Slashdot Log In
CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:01 PM
from the 6079-smith-w dept.
from the 6079-smith-w dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "Big Brother is another step closer in the UK where the ever ubiquitous CCTV cameras are being fitted with loudspeakers so that camera operators who spot activities deemed 'anti-social' can berate the citizens below. In January 2004 there were more than 4,285,000 CCTV cameras in the UK (roughly 1 for every 4 households). No data about the number of CCTV cameras now in use in the UK is available."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The error was so ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
1- See the movie, enjoy.
2- Read the book, enjoy.
If you read the book first, you won't enjoy the movie because the movie is NEVER as good as the book.
See the movie, then read the book: It's the only sane thing to do
Parent
Re:interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree heartily. Certainly the way most book-to-movie adaptations are done, its true, becuase the director (or screenwriter) can't get it out of their head that cinema is a completely different medium in almost every way. It's like directors think its like porting between operating systems, when it should be more like writing it again from the ground up in a different language. You approach a problem differently in LISP than, say, Java or C. If you wanted to do the smne thing, you would go about it using different tools.
For evidence, two examples. One, Dr. Strangelove (etc. rest of title etc.) was based on a very serious book "Red Alert", and while the novel was good, the movie was excellent. The movie was better because Kubrick realized the sort of accidental and very black humor that was easily exploitable on film in a way that the book could not put across. As a point of reference, someone about the same time made a direct book-to-movie port of "Red Alert". It was decent, but nobody remembers it.
Example the second, Fight Club, a very good novel by Chuck Palahniuk, was I think improved upon in the film. Many of David Finscher's directorial trademarks helped to disorient the viewer in a way that I think Palahniuk was trying to directly explain, all using nothing but mood and deft editing. A direct port book-to-movie would have been terrible, instead of better.
Ultimately a story can be enriched by its introduction to celluloid (or, these days, virtual celluloid; Baudrillard is somewhere creaming his pants) so long as the director keeps in mind the advantages and disadvantages peculiar to the medium and also how those adv. and dis. compare to those of novel storytelling. The key is tha the director must at first be respectful of teh message(s) being conveyed by the original author and find ways to express them that are available in the new medium, especially to make up for those that are not. Mixed example: in Starship Troopers, (a movie I am heavily conflicted over), does a good job at least of building the federal society's parameters not through exposition, but rather through clever advert propaganda snippets. In a movie, the audience would have collectively suicided rather than listen to (rather than read) Heinlein's political musings.
Parent
Now hear this... (Score:3, Funny)
In soviet russia (Score:5, Funny)
Joking aside.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike most young students today, in Wales we were expected to keep up to date on world affairs as part of our studies. Every day we'd read from papers like the Daily Herald and The Manchester Guardian, and from The Economist weekly. We knew of the world around us, and we knew of what went on in the Soviet Union.
Many years later, in the mid 1990s, I was lucky enough to get to work alongside people from nations like Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, and even Georgia. It was very interesting to hear them tell of their lives in the Soviet Union. In many respects, what they said mirrors the social situation we have today.
They'd tell of fearmongering from the government and the media (which itself was government-run). This fearmongering was used to turn the people against other nations and peoples, and even against certain ideals.
A result of this fearmongering was a sense in insecurity between individuals. Few people would trust one another to any extent. People knew they were being watched at all times, but they never knew by who.
We seem to have much the same today. Many people in our society today share the same paranoia about others, hyped on by the efforts of the mass media. The media itself is guilty of extreme self-censorship, and won't challenge the government to any extent. It thus becomes what is essentially "government-run", even if the government isn't directing day-to-day operations and selecting what stories are printed.
Today, as evident by this article, we are all being constantly watched by shadowy figures within various governments. The level of security is extensive, as is the cost. And what's worse, there is little to show but extreme inconvenience for law-abiding citizenry. Some are even shot dead, as we saw in London a year-and-a-half ago.
Those of us who lived in the Soviet Union, and those of us who were even just alive during that time period, we all agree: Western society is beginning to severely duplicate the Soviet experience.
Parent
Re:Joking aside.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scarier than that, on "the other side of the line" people were wandering around saying things like "it can't happen here, we're a democracy" -- but it did.
Thank God it can't happen here, happen here, happen here. . .
KFG
Parent
Re:Joking aside.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Where do they get figures from (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it based on sensor sales, does it include webcams, how about mobile phone cams?
Its always bugged me how they come up with grand figures like they have.
Re:Where do they get figures from (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, here in Cambridge (UK), they pretty much are on every street corner, at least anywhere near the middle of town. On top of that, they now have mobile units they can set up anywhere, which are used further out. Then there's all the cameras at things like ATMs, the ones in shops, the ones scanning your number plate when you park at Tesco, the numberplate-scanning equipment in police vehicles and in the new average speed cameras...
