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."
People who brush off slipper-slope arguments can read this and eat a dick. Oh, but I'm sure big brother would never do anything that wasn't for our own good, right?
The blithe lack of concern by the British Public continually amazes me...
'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.
demolitionmanreference
CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers
September 17, 2006.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Is that the people of the UK aren't citizens. They're property. Her majesty's property. For instance if you were to say to your friend, "I want you to hit me in the face as hard as you can." Your friend could be brought up on charges for damaging the property of the crown. So when it comes to being videotaped against your will, it's not really your will, is it?
who, while wearing bag over their head, publicly masturbates to one of the scolding cameras goes the contents of my Amazon Mechanical Turk account.
If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.
Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users. Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.
I recommend the following:
1. get rid of the crown. It's long over due. Join the post-medieval world.
2. GET A CONSTITUTION.
3. TAKE DOWN THE CAMERAS.
FITE DEM BACK!
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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?
Unfortunatly, there has grown up a culture of yobbish behaviour amoung a small but significant minority of manily young people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to express their anti-social anti-establisment feelings at every opportunity. There is a TV program in the UK called "police Camera action" which is a little like America's 'worlds wildest police videos' (or whatever). This has led to an increace of car theft and speeding, wreckess driving etc. also the UK courts award "Anti-social behaviour" (ASBO) notices to yobs who wander the streets drunk or stoned carring out vandalism and other petty thefts. This has led to an increase in crime and the offenders wear these ASBOs as "badges of honour". The types of people whom the talking cameras are targeted at will react with a similar negativity. These yobs will deliberatly act anti-socially so that they can promp a response. Why is all this so? Well in the UK the law gives insufficient protection to the state and the law-abiding masses and too much to the criminals. Crazy eh?
2. Talking Camera: "Please fetch your can."
3. Talking Camera: "The bin is behind the phone box."
4. Talking Camera: "Thank you for using the bin."
5. Pedestrian comes back at 2am and beats Talking Camera to death with cricket bat, or other clubbing instrument of choice.
Karma police, arrest this man. He talks in math. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a detuned radio.
the loudspeakers are augmented, for the public good, with servo controlled sedative dart guns?
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Throw paintballs into the lense - wearing some disguise which can be changed quickly in a dead camera angle.
The cameras are probably high up and have a wide range.
Tough!
This just reads like a Monty Python sketch to me (sympathies to those who live in the UK and will have to live the joke) ...
An old man walks up to a street corner, looks around, sees no-one. Ever so slowly he reaches into his jacket and pulls out a cigarette and lighter. He puts the ciggie in his mouth, holds the light up to it, and:
CAMERA: Oi! You there! Do you really want to do that?
OLD MAN: What?! Who's there?
CAMERA: Look up, and a couple of metres to the right.
OLD MAN looks up and faces the camera.
CAMERA: You know smoking's bad for you right?
OLD MAN: I just wanted one, and I can't have them at home because the wife gives me grief.
CAMERA: Just one??! Just one you say??! You can't have just one, because once you start, you're hooked!
OLD MAN: I know that, I got hooked a long time ago.
CAMERA: Well you can get yourself unhooked right now. I won't have your type stinking up my town.
OLD MAN: I beg your pardon? I live here!
CAMERA: Not if I can help it! Now clear off before I send out the coppers!
OLD MAN makes a rude gesture at the camera.
CAMERA: Right! That's it! You've done it now!
OLD MAN: Done what? I haven't even got to have my smoke yet!
CAMERA: Don't play innocent with me, we've got the whole thing recorded.
Police siren blares.
OLD MAN: You bastard! All I wanted was a smoke and you call the bloody cops?!
Police arrive, old man runs off.
CAMERA: He went that way! After him!
--
Not funny? If only it were just a bad joke.
I work in a Japanese technology incubator, and one of our researchers has an image recognition program which can remove the human from this loop. The target market is convenience stores and the like, where the camera will watch everyone in the store and, if your movements look "shifty" (via comparison with a couple thousand tapes of people who were later determined to have shoplifted), the shelf will talk to you! Its like a loss-prevention Clippy! "Hello, it looks like you are trying to put that packet of razor blades in your pocket! Perhaps you meant to use the shopping basket, or would you like to speak to an employee?"
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
John Spartan, you are fined 10 credits for littering...
For once, I'd like to see news of a protest in Britain about all those friggin cameras.
One of the biggest issues I have:
Why are there so many people who don't know how to behave on their own? What are mothers teaching these days?
5. Pedestrian stops complaining about how filthy the beach is and why doesn't the goverment do anything about it.
Your argument sounds a lot like dog owners who complained about fines for letting their dogs crap on the sidewalk BUT also complained about crap on the sidewalk.
Is it really that hard to make sure your dog does NOT take a dump were everyone, including yourselve is walking? Is it that hard to drop your litter in a can?
You see, the problem for me, a middle aged white male, is that I see two choices. Talking camera's and security patrols (wich do not affect me) OR walking through areas littered with crap (affect the people who think the street is a garbage dump). Hmmm, what a choice to make eh. My convenience for your freedom to inconvenience me, yourselve and everyone else.
Sorry, you need to come up with a better example then the state repressing your freedom to litter.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
somebody farts into the mic at the "appropriate" times.
What?
One of the things that it screams at people is
"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
Arthur: Old Woman!
