Britain is the World's Surveillance Leader

hax0r_par writes "It seems that in Britain, surveillance on the general public is happening and being recorded 24/7. They are playing the angle that this is allowing for criminal surveillance, which seems justified by the article. But it really is something to take into paranoid consideration now that we've got the technology to make this possible."

Comments

Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pete (big-pete)]

I would welcome rather than fear more cameras on the streets in the UK. There is one thing that privacy advocates are forgetting, for there to be an impact on your privacy there needs to be either a person at the other end of the camera, or an automated consequence.

With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all, only the ones that are really relevent - where a crime or suspicious behaviour has already been reported. After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

-- Pete.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Oddly_Drac]

"There is one thing that privacy advocates are forgetting, for there to be an impact on your privacy there needs to be either a person at the other end of the camera, or an automated consequence."

Nope, us privacy advocates understand this problem, and would like to point out that the camera's deterrent nature falls completely off once the first person has undertaken an illegal action under the camera and *not* faced any kind of punitive action. The majority of cameras are run by third party companies where they can be funded. I happen to live in a town where they spent all the money on the cameras and didn't have enough to staff them. Incidentally, the siteing of the cameras is also illegal under the CCTV extensions to the data protection act. But that's okay, they're the government.

"I trust the British government"

Well, I'll continue to be one of those naive privacy advocates until you shift your arse enough to understand that the government doesn't really care if you trust them or not, and that the time when you don't trust the government might be a few days too late to do anything. Also, it should be pointed out that it's local councils that handle cameras outside of the M25, and they've been models of civic pride. Discounting the special deals they make with developers. Or minor cases of corruption.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Ford Prefect]

There's the slight matter of who watches what the cameras produce, and where that footage gets to.

If there were more rigidly enforced rules as to what can be recorded and how it can be used, then perhaps the cameras wouldn't be so bad - instead, you can get filmed by dozens of cameras and not have a clue what's being done with the footage.

Cameras might be helpful in catching criminals, but too many times you see fuzzy, single-frame-per-second, black-and-white video footage of an armed robbery with the police asking if anyone in the public recognises the masked perpetrators...

Then there's the mast-mounted CCTV cameras in town centres and the like, which merely have the effect of shifting crime out of the field of view of the cameras' lenses...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[mccalli]

After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?

Facts as seen by who? Suspicious according to what criteria? Into which context will our activities be placed?

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

Honestly, you trust the government at the moment (I'm also from the UK)? I certainly do not, and by the dramatic plunge in confidence ratings for Labour I'm not alone (not advocating an alternative party, merely pointing out the failings of the one in power).

And yes, let's look at the London congestion scheme. Brought in ostensibly to cure central traffic problems, when revenue undershot expectations they decided to extend the scheme to the suburbs against the wishes of 76% of the inhabitants, and today it's announced they're also raising the price. Trffic problems? Revenue raising.

Also, where do you think the people who used to drive have gone? What's happened to them, what's happened to their quality of life? Or do you feel it is co-incidence that there have been so many Tube failures lately after a surge in passenger numbers and drastic overcrowding on certain lines?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tony Blair, George Bush, Bush, Blair, Bush Blair.

(just thought I'd get a head start)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[piquadratCH]

and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?

Who decides what's illegal and what's suspicious? Not to long ago, some jerk decided that being Jew is illegal. Now imagine what would have happened if he had the means our governments are installing today. Noone can guarantee that there will never again be someone in charge like Hitler or Stalin, so lets at least guarantee that they will not have a preinstalled surveillance network at their disposal...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[famebait]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation

Do you think the cameras will go away if you suddenly get a government you don't trust?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[DarkZero]

I would welcome rather than fear more cameras on the streets in the UK. There is one thing that privacy advocates are forgetting, for there to be an impact on your privacy there needs to be either a person at the other end of the camera, or an automated consequence.

With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all, only the ones that are really relevent - where a crime or suspicious behaviour has already been reported. After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?

Yes, but someone is always looking at some of the cameras, and when they are, who's to say what they're looking at? Are they just leering at tits and ass (as one earlier NYT article reported) or stalking certain individuals just for the juvenile fun of it, or are they seriously ignoring everything else and just paying attention to violence and thievery?

And if the cameras aren't a bad thing, then why don't they put some webcams up with a view of the guys watching the cameras, so that interested persons (like all of those civil liberties groups) can take a look at them? If they can look at us to make sure that we're keeping in line and doing what we're supposed to, then why can't we make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to?

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

Is it the cameras or just the expense? If there was a $9 toll at every entrance and exit to New York City, I'm sure that would cut down on their congestion problems, too. People in the neighboring states already complain about how much it costs just to get to New York City with all the local tolls along the way. If there was a $9 toll on top of that, they just wouldn't go.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[serviscope_minor]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

You trust the government at the moment. Well, that's nice. What about the next government which you don't trust. I guess they'll just go and remove all the cameras then since you don't trust them.

And also, why do you cite the conjestion charges? They were implemented by Ken Livingston, who was voted in despite the Labour party rigging their internal elections so he wouldn't run under their name. He was in fact kicked out of the party as a result of running for (and becoming) tha Mayor (reinstated now, since it makes the Labour party look good to have a guarnteed winning candidate). So your example of a good government which you trust with speed cameras is actually something independend of the government set up by someone expelled from the ruling party.

Well, I'm glad you trust that. I don't.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[severoon]

As in most things, there are two sides to this issue.

Side 1. More cameras don't bother me. When will people realize that what they do in public is in the public domain? It is merely the fact that a person isn't physically there viewing you, but viewing you through a remote connection. What is the difference between that, and if the person were physically there?

To put it another way, if you're on a public beach reading a book, would you feel as if your privacy was being invaded because others might look at that book and know what you're reading? In order that your privacy be maintained, does the beach really have to be empty? Conversely, if the beach is crowded is your privacy more compromised somehow than if it were empty, because more people can see what you like to read?

Of course not...read a book in public, the public will know what you're reading. If you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't do it in public.

If you think cameras mounted around town is the worst "invasion" technology has to offer...just wait. We already have cameras so small they fit in a pair of eyeglasses--in the next hundred years I wouldn't be surprised to see people having devices such as cameras and phones implanted in their bodies. A camera embedded in the eye with a terabyte flash drive could record a lot of video--all day, every day. That means, if I have such an implanted device and I stroll into the men's locker room at the local health club, I could record what I see and open a peep show porno site. Anyone could.

Our ideas will undoubtedly change about privacy. If there's another person around, in the not-too-far-off future, I believe you will have to acquiesce that what they see the world may potentially see.

Side 2. More cameras create a power imbalance. While it is true that the purpose of the cameras is for good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. One must be wary of keeping a proper power balance so that, should someone on the power side decide to misuse their access, they would still be limited to the realm of the reasonable.

For instance, does our Constitution favor the individual over the government, or the other way around? Does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of government and guarantee certain powers and inalienable rights to the government? Do criminals have to prove their innocence, or even show a preponderance of the evidence? (The answer to that last one is: neither--the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard than a simple preponderance of the evidence.)

Why is there an inherent mistrust of government and authority built into our founding document? It is because the Founding Fathers were wise in knowing that nameless, faceless organizations take what they can get and use it to the full extent possible. This is not to place a value judgment on such behavior, it is simply a fact of life because governments, like all organizations consisting of people, include lots of different people with lots of different views on what is and what is not ok. Agreement must be, to some extent, forced upon them when it comes to the invariants of the social contract.

Do cameras everywhere rise to the level of creating a significant power imbalance between the individual and the state? I'm not sure...I see the usefulness of cameras used by private business (banks, convenient stores) and I do not yet feel they've invaded my privacy. Then again, private businesses are owned by individuals, which are usually not organizations that can extend the reach of a government.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think it is necessary to have manpower to look at all the cameras all the time? Did you not RTFA? It is the combination of cameras and digital video storage - and face recognition software for that matter - that makes this so interesting.

Of course you don't have to monitor everything in real time. One day Big Brother gets interested in Joe Bloggs - let's see what Joe's been up to. Crank up the search software and see all movements of Mr Bloggs for the last week, month or whatever.

If you don't believe this is possible then you probably don't believe that Google can search 4 billion pages in 0.001 secs either...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[TyrranzzX]

Think ahead, my young tinfoil hat grasshopper.

Where are all those wires going? Hmmmm? Sure, we can say they're going into local cop shops, but who really knows for sure? Lets say they're going into cop shops, where do they go from there? Lets hook those camera's up into facial, voice, and lisence plate recognition software. What then? Then, lets hook this massive database into a massive multipoint processing system; first process is updating the database, then a daily scoring and filing away, then a weekly complete scanning of entries to identify patterns and update a file, then another system to check those files against potential terrorists.

Then lets replace the word of terrorists, with say, protestors, or mabye those with motive to do crime and terror acts...ahh, poor people, libertarians, all those the elite need to get rid of in order to gain control, those who fight in their own countries for freedom from tyranny.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[NexusTw1n]

I think other countries have to understand the British obsession with binge drinking and random physical drunken violence to appreciate why we don't really care about the amount of CCTV.

When it is just you and a bunch of drunken yobs on the street, you may still get the crap beaten out of you or mugged, but at least with CCTV you stand a good chance of getting them caught and convicted.

We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, all at the cost of some imagined "privacy" while in a PUBLIC place.

CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth, in return there is footage of me scratching my arse while waiting to cross the road , which will be kept for a month or so before being taped over.

Hardly a terrible price to pay all things considered.

When the government passes a law mandating all cameras have to be digital, all digital footage has to be kept forever, and connected to a government face recognition system, then I'll be concerned.

As it stands most footage is erased after a month, and is stored on hundreds of individual unconnected systems. Hardly Big Brother.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[martingunnarsson]

It doesn't matter if the government cares about me trusting them, that's not the point. I agree with the grandparent, I trust the government to use these cameras for a good thing, and I welcome more cameras. I live in Sweden, not the UK, but I don't think that matters.
I don't mind being filmed when I'm in a public place, why would I? I don't have anything to hide. No offence, but I think most privacy advocates should get a more creative hobby.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pete (big-pete)]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

Is it the cameras or just the expense?

The cameras are the only way that the government can enforce the congestion charges. There are no toll gates or places where you are blocked until you pay - you may travel anywhere freely. Hoever, if you enter the congestion charge zone, then your number plate is recorded by the cameras and if you don't pay for that day (using any one of a number of methods), then you get fined.

-- Pete.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

I just moved out of London because I was fed up with the noise and traffic. The amount of traffic was insane - most days I could have walked on stationary cars in a traffic jam the entire mile to the tube station without touching the ground.

The number of times I would walk past some poor pedestrian surrounded by paramedics after being hit by a car was insane. Something had to be done about it.

Almost every car you see is just carrying one person. That's just not sustainable. Charging a toll that's really not that great compared to parking charges is a good way for the city to raise money to pay for upgrading public transport, and to make the car drivers actually pay for the vast damage they are doing.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[rsidd]

I don't mind being filmed in a public place either, and supposing someone does mind, what do you do about it? How do you know you're not being filmed, these days when half the mobile phones have inbuilt cameras? Will you ban such devices? I don't even trust myself to spot every whacking great SLR camera that may be pointed at me. If you're in public, your actions may be noted and recorded, by the government or by someone else; deal with it. If it's the government, and if the result is a safer neighbourhood and a greater likelihood of catching criminals, I'm all for it.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Greg Koenig]

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

-George Orwell, "1984" Chapter 1

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[RussGarrett]

Facts as seen by who? Suspicious according to what criteria? Into which context will our activities be placed?

You could say exactly the same about human witnesses. In the end, if you are wrongly accused due to CCTV footage, that's the fault of the justice system, not of the tools it uses. And if you don't trust the police and the courts, there are deeper problems than just CCTV...

And yes, let's look at the London congestion scheme. Brought in ostensibly to cure central traffic problems, when revenue undershot expectations they decided to extend the scheme to the suburbs against the wishes of 76% of the inhabitants, and today it's announced they're also raising the price. Trffic problems? Revenue raising.

You can't really blame that on Labour, which you seem to be trying to do, since Ken Livingstone was independent until 3 months ago. Anyhow, as a pedestrian in London I've found it much nicer since the congestion charge was introduced. If the tube is overcrowded, what's wrong with taking the bus or, heaven forbid, walking?
It's a vicious circle anyway. The tube has been chronically under-funded (blame the tories if you will), and its capacity and reliability isn't going to increase until there is some serious long-term investment. Which isn't easy to come by these days.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[mo^]

On a side note, and in total agreement with your mistrust of out current administration..

During this years peace rally, for some reason the cameras in central london stopped workign for the duration...

this served 2 purposes IMHO..

1, makes it easier for the government to tell us only 500k attended (even police put it at over 1 million),

2, no footage to support any potential claims of police aggression.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[OAB]

And yes, let's look at the London congestion scheme. Brought in ostensibly to cure central traffic problems, when revenue undershot expectations they decided to extend the scheme to the suburbs against the wishes of 76% of the inhabitants, and today it's announced they're also raising the price. Trffic problems? Revenue raising.

I don't think you can really call Kensington and Chelsea suburbs, I think extending it there is more to do with them being true blue, gets right up Kens nose.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Tim C]

If the tube is overcrowded, what's wrong with taking the bus or, heaven forbid, walking?

For me personally, coming in from Zone 6 to central London every day, neither of those alternatives is feasible.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[SenseiLeNoir]

I live in Harrow, a suburb of London... the CLosed cuircuit TV was first trialed here, in the early/mid 90's, as well as in Bournemouth.... SO you can say i have been living with this for well over a decade.

Harrow itself is one of the more safer areas in terms of crime, and many doubted the reasons for putting such a system in place, but it was a success.. when i walk around Harrow, i very rarely see any vandlaism, or graffitti, as people get caught... it feels safe to walk even at midnight.. although i used to be worried about the big brother aspect of it.. btu i have not seen or heard of one case where the cameras have been used for anythign other than its intended use, public safety...

there has been many cases in the past, where people have been kidnapped, or murdered, and the use of CCTV has been very valubale in the FINDING the criminals..

Survielence is in itslef nto a bad thing, it is only if used for the wrong purposes, that it can be seen bad.. but so far, it has been a success...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[natrius]

That means, if I have such an implanted device and I stroll into the men's locker room at the local health club, I could record what I see and open a peep show porno site.

Porn rule number one: naked females are worth more than naked males. If you've got the technology to stick a camera in your eye, can't you invest a little in a wig, bra and water balloons to sneak your way into the women's locker room?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[gowen]

the camera's deterrent nature falls completely off once the first person has undertaken an illegal action under the camera and *not* faced any kind of punitive action.

Why? That's just bollocks, mate. Suppose I smoke a reefer under a camera, and get off scot free. The fact that the scumbags in the article go to prison still means its a deterrent.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Paddo_Aus]

I remember back in Law School, we did a case study on cameras in Britain. They were initially trialed in one of the worst boroughs. There was a significant drop in crime, especially violent crime. Now whilst any loss of privacy is worrying, remember: when you walk out of your home, everything you do is open to public inspection. Cameras are just like having police officers with perfect memories and a really good vantage point, but at a significantly reduced cost. (And we all hate big tax bills.) A small increase in scrutiny of what I do in public is a small price to pay for living in a significantly safer place.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[stephenbooth]

Why is there an inherent mistrust of government and authority built into our founding document? It is because the Founding Fathers were wise in knowing that nameless, faceless organizations take what they can get and use it to the full extent possible.

Bear in mind that under contemporary definitions your 'Founding Fathers' would have been considered dangerous terrorists.

The founding fathers were pretty much driven by paranoia of a geographically and socially distant government becoming plutocratic and disconnected from the governed. That is why one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is that of the states to raise and train a civil militia (and the right of the civilians to keep and bear arms for participation in that militia) to oppose and even overthrow the federal government. Given their experiences such paranoia could be considered some what justified.

Stephen

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[JWSmythe]

If a crime happens somewhere close to where you are, and you match the vauge description given by witnesses to that crime? Then you are guilty. At very least, you'll be explaining why you were there, and trying to explain that you didn't do the crime.

When I was in high school, a teacher did an exercise with us. A person walked into the classroom screaming, and "hit" the teacher (a fake punch). The teacher fell down, and the guy ran out of the room. The teacher then stood up and said, "Now write down what you just saw, including a description of the other guy". There were 30 students in the classroom, and none of them wrote an accurate description of him. To prove the point, the guy came back in, and everyone read their descriptions of him to him.

Most people are terrible witnesses, unless they are focused on details rather than reacting to the situation. Almost nobody focuses on details of the person.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Tim C]

Whereabouts did you live? I've lived in London for about 10 years, in various areas, studying and working in Central London the whole time, and I've seen maybe one accident (cyclist hit by a bus).

Sure, I've seen a lot of traffic james - when I lived in Clapham Junction, for example, in the mornings I'd regularly beat the bus walking to the station (10 minutes walk, give or take) even when starting out at exactly the same time (ie it was right there when I started walking), but my overall experience couldn't be more different than yours.

a toll that's really not that great compared to parking charges

That's a good point, and one I've not seen made before - parking fees in Central London are *insane*. You can easily pay 4 or 5 times the congestion charge to park for a day, depending on the area.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[oolon]

Don't forget to add the "oyster" cards used on London transport to the sevalance net. All have a unique IDs in them and the data is retained for 5 years. Every time you get on a bus, train or on or off a tube the date and place is record, to make people use them the are increasing the price of single tickets relative to "Oyster" prepay and of course you need to give a name and address to get one of those cards. "Oyster" cards also have RF tags in them so I would not be supprised to see readers for them in other places. Ken Livingstone (Elected Mayor of Greater London, NOT the mayor of the City of London) is on record staying he was more than happy to hand over any data the police required even without a warrant. But there again he does after all control the police.

James

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Armchair Dissident]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges [wikipedia.org] (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.

With respect, this is the same government that introduced the RIP act. When they later attempted to expand the act, they were forced to back down due to popular protest. They later expanded it anyway.

This is the same government that last year suggested the idea of "Voluntary entitlement cards" and stated categorically that they were not going to be compulsory identity cards. The consultation headed by "Millenium Dome" Falconer discarded all responses that were sent via the faxyoump service, despite clear assurances that they would be recognised and claimed that the voluntary card was accepted by the public. This year we learnt that the government was bare-faced lying and intended to introduce the cards as compulsory identity cards all along (it's laid out in bold font in the legislation proposal). Blair defended this position by stating that the Falconer consultation supported compulsory id cards. Even though the consultation was for a voluntary system, and even though it demonstrated the lack of support for it.

This is the government that attempted to stop a group of train crash survivors from getting a public investigation into the crash by hiring private investigators to determine what the political affiliations of the survivors were.

This is first government since the 1970's to introduce internment, which worked so wonderfully badly last time. This is also the government that sought to limit the right to trial by dury, and has seriously considered reducing the burden of proof for serious offences to "balance of probabilities".

I'm glad you trust this government, but their record is not an honest one that merits trust.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Tim C]

Incidentally, the siteing of the cameras is also illegal under the CCTV extensions to the data protection act. But that's okay, they're the government.

So, make a complaint to the relevant authorities. If that gets you nowhere, escalate it. If you still have no luck after going right up to the top of the chain, contact the press and your local MP.

Chances are whoever actually decided where the cameras should go didn't know the rules, but somewhere up the chain, someone will. Speak to them, it's their *job* to care.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a bad thing, you have to remember that there are people on the other end, what kind of people are attracted to those jobs and how do they behave?
Often they just sit watching girls all day not looking out for crimes, with any of this stuff there is a level of trust; just think of the worst kind of person that could get into that position, do you want to give them that trust... although there are plenty of good police/goverment officials, it only takes a few bad ones to abuse their power.

[Disclaimer: I live in the UK]

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[MeNeXT]

How will cameras solve this?

The number of times I would walk past some poor pedestrian...

This has to do with enforcement. If the police started upholding the law then the pedestrian would not be in danger.

The problem you describe has more to do with society than security. The way our cities have evolved it will lead to noise and pollution. This 9 to 5 attitude makes it impossible for public transit to be success full. We have to extend traffic hours and reduce the concentration of business.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

I lived in S. Kensington, Earls court and Hammersmith (went to uni in S. Ken). I cycled a lot there, and have been hit by one car, one moped and a pedestrian - who ran across the road straight into me from the side. While on foot I've been hit by one car that decided reversing back across a pedestrian crossing full of people was a good idea. Fortunately I've never had anything worse than nasty bruises and cuts to show for them, although that was pure luck. The moped, for example, caught my handlebars and dragged me along behind it for 20 metres down the middle of a six lane road full of traffic before I eventually fell off.

The worst places for accidents were Fulham Palace road and High Street Kensington. Mostly motorcyclists and bicyclists - I've seen one in which the guy died, although mostly it looks like broken bones and cuts.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention poor maintenance, which PPP (Public-Private-Partnarships) could be exaserbating, a tory policy, carried over and expanded by labour, our political system is going the way of Americas in so much as the two main partys are converging... I may well Vote Bob next election : www.thefreeparty.org.uk/
(google cache: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:AAjG0cA2yL8J:ww w.thefreeparty.org.uk/+vote+bob+dobbs&hl=en)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[milamber.net]

You might trust the government now, and welcome more cameras, and in a few years from now major cities could be completely covered by cameras. Which I gather you wouldn't think is a bad thing?

The problem arises when you don't trust the government. A system of cameras covering people's lives gives enormous power to the ones controlling it. Eventually a corrupt group will control the system as it provides too much power to leave alone. Take a camera down for an hour, commit a murder. Blank past recordings for incidents you don't want to be known. Record different events over old tapes, essentially rewriting history.

When you do reach a situation when you no longer trust the people in control it will be next to impossible to stand against them. It would certainly be impossible, if things came to it, to organise any kind of resistance against the government. No such thing as secret meetings. Potentially large crowds could be dispersed before they ever got troublesome.

With no privacy you lose power.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

If you read the parent post to mine, you'll see that he's talking about the congestion charge. This uses cameras to enforce a 5 pound ($9) charge if you want to drive in the city, and has reduced traffic by about 20-25%.
Fewer cars = less pollution and fewer accidents.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[DarkZero]

The cameras are the only way that the government can enforce the congestion charges. There are no toll gates or places where you are blocked until you pay - you may travel anywhere freely. Hoever, if you enter the congestion charge zone, then your number plate is recorded by the cameras and if you don't pay for that day (using any one of a number of methods), then you get fined.

I think you missed my point. You were using the results of the congestion charge to illustrate that surveillance cameras are not a bad thing. I'm asking if the effect would be any different if they had just implemented tolls instead of cameras, because I think the charge itself is the key element that makes the congestion charge work, not the process by which that charge is delivered. And since you could easily (in the case of many cities) make the toll almost as wide as you want if it's placed outside of the city and onto the entrance to the highway, the additional congestion from the toll would be negligible, just like it is in the New York/New Jersey area.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pete (big-pete)]

Don't forget to add the "oyster" cards used on London transport to the sevalance net. All have a unique IDs in them and the data is retained for 5 years. Every time you get on a bus, train or on or off a tube the date and place is record, to make people use them the are increasing the price of single tickets relative to "Oyster" prepay and of course you need to give a name and address to get one of those cards.

You are forgetting one thing...oyster cards are transferrable if they are pre-pay only (and season tickets aren't transferrable for the usual reasons). See here:

Registered or unregistered, all Oyster cards with Pre Pay only are transferable and can be used by any other adult that you want to give the card to. Where you have both a valid season ticket and Pre Pay on the same card, you cannot lend the card to another person for their use.

-- Pete.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Camulus]

"that the time when you don't trust the government might be a few days too late to do anything."

I imagine that I will get flamed for this, but I think the statement above is very true, esp. concerning England. Personal ownership of fire arms is a much easier and, in my opinion, much more effective way of preventing crime. Violent crime in Britian as risen greatly since the fire arm ban. Bobbies are now being issued guns. If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.

Just to show I am not talking out of my ass.

Apparently Violent Gun Crime has gone up 20% in the last year

" Later in the week the home secretary is to host a summit on tackling gun crime, which figures due out on Thursday are expected to show has risen sharply......It is expected the figures will show a 20% increase in firearm offences in England and Wales."

Another article from the BBC about it

Another Article

Heu Fox News gets in on the action too, you decide!

In all fairness, I have tried to include several sources and not just gun nut sites in the US. Flame away

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[nickos]

But surely the point is that when you're in a public place you're in public and can be observed by anyone. What's the difference between looking at a CCTV cameras recordings after a crime has taken place and asking witnesses? A CCTV camera is more reliable and cannot be intimidated.

I used to have the misfortune of living in a pretty rough neighbourhood where CCTV cameras would have made a big impact on local crime. Unfortunately cameras were not installed because the parents of the local kids (who were the main cause of the problems) complained on the basis of privicy concerns.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's the mast-mounted CCTV cameras in town centres and the like, which merely have the effect of shifting crime out of the field of view of the cameras' lenses...

The masts are centered on trouble spots. My experience is that trouble actually doesn't tend to happen away from those spots (otherwise the other places would be the trouble spots!). About 6 months ago I was involved in a fight leaving a pub in my north-east England town. Just as I had managed to flip my attacker over and get on top of him a police car pulled up a few feet away and the fight quickly stopped. This was about 60 seconds after the fight started. Without CCTV that kind of response time would never have been possible, and I would've had the chance to sit on the guys chest and lay into him for a few minutes.

It depends on your point of view whether you think CCTV was a good thing in this case, but it did break the fight up quickly causing minimum damage to both parties and involving no hospitals or courts, which is much more convenient for society.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[msturrock]

Down here is Cape Town South Africa we got cameras in our down town area a few years ago. Having toured one of the centres watching people, there isn't a real invasion of privacy, they are watching people walking / driving in public.

BTW crime went done something stupid like 60% when they were introduced.

Interestly though, people were asking for camera's to be put in their suburbs to help bring down the crime levels.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pete (big-pete)]

I think you missed my point. You were using the results of the congestion charge to illustrate that surveillance cameras are not a bad thing. I'm asking if the effect would be any different if they had just implemented tolls instead of cameras, because I think the charge itself is the key element that makes the congestion charge work, not the process by which that charge is delivered.

I think we missed each other's point then - without the cameras it would have been completely unfeasible to launch such an initiative in London, there are simply too many routes in and out of the zone to set up any kind of toll system, and stopping traffic while payment (or verification of pre-payment) would defeat one of the objectives - of improving traffic flow.

The toll only applies (at the moment) the the very centre of London, and even further out there are still many many routes into the city - the UK road system is nothing like that of the USA.

-- Pete.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[milamber.net]

The british problem with binge drinking and random violence pales in comparison with domestic abuse in Britain.

Some stats (Women's Aid Federation [England] report, 1992, Domestic Violence - Home Office Research Study 107):
Between 40 and 45% of murdered women are killed by thir male partners;
more than 25% of all violent crime reported to the police is domestic violence of men against women, making it the second most common violent crime;
One quarter of all assaults are in domestic circumstances
In Edinburgh, Scotland, out of 3020 cases of violence reported to the police, three quarters of those were wife assault

So your argument is putting cameras up in order to stop crime? At what point will it be acceptable to put cameras in people's homes? It's the next step. It makes sense. If it helps save women from domestic abuse what does it matter that we lose some privacy?

At the moment people would go nuts but things will change. Our lives outside our home will be constantly recorded in the future so will people really rebel when the cameras move into our homes?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[mo^]

Please leave the Ken was independant crap out of it..

It ewas blindingly obvious from the day he left the party that this was a tacit agreement between him and Tony that he would do Labours bidding but they would be able to keep him at arms length the whole time and deny he had anything to do with them.

I like Ken, always havem, and would vote for him again, but make no mistake in believing he was ever independant

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[meedle]

It is a bad thing in that it gives a perceived sense of security. Despite Britain being the CCTV capital crime rates there are rocketing that Britain is performing worse out of all European countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3669407.stm Cameras don't stop crime, they are only an aid to police detectives finding the culprits afterward. Joao Da Costa Mitendele was murdered so some guys could rob his house, ok they caught the guys that did it afterward because of CCTV but that I am sure that is of little compensation to the victims family. Perhaps Britain needs to rethink it's policy against homeowners defending their own property rather than sticking up more useless cameras.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[gaijin99]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable

Well, that's the problem, see. When the government changes, or becomes less trustworthy, or whatever, the cameras will still be there. Besides, trust is damn hard to measure (I'd argue impossible), and an entities level of trustworthyness can change overnight. I would prefer to base my privacy on something more solid than mere trustworthyness.

I'll go with David Brin on this one: we must be able to watch the watchers. I read in one article that several of those cams (the ones in the downtown London area) *are* monitored 24/7. There must be a publically available "watch the cam crew" cam. How will we know they aren't being racist, using the cams for inappropriate purposes, whatever? Easy, we can watch them. After all, if the cams are supposed to keep us safe from crime, shouldn't the same principle be applied to keeping us safe from the cam crews?

Similarly, I'd argue that the street cams should be available to the public; after all their taxes paid for 'em. You wanna see what's going on at 93rd and Main, check the cam.

What with cameras getting smaller and smaller it seems inevitable that they will, soon, be everywhere. Even if they were outlawed that hasn't stopped governments in the past, it'd just ensure that the cam network is hard to spot and kept a tight secret. Best to produce accountability, and transparency. Don't let access to the cams be a thing held only by the elite, make it available to everyone. And never forget to watch the watchers, naturally they'll scream that a public cam in the cam control room is wrong. Kinda interesting how they act when *we* want to watch *them*, isn't it?

I was once one of the "cams are evil, and I'll join the cam destruction teams" crowd. Then I read Brin's The Transparent Society. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of cams everywhere, but I can see the inescapiable conclusion that with cameras getting smaller and cheaper it will be possible for the government to put them out in secret. I'd rather have transparency and accountability on a known cam network than the false believe that I've got privacy because I don't know about the secret cam network. Let's have even more cameras. Cop cams (pubically accessable) mounted on every police officer's shoulder when they're on duty. My own private cam that I can put on *my* shoulder when a cop stops me. Kinda makes for amore polite discussion when we both know the world can watch, ne? Etc...

Brin says it better than I do (which is to be expected I suppose, considering that he is a published author while I'm just a geek on slashdot). I'd recommend The Transparent Society to everyone here.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ambienceman]

I agree. It's like the EZ=Pass thing. I was a big skeptic thinking that that RFID tag and the fact that a SERVICE I pay for could be used against me (ie: track my average speed between tolls and automatically ticket me if it's significantly over the speed limit), but then I realize that the convenience of the pass outweighs the costs. I don't speed, so why should I be worried about it. Same with the cameras. Why worry about it if you aren't doing anythign illegal?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[TheRealStaunch]

Most likely they were excited about the prospect of not having to do their work and secretly cheered for the guy and gave a false description as thanks!

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, here's a forinstance. Let's say you're a practising Muslim, and somehow you annoy some local official. Perhaps your kids kick their football into his garden too often.

The local official doesn't have much power, but he does have the ability to submit 'suspicious' numberplates into the system. Perhaps he's a low-level copper.

You later drive into London city centre. Your plate gets picked up by the congestion-charge cameras - it's alright, you've paid the charge, but as your plate is suspicious it triggers an alarm somewhere. There's a police patrol nearby; so they're dispatched to check you out.

They pull you over - perhaps your tyres are a little thin, or your car's a little too rusty. They could pull anyone over under these criteria, but remember that your car in particular is suspicious.

That in itself is simply unfair, and unacceptable. But it could get worse. If the patrol take any kind of dislike to you (your long beard will raise suspicions further, remember), you can be bunged in a cell for a few hours. For that matter, if they decide you might be a terrorist, you can now be held indefinitely, without charge, without trial.

It only takes one, maybe two, dodgy officials.

Oh, by the way, there are a number of British National Party councillors in some parts of the country. Hope you trust them too.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[SgtChaireBourne]

If a crime happens somewhere close to where you are, and you match the vauge description given by witnesses to that crime? Then you are guilty. At very least, you'll be explaining why you were there, and trying to explain that you didn't do the crime.

The initial suspect in last years assasination of Sweden's Foreign Minsister, Anna Lindh, is a good example of how that can happen even on camera. The press and police caught hold of the first kook running a double life that they could catch on CCTV and hung him out to dry. Granted the character is question wasn't the best character, but pretty much every mistake or failure in his life was trotted out by the media. If his life wasn't ruined before, that did it for sure. Oh. And it turned out that it was actually someone else they saw on the tape.

CCTV is a waste of time and money. The resolution is so bad that it's hard to impossible to recognize even acquantances, except by gait or clothing. I've used CCTV as a guard. I also know some small business owners who use CCTV, despite constantly wondering who has entered the premises. Quite often the potential customer has time to walk back out.

My take on the whole CCTV thing is that it's just the latest scheme to sell expensive things which waste more time and resources.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[MrNemesis]

Maybe I'm just being blind, but I've not noticed any appreciable upgrades to the tube system in line the congestion charge. Rush hour now lasts from 7:30 to 10:00, and the tube is *unbearable*, especially in the hot weather.

Buses are a little more frequent then they were, but slow (little to no enforcement of bus lanes and priority routes) and (again) utterly overcrowded during rush hours. Then there's the bus drivers who can't be arsed to stop at the bus stop for you even when the bus is almost empty - the bus stops around London Bridge seem highly partial to this.

If money from the congestion charge is making an improvement, I've yet to see it. Last time I heard the C charge was running at a loss.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[MrNemesis]

It has some effect at reducing opportunist crime in areas with CCTV. The muggers just tend to move elsewhere.

CCTV is also frequently of such exceptionally poor quality that facial recognition is all but impossible. Typically we're shown a grainy black and white and asked if we know anyone who was wearing a dark top with a white stripe across it.

My main problem with the CCTV thing however is that most of them are staffed by private companies which are not under direct governmental control.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course people will object. They already object if cameras are placed in toilets or changing rooms.

A belief in PUBLIC cameras does not lead to a belief in cameras in homes.

If you are walking down the street you do not have any privacy, you are in a public area. The same rules do not apply in your private home.

If you don't understand that and think it is all one big "slippery slope" then you need help.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[AGMW]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation ...

OK, so lets say you're caught up in a terrible train crash that scars you for life, and this Government you seem to trust so much decides they need to dig up some dirt on you to try and discredit your testimony.

Explain to me how this is a trustworthy thing to do and please explain how this sort of misuse of information isn't going to get so much easier once the Government has us tagged and barcoded and watched 24/7?

I, for one, DO NOT welcome our old Government overlords!

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[LiquidCoooled]

Hang on, I live in the UK.

I don't want to know that a camera can watch me getting mugged.

I DONT WANT TO BE MUGGED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

This is the same as the policemen sitting down letting technology do the work for them (speed cameras etc).

