The idea of employing the most easily manipulated demographic of our society — the youth who comprised the Red Guard in China or Pol Pot’s cadres– is terrifying. Young people are particularly susceptible to propaganda that tells them that they are the most important members of society: unique, powerful and irreplaceable because of their zeal. 

The officials who manage and mold these youth give them power. Can you imagine, in your angriest days as a teenager, having the power to ruin the lives of anyone who pissed you off? Can you imagine what types of life-destroying outcomes might result? I can. I’ve made a study of youth cultures under totalitarian regimes.

Some of those kids end up as cold, efficient bureaucrats who reinforce the state. Others are dobbed in for crimes they haven’t committed, perhaps labelled Enemies of the State by former friends with a grudge. Others realize, much later, that they’ve been manipulated. Manipulated into sending their entire family to death or the gulag. It continues to this day, check North Korea.

The exploitation of children as enforcers was one of the most heinous aspects of the totalitarian state. Going back to pitkataistelu’s comment, I’d like to add that the bulk of adults who volunteered for surveillance duties in the Third Reich, in East Germany and Warsaw pact states, in the US/Shah’s Persia, in the Far East (Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Milosevic) were bitter, nosy people with a grudge and, usually, a score to settle with the world. That job attracts the bitter, the sanctimonious and the vengeful. I can’t think of one example, among dozens of nations, of snitches making positive contributions to a society. That is, unless you happen to agree with the actions, policies and objectives of the societies that relied on snitches to maintain order.

I have been studying the ways in which the US, the UK, and Europe came to resemble their nemesis, the Soviet Union. The task is beyond me, at least for now, but I see signs of it everywhere. it will be interesting to see how the surveillance state continues to evolve, particularly in “free, democratic” societies.

They do stop some crimes from being worse crimes, where they enable police to ‘follow’ someone.

I can’t let a set-up like that pass without delivering the punchline. http://boingboing.net/2012/02/08/english-plainclothes-police-of.html

No chance.  ”Carriages in London Underground’s (LU’s) fleet: 4134″.  Two cameras might cover a carriage.  260 stations will ‘require’ perhaps 4 per platform, another 4 for the ticket hall, more for passageways… 

I’ve found this: http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/12/ten-tfl-cctv-cameras-fail-solve.html — Transport for London operate over 80,000 cameras!  That would include Underground (metro) stations, but not most suburban/intercity rail stations (different organisation), some streets (for traffic volume monitoring, street crime isn’t their problem), trams, but not buses (private companies operate buses). 

(Can anyone find a figure for a US transport system?)

I don’t particularly object to some CCTV cameras.  I object to
a) computers watching them, able to do face recognition and 
b) retention of that data

I don’t know if this is done, but it’s certainly a possibility either now or in the near future.

There’s a small circle to the left of “now” in the display: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/London_Underground_S_Stock_interior.jpg

private CCTV to help protect their families

From rabid skunks and people on bath salts?

they end up in a criminal training facility

Those days are gone. Now the police just give them a caution.

Also, you wish to silence someone? Govt jobs await ye, young one.

If that’s the point then it’s a flawed solution. Hence why constantly monitored underground train networks have such high instances of crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case

But, yes, if the site had wanted to spend entirely too much of their own money in response to this annoyance — or even just give me a tick off my performance review — that would have been completely justified. I accepted that hazard, judging that the point was important enough (though minor) to offset the (even more minor) risk.

Difference in degree, and in context DOES sometimes constitute a difference in kind — consider fair use vs. abuse of copyrighted material. And a finessed response really does deserve more respect than a brute-force response. I would consider bagging cameras sufficiently different from destroying cameras to constitute a legitimate measured-response protest.

Your mileage will vary. That’s what keeps lawyers in business.