The Difference Between Lonely Old Ladies and CCTV Cameras: A Response to Ryberg
- Benjamin Goold
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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’.
- Goold, Benjamin J. 2002. Privacy rights and public spaces: CCTV and the problem of the “Unobservable Observer”. Criminal Justice Ethics 21: 21–27.
- Goold, Benjamin J. 2006. Open to all? Regulating open street CCTV and the case for “Symmetrical Surveillance”. Criminal Justice Ethics 25: 3–17.
- Ryberg, Jesper. 2007. Privacy rights, crime prevention, CCTV, and the life of Mrs. Aremac. Res Publica 13: 127–143. CrossRef
- Slobogin, Christopher. 2002. Public privacy: Camera surveillance of public places and the right to anonymity. Mississippi Law Journal 72: 213–299.
- The Difference Between Lonely Old Ladies and CCTV Cameras: A Response to Ryberg
Volume 14, Issue 1 , pp 43-47
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Privacy rights
- Public spaces
- Benjamin Goold (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, St. Cross Road, Oxford, OX1 3UL, UK