Alright, no need to be snarky. I was merely questioning the math based on your statements.
If I were to question you based on the articles you provide, I would use this quote: "In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers." Or this quote: "The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals."
Feel free to use that quote, but it questions nothing. You realise that just reinforces what I've already said?
Those figures you cite almost certainly include private cameras, in pubs, shops, etc. That's not the discussion point here; we're discussing the expense to the tax-payer, and the privacy implications. They aren't the same implications that exist inside private establishments owned by private people.
I'm presuming this is the case, since it's well documented that "Britain has a staggering 4.2 million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.". There are 10,000 tax-payer-funded CCTV cameras. It's probably obvious, but tax payers do not directly fund private CCTV.
Feel free to question the figures, it's not an easy one to calculate. But take into account all the statistics - even if CCTV was a hundred times more successful; (or I was two orders of magnitude out on my calculations) - statistically, street lamps would still prevent more crime.
As a Brit, yes, I pay taxes, and if my house was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my friend who has a part-time job and pays less taxes was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my other friend who is on benefits (which you'd call "welfare") because this wretched economy means they can't get an interview much less a job, and as such doesn't pay taxes in any meaningful sense was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out. And if the house of my other other friend, who has a debilitating illness which means she couldn't work if she wanted to and gets just enough money from the government to pay for the food, rent and carers she needs was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out.
We have this crazy idea over here that a person's right to emergency services shouldn't be based on how much money they're making, and shouldn't be removed through poor luck or illness. And yeah, a few lazy people abuse it; frankly, I'll accept that knowing that if anyone I care about is in need, no matter whether due to malice, bad luck or their own stupidity, they'll be helped, without needing to sign up for a series of different plans years beforehand.
I'm a Brit too. Just because a person is on "welfare" doesn't mean their tax isn't paid on their behalf. You go see how long you can get away with openly refusing to pay your taxes. That's presuming the firefighters aren't on strike again.
Even this doesn't equal 10 crimes total. Met police say 1000 cameras to solve one crime, but they don't state over what amount of time. Per day? Per year? Per lifetime?
This does make more sense then what I had first thought, thank you for the clarification
Yeah it does. Read the article, it even says so:
It says, quite clearly, right at the top: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.".
Again, the article is here. Or here. I know it's unusual to read an article and easier just to reply with your opinions, but it does answer all your questions.
The only complaint you could have is over whether this works out to £20,000 per crime solved, or £2,000,000.
I've calculated it as 10,000 cameras, £200 million cost, that's £2,000 per camera per year. We know 1/1000 crimes are solved by cameras, so 1000*2000=£2m. There is another way to calculate it, I'll let you figure out why the police calculated it as £20,000.
Whether its £20,000 or £2,000,000 to solve one crime; it's still too high - and considering that crime is reduced by 20% just by having street lighting, it just doesn't make any sense.
That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.
except you need to divide by total crimes, not total cameras. There were 33463 robberies alone last year, that makes 33 crimes per year solved by cameras right there.
No. I've explained this badly. It took 1,000 cameras to solve just one crime. There are 10,000 cameras. That's 10 crimes used as evidence per camera.
What you've presumed is that all robberies are seen by cameras. That's not what the statistic says. To quote: (It takes) "1000 CCTV cameras to solve just one crime, Met Police admits".
The figures I was referring to were in the telegraph article yes, but you hadn't posted that one up before, which is why I was asking where the "TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME" stuff was coming from.
I appreciate attempts to educate me, I know I'm ignorant on many topics, but saying "I'll get out the crayons" when you hadn't actually linked all the articles you were getting your figures from felt very insulting to me.
I guessed you missed the bit about only 1/1000 crimes being caught by cameras. I had mentioned that statistic - I didn't realise that negating to put a link caused you to call me an arsehole.
Especially when I then explain WHERE the stat came from; and you say "Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them" - all the info was there in the post you replied to.
One thing I think should be clarified: are all those cameras government funded ones?
Yes, from the last line in the article: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."