The peasant turns around, revealing that he is in fact a man.
Man: Man!
Arthur: Man, sorry.... What knight lives in that castle over there?
Man: I'm thirty-seven!
Arthur: (suprised) What?
Man: I'm thirty-seven! I'm not old--
Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man"...
Man: Well you could say "Dennis"--
Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis!
Man: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?!
Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind, you looked--
Man: Well I object to your...you automatically treat me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well I *am* king...
Man: Oh, king, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd you get that, eh?
(he reaches his destination and stops, dropping the cart)
By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
If there's ever going to be any progress,--
Woman: Dennis! There's some lovely filth down 'ere!
(noticing Arthur) Oh! 'Ow'd'ja do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose
castle is that?
Woman: King of the 'oo?
Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: 'Oo are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
Author: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship!
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
'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.
'There, comrades! That's how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I'm thirty-nine and I've had four children. Now look.' She bent over again. 'You see my knees aren't bent. You can all do it if you want to,' she added as she straightened herself up. 'Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what they have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's much better,' she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Metrocop: Pick up that can...
Open and blatant defiance of the law is the only effective way to effect change in a government system that is otherwise completely capable and motivated to ignore the plight and desires of those whom they supposedly serve.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
Way to go!
"CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England."
Will one of those be Buckingham Palace? "Oooi! Prince Harry! Put out that fatty!"
Follow a recent royal tradition "Pardon Guvnor! That lady most certainly is not your wife!"
Or "Horses *must* be housed in the stable! Oh sorry, 'Mam"
Realistically: One of the guards will leave the loudspeaker on:
"Cor Blimey! Check out the norks on that bird. Would love to get me some of that crumpet!"
How long until these English loudspeakers say:
"And from now on, stop playing with yourself."
RANT GOES HERE
That should make it easier for all you haters.
I just had a story submission that answered this very question: "Narcissist Technology: Did Mamma Lie?"
h as_myspace_contributed_to_gen_1.htmle b27,0,225486,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines8
Unfortunately it dribbled out of the Slashhot Firehose.
Fortunately you can still read about it elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2007/03/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-esteem27f
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=4005
In the UK, the camera stops you!
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."
A clarification on one sentence:
But at any rate, the people who have influence -- mostly white, middle income and up -- aren't too bothered by the cameras and other "innovative" policing techniques...
The way I had it written, made it ambiguous as to whether I was saying that people with influence weren't bothered by the crime or the cameras. I meant the cameras.
The people I know, who are all over-30, middle- or upper-middle-class whites with families, seem a whole lot more annoyed by the speed cameras (which there seem to be a TON of, although I question their effectiveness because all the locals seem to know exactly where they are) than the whole surveillance issue.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
... the cameras were added to the loudspeakers.
Were you kidding, or do you really not understand the difference between "public" and "private"?
...i'm fascinated by this place. They're all like supine weenies over here when it comes to speaking out - all except the yobs that is, which everyone is afraid of. There's discussions in the Parliament now about the dangers of 'lurching towards a surveillance society", but they were already in it long ago.
On the upside, there's hardly any cops on the streets or roads. I think I can count on one hand the number of patrol cars I've seen in the 8 months I've been living here...
Ideally the "control centre staff" would be outsourced to Bangalore, India. I'm sure unruly yobs would *love* being disciplined in Indian English :-)
Dumb burglarhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=mim90zCi34Y/ camera says nothing, while the camera is on rofl n lmao procedure... 1. WTF...!!?? 2. LMAO...!!! 3. GO TO #1 4. Kick ass on sandwich. 5. Alert security breach 6. Warn the trasspasser. 7. If (line4.taskhasran()==true) then B.K is gay. //In south Korea only old people use talking security cameras to scare burglars
They need to add a laser to the camera mount. Something with enough power to inflict a minor burn. Dump your trash on the street? ZAP!
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Eddie Mair was talking to the Government's propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H antisocial behaviour spokeswoman yesterday on BBC Radio 4's PM programme, apologies I don't have a transcript but feel free to find it on listen again on here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
When the woman mentioned that litter costs the UK £0.5BN a year Mair stated that obesity cost the NHS over £1BN each year and perhaps the CCTV and loudspeakers should be used to stop fat people from eating crisps. A comment was declined.
Doubleplusgood if big screens are placed near the CCTV cameras. Enjoy perpetual good news, motivational Ingsoc/Labour messages, and the 2 minutes hate of named thought criminals.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Where is the show of character that an administrative executive body also has judicial powers? Furthermore, what does the legislature write for the property their code(tm) is attached onto, or is the executive body stuck trying to extend/sell the code? This is the case of that DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and STATE OF CALIFORNIA corporations, whereby in the California Vehicle Code FORWARD document, they admit The Department of Motor Vehicles is to publish and sell the code.
:-)
Certainly, anyone that drops a peice of PROPERTY onto the ground is not yet abandoned it, but has only made a deposit; whereby in Negotiable Instruments, wherever he made the deposit there is a three-day negotiation or returned with a Refused For Cause administrative remedy by the privateer. The deposit is only a grant of property, not litter; it can only be determined as litter by whomever has a controlling interest in the property.
Cheers
without prejudice
I'm from Warrington, in Cheshire, and they have these in place already. People are starting to complain about them though.
