A knock on my office door. Opening it reveals a user holding their personal laptop as if it were a dead pigeon. In an embarrassed voice they say, "Would you mind? I think it has a virus?" I smile broadly, hand them my rate sheet and say, "I now make house calls."
Sweet.
Two words about personal privacy in public, forget it. I spent almost ten years as a news photographer in the US and know that as soon as someone steps "into the public view" they are fair game to be photographed and have that photo published for non-advertising purposes.
I now live and work in London and over the course of the past three years our company has been burgled on six separate occasions, with losses in excess of 100K. Each time the perpetrators were duly captured on CCTV, each time the tapes were handed over to the police, each time no arrests were made.
True, there have been several high-profile cases where CCTV footage led to the apprehension of some very nasty people. However, I'd like to know how many cases are cracked because of the cameras that might otherwise go unsolved.
Additionally, I would question the deterrence argument. Certainly in our case having cameras dotted around the building didn't prevent our break-ins. And according to the BBC "rates for assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft were all lower in America (with few cameras) than in England and Wales (with lots of them)."
At the beginning of this thread someone mentioned that after the cameras in their neighbourhood were installed, they forgot all about them. I would imagine the pickpockets and muggers forget about them too and just go about their business as usual. If they do ponder them at all, they might justly reason that being watched is not the same as being caught.
In 2002 the Home Office produced statistics that showed that crime fell in 13 of 24 locations after CCTV cameras were installed but that crime rates rose "significantly" in four others. I believe this is the same report quoted in the CSM article that states, "A government review 18 months ago found that security cameras were effective in tackling vehicle crime but had limited effect on other crimes. Improved street lighting recorded better results."
As for speed cameras... After living in the UK for almost four years I have now learned to do what the Brits do, slow down for the cameras (painted florescent orange, thank you!) and speed like crazy in between; safe in the knowledge that immobile cameras have, by and large, replaced random cops with radar guns. Not the best system for preventing carnage on the motorways but seemingly a very profitable source of revenue.
Here are some interesting (and admittedly biased) statistics and comments: http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.php
IMHO, CCTV and speed cameras offer an illusionary gain in security while providing governments a way of appearing proactive in regards to crime prevention and motorway safety.
Slashdot Mirror
A knock on my office door. Opening it reveals a user holding their personal laptop as if it were a dead pigeon. In an embarrassed voice they say, "Would you mind? I think it has a virus?" I smile broadly, hand them my rate sheet and say, "I now make house calls." Sweet.
Two words about personal privacy in public, forget it. I spent almost ten years as a news photographer in the US and know that as soon as someone steps "into the public view" they are fair game to be photographed and have that photo published for non-advertising purposes.
p
I now live and work in London and over the course of the past three years our company has been burgled on six separate occasions, with losses in excess of 100K. Each time the perpetrators were duly captured on CCTV, each time the tapes were handed over to the police, each time no arrests were made.
True, there have been several high-profile cases where CCTV footage led to the apprehension of some very nasty people. However, I'd like to know how many cases are cracked because of the cameras that might otherwise go unsolved.
Additionally, I would question the deterrence argument. Certainly in our case having cameras dotted around the building didn't prevent our break-ins. And according to the BBC "rates for assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft were all lower in America (with few cameras) than in England and Wales (with lots of them)."
At the beginning of this thread someone mentioned that after the cameras in their neighbourhood were installed, they forgot all about them. I would imagine the pickpockets and muggers forget about them too and just go about their business as usual. If they do ponder them at all, they might justly reason that being watched is not the same as being caught.
In 2002 the Home Office produced statistics that showed that crime fell in 13 of 24 locations after CCTV cameras were installed but that crime rates rose "significantly" in four others. I believe this is the same report quoted in the CSM article that states, "A government review 18 months ago found that security cameras were effective in tackling vehicle crime but had limited effect on other crimes. Improved street lighting recorded better results."
As for speed cameras... After living in the UK for almost four years I have now learned to do what the Brits do, slow down for the cameras (painted florescent orange, thank you!) and speed like crazy in between; safe in the knowledge that immobile cameras have, by and large, replaced random cops with radar guns. Not the best system for preventing carnage on the motorways but seemingly a very profitable source of revenue.
Here are some interesting (and admittedly biased) statistics and comments: http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.ph
IMHO, CCTV and speed cameras offer an illusionary gain in security while providing governments a way of appearing proactive in regards to crime prevention and motorway safety.