Dear Siller,

<<Those who want the cameras turned off or removed must have something to hide.>>

Are you saying that having something to hide is always a bad thing?

When Europe was under the Nazis, there were, not too many, but some heroes who risked their life hiding Jews.
Had today's technology been available then, not a single Jew in occupied Europe would have survived the holocaust.

Criminals who are not afraid of cameras are the best type, Dumb!
That old but different one RObert about drugs in the work place.
What workplace first come to your mind?
And what drugs?
My fears started on the Highway out the front, after semi trailers rolled over, some times on top of cars, mates in other trucks first searched for the drugs! to hide them.
Next, while wheel rolling a temporary patch, involves filling the hole truck wheel rolling back and for wards.
Then toping it up and rolling till hard, a Laborer stepped in behind the truck.
Eyes rolling he was out of it,only luck saw me not having to live with his death on my mind.
We found a tin weed and pills in it in his pocket.
Later as Union official, I watched the rat bag mob refuse to have drivers tested , after smashes, drivers of fast moving giant rock buggys!
Habitual use on construction sites kills.
Bit concerned, I once again agree with Shadow Minister.
No need to fear cameras or drug testing unless you fear being caught.

Not sure, csteele… context is everything.

"How would you feel in upon entering a public street mall three individuals sitting on a park bench watched you the entire time you were walking through that space?"

Depends on appearances – if they were 'right fit' I might find myself swelling with self-satisfaction and starting to strut somewhat, appreciative of their obvious good taste. If they were in police uniform in a public street mall in Australia I might relax knowing I wasn't going to be taken from behind in a random mugging, but in Pyongyang I'd wonder where the secret police were. However, and wherever, unlike yourself I doubt that I'd "likely go and ask them what the problem was."

Your daughter's story is discomforting. Has she made an official complaint, both about the man and the bus station staff? Without any attempt at being surreptitious did she take a photo of the man's stalking behaviour? Surely the bus station CCTV footage would be evidence of specific and ongoing public nuisance?

I've already said "It is reasonable to be concerned about issues of who controls, accesses and uses public CCTV surveillance…" Because I am.

But I've not lost confidence in Australian's abilities to manage an appropriate balance – yet.

Nor do I want the last known images of me to be grainy surveillance footage shown on nightly news services.

But if it helps achieve some justice for those who survive me… that's better than nothing.

Belly the workplace which came to mind was my workplace. An office environment where management have admitted they don't have any known problem with staff being under the influence in the workplace.

As far as I can tell across the board random testing was introduced so that they would not seem to be singling out those who do work in parts of the business where the physical risks are significant.

"No one is going spend the money to view the thousands of hours of footage every day.", as has been pointed out some of the technology is here now to avoid someone spending the hours viewing the footage. Given the rate of advancement in image recognition we can pretty much assume that any image captured now and not disposed of will one day soon be relatively easily processed to extract whatever the searcher is looking for. If the government is sane and has adequate safeguards around the use of the records then most of us have little to be concerned about. History has shown all to often that neither of those proviso's are a given.

The concept of privacy is murky, it's hard to tie down the boundaries around it for most of us. Clearly privacy in public is limited but it does not indicate having something to hide by now wanting your outdoor actions recorded without any control over how that record is later used.

It's not only those with something to hide who might prefer not to be recorded without consent or otherwise have their privacy breached. No more than it would be valid to suggest that everyone who is not a nudist has something to hide.

R0bert

RObert many forms of testing exist, and rather like this thread, some look only at the negatives ignoring the sound reason for having both.
Drug use has always, well post ww2, been an issue in road transport, the first drug was same as pilots took on long bombing trips.
Construction and mining, are still endemic with the worst of them.
Deaths do take place, even on the way to or from work.
Picture the 12 hour shifts,the sometimes two hour travel, and see men camped away from home too, earning very big money,and you will begin to see my concerns.
While off subject I think it is worth telling, leftist unions stand firmly against ANY TESTING but not in mining, it is mandatory for all.
Peer testing is my preferred option.
A selected random number, including the boss and office staff are tested.
And after fears of some ones seeming influence of drugs or grog a peer can test.
RObert including staff in the pool to be tested if nothing else shows workers they are not unfairly targeted, and historically has seen some BIG FAILURES at the highest levels.
As with the cameras, anything really, those putting straw men, csteele,s park bench is a perfect one, in the way of what is truly best for most/all often stop a practice most want.
Democracy demands all voices be heard, but if it demands too often rights for minority's that overrule majority it fails us all.

Belly the creeping intrusion of government into our lives is not really off topic. It all part of the broader issue ofwhere do we draw the line(s) when it comes to protecting individual freedom vs some aspects of social good.

You are clearly further along the line in societies needs overriding individual freedom than I am, at the same time I'm somewhat closer to your position than I am to the dedicated individualists.

It is in my view an ongoing balancing act. On both ends of the spectrum lies great harm to the majority as more power is concentrated in the hands of those willing and able to abuse whatever advantage they can get.

R0bert