Its unfortunate you lived in a rough neighbourhood, and I have been in similar situations.

I would rather spend 10 times as much money (yes even raise taxes if needbe) on real life, actual police officers that I can see and speak to.

Getting real officers out and about doesnt just reduce crime, it gives people confidence and peace of mind. A camera just idly watches it happen.

Technology should never replace the human touch, cctv does have a place, but not sprinkled around like confetti.

I fear to do it however would mean a major shakeup of everything though, but thats my £0.02 worth.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[untaken_name]

but it did break the fight up quickly causing minimum damage to both parties and involving no hospitals or courts, which is much more convenient for society.

And what, exactly, would be the detriment to society if you had simply beat the agressor up and just gone home? Really, it cost more to watch those cameras, dispatch an officer, and take him away from solving (notice I said solving and not stopping) real crime elsewhere. Yes, people get severely hurt in bar fights...but what, really, is the cost to society? One more person of the sort who starts bar fights off the streets...instead, neither of you was seriously hurt, no actual legal problems resulted (even though the police were paid to dispatch to your location) and there is no real deterrent to either of you exhibiting this behaviour once again. Had you soundly thrashed the wanker, he might have refrained from starting trouble in the future. Ah well, let's ignore most of the variables and just say it is better this way. After all, why not be comforted by the large, warm hand of government gently encircling your neck. It's to protect you, of course.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

Why do you think I moved out :)

I did notice an improvement in the buses, but I think the tube is hamstrung by the PPP system introduction and idiot unions - "no, we just keep our empty beer cans there, honest, we never drink at work". Stupid bastards.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[untaken_name]

Fewer cars = less pollution and fewer accidents.

Hmm. I would think that there would indeed be fewer accidents, but perhaps the ones that do occur would be worse. I mean, getting hit at 5kph because there's a ton of traffic is better to my mind that being hit at, say, 50kph. Or 100kph. I just think there are more sides to it than the one. Almost anything can be turned until it appears to display only the results you want. I would remind you that there are always other results, unintended or even negative, that you must also deal with. It is a very rare situation indeed which produces only benefits. However, if you listen to politicians, there are hardly any situations which produce anything OTHER than benefits. Just something to think about.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, we should get rid of the police too. Let us return to vigilante justice. It will solve all of our problems.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[MrNemesis]

Amen to that. Again, I must be missing something, but I fail to see how being a tube driver nets you a £35,000pa salary. Especially when nurses and teachers here get such a raw deal. Evidently there are some incredibly tricky skills in mastering the difference between red and green, the door open/close buttons and the "train go forward" stick ;)

And no, not surprised you moved out :) I'm just lucky in that my job and my home are a stones throw from two of the Thameslink stations, and I do alot of work form home, else I would have scarpered as well.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

Interesting point. Most of the accidents I've seen (and been involved in) have been caused by people doing stupid things because the traffic is so heavy - going through red lights, pulling out too quickly, stopping in junction boxes etc.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

the tube is *unbearable*, especially in the hot weather.

Just out of curiousity, what do you consider "hot weather" over there? Somehow, I can't quite get myself to believe that you're using the same definition I am over here in N'Awlins.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[illtud]

Personal ownership of fire arms is a much easier and, in my opinion, much more effective way of preventing crime. Violent crime in Britian as risen greatly since the fire arm ban. Bobbies are now being issued guns. If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.

Since nobody in UK (apart from weird tabloid-speak and people attempting to be ironic) use the word 'bobbies', I'm assuming you're not from the UK. This would explain your frankly bizzare linking of the firearm ban (which was ridiculous, IMHO) and the rise in violent crime. Absolutley nobody carried (legitimately) a handgun as a crime deterrent and anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.

I'm not saying that gun crime isn't up, I'm not saying that the ban was stupid, but to connect the two is a non-sequitur of pretty big proportions.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[eyeye]

So many flaws in your post I really dont have time to address them all.

There are 10,000 gun related crimes in the UK - there are 500,000 in the USA where you say "Personal ownership of fire arms is a much easier and, in my opinion, much more effective way of preventing crime".

The UK has a fifth the population of the USA yet has 50 times less gun crime.

So.. yes you are talking out of your ass.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[dave420]

If you insist on driving a car in London, you deserve to get charged £6 ($10) a day. I see so many people driving around in their cars, not carrying anything large or any other activity where a car is needed. No disabled badges, no baby seats in the back, nothing. It's a LUXURY, not a necessity, and most definitely not a right. Public transport in London works wonders, considering what it's up against. If people would start leaving their cars at home and travelling with conscience, the whole city would move a lot quicker.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Tim C]

went to uni in S. Ken

Imperial College? I graduated with a Physics degree from there in '97, then finally left after quitting a PhD in Plasma Physics in '99.

Thinking about it, one of our lecturers was killed crossing the road just outside *on a zebrea crossing* when he was hit by a car. Fucking shame, he was a damn good lecturer and a really nice guy.

I've probably been lucky with respect to not seeing too many accidents; I lived near Gloucester Road for a year, then two years in Clapham Junction, followed by 2 in Turnpike Lane, 1 in Clapton, then Elm Park (Essex, Zone 6) til now. Mind you, I don't drive or cycle, so the majority of my travelling is done by Tube.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show me in the constitution where my right to bear arms is limited to participation in a state militia.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[LighthouseJ]

Dateline on NBC did a piece on how unreliable witnesses are like 3 years ago and did something a little different. Someone came into a class, walked non-chalantly towards the teachers desk and stole her purse and ran out. A student followed to try to get it back. The students were asked to describe that purp and sure enough, most people didn't even get what clothes he wore, height, facial hair.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ingeborgsjon]

I also live in Sweden and I can only say one thing: Jag håller med dig totalt! (I totally agree with you)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Epistax]

I would welcome rather than fear more cameras on the streets in the UK

I agree. I happen to live in the US but if I were in the UK I'd agree. I wouldn't agree if that said US, however, because I find our country hasn't the mature society to handle it.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

Straying way off topic, but yes, Imperial, Chemical Engineering(97-01). That zebra crossing was a death trap - taxis approaching it used to accelerate when they saw a pedestrian to stop them stepping out.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

That is why one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is that of the states to raise and train a civil militia (and the right of the civilians to keep and bear arms for participation in that militia) to oppose and even overthrow the federal government.

Umm, no. Read the writings of the Founding Fathers sometime. The Second Amendment isn't about that States "raising and training" a militia. The Militia was defined as "every able-bodied man", with the exception of some government officials.

The Constitution doesn't even address the question of the States' ability to raise a military force. It merely allows the Citizenry to own firearms.

Interestingly enough, at that time, the right to keep and bear arms was part of the British Bill of Rights as well. It wasn't until this century, and the Irish insurrection that the British gradually began losing the right to keep and bear arms.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they would more likely be considered "right wing extremists" by today's standards. They generally wanted to be left alone, thought we all should have guns, and actually held religeous services in government buildings...actually, a military band often provided the music for that matter.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

This is europe we're talking about. Being a jew isn't illegal, only distasteful and worthy of ridicule. Get your facts straight.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[MrNemesis]

Well, for one you're probably right - I doubt London is gong to get as hot as New Orleans.

This summer, midday temperatue in the south east has averaged out at about 25 degrees C (77F) or thereabouts. Since London is so utterly huge and full of buildings, London is always a few degrees hotter.

The majot problem is that the tube (especially the deep lines) have no air conditioning, and exceptionally poor ventilation. Temperatures can reach into the 30's with high humidity from other peoples sweat, and the air is entirely stagnant and unbreathable.

Add to that you're cramming 100 people into a carriage so that no-one can move, and the tube carriages quickly become torture chambers. Heatstroke and exhaustion are common. In the winter, you just have to contend with overcrowding and all the rest of it, it's just not quite as hot.

We may not have the numbers, but I bet even hardened Florida alligators wouldn't last long on the Victoria or Northern lines during rush hour :)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people get severely hurt in bar fights...but what, really, is the cost to society? One more person of the sort who starts bar fights off the streets...

What? Only the people who start bar fights get severely hurt? What planet do you live on?

Had you soundly thrashed the wanker, he might have refrained from starting trouble in the future.

Yeah right. Do you really believe this? If you do, you might well be the least cynical and most naive person alive.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

Around 30C+ is hot for here, although last year we had a freak heatwave up to 38C or so, along with the rest of Europe.
The tube is ridiculously hot, though. On a normal summer day, ~26C outside, after five minutes on a crowded tube train the sweat is quite literally dripping of me.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah and "digital angel" isn`t "666" but the ability is thier. so how long before "666" becomes a reality?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[nickos]

CCTV cameras should not be thought of as an alternative to real policemen, but as an alternative to real witnesses. Unfortunately politicians don't always understand this, and use the installation of CCTV cameras as justification for reducing the amount spent on policing...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[hyphz]

Oh, and btw, you don't have to register an Oyster card - it's entirely legal to have one without giving your name and address if you want to.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Mr Guy]

Had you soundly thrashed the wanker, he might have refrained from starting trouble in the future.
Yeah right. Do you really believe this? If you do, you might well be the least cynical and most naive person alive.

On a reduced level, as a former Junior high school teacher I'm firmly convinced much of the drugs and violence in High School is because we stop bullying in Junior High too much. The way it now works is that the kids with fast mouths victimize and ridicule the ones with fast fists and they are helpless to respond. Even as a teacher who knew which kids to watch, actually catching them picking on someone verbally in earshot is very difficult. On the other hand, seeing the physical retaliation is easy. What a good chunk of these behavior problems need is a good ass kicking. For you non-US, Junior High is ages 10 to 13 generally.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Frogbert]

He live in Stains aiiiii

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hmm, 25C, and into the 30C-range.

I think it got down to 25C one night this summer (it's been a cool summer so far). And there were even a few days where the high wasn't >32C. Luckily, humidity stayed at the usual 90%, so even those "cool" days weren't fun.

By the by, usual temp range in summer here is 27C(nightly low)-35C+(daily high), 90% humidity, every day from May to October.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[stephenbooth]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"A well regulated militia". Well regulated indicates that it's a body with some official backing and organisation, not a bunch of yahoo's with guns shooting up anyone they don't like. Regulation implies control and organisation, therefore the militia must be raised by some existing body. Regulation, in this context, also implies training as each member of the force would need to be aware of the scope of their actions and influence, indeed the reason they are participating in the milia.

"being necessary to the security of a free state". Links it to the states so now we know where the well regulation is supposed to come from. Without that you could have churches raising their own militia to kill off other faiths (remember, the first ammendment only stops the federal government outlawing religeons, it doesn't stop other faiths taking up arms).

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". This is the bit that people often remember. If that was the entirety of the ammendment then it would be a protection of a person's right to keep and bear arms regardless of the purpose. It is not, however, the full text of the ammendment. The ammendment explicitly states that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms for participation in a well regulated state militia.

Stephen

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[hyphz]

One thing to point out is that the Congestion Charge was really about ENVIRONMENTAL concerns.

Go buy a hybrid car in the UK. Not only do you get exemption from the congestion charge, but the government actually PAY YOU one thousand pounds towards the cost of car.

The real problem, though, is that London is a BIG place. London is not just Zone 1, the central areas. Even towards the edges there, the tubes and busses are starting to thin out seriously. Even by Zone 2, there are internal rail services (full National Rail, not tube).

Also, bear in mind that the ridiculous cost of property in London is forcing people to commute. Even seen the Bakerloo entrance on Paddington station at 8:30 in the morning? They have to shut gates across it to control the crowds.

Combine that with the insane attitude in all countries that commuting is a leisure activity and you've got a general mess.

What I think we really need is a congestion charge.. CHARGED TO THE DESTINATION. That will encourage firms and shops not to require their employees or customers to drive.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

CCTV is massively ineffective at stopping this kind of crime. You have to be able to identify individuals by their faces to make CCTV a success - which in the vast majority of cases is simply not possible (camera looks down girls top, camera not focused on incident, camera in wrong area, poor quality film etc. etc.).

By saying yes to CCTV now you will in the future see a massive UK wide network of cameras in which individuals movements can be tracked through the system. Hell Blunket (Home Secretary) wants to be able to tag criminals and restrict them via satellite to certain areas. In fact lets just make sure that our children are safe, we could implant transmitters under their skin at birth! That'll stop all the bogey men!

And as another person has said - even if you trust the current government there is no way to stop a future government using these systems to perpetuate a world view that they want to engender.

Andy

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Money for Nothin']

"We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons."

- Milton Friedman in "Free To Choose" (1980)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[stephenbooth]

They supported, led and participated in an armed insurrection against the legal rulers. That action included attacks on civilian trade vessels, covert attacks on military and civilian establishments and transports with no legal declaration of war and acted in contravention with the established procedures and rules of warfare of the time. If that happened now they'd be called terrorists.

Stephen

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[IamTheRealMike]

The vast majority of the gun crime rise is due to Yardie violence, which typically involves criminals killing each other in fights over territory and dealers. It's bad, but it wouldn't be any better if people had personal firearms.

If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.

This has got to be a troll. America is one of the few nations with a high degree of personal firearms, and has crime "gone away" there? I think not.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[cluckshot]

I am sure that the EU types will love their gun bans until they manage to extinguish in the name of safety all freedom. If you take the USA's crime rate apart by race you find ours even for guns is lower than England for the persons of northern European ancestry. If this is a product of some racial factor or some sociological factor I don't propose to say. The incidence of murder and other violent crimes appears to have a pretty stable rate for various ancestrial groups no matter where in the world they are.

One statistic which simply does not lie is the one which tells how reliable this "Trusting the Government" idea is. In the period from 1900 to 2000 the world saw something close to 205 million persons murdered. During this same period we saw the total number of persons murdered by their fellow citizens in crimes below 5 million. We saw the number of persons murdered by their respective states reach nearly 200 million. Trusting your personal security to a nation state is INSANE.

We have in the USA a creature who is a most peaceful animal. This animal never is known to attack others and is generally left alone by all. It is a porcupine. Assauting a porcupine is a good way to wind up with a face full of quills. (long spikes) So long as the State understands they will get a face full of quills (Bullets) if they bother me. They leave me alone.

In the USA the right to keep and bear arms is not associated with crime control. It is State Control. The reason the State wants gun control is it is getting predatory.

It must be clear to all that removing the quills from porcupines does not enhance the safety of porcupines. It only favors the predators. This is also true regards the State. (State = Nation for those who cannot read the dictionary)

In order for the State to feel safer in hurting its citizens it finds it necessary to make them fearful of the citizens quills. This makes the citizens give up and makes the world safe for the worst of all criminals, the police state.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Abaci]

Bad logic. CCTV stops crime in areas where everyone can see you anyway. It removes no freedoms invades no privacy that some guy walking down the street opposite you can. Placing a camera in a home, however, is like someone walking in your house randomly. So no it doesnt make sense to compare them and yes people will rebel if the government ever tried to place cameras in everyones home. There is a line between drawn between freedom and law. Current CCTV doesnt even shake it. but wow my sex are bastards.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[qwijibo]

Exactly. The costs of law enforcement with so many crimes are enormous. The benefit of vigilante justice is that you get privately funded law enforcement. There are a lot of people who are opposed to laws against victimless crimes. If no one cares enough about a law to use it as a justification to commit a violent crime against that person, it may as well not be a law.

After a few generations of brutal repression, there will be so few people left that the opportunity to commit a crime against someone would be rare.

Of course, this would justify making these all into web cams so anyone looking for an excuse to go enforce some laws can pitch in.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[dapprman]

Dear Mr. Privacy advocate, please make up your mind. Is it 3rd party copmpanies or local councils who run the cameras. Actually it's the latter within the M25 as well.

I note you're very quick to complain about corruption, yet I bet you can provide no proof. I assume you're one of those sad students who like to pedal Socialist Worker, failing to notice the communist ideology has never worked in real life.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Money for Nothin']

Talking out of *his* ass? Why don't you stop using red herrings, retard. The grandparent is comparing Britain to its own history -- NOT Britain to America.

Britain's gun crime rate has risen since its handgun ban. That is a comparison of Britain to itself; nowhere is America mentioned, because America is irrelevant to the claim.

Thus, Britain's *rate* of gun crime is rising (positively-sloped, but a negative to British society). This again, is a comparison of Britain to itself, and nowhere is America relevant to the argument.

Admit it, the law has backfired and the grandparent provided several very-credible sources showing this is true. Like the NRA famously claims, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Britain is learning this the hard, violent, bloody way. That's what you get for trusting the big British government...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Chris Hodges]

...and the tube is *unbearable*, especially in the hot weather.

Well do something about it! Transport for London are looking for suggestions to keep the tube cool http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/promotions-cooling-tube. shtml I used to work in London (Kingsway, near Covent Garden), now I live in and work near Bristol. The few times I've been back, the streets do same clearer - it's easier to cross as a pedestrian, and the tubes don't seem all that much busier (it's hard to see how they could be when there was no room to get more people on.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pentagram]

I think other countries have to understand the British obsession with binge drinking and random physical drunken violence to appreciate why we don't really care about the amount of CCTV.

I am British and I certainly care about the amount of CCTV.

When it is just you and a bunch of drunken yobs on the street, you may still get the crap beaten out of you or mugged, but at least with CCTV you stand a good chance of getting them caught and convicted.

I know of several cases personally where people have been assaulted near cameras but were unable to get a conviction because the camera was pointed the wrong way, turned off, not manned, broken etc., or no one was able to recognise the blur recorded.

On the other hand, I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction.

We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, all at the cost of some imagined "privacy" while in a PUBLIC place.

CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth

Come on then. References please.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"A well regulated militia". Well regulated indicates that it's a body with some official backing and organisation, not a bunch of yahoo's with guns shooting up anyone they don't like. Regulation implies control and organisation, therefore the militia must be raised by some existing body. Regulation, in this context, also implies training as each member of the force would need to be aware of the scope of their actions and influence, indeed the reason they are participating in the milia.

'Well regulated' could also mean a group with internally imposed discipline & training, such that their behaviour complies with community standards.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

"A well regulated militia". Well regulated indicates that it's a body with some official backing and organisation, not a bunch of yahoo's with guns shooting up anyone they don't like. Regulation implies control and organisation, therefore the militia must be raised by some existing body. Regulation, in this context, also implies training as each member of the force would need to be aware of the scope of their actions and influence, indeed the reason they are participating in the milia.

Umm, no. "well regulated" in the late 18th Century was more or less synonymous with "well trained" today. It in no way implies government or any other control.

"being necessary to the security of a free state". Links it to the states so now we know where the well regulation is supposed to come from. Without that you could have churches raising their own militia to kill off other faiths (remember, the first ammendment only stops the federal government outlawing religeons, it doesn't stop other faiths taking up arms).

Again, no. "State" in this context more properly refers to the Nation as a whole. That is, that a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a "free" country. This is as opposed to a national army, by the way.

Note that during deliberations on the Constitution, it was proposed that the USA be Constitutionally limited to a 10,000 man Army. This particular feature was voted down when George Washington proposed adding to that article a provision that no foreign power be permitted to invade the US with more than 20,000 men.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". This is the bit that people often remember. If that was the entirety of the ammendment then it would be a protection of a person's right to keep and bear arms regardless of the purpose. It is not, however, the full text of the ammendment. The ammendment explicitly states that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms for participation in a well regulated state militia.

Well, no. The explanatory text in no way detracts from the "right" (which, if you read the constitution carefully are granted to individuals - "powers" are granted to governments).

That said, if we take the Second Amendment as being only about militias, then we must conclude that while pistols and hunting rifles might be restricted, assault rifles, machine guns, and heavier weapons would not be so restricted, as they are necessary for that "state militia" thing you speak of.

There have been several cases before the Supreme Court where the Second Amendment was mentioned in passing, and one case where it was cited as a reason for the decision. As examples:

The Dred Scott case: a notorious decision, but it actually mentioned the Second Amendment. The Ruling mentioned the Second Amendment in the context of Free Blacks, and stated, more or less, that if we were to recognize Blacks as citizens, they would have the right to keep and bear arms. Which idea was considered ludicrous in that time and place.

I forget the name of this one. Happened in the early 20th century, and involved a man with a sawed-off shotgun. The Supremes remanded the case back the the State Court, because the State Court had not considered the utility of a sawed-off shotgun as a weapon for the militia.

Note that in neither case was it assumed that the person involved be part of some organization. It WAS assumed in that one case that weapons of war suitable to the individual soldier had more right to protection than weapons not so suited.

Note further the Militia Act. Which defined the militia as "every able-bodied man [between 18 and 45]" (save for a few government officials), and required the militia (every able-bodied man) to procure for himself a rifle/musket & bayonet, and a certain amount of powder and shot (enough for 24 shots for a musket, 20 for a rifle - rifles were slower loading than muskets).

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[jrexilius]

Actually, there is more to crime and population numbers then what fraction of what is done by whom.

Population numbers do not have a linear impact on things like car accidents, crime, divorce rates, or anything else you care to measure. There is actually more of an exponential effect of increased population densities on both positive and negative social "network effects".

The fact that England is 1/5 the size of the US and has 1/50 the amount of gun crime cannot be explained by their gun ban any more then the 20% increase in crime can be explained by the gun ban.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[UserGoogol]

Gun bans are not a major obstacle in the way of a revolutionary. When you commit revolution, you will always break laws. Breaking the gun ban is minor compared to the ban on killing government officials.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[jrexilius]

As dead-on as your post is I think it is difficult for the younger EU and US populations (excepting perhaps Poland and East Germany) to appreciate the fact that governments can get to those levels. Our success and comfort has bred a lack of imagination and a great deal of complacence. They don't remember that when times got very bad in Germany the government did indeed become fascist, as it did in Russia, China, and others. Compounding this comfort is the fact that, as other posters have pointed out, most crime is done by "Yardies", black-on-black, or kept within the confines of their particular ghetto (the Ozarks in the US are mostly white yet share a lot of problems with black, hispanic, and indian ghettos). The biggest problem is that liberty does require eternal vigilance and yet the sheer success of liberty breeds complacency.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Chris Hodges]

One day Big Brother gets interested in Joe Bloggs - let's see what Joe's been up to. Crank up the search software and see all movements of Mr Bloggs for the last week, month or whatever. If you don't believe this is possible then you probably don't believe that Google can search 4 billion pages in 0.001 secs either...

Rashly assuming that you meant this to be taken at face value, this is a false analogy. To actually go from a name then you would need recognition software that's way beyond anything we can do at the moment (most if not all published tests on face recognition have failed, let alone trying to recognise an individual when their face may only be (say) 4 pixels greyscale. You would then need to index your incoming feed - google doedn't search 4 billion webpages .001 seconds, it searches its records of the text of those pages, those records are stored in a highly optimised way.

Tracking an individual back in time would be easier, though you would still need to recognise the blobs that make up an individual from 1 frame to the next, 1 camera to the next, and 1 crowd to the next, and index the motion of these blobs.

I'm not saying it's impossible as such, just a very hard problem - and I suspect just throwing more processing at it will not solve anything.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[MrNemesis]

Yowza, that's too hot for my liking.

Hopefully you don't spend two hours a day standing up in a sardine can at the bottom of a deep well with your face pressed into someone's less than aromatic armpit ;)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[mikerich]

I used to have the misfortune of living in a pretty rough neighbourhood where CCTV cameras would have made a big impact on local crime.

Did you read the article? Study after study has shown that CCTV has NO effect on violent crime.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[krunk7]

The reason you trust your government is because at this particular point in time your definition of a criminal act happens to loosely coincide with that of the powers that be. However, the assertion that sometime in the future for your children or grandchildren that pleasant circumstance may not exist is more a historical fact than any tin foil hat wearing paraonoia.

When it comes to issues of civil liberties, it's a good excercise to imagine the most extremist views in your society that you disagree with and ask yourself: "Would I want that guy deciding who is the criminal and who is not? Which person to film and which to ignore?"

The answer is almost always a resounding NO! We all do things that may be legal today, but were it up to certain fringe parties would not be tomorrow.

The problem with those so willing to give up civil liberties won by civil war and extreme social unrest is that they always imagine that the guy behind the government camera agrees with them.

-- James

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[goober1473]

Reminds me of last christmas, my father has nipped to the bank on the way to pickup the christmas turkey. He was run over on the pavement by a driver with no insurance ot MOT. The police went to get the tape of the event (was outside the bank) and didn't bother until 5-6 weeks later when the tape had been overwritten... great survelence but what's the point??

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[matfud]

Look at the actual statistics (well 2003, the rest are available as quaterly updates)

here http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/homeoffice/s?rds .hosb0104pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=%5Bhttp://www.home office.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf
page 25
Notice that stats on gun crime also include replicas, air riles and use of some other devices.

Use of air guns has increased, use of handguns has decreased (after a massive increase the previous year). The number of weapons used in burglery has dropped. The number of homicides committed with fire arms has dropped 17%.

No conclusive oppinions about the mayhem which rising gun crime is supposidely bringing to the Uk is possible as the stats arn't that exciting.

matfud

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ponxx]

I live in Britain. The gun ban was not a big deal. No-one had guns anyway. The law has clearly not backfired. I would say it had very little effect at all, guns are not a big part of British culture, and this has not changed...

Besides, the grand-grand-parent suggested that the american idea of people carrying arms to reduce crime was working, hence it's completely fair to compare crime rates between the countries.

Also, one of the articles he pointed to claimed as a great success that the murder rate in the US was now *only* 6 times (!!!) as high as britains, rather than 10 times as high like it used to be.

Even if the arguments of the NRA are applicable in the US (which i doubt) they do not work in a society where guns are as rare as they are in britain. In 7 years here, I have not seen a single gun, not even an imitation one, except for armed policmen at specific point (e.g. airports, the US embassy, visits of foreign dignitaries etc.).

Similarly in 20 years living in Germany I've seen one gun other than in the hands of police. While I spent 1 year in the US I saw countless guns...

If you're not used to that it makes you feel very uncomfortable, I guess if you're used to it it could make you feel safe...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly

Um, why? Is a mugger more in the right than someone trying to keep from being mugged? One guy has done nothing wrong (legal gun owner) and is trying to defend himself. The other guy is in the commission of a crime that assaults another. This should be clear-cut in favor of the gun-owning victim. I don't understand the British sense of priorities in this case...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ponxx]

> We saw the number of persons murdered by their respective states reach
> nearly 200 million. Trusting your personal security to a nation state is INSANE.

And you really think that in the states where this happened, guns were not ready available to the populace? Most of these 200Mn deaths are due to attempted coups and revolutions and counter-revolutions and fights with "rebels" etc. etc.

IF the US government starts doing things you don't like, what are you going to do? You really think that handgun in your house is going to stop them?

You really think that if Germans had had more guns, Hitler wouldn't have come to power? You think Hussain would have been removed earlier if there were even more weapons in Iraq? You think Afghanistand was lacking handguns more than anything else? How about Sudan?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[mikerich]

OK, so lets say you're caught up in a terrible train crash that scars you for life, and this Government you seem to trust so much decides they need to dig up some dirt on you to try and discredit your testimony.

Or you are an old lady who is treated disgracefully whilst waiting for treatment in hospital? Make a complaint and all of a sudden your private health records are made public by a government spokesman. Not just that, it is then alleged you are racist.

Why should anyone trust the government? They have shown time and time again that they do not trust the people.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hmm, where to start?

"Deep Well"? This is New Orleans. It's built on a swamp. Dig six inches anywhere to strike water. No deep wells. No subways. No basements. None of that stuff. The most interesting (to me, still) sight in New Orleans is the Canal between Orleans and Jefferson Parish. Driving over it, you can clearly see that the houses on both sides of the canal are below the water level of the canal. One story houses roofs are below the water level of the canal.

"face pressed into someone's...armpit"? I'm 6'3". In the situation you describe, I would be the source of the less than aromatic armpit, not the victim. ;-)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[NexusTw1n]

Come on then. References please.

CCTV scores 1685 arrests in one town alone
Arsonist caught by CCTV
7 Jailed for violent assault on a shop owner thanks to CCTV

rapist and indecent exposer caught due to CCTV footage
12 years for rapist caught by CCTV

Gang member jailed after murder is caught on CCTV
McDonalds killer caught on CCTV

That took 3 seconds on the beeb's newsearch. So I really can't take your comment "I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction." very seriously. Do you troll slashdot often?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

Stalin disarmed the peasants. Hitler disarmed the Jews. Pol Pot disarmed his citizens. It always starts with taking away the method of resistance. Guns may not have stopped these tyrants from rising to power, but when the gestapo came knocking, a few would have paid for it.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[kerincosford]

If a crime happens somewhere close to where you are, and you match the vauge description given by witnesses to that crime? Then you are guilty.

A few years ago I took part in a study on identification via CCTV at Stirling University (this study was later used in a Channel 4 Cutting Edge documentary on the subject). The results showed time and again that there is an enormous risk of mis-identification from CCTV footage. The quality of even the best CCTV just isn't good enough to get a clear image of a suspect. Considering that CCTV evidence in Britain is such strong evidence, this is enormously dangerous.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[cybergibbons]

I rode my bike from East Acton to Imperial College nearly every day for two years. I didn't have any major accidents. You know why? I'm one of the few cyclists who stops at lights and actually learns how to use the road.

It angered me every day to see other cyclists jumping traffic lights, not having lights at night, riding on the pavement, riding at pedestrians, and edging across the front of stationary traffic rather than changing lanes properly. I saw several cyclists hit by cars, and each and every time it was their own fault it happened.

The times I rode round the rest of London, I saw very few accidents, but again, the ones that did happen - it was the cyclists fault.

I'd count the areas you mention as some of the better for riding, because most vehicles are aware that there are a lot of cyclists about, and will notice you and not cause you problems. Move out further, and your job gets much harder.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're proposing that pre the gun ban, legal owners of handguns were deterring criminals, then your ass is also verbose.

Before the ban, which should really be called tighter controls, handguns weren't legal on the streets in any way. You could only carry a handgun to and from a gun club, and you had to be a registered club member. I believe you could only legally fire the gun in the club. Handgun users didn't stop crime here, unless the crime was happening at a gun club.

Britain's gun crime may have risen, but this is not due to the handgun ban. There were already very tight controls on handguns before Dunblane. The tighter controls seemed pretty pointless to me, I doubt they have prevented much if any crime. But they haven't raised it either.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Britain's gun crime rate has risen since its handgun ban."

Britain's gun crime rate has risen since "Noel Edmonds' multi-coloured swap shop" was taken off the TV. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation, as you well know. Keep your propaganda to yourself, please.
(from a Briton who doesn't want to get shot on a saturday night.)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[recharged95]

"With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all"

When you have so many video analysis tools (i.e. Virage, etc..), and now cameras systems that can take video based on motion or scene-change detection and generate metadata, plus rule-base systems to forward tagged events to real people for final analysis--there is manpower to review all that stuff. The technology is there.

Worst case is a someone (hacker, gov't, prankster, some disgruntled employee, sister) will get into the archive--and get that picture of you picking your ear and then your nose or something in times square and then post it on the internet ;) ... In the end, 'justice' is not blind anymore, just absolutely subjective.

Luckily, most of these decisions-making, people tracking systems for law enforcement are likely to fail due to 'garbage in-garbage out' or typical operator failure. Unfortunately, we have to live though these headaches to develop a truly acceptable solution.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

in total agreement with your mistrust of out current administration

Just a small note, but what does the current administration have to do with giving gov't vast powers? You might like/approve/trust the current administration...but it will change. When one you don't like comes in, gov't still has the power you gave it. This is why you should never give gov't a power you wouldn't trust in the hands of a mob of lying bullies. Powers shouldn't be granted on the basis of the good they could do when used well, but of the evil they could do when abused.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[thetroll123]

The number of times I would walk past some poor pedestrian surrounded by paramedics after being hit by a car was insane. Something had to be done about it.

Bizarre! I've lived in London 30 years, central and suburban, and see ambulances attending road accidents maybe once a year. You can't have it both ways - if the traffic is hardly moving there aren't going to be many high-speed impacts.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, police frequently carry their own video cameras, so they can provide evidence to stop claims of harrasment by them.

Also, organised protestors (Greenpeace, etc) generally have a vid cam of their own, so they don't care about cameras they couldn't guarantee control of anyway.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Atzanteol]

anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.

Now that is sick.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

To put it another way, if you're on a public beach reading a book, would you feel as if your privacy was being invaded because others might look at that book and know what you're reading? In order that your privacy be maintained, does the beach really have to be empty? Conversely, if the beach is crowded is your privacy more compromised somehow than if it were empty, because more people can see what you like to read?

Of course not...read a book in public, the public will know what you're reading. If you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't do it in public.

No, the "public" doesn't know what I'm reading or that I'm reading. A few random people that crossed my path might, and will quickly forget the details. Any investigation of the fact would require extensive correlation of disparate facts.

With cameras, the events are recorded, and the future use of those recordings is unknown. This is a vast difference from the former situation.

The old "if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?" canard is foolish. Rather, "if I've done nothing wrong, gov't should not have me under surveillance". Gov't should have to justify it's actions to me, not the other way around. Gov't is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[katorga]

The "middle class" fears disorder more than injustice. Injustice implies limited, correctable imbalances. Disorder implies no rules at all.

So it stands to reason that the middle class would gladly give up thier rights (injustice) in the vain attempt to protect themselves from crime (disorder).

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[JimBobJoe]

The UK has a fifth the population of the USA yet has 50 times less gun crime

This statistic is a little crude because it doesn't take into account very very different levels of gun ownership from place to place. For instance, guns are entirely banned in Washington DC, and DC is often the most likely place to be murdered by a gun in the US.

On the other hand, there are places here in rural Ohio which are so well armed that they could take over a latin american country, and they have not had a murder in that county since Ohio's inception (and they are not necessarily unpopulated...they often have a pretty good sized population.)

And of course there are places that are mixed. Much like comparing the gun culture of Switzerland and Israel to the anti gun culture of Japan (former two have low homicide rates, lots of guns, latter has relatively high murder rates, low guns) its the culture that makes the difference, not the guns.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[julesh]

Absolutley nobody carried (legitimately) a handgun as a crime deterrent and anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.

Are you sure? I know somebody who did exactly that, and got away with it. What do you think's going to happen? Mugger walks into police station and says, "I was mugging this guy and he pulled a gun on me!"?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[untaken_name]

Thank you. I wasn't trying to state that the tolls make things more dangerous or anything, only that there are always unintended consequences for actions, especially when they affect as many disparate people as those tolls do. It's just that usually, especially where politicians are involved, one hears only the positive, expected effects*. If an unexcpected effect is positive, one will also hear about it, but likely it will be described as something expected and even designed.

*unless the action was taken by the political opponent of the speaker, in which case only the negatives will be mentioned, intended or no.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[julesh]

Gun bans are not a major obstacle in the way of a revolutionary. When you commit revolution, you will always break laws. Breaking the gun ban is minor compared to the ban on killing government officials.

