If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Police in London solve 1 crime for every 1000 CCTV cameras. Or about 2 for every 1984   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 125
    More: Unlikely, CCTV, CCTV cameras, surveillance cameras, MPs, in London, local authorities, Scotland Yard, vandalism  
•       •       •

3525 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:11 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-08-25 12:12:20 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2009-08-25 12:16:54 AM
What made me laugh is that the London borough of Wandsworth has more CCTV Cameras than the entire city of Glasgow.

I think they went a bit overboard on it.
 
2009-08-25 12:50:31 AM
With all those cameras and still couldn't stop bombings.
 
2009-08-25 12:54:43 AM
Cubansaltyballs: With all those cameras and still couldn't stop bombings.

They weren't there during WWII. Duh.
 
2009-08-25 01:16:27 AM
Lampmonster: Cubansaltyballs: With all those cameras and still couldn't stop bombings.

They weren't there during WWII. Duh.


Oh yeah. I'm just glad they beat the fascists so they can enjoy their freedom.... their freedom to watch, inspect and regulate every aspect of their citizen's lives.
 
2009-08-25 01:22:36 AM
Plus or minus 16 crimes. Very precise and amusing headline. I like it.
 
2009-08-25 01:28:31 AM
Are you ready for your close up?
 
2009-08-25 01:35:50 AM
I love the headline! Great job!
 
2009-08-25 01:39:56 AM
Try to keep your chin up, folks. With each passing day, England (in particular) becomes more a cautionary tale to those seeking such ideas in the States. Granted, since we have a history of dealing with everything but the huge elephant in the room when it comes to dealing with crime, I suppose that America will whip up some equally ludicrous solution and sell it amongst a bunch of waving flags and the other tough-guy thetoric that allows the GOP (especially) to piss on you while making you feel that it's what John Wayne would have done.

We'll see.
 
2009-08-25 01:42:41 AM
Excellent headline subby.
+1
 
2009-08-25 02:01:27 AM
i210.photobucket.com

/+1
 
2009-08-25 02:11:05 AM
I'm curious about this. It says that CCTV isn't playing a role, but that could be because the cameras aren't being used properly. If they aren't watched right, no they won't prove much. This isn't enough to make me say that CCTV couldn't be a good crime prevention tool.
 
2009-08-25 02:13:02 AM
farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2009-08-25 02:43:02 AM
GAT_00: I'm curious about this. It says that CCTV isn't playing a role, but that could be because the cameras aren't being used properly. If they aren't watched right, no they won't prove much. This isn't enough to make me say that CCTV couldn't be a good crime prevention tool.

I think the philosophy behind them is more like Jeremy Bentham's concept of the Panopticon (new window)

Of course, the side effect is that after a time, people realize they're probably not being watched anyway.
 
2009-08-25 02:49:31 AM
GAT_00: I'm curious about this. It says that CCTV isn't playing a role, but that could be because the cameras aren't being used properly. If they aren't watched right, no they won't prove much. This isn't enough to make me say that CCTV couldn't be a good crime prevention tool.

The Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years big. This means the London police have solved 100 crimes within the last 100,000 light years. Or about 200 within about the last 198400 years.
 
2009-08-25 02:49:54 AM
+1
 
2009-08-25 02:52:11 AM
Sun God: The Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years big. This means the London police have solved 100 crimes within the last 100,000 light years. Or about 200 within about the last 198400 years.

i575.photobucket.com
 
2009-08-25 02:54:13 AM
I think my decibels are off.
 
2009-08-25 02:58:44 AM
img139.imageshack.us
 
2009-08-25 03:17:47 AM
Or-well done, Subby. +1
 
2009-08-25 03:44:28 AM
I'm looking forward to the government mandated 15 minutes of hate.
 
2009-08-25 03:57:46 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: I'm looking forward to the government mandated 15 minutes of hate.

In the US we call it prison.
 
2009-08-25 05:14:56 AM
Proof that CCTV is in no way sinister. If it doesn't allow surveillance of a given area in sufficient quality to detect crime, it certainly doesn't provide the opportunity to spy on the populace in any meaningful sense.

OK, I'm not entirely serious, but if we could move away from the civil liberties argument and onto the 'it costs a fortune and does bugger all' argument it would be much easier to convince the public that it's a wasted effort.
 
2009-08-25 05:32:07 AM
/golf clap
 
2009-08-25 07:13:40 AM
p10.hostingprod.com

/oblig
 
2009-08-25 07:15:00 AM
img193.imageshack.us
 
2009-08-25 07:24:32 AM
hahahahahaha.


ha.
 
2009-08-25 07:25:39 AM
We are at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia.
 
2009-08-25 07:30:39 AM
It's interesting, because as a Londoner I do feel like the cameras (as much as I hate them) give me some sense of security. More as a preventative measure really, because I don't think that I'm going to get mugged in a place which has plenty of CCTV.
 
