Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Society
An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to a Wired story, a company called Pedagog USA wants to have its cameras be as ubiquitious as cell phones and computers, except that the cameras would be spying on the public. These cameras are pretty cheap and easy to install. Scott Fry, of Pedagog USA, appears to think that if they like it in England, it must be loved here!" The story mentions the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
Over the past ten years things have progressed in my home town of Aberdeen, Scotland to the point where, on a quick count of the visible cameras, I am now being filmed by 12 police cameras, 4 traffic cameras and 8 traffic master cameras on a 15 minute drive to work.
Trafficmaster is a company that films you as you drive down busy roads and notes your number plate - it OCRs it I beleive - and waits for you to pass the next camera roughly 2 miles away. It then knows how fast traffic is travelling throughout its network.
The police cameras were first justified in the wake of football violence making the city centre a scary place to be on a saturday afternoon or wednesday night when there was a match on. Since then they have bled out from the 'danger zones' to cover roughly 80% of the streets around the city centre.
Traffic cameras that auto fine speeding cars are probably the least offensive. At least they only grab you if you are actually breaking a law. And speeding kills people - so its a proper crime.
It bugs me that I can't drive to work without all this surveillence. My mobile phone tracks me to the nearest base station, traffic master knows which camera I last passed, and the city centre cameras will even know what I'm wearing.
All this, and the number of attacks on 18-30 year old males is higher now than it was 10 years ago! Attacks on women and the elderly have dropped in the city centre, but have increased elsewhere.
Campaign against the introduction of these things. They are ineffective, costly (I recall that between 2 and 6% of my local taxes are spent on these things every year - depending on how many new ones they install), and offernsive to public liberty.
As acceptance grows people will be open to new ideas, like companies owning the images, in return for operating the network. They are trying to get ID cards introduced across Europe, although publicity is way down on a couple of years back because of electioneering. Add that to the mix and I'll be applying for my green card!
...the US already with 2% of its own population in jail ...
...
That stat astounds me each time I see it. 1 in 50 people in jail
So now lets increase that further. Yes sir. Security and prisons are now a growth industry. Is that making you proud? It casts an ugly pall. This cameras everywhere advocate is just another fear mongering opportunist. My blood boils when I'm around these kinds of people.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
For one thing, apart from some experiments in Lambeth with face recognition software, cameras need monitoring, and this tends to be labour intensive. In fact, there's such a deluge of data at present that the most extreme surveillancenightmares are going to remain just that (nightmares) for a long time to come. (Try calculating the bandwidth needed to carry ten million real time video feeds, 24x7, if you don't believe me!)
For another thing, cameras work as a deterrent to certain types of crime -- vandalism and car theft are the classic examples, shoplifting (in shops with in-store CCTV) is another. However, some types of crime (most assault, for example) are committed on impulse, without regard to whether humans (or cameras) are watching.
So: why not install cameras, keep rolling six hour tape loops, and simply yank them for use as evidence if a crime is reported during that period? Well, this happens -- but some recent and rather worrying studies show that camera images tend to be of such poor quality that something like 40% of the time people trying to identify a suspect from videotape get it wrong. Cameras are no substitute for careful police work, as the police have been learning (painfully).
The Orwellian nightmare of cameras on every street corner with face recognition software that tracks every citizen as they go about their daily life isn't technologically possible yet, and I suspect before it happens there'll be fairly strong legal restrictions on how the information can be used -- remember there's now an explicit legal right to privacy in UK law, and sooner or later someone will sue a police force (and win) to stop them tracking them without a surveillance warrant of some kind. (Although the control-freak tendencies of Home Secretary Jack Straw do not fill me with optimism on this front.)
There's only one area in the UK where cameras have made an unequivocal, positive, contribution to loaw enforcement: that's GATSO cameras for photographing and fining drivers who speed, run red lights, and otherwise endanger other road users.
The nature of the change is quantitative, in that it puts more police eyeballs out there on the street.
