CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers

The error was so ironic by mukund · 2006-09-17 05:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

--
Banu

interesting... by aftershockbtc · 2006-09-17 05:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Can they play the 1812 overture?

Re:interesting... by parasonic · 2006-09-17 05:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Can they play the 1812 overture?
Please add 172 to that number. We are only ten years behind them in the US.
Re:interesting... by Yvanhoe · 2006-09-17 05:51 · Score: 2, Informative

And If you have watched the movie, help repair the horrendous reality distorsion field it provoked and go read the original comic by Alan Moore instead. Cause believe it or not, the movie is an example of political correctness

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

After watching the movie, I did.

And, uh, there's an awful lot of similarity. I really don't see your point. They did munge the whole "what kinds of tests were being performed" and the whole "plague" thing, which was necessary for placing it in the future rather than an alternative past. (C'mon, mainframes?) But for the most part it was a close adaptation, in keeping with the anarchistic theme of the original.

But disapprovingly calling the movie "politically correct" seems to be one of the vaguest and least intellectually-rigorous accusations I've seen. Politically correct for whom? The movie has glowingly positive sequences about blowing up government buildings and murdering state leaders, for chrissake! (Oh, wait, you mean standing up against a totalitarian government is "politically correct"? Well DUH! I should hope so! "Politically correct" does not exclude "morally correct"!)
Re:interesting... by Scrameustache · 2006-09-17 08:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

The formula is:

1- See the movie, enjoy.
2- Read the book, enjoy.

If you read the book first, you won't enjoy the movie because the movie is NEVER as good as the book.
See the movie, then read the book: It's the only sane thing to do :)

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:interesting... by Elemenope · 2006-09-17 09:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

I disagree heartily. Certainly the way most book-to-movie adaptations are done, its true, becuase the director (or screenwriter) can't get it out of their head that cinema is a completely different medium in almost every way. It's like directors think its like porting between operating systems, when it should be more like writing it again from the ground up in a different language. You approach a problem differently in LISP than, say, Java or C. If you wanted to do the smne thing, you would go about it using different tools.

For evidence, two examples. One, Dr. Strangelove (etc. rest of title etc.) was based on a very serious book "Red Alert", and while the novel was good, the movie was excellent. The movie was better because Kubrick realized the sort of accidental and very black humor that was easily exploitable on film in a way that the book could not put across. As a point of reference, someone about the same time made a direct book-to-movie port of "Red Alert". It was decent, but nobody remembers it.

Example the second, Fight Club, a very good novel by Chuck Palahniuk, was I think improved upon in the film. Many of David Finscher's directorial trademarks helped to disorient the viewer in a way that I think Palahniuk was trying to directly explain, all using nothing but mood and deft editing. A direct port book-to-movie would have been terrible, instead of better.

Ultimately a story can be enriched by its introduction to celluloid (or, these days, virtual celluloid; Baudrillard is somewhere creaming his pants) so long as the director keeps in mind the advantages and disadvantages peculiar to the medium and also how those adv. and dis. compare to those of novel storytelling. The key is tha the director must at first be respectful of teh message(s) being conveyed by the original author and find ways to express them that are available in the new medium, especially to make up for those that are not. Mixed example: in Starship Troopers, (a movie I am heavily conflicted over), does a good job at least of building the federal society's parameters not through exposition, but rather through clever advert propaganda snippets. In a movie, the audience would have collectively suicided rather than listen to (rather than read) Heinlein's political musings.

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)

Now hear this... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 05:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Billy, this is your mother! I see you in that alley young man! You get that tongue of yours out of that girl's mouth right now or you're in big trouble! That is all.

In soviet russia by Mortirer · 2006-09-17 05:06 · Score: 5, Funny

In soviet Russia, you don't tell the government what to do, it tells YOU! Oh....wait....crap

--
Curiosity killed the cat, but cats have 9 lives.

nothing wrong by Coneasfast · 2006-09-17 05:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

i can't see any disadvantage to this, they're only adding loudspeakers to already existing CCTV cameras. they're not breaching your privacy anymore than before

--
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.

Re:nothing wrong by blastum · 2006-09-17 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

My wife tells me that when the communists took over S. Vietnam, they put loudspeakers on every corner and woke people up bright and early with inspirational commie songs. It's becoming hard to tell the pigs from the men here.
Re:nothing wrong by thelost · 2006-09-17 05:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

True, until they start playing The Government Channel 24 hours a day, announcing that:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

--
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
Re:nothing wrong by ScrewMaster · 2006-09-17 05:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Personally, I think this will backfire. It's possible to simply learn to accept that law enforcement is watching and recording everything you do in public, as millions of Britons have apparently done. But when those cameras start vocally reminding you of their presence, they may be much more difficult to ignore. We'll see: this will be interesting to watch whatever happens.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:nothing wrong by enharmonix · 2006-09-17 05:31 · Score: 3, Funny

We'll see: this will be interesting to watch whatever happens.

Coming this fall to BBC 4.
Re:nothing wrong by Frosty+Piss · 2006-09-17 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

i can't see any disadvantage to this, they're only adding loudspeakers to already existing CCTV cameras. they're not breaching your privacy anymore than before

It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:nothing wrong by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2006-09-17 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

That's "autumn" here in the UK, you insensitive clod!

