Slashdot Mirror
London Police Seek To Install CCTV In Pubs
JCWDenton writes "The Met Police got a short sharp rap over the knuckles yesterday, as the Office of the Information Commissioner questioned what looks very much like a blanket
policy to force CCTV onto public houses in certain parts of London. The story begins with a letter to the Guardian last week, from Nick Gibson. He is currently renovating Islington pub The Drapers Arms, after its previous owners allowed it to go insolvent and then disappeared. In his letter, he argues that if he had merely taken over an existing licence, the police could not have imposed any additional conditions. However, because this was now a new licence, the police were able to make specific requests, including one particular request in respect of installing CCTV."
Install the camera, but switch off its power-supply, or spray-paint the lense, or...
You get the idea. As long as their wording is so vague as to simply stipulate "install... a camera" it seems pretty simple to me.
'Course its trickier if they're more specific about the camera's operation, data connections, power-supply, etc.
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
We're coming George, faster than ever!
They did that to a pub in my town (UK) once. Granted it was a really dodgy pub that most people avoided.
The result though was not only did the known nasty types stop going there, no-one else wnet there either, because we knew there were cameras in it.
Its since closed and reoppened under new ownership, a gay bar I beleive, sans cameras. I suspect the change in customer focus is because even though its almost ten years later, its still remembered by most as the pub that had cctv everywhere.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
It could be worse. This could be the 4th duplicate article on slashdot after 5 days...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Since when can police install camera on private ground or private shop ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I have mod points, but modding you down would not convey that you are a douche properly. WTF was the point of your post? The stories here are not always the most recent, the idea is that they are relevant. get over it or STFU.
He should ask them to reconsider if he promises to sell beer and not stock gin.
I read this when it went up on The Register, 5 days ago. Can people please check the timestamp before submitting/approving stories? The normal 2 or 3 days old news is just about passable, but 5 days is getting silly.
I'm psychic, your post is about 6 days old to me, you hypocrite.
Whine much?
Some of us are not in the UK and don't read The Register. That doesn't mean this topic, related to privacy and an ever-increasing surveillance society, isn't important or relevant for most of the readers of slashdot.
Without this post, I wouldn't have known about it. Neither would thousands and thousands of other people.
Who are you to decide what the "allowed" time limit of news items is? Get over yourself.
It's called privacy, you dipshit.
I can think of numerous times where putting cameras in pubs is useful in England. The amount of times where people are being glassed (where someone rams a glass into your face, cutting you up) and the total level of drunken violence each week is just asking for more evidence to convict these idiots that go out each week to get drunk then violent on purpose.
What will police do when there is no more crime? Will they just sit and do nothing? Or will they go after any people which do not agree with them? First they come after criminals, but you are not criminal so you stay quiet. Then they come after child molesters, but you are not one, so you stay quiet. Then they come after punks and people who don't want to be government sheep. But you are not one of them. Then they will have only sheep in society, so they can do as they like, increase their wages, say "there are terrorists who want to hurt you out there, we must still rule to protect you" and in less than 30 years there will be new dictatorship. Of course if you are sheep, who are afraid of terrorists, you will be glad to live in dictatorship, where your children can't have education or good payed job, or just go anywhere they like, because you are not privileged one. They will have crap jobs, no health care, nothing, and they will never become privileged through ingenuity or hard work (typically in current times such people have better). It's like boiling frogs very slowly, but suddenly it's too hot and frogs don't jump out.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Well you see, a pub is private property.
Once police have the power to install cameras in private property, they'll be able to install them anywhere they want... say, in your home.
Think that's far-fetched? The law is constantly being chipped away, bit by bit. First, cameras are put in pubs. Then since hey, we got them installed in pubs, we can probably install them in restaurants too. They sell alcohol, don't they? What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Now since cameras are already in pubs and restaurants, what's the harm in having them in workplaces? That'll sure make it easier to establish people's whereabouts and make sure that anyone shredding corporate documents gets the scrutiny they deserve. What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Then hey, since everyone is already being monitored at work and everywhere else, the precedent has clearly been set. The government will next want to install cameras in criminal's homes or the homes of their families, and they'll get it, because the law up to this point has said that cameras are allowed on private property.