That argument doesn't work. Sure, a revolutionary is going to break laws, but that isn't the only thing preventing a revolution. Arranging them is difficult. Having to acquire your weapons from a source outside of your own country and then import them makes them harder, and increases the chance that you will be noticed before you manage to stage your coup.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[BenjyD]

The two accidents when I was hit by a car and a moped happened when I was commuting to my part time job in north east london from IC on my bike. One was near trafalgar square, the other just north of liverpool street station. Neither was my fault at all - in both cases the other vehicle didn't see me when trying to turn left at speed.
The pedestrian was some idiot kid who ran into the road while the lights were green without looking.

I never go through red lights, I have very bright lights, I don't cycle on the pavement. Yet the shear volume of cars and stupidity of drivers means it's hard to avoid an accident eventually in central London.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[LnxAddct]

As in Britain, all, if not most, murders in the U.S. are crime on crime related. Its Newtonism at its best:) I've never feared getting shot, its not something that crosses my mind ever. Guns aren't as popular as folks make them out to be. They are mostly concentrated in ghettos and I beleive out in the west, not where your average person lives, and performs daily tasks. As far as premeditated murder goes, if someone wants you dead, its gonna happen with a gun or without a gun. This whole gun issue is way over hyped. I've never publicly seen a gun other then on a Police Officer or Military personnel. People are making it seem like 1 in 3 people have them, when in reality its much less. Regardless, a gun ban wouldn't be effective in the States simply because of Mexico to the south and Canada to the north. Drugs come through those borders very easily, and guns would just be added to the list. Also, the U.S. has about 5 times the population, and IIRC crime rates in general are not linear, but rather exponential, in regards to the population. Let the UK's population multiply by 5 and I'd bet the rates are pretty consistent with the U.S.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Oddly_Drac]

"I live in Sweden, not the UK"

Then I apologise, but with the caveat that our governments and their implementations are very different. Again, I apologise for intimating that you're British.

"I don't mind being filmed when I'm in a public place, why would I?"

Neither do I, but the point I was trying to make was that they're replacing policemen with the cameras. This is akin to saying to the police that they have to stick to one spot and not move around, let alone the problems of handing over the monitoring of cameras to private companies rather than keeping them under police control, which I'd much prefer.

"No offence, but I think most privacy advocates should get a more creative hobby."

Nah, it's pretty creative here at the moment as it is, and one of the reasons I'm in the field is to combat the complete political apathy that's overtaking our country. Local councils in the UK are stretching the letter of the law in most cases because they aren't elected officials, and they try to keep things opaque in terms of not being able to divine the decisions that they make. Put it this way, to view the accounts of my council, I have to keep an eye on one of the local papers for the announcement that the accounts will be viewable for a two week period during the year. These are public funds that the public can't check up on.

Another knock on from my sense of civic duty is that I run local crime awareness forums and have been trying (in the face of more apathy) to build communities because we, as a country, have gotten frighteningly insular and suspicious. While this may peg me as being nosy, it gels quite well with being a privacy advocate.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[julesh]

CCTV is also frequently of such exceptionally poor quality that facial recognition is all but impossible. Typically we're shown a grainy black and white and asked if we know anyone who was wearing a dark top with a white stripe across it.

Do bare in mind that we're only asked to identify the people that the police can't recognise themselves. Given that the local police generally know 90% or more of the criminals operating in their area, this means that you only see the 10% of unknown criminals mixed with only the instances from those 90% where the CCTV footage is too poor for the police to look at it and immediately say, "Isn't that Joe Foster from the old tower block on Lebanon Close?"

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[julesh]

and has seriously considered reducing the burden of proof for serious offences to "balance of probabilities".

You know, I'd forgotten about this. You're talking about the idea that was suggested for last year's Sexual Offences Act that in cases of alleged rape, it should be up to the alleged offender to show that consent was given (a task that is nearly impossible in most cases), aren't you? I take it that didn't make it to the final version of the act...?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[JimBobJoe]

It is merely the fact that a person isn't physically there viewing you, but viewing you through a remote connection. What is the difference between that, and if the person were physically there?

The difference is certainly reduced if the camera is not actively recording. However, there is a significant difference between a person either actively or inactively watching and their ability to remember what you're doing, and then later forget it if it weren't important, and the camera's ability to record the events for posterity.

The other difference is that the person viewing remotely is personally unviewable. Franz Kafka's The Trial deals with this concept--in that he is accused of a crime by a body who is anonymous, and he spends his time trying to figure out who is accusing him and why. And of course the US Constitution deals with this issue by saying the accused has the right to be confronted and know their accuser.

We use undercover agents in very limited situations. Otherwise one of the major components to liberty is that undercover surveillance is held as unprofessional, demeaning, and a tool for only very limited circumstances. In the same way you should be able to confront your accuser, you should also be able to confront your surveiller.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

Just remember this:

"Guns kill people, just like spoons made Rosie Odonnell fat."

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pentagram]

So I really can't take your comment "I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction." very seriously. Do you troll slashdot often?

First: you're a fuckwit. Why? For bringing personal insults into a debate.

Second: I was talking about personal experience, as I stated.

Third: in each of those stories you linked to, the CCTV images were at best used as supporting evidence -- a long way from your claim CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth. CCTV does not magically "catch" anyone. Even in the rare case that a good image is obtained, this still has to be matched to the person.

Fourth: the references I was actually referring to was to support your statement: We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, much stronger than the claim that it has been used in court. Cite or retract please.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Stone316]

I find this fairly amusing: In the USA the right to keep and bear arms is not associated with crime control. It is State Control. The reason the State wants gun control is it is getting predatory. It must be clear to all that removing the quills from porcupines does not enhance the safety of porcupines. It only favors the predators. This is also true regards the State. (State = Nation for those who cannot read the dictionary) Realistically now, do you think you even stand a chance of standing up to your government? There are 2 things you fail to understand, most people lack the cohones to stand up to government by using force and 2, you'd get quashed by the police state so fast you wouldn't have time to reload.

What your saying is all nice in theory but as we have seen in many countries around the world you don't stand a chance. Once a country crosses the line they rarely go back without outside intervention.

What it comes down to is that the US culture is obsessed with guns. How else do you explain the number of homocides and gun related crimes as compared to places like Canada, Britian and other European countries?

What we see in the US is when an arms race goes bad. A criminal gets a gun for a crime, so homeowners start buying guns, so more criminals get guns, then other criminals get guns because other criminals have guns and so on. I'd hate to see what would have happened if the cold war went bad.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

CCTV cameras should not be thought of as an alternative to real policemen, but as an alternative to real witnesses. Unfortunately politicians don't always understand this, and use the installation of CCTV cameras as justification for reducing the amount spent on policing...

These would be the same politicians who most loudly yell "I'll give you tax cuts!" Unfortunately, the public doesn't always understand that tax cuts inevitably mean cuts in the amount of money spent on some service or other.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the long run it saves money. The government can close all the prisons, because you are already living in one...
Have fun!

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Oddly_Drac]

"So, make a complaint to the relevant authorities."

Have done. The police say they've already mentioned it to them. Suffice to say that avenue stopped there for the moment.

"If you still have no luck after going right up to the top of the chain, contact the press and your local MP."

That's the next step, although MPs say that they have no recourse to act in a dispute with the council...the trouble is that it's looking like a vast loophole, let alone that nobody is currently _operating_ the things.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Maybe it is naked females in the mens locker room.
It would be a very popular club then. :)

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ponxx]

All of the examples you give show dictators disarming a (presumably armed) populace after establishing totalitarian power. In other words, the wide availability of guns did not stop them from taking power at all.

The idea that in 1938 (when Hitler passed the law you refer to) the Jews could have mounted an armed struggle against the nazi party, or even against the Gestapo is absolutely ludicrous. The Jews in Germany were not militant nor widely armed in the first place.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Oddly_Drac]

" The vast majority of the gun crime rise is due to Yardie violence"

...says the Daily Mail, completely failing to note that the word 'Yardie' refers to any young man coming from Kingston.

"typically involves criminals killing each other in fights over territory and dealers."

Or more accurately escalates said warfare until parity is reached between one group of prats and another group of prats, country of origin, ethnicity and income range notwithstanding.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Armchair Dissident]

I'd actually forgotten about the sexual offences changes too. I'd certainly agree that this government is so concerned about increasing conviction rates for rape that they've completely forgotten the many cases of malicious prosectution.

I was actually thinking of the changes proposed for dealing with organised crime (here).

The problem is that they've proposed this "FBI-style" crime unit, but apparently are going to so woefully underfund it that serious criminal charges will be tried on the balance of probabilities. Which makes one wonder: why bother setting it up at all.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Sin Nombre]

You are right, CCTV does help convict lots of criminals. However, those crimes are still committed. CCTV has only shown a 3-4% prevention rate of crime, and that has been in crimes like car theft and shoplifting.

Rape and assault are still just as likely to be committed, while better street lighting (far cheaper and no privacy concerns) REDUCED crime by 20%.

I'd really much rather those crimes were never committed, rather than knowing they'll catch whoever did it.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Oddly_Drac]

"I assume you're one of those sad students who like to pedal Socialist Worker, failing to notice the communist ideology has never worked in real life."

Nope. Worked since I was eighteen, never been a student beyond sixth form and I'm a fan of the free market as long as it isn't propped up by governments afraid of annoying the private sector. As for the communist ideology not working, China has one of the worlds largest economies that is currently running at 4% growth. I don't like their record on human rights, but I'm not going to use dislike to stifle the facts. Something that differs between us, I feel.

"I note you're very quick to complain about corruption, yet I bet you can provide no proof."

And you're quick to make assumptions about my politics, age and social circumstances, making it really unlikely that I could provide any proof that would sway you from your opinion. However, for other interested readers, please look into the erection of the Isle of Skye toll bridge and the removal of ferry services. Incidentally, the Islanders recently won their battle.

" Dear Mr. Privacy advocate, please make up your mind. Is it 3rd party copmpanies or local councils who run the cameras."

Yes, I wasn't clear, was I. Cameras are owned, sited and operated under the auspices of local government in accordance with the CCTV extensions of the data protection act. The actual monitoring is farmed out to private companies who appear on the relevant signage along with their phone number should there be a problem. Signage should appear in all streets covered by CCTV.

Does that answer your question?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[aminorex]

You think that you have nothing to hide because
you are ignorant of the large number of laws that
you violate on a daily basis. When you become
politically unpopular, or inconvenient to some
powerful person's brother-in-law, you will be
removed to prison.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[KefabiMe]

Citizens should not fear their Government.

It is the Government that should fear its Citizens. There is no other way to prevent an abuse of power in Government.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[bil]

One guy has done nothing wrong (legal gun owner) and is trying to defend himself.

But he has, he's waved a firearm around in a public place. So actually both guys are commiting crimes that have the potential to injure or kill somebody.

If the person with the firearm uses it and hits an innocent bystander should he be let off because he was just protecting himself? He is carrying out an action that has potentially disasterous consequences for others who have nothing to do with the crime why should he be allowed to put others at risk in this way?

I dont understand Americans obbsession with the freedom to use items designed urely to injure and kill in anyway they please without restriction.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[NexusTw1n]

First: you're a fuckwit.
No you are a troll, a foul mouthed one at that.

Second: I was talking about personal experience
You stated you knew of no cases where CCTV had secured a conviction, yet the bbc is full of such cases, I personally know of no case of arson, it doesn't mean to say arson doesn't exist. You made a meaningless point and I pulled you up on it.

Third: in each of those stories you linked to, the CCTV images were at best used as supporting evidence

Hours of CCTV footage was checked until a known sex offender was seen, this lead was then followed up. The fact a sex offender was in the area at the time was suspicious, this fact was obtained from the video footage. CCTV directly led the police to the rapist, who was a known sex offender because CCTV had previously caught him indecently exposing himself, this previous footage directly leading to indecent exposure charge. It is all there in the BBC news story.

As for catching child killers, you can't be British if you don't know that the CCTV footage was extremely helpful in the Bulger case.
Google on Nail Bomber Dave Copeland, the Police clearly stated CCTV footage provided the breakthrough.

Fourth: the references I was actually referring to was to support your statement: We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates
You quoted my comment about catching rapists then asked for evidence. When I produce evidence you deny what is in your face.

Cite or retract please.
You've gone from trolling to being extraordinarily ignorant and rude. You are no position to demand anything, but here is quote from the Home Office for you, again found in seconds on google.

"along with the introduction of more CCTV cameras and better street lighting, have dramatically cut robbery in some areas of Bradford. There are currently 240 CCTV cameras across the district, along with cameras using automatic number plate recognition technology. In May this year, the Partnership placed a series of cameras throughout the city centre to instantaneously check car registration numbers against police databases. This pioneering scheme the first in the UK means that officers are immediately alerted if a vehicle is wanted in connection with a crime. "

No doubt this isn't evidence to you, after all, the Home Office doesn't have you as an advisor, but I'm afraid I can't be bothered with you anymore. Post another rant if you like, I shan't be reading it.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[aminorex]

Wow, cool. I know now how I'm going to fund my
retirement.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[nickos]

"Study after study has shown that CCTV has NO effect on violent crime."

Maybe, but it would have prevented the attempted murder that happened opposite my house!

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived in Switzerland for two years, every male there has an assault rifle and ammunition in his home and there is literally no gun crime. So I guess the reason for large gun crime in the US must be different than what your post suggests.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the inclusion of gun suicides into gun related death and crime statistics would it...? Nah... why would people want to mess around with statistics?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[EvilBudMan]

--The UK has a fifth the population of the USA yet has 50 times less gun crime.--

Not trying to be pro or anti gun but..

What are the statistics on non gun crime, heh? I think th UK would rank up there, but of course gun crime leads to more death.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[The Dark P]

You may not trust the government, but I trust inertia and tradition. America and many other states differ from the UK because of the way their history has evolved. The UK has had a relatively stable government from pretty much the end of the English civil war. Rather than the rapid revolutions which mark the history of other countries, like France, Russia and America, in the UK there has been a gradual evolution of rights and the relationship between the people and the state. This means that in general people are more trusting of the state than they were, mainly because the state has had a tradition of benevolency for such a long period of time. The question i would ask is, What would cause such a change?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[iso_bars]

It's a fine line to cross.

In some areas, CCTV does a fantastic job. In Burges s Hill (a town near where i live in the UK) vandalism was completely stopped when a set of cameras was installed next to a local shop. What was a hotpoint of crime and a nasty place to walk at night has become a pretty safe area.

However, the CCTV in this case is possibly only masking the causes of crime. The same people stealing car stereos (do people still do that?) are out there, but in a new, camera free zone.

As a result, the police then introduce more and more cameras in each of these problem areas until the whole town is under constant surveilence.

The potentials for abuse are huge. Members of legitimate anti-government groups can be tracked and then linked to completely unrelated crimes. Your identity, location and friends are known to the government. Not good.

Which is why people have to make sure that the line does not get crossed - some CCTV is OK, but not too much. Some proof of identity - driving licences - are only sensible, whereas national ID card schemes are way overboard.

Both sides of this argument are correct, sort of.

Cheers,

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[The Dark P]

Don't moan, if it wasn't for subsidies from London, you wouldn't have any busses.
The worst thing is that the new bridge over the Taymar that takes you into cornwall is like a trap, they don't charge a toll on the way in, but they do on the way out.
So in general you have nothing to moan about, with your EU/London subsidised bridges/roads/busses/farms

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pentagram]

No you are a troll, a foul mouthed one at that.

You've gone from trolling to being extraordinarily ignorant and rude

Well, that's me told! I seem to have offended your feelings! Tip: if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others who are merely trying to debate. See here.

I personally know of no case of arson, it doesn't mean to say arson doesn't exist. You made a meaningless point and I pulled you up on it.

I was talking of personal experience, which I stated. I certainly did not claim that this proved anything, though personal experience does count for something.

As for catching child killers, you can't be British if you don't know that the CCTV footage was extremely helpful in the Bulger case.

No it wasn't. The images were too blurred. I seem to remember that the kids were eventually turned in by a family friend who noticed paint and blood stains on the kids' clothing.

You are no position to demand anything

You made a strong claim, and I asked you to provide the basis for it. I even said please; that's hardly unreasonable. The onus is on you to back your statements if you want to be taken seriously. No, a Home Office statement is not a reasonable source. They have a vested interest in making their tactics look like they're working.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[internewt]

anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.

Now that is sick.

Thats the US vs the UK's stance on gun ownership. The US' is essentailly that if everyone's armed, then everyone's equal. The UK play it that if no one's armed, everyone's equal.

I'm British FWIW.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[mikerich]

Maybe, but it would have prevented the attempted murder that happened opposite my house!

That is a horrific story - but you cannot say that CCTV would have prevented the attack. It may have deterred a person or persons acting in full control of their faculties. If the story is halfway correct, the perpetrators of the attack seem to have anything other than rational.

CCTV may have aided their capture had it been in place, but in of itself, it would not have stopped the attack.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

Germany elected Hitler - it wasn't totalitarian to begin with. But otherwise, right. They take away the guns while the gov't is trusted. (Sounds like a good idea - fewer weapons means less violence, right?) Then when the gov't changes (or maybe it was the plan all along) the populace is defenseless.

Learn from history. Never, never, never give up your guns. Things may be OK now, but situations can change quickly, and it's too late to undo the mistake of disarming.

Even if the threat of tyrannical gov't is removed, criminal elements alone are reason enough to protect yourself. You wouldn't put a sign in your yard that said, "This home has no effective resistance to a powerful criminal, but police can be summoned in 5-15 minutes" would you? Maybe you live that way, but you're relatively safe because it's unadvertised, and criminals have to risk the odds. But in a country where law-abiding folks are disarmed, the whole country has that sign in their front yard. It's foolish.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely correct, which is why Americans should tell their congressmen that they need to have the second amendment interpreted literally. That amendment gives us the right to "bear arms", not just "bear guns". I, as an American citizen, should be able to own an M1 Abrams tank, or a fully automatic M60, or any other weapon I want. That amendment was added for the specific purpose of fighting other military forces. Our government, for the obvious reasons, has legislated all the impact out of that amendment over the years so that banning guns, when it does happen(and it will), will be seen as not much of a big deal by the populace. As you said, what's my handgun going to do against fully armored tanks rolling through my neighborhood?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok let's use your logic then. Let's put them everywhere! Cameras in the bathroom even in your house. Them lets lo-jack everyone. Bet it reduces crime?
Fachist

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like comparing the gun culture of Switzerland and Israel to the anti gun culture of Japan (former two have low homicide rates, lots of guns, latter has relatively high murder rates, low guns) its the culture that makes the difference, not the guns.

Incorrecto mundo!

A study of data from the early 90's:

Japan's annual homicide rate has been progressively decreasing for a decade and now stands at 1.2 per 100,000. It is reported that 97% of murders are solved - the highest clearance rate in the world.

Total homicide rates for the same period were 2.6 in Switzerland and 2.7 in Canada.

Norway, like Switzerland, is a small heavily-armed country. It is estimated that 35% of Norwegian homes contain firearms, but homicide rates in 1990 and 1991 were 1.2 and 1.5 per 100,000 - comparable to those in Japan, North Dakota and England.

A more interesting table (1990s) for 1st world nations has the following tidbit:

Firearn homicide for:
US = 3.72
Switzerland = 0.58
Japan = 0.02

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

like all technologies, good and bad are who is using them. technology is a form of power. If the users of technology and power have proper checks and blances or if the technology it self has checks and balances then society can ensure that the users of technology do not infringe upon the freedom of others.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firearn homicide for:
US = 3.72
Switzerland = 0.58
Japan = 0.02

Come on! We all know that ninjas don't use guns. That's why Japan has such a low firearm homicide rate.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

But he has, he's waved a firearm around in a public place.

Your position is utterly perplexing. You say "waving a firearm around" like the mere action is causing horrific injuries and massive casualties.

Hello, nothing happened. If the gun accidentally discharged due to the owner's carelessness, he should be fully responsible for that. (This very risk is why responsible gun owners [which most are] that carry for self-defense [which not many do] usually take it upon themselves to get training.) But to leave him defenseless because of a maybe, a might-have-been, a potentiality - is ridiculous. I might slander or libel someone, and that's a crime too - should I be barred from speaking or writing??? Just like most people never slander or libel someone (to a criminal level anyway) most people never use a gun against another person. Most of the times when they are used against a person are in self-defense. And most defensive gun uses never even result in a bullet being fired - just "waving it around" (and often it doesn't even amount to that) is enough to make a criminal think twice and back off. However, these stories don't make headlines (Sep 2004 if the relevant story has been archived).

Nobody in the US makes it a habit to walk around like Rambo, dozens of guns and live ammo strapped on, casually sticking them under people's noses with the safeties off. The fact that you have that perception just shows how ignorant you, and most people that haven't grown up around guns, are of them in particular and America in general. The media plays on your ignorance, showing the very thing you fear as the only possible outcome. Try a different picture.

"Your defense against aggression might have a remote possibility of harming a third party. Therefore you shall forever be relegated to victimhood." Silly Brits.

I dont understand Americans obbsession with the freedom to use items designed urely to injure and kill in anyway they please without restriction.

I don't understand the British obsession with bending over and taking it up the rear.

It is precisely because there are people who will use (potentially lethal) force against me and my family, whose lives I value very much, that we fiercely protect the freedom to use similar force in defense. If my right to life means anything at all, my right to defend it (with force if necessary - maybe you get by with biting witticisms?) is a natural consequence.

If your life isn't worth protecting, fine, don't buy a gun. If your neighbors' aren't worth it, disband your police. If your countrymens' aren't worth it either, disband your military. If you can claim a collective right to protect your collective lives, then how can you deny an individual right to protect your individual life? In a country of one, you'd be your own military. No one cedes that right just because there are other people around.

Government (people as a collective) has no right to do what individual people have no right to do. Invalidating self-defense invalidates national defense. Just because you want to be peaceful doesn't mean everyone else does, and occasionally you may have to use violence to defend the peace. Sounds paradoxical, but true.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on! We all know that ninjas don't use guns. That's why Japan has such a low firearm homicide rate.

Ninjas don't use guns??? I thought they were issued laser guns after they killed their first pirate.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

Or your could just buy a gun and be your own personal bodyguard. You're always close at hand, unlike police. Being trained in a martial art (and I think gunmanship qualifies) can keep you from getting mugged.

Oh wait, you're talking UK... Sorry.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

The US declared independence. The British were the ones who initiated hostilities. Did England declare war?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonym1ty]

While I spent 1 year in the US I saw countless guns...

The point we Americans are making is; Of all those scary guns you have seen, how many of them actually shot you?

Now here's the other question; Of all those surveillance cameras, How many of those have actually shot you?

I can answer the gun-violence numbers in America quite easily. They aren't allowed everywhere. It's a lot easier to carry a gun of any kind in Texas than it is in California. More people get shot in California than do in Texas.

When the state of Florida allowed concealed carry, Crime against Floridians went down. However crime against tourists went up. This had to do with an easily visible difference in the license plates of rental cars. The point is, The criminals didn't know which Floridians were carrying. They knew tourists couldn't carry. This made tourists easy targets. --Since this they changed the license plates of rental cars.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's not like the British weren't drafting civil sailors into their navy or anything like that.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

in Iraq 65% of the muslim population(which make up about 75-80% of the entire population) were shiites(sp?) and the kurds accounted for 15-20% of the entire population. If both these groups had been armed back in the day i gaurentee you that Saddam and the Baathists would never have gotten into power in the first place.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[stephenbooth]

Hostilities (and 'terrorist' acts) were initiated by the colonials before the declaration of independance. It helps if you look at things in date order.

Stephen

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the opposite in the US. I was picked on by the kids with the fast fists.

Verbal retaliation was the only option, the admins didn't care.

The solution is not herding kids into cramped schools with insufficient supervision, or actually helping students who complain.

NOTHING requires a good ass kicking.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[kamapuaa]

If you take the USA's crime rate apart by race you find ours even for guns is lower than England for the persons of northern European ancestry.

Why do you even bring this up, what relevance does this have to your argument? Are you proposing the white people in the US are an "ancestrial group"? Isn't racist bullshit a little passe?

Nobody compiles US murder rates by those of "Northern European" ancestry (Norwegians from Minnesota???) and even if they did, northern Europeans tend to be wealthier than average.

If what you meant was "non-Hispanic whites," slightly more than half the murders in the US were committed by white people (who make up about 75% of the US). So you can lower the US's murder rate by about 1/3rd to make the "US white people murder rate" - which would still put the US far higher than any single European nation. (3.76 murder/100,000, compared to Spain's 2.94

This took about 10 seconds of Googling to verify. If "Never Politically Correct" means "blindly making statements that 10 seconds of Googling will show isn't really true," maybe you should at least occasionally be politically correct.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Exocet]

As a former student and now as a tax-payer and registered Libertarian, I think you're half-way:

The idiot kids with "fast" mouths, yes, they need ...well, they need some punishment. I think it's horribly unpopular to suggest physical punishment, but it works well because it's very, very basic. Heinlein believed in it, at any rate. :)

However, idiot kids with "fast" fists also need a dose of physical punishment, IMO. We theoretically live in a civilized society, we can't have kids, who are phenominally stupid between the ages of 0 through about 25. Some take longer to come up to an acceptable standard of common sense/"smarts".

The only people I want catching/stopping law-breakers is cops (or possibly a citizen's arrest - RARE) and the only people I want handing out punishments are judges and juries.

BTW: law-enforcement and punishment begin at home. Parents, strictly control your children in a way that would make Saddam blush! Don't let them get away with any crap! They will thank you for it sometime in their 20's, when they are old enough to be sufficiently irritated by (other) screaming snot-nosed brats.

PS: no, I don't have kids. :P

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Feanturi]

One guy has done nothing wrong (legal gun owner) and is trying to defend himself. The other guy is in the commission of a crime that assaults another.

Probably because it's a crime to threaten anybody with a loaded gun, unless you happen to be law-enforcement. Even then, they have loads of paperwork to file and whatnot just for drawing their sidearm, they have to fully justify that action. Here in Canada, a cop was recently terminated from the force for drawing his gun and shooting in the general direction of a suspect fleeing in a vehicle. A couple of years ago in Edmonton, a store owner who slept in the back room of his store, was rudely awakened at 3 am by a pickup truck smashing through the front window. He came out of the back to find two guys loading a $10,000 TV into the truck. He shot one of them (not fatally), they got away anyhow, and the store owner was charged. His gun wasn't registered, that was the crux of the issue. The would-be burgler (who initially lied to authorities about the source of his injury) was not charged with anything, as far as I recall.

If the mugger doesn't have a gun, and you do, and you threaten him with it, the law will be on his side. If anybody were to die in that encounter, it would more likely be the lesser-armed mugger, and you would be deemed a cold-blooded murderer.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would prefer criminals over cameras?

UK bans guns. So the criminals run free. Cameras are a deterrent. If a crime is committed, and the criminal walks near a camera, whether or not it's staffed or not, it's still easy to run the video tape and then put the picture out to identify the individual.

Of course, most privacy advocates think this is an invasion of their privacy. In that case, I think privacy advocates should move to an area of town and CLEARLY post signs saying, "NO video cameras here." Right next to it, "We don't have any weapons either." Then watch the criminals have a fun time.

I think all anti-gun lobbyists should post a sign outside their homes saying, "No guns here." I wonder how well they'd sleep at night.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[0racle]

Only an American living in the western country with the highest crime rate could possible believe that violence deters violence. Having a gun and presenting it to an attacker does nothing. It does not prevent that person from injuring or killing you, it does not deter a home invasion, it does not make a unsafe neighborhood any safer. Violence and the promise of Violence only creates more violence. Apparently the only way some people will learn is when they're all dead.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Atzanteol]

That's not what that sentence says at all. I'll requote it for clarity:

anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.

This says that any man defending his home/person with a handgun is guilty. Apparently the 'British view' as you believe is that everyone should just bend over and let the mugger have their way with you rather than defend yourself.

And to respond to you:

The US' is essentailly that if everyone's armed, then everyone's equal. The UK play it that if no one's armed, everyone's equal.

Guns aren't called the "great equalizer" for nothing. An 85 year old woman unarmed against an unarmed 25 year old thug stands no chance. That same old broad with a 9mm *definitely* stands a chance. Don't tell me they were "equal" without guns.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

Mind-boggling. If it legal to have a gun, but illegal to use it in the ways and at the times it might actually be of benefit, what's the point?

Fascinating how public perception can be twisted against someone just trying to defend himself and his property, though.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[UserGoogol]

I suppose you're right. But what use are guns in a revolution anyway? If you're going to wage a revolution against a Western nation (or at least the United States), guns are not going to be of much use against the immense military power the government holds. You'll probably need to go with some sort of more bomb-intensive program of asymetrical warfare: placing bombs in major government areas and the like. And bombs, besides not being traditionally classified as "arms" in the Constitutional sense, aren't terribly hard to make.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[JWSmythe]

It's kind of funny, every reply to my message agreed with what I was saying. I don't want to be running down the street late for something, and get arrested based on the fact that I was running away from a crime scene I didn't know about.

CCTV does have it's uses though. A friend of mine installed a system at his store for his own use. It was initilly installed because the store had been robbed at gunpoint several times. It never did catch any robbers. He started watching employees from home though. He watch employees wandering in and out of the store, when they were suppose to be working, which was useful to get them to actually work.

The best instance of CCTV helping was at a club. The same store owner had a problem with what seemed to be a shortage of funds from the cover charge at the door. It always seemed a few hundred dollars short. They put a camera over the box, not to watch customers, but to watch the staff working the door. Through the night, he watched the girl working the door putting money in her clothes. Ah, ha! That's where the money is going. The next day, she was shown the tape, asked if she wanted to comment. Her comment was "You weren't paying me enough." (she was well paid). So, they simply told her, never come back to the store, even as a customer.

I feel that's a reasonable use of cameras. They already suspected a crime (stealing from the club), they put in cameras, recorded the act, and then had evidence of the act.

Thinking back on that particular incident, I would stand there and talk to her sometimes, when the door wasn't busy. She asked me to not hang around, because "the boss said no one should be here." I didn't question it then, but I mentioned it to the boss afterwards. He told me he hadn't said any such thing. She knew that I would have gone directly back to the boss, and had her fired on the spot if I had seen it. He's a good friend of mine, so I wouldn't want to see anyone stealing from him. In the end, having a taped witness was better than me seeing it.

BUT!

If the camera hadn't seen her actually putting the money in her clothes, and only had recorded who had come in and out of the booth, they could have fingered any other employee who had gone into the booth, or even me, who had worked the door on occasion, to cover for breaks. Really, if you had a choice between the friend of 5 years, or the good employee of 7 years, who would get fingered for the theft?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[timeOday]

Wow, I've never been so tempted to join the NRA.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Atzanteol]

anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.

So you agree that this is a good thing? Defending yourself ought be illegal? I said nothing of deterance, nor of making anything safer. Only that it's sick that defending yourself against a mugger with a gun will land you in jail (the hypothetical situation created by the grandparent).

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

OFFS, can't you accept that you've got your ridiculous gunphilic culture, and we've got our own equally ridiculous gunphobic culture, and no amount of retarded arguing on the internet is going to persuade anyone either way? Huh?

And anyone who eats their eggs from the pointy end is a thrice-damned moron.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[h4rm0ny]

The way it now works is that the kids with fast mouths victimize and ridicule the ones with fast fists

I'm curious as to how you find that division. There is no reason for someone who is quick-witted to be weak, nor for a strong person to be mentally slow.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[untaken_name]

I think you replied to the wrong post. I said nothing in support of cameras. I did, in fact, say that they cost a lot of money to install and monitor and that they took police officers away from solving real crimes by sending them to prevent such things as bar fights. Kindly direct your ad hominem attacks at someone else.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChrisPee]

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government...

Do you know you will trust the British government 20-40 years from now? When your personal data remains in their archives, to be used for whatever purpose the next generation deems appropriate?

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the mugger doesn't have a gun, and you do, and you threaten him with it, the law will be on his side. If anybody were to die in that encounter, it would more likely be the lesser-armed mugger, and you would be deemed a cold-blooded murderer.

Except for the little fact that Self-Defense is not Murder.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Nevyn]

The point we Americans are making is; Of all those scary guns you have seen, how many of them actually shot you? Now here's the other question; Of all those surveillance cameras, How many of those have actually shot you?

So you are standing in front of an object, and if it's a camera you have 100% chance it'll "shoot" you but if it's a gun you have 0.001% chance it'll shoot you ... which would you rather it be?

Saying that, the stats. I've seen for CCTV is that it doesn't deter major crimes anyway (although that's often the reason they are bought) only minor ones.

You probably also want to read this guy.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. And it's the muggers fault for starting it in the first place. If they weren't trying to rob me, I never woulda pulled my gun on them.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only an American living in the western country with the highest crime rate could possible believe that violence deters violence.

What violence are you talking about. If I pull a gun on a mugger, what "violence" have I committed?? I have, in fact, STOPPED the mugger from committing violence.

Having a gun and presenting it to an attacker does nothing. It does not prevent that person from injuring or killing you, It does not prevent that person from injuring or killing you, it does not deter a home invasion, it does not make a unsafe neighborhood any safer.

What world do you live on? If I pull a gun on a mugger, and the mugger runs away, I HAVE prevented that person from "injuring or killing" me!!! Cocking a shotgun so the burglars can hear may very well send them running.
As for 'safer neighborhoods', how many drug dealers have enough manpower to stand up against an entire NIEGHBORHOOD of armed citizens who want them out??

Violence and the promise of Violence only creates more violence.

"A witty saying proves nothing."

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Nevyn]

This statistic is a little crude because it doesn't take into account very very different levels of gun ownership from place to place. For instance, guns are entirely banned in Washington DC, and DC is often the most likely place to be murdered by a gun in the US.

But given that most of the US has very little gun laws compared to the UK it should show up overall (all other things being equal). It's also true that even if DC doesn't allow any guns at all, it's much easier to get a gun into DC than into the UK (no border, for example).

A much bigger problem is that it doesn't take into account the differences in how crime is categorized in the UK and US. For instance if you just have a gun on you in the UK it's going to be a big deal no matter what you've done (and probably counted as "gun crime"), where in the US it's not.

So you are left to looking at the studies in the US, and in summary they don't support your position.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what use are guns in a revolution anyway? If you're going to wage a revolution against a Western nation (or at least the United States), guns are not going to be of much use against the immense military power the government holds.

Soldiers are bulletbroof? Military officers, too?

You'll probably need to go with some sort of more bomb-intensive program of asymetrical warfare: placing bombs in major government areas and the like.

A nice bullet in the head of the right person, fired by a sniper across the street, can be just as effective a bomb.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

IF the US government starts doing things you don't like, what are you going to do? You really think that handgun in your house is going to stop them?

