Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Cameras in Britain Not Effective?
zymurgy_cat writes "An interesting piece in The Christian Science Monitor questions whether or not the 4 million plus cameras in Britain are effective in deterring crime. It touches upon the usual issues of privacy, who has access to the tapes, and so forth. Despite this, people still seem to prefer the cameras."
Surveillance cameras are essential in solving crimes.
The owls are not what they seem
If I'd just committed a double murder, or cleaned out a jeweller's in the heist of the century, then I might actually be worried about cameras monitoring my every move.
As it is, I lead a life that is infinitely more boring than the scenarios listed above, and I am therefore of the opinion that if people want to watch me walking to the store at 10pm to grab a bottle of milk, they are more than welcome. Why should I care who's watching me if I have nothing to hide? And aren't cameras just an extension of any authority watching me? What's next? Policeman on the streets shouldn't look at the public as it is an infringement of civil liberties?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
Man.. I don't know where to start... maybe I should change my crapped pants first...
I'm not a big fan of the thought of cameras on street corners watching my actions. In fact, the thought alone gives me the jibblies. However, the recent arrest of the Carlie Brucia kidnapper at least gives some credence to the usefulness of these things. So, if they can be put to good use, I'll deal with the jibblies and pray that the next such kidnapping case doesn't end in such tragedy.
If it is not reducing crime, perhaps it would have been wiser to put more police on the streets?
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
they don't prevent crime, you only get to watch it afterwards.
I think maybe an armed group of security gaurds wearing shirts that say "You steal, we shoot" Might be more effective. :D
Just picture someone begging for their life over a snickers bar when the little door buzzer goes off...
~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
Orwell's Oceania is upon us already?
Thank God that I live in America, where we don't have Big Brother looking over our shoulders constantly.
I've written a poem about it -
And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.
waves the red, white, and blue
Cameras do not deter Crime.
They only drive it underground.
I suggest you check out last years episodes of CSI for example.
Does anybody expect privacy in public places? You can be watched and photographed by anybody legally in public. Does this surveillance cameras change anything?
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
I don't know if this is the same study, but I recently read that having decent street lighting is more effective than cameras. In addition near where I live they put CCTV on a main busy shopping road. The amount of crime on the road decreased, but all that happened is that it increased in the ajoining side roads.
Back in the old days, you had to give the common person power less they rebel against you and cause all sorts of problems for the ruling class. I'm afraid that's all quickly coming to an end. Governments and heads of state will have such powerful technological tools at their disposal to nip any rebellion in the bud. Keylogging tools, surveillance cameras, etc. may all be benign in a democratic, but what about in a 100 years when we are bound to live in a very different kind of world? They very well could become the tools of oppression so many people fear.
I don't like this trend in technology and I don't trust it.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
They're not effective in my experience. Just last night at the takeaway the cops came in asking for the cctv footage of a few days ago. The reply? "Sorry, it's done on a rolling basis - we only ever have the past 24 hours".
Then when my mates were mugged, sure they got cctv footage of the victims running away - but nothing of the guys who did it.
we once had two deliberate fires in one month, and a couple of attempts that didn't suceed. Shortly after we got a few surveillance cameras. Since then we have not had any fires around the building where I live, but then it started happen in different places not very far from here.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
This is why "tough" anti-crime policies will always be more common than "liberal" ones. The latter may be more effective, but the former (cameras, mandatory minimum sentences etc.) get the votes.
Mod parent up!
It turns out that Northeastern University has decided to post pictures of a post-Superbowl riot near the campus of Northeastern University. The intent seems to be to identify the rioters and vandals who destroyed cars and property. It seems that officials at Northeastern believe that the rioters may be somehow affiliated with the university (and few dispute that idea).
As of now, Northeastern's web site only has a couple dozen photographs of vandalism in action. But they do have videos from nearby video cameras... it may just be a matter of time before they post some video clips.
Clearly these rioters were both stupid and committed crimes, so there's no need to debate the criminal aspects of their activity.
But is it OK for anyone to secretly videotape activities in the street? Is it OK for Northeastern to pin their students based on video and film taken by random observers?
Personally I think that people like Barry Hugill of the organisation "Liberty", who say things like "CCTV is spying. It's monitoring your every move" should be locked up in mental hospitals and have their severe paranoia treated. If someone wants to watch me walking down the street with my shopping, scratching my arse and picking my nose, then that's entirely fine by me, although I would suggest they find a more productive use of their time. I tend to avoid doing illegal things in public, because anyone could be watching, not necessarily over CCTV.
London is now known as Air Strip One.
"You have liberated me from thought."
It's about catching the people who do the crimes AFTER the crime has taken place. I know alot of people (mainly Americans) start saying "Big Brother" at having cameras watching you, but it's really not anything you think about, the people watching you are watching about 30 other screens, and what are they going to see you doing? Walking? Ouch. Now imagine you're walking and you get mugged, now you'll be glad about the cameras who can now have an idea of what the mugger looks like and there's a much greater chance of them being caught. Video surveilance usage is monitored, it's not like the govt is spying on you and keeping tabs trying to get you to part with your tinfoil hat.
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
let us put it that way, if you have camera every corner, and with face recognition (and amit for a second it has a good enough sucess rate), how can you then be "gainst" your governement , make an alternate party, make civil protest, or manifest, strike, and do whatever else can be construed as public disturbance ? That is right you cannot anymore.
And thus even those which have a lawful life but disliked for some reason by the govt can be monitored and the info used against themselves. Do you repsect law but have a mistress or are you homosexual ? well bad luck now camera can see that, and with face recognition signal to an operator he found the position of one of the person on its list, operator which then promptly make anotation of your activity on a memo.
Is this scenario far eteched ? Well with the price of a CCTV , and the price of computer now, I think the only true obstacle to this scenario is that face recognition isn't that good. But it might be in the future. And as the past leaner, if a govt official can abuse its position , it will. So the above scenario is LIKELY. In such view having nothing to hide [by that I mean being lawful] isn't a protection anymore.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I lived in the UK during the 1990s when the installation of these things really took off. It always amazed me that at the time, that the idea of photos on driver's licenses was anathema (and was resisted when it was introduced) but people took relatively little umbrage at the notion of surveillance cameras. Once they were installed, people pointed to the benefits, but I seem to recall news reports over the years to the effect that they merely tended to drive street crime to areas without the cameras i.e. they were effective to a point, but sometimes displaced crime rather than reducing it.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
Monitoring cameras are not about democracy vs. oppression, they are about eliminating the tragedy of the commons.