Well at this point, why don't we just roll the thing out everywhere? If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? What are you all doing that means you mind being on camera?
There are direct parallels with the storage of DNA. First, it was just the criminal's DNA. Now, it's everybody who gets arrested, even if they aren't ever charged with a crime. Next, you'll be pulled over by mobile DNA units and have to submit to tests to ensure that you aren't a criminal, without any probable cause whatsoever.
This is EXACTLY how the law is chipped away. Once chipped away, it's difficult if not impossible to go back to the way it was.
Feel free to dismiss that as an "Orwellian circle-jerk fantasy". You clearly don't understand anything about how the law works and how politicians leverage the law to get what they want. Nor do you have any regard whatsoever for the sort of world your children will grow up in.
Quite a dreamer, aren't you?
Likely many will get laid off.
They won't be able to do the latter legally, so no.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Of course you don't understand, the moment you asserted that CCTV had never been abused in the UK you showed you didn't comprehend the concept that you might not know everything that ever happened.
Regardless, even if CCTV hasn't been abused ever it doesn't mean expanding it is a wise idea. It would be hard to argue that implanting people with tracking chips, recording all biometrics yearly and installing ubiquitous CCTV wouldn't cause less crime if the system was used correctly. The arguement against monitoring at that scale is that as the monitoring expands it becomes easier for the system to be used to silence political dissent etc and harder for people to resist.
Recently in Poland there was scandal with CCTV. Operators had bonuses for spotting committed crimes. But not for preventing them. Do you think they prevented any crimes? Cameras give police very much power. But power corrupts. And normal people can't for example look at every time what police does, like they can look what we normal people do. Try standing with a camera in front of police dept. for longer than 15 minutes.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
now we know the reason for the ban on smoking in pubs.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
and demand cameras/microphones in the houses, offices, and cars of all public officials, elected or otherwise. Actually, make them wear an ankle bracelet as well.
It seems to me they are far more dangerous and corrupted than the general populace they wish to spy upon.
Make it a mandatory law.
Agreed. I wouldn't have spotted it if it wasn't on Slashdot
And they will not protest? People who have work want to still have work. They will find ways to still have work (like firefighters who go and put fires, so they can report them as first and have bonuses).
Yeah, because they won't change law ever.
If you think governments want only laws good for people and don't do anything secretly, read about ACTA
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
It could be worse. This could be the 1st duplicate post in this thread after 1 day.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
While I agree with your larger point, that's truly a stupid take on the "First they come for...." story.
Also, from what I read, crime is hardly going down, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. There are always ways around it for a determined criminal. So the "out of business" is nonsense.
At the very least, even if crime were to become minimal/nonexistant through some miracle, Police have more to do than just criminals. They have legitimate functions in maintaining law and order - traffic, disputes with your neighbor, crowd control so people don't stampede each other to death at times, etcetera.
Are you using "political dissent" to mean "stealing shit" or "beat people up"? Do you have anything which ISN'T theoretical?
The fact remains that CCTV has lead to more real criminals behind bars and your wank dreams of 1984 have never appeared. Grow up or stop thinking you have the right to flaunt the law, whichever applies.
... I know the misleading summary helps with the old /. "ZOMG BRITAIN IS A POLICE STATE" propaganda, but if you actually *read* the article (an unpopular idea, I know) you'll see that the police were swiftly kicked into touch over it. I believe the actual phrase used was "Not now, not ever."
I don't want the british police looking at my pubes!
Well, I do... I love men in uniform.
I agree that this "first they come for you" is little stupid, but if "it just doesn't work" why do they insist on installing cameras everywhere? It's not like these cameras are just plain annoyance and not useful, but we should be careful not to lose all of our liberties.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Total times CCTV coverage in the UK has been abused in some Orwellian circle-jerk fantasy like people are always warning it is:
Really? That's interesting because another forum I'm a member of happens to have someone who's likely to lose his job tomorrow because a store manager handed over CCTV footage in breach of the law.
Granted, what I'm saying is third-hand anecdotal evidence on a website like /. so it's probably not something you want to take as gospel truth - but perhaps if anyone else knows of similar examples it might illustrate that CCTV, like all tools, is open to abuse.
... a lengthy rebuttal of the hopeless summary, but then I noticed it was the UK-hating Timothy that posted.
