Such a blanket scheme would seem to breach the Information Commissioner’s code of practice on the issue. It says recording conversations is unlikely to be justified and that sound on CCTV should usually be turned off. It refers to recording in a cab occurring only if a panic button is pressed.

Yet Oxford City Council does not believe it is flouting this code, saying the risk of intrusion is acceptable compared to public safety.

Recording conversations would be justified if assaults, sex attacks or fraud was constantly being committed in our taxis.

The council would like all taxis to be fitted with CCTV by April 2015.

The necessary equipment must be installed by taxi drivers licensed for the first time by 6 April 2012. A panic button must also be fitted.

Cabs already registered will have until April 2015 to get the kit fitted, the council said.

The council said the cameras would run continuously, but only view footage relating to police matters would be reviewed.

Big Brother Watch said it was “a total disregard for civil liberties”.

She said police would only locate footage, stored on a CCTV hard drive for 28 days, if it was needed for a police investigation.

She added: “The risk of intrusion into private conversations has to be balanced against the interests of public safety, both of passengers and drivers.”

While this is presented as a means to provide public safety, the rules are too vague at this point. We do not know when the cameras will be turned on and off, who will be in charge of the storage or who will take complaints from customers. This is before anyone looks at the civil liberties issues concerning CCTV in taxis. There are far too many questions that need to be answered before a scheme such as this is even implemented. Until all concerns are addressed, it’d be best to just sit and say nothing in a taxi, lest any conversation be misinterpreted or used against you later.

Talks are underway to link up with more cameras at CNN Center, Georgia State University, the Georgia World Congress Center and MARTA, along with cameras in Buckhead.

Officials say hundreds or thousands more private-sector cameras will eventually feed into the center.

“This is just the beginning,” said Dave Wilkinson, president of the Atlanta Police Foundation, which helped raise money for the center. “This is going to grow by leaps and bounds over the years. The goal, of course, is to have the entire city blanketed.”

Officials insist cameras linked to the center will only watch areas the public could already see. The city’s law department is drafting rules for the center, Ferguson said.

Unfortunately, officials are not talking to each other as you cannot blanket a city yet only have cameras where the public can already see. The two statements are incompatible. Yet, city officials are okay with tracking innocent people as they go about their daily lives.

“I should hope the public is not okay with it,” said Brett Bittner, executive director of the Libertarian Party of Georgia. “We’re talking about filming every aspect of people’s lives once they step out of the house.”

This is never acceptable and it doesn’t help fight crime. One only need to look at the massive test case of the United Kingdom where people are already on camera once they leave their homes. Crime hasn’t dropped there as a result of intruding cameras at all.

From Big Brother Watch:

1) Not one aspect of our ubiquitous surveillance network, erected to watch all of us all the time, just in case, has done anything to protect Londoners in this, our hour of greatest need; and

2) In an environment in which only a finite pot of capital exists to spend on any given portfolio, that tremendously expensive network soaked up vast amounts of capital – at least some of which might have been spent on training more police officers to deal with these situations?

I’m sure all the politicians touting that CCTV will catch the rioters provides little comfort to those who have lost their homes and businesses.

via twitter.

The machines require customers to swipe their driver’s license and even give a breathalyzer test before they can choose between more than 50 varieties of wine.

Giant and Wegman’s also have had the vending machines in their stores for quite some time.

Most people don’t see the connection between matching your photo to a ID database, swiping your driver’s license, having your DNA on the breathalyzer test, and swiping your credit card to pay for the wine. This is worrying because we shouldn’t have arcane legal laws concerning alcohol anymore that tie different aspects of your life together.

“All too often criminals get away with crime because, although their activity is monitored by CCTV, it is not observed at the time of the offence but only later on reviewing the footage when it is too late to stop commission of the crime,” said a spokesman for the company.

Any company wanting to have its CCTV systems wired up to the site will have to pay a subscription and viewers who sign up can see the images on their screens.

Internet Eyes will only allow a single subscriber to report a maximum of five times a month in an effort to prevent abuse and there are a lot of people interested in becoming a subscriber.

More than 13,000 people have indicated their interest and more are expected to join once it has launched. The cameras are based in stores across the UK, but the rewards are open to anyone from the EU.

Encouraging people to spy upon each other is not only Stasi-like, it’s extremely distasteful.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “This is the privatisation of the surveillance society – a private company asking private individuals to spy on each other using private cameras connected to the internet. Internet Eyes must be challenged.” He said he feared people would upload copies of the live stream to file-sharing networks.

Early subscribers may view this as a fun type of game where they can get paid, but spying on your neighbors have real life consequences for the people being spied upon. When a similar system was tried in Texas, it was a huge failure. We also know that statistics and studies have shown that CCTV does not help to lower crime.

There is no way to stop one of these subscribers from filming their CCTV feed, whether with a video camera or by hooking up a system straight from the feed. Internet Eyes has not addressed the privacy concerns and we should take heed to stop it from getting out of the trail phase. When breaches happen, it might be too late to stop the system.