I definitely agree about trust, I hated it when one of our managers clearly didn't trust anyone in the building, made me consider leaving the company.
It just makes you want to steal things doesn't it?:)
I agree that people are more likely to behave well if you treat them like adults rather than kids.
That's an eloquently way of putting it - I couldn't agree more.
CCTV doesn't bother me that much. Wasting money does though, especially this kind of money, especially when the statistics are so glaringly obvious.
Okay, I'm not sure if I can be bothered talking to you if that's the attitude you're going to have. Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them and then speak about data from the missing link as if it was in the article you linked to? To then be so condescending about me asking where your figures are coming from is downright.. well I can't quite figure out what it is right now, somewhere between being immature, arrogant, and an arsehole, but you're it.
All the figures are there. I'm a little annoyed that you clearly haven't read the article, but feel you have the ability to criticise it.
As I've said, all the figures and references are there - there's only two sources, and I've explained all the calculations.
If you want to blissfully ignore them and base your opinions on your own thoughts, rather than real statistics, you're falling under exactly the same problem that the UK Government have.
P.S. Saying "I'll get out the crayons" to explain something that you've asked me to isn't quite as insulting as calling me an arsehole. Call me what you want, it doesn't bother me; I'm simply trying to educate you.
Thanks for trying to help, but I don't get this figure you keep throwing around:
Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't see that in the article, and I hope nobody else believes what you are saying without checking up your facts too.
I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you. All these figures come from this article, and this one.
From the first line of the first article: "London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million" (over the last ten years).
From the second article: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year"
Now here's the maths bit:
If there are 10,000 cameras (which there are), and 1/1000 crimes are solved with CCTV; that is 10 crimes per year solved by CCTV. With me so far?
Those 10,000 cameras cost £200 million over ten years. That is £20 million a year for 10,000 cameras.
Remember, 10,000 CCTV cameras solved 10 crimes per year. £20 million divided by 10 is £2 million.
So it cost £2 million to solve one crime.
That's £2 million per crime solved.
Bit more expensive than employing a £30,000 Bobbie; and way more than a PCSO. I'd hope that it wouldn't take more than 50 rozzers to solve one crime per year.
Where in that article does it say they only solved 10 crimes?
That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.
It's saying crime has dropped by around 20% in each area.
Where does it say that? It says the clear-up rate for crimes is around 22% - but it generally has always been around that figure - 78% of crimes are unsolved.
It does say underneath "the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting, which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent." - that seems a far better choice to spend money on.
I'm happy with things like putting in better lighting rather than cameras if it's shown to better cut crime levels
Agreed.
(though both is ideal because then you still have a record of the remaining 80% of crimes still happening in the streets).
Doesn't work like that. Installing street lighting would decrease it by 20%. Installing CCTV would decrease it by 0.1%, and probably not further. The two are quite exclusive!
Also, the cost of CCTV (£2000/year) has got to be far greater than installing street lighting.
My main issue with people's arguments here is not about the effectiveness of CCTV anyway, it's frustration at the attitude that they shouldn't be filmed while out in public.
I haven't a problem with being filmed in public, so long as it is used properly. Being checked on occasionally is fine. Being followed around by a CCTV operator with a stalking obsession; or using it to blackmail my non-existent wife - isn't. We don't even know what the controls on CCTV are - but I know someone who is a CCTV operator, and knowing the kind of guy he is, really worried me.
I think it's a great thing to be doing, especially considering for example some of the abuses of Police power going on that we're only able to see now with the popularity of YouTube.
I'd agree if it wasn't for things like the attack on a 50 year old man, coming home from work, recorded on camera, beaten by police from behind; and the police being let off. More details here. It's certainly not the first time CCTV has been ignored - or as others have mentioned, damming evidence on CCTV completely disappearing.
The more people are aware that they are accountable, the better behaved they are.
I've worked for a number of years in schools, and have met a number of drugs users. In schools at least, the less you trust the students, the more trouble they cause. We had a unusual trick of those students being caught 'hacking' (sic), were given more access, and not punished. It worked unbelievably well. It's not necessarily accountability that makes people better behaved, but often is down to education, or a feeling of unfairness in life.