2009-08-25 07:32:41 AM
This is a toughy when I actually stop to think about it. On the one hand it's simply ridiculous how many cameras are out there watching over us. But then when I get the bus home late at night, I'm really glad there's a camera there. Perhaps it's not just about how many crimes are *solved* but more about how many crimes are *averted*?
 
2009-08-25 07:34:14 AM
Great headline, subby.
 
2009-08-25 07:39:55 AM
We're in a transition phase as a society right now. For all of human history, almost everything we've done has gone unwitnessed and unrecorded. In the fairly near future, every public space will be assumed to have cameras all over it at all time. Video capture is just becoming cheaper and cheaper with better and more useful quality every year. Soon you'll have camera clouds of 50-100 micro-cameras flying around any remotely newsworthy event. Have to keep those 35000 tv channels filled with something.
 
2009-08-25 07:42:11 AM
All depends on how you look at it.
OK, 1 per 1000 camera's per year is low.

But then, it equally could be spun round to read;
1000 crimes solved last year because of CCTV, and probably 1000's more averted due to presence of a camera.
 
2009-08-25 07:42:27 AM
Great headline, submitter. Very well played.
 
2009-08-25 07:43:56 AM
Offtopic: Any idea why I can't load images from imageshack? (any browser) Timeout, maybe?
 
2009-08-25 08:00:43 AM
has anyone told subby that the headline is awesome?
 
2009-08-25 08:06:18 AM
But without the CCTV cameras, Torchwood would be completely farked!

Oh, wait...
 
2009-08-25 08:13:42 AM
FTA: He said there are more than a million CCTV cameras in London and the Government has spent £500 million on the crime-fighting equipment.

But he admitted just 1,000 crimes were solved in 2008 using CCTV images as officers fail to make the most of potentially vital evidence.


Ahh, so he takes a number that he possibly does know the value of. (i.e. 1000 crimes solved using CCTV images), then matches it up against another number which he pulls right out of his arse.

First off, the million cameras is crap, the higest official estimate for London was closer to 500,000, and that estimate is generally believed to be utter crap.

The basis comes from a survey of the number of CCTV cameras in two busy south London streets, Putney High Street and Upper Richmond Road.

The researchers sampled 211 "premises" - banks, estate agents, pubs, shops and office blocks - and found that 41 per cent had CCTV systems, with an average of 4.1 cameras per system.

By assuming this is "broadly representative" of CCTV coverage across the whole of London, the authors estimate that 41 per cent, or 102,910, of the 251,000 VAT-registered businesses registered in London would have a CCTV system. Multiply this by 4.1 and there would be 421,931 cameras.

They then add the cameras operating in other public institutions - such as open-street systems, transport, hospitals, schools etc - and reckons it's "not unreasonable to 'guesstimate' that Londoners are monitored by at least 500,000 CCTV cameras".
Link (new window)

i.e. they surveyed TWO streets in London, then multiplied the number out to get the total for the whole of London.


/lies
//damn lies
///statistics
 
2009-08-25 08:14:36 AM
MongtheMerciless: All depends on how you look at it.
OK, 1 per 1000 camera's per year is low.

But then, it equally could be spun round to read;
1000 crimes solved last year because of CCTV, and probably 1000's more averted due to presence of a camera.


THIS

Even the article points out that "Researchers found cameras were most effective in preventing vehicle thefts and vandalism in car parks."
 
2009-08-25 08:18:19 AM
<b>rackrent</b> Jeremy Bentham is old news really, its all about defensible space

Foucault's ideas on disciplinary power, did once upon a time push for the idea of Panopticism as a solution, but new research coming out is not really encouraging. There are now as many as 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain - one for every 14 people. A person can be captured on over 300 cameras each day. In the 1990s the Home Office spent 78% of its crime prevention budget on installing CCTV. Yet a study in 2005 concluded that CCTV schemes have little overall effect on crime levels.

the bottom line? the whole point of these cameras are to make you feel safe, not provision of safety. Most people are really much safer than they realize - so don't worry about it ;)

/criminologist

Shearing, C.D. & Stenning, P.C. (1996; original:1985). From the Panopticon to Disney World: the development of discipline (Abridged version). In: J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin & M. Langan (eds), Criminological Perspectives. A Reader. London: Sage, 413-422.
 
2009-08-25 08:21:03 AM
Mr.Niceguy: Foucault's ideas on disciplinary power, did once upon a time push for the idea of Panopticism as a solution,

Wait, did you just say that people used to read Foucault and think "hey, that's a good idea"?

That's pretty sick.
 
2009-08-25 08:23:45 AM
Glasgowsfinest: What made me laugh is that the London borough of Wandsworth has more CCTV Cameras than the entire city of Glasgow.

I think they went a bit overboard on it.


i26.photobucket.com

You could say that

/Forget which station I took this picture at
 
2009-08-25 08:26:26 AM
<b>Bad_Seed</b>

people used to read Franz Josef Gall and think phrenology is a good idea. Same with Lombroso and others. Sick? Sure. Surprising? you tell me!
 