Take speeding: when you speed, you save some journey time. When others speed, they endanger your life. Cameras on the road (as seen recently in France) tell individuals "your acts are not cost-free", and so they behave better.
Britain is a pretty sad place to live in, but this has nothing to do with cameras and a lot to do with geography and history. The explosion of cameras in public places may not have eliminated crime, but they appear to have kept it in check, despite rising drug use, increasing poverty in many areas, etc.
I have to vote in favour of the cameras: it's one of those cases where the common need for decent behaviour in public places overrides the individual's right to privacy. I've often thought that in other countries - like Belgium, where I live - surveillence cameras would be a good thing, cutting down on the petty crime: bag theft, broken car windows, men pissing in public, muggings, etc. which make the average citizen feel insecure and end up voting for right-wing parties.
Ironically, better public behaviour is probably better for democracy, not the reverse, since historically extremist governments rise from situations of uncertainty, not from stable societies. Crime waves push people to accepting extreme leaders in the name of law and order.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Like most things in life, CCTV works sometimes...for example, many of the little thugs that walk around the streets where i live (Leeds) wear hooded tops with the hoods up and scarfs round their faces to avoid being identified, no matter how good the CCTV footage is it's highly unlikely that the police would catch someone dressed so (and yes they do walk around the city centre like that). Also most of the cameras are in the city centre itself...instead of where its really needed.
However what other alternatives are there? I suppose the only real answer to that is more police on the beat, but with most police officers spending most of their work hours tied up with red tape and paper work its gonna be a long time before that happens.
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity.
Go here and tell me that actual poster of the metro police isn't the creepiest thing you've seen in a while.
Crime in London has skyrocketed in the past few years, pretty much because it's illegal to defend yourself with any conviction over there, with any weapon. The state will keep you safe, they say- except they can't.
You're six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York City.
The cameras are a joke on the populus- they live under constant survellience because of the promise it will make them safer, yet there aren't- and can never be- enough police to act on what occurs on and off camera. It's a way for the government and the police to say they're doing something about the crime, instead of actually going out and putting boot to ass- their cops aren't even armed. But the biggest problem is that the citizens are not armed.
The Government of the United Kingdom evidently thinks it's people are an untrustworthy bunch of morons, uncapable of wielding deadly force in a just manner. So they remove every lawful means of defending oneself and one's property, saying they'll protect you instead. Except they can't. They often don't even come afterwards to file the paperwork.
If criminals were made to fear for their lives when they plied their trade, you might see a big drop in crime. But crooks are the only ones with guns, and have nothing to fear from the people they rob- unlike the United States, where in several states, a crook breaking into an occupied home has a good chance of meeting a violent, immediate end, for example.
The cameras are not a panacea, they aren't even a band-aid. The people of the UK are fucked- sheep left to the slaughter of criminals. Good luck over there.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The kind of Christian's we need to watch for are the variety found in Georgia who want to purge the word "evolution" from the curriculum.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
As an American currently studying in London, the cameras originally surprised me. On one hand, they seemed like a good idea in preventing, or solving crimes - OTOH, my libertarian minded thought lead me to believe that they would be increasingly used to interfere in the private lives of citizens. Now, most of us have probably heard that London currently upgraded their camera system to allow for OCR'ing license plates to charge for the 'congestion fee' in central London.
Yesterday, however, I found the following paper on my University's Intranet. So far, the student population seems oblivious to it. In short, as of next term, all students will be required to wear ID tags at all times while on campus. I find this particularly ominous as the school is government run and sponsored. Facial recognition technology really doesn't even matter much if we are all forced to wear name tags, hiding under the guise of security. Where will it end?
----------
Introduction of New Access Card System
Summary
*
There is a need to replace the current outdated entry card system
*
This opens the opportunity to improve security arrangements by combining access cards with identity cards for all staff and students.
*
The system will be introduced first at Whitechapel in early 2004 and then at Mile End later by Summer 2004.
*
The system can only be effective in improving safety and security if staff and students are required to wear identity cards when on campus.
1. Background to the Project
During the review of campus security conducted during the last eighteen months, it was identified that the current Schlage access control system, which had been installed 15 years previously, was becoming outdated. Spare parts were difficult to obtain and it was evident that the system would need to be replaced.
A more effective system that has the following features will be introduced as a replacement:
*
'Windows' based, user-friendly and flexible
*
able to run in parallel with the existing good system at Charterhouse Square
*
have the capability to link with the student record system to enable the College to provide a long term plan for ID cards for staff and students.
The ID cards will have the capability of including a 'bar code' for use within the Libraries, a proximity reader capability for use at the Mile End and Whitechapel campuses and also a swipe card capability for Charterhouse Square.
The CCTV equipment will be upgraded, which will allow a link with the access control system and the ability to record pictures digitally. The system specification also calls for the ability to provide additional control access points within the College. Finally there is also a requirement for the upgrade to be able to expand in line with new build, especially the Student Village, and to provide a more secure environment on all campuses.
A tender for a complete upgrade to the system satisfying these specifications was issued and, in early 2003, 'Group 4' was awarded the contract based on price, timing and system specifications. The Multi Max system proposed by 'Group 4', within their tender return, meets all the capability criteria and also offers many other additional beneficial features.
2. Progress to Date
'Group 4' have installed new equipment at Whitechapel. They have been requested to run the new system alongside the existing system and it is intended to switch over the systems during the Summer Vacation 2004.
New control boxes have been installed across the Whitechapel site and we are now awaiting another contractor (EAS) to install the cable for the data points alongside these control boxes. Once this has been done the College will be able to have the main access control system computer linked to all the control boxes and primary tests to the system will commence prior to the system going live. External doors will be activated in Phase
If a British man had a camera pointed at him in the street his reaction would be: meh An american on the otherhand is: Hey Honey!!! WE'RE On TEEVEE, its fucking pop idol, Woo Hoo.
Jonathanjk.com
It's just a matter of time before the Brits compile the most sensational video into a popular Reality TV show on BBC. Which means that it will be coming to America soon.
Smile! You're on Security Camera.