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:nothing wrong by ScrewMaster · 2006-09-17 06:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well ... I hope there's some kind of a backlash. Cameras are certainly here in the U.S., with more appearing all the time. They don't talk yet, but where I live there are cameras popping up everywhere, and that's just the ones you can see. I watched an ambulance driving down a street the other day (remotely switching all the lights to green as it went) and at each intersection a white light above the camera went on for a second or two as the vehicle went through. I guess I should be thankful they had the courtesy to have those lights, although I assume they can turn on the camera without the light. Besides, those were some of the earliest ones that were installed, back when public opinion on the matter was important ("See? It's not so bad, you'll know when we're watching you.") Not that it makes any difference, since nobody seems to care anymore. People I talk to about it use England as an example of why there's nothing to worry about. And maybe that's true in England, I don't know since I don't live there. However, I have less faith in my various governments to handle that kind of responsibility, since they're failing in so many other areas at the moment.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:nothing wrong by kaizendojo · 2006-09-17 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
They're already doing this in the US. It's called the "Bush Administration Platform"...
- WAR IS PEACE = The 'War' on 'Terrorism'/"America is safer, but not yet safe"
- FREEDOM IS SLAVERY = "In order to protect our democracy, some personal freedoms must be sacrificed" (otherwise known as the "Patriot" Act)
- IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH = "I'm the 'Decider'..." or "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you...Fool me twice...Won't get fooled again..."
Re:nothing wrong by amliebsch · 2006-09-17 09:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know that you're wrong about your municipality having cameras installed, but if you are talking about these sensors, then those are simple strobe sensors, not cameras. If this isn't what you are talking about, can you provide a picture?

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.

Where do they get figures from by LiquidCoooled · 2006-09-17 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

I live in the UK, and whilst I see lots of cameras, they certainly aren't on every street corner - however the closer to the city centre you go, the more there are.
Is it based on sensor sales, does it include webcams, how about mobile phone cams?
Its always bugged me how they come up with grand figures like they have.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Re:Where do they get figures from by keot · 2006-09-17 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny

My hometown of 35,000 recently got CCTV installed. I don't think that anywhere in the UK will be CCTV-free in a few years.

I suppose once they've install the loudspeakers, taunting the cameras will be a much more entertaining exercise.
Re:Where do they get figures from by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2006-09-17 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I live in the UK, and whilst I see lots of cameras, they certainly aren't on every street corner

Actually, here in Cambridge (UK), they pretty much are on every street corner, at least anywhere near the middle of town. On top of that, they now have mobile units they can set up anywhere, which are used further out. Then there's all the cameras at things like ATMs, the ones in shops, the ones scanning your number plate when you park at Tesco, the numberplate-scanning equipment in police vehicles and in the new average speed cameras...

And you know what? The few relatively dangerous places around the place -- not that Cambridge is a particularly dangerous city to live in -- are still dangerous. My girlfriend still can't walk across a park alone late at night, or go through the underpass to get across the road. When they want to prosecute people for violent crime, the pictures are so poor that they can't reliably identify anyone involved. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that they can't read number plates on vehicles, either. In fact, the only thing they seem to be good for is watching outside pubs late at night to pick up any serious fights slightly faster than someone would call them in.

Personally, I think it's all gone way too far. I now shop at other supermarkets that don't spy on everyone entering or leaving their car park, I don't sign up for any new "loyalty" cards in shops, etc. I have even reached the point that I'm considering voting for a political party I never thought I'd support, on the basis that they have given a solid promise that they will repeal the ID card legislation Tony's cronies have forced through. Whatever else I think of that party, I will almost certainly vote for them next time just for that.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Where do they get figures from by Cal+Paterson · 2006-09-17 06:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

And you know what? The few relatively dangerous places around the place -- not that Cambridge is a particularly dangerous city to live in -- are still dangerous.

Thank god someone else realised this. Video camera are not a deterrent! They're only useful for solving crimes - they're totally useless at preventing them.

Cameras aren't cops.
Re:Where do they get figures from by spun · 2006-09-17 07:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Thus the loudspeakers. I picture the scenario going something like this:

"Hey you with the ski-mask on, we see you! Stop beating up on that poor old woman. Don't you take her handbag, I mean it. Stop it! Really, we're going to find you, Mr. possibly a 6'-4" possibly male most-likely caucasian. We have software that can recognize you by your walk. Hey, stop that! Stop walking all funny! Okay boys, it's got to be John Cleese, no one else that tall can walk that funny, go get him!"

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Where do they get figures from by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2006-09-17 09:55 · Score: 2, Informative

You'd have to pride yourself on doing no evil to think that was a good idea...

Although seriously, I noticed on some video footage during the latest airline security fiasco that there are signs up in US airports saying that you're not only being watched, but security staff are actually listening in to your conversations on microphones.

So let me be clear about this. With stated current intentions, not hypotheticals, national governments in "free countries" like the US and UK are now recording where everyone goes by plane, where everyone goes by car, where anyone is seen in the street, and what those people are saying in at least some of these cases. They are also developing technology for facial recognition from a distance and automated numberplate scanning. While they're at it, they can track your general movements if you have a mobile phone switched on, whatever mode of transport you choose. They have security devices that effectively display you naked to the operator. They intercept your phone calls and Internet communications, often on dubious authority, and record these for several years too. Soon, biometric technology will mean everyone gets an ID card and/or passport that are required to access any public services, and will be linked into a centralised database tracking all of your use of those services as well. Putting too much money into your bank account at once triggers alarm bells with the authorities, as does taking too much out.

Now, if, somewhere in that enormous central database they're building of everyone's life, something looks suspicious (sorry, muslims/immigrants/people with the same name as a registered sex offender, you're out of luck this month) then your account can be frozen without appeal, you can be subject to detailed investigations into your finances for the past several years by the tax office requiring you to produce a detailed paper trial for everything, you can be arrested and held for (depending on where) weeks, months or even years without trial, your freedoms can be curtailed with arbitrary ASBOs and control orders even if the law doesn't provide for that kind of curtailment otherwise, and in the worst case, you get seriously hurt or killed in a screwed-up operation.

