Slashdot Mirror


Talking CCTV to Scold Offenders in UK

linumax writes "The most monitored nation of the world is getting an interesting new service. According to a BBC News story, "Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England.They are already used in Middlesbrough where people seen misbehaving can be told to stop via a loudspeaker, controlled by control centre staff."

22 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. 23 years off? by lecithin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'

    A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and -- one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency -- bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:23 years off? by Oxygen99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point is that these cameras don't represent a greater invasion of privacy than many other forms of CCTV. What people are missing is that they represent the time at which society has finally become so irresponsible, so frightened and so cowed that we're outsourcing our last duties to ourselves to the government. The issues that these things are intended to address, the littering, the graffiti, the vandalism, aren't criminal problems, they're societal problems to be policed and actioned by communities themselves, and devolving this power to government appointed behaviour watchdogs is frankly, terrifying. Once the people lose the power to police themselves, once their relationship to government mutates into "Stop that", "Put that down", "Pick that up" paternalism, they lose. I lose. You lose.

      You talk about big brother? Talking CCTV cameras are more pointedly "big brother" than any other initiative proposed by this illiberal, dishonest government. After all, what does it mean? Big brother is not someone who stops you congregating in groups for legitimate protest, nor does he lock up foreigners without trial, sentence or judgement. No. This is Big Brother in all his attentive, caring, protective, advising, paternal, loving, Orwellian glory. Why vote anyone else citizen? Why go anywhere else citizen? We love you citizen. Now, stop slacking and get back to work. It's for your own good, you know.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  2. Re:Ready for the Daily Jerks? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All you'd have to do in America to make this tolerable is connect it to preventing terrorists, child molesters or promoting baby jebus.

  3. Where did the UK go wrong??? by CPE1704TKS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1984 is/was taught in school so that kids would learn that things like that are bad, ie. a totalitarian system, government lies, etc. A big part of 1984 was how monitored people were, and one of the scariest moments for me was when the main character Smith had his own little secret corner of the room where none of the cameras could watch him, and he had his privacy albeit momentarily. The whole point was that this system was horrible!!!

    Yet, somehow, this has morphed into a seemingly-large group of people believe that this is a GOOD thing. A doubleplus good thing. WTF went wrong??? Don't they realize they have become the EXACT thing that George Orwell was warning about??? What happened to the 60 years of knowledge that this book brought us about what life would be like living in a society like this?

    1. Re:Where did the UK go wrong??? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it's just inevitable.

      To me the concept of people being free to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same is self evident. Unfortunately, I think the majority of people think the exact opposite: there is a list of things the majority of people believe we should not be allowed to do and there should be perfect enforcement of that list. The absolute tyranny of the majority of the minority is considered by most people to be the best form of government.

      As such, the only arguments you'll see the mainstream make against perfect enforcement is the posibility of corruption or misuse.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Where did the UK go wrong??? by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's always for our own good, or so they say. In the US Bush had a lot of Americans convinced giving up civil rights was for their own good. Oddly enough it wasn't americans bombing the Trade Center. It was simply an excuse to take rights away. Britian is doing it for the people's own good but at what price? If the goal is to end all crime then I guess we lojack everyone and place cameras in every home and business. Good news/bad news, they'll catch a whole lot of "criminals" but the bad news is we'll all be guilty. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse but there are tens of thousands of laws on the books and even the police don't know them all. It's impossible to not break laws you aren't even aware exist. Some things are perfectly legal here in one state but are felonies in others. There are even laws in some states governing sexual behavior among consenting adults. There are obscure laws on the books no one is aware of. The point shouldn't be to prosecute every human possible but to maintain order and protect individuals. The government is supposed to protect individuals from each other but if Constitutional law is ignored who will protect the people from the government?

    3. Re:Where did the UK go wrong??? by mike2R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People see a distinction between having cameras in a public and private place?

      Shoot me, I don't mind CCTV. In fact I frequently welcome it since it makes places considerably safer. I really don't see the problem with CCTV as it's currently implemented in the UK - it's used in public places and you can see the cameras; 1984 comparisons simply don't work.

      Whatever slashdot thinks, CCTV is generally put up due to public pressure for it, not by some shadowy government group executing a long range plan to overthrow democracy.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    4. Re:Where did the UK go wrong??? by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if you got rid of all of the CCTV cameras and doubled the number of police patrolling the streets instead? How would it be different?

      For one thing, the police wouldn't be standing around, filming you for 15 minutes, as you got beat/stabbed to death in the street...