Essentially it's a force multiplier for law enforcement.
(Of course, as a general commented, "quality troops beat ordinary ones every time, but quantity has a quality all of its own".)
If you want to prevent abuse, what you need is a right to privacy in public. That is: rather than making it a specific offense to stalk someone, there should be a general right not to be stalked (or monitored) without cause.You also need to ensure that law cams are not introduced without stringent regulation over who can monitor them and what they can do with the output -- which also needs to be subject to the rules of evidence.
Thanks, but it is David Brin's, or at least I read about it in his book "The Transparent Society". I think he had more arguments for it, but those were the ones I remembered :-)
I didn't remember the tile, or his name this morning. I spotted it when I was upstairs looking for another book.
Beats me. Let me try a strawman. The government has to provide an NTSC or MPEG2 feed from any camera to any entity that pays $500 a month (per camera). That entity can rebroadcast that feed under any terms it likes (from totally free to over $500). -- the $500 is just a starting point, it could be more or less.
Or another strawman, all the cameras have to feed into a ATM or Frame Relay cloud (MPEG2, or a future NIST blessed open standard). Anyone that can pay the normal connection fee plus (to the LEC) plus 10% (to the government) into the cloud can get the bits out, and as above can retransmit them as they wish.
Either of those will get coverage of traffic areas and other areas of high interest onto the web pretty fast, either on ad funded sites, or pages with low monthly fees. They will both self fund (the incoming money should cover the cost to transmit)
Third strawman, to get the camera installed it has to have an internet connection and multicast the feed. This will push taxes up a bit, or keep camera deployment down.
To view on a PDA? A ton. To view low frame rate stills on a desktop? Thanks to the porn industry, none.
Wireless has a long way to go. But other things are driving it. Broadband is there already. Let me be clear, I'm interested in granting access to these cameras, but I don't care if it has a modest cost. I'm not looking to have another government subsidy. They shouldn't divert a penny from education, national defense, or wasting my tax dollars. They also shouldn't raise my taxes any for this.
Well, either a fair amount of general CPU, or a little hardware dedicated to the task. If enough people want it, it'll eventually happen.
A click through map (zoomable would be nice). Of corse I expect a 3rd party to do that.
Anyone anywhere (if the system is tax neutral, or actually makes money). USA Citizens only (if it costs tax dollars, only tax payers should see). No geographical limits. Why should there be any? If someone spots the police planting evidence, I don't care where they are. If Nike wants to check how well their new sneakers are selling in NY, I don't care if they do it from CA.
I want the camera images accessible in real time to the public. It has a few advantages:
(I'm not saying I want the cameras, but if we have them, these are my terms)
Crime in the US declined considerably in the 90's, without CCTV. While CCTV didn't cause the rise in crime in Britain (Theodore Dalrymple has some ideas on what did), it is not that good an answer to it.
*Cough* Well, 'scuse me..
The governments et. al have a hard enough job actually getting the film out when needed in a crime that people are jumping up and down about.
When you go in a picket line, you frequently rely on the police present to guard yer butt against people who don't really want you to be there.
And yes, there are a lot of scary clashes on picket lines between opposed pressure groups, not groups and police.
Do you really think they're going to waste their time getting a group of people to pick out each face in thousands, cross reference it against any files they may have, and write notes on you if you're having a peaceful demonstration?
Whoah, please keep taking the paranoia pills.
All government departments (well, over here in the UK anyway, and most likely over there too) are cash starved for keeping up with what needs to really be done, not just what they'd like to do.
I'm of the feeling that when I'm out in public, I don't care if it's a camera or people's eyes that see me. All equates to the same thing. I'm in public. Note the difference between public and private.
Interestingly enough, I knew a few people who actually use the stuff from surveillance cameras. Most are pretty much automated, with no real operator control, although, the one or two people operating huge numbers of cameras can override in the case of emergency.