Nope. But a gun in everyone's house....

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually agree. As long as I don't harm anyone with them, what does it matter how many guns I have? Or what other types of weapons? Heck, I should be able to own a nuke (assuming I have it properly secured and shielded).

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

Right. Meaning they might make it easier to prosecute the offender if he kills you. Great...but you're still dead.

I wish I could remember the name of the case that established it is not the police's job to protect you (despite any slogan on the side of their cars) but only to investigate and help prosecute crimes after the fact. But police can't be everywhere all the time, and thankfully so. You are responsible for your own welfare/safety. The fact that gov't has decided we should have the responsibility but not the right boggles me.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's illegal does NOT make it right!
They should be cracking down harder and re-introducing a death penality. I'm 17 years old and I've found the kids from my generation are much more violent(Maybe it's just Australia) and im sure alot of the previous generation and the younger passive population would have to agree. You can't say they are just kids everyone over the age of 12 understands the concept of death, pain, horror and terror. I'll bet they'd think twice when there friends are being taken away for mugging someone rather then getting let off because its a first offence and a slap on the wrist next time they do it.

What do you people have against being filmed? Only if you have something to hide. Privacy of your own home is important but in public they must think about the safety.

Perhaps I'm naive at this age and my opinions will change but this makes sense logically. If you're parents find out your doing something wrong and you continue they should push harder and not make it more acceptable.

P.S. Latham > Howard, Howard is just Mr. Bushes yes wo/man.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically now, do you think you even stand a chance of standing up to your government?

Not if the government keeps taking away our Constituional Rights (like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms).

Could that be the point?

There are 2 things you fail to understand, most people lack the cohones to stand up to government by using force

Then they'll owe their Freedom to the rest of us.

and 2, you'd get quashed by the police state so fast you wouldn't have time to reload.

Really? How many police and soldiers are there in he US? How many citizens? Remember to figure a good percentage of cops/military will quit and join their family and friends rather than kill them.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Grant_Watson]

"If the mugger doesn't have a gun, and you do, and you threaten him with it, the law will be on his side. If anybody were to die in that encounter, it would more likely be the lesser-armed mugger, and you would be deemed a cold-blooded murderer."

Only because people do not understand the meaning of those words. First, if you murder someone in the middle of an argument (or mugging), you have killed him in hot blood, not cold blood.

That, however, is irrelevent. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the definition of self-defense in American law derives from the English one. (I haven't a clue about Scotland.) That ought to make shooting a mugger self defense, not murder.

That is, unless you decided to make self defense a crime on the other side of the Big Pond. I'd believe it, too.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pantero Blanco]

"Having a gun and presenting it to an attacker does nothing. It does not prevent that person from injuring or killing you, it does not deter a home invasion, it does not make a unsafe neighborhood any safer."

Even if presenting it doesn't, shooting the attacker can save your life, end or prevent a home invasion, and make the neighborhood safer. That's why I have the gun in the first place.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

What? That little tea party thing over in Boston? Nothing compared to the clamp-down on freedoms that George III was imposing.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Pros_n_Cons]

You are right, Us Americans tend to be a pretty violent culture in many ways but I think the guy's post you responded to still has a valid point. We have laws that prevent average citizens from carrying concealed firearms, in the two states where it is allowed (Texas and Florida) Violent crime has dropped _dramatically_. It makes sense. 99% of the criminals using weapons are just cowards. They pick on the weak, If they never know who has weapons on them they are not as quick to commit a crime.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[NoMercy]

The majority of cameras in the UK are not monitored and privately owned, there is legislation that anyone who is recorded on camera can for a limited price get the person who took the recording of them to hand a copy to them as well.

Though there are a limited number of monitored police camreas in city centers and other areas which have been useful, and the best argument for them was made by the police themselves, as several police men were caught on camera kicking a man on the ground.

Nice to know that when big brother is watching it's also watching its own.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[scifiber_phil]

On what kind of Bizarro world were you a junior high school teacher. Everyone I knew tried to avoid any contact with kids who were known bullies. Indeed, many kids took a lot of ridicule from same bullies, simply because they knew if they said anything back, they would get pounded, and it wasn't worth it. You are implying that the kid who got beat must have done something to have deserved it. In my experience, this is simply not true. I am glad you are a former teacher, as anyone who sees the school yard bully as the victim doesn't have a clue. I was so glad when I got to college and realized that anyone who was now "fast with their fists" were now 18 and likely to be arrested for continuing the crap they pulled in jr. high. I need never bite my lip and take any crap again. Life was now good. Perhaps there was a little of the school yard bully in you, and now as an adult, you would like to justify it. As an adult, I can finally reply, "Bite Me".

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[the last username]

Also, the U.S. has about 5 times the population, and IIRC crime rates in general are not linear, but rather exponential, in regards to the population

Ah, the solution is simple then. Break up the U.S. into individual states. Each state will have nothing more than a handful of shoplifting cases every year.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that, but what use would a couple of unarmed commercial jets be against hundreds of fighter jets dripping with Sidewinder missiles?

It's all about seizing the initiative.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with the other respondants in that physical violence is never to be condoned in school. Yes the verbal abuse is not good, and hard to catch. But apparently you didn't have to worry about fighting bullies every day like me.

I delt with that shit every day for 3 years, and some days I came out ok (mainly because I studied Jeet Kune Do and knew how to hit the fuckers in the eye with 2 knuckles wing-chun style), and some days I ended up isolated against 4 or 5 of them, and you can imagine what the results were.

NO ONE should have to deal with that kind of physical violence. I'm serious, our kids deserve to go to school at LEAST free of that. Yes, it would be great if we could get rid of the verbal shit, but it will never happen. But at least we can do something. For you to suggest that there need to be more fights in our schools is ridiculous. Let kids get into fights out of school; I agree they need to get the experience. But it SHOULD NOT be at school.

For you to suggest such a thing is to imply that you yourself accept physical violence as a valid alternative to an altercation; rarely a valid choice in adult society. Physical violence is only an option when your life is threatened, and most martial arts emphasize this point. We don't need our kids fighting each other at recess. Yes, they need to learn and prove how to handle themselves in terms of physical self-defense (as well as VERBAL self-defense), but the place for fighting ISN'T school.

I'm disturbed to think that you were ever a teacher.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cars were not moving how did they hit the pedestrians?

If you removed all the jobs, shops and parking spaces that would cut the traffic, as would a H-bomb

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[tropavantgarde]

Yes. It's called the slippery slope...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[UserGoogol]

And guns can only kill one person at a time. Unarmed jet liners, on the other hand, can kill many people at once.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[misha.sokolov]

cameras are trying to stop crime but we all have a different perspective of crime, and what happens if some day the gov't changes its prospective of crime like in USA right now. also cameras won't change a thing example: the assassination of Kennedy the FBI said he was shot from the back, but in the film he a very obviously shot from the front, every one can see that but no one will do anything about it... I wonder why Misha

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[minion]

With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all, only the ones that are really relevent - where a crime or suspicious behaviour has already been reported. After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?

At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.


I see a few problems with this:
1) Famous person / politician seen going to a strip club.
2) Easy way to profile someone's interests and use it to monetary advantage
3) Easy way to leave out key parts of a video during a crime

Number three is a big one. Lets take the Rodney King beating here in the states. What was shown on TV, and to the court was Rodney getting beat by a few cops. What no one got to see until after the verdict was Rodney getting out of the car and trying to fight the cops. Yeah, the cops didn't need to beat him repeatedly, but it wasn't a race crime - it was, "Another lowlife trying to fight the police, and they were sick of it" scenario. The entire racist beating was an angle used to get those cops busted for acting out of line. And after they end up getting punished did we learn the truth of the matter...

After Rodney, that is, ended up with a 1 Million settlement, some truck driver in LA is now brain damaged from real racists hitting him in the head with a brick (and a camera caught that, with them pulling the trucker out of his truck, smashing in his head, and laughing about it... Not much happened to them), and a bunch of looting and property damange took place.

Yeah, trust what you see. When the government, or especially the media shows it to you and calls it truth.

And, btw, I believe London leads the "First World (civilized) Countries" in violent crimes. Perhaps the British government should spend more time repealing anti-gun laws than installing cameras. Take Sweden for example.

--
If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit three times? Perhaps you should recognise that you're not the king shit and watch where you're riding.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[severoon]

Well, assuming I were to take up that argument, I would simply point out that the government's intent is not to "surveil" you. You are not even part of the equation--there wasn't even a reasonable expectation that you'd show up in front of that camera.

Even that is beside the point. The government is actually free to follow you around provided you are in public. Cops do it all the time...ever been driving around and suddenly you have cop tailing you that you can't seem to shake? They're even allowed to call in your license plate just for kicks to see if the car is stolen, b/c your plate is in public view. They don't even need probable cause.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[severoon]

I know of no protection or right that affords people the right to know who's looking at them in public. In fact, when you're in public you have the responsibility to conform to public standards, e.g., you can't walk around naked.

Keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I'm not saying I believe strongly on this issue of cameras one way or another, I'm just saying I see both sides of it. In fact, I can't understand how anyone could not see both sides of it...it's a very open-ended issue.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Alphtoo]

"Having a gun and presenting to an attacker does nothing." As an American with some knowledge of firearm use and safety, I would like to note that when someone attacks you, presenting him with your weapon is not recommended. And if you think "Having a gun.... does not deter a home invasion," you just haven't invaded the right home; try mine. You will be deterred.
--
Before seeking security we should ask: secure from what? Who would you trust to provide it? How's their track record? Thanks, but I prefer my 'security' loaded and handy.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[dave420]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree entirely.

The environmental argument was just part of the initiative. The levels of traffic in London had detremental effects in lots of ways.

I live in Islington, N1 (just outside zone 1). I work in Hanger Lane, W5 (zone 3). I use public transport every day to get to work and back. I used to live in Berkshire, and commute in and back every day. I managed that using only public transport, and it was fast. The argument that commuters need cars is kind of silly, as a perfectly adequate infrastructure for commuting exists.

There really is no reason to drive a car around london. Sure, in the outer zones, but in the centre it's just illogical. jim.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

of course, and that is the point.
the UK has comparable rates of knife murders and poisoning to the US.
and a tenth the gun rate.

therefore, the availability of guns causes gun murders. QED.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[JimBobJoe]

I know of no protection or right that affords people the right to know who's looking at them in public.

Best I can do is give you Canada:

"The first involved police surveillance of persons suspected of engaging in games of chance, while the second dealt with surveillance of a worker on sick leave. The first case, dubbed the "Wong Affair," occurred in Ontario, and went as far as the Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court determined that video surveillance is tantamount to a search, and therefore violated the clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. A warrant is thus needed before this kind of surveillance can be carried out, as is the case for wire tapping."

from :http://www.forum.umontreal.ca/forum_express/pages _a/law.htm

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CBDSteve]

Government (people as a collective) has no right to do what individual people have no right to do.

What? That is blantantly untrue. How about the government's right to make new laws, allocate tax funds, declare war, etc. etc?

And in the case of America - the government has the right to kill citizens...

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[goatan]

That's the next step, although MPs say that they have no recourse to act in a dispute with the council...the trouble is that it's looking like a vast loophole, let alone that nobody is currently _operating_ the things.

They may not want to if council is there own party but if it's the oposition im sure they would be delighted to go on TV and tell the council off publicley, that's possibley something you could try yourself Im sure they wouldn't want negative publicity in the news.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

Law can be made by me for myself. (Woop dee doo, right? But bear with me.) Laws can be made by myself along with some others (my community) to govern that community. By participating, we imply agreement to live by the laws we pass. If I vehemently disagree with some of the laws, I can withdraw (secede, if you will) from that community, and then it has no jurisdiction over me. A just government would understand this principle and let me be.

This may sound strange to you, since it is so seldom practiced today, but it's a natural consequence of freedom. If you are free, you are ruled by others only to the extent that you let yourself be. If you cannot withdraw yourself (secede) then you are not free, but a slave to the government. Government has only those powers that you give it. At any time, the people may withdraw the powers from the government, or withdraw themselves from jurisdiction of the government. A government that does not allow either/both of these is on its way to being a tyranny. Government rules only by consent of the governed.

Allocating taxes is the same. I can disburse my money as I want. I can join an organization, a requisite of being a member may be some dues or fees. I have the right to decide, in part, how that money gets used.

Again, war is the same. Occasionally, violence is justified, such as in self-defense. If provoked, I can respond with fisticuffs or whatever force is necessary to save myself. As part of a group that feels threatened, we can jointly "declare war" on the aggressor.

For the very large groups, it is impractical to have a vote for every decision. We elect representatives to make them on our behalf. We are distanced somewhat, but supposedly the benefits outweight this drawback. But the powers that government wields are no more than we ourselves had to begin with. They are only magnified by the scale that its collective nature gives it. War involving a country of 250 million is significantly more powerful than one person punching the nose of a mugger, but that should be obvious. A nation only has the right to rule, disburse, fight on a large scale because its citizens have those same rights on the small scale.

I'm not sure if your last comment is taking a dig at the death penalty or what, so I'll reserve comment.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[goatan]

Using news article that are a year old is not very clever you should go for more recent facts, allow the home office to put you right Also none of those articles mentioned that gun crime has fallen from 1995-2003 and has started to drop again. 8 years of reducing crime and one year where it stood still sounds like a success to me.

"Later in the week the home secretary is to host a summit on tackling gun crime, which figures due out on Thursday are expected to show has risen sharply......It is expected the figures will show a 20% increase in firearm offences in England and Wales." That happened over a year ago and it showed a small rise which has been wiped out this year, just because the journalist perceived there to be a big increase in crime and excepts people to announce it doesn't mean it's true, you may not have been talking out of your ass but hindsight has shown the journalist was.

Bobbies are now being issued guns. If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.

Ok where did you get Bobbies are now being issued with guns from? Because they don't carry guns and the biggest police union don't want to carry guns, there are highly trained armed police but they are support units not Bobbies on the beat. Also there are guns in the hands of Citizens (except ironically handguns) I have a full bore license, I have a Lee-Enfield .303 that I use for target shooting and culling deer and Browning 525 Shotgun for Clay pigeon shooting. If someone where to break into my house I would rather attach my Granddads bayonet to the lee-Enfield very intimidating, and if it came to a fight I would rather use the gun as a club anyway.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[CBDSteve]

No, I still can't see any connection between the rights of an individual and the rights of a government. You DON'T get to excuse yourself from governed society just because you don't agree with the rules, as David Koresh eventually found out!

If I decided to declare myself the Independant Republic of Steve and stop paying taxes, it wouldn't take long for the taxman to come knocking. Even people who become hermits and never leave their houses are subject to the rules of the society they live in, and have to pay taxes accordingly - we all have to live together in a land of scarce resources, and are bound to the rules of the land's government, usually through no choice of our own.

Note that I'm not saying this is a perfect system - a good example of it malfunctioning might be the Aboriginal kids removed from their parents in 50's Australia because the WASP guys in power at the time thought their way of life was 'unsuitable' for children (it was really none of their business, they shouldn't have interfered).

But my point is, I don't believe that the right of a government to rule is derived from the rights of its people - if that were true, then every right a government has would also be available to individual citizens, and my example of the death penalty shows that a government can do things that its citizens are rightly prevented from doing.

I believe I am free - there are plenty of restrictions that I have to observe in life (don't drive too fast, do pay my taxes etc), but I accept that these restrictions are a necessary part of living in a large, modern society. I didn't, however, get to make a choice on this - if I want to live in this country, I abide by its rules. The only choice I have is to attempt to change the rules (by voting, campaigning) or move somewhere else!

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[francisew]

I have nothing against americans.

But I also don't think that the american government functions as you describe it. It would seems more like an organization controlling the collective people of your country, rather than people as a collective acting.

At least once a day an article posted here underscores that, in that corporations are considered valied entities, and control the government through lobbying. Very little policy is decided by Red vs. Blue voting, such as for Bush/Gore. Ok, so it does make a difference when someone decides to take over another country. That doesn't mean that your laws reflect the wishes of the people living there.

I'd be willing to bet that most Brits are happy not to have people possessing firearms except in a very limited scope. I know most Canadians are happy with gun control (although not necessarily with the registry mess). We have more guns per person than the states, but we don't have the same philosophy.

Regardless of this offtopic discussion, unnecessary surveillance is a practice that has been well mastered by the US and British governments alike (Canada is probably not too far behind). Unfortunately, it seems that it inconveniences the average person more than it helps with actualy securing a state.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[ChristTrekker]

I also don't think that the american government functions as you describe it. It would seems more like an organization controlling the collective people of your country, rather than people as a collective acting.

You're probably right. But I'm an idealist, and it's my country. The bumper sticker "I love my country but fear my government" has truth behind it. I want gov't to act the way I describe, which I believe is the proper Constitutional functioning that was intended.

Re:Is it REALLY a bad thing?

[francisew]

Totally the right way to look at it (IMHO).

I think a lot of people (including myself) often mistake the idealism for arrogance (in general when dealing with Americans).

don't worry, the US is catching up

[Slashbot Hive-Mind]

Everyone--from good hearted people to downright argumentative trolls--misses the point on spying.

I don't care about online privacy. I'm not worried about government spooks sifting through my e-mail or web surfing habits and finding out that I like brunettes with long legs, long hair, and almond shaped eyes. It really doesn't concern me. If it were some supercomputer sitting in a back room chewing through e-mail looking for "homicide, suicide, terror, assassinate, secret, password, 9/11" or some other stupid set of keywords or tracing kiddie porn that'd be fine by me. At least until the anti-pr0n people decide that moral righteousness has no bounds and start coming after willing adults with no real sex life and a speedy net connection.

Face it. We live in the real world. People in power let it go to their heads and they often use it for purposes other than those in which it was given to them for.

What I'm worried about is that the guy down the block is an FBI agent. Or CIA. Or NSA. Or some local politician who knows one. One day I'm walking down the street and a candy wrapper drops out of my pocket onto his lawn. Now this guy is such a straight laced Bible thumping tight a__ POS that he uses his political muscle to find out who I am and begin harassing me. "He dropped a candy wrapper on my lawn! He's a litterer! He's no good for society! Besides, I saw him carrying home a six-pack of beer! He must be an alcoholic as well!"

Where's the check and balance? There is none. Who could prove it? No one. Who can stop it? No one.

Echelon, Big Brother surveillance, the Anti-Terror bill. They all suck for the same reason that the Windows registry sucks: there's no way to secure them from people misusing them to hijack the system.

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[pjt33]

> Where's the check and balance? There is none. Who could prove it? No one. Who can stop it? No one. Where's the surveillance in your scenario? It made no sense to me whatsoever. > Echelon, Big Brother surveillance, the Anti-Terror bill. Echelon is comparable, but even Blunkett isn't trying to get surveillance cameras in our homes, and having surveillance cameras on the streets doesn't take away Habeas Corpus, so the other two aren't comparable.

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that you are a pr0n toting, candy eating, beer guzzling dude. And you are paranoid that your neighbor might be a straight laced, Bible thumping, government connected wacko.

Will the real paranoid wacko please stand up?

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Slashbot Hive-Mind]

Its called, a slipperly slope.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Anonymous Coward]

There just had to be an anti-MS comment somewhere ;-) Well done!

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Lord Kano]

What I'm worried about is that the guy down the block is an FBI agent.

What if you are secretly laying the bone to an FBI agent's wife or daughter? Just imagine the hell he can make your life by misusing surveillance equipment.

LK

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! Just great. Now 6 billion /. readers have just been added to the national security registers for viewing webpages with the keywords:

"homicide, suicide, terror, assassinate, secret, password, 9/11" ... kiddie porn

And now we're all going to be watched when we walk down the road by the CCTV camera's with face recognition software linked to the security registers which are linked to the Underground oyster card system (which by the way can read cards from a bit further than a centimeter or two from the reader - they were designed so you wouldn't even have to take them out your pocket to get through the turnstiles... anyone else see the potential for personal tracking here?) or am I maybe just succumbing to the pressure of my triple layer tinfoil hat?

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[AndroidCat]

Imagine someone running for high political office, and suddenly a snippet of that person scratching his crotch from a number of years ago appears on the Internet in a hilarious video from sources unknown. In unrelated news, an anonymous civil servant's "retirement plan" pays off.

Yes, keeping all the footage for a number of years and searching it for the person you want would be difficult .. at the moment.

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[maximilln]

Hey... wait... I just had a deja-vu... like I was typing the exact same thing. All of my work is released under GNU GPL. You have to at least give me credit.

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry maximilln. I will give you credit for being so cool.

Re:don't worry, the US is catching up

[Anonymous Coward]

why just a Bible thumper? why not a big mouth, tell the teacher, know-it-all geek? or how about a fanatical "elf" (earthliberationfront)? or how about some selfrightous do-gooder who usually does more harm than good, but justifies it because they know more and think they have the right?
sorry pal, but it`s plain as day you got a problem
but don`t tag it on people who believe in the Bible. i know not all who believe in God are living it, (ashcroft) and doing whats right not what 'they" think is right. everyone has to make choices, it might be your neighbor, a friend, or somone in your own family that could turn you in. you wouldn`t know it until it`s too late and your in jail. think it won`t happen? people will do anything for money or to survive. read the part in the Bible about "666" then take a long hard look at where were going...

hah..

[KingPunk]

well, considering that they agreed with bush on the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction, and what not.. and they were totally wrong, i wouldnt put that much into that claim. in all fairness, i think China is. they're some sneaky bastids! :o

Re:hah..

[Oddly_Drac]

"they agreed with bush on the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction"

'they' were 50/50 split over the question of war, and we've been haranguing our MPs about the invisi-weapons since the whole thing broke. Incidentally, three MPs resigned over the mess, and if Blair makes it back into the leadership of the country, I'm personally going to raise holy hell.

Re:hah..

[CountBrass]

Ooh I bet you have David "Hitler" Blunkett quaking in his boots.

Re:hah..

[Anonymous Coward]

'they' were 50/50 split

If you mean the British public then it was more like 70% against. It is mainly our government who likes to get involved in oil wars

Re:hah..

[Oddly_Drac]

"If you mean the British public then it was more like 70% against."

It varied according to the pollsters, and I was trying to be fair. In the run up it was a 55% for, that slid to 60% against after the first couple of weeks ('war fatigue'), then bounced to the figure you mentioned when it became apparent that Tony 'I know, trust me and find out' Blair had been incompetant in filtering bad data.

Or so he claims.

Re:hah..

[Oddly_Drac]

"Ooh I bet you have David "Hitler" Blunkett quaking in his boots."

I've taken part in two consultations that stopped his frankly draconian laws taking hold. It might not be 'quaking' per se, but I doubt he's happy that we didn't wave them through.

BTW, he's a toad that believe he should have the power to do what he feels is necessary, but he's so far failed to exterminate a few million people. Don't cheapen the argument with namecalling.

Seems to be part of the British Psyche

[Anonymous Coward]

Most British Sci-Fi authors have always included the Big Brother syndrome, most British movies directors have a fetish for CCTV and such devices in theri movies, most British game producers include examples of being video taped and watched.

I blame it on our repressed sexual desires, and thus our need to be voyeurs.

Re:Seems to be part of the British Psyche

[Anonymous Coward]

Offtopic? Worst moderation ever!

Re:Seems to be part of the British Psyche

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this. The Big Brother syndrome is something new in our countries and should be taken into account.

Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're in a public area, being recorded is fair game. It's no different than if a store employed security gaurds to watch over you while you shopped, or having a police officier stood on the corner watching everyone go buy. People get all uppity because it's technology, and we all know technology is bad, right?

I was attacked several years ago. Unprovoked; they were drunk, I was drunk. Anyway, the attack resulted in me being partially blinded in one eye. The police never caught the idiot who did it; not that they didn't try, but I couldn't exactly give them a good description. I wish there had been a camera at the spot where it happened. I fucking wish! So don't bleat on about personal privacy, because you've already got it. Unless you're in public.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Proud of what? Did I say I was proud? Since when is stating fact pride? Do fuck off.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[jhunsake]

Unprovoked; they were drunk, I was drunk.

Unprovoked my ass.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You were there then were you? Newsflash for you skippy, millions of people get pissed every day in the UK. You, Mr. Slashdot poster, are pure enough to condem each and every one of them are you?

Yeah, I'm sure it was all my fault. I walked upto a big drunk twat with an angry look in his eye and took a swing at him, 'cos you know I figured that me and my scrawny geek body should have made it a push over. It was all my fault, I admit it. I really wanted to have the living shit beat out of me.

You and your friend there are fucking twats of the highest order. You're not posting a GNAA crapflood on Slashdot to piss off a few posters and get a rise out of a few more idiots. You've actually got me rilled up and upset. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for me to even talk about any of this? No, because you're on the other side of an internet connection and it's alright to be a fucking twat and upset people if you can't see them. I can't even put into words here how upset you've made me, so no doubt you'll read this and chuckle to yourself. I hope you're fucking happy. The first twat talked about pride; we'll I hope you're both happy and proud, you pair of fuck sticks. Fuck you and your opinion. You're nothing but a common bully. Worse, you're a coward of a common bully, hiding behing an internet connection where you don't have to see your victim. Cunt.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

With an attitutde like that, I'm not surpised you had the shit kicked out of you. Perhaps if you were just a little calmer, took a deep breath, whatever, you wouldn't provoke such trouble.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ you just don't get it do you. Do you have emotions? I'll try to be as calm about this as possible: You, Mr. C. Unt and your friend, Mr. T. Wat, are fucking me about and have upset me. Do you get upset, Mr. C. Unt? I'll just state that again, to try and drill the point into your thick skull: I am upset, you have upset me. You have actually managed to upset a real person, sat in a real office, with real emotions. This is not a game, and you'd better believe I'm not calm. If you wern't on the other side of a net connection I'd be shouting, you can bet on it. So take your own advice; if you wern't such a coward who thinks its funny to upset people maybe you wouldn't provoke people into being upset. Like you've done to me.

So yeah, I am angry and I am going to post using inflamitory language and I hope you get the fucking message. I am normally a very nice, calm person, but not only has this been a bad week I've also now had Mr C. Unt and Mr T. Wat upset me. You might think you're clever little chap and I bet you're having a right laugh. But you're not clever, you're a coward (A real coward, not a Slashdot AC.) So just shut your mouth and go troll someone else. I really don't care what you think, because you're little bully. You'll sleep sound tonight because you've not met me, you'll never meet me, and you don't know who I am. But I have to live with that day for the rest of my life, and I have to fight depression every time I open my eye and see that little black dot floating in my field of vision. You don't need to worry about that though, because you're on the other side of an internet connection and you don't see me. You're just posting silly words on Slashdot and it doesn't hurt anyone, right?

Wrong.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got a real nasty attitude boy. Can't say I'm surprised you were given a good arse whipping.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[1u3hr]

was attacked several years ago. Unprovoked; they were drunk, I was drunk. Anyway, the attack resulted in me being partially blinded in one eye. The police never caught the idiot who did it; not that they didn't try, but I couldn't exactly give them a good description. I wish there had been a camera at the spot where it happened.

You'd still be out an eye, they might have got a few months in gaol. More likely, they couldn't be identified or you being drunk would be seen as contributory and they'd get off. Cameras don't prevent crimes by drunks.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You can stop calling me boy, coward, and read my reply to little cowards like you. Enjoy your day. Sleep tight.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

no doubt you'll read this and chuckle to yourself

You know what the funny thing is, I was chuckling through and through.

Anyways, sure it's possible you did absolutely nothing to provoke this guy. But I doubt it. I've been partying and drinking in cities all across the US since I was in highschool. I've seen an endless string of drunken fights. Not one time have I seen one where both parties were completely innocent in the matter. Sure, you may have tripped and spilled your beer on the guy, and sure it was an accident, but don't claim it was unprovoked.

Looking some people in the eye for too long is enough to get your ass kicked. If you're so stupid you didn't know that, well, now you do. Stop whining, lesson learned.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd still be out an eye, they might have got a few months in gaol. More likely, they couldn't be identified or you being drunk would be seen as contributory and they'd get off. Cameras don't prevent crimes by drunks.

I know they wouldn't have prevented it. But I don't care. It happened either way, but if they had it camera the guy might have been caught and would have had to take the consequences of his actions. I just wanted him to be caught. He actually would have been charged with GBH, and that isn't a few months even with the most idiotic judges. He would have got several years, and I would have been there to see it.

I just want my revenge, and I want him to have to face the consequencies. I've been denied that right.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[stephanruby]

"Unprovoked my ass."

I've seen unprovoked drunken attacks before. They happen. May be he's lying, may be he's not lying. Who are you to know?

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Post your e-mail. Use an anonymous address if you'd like. I'll e-mail you my name and address. Then we can discuss this in person. I'll send your ass home blind, deaf, and crippled.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[jhunsake]

I don't know about the UK, but in the US if you are under the influence and you get in a fight with someone, in most cases the other person won't get prosecuted. Drunks and drug-users get in fights all the time. In most cases, they just get charged with being drunk. In fact, I've seen several cases where the cops pit the two parties against each other to get them both to drop charges. In their mind, you're both waste-oids and they don't give a shit.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I say, I don't care if you doubt it or don't doubt it. I just don't give a rats arse about your opinion. Spilling your pint on someone is not a provocation. Looking someone in the eye too long? You and your drunk mates might think its a good reason to hit someone, but in reality it just means you're insecure and out of control. You have no ability to control yourself or your emotions if you're prepared to hit someone for that. It certainly doesn't give someone an excuse to beat someone to point that it causes physical damage. The fact that you seem to think it does shows to me that you're a dangerous man, just like the other thousands of fools out there who seem to think that their opinion is the most important in the world. They're sometimes called bullies.

To my knowlege I did nothing to provoke an attack. I didn't take the first swing, I didn't turn to my mate at the begining of to the night and say "I'm going to beat the crap out of that bloke tonight", I didn't spill my pint and I didn't try to fuck his girlfriend. The guy took a dislike to me and decided to hit me. That's unprovoked, and the police agree with me. Wether you do or not doesn't matter, because your opinion is worthless. We can all be thankful for that.

So whatever, go back to giggling like a little schoolgirl. I'm beyond caring now. No doubt you'll be getting shit faced tonight with your mates. Have fun, try not to stare anyone in the eye too long now will you?

Re:Only when I'm in public

[jhunsake]

Tell the story. It all depends on what you claim is unprovoked.

Suppose you're walking down the sidewalk and a group of drunks are coming towards you. You keep you're posture and walk through them. They decide you "dissed" them, and beat the shit out of you. Are they wrong? Yes. Are you right? Sure. Was it unprovoked? No. You should have gotten out of their way.

Just because you behave in a legal or proper or whatever manner doesn't mean you can't provoke someone.

I've seen many times where someone claimed they weren't at fault. Sure, they're innocent, but they could have avoided the situation. I have no sympathy for them when they chose not to.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I can be thankful I live in a marginally more civalised country where the police listen to a complaint and will make a decision based on the facts. I had enough witnesses that the police believed it to be unprovoked. Wether they thought I was a waster or not is another question, but they still went looking for the guy and would have charged him had they caught him.

The difference is that I didn't square off against the other guy. I wasn't looking for a fight. To take one look at me would tell you there's no way I'd go looking for a fight. If I had been looking for trouble, or had tried to square off against the guy or challenged him then yeah, I'm sure the police would have ignored it as two drunks fighting. That wasn't the case though.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck? You're delusional. Why, in Gods name, would I want to fight? Are you not paying attention here? You're accusing me of having an attitude, but you post a message telling me you'll beat the shit out of me and cripple me?

Anger management courses for you, I think.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking someone in the eye too long?

Yeah, I'm guessing you're not very street smart. People get killed all the time for looking at someone wrong. You have to be smart about how you interact with people. Especially drunk, crazy, or tougher people. In other words, STAY AWAY FROM THEM. If you don't, then enjoy the consequences.

The guy took a dislike to me

The real question here is: why? Unless he was totally delusional, HE DID HAVE A REASON.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

haha this thread is great for a laugh! i can see why someone would beet your ass. your sooo fucking annoying! lamer!

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm guessing you're not very street smart.

No, you guessed wrong. I know full well not to go staring at random strangers in a bar. My point is that it is not an acceptable reason for someone to use violence.

The real question here is: why? Unless he was totally delusional, HE DID HAVE A REASON.

No, he thought he had a reason and it wasn't a good one. Peeople like hkm are the reason why we have cameras on every street corner. They have no self control, a poor sense of right and wrong and then they're so drunk they can barely stand. They think it's O.K to attack someone because they looked at them funny? You've got to be kidding. Normal people would have the self control to realise that looking at someone is just that; looking. No need to beat someone up, they're just looking. Go somewhere else where they can't see you if it bothers you.

Too many people, especially men (I'll take a guess that you're in your early twenties), think that violence is acceptable for all sorts of trivial reasons. They start fights in the taxi queues, they glass people in clubs and they generally go around causing suffering to other people for no reason other than they have no self control. They're a dangerous product of society. You're effectivly trying to defend their actions.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[marktwen0]

I feel embarassed over the fellow American's abuse of your trauma. Actually, I was enjoying the exchange until it went south. Now I *must* study.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[jhunsake]

what's the reason?

or just tell the whole story, and we'll find a reason for you.

of course, as other posters have pointed out, it's no surprise you got your ass kicked, your annoying as all hell.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think people would welcome a police officer in every corner? Hell, IMHO that would be an order of magnitude worse than just a camera on every corner.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Diplo]

I get the impression that the majority of people who vehemently oppose surveillance cameras live in nice, affluent suburbs lined with picket fences and friendly neighbours. How nice for you.

Tell you what, try living in an inner-city hell-hole, where you are in constant fear of being attacked. You think car bombs outside police stations are something that only happens in Iraq and not in the UK? Think again. You try living in an area where people think it's fun to throw hand-grenades through your windows. The fact is, survey after survey shows that people who live in high-crime areas in the UK welcome CCTV - it reassures them and makes them feel safer. Perhaps if you had to live here too, you might feel different?

The fact is, in Britain we don't have a history of being quite so paranoid about the government as our US cousins. We don't feel the need to carry guns or spend the weekend in militias training to overthrow the government. Most of us realise that the majority of CCTV cameras are not even watched (they merely record footage that can then be referenced in the event of a crime). We are not so ego-centric as to think that anyone would even be particularly interested in watching a pixelated image of us walking to the shop to buy a pint of milk. We have long reconciled ourselves to the fact that liberty and freedom are never absolute because if they we would live in a state of anarchy and mob rule. Oh, and we enjoy reading about the dumbasses caught on camera, too :)

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

I had enough witnesses that the police believed it to be unprovoked.
And none of these witnesses could supply the cops with a decent enough description of the guy(s)? What makes you think a camera could?

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the reason?