And you know what? The few relatively dangerous places around the place -- not that Cambridge is a particularly dangerous city to live in -- are still dangerous. My girlfriend still can't walk across a park alone late at night, or go through the underpass to get across the road. When they want to prosecute people for violent crime, the pictures are so poor that they can't reliably identify anyone involved. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that they can't read number plates on vehicles, either. In fact, the only thing they seem to be good for is watching outside pubs late at night to pick up any serious fights slightly faster than someone would call them in.
Personally, I think it's all gone way too far. I now shop at other supermarkets that don't spy on everyone entering or leaving their car park, I don't sign up for any new "loyalty" cards in shops, etc. I have even reached the point that I'm considering voting for a political party I never thought I'd support, on the basis that they have given a solid promise that they will repeal the ID card legislation Tony's cronies have forced through. Whatever else I think of that party, I will almost certainly vote for them next time just for that.
Parent
Re:Where do they get figures from (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey you with the ski-mask on, we see you! Stop beating up on that poor old woman. Don't you take her handbag, I mean it. Stop it! Really, we're going to find you, Mr. possibly a 6'-4" possibly male most-likely caucasian. We have software that can recognize you by your walk. Hey, stop that! Stop walking all funny! Okay boys, it's got to be John Cleese, no one else that tall can walk that funny, go get him!"
Parent
The quote that says it all.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The quote that says it - "scary to realize" (Score:4, Funny)
I agree, a voice over a loudspeaker doesn't make things more secure.
It reminds me of the comedy routine where the guy goes:
Having police sitting in front of cameras and shouting over loudspeakers instead of being on the ground would have been a recipe for disaster at the recent Dawson College shooting. The death toll would have been much higher. We'd have had it all on hard disk, but that's cold consolation.
Parent
The Daily Mail! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Mail, voice of petty-minded, intolerant, closet racist Little England, is usually in favour of these sorts of things.
>You reap what you sow, as it were.
Re:The Daily Mail! (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyhow, adding loudspeakers to these cameras might be a good thing (bear with me, don't mod me down yet!). If the number of cameras stays the same, well we are just getting spied on the same as before, but with loudspeakers, now people will notice the spying is taking place. As it stands, cameras are easy to forget about in day-to-day life, but hearing the voice of authority booming down from on high is sure to raise some alarm. Hopefully we will finally see some kind of backlash! (Now you can mod me down)
Parent
The way forward is never backward. (Score:4, Interesting)
As it stands, cameras are easy to forget about in day-to-day life, but hearing the voice of authority booming down from on high is sure to raise some alarm. Hopefully we will finally see some kind of backlash!
No, it would be better if your government were taking cameras down, not spending money on making them more effective. Once you have lost and the loudspeakers are up, you need to find a way to prove they are invasive and abused. Having a voice "on high" might help you in creating an incident if you are creative enough, but it will probably work against you.
The way forward is to expose the invasiveness and uselessness. Studies have already shown they don't fight crime. Print the results and tack them up at busy intersections. People live and die in front of government spies. You need to find ways of making very private events public. The victim has already lost their dignity and privacy, so you won't actually make it worse for them. Mostly, you need a whistle blower like the US has for wire taps. The extent to which the system is being used to monitor and harass political groups, students and other innocents should be published. You will have to infiltrate the system to see it, but it requires so many people that should be easy. Sooner or later, someone on the inside will turn against this monstrosity. Good luck.
Parent
Re:The Daily Mail! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:The Daily Mail! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean only criminals will suffer, right?
Parent
1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
" Now they can see us ", said Julia.
" Now we can see you ", said the voice. " Stand out in the middle of the room. Stand back to back. Clasp your hands behind your heads. Do not touch one another. "
He heard Julia snap her teeth together. " I suppose we may as well say good-bye ", she said.
" You may as well say good-bye ", said the voice. And then another quite different voice, a thin, cultivated voice which Winston had the impression of having heard before, struck in; " And by the way, while we are on the subject, Here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head ! "
Re:1984 - Almost (Score:5, Funny)
"You... Yes, you behind the bike shed... stand still laddy!"
Parent
Privacy will become a commodity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the spoiled dreams... (Score:5, Funny)
I retrained myself from imagining what a seedy operator might say but 'go on, give her one for us lot, we are watching'
or, the fun, shouting out 'give me your wallet', or 'I am watching you, yes... muahaha... you'. Or basic wolf whistling and 'nice tits love'.
Bastards. Luckily I got all the deviant behaviour out of my system before I started dosing.
Not without incident.
*slash* applies for a job as a camera operator
Next, they get guns (Score:5, Interesting)
The next step is an automated Counter Fire System [darpa.mil]. Fire a gun, and within seconds, you're taking heavy fire.
The U.S. Army has had that for almost two decades with the Fire Finder radar system, but that's for heavy artillery. Now DARPA is downsizing the technology to the counter-sniper level.
Summary is disingenuous and sensationalistic (Score:4, Informative)
If you RTFA, you'll find that 7 (or 148) cameras in one town (Middlesbrough) are having loud speakers fitted as part of an experiment. While the headline isn't entirely inaccurate, it's definitely misleading as it implies that this is a general thing.