I'd sorely love to know where your sources of that state they're not used for the advertised use come from.
Cheers,
Malk
And lo, you do more damage in a few words to your cause than a whole horde of decriers from the other side of the fence.
It's like when you drive out the pimps and the prostitutes from a district, they just move elsewhere.
That's a so fucking typically anglo-saxon "solution": drive the problem elsewhere, so someone else is stuck with it.
--
--
That's because England, the seminal culture of the USA (no matter how much the americans drum being a colony that broke free) had quite a few "revolutions" where powerful barons revolted against weak kings, and thus the notion that the State (the king's power) was nocious was slowly, over the centuries, brewed into public opinion.
The corolary is that it is not seen wrong that the powerful barons/big corporations are able to accumulate so much wealth and influence so they can directly challenge the State/king. This is why the US is so corrupted: it's okay for powerful corporations to abuse the people, but the State cannot abuse the people (or big powerful corporations).
--
--
It may or may not happen in the US. Certainly the size is not the issue.
You're making the mistake of assuming a consistent average population density throughout the US. Sure, hicksville Nevada will not get mandated cameras any time soon, but major cities (where the majority of the US population lives!) are not immune.
Britain has a population of ~60Million. The US has a population of ~300Million. According to US Gov figures, the top 20 cities by pop. in the country housed 40Million people in 1990. The cost of coverage of only these 20 cities would be on the same order of magnitude as Britain's spying network, and would probably cost less than the individual cities garbage collection bills...
Seems pretty simple to get it through to me, especially with all those kids killing themselves and others in schools. Just put the argument "We'd see the guns before they got to the school, don't you think your child's life is worth more than your garbage ?"
BTW, I'm not in favour of CCTV everywhere (see www.domesday.org for my views!)
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Since when did America go from innocent until proven guilty to guilty no matter what. All I see anymore is another example of the government saying "well if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have to worry". Why don't we remote controlled cameras in the offices of our elected officials and broadcast the feeds in television. C-SPAN could make their own reality series about how the bribes and pure criminality taking place in publicly funded buildings.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
There are already security cameras everywhere and when you're walking downtown, on a subway station or in a store, they are watching you. How many here have suffered from some kind of misuse from security cameras? How many have benefitted from them? Probably everyone has benefitted from them in form of added security on subway stations late at night etc.
Sometimes I can't believe how much paranoia there is on Slashdot. I mean, really.. What do you think they will do to you? Send you videotapes with you picking your nose and ask for money? Just because "Enemy Of The State" says the state is out to get you doesn't mean it's so. You know, the state is *YOU* after all; all people. So relax a little and breathe. Nobody is out to get you.
Here's a link to balance out the paranoia in the Slashdot article:
CCTV gives an arresting sight!(in this window)
CCTV gives an arresting sight! (in a new window)
Cameras on the streets is a totally different thing from cameras in my bed- / bathroom. Streets are public places. My bathroom is not. Don't compare apples to oranges.
If I feel bad, I'll pull the courtains. They won't look in tho cause that's not why the camera is there. It's there to film the street to keep it safe. If I notice it's drifting and looking / spying into my house, I'll pull the courtains and then complain. Still, someone can just as easily sit down outside my house and look in with a video camera or binoculars and there's nothing I can do about that either. Unless it's illegal, which I don't know if it is.
However, if I'm just watching TV or surfing the net or whatever at home, I couldn't care less if someone is watching or not.
You know that's what's going to be said.
War is necrophilia.
The 'typical' intersection camera replaces those crazy loops in the pavement. See: This Autoscope pdf or visit the autoscope site.
There are uses for video that don't mean that you are spying on your fellow person -- /. being /., that will of course be ignored.
-- Multics
First, if I'm a law-abiding citizen, they have no right to spy on me. Second, the only non-law-abiding citizens these have much effect are are either very petty crimes, or crimes that have no business being crimes.