And they still worry that the bottle of cola you're holding at the airport might blow a plane out of the sky.

Oh, yes, it's a wonderful, free world we live in, said the Anonymous Brave Guy, glancing at his .sig...

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Where do they get figures from by Bertie · 2006-09-17 11:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I live in a small town in Surrey. It's one of the most affluent parts of the country, and consequently there's not a whole lot of crime. The most trouble I've ever seen was a guy getting his nose broken outside a pub. Three police cars turned up to deal with it, so you can tell how bored they are. Nothing ever happens, and I doubt it ever did.

And yet there's a CCTV camera outside my bedroom window.

If I lie in bed at night with my window open, I can hear the motor whirring away from time to time as it follows the occasional fox on a night-time forage. It's a pretty sinister sound. On more than one occasion I've walked home from the train station after midnight and been followed by two or three cameras as I went, swivelling to watch me walk along the road minding my own business. So somebody, somewhere, is being paid to sit and watch me do nothing of any consequence round the clock.

Despite this, a few nights ago I was woken up by a drunken fool flinging around a bin on the other side of the road - harmless, really, but enough to give a policeman cause to have a word in his ear. Thing is, he was doing this right under the camera. It never moved. It didn't see him. Great, eh?

I'd love to hear the justification for those cameras being there. It can't be crime prevention, there isn't any. When anything does happen, they miss it. They seem to be there purely to spy on people. Maybe the septuagenarian woman next door thinks they're a great thing, but personally I'm far more uneasy about the person operating the camera than I am about the odd scuffle outside a pub.

The quote that says it all.... by Hex4def6 · 2006-09-17 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Afterwards she said: 'It's quite scary to realise that your every move could be monitored - it really is like Big Brother. 'But Middlesbrough does have a big problem with anti-social behaviour, so it is very reassuring.' " And this is why it is truly Airstrip One.

The Daily Mail! by turgid · 2006-09-17 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Daily Mail, voice of petty-minded, intolerant, closet racist Little England, is usually in favour of these sorts of things.

>You reap what you sow, as it were.

--
Stick Men

Re:The Daily Mail! by Bralkein · 2006-09-17 05:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yeah, I keep seeing Daily Mail stories getting posted here on /., and I definitely find it irritating, because of the reasons you just gave. It's not the impression I really want to be giving to foreigners about my country...

Anyhow, adding loudspeakers to these cameras might be a good thing (bear with me, don't mod me down yet!). If the number of cameras stays the same, well we are just getting spied on the same as before, but with loudspeakers, now people will notice the spying is taking place. As it stands, cameras are easy to forget about in day-to-day life, but hearing the voice of authority booming down from on high is sure to raise some alarm. Hopefully we will finally see some kind of backlash! (Now you can mod me down)
Re:The Daily Mail! by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-09-17 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree, in the long run this might is a 'good' thing. All it takes is a few 40-something housewives to get told off for littering and suddenly the mayor will find himself not the mayor, after the next election. I reckon even people quoted in the article as supporting this, will chenge their mind after a petty telling off.
On the other hand, IIRC some (or even most?) schools in the UK have had loud speakers like this for a few years now, so the next generation is already trained to subjugate themselves. So, maybe it is here to stay? I doubt future parents, having been brought up spending most of their lives in sight of a CCTV camera, would allow anything less for their own children. "It was good enough for me..." kind of thing. Besides, what happens if Jonny falls over and hurts himself?
Re:The Daily Mail! by Bralkein · 2006-09-17 06:13 · Score: 3, Funny

I can't imagine very many schools here in the UK have such things as this in place (I am only twenty and I have a little sister in school, so I would probably have heard about it), but even if they should become commonplace, I have little faith that anything short of tear gas will bring those little bastards to heel! ;-)
Re:The Daily Mail! by rosscoe · 2006-09-17 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

For most towns in the UK the mayor has no power at all, it's just a figurehead position for the council (some towns are getting directly elected mayors though). As for schools, I've never heard of CCTV with speakers in them, my kids have never mentioned them and a friend who is a school caretaker has never mentioned it, of course if Tony Blair reads /. then we can expect it any day. As posted earlier CCTV is not as widespread as you may think, mostly they are in town centres, shopping centres (and shops), road gantries, and carparks. My village has one, and that overlooks the village hall carpark, the village next to us has one overlooking an ATM. My home town has full coverage of the town centre, usefull on a Friday and Saturday night, it also has the lowest crime rate in the UK and most residents are more than happy about it.
Re:The Daily Mail! by Neoprofin · 2006-09-17 06:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good point, why not get rid of due process, police accountability, and privacy all together.

I mean only criminals will suffer, right?
Re:The Daily Mail! by mrogers · 2006-09-17 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because I haven't done anything wrong.
Do you trust the current government and all future governments to agree with your definition of not doing anything wrong? Would you have been happy to live in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, safe in the knowledge that you were a law-abiding citizen? Would you be happy to move to present-day Cuba, Burma, Turkmentistan or Belarus?

1984 by GC · 2006-09-17 05:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

" You are the dead ", said an iron voice behind them. ...

" Now they can see us ", said Julia.

" Now we can see you ", said the voice. " Stand out in the middle of the room. Stand back to back. Clasp your hands behind your heads. Do not touch one another. " ...

He heard Julia snap her teeth together. " I suppose we may as well say good-bye ", she said.