The only one I've seen so far (at least, the only place I've seen it 'triggered') is in the outdoor centre bit of our local shopping center, where there is a pub and some construction work going on. A few friends and I came out of the pub a bit drunk and saw some "wet floor" type cones lying around... anyway, so yeah, we're messing with these cones in a non-destructive way (just putting them on our heads - hey, look, we were drunk, stfu) and then this booming yet completely intelligible voice starts talking to us telling us to put the cones down!
Over Christmas they had a fake ice rink there and they kept telling people to get off it at night.
We're not sure where the speaker itself is, but pretty much every place in town is covered by cameras. I'm pretty sure that's not the only place they cover with these things. Having read 1984, it's extremely disturbing.
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
Then with some crafty imagery, display some motion pictures of some people on the lawn doing some things, and have them flee from authority into a non-existant second or third trashcan/dumpster that the arriving agent can't seem to reason with the dispatcher/surveyor.
:-)
Then again, why waste the risky confiscation of a perfectly-good LCD monitor on the camera? More fun can be had on a remote-controlled micro-drone aircraft pointing a Kinetic-Energy gun at a camera to EMP fry the circuitry, or just use a paintball gun with napalm rounds and fire that happy tracer when the Camera is ready to burn with the fudge. I know someone who is working on a Walking Cane with some neet things, and he already has a Kinetic-Energy gun in his umbrella. This prison world is starting to look like fun for the Flunkies VS. Unemployed Flunkies.
I am the nightmare of nightmares.
Does this remind anyone of Judge Dredd and the fine machines everywhere for swearing?
Being beaten up at night is not a right that I want preserving. Cameras have cut crime. and you know, I like my safe-feeling. I live in the UK but my only experience of mugging was Los Angeles and Paris. The British would get upset if someone tried to take away important rights. If some religion-inspired leader told us that we cannot buy alcohol until the age of 21. We'd say "What is this? Some kind of Police state?".
Remember, remember the 5th of November...
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Mainly these systems are despised by people that have something to hide.
What you dont see in these sensationalist posts are some of the good things that have come out of these systems.
For example:-
There was a case about a year ago when a man attempted to abduct a girl and the CCTV systems cought it, summoned the police and then guided the police to where he had run off.
There have been murders solved by the ubiquitous CCTVs, simply wind the tapes back, study. We are not talking the odd anecdotal story here CCTV is a very major crime prevention and solution tool.
Talking cameras is already proven to but down on crime before it happens and free the hard working police force to concentrate more on where they are really needed. Besides they are only in public areas anyhow where anybody is free to watch in any case.
It disturbs me when people hark on about their privacy and how unfair it is to be snooped on constantly - the system is reducing crime and making the streets safer.
On the same vein we know have computerised vehicle licensing, insurance and MOT (road worthyness test) system - so the police can check your cars details in a fraction of a second - if it cuts down on car theft, joy runners and illegal uninusred vehicles then I cam all for it.
The UK has a very fast growing DNA database, its added to constantly by the police among others. So far it has solved numerous crimes, even when a perfect match is not found a close enough family match is generally found to help track down the perpatrator. Every few weeks there is a story about some decades old crime solved by modern techniques and the database.
ID cards will inevitably come into force in the near future - well if that cuts down on benefit fraud, illegal immigrants and helps catch wanted criminals then I am all for it.
My point is that people will get up on their soapbox and rant about the state of the nation, how crime is prevelant and people should do something about it, then refuse to allow technologies that are doing something effective about it.
I'm all for it, I have nothing to hide.
Walking alone at night in Singapore or Zurich feels a truckload safer than London. In both those places you can see kids as young as 8 travel independently (without parents) to their friends and school and walk around in freedom - I wouldn't recommend that in London either.
:-)
Yet both those nations are not so nannied and camera infested as the UK - explain?
the only difference I can see straight away is that the police in those places is (a) very available and (b) doesn't take any BS. Oh, and public transport actually works there, but I digress.
Interesting observation that affecting a "right" to drink alcohol would provoke action. That's a fascinating take on human rights
Insert
I'm a Brit and I don't feel like I'm in the middle of a crime epidemic of any sort. People in the UK /DO/ very much care about rising CCTV camera numbers and various other issues. However, it's not clear what to do about these. The problem is that liberties are erroded so slowly that there's nothing to protest against.
/exactly/ where they are. This supposed to be for purposes of extracting motoring tolls.
The UK is obsessed with issues such as safety, anti-social behaviour, and crime. We are becoming a narrow-minded nation which has forgotten what common sense is and seeks to address perceieved social problems by combating the symptoms rather than understanding the causes. In many cases these problems don't really exist and in attempting to "combat them" we end up creating the problem we were seeking to avoid.
General examples:
-Safety:
a. I live in Oxford and on my way to work each morning I cycle through a field through which a river runs. The council has seen fit to destroy the landscape with several large signs saying "caution deep water." WTF? No shit.
b. My milk now has a sign on it saying "does not contain nuts"
-If you think CCTV is bad:
- We will soon have a network of cameras which can ID number plates and track vehicles.
