You're on camera

One hears a lot of complaints from people about how much we find ourselves on surveillance CCTV cameras these days. I'm not sure whether this surveillance is a bad thing or not. "They" can keep track of us.

However, I am much heartened by the other side of the equation. The recent front-page footage of a policeman apparently making an unprovoked baton assault on a bystander illustrates how "they" can no longer count on getting away with what they would have in the past. They went through their usual manoeuvre of writing a press release saying that they'd been trying to save the man, and had been obstructed by protesters throwing things ... and then the actual footage comes out. Ouch!

And we can all see it on Youtube. Yes, Youtube is another part of the freedom equation. In the past, if you'd recorded that on your video camera, you might have had a hard time finding the right person at the BBC to look at it, or persuading a newspaper to listen to you -- you might not have bothered. Now, you can put it on Youtube, it's in the public domain. People tell each other. The media have little choice but to cover it, trailing along behind public information and public opinion, rather than deciding what we should see and what we should think.

Nearly everybody these days carries a mobile phone, and a significant and increasing proportion of these are cameras, and even video cameras. I used to think it would be a good idea to keep a disposable camera permanently in the glove box of my car, in case of a collision, but that hardly seems necessary now. I have a small, discreet video camera on me all the time, in my phone. We can increasingly keep tabs on "them" too...

The combination of mobile phones and the internet is a very potent one, and a big threat to both the conventional media and the bent copper.

Jacqui Smith and the porn on expenses

There was an article by Naomi Wolf in yesterday's Times saying that porn has become normal, and that the reason we're all shocked about the Jacqui Smith thing is because it was the taxpayer's money, not that her unfortunate husband looks at porn.

I'm not sure I agree.

First off, we're talking about £10. It was clearly not a deliberate attempt to defraud. Hands up anyone who really thinks he knew he was putting this through wrongly but hoped to get away with it? I think it's about as clear as can be that it was a mistake. If he wanted to rip off some expenses money, he'd choose something bland and boring, costing about £150.

And one thing I'd like to know is how the papers found out? I haven't seen that mentioned. But I haven't followed it that closely, so if anyone else has seen that, please let me know. At the moment I can only assume the papers are somehow scrutinising every detail of her expenses... otherwise how did they get this? And they haven't come up with a large list of other dodgy claims ... so I am assuming there are none. If there were, they'd be trumpeting them. So the extent of the fraud is .... £10? Big deal.

Would the papers have made a big story out of "Home secretary's husband accidentally claims £10 for stationery that he then used for his own purposes" ? I think not. I think it's the fact that it's porn that made them (and us) interested.

I also object to the way the media keep telling us how we feel: apparently we are "so shocked" or whatever. I haven't actually met anyone who is outraged or shocked -- just amused.

So no, Naomi, I don't think we're "so shocked" because someone carelessly overclaimed £10 of the taxpayers money. I think we're titillated that someone in the realms of the high and mighty, those who tell us how to behave, the great and the good, those who make the laws about porn ... is watching rubbish soft porn movies on pay per view while his wife stays at her sisters. They're human after all.