2009-08-25 08:29:31 AM
Mr.Niceguy: <b>Bad_Seed</b>

people used to read Franz Josef Gall and think phrenology is a good idea. Same with Lombroso and others. Sick? Sure. Surprising? you tell me!


I think that's a little different. Foucault wasn't exactly promoting surveillance and control.

To borrow a tired cliche, Discipline and Punishment is not an instruction manual!
 
2009-08-25 08:29:37 AM
fernandez: Glasgowsfinest: What made me laugh is that the London borough of Wandsworth has more CCTV Cameras than the entire city of Glasgow.

I think they went a bit overboard on it.



You could say that

/Forget which station I took this picture at


I detect at least 3 blind spots. They needed at least 3 more cameras there to make any of them effective. If you're going to do something, you should damn well do it correctly.
 
2009-08-25 08:31:14 AM
Approves

www.collider.com
 
2009-08-25 08:34:15 AM
GoDeep: r-well done, Subby. +1

+1 to both of you
 
2009-08-25 08:38:15 AM
Bad_Seed Really?

Have you READ "Surveiller et punir"?

/why are we being Nerds?
//say something snarky!
 
2009-08-25 08:40:38 AM
Mr.Niceguy: There are now as many as 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain

Hmm. This figure taken from the Urbaneye study, which derived its 'guesstimate' (their words) from a process rather analogous to standing in the middle of the M1 and deciding that the whole island consists of 4 lane highways.

Mr.Niceguy: /criminologist

/sceptical
 
2009-08-25 08:40:51 AM
Mr.Niceguy: Bad_Seed Really?

Have you READ "Surveiller et punir"?

/why are we being Nerds?
//say something snarky!


Yes. I must have missed the bit where he says "this is a good thing, lets run our society more like this".
 
2009-08-25 08:41:03 AM
Great headline!
 
Ruz
2009-08-25 08:45:12 AM
fernandez:
/Forget which station I took this picture at


Regent's Park.
 
2009-08-25 08:48:25 AM
 
2009-08-25 08:48:46 AM
fernandez: Forget which station I took this picture at

Regent's Park.
 
2009-08-25 08:49:28 AM
*shakes tiny fist at Ruz*
 
2009-08-25 08:51:52 AM
Bad_Seed

The discipline of the workshop, while remaining a way of enforcing respect for the regulations and authorities, of preventing theft and losses, tends to increase aptitudes, speeds, output and therefore profit; it still exerts a moral influence over behavior, but more and more it treats actions in terms of their results, introduces bodies into a machinery, forces into an economy. p.210

i think the whole point is that power is not negative but productive.

but who cares, he was a total fairy!
 
2009-08-25 08:51:56 AM
Where's that pic of a camera pointing directly at another camera? I think I thought I saw something like that once on Fark, why come it isn't in this thread?
 
2009-08-25 08:52:43 AM
Why do people get so bent out of shape about CCTV cameras and complain about Big Brother, 1984, etc. How is it any different than posting a uniformed cop on every corner?
 
2009-08-25 08:57:16 AM
FarkinNortherner

not my research. anything else you are skeptical about?
 
2009-08-25 09:02:54 AM
Mr.Niceguy: Bad_Seed

The discipline of the workshop, while remaining a way of enforcing respect for the regulations and authorities, of preventing theft and losses, tends to increase aptitudes, speeds, output and therefore profit; it still exerts a moral influence over behavior, but more and more it treats actions in terms of their results, introduces bodies into a machinery, forces into an economy. p.210


I believe he's making an observation, not a proscription.

i think the whole point is that power is not negative but productive.

but who cares, he was a total fairy!


That really doesn't sit with my understanding of Foucault (but I'm not an expert). He was, for lack of better term a "post-modernist" who wrote about power relations. Not the kind of guy who you expect to say that "power is good".
 
2009-08-25 09:13:50 AM
New Orleans has yet to solve ONE crime using "crime" cameras. They do, however, realize a tidy profit from the "Red Light" and "Speeding" cameras.

(I still haven't, and won't, pay those fines. I look forward to challenging the constitutionality.)

They are a violation of our rights, and worse, they are a breach of trust between the government and the public.

cough revenue cough
 
2009-08-25 09:18:52 AM
Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: We're in a transition phase as a society right now. For all of human history, almost everything we've done has gone unwitnessed and unrecorded. In the fairly near future, every public space will be assumed to have cameras all over it at all time. Video capture is just becoming cheaper and cheaper with better and more useful quality every year. Soon you'll have camera clouds of 50-100 micro-cameras flying around any remotely newsworthy event. Have to keep those 35000 tv channels filled with something.

I suggest we keep a camera on each of our elected and appointed public officials, 24/7. Also, attach one to the head of every police officer.

That would make for interesting reality TV. And a more honest government.
 