- The government doesn't think that's enough so they want to add trackers to vehicles to know
- The police now have the power to grant a co-called anti-social behaviour order or ASBO. ASBOs are generally granted against teenagers. Key thing is that the order doesn't have to go through a crimimal court so is easy to apply. The idea is that the order places restrictions as to what a particular person can do. e.g. not allowing them to mix with certain friends. The killer is that breaching the ASBO becomes a criminal offence--so meeting your mates is now illegal. Depending on the circumstances, such a breach could see you in jail. ASBOs don't work. In fact, kids who don't have one feel left out if all their mates do and so they break the law in order to fit in. Kids who do have one often ignore it. Then they end up with a criminal record. These kids are learning to treat the state as their enemy not their ally. About a year ago we brought out the super ASBO to combat organised crime.
- All these things (e.g. CCTV and speakers) are related: in the UK our rights are being erroded in the name of "safety" and "cutting crime." It is motivated by goodwill, but the result is that the government is arrogantly accumulating power in a potentially dangerous way. There is a patronising "we know best" attitude which is justified by vilifying certain social groups and creating an artificial climate of fear (Iraq war, anyone)? People in the UK *DO* care about these issues.
...of standing with my back to CCTV cameras, slightly bent over with my legs should-width apart, shaking about a bit while holding a bottle of water upside-down at waist height with both hands.
CCTV has done nothing in my city (Brighton) to curb drunken street violence. Parts of the city are no-go areas after dark. This problem is getting worse irrespective of CCTV cameras.
I have never heard a single anecdote about a crime in Brighton being solved or prevented by our extensive on-street/beach CCTV cameras.
Linky:
BBC: "CCTV systems 'fail to cut crime'"
BBC: "CCTV 'not a crime deterrent'"
Really this is getting irritating now. I'm fed up with posts like "where did the UK go so wrong" and "omfg1984wtfroflcopter".
I live in the UK, very near to Middlesborough where the idea was piloted and I've seen (or rather heard) the things in action. I would argue with a lot of your beliefs that it is turning the UK into a place where privacy is not respected or that we are constantly monitored by the state as we are not. Never when I walk down the street do I feel as if I am constantly being watched even though there may well be a few CCTV cameras in most town centres.
CCTV monitors public places, if you are in a public place, almost by definition you have accepted the fact that someone is going to see you (whether it would be a person or a camera) and I'm not going to argue with that, having a camera there is nothing more than having a policeman stood there (with an exeptional memory, granted but still effectively the same) and everyone these days seems to want more "bobbies on the beat".
Now with speakers being connected to the cameras, everyone seems to be in uproar, yet again about privacy. But in reality I can not understand why. They still monitor public places, they dont follow you into your bathroom, they are the same cameras, connected to the same screens where the same policeman or woman sits and watches for signs of crime or antisocial behaviour (something that everyone would like less of) only now that policeman or woman can let an offender know what they are doing wrong and that they have been seen doing it... exactly the same thing a policeman would do if he was stood in the town center and witnessed it in person.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that just because it is a camera and not a policeman doesn't mean it encroaches on anyones rights any more than before it is simply technology allowing our policeforce to be more effective. Effective in a one policeman can cover more square-footage point of view and from the evidence gathering side of things.
Personally, I am against these cameras going country-wide for the sole reason that will cost the taxpayer a lot of money and that they do not fit well into every situation -in some cases nothing short of more cops will do. But for giving streched police forces a more efficient monitoring method -I'm all for it in selective cases.
Where can I get a weekly subscription to this comic book about tramps? It looks ace! http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42764000/jpg /_42764725_cctv_montage_203.jpg/
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
In the interests of destroying this ghastly idea to violate all of our civil liberties I propose a new sport to put the most unpleasent sectors of society to a sensible use. Split your teams of yobbos up into groups of 4/5 (ensure that hoddies are worn and identifying clothing etc.. is minimised) - team captains select a la football picks. Each team then has 30 minutes to cause the maximum amount of response from a speaking camera (each team can choose the camera), each sentence/command gets one point, each threat to call the police gets 3 points and if the police turn up then the team gets 10 points (but only if they evade capture in the following 2 days). The team with the most number of points wins whatever creative thing they can think of. After the camera's go we will release the snakes to get rid of the yobbos and then release the gorrillas to get rid of the snakes - the gorillas will obviously freeze to death in the winter and we will all be free
Having just returned from China a couple of days ago, I was puzzled when reading the headline, asking myself "Why would they use Chinese Central Television (CCTV) cameras for public surveillance". Of course it kinda makes sense, since you definitely get a closed circuit television feeling when watching the news on CCTV.
Although i dont like the idea of a streetlamp watching then yelling at me for littering, it is against the law to litter at least.
But telling me im a bad person due to some backroom algorithm or the words on my protest sign? no F-ing way would i stand for that if i was British.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I just had to comment on this. It really bothers me people being what to say, ignorant towards this whole surveillance trend that has been ongoing the past years in Britain.
The consensus that "if I'm a law abiding citizen, that means I've got nothing to fear" generally works well for a lot of people; those who have forgotten how easily democracies are overthrown and that their idealistic society might not exist forever. I mean, creating the perfect infrastructure for a totalistic government by placing cameras and loudspeakers everywhere just doesn't seem right for a presumably liberal government lead by Labour. It is my hopes that people will soon begin realizing that this is not the right way we're going.
In Denmark (neighbor to Great Britain) the government has just introduced an "Anti-Terror Act" giving the intelligence services and police exorbitant privileges in terms of tapping every phone in some general area without an approval of a judge. Also presumably all internet communication between privates (including email and such) are to be logged (someone must have a lot of storage to use on this one since this is a LOT of data).