Timothy, why do you feel the need to misrepresent every story about the UK in the worst possible light? Did you even read the article in question?
Perhaps you should. The police aren't installing CCTV cameras in pubs. One police chief is recommending to the licensing board that grants licences to pubs that they require new licensees to fit CCTV. The police would not have access to the CCTV unless they came down and requested the tapes (or more likely DVR drive, these days).
Now - here's the important bit - are you paying attention? They were told that they couldn't do that. Let's just say that again to make sure you've got it - the police were told that they could not ask the licensing board to make installing CCTV a condition of the licence.
So, in fact, the police are *not* installing CCTV in pubs, for several different reasons.
It's called literacy, Timothy. You should try it.
The last study I read about CCTV usage showed that the operators spend more time fulfilling their voyeuristic proclivities than looking for crime.
So if you don't mind a room full of pigs looking at your fifteen year old daughter/sister's tits while a pack of rabid hoodies kick a nun to death and shag the body totally unnoticed, then it's all fine.
You're at the crux of the matter. The surveillance is very one sided, if these people want to make a surveillance society it needs to be both ways. From the constable walking the street to the highest politicians it needs to be transparent. I think that CCTV is a horrible idea, I'm not going to rehash as many people have pointed out exactly what it doesn't do.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
We are under constant surveillance in our Masaajid (Mosques), so I guess it's now your turn. They want to watch us praying and talking Jihaad, now they want to watch you drinking and talking Friday Night game.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
One sided surveillance... particularly true in the UK as it is now illegal to photograph police officers.
The fact remains that CCTV has lead to more real criminals behind bars
Do you have a cite for this assertion?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
You're at the crux of the matter. The surveillance is very one sided, if these people want to make a surveillance society it needs to be both ways.
Yet sousveillance just took another hit as they're proposing to make a crime of photographing the police
One privacy rule for us, one for them.
You just hurt your own case. He abused his position and lost his job thereby proving that there isn't a problem.
You just hurt your own case. He abused his position and lost his job thereby proving that there isn't a problem.
Didn't say the person who was likely to lose their job was the manager who handed over the CCTV tapes, did I?
Well-behaved people have nothing to fear from being seen sitting and drinking.
I piss off bigots.
The row comes a week after a House of Lords report stated that the steady expansion of the "surveillance society" risked undermining fundamental freedoms including the right to privacy.
Peers said that Britain, with an estimated 4m CCTV cameras in use, had constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world in the name of combating terrorism and crime and improving administrative efficiency.
However, the cross-party committee warned that "pervasive and routine" electronic surveillance was almost taken for granted adding that privacy is an "essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
Lord Goodlad, the former Conservative chief whip and committee chairman, said that there could be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about an individual being recorded and pored over by the state.
"The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy," he said.
Well, undeniably the UK has slowly let itself become dominated by the mentality that maintaining a grid of CCTV cameras is the answer to reducing 'crime' and 'terrorism', and constantly stoking those fears in the public to allow for this 'creep' against personal privacy.
Funny when one looks at the statistics, but being that so many, many more people die of preventable car accidents and of heart attacks from eating too much junk food, why is it that the same expenditures aren't lavished on those areas?
Simple.
Arguably, there are many who sense that it has little to do with protecting the lives of citizens, but rather far more to do with the government jealously guarding its symbol of 'authority' and not wanting to lose face... If the goverment's mission was to truly protect the constituency (rather than its own authority), I imagine a lot of things would be done differently.
There is such a thing as the amount of acceptable risk one takes by doing everyday things like going to a pub, walking in the street and such. It is very telling, however, that these sorts of ideas are constantly being floated by the police, as in the example of some UK clubs having to submit an application form in advance listing the names and addresses of the artists and performers scheduled to appear, as well as style of music, in order to be allowed to have dance music event without being shut down.
Death by a thousand paper cuts of bureaucracy, which in the end doesn't truly prevent anything, but most certainly sets an aura of hysteria around every aspect of everyday life.
Z.
The idea of no more crime is so ludicrous at this point as to be not worthwhile considering.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
First they come after criminals, but you are not criminal so you stay quiet. Then they come after child molesters, but you are not one, so you stay quiet.
