department store (uk) told me how his colleagues would use the camera to play a game of 'babe or minger', I leave it to your imagination to guess how that was played! The guilty parties were all forced to quit after the management soon found out after.

By the way most of the theft from department stores and shops, is infact carried out by the employees, as opposed to the general public who shop there.

I believe CCTV is a deterrant, but you want to be confident in knowing that there is someone watching those, who are watching you...

[der bastler 0]

I don't get it!

There's a principle called "innocent until proven guilty"!

P.S.: Social problems can't be solved by technical means...

[John C Flett 0]

Quote[/b] ]most of the theft from department stores and shops is infact carried out by the employees

Not saying staff don't contribute but where I work its not uncommon to catch a thief with 200 quid + of DVDs in a single haul and usually its through cameras that we get them cause usually they're not stupid enough to do it if anybody is near them. Staff theft has been pretty rare and mostly from other staff. The thing is of course that the shop has to compensate for theft and security and that cost gets passed onto honest shoppers. If cameras help keep costs down then by all means go for it.

The one that I find even more amazing is there has been this court ruling recently about speed cameras being improperly signposted and thus any convictions based on these cameras can be overturned. I have to say I find it amazing that the law should be defending people who speed and endanger themselves and others in this way. Surely everybody who drives knows and understands speed limits and to say "we're watching this stretch of road" is just helping them get away with it and advertising the areas where they can break the law with impunity.

It seems to me that if people are going to break the law then somebody should be trying to stop them. Civil rights have to be respected but it seems these days the balance has shifted to the point where we're actually helping the criminals.

[Major Fubar 0]

I don't get it!

There's a principle called "innocent until proven guilty"!

P.S.: Social problems can't be solved by technical means...

Well, at least until they build totally realistic sex-bots...

Or behaviour modifying brain implants, for sociopaths and such...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

The problem with enfocing laws is when there are stupid or outdated laws. For example, the UK still has blasphemy laws. There are still plenty of stupid laws in every country, ranging from the thousand dollar fine for possessing nuclear weapons in some state in the US to the statute stating all taxis in london must carry a bale of hay.*

And, of course, the differences of opinion on many subjects... Personally I think all the speed cameras should be taken off the motorways and dual carriageways and put in the cities and towns- where the fatal accidents are far more likely and far more to do with speed. But others may think that they are far more important in generating revenue where they are.

Or the laws on recreational drugs, or whatever. Or even imagine the government in some backward US state using CCTV to observe and incarcerate 'sex offenders' - that means anyone indulging in any form of sex apart from straightforward missionary. Not good, no?

*it was for the horses

[Mister Frag 0]

From http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5067253.html

Quote[/b] ]Cutting-edge 'smart shelf' test ends

By Alorie Gilbert

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

August 22, 2003, 12:34 PM PT

The largest supermarket chain in Britain has ended a controversial field trial of a merchandise-tracking system that shoppers claimed violated their privacy.

The Tesco chain stopped using a high-tech shelf that it was testing in a Cambridge store, Greg Sage, a spokesman for the company, confirmed Friday. The shelf was designed to monitor stock and detect theft of Gillette razors, which are commonly stolen, by recording images of shoppers who removed razors from the shelf. The system also grabbed images at the cash register, when razors were rung up, according to reports. People taped at the shelf but not at the register could be suspected of shoplifting.

Tesco's experiment with the shelf, which began in February and wrapped up in July, was scheduled to last only six months, Sage said. The trial ended as originally scheduled, and was not affected by a privacy protest that occurred over several days in June, Sage said.

"There is no connection between the fact that people protested and the fact that the field trial ended," Sage said.

Sage said Tesco is still using a similar "smart shelf" system at a store in Sandhurst, Berkshire, to monitor its stock of DVDs, but that trial does not involve any cameras. He said the company is still deciding whether it will use the camera-based system in any of its stores.

The end of Tesco's Cambridge trial comes just weeks after Wal-Mart Stores canceled a similar, Gillette-related test in a Boston area store. However, Wal-Mart's trial, which also had attracted criticism from privacy advocates, never fully got off the ground. Wal-Mart said its reason for prematurely ending the test was that it had shifted its focus toward using the technology in its warehouses instead. The Wal-Mart test did not involve camera surveillance, said Paul Fox, a Gillette spokesman. Fox said Gillette thinks smart shelf technology should not be used in conjunction with such monitoring.

Smart-shelf trials at both Tesco and Wal-Mart involved the use of new computing devices based on a technology known as RFID (radio frequency identification). The tests were among the first and most closely watched efforts to bring RFID technology to store shelves in the United States and Europe.

RFID technology uses microchips to wirelessly transmit product codes to a scanner without the need for human intervention. The technology is seen as an eventual successor to bar-code inventory tracking systems, promising to cut distribution costs for manufacturers and improve retailing margins.

The technology has drawn fire from consumer-privacy groups, which worry about potential abuses if product-tracking tags are allowed to follow people from stores into their homes. Their concerns have recently led lawmakers in California and Britain to begin discussing RFID and its implications for society.

Gillette continues to participate in a smart-shelf trial with German retail chain Metro, said Fox, who denied that Gillette has retreated from putting RFID chips on its merchandise, as recent reports have suggested.