Are you CORN FED?
you spend money to:
1) prevent and solve crimes
2) solve crimes
3) accomplish nothing
if by spending the same amount of money (or less) you can accomplish 1 while you are currently only accomplishing 2, then you are at a suboptimal state.
this only considers the monetary aspectes though. many would argue that if 1 and/or 2 violates your civil liberties, then that violation should trump the benefits and 1 and/or 2 should be dropped.
there is the alternative arguement that, if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to loose. this is clearly incorrect, as the article alludes to improper use of the cameras by the athorities. since the athorities are people, corruptible, prone to error, etc., there is no guarantee that the cameras will only be used against the guilty.
many people, myself included, dont really care if they are filmed and put on tv. however, there are quite a few people, who at a minimum, dont want their image placed on the nightly news to be laughed at. this misappropriation is harmless at best.
i think the example cited in the article, the video of a person attempting suicide, is a better example. would you want a video of your father trying to kill himself shown on the nightly news? sure he's not doing anything wrong, but imagine the impact that would have on your family.
there is a balance to be reached, but i think 1 camera for every 14 people is tipping too far away from the rights of the individual.
-- john
In the US in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a perception that street crime was on the increase and I think muggings became somewhat common, even in predominantly middle class areas in large cities. The late 80s and very early 90s saw a rise in "carjacking", causing even those who were merely transiting through high-density urban areas to become potential victims.
Since then these phenomnena or at least the reporting seems to have gone down. Personal experience working and visiting New York City and Boston and extensive walking trips at night seems to have backed this up; we never even saw people we'd consider threatening, let alone getting mugged.
Is street crime (muggings, robbery, etc) a more common occurance in middle class areas of Britain?
I'm not enough of a tin-foil hat to worry about the cameras; they're only in public places. If the cameras aren't working then I guess they should go. I'm sure I've heard statistics (how anecdotal ;) that say they've done a good job. If not I guess I have no more objection to them going away than I did to having them arrive, although I do feel safer if I know they are about.
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
The 4 million plus cameras also provide coach potatoes with something to watch on a Tuesday evening...
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
As a councillor who participates in decisions about deploying these cameras ...
The deterrent effect is debated. However there are some effects which are for real and not open to debate:
(1) When a perp is caught on camera they are more likely to plead guilty and save lots of time and money in the court system. (This is why the court system puts up some of the cost of the cameras.)
(2) People who have been suspected of an offence have been proved not to be guilty by camera footage, thus eliminating the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
(3) The people like the cameras and keep asking for more of them.
And the main benefit:
(4) Fear of crime is reduced.
It's not the level of actual crime that makes little old ladies to frightened to leave their houses in the evening to go to the bingo, it's fear of crime. Sticking up cameras does not reduce the number of little old ladies who are mugged on their way to bingo (because this crime is pretty well non-existent to start with) but it does make the old ladies feel confident to go out, which is a significant improvement in their quality of life.
I was robbed last Saturday afternoon in the Tesco supermarket in Eastleigh (Hampshire, England), losing the electric kettle that I'd just bought from another shop (crime #1377/04). Basically I put it down for a minute and it was gone. It only cost about $25, but the same criminal may well go on to steal from hundreds more people.
The crime happened in a shop with security cameras, within a shopping mall with security cameras, within a town centre with more security cameras.
I know when the theft occurred and I gave a description within minutes to representatives of the store, mall and police. I even visited the mall's security centre, with a duplicate of the stolen kettle in an identical bag, and spoke to the staff who watch the video feeds.
Everyone denied having any useful video information and the police representative at their call centre was friendly but dismissive.
I don't know what security cameras are really for, but they don't seem to be useful in fighting crime.
Surveillance cameras are essential in solving crimes.
Surveillance cameras may be helpful in solving crimes, but they are hardly essential. Or do you seriously suggest that before the introduction of CCTV no crimes were solved?
I live in a British town that pioneered public CCTV. We were the first at pilot a scheme back in the 80s, and I know a of the people around here, a few council members and some coppers and what their views on this are.
The biggest problem is COST. Some of the cameras are now almost 20 years old, and are starting to show their age. The original 8 million to install them is now 30 or 40 million to replace them all.
Over the years the cost of staffing the monitors, archiving and erasing tapes and so on has also added a huge cost.
So what are the benefits? Well for the most part an increase in solved crimes (convictions). But the argument that you solve more crime by being aware of more crime is an odd one. Largely its petty vandalism, common assault (street fights) and crap like that. Their value in combatting serious crime or terrorism is very low, in 20 years I cannot a single serious crime solved in this town directly due to CCTV evidence - I might be wrong, but surely I would remember _one_.
When the cameras first went up the town was very split over it. Many cameras were smashed and crime _against_the_cameras_ actualy went up for a while. After that people kinda got used to them. The truth is that very few of them are actually switched in anymore, you can see from the rusty water bleeding from their sides and the fact that no LEDs are active on them anymore.
The network is slowly falling apart. I see the same job for 'surveilence observer' at $6/hour offered every week and no takers.
It was an interesting experiment. For a while we all felt safer and petty street crime fell, but now we are left with a dilapidated system that will cost millions to update/replace and very few
real convictions as a result of it.
Spending that money on putting some more coppers on the street would have been a lot better.
I think Westminster's system is one of the most effective. Their area covers some very high crime areas (leicester square, oxford circus). They claim a 51% decrease in street crime and a 12% increase in crime clearup rates after installing a vast CCTV system.
It's mainly used to better target the limited number of police available - it's not just about deterrence and after-the-fact clear up , it's well enough integrated and implemented that they can spot pickpockets and muggers as they move in to commit a crime and direct nearby police to arrest them.
Like the subject says. If you've got 4 million surveilance cameras, who's doing the surveilling? Criminals know that it's not possible for someone to be watching all the time, so they go ahead and commit their crimes. It would have been better if the UK police had been more selective in where they placed the cameras -- areas with known crime problems. Also, areas that because of their geography and arrangement, are prone to crime (think alleyways). In a way, you don't want cameras in areas favored by suicide bombers, as the tapes eventually get on TV and give the terrorists publicity. Chip H.
I realise your politics are uhmm...different but how can any post containing the phrase "AmeriNazi government under Shrub" be insightful?
Troll or Flamebait maybe.