      For another, human beings don't remember every detail, of everything going on, every second of every day... So actual police aren't going to send out tickets for every trivial little infraction, like jaywalking in the middle of the night... Police aren't going to remember exactly who you were associating with, on every single day, for years.

      There's an overwhelming difference between human and electronic surveillance, and I can't understand in the slightly why so many people play dumb, or even worse, actually believe it's remotely the same.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Where did the UK go wrong??? by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pervasive CCTV means you can not only just passively monitor what's going on, but you can trivially and opportunistically track a person. It's not a great stretch given the pace of technology that in a couple of decades it will be automatically and pervasively track everyone who walks through a town pervasively covered by CCTV.

      The difference between having a bunch of police doing the same is:
      - police are single units and hard to network, and therefore some effort must be made to track a person by a number of individual officers. This means opportunistic tracking of everyone just because you can won't happen.
      - police can react to violent crime and stop the crime from occurring, a CCTV camera cannot intevene in a fight to break it up

      You can bet that as soon as it's possible to automatically track everyone (and the already installed all pervasive CCTV network makes this easy), they will do it. Incidentally, there is some level of privacy in a public place: privacy of the thoughts in my mind, privacy of where I'm going from and to (random people in public can't tell unless they stalk you), privacy of a conversation with a friend.

    6. Re:Where did the UK go wrong??? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is twofold. First, if you have a police officer there, everyone can see him and knows he is there. He can directly act and is part of the situation, and there is no secrecy. Plus, he can probably hear what is being said or happening, which can radically alter the perception of a situation. Currently, lip-readers are sometimes called on in cases involving CCTV evidence, and there is a lot of concern that lip-reading is not anywhere near an exact science. Then again, neither is DNA or fingerprint evidence, but out system is quite poor at pointing out the limits of these technologies to jurys.

      The other major difference is that this is a new level of monitoring. A policeman on the beat does not generally follow people or investigate them if they are not doing anything suspicious. CCTV is always recording, and with new technology is now following people all the time. Every car or tube journey in London can be followed easily. A person's movements on foot can easily be tracked. Yet, these are innocent people who in the past would not have been monitored.

      If you examine a persons life in close enough detail, everyone looks like a criminal. Why should the government first assume that everyone is by default a ciminal and must be monitored, and why should I then be required to prove my innocence? CCTV is gathering evidence against everyone, all the time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:Dupe by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.. what you should be afraid of is when people comply with the orders issued from these cameras instead of throwing rocks at them.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. Re:What a lot of Americans don't realize.. by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whatever. The actual day to day situation is a lot more important than the legal fiction that is used to support it(Or do you think that the U.S. Constitution has Harry Potter magic power and will protect us against those that would defile it?).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  6. Why do people in Britain put up with this? by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For once, I'd like to see news of a protest in Britain about all those friggin cameras.

  7. Re:What a lot of Americans don't realize.. by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or do you think that the U.S. Constitution has Harry Potter magic power That is precisely why the ACLU exists.
    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  8. Because they're getting desperate? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what I can tell, of the few people from Britain that I regularly talk to, is that they really don't care.

    There is sort of an epidemic -- perceived or actual, I don't know, and it hardly matters -- of obnoxious, petty crime, mostly committed by youths, in many British cities. There's the whole "happy slapping" thing, but that's just really the tip of the iceberg, it's just a lot of vandalism, shoplifting, street crime, etc. It's the kind of thing that just really gets to people, because it directly degrades the quality of life when you walk around.

    In some ways, I think it sort of mirrors feelings that people in the U.S. had back around 10-15 years ago, at the height of the violent crime wave in the inner cities, except in Britain it doesn't seem to really be violent crime. (In fact it seems to be the kind of shit that would probably get you shot by one of the more serious criminals here in America -- maybe we have some sort of natural selection in the ghettos here that keeps this stuff to a minimum? Or maybe everyone with the means to in the U.S. abandoned the inner cities so long ago that we just don't notice.)

    But at any rate, the people who have influence -- mostly white, middle income and up -- aren't too bothered, because they're looking rather desperately for any way to knock the "yobs," "chavs," and other varieties of scum in line. There's a sort of (and again, this is just based on the people I've talked with) "well, nothing else has worked, so what the hell" attitude.

    To be honest I can't really blame them. Here in the U.S., there were a lot of Generally Bad Ideas being tossed around back in the 90s before the crime wave crested and began to recede (and I don't think even now there's a clear consensus on why that happened -- some people, the authors of Freakonomics in particular, argue that it was actually the echo of Roe v. Wade from a generation earlier reducing the number of potential criminals; feel free to posit your own theory). If the tide hadn't turned when it did, we'd probably be looking at things like this all over the place right now.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  9. Just look a bit further by dallaylaen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scary thing is not having cameras in public places. The scary thing is people getting used to cameras and to a Voice From Above telling them what to do.