Well, at least they got their priorities right and got the criminals first, rather than those innocent child molesters.
In public spaces? Moron.
Yeah, those islands. That's where Great Britain used to be. A shame, really.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Jesus christ. Why is it that every slashdotter seems paranoid about the government? Maybe the average slashdotter should cut down on reading novels about big brother and the government killing everyone. It might stop them from getting confused with fact and fiction. Everyone on /. seems to think that the nature of all government actions is pure evil. It's absurd and I'm getting tired of the ignorance.
According to the news articles I've seen, and that's from reputable new sources, not scandal rags and rumor vids it's a little different.
Times CCTV in was abused? numerous...
Times CCTV put away bad people, by itself, very very few?
Times it's caused police to ignore something because they are watching something else or don't want to get off their butts? lots.
Times CCTV was used to harass someone doing nothing illegal? far too many.
Number of times these abusers of CCTV have been arrested or ticketed? Yeah right, like the cops are going to burn themselves...
What people are doing that they don't want on camera? Well, pretty much everything from looking at a pretty girl, to daydreaming, to tripping on a crack in the sidewalk, and even picking my nose.
Really, how do you feel when some creep you don't even know is standing one foot behind you scrutinizing everything you do? Just because it's metaphorical instead of strictly physical doesn't reduce the 'back off you creep' factor.
I haven't read or watched even one report that says the CCTV has been a success. They've all labeled it a huge boondoggle.
Well, the CCTV systems where intended to curb serious crime in general, terrorism in particular. Now, some local councils have targeted littering, for example, and used the CCTV footage as a justification for an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). Just think of the children!
Read a history book, dumbass
Neither did he. The one who abused his position is the theif who got caught on camera, i.e. you. I mean, ummm, your friend.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What will police do when there is no more crime?
Assuming a spherical cow of uniform density...
Seriously, how on earth did a post starting with that line end up being modded insightful?
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Maybe it would be nice if Timothy did read the story and did some fact checking or whatever, but that's not what Slashdot "editors" are paid to do.
Perhaps it's time they did actually RTFA, and verify the summary was accurate, or "edit" them to be accurate.
IIRC, in the old days of Slashdot, Summaries were more accurate, and stories were not chosen based on how many page hits they might generate.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
Unfortunately your probably right about some things and definitely right on some others. I would hope that the general population would vote out a government at some point who took things too far. But if the steps are small enough and slow enough too far may be further than we would hope.
CCTV does deter criminal activity in the presence of the camera's, it also makes people uncomfortable with being watched and monitored. Thing is that the positive things like a peaceful atmosphere , no fighting nobody getting a glass in the face surely is something most people want in a night out. Perhaps if your having an affair though being recorded on cctv is the last thing you want. Maybe your out with friends and you engage in some harmless flirting but how would your partner view that.
CCTV doesn't make up for lack of a good team working in your business, some places will require door staff to ensure nobody gets too far out of line but often a quite word can save a violent confrontation a CCTV camera just records the carnage.
As for CCTV in our homes, watching our property is one thing, quite another to be watching us. In the UK some offenders, people on probation are tagged and have curfews imposed. The electronic tags ensure the curfew is being kept and records when it is broken. Pretty much this is all that is needed in terms of monitoring, I'm unaware of any audio visual monitoring being used. Perhaps CCTV could have a role in monitoring a refuge for battered wifes, helping them to feel safer.
The real problem is whilst CCTV can provide positive benefits, it is harder to point to the negative sides to CCTV. I don't want to be watched and monitored but find it difficult to be able to say why exactly.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
someone got drunk and made a wager to out-do the Americans? Seriously, as many times as I ask myself what's going on in my own country, I find myself looking at bizarre stories like this that my own countries weird puritanical/mega-business playbook fails to explain.
Our countries agenda seems to mostly be simple, business at all cost, with a good dose of racism (terrorists!), protectivism (teh fearz!) and homophobia, masqueraded naturally as Gods will (OMG! they wantz deh pinux!).
It's almost like you're over there trying to make me feel better, but I know enough to know you're as intelligent and concerned about your rights as we are.
Quack, quack.