Being constantly watched only helps to promote paranoia to all people, you can see this by the number of people scared of CCTV! I'm sure that common criminals and drug users are far less caring about being caught.
Not only that, but CCTV is crap anyway. Have you ever tried it yourself? Imagine quite how bad it is.
You've seen yourself, the crime figures seem to indicate that CCTV doesn't help anyway, and certainly is costing a lot more money and stopping crime less than it would just to install street lighting.
This is a large number of independent sets of cameras - Each one is mostly one or two outside a shop going to their own recorder in store
Note this also does nt include the council run high street systems
Or the ones who did not bother with a grant from the government
Or the in store systems that do not qualify for a grant...
Publicly owned and run camera systems are mostly run by local councils and are independent of each other and (outside London) only cover one town centre....
No it's not. Those are NOT included. Read the article again. This is *PURELY* Government CCTV.
Right at the bottom of the article you didn't read: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."
You missed one statistic. In areas of CCTV, how many crimes has it PREVENTED by just the aspect of them being there.
Unfortunately this is a statistic that is not easy to calculate, unless we employ mind reading.
Well, the numbers of crimes haven'tgonedown* significantly - so, essentially, none.
Also, if you look at the percentage of crimes solved, from the link I posted originally, you'll see that the crime-clear-up figures are below average, and haven't increased - and are worse in the areas with more CCTV cameras.
* specifically: "of 24 studies carried out in city centres, only 13 showed crime had fallen since CCTV cameras were installed. Crime rates rose significantly in four other cities."
I suppose you also switch off logging on all your computers, in good faith that everything will work perfectly and you won't ever need to find out what happened in the case of a problem?
If it cost me £2,000 per year per log file, meaning I've spent £200 million over ten years to solve 1/1000 problems - yeah, I'd do without log files.
Except that it has been shown time and time again that CCTV does nothing to _prevent_ crime and only a bit to _solve cases_. Hint: The police have perfected being good at working without CCTV over the last few hundred years. I can create more work, though.
If you want to _prevent_ crime you need street lights and more police on the streets. Oh, and a fast, efficient justice system that deals swift and just justice so there is no mental disconnect between "I broke $law" and "I get punished". Again, this has been shown again and again.
Spot on.
CCTV solves 1 in 1000 crimes, cost £2000 per camera, per year. Street lamps stop around 20% of crimes.
You must be lost - this is a thread about the privacy implications, not the effectiveness or cost. Perhaps you meant to piggyback your opinion somewhere else?
I'll put my opinions where I like. Until the Freedoms of Speech are further restricted, I'll say what I want.
I realise it's out of context, but YOU said the only reason the public dislike CCTV is because they're being watched in public. That is such a horrific and uneducated mistake, that it needed correcting.
That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist?
That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.
That seems to be a bit of a strawman considering mistakes are made all the time without CCTV too. With really crappy quality CCTV it isn't that much use as evidence (I should know our CCTV system completely sucks here at work, wish they'd get a decent system), but with high quality stuff it's a lot more useful. A lot of businesses around here run their own CCTV, it isn't costing the government anything. The Police occasionally request some footage of certain times if there's been dodgy goings on on our street (which there often are as we live next to one of the roughest areas in the city).
That's because the "massive CCTV system" is largely a sprawl of private cameras owned and run by businesses to benefit themselves, rather than (even nominally) the public. Publicly owned and run CCTV systems are on a much smaller scale than you might expect.
It's only "tired out" because you refuse to listen to it. What is wrong with cameras in a public place? As I said above, would you prefer to switch off all logging on a server until after you start having problems? I doubt it. Seriously, what's your problem with having cameras in already very public places?
Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME. It costs about £5,000 for the Fuzz to solve a crime. And half of them move around less than a CCTV camera.
It isn't so much the CCTV, but what it is being used for, that the real crimes it records are being ignored, and that it is constantly misused due to a lack of controls.
10,524 CCTV Cameras - £200 million over 10 years.
