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.
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 ~~
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
...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.
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 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.
Actually, no "witches" were burned in America. From http://www.salemwitchtrials.com/faqs.html