"Shrub" is a nick name bestowed on our president by a notoriously drunken ugly old hag agitator named Molly Ivins.At one time a serious American leftist journalist Ms Ivins has been displaying signs of severe alchoholic dementia for several years now.
The constant litany of Bush=Hitler discredits any worthwhile insight that maybe found in a post.
Bush is not Hitler by American political standards he is a right-of-center moderate.
The UK does not have mandatory DNA sampling as such. However, you are required to give a swab (of saliva) if you are arrested and charged with a crime.
This makes a lot of sense - the police can see if your DNA matches with previous crimes, and connect crimes you might commit in the future to you.
Presumably following the trend, you see many london buses have cameras installed in them, and signs letting you know about that.
A few years ago while on a bus in London late at night (number 52 towards Kensal Green) I was mugged. Of course I spoke to the police, and amongst other things asked if they could get the photos/video from the bus.
They investigated. The answer? The cameras aren't real - they are dummies there as a deterrent. I wonder if having a fake camera is better or worse than no camera - the public feels safer but I bet most of the criminals know they are fake. The worst of both worlds?
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I'll take the bait.
The UK weather sucks, it rains more and is colder than in Belgium.
UK transport sucks. Trains are shitty and expensive, roads are congested. Belgium has good public transport and only moderate congestion at times.
The UK is insular compared to the cultural mix in Belgium. Many people here speak two, three languages, and cities like Brussels are rich and varied, even while they're quite small.
Belgian taxes are painful. But the Belgian tax service is always happy to negotiate. UK administration is efficient and minimalistic but if you make a mistake you can get in serious trouble.
Belgian girls are way cuter than British girls, who put on too much makeup and tend to look cheap and nasty. Or fat and pasty. I could never go for that 'fair English rose' type. Belgian girls range from the blonde northern (repeat after me: "Hmmm, blondes" in a Homer voice) to the dark hispanic. This, actually, was the reason I stayed in Belgium.
Belgian beer is of course an inspiration to drinkers everywhere. There are some good beers in the UK these days but they're largely inspired by Belgian brews, and honestly, if you've never tried a triple-hopped Orval, you don't know what _real_ beer can taste like.
The Belgian music scene is amazing: underground and frantic: electro jazz, trance, salsa, jazz, congolese-arab fusion, it's just eclectic and vibrant.
The UK has these ridiculously paternalistic ideas about forcing people to drink only within certain hours, resulting in a nation of binge drinkers. Amateur alcoholics! Belgians drink professionally.
Brussels is 1.5 hours by train from Paris, from London, from Amsterdam. If you can't get what you want in Brussels, it's simple to find it.
Belgium has a relaxed attitude to soft drugs, meaning young people can enjoy themselves without becoming criminals.
The UK has the English. Belgium has Dutch tourists. OK, par on that one.
The Belgians got over their empire ages ago. We do not believe it's our moral obligation to topple foreign dictators just because they pull faces at us.
The UK strip searches asylum seekers and tourists who are pigmentally gifted. My Congolese sister in law had a full anal probe last time she visited the UK. "Stiff upper lip, old girl!" Belgium gives them 30 days to leave the country, and then forgets about them.
I could go on, but I'm going to go to the Pain Quotidienne on Dansaertstraat to have a breakfast: espresso, dark bread, fresh orange juice, one egg.
Have a nice day!
Ceci n'est pas une signature
It is like saying because crimes were solved before DNA it is now not an essential tool for the justice system.
In fact these new technologies are becoming more essential as we are less willing to convict people because they are the wrong color. Sure we could just fry the closest black to a rape or murder again but I prefer that we use DNA profiling and CCTV to catch the real criminals.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
People in America have quoted statistics like your "six times more likely.." one, when I've been over there. Your source sounds a bit loony to me when I read it but hey it's probably true, I understand NY has seriously been cutting it's crime recently.
Despite that, your Average American is still 7 times more likely to get murdered than me (a Brit) and 60 (yes, 60) times more likely to get shot.
I think I'll still support our gun laws, thanks.
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
And when you point your camera back at the surveillance cameras, what happens then?
Bring enough money for bail.
And why do only the commons need protection? Certain the President needs constant surveillance and a nation of witnesses? And certainly those who favor surveillance wouldn't mind their own specific cameras to keep them safe, and allow those of us who can take care of ourselves a little privacy?
The hypocrisy of the arguments for surveillance is a little short of disgusting when my own government keeps secrets from me.
In short, fuck you.
The article mentions one extreme case in wich CCTV solved the case and others here have mentioned more. There have also been several BBC programs wich showed CCTV in action and it looked like it was giving the police a lot of help when used properly, meaning used by cops in direct communication with cops on the beat.
Als lets face it in a country like england half a billion is peanuts. More is spend on practically any kind of goverment purchase.
So next time don't use a headline as the basis of your post. Read the article and learn that CCTV is still being tested out as to how it should be used and how effective it is.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You are indeed more likely to get roughed up wandering around London's dark streets in the small hours than in New York. No argument there.
You are also more likely to get killed in New York than in London. You are FAR MORE LIKELY to get killed in the USA capital than in the UK capital. Lets compare like with like after all.
Your choice guys, but frankly I'd rather be roughed up than killed. Just like the USA, btw, the figures for outside the capital are not even vaguely related. There are still much better odds of survival in the UK than the USA.
Yeah I know, mod me down. Yadda yadda.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
http://www.azlyrics.us/145700
I think that a lot of people who don't live with CCTV (and haven't seen all the British fly on the wall docus about its use) misunderstand the practice.
Typically, CCTV takes one of two forms:
In either sense, it's not really surveillance in the way the one usually thinks of it. The cameras are there, but practically all of the footage never gets watched. Your movements aren't tracked. As for voyeurism, if you do something in a public place then it's probably pretty public anyway. I'm not a proponent of the "But if you've got nothing to hide" point of view, I just don't think that CCTV as it's mostly used in the UK is an invasion of privacy. There is a difference between being watched and being monitored/tracked. British citizens in public places may be almost constantly watched, but they're certainly not monitored.
Now, a massive face-tracking database, that would be different. But that's not an issue of direct surveillance, that's a question of how data is linked together and used by powerful organisations. In reality, most of those cameras are not linked together in some kind of all-powerful network across the country. A very significant proportion are in fact operated by private companies on their own premises: not by Big Brother at all.