" You may as well say good-bye ", said the voice. And then another quite different voice, a thin, cultivated voice which Winston had the impression of having heard before, struck in; " And by the way, while we are on the subject, Here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head ! "

Re:1984 by Pharmboy · 2006-09-17 06:42 · Score: 2, Informative

How ironic to think that 1984 took place in London

It is Oceania, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Good idea. by Rational · 2006-09-17 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is actually a pretty good idea. A camera with a loudspeaker is not actually more of an encroachment on your privacy (to the extent where there can be privacy in a *public* place) than one without, and it can mean the difference between the camera operators being able to prevent a crime, or just having to watch and grit their teeth waiting for the police to turn up.

Honestly, I'm fairly bored with the "The UK is turning into 1984" recurrent Slashdot meme.

--
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass

Privacy will become a commodity by CatWrangler · 2006-09-17 05:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

They aren't even close to being as ubiquitous as they shall be in the not too distant future. They will be linked to your driver's photo, your credit cards, you name it. People will pay money to live in the country side behind gates, with guards, but no cameras. Only the poor and middle class will have to live under this great experiment in voyeurism. The criminals will find ways around detection. The rest of us will lose more and more of our privacy rights. Kids born today will be numb and accustomed to the lack of freedom, just as our overlords want.

--

---
When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

Re:Privacy will become a commodity by enjo13 · 2006-09-17 05:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I make fairly frequent trips to London to visit our office there. It's interesting, I talked about these cameras with the guys there (the office is smack in the middle of London) and they all love them. Criminals have circumvented the system by being where the cameras aren't. This has made the highly populated parts London MUCH safer... the privacy issues concern me and the whole thing creeps me out (a lot). However, the system DOES appear to be at least somewhat effective and for anyone living in a highly urban situation that isn't all bad.

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:Privacy will become a commodity by thesandtiger · 2006-09-17 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Probably because the people who the cameras are supposed to catch would simply blow them up.

In the UK, I imagine it isn't quite at the point of open warfare in the streets, where nobody's got anything left to lose.

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Re:Privacy will become a commodity by Reziac · 2006-09-17 17:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

"... to live under this great experiment in voyeurism."

One has to wonder about the concurrent rise in "reality TV" with its implication that it's such great fun to live under a microscope... ...at least, for the dude in the white laboratory smock.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Oh, the spoiled dreams... by tod_miller · 2006-09-17 05:21 · Score: 5, Funny

"Come on now, that enough of that you two, get a room! And young lady, cover up a bit!"

I retrained myself from imagining what a seedy operator might say but 'go on, give her one for us lot, we are watching'

or, the fun, shouting out 'give me your wallet', or 'I am watching you, yes... muahaha... you'. Or basic wolf whistling and 'nice tits love'.

Bastards. Luckily I got all the deviant behaviour out of my system before I started dosing.

Not without incident.

*slash* applies for a job as a camera operator

--
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com

Next, they get guns by Animats · 2006-09-17 05:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

The next step is an automated Counter Fire System. Fire a gun, and within seconds, you're taking heavy fire.

The U.S. Army has had that for almost two decades with the Fire Finder radar system, but that's for heavy artillery. Now DARPA is downsizing the technology to the counter-sniper level.

Re:Next, they get guns by FleaPlus · 2006-09-17 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

This reminds me of Charles Stross's Lovecraftian/Dilbertian spy thriller Concrete Jungle, which is licensed under a Creative Commons license and can be read as a free download. (Slight spoiler follows) In the novella, part of the plotline involves taking the turn-to-stone ability that medusas have, attributing it to some quantum-mechanical observance trickery, and encoding the relevant neural circuitry into an FPGA chip built into the cameras. The basic idea is that the whole reason the whole reason the UK is constructing their surveillance camera network isn't for the surveillance itself, but to provide an instant-kill defense network against the hordes of some impending Lovecratian horror.

The novella is a little strange, but fun. :)
Re:Next, they get guns by Phat_Tony · 2006-09-17 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The DARPA article you linked to says

"Imagine a geostationary satellite parked 21 kilometers above the targeted area."

DARPA expects the reader to have a very active imagination, since geostationary orbit is at 35,786 km above sea level. Due to the atmosphere, objects below 200 KM do not so much "orbit" as "crash." I hope they didn't really do the math on this system based on satellites orbiting at 21 km.

Later they talk about an airship, which makes sense, but they also continue to use the word "satellite" off and on, and the definitions I see for satellite don't include airships or anything else that could be within the vicinity of 21 km.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:Next, they get guns by vidarh · 2006-09-17 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except that guncrime is so rare here (as in you can count most fatalities due to guncrime in double digits most years) that it would be a pointless exercise.

Bored by CatWrangler · 2006-09-17 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, just because it may be boring to you, does not mean it doesn't exist. We are rushing headlong into an age of massive amounts of ability to violate privacy due to the ability to store the data, and the medium to create it. We are not having a true debate in society about how to balance safety and privacy. It's a pity it bores you, but for some of us, we can at least make an attempt to have some dialogue about the issue before we jump into the abyss.

--

---
When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

Re:Bored by RealSurreal · 2006-09-17 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've obviously never been to Coventry. The best thing that could happen to it would be another redecoration from the Luftwaffe

Summary is disingenuous and sensationalistic by Tim+C · 2006-09-17 05:24 · Score: 3, Informative

So I guess at least it's in keeping with the source of the article...

If you RTFA, you'll find that 7 (or 148) cameras in one town (Middlesbrough) are having loud speakers fitted as part of an experiment. While the headline isn't entirely inaccurate, it's definitely misleading as it implies that this is a general thing.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Re:Summary is disingenuous and sensationalistic by NinjaFarmer · 2006-09-17 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

As part of an "experiment", which will be "successful". Sure... right.... What's next?

My poor friends across the pond :-( by JimDaGeek · 2006-09-17 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Man, a lot of people come down on the USA, however I don't think anything in the USA approaches big-brother-ness like what is going on in the UK.

