On Wednesday presented the conclusions of the government’s inquiry into surveillance in public transport. The core message is that the cameras will be more. Previously they had to be put up in subway cars and on platforms without a special permit. Now it is proposed that the same rules should apply on the buses and in the area surrounding the stations.
My liberal ryggradsreflex is skeptikerns. The state shall not monitor its citizens; the personal privacy shall be protected at all times. Yet, when I weigh the pros and cons against each other, land I in that the proposal is reasonable.
it is about what public transport is for something: it is The offentligaste of the room. The purpose is that we, together, with strangers will take us from point A to point B.
Just go collectively, we will become subject to the gaze. Mobilkamerornas entry means that we can never be completely sure if we get stuck on the picture.
On the bus or in the subway, it is difficult to make a claim on a genuine private sphere.
At a coffee shop, you can expect to be able to carry on a intimate conversation, if one lowers the votes and move close to each other, in the theater, you can expect to be able to trap a tear in the darkness, to a sad movie – but to someone listening or watching.
But on the bus or in the subway, it is difficult to make a claim on a genuine private sphere. In public transport a security camera, therefore, a very limited violation of personal integrity.
donate a lot of security. It is not unimportant to buses and the metro will be able to fulfill its purpose. If they are not safe, or feels safe, for all that they are no longer a means in order that together we will be able to take us from one place to another.
Sure, rub it a part to advocate for more cameras in public places. But in the case of the public transport that they help to prevent crime and create security, they appear actually as justified.