I don't know. If you'd paid attention you'd have noticed that I mention he was never caught. I didn't stop to ask him myself at the time.

we'll find a reason for you.

You'll find an excuse in an attempt to justify his actions, which as I've pointed out is a totally different thing. Are you seriously claiming that anybody should have the right to beat someone to the point of causing permanent physical harm just because they think they do? There is no justification and no reason.

it's no surprise you got your ass kicked, your annoying as all hell.

Yeah, whatever. If I annoy you, then don't post in reply to me, don't read my posts and go do something else. If you think "being annoying" is a good reason to beat someone then you need to get yourself to a shrink and sort some issues out, because you have no self control.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, if there were enough witnesses, why did no one do anything about it?

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras don't rely on a poor and selective memory. Plenty of psycology studies have been done which show that most people can not even reliably remember basic details of an event, even if it happened only moments ago. People make lousy witnesses.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to ask them that, wouldn't you? These days no one will get involved; it's too dangerous and too much hassle. Even the Police advise people not to get involved if they see a crime being commited.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're in a public area, being recorded is fair game. It's no different than if a store employed security gaurds to watch over you while you shopped...

I agree that being recorded in public seems fair game, but ... a store is NOT a public area, it is private property. Local businesses in my area have signs "Please remove hats and sunglasses before entering" (bank) and "No videotaping or audiotaping allowed on premises" (grocery store). Don't play by their rules, they can make you to leave. These rules now become a condition of doing business.

I would say that the difference between being recorded in public and being recorded on private property is that in public, your right to also do some recording cannot be taken away from you!

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wanting surveillance when it would have helped you, but won't get an account on /. to post with? Methinks you like your privacy.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using a rather specious argument. Just because I post with "Post Anonymously" checked that does not mean that the Slashdot database does not store my IP address and username. You just don't get to see it. In fact, this is almost exactly like CCTV. So your argument would only make sense if I objected to Slashdot storing my user details, which I do not.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[rarity]

I wish there had been a camera at the spot where it happened. I fucking wish!

I wouldn't assume that it would have done you any good at all - I live in Edinburgh, in an area that's fairly extensively covered with CCTV cameras. On my way to work, I pass through the FOV of at least 5 of them, 3 of which are located in a shopping precinct.

A guy was stabbed to death in said precinct a few months ago, under full view of these cameras. No-one's been caught, because the attackers were using state-of-the-art counter-surveillance devices, known as "Hoodies".

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll send your ass home blind, deaf, and crippled.
my ass could never see, nor hear and it really doesnt do much besides opening up to let shit out so i dunno how you think you could cripple it

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats nice.

Theres usually a murder about once a week within 40 miles of where I live.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[I confirm I'm not a]

I get the impression that the majority of people who vehemently oppose surveillance cameras live in nice, affluent suburbs lined with picket fences and friendly neighbours

...so you're going to generalise. Speaking for myself, I live in inner-city Glasgow (15 years), I've previously posted in this thread about my father-in-law (lives in a Coatbridge scheme), and, for the record, prior to living in Glasgow I lived in central and North London (Hackney - you may have heard of it).

My opposition to ubiquitous CCTV is that it doesn't work. Did the police catch the car bombers you mentioned? Do cameras prevent or deter hand-grenandes being thrown through windows?

Additionally, I really don't care if my pixellated face is seen by Joe Q Security Guard. I do object to same security guard zooming in on my partner "because she's a babe", and currently I have no assurances that this doesn't happen. Who watches the watchers? I have no idea - no one will tell me.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and women could not provoke rapes by simply wearing that nice burka.

And don't show any hair.

Dumb ass.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice, dearie. Here's a cookie, go and get yourself a nice glass of milk, and cuddle up in bed.

I think you missed his point. He wasn't bragging, like you appear to be. He was stating that there was obviously a huge effort by these murderers, when they went as far as pulling hoods up.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

As I remember, it was you guys that made us paranoid in the first place. And when we snubbed your banking overlords in 1811, they sicced you guys on us yet again. Now your banking overlords rule here anyway, our crazies militiaize, and those that really understand *wish* they were crazy enough to train in those militias.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[NeoSkandranon]

We don't feel the need to...spend the weekend in militias training to overthrow the government.

Most americans don't either. Nice gross generalization there, and way to connect gun ownership automatically with separatist nuts.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[ChristTrekker]

in Britain we don't have a history of being quite so paranoid about the government as our US cousins

That's because the British gov't long ago chased out all the people it didn't like, or made it uncomfortable enough that they left on their own. Many of them resettled on the west side of the Atlantic. Only the docile gov't-friendly ones remained.

Tongue in cheek. Mostly.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Downside]

I wish there had been a camera at the spot where it happened

There must be lots of cases where, if a passer by had happened to be carrying a fire extinguisher with them, they could have prevented a fire and saved lives.

However, that on it's own doesn't justify a manitory fire extinguisher-carrying law.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Unprovoked! My ass.

You hit me with a bottle first. Hope you miss that eye.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[PhotoBoy]

I think we would have a more civilised society in the UK if we really did something to stop the massive drinking problems the youth of today have. I've just come back from the local town centre and it's not a pretty sight in some areas even at only 10pm!

When did getting completely pissed on a Friday night and getting into a fight become the main form of entertainment for the majority? There's plenty of things people can do to entertain themselves that doesn't involved getting rat arsed.

Re:Only when I'm in public

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does being in public entail the surrender of my right to be left alone? In many cases I am in public because I HAVE to be in public- because, among other things, it's the only way to get from one place to another. Does the fact that I am faced with this constraint force me to give up any right I may have to keep you or anyone else out of my face (and out of my business)?

it's for the chhhhhildruhn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments will use any excuse to increase their power over citizens. The only way that might work against it is to have 100% surveillance of anyone in public office at all times. It would stop abuse of power dead in its tracks.

Oh brother...

[TheWingThing]

If one of these cameras tape what happens in your bedroom, and both you and your gf think "big brother is watching", does that make you both siblings, and you're commiting incest, and big brother can put you in jail for that?

Record my...

[l3v1]

Well, just been in the UK for a week (first time), in London and a smaller city, and after a while it really started to annoy and disturb me that wherever I was if I took a good look around I could find a camera covering my position.

It may help the police's work, but I don't know how I ever could get used to it.

Re:Record my...

[onion2k]

I assume you weren't mugged as you would probably have mentioned it. I would also assume you didn't mug anyone yourself, you'd have mentioned that too.

Looks like the cameras work then. :)

Re:Record my...

[TwistedSquare]

Most people, me included, just don't notice them. Or care if they do notice them. What the article doesn't say is whereabouts the cameras are. In my experience the vast majority (if not all) are in town/city centres, exactly where they are needed most. It is not like they have full coverage of the whole country, just intense coverage of certain areas.

Re:Record my...

[red_one]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Re:Record my...

[arose]

Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. -- Homer

Re:Record my...

[betel]

Just rememember, you're being recorded on buses for "Your comfort and safety".

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm aware, cameras don't make more seats available.

Re:Record my...

[l3v1]

I assume you weren't mugged as you would probably have mentioned it. I would also assume you didn't mug anyone yourself, you'd have mentioned that too.

Yup, I would've :) Say I was lucky ? :D

Cameras

[azbot]

Having just moved to London From New Zealand, I found the amount of CCTV cameras a little surreal. They are everywhere. But non-the-less; it is nice to know that perhaps even if just a placebo, they cameras tend to make things a bit safer. However, as my flatmate found out, cameras don't protect your household.

The streets may be safer, but your possesions still arent - Perhaps thats is why insureance is so high over here.

Re:Cameras

[I confirm I'm not a]

Having just moved to London From New Zealand

Welcome to Britain from a fellow Kiwi! Ironically, I'm seriously considering moving home (after 25 years+ in the UK) because I'm sick of this nonsense.

it is nice to know that perhaps even if just a placebo, they cameras tend to make things a bit safer

Sadly, that's just it: they're placebos. Rising crime statistics? Slap in a CCTV programme! But try actually getting the police to view CCTV footage after a crime's been committed and, in Glasgow at least, it's well-nigh impossible.

I'm sure that CCTV benefits someone... unfortunately, I don't believe it's the general public - unless you happen to work for a security company.

Re:Cameras

[JaredOfEuropa]

However, as my flatmate found out, cameras don't protect your household.

What, did you beat him up or rob him? That's not very nice....

Re:Cameras

[azbot]

First one then the other. Good Guess! No actually, His laptop and video camera were nicked, and the only way in to his room is: a. via the roof (which has no public access (unless you're a monkey or a french rock climber as its about three stories up)) and b. via his open window (also needing a monkey etc. (see a.) Now you may be thinking that perhaps a door was left open or something, well no it wasn't and even if it was there were actually two people home in different parts of the house when it happened. meh, possestions.

Echelon System

[random_culchie]

This is the name for the British surveilance system.
More info here

Re:Echelon System

[biglig2]

Actually Echelon (if we were to hypothetically assume it exists, eh Mr Blunkett?) is entirely different from what this article is discussing.

The article is about the extraordinary number of cameras used to watch streets in the UK.

Echelon concievably might be a US system (in association with a few other countries of which Britain is the most important since we are the one nearest to Europe) that intercepts and listens (via computer analysis, obviously) to international telephone calls etc, to find terrorists and spys and definitely not for insustrial espionage to stuff up French companies, oh no.

Re:Echelon System

[piquadratCH]

Correction: Echelon is the name of NSA's communication surveillance system. It has nothing to do with the British government or cameras.

Re:Echelon System

[MemoryDragon]

Actually Echelon does exist and it is a US thing (in the past a few times used by the US for business and technology spying on their own friends) One of those Echelon installations was until recently located in southern Bavaria. Until the 9/11 thing local politicians were not too happy about the whole Echelon issue, it somehow dissapeared from the media after 9/11 (I am not talking about the Chilenean 9/11 here which brought Pinochet to power ...)

Re:Echelon System

[Anonymous Coward]

ECHELON (capitalisaion is correct) is actually a joint venture by the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The UK and USA consider each other as participants of equal importance.

Re:Echelon System

[nx]

Actually, the Echelon system does exist and it is not what you seem to think it is. Source: http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/pre chelon_en.pdf

Re:Echelon System

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: It's watching them too.

Cheers,
Your friend neighborhood agent

Re:Echelon System

[I confirm I'm not a]

Echelon is the name of NSA's communication surveillance system. It has nothing to do with the British government or cameras

You're thinking, I presume, of CARNIVORE. Echelon is most certainly a British project, along with the USA, Canada, Australia and (hang my head in shame) New Zealand. What little we know about Echelon has largely come from the European Union, who, understandably, are slightly concerned that an EU member may be passing intelligence on, say, Germany or Italy, to, say, the US or Australia. Of course, other EU states (<ahem>France</ahem>) have been known to spy on their neighbours too...

Sorry but Monaco has always been the champion

[Anonymous Coward]

The Principality of Monaco (Monte-Carlo) has always had cameras, gvt informers and can legaly tap any conversation anytime. They can send cops inside your appartment anytime they see fit also. There isn't much you can do because of the medieval legal system.

I know that to keep the dialogue alarmist, they mention that ONLY the UK has been a victim of the 1984 school of thought (hey, Tony Blair's socialism is very social hey?! The Torries would have never been allowed this. Oh well, good one Tony.)

Re:Sorry but Monaco has always been the champion

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing I keep my yaught just outside of the territorial waters when i visit Monte-Carlo. Anyway I'm sailing to Portofino next. How's the Italian legal system with regard to privacy?

Re:Sorry but Monaco has always been the champion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's normal, Italy is a regular republic where they need a judge to order a search and where you have the right to lawyer.
When you cross the territorial waters you may still have to be boarded if there is a control, just like on the now dead ground border in Menton. These are rare occasions, but in the accord signed in the EU, remember that the borders can close again in cases of extreme necessity (dragnets, terror alerts, etc..)

The harbour of Menton is ok.

Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least the UK doesn't have something as utterly vile as the Patriot Act (though if Blunkett has his way we will pretty soon)

Re:Patriot Act

[Oddly_Drac]

"UK doesn't have something as utterly vile as the Patriot Act"

RIP Bill, Criminal Justice Act and the Terrorism Act 2000 extensions. We just split it up. Note that hacking is a terrorist act.

Re:Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

The Regulation of Investagatory Powers Act (RIPA)that you incorrectly name above actually limits the powers of the government in line with the future Freedom of Information Act. It takes away from them the ability do do things they were previously doing.

Re:Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

*Minor* reductions in trivial areas, all the while granting them further power than they had previously to pry into areas they have no business examining. It's a despicable piece of legislation, all-told.
The worrying part is that Blunkett and his cronies are even worse than Straw and his little group.

Re:Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm. No. The RIPA removes, restricts and legislates where no law previously existed. You might be accurate in that it does give them powers to pry, but they were already doing just that, quite legally before such legislation. It's just that now there are boundaries, and those boundaries are published.

Re:Patriot Act

[Oddly_Drac]

"It takes away from them the ability do do things they were previously doing."

Ah, so before, it was unofficially an admission of guilt if you stayed silent during questioning and now it's official. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.

And the best of it is

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

CCTV cameras have been around in numbers in the UK for a long time. Did it stop the IRA from bombing London some years ago? of course not.

A perfect proof, if one was needed, that putting a country under surveilance may have a little effect on petty high street thieves, but most certainly has nothing to offer to curtail terrorism, and everything to do with controlling the populace.

Orwell.......grave........spinning

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it stop the IRA from bombing London some years ago?

No, but it helped catch them afterwards!

Re:And the best of it is

[tdvaughan]

A perfect proof, if one was needed...

That's not proof. It demonstrates your point, but does not prove it. To do so, you would need to show that the incidence of terrorism is completely unaffected by the presence of surveillance - i.e. turn every surveillance device in London off for six months out of every year and count the numbers of terrorist incidents.

Re:And the best of it is

[Oddly_Drac]

"Did it stop the IRA from bombing London some years ago? of course not."

Different timelines. Cameras didn't hit their current ubiquity until after the bombing campaigns started to tail off when Sinn fein and the British Government starting talking in the wake of Clinton politicking between the two parties. The 'ring of steel' around downing street followed the mortar bomb attack, and cameras followed after that, but only in central London. Sod the populace as long as the PM is okay.

However, there have been more than several drunken fights outside my house (under a camera), and our town's crime statistics have stayed constant. The police are royally pissed because the cameras have been used as a justification to reduce their numbers in the local area, meaning that cars are administered from the county centre roughly 25 miles away. Calling the police tends to result in a 30 minute delay for them to divert a car, and they act as a visual deterrent more than anything else.

I'm less bothered about the drunken fights (they happen the world over) than I am the complete erosion of the policing of our towns. I'm more bothered that my tax money (council charge, paid to the local council in opposition to wage taxes, which go to central government) being used to buy a camera system that is patchy and considered a replacement for a warm body and brain in a uniform.

"may have a little effect on petty high street thieves,"

Almost none. There was a TV report of a man running a shop who'd invested in a state of the art camera system...put it this way, he dumps the footage to DVD. Now sinee he'd put the camera in, he'd had 250 cases of shoplifting. How many convictions off that? 5.

Basically, when the police arrest someone, the Crown Prosecution Service has to determine whether they can win a case and whether it's in the public interest to convict. So while it's obviously correct to try and convict Paul Burrell of stealing from *Our lady of grace, Princess Diana* [sarcasm intended], after her death, petty theft is not. Case in point. My sister and GF were attacked in the street. The attacker was known as someone who assaults people. The police said that they couldn't press charges because the woman in question had children and it wouldn't be in the public interest to remove a violent prat from the streets. THAT is what we contend with daily in the UK. We're by no means a police state, we just have the apparatus at the hands of the incompetant.

Re:And the best of it is

[mr_stark]

Wrong on 3 points:

1. Does thousands of troops in Iraq stop the insurgents from bombing? No.

If a terrorist has a sufficiet motivation no level of deterant will stop them.

2. How often do you hear on the news that x bombs were diffused? Never. You only hear when survalance fails. The only people who truly know how effective the cameras are, are the terrorists and secuirty forces.

3. The cameras are in PUBLIC PLACES not in private homes. The security agencies dont need cameras to watch you when your in public. Cameras just make it more efficient.

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'ring of steel' around downing street followed the mortar bomb attack, and cameras followed after that, but only in central London. Sod the populace as long as the PM is okay.

The ring of steel is around the City of London (London's financial district), Downing Street is in the City of Westminster.

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

No it didn't. It "caught" some random Irish students as scapegoats. The IRA, as usual, got off scot-free.

Re:And the best of it is

[Abaci]

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Whatever you think about the government they will want to appear popular. In order to appear popular they have to appear to be stopping terrorism. So then, if they had this mighty populace control via CCTV why did they miss something so blatent as the IRA setting up bombs... Cameras are not control. Big Brother was not about cameras in our streets it was about totalitarianism the camera is a tool 1984 was about how that tool is utilised. I wish people in this thread would stop mis using 1984 as a refrence. IF the cameras remove no personal freedoms, which they currently dont, then they can only do good. My friend got some thug arrested for hitting him in the face because of these cameras. While you people are whining about your personal rights being removed. (God knows which personal rights, because I certainly dont feel opressed by a camera on a pole in the middle of town.) These cameras are helping to capture criminals. The reason why there about, not some conspiracy as many here claim. Not some big brother regime thats happening. They are here because there cheap and effective so the government doesnt have to pay the police as much any more. Thats a _whole_ different debate. The best scenario though wouldnt be to get rid of them and get more cops. IT would be to have both. You want to worry about big brother then worry about survailance that goes much further. Monitoring your phones and Internet etc. Things theyve been doing for years now but most people pass it by. and you people complain about the only form of survailance thats genuinly doing some good.

Re:And the best of it is

[Yrd]

And why does it always have to be about terrorism? NOBODY can prevent a determined terrorist - NOTHING can stop them, short of chaining up every single person on the planet.

It's about street crime, vandalism, car thefts, robberies and muggings in public, abductions, murders, assaults... Unfortunately it's still not possible to catch everyone who does these things, but the cameras help.

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking rubbish. Think about it. CCTV camera footage doesn't get looked at if nothing happens. Little old ladies may spend the day watching ordinary people walking up and down the street, but nobody gets paid for doing so. If nothing worthy of a police investigation happens, the footage never gets looked at. The only time the footage gets looked at is when there's a crime to be solved - crime that's worth the police spending a lot of time going over footage from many cameras trying to piece together people's movements.

You say that CCTVs don't prevent crime, but I disagree. The cameras are not in everyones minds all day, so the fear of being caught on camera doesn't really figure. So better street lighting is probably a better fix for petty crime. But the article mentions a case of a gang that was regularly committing burglaries (among other oncidents), and who graduated to murder. CCTV ensured that that particular gang didn't rob or kill anyone for the next seven years. Any time CCTV helps put someone away, it prevents further crimes. It helps stop serial crime.

As for terrorism, again, cameras will not prevent the one-off suicide terrorists, but the may well help nail their accomplices, and terrorists who plant bombs and leave or who machine-gun crowds of people, so they cannot do it again.

There may well be cameras recording me pretty-much all the time while I'm around London and other large city centres. Why do I care? I don't notice the cameras very often, and the only direct effect they have on me is that there may be fewer serial muggers or such like around than otherwise. And if I am assulted, my attacker is less likely to get away with it.

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been more than one IRA bomb in London, and many of the suspects were recorded on CCTV and subsequently caught. Those random Irish students took the fall because of police corruption and failure. What does any of that have to do with cameras?

Re:And the best of it is

[Bertie]

What difference does it make when they go and let the fuckers out as part of the farcical "peace process" which has left Northern Ireland more divided, bitter and fucked-up than ever? Peace settlement my backside - these bastards are murderers, plain and simple.

Re:And the best of it is

[jeremyp]

But high street thieves are a much more significant problem for most people than terrorism.

Re:And the best of it is

[GothChip]

Did it stop the IRA from bombing London some years ago?

Nope. But it did help catch those responsible.

Re:And the best of it is

[bbtom]

You say incompetence like it's a bad thing. When the only other option is out-and-out evil, I'd vote for incompetence any day in the same way I'd rather use software that bugged me with adware than software that deleted all my files in one fell swoop.

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to demonstrate that they're not the solution they're purported to be, that is, they're only as effective as the force using them.

Re:And the best of it is

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there have been more than several drunken fights outside my house (under a camera), and our town's crime statistics have stayed constant. The police are royally pissed because the cameras have been used as a justification to reduce their numbers in the local area

Replacing police with cameras, and the crime stats stay constant? It sounds to me like the cameras are effective.

Re:And the best of it is

[mikechant]

The "farcical" peace process means you can go in a pub or shop in Northern Ireland (or London or Birmingham or Manchester come to that) without having to worry about the IRA blowing you to simthereens. All the people who haven't died or been mutilated as a result would presumably be quite grateful for this "farce". **

** For pedants: I realize they can't *actually* know that they would have been blown up. You know what I'm getting at.

Re:And the best of it is

[easter1916]

Two sides to every story, Bertie. The IRA aren't the only murderers in N.I., they're just the most effective at it.

Re:And the best of it is

[MacDork]

• Basically, when the police arrest someone, the Crown Prosecution Service has to determine whether they can win a case and whether it's in the public interest to convict. So while it's obviously correct to try and convict Paul Burrell of stealing from *Our lady of grace, Princess Diana* [sarcasm intended], after her death, petty theft is not. Case in point. My sister and GF were attacked in the street. The attacker was known as someone who assaults people. The police said that they couldn't press charges because the woman in question had children and it wouldn't be in the public interest to remove a violent prat from the streets. THAT is what we contend with daily in the UK. We're by no means a police state, we just have the apparatus at the hands of the incompetant.

There was a vast amount of criminality in London, a whole world-within-a-world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug-peddlers, and racketeers of every description; but since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance. In all questions of morals they were allowed to follow their ancestral code. The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished, divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it. They were beneath suspicion. As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.' - George Orwell, '1984'

Actually there are checks in GB

[Space cowboy]

You are entitled to see any footage recorded of you at any time - not that this is (yet) commonly done, but there was a politically/comedy-orientated issues show (forget the name, could have been Gorman) where a host filmed his attempts to get the camera footage that he knew he was caught on.

You can't just walk into the records office and say "I want all camera footage of me at any time in any place", but you can obtain footage if you're more specific - how specific I don't know. Perhaps if more people did this (and then sued if the footage wasn't forthcoming) the authorities would be less likely to be so keen on them...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way I'll be happy with continual surveillance of such overwhelming magnitude is if *all* the footage from *all* the cameras are available online - the average MP is going to be a lot less happy about cameras being used left, right, and centre if he knows he'll be caught speeding at 4:00am by some anorak

That said, the vast majority are in London (which visitors to the country think is typical - it couldn't be farther from the truth!), and a huge percentage of the headline figure are the CCTV cameras in shops that point at the counter, all privately owned and I don't have a problem with them if they help prevent robbery.

Simon

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[BenjyD]

It was Mark Thomas, political comedy genius.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[irn_bru]

The Comedian was Mark Thomas, a sort-of British Michael More, albeit with (usually) more reasoned arguements. His website still includes helpful information about your rights to see CCTV footabge that has been taken of you.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[TwistedSquare]

That said, the vast majority are in London (which visitors to the country think is typical - it couldn't be farther from the truth!)

I have noticed this tendency recently, after it was pointed out, of a lot of people (especially Londoners) to confuse London with Britain. Claims are made that "Britain ...." but they really mean "London ...". Whereas in fact I think that London is fairly dissimilar to the rest of the country. Just an observation.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[biglig2]

You are thinking of the excellent Mark Thomas. He mixes comedy with investigative journalism - it;s an interesting and entertaining mix.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Anonymous Coward]

You are entitled to see any footage recorded of you at any time

That might be the case when things get to court.
The problem is that BECAUSE anyone can install cameras that same ANYONE can do ANYTHING with the pictures.
It's only a matter of time untill people will get harrasses by exploiters of such systems.
A law is needed to specify who can operate cameras in public areas. Plus these pictures should only be available to licenced entities, preferably only the police. And even then an independant overseer would be a nice thing.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[doodlelogic]

the vast majority are in London

Very true. In and around the Square Mile (the financial district of London) there is a set-up known as the "ring of steel". In theory, every square inch of public space in that area is under the view of at least one security camera.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[awol]

Further, the Data Protection Act would make it an offence to misuse the data as feared by the original poster. The check is there. The balance is there.

As for whether it is a good thing or not, I think good, because I am one of those that believes that there is a legitimate reduction in privacy in public spaces, but there are other views of equal merit.

as for the effecacy of the cameras in "impacting" (reducing, deterring, convicting) the statistics from the proponents and opponents tend to cancel each other out in the difficult to measure "deterring and reducing" categories, but the conviction category (including guilty pleas) is increased enourmously by the presence of CCTV (http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/cctv/cctv_fa q.html). But I think what is most undeniable is that citizens do feel safer when moving about in a CCTV area and that, fallacy or not, is the kicker since the perception of risk has become artificially inflated in the past 30 years and correcting that is a good thing.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[ballpoint]

Maybe this isn't 100% related, and some people think that traffic cameras are good (I'm not one of them), but here in Belgium you can obtain the pictures made by a traffic camera if you get fined by simply asking for them.

The problem is that, if you do that, the authorities state that you are not cooperating. They automatically deny a settlement, and you have to go before a police judge. Unless you supply overwhelming evidence - you are considered guilty by default, and you have to prove you're not - you will receive a much steeper fine and a criminal record.

So you have the right to get the records, but you are paying dearly if you exercize it.

All rights in theory, none in practice.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Anonymous Coward]

No, read what the poster said. You can get it at any time, just ask the records office.

And there *is* an overseer - the Data Protection Registrar.

Engage brain THEN type

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Anonymous Coward]

pictures should only be available to licenced entities, preferably only the police.

No, that's the OPPOSITE of what is needed. Go read "The Transparent Society: Will Technology force us to choose between Privacy and Freedom" by David Brin. Asymmetry in information availability translates to power. Giving only an elite access to the footage gives them lots of power. CCTVs should all be real-time public access so that anyone can watch the watchers if they want to.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Anonymous Coward]

The data protection act is worth very little. A couple of years ago a bent policeman was arrested for browsing though a database protected by the DPA for a PI chum.

He was found not guilty since he had not extracted data from the database *electronically*. That's how protected you are boys & girls

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Billy69]

Database protected by the DPA? WTF??? The DPA doesn't work like that, at all. The DPA protects those whose details are stored on a database by encumbering the owner of the database to keep the details up-to-date and to remove information that is no longer relevant. The misuse of that data is protected by the Computer Misuses Act 1990 and the RIPA 2000.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Gordonjcp]

It's quite easy to get footage, *if* it's relevant to you. I asked the concierge of the blocks of flats I stay in about this. There are perhaps a couple of dozen cameras dotted about the place, all of which is recorded and kept for 30 days or so. If, for instance, I wanted to get footage of someone I suspect had bumped my car in the car park, all I'd need to do is tell them when it happened, and show them the logbook for the car (to prove the car is mine and I'm not stalking some random).

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[myc_lykaon]

It depends on which police authority you are in when you are caught speeding in the UK. In Suffolk they send the photo with the request to pay the fine. Where I live, they send the fine and only allow you to see the evidence if you go to court where the minimum penalty is greater than the fine and license points you would have incurred had you just given in and paid and accepted the 3 penalty points.

It annoys me that the police, who are meant to be impartial providers of evidence to the CPS, take sides so readily and are, depending on authority, willing to withold evidence from the accused in collusion with the justice system.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[elgaard]

I noticed CCTV in the toilets in Belfast central station this summer.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Mark Thomas, political comedy genius.

Well, no - he's a Michael Moore-style rabble rouser. But he has his moments.

Re:Actually there are checks in GB

[hyphz]

Many other cities in the South-East UK have cameras too. Reading is full of them, for instance, and I think Manchester is too.

However, the bulk of cameras in stores are not to catch thieving customers but to catch *employees*. There are decent gangs of shoplifters in the UK who operate by getting jobs in stores, with seemingly good qualifications, and then lifting from the till or waving accomplices through without taking payment for goods. With chain stores it's quite hard, but a lot of them are franchises, which are more easily invaded..

Re:1984

[pjt33]

> You know there's a reason 1984 was set in Great Britain. I was written by a Brit?

Welcome to the prison without bars

[eraserewind]

There's another article on the Guardian today about this kind of topic, though this one is only about tracking criminals. Welcome to the prison without bars.

Re:Welcome to the prison without bars

[Anonymous Coward]

Do prisoners really deserve bars? Whatever next? Nightclubs?

Re:Welcome to the prison without bars

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not forget ...
Also prison without ass pounding

Panopticon

[hachete]

Well, we did invent the panopticon.
http://users.rcn.com/mackey/thesis/pa nopticon.html

Good old Jeremy, whose stuffed corpse is still on display in in one of the institutes in London. He also wanted everyone - well, everyone except the well-to-do - to have the equivalent of bar codes on their foreheads. A man before his time, obviously.

The ironic thing is that these cameras have had little or no effect on behaviour or the crime rate. Mind you, there was no systematic monitoring to test the crime-reduction effects of cameras in the first place. Just a wild hysteria which amounted to "put those cameras up or they'll kill all our children."

h

Re:Panopticon

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they had a great effect on the crime rate. All the petty crime (shoplifting, loitering, vandalism, etc.) flooded out of the cities and towns with CCTV and into towns without them.

Now that everybody's got it, the little shits just wear hoodies with baseball caps 24/7, with the brim pulled down over their faces.

Re:Panopticon

[MrNemesis]

Sorry, kinda OT, but I just thought some of you might like to know about the eccentric Jeremy Bentham. I was an earth sciences student at UCL, and every time you enter the South Wing you see JB's mummified corpse sitting in it's chair in it's little display case.

Some trivia:
The head displayed on this body is not JB's real head. This is because students from Kings College (long time rivals of UCL - Kings was an anglican uni IIRC, and UCL was full of godless heathens) kept stealing the head and playing footbal with it

JB entrusted the university to the board on the sole condition that he attended every important meeting. Hence it is the university's obligation to wheel him into every meeting the university has.

Lickle mini-bio here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/info/jb.htm

Re:Panopticon

[ifoxtrot]

I do believe that the auto-icon being wheeled into the major meetings of the university is a bit of a myth.

Not surprisingly, this peculiar relic has given rise to numerous legends and anecdotes. One of the most commonly recounted is that the Auto-Icon regularly attends meetings of the College Council, and that it is solemnly wheeled into the Council Room to take its place among the present-day members. Its presence, it is claimed, is always recorded in the minutes with the words Jeremy Bentham - present but not voting. Another version of the story asserts that the Auto-Icon does vote, but only on occasions when the votes of the other Council members are equally split. In these cases the Auto-Icon invariably votes for the motion.

This is taken from the website you link to. It also states that contrary to popular belief, Jeremy Bentham had nothing to do with the foundation of the university - only that he was admired by some of its founders. In that sense he's more of a spiritual founder...

But does it help?

[Anonymous Coward]

All dandy but my question is does the UK have less criminality than comparable nations?

I'm afraid the answer is NO.

And very strong rules need to be aplied to WHEN en WHO can use this information.
In the UK anyone can (and does) install such systems that look at public spaces and use it for any purpose, not just catching the obvious criminal!

Without clear laws to protect the privacy of the innocent this WILL eventually get out of hand.

Re:But does it help?

[Anonymous Coward]

your CAPS piss the HELL out of ME.

Re:But does it help?

[Anonymous Coward]

> All dandy but my question is does the UK have less criminality than comparable nations?

Yes it does.
The problem is that the fear of crime is still high, and that's why the public tolerate the cameras.

Watching the watchers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for ubiquitous surveillance of the public, but I think it should be a two-way street.

I think all politicians should be monitored and recorded, as well as all civil servants [especially the police] - pretty much anyone in a position of power over others, in fact.

The technology's there, but it'll never happen - for some strange reason we're expected to trust those in power [for example, the word of a police officer is considered to be beyond doubt in court - but why? They're people, people lie.]. I wonder how many police officers would resign if they were told their every move was to be recorded in their day-to-day work.

Re:Watching the watchers

[mikechant]

Actually, this is a two-way street to some extent. Camera footage has been used to show police brutality in arrests etc. Police now know that *they* may be being filmed when they make an arrest and this helps to constrain them to make arrests in a legal and restrained fashion. If I was being arrested I would be glad to see it was being filmed. Also, videoing of interviews in police stations is becoming common in the UK and this protects both the police (against false brutality allegations) and the suspect (against actual brutality). But I do agree that there should be very specific laws regulating use and retention of all footage - it should never be used for entertainment purposes for example. And misuse by police officers etc. for personal vendettas or whatvever should be harshly punished.

Re:Watching the watchers

[upside]

Not a bad point, considering we had exactly this kind of scandal a few days ago in Finland. This time the controls worked, but how often does telecoms information get misused unnoticed?

Cameras yes,but....

[imsabbel]

The usa is still unbeaten for tapping all major comsats. (echelon anyone?).
If you send an international fax or do an call, you can be sure it will be scanned. Yeah.
(btw Due to this practice, some american corps filed patends that had the same writing errors as internal documents of european corps, which were only faxed between company locations....)

americanisation

[BenjyD]

It doesn't take a genius to work out that it is going to be misused, even if it is only petty larceny," said Kittow.

"Petty larceny". Oh, very English. A journalist making up quotes, perhaps? Or did they find an American van driver to ask about what the British think?

Re:americanisation

[Lurker McLurker]

Actually, larceny is a term from English law, deriving from the Anglo-Norman larcine.

There used to be two types of larceny in English law Grand and Petit. These legal terms are no longer used, but the term "petty larceny" still pops up in conversation.

Re:americanisation

[BenjyD]

I can't think of a time when I've ever heard anyone not from the US say it - especially not a London van driver!

Re:americanisation

[mikechant]

I think 'larceny' has probably passed into the 'damp underfoot' vocabulary area - i.e. a dying usage which most people understand but only a very few oldsters actually use.

Re:americanisation

[CrimsonAvenger]

Grand Larceny is still a crime in the USA. Greater than $1000, unless they have changed it.

And if they haven't, they should. $1000 was a great deal more money when the laws were written that it is now.

ANd Petty Larceny is less than $25 (?). Depends on the State, I suppose, and also should be adjusted for inflation.

I for one...

[dr_labrat]

..welcome our comera wielding overlords.

No, honestly!!

Brb, someones at the doo....fds.....4.

Re:In a thoroughly scientific survey...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Digital 8 format then???

It has nothing to do with digital versus magnetic tape. I have no idea where you got that piece of misinformation, as preposterously funny as it may be.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

I was written by a Brit

YOU ARE THE BOOK? Speak to us oh holy 1984 and show us the path to privacy!