Where the presumption of innocence and the right to a jury has been removed[1] and I do believe that the current labour government really do want to make 1984 real in Britain today.
2 5. stm
The CCTV cameras don't stop crime, the speed cameras don't stop speeding; The number of deaths on the roads was decreasing gradually year on year *until* they started rolling out thousands and thousands of speed cameras, the rate hasn't fallen since.
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/34641
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
People seem to think that the cameras are everywhere which isnt true. Generally there are no cameras in residential areas (well not mine, atleast) they are in the busy parts such as Oxford Circus where there are lots of shops (and a man with a megaphone who keeps saying "are you a sinner, or a winner?" he scares me) and Liecester sq where there are lots of drunk girls who think they look hot. AFAIK the data protection act covers video, so technically no-one should be showing me scratching my crotch on some tv compilation show. Personally id rather have more real police on the streets especially in more residential areas where the muggings tend to happen but hey, its not like Blair would listen to us! i mean who do we think we are? voters??
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Please understand the cultural norms are different in Britain to America; people feel comfortable with the concept of CCTV in public but would be horrified at the way detailed information about your life is available to corporations etc. The Data Protection Act is surprisingly powerful.
I think the issue is that only the serious tinfoils object to individual cameras. With every second person on the street having a camera phone etc, it would make life rather difficult! It is more the systemization which perhaps is a legitimate concern. Even people with something to hide generally don't care too much about the cameras because it is quite clear that given private ownership etc linking the information up would be a time consuming task. When this changes (as is now technologically possible I guess) then perhaps it is time to start worrying a bit.
I stopped reading your drivel at this line :
"The Government of the United Kingdom evidently thinks it's people are an untrustworthy bunch of morons, uncapable of wielding deadly force in a just manner."
That statement is ludicrous. The choice to not bear arms comes not from any government as a deliberate form of mass control but from the cultural background of its people.
The USA is the exception with its "right" to bear arms for all. England has had its own civil wars, thank you very much. The people against the people. Google for Cromwell and get a clue.
When these wars came to an end, the people decided that strife and murder was something they'd rather not embrace as a way of life but leave to their armies to employ as a last resort. Normal people just want to get on with their lives.
How an American (I'm assuming you are one) can come along and can somehow claim that the rest of the world is wrong for not having the right to bear arms, makes me want to scream.
Our cultures may not be perfect but we don't have 10s of 1000s of mrders by firearms per year to fear.
There is certainly too much violence in our everyday lives but the last solution I'd consider is turning everyone into a weapon-wielding goon that thinks that blazing away with his guns is some kind of supreme freedom.
Moron.
There seem to be a large number of people who consider CERTAIN laws to be an injustice against them. Note that emphasis on certain. These speeders seem to have no trouble with the law preventing me from driving my fleet of tractors side by side on the highway. Hell most get pretty upset when trucks dare to overtake each other.
Speed camera's exist because people do no obey the speed limit. Rememeber your childhood? "Mom I want to be threathed like a grownup." "Then act like one". Worse even are the people who think speed cameras are tax collectors. Taxes are unavoidable. Speed tickets are easy to avoid. Don't speed.
So on to CCTV. Why is it there? Because people just can't seem to behave when out on the street. When I grew up and you had to go to the toilet you went to the nearest store or goverment building and asked to use the toilet. If unavailable then you went to the park and INTO the bushed and peed there. YOU DID NOT PEE IN PUBLIC AGAINST THE DOOR OF A BUILDING.
We do not want to pay for police to be everywhere and another problem is that if as a citizen you say something about this you can easily end up dead. Several people who said something about misbehavious have ended up dead in holland alone and I do not think that is a local problem.
So we either all learn to behave or impose some really heavy penalties on badly raised people or learn to live with cameras. of course the alternative is living in a lawless unchecked society.
Civilization is a great number of people living together. We need rules to be able to handle that and tools to make sure the rules are obeyed. So far I never heard a single civil liberty fanboy give an alternative. Greenpeace I respect because they give alternatives, even funding the development of electric cars. Civil Liberty groups I detest because they are only ever against.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. There is not enough organisation between the people monitoring the cctvs and anyone who may or may not be interested in the content of the feeds for there to be any real risk of you being busted doing anything you, for what ever reason, shouldnt be.
2. Its a bit more than petty to bother to grab and post images and footage of people for no real reason, besides which the person who lifted the images/footage from the source are no doubt not permitted to do so in their terms of employment, in addition iirc its actually a criminal offence in the UK to do so without authority.
3. You are assuming that the feeds will be monitored constantly, or their their recordings of the feed, if the feeds are even being recorded at the time, at all often get looked at by anyone. In most cases the footage would only be looked at if there is a need to go back over the recordings. The manpower needed to do this on any large scale would quickly balloon to frightening levels as you would want people to constantly concentrate on single feeds on the off chance that something of import can be seen on it.
My other OS is also FreeBSD
Why don't you take your Jew-hating,watermelon and chicken eating stereotypes elsewhere?
...which basically spawned all the rights that were formalized in the USA's written one.
Unfortunately, both constitutions appear to be worth not much more than the paper they're written on. In the UK, the current socialist government is engaged in tearing up the "ancient rights of Englishmen", due to a complete incomprehension of their purpose -- and in the USA... well, PATRIOT act, need I say more.
Ask the government to protect you: ask the fox to guard the hen house.
Create a constitution: require the fox to promise on his honor to be good -- said promise to be enforced by the fox, at his sole discretion, upon himself.
Yet there are four million surveillence cameras?
How many kids did Joe Smith kill before he was caught on a video surveillance camera?
How many more kids would he have killed if he had noticed that camera before abducting Carlie?
A schoolmate of mine was nearly killed when a mugger pushed him off of a 4 or 5 meter retaining wall at a beach in England. The whole thing was caught on CCTV, but they never found the perp.
So if these things failed at that, are they really going to catch anybody? Are there statistics on how many people they have caught?