My main point is, that the surveillance trend is not just something we see in Britain and that this is something I fear will not stop by itself when we're adequately watched.
Went there once on a 6 month contract...
Likely message from the cameras...
"Hey, you...What you doing climbing the camera pole..yes you in the football shirt (half of Middlesbrough turns around thinking it's them)..put down those bolt cutters...this is police property and...hey..what's that sound? Are you cutting my brackets...I'm warning you, there's a car on its way...stop that right now...don't you know these cameras are very hard to resell...we have the serial number&*£(...."
AT&ROFLMAO
It is becoming increasingly evident that the common consensus is that there is no distinction between government and society. Society is what you get from a large group of people with, typically, shared morales and cultures. It is everything that comes from a community, and can be broadly considered as the good side of large groups of people. Society seeks to grow and support its fellow members, such is the origin of national pride.
Government is formed from the exact opposite of this. Government is what deals with the bad aspects of society, the crime and punishment, the civil defense and communications with other societies. In effect,
Government is formed from the need to control the inevitable bad that a large group of people will present to itself. In essence, it is not an aspect of society, it is simply a method of control to limit the bad.
Society and Government are like Yin and Yang, neither can exist without the other, but they are almost complete polar opposites. Society seeks to thrive and grow, where government seeks to restrain and restrict. Happy freedom in society is defined by unhappy law and punishment in government. A balance is required between these two.
There is no longer a clear distinction between society and government in many places in the world, especially in the UK and in the EU. People have come to rely on government so heavily that there is no longer a clear memory of why the government is there in the first place. Government is now trying to control society, instead of simply being a servant to it, a tool to correct the problems to allow the good of society to grow.
There is no longer any balance in the UK... and since we lost our guns and gave away our right to defend ourselves by forming militia theres not much we can do to turn this tide.
You truly don't know what you've got until its gone.
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.
The trend in Britain is increasingly for things to be forbidden not because they are against any law, but because some government employee objects to them. This is the effect of anti social behaviour orders, and the reason why civil liberties organisations are uneasy about them. They make behaviour which is perfectly lawful in general unlawful for just me, just now.
This extends the concept in the direction of orders without any court intervention by an anonymous official. We now have a situation in which someone can be doing something perfectly lawful, but he/she is given an order by a voice which can belong to anyone at all. Doubtless it will be made unlawful to disobey it.
One understands the difficulty with anti social behaviour, which is a real problem. But the answer surely is licensing hours, laws to repress public drunkneness... education...
It cannot be this sort of thing can it?
We do have CCTV in Stirling, but the control room only has enough operators for each set of eyes to look at 20 or so cameras - so, usually, the cameras are only used to see "what happened" when the crime has already been committed. they are useful during an incident where they can be trageted on an ongoing situation to gather evidence.
We also have a community warden programme where "real people" (tm) are paid to deal with anti-social crime (i.e. the stuff the police don't have time for) but they can also get the police when things are serious. They have a remit to engage with schools and young people and we get them involved so they know who the bad kids are and instead of beating them into submission in a "police vs us" scenario, they engage and build up a rapport and breed mutual respect. Most of the time it is just kids hanging out drinking buckfast and getting hopelessly pissed and causing a nuisance.
I would much rather have a high visability presence on the streets that can be identified as real people rather than a faceless camera operator to this sort of anti-social crime. interestingly (for our english neighbours) - street crime has reduced since the smoking ban - because there are always people around on the streets that keeps a natural order on friday and saturday nights.
rd
because Freedom is just a word.
People only want freedom to do what THEY want. They will claim that these cameras are there to prevent crime but the problem is, what becomes a crime later on that isn't now? What about smoking on a public street? Drinking? In some areas those are probably crimes to one extent or another.
We already have cameras in many public and private buildings. How long before someone government official gets the idea to link them all for the benefit of the public? and... since the government is recording this data the questions become...
1. how long is it retained.
2. who has access.
3. who can use the courts to gain access (for personal suits, etc)
I see crime being used as a great excuse to place these things where you would never suspect them, like hotel rooms and restrooms (of course only monitored by professionals). How long before they enter private homes? First for the monitoring of "known criminals", then possibly anyone getting government money or housing. Its all possible because people want freedom provided it keeps other people from being bad.
Isn't it amazing how much people want freedom and they when asked there are always exceptions? Like worship, sex, and drugs (legal and illegal).
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You might be getting irritated by this discussion. But what you overlook is that the state throws nothing away. Automatic Number Plate recognition records (ie where and when your car moved) will be kept for 5 years, to see if you associated with (ie traveled along the same road at the same time as) known criminals. Records of ID Card checks (eg every time you draw cash from the bank etc etc) will be kept until you are at least 100, even if you are dead by then. If truth be told there is no mechanism for deleting the state's data on you. DNA and full 10 fingerprints taken for every brush with the law, even if not charged and certainly without any need for a conviction. Automatic facial recognition will be a deployed reality in just a few years. Then every face will be noted and allocated it's National Identity number. YOU might not be scared by the state having all this information, but I am. I venture to suggest that your trust in the innate goodness of governments is severely misplaced.
