Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
A US paper book store with a big shoplifting problem likely keeps video of its patrons. When they notice shinkage, they use the video. When they don't, the video goes unused. I have no idea if storing bookstore customer video is consistent with due process of law in the Netherlands, but, if it is, this is no different.
I can understand that a bookstore wouldn't want its customers to know they were being recorded, by video or otherwise. That would, although an example of honesty and openness, hurt sales. When you give them your credit card name and number, it should be pretty obvious that you are being recorded, but stating that fact may alienate customers.
Due process can't begin unless there is a way for authorities to collect evidence and find suspects. There always is a tradeoff between effective law enforcement and people having complete privacy in their actions. 100 percent privacy would mean zero law enforcement. I don't see this as more intrusive than means that might be used to stop people from taking paper books without paying.
|
This isn't the same situation. You are talking here about evidence of a crime being committed. The situation with BREIN is different. Imagine for example that printed textbooks would come with watermarks specific to the person who bought it. Then someone finds photocopies of a textbook. Should a private group be allowed to request information on the person who purchased the book directly from the bookshop that sold it without presenting the case to a judge first?