    In 2015, someone will say: well, but what about the crimes that are committed at homes by cruel parents? What about terrorists making their bombs? Let's have homes monitored!

    There will be an outrage. People will gather in the streets, screaming "Give our rights back". The cameras in those streets will tell them in a firm voice, "Stop yelling and go away". People will stop yelling and go away. So will their freedom.

    --
    WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
    1. Re:Just look a bit further by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is assuming that people will actually listen to some loudspeaker telling them what to do, anecdotal evidence from the areas where the scheme is in place already seems to suggest this might not be the case.

      Various people have been instructed by the voices to not cross the road where they were about to cross it but to walk up to the crossing and cross it there but instead of humbly complying they ignored the voice and crossed anyway. One person says he now crosses at this place every day just to hear the voice shouting at him. These were just innocent people who weren't actually doing anything wrong, they are all perfectly capable of judging for themselves where to cross the road and they don't need some idiot in a control room telling them how to do it.

      Law abiding people are the most likely sorts of people to comply with the cameras demands and the people they really want to tackle, e.g. thugs, muggers, car jackers, drunk teenagers are very quickly going to realise that the voice can shout at them all night but with 19 out every 20 British Policemen and Women tied up in the police station reading up on the latest guidelines for dealing sensitively with ethnic minorities no police are ever going to turn up to actually stop them doing whatever it is they were doing.

    2. Re:Just look a bit further by rjshields · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In 2015, someone will say: well, but what about the crimes that are committed at homes by cruel parents? What about terrorists making their bombs? Let's have homes monitored!
      Bullshit. It's one thing to have cameras in then centre of towns and cities, it's another to have them monitoring your homes. I accept the cameras in the town centre, it makes me feeler safer against the drunk, aggressive chavs. It's a similar story with other people I speak to. However, if there was a camera pointing at my house I'd disable the thing by any means necessary.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
  10. Re:People of the UK: RISE UP!!! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. get rid of the crown. It's long over due. Join the post-medieval world.

    1. Get rid of the death penalty. It's long overdue. Join the post-medieval world.

    2. GET A CONSTITUTION.

    2. Get a constitution, and stick by it. Better yet, get something like the Magna Carta, which the US has no equivalent for but the UK has had for three times as ong as the US has existed

    3. TAKE DOWN THE CAMERAS.

    3. Get rid of the mandatory phone-tapping in the US. You might not know this, but every single call you make is monitored. While you're at it, you might want to get rid of the semi-trained armed thugs playing at policemen, too.

  11. Re:What a lot of Americans don't realize.. by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's absolute bollocks. Magna Carta in 1215 placed major limits on the crown, and effectively established the rights of men to self-determination (well, the land-owning ones anyway). Don't forget, we had a civil war a few hundred years later that killed off the power of the crown for good.

    You also forget the European constitution on human rights is now UK law; it is effectively a bill of rights. The UK might have a few priorities in law different, such as a few tighter limits on free speech such as libel and hate speech, but we have broadly the same rights as US citizens. We're certainly not all chattels (or slaves) of the Crown!

    Out of interest, how has the vaunted US system protected habeas corpus? How much good is freedom of the press when all the presses are owned by a few barons in league with the government? A piece of paper is only as powerful as the will of the people to hold their government accountable to it.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  12. Re:Ready for the Daily Jerks? by rjshields · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cameras are in town/city centres, not pointing at peoples' homes. I don't know if you've been to the UK, but there's a culture where people get out of their tiny minds on alcohol and drugs and then beat the crap out of each other and innocent passers by. The cameras help to catch and prosecute the idiots engaged in this kind of behaviour. I'm not saying the implications aren't scary, but there are valid reasons for the cameras.

    --
    In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
  13. Law of unintended consequences by Saunalainen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What worries me isn't so much the invasion of privacy by CCTV, or being patronised by being told to pick up litter, but rather that this technology threatens to render CCTV ineffective.

    CCTV is pervasive in British cities, but there are too many cameras and too few operatives for every camera to be monitored all the time. Criminals are deterred by the uncertainty of whether they are being watched. However, once CCTV becomes reactive, the absence of a verbal warning could be taken as confirmation that you are not being watched.

    Suppose you're a would-be mugger in the centre of Midlesborough. You drop some litter and mess about with traffic cones, and if there's no verbal warning then you know there's a good chance that you're invisible to surveillance for the time being. Knowing you're relatively safe from being caught, you can now select your victim with impunity.