Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/the-difference-between-lonely-old-ladies-and-cctv-cameras-a-response-Mm5V2QEy5Y
References (5)
-
J. Ryberg (2007)
Privacy Rights, Crime Prevention, CCTV, and the Life of Mrs AremacRes Publica, 13
-
B. Goold (2006)
Open to all? Regulating open street CCTV and the case for “symmetrical surveillance”Criminal Justice Ethics, 25
-
C. Slobogin (2003)
Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places AndThe Right to Anonymity -
B. Goold (2002)
Privacy rights and public spaces: CCTV and the problem of the “unobservable observer”Criminal Justice Ethics, 21
-
Jesper Ryberg (2007)
Privacy rights, crime prevention, CCTV, and the life of Mrs. AremacRes Publica, 13
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2008 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
- Subject
- Philosophy; Ethics; Philosophy; Philosophy of Religion; Philosophy of Law
- ISSN
- 1356-4765
- eISSN
- 1572-8692
- DOI
- 10.1007/s11158-008-9045-3
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
This article considers the question of whether it is meaningful to speak of privacy rights in public spaces, and the possibility of such rights framing the basis for regulating or restricting the use of surveillance technologies such as closed circuit television (CCTV). In particular, it responds to a recent article by Jesper Ryberg that suggests that there is little difference between being watched by private individuals and CCTV cameras, and instead argues that state surveillance is qualitatively different from (and more problematic than) surveillance by ‘lonely old ladies’.
Journal
Res Publica – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 1, 2008