2009-08-25 09:19:30 AM
I prefer the CCTV cameras to red light or speed cameras.

At least the CCTV cameras might deter people the others are just cash cows.
 
2009-08-25 09:19:52 AM
While I doubt CCTV cameras stop many crimes, I would expect that they help to prove the case for or against possible suspects quite often.
 
2009-08-25 09:25:40 AM
Polyphonic: It's interesting, because as a Londoner I do feel like the cameras (as much as I hate them) give me some sense of security. More as a preventative measure really, because I don't think that I'm going to get mugged in a place which has plenty of CCTV.

How many muggers and rapists are aware of the cameras? How many are aober enough to remember them? How many don't give a damn about cameras because they're so looped on crack or meth or whatever?

Maybe these cameras are good for tracking people who have been kidnapped, or kids who are lost.

Policing a city has always been 99% reactionary, 1% proactionary.
 
2009-08-25 09:28:57 AM
Scrophulous Barking Duck: While I doubt CCTV cameras stop many crimes, I would expect that they help to prove the case for or against possible suspects quite often.

Yeah, just like they did when the biggest crime in Britain happened!
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-08-25 09:33:19 AM
MooseBayou: New Orleans has yet to solve ONE crime using "crime" cameras. They do, however, realize a tidy profit from the "Red Light" and "Speeding" cameras.

(I still haven't, and won't, pay those fines. I look forward to challenging the constitutionality.)

They are a violation of our rights, and worse, they are a breach of trust between the government and the public.

cough revenue cough


I look forward to asking them to prove which of my family, with nine licensed drivers, was driving when the offense occured. No facial picture you say? Where's the proof of guilt?
 
2009-08-25 09:33:58 AM
FarkinNortherner [TotalFark] Quote 2009-08-25 05:14:56 AM
Proof that CCTV is in no way sinister. If it doesn't allow surveillance of a given area in sufficient quality to detect crime, it certainly doesn't provide the opportunity to spy on the populace in any meaningful sense.

OK, I'm not entirely serious, but if we could move away from the civil liberties argument and onto the 'it costs a fortune and does bugger all' argument it would be much easier to convince the public that it's a wasted effort.


yeah bring on the constructive debate on how to spy on ourselves more effectively...

Or...how about we keep the civil liberties argument because it has the advantage of being right and just keep that it doesn't work as the response to nimrods that advocate trading rights to assuage their paranoia.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-08-25 09:34:55 AM
Scrophulous Barking Duck: While I doubt CCTV cameras stop many crimes, I would expect that they help to prove the case for or against possible suspects quite often.

RTFA - they don't.
 
2009-08-25 09:35:29 AM
untaken_name: Where's that pic of a camera pointing directly at another camera? I think I thought I saw something like that once on Fark, why come it isn't in this thread?

That's so they can nab anyone messing with camera number one. I would go destroying redlight cameras with a pitching wedge, but I'm reasonably certain they have cameras watching the cameras.

Ugh.
 
2009-08-25 09:37:29 AM
B A: I look forward to asking them to prove which of my family, with nine licensed drivers, was driving when the offense occured. No facial picture you say? Where's the proof of guilt?

They don't have to prove the owner was driving to fine them. If they were going after points it wopuld be another story but where I live they don;t do that.
 
2009-08-25 09:37:46 AM
untaken_name: fernandez: Glasgowsfinest: What made me laugh is that the London borough of Wandsworth has more CCTV Cameras than the entire city of Glasgow.

I think they went a bit overboard on it.



You could say that

/Forget which station I took this picture at

I detect at least 3 blind spots. They needed at least 3 more cameras there to make any of them effective. If you're going to do something, you should damn well do it correctly.


You sound like a CCTV salesman.
 
2009-08-25 09:43:07 AM
liam76: B A: I look forward to asking them to prove which of my family, with nine licensed drivers, was driving when the offense occured. No facial picture you say? Where's the proof of guilt?

They don't have to prove the owner was driving to fine them. If they were going after points it wopuld be another story but where I live they don;t do that.


May I refer you to the 5th and the 14th amendments of the United States Consitution?

It's called due process.
 
2009-08-25 09:43:23 AM
Frank Booth: Or...how about we keep the civil liberties argument because it has the advantage of being right

Right or wrong, it isn't an argument that's worked against them.

just keep that it doesn't work as the response to nimrods that advocate trading rights to assuage their paranoia.

I think you've rather missed my point.

untaken_name: I detect at least 3 blind spots.

Good job they're not supposed to be providing blanket coverage, but, instead, covering exit routes in compliance with the Underground's review of public safety post Kings Cross.
 
2009-08-25 09:47:01 AM
MooseBayou: May I refer you to the 5th and the 14th amendments of the United States Consitution?

It's called due process.


If you own a house that you rent out and it gets a citation for having grass that is too long you get the fine not the person lving there.

As long as they don't try to take points off of your liscence they can claim it is a fine for not being responsible for your property.
 