Civil protests, alternative polical parties, etc. are not inherently illegal. It's this kind of overreaction to the Patriot Act which makes everyone laugh at you (you=group). The government can't track you unless you're a criminal. It's a waste of resources on their end. Do you realize how much computer data would be generated every minute of every day? If cameras where *everywhere*, then every person (300+ million) would be seen on at least a dozen a mintue. That creates about 60 million scans, lookups, and loggings per second, or 2,000,000,000,000,000 per year (the numbers may be somewhat random, but they give a rough idea). Then consider the infrastructure needed to get it working - we'd need tons of cameras (I'm assuming hundreds of millions, if not billions), and every one would need a high-quality broadband connection (probably fiber) which goes back to a local router which connects to the mainframe. Next, realize that unlike phone and cable operators, the government wouldn't have any income off of this (the American public would not let that data be sold). The government doesn't spend unless there's a return. While looking for criminals might be feasible 50-100 years from now if the economy is way up and tech is dirt cheap, I don't think the general public has anything to fear.
G
The argument that it's ok because you have nothing to hide doesn't wash, simply because if you truly believed that, you'd have no objection to 24/7 surveillance in your home and everywhere else.
After all, if you were watched 24/7, and you were then murdered, we'd be 100% certain of having the perpetrator on camera, right? So surely it's a benefit to watch you all the time?
What if you were old and frail and slipped in the shower? Be nice to have some remote "camera angel" to watch over you and alert the medics, right?
How about a camera in your bedroom? After all, lots of people die in their sleep. Why not mandate an infrared camera which can sense your heartbeat as well, so if you had a heart attack, you'd have instant medical dispatch to your home, increasing your survival chances markedly.
Oh, you don't like the idea of having your every move on camera? You cherish your privacy after all?
Now you begin to understand why the surveillance society is a BAD thing. Pre-crime is closer than you think.
Visceral Psyche Films
obviously, the situation is different here than in London, so we are talking apples and oranges, but, in the larger scope of things, there are so many problems inherent in the deployment of said surveillance cams that it's not a simplistic, black and white issue like so many people seem to prefer:
ideally, surveillance cams can be helpful tools in preventing/solving crimes, but the problem is in how they are deployed, and who is watching the watchers...
civil and personal rights are literally at the bedrock of the US Constitution, so much so, that they are taken for granted by our citizens, many of whom would gladly give them up for a free EggMcMuffin...
I think most people fear this camera creep, because right now it concentrates the power of surveillance in the hands of the minority - the police and/or private security firms, at a time when the major western governments are at the low point with public trust.
I too hate surveillance and consider it an invasion of privacy, but I would relent on one condition - that instead of having only a minority do the surveillance, allow everyone to have full access to all public camera footage, in real time. Open it all up to public scrutiny, and you're bound to have a thousand times as many eyes watching, plus you get the added benefit of knowing that since everyone is watching everyone else, corruption is less likely to occur in the system. This scenario also prevents any future totalitarian government from usurping the system for its own ends, because the system will be in the hands of everyone, not just a privileged few. How many current politicians do you think would support such a system? I'd wager not many, precisely because then THEY would be put in the spotlight.
Any politician who supports surveillance camera technology should be mandated to be under surveillance themselves, at all times, and I say this from a perspective of running for politics this year myself (www.neteffect.org.au). And no, I don't advocate surveillance cameras, because I think the right to privacy and anonymity outweighs any benefit in cutting down crime.
Visceral Psyche Films
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I used to work with a professional photographer. You cannot ramdomly film people. If you photograph me without my permission, I will walk right up to you and demand the roll of film to be destroyed before my eyes and if not, I will get a policeman to do it for you. That's the law in America. Maybe you ought to read up on law before opening your mouth.
In other words, instead of being a place where there is a rather low but more uniform chance of a crime taking place, a given public space now has areas where the odds are much lower, and areas where the odds are much higher. This has been true for a long time: there have always been good neighborhoods and rough neighborhoods, always been unwholesome back alleys, but one can readily identify and rank the risk.
Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to tell the difference between a monitored and an unmonitored area---unless, of course, you are actively looking for cameras. This means that it is more difficult for individuals to determine the risk when moving through a given space. A criminal, however, can stake out a good location well in advance, simply by finding all the cameras.
One has to wonder what effect this would have on a population, transitioning from a society where there is a persistent, low-grade risk of crime, to one where there is an intermittent, high-grade risk.
This is not my sandwich.
You are FAR MORE LIKELY to get killed in the USA capital than in the UK capital.
I can't deny this. I can't deny the stats about getting killed in NY either. But they do have one thing in common with London.
Guns are completely, and utterly, banned. Well, okay, you can get them legally with the right political connections, but essentially they're banned. So again, only criminals have them.
Thank you for proving my point. You're worse off were guns are banned than not.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Assume one of them ever needs money, they might be tempted to sell their CCTV footage, causing scandal or blackmailing.
Doesn't anyone remember how everyone was outraged when it was shown in the media that nations such as East Germany had cameras installed all over public places. Now we know why they had done that during the communist totalitarian era it was just to prevent crime. I just can't wait till cameras are installed everywhere so we can be all "nice and safe".
Privacy, thanks.
Just because you got nothing to hide doesn't mean someone should know where you are at all times, or what you're doing.
Think about the most embarrassing time of your life. Now put it on camera. Still like the idea of big brother? Not to mention the leaked big brother footage of them in compromising situations....the stuff they didn't put on tv.
Since when is London = UK?
Democracy is not destroyed by cameras.
This is an argument that doesn't even make sense.
This speaks to the paranoid mind, who believes that the police are after you and your dissenter friends.
In truth, the police could care less about you until you commit a crime. They're busy. They have no time to sit around in squad cars and think about this "grand conspiracy" that you, and others allude to and speak of.
Democracy is destroyed when we give them the rights to not let us be heard in government. Not when we have the opportunity to be seen in public. This whole being "observed and controlled" in a public place is rubbish. They are not using that information as promoting you as a dissenter and placing your face on a projection wall some where publicly... they are trying to slow and stop criminal activity in some hight crime areas. They are watching for criminal activity. There are these things, called cars, that patrol looking for criminal activity too. They have officers in them. Those officers look for criminal activity. This may sound like a new concept, but the police actually seek out criminals.
Adding electronic eyes to the system that is designed to protect the public, IN THE PUBLIC, is only a natural progression of the technology.
If you think that your right to vote, your rights to fair trial, your personal property rights, and your opportunities for advancement and personal happiness in the system are being destroyed by this, then you need to focus your attention on the legislators and MPs in your area, not the beat cops that are trying to keep the streets safe.