Not to mention the fact that The Register has really gone downhill over the years, to the point where pretty much every article they publish now is either absurd sensationalist nonsense, or else pandering to the whims of their readership. It really is just unreadable tripe.
The turning point for me was several years ago, when they published an "article" that was literally just an incoherent, ranting, non-journalistic diatribe accusing someone's blog post of not being journalism. I mean, besides the obvious "no shit, sherlock" factor, and the fact that the blog in question never even claimed to be journalism... I was literally boggling at how not only had someone actually bothered to write such an unreadable rant, but his buddies had actually let him publish it on what they like to call a news website. I mean, they even disabled comments on that story, so they obviously knew it was unpublishable crap.
Santa's suicide mission go!
As opposed to an optional law?
no crime? There's enough laws to make YOU and everyone here a criminal any time they want.
Until they kill or incarcerate all people, there will be plenty of criminals to chase and capture.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It seems to be a common misconception that authoritarian, fascist methods to prevent crime don't work. They do. They always worked, they always will. The problem is that it takes away the citizens' privacy as well. If the only argument needed for increased surveillance is to deter crime, then we've essentially doomed ourselves into a society of surveillance, because it always works. Lack of privacy, even in public houses, needs to be seen as problem, not as something that can endlessly be given up in the name of security. Freedom and democracy always were and always will be unpredictable, that's what's so cool about them. To hell with the CCTV cameras. Of course they work to deter crime, the problem is that they also work to control the population, and that's a real problem that needs to be considered as well, not simply ignored.
Because it is easier and safer to drive up the statistics by arresting people for littering, making noise at night or mooning the cameras. These criminals won't fight back and bonuses are the same.
In fact eliminating too much of the serious criminals would be counterproductive, as the fear of crime allows for easier approppriations of funds for the "law enforcement" and additional legal powers. Cynical? I do read public parts of police forums, I see how they see us: as third rate beings.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
I'm telling you, people should just start moving out of London - and England altogether. Let them spend millions of their taxpayer's money putting up cameras to spy on their taxpayers, but then there won't be anyone left on the screens.
"1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale NOT an instruction manual!"
1984 was a cautionary tale about the true nature of power. Most people don't seek power, so its a cautionary tale for most people. But for the minority of people who are so driven to seek power over other people; they don't need an instruction manual. Their core psychological behavior defines why they behave the way the do. People who seek power over others, almost by definition seek to control other people, so they seek to remove choices from the people they gain power over. They tell us its for our own good to help us. But its not, its to help them. They personally gain at the expense of others as they gain ever more control.
The people who seek power are seeking to become the political elite ruling over all others. Their goal is power and all that power brings them. But what they tell us is very different. The never ending myth and sales pitch of the political elite is that we can vote out anyone we don't like. Which on the surface appears true but it hides a problem. While we can remove anyone we feel is treating others unfairly, the problem is everyone who seeks political power is seeking power over others, so seeking to remove power from others for their own gain and so they are all behaving the same. All driven by the same underlying psychological behavior.
The 1984 book takes this underlying psychological behavior and shows how bad it can get, if no one stands in opposition to the desires of the people who seek power over other people. That is exactly what is happening now. The desire to seek power over others undermines Democracy. That is why every generation has to defend the ideals of Democracy otherwise we loose true democracy as the personal gain of the minority in power reduces the majority they rule over into a subjugated way of life. Which is exactly what is happening now.
Political parties move and behave like slime molds where the members of the slime mold don't know the actions of all the others members, but they all share something in common, which makes them move together. They move in a mass towards anything they desire. A slime mold desires food but what feeds political parties is any way that gives them more power.
Neither did he. The one who abused his position is the theif who got caught on camera, i.e. you. I mean, ummm, your friend.
Didn't say anything about him being a thief either, did I?
>Except that we have really strong cannabis here. >Someone high on that can be very dangerous.
Some idiot with a computer can also be as dangerous. And stupid.
And I know UK weed, trust me its crap and its week. You might as well suck on Prince Chuck's tube socks to catch a buzz.
The effects of marijuana and alcohol are different but they do enhance the natural 'assholeness' of people just like /. enhances the one of geeks online.
some places will require door staff to ensure nobody gets too far out of line
*some*???
I take it from this you've not been near a city at night for at least 20 years.