Crimes Solved: 10 per year
Cost to solve once crime with CCTV: £2 million per crime.
Crimes per year: 4.4 million
Crimes solved by police: 22%
Police: 136,000
Crimes solved per year: 968,000
Crimes solved per officer per year: 7
Average Police wage: £30,000
Cost to solve one crime: less than £5,000.
I don't see how this is workable. Either I've got my figures wrong, or some CCTV company is making way too much money.
I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.
That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist?
That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.
You know that when you step outside your door, other people can actually see you, right? Your Mak'tar stealth haze isn't working.
If you want to protect your privacy from prying eyes, you can wear a hoodie, burqa or that tiresome de rigueur V mask that all the cool paranoid kids are sporting, anywhere you like in public, without let or hindrance. The UK isn't France.
I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I just vomited in my coffee.
What do you expect when you put 'Bleeeeachhhh' in there?
By the same logic my unicorn repellent is 100% effective, since I haven't seen one since I bought it.
That's a logical fallacy. If you'd bought unicorn attractor spray for £200 million, and not seen any unicorns; then you'd be right.
By the way, I'm selling some Unicorn Attractor Spray for £200 million - interested?
Sorry yes the article is for the Council run CCTV networks ...
The largest of these is ~1000 cameras going to one control room monitored 24hrs a day
This 1000 camera system (like most of the others)...
...that cost £20 million to set up is only solving one crime a year.
FTFY.
Alright, no need to be snarky. I was merely questioning the math based on your statements.
If I were to question you based on the articles you provide, I would use this quote: "In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers." Or this quote: "The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals."
Feel free to use that quote, but it questions nothing. You realise that just reinforces what I've already said?
Those figures you cite almost certainly include private cameras, in pubs, shops, etc. That's not the discussion point here; we're discussing the expense to the tax-payer, and the privacy implications. They aren't the same implications that exist inside private establishments owned by private people.
I'm presuming this is the case, since it's well documented that "Britain has a staggering 4.2 million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.". There are 10,000 tax-payer-funded CCTV cameras. It's probably obvious, but tax payers do not directly fund private CCTV.
Feel free to question the figures, it's not an easy one to calculate. But take into account all the statistics - even if CCTV was a hundred times more successful; (or I was two orders of magnitude out on my calculations) - statistically, street lamps would still prevent more crime.
As a Brit, yes, I pay taxes, and if my house was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my friend who has a part-time job and pays less taxes was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my other friend who is on benefits (which you'd call "welfare") because this wretched economy means they can't get an interview much less a job, and as such doesn't pay taxes in any meaningful sense was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out. And if the house of my other other friend, who has a debilitating illness which means she couldn't work if she wanted to and gets just enough money from the government to pay for the food, rent and carers she needs was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out.
We have this crazy idea over here that a person's right to emergency services shouldn't be based on how much money they're making, and shouldn't be removed through poor luck or illness. And yeah, a few lazy people abuse it; frankly, I'll accept that knowing that if anyone I care about is in need, no matter whether due to malice, bad luck or their own stupidity, they'll be helped, without needing to sign up for a series of different plans years beforehand.
I'm a Brit too. Just because a person is on "welfare" doesn't mean their tax isn't paid on their behalf. You go see how long you can get away with openly refusing to pay your taxes. That's presuming the firefighters aren't on strike again.
Even this doesn't equal 10 crimes total. Met police say 1000 cameras to solve one crime, but they don't state over what amount of time. Per day? Per year? Per lifetime?
This does make more sense then what I had first thought, thank you for the clarification
Yeah it does. Read the article, it even says so:
It says, quite clearly, right at the top: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.".
Again, the article is here. Or here. I know it's unusual to read an article and easier just to reply with your opinions, but it does answer all your questions.
The only complaint you could have is over whether this works out to £20,000 per crime solved, or £2,000,000.
I've calculated it as 10,000 cameras, £200 million cost, that's £2,000 per camera per year. We know 1/1000 crimes are solved by cameras, so 1000*2000=£2m. There is another way to calculate it, I'll let you figure out why the police calculated it as £20,000.