This is not only a misapplied argument, it makes no sense. They are not bugging your house. This is a public place. The authorities are looking for only one thing... crime. Not dissenters against their overarching conspiracy.
You wouldn't complain when someone snatches your purse or steals your car in front of the camera. You'd scream like crazy for the video so that the police will right the way you were wronged or get your property back.
Please stop it with the tinfoil conspiracies.
Like many millions in the UK, I also carry a position tracking device. This allows anyone (possibly for a small fee) to know my location at any time to with an accuracy down to about 100 metres. To do this, however, they'll need to know my mobile phone number.
I take it you've never looked at the images on one of those security tapes. Most of the ones I've seen (store cameras) Try to cram 24 hours of footage from 4 cameras on 1 2-hour VHS tape. There's hardly ever enough detail to identify anyone. You can tell what someone did, if you already know who it is (ie the clerk), but not who someone is.
Just incase you didn't already know it, the scenes on TV where they zoom in and "enhance" images from surveilance tapes are blown way out of porportion. Reality doesn't even come close.
Two words about personal privacy in public, forget it. I spent almost ten years as a news photographer in the US and know that as soon as someone steps "into the public view" they are fair game to be photographed and have that photo published for non-advertising purposes.
p
I now live and work in London and over the course of the past three years our company has been burgled on six separate occasions, with losses in excess of 100K. Each time the perpetrators were duly captured on CCTV, each time the tapes were handed over to the police, each time no arrests were made.
True, there have been several high-profile cases where CCTV footage led to the apprehension of some very nasty people. However, I'd like to know how many cases are cracked because of the cameras that might otherwise go unsolved.
Additionally, I would question the deterrence argument. Certainly in our case having cameras dotted around the building didn't prevent our break-ins. And according to the BBC "rates for assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft were all lower in America (with few cameras) than in England and Wales (with lots of them)."
At the beginning of this thread someone mentioned that after the cameras in their neighbourhood were installed, they forgot all about them. I would imagine the pickpockets and muggers forget about them too and just go about their business as usual. If they do ponder them at all, they might justly reason that being watched is not the same as being caught.
In 2002 the Home Office produced statistics that showed that crime fell in 13 of 24 locations after CCTV cameras were installed but that crime rates rose "significantly" in four others. I believe this is the same report quoted in the CSM article that states, "A government review 18 months ago found that security cameras were effective in tackling vehicle crime but had limited effect on other crimes. Improved street lighting recorded better results."
As for speed cameras... After living in the UK for almost four years I have now learned to do what the Brits do, slow down for the cameras (painted florescent orange, thank you!) and speed like crazy in between; safe in the knowledge that immobile cameras have, by and large, replaced random cops with radar guns. Not the best system for preventing carnage on the motorways but seemingly a very profitable source of revenue.
Here are some interesting (and admittedly biased) statistics and comments: http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.ph
IMHO, CCTV and speed cameras offer an illusionary gain in security while providing governments a way of appearing proactive in regards to crime prevention and motorway safety.
The surveillance cameras in England are the wave of the future that is feared by the rich and powerful here in America. They fear that it may be used against them in the future. Thus, they are paying for media propaganda to stop the cameras.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Funny how I totally reject your opinion that a proud nation requires that its citizens be armed but I agree with you that blame must be allotted where blame belongs.
Like I said to the other guy, I agree with some statements and not with others you guys have been making.
I disagree that there is anything special about the USA being *inherently* racist. All nations are, it's a function of the animal instinct of survival.
Want some examples of racism in civilised countries and which never get a mention ?
#1, in Japan, white man goes to hot tub in the sauna, all the Japanese occupants leave because it's an accepted notion that gaijin are unclean.
#2, in Saudi arabia, it is a punishable offence to exercise one's non-Islamic religion in private.
That's only two, the list is long. America is no more racist than any other country out there.
I prefer NO cameras. Period.
Fearful people will gain selfconfidence when they feel they're being supervised by camera surveillence. And they will become safer, less apparently victims, regardless of any action by anyone monitoring. As they realize that these cameras aren't actually effective, their fear will return, selfconfidence will disappear, and their safety will diminish. Hopefully some people will get a "break in the action", and hold on to their newly selfconfident egos, but the camera mojo will abandon practically all of them. And the decrease in selfreliance and autonomy the cameras present will further undermine their actual security. After a while, the cameras will do more harm than good, unless there's a manageable feedback from the monitoring to corrective actions by the monitors.
--
make install -not war
This is too far into the threaded comments to troll effectively.
Hell, it could be so easy for the DA to indict that the cops could stop for more doughnuts on the way to the scene. It would be a damn sight easier (and safer for the officers involved) to collect the evidence long after the "perp" was done and gone... especially in violent cases like assault and murder.
This article has nothing to do with ONLINE RIGHTS. Boo.
Oh, I bet surveillance cameras in Britain are effective.
They're probably effective at making people feel watched and uneasy whenever they're in any public space, on the reasonable basis that they might be being watched and recorded.
They're probably effective in wearing away (a big lop this time) at the idea that governments should exist to serve citizens, rather than the other way around.
As you were, citizens.
timoMPPHGHGHAPHAAaaauuugh!
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
This assumes that there is always going to be a dork sitting in front of the video screen.
:v)
Unfortunately, that is not always going to be true. One day it may be Diebold running the neural network that watches your everyday movements in the name of Homeland Security.
Vik
I disagree, we don't put a rapist in a prison cell for revenge, or to comfort the victim, any more than we do it to deter other rapists. The main reason why we put people like that in prison is to make sure they don't harm society like that again. Maybe it feels like personal revenge to them, because they are in a shitty situation. Maybe the family feels comfort in that they know someone else won't suffer in that way, maybe other people see the consequences of his choices and decide not to do it. - All those are consequences of justice, not justice in and of itself. The justice comes from society being able to more effectively secure their freedoms from the choices of those who wish to take them away.
Confusing justice with revenge is dangerous, because justice and revenge tend to be mutually exclusive. Revenge is more focused on someone else suffering, justice is more focused on bad choices not being made again. Revenge tends to pass arround the problem, justice tends to get to the root of it. Although it may feel otherwise to people, the simple fact is justice never leads to revenge and revenge never leads to justice. Justice tends to revolve arround choices and facts, revenge tends to revolve arround feelings and subjective things. Justice tends to teach people to be more just, revenge tends to teach people to be more vengfull.
