CCTV, the spin goes, is there to watch over us, to keep us safe.
But who watches over CCTV? Who makes sure the system is secure?
Ever since the first public space cameras were put in place in the 1980s, the big public debate has been on the rights and wrongs of mass surveillance.
There is still plenty to talk about on just how often we are being filmed - not least as it looks like an increasing numbers of police officers and security staff will carry bodycams.
But, as we all worried about whether Big Brother should be watching us, we missed a grittier debate about whether he had the technical wherewithal do so.
Because parts of Scotland's public space CCTV - now arguably as important a part of public infrastructure as street lighting or drains - are crumbling. But, unlike, say, roads, it is nobody's specific statutory responsibility to fix it.
A draft internal report from Police Scotland makes clear the scale of the issue: millions of pounds are needed to upgrade a "failing" system and there is no agreement over who should foot the bill. The problem is that nobody owns the problem.
The document has worked out that just a third of CCTV cameras in the public space system are digital. The rest are analogue. This is an era when almost the entire population has a digital camera or phone capable of filming. It added: "Also it is evident that a major investment is required in CCTV in Scotland if it is to remain viable."
This report doesn't cover all the cameras we see in trains, shopping centres or even outside private homes. Public space CCTV is the much smaller but much more important system of monitored cameras on our high streets and motorways, in areas of high density housing; the busiest places in Scotland. But the quality and scale of cover varies dramatically across the country. So too does who pays for it.
Take Glasgow. The city has just installed a state-of-the-art digital system, combining public and road safety and paid for by the UK Government - some £17 million -in time for the Commonwealth Games.
The network is administered by Glasgow Community and Safety Services, an arm's-length body, with an annual budget of £1.4m, about £1m taken from the council and the rest, in roughly equal measure, from the police and local housing associations.
Compare that with Aberdeen. The old Grampian force picked up the entire bill for CCTV in Scotland's third city and Police Scotland continues to do so. But not for much longer. Aberdeen City Council, in perhaps the first turf-war over who pays for CCTV, has been told it has to pay the £1m a year revenue cost.
Councillors in much of Scotland are bracing themselves for similar issues. As police and other budgets shrink, there is suddenly a big question over who is ultimately responsible for funding "partnerships" that deliver everything from services for rape victims to street football schemes for troubled teens.
The Scottish Government will not be surprised at this. It published a report back in 2009 describing a "crisis" in CCTV. Again in 2011 it set firm targets for resolving issue. Talks, as it can be revealed today, are under way in 2014.
So, the big debate on CCTV is not about human rights, but funding? Well, up to a point. The quality of the system may raise more profound concerns over those Big Brother spycams. After all, can any of us be sure we will not be misidentified by a fuzzy, inferior image on an unreliable old analogue camera?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article