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
Oh, no. Not the "I have nothing to hide" argument.The idea that only criminlas need be concerned about this sort of thing is dangerously complacent. We all need to ask whether or not giving up some of our privacy is worth it. We need to look at the costs and benefits, and the benefits seem to be unclear.
Mod parent up!
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!
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.
It's actually the "why do I give a shit?" argument. I used to live in a town of 6000 and they had 3 cameras up along the high street there. I walked down that street maybe 8 times a week for 3 years, and didn't have my life impacted one iota by the cameras present. In fact, the first week after they were constructed, I'd forgotten they were even there.
You tell me I lost privacy there - surely I also lose privacy on any street in the world I walk down that has anybody else walking down it at the same time. The whole point of public is that it is open to all. I'm also sure I don't need to remind you that public is the opposite of private.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
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
Are you implying the US constitution prevents such things? It no longer does, and hasn't for quite some time.
Patriot act? Drug war? Internment camps? Communist trials? Witch burnings? It goes back forever.
Those in power manage to convince the people that some violations of the constitution are for their own good, and anyone who speaks out about it is a bad guy.
You can say "Oh well the supreme court can eventually overturn it.."
Guess what. In places like Britain, they may do some things you think the constitution would prevent. They can also much more easily STOP doing those things... it's more rational.
I walked down that street maybe 8 times a week for 3 years, and didn't have my life impacted one iota by the cameras present.
Not yet you didnt - now I am just being hypothecial here...
1. 12 photos of you picking your nose are posted to a website
2. 5 photos and one 14 second video posted of you scratching your ass
3. Evidence that you left work early 30 minutes on the 15th of May 2005 to go and pick up some dry cleaning - why you didnt record this on your timesheet?
4. Who was that woman you were talking to on the 18th of November. This isnt a criminal matter of course, but your wife is now interested.
5. You spent 45 minutes in a competitors shop, and walked out with 2 shopping bags - nothing criminal here, but how does this look to your boss?
I could go on, but basically there *are* issues with 24/7 camera monitoring which affect peoples privacy. I certainly see the benefits of them (catching the kidnappers/murderers/rapists), but I dont think you should say "I didn't do anything wrong so I've got nothing to hide" - people are basically petty, and can often use the stupidest things against you.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Don't bother replying telling me how you wouldn't have a problem with this. I've actually walked up to strangers in public downtown Dayton for the express purpose of testing my theory. Out of 15 people I got 15 disturbed reactions, and 15 requests denied. I was also twice approached for questioning as to why I was disturbing people by requesting to take their photograph. After the second time I decided it best not to continue my experiment lest I end up being assaulted or thrown in jail.
The pitch line was that I was a photography student, and I needed a person with a downtown neighborhood backdrop for an assignment. It sounded quite plausable, and no one contested my intent once I explained as such. I never really took any photos, as the experiment was to simply test a theory.
What I don't understand is why people don't want their picture taken when the intent to show the beautiful side of humanity, but they don't really care when they are being video taped with the intent to capture their ugliest moments.
Oh, and the cherry on top? They were all being watched by an obvious nearby surveilance camera when they declined my request.
You're going to claim absolute ownership of all of your discarded skin cells, hair cells, etc. for all of the years of your life? Give me a break... But in any case, manditory DNA testing is no more invasive than manditory fingerprinting.
Fingerprinting requires that you be detained -- in effect under arrest. Without a crime, it is considered in most of the world false imprisonment (if not legally, morally).
Fingerprinting no longer (in the US) requires that you be under arrest. Non-US citizens who enter the country (at least on some flights) will be photographed and fingerprinted... without being arrested or even accused of any crime. It's only a matter of time before this gets applied to all people entering the country, and eventually to everyone (on demand).
I get annoyed when cops follow me -- that is a threatening physical form of intimidation, but cameras?
In my opinion, there are two problems with being followed by cops. First, as you said, it is a threatening physical form of intimidation. However, perhaps even more importantly, you most likely haven't done anything wrong. The cop is simply following you while he performs a license plate check, and/or hoping that you will do something wrong so he can pull you over. And why is he following you? It could be something as simple as having an out-of-state license plate, or weaving a little bit, or being the "wrong"/"right" color/gender. This focused attention for trivial reasons can be abused.
Either you are an idiot or a criminal, or a combination of both if you think this effects you in any way.
You are naive if you think that this can't affect you. You complain about cops following you, but if they have cameras installed everywhere, the cops can be tracking you on a continual basis. And as above, this can be for trivial or circumstantial reasons: perhaps your brother is linked to drug dealers who have just been raided, or your girlfriend's brother's friend gave money to an islamic charity that turned out to be a front for a "terrorist" organization, or you're a woman and some creep who has access to the surveillance cameras decides to stalk you... The main point is that this much power to track people will be abused.
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
You have nothing to hide! And you have no reason to fear your benevolent government! Because America is the land of the free and so IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
Oh, I guess it can happen here.
Maybe whatever you do, whoever you are by ideology, political association, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation isn't illegal now.
But that could all change tomorrow -- and it can happen here.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?