Why aren't the people of the UK fighting back? To me this crosses the line for what a a government should be allowed to do. Where is the line drawn on what is "anti-social"? Who gets to draw the "anti-social" line? Is kissing your loved one in public "anti-social"? If not now, what is stopping the government from continually adding more and more things to what is "anti-social"?

Was Orwell a profit or did he just get real lucky with his 1984 story? I find the similarities of 1984 and things that "modern" governments are trying to do to be amazing.

--
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.

Re:My poor friends across the pond :-( by Tim+Browse · 2006-09-17 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most Britons SUPPORT CCTV. It's as simple as that. It reduces crime, and leads to prosecution for criminals.

Well, unless it's a speed camera, of course, the sole purpose of which is to photograph people breaking a specific well-known law, in which case it's a bloody outrage, shouldn't be allowed, a national disgrace, etc.
Britons support CCTV that catches other people breaking the law. Not them, when they were breaking the speed limit, but in an informed and responsible way.
Re:My poor friends across the pond :-( by malsdavis · 2006-09-17 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

There is a fundamental difference between the US and the UK in how the public preceive "big-brotherness" and the role of the government in general. In the UK there just arn't nearly as many populised "government conspiracy theories" like they are in the USA and very few people fear the government/secret service malicously "spies" on people.

Besides this, the vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are owned by either local government/councils (which operate and are widely recognised as being very independant of central/national government) or by private landowners and businesses. Very few of the millions of CCTV cameras which are being, and have been, installed over the last few years in the UK have been requested by any organisation connected to central government.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-09-17 05:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Apathy? by Timesprout · 2006-09-17 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

The good (attempting to prevent crime) really outweighs the bad (loss of privacy, abuse of power by government)?

How exactly can you lose your privacy by being filmed in a public place?

Feel free to cite any abuse of power the government has perpetrated using cctv cameras.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Not 1984, more like... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 05:40 · Score: 2, Funny

... Demolition Man

<cash machine swallows my cash>

Me: Fucking piece of shit!
CCTV: Eurgh! You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code.
Me: What the f-
CCTV: Eurgh! You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code.
Me: Goddamnit!
CCTV: Eurgh! You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code.

CCTV how to criticise? by Lave · 2006-09-17 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

A street I walk down in london may have been testing some form of this. There was a white wall that to my knowledge had never been "tagged" but every time anyone would walk past it would "flash" a camera at you and tell you to "STEP AWAY FROM THE WALL - GRAFITI IS NOT TOLERATED AND YOUR IMAGE WILL BE USED TO CONVICT YOU."

As the street was next to a very popular Chinese Restaurant the number of people setting it off was huge - just for using a public footpath! People complained enough for it to be removed (I guess) but it showed me how hard it is to argue against CCTV.

FTFA: Mr Bonner said:

'It would appear that the offenders are the only ones who find the audio cameras intrusive. The vast majority of people welcome these cameras.

'Put it this way, we never have requests to remove them.'

They present these things as though if you complain your clearly one of them.

The UK can not stand for this anymore - we need to find a voice, and a way to complain, that does not make us look like criminals.

P.S. I think it's a salient point that the example used in the article is a man being shouted at to not ride his bicycle - not a mugging, not a rape, not a murder - a bicycle.

--
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman

Re:CCTV how to criticise? by jimicus · 2006-09-17 09:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Two true stories for you:

1. I wrote to my MP regarding ID cards. The logic being presented at the time was that they would make life harder for criminals because the criminal's ID card would get them. My point was that criminals, by definition, aren't too bothered about the law - so they'll beg, borrow or steal a fake ID quite happily.

Broadly speaking, the response was "We know criminals don't obey the law. We're trying to find a solution to that one, anyone with any ideas is invited to write to us..."

2. The same MP sent me some propaganda from the government about ID cards. They had lumped together those who didn't reply with those in favour, so it read:

"12% were against. 88% were either in favour or showed no preference" - obviously spinning it to look like most of the country wants something.

To paraphrase from Douglas Adams, anyone who wants to be in power probably shouldn't be.

Oblig. Robin Williams Quote by hahiss · 2006-09-17 05:44 · Score: 3, Funny

"Stop, or I'll yell stop again!"

--
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken

Stop Thief! by Dave+Fiddes · 2006-09-17 05:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I build networked CCTV equipment as my day job. According the people who install our stuff the best way to get a potential thief or vandal to stop what they are doing is to say "Stop immediately and stay where you are the police have been notified". They usually turn and flee straight away...which is really the best option (at least for private property) where preventing too much damage is usually more important than apprehending the culprit. Sad but true.

I understand why people are wary of CCTV but there is a lot of very unnecessary negative feeling towards it. It could be used for bad but it is used for a lot of good. There are a lot of crimes carried out against people which just could not be solved without the CCTV evidence or leads obtained from CCTV. CCTV really does make the world a safer place (if it didn't I wouldn't be working in the industry trust me).

Re:The quote that says it - "scary to realize" by j-stroy · 2006-09-17 05:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

The victims here are the citizens. They ran away out of fear of being observed and commanded, not from shame of their actions or fear of retribution. I would run too, no matter what i had done, and if there was no where to run, like any rat, I would fight

It is total propaganda to attribute their fear as creating an almost religious moral awakening in them.

By increasing peoples stress levels, isn't it more likely that the rate of serious violent incidents would escalate, rather than decrease? It could become a compulsively violent society because they just can't handle the increasing stresses of our "civilization".. Or is that why they put the cameras up in the first place?