Whether its £20,000 or £2,000,000 to solve one crime; it's still too high - and considering that crime is reduced by 20% just by having street lighting, it just doesn't make any sense.
That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.
except you need to divide by total crimes, not total cameras. There were 33463 robberies alone last year, that makes 33 crimes per year solved by cameras right there.
No. I've explained this badly. It took 1,000 cameras to solve just one crime. There are 10,000 cameras. That's 10 crimes used as evidence per camera.
What you've presumed is that all robberies are seen by cameras. That's not what the statistic says. To quote: (It takes) "1000 CCTV cameras to solve just one crime, Met Police admits".
and can't help arguing for the sake of it, even when I know I'm going to get flamed to hell
Don't worry. I'm the same. Is mostly the reason I posted in such a sensational way.
Some of the groupthink here does have a valid reason behind it though - it's not all conspiracies.
The figures I was referring to were in the telegraph article yes, but you hadn't posted that one up before, which is why I was asking where the "TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME" stuff was coming from.
I appreciate attempts to educate me, I know I'm ignorant on many topics, but saying "I'll get out the crayons" when you hadn't actually linked all the articles you were getting your figures from felt very insulting to me.
I guessed you missed the bit about only 1/1000 crimes being caught by cameras. I had mentioned that statistic - I didn't realise that negating to put a link caused you to call me an arsehole.
Especially when I then explain WHERE the stat came from; and you say "Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them" - all the info was there in the post you replied to.
Anyway, that statistic is fairly widely available.
I'll try and remember to cite every single source next time.
Still, I'm a little offended at being called a 'conspiracy theorist' for giving real-world statistics. In reality it's more like the other way around.
One thing I think should be clarified: are all those cameras government funded ones?
Yes, from the last line in the article: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."
I definitely agree about trust, I hated it when one of our managers clearly didn't trust anyone in the building, made me consider leaving the company.
It just makes you want to steal things doesn't it? :)
I agree that people are more likely to behave well if you treat them like adults rather than kids.
That's an eloquently way of putting it - I couldn't agree more.
CCTV doesn't bother me that much. Wasting money does though, especially this kind of money, especially when the statistics are so glaringly obvious.
I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you.
Okay, I'm not sure if I can be bothered talking to you if that's the attitude you're going to have. Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them and then speak about data from the missing link as if it was in the article you linked to? To then be so condescending about me asking where your figures are coming from is downright .. well I can't quite figure out what it is right now, somewhere between being immature, arrogant, and an arsehole, but you're it.
All the figures are there. I'm a little annoyed that you clearly haven't read the article, but feel you have the ability to criticise it.
As I've said, all the figures and references are there - there's only two sources, and I've explained all the calculations.
If you want to blissfully ignore them and base your opinions on your own thoughts, rather than real statistics, you're falling under exactly the same problem that the UK Government have.
P.S. Saying "I'll get out the crayons" to explain something that you've asked me to isn't quite as insulting as calling me an arsehole. Call me what you want, it doesn't bother me; I'm simply trying to educate you.
Thanks for trying to help, but I don't get this figure you keep throwing around:
Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't see that in the article, and I hope nobody else believes what you are saying without checking up your facts too.
I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you. All these figures come from this article, and this one.
From the first line of the first article: "London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million" (over the last ten years).
From the second article: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year"
Now here's the maths bit:
If there are 10,000 cameras (which there are), and 1/1000 crimes are solved with CCTV; that is 10 crimes per year solved by CCTV. With me so far?
Those 10,000 cameras cost £200 million over ten years. That is £20 million a year for 10,000 cameras.
Remember, 10,000 CCTV cameras solved 10 crimes per year. £20 million divided by 10 is £2 million.
So it cost £2 million to solve one crime. That's £2 million per crime solved.
Bit more expensive than employing a £30,000 Bobbie; and way more than a PCSO. I'd hope that it wouldn't take more than 50 rozzers to solve one crime per year.