2009-08-25 09:51:31 AM
Probably the same ratio of crimes stopped to gun toting morons in the States.
 
2009-08-25 10:05:52 AM
liam76: MooseBayou: May I refer you to the 5th and the 14th amendments of the United States Consitution?

It's called due process.

If you own a house that you rent out and it gets a citation for having grass that is too long you get the fine not the person lving there.

As long as they don't try to take points off of your liscence they can claim it is a fine for not being responsible for your property.


You sound like a democrat who advocates HOA's.
 
2009-08-25 10:06:04 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: I'm looking forward to the government mandated 15 minutes of hate.

O'reilly?
 
2009-08-25 10:07:45 AM
liam76:
If you own a house that you rent out and it gets a citation for having grass that is too long you get the fine not the person lving there.


That is what the tanker truck of roundup is for. No more grass no more fine. :-) Just a thought here but, if you live in a place that has laws about grass then you are probably over lawyered and need to move to someplace with more freedom.

If they want to put cameras on every corner why don't we put cameras in every congressman's office. Feed them to the internet where we all can watch. I bet we would solve a lot more crimes per camera.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-08-25 10:17:55 AM
MonoChango: liam76:
If you own a house that you rent out and it gets a citation for having grass that is too long you get the fine not the person lving there.


That is what the tanker truck of roundup is for. No more grass no more fine. :-) Just a thought here but, if you live in a place that has laws about grass then you are probably over lawyered and need to move to someplace with more freedom.

If they want to put cameras on every corner why don't we put cameras in every congressman's office. Feed them to the internet where we all can watch. I bet we would solve a lot more sex crimes per camera.


FTFY
 
2009-08-25 10:31:30 AM
MooseBayou: You sound like a democrat who advocates HOA's.

Not a deomcrat nor do I like HOA's.

If you dislike the lawn analogy pretend it is a noise violation.

The fact remians it isn't unconstitutional to fine you for something done illegally with your property. Unless someone stole your car you are responsible for it.
 
2009-08-25 10:34:09 AM
Moonbarker Osbourne the Rainbow Wolf not gay: Why do people get so bent out of shape about CCTV cameras and complain about Big Brother, 1984, etc. How is it any different than posting a uniformed cop on every corner?

Because then the government is operating under the presumption of innocence. You still have to be observed doing something wrong, with a real human being showing real judgment, rather than relying on an after-the-fact judgment made via the narrow-viewed lens of a camera. Cameras imply guilt: why would there be a camera watching if they weren't expecting crimes to be committed? Oh, but let's not forget the old saw "You have nothing to be afraid of if you're not doing anything wrong", w3hich is entirely the wrong way to be looking at things.

It can be said that the cameras encourage good behavior, sure, but that behavior is influenced by paranoia, like the telescreens from 1984 (hence the comparisons). I'd rather look down the barrel of a gun on the street (which I have) than be another paranoid zombie waiting for the government to decide that I have committed a transgression simply by watching a video feed.
 
2009-08-25 10:36:09 AM
FarkinNortherner: Proof that CCTV is in no way sinister. If it doesn't allow surveillance of a given area in sufficient quality to detect crime, it certainly doesn't provide the opportunity to spy on the populace in any meaningful sense.

OK, I'm not entirely serious, but if we could move away from the civil liberties argument and onto the 'it costs a fortune and does bugger all' argument it would be much easier to convince the public that it's a wasted effort.



Over-concern about public safety is the root cause of rising crime.

It seems like every time some old hag gets scratched by her cat, a new law regarding cat scratches pops into being. Congress churns forth an additional 50,000 pages of legislation every year most of which, bear obscure 'immunity' clauses for the reps and senators who voted that legislation into law (a bonus). You cannot possibly memorize all of the laws that pertain to you. You can't do it. As a result, you inadvertently break dozens of quirky laws every day as a result.

Every aspect of law enforcement - from the beat cop to the supreme court - is rife with the same corporatocratic tendency to promote, not the heroes or wisest of LEOs and legal administrators -- but the biggest kiss-asses. It's like a convoluted Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert is a SCOTUS judge and Catbert is the AG. The kiss-ass idiots are in charge of everything and they're being bribed by business left/right, and nearly everything you do violates some dumbass law. A perfect recipe for what you see outside your window.

But let's talk about cops.

A LEO, charged with enforcing 10,000 laws while receiving daily alterations to the priority d'jour from his pointy-haired kiss-ass captain, cannot possibly focus on enforcing truly important laws like stopping violent crime, murder, rape, etc. OK, maybe SOMETIMES he/she can nab an armed robber, but that's more often luck nowadays (the cops who are trying to catch speeders won't likely stop any murderers, armed robbers, or rapists).

The US is headed in the same direction as the UK and you can't stop it unless you own at least five senators and two cabinet members. If you try, you'll be stopped one way or another. Most people who try to change things, or who even try to make others aware of the obvious, are quickly labelled "nut-case" because that almost always works and it's cheap.