Re:Privacy? by Kjella · 2006-09-17 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

No-one has a right to privacy in a public area. It's not as if the CCTV cameras are in people's homes. I don't get why everyone screams "big brother!" and gets upset - unless you don't like people looking at you in the streets, and go everywhere with a bag on your head. These cameras do nothing a poiceman couldn't do, they just do it in a far more cost-effective fashion. May I suggest if you don't want people to know where you are, don't go out in public. :)

So you would not object to a police officer following you around 24/7, never entering private property but at any time observing where you are, since it's practicly impossible to get anywhere without crossing public property? It is a well known threat in military intelligence that by gathering enough unclassified data, you can find data that is supposed to be classified. The same applies for public surveilance, when you make massive public surveilance you learn a lot about their private lives. That is why we have stalking laws, even though they might not do anything more that follow you around in public. CCTVs everywhere, particularly with some of the more detailed tracking like facial recognition is basicly government stalking.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Check out the other end by Harmonious+Botch · 2006-09-17 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The constant privacy concerns on slashdot ( which, btw, I tend to agree with ) are, in this case, focused on the wrong end. The important issue is not the number of public cameras ( as at least one poster has noted, they are in a public area where you could have no expectation of privacy anyway ), but who has access to the other end.

A public webcam, which anybody can look at on the net, is very different from a public cam which only the cops get to look at. The people who control the data get to control the facts.
Rather than bemoaning the number of cameras and now their accompaning audio, you should be complaining about the fact that you don't have access to them.

Public crime is like bugs: if there are enough eyeballs, the problem will be fixed.

Re:Check out the other end by LordSnooty · 2006-09-17 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Public access is already happening - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752167.stm

Data Protection Act by LeRandy · 2006-09-17 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

In the UK, if a CCTV system comprises of more than fixed cameras with a general overview (as found in small shops etc...), it is covered by the Data Protection Act.

If a camera-system can Pan & Zoom or is concentrated on a specific person's activities then

They have a right to know - Signs must be erected saying who records the images and why
They have a right to view suitably anonymised images (ie. passers by removed)
They have a right to contest the results of any automated processing, eg. biometric scanning,
Images cannot be shared without a confidentiality agreement signed by the recipient (ie. promising to keep person-identifying images private and secure)
Images must be erased after a reasonable period unless they are needed for a court case. Recording over the tape is not sufficient - they must be permanently erased. In the case of city centre CCTV, 1 month is considered the reasonable maximum, since any offences should have been notified by then. For banks, 3 months, because that is the maximum period between account statements being received by customers.
A detailed policy must be written and known by operators, listing exactly how, why and when images are recorded, used, and erased. Subjects of the CCTV images must be able to view this policy upon request.
If images recorded are used to cause undue harm or distress to the subject (law-enforcement uses of a video are not considered undue harm...), they must be erased immediately, along with all copies and any subsequent data purtaining to these images
The Data Controller at the company recording the images must be registered with the Information Commissioner's office in London.

In addition, even if only fixed cameras are used, the above provisions apply if the images are not being used for law-enforcement alone.
The Information Commissioner can order that any non-compliance be rectified, and since not complying with an enforcement notices is a criminal offence, the Information Commissioner can take the company to court - the fine is unlimited. If harm or distress was caused, they can also order compensation be paid.

If a camera overlooks property not normally visible from the street (back gardens, house interiors, or anywhere you could reasonably expect privacy), the camera owner MUST receive permission to film from the current residents - including tenants, or must ensure the system cannot film these areas. This includes Landlords filming tenants inside the house...

Just to put people in the know - the Data Protection legislation does cover CCTV, and reasonable expectation of privacy is included in the provisions.

Re:Numbers by peterpi · 2006-09-17 05:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Number of rubbish bags stolen from the front of my house in the last month: 6

I bet the devils did it on the same day each week!

They do it where I live too. Big gang of fellers in a great big antisocial looking lorry.

Joking aside.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 06:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Joking aside, many of us who were alive before and during WWII do see the parallels of today's Western society to that of Soviet Russia. I was 12 when World War II started in Europe. At that time we didn't know it as 'World War II', as the future magnitude of the conflict was yet unknown to us.

Unlike most young students today, in Wales we were expected to keep up to date on world affairs as part of our studies. Every day we'd read from papers like the Daily Herald and The Manchester Guardian, and from The Economist weekly. We knew of the world around us, and we knew of what went on in the Soviet Union.

Many years later, in the mid 1990s, I was lucky enough to get to work alongside people from nations like Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, and even Georgia. It was very interesting to hear them tell of their lives in the Soviet Union. In many respects, what they said mirrors the social situation we have today.

They'd tell of fearmongering from the government and the media (which itself was government-run). This fearmongering was used to turn the people against other nations and peoples, and even against certain ideals.

A result of this fearmongering was a sense in insecurity between individuals. Few people would trust one another to any extent. People knew they were being watched at all times, but they never knew by who.

We seem to have much the same today. Many people in our society today share the same paranoia about others, hyped on by the efforts of the mass media. The media itself is guilty of extreme self-censorship, and won't challenge the government to any extent. It thus becomes what is essentially "government-run", even if the government isn't directing day-to-day operations and selecting what stories are printed.

Today, as evident by this article, we are all being constantly watched by shadowy figures within various governments. The level of security is extensive, as is the cost. And what's worse, there is little to show but extreme inconvenience for law-abiding citizenry. Some are even shot dead, as we saw in London a year-and-a-half ago.

Those of us who lived in the Soviet Union, and those of us who were even just alive during that time period, we all agree: Western society is beginning to severely duplicate the Soviet experience.

Re:Joking aside.... by kfg · 2006-09-17 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Joking aside, many of us who were alive before and during WWII do see the parallels of today's Western society to that of Soviet Russia.