CCTV how to criticise? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the street was next to a very popular Chinese Restaurant the number of people setting it off was huge - just for using a public footpath! People complained enough for it to be removed (I guess) but it showed me how hard it is to argue against CCTV.
FTFA: Mr Bonner said:
'It would appear that the offenders are the only ones who find the audio cameras intrusive. The vast majority of people welcome these cameras.
'Put it this way, we never have requests to remove them.'
They present these things as though if you complain your clearly one of them.
The UK can not stand for this anymore - we need to find a voice, and a way to complain, that does not make us look like criminals.
P.S. I think it's a salient point that the example used in the article is a man being shouted at to not ride his bicycle - not a mugging, not a rape, not a murder - a bicycle.
Oblig. Robin Williams Quote (Score:4, Funny)
"Stop, or I'll yell stop again!"
Check out the other end (Score:5, Insightful)
A public webcam, which anybody can look at on the net, is very different from a public cam which only the cops get to look at. The people who control the data get to control the facts.
Rather than bemoaning the number of cameras and now their accompaning audio, you should be complaining about the fact that you don't have access to them.
Public crime is like bugs: if there are enough eyeballs, the problem will be fixed.
Data Protection Act (Score:4, Informative)
In the UK, if a CCTV system comprises of more than fixed cameras with a general overview (as found in small shops etc...), it is covered by the Data Protection Act.
If a camera-system can Pan & Zoom or is concentrated on a specific person's activities then
In addition, even if only fixed cameras are used, the above provisions apply if the images are not being used for law-enforcement alone.
The Information Commissioner can order that any non-compliance be rectified, and since not complying with an enforcement notices is a criminal offence, the Information Commissioner can take the company to court - the fine is unlimited. If harm or distress was caused, they can also order compensation be paid.
If a camera overlooks property not normally visible from the street (back gardens, house interiors, or anywhere you could reasonably expect privacy), the camera owner MUST receive permission to film from the current residents - including tenants, or must ensure the system cannot film these areas. This includes Landlords filming tenants inside the house...
Just to put people in the know - the Data Protection legislation does cover CCTV, and reasonable expectation of privacy is included in the provisions.
Silly Brits, that would NEVER happen in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I have since come to accept that whatever Big Brother mess we see start in the UK will eventually make its way into the US. "Land of the free, home of the brave"???
Re:nothing wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:nothing wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Parent
Re:nothing wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:nothing wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Coming this fall to BBC 4.
Re:nothing wrong (Score:5, Funny)
That's "autumn" here in the UK, you insensitive clod!
Parent
Re:nothing wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all. [imdb.com]
Parent
Bored (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly can you lose your privacy by being filmed in a public place?
Feel free to cite any abuse of power the government has perpetrated using cctv cameras.
Re:My poor friends across the pond :-( (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides this, the vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are owned by either local government/councils (which operate and are widely recognised as being very independant of central/national government) or by private landowners and businesses. Very few of the millions of CCTV cameras which are being, and have been, installed over the last few years in the UK have been requested by any organisation connected to central government.
Parent
Re:My poor friends across the pond :-( (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, unless it's a speed camera, of course, the sole purpose of which is to photograph people breaking a specific well-known law, in which case it's a bloody outrage, shouldn't be allowed, a national disgrace, etc.
Britons support CCTV that catches other people breaking the law. Not them, when they were breaking the speed limit, but in an informed and responsible way.
Parent
Re:Bull. Shite. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it doesn't personally and immediately effect them, they couldn't give a flying fuck about what is going on. It's wide spread apathy in the populace. The only ones that do care are ex-military, and the tin foil hat squad. I live in the U.S., and even I say fuck them, they get what they deserve. One of these days something else will happen that will give them their wake up bitch slap, and they'll look around bewildered and ask what the hell happened.
Parent
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would not object to a police officer following you around 24/7, never entering private property but at any time observing where you are, since it's practicly impossible to get anywhere without crossing public property? It is a well known threat in military intelligence that by gathering enough unclassified data, you can find data that is supposed to be classified. The same applies for public surveilance, when you make massive public surveilance you learn a lot about their private lives. That is why we have stalking laws, even though they might not do anything more that follow you around in public. CCTVs everywhere, particularly with some of the more detailed tracking like facial recognition is basicly government stalking.
Parent
Re:Numbers (Score:5, Funny)
I bet the devils did it on the same day each week!
They do it where I live too. Big gang of fellers in a great big antisocial looking lorry.
Parent
Re:Social awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the arguments about 'public privacy' you've seen in the rest of the thread are not very persuasive to an UK public used to things like 'Crimewatch', where CCTV footage is published to aid criminal investigations. As far as the UK public is concerned, the system is transparent and gives real benefits, and no more intrusive than having a real police officer on patrol there in the first place.
Parent
Re:Hey You (Score:4, Informative)
It's "laddy", not "Woggy":
"You! Yes, you behind the bike sheds: stand still laddy!" (Pink Floyd, The Happiest Days of our Lives from The Wall.)
Parent