Where in that article does it say they only solved 10 crimes?
That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.
It's saying crime has dropped by around 20% in each area.
Where does it say that? It says the clear-up rate for crimes is around 22% - but it generally has always been around that figure - 78% of crimes are unsolved.
It does say underneath "the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting, which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent." - that seems a far better choice to spend money on.
I'm happy with things like putting in better lighting rather than cameras if it's shown to better cut crime levels
Agreed.
(though both is ideal because then you still have a record of the remaining 80% of crimes still happening in the streets).
Doesn't work like that. Installing street lighting would decrease it by 20%. Installing CCTV would decrease it by 0.1%, and probably not further. The two are quite exclusive!
Also, the cost of CCTV (£2000/year) has got to be far greater than installing street lighting.
My main issue with people's arguments here is not about the effectiveness of CCTV anyway, it's frustration at the attitude that they shouldn't be filmed while out in public.
I haven't a problem with being filmed in public, so long as it is used properly. Being checked on occasionally is fine. Being followed around by a CCTV operator with a stalking obsession; or using it to blackmail my non-existent wife - isn't. We don't even know what the controls on CCTV are - but I know someone who is a CCTV operator, and knowing the kind of guy he is, really worried me.
I think it's a great thing to be doing, especially considering for example some of the abuses of Police power going on that we're only able to see now with the popularity of YouTube.
I'd agree if it wasn't for things like the attack on a 50 year old man, coming home from work, recorded on camera, beaten by police from behind; and the police being let off. More details here. It's certainly not the first time CCTV has been ignored - or as others have mentioned, damming evidence on CCTV completely disappearing.
The more people are aware that they are accountable, the better behaved they are.
I've worked for a number of years in schools, and have met a number of drugs users. In schools at least, the less you trust the students, the more trouble they cause. We had a unusual trick of those students being caught 'hacking' (sic), were given more access, and not punished. It worked unbelievably well. It's not necessarily accountability that makes people better behaved, but often is down to education, or a feeling of unfairness in life.
Being constantly watched only helps to promote paranoia to all people, you can see this by the number of people scared of CCTV! I'm sure that common criminals and drug users are far less caring about being caught.
Not only that, but CCTV is crap anyway. Have you ever tried it yourself? Imagine quite how bad it is.
You've seen yourself, the crime figures seem to indicate that CCTV doesn't help anyway, and certainly is costing a lot more money and stopping crime less than it would just to install street lighting.
and if it helps to keep crime rates down or put more criminals behind bars when they're stupid enough to start something, it's a bargain.
It's not bringing the crime rates down though, that was my point. Read the damn article.
This is not one network of cameras ...
This is a large number of independent sets of cameras - Each one is mostly one or two outside a shop going to their own recorder in store
Note this also does nt include the council run high street systems Or the ones who did not bother with a grant from the government Or the in store systems that do not qualify for a grant ...
Publicly owned and run camera systems are mostly run by local councils and are independent of each other and (outside London) only cover one town centre ....
No it's not. Those are NOT included. Read the article again. This is *PURELY* Government CCTV.
Right at the bottom of the article you didn't read: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."
You missed one statistic. In areas of CCTV, how many crimes has it PREVENTED by just the aspect of them being there.
Unfortunately this is a statistic that is not easy to calculate, unless we employ mind reading.
Well, the numbers of crimes haven't gone down* significantly - so, essentially, none.
Also, if you look at the percentage of crimes solved, from the link I posted originally, you'll see that the crime-clear-up figures are below average, and haven't increased - and are worse in the areas with more CCTV cameras.
Oh, and the police are saying it too.
Does this make me a mind-reader now?
* specifically: "of 24 studies carried out in city centres, only 13 showed crime had fallen since CCTV cameras were installed. Crime rates rose significantly in four other cities."
I suppose you also switch off logging on all your computers, in good faith that everything will work perfectly and you won't ever need to find out what happened in the case of a problem?
If it cost me £2,000 per year per log file, meaning I've spent £200 million over ten years to solve 1/1000 problems - yeah, I'd do without log files.