Scarier than that, on "the other side of the line" people were wandering around saying things like "it can't happen here, we're a democracy" -- but it did.

Thank God it can't happen here, happen here, happen here. . .

KFG
Re:Joking aside.... by RKBA · 2006-09-17 10:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might be surprised how many of us old folks there are on /. I turn 61 next month and am in full agreement with AC's post above. In fact the sequence of events is so much like history repeating itself that I'm tempted to start making predictions about what happens next. By the time enough of "We the People" realize what's happening it will be too late to do anything about it without a great amount of bloodshed, because as Thomas Jefferson said: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

--
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Re:Joking aside.... by Digital+Vomit · 2006-09-17 10:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Thank God it can't happen here, happen here, happen here. . .

I want to think of an intelligent reply, but I've got to concentrate...concentrate...concentrate...

I've got to concentrate...concentrate...concentrate...

Echo...echo...echo...

Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota... Mota... Mota...

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

Simple. by /dev/trash · 2006-09-17 06:17 · Score: 2, Funny

It's eliminated all crime.

Re:The quote that says it - "scary to realize" by tomhudson · 2006-09-17 06:32 · Score: 3, Funny

I agree, a voice over a loudspeaker doesn't make things more secure.

It reminds me of the comedy routine where the guy goes:

"In my house, you never talked back, so I was kind of freaked when I heard my friend tell his mother to go f*ck herself. I asked how he got away with it. He said "Simple, they threaten to punish me, I say I'm going to call youth services and report them. I get away with EVERYTHING I want."
"So I went home, and when my father asked me to take out the garbage, I said "F*ck you pops, I'm busy watching TV!'
And dad went ... "Russell ... one of us is going to get a big hurt in a minute, and its not me ..."
"And I went 'Oh, yeah? You lay a hand on my and I'll call Youth Services."
"Russell ... you can phone Youth Services, but remember , it takes them 20 minutes to get here, and one of us is going to get big hurt in the meantime, and its not me."

Having police sitting in front of cameras and shouting over loudspeakers instead of being on the ground would have been a recipe for disaster at the recent Dawson College shooting. The death toll would have been much higher. We'd have had it all on hard disk, but that's cold consolation.

Re:1984 - Almost by halcyon1234 · 2006-09-17 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Actually, I think the loudspeakers will be shouting something different.

"You... Yes, you behind the bike shed... stand still laddy!"

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again

Silly Brits, that would NEVER happen in the US by SpecialAgentXXX · 2006-09-17 07:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

That was my attitude when I was fresh out of college prior to 9/11. I've had 21 years of "land of the free & home of the brave" rah rah rah. I would read what was happening in the UK and thought that our Constutition and especially the Bill of Rights would prevent all of that from happening. Little did I know that there was already an increase in the seizing of our freedoms - 2nd Amendment via "gun control", 4th Amendment via "war on drugs", etc. And all it took was 9/11 to throw the majority of Americans into a fear-stricken "we must give up our liberties for security" attitude. And our politicians were more than willing to pander to it. The money from Homeland Security for the major cities has gone for more CCTVs to monitor the public. Police rave about how they can put more "virtual" cops on the beat to "fight crime." Citizens say they have nothing to hide because they aren't doing anything wrong and are glad they are now "safe" by being monitored 24/7.

I have since come to accept that whatever Big Brother mess we see start in the UK will eventually make its way into the US. "Land of the free, home of the brave"???

Re:Bull. Shite. by SpacePunk · 2006-09-17 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because the majority of people in the U.S. are fucking idiots, that's why. As long as they get their daily update on the antics of Paris Hilton, football on tv, etc... they don't care. You can park a fucking tank on every street corner, and they wouldn't care.

If it doesn't personally and immediately effect them, they couldn't give a flying fuck about what is going on. It's wide spread apathy in the populace. The only ones that do care are ex-military, and the tin foil hat squad. I live in the U.S., and even I say fuck them, they get what they deserve. One of these days something else will happen that will give them their wake up bitch slap, and they'll look around bewildered and ask what the hell happened.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM

Re:Social awareness by FhnuZoag · 2006-09-17 07:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Uk citizens are plenty aware of CCTV cameras, and in general are overwhelming in favour of them, to the extent that many (a) petition police to install more survelliance equipment and (b) install cameras on their own property. The only concern with camera are speed cameras, which annoy motoring rights groups, and with any suggestion that cameras are replacing the physical presence of police officers.

Seriously, the arguments about 'public privacy' you've seen in the rest of the thread are not very persuasive to an UK public used to things like 'Crimewatch', where CCTV footage is published to aid criminal investigations. As far as the UK public is concerned, the system is transparent and gives real benefits, and no more intrusive than having a real police officer on patrol there in the first place.

Re:Hey You by ozbird · 2006-09-17 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Stand STILL Woggy!

It's "laddy", not "Woggy":
"You! Yes, you behind the bike sheds: stand still laddy!" (Pink Floyd, The Happiest Days of our Lives from The Wall.)

The way forward is never backward. by twitter · 2006-09-17 08:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

As it stands, cameras are easy to forget about in day-to-day life, but hearing the voice of authority booming down from on high is sure to raise some alarm. Hopefully we will finally see some kind of backlash!

No, it would be better if your government were taking cameras down, not spending money on making them more effective. Once you have lost and the loudspeakers are up, you need to find a way to prove they are invasive and abused. Having a voice "on high" might help you in creating an incident if you are creative enough, but it will probably work against you.