Want to make the public safe by surveillance? Those cameras should be going into government offices and corporate boardrooms. Corporate crime is much, much deadiler and more costly than street crime.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You can't put enough cops on the street to make it statistically likely that one will be around when you're being victimized. Increasing police presence has not reduced crime; in fact, the need for more police has resulted lower standards for recruitment and retention and led to increased misconduct.
We need not to create a special class of citizens with a monopoly on the capability to defend us (and thus, the means to oppress us); we need ordinary citizens who are capable and willing to defend themselves and others.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
From the conclusion of the same report:
...CCTV cameras in Glasgow city centre did not appear to have a major impact on crime... and ...there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre. (These were taken out of context, go read the report yourself to see a slightly wider context)
Glasgow has been one of the best cities in Britain for combatting its street crime, with more police on the streets, rewards programs, a big push against hard drugs, and more money to aid prosecutions. Glasgow's crime levels have bucked the major trend in the UK for low level street crime, not due to cameras, but because the city council wanted to clean up the image of the city.
camera operators usually focus on minorities or young people in "hostile" outfits
My biggest concerns of camera surveillance are along the lines of operators trained by a mostly white police force saying "Look, he's wearing a Man-U stripe, damn baby rapist, lets track his every move", as well as "track only blacks and asians, because they are the most likely to commit crimes". Since I work in security, I do notice the cameras, and I do have opportunities to observe the operators being biased. It is quite disturbing to watch cameras track you every where you go when you clearly aren't breaking any laws.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
/. community is well aware of the dangers of the misuse of technology, but the average public only cares about the perception of security.
Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived record levels. The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date. The
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Look, cheap cameras are a fact of life.
The net is a fact of life. People hooking up
their cameras to the net and forming
a surveillance network of public places
is now a fact of life. Get used to it.
Would you be opposed to streetlights, because
they can help identify you on the street at night?
Are you against licencse plates on cars?
I think people should have whatever privacy they want in their houses. But in public places,
there should be no assumption of privacy. If
people cannot behave within the limits of the law in public places, they should be accountable. That
means they must be identified.
People can do whatever they want in cyberspace,
but we all share the physical world, and it is
our obligation to behave socially. This means
physical accountability of some kind.
If the concern is that the goverment will use
surveillance to harrass people? Then lets
come up with some laws and procedures, some
checks and balances, just like we did for
the US constitution. The founding fathers didn't
just give up and say "the government will always
crush our liberties, let's outlaw goverment". They
came up with a workable system of negative feedback to keep the concentrations of power from
being unstable.
BTW, the
anti-abortion nuts have a web site already
listing names and addresses of doctors who
perform abortions. The scum bags are already
using networked surveillance. Why can't the
rest of us?
... that's my slogan. What's going to stop a speed addict from killing you in your home so they can steal $50 toward their next hit? Great, so it's all on tape! Sell it to the Fox Network! I'm still dead.
Just think, you're confronted with an intruder on-the-spot, without warning- do you: a) say "smile for the camera!" b) say excuse me, could you please hand me the phone so I can call the police on you; c) say please mr. criminal, don't rape and kill my girlfriend or d) shoot them, so long as they present a serious threat of killing you or doing serious bodily injury.
Cameras won't stop violent crimes, because criminals don't know reason and logic (ie they don't read Slashdot!). If the crime is being committed by a thoughtful person, then they might think twice before doing it if they know they might get shot in the process.
The ongoing distortion of the agreements embodied in the Constitution, regardless of the rationalizations, rhetoric and movies portraying patriots as villians, breaks a social contract written by the rivers of honorable blood spilled to gain and preserve those freedoms.
The criminals may appear to have gained control of the law, but do they really believe their lies can long delude those who built and defended the civilization that nurtures and protects them?
Seastead this.