You probably help the corporatocracy do this, wearing smug like a crisply tailored nazi uniform the whole time. Maybe not, but your suggestion that the thread toss the civil liberties issue makes it a near certainty. That's what fascists do first.

'Convincing the public' is a complete waste of time.

The best solution is to destroy the expensive cameras. That way, those of us who are almost as deeply offended by authoritarian actions as by those who support those actions have an alternative target and cleaner hands.

Dwight D. Eisenhower would very likely have shot any idiot trying to put up cameras to watch (control) Americans. Either Bush would have given that idiot a medal. So would Clinton or Obama. That's how far we've declined in fifty years.
 
2009-08-25 10:36:31 AM
They solved 1 crime for every 1000 CCTV cameras. The more important question is how many crimes were committed. Than we'd be able to do a more effective analysis of the numbers.

/Has no use for CCTV overlords.
 
2009-08-25 10:45:48 AM
Giblet: You probably help the corporatocracy do this, wearing smug like a crisply tailored nazi uniform the whole time. Maybe not, but your suggestion that the thread toss the civil liberties issue makes it a near certainty. That's what fascists do first.

Was my point really that hard to grasp?

I am ideologically opposed to the proliferation of CCTV cameras on the grounds of infringement of civil liberties. However, the argument regarding civil liberties is futile, since it's lost on the public. If we exhaust less hot air on that topic and, instead, concentrate on the sheer waste of money involved, then there is at least a possibility that the rise of the surveillance society will be curtailed.
 
2009-08-25 10:54:07 AM
doubleplus good headline
 
2009-08-25 10:57:05 AM
FarkinNortherner: Giblet: You probably help the corporatocracy do this, wearing smug like a crisply tailored nazi uniform the whole time. Maybe not, but your suggestion that the thread toss the civil liberties issue makes it a near certainty. That's what fascists do first.

Was my point really that hard to grasp?

I am ideologically opposed to the proliferation of CCTV cameras on the grounds of infringement of civil liberties. However, the argument regarding civil liberties is futile, since it's lost on the public. If we exhaust less hot air on that topic and, instead, concentrate on the sheer waste of money involved, then there is at least a possibility that the rise of the surveillance society will be curtailed.



The public aren't the ones who support the surveillance, other than via taxation. It is the government who supports it. If you think the public controls the government, either in the UK *or* the US then you haven't been paying attention over the past 50 years.
 
2009-08-25 11:07:10 AM
Just what I need when I am getting stabbed, a video of it, much better than more police walking the beat.
 
2009-08-25 11:13:19 AM
liam76: If you dislike the lawn analogy pretend it is a noise violation.
.


If your renters make noise, they get the noise violation, not you. Trust me, I know.
 
2009-08-25 11:14:24 AM
I really didn't know England had so much violent crime that their government felt the need to go camera crazy.
 
2009-08-25 11:26:01 AM
Adolf Oliver Nipples: We are at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
 
2009-08-25 11:36:17 AM
liam76: I prefer the CCTV cameras to red light or speed cameras.

At least the CCTV cameras might deter people the others are just cash cows.


A red light camera can be both.

Personally I think CCTVs are ok. I'm also a fan of red light cameras with the proviso that light timings should not be altered.

I'm also anti-gun and I like cops in general so basically I'm a commie.
 
2009-08-25 11:37:41 AM
FarkinNortherner: Proof that CCTV is in no way sinister. If it doesn't allow surveillance of a given area in sufficient quality to detect crime, it certainly doesn't provide the opportunity to spy on the populace in any meaningful sense.

OK, I'm not entirely serious, but if we could move away from the civil liberties argument and onto the 'it costs a fortune and does bugger all' argument it would be much easier to convince the public that it's a wasted effort.


sure it does. It is just that all the signals being monitored are the ones pointing into apartments of 34d laden residents.
 
2009-08-25 11:38:14 AM
stewmadness: I really didn't know England had so much violent crime that their government felt the need to go camera crazy.


People are dumb and dangerous animals.

Persons are smart. People are dumb.

The only thing your government fears is the collective you (You). You must be controlled. The most important step in controlling anything is observation and surveillance.

If you had a remote control transmitter for your car, could you blindly drive it from your desk? For a moment or two, yes.

How about if you had a bunch of cameras and a display?

A better example would be Victor Frankenstein, high in his tower laboratory, listening to the angry peasants outside the castle gate. What would he give for four CCTVs showing him exactly what the crowd was doing? Maybe he could dispatch Igor to drop some hot oil on those who get too close to the gate, buying the good doctor those precious seconds he needs to bond with his chunky creation.

It has (almost) nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control.
 
2009-08-25 11:46:41 AM
B A: MooseBayou:

I look forward to asking them to prove which of my family, with nine licensed drivers, was driving when the offense occured. No facial picture you say? Where's the proof of guilt?