The way forward is to expose the invasiveness and uselessness. Studies have already shown they don't fight crime. Print the results and tack them up at busy intersections. People live and die in front of government spies. You need to find ways of making very private events public. The victim has already lost their dignity and privacy, so you won't actually make it worse for them. Mostly, you need a whistle blower like the US has for wire taps. The extent to which the system is being used to monitor and harass political groups, students and other innocents should be published. You will have to infiltrate the system to see it, but it requires so many people that should be easy. Sooner or later, someone on the inside will turn against this monstrosity. Good luck.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Cameras and loudspeakers by abritisher · 2006-09-17 09:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I work in a Marina in London which has CCTV for security. The area is fairly smart but but has an estate ( projects to Americans ) down the road housing a number of lowlifes. Crime is not endemic but happens fairly often. Two Women were mugged 50 yards from the Marina office a couple of weeks ago, unfortunately not where we have cameras.

I've seen that cameras combined with loudspeakers can be very effective in crime prevention

There is a lifting road bridge controlled by the Marina which has a loudspeaker to warn when the road barriers are to be closed. Late at night this can be very effective for crime prevention. The startled reaction and swift exit I've seen from thieves attempting to break into a car when a very loud voice from 30 ft up and only 40 ft away announces "Smile, you're on camera" is highly amusing. I call it " The Voice of God ".(Though I'm agnostic.)

I am as worried as anyone about government snooping. But cameras are put up by local authorities and organisations to prevent crime so why not blame the criminals for the invasion of our privacy?

Re:Apathy? by pjt33 · 2006-09-17 11:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think there's a combination of factors at work. One is a widespread feeling of political impotence - which has a real basis, given that the Labour party got about a third of the national vote but has a substantial majority in the Commons, and that the Conservatives aren't so far from Labour. (This is probably changing, but change takes time and communicating it takes longer).

Coupled with that is the English (British? I don't know how much it applies to the other home nations) attitude to complaining: we complain a lot about many things to our friends, but not to the people responsible who could effect change. In a sub-standard restaurant, for example, we'll moan together about the quality but when the waiter asks, "Is everything alright?" there will be uniform consensus that everything's fine. (As an aside, if you want good insight into the English nation, read "Watching the English" by the anthropologist Kate Fox).

Finally, there's the issue of priorities. I'm probably more politically active than 99% of the population, and I cannot keep pace with the rubbish legislation which the government is pushing through. I write to my MP about and participate in consultations for various areas, but CCTV is a long way down my priority list.

Another local perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I live about 15 minutes away from Middlesbrough and work there. Let me describe the area I live in to give you an idea of how bad it's getting and by all accounts Middlesbrough is worse.

The immediate area is surrounded by heavy industrial works, they stretch out to the horizon. On one side is what used to be British Steel, the other ICI(C&P whatever). Cooling towers and flame stacks dot the scenery. Sulphur and worse smells drift past regularly, air raid sirens sound occasionally when the plants test the you're all gonna die alarm (or occasionally they sound for real). Keeping the outside of your house clean is a battle easier surrendered than fought. The vents around my windows have a black smudge running off them (on the inside) if I don't wipe them off once or twice a week. At night it's not uncommon to be able to read in my garden by the light of the columns of flame from ICI flare stacks, not that I'd want to be caught reading you understand, people might get the wrong idea.

You know the nice pans across the city in Bladerunner? That's what my backyard looks like at night. Ridley Scott is a local lad.

There have been, er, "travellers" camped nearby. From the smell of it they cook over burning tires.

I no longer regard the people that live nearby as human, it's easier to think of them as some sort of ape-men. They could be human if they tried but can't be arsed. Their children/babboon creatures run free in the streets, light fires not 100m from their own homes, attack people unafraid of being punished. When I say children I mean as young as 5.

Public transport is sort of safe to use, unless you drive it. Recently I saw a driver get hit in the face with spit from a kid, maybe 12yrs old, he did this on his way off the bus. Rocks and other missiles get hurled at the windows. God forbid you have to get on a bus at school letting out time.

Unlicensed vehicles, usually trail bikes or quads are driven on public footpaths. Groups of children will walk in the middle of roads slowing traffic and harrasing drivers. They'll lurk around local shops, not practising their urban fucking folkways and having break dancing/rap competitions as you might expect but getting pissed on cheap booze and menacing/attacking actual humans. Or, in a interesting recent development, getting high on heroin(or speedballs as the local radio informed me recently. Heroin+crack=JOY!).

On the grangetown estate cameras were installed to keep down local crime and anti social behaviour. They stole the cameras.

You can enjoy the nightlife, if running the risk of getting stabbed is your thing. I find it adds spice to the night.

You may have heard the expression, it's grim up north, they weren't fucking kidding. We think this state of affairs is normal.

These subhumans are not disadvantaged, your address does not dictate the schooling you will receive, the welfare state takes reasonable care of it's citizens in the UK (A 2 parent family with one child will pull in excess of £200pw in benefits), segregation of the haves and have nots is just not practical here. We have 1/5th your population in an area less than half the size of Texas.

Bring on the cameras, lay on more speed cameras too. Try children as adults and bring back the fucking birch. Blame the parents, the government and the schools. The whole rotten mess is getting worse day by day.

Excuse the incoherent rambling above, it's late and I'm depressed.

Re:Privacy? by xappax · 2006-09-17 12:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're lucky to be so comfortable with having your private life made public, and there's nothing wrong with that attitude. What's worrisome is when people decide that since they would be happy giving up their privacy, everyone else should have to as well. It's kind of like conservative christians saying "Everyone /I/ know gets along just fine without sex toys, therefore they should be illegal." People are different, and many of them do have compelling reasons to desire privacy.

Privacy doesn't have to be mandatory - it can be "opt-out", but government and other large institutions must have a default policy of respecting privacy.

Slashdot Mirror

CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers

82 of 484 comments (clear)