Pity that the brits gave up their arms..

[jcr]

Not many tv cameras can keep operating after taking even a single blast of bird shot.

-jcr

Re:Pity that the brits gave up their arms..

[Tony Hoyle]

They can, actually. Toughened plexiglass is transparent....

The external cameras I've seen are pretty resilient. Also very high up, so they're hard to get at.

TBH though these articles are just fluff. 99% of cameras are in-store cameras privately owned (and the US has these too). I know of 3 external ones in my nearest city, and 1 in the shopping centre down the road. It's not like they're all over the place.

London is a completely different ball game (although most of the cameras there are the congestion charge ones, and they're aimed at the road, not at people).

Re:Pity that the brits gave up their arms..

[pjt33]

It might not be too hard to work out who did it. Besides, paint seems to be the attack of choice, albeit more often levelled at speeding cameras.

Yeah right

[Udo Schmitz]

Because as we all know criminals care about being watched. 1)

Not.

This is like in the former German Democratic Republic. In Berlin they have put one of the many surveillance rooms full of monitors showing videos of public places in a museum. It's supposed to be there as a warning of totalitarian government.

But I guess the real reason is it just didn't meet technological standards anymore. To me it looks the capitalistic Berlin has much more cameras then the socialistic.

1)=Remember the 9/11 terrorists were filmed bording their planes.

Re:Yeah right

[MemoryDragon]

The socialistic/communist east germany did have not that many cameras, but the Stasi cockroaches were everywhere. You could compare east germany with the 19th century metternich Austria, probably the first example of a society going haywire with surveillance due to the paranoia of a few.

But those things dont last once the pressure is too high. Metternich Austria went down in flames in the 1848 revolution. East germany (DDR/GDR) basically imploded once hungary and tschechia opened its borders and people fled to the back then more liberal west to leave the constant surrveilance and Stasi back home.

Thats the problem with the cameras, they are cheap, they only have to paid once and they are not as intrusive as informants and cannot change sides to be a mole, but once somebody comes to power who is paranoid enough they can do as much damage as informants.

The problem is less that the cameras are there, the problem is, that people are used to them once somebody starts to misuse them to suppress people. The end might be something where we long for 1984.

The problem I see here is that there is a slow but ongoing development that governments see their citizens as their enemies they have to live with.

Another one, is that there are certain people who constantly talk about freedom while killing it off left and right under the radars of their citizens. This is not a US development but in all of the west, it is the worst in the US, because people their had the most freedom in things.

The problem with all this is that, this development goes on slowly, one spoonfed after the other, so that people can get used to it in time (a tactic first used by Hitler in pre war germany, to get the people used to the dissapearance of Jews and the violence against certain people) Once these tactics are questioned, they are blocked with anti - whatever (Goebbels described that first:"Once you have a critic on your neck with serious arguments. Just say he is Anti German and a foe of your country, works every time")

I think there is a bigger picture here of what is going on and things are not good in the scope of a long term development.

Re:Yeah right

[Savage-Rabbit]

I think there is a bigger picture here of what is going on and things are not good in the scope of a long term development.

Unfortunately most people seem to be incapable of thinking further ahead than the next fiscal quarter.

It's the laws that are important

[Lurker McLurker]

I don't care how many security cameras there are. I care about whether or not their use is properly regulated. What s considered to be suspicious behaviour? Can we be sure footage doesn't fall into the wrong hands? How long is footage kept for? Can I be sure that I'm not being filmed without my knowledge?

As long as the checks and balances are there, I'm happy. Governments have always been able to spy on people, what matters is that people are participating in the political process and maing sure they have the power to resist any wrong the government does (note that I'm not talking about owning firearms. Owning guns doesn't give you power over a government- they can always afford bigger guns). Accountability is the key.

Re:It's the laws that are important

[upside]

Sorry I'm duping my earlier comment but this may be relevant.

Re:It's the laws that are important

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yes, because all we did in Iraq, is point bigger guns at them, and the fight was over.

Has anyone noticed that we've had to occupy the country with infantry that carries guess what, *rifles*.

If we can't use firearms against a government, why is the US military using the same damn thing to occupy Iraq, instead of all our superweapons? Maybe because air superiority, tanks, and missiles wouldn't be the most effective and/or PRable tactics over there? What, do you think they're going to nuke Seattle if there is another protest?

The 2nd Ammendment is indeed a check and balance.

I must admit you're onto something with the cameras, with a little work, you might realize that proper regulation is impossible, and that it's better to do away with them entirely.

Can't be that effective...

[chillmost]

if they let this sort of thing go on there. NSFW but if you are already slashdotting at work, you might as well click.

Privacy not an issue for most

[otisg]

Just a week ago I spoke to a friend of mine about this. He lives in Kent, UK. He explained that cameras are there because of IRA (at least that is the explanation). I asked about whether people have privacy issues with cameras, and apparently most people do not. I guess if you are not misbehaving, there is nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Re:Privacy not an issue for most

[Anonymous Coward]

If your friend says that (about them being because of the IRA) he must be (a) very thick (b) imaginary

Re:Privacy not an issue for most

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, from "I guess if you are not misbehaving, there is nothing to hide, nothing to fear", it is a), or even c) A complete fuckwit

Opinion versus Action

[Anonymous Coward]

No government can distinguish between a differing opinion and intent to harm.

They'd ban this, for example:

AFN FAQ

And arrest 1,100 protestors for claiming G.W. Bush is an excrementally bad president.

security and freedom

[circletimessquare]

there is much rabble rousing in the us post 9/11 about giving up precious freedom for dubious secuirty goals

and while i do agree that the patriot act and its ilk is pure bunkum, i still think that some of the rabid freedom advocates are forgetting: people like to continue breathing too

in a post-9/11 world, talking about threats to your personal safety is not pure fud, not just fearmongering: the threat is real and palpable

residents in inner city housing projects welcome security cameras, they don't feel invaded at all: they know it cuts down on crime

the uk's experience with the the ira simply puts them ahead of the us in terms of coping with terrorism, now experiencing its own terror threats

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

blah, blah, blah, snore...

that's a very nice quote, but i can equally say that moderation and practicality always trump idealism and absolutism, and hypersensitivity to every hair's breadth shaving of freedom and liberty in esoteric and hypothetical ways, even for the sake of large palpable and concrete jumps in security just does not make sense in today's world

would i be inventing bogey men and bullshit threats to our life and limb, i would be a fearmongerer indeed

but how anyone could say that about my pov in a world where something like 9/11 is happening... well, there is false alarmism, and then there is a false sense of security

Re:security and freedom

[kahei]

I agree. It sucks but it's acceptable considering the level of random crime in the UK. I assume the government will abuse it but that's pretty much a lost battle anyway in the UK, so given the choice I'd rather obtain a little temporary safety. It was easy for Benjamin Franklin to talk -- even in the war of 1776, both sides loved him!

Parent is NOT a troll

[fondue]

FFS. Americans: Please accept that in other countries, we are able to distinguish between public safety issues and privacy concerns. The government is not using CCTV cameras to spy on you. Take the tinfoil helmet off.

Re:Parent is NOT a troll

[CrimsonAvenger]

Please accept that in other countries, we are able to distinguish between public safety issues and privacy concerns.

Why should we accept that? You don't seem to accept that *we* can distinguish between public safety issues and privacy concerns.

Personally, all this just convinces me that the UK is not a place I really need to visit. I don't mind at all that you are doing this sort of thing to yourselves, long as I don't have to suffer under it.

Good or bad ?

[Metatron]

It is certainly becoming a very big thing. The cameras are everywhere inside and out. I've even been into pubs that have forced people to remove their hats / caps as it would help obscure their faces on the cctv cameras.

Is this a good thing or not ? Thats the difficult question. There is such a fine line between civil liberties and fighting crime, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you are supposed to have nothing to fear, but then you don't have to be breaking the law to want people to not find out where you are and what you are doing - it depends on who has access to the information and how it can be used ... and thats the difficult part.

Personally, I think overall I like the CCTV cameras. They are quite popular here in Britain, mostly helped by big cases that attracted a lot of media attention that have been solved and people caught all thanks to CCTV, (Jamie Bulger etc). Do we have to sacrifice some smaller parts of freedom to live in a more secure society ? possibly, yes. It would be great if we could trust everyone, but unfortunately we can't. Don't forget what freedom really is, the freedom to vote for our political leaders, express our opionions freely, live wherever you like, travel wherever you like, set up business, trade, have children, not have children, cover ourselves in baby oil and rub up and down ... oh hang on ;-) .... but I think you see what I mean :-).

Re:Good or bad ?

[Oddly_Drac]

"people caught all thanks to CCTV"

Dude, you're so missing the point. What happened to challenging people in the committing of a crime? what happened to actually taking an interest in keeping your own community safe? What happened in not handing over responsibility to local councils to keep you safe at night?

"Do we have to sacrifice some smaller parts of freedom to live in a more secure society ?"

Argh. So you want to keep trading those small bits of freedom to feel safe while the media fills you with dread over pedophiles, child murderers and terrorists? When will you feel totally safe? When the last terrorist has been hunted down?

Re:Good or bad ?

[Metatron]

So you would prefer citizens to take the law into their own hands, form vigilante groups, and begin their own form of terror and control over our streets ??. I pay the police to do that for me, if they can get conviction based on some video then all the better IMHO and in a so called "free" society we do require this small thing called "evidence" in order to put the people comitting that crime in jail.

I don't think I'll ever feel totally safe. The world just doesn't operate that way, and I am not filled with dread by the media, in fact I generally pay little attention to the sensationalist stuff that they tend to provide (with some exceptions). If they wanted to put an RFID tag into me to track my every move 24x7 I think I would have an issue with that, however if they want to film public areas in order to deter crime, convict criminals or even get emergency response to an area more quickly, then yes I think I like that.

Re:Good or bad ?

[Metatron]

... and to rephrase that slightly, no I don't pay ther police to form vigilante groups and begin their own form of terror ;-) ... I do pay them to enforce the law and to catch criminals, they are there to protect us and enforce the law. ... Regarding the media, the exceptions are that not all of the media is sensationalist, not that I do pay attention to some of that ! :-) /pedant :)

Re:Good or bad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I'd be interested to see if they force people who wear turbans or hijabs to do the same. Sometimes there's a real double standard to that in this country.

Re:Good or bad ?

[rarity]

big cases that attracted a lot of media attention that have been solved and people caught all thanks to CCTV, (Jamie Bulger etc).

How does that help Jamie Bulger, exactly? He's still dead...

Re:Good or bad ?

[Metatron]

How does that help Jamie Bulger, exactly? He's still dead...

Sadly it doesn't. What it does do is demonstrate very well that people can and will be caught for their crimes using this technology and if that prevents something like that happening to someone else then that is a good thing.

FWIW I don't think CCTV is the best solution, hell I have no idea what the best solution is. There are pro's and con's with most things. If you are too liberal you let the criminals run free but if you are too restrictive then you remove peoples freedoms one by one. Everything is a trade off for something else ... hell if you can find me a utopia where everyone can be trusted and everyone is fair and considerate to their fellow human being then I'd love to live there ... Don't think I'll ever see that in my lifetime, or anytime soon after that :-(

Re:Good or bad ?

[TyrionEagle]

I suppose you'd be happy if police didn't waste time and money trying to track down murderers, 'cos the victim is already dead?

That's the most stupid argument I've ever heard.

Re:Good or bad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should know - you made it.

Re:Good or bad ?

[rarity]

Of course not. My point was that the presence of the cameras didn't do anything to deter the killers, and that all the surveillance present in the UK is doing little more than providing a false sense of security.

Re:Good or bad ?

[Oddly_Drac]

"So you would prefer citizens to take the law into their own hands"

Not at all, but you do miss the point that the police don't operate the cameras. You don't realise that the vigilante groups have already started up in some areas? Or did you miss the peadeatrician who's house was stoned due to people thinking that it was the same as 'peadophile'?

" if they can get conviction based on some video"

The CPS prosecute, the police gather evidence and make arrests. Believe it or not there are some cases that are thrown out as not being 'in the public interest', despite being caught on camera. Most of these are 'anti-social' crimes.

"we do require this small thing called "evidence""

And relying on video as evidence is the way you'd like to go? Personally I'm more forensics based because I know something about the cameras they use, especially where they 'interpolate' during 'cleaning up' images.

"I don't think I'll ever feel totally safe."

And why not? If you're fearful of something, then that's just a way to be manipulated, which is why we see so many stupid decisions being handed down justified as keeping people safe. Safety is a function of your own mind, not the chainlink fence that you allow to be put up around you.

And if it matters, I don't feel any more or less safe than when the IRA were bombing shopping centres during the eighties compared with today; the _vast_ majority of murders are committed by people you know, but that's no reason to run your friends through metal detectors.

"film public areas in order to deter crime, convict criminals or even get emergency response to an area more quickly, then yes I think I like that."

Okay, when that starts happening we'll revisit the subject, but it's currently being used to justify the reduction in beat coppers in outlying areas versus the tightening up of inner cities. Not only that, but we have a situation where the councils contract out the monitoring to companies who may or may not use police approved procedures. Go down to your police station and ask who administers your local camera scheme. Ask their opinion. I did, and they aren't happy.

Re:Good or bad ?

[Oddly_Drac]

"I do pay them to enforce the law and to catch criminals, they are there to protect us and enforce the law"

So do I, old chap, which is one of the reasons I believe in keeping them from being laid off or given clerical duties because the false shield of cameras is in place. Relying on one form of security as a panacea is not only dangerous, it betrays a sequence of thought that gives me chills in a similar ways to the abortive testing of the 'Mandrake' face recognition system.

Relying on technology to that degree, even to the extent of assuming infallibility, and before you poo-poo it, bear in mind we're currently going back over early fingerprint and DNA convictions, is not only dangerous, but costly both in terms of public trust and revisiting cases at a later date.

Although you might consider that I'm engaged in a degenerate argument, I'm actually more concerned with the speed and lack of checks and balances that are inherent to the system.

Open it up

[ironhide]

Prevent big brother from abusing it and ensure that the stream gets untampered (digitally signed by the hardware) to a p2p network, where it is distrubuted for public scrutinity.

Re:Open it up

[Confusium]

Good bye illicit rendez-vous', hello paranoid boyfriend...

Surveillance is at higher levels than I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I walked into the small unassuming police station at the end of O'connel street in Dublin a few years back to find out about my passport. I was totally shocked by the back wall of the room, which was covered in around 50 or more colour screen surveillance monitors. OK, it's a capital city, and it has a lot of crime (so i would be for these installations), but that's not what shocked me.

what shocked me was that these monitors covered almost every inch of that sector of dublin, i could see every last spot of the street outside, all in perfect crystal clear quality. It was something to be amazed at. I doubt a single person in the street outside would have realised how much they were being watched.

Difficulty of securing a conviction

[kahei]

The extremely pro-defendant legal system in the UK makes it _very_ hard to get a conviction for a violent crime such as assault without the use of these cameras. This is a very important factor. Even _with_ the cameras it is still probably harder to get rid of eg the local mugger in the UK than in the US.

So, we see here how a liberal law (making it hard for the police to convict someone for 'just being a scumbag') actually leads to an authoritarian situation when the need comes to make the system actually work.

Not that I particularly object to the cameras, compared to some other Blair-era changes to the UK system...

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[0123456]

"I wonder how people were convicted before the cameras?"

And, indeed, why violent crime rates are much higher now than they were before CCTV?

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[LordK2002]

So, we see here how a liberal law (making it hard for the police to convict someone for 'just being a scumbag')

Yes, we tend to refer to that as "innocent until proven guilty".

Convicting somebody because they look like they might be guilty is not a component of a civilised society.

K

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[onion2k]

The police see, and act on, incidents as they're seen on the CCTV. Prior to CCTV they would only be recorded if someone made a complaint. As most violent street crime is a drunken fight outside a pub not much was ever brought to the attention of the police. Therefore CCTV has increased the amount of *reported* crime that goes into the stats. Thats really very different to there actually being more. Overall crime rates in the UK have been falling for the last 10 years or so.

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[0123456]

"Overall crime rates in the UK have been falling for the last 10 years or so."

That'll be news to pretty much everyone I know.

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[Metatron]

That'll be news to pretty much everyone I know.

Actually AFAIK (and my SO works as an intelligence officer for a UK force) that is pretty true. The main thing thats changing is people's perception of whats happening as opposed to the facts. In previous years / decades before CCTV and a fast responding mass media, people just didn't hear about these sorts of things ... although they happened a lot. Now we have less crime, but it is reported much quicker to more people, hence the perception is that it is worse.

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So even when everything is documented, it's still easy to claim day is night, and red is blue. Let me tell you a story about Comrade Withers, an Inner Party member, who has earned the a medal of the Order of Conspicuous Merit, Second Class...

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, we just shoot the bastard.

(that was a joke, for the humor impaired)

Re:Difficulty of securing a conviction

[wtfai]

Why do people think that it is difficult to get a conviction? The sources that I can find suggest that conviction rates are about 97/98% in magistrates courts and around 90% in crown courts. That doesn't really suggest that there are problems getting convictions.ref 1 ref 2

tin foil

[Frogg]

I live in the UK, and a good sensible measure that I've taken to recently is to line not only my hat with tin foil, but my shoes, socks, trousers, shirt and jacket too. As far as I can tell, it seems to stop the cameras from looking at me.

Ok.. UK Data Protection Act states that fixed cameras are ok, but if they can zoom or move, then you must comply with the act. To comply with the act you must have a nominated data-protection manager in your company (responsible for cycling tapes, answering public enquiries, etc), you must not place cameras where you shouldn't (toilets/etc), you must display the necessary signs (you are not (meant to be) allowed to record anyone without their knowledge) with contact details as to who is responsible for the cameras and who the 'data-protection manager' is, and if you operate cameras of a non-fixed kind any member of the public is entitled to make an enquiry, and providing they give reasonable information (time, location, description of appearance, what you were doing, who else was present, etc), and pay a handling fee of no more than £15(?) then you must either invite that person in to the company to inspect the footage, or (and?), make it available on standard playable video cassette -- and they have to block out the distinguishing features (black strips, mosaic fuzziness, etc) of anyone else who was present in the footage, but not immediately involved with the person in question.

I might've missed something, but I think that pretty much covers it. You can get advice and template letters for making such enquiries from a variety of places on the net, including (i think) from the UK government's DPA website.

It's all fairly serious stuff, lots of businesses (particularly night-clubs and restaurants) don't fully comply with the act (no visible signs in recording areas), and I'd be certain that they'd be unable to produce the required video footage if it were requested.

It sucks really.

Shit -- must dash, some of my tinfoil is more than 24hrs old, and needs replacing.......

Re:tin foil

[Inda]

"pay a handling fee of no more than £15(?)"

I forget the exact words but they are only allowed to make a small charge to cover administration.

When I used to Data Protection Act about 5 years ago, I was charged 1.00 GBP for a computer printout of my data.

PS. How did you get the GBP symbol to work?

Re:tin foil

[Frogg]

Yes, it's just a basic charge to cover admin -- but I think the max is now as much as £10 or £15

(On my UK keyboard GBP symbol is simply shift-3, slashdot must do the rest..)

Your mobile phone is watching you

[alanxyzzy]

The mobile phone operators can track your position, sometimes to within a few tens of metres, if your cell phone is switched on, whether or not you make a call. They always log your position if you make a call, whether or not you are being singled out for special monitoring, and keep this data for many months.

Have a look, for instance, at ChildLocate.co.uk

Some more links:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-8593 96,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,690 3,1101683,00.html
http://www.followus.co.uk/

Re:Your mobile phone is watching you

[Pentagram]

Fucking hell, that childlocate site is scary.


Why ChildLocate?
1. Locate your children anywhere in the UK

5. Keep an unobtrusive eye on your elderly parents or vulnerable relatives


Apart from the "genuine" ways of using it, is there any way of stopping someone from "borrowing" someone's phone, enabling the service, and then being able to track that person for the life of the phone?

Re:Your mobile phone is watching you

[MacBorg]

There's a study at the MIT Media Lab doing exactly this... cool but spooky.

The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[tezza]

Six weeks ago I got slashed in the face by a guy with a knife on Chalk Farm Road, in Camden.

I chased him about 600 meters but he ran into a dark council estate and was not that stupid, the guy still had a knife/friends and I had neither.

The police came. Lots of them. Ordinary bobbies and 5 pairs of CID. I retraced the route. There were 10 CCTV camera along the route that I chased him, and NONE of them were pointing the right way to capture this guy, over 600m. The only footage was from a Sainsburies private CCTV that he ran in front of. The police say Camden is one of the most surveilled areas in London.

Just not that bit.

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[dosun88888]

Six weeks ago I got slashed in the face by a guy with a knife on Chalk Farm Road, in Camden.

I chased him about 600 meters but he ran into a dark council estate and was not that stupid, the guy still had a knife/friends and I had neither.

This isn't making much sense to me.

Did the guy sneak up on you, slash your face, and then run away?

Did he rob you, then slash your face, and you decided to chase after him?

Did you assault the guy, get cut by him, and then continue the pursuit?

The first option makes no sense but explains the chase. The second option makes no sense because I don't see why he wouldn't just cut you up some more instead of running. The third option makes no sense because if you assaulted the guy you wouldn't go get the police.

Surely the story is none of "our" business anyhow, but in this case the parts you left out make it sound like a ridiculous circumstance.

'tis but a scratch!

~D

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[t_allardyce]

They painted a yellow box around the ATMs outside the tube station that marked a no-go area for people who wernt using the machines, and then had a whole opening ceremony! That tells you all you need to know about crime prevention in Camden! Of course they had a great camera outside some estate overlooking the rubbish bins that showed that muderer dumping body parts but that doesnt really help you does it? Every time i pick up a Camden Journal theres always a story about a gun fight and chase, I hate that place. Where abouts did it happen? what time? I think ive just been very lucky (touch wood) but yeah, good place to avoid at night. Frankly i want to see the police have a zero-tolerence on gun and knife carrying - they see you with a gun/knife and they should shout "drop it, 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1" and then if you havnt they shoot to kill, would save a fuck load of court time.

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[tezza]

I was walking with two friends [girls] from Primrose Hill. Midnight. He walked the other way and out of nowhere hit my friend Katie in the chest. She fell against a railing.

I turned around and faced him and asked 'What the fuck are you doing??, you just hit my friend. Apologise.'

He just shrugged.

I said again 'Apologise' and took a step towards him. He had the knife in his hand and slashed me across the face. When I put my hand up to my face there was blood on it and i knew he'd just cut me.

I said 'You just fucking stabbed me you cunt'

I went to beat the shit out of him/die trying but he ran. I chased.

So that's the story. Doesn't fit any of your scenarios.

It required 15 stitches and took out my Saliva gland on the left side of my face. It missed my facial artery by millimeters. It was so deep the Triage Nurse asked me whether I could poke my tongue through it from inside my mouth. Apparently, that's pretty deep.

So net result is, there's still some looney out there who carries a knife, hits women out of nowhere and then stabs anyone who protests. If the CCTV was working to record the street, then maybe the police would be able to see if this loser was responsible for this or this.

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[tezza]

This'll be a side topic I know, but that murder [caught] dumping body parts was dumping parts of a friend of mine, Andreas.

I was at an ordination ceremony of another friend, and the police got up on the podium [well Bimah actually] and asked the crowd if anybody had seen Andreas for the last two days. He was due to be ordained as a Rabbi that same day. A few days later he was discovered chopped into pieces in that bin. He had been followed from a nightclub by The Camden Ripper.

This is why I was walking the girls home when I got stabbed. Because Camden is rough and dangerous, and it would seem, a little out of control. After talking to all the police who dealt with my case, they agree.

In Memory of Andreas.

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[Rude Turnip]

"he ran into a dark council estate"

For us USians here, is that a public housing project?

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[tezza]

Yup, that it is. Although a lot that are privately owned these days, as they have great locations if somewhat austere looks.

Re:The cameras aren't necessarily the right way

[droleary]

So that's the story. Doesn't fit any of your scenarios.

Allow me to add insult to injury via a realistic summary. You were trying to play tough-guy-protector to a couple girls in a dangerous neighborhood armed only with strong words. You got what any intelligent person would expect to have gotten in a similar situation. The real question is what, if anything, you learned from the incident.

Britain is a terrible place to be

[jopet]

Last time I travelled there I hated it - cameras everywhere, warnings about 24 hour surveillance everywhere, signs and warnings about what you are or are not allowed to do everywhere. If they enjoy that, ok, but for me it was terrible. Wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

Re:Britain is a terrible place to be

[Saluton_Mondo]

You might change your mind if you were the victim of a crime and the criminal was caught and brought to justice based on evidence from the surveillance system. I've noticed this happening a lot recently.

Re:Britain is a terrible place to be

[jopet]

No - I do not want to put myself into a high-security jail for the small chance of a criminal getting caught in the rare case that I could become the victim of a criminal. And I'd rather see the money spent to remove the cause of the crimes instead of curing the symptoms in such an inhumane way.

Re:Britain is a terrible place to be

[Dave Angle is .... M]

IIRC there was a story on /. last month about a US church group that had cameras aimed at:

• the driver and
• registration plate

of any cars that stopped at the traffic lights outside its buildings. I find that a bit more worrying than a bit of CCTV in city centers.

Re:Britain is a terrible place to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I travelled to America I saw a sign outside a shop saying 'no firearms'. I can't imagine living in a country where normal people carry guns. If they enjoy that, ok, but for me it was worrying. Wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

Re:Britain is a terrible place to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I travelled to America I saw a sign outside a shop saying 'no firearms'. I can't imagine living in a country where normal people carry guns. If they enjoy that, ok, but for me it was worrying. Wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

So you prefer living in a country where only
abnormal people carry guns? They do,
trust me.

Just a hint for you reason-impaired people out
there: Normal people don't injure other people.
Normal people don't rob other people. Normal
people are generally pleasant to other normal people.

A normal person who is carrying a gun just might,
however, be able to deter a non-normal criminal
who is planning to hold up a store where you are
shopping, and who (being abnormal) has no compunction about stabbing you on the way out.

Re:Britain is a terrible place to be

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't have happened to be the Church of Scientology would it?

Re:1984

[beh]

So what?

Karl May, a German author of travel stories didn't visit the US until long after writing his books.
Neither did he visit any of the other places outside of Europe that he wrote about. Yet a lot of his stories have been fairly accurate as to the surroundings they have been describing.

Admitted, it's more likely for an author to set his real-world stories in a setting he knows (most likely something close to his place of living at the time of writing), but it doesn't HAVE to be the case...

Trafficmaster

[alanxyzzy]

The article makes no mention of TrafficMaster.

This private company has erected thousands of cameras on blue poles on major roads around the UK. They scan the number plates of cars, and (allegedly) strip off the leading and trailing alpha-numeric, encrypt the result, and transmit it to a central computer. This can make an statistical analysis of the congestion based om the time for a car to pass two cameras.

How can one be sure that the system has not been compromised by the security services?

Re:Trafficmaster

[pix]

Rubbish!! The trafficmaster sensors do nothing of the sort. They serve two purposes:
1. They measure the average speed of the traffic passing that spot so they can build a map of congestion in the area. They do not read number plates.
2. They broadcast the local traffic conditions to any cars locally with a Trafficmaster unit installed.

Re:Trafficmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly sure it has, wasn't it mentioned in The Irish War by Tony Geraghty?

Re:Trafficmaster

[alanxyzzy]

There are two sorts of trafficmaster detectors. There are the blue poles on major roads, to which I was referring. There are also infra-red sensors mounted on bridges over motorways which do measure average speed.

Some references from the Trafficmaster web site that confirm that the Blue Poles do read number plates.

http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/page.cfm?key=networ k

A new sensor technology was developed for the trunk routes - Passive Target Flow Measurement (PTFM). Using video-based technology, the sensor head captures the centre digits of a vehicle number plate and converts them to an electronic 'tag'. This tag is then followed down the road, from sensor to sensor enabling the time to travel a known distance to be computed.

http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/page.cfm?key=networ k_ptfm-network

Trunk roads use a different technology to cater for the different traffic patterns experienced on such roads. Traffic turns off at junctions and may stop in lay-bys, at shopping centres etc, so simple speed measurement would not generate quality data. Passive Target Flow Measurement (PTFM) uses number plate recognition technology to ''grab'' the four centre digits of a vehicle number plate. This is turned into a four figure electronic ''tag'' on site - no number plate data is retained.

As the vehicle proceeds along the road and passes the next site(s), average journey times between sites are calculated and sophisticated computer programmes establish the speed of the traffic over those ''links''. In a seamless process, traffic speed on that particular section of road is then delivered to the traffic information product.

Re:Trafficmaster

[pix]

I stand corrected - although I'm not sure enough data is retained to really act as surveillance cameras.

Not Cutting Violent Crime

[baldcamel]

I can't remember where I heard about it, bbc website or the TV news, but a recent report concluded that CCTV did not produce a drop in violent crime. However, the serverity of the injuries suffered was reduced because the emergency services could get on the scene quicker.

Personally, I am not a big fan of being watched everytime I enter the city centre - but I offset this against the fact the Police Officers could be deployed more effectively. I feel the same way about speed / safety cameras.

Re:Not Cutting Violent Crime

[white_wolf21]

The article itself says that a study has been done that shows CCTV cameras do not really reduce crime - and in fact better street lighting is much more effective.

A study by crime reduction charity NACRO found the technology reduced crime by only 3 percent to 4 percent while better street lighting led to a 20 percent reduction. The Home Office is conducting its own evaluation.

"Much of it is deeply intrusive," said Brown. "There's an illusion that it makes people safe when it does no such thing."

Maybe I would be happier with being filmed everywhere I went if the cameras did actually have an independently measurable effect. But it appears they don't... so I do mind being filmed when it's not much more than a security blanket. So surely the people who are pro-CCTV in the interests of safety should be clamouring for better lit streets (as well/instead)?

Re:Not Cutting Violent Crime

[0123456]

"Personally, I am not a big fan of being watched everytime I enter the city centre - but I offset this against the fact the Police Officers could be deployed more effectively."

They _could_ be, perhaps. But, in reality, they're either sitting in control rooms eating donuts, or standing by the side of the road with laser speed guns or cameras looking for expired road tax.

Every year we have more cameras, yet the crime rates keep on going up. Cameras are just 'security theater' for the proles... the odd thing is that the lefties support them when they'll be used to round up all political opponents as soon as a truly fascist government arises here (my guess is within 20 years, the way things are going).

Re:1984

[MemoryDragon]

The reason why it was located in Britain was because the author is britisch. The book itself could play in any country of the world. I consider George Orwell to be a genious. He bascially extracted the base of ever suppressive government out of the sign of the times (Back then he had Stalin and Hitler as good examples) and made a timeless metapher out of those things he could gather. Both books animal farm and 1984 would fit perfectly in every country which shows the signs of totality or the stages of beginning. Don't get me wrong my american friends, but back then animal farm and 1984 was more or less a mockery of communism, but I consider it essential political literature, because there are signs in your society is as well, which are the dawn of totality and oppression which were clearly shown in the book (and in the history) Totality always has the same face being it communism, being it and oppressive democracy (those things exist, look at Fujimoris Peru) being it a dictatorship or a plutocracy ( a government form where the people with the money dictate things)

It Was The Mark Thomas Comedy Project

[JamieKitson]

The Data Protection Act says something along the lines of provide £10 to any company and they must provide all information they have on you. As Mark Thomas is a left wing comedian/activist some companys, such as Nestle, had a fair bit of info on him and the MOD had about a phone books worth of info, one e-mail thread they included went along the lines of

- Did you see Mark Thomas last night?
- No, was it any good?
- Yeah, I videoed it if you want to borrow it.

or...

[JamieKitson]

Because the auther was British?

What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

> At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough

You trust Tony "bomb Iraq" Blair!? Really!?

Article seems confusing

[levell]

It mixes state recording of public places and private recording (like the night-club filming unknowing people having sex on their premises).

Although personally I'm okay with both types of filming (although of course, agree it was right to sue the night-club in question), it's common in other countries to have cameras in shops and I don't feel any greater need for privacy on a high street than I do in a shop on the high street.

I'm always a bit surprised by foreigners reaction to it who almost uniformly (in the non-scientific poll I've conducted on friends) wouldn't be in favour of it back home.

Of course, it it doesn't actually prevent crime, and there seem to be a lot of very contradictory statistics at the moment then it is a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere....

Re:Article seems confusing

[Spad]

I think of lot of the negative US reaction comes from the fact that nothing like the Data Protection Act exists over there. Here we have a very specific law which guaruntees us rights over our personal information and in theory gives us a greater level of protection in the face of CCTV cameras.

Re:Article seems confusing

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, it comes because we are by no means certain that such a law would be properly enforced.

Consider, if you will, a request for data concerning yourself on these CCTV's you have. YOu ask, they spend some time, come back, and say something to the effect of "Sorry, that data was erased last week. We're only allowed to keep it seen days, you know". Does the fact that it is illegal for someone to retain data more than seen days actually imply the erase it after seven days?

The USA has an "instant check" system in place for handgun purchases these days. Passed by Clinton, of course. The law specifically required that no records of any transactions be kept longer than it took to actually process the transaction. The Clinton Justice Department decided that they needed to retain records of transactions more or less indefinitely (for QA/audit purposes), and proceeded to do so, in violation of the law.

When the Bush administration subsequently decided to actually obey that part of the law, the gun-control nute howled to the high heavens! Interesting that nearly half of Congress (the Democrat part) opposed the idea of obeying a law written and passed by themselves (this was written and passed by the last Democrat-controlled House and Senate).

Most people like them

[Stephen]

What you have to understand about these cameras, is that the vast majority of people in Britain -- Slashdot readers excepted -- think that they are a good thing, and believe that they help keep towns safer.

Now you can argue about whether the population is naive, or misled. But you also have to wonder about what democracy means.

Re:Most people like them

[bondgrrl]

I'm not sure that that is the case. Most people I've spoken to see cameras as a cheap 'n' nasty replacement for beat policemen.

Ask anyone in the UK whether they would rather have a local bobby or a CCTV camera and the bobby would win every time.

Re:Most people like them

[I confirm I'm not a]

Ask anyone in the UK whether they would rather have a local bobby or a CCTV camera and the bobby would win every time.

True, but the GP's point still stands - if people are told "we can't afford a beat cop, only CCTV" (read: "your taxes would have to rise to afford a beat cop") they'll gladly "choose" CCTV. My father-in-law cheerfully welcomed razor-wire and CCTV to his council-run tower-block, though there had previously been very few problems. Now the local "neds" (unemployed young people) view the security as "a challenge" and problems like vandalism and theft have risen.

Re:Most people like them

[meadowsp]

Democracy means that what the majority of people want happens, which according to your post seems to be the case here.

