If one believed in conspiracy theories, you could almost call it genius that there is no more powerful word for the complex and frightening system of electronic surveillance that we lump into that weedy bundle of initials. For if CCTV was called … I don’t know …. something like SCUNT (Surveillance Camera Universal NeTwork, or whatever) then the acronyms might have passed into our language and its simple denotation would have taken on all the dark connotations which would allow “One nation under scunt” to have much more impact as a resistance slogan than “One nation under CCTV”.

So. SCUNT? Any other suggestions for an acronym we could verb?

As a secondary point:

Should the individual cameras have an identifier on them (label or number) that is visible to anyone? i.e., a label at street level indicating the camera owner and a contact number.

There are many logical, practical, and legal reasons for this. At the very least, it should be possible to identify who is watching and a justification (rather than a blanket reason, a specific reason) as to why the camera is installed.

http://maps.camden.gov.uk/Nearest/

It seems to show all their “traffic enforcement and community safety” cameras.

Whilst taking these photos I got very attuned to just how prevalent CCTV cameras are. In a 100 yard stretch in Hendon alone there were 13 cameras. Only one of them had a sign saying what the cameras were for or who was recording the data.

HotPepperMan, I think the suggestion of registering CCTV cameras is a good one, but addresses only part of the beef. It doesn’t address the problem of the camera operators seeing without being seen, but at least we might have a better idea of exactly *who* is doing the seeing.

;)

In a similar trained-monkey way, my 2.5-year-old son points out cameras to me so that we can wave at them together … I’ve told him about how people watch the pictures … he always likes to say hello.