Slashdot Mirror


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?"

12 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Exagerate much? by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Orwell was an optimist.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  2. Re:Another obvious Answer? by neokushan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually I was being extremely sarcastic with the above response (Normally I wouldn't bother saying, but you can never be sure with some people around here...).

    Anyway, I grew up in Belfast. For those of you who are unaware, we've had a spot of trouble there over the last few decades. It's not as bad these days as it has been, but still to this day there are certain areas you simply don't go near in case something happens.

    One of these "flash points" was just down the road from me, it was at a bridge that linked a Protestant estate with a Catholic one. Naturally, people who tried to cross this bridge were usually targeted by those waiting at the other side.

    Unfortunately, there wasn't really an alternative route to get from one side to the other, that was less than 90mins in the opposite direction.

    Naturally, there was always fighting and/or rioting on this bloody bridge (which went over a motorway - I'm sure you can imagine the potential risks of falling bricks and bottles there) and more than a couple of people got seriously injured on it - some even died.

    Then one day they put a CCTV camera there. Actually, they put a big post there for the CCTV camera to be attached to and it IMMEDIATELY stopped nearly all violence on and around this bridge. Even before the camera was attached, it was enough to scare the little shits that started all of this away and now it's relatively safe to walk by there.

    That alone is enough for me to have faith in the CCTV systems. They may not help in solving crimes, but they definitely do help PREVENT them, which I think is much more important.

    This is just my experience, though, yours may differ.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  3. Re:At the risk of being arrested... by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More to the point, other countries (like mine) should look to England's failed example and refuse to follow it. That's the precise reason I actually liked the UK to install the system. I know, I'm a selfish bastard, but it did work as many people outside the UK expected.

    It's the same reason to be happy about RIAA strategy. They fail so badly their tactics will be much harder to use anywhere else.
  4. Re:The elemental fallacy by dave420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, their main use is evidence gathering. Deterrence is secondary. If someone goes bat-shit-crazy and attacks someone, no amount of cameras (or guns or death penalties or dolphins or whatever) will stop that. If, though, a CCTV operator (or witness on the street) sees it, then the cops can pick the person up and charge them. CCTV is just a way to get more evidence. They're also used to covertly follow suspects as they move through a city. I saw CCTV with loud speakers stop a guy who was running from the cops. He kept on running, and the same guy kept on talking to him from all the CCTV cameras he passed - "I can still see you - you can't get away". He didn't. The CCTV operator guided the cops to him, and he was arrested.

  5. But they DO work in Philadelphia by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it weren't for the cameras, the pigs would've denied everything.

    The debate, once again, should not be around a particular method of law-enforcement, but whether 100% effective law-enforcement is desirable...

    It means, you can not exceed speed-limit by 1 mile/h, nor drop a candy-wrap on the street, nor ask for money on subway. You will also not be beaten by a cop, nor will they be able to treat fire-hydrants as special parking spots reserved for "the force". Etcaetera...

    Do we want the laws obeyed and enforced 100%, or do we want to live some "wriggle-room" for the dystopian future, when it will be needed to fight some kind of oppression?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:But they DO work in Philadelphia by turgid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny that this ridicules story is on the front page, while the reclassification of cannabis probably wont make it, that's much more infringing on civil liberties than videos of you when your in a public place.

      Cannabis, as Class C was as illegal as it will be as Class B again.

      All they're saying is they consider it more harmful today than they did yesterday, and that the courts are encouraged to mete out harsher sentences for supply, cultivation or possession with intent to supply. On PM this afternoon, it was said that possession of small quantities for personal use would not be dealt with harshly. (That would be down to the discretion of the police and courts.

      As for CCTV, it's ineffective in the UK for several reasons. The images are generally too poor (blurred, dark and grainy) to be useful, and secondly, the police can't be bothered to look at the footage. It's "hard work."

      Cannabis should be legalised. End prohibition of drugs.

      CCTV is creepy. I'm sure there is a case for it in certain places under certain circumstances, but what we have now is illiberal, wasteful and almost totally useless.

  6. Heathrow by prakslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So, I was in London in November.

    At Heathrow, my laptop needed re-charging. So, I found a power socket, and sat down and started inserting my power converter/adapter into it. The thing looks like an ordinary wall-mounted brick adapter.

    Within 5 minutes, I was surrounded by three guys in uniform asking me what I was doing.
    I said I am just trying to charge my laptop.

    They looked at the adapter, then at the laptop, then at my face. They just stood there looking confused not saying anything. I picked up my stuff, said thanks and just walked away. They didnt follow me or anything.

    Weird.

    Having surveillance is fine but having smarter people who know how to analyze what they see is even more important.

  7. Re:At the risk of being arrested... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see those cameras made available to the public to scrutinize at their leisure. They would be effective if they were.

    I envision a system where every person has a personal recorder that they carry around, and all the output of public cameras is mirrored and shared in a fashion that made it difficult to tamper with. Something along the lines of Freenet, except simplified by the fact that you don't have to anonymize the sources.

    Any time there was a contested event, it would be possible to examine the footage from the CCTVs and from the personal data recorders of both parties. Barring a sophisticated attack, this would give you the facts right away. And, if someone tried to tamper with the public record and there were any anomilies, then you could start looking at where they came from with lots of forensic data available.

    This would have all sorts of rewards... we would be able to watch the watchers, and we would be able to clearly see those ill conceived laws that are being casually broken all over the place so we could remove them from the books. This would protect us from selective enforcement of laws that aren't meant to be obeyed, but only grant power to the rulers.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  8. Re:At the risk of being arrested... by operagost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, it's closer to 1 in 33. Incidentally, I don't go for the "if it saves just ONE person" meme; I throw it into the rubbish heap with "think of the children" and "if you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about."

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  9. Re:At the risk of being arrested... by BarneyL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd like to see those cameras made available to the public to scrutinize at their leisure. They would be effective if they were.
    There was a trial of doing just this (in Liverpool I believe).
    Ironically it was so popular its viewing beat those of the last Big Brother series at some times of the day.
  10. Re:old ladies by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is a good plan. It works. My father established himself as a police liaison, cleared the prostitutes and drug dealers out of his neighbourhood with a low-tech implementation of such as this, and tripled the value of his house before he sold it. When the cops can do nothing, a retired military man with a German Shepard, a baseball bat and some good intel can make the next pasture over look awfully green.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  11. Re:At the risk of being arrested... by ozymyx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe not. I live in the USA and I'm from Britain. It's MUCH safer in Britain than the USA, deal with it. Would they have caught the July bombers without the CCTV ? I doubt it. My relatives in the UK don't care about the CCTV, the speed cameras are much more of a subject. The USA has the same big brother issues, except here it is more covert. At least in the UK you know you are being watched - in the USA who knows...