Except that it has been shown time and time again that CCTV does nothing to _prevent_ crime and only a bit to _solve cases_. Hint: The police have perfected being good at working without CCTV over the last few hundred years. I can create more work, though.
If you want to _prevent_ crime you need street lights and more police on the streets. Oh, and a fast, efficient justice system that deals swift and just justice so there is no mental disconnect between "I broke $law" and "I get punished". Again, this has been shown again and again.
Spot on.
CCTV solves 1 in 1000 crimes, cost £2000 per camera, per year.
Street lamps stop around 20% of crimes.
I don't suppose they cost that much do they?
You must be lost - this is a thread about the privacy implications, not the effectiveness or cost. Perhaps you meant to piggyback your opinion somewhere else?
I'll put my opinions where I like. Until the Freedoms of Speech are further restricted, I'll say what I want.
I realise it's out of context, but YOU said the only reason the public dislike CCTV is because they're being watched in public. That is such a horrific and uneducated mistake, that it needed correcting.
That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist? That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.
That seems to be a bit of a strawman considering mistakes are made all the time without CCTV too. With really crappy quality CCTV it isn't that much use as evidence (I should know our CCTV system completely sucks here at work, wish they'd get a decent system), but with high quality stuff it's a lot more useful. A lot of businesses around here run their own CCTV, it isn't costing the government anything. The Police occasionally request some footage of certain times if there's been dodgy goings on on our street (which there often are as we live next to one of the roughest areas in the city).
Of course mistakes are made with other systems, but they don't cost £200 million to solve 10 crimes over ten years.
CCTV was originally called a PREVENTATIVE measure. It hasn't worked. So what happens now? The Government push for more, and more.
I'd prefer that £200 million to pay for the 666 new police officers we could've had for the last ten years, not some childs' plaything.
You don't best stop crime by constantly monitoring people. You best stop crime by trust and education.
That's because the "massive CCTV system" is largely a sprawl of private cameras owned and run by businesses to benefit themselves, rather than (even nominally) the public. Publicly owned and run CCTV systems are on a much smaller scale than you might expect.
10,000 cameras for £200 million is a small scale operation?
It's only "tired out" because you refuse to listen to it. What is wrong with cameras in a public place? As I said above, would you prefer to switch off all logging on a server until after you start having problems? I doubt it. Seriously, what's your problem with having cameras in already very public places?
Would you also pay £200 million for your server logging, when it fails 999/1000 times?
Or if it logs the wrong thing or perhaps happens to murder the wrong person?
Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME. It costs about £5,000 for the Fuzz to solve a crime. And half of them move around less than a CCTV camera.
It isn't so much the CCTV, but what it is being used for, that the real crimes it records are being ignored, and that it is constantly misused due to a lack of controls.
Hope that helps you to understand.
10,524 CCTV Cameras - £200 million over 10 years.
Crimes Solved: 10 per year
Cost to solve once crime with CCTV: £2 million per crime.
Crimes per year: 4.4 million
Crimes solved by police: 22%
Police: 136,000
Crimes solved per year: 968,000
Crimes solved per officer per year: 7
Average Police wage: £30,000
Cost to solve one crime: less than £5,000.
I don't see how this is workable. Either I've got my figures wrong, or some CCTV company is making way too much money.
Got any more stupid arguments you'd like to trot out as excuses so that nobody can watch you while you're shopping?
Sure, I'll bite.
I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.
Of course, Judges and Police don't often realise that mistakes are often made with CCTV, nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running, and would be cheaper to employ police instead.
I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.
That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist?
That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.
You know that when you step outside your door, other people can actually see you, right? Your Mak'tar stealth haze isn't working.
If you want to protect your privacy from prying eyes, you can wear a hoodie, burqa or that tiresome de rigueur V mask that all the cool paranoid kids are sporting, anywhere you like in public, without let or hindrance. The UK isn't France.
I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.
Of course, Judges and Police don't often realise that mistakes are often made with CCTV, nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running, and would be cheaper to employ police instead.