But Gillette has learned that inserting chips into billions of individual products on a broad scale is still many years away, Fox said. The price of the chips has not fallen rapidly enough to justify such an undertaking. So, Gillette and its retailers are shifting their attention to using RFID systems to track shipments to warehouses, which requires far fewer chips, Fox said.

[Renagade 0]

There's a principle called "innocent until proven guilty"!

That only works  in the movies,why do u think the cops can take ur finger prints,photo and DNA sample if they arrest u .They`re supposed to destroy the records if u aren`t convicted or they decide to let u go but whats to stop t hem keeping it

As for these RFID chips,it  isn`t just a  tesco thing.

If u look up rfid on google theres loads  of stuff about it.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/169

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I've been thinking about it, and I'm for LOTS MORE surveillance cameras, ESPECIALLY in police stations and government offices.

[Schoeler 0]

I hate to say this, but this isn't entirely true. I currently attend school and will be going to law school next year, but before that for the last 12 years, and currently, I work as a plainclothes security officer for a large retail chain. I operate CCTV camers on a daily basis, and have for more than a decade. True, as with any type of surveillance technology, CCTV can be used in an abusive manner, however, the ramifications of getting caught usually involve losing one's job and being blacklisted from finding another. In retail settings, abuse occurs very rarely, though I do admit that the male and female officers do use the cameras to have a look at an attractive person now and then, as you said, it's just human nature. What they don't do is use the system to peer down shirts or up skirts. That is abusive and results in a low productivity rate in catching shoplifters, and the job, in the end is all about generating statistics. If you don't catch, you get sent off to do something else in the long run, so most security types are professional and focus on getting the bad guys. Besides, its fun catching someone who thinks they are slicker than snot on a doorknob, in the actual act of theft. Showing them the video after they are hauled back into the store strenuously denying their wrongdoing is the best part.

Quote[/b] ]A friend of mine who used to work as a security guard in a well known department store (uk) told me how his colleagues would use the camera to play a game of 'babe or minger', I leave it to your imagination to guess how that was played! The guilty parties were all forced to quit after the management soon found out after.

We used to have fun with our regular shoplifters, most of whom were hardcore heroin addicts and came in on an almost daily basis to steal. These people play the odds that you are watching someone else when they do their thing, and they don't care about getting caught now and again, as long as they can get their money to get a fix in between arrests. We had outdoor cameras, so we would see them pull up in their cars. As they wandered around the store, most already high as a kite, we'd call the nearest payphone inside the store as they passed by, and invariably, some of them would actually answer it. This is where the fun really began. In a strange and mysterious voice, we would inform them "It's inside the brown paper bag in the nearest trash can", never telling them what "it" actually was. Being junkies and high, they almost always assumed that by some thankful turn of fate, a helpful soul from the cosmos had directed them to a free fix, and they would fervently tear through half the trash cans inside the store looking for something which was never there in the first place. Cruel, but amusing when you are extremely bored and tired of arresting the same addict every other day.

Quote[/b] ]Cameras like these are open to abuse by the people using them, period.

So is any form of technology in the wrong hands. Cars, guns, aircraft, camcorders, telephones, tape recorders, anything can be abused. People who use these cameras are often background checked up the ass, have or have had security clearances and a military background, are already in law enforcement and earning an extra paycheck, or are bonded and licensed to use them. You don't just put some dickhead high school grad in charge of a million dollar surveillance system and then turn him loose to arrest anyone he suspects of shoplifting. There is an extreme amount of training involved, and it usually takes a few years before someone gets good enough to easily recognize the behavioral cues and tips shoplifters exhibit when getting ready to commit a theft. Once you get good at recognizing their "tells", its like they are wearing a neon sign saying "watch me, I'm a thief!", good store detectives can easily separate the good from the bad just by reading their body language. We don't waste a lot of time surveilling the innocent shopper, there are too many thieves to catch to waste time on them.

Quote[/b] ]By the way most of the theft from department stores and shops, is infact carried out by the employees, as opposed to the general public who shop there.

This is wildly inaccurate. Most retail theft is called "external theft" and is committed by shoplifters. 85-90% of all retail theft is external. What is true and what I think you actually meant is that the remaining 10-15% of retail theft is "internal theft" and is committed by employees, and here is where it gets interesting, external theft accounts for about 20-45% of a store's losses due to stealing, and internal theft accounts for the rest. So, while internal thieves are less frequent, they do most of the damage. This makes sense if you think about it. We have a saying in the business: "If you are a thief, you have to be lucky every day, security just has to be lucky once." That is pretty much the axiom for external thieves, but with internal thieves, its a different story. Internal thieves know who the securoty personell are. They know their shifts, where the cameras are, and often what they can and cannot see. They have an advantage also in the fact that they are trusted employees, and not likely to be watched regularly, so it often takes much longer to discover their crimes and then to surveil them and build a case capable of being successfully prosecuted against them. Thus they can do way more damage than the average external thief.

Quote[/b] ]I believe CCTV is a deterrant, but you want to be confident in knowing that there is someone watching those, who are watching you...

We are randomly checked up on all the time. Corporate investigators often put hidden pinhole cameras up over our heads on a regular basis, to see if we are doing our jobs. Also, senior security officers like myself, often get sent to other stores, unbeknownst to their security, to shoplift and test their effectiveness at detecting us, and also, to gauge their professionalism when making the arrest. We carry a badge to identify ourselves once we've been stopped. So don't worry so much, even Big Brother has to watch out for Big Brother.