So where's the problem again?

Re:Most people like them

[Stephen]

That was my point. Maybe I didn't express it very clearly. I was trying to point out to all the people who oppose cameras that the majority of people in the UK seem to want them.

Are the cameras worth anything ?

[Builder]

Two weeks ago I witnessed an act of vandalism at Mansion house tube station. Two female youths threw a bottle at a train waiting on the platform, spraying glass along the platform and the train.

There were two camera filming them. I also photographed them with my camera phone. I reported the problem to a station worker, who was not interested in dealing with it, so I reported it to British transport police (after 3 failed attempts, but that's another story about law enforcement in .uk :))

After a week, they came back to me and said that they were unable to take any action as the footage from the CCTV wasn't clear enough to ensure that the people I took the picture of were actually the people throwing the bottle.

This is the second or third time I've seen CCTV fail miserably.

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[JiffyJeff]

Couldn't you have just stopped the girls yourself? I mean, really... You witnessed the incident? Just stop them; if they won't tell you who they are -- then hold them until police arrive.

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[jeremyp]

Yes but aside all these photos and videos, they had an eye whitness report. I suspect they were really saying "we can't be arsed to deal with this".

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[oneandoneis2]

Couldn't you have just stopped the girls yourself? I mean, really... You witnessed the incident? Just stop them; if they won't tell you who they are -- then hold them until police arrive.

Do that, and they'll probably claim you sexually harassed them and get YOU arrested..

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[I confirm I'm not a]

TOTALLY agree. Attempting a citizen's arrest on a greater number of anti-social youths is asking for either (a) an assault on your person, or (b) an unfounded accusation against you.

Of course, this may be different in other countries, but in the UK I'd definitely leave it to the people paid to take risks.

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as well you weren't thrown out of the station - ironically you're not supposed to take photographs without prior permission.

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[Anonymous Coward]

don`t worry just chalk it up as practice.... by the time "666" becomes a reality why you`ll be a pro and can turn them all in who wont comply to take the mark... hey you can also get good shots of people tying to hide jews, that kind of info they`ll pay for and make you a hero.... hitler would have loved you....

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[Kombat]

they were unable to take any action as the footage from the CCTV wasn't clear enough

I'll bet we'll see this changing in the very near future. In the past 20 years or so, the cameras we've been using have all been recording to tape. Since your average VHS tape only holds maybe 4 hours of traditional low-quality video, these cameras actually record extra-low-quality video, producing a grainy feed that, as you noted is usually useless.

I hope that the trend going forward, given the widespread dissemination of digital imaging instead of analog, we'll see much higher-quality video feeds, being saved to high-capacity, compressed digital archives, rather than the conventional analog media. Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised to see manufacturers offering cameras that, instead of taking a continous feed of low-quality images, snaps a high-quality image every 0.5 seconds, thus providing better-quality shots of suspects.

I expect to see these trends manifesting within 2 years. If not, well, maybe there's a business opportunity there. ;)

Re:Are the cameras worth anything ?

[Anonymous Coward]

We just went digital at one of our factories and the quality is very good (as long as the camera is up to it) plus the system works only if there is movement in the frame, so storage requirements are cut. Somebody has already spotted the business opportunity but it will be a few years before all the equipment is replaced to match the ability of the new kit.

Re:1984

[Burb]

Absolutely, completely, irrelevant.

The point about 1984 is the whole world is under the control of three powerblocks, and we are given to understand that they are all pretty much the *same* (give or take local cultural differences) in their attitude to personal liberty. (This assumes that the documents that Winston finds are true and not merely the thought police playing mind games with him, of course).It could well be argued that you could change "Winston Smith from England" to "John Doe from Idaho" or "Ivan Ivanovitch from Russia" and the message would be the same.

It's 20 years since I read the book, so my memory might be playing tricks. But I have actually bothered to read the book.

Who will watch the watchers?

[Tetsugaku-San]

Really, I'm English and I need to know :(

Difficulty of securing a conviction

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how people were convicted before the cameras ?

Jamie Bulger

[turgid]

CCTV cameras didn't stop Jamie Bulger from getting killed either.

The boys responsible were caught and brought to justice and the tabloids got their hysteria. Jamie is still dead though.

Britain sort of gets it thou..

[SlashDread]

AFAIK (people seem to confirm it here) The British surveillance camera's -DATA- is considered, at least partially, public information, as in, if you are on it, you can get a copy..

This is an important fact, as the information that you walked there, seems a public fact to me, and thus should really be accesible for -ALL-

Consider the Dutch. (I am Dutch)

We wiretap more than ANY country in the world, and we recently broadened the polices powers to do so.

Now, -The PEOPLE- have NO access to this information, cannot correct misunderstandings in it, plus the software run to do the tapping is Israeli, and -SECRET- EVEN for Dutch officials.

Im no anti-zionist at all, but I also do not trust "Mossad" to act in the Dutch best interest, so this is far more prone to abuse, than a few -public- cameras.

Remember folks, Information really does want and sometimes MUST be free, especially, PUBLIC information. Please, always apply that axiom TO YOU TOO. Then think again.

"/Dread"

Quality, not quantity

[cakefool]

Most people caught on CCTV only get in trouble if they are caught live and reported to the cops, who then race to the scene[/sarcasm] and clobber'em. Recorded images are of such low quality less than 1 in 500 recording can give a reliable ID.

Criminals no longer fear CCTV - its just an expensive way to spread BB's influence further, and get free footage for . . .

"Worlds ______ ______, on camera!"

Re:1984

[levell]

Ummm you know that Airstrip One in the book in the UK right? So he had actually been there as he was British.

Related Story At El Reg Today

[JamieKitson]

There's a similar story over at the reg today on satelite tracking of criminals in the UK.

Not a concentration of power

[djelovic]

As long as the cameras are not owned and directly controlled by the government, I don't see what's the problem?

What we are afraid of is a lot of power concentrated in few hands. That's why we have the separation of three branches of government in most of the democratic world, various checks and ballances, anti-monopoly laws, etc.

So as long as the government doesn't have too many cameras, and they have to go around asking shop owners and other people to provide their footage of some event, I don't think there's much threat to civil liberties.

Dejan

Re:Not a concentration of power

[a24061]

As long as the cameras are not owned and directly controlled by the government, I don't see what's the problem?

Extortion. Intrusion by employers.

Re:Not a concentration of power

[Anonymous Coward]

O! ye of shortsightedness.... never trust man or governments with technology in terms of today. but, you dear "bowl of mush for brains" look at where it (technology) and man is going.... in other words my little "trusting" friend "human nature never changes...and man doesn`t learn from history he only repeats it"....

not only humans

[spectrokid]

Camera images can also be interpreted by computer. Facial recognition and auto-tracking of a person through a long shopping street (including hand-over between cameras) are technologies available now.

A nightmare of stupidity

[greensquare]

While the crime rates in Britain soar, what do we see:
> An estimated 4.2 million closed-circuit TV cameras observe people going

Okay. Lets take pictures of all those fearless criminals. Seems that it's higly unlikely that all of those cameras matter. Out of the many tens of thousands of criminal acts that have taken place recently the cameras can only help with a limited few:

> In the past two months, British police used or > publicized CCTV imagery during investigations
> into a 12-year-old robbing a store at gunpoint,
> the disappearance of a doctor, attacks by a
> serial rapist, a father and son hit by a train
>, laptops stolen from a school and a soccer riot.

This is a nightmare of stupidity. I am so glad I don't live there.

> Soho resident Brooke Hartney, 24, a cafe
> manager, said she felt comforted by the
> cameras, including a fixed one right outside
> her apartment bedroom window.

I was looking at the live internet stream coming from that camera outside her bedroom window. She should learn to close her shades.

gs

Re:A nightmare of stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

While the crime rates in Britain soar

Crime rates in Britain have been decreasing year-on-year for decades now.

Re:A nightmare of stupidity

[greensquare]

They don't look like they are dropping to me. Take a look at the first two Google hits.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/ 21 /205139.shtml
http://www.claytoncramer.com/Britai n.pdf

Why use tin foil when you can use a predator.

[forgotten_my_nick]

There was a TV program on ITV one time about the cameras in London.

One guy interviewed was annoyed that a camera was pointed at his window most of the time. One stage someone on the street was getting mugged and it took the police 20 minutes to turn up, while the camera filmed the whole thing.

Annoyed, he created a suit that made him look like Predator (very impressive). He then went out and walked around outside where he knew the camera scanned.

Within 5 minutes the whole road was full of cops.

Makes you wonder if they have a special divsion for aliens like they do for vampires. ;)

not so bad because...

[hamishmorgan]

I think the first thing people have to remember is that the CCTV cameras in the UK are not some huge centralised network where Blair can press a button and see me sitting at my laptop in the park. It is decentralised, set up and run by shops, bars, clubs, councils, etc... Enemy Of The State is a cool film, it is also rather silly.

The Brittish government, while I wouldn't go so far as to say I trust them, are relatively benign when it comes to nation affairs. There are laws protectly us from the missuse of these cameras and if we can't relay on governments abiding by the (national) law then we are all screwed anyway.

I worked for some time in a small shop in a "difficult" area. Sometimes I would be working on my own late at night and my only friend was the CCTV. When trouble was bruing I would say "Smile for the cameras, I'm phoning the police now." Okay this doesn't tackle the route causes of crime but anything that prevents it being perpetrated on me right now is a very good thing.

But the Brits don't really care ...

[MarkTina]

I'm a Brit, but trying hard to become an Ex-Brit and new Kiwi ... we really don't care that the police and councils are watching our every move while outside, it's just no big deal and we rather like the comfort factor. We understand that some other less intelligent races are rather paranoid about their goverments watching them .. why is that ?

Re:1984

[lxt]

No it wasn't. It was set in Oceania. Great Britain does not exist in the novel. It's set in London, in the country of Oceania. Not Great Britain. Easy, see? So, yes, when the entire of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and Great Britain become one massive superpower, the book will become more relevant.

Re:1984

[Billy69]

My understanding was that the three power blocks (Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia) were under different control, and only Oceania, under the rule of IngSoc was so opressive.

I don't recall anything to indicate that the other two were opressive regemes, although I think there was some propaganda that Winston handled that indicated so.

Having just arrived in London...

[ttys00]

Having just arrived in London (from Australia), I am amazed at the number of cameras everywhere. The maintenance bill must be horrendous.

The Aussie government would love this level of camera surveillance, but its not feasible - they'd all get stolen in the first week.

Re:Having just arrived in London...

[Anonymous Coward]

the brits are obvious too law abiding.

Re:Having just arrived in London...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm planning on moving to the UK, so I'll probably nick a couple. Where they can't act alone, help them along the path.

First major power outage, and britain will have about 10 fewer cameras

RIPA reduced right to remain silent, encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't live in England, but here is what I've read about the RIPA act. The RIPA act basically gutted much of England's equivalent to the United States' fourth amendment. Under RIPA, (1) attempting to remain silent to police questions is now admissible evidence of guilt, (2) it is a separate crime to remain silent if you are being accused of anything related to terrorism, and (3) you are specifically compelled to give police keys for all encrypted data, and there is some other provision that I don't quite recall that makes is hard to claim that you forgot the passwords.

I suspect that cameras have reduced crime, but London's mugging rate has exploded to six times the mugging rate of New York since they banned handguns, making it much safer to be a serial mugger in London (read the second edition of More Guns Less Crime for statistical analyses that show violent crime dropping in US localities that more freely granted concealed firearm permits, with detailed discussion of other statistical effects).

By the way, I don't think I have anything against the proliferation of both publicly and privately owned video cameras. I am, however, dead set against the government harassing people for adopting the logical countermeasures like encryption, which is why I now regard England as a relatively oppressive country (in addition to effectively no longer having the right to remain silent).

Re:RIPA reduced right to remain silent, encryption

[Oddly_Drac]

"I suspect that cameras have reduced crime"

Within visual range of the camera. There are still plenty of nooks, crannies and balaclava helmets to go around.

"London's mugging rate has exploded to six times the mugging rate of New York since they banned handguns"

I should point out that the UK has never allowed the carrying of handguns, but I wasn't sure whether you meant the UK or New York there. Even handgun licenses granted in the UK only allowed their use at ranges and being kept in the home under some fairly restrictive practices. Having said that, our gun crime rate has skyrocketed as people sold their handguns onto the black market.

"government harassing people for adopting the logical countermeasures like encryption"

In our defence, there has yet to be a test case where anyone has been asked to supply encryption keys. However, we are moving towards some disturbing practices that have numerous 'backchannel' elements that don't bode well for the future.

I know a chief-of-police

[Anonymous Coward]

He's one of my best friends and an amazing all-around guy. I would trust him with my life in a second.

Still, it's been a really interesting relationship. While it has completely changed my perception of the police, making me much more understanding and appreciative of what they do (as he says, everyone hates them until the !@#$ hits the fan and then everyone runs to them), I still have reservations.

For example, he mentions that the photo profiles of all people are now available to them from drivers' licenses. This means that they can look up anyone and get their picture in addition to address, driving record, criminal record (I can only imagine what the feds have). Do they bother to do this? Yes, they do. Why? Often, it's just for giggles. They'll look up their friends, relatives, people they suit, etc. Is it fairly innocuous (as he said, bakers don't have to pay for bread, police have their perks), I'm not so sure. In a perfect world and if every single police officer was like him, I wouldn't mind. However, we know that not to be the case and that's the problem.

It's not just "who's going to police the police", but of course that's part of the issue. It creates a separate class of people that wield significant power over others, and that always creates an environment of animosity regardless of other dynamics. He tells me he'll rejoice the day the world puts him out of a job for lack of need (the job really does suck...we should all be *extremely* thankful when the police do their job), but my statement to him is that to the extent that the world expects the police to put themselves out of a job and the extent to which the police are a power structure of their own, it will only perpetuate the wrong idea of order.

This argument is so simple

[davek]

For the last time: big brother watching you is always a good thing because big bro is the law, and the law is there to protect people, right?

The damning argument for high surveillence isn't that it invades privacy. Yes, many criminals have been caught with these cameras (but it should be noted that probably few have been prevented). The question is who is watching the people who aren't criminals? There are many people who have access to these tapes. Perhaps one of them has a crush on the sexy blond who goes jogging every morning. Perhaps he watches her as she goes to the store, sees what she buys, sees which bank she goes to, where her boyfriend lives, where her parents live... get my point?

Or perhaps you are a member of a subversive publishing house printing media scathing to the government. You aren't breaking any laws, but you're really pissing off the people who control those cameras. They begin to follow you, invade you life, and pretty soon you find you cannot be a member of their society anymore.

All of this happens today, without the help of cameras. Big Brother just makes it easier to commit the crime. Every politician is corrupt, and most of the police are too. Are these the people with which we are to trust our private lives?

-Dave

Re:This argument is so simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like locks on doors. People claim that they reduce theft, but what goes on behind locked doors? Child abuse, secret organised crime meetings, that's what.

Do you mods have no shame?!

[spasticfraggle]

This guy gets partially blinded, and you mod him up to +5 insightful
Oh! The humanity!

Guns in Britain - I live here

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

Handguns were banned in Britain after a middle-aged hand-gun enthusiast walked into a school and shot most of the kids. At the time handguns were incredibly rare, mainly owned by handgun sporting enthusiasts, olympic competitors, etc. I don't have the figures but I would reckon one houshold in a thousand had one. Hardly a deterrent to burglars. It has nothing to do with the recent rise in gun crime which is being caused by hand guns illegally smuggled in from the Carribean by drugslords. The rise in gun crime is nearly all crimnal-on-criminal killing. I've not heard of a gun being used in a house burglary.

Re:Guns in Britain - I live here

[Oddly_Drac]

" I don't have the figures but I would reckon one houshold in a thousand had one."

One household in a thousand had a license. The number of guns per license could be a lot larger than one, and usually was, especially amongst collectors.

"hand guns illegally smuggled in from the Carribean by drugslords"

You're thinking about miami vice; the handgun trade tends to come via the channel tunnel, it being a damn site easier to smuggle that way than 'the carribean'. Were you going to mention the 'Yardie scourge' next?

"The rise in gun crime is nearly all crimnal-on-criminal killing."

And pesky collateral damage, such as the extended shootout that took place in Aston a few months back, but you did fail to mention that holding a gun makes you a criminal under UK law. You could simply say 'human vs human' killing and still hit the same numbers.

Re:Guns in Britain - I live here

[retinaburn]

One nitpick:

One household in a thousand had a license. The number of guns per license could be a lot larger than one, and usually was, especially amongst collectors.

Ok so the one household in a thousand had X according to you. Doesn't make more households safer. Except when the gun gets turned on its owner, all the guns stolen. Perhaps a concerned citizen will purchase one of these stolen guns for the protection of his/her family.

Re:Guns in Britain - I live here

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuff the handguns - go for a 6 pounder and grapeshot.

Re:Guns in Britain - I live here

[siriuskase]

Must have been a very small school. He killed 16 kids and one adult. Not that 16 isn't a lot of kids, it's just that the victims of gun crimes in the UK is much smaller than the total victims of all violent crimes, so IMHO, they overreacted a bit by banning all guns.

It doesn't take many guns in the population to deter burglars. Burglars seem to know which neighborhoods the gun owners live in which means that all homes are safer, not just the gun owners.

Re:Guns in Britain - I live here

[Oddly_Drac]

"Doesn't make more households safer."

My point. Read the rest of the thread.

What Americans may not realise was that UK ownership meant NOT keeping a loaded pistol under your pillow.

"Perhaps a concerned citizen will purchase one of these stolen guns for the protection of his/her family."

Concerned citizen would then face a hefty book thrown at him for breaking extremely strict gunlaws, and leave his family visiting him in Wandsworth. Personally I rely on a sturdy bit of 2 by 2 and a sure knowledge that a bit of wood is only a weapon in implementation, rather than design.

Yes, it's a bad thing!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And of course, when the government controls all the cameras, they can conveniently be switched off for maintenance when, say, a few hundred people are illegally held for several hours by the police on May Day. Then again, this is the government who brought you Iraq's WMD and the "Speed Kills" compaign, and which now wants to set up a national database of terrorist suspec^W^Wbiometric identity information, so of course we should trust them.

In some specific cases, cameras do work well. The congestion charging example wasn't bad, although even in that case, there have already been some quite spectacular abuses. I'd say the cameras in police traffic cars are a better example.

However, those advocating widespread use of cameras should really check the facts. We also have town centre cameras that just push crime into harder-to-police outlying distracts, without actually lowering it. We have speed cameras, which have a far from conclusive track record in increasing road safety but have raised a fortune for government and taken hundreds of thousands off the roads, with numerous local authority idiots cynically repeating the party line in spite of all the informed criticism. We have people being convicted on CCTV "camera evidence" where you can barely even see their faces. Hell, we have a small but significant number of camera operators who turn the CCTV units around to watch girls getting changed in their bedrooms.

The problem with surveillance cameras, like big national databases, is that the system is never perfect. Somehow it never quite brings the benefits it ought to, and yet the abuses (or genuine mistakes) are often widespread, and there is rarely an adequate mechanism in place to protect you if you are unfortunate enough to become a victim. All the while it costs the tax-payer a fortune and runs all the usual civil liberties risks. If Big Brother is watching us, it's about time Big Mother and Father gave him a spanking and told him to behave like a mature adult.

Re:Yes, it's a bad thing!

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"Then again, this is the government who brought you Iraq's WMD and the "Speed Kills" compaign"

Ok on the WMD but what do you mean about the "Speed Kills" campaign?

graspee

Re:Yes, it's a bad thing!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Ok on the WMD but what do you mean about the "Speed Kills" campaign?

It's a standard example of a government campaign that warps the truth. It isn't speed that kills; if higher speeds were automatically more dangerous, our motorways wouldn't be the safest roads in the land. What's dangerous is the inappropriate use of speed, driving too fast for the conditions.

The relevance here is that the "Speed Kills" mantra is used by government spin doctors to justify vast numbers of revenue-generating speed cameras, and dramatically reducing the speed limit on the roads with those cameras, often in places with little or no accident history and rarely in the places where they'd really make a difference.

Re:Yes, it's a bad thing!

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Well I think people should stick to the damn speed limit and not make stupid excuses like "Oh the government is just trying to get more money out of us" (Don't break the law then!) or "It's going slowly that's dangerous!" (It's a fact that the faster you go the less time you have to react to unexpected events on the road).

I just hate idiotic drivers who think it's alright for them to drive fast because they're such leet drivers with great skillz and it's everyone else that's to blame.

graspee

Re:Yes, it's a bad thing!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm not going to get into an extended debate about speeding here, but since you're offering the standard and ill-informed counter-argument, I'll suggest to you the reasons why the argument does not hold for long.

Well I think people should stick to the damn speed limit and not make stupid excuses like "Oh the government is just trying to get more money out of us" (Don't break the law then!)

That argument ignores the fact that the law has been changed, dramatically, and not to improve road safety. This is why it has lost the respect of the motoring public. For example, the government in the UK reduced the legal speed limit from 70 to 50mph for several miles along a major trunk road around the capital city. At the same time, they installed dozens of speed cameras, many of them carefully concealed behind road signs, to enforce the new limits. The result was a massive increase in fines on that stretch of road, along with many drivers travelling at speeds that were perfectly legal yesterday being issued with penalty points today. Would you like to guess what happened to the accident figures after those cameras went in, though?

"It's going slowly that's dangerous!" (It's a fact that the faster you go the less time you have to react to unexpected events on the road).

It's also a fact that when drivers are forced to drive absurdly slowly because someone setting the limit has paranoia, then driver concentration is dramatically reduced, which in turn dramatically increases the likelihood of an accident in the first place. This is the problem with giving local authorities the ability to set their own limits: central government guidelines based on science and research are frequently ignored in favour of local political expediency, resulting in blanket 20mph limits on roads that should be 30 because the locals (who quite happily do 30 in everyone else's backyard) asked for it. Motorways -- our safest roads -- are stuck at a limit they were given decades ago, in spite of recent advances in car design and driver training; the accidents are often caused by idiots driving about 2cm from the vehicle in front or changing lanes incorrectly, not because of the high speed itself, yet "speed kills" is all we hear from the government puppies.

I just hate idiotic drivers who think it's alright for them to drive fast because they're such leet drivers with great skillz and it's everyone else that's to blame.

We all hate idiotic drivers who think they're better than they really are and assume they can therefore exceed all speed limits without consequences. The point here is that an awful lot of people who are better informed than the government disagree with them. Motoring groups have done their own studies, which don't always agree with the government's research lab. Statisticians have looked at the government's conclusions from their figures, and flown 747s through the holes in the arguments. The government made up a TV ad intended to show the difference that driving at 35mph makes over driving at 30mph; what it actually showed was a car driven at 30mph stopping well short of a child stepping into the road, while a car that would have been illegal to have on the road because its brakes didn't work correctly skidded way further down the road and hit the child. There is a large number of police advanced drivers who disagree with the way cameras are used instead of real traffic police (whose numbers have been reduced by something like 2/3 in recent years, leading to increases in the numbers of drivers dangerous through drinks, drugs, lack of concentration, and various other categories all of which contribute to more accidents than excessive speed). Even the most senior police officer in the land has stated bluntly that speed cameras should be used to increase road safety and not to raise revenue.

So, before you go around advocating sticking to speed limits and admonishing those who don't, you might like to take a step back and consider whether those limits are actually set with road safety in mind at all.

Re:Yes, it's a bad thing!

[goatan]

Then again, this is the government who brought you Iraq's WMD and the "Speed Kills" compaign"

Because bad driving can kill at any speed where as speed only kills when combined with bad driving.

GMAIL INVITES FOR FUNNY JOKES

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Gmail invites to give away to the people who post the funniest jokes in reply to this post

Some local experience

[eetiiyupy]

My area in Bristol is popular with users of crack cocaine. They need a constant stream of small amounts of money. Some crackheads roughed up an old woman in the street five metres from my house. The woman died of her injuries. Video from the security cameras was broadcast on television and the crackheads were identified, caught and locked up.

That does not help the family of the old lady and crackheads' needs are so extreme that they are difficult to defer. But: there is some sense of justice; and generally the street at least *feels* safer now. There are still thefts from cars - I guess it takes something violent before the tapes are used.

Re:Some local experience

[h4rm0ny]

My area in Bristol is popular with users of crack cocaine.

Possibly St. Paul's?

I used to live along St. Anne's in Nottingham. That can get pretty vicious too. I'm not going to reflexively yell about privacy in response to your post, because I don't doubt your right, and your area is a little safer for the time being.

But I am against CCTV cameras as a means to solve crime for a number of reasons, but the foremost being the same reason I'm against pain killers to treat an abcess, using my credit card to make my loan repayments and tidying one room in my house by shoving all the stuff into another one.

I don't believe CCTV solves the problem of crime. It's a way of brushing the real problems aside. Poverty, lack of education, frustration and alienation. Although I believe people have made choices to get where they are, including hard drug use, I'm not naieve enough to think people aren't pushed into it by their environment. The addicts I've known (and I have known a few) were using the drugs mostly because their lives were shit.

CCTV has a short term deterrant effect, but after it's effectiveness depends on helping to catch the criminals so they can be put away. All well and good, but prison is not a long-term solution nor a deterrant.

There has to be a better way of dealing with this than just finding new ways of slapping people down and restricting their behaviour, or we might aswell just condemn the human race now. I'd like to see more work to build communities, offer support to drug addicts and more community-based policing. I think that CCTV also fosters a feeling of fear and an Us-and-Them mentality. Which caused crime in the first place.

Data protection act

[eetiiyupy]

I am not entirely sure about this. I think that there is a requirement before you get the right to see data (the Data Subject Access right). The relevant data must be organised by something which is personal to you. Time and location would not qualify. If, for example, some facial recognition dohickey indexed the tapes, then there would be a DSA right. Yes, I am a data protection officer.

The comedian either used the corporate policies or corporate misunderstanding to make his program.

Re:Data protection act

[TyrionEagle]

> The comedian either used the corporate policies or corporate misunderstanding to make his program.

Sounds like Mark Thomas, and he used misunderstanding all the time to make his show. Like a low-rent Michael Moore, if there is such a thing.

People like Thomas and Moore actually weaken their arguments by the methods they use.

Difference between recording video and audio?

[Zane Edwards]

From my understanding, dependent on local laws, one cannot record audio without the permission of the persons being recorded. How is this different with video?

UK Announces new "Voice of Fate" computer

[dynayellow]

Vows to have weather control, undesirables rounded up, by 2021.

You're an American, right?

[WIAKywbfatw]

I say this because it's fucking ironic that the safest building in Britain in terms of surveillance cameras, anti-tank obstacles, etc is the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.

I remember a time when I was a kid when you could drive round all four sides of the square, but now you can't (and you haven't been able to for a long time) because of the anti-terrorist measures that have been placed there to protect the US Embassy from potential attacks. This protection, which has been there for well over a decade, maybe two, is greater than that afforded to Parliament or even Buckingham Palace. And the number of cameras attached to the building itself. Well, it's like they're going for a record or something.

The bottom line regarding CCTV cameras is this: most are either in shops (which are privately owned), stations and airports (for obvious crowd control in case of emergency/accident reasons), or in city centres. So, if you tried your damn hardest you could probably be filmed by 300 cameras in one day if you traipsed all over London but you'd have a nigh on impossible time hitting that 300 figure anywhere outside any major shopping precinct.

And, on top of all that, these cameras are hardly linked as part of some all-seeing network: if they were, do you think that we'd have any crime at all in central London? Think.

Now, if you want to take the article as being accurate, or if you want to assume that your experiences on your little sight-seeing tour were typical of everywhere in Britain, then feel free to be totally in the dark as to the real picture.

The average street doesn't have a camera on it. In fact, despite living in a London suburb, I'd have to go a couple of miles to find a camera that's not in either a private premise (such as a shop or pub) or train station (to prevent things like platform overcrowding). Even then, those cameras would be outside a public building (such as a Police Station) or in a popular shopping centre. Now, if that's your definition of "Big Brother is watching you" then you really have a warped idea of how effectively someone can watch me from a few cameras a couple of miles away.

Re:You're an American, right?

[I confirm I'm not a]

anti-terrorist measures that have been placed there to protect the US Embassy from potential attacks. This protection, which has been there for well over a decade, maybe two, is greater than that afforded to Parliament or even Buckingham Palace. And the number of cameras attached to the building itself. Well, it's like they're going for a record or something.

I visited Cuba a few years ago on a package holiday. Cubans are heavily into photography and everywhere we went we were encouraged to take photos (they'd charge us for bringing in cameras a lot of the time, so it was a nice money spinner ;) Even driving past military facilities we'd have missiles (1960s firecrackers) pointed out to us, and we'd dutifully photgraph them.

The only time we were told photography was forbidden was opposite the US Special Interests Office. We could photograph it from a distance, but not up close where people inside might see us. The Cubans made no effort to "hide" the office, we all knew exactly what it was, it was just that tourists with cameras might be misconstrued as Cuban spies, and the Cubans really did not want the USA thinking British tourists were really Cuban spies.

``Is anybody there?'' said the Traveler

[njj]

Britain is the World's Surveillance Leader
Yeah. Yeah, that sounds about right.

I guess the idea about CCTV cameras is that in principle the benefits (in terms of greater public safety) in theory outweigh the disadvantages (in terms of infringed privacy).

But for this to be a valid argument (and I'm really not sure I'm convinced by it just yet), there are a number of things which have to happen.

Firstly, the things have to be very strictly controlled and regulated, preferably by some suitably impartial but trustworthy non-governmental organisation. I don't want to see private companies running the things, either. And any abuse of the system must be punishable by serious sanctions - not just a £100 fine and a slap on the wrist, but something like a 2-10 year prison sentence for the individual, and summary revocation of the operating organisation's licence.

And secondly, they have to be shown to actually fulfil the purpose they're set up for. Now a number of people have described incidents where they've totally failed to work. So at present, I'm tending towards the view of them not being a Good Thing - but if these issues can be resolved properly then I'd be (very cautiously) ok about them.

Actually, there was a case a year or two ago where a guy got severely depressed (due to a number of things that had recently happened in his life) and was standing on the edge of a bridge, contemplating jumping off. Somehow, a nearby CCTV camera spotted him, and the police were dispatched to talk him down. So far, all well and good - tragic suicide averted, friends and relatives spared immense grief and feelings of guilt, etc. And then the footage was plastered all over the national news, but without the customary pixelisation and identity-concealment. So suddenly tens of millions of people knew all about a particularly unfortunate and private episode in his life. Which can't have helped matters much, certainly.

Now given our current Home Secretary's attitude towards privacy, I'm not convinced that proper regulation and oversight is going to be high on the list of priorities. David Blunkett (who is currently pushing really hard for the introduction of a compulsory biometric national id card and accompanying national population database) is pretty much the most authoritarian, control-freak Home Secretary we've had since Michael Howard (who held the post under during the last Tory administration, and is now Leader of the Opposition).

How Can This be Invasion of Privacy?

[TyrionEagle]

How is it invasion of privacy when you are filmed in a public place?

If there were cameras installed in my house, I would have privacy issues, but not in the town centre.

No-one has issues with cameras in banks, shops or ATMs. No-one asks tourists to delete photos that include them in the background.

Why is it such an issue in public places if the camera is run by the police?

Does anybody believe there are hoards of analysts checking these tapes for individuals in real time?

Do you believe everybody is interested in you?

Do you believe the guv'mint is keeping tabs on you, where you walk, what you buy, who you talk to, just because they can?

Does anybody actually identify with Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory? Are we being tracked by the metal strips in our currency?

I believe this is just a mistrust of the unknown thing. In the distant past, our campfire light didn't illuminate the woods, so there were trolls, gnomes, elves and pixies in there. Same thing these days, but it's Aliens and secret guv'mint departments, because we don't know what they are up to.

Paranoia is no way to live your life, relax, you are not the centre of the universe, nobody cares about you, you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are a member of a mass, you do not stand out.

Unless, of course, you are all criminals and have your faces in the image recognition software that will call down an airstrike from black helecopters as soon as you are identified!

That was a joke, by the way. :-)

Re:How Can This be Invasion of Privacy?

[ctid]

I agree with everything you said, except for this:

...you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are a member of a mass, you do not stand out.

You are unique, whoever you are. And it is at least arguable that everybody is beautiful in their own way. Sadly, nobody does care about you or what you are doing, despite your uniqueness and your (perhaps well-hidden) beauty.

Re:How Can This be Invasion of Privacy?

[TyrionEagle]

That was, of course, an attempt at humour as I realised I was starting to sound like Tyler Durden.

As far as the guv'mint or police are concerned, "normal" people ARE part of a mass! Don't break the rules and they don't care about you.

Duh.... Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it really is something to take into paranoid consideration now that we've got the technology to make this possible.

We have the technology to make three minute eggs possible. Does that mean we need to take that into paranoid consideration too?

Brit Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm british, I think it's all good.
I've been stopped, searched and quizzed and I don't think it was unfair at all. We've had 35+ years of Terrorist activity in this country, got any better ideas ?

Of COURSE Britain is the leader

[Laebshade]

After all, they do have James Bond.

of courese, this does nothing to prevent crime..

[Anonymous Coward]

the thing about lots and lots of CCTV cameras is that you need lots and lots of people observing them to make them useful. Otherwise they only have value AFTER a crime has been committed, for the purposes of court evidence.

Considering that the UK government will not provide (no, provide is the wrong word, release, it's our damn money) funding for adequate numbers of Police, Nurses, Dentists, Doctors, etc, then there is no chance at all of a politically unglamorous initiative like this getting the people that it needs to make it useful.

The example cited in the article has a clear lesson in it - footage from security cameras allowed the courts to successfully prosecute the criminals in this case. However, I imagine that is small comfort to the family of Mr Mittendele, as the cameras did nothing whatsoever to prevent his murder.

Think about it - airports have had dozens of security camera all over them for many years. All very useful after the fact, but they didn't do the World Trade Centre much good, did they?

Of course, we must also consider who will be holding the data from these cameras.. If the UK government's IT policies are any indicator, it will be given to EDS, Fujitsu or Capita, and so whatever system we get will be late, overbudget and largely ineffective...

Re:1984

[I confirm I'm not a]

It's set in London, in the country of Oceania.

Pedant: London, the novel's setting, is the capital of the Oceanian province of Airstrip One, the renamed Britain and Ireland. Sorry, pedantic I know, but I always thought Airstrip One was a really cool name for a totalitarian state!

This technology can lead to infinite energy.

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need to do is put a magnet on George Orwell's Tombstone and wrap his coffin in copper wire.

I love this

[ingeborgsjon]

I wouldn't care for one second if a surveillance camera recorded me every day. It would only make me feel more secure (not that I'm afraid). With rising crime activities we NEED more cameras everywhere. I hope sweden (where I live) will do something like this (It has already started in some towns).