I look forward to seeing you in court using that argument.

When you receive a parking ticket, do they need to prove who parked it illegally? No. If you dont pay long enough, they can just prohibit you from registering or just tow or boot your car.
 
2009-08-25 11:55:06 AM
basilbrush: Just what I need when I am getting stabbed, a video of it, much better than more police walking the beat.

Especially when you get beaten up by the police.

/you have already forgotten that story from a few weeks ago don't you
 
2009-08-25 11:59:59 AM
Giblet: The public aren't the ones who support the surveillance

Sadly you are mistaken.
 
2009-08-25 12:13:18 PM
I, for one, support our new million-eyed overlords.
 
2009-08-25 12:16:13 PM
nice headline subby! +1
 
2009-08-25 12:18:41 PM
Sun God: GAT_00: I'm curious about this. It says that CCTV isn't playing a role, but that could be because the cameras aren't being used properly. If they aren't watched right, no they won't prove much. This isn't enough to make me say that CCTV couldn't be a good crime prevention tool.

The Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years big. This means the London police have solved 100 crimes within the last 100,000 light years. Or about 200 within about the last 198400 years.


That's also 100 crimes in the last 2553.26 twelve parsecs, or about 200 in the last 5065.67 twelve parsecs.

Of course, if they had the Millennium Falcon, they could do it in under twelve parsecs.
 
2009-08-25 12:22:28 PM
FarkinNortherner: Giblet: The public aren't the ones who support the surveillance

Sadly you are mistaken.



It's entirely possible that I get biased information. All of my Brit pals have green cards. They claim that "everyone" hates the cameras but feel helpless against an oppressive government. And they drink a lot.

In that case, maybe they bought a year or two by moving here.

I'm all for doing away with elections and moving to a conscripted government model. Four years. One term. Random selection. Mandatory service.

Couple that with an overturn of Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad, and it'd be full on win.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-08-25 12:28:52 PM
Nutsac_Jim: B A: MooseBayou:

I look forward to asking them to prove which of my family, with nine licensed drivers, was driving when the offense occured. No facial picture you say? Where's the proof of guilt?

I look forward to seeing you in court using that argument.

When you receive a parking ticket, do they need to prove who parked it illegally? No. If you dont pay long enough, they can just prohibit you from registering or just tow or boot your car.


A speeding ticket issued by a speed camera is charged against the TDL of the registered owner. THAT's a little different from a parking ticket.
 
2009-08-25 12:37:55 PM
Not wishing to inject any unnecessary common sense into the thread, but the vast, vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned, because having them reduces business insurance premiums *a lot*. My offices have at least seven that I'm aware of, and, as far as I'm aware, they have never been used in crime detection or been feeding secrits to the gub'mint or anything.
 
2009-08-25 12:46:36 PM
Giblet: It's entirely possible that I get biased information. All of my Brit pals have green cards. They claim that "everyone" hates the cameras but feel helpless against an oppressive government. And they drink a lot.

Do they also complain about the stuff in the US that they don't like?

Whining British Expats whine about the country they left and they usually end up whining about the country they go to. (In my experience).
 
2009-08-25 12:56:59 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2009-08-25 12:58:38 PM
Giblet:
I'm all for doing away with elections and moving to a conscripted government model. Four years. One term. Random selection. Mandatory service.


This idea is new to me and intriguing.
I would like to subscribe to your magazine.
 
2009-08-25 01:04:22 PM
+1
Well done!
 
2009-08-25 01:41:54 PM
gaslight [red road poster]

Good god that movie is incredible. I couldn't tear my eyes away from the first opening scenes to the last.
 
2009-08-25 01:50:21 PM
Bad_Seed: Giblet: It's entirely possible that I get biased information. All of my Brit pals have green cards. They claim that "everyone" hates the cameras but feel helpless against an oppressive government. And they drink a lot.

Do they also complain about the stuff in the US that they don't like?

Whining British Expats whine about the country they left and they usually end up whining about the country they go to. (In my experience).



I thought that was the sovereign domain of German expats.
 
2009-08-25 01:58:19 PM
fernandez: Glasgowsfinest: What made me laugh is that the London borough of Wandsworth has more CCTV Cameras than the entire city of Glasgow.

I think they went a bit overboard on it.


You could say that

/Forget which station I took this picture at



Great Portland Street Tube Station (new window)
 
2009-08-25 02:06:25 PM
Bad_Seed: Giblet: It's entirely possible that I get biased information. All of my Brit pals have green cards. They claim that "everyone" hates the cameras but feel helpless against an oppressive government. And they drink a lot.

Do they also complain about the stuff in the US that they don't like?

Whining British Expats whine about the country they left and they usually end up whining about the country they go to. (In my experience).


Being currently British I would agree with the over whiny-ness.

I don't like the CCTV in the wrong hands but then we understand them being added to up security for shops or bad areas. As a rule I see more CCTV used to find people or track what happened in an event that ended up with a death or injury than used for giving fines.