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
While I'm not for the cameras, in these cases you don't have any right to expect privacy. If you do something on the street, it is to be assumed someone is watching you. There is no reason someone would not. And yes, this includes cameras. The right to privacy does not include the right to not have people view you in public. And if you can see your pool from the street, then yes, once again, you have no right to expect privacy there. I could stand in the street and personally film you in your pool if I wanted, as long as I did not trespass on your property. To say I couldn't do that would deny me the right to stand on the public ground. The right to privacy only extends to private places. The street is not a private place.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
There are a lot of shannagans that go on in back rooms in Washington and in the offices of the very rich. I should like very much to see those dealings exposed to public scrutiny.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
micheal said:
The story mentions the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
We must have read different articles. I looked at the links to Scottish crime statistics in the Wired article and although critical it admits that the incidences of certain crimes have dropped and the loss of life has been prevented on several occassions by the surveillance cameras.
I am opposed to surveillance cameras for a number of reasons chief of which is the one mentioned in the article (camera operators usually focus on minorities or young people in "hostile" outfits) as well as the loss of privacy but even I don't delude myself into thinking that they don't prevent crime.
If you want to oppose to installation of cameras, complain about the potential rights violations or 4th ammendment violations. of course with the growing rise of reality television in the U.S. if there ever was a time that this kind of action would be gotten away with, this is it. Trying to pretend that crime isn't prevented is hiding your head in the sand and won't win you any supporters if the battle against them is fought in the U.S.
Sorry to pop this into the discussion so late but here goes. If you go to Miami, as you enter the city driving down I-95 you will see 78 cameras. We counted them a few weeks ago but more are popping up on other major thoroughfares. The cameras are on their own poles and are remotely controlled. We were told that this was a traffic cam system designed to help broadcast and update news information relating to the over congestion on our highways. Guess what? Most of the cameras don't point to the highway. They point into the economically and ethnically challenged neighborhoods that I-95 runs through on your way to down town Miami. Normally, I wouldn't have an issue with the cameras per se if they were indeed doing what they were supposed to be doing. They are not and the fact that the density of cameras is much lower in the nicer neighborhoods towards the end of I-95 smacks of racism. If you want to surveil the community you should do it evenly and fairly. There is no reason to have 4 or 5 cameras on a post pointing into mostly black neighborhoods and only 1 on a post in nicer areas pointing at the highway. White people and Latins commit crimes too. I notice a lot of people out there complaining about this as an invasion of privacy. Please... You have no expextation to privacy outside your home. How do you think they caught McVeigh? The feds grabbed footage from every sevurity cam, ATM machine etc in Oklahoma city and synced up the video. They saw him park the truck. They saw McNichols pick him up and they even had the majority of the escape route caught on tape too. This is not a bad thing really. Not a good thing either but the continuing decline of society it just may be necessary.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
And next time you're on a demo, or a picket line, or doing anything the Government of the day might dislike, how will you feel about your image being carefully catelogued, cross-referenced and filed? If these cameras were only used for the stated propaganda purposes, all well and good. However, they're not. You're living in a fool's paradise.
I think that cameras everywhere are going to become a fact of life regardless of how many people hate the idea. The only suggestion I've seen for mitigating the damage was a proposal that each camera pointed at a public place be registered and its feed made available on the net. At least then if an operator is abusing it (like looking in people's homes for example) there'd be a chance that it would get noticed.
The reason to fear government surveillance is not because you trust in the benevolence of your government, but because it can become a tool of despotism if the government ever turns against the people. And recent history is a sad statement on how often that comes to pass. However much you trust the current overseers, imagine the system in the hands of your worst enemy and ask yourself what they could do with it. Just off the top of my head, I think of China and what it would mean to be captured on tape visiting the home of someone later found to be a Falun Gong member.
I am in public at the time - anybody who walks by can see me anyway.
Yes, but they are not recording your every action and scrutinizing(sic) you.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Put it this way; if we had the money, would people be opposed to putting a cop on every street corner in the country? Unless you have paranoia about the police, most people wouldn't see a problem with this and in fact, think more police is a GOOD thing. This is just extending the eyes and mobility of the police.
