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  
•       •       •

3528 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:11 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report