Surveillance Malignant Effects

In reference to the Guardian story link below, the issue of surveillance in the UK is being critically discussed, which is more than you can say for in the States, where no one actually knows where surveillance ends or begins. Yes, we are aware of the odd camera here and there, but I have noticed in all of my peregrinations, cameras on very high poles, and smaller cameras just out of sight. One can fairly well asume if you are in the interior of a commercial space you are being filmed. Hence there is an 'incremental' increase of cameras and area surveilled and better techniques for commanding more area surveyed.

The argument is "dumbed down" as in the Guardian article to a simple binary question whether the use of such cameras helps prevent crime. There are far more significant isues at stake which are not even considered:
1.What is meant by 'crime'? Surveillance used as spying is a far graver 'crime' than theft...
2.What are the impacts on people knowing that they may be under surveillance...Is this is a positive impact or a negative impact?
3.What is the method by which surveillance should be implemented democratically? There are 4.2 million CCTV cameras in England 1 for every 14 citizens according to the Guardian article, does anyone have any idea how many surveillance cameras there are in the US? What is the protocol for determining to add new ones, and what is the criteria for determining placement, use of images, etc...
4.Just as significant as the presence of cameras is the use of the images. This is done hidden from view with no transparency, by unknown figures or processes, in unknown places, by unknown constituencies.
5.What is the impact on human behavior of knowing that they may or may not be undersurveillance. Is this positive for democratic behavior?
6.Where does the surveillance cease? In bathrooms, hotel rooms, private places, parks, forests...?

The very idea is surveillance is anti-democratic and anti-american, it goes against the very core of what we take to be ethical, it is the kind of activity which Richard Nixon employed at Watergate and which nearly all citizens found repugnant and repulsive in th early '70s when Nixon had to vacate the Presidency. Today Alberto Gonzales and President Bush railroad all forms of surveillance and spying on citizens with impunity.

Things are far worse, far graver here and yet the American citizenry seems to be blissfully ignorant of how much of their lives is recorded: internet activity, shopping behavior, traffic behavior, urban life is analyzed for political and corporate reasons as if they were laboratory rats! And yet they are giddy and feel more secure knowing that they are being filmed 24/7 whenever they enter a parking lot near a mall, or drive down the highway or cross any light. Instead of causing the feeling of nausea, repugnance, and contempt the all American family somehow feels thankful for W's consideration. (How was this populace trained to be so woefully and blisfully ignorant? Or if they are not ignorant of fascist artifacts such as surveillance, how did this once proud and bold citizenry, become so tranquil and passive, incapable of defending itself from domestic foes? Or were the earliest American citizens actually quite similar to the contemporary citizenry, cowards before their sovereign government and their almighty President, the lord monarch, Commander in Chief?)

Have they forgotten that the President is a civil servant who deserves praise as is fitting, however, whenever you have malignant behavior such as Nixon's Watergate or W's Iraq Freedom, or his Patriot Act, or his treatment of the citizens of New Orleans, his appointments of Gonzalez, Wolfowitz, Bolton, etc... One can only sigh on acount of such blatant malfeasance in the name of the American populace. Pardon me if I am wrong but I believe that these un-democratic practices would have been condemned and met with rebellion in the days of our ancestors. They should be met with no less contempt and civil disobedience as is the veritable and essential American way.

In irony, I conclude that if the government wants to survey its citizenry with cameras, it should pay each one filmed, as if we were all actors in their democracy "reality show".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6647291,00.html