Re:I love this

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't want this anywhere else - it doesn't work - I live in Camden Town, London - cameras everywhere; mugged once and burgled twice in one year.

What would be really effective would be more police of the street, but cameras are much cheaper than policemen. It saves tax and makes the public think that the government care.

One day the British public will realise it's a scam and vote for more tax and get more police on the street. One day.

Re:1984

[MrNemesis]

I believe Winston refers to the island previously known as Britain as "Airstrip One".

Government

[DrugCheese]

When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny. --Thomas Jefferson

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure

Not been abused badly

[tiger_omega]

I prefer that cameras are about the place. But there is a deeper underlying social problem about why the cameras have proved so popular. People feel safer now that the cameras are there because at the end of the day they have proved to be one of the best ways to secure a proper guilty verdict for a crime that they commited. So justice is properly served.

The underlying problem comes from 2 different directions. The first comes from the problem of that spread by political correctness. The public and the police have to be so careful when dealing with yobs because the way their rights and laws are written you can hardly lay a finger on them. The best you "legally" do is to try and talking them down.

So the "legal" choice for the average member of the public is to be nice to them and understanding. Off course they can stab your guts, rip off your head and skull fuck you. Its got to the point where social services are recommending to judges that prison sentences should not be handed down for violent murder but given community service or fines.

If I tried to defend myself then I run the risk of being sent to prison, having my career runined and sued for endless damages. Personally I no longer care about those consequences because if someone is going to try and kill me then I will kill them straight back. I like to do deal with people based on how they treat other people.

This leads into the second problem which is the profession that was supposed to be law has turned itself into a hippocritcal mob. Basically the law profession has forgotten a mere concept called "The spirit of the law". That is to use the laws that have been passed for the intention for which they were past.

Or more the point that I am making about lawyers is that the law should be there to protect and support the vicitm. Not to be used as an excuse to take the vicitim to court and try destroy his/her life.

Now the specifics of the arguement above are a symptom of a deeper social problem more flowing from political correctness than doing what is actually right. So I come full circle back to the cameras. Politians don't mind this state of play because by using cameras the goverment are seen to be protecting people. They also like political correctness because they don't go offending anyone. So given that they encourage the apathy of the public and that in "protecting" their citizens they are sliping in an Orwellian society.

There is one comforting fact though. If anyone is caught abusing this power they will experience the social equivalent of being hung-drawn and quatered. The tabloid press in this country can be a nice balancing force at times because the people with the power still fear those wanting to publish a dirty story on them.

Re:Not been abused badly

[ctid]

The underlying problem comes from 2 different directions. The first comes from the problem of that spread by political correctness. The public and the police have to be so careful when dealing with yobs because the way their rights and laws are written you can hardly lay a finger on them. The best you "legally" do is to try and talking them down.

Aaargh!! Please don't use the term "politcal correctness" here. The standards of evidence required to convict someone are what they are. It's not a question of "political correctness" to insist that yobs should get a fair trial. I write as one who would happily lock up a lot of these kids and throw away the key; but when people tell me that that is impossible, it is not because they are being "politically correct". It is because they are paying attention to what the law says, which is what the accuseds' lawyers will do. Which is as it should be.

So the "legal" choice for the average member of the public is to be nice to them and understanding. Off course they can stab your guts, rip off your head and skull fuck you. Its got to the point where social services are recommending to judges that prison sentences should not be handed down for violent murder but given community service or fines.

It's hard to have much confidence in your opinion if you don't even read the contents of the link you posted. If you did read the link, you would have seen that the social services report did not recommend probation or a fine; the report considered these possibilities. The judge was making the point that it was a waste of time to even consider such things for a murder case.

The tabloid press in this country can be a nice balancing force at times because the people with the power still fear those wanting to publish a dirty story on them.

I presume you're joking (or at least half joking) here. The tabloid press is not useful for anything except selling "newspapers". I think that the country is in serious trouble if we need the tabloid press to help us with social policy.

And to think . . .

[dkm]

This is all happening in a country where there has been resistance to having photo ids.

Re:And to think . . .

[DanBrusca]

The media would have you believe there's been resistence to having photo IDs, the vast majority of the public couldn't really care less and will just get them if they're told to.

As with CCTV, if you sat people down and explained the negative side to these things then they might listen to you seriously and agree with much of what you say, but they wouldn't actually do anything about it.

Anyone has the right to film public places

[Libertarian_Geek]

Just seems like a basic freedom to me. If it's a true public area (not a restroom), then you should be able to film it. Does the government not have the same right? I imagine that since the government is made up of individuals, they have the same right. Help me see the other side of this.

I think you're a

[gd23ka]

That's just not sustainable .

"Sustainable" and "Sustainability". These two terms are flogged to death by the eco-agenda driven green socialist ngo/govt "non-profit" lobby aka as the "Greens", "Sierra Club" and many others.

Some of you will probably shake your heads and wonder why I get so upset just because he used the word "sustainable". I have spent a lot of time on the side, researching and reading up on these people and "sustainable" is a word they're _extremely_ fond of using in all kinds of contexts such as population growth, food and water consumption, CO2 emission etc.

Fire up Google or your favorite searchengine and see for yourself. Search for phrases like "sustainable development". Read what they put up on their sites. You will be surprised how open and candid these people are about their plans for our future: a future where a tree is far more valuable than human life.

Re:I think you're a

[PhoenixFlare]

Maybe you're just joking around too, but you do realize landoverbaptist.org is a joke site, right?

Re:I think you're a

[gd23ka]

I don't know which one group of lobbyist is worse but if you ask me it's the eco fascists. They're in the govt where I live and their laws and regulations have hurt me far worse than the religious nuts.

Re:I think you're a

[SomePoorSchmuck]

Maybe you're just joking around too, but you do realize landoverbaptist.org is a joke site, right?

Wait, you mean attributing a whole host of ridiculous and unrelated beliefs to the original poster on the basis of one particular element of his post seems like an extreme reaction to you?

Hmm... maybe my rhetorical style just isn't sustainable in the long term.
__

Re:I think you're a

[PhoenixFlare]

Wait, you mean attributing a whole host of ridiculous and unrelated beliefs to the original poster on the basis of one particular element of his post seems like an extreme reaction to you?

No, I mean that it seemed there was a possibility you were taking landoverbaptist seriously, hence my post. Whatever else you're blathering about, I really could care less.

Re:I think you're a

[SomePoorSchmuck]

You could care so much less that you continue posting to this thread, hmm?

Re:I think you're a

[PhoenixFlare]

You're the one that posted here again after nothing for 5 days, though, so maybe you'd know better about that :)

Re:I think you're a

[SomePoorSchmuck]

You're the one that posted here again after nothing for 5 days, though, so maybe you'd know better about that :)

I prefer to think of us as equals, 'cause I'm a nice guy at heart. ;-)

Your're welcome to not stay in the UK ....

[GreenEggsAndHam]

... there's enough people fighting to get in already.

You probably wouldn't have seen these events but on the French end of the Channel Tunnel, eastern block refugees were fighting the police in order to climb on board of the car shuttle trains ... to Britain.

No need to thank me.

Re:1984

[SmilingBoy]

In fact, it is London on Airstrip One (which is the renamed Great Britain and Ireland) in Oceania.

Why can't we all watch?

[hrvatska]

I wouldn't mind the cameras so much if there was a rule that any cctv camera monitoring a public place had to be accessible to the internet. Hey, it's a public place, why shouldn't EVERYBODY get to see what's going on. This wouldn't be so much surveillance, as it would be the world's largest reality show. I want sound too. There'd be all sorts of uses for this. Just think of the educational possibilities. Children in small towns could watch pick pockets in action in central London. They could compare the solictaion techniques and appearances of street prostitutes. I could imagine certain street characters becoming international stars without ever knowing they had any fans. As an additional bonus, the number of unmonitored cameras would be significantly reduced. Britain would become the largest small town in the world.

Re:Black cocks continually pound the anal region

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much. I've been wanting to see this troll for a long time. Please post it more often!

There is something no one has yet mentioned

[dapprman]

The first cameras appeared in london, not as an anti-crime monitoring system, but as an anti-terrorism measure after the Natwest Tower bombing. Since then there has only been one terrorist incident in London (when a RPG was fired at the MI6 building in Vauxhall, south of the river). This must be counted as a partial sucess at least.

Re:There is something no one has yet mentioned

[Oddly_Drac]

"This must be counted as a partial sucess at least."

Apart from the fact that the Albert Embankment building is smothered with cameras, and at the time (21st September 2000) there were appeals for members of the public to come forward as witnesses...

So, yeah, they've certainly curtailed the number of rocket propelled grenade attacks in the Thames area.

Re:1984

[Burb]

You may have a point. I do recall that Eastasia was said to have a "denial of the self" ideology which was said to correspond (approximately) to the mind-control aspects of Oceania such as the two-minute hate and thoughtcrime. Of course, it's possible to interpret the existence of the other two blocks in a number of ways. Once can take the propaganda at near face-value, or one can posit a world in which, as you suggest, only Oceania is "the bad guy". I think the general tenor of the book supports the first argument. You could even argue that since all the action takes place in a small part of airstrip 1, who knows what's really going on anywhere? (The extreme view -- which I don't suggest you were advocating -- would tend towards an extreme solipsistic view where it's all happening in Winston's head. But that's a trivialised interpretation that can be applied to almost every novel from Austen to Jackie Collins...)

My main point was that contrary to the grandparent post, the conditions described in 1984 are not in any way unique to Britain. They could happen anywhere in the world under appropriate conditions, and clearly some aspects of Oceania society have materialised in various regimes around the world since 1948.

USA was never mentioned in grandparent, fucktard

[Anonymous Coward]

Please drop your "Guns be bad" blind rhetoric.

Marketing Scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone I know watches that show, "Cops". And half of those bastards are Limeys, walking around with batons, telling people they're not supposed to be having sex here. Some of them have a chaser, but doing a 120kph chase just isn't the same thrill as the 200kph ones we get over here.

It's a good idea with the cameras, as that's fucking free revenue. You can use the footage for Cops, and integrate it into your judicial system to boot. If America tried something like that, it would end up being a gang-initiation ordeal; seeing how many cameras you could shoot within an hour.

I guess we could ban all the guns, but California's already done that. Having Mexico so close kind of negates that little fucking fantasy world. Britian would be like, SOOOOOOOO fucked if they had to deal with Sweeds and Norweigans and Frenchies swimming the channel, hunting the stronger British Pound. You'd have a shortage of Limeys; you'd have to start using Lemons.

Not miserable failure, but shining success!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You're just a little confused about the true purpose of cctv. When you've finally 1984'd your entire nation, then you'll be able to see how well they work. Well, you'll at least be able to guess, based on how many of your friends and neighbors mysteriously disappear with no explanation.

I quite enjoyed

[goober1473]

"And Britain is acknowledged as the world leader of Orwellian surveillance -- perhaps because it has the experience of Irish terrorism, and is on guard for even worse today." Hmm Irish terrorism was such a breeze, the IRA have proven to be far more effective than the current threats in the UK. Again we have another 9/11 slant on an article. I assume that we in the UK didn't bother building this huge infrastructure until after 9/11, oh, that's right we did.

Re:I quite enjoyed

[easter1916]

I have a polite request for you... as an Irish citizen, I find the term "Irish terrorism" highly objectionable. 99% of people in the Republic of Ireland detest the IRA and see them as thugs, gangsters and murderers. The term "Irish terrorism" implies that we're all behind them, that it's a popular movement -- please, if you would, refer to it as "IRA terrorism".

Re:I quite enjoyed

[goober1473]

I assume that you didn't read the article, I was simple quoting the original.

Re:I quite enjoyed

[easter1916]

I must confess, I only skimmed the original article. Mea culpa, my apologies.

Take this to the next step then

[nurb432]

I dont agree with your statement at all, but if you feel this way, then let the government monitor your actions in your home.

This way you wont be tempted to do anything illegal, like hit your wife, or read that 'banned' book.

"Its only pointing out the facts" as you put it.

Its invasion, regardless of the excuse. And if you really feel safer because the government is watching you, then you have bought into to their FUD and are willingly giving up your right to privacy.. Something many of us would never do.

that is exactly what I will do :)

[jopet]

unless I absolutely have to stay there. These people come from countries that have much bigger problems. I come from a central European country that has less violence, less cameras, and most importantly, less idiotic paranoia. Because making use of people's paranoia is really what all this is about. And if you are really concerned about crime, fight the causes fir the crimes, not the symptoms.

V for Vendetta

[Sangammon]

http://www.shadowgalaxy.net/Vendetta/

Alan Moore, as always, tends to say it best.

I think you're a

[SomePoorSchmuck]

I think you're a (Score:1)
by gd23ka (324741) on Friday September 03, @07:50AM (#10148077)
( http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ )

"LandoverBaptist.org" and "GodHatesFags.com". These two websites are flogged to death by the christofascist-agenda driven radical theocratic ngo/govt "traditional values" lobby aka as the "Focus on the Family", "Christian Coalition" and many others.

Some of you will probably shake your heads and wonder why I get so upset just because he linked to the website "LandoverBaptist.org". I have spent a lot of time on the side, researching and reading up on these people and "family values" is a word they're _extremely_ fond of using in all kinds of contexts such as promoting creation "science", opposing sex education, censoring what you read or view, etc.

Fire up Google or your favorite searchengine and see for yourself. Search for phrases like "traditional family values". Read what they put up on their sites. You will be surprised how open and candid these people are about their plans for our future: a future where enforcing their theological beliefs is far more valuable than human freedom.
__

In Soviet Russia...

[alunharford]

cameras watch *YOU*... err... never mind.

Yes, Yes it is.

[Irvu]

There is a wealth of resources availible from places like Privacy International (see also Here) While one would be correct in stating that they are biased their research is sound. CCTV cameras like other oppressive data retention efforts are worse than useless.

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/CCTV_Feat ur e.html

Just a few points:

• Studies have shown that camera operators differentially target people who "look like misfits" (predominantly youth and minorities) and tend to ignore others so the cameras are themselves biased and like all biased searches can be fooled by those who appear "normal."
• The data compiled by these cameras is typically retained indefinitely with little or no control on how it is used. Britain has recently faced several court cases surrounding the use of such survaillence data by "its owners" (the people who put up the cameras) for commercial purposes.
• Worse yet a great deal of this data can be and is retained for "fishing expeditions." Not being a Brit I will not comment on UK laws but in the U.S. the FBI has recently recinded a long-standing (self imposed) ban on non-criminal investigations, that is, investigating groups and individuals who have not committed and are not expected to commit crimes. This ban was imposed in the wake of the COINTELPRO wherin the FBI conducted undercover survaillence on and, in some cases sought to disrupt groups such as the Students For a Democratic Society, Martin Luther King's SCLC.
  
  The Survaillence included sending forged letters from Dr King asserting that he was under investigation by the IRS in order to cut off SCLC funding. It also included attempts (sometimes successful) to prompt the firing of teachers (at the University and High-School level), attempts to prevent the distribution of legal books and phamplets, and attempts to distrupt anti-war marches.
  
  One choice quote from the committee is: "One technique used in COINTELPRO involved sending anonymous letters to spouses intended, in the words of one proposal, to 'produce ill-feeling and possibly a lasting distrust' "
  
  In short the FBI used its powers to destroy and discredit groups whose only crime was opposing the current state of affairs and advocating nonviolent means to change it.
  
  I know what you are going to say in response to this so let me anticipate it. Yes, the FBI's COINTEL programs relied on a great deal of legal violations. In carrying out many of these attacks the FBI simply violated the law in order to do what it did.
  
  But, the key point is that the entire operation rested on a massive survaillence effort. The kind of large-scale trawling operations that CCTV and increased electronic survaillence (the FBI used a great deal of warrentless electronic Survaillence for COINTELPRO see here) makes possible. So before you go and say that you trust the government to make us safer keep in mind that the government is a large body of people who have their own agendas and frequently (hell typically) misuse said data.
  
  Consider also the WWII internment of peaceful Japanese-American Citizens by the U.S. Most of these people had committed no crimes, particularly the children, it was the Census that made rounding them up possible (see here).
• As you yourself stated the cameras can only record what has happened. They do not prevent crimes unless one is afraid of them. Smart Criminal

Huzzah for us!

[Rogerborg]

Did you hear me? I said huzzah!

Argument for Camera's

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a great argument that's used to justify more camera.

1. If a camera is used to identify a criminal. The n the conclusion is that camera's work and we need more.

2. If a camera isn't able to identify a criminal. Then we need more camera's so that we can identify criminals.

The last comment is if the camera's were originally installed to identify terrorists, how many terrorist have been captured by the use of cameras? How many petty crimes have been captured because of the cameras? Whose rights have been lost?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies

Gun crime in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, the places in the US with high crime rates are the places with the most gun control (NYC, LA, etc.). Gun control laws were passed because of high crime rates. Crime rates were not thereby reduced. The answer, of course, was more gun control. And here's why:

"When an ideologue finds himself in a hole, he calls for a bigger shovel." -- Bill Clinton.

Bill is a smart cookie (he also happens to be an advocate of gun control, but there's no law of logic or nature that says a guy who's right about one thing can't be dead wrong about another).

So in places like NYC, gun control has been successful in getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but it has failed utterly to get them out of the hands of criminals, much less reduce the crime rate.

Meanwhile, in parts of the US where law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, and in significant numbers do own guns, the crime rate is so low as to make London look like a war zone. That's called a "correlation". We haven't established causality.

All we've done is demonstrate that you're talking out your ass.

It's so bad here ...

[Dark$ide]

... Tony Blair's government will be forcing me to have a CCTV installed in my toilet next. We're already at the point where you can't fart in the street without it being recorded and shown on those hidden camera shows.

Soviet jokes

[JawFunk]

Any Soviet jokes yet? No. WE'll here's one: In Soviet Russia, cellphone calls you! Weird...

The facts about CCTV cameras

[ajs318]

CCTV cameras are not used against terrorists, drug dealers and paedophiles.
They are mostly used to catch people peeing in the street (locking up public toilets is always a good way for a council to raise some revenue), rolling joints, and other petty things. In my experience CCTV cameras have not reduced littering; camera-equipped streets are just as full of crap as everywhere else.

CCTV cameras do not reduce crime, they merely displace it.
Once the locations of CCTV cameras become known, criminals simply avoid them and commit crimes elsewhere. There was an incident in my home city where somebody went around spraying paint on every property in a street except the ones covered by cameras.

CCTV cameras are widely abused.
CCTV monitoring is unregulated. Often monitoring centres are filled with dirty old men letching at attractive young women, occasionally attractive young men. Sometimes the monitoring operatives will be so busy spying on a particular "target" that a real incident will go unnoticed.

CCTV cameras do not provide an undo button.
By the time the crime has been committed, it is already too late. Stolen property may be recovered; but the greatest probability is that it will already have been sold on by the time that the authorities get around to investigating the incident. Rewinding a tape will not bring a dead person back to life, nor will it undo the psychological damage caused by being a victim of crime.

CCTV cameras do not provide incontrovertible evidence.
CCTV footage is often of insufficient quality to enable an arrest to be made. There have been many cases where tapes have been "accidentally" lost, erased or never even loaded into the recorder. It is also possible that CCTV footage -- especially if stored digitally -- could be tampered with.

CCTV cameras engender a false sense of security.
The lumpenproletariat expect that CCTV will protect them from the "evil people", and as a consequence take less responsibility for their own security.

The potential costs associated with CCTV cameras outweigh the benefits.
Imagine the misuse of CCTV if an extremist group such as the BNP somehow managed to take power. We have pretty much taken for granted the right to come and go and carry out our business without anyone else knowing or caring about it. What if something that you currently enjoy doing became illegal?


The greatest cause of crime in Britain today is drug prohibition. A dose of heroin which costs pennies to manufacture sells for £10; most of that goes on the costs associated with hiding the business from the police. Since dealing is already illegal, there is no incentive for dealers to be concerned with product quality nor customer welfare. There is a definite disincentive against users seeking help to break a habit, because to do so might involve betraying friends. (Altruism is hard-wired into humans, for the sake of survival of the species as a whole; but is bypassed entirely in times when an immediate need is present. An addict, especially of painkillers, needs their drug with their whole body, in the same way as you or I might need food, or water, or the toilet. If you are ever so careless as to get so desperate that you have no alternative but to take a huge crap right in the middle of a crowded shopping street, I guarantee you that you will not feel one iota of remorse or embarrassment until after the deed is done. Unsatisfied need overrides everything else).

Nicotine is reckoned to be more addictive than heroin (though the different legal status undeniably distorts this statistic), but is legal and -- compared to heroin -- it is cheap to maintain a nicotine habit. (The illegal smuggling of rolling tobacco from the continent, where taxes are lower because there is no NHS, is known about, and largely tolerated, by

We, the people, do not want surveilance!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for a very few cases, surveilance has not proven a tool against crime and the majority of the population is opposed to surveilance. A democratic government has to accept such opposition and dismantle privacy-intruding surveilance equipment. If a government fails to respond to its citizens' democratic opposition to surveilance it proves itself a totalitarian and illegitimate government that has to be replaced by a new and democratic one.

As a Britain living in America

[Dekks]

At risk of sounding slightly trollish, I find personal freedoms are far more limited here than they ever were in England, every store wants my phone number, everything requires your Social security number, even getting a book out of the library could possibly generate who knows how much data about me and my tastes on books on some clandestine database somewhere (ok ok, that last bit was tin foil hat talk that I dont' really believe but who knows in the future). In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have to deal with someone being able to watch me walk down the highstreet than my name and personal details being stored on multiple computers by people I don't know for purposes I am unaware of. Just my two pence/cents.

Re:1984

[Gentlewhisper]

Yeap, it seems like only Airstrip one was referenced. And of course the solution lies in the proles!

The proles! That's you!

Vote those bastards out of office this november!

Made up (bullshit) Quotes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will Kittow, 38, a van driver enjoying a coffee break in Soho, said he was concerned about how many times he is captured on film driving around London ...

"All this information is going somewhere. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it is going to be misused, even if it is only petty larceny," said Kittow.

Sorry, but I think somebody is really taking the piss with these quotes, they're so simplistic and out of phrase that they cannot be anything but fabricated.

"White van men" say a lot of things when 'driving' but I've never encountered one, or any other memember of the public in the UK say something like "petty larceny" or even things like felony for that matter, it's like something out of the age of Dickens, these haven't been in common usage for, what, a century?

"I do feel safer knowing that Big Brother is watching. I'd walk around here at 5 a.m. but I wouldn't out in the suburbs,"

Now that's disingenious, even those who grudingly see the need for CCTV don't mention their love of 'Big Brother'.

Also, 99% of people would rather walk around the deserted streets of a quiet suburb than Soho, that's unbelievable.

The these quotes are nothing but troll bait for CNN's US readers to quote shopworn missives from Benjamin Franklin

UK - pretty gunless

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

I quite agree. I've lived in central London for 40 years and I've never seen a gun or heard a gunshot or heard of anyone being shot, except on TV (mostly American TV). I agree gun ownership is a deterrent to burglary in the US, but in the UK the odds of a burglar running into a gun-toting householder are about the same as them breaking in and finding a stack of gold bars in the living room. In fact, burglary is pretty much seen as petty crime in Britain - you might not even go to jail, whereas having a gun with you would entail a minimum 5 year stretch. So lots of burglary, but we all live through it.

Re:UK - pretty gunless

[mikechant]

Note that burgulary has dropped by about half in the UK since 1995 **, mainly due to more alarms and window locks etc. but partly due to police targetting persistant burgulars personally rather than trying to solve individual crimes.

** Figure obtained from the British Crime Survey available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0304.html
The BCS is generally regarded as reasonably accurate since it relies on a large survey (e.g. asking 'have you been burgled in the last year?') rather than relying on police figures which fluctuate depending on recording methods and willingness of victims to report the crime.

Re:UK - pretty gunless

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in central London and I have noticed an alarming number of police running around with H&K automatic rifles strapped to their chests over the last couple of years. I remember seeing my first armed copper at Heathrow about 15 years ago and then again manning the old 'ring of steel' in the City.

I saw FOUR armed police running across the Strand just yesterday lunchtime. If I were a terrorist I think I might dress up as a cop, strap on an Uzi and just charge right into my target - no-one would even THINK to stop you.

Re:UK - pretty gunless

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

That is a very good point. GO TRANSHUMAN! me first...

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI : it was not a mockery of communism. It was a mockery of "pseudo communism", which is the only kind of communism yet attempted in this fine world. Think Stalin vs. Trotsky.

Remember that Orwell's fundamental point is that the few attempt to subjugate the many. To that end, they manipulate whatever political and social structures are extant at the time.

Communism, socialism, free market, democracy, republicanism--these are all ideas that, at the time of their conception were hailed as "the way things should be" yet have all been manipulated to subjugate the average person.

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the added security. The way I see it, the only people this has a detrimental affect on is criminals getting caught on camera. As long as it's out in public anyway, so what if someone gets me on camera scratching myself.

SciFi commentary becomes Reality

[pacanukeha]

David Brin talked about this some time ago in Wired and then wrote a book "The Transparent Society." The key that I took away from his article was that public cameras should also be installed in all police interrogation rooms and camera surveillance rooms -- and _everyone_ would be able to watch, not just the cops.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransp ar ent_pr.html

Put Cyclops' Eye Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why there's not a systematic campaign to disable the cameras.

History shows that whenever surveillance information is collected, it is eventually used as an instrument of repression. A classic case is the FBI's wiretapping and harassment of civil-rights leaders in the 1960's. Don't think it's just ancient history: where there's secrecy, there's no accountability. Official secrecy is greater now. The use of the no-fly lists to ground antiwar activists, despite the self-evident fact that pacifists seldom if ever hijack planes, is a more recent example of the same behavior. The only way to prevent such data from being abused is to prevent it from being collected in the first place, whatever the touted benefits.

In today's micro-administered society, the only freedom that remains for us is in those few moments when the ambitions of our rulers are frustrated by their inability to monitor and control us. That is our breathing space. Any initiative by them that extends their control just brings us closer to the cataclysm. When the lid of the pressure cooker is bolted down tight and the heat is still on, the end result will not in any way be orderly. Everyone will get scalded.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, NitPick

Handguns in the US

[PurpleRain]

And how hard is it to carry a handgun from Ohio to Washington, D.C.? If guns are banned in Washington, D.C. but no one entering Washington, D.C. is checked for guns, then of course there will be wackos with guns there killing people.

If guns were banned in the whole country, so that the only way to get one would be to smuggle it in, it would be a lot harder for the wackos in Washington (no, I don't mean the government) to get a gun.

Re:Handguns in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

And how hard is it to carry a handgun from Ohio to Washington, D.C.? If guns are banned in Washington, D.C. but no one entering Washington, D.C. is checked for guns, then of course there will be wackos with guns there killing people.

Moron. Yeah, it's crazy tourists from ohio that drive up murder rates in DC.

in DC (like other high murder areas) it's local bad guys generally killing other local bad guys. Sometimes they also kill not-so bad guys either a) accidentally or b) because they unlickily saw something the bad guys didn't want seen.

what Gun-restricters fail to realize is that passing laws is NOT a magic wand. it is already illegal to shoot people. some people are willing to do that anyway, are they going to even blink about not being allowed to have a gun in the first place?

Re:Handguns in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

And how hard is it to carry a handgun from Ohio to Washington, D.C.? If guns are banned in Washington, D.C. but no one entering Washington, D.C. is checked for guns, then of course there will be wackos with guns there killing people

And, pray tell, why would all the Ohians go to Washington,DC to be violent???

If guns were banned in the whole country, so that the only way to get one would be to smuggle it in, it would be a lot harder...to get a gun

We (the US) can't stop Mexicans from pouring across the border. We can't stop tons of drugs, either. What's to stop those wetbacks from each carrying a gun, or the drug lords from smuggling a few (dozen/hundred/thousand) 9mm's along with their coke?!?

Look- Prohibition was tried. And it failed.

this is new?

[cyberbob2010]

GB has had public surveilence systems up for some time now. My ex went to Europe about two years ago and saw the cameras all over and I did a report the year before that on the dangers of Big Brother monitoring. I remember arguing with her when she returned from her trip. She told me that there was a story in the paper while she was there about a woman who was raped in her car on the highway and how they used footage captured through one of these cameras to identify and apprehend her asailant (sp?). Hearing this made me ask the ultimate question - is this woman's sense of closure and peace of mind worth that little bit of privacy lost?

Re:this is new?

[TyrionEagle]

If your Ex had been raped when she was still your SO, would you even be asking that question?

Oh, golly gosh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ever visit Britain, it's terrible!

Bodies are piling up on the pavement, all dead from unexplained sniper fire. Every day you hear of black saloons filled with burly men in dark suits, pulling up and grabbing people off the streets! And at the station only yesterday I heard the tannoy say "You shouldn't have dropped that fag, madam" and the woman in front of me dropped to the floor in agony.

Be afraid, be very afraid! No, really!

Re:Oh, golly gosh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I am thankful that Liberty et al. are so utterly ineffective, barely getting five words' mention in the news - "Civil liberties groups have complained".

They talk about Big Brother this, and slippery slope that, that the Government is keeping tabs on every citizen(true enough)... but THEN what?

Can someone please TELL ME what will physically HAPPEN to me as a result of all this surveillance?

Okay, possibly a racist attack or abduction, but that seems less likely as the Holocaust is still in living memory. Anyway I'm a white male Catholic, and if *I* get put on the special train, then so will Tony Blair!

Or maybe I'm taken to some Room 101 and get rats shoved in my face. There will be *some* reason I am receiving this punishment. If the intention is to make me learn then I *will* be told the reason, otherwise I am being humbled due to matching *some* antisocial condition, that *quite a few* people will find distasteful. I consider that a justified punishment. The right to life supercedes all other rights, and some people do deserve to live more than others, based on how many people love them and how much good they do society. People are being slaughtered by terrorists every week, for want of a bit of rough justice.

So what is the physical risk to my person from surveillance? It does not hurt just to be watched.

How abusable is this?

[UpnAtom]

When the government passes a law mandating all cameras have to be digital, all digital footage has to be kept forever, and connected to a government face recognition system, then I'll be concerned.

As it stands most footage is erased after a month, and is stored on hundreds of individual unconnected systems. Hardly Big Brother.

I agree that WHILST they are unconnected, we don't have much to worry about.

But I'd like to point out that this same government is introducing a compulsory national database to keep track of your suspicious activities, containing your photograph, fingerprints and a unique National Identity Number which corporations can use to link up every bit of information about you already stored on computer (banking, phone, internet & shopping records).

Whilst the USA at least has an individual's freedom protected by their Constitution, this government is also proposing to bypass its own Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts to introduce this database. Needless to say, the government's own watchdogs are horrified.

This same government is also granting police powers to take DNA samples from you without you ever knowing. How long before the technology is available to track people's movements through these CCTV cameras?

At what point will you become concerned?

how can this be a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

it has had such a big effect on violent crime....
oh wait, hang on... no it hasn't.

it has made everyone feel a lot safer!!... oh wait, no it hasn't.

At least now i know that if i get beaten up on a saturday night the video will be useful in making a scary documentary about how dangerous britain is... not a lot of comfort to me of course...

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

He sure doesn't talk like he's from Room 101. He's covering up something...

Just as alarming they got 7 years.

[Performer Guy]

Equally alarming is you have a gang of conspirators who commit a cold blooded murder and robbery including buying gloves ahead of time & trapping then stabbing some poor guy to death in his home before they rob him. What sentence do they get for this? 7 years and most of them probably didn't even get that. It is disgusting, they would lock up the judge for this in the U.S. but in the U.K. this is actually pretty typical. If you're wondering why there's a lot of casual violence in Britain, look no further.

Guns for Britain

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new NRA Overlords.

Orwell ahead of his time

[Anonymous Coward]

He predicted it would happen in 1984. It didn't actually happen until 2004. It took 20 years longer than he thought, but it has happened. The government can and does monitor your every movement. They can send you for re-education (i.e. declare you a terrorist, and hold you incommunicado, with no lawyer, indefinitely) whenever they like. They don't quite have it as streamlined as in the book yet, but give them a few more years of the war on human rights (aka the war on terror), and we'll be there. Kiss your freedom good bye.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Off-topic but poss of interest.

Radio 4 recently serialized "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin which may have...influenced Orwell's "1984".

Re:USA was never mentioned in grandparent, fucktar

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad.

Guns ARE dangerous.

When Columbine happens in Europe, we'll discuss this point again.

Pathetic protection.

[twitter]

UK Data Protection Act states that fixed cameras are ok, but if they can zoom or move, then you must comply with the act.

Tilt and zoom are a stupid waste of money. It's cheaper, easier and better to put cameras on everything you want to watch and record it 24/7 than it is to use the tilt and zoom models to miss what you wanted to see. Two cameras looking at what you care about are much better than one that might be watching and requires an operator. You can typically buy two or three good cameras for the price of one tilt and zoom model.

Or so.....

[The Islamic Fundamen]

Massiv bruva iz watchin? Is it coz I is black?

the requisite welcome message...

[tropavantgarde]

i for one welcome our new british overloards.

Re:USA was never mentioned in grandparent, fucktar

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Dunblane? Not quite the same scenario, I know, but fairly similar.

Hitler and elections

[HBI]

In the last free election in Germany, the Nazis got about 32% of the vote if memory serves, this being in 1932.

In January '33 Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the President (Hindenburg). The Reichstag fire was staged shortly thereafter and new elections were called for. The Nazis only got 45% of the manipulated vote (the Communists and one other party were outlawed by Hindenburg prior to the election, but still got tons of votes). This was sufficient, however, to give him over 50% of the Reichstag seats and thereby pass whatever legislation he liked. The Enabling Act was passed shortly thereafter cementing his dictatorship.

My point is that Hitler was never elected by the German people. It was more of a coup d'etat, aided and abetted by an ailing and possibly demented Hindenburg who died in January 1934.

Nice summarized link

Yes, it really is a bad thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

It just warms my heart to think that if I got attacked by some bloodythirsty thug in the UK, I could be prosecuted for defending myself with a weapon if I lived to tell about it, but the authorities would get it all on tape so that they could put the felon in jail for five years. Britain is going down the tubes because the politicians are more interested in preserving their power than protecting people's inalienable rights.

Audio Video Security System for Vehicles

[Wherearewe]

OBS, Inc. has made available images of their much anticipated InSight Audio Video Security System. InSight is an audio and video security system for vehicles recording pre- and post-events onto a removable SD card. Up to four cameras and two microphones can be hidden throughout a vehicle.... documenting accidents, break-ins, motion, and more, whether or not it is running. Since their award at SEMA 2003 it seems the product has made many improvements. The images are on the web site http://www.obsusa.com/.