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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

Just remember this:

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.)

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)

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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.

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.

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....)

I for one...

[dr_labrat]

..welcome our comera wielding overlords.

No, honestly!!

Brb, someones at the doo....fds.....4.

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: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.

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?

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: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.

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.......

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/

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.

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

[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: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.

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)

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.

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 ?

[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: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.

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!"

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.

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: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: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).

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.

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

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.

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!

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.

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

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.

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