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
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
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.
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.
It's called privacy, you dipshit.
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.
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.
I am guessing you have never been out in a major UK town/city after midnight.
Not that I am in support of the CCTV plan but to suggest that drunk people are not causing serious problems in UK towns suggests a woeful lack of experience in the subject matter. It is practically impossible to go out on the town on a Friday or Saturday night, returning after midnight, without seeing at least one act of violence or criminal damage.
Yes, extremely drunk people pass out, it is what they do *before* that happens that is causing the problems.
Man walks into a bar and orders a drink.
"Barman, would you like to hear a blond joke?" says the man.
The barman leans over with a serious look in his eyes. "Before you tell your joke, let me tell you five things", he said. "I'm blond and I have a baseball bat under the bar. The doorman is blond and weighs as much as a horse. My wife is blond can carry a barrel of beer under each arm. The cleaner is blond with a black belt in karate. And finally, the gentlemen at the end of the bar is blond, ex-SAS with a screw loose"
The barmen maintains eye contact with the man. "You still want to tell your joke?"
"No way! Not if I've got explain it five times!"
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
... 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."
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 solution isn't "more cameras" as the cameras doesn't prevent crime. They might sort of help catch the people, but they're not going to stop crime.
No, the solution is to get rid of violent drunk people. Not by throwing them in jail forever. Just outlaw alcohol.
Then you'll complain about prohibition, but outlawing alcohol is only the first step. Alcohol brings out the worst in people - that's why we'll outlaw it. But to give people a chance to wind down with a nice relaxing substance, we'll legalise cannabis.
Think about it - who'd you rather get run over by? Someone who's had too much to drink or someone who's smoked too much cannabis? Hint, the guy on cannabis is likely to be sitting in the passenger seat, and if he somehow manages to find the driver's seat, he'll be likely to drive at 3 miles an hour.
Secondly - who'd you rather get into a fight with? A drunkard or someone who's high on cannabis? The former is likely to smash you over the head with a beer bottle, the latter is likely to just start laughing and pointing at the pretty rainbows.
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
Drunk crimes are irrational crimes, so rational deterrents (like cameras) won't work so well.
Being able to stop them in the act (like putting police on the beat) is a good way to stop that sort of crime.
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.
This actually goes one 'better' than 1984, where a pub was one of the few public places without a camera, though entering one would be considered a highly suspicious act for a non-prole ('It was horribly dangerous, but at any rate there was no telescreen in the room, a point he had made sure of as soon as he came in.').
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.
Well-behaved people have nothing to fear from being seen sitting and drinking.
You've obviously never had a Vindaloo and warm English beer...
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
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."
The joke works a bit better if you remember to mention at the start that the man is blind.
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.
"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.
Do you seriously believe this? citation
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!
Well-behaved people have nothing to fear from being seen sitting and drinking.
Until the government (regardless of what level) decides that your pal Tony did something that maybe they don't like and decide to haul you and everyone else spotted with him in for a good cavity search. They can even look at the tv and say "That guy beat me at *name of event* back in high school!" and get a bogus warrant so that they can ruin your life as well. There are a LOT of police out there who only became police officers for the power and to feed their ego knowing that they are allowed to carry a gun, beat people up, and toss a little baggie on you and your life is screwed up for years. Giving those very people unlimited power over your life is one of the dumbest things you can do.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
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.
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?
Except that we have really strong cannabis here.
Hah, the cannabis in the UK is potentially the same strength as cannabis in any other country (with equivalent climates), though most of the cannabis on the black market is often weaker than it could be due to the actions of law enforcement and the consequences of cannabis being illegal.
You are just parroting the bollocks that the prohibitionists speak. Fuck knows what idiot modded you up!
Due to cannabis having been the illegal for about 2 generations now, there have been selectively bred strains of cannabis developed which are indeed much stronger than naturally occurring cannabis, that are adapted for growth indoors, etc..
The line that the cannabis available nowadays is much stronger in the 60s is bollocks. In the 60s and 70s the vast majority of cannabis available in the UK was hashish, Moroccan, Lebanese etc.. Hashish is made by collecting the resins from the surface of the female cannabis flowers, and pure hashish can be maybe 80% or 90% THC, the active ingredient.
As time went on, hashish got cut more and more with adulterants, lowering the strength and making it much more profitable for people selling it (remember it is illegal - no enforceable quality controls). In the UK now you rarely can get real hashish, and the stuff solid as resin is usually known as soapbar - the general consensus is that it contains ground up cannabis plants (flowers, leaves, stems and all), something to dye it dark like henna or coffee, and an oily product like turpentine to give it a bit of a sheen. There are lots of rumours of other stuff that goes into it too to bulk up the weight, such as tyres or dog shit! Soapbar is maybe 5% THC at the very most, but more like 1 or 2%.
As a consequence of hashish turning to shit and law enforcement crack downs on smuggling people in the UK looked more and more at growing here, and herbal cannabis became much more popular. Basically people started to smoke the whole flowers of the female cannabis plant (with tobacco, as is customary in most of Europe) rather than products made from the flowers. Skunk simply refers to any variety or cannabis that has been selectively bred for strength, as they very often are much smellier than natural cannabis varieties. Killer skunk is a myth made up to sell newspapers and to get politicians and law enforcement power. The percentage of THC in even the strongest strains of skunk is only up to 15% or so, significantly less than what was available on the black market in the past.
As time has gone on, the quality of herbal cannabis has gone down too - look up gritweed. Also the major black market suppliers focus on growing the plants with the biggest amounts of saleable bud, not on strength. They choose varieties that produce the largest amounts of plant matter, and as it is a black market quality counts for very little. 70+ years of cannabis prohibition means that most cannabis users are grossly under-informed about what is good or bad weed.
Someone high on that can be very dangerous. I tell you what, you come over here and ask the gang of youths at the back of the bus to turn their mobile phone MP3 players off and stop stinking up the bus with their joints and see how quickly the situation turns ugly.
Now you just sound like an old man. "Kids with their music, smelly skunk.... I'm going to write to the Daily Mail".
Maybe if you approached them with the right attitude it wouldn't be a problem? More than likely they are just twats who would give you shit no matter what state they are in though, but stoned (only) people tend to not actually be very hostile.
I can assure you that the kind of kids that sit on buses smoking will also have been drinking too, maybe have had a line as well or are buzzing from some amphetamine, or have been chugging redbull all day too.
There are problems in society, but don't just blame cannabis. You sound seriously ignorant when you do so.
Car analogies break down.
This "strong cannabis" argument is fucking retarded. Do you think drunk drivers who stick to beer are less dangerous ?
I'm sure it's true that cannabis today is stronger than in the 60s/70s but so what ? People will carry on taking a drug until they obtain the effect they are looking for, so back then they probably sat around smoking joint after joint until they were properly fucked up. Now they only need a few tokes to get properly fucked up - the main difference is they are causing less damage to their lungs.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
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