I read in the paper (think it was the Metro on the bus, but I'm not totally sure) that they're going to to have pre-recorded messages for these camera's ('pick up your litter', 'stop pissing in that bush', etc) and that they're going to get children to record these messages as they believe that adults will be more shamed into behaving properly if they are being admonished by a child.
I work in McDonalds in the UK. I wont say exactly which town but its a town near Colchester in Essex. We are about to get them installed soon in our store. Apparently you press a button and it brings up the camera images in a control center which is located in Manchester. Then then people at the control center speak saying, get out or something and if they don't comply they then call the police. McDonalds are installing these cameras due to the amount of chavs (teenage delinquents), drunks and random crazy people we have had trouble with. This Monday we have had yet another broken window from chavs. Last month a guy came jump over the counter tipped over stuff in the front threatening to kill staff etc. We get stuff thrown at us all the time, and not just because of an irate customer complaining he is missing an apple pie. Staff have got into fights with chavs before, the list goes on but anyway would these talking cameras actually do anything. If they don't listen to a manager telling them to get out or they will call the police then what chance are they going to listen to a talking camera. Ill just have to wait and see how it goes.
A: "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care about being monitored?"
B: "If your citizens are supposed to have rights, why are you setting up an infrastructure capable of eliminating them?"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Sorry bastards can't even put up a fight against a third-rate navy of mohameddean pedophile persians.
WTB Mod points!
Couldn't agree with you more, being from England myself, CCTV camera's don't bother me in the slightest. Its hardly an invasion of privacy in a PUBLIC place now is it? If i want to do something i don't want other people to see i'll do it in the privacy of my own home(or at least where people can't see me).
.
Everything I wrote and then erased. I'll sum it up.
Living, Breathing Cop on the street != Camera. Even in a public place I have a expectation of privacy that some of you might not agree with. That is too bad and a sign to me that people have already gotten used to the idea.
deep booming voice mode: on
"This is the voice of the Mysterons..."
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Even neglecting the whole privacy issue, do they appreciate the utter waste of money this street-cleaner is? How many hundreds of full-time street sweepers could they have hired for the same cost as all those cameras, speakers, and police to watch these CCTVs all day and night? And worse, the use of this utterly wasteful experiment diminishes with time: when people learn to not litter, there really isn't any value of the system at all.
Yes, like most of you, I am shocked by the Big Brother-like overtones of this absurd experiment. But even those people who don't mind Big Brother should consider how damn expensive it is to keep Big Brother watching on salary (and how expensive the equipment is). At the end of the day, what do they get for that waste of tax dollars? cleaner streets!? What kind of people are in charge of spending our money?!
...This seems like a double plus ungood idea to me.
"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply. "
Life needs more saving throws.
Instead of cameras every gentleman could take out his stick and beat the crap out of the petty criminal if he has cought him in place, and petty criminal could not do the opposite and claim that a gentleman stole that purse from that flower madame, because there was a notion of REPUTATION.
People of low reputation knew that they would be watched closer than people of higher reputation. I call for inequality, nonfraternity, and anti-liberty.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
How many cameras are surrounding the estates of the wealthy who actually steal real money? I'd imagine if any exist, they point out at the hoi polloi, never in at the lives of the powerful, who never are monitored without their consent.
Legalise sniper rifles to anyone who pays their council tax bill.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
this will be the likely excuse, or an equivalent of it, that they are going to use to justify home spying in 2015. it is always something you cant object.
Read radical news here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TayWdhBbiPY
good news clip on the 'shouting' CCTV cameras.
arent you all actually legally and traditionally "subjects" of your beloved king/queen ?
if you agree to it, why did you mod parent down.
if you dont agree with it, why do you have still king&queens ?
Read radical news here
Yes, listen to the interview - it's as funny as hell.
Unfortunately, all to often the politicians just use weasel words to avoid answering the question, even when re-asked a dozen times.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It's nothing like having a policeman standing there, and you know that stupid. If you were attacked, what would help you most:
- policeman who can intervene
- CCTV which can just passively watch
Sure, the CCTV will be able to play what happened at court when your attackers were caught and charged with murder, but you're still dead. If there was a policeman there you'd probably still be alive.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
No, actually its why the NRA exists. Big Brother can ignore a court case. He has more trouble ignoring a Colt .45
I know nothing of UK culture except from what I read from slashdot and a few other places, but if these where ever put in the USA I would bet money this would happen:
What about the potential for advertisements? How long until they want to use these as a way to generate income? I bet they start off with saying its to supplement to cost of the new equipment.
"Hay there, man with the basketball. I noticed you are not wearing the latest Nike airpumps. Did you know the improved patented air cushions can help you jump 2 feet higher? Stop by the store on your left now and get up to 80% off!"
Is it just me, or do you ever get the feeling that Britian feels some sort of obligation to render the novel 1984 as accurate as possible? Like, their empire's dead, nobody eats their food, even the accent has lost most it's appeal since British music ceased being dominant. Is Orwell the only relevent thing they figure they've got going for them here in the age of Bush and Fox news?
I think they just need one famous person who isn't a pansy or comedian; so they can find something else to focus on other than bringing dystopic novels to life.
So pick someone at random from England, and we'll all pretend they're just really, really cool. Seriously, it's either that or we have to start watching soccer, or eating their food. Say no more (nudge, nudge).