Any establishment without door staff would be out of business in no time flat because it'd get trashed by drunk idiots.
Oh, and people will get too far out of line. It goes with the territory. The door staff are there to make sure they're quickly ejected and stopped from entering any other establishment in the city (hence they're linked by radio).
Funny when one looks at the statistics, but being that so many, many more people die of preventable car accidents and of heart attacks from eating too much junk food, why is it that the same expenditures aren't lavished on those areas?
You go on to say that it's based around the government's desire for "authority" but I don't think this is true - the government is not incompetent or evil enough for this.
I think people are genuinely more fearful of being knifed in the street, intimidated by threatening teenagers, and suffering burglaries, etc, than they are of dying of being obese or in a car crash. You're more likely to die of a heart attack or a car crash than getting knifed by an unruly mob, but it's the fears and desires of the populace that drives policies, not logic or statistics.
I am a big fan of CCTV and the like, but I have more immediate fear for the security of my family on the streets than I do for their health thirty years down the line (sure, I care about that too, but it's not such an immediate "we must do something" type threat).
A few years ago (2002) I was cycling home in Hackney, East London, when a group of teenagers dragged me off my bike, kicked me in and stole my bike. Luckily a woman in a flat opposite heard the noise and called the police. Also I managed to get to my feet and flag down a passing biker who helped me chase down the kids and get my bike back.
Met. police investigated the case and told me they couldn't use the CCTV footage- the event was all captured on CCTV - as the quality was too low to be of any use.
Great bloody use of my council tax that was, putting in all those CCTV cameras if they don't actually work well enough to do what they are supposed to do.
So even beyond all the ethical discussions of whether CCTV cameras should be around to film people, and if it's a worthwhile use of public money, they don't even work!
True, even if they get caught and locked up (or put under curfew, or fined enough that they can't afford to drink) it isn't preventing anything.
Because as we all know, getting drunk and being violent is something everybody does once, and nobody ever repeats it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In Poland there are always scandals. I've lived there for 12 years and there was not one week when I was shocked by how much bloody corruption there was.
Bad example.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Folk who get caned on dope do drive. I've been to a fair few parties where people have been smoking then drive home, on roads where you'll be driving between 30 to 60mph.
Problem with driving stoned is it's like driving drunk - your reaction times will be badly impaired. Like booze, there's not so much a problem with people who are completely out of their head at a party -they aren't going anywhere but to sleep in the corner of the room - it's the folk who've only had a couple and think they are fine enough to drive.
Don't drive if you've been smoking dope. I don't give a toss if you smash yourself up but don't kill or maim passengers or other innocent people on the road.
This slippery-slope argument may have some validity but the way you make it is a bit facile. So do you object to having CCTV in any kind of private property? What about, say, banks? The reason banks have CCTV is that certain people want to rob banks, and putting the cameras there makes it a little bit harder. Certain pubs are also trouble spots - in fact I'd argue that there are inner-city pubs in the UK where you are a much greater risk of being shot than in your average bank. So if putting CCTV helps to catch those criminals (and I *did say* "if") then there's a balance to be struck between privacy and safety here.
As for the legal mechanism proposed, licences to sell alcohol have conditions imposed on them all the time. Having to employ a certain number of doormen is one example that I know about. So if the CCTV helps to keep the place safe, then I probably won't be complaining about privacy.
sorry, typo, I meant don't smoke and drive! but don't smoke and drink and drive either...! :-)
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=11161
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1331
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/17/rhys-jones-killer-gang-culture
Even if it's true that you're more likely to die of bad nutrition than getting knifed by hoodies, people's perception of risk isn't rational. Just look at how many nervous flyers there are, even though it's safer than driving.
Fear of crime is a big quality of life issue.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If someone named Ford walks in claiming the world is about to end, we can snag him before he leaves us all to die.
Fucking wanker.
I hadn't seen this story, it's an interesting Big Brother Gone Wild story and I'm glad it came back up if it was even up in the first place. And rather than whine about 'old' stories just go on to the next story or find something else to bitch about.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The important thing here is "to be made available to them upon request".
Recommending the pub install CCTV is sensible advice from the police. Many pubs here use CCTV for their own (valid) reasons, including protecting staff. To some extent literally, as a deterrent, but also to be able to prove what happened in the event of legal dispute - who punched first, the customer or the doorman?