There are some councils - london especially - who are beggining to to use them to issue rediculous fines and they need to be shot.

For the record everyone under 80 hates speed cameras as they are revenue collection only and don't really help with stopping speeders who are dangerous (a small percentage of them).
 
2009-08-25 02:07:50 PM
Moonbarker Osbourne the Rainbow Wolf not gay: Why do people get so bent out of shape about CCTV cameras and complain about Big Brother, 1984, etc. How is it any different than posting a uniformed cop on every corner?

1. A uniformed cop can actually ACT to stop a crime in progress, rather than just recording it for use later as evidence.
2. A uniformed cop can't/isn't recording everything he sees. Sure, he might remember, but it's not recorded and distributable.
 
2009-08-25 02:17:42 PM
Evilmogwai: I don't like the CCTV in the wrong hands but then we understand them being added to up security for shops or bad areas. As a rule I see more CCTV used to find people or track what happened in an event that ended up with a death or injury than used for giving fines.


I think I see what you're saying: Surrendering a degree of privacy is worth added security, even if that added security is, for the major part, in post-facto form. Is that a fair summary?
 
2009-08-25 02:41:49 PM
"A senior Scotland Yard officer, Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, warned police must do more to head off a crisis in public confidence over the use of surveillance cameras."

Lie to them. That's what the government does in every other situation.
 
2009-08-25 02:43:01 PM
Good job, subby!
 
80
2009-08-25 03:00:25 PM
headline WIN
 
2009-08-25 03:27:16 PM
Giblet: Evilmogwai: I don't like the CCTV in the wrong hands but then we understand them being added to up security for shops or bad areas. As a rule I see more CCTV used to find people or track what happened in an event that ended up with a death or injury than used for giving fines.


I think I see what you're saying: Surrendering a degree of privacy is worth added security, even if that added security is, for the major part, in post-facto form. Is that a fair summary?


yes. Its sad that you can't often stop things during an incident, but when you add those kind of systems they seem to end up being turned into parking ticket generators etc. which is wrong.

Considering most of the time I actually encounter CCTV I am in a public place I would prefer to have a CCTV trail to follow than half a dozen eye witnesses who won't remember the correct details.

And its not like I can go back and remove all the cameras anyway. Now if they start adding cameras to our rubbish bins to see what we are throwing away, our cars to see the speeds we are travelling (or GPS for this) and so on then they should be hung, shot and quartered. :)
 
2009-08-25 03:54:30 PM
Evilmogwai: Considering most of the time I actually encounter CCTV I am in a public place I would prefer to have a CCTV trail to follow than half a dozen eye witnesses who won't remember the correct details.

Ah, but the problem is that they don't want to pay for people to monitor these cameras (in that classically British half assed fashion), so it's up to the Police to search through the footage. Which they hardly ever do.
 
2009-08-25 04:01:18 PM
iansouter.com
as soon as they're finished with the "upgrades"
 
2009-08-25 06:17:04 PM
MongtheMerciless: All depends on how you look at it.
OK, 1 per 1000 camera's per year is low.

But then, it equally could be spun round to read;
1000 crimes solved last year because of CCTV, and probably 1000's more averted due to presence of a camera.


"...DCI Neville said CCTV played a role in capturing just eight out of 269 suspected robbers across London in one month..."
 
2009-08-25 06:34:02 PM
Awesome headline.
 
2009-08-25 10:07:14 PM
MooseBayou: untaken_name: Where's that pic of a camera pointing directly at another camera? I think I thought I saw something like that once on Fark, why come it isn't in this thread?

That's so they can nab anyone messing with camera number one. I would go destroying redlight cameras with a pitching wedge, but I'm reasonably certain they have cameras watching the cameras.

Ugh.


That's why God invented deer rifles.
 
2009-08-25 10:08:55 PM
FarkinNortherner: Frank Booth: Or...how about we keep the civil liberties argument because it has the advantage of being right

Right or wrong, it isn't an argument that's worked against them.

just keep that it doesn't work as the response to nimrods that advocate trading rights to assuage their paranoia.

I think you've rather missed my point.

untaken_name: I detect at least 3 blind spots.

Good job they're not supposed to be providing blanket coverage, but, instead, covering exit routes in compliance with the Underground's review of public safety post Kings Cross.


Yeah it was...uh...you know what? nevermind. You won't understand.
 
2009-08-26 12:02:38 AM
If you're going to make the "oh, but how many were averted" argument for them, you'd better be prepared to defend the "how many were filmed but not seen because of negligence on the part of the surveillance personnel" argument.

I'd be much more in favor of them if monitoring them was a public service, like jury duty. It's not a good idea to put this kind of power in the hands of a few, unelected, people.
 
2009-08-26 03:20:59 AM
*snrk*

Yeah, Subby, I see what you did there.
 
Displayed 125 of 125 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report