So if you want revenge, then fine. But please don't call it justice, that is really a slap in the face, and belittles the millions of people who have suffered from crimes, but never have had the comfort to know justice. That their loss was for a greater good other than just to see some looser squirm.
Anyone else read the story title as "Surveillance Cameras in Brain Not Effective?" I wouldn't have thought they would be....
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
The analogy breaks down. The second amendment is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most fundamental is: it's the wrong approach entirely.
To arm yourself against the government is as silly as arming your right hand against your left. If your left hand is hitting you, just stop doing it. Government is a "mime's glass wall", it exists solely because of the actions and beliefs of the only real agents, human individuals. It's unhelpful and unneccessary, but it's wanted. Were that to change, if enough people simply ceased believing in it, it would no longer exist.
You see a thief on camera, whack him! All citizens would have to spend time on line monitoring national cameras, shooting thieves. I'd let my kid do it:
"If it looks like a thief..."
"Blast the thief!"
"Blast the thief!"
"Blast the thief!"
You got three!
See, no more crime!
This is my sig.
Actually, no "witches" were burned in America. From http://www.salemwitchtrials.com/faqs.html
In other news: Feds win rights to war protesters records
Of course, if you don't plan to ever disagree with your government, you don't have anything to fear...
all that britian has is a gaint speed trap. As long as they aren't running red lights or speeding, the terrorists in Britain won't get cuaght.
In the end, if you have cameras, you have to trust the people monitoring the cameras. If you don't have cameras, you don't have anyone to abuse that trust.
Absolutely *everything* can be abused, without exception. The justice system (frivolous lawsuits, framing people for crimes they didn't commit), the government (pork-barrel legislation, apartheid laws, gerrymandering), banks (Enron, etc), parenthood (child abuse), the list is... a list of everything.
And everything has *already* been abused, with the exception of stuff that's new. Cameras are new. Or at least they're new-ish. Expect reports of abuse soon; then you'll know the shine is gone.
What happens next? A law is passed, a bureaucracy is set up, and government grows a little larger.
What should be done about it? Well, I belive the historical solution is to pack up and move. The Mayflower comes to mind. Get a bunch of like-minded individuals together and get away from the rest of society. Start your own society. Eventually your own society will evolve and develop the very same warts you were trying to escape. But for a while, there will be no warts.
But can we do it? There's the problem. There aren't any uninhabited (or should I say ungoverned) continents left. I guess space is the final frontier... or the ocean, or underground.
Moral of the story: History repeats itself.
Because of the poor image quality, video cameras are useful for substantiating eyewitness accounts, but they're not very useful for deterring or identifying criminals. The police still have to catch someone red-handed for the video evidence to be useful.
Flawed or not, it's still the law of the land. Don't like it? Go ahead and try to change it.
Why? It's just some stuff some guys made up. I don't believe in it. That was my point, in my previous post.
Self defence is a natural right; I'd consider a law purporting to grant it to me as insolent, if I considered it at all.
I won't even address the rest of your post. It is so naive that I had to doublecheck to see if you were indeed the same person who made the eloquent point in the original post.
Yup, all my opinions, and I don't consider them naive.
Because it solves another problem, that of no or conflicting eye-witness reports.
Solved crimes are prevented crimes, because criminals in jails aren't going to reoffend while in jail.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You haven't been paying attention. NYC gun control is almost as bad as the UK- only the rich and famous can carry guns legally. So the common, law abiding citizen is left defenseless to criminals who don't obey gun laws, or any other. Again, proves my point. Banning guns make an area more dangerous because crooks don't fear for their lives from honest folk.
America is just basically a much more brutal and violent society than than the rest of the civilised world.
Parts of America are uncivilised- specifically, large parts of black america in specific geographical locations. Save the racist accusation and look in the rest of this thread for more info. Take out the uncivilized portion, and the crime rates are rather comparable. Most of America is probably more civilized than your precious european countries.
Access to healthcare and education throughout life removes the desperation that seems to purvey whole sections of American society
Do you mean to tell me that because folks can't go see a ritzy doctor when they have a cold, they're driven to crime? That's a load of horseshit. Emergency rooms already have to take care of anyone who shows up, regardless of ability to pay.
As for education, the worst performing schools are often the best funded. It's not money, it's the dedication of the students, and of the parents to make the students work hard. Many inner city schools have degraded into teenage daycare because no one cares to learn. They have plenty of access, but by and large refuse to step through the door.
Pathetic. Now you're whining because success is too hard? Buddy, if it wasn't hard, it wouldn't be worth anything. If you just simply care to exist, then that can be accomplished rather cheaply. Just ask the bums under the bridge. If you care to have basic housing, hygene, and healthy food, that can be had for as cheap as $400-500 a month. The greater lifestyle you wish to lead, the more you have to work for it. Cry me a fuckin river if you think it's too much work to have a house and two cars.
Trouble is, crooks don't want to work for it, they just want it. So they decide your wallet is just as valuable as your life, and sell you your life- which isn't theirs- for your wallet- which they haven't earned. That's what's called a 'mugging' You seem to be trying to understand what drives people to crime. Tell me how their behaviour is even remotely justifiable, and why this perverted social contract shouldn't be struck the moment it's proposed by some thug on the street.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Look, if you're a local councillor, I suppose to some extent it's your responsibility to deliver what the people want. But if you're putting them up to calm people's irrational fears surely there has to be cheaper and less invasive methods of doing so.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
One of the things that I always find most telling in an article is the last word. What source gets quoted last, what side gets to put the final, lasting emphasis on the issue. All too often the last word is chosen to be the most direct and "hard hitting" piece.
I was bothered by the fact the last word here was from the pro cctv side who directly lkinked their case to terrorism but without any actual context. It feels too much like the bad arguments here in the U.S. Person A asserts that they oppose attacking Iraq Person B then screas about Terrorism or 9/11 to shut them up.
Mind you I'm not saying that I hated the artuicle as a whole, I'm glad that they did it although I'm supprised that they didn't cite some of the material availible at EPIC on the topic. It just felt like the balance was trhown off by that conclusion. That the author intended to leave a lasting pro-cctv impression.
I'm expecting to hear any day that one of the CCTV "watchers" has been misusing CCTVs in a given area to stalk unsuspecting citizens.