Res Publica 14 (1) (2008)
|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’.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jason W. Patton (2000). Protecting Privacy in Public? Surveillance Technologies and the Value of Public Places. Ethics and Information Technology 2 (3):181-187.
Jesper Ryberg (2008). Moral Rights and the Problem of Privacy in Public: A Reply to Lever and Goold. Res Publica 14 (1).
Benjamin J. Goold (2002). Privacy Rights and Public Spaces: CCTV and the Problem of the “Unobservable Observer”. Criminal Justice Ethics 21 (1):21-27.
Benjamin J. Goold (2006). Open to All? Regulating Open Street CCTV and the Case for “Symmetrical Surveillance”. Criminal Justice Ethics 25 (1):3-17.
Lynsey Dubbeld (2003). Observing Bodies. Camera Surveillance and the Significance of the Body. Ethics and Information Technology 5 (3):151-162.
Kevin Macnish (2012). Unblinking Eyes: The Ethics of Automating Surveillance. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (2):151-167.
Jesper Ryberg (2007). Privacy Rights, Crime Prevention, CCTV, and the Life of Mrs Aremac. Res Publica 13 (2).
Annabelle Lever (2008). Mrs. Aremac and the Camera: A Response to Ryberg. Res Publica 14 (1).
Paul Davis (2012). The Ladies of Besiktas: An Example of Moral and Ideological Ambiguity? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 6 (1):4-15.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #83,183 of 549,520 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?