Another example I saw mentioned was jaywalking. In a major city, thats just crazy. Everyone breaks those sorts of laws.
If you repress peoples rights to break minor laws, well thats what I would consider the begining of a police state. Strictly enforced, strictly monitored public spaces. How can you consider yourself "free" if you are constantly being monitored? Mounting an autocannon to the camera would also probably make prosecution of jaywalking "more effective".
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
2713 Bumstead J.! Pick up that piece of bread!
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Left the UK in the late 90s, don't think I could go back.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
And rich is a relative term - they're not all in banking and I can see quite often that both parents have to work to support a family. Quite a lot of the smaller family businesses are suffering hardship because of the climate changes.
As I said to someone else, I was talking about feeling safe only - I am well aware of the rather extravagant consequences of littering in Singapore (although I couldn't help wondering what would happen if they catch someone who's actually into this sort of thing - but I digress :).
However, granted, Singapore was a couple of years back, and I can only speak from personal experience, not from statistics..
Hong Kong wasn't so bad either, but I only stayed there briefly (repeatedly :) so I don't feel I got the feel for the place.
Insert
All I can say is dratted 3 seashells strike again!
A condescending, sarcastic voice booms through the empty station, "Would the child stop playing on the escalator..."
Around 1993 I was coming home from university at 1 AM, waiting for the once-per-half-hour late train in one of the Edmonton underground LRT stations. Alone and lost in thought with algorithms homework, I was killing time by walking up the base of a down escalator, matching its speed, unaware I was being watched by some bored killjoy monitoring a CCTV camera.
Humiliated at the time, I've since spent years watching TV cameras erected in every imaginable place and imagined authoritarian assholes staring at banks of TV screens looking for any opportunity to power trip.
Cameras also don't help if you live in a rural area where the police can't be bothered to show up if you complained too often about people threatening to kill you. Granted, weakening staircases and generally turning the place into a death trap (and shooting someone in the back) is a little bit overkill (sarcastic understatement) but I can see how someone eventually got into that state.
And, of course, camera evidence will not stop innocent people being shot by the police because they really needed to shoot someone after the tube bombings. Makes you wonder who they're trying to protect..
Ah, no, I know - those people who fall into bed if they can actually find it whilst blind drunk - assuming they haven't slipped in their own vomit first and end up another load on a totally overstretched and underfunded emergency ward (assuming an ambulance is miraculously available and can actually find them instead of following a flawed GPS unit into nowhere). For a cultural centre like London (and it is) the fascination with drinking yourself into oblivion is a bit puzzling IMHO.
Yes, it may then be a bit harder to get up as early as the Swiss do (the flip side of 10pm), but at least they know what daylight looks like.
Switching the sarcasm off, there are pros and cons to every country, but I have actually LIVED in those places I mention - I didn't just Google my opinions and looked at statistics. That naturally means the observations are subject to my personal bias (they were, after all, my opinions) - you're free to believe whatever you feel like, but don't form an opinion of a country by reading the news and the web - live there.
IMHO the state of London is best reflected in the letters to the London Metro of retired Col. Buffy. He's spot on. Although not quite as totally OTT as Jeremy Clarkson the man sums it up with clarity - and should in my opinion have his own fan club..
Oh, and next time you moan that the Tube and trains don't work - well, enjoy anarchy.
Insert
Dude, they are *already* experimenting with facial recognition in airports... did you start protesting yet?
Of course not, and WHEN it will be widespread, you won't do a damn thing neither because you'll be used to it by then and rationalise it, and you know it.
I remember when the first radarcamera's were placed for cars there were the same complaints and counterarguments too. You had guys like you saying: "stop being so paranoid, it's just for cars that are speeding, it's not like they watch persons walking on the street."
Then they placed CCD camera's which weren't for cars, but to 'ensure safety' and watching people. Again you had people saying; "but it's for added security, it's because it's necessary and it's mighty effective! It's not like they can actually recognise an individual on it, and it's only in places where crime is rampant!"
And now they are placing them in immer more places, so more and more public places will be covered untill it's covered all, and they add loudspeakers to it, so they can order people around without having to show a human face, and they are even taking their first steps at face-recognition, and you go like: "You are being irrational, that's not going to happen at all; don't overreact! It's effective in combatting petty crime, and who knows what the future will bring!"
Point is, people like you never learn, and I mean, never. Every time the government takes another step, you claim the stepping-stone theory where privacy degrades more and more and the government becomes big brother is totally bogus, EVEN when that is *exactly* what is happening. Compare today with 40 years ago, and you can not *but* conclude the government is watching their citizens far more then they used to do, largely thanks to new technology and the apathy of most people - like you.
there is NO doubt they are going to expand the camera's, beecause they're already at it, and they already have established the rationale for it (safety and security); it's already accepted there, so why not here? More camera's, loudspeakers, facial-recognition systems, they can ALL be placed with the same arguments as the very first cameras were set.
You think 1984 arives in one sudden stroke, by a totalitarian regime that suddenly makes sweeping privacy invasions? No, my friend, it happens slowly, step by step, little by little... untill at the end, we arrive at exactly the same thing but without the protest, because people have accepted it. It's nothing more then the frog-in-the-pan syndrome; if, hypothetically, you had said, back in the time where speeding-car cameras were place at certain crossroads: "We're going to place camera's on every corner of the street with facial-recognition and loudspeakers", you would have heard an outcry. In ten years, you'll hardly get a shrug.
