CCTVs Don't Work in the UK

ShakaUVM writes "People who give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither, the saying goes. But what happens when people give up so much liberty their entire country resembles an Orweillean dystopia — but the pervasive monitoring doesn't help to solve any crimes? That's what is happening in the United Kingdom today. While the Guardian tries to put a good spin on the entire fiasco, the fact remains that CCTVs only help with 3% of all street robberies, the very crimes they were supposed to be best at protecting. Should England finally move to eliminate its troubling state surveillance program?"

Comments

Uninformed paranoia, for the most part

[Space cowboy]

It seems most people think there is this huge government-funded network of cameras watching every move of every person in the UK - this just isn't the case. The vast majority (~80%) of this camera network are the ones in shops, on transport (buses, trains), on ATM's, etc. etc. In other words, they're privately owned and run for the benefit of the business owner, not for the police.

Of the remainder, the vast majority of them are traffic-cameras at junctions, in speed-cameras (yes, these count, for some reason), etc. What's left are the police-owned ones which watch people in high-crime areas or (usually in partnership with the businesses) high-people-traffic areas (eg: Regent St., Oxford St. in London).

I lived in London for ~15 years before moving to CA. I don't feel any less "observed" here than I did in London. I'm on-camera in CA if I get money from an ATM; if I drive across a junction (try looking up once in a while); if I get on the BART; if I get on Caltrain; if I go to a bank;

I really wish people would stop pandering to the tabloid press trying to sell copy. Sure, there are cameras. Everywhere(*). Deal.

Simon

(*)Well, every country I've been to, anyway.

Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part

[gowen]

Well said sir. And, as the article explains -- far more even handedly than slashdot's biased summary -- the reason that CCTV footage doesn't help solve crimes is because no-one ever looks at it.

Yes folks, slashdot's latest evidence that the UK is a surveillance society is a report that states that no-one ever looks at the CCTV footage. But our summarisers have never let the facts get in the way of a good knee jerk.

Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part

[Gordonjcp]

Yes folks, slashdot's latest evidence that the UK is a surveillance society is a report that states that no-one ever looks at the CCTV footage

Don't forget that the oft-reported massive figure for the number of CCTV cameras in the UK is *completely made up*. It's a fake figure. It was concocted by looking at the number of CCTV cameras on a section of the main street of a particularly rough part of London which was deliberately chosen because of the high numbers of CCTV cameras covering things like pawn shops, bookies, off-licences and cheque-cashing shops. Then this already artificially high figure was scaled up by multiplying by the amount of road in the whole of the UK. So, the number would be accurate if *every inch* of the UK's roads was like the middle of a particularly shitey area of London.

It's not, though.

Did you know that in the US, because it's legal for people to walk around with guns, *every single American* is robbed at gunpoint *every day*? No, you didn't did you? But it's true! It said so on the Internet!

Re:Uninformed paranoia, for the most part

[ahabswhale]

Well you don't pay very close attention then. London has over 10,000 CCTVs that are GOVERNMENT crime cameras. That number does not include cameras from private businesses or ATM machines, etc. It's extremely hypocritical of you to whine about the tabloids when you are, in fact, acting like a tabloid (saying shit without backing it up with any facts).

Here's a link for you: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras,+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do

Re:I think...

[TheRaven64]

The only reason the UK installed CCTV cameras in the first place was to catch IRA bombers planting bombs Fortunately, terrorism in the UK has gone down a lot since the 9/11 bombings when America realised that funding terrorists just isn't cool anymore.

What's the cameras use?

[Wowsers]

In my part of the UK, the spy cameras were installed under the pretext of protecting the people, only the idiots bought that excuse, and they've been proved to be mostly useless for that proported use.

April 2008, the law in the UK was changed by the government which now allows any official spy camera to be used for "traffic enforcement" (more easy money).

Lo and behold one week into this new scheme, in my local area a woman was attacked and sexually assaulted at a bus stop while waiting for a bus. What happened we'll never 100% know, because the camera operator was more interested in catching motorists going in a wrong lane, then to record video of tha assault and catch the guy that did the assault (what the camera was installed for in the first place).

The whole camera installation nationwide is for state surveillance of you, and it feels really uncomfortable knowing you are being filmed walking or driving around, whilst criminals remain untouchable and don't give a damn about the cameras.

Resist the cameras in your country, or suffer the surveillance fate of the UK.

Re:At the risk of being arrested...

[nogginthenog]

The vast majority of the CCTV cameras in the UK are privatised too.

Re:In a word,

[pressman]

Broadcast and print news get special consideration when it comes to using peoples' images for broadcast or print in the interest of Fair Use.

If you plan to publish for profit or just for public display and are not a news outlet, getting releases is crucial. Using someone's image without permission is a sure-fire way to having a lawsuit handed to you.

I work in the film industry and if we're filming on a location where we can't 100% control the foot traffic, we have PA's running all over the place getting releases signed.

If you are doing documentary video work, simply getting the subject to say their name and that it is alright to use their interview on tape suffices for a release.

Getting distribution REQUIRES that you have signed releases for every single cast, crew and extra as well as for locations and for music. On top of this they will require O&E insurance (Errors and omissions) in case you got a Pepsi bottle in a shot or something like that.

The amount of paperwork involved in getting something commercially distributed is incredible and for most indie filmmakers, it is also the reason they don't get their films released... they don't do their paperwork.

When I shoot music video in a club, I have to plaster the whole venue with legal verbiage just so that people know that by entering the venue they are agreeing to have their likeness video taped.

Yes, this is all a total hassle, but it's also about covering your own ass against lawsuits. Neglect your paperwork at your own risk.

IANAL but I have worked with many entertainment attorneys who will reiterate everything I just said.