However doing this via the licensing application is not a method of giving advice. It is where formal requirements go. Licensing boards are extremely powerful, it is extremely difficult to fight them, and for a sole proprietor rejection can lead to bankruptcy.
But still, requiring the premises to use CCTV isn't that terrible. It is reasonable to require a security policy and while the policy should be considered as a whole, if you're going to take shortcuts, CCTV is a very common component of a security policy.
But what is disturbing is adding the requirement that the CCTV be made available to the police on request, effectively creating a contractual obligation that bypasses the legal protections such as requiring a warrant. It would be interesting to consider what the situation is regarding this kind of information: is the need for a warrant a restriction placed on police (i.e. they can ONLY demand it with a warrant, hence trying to contract the obligation on the landlord is an illegal term and hence void) or is the warrant worded as a police power (in which case any contractual obligation would be valid and binding).
The situation is entirely different depending on whether the police are able to demand the information, or whether they require the approval of another person of trust to that information (i.e. the landlord or judge).
The Information Commissioner makes some good comments in the article however I think he should spend more of his time emphasising that anyone collecting information is a custodian of that information and hence responsible for it. If some company loses my credit card details, why are they not sued for negligence when my card is abused? Why should the store suffer when they were presented with perfectly valid information by a criminal, so had no reason to suspect foul play?
I know this was in a book or movie I saw - It may have been 1984, the TV in everyone's house monitored them...I can see it now, every TV will be required to have a little cam behind the glass or right at the top like a lot of laptops do now.
What will it take for people to stand up and say "no?!?!
Where is the line? Or are they just going to continue to implement this stuff so incrementally that people get upset, but not enough to stand up - and before you know it everything you do, say or think is monitored.....
As its name says, it's a private property that's open to the public.
And you clearly could gain something from reading more history and less Orwell. The origin of oppressive states has never followed the law. Dictatorships, like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Franco in Spain, etc, are born from a period of economic chaos and extreme poverty, often caused by war.
I don't know of any dictatorship in recent centuries that was created from a gradual erosion of people's rights by legislation. However, a legislative culture that allows anarchy to form, by creating weak or illogic laws, will eventually degrade into a dictatorship.
Don't smoke and post on /. ether... :-D
Summary is fucking terrible, I had to check for a second that it wasn't kdawson so I could at least ignore it and move on.
FROM TFA: The CCTV would capture "the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub". In central London, this is sheer common sense. I've had people stroll into my pub before and just go insane at the nearest person (one particular incident in the middle of the day) and because of the shortcomings of our CCTV, we had no idea who the bastard was, so we could't bar him.
Now the "on request" part would only be as part of an ongoing criminal investigation (likely into the conduct of someone in that particular pub, so again it's in your best interests), and if they asked for a blanket request of all the footage of, say, the last 6 months, you would have every right to deny them access.
I figured closed captioning on pubs in TVs would make it a lot easier to understand programs over the din of the beer-swilling masses.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
...don't count for shit.
Furthermore - the name says it all. Cowards. Shouting from the crowd they are hiding behind.
Chickens. Pussies. Fraidy-cats. Jellyfish. Yellow-bellies. One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
Ain't generalizations grand?
Vasaline on the lense. Worked for the pr0n industry to blur out unsightly blemishes, and enough would probably blur faces well enough too....
They're attempting to push through a law to put cameras in anywhere you buy booze. Just small steps, small itty bitty steps. Sure makes me wonder when the UK is going to wake up, one time many years ago I considered it a nice place to maybe want to travel and live in.
Om, nomnomnom...
> Then hey, since everyone is already being >monitored at work and everywhere else, the >precedent has clearly been set. The government >will next want to install cameras in criminal's >homes or the homes of their families, and has said that cameras are allowed on private >property.
You must have missed the proposal to install CCTV in the homes of victims of domestic violence.
For their own protection and to gather evidence, of course.
Sometimes, when I'm a little groggy, my mind plays tricks on me when I'm reading. The results are sometimes humorous mash-ups. (well, funny to me)
This one became:
"London Police Seek To Install CCTV In Pubes"
A very interesting picture came to my mind. I had to share.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
You dont run a business do you? Or live and work in the UK? Because if you did ,you would know that pretty much all businesses install CCTV. Not because its mandated by law but because its decreases yours Insurance premium.