That's the mentality that you express.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Your Colt .45 isn't going to do any good when your being crushed under the treads of a M1A2 Abrams.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Neither is the ACLU.
The article says "Momma lied, you're not special, MySpace friends aren't really your friends and the people watching you on YouTube are laughing at you, not with you"
:-)
For some people, that's a rupture in the space-time fabric.
No wonder they would rather read something else
You are mis-understanding what is happening in the UK. These kids misbehave only when they think no-one is watching. When they think someone in authority is looking - they are as good as gold. The cameras really do solve the kid problem. It does not require police to intervene. It does not require investigation or follow up. Street crime is reduced BECAUSE of the cameras. These crappy kids see the cameras and just decide to behave themselves. When an assault occur, camera footage does improve detection rates. But more importantly it deters the crime from happening in the first place. Right wingers bang on about prison being a deterrent. But prison requires detection and detection requires evidence. Cameras gather evidence. And their effect is to deter. They deter even when they are not switched on. Consequently street crime is *prevented*. The numbers are clear and undeniable. And crime prevention is way better than the comical assertions of "harsher punishment". (Or the even more laughable notion that armed citizens drive down the likelihood of crime. That's as dumb as solving bullying in schools by giving the victims knives.) Yes. I agree that arming the police IS a bad thing. I said this already. Give a policeman a gun, and he will shoot your ass. Give a policeman a camcorder and he will shoot his girlfriend's ass and leave me alone. I have yet to hear what civil liberties are actually reduced by public cameras. Answers please. What is the alternative? The American model of mass-imprisonment clearly does not work. It is more expensive. Less effective. And I suspect the civil rights of the millions of detainees might have been curtailled by detention. If you are interested in facts - see the stats on how cameras actually reduce street crime. It's pretty clear. Undeniable in fact. The funny thing is, I am not a right-wing authoritarian nutcase. I see myself as a liberal. I have the whole compassion thing. Criminals are people too. etc. I just want them to not do so much bad stuff. So you people who are objecting to cameras are who? Exactly? ? Uber-liberals. Human rights fanatics. I don't think so. ? One of you guys thinks he can to solve crime by shooting the perps. I'd say he was right-of-center. ? Are you rapists? ? Graffiti Artists? ? Do you crave for a time when public floggings and hangings provided us with order? Who are you people? Do you have a deep-seated mis-trust of government? I do too. But like I say. A bobby with a 35milimeter is less threatening than a donut-eater with a .45.
You know, somehow I find that having very little impact on the lives of people who don't use chewing gum.
But the potential to be kidnapped and flown away to some far away prison outside any legal system is a risk we now all run (Gitmo and the flights to other places). Or being arrested in your own country for something that is only a crime in the US (DVD Jon) - shows a great respect for the sovereignty of nations and the rights of the individual vs. big commerce. And, of course, terrorism has been with us for a long time, not in the least because at some point that nation starting the war on terrorism was involved in some creative sponsorship - only now life feels a lot less safe so hurray for a 'democracy' where someone can start a war on a lie and stay in power, but lying about a blowjob can cost you the job. Does that feel RIGHT then?
I'm not defending Singapore's record (although, you try and create a nation out of nothing), but at least Singapore doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't.
Insert
But back to cameras. Give a policeman a camcorder and he will shoot his girlfriend's ass. Ah, really. And what about him shooting YOUR girlfriends' ass? Who are you going to call? Who watches the watchers (not exactly a modern concern, if I recall it's Cicero). Rather than giving you my arguments, let's turn to the words of a real authority in this field, Bruce Schneier, and his piece in Wired called The Eternal Value of Privacy. Oh, and cameras cost money. To buy, to install, to maintain, to watch, to preserve information of. That's your tax money at work.
Insert
I think I still have too much blood in my caffeine, no idea where I got Cicero from :-). The question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" was posed by Juvenal, but he was not the first to observe the essential problem, that was Plato when commenting on the ideal society as posed by Socrates.
I fear, however, that the noble lie Plato proposed has gone to the head of many..
Insert
We're drifting from the original point - do you really need cameras to enforce the law. Britain is uniquely saturated with cameras but the prisons are still bulging. And I can only see this stop trivial crime - another problem is that adding a camera means adding hay to the haystack making that needle you need so much harder to find. It's again technology trying to replace that most vital element of policing - the police.
No other nation has found the need to have that high a camera density, yet they haven't quite turned into complete cesspools of crime.
And as for dummies - it doesn't take long to find out which ones don't work if you add speech to them..
I remain unconvinced that cameras address the root problems - it strikes me as fighting symptoms, not causes.
Insert
The solution to drunk 'tiny-minded' people beating up innocent passers-by ought not necessarily be active (prosecuting these "idiots engaged in this kind of behaviour") but passive. Legalising ganja for instance.
I just don't believe that talking CCTV is a natural thing. I don't see even drunkness as natural, even though you can argue some animals do deliberately intoxicate themselves. My point is, this whole CCTV thing is solving of a consequence, not the cause. Solving consequences leads to NOT-solving of the causes, which produce more and/or stronger consequences, which are 'solved' more and more harshly...
And guess who benefits only?
My parser is a grammar nazi.