As with all things (like the police), they can be abused, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It certainly has its place (I think that it's pretty much essential in car-parks), but on the whole the feeling seems to be that having coppers videoing you while you're cheering for Watford, is an invasion of privacy.
The Mark Thomas (Comedy Product) on Channel 4 last series did a big thing about the civil liberties issues behind CCTV.
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Does anybody have any reliable info on where the majority of these cameras are put? I get the impression that the most popular places for them are crowded areas (malls, main streets, train stations, etc).
It's sad to think that a camera is considered greater protection against crime (particularly the violent crime these cameras are purported to prevent) than the great crush of your fellow citizens surrounding you.
Establishment of the US Dept of Surveillance: 330 million dollars
Installation of 1.7 million CCTV cameras at strategic urban locations: 1.2 billion dollars
Yearly operation and maintenence: 2.9 billion dollars
The look on Congress' face when they realize their system is being systematically destroyed by teenage graffiti taggers with $1.95 spray paint cans:
Priceless
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
- Benjamin Franklin
--------
Since cameras are routinely used for this purpose in the U.S. A Google search on the words "demonstration surveillance camera" will yield numerous reports of this practice. Put yourself in the shoes of the police and politicians. Would you be able to resist the temptation to use this flow of information to keep tabs on your enemies?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
For such a so called great thing it only seems to be a good thing in the eyes of officials.
And the icing on the cake...
Instead of installing these cameras, they should take any financing for a program such as this, and put it into community centers to assist people in high crime areas. Show them there is more, and show them you are willing to help them change, as opposed to building more prisons, installing cameras all over the place, spending money on weapons and military related garbage.
Better yet here's a solution. Build a steel door in front of the house of every American citizen, then on a timed basis lock everyone in their homes. Will this be a politicians next pitch?
U.S' secret war with Japan
360 degrees of Karma
Now suppose that along every major strip there were cameras everywhere, with the US already with 2% of its own population in jail, the criminal ustice system would be overloaded with criminals.
Lets look at the way the justice system works now, we can say the Rockerfeller laws are a joke that need to seriously be revamped, for one.
Lets have officers arrest people for things that they would normally turn away from at times in big cities per se... Disorderly Conduct, a man and woman arguing, someone horseplaying, someone fixing a flat where their not supposed to. And don't dare say it doesn't happen, recently an 8 year old was arrested for pointing a paper gun and classmate while horseplaying. So don't think the law wouldn't stoop so low to just conduct sweeps for stupid actions, e.g., political race heats up, "Lets use the cameras and go after everyone."
Thats the harsh reality of it all. Those concerned with putting in cameras are not going to monitor who views what, and what should or shouldn't be viewed, and in the fairness of justice someone jaywalking (although not a crime that can do much) should be equally treated as breaking the law as any other law breaker. You can't it a single sided issue.
So if cameras were to go up, try arguing that in a court of law, "Your honor my client was caught on top urinating somewhere, but on the camera you could clearly see the officers turn a blind eye to 30 jaywalkers." Is it fair? No
Now what would happen is, criminals (hardcore) would take greater risks to avoid getting caught which is more likely to signal they'd adapt and perform sneakier, possibly even more dangerous crimes.
George Bush's dirty secret
360 degrees of Karma
YOu don't even get the trade. Crime moves to another location away from the cameras (here in the UK) anyway. Besides, the real question is security from what? Crime maybe, I want security from excessive government intervention. The real question is why do we think that cameras are the answer to crime or security, they are a quick fix which completely fail to address the real problems, like drug addiction (most crime in the UK is drug related). Legalising drugs (I don't and never have done them) would seem better. Giving them away, better still (audited and only from sanctioned places) - remove the profit, remove the drug lords. REmove the cost, remove the crime to get the money for the drugs. Paul
Talk about flame bait. Let's just examine your statements one by one shall we?
1) Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived (sic) record levels.
Gee, the level of violent crime is rising in Britain. Shock. Horror.
Perhaps I might point out that this has been the case throughout recorded history in every non-totalitarian society in the world? Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia, and just about every place on the planet can share this dubious claim to fame, so why focus on just one nation? Ironically, Britain is far from the most violent society in the world - countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category.
The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too.
As a famous politician once said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" and you just proved the point.
Far more important than your groundbreaking discovery is what society does to try to halt and reverse this trend. Should it sit on its collective arse or should it take proactive measures to improve the situation. Gee, that's a real tough one...
2) The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Wrong again. CCTV footage has proven to be an effective deterrent against all forms of organised crime, from terrorism to bank robberies to pickpocketting to car theft.
What it hasn't been able to do is convince pissed up idiots that Saturday night isn't alright for fighting and that going home peacefully would be preferential to picking a pointless fight or smashing in a shop window. Mind you, few things do work in such circumstances, but at least a well placed CCTV can bring the police's attention to such incidents more rapidly than any phone call and also offer some evidence should criminal proceedings arise. Case in point: the high profile trial of Leeds' footballers currently in the balance.
3) Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date.
Just about everything of significance we do is recorded in some way, from registering to vote to opening a bank account to joining a library. I don't hear people advocating that we stop using credit cards because our card issuers might be tracking our purchases (which btw, is going on right now).
Perhaps societies like the US that permit gun ownership should clampdown on that too. After all, a handgun can be used for self-defence but it can also be used to perform "even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date." Shock. Horror.
4) The /. community is well aware of the dangers of the misuse of technology, but the average public only cares about the perception of security.
The public only cares about the perception of security?
"Gee Martha, I'm not worried about my kids being shot in their classrooms or being mugged in the streets, I'm only worried about the perception of them being shot or mugged."
The public isn't worried about perceptions of security. It's worried about security. All the more so when politicians, beaurocrats and lawyers tell them they are safe when they clearly are not.
I could go on. Suffice to say that more people have had their lives saved or have been brought to justice by the use of CCTV footage than will ever read this thread.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Just how much privacy do you expect when you're out and about in public?
/. types probably think of Glasgow as a super-scary place with razor-gangs roaming the streets. Well not any more (mostly).
As a resident of Glasgow I am delighted to see cameras on every street corner and every road junction. Most of you
Many people have commented here that "the cameras don't prevent crime", showing a determined effort to neglect their power as a deterrent. Even Glasgow's most neanderthal bampots think twice about mugging Granny McShoogle in Argyle Street when they know they will be forced to watch the action replay on Her Majesty's telly.
We have a program on the telly here (I think it's called "Police, camera, action!"), which shows footage from surveillance cameras of cerebrally challenged criminals performing for our amuesment. Not only is this highly entertaining, it also gets the message across "don't jerk about in a public place unless you have a truly awesome disguise!"
If you want privacy then go somewhere private!
When you're out in public in Glasgow remember, Smile Please!
Nemo me impune lacessit
Imagine a world with cameras on every street corner, canvassing every public place, combined with high-banwidth data transfer and fast computers. Anybody with access to that camera data could use, say, a facial recognition system to track any given individual. Say you think that your boyfriend is cheating on you, and you have access to the needed camera data. You run a background process that looks for his face. He walks out of a cafe somewhere and your system catches him by recognizing his face, automatically archives the video of him walking around, down the street, around a corner, meeting up with his new girl.
This is a level of intrusion is not possible without hiring a private detective in the 'real world' without the cameras. If we allow the cameras, then this sort of thing will be very easy for anybody with access to the information. If the information is public, then you have just obliterated privacy in your entire society. If the information is guarded and used only by the government, then you have just created a very powerful tool for your government to use for opression.
Didn't anybody read "1984"?
-Keslin, the naked nerd girl
-Keslin, the naked nerd girl