In most instances CCTV's in public areas are installed by the councils as its easier and cheaper than actually policing and patrolling Crime Hotspots,dont be under the impression that there is someone monitoring them.A significant amount dont work and only a few if any are monitored regularly.
Dont blame on malice whats actually mostly a business decision.
Wanted : A Signature.
I am a big fan of CCTV and the like
/. volunteers will be round soon to install...
In which case you presumably wouldn't mind it installed in your living room. Care to post your address and I'm sure some
The good thing about installing CCTVs in every pub is that, if I'm a cop, and I get videos of some politician going into a gay bar, my career is secure.
Or suppose I'm a legitimate investment advisor and broker and some politician http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=eliot+spitzer&btnG=Google+Search is getting after me because my investment strategies don't meet his old-style accounting standards. If I get a video of him going into a bar with an escort, I can go on with my business unmolested.
The police (I'm talking about the really high up people, not the drones) don't want to remove all crime, because then all their jobs would be lost and they would lose the control that comes with their protective duty. What they want is to look like they're fixing crime, hence all the security theater policies.
FOR THE GREATER GOOD!
Ok the majority then, my favourite city centre pub didn't have door staff and there rarely was trouble, guess that comes with the place being filled with Bikers rockers and goths.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
So how come the same police that demand CCTV, also ran an advertising campaign last year, labelling people who take photos in public as being possible terrorists, and urging people to report them to the police?
What about the new law that criminalises taking photos of police?
The "It's in public..." argument works both ways.
Just to clarify - they're not merely proposing, rather, it's now law that's come into effect, as of 16 February.
Is is article a joke?
Why should british consumers have to China Central Television broadcasts?
"This is A Violation of Privacy!"
-Captain Obvious
You are a fucking tool.
The UK needs to just go ahead and get it over with already. It's obvious the government won't be happy until they've shoved an electronic leash up the ass of every citizen.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
if you don't want to get hit by a drunken idiot- stay at home.
England is becoming like 1984, which was a novel. The USA is approaching the Wild West, with everyone packing a gun. Mostly a fiction crated by Hollywood.
Once you leave your HOME everything is PUBLIC property.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
so we should change from news for nerds to interesting old stuff? meet the new shiny 8086! now with 8 bit words!
That is a false choice - just because a certain amount of privacy is not important does not mean that all privacy is unimportant.
edinburgh city council have a better Idea, put up a cctv camera and point it at the pub 99% of the time.
I don't even know why I am responding to your statement. But someone saw it fit to mod you +5 so here we go:
If your argument of "Very much power" is that The police have too much power with CCTV and power corrupts; I would say:
Police already have a lot of power. It is up to the public to demand that they are not corrupted in using the power that society entrust to them. Sure there are examples of bad apples in almost any police department but more often than not they may be getting it right but when they get it right it is usually not news worthy. While I think that CCTV could lead to abuse it can also cut both ways.
Here is an example of CCTV used correctly in monitoring a police department. If cops always protected their own and were as corrupt as you seem to suggest this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJaAe7sYoCA tape would have been destroyed:
The only reason this made the evening news is b/c it had a skinny drunk chick & sex which is good for ratings.
By the way, how would you suggest that Poland use CCTV to stop spotting crime and only use it to prevent crime? CCTV could only work to help prevent crime if the public knows CCTV will be used to spot and prosecute crime. Of course criminals are stupid... so it can never prevent all crime.
Ever look at the roof of a Wal-mart? They got CCTV all over their property and criminals keep doing stupid stuff in the parking lot.
One sided surveillance... particularly true in the UK as it is now illegal to photograph police officers.
No it ain't - the cops might tell you it is, but challenge them as to which act it is illegal under and they ought to back down.
Have a look at this video taken by some guy in his garden when the policy enforcement officers attempted to create a situation: http://www.tpuc.org/node/124 (www.tpuc.org)
Know your rights and remember who you are!
THIS MEANS REVOLUTION!
I'm psychotic so not only are both your posts old, they both piss me off.
It's amazing what two little letters can do.