Surveillance Cameras in Britain Not Effective? 434
zymurgy_cat writes "An interesting piece in The Christian Science Monitor questions whether or not the 4 million plus cameras in Britain are effective in deterring crime. It touches upon the usual issues of privacy, who has access to the tapes, and so forth. Despite this, people still seem to prefer the cameras."
Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:5, Insightful)
Surveillance cameras are essential in solving crimes.
emancipation (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the cams is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you expect privacy in public places? (Score:5, Insightful)
Street lighting (Score:5, Insightful)
God help us if democracy fails (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like this trend in technology and I don't trust it.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:4, Insightful)
But by then it's too late to turn back.
KFG
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually the "why do I give a shit?" argument. I used to live in a town of 6000 and they had 3 cameras up along the high street there. I walked down that street maybe 8 times a week for 3 years, and didn't have my life impacted one iota by the cameras present. In fact, the first week after they were constructed, I'd forgotten they were even there.
You tell me I lost privacy there - surely I also lose privacy on any street in the world I walk down that has anybody else walking down it at the same time. The whole point of public is that it is open to all. I'm also sure I don't need to remind you that public is the opposite of private.
Re:$460 mil Wasted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, what's next is mandatory DNA sampling and fingerprinting upon demand of law enforcement for whatever reason (whether you're under arrest or not). Actually hell, the U.K. may already have that. I forgot you don't have a written Constitution that prevents such invasions of privacy and self-incrimination. I guess you don't mind if the police just casually look around your flat everytime they're in the neighborhood just to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. Afterall, you have nothing to hide. Where does it stop? Before you say America is turning into the same thing, yes, and we're bitching about it here just as much. The AmeriNazi government under Shrub is destroying our rights without constitutional authority.
It's about making people feel safe (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why "tough" anti-crime policies will always be more common than "liberal" ones. The latter may be more effective, but the former (cameras, mandatory minimum sentences etc.) get the votes.
What about the police? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think that people like Barry Hugill of the organisation "Liberty", who say things like "CCTV is spying. It's monitoring your every move" should be locked up in mental hospitals and have their severe paranoia treated. If someone wants to watch me walking down the street with my shopping, scratching my arse and picking my nose, then that's entirely fine by me, although I would suggest they find a more productive use of their time. I tend to avoid doing illegal things in public, because anyone could be watching, not necessarily over CCTV.
it isn't about stopping crime directly (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberty of circulation ? (Score:4, Insightful)
And thus even those which have a lawful life but disliked for some reason by the govt can be monitored and the info used against themselves. Do you repsect law but have a mistress or are you homosexual ? well bad luck now camera can see that, and with face recognition signal to an operator he found the position of one of the person on its list, operator which then promptly make anotation of your activity on a memo.
Is this scenario far eteched ? Well with the price of a CCTV , and the price of computer now, I think the only true obstacle to this scenario is that face recognition isn't that good. But it might be in the future. And as the past leaner, if a govt official can abuse its position , it will. So the above scenario is LIKELY. In such view having nothing to hide [by that I mean being lawful] isn't a protection anymore.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:4, Insightful)
I, for one, couldn't care less if people film me, have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear. You can put cameras in all the rooms of my house and watch me 24/7, if it turns you on. I barely leave the computer anyway, but I might put on a show just for you
Re:The problem with the cams is (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the classic justification for torturing people accused of crimes to obtain a confession. Now, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but stop and think about it. Statements just like that have been used to justify police brutality and torture all over the world for centuries.
Re:God help us if democracy fails (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:3, Insightful)
One additional danger, in particular in countries like the US where criminal juries are primarily composed of non-experts, is that weird coincidences become much more likely to be observerved in a surveillance state. Can you be sure that you never have used the same plane as a 9/11 suspect? That you don't have common acquaintances? That something you sold in a garage sale has not been used by a criminal? Once large enough data bases are in place, police will be able to find suspects for any crime that might have happened or that someone wants to pretend has happened.
It might surprise you that I am currently trying to get surveillance cameras installed at a local school. However, here the purpose is not total surveillance, but to increase the physical security of the kids and to decrease vandalism. Ordinary people are not affected since they have no business on the school campus anyway.
Different views of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Secure beneath the watchful eyes.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Crime in London has skyrocketed in the past few years, pretty much because it's illegal to defend yourself with any conviction over there, with any weapon. The state will keep you safe, they say- except they can't.
You're six times more likely [straightistheway.com] to be mugged in London than New York City.
The cameras are a joke on the populus- they live under constant survellience because of the promise it will make them safer, yet there aren't- and can never be- enough police to act on what occurs on and off camera. It's a way for the government and the police to say they're doing something about the crime, instead of actually going out and putting boot to ass- their cops aren't even armed. But the biggest problem is that the citizens are not armed.
The Government of the United Kingdom evidently thinks it's people are an untrustworthy bunch of morons, uncapable of wielding deadly force in a just manner. So they remove every lawful means of defending oneself and one's property, saying they'll protect you instead. Except they can't. They often don't even come afterwards to file the paperwork.
If criminals were made to fear for their lives when they plied their trade, you might see a big drop in crime. But crooks are the only ones with guns, and have nothing to fear from the people they rob- unlike the United States, where in several states, a crook breaking into an occupied home has a good chance of meeting a violent, immediate end, for example.
The cameras are not a panacea, they aren't even a band-aid. The people of the UK are fucked- sheep left to the slaughter of criminals. Good luck over there.
Re:God help us if democracy fails (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you are an idiot or a criminal, or a combination of both if you think this effects you in any way.
Is objectivity a thing of the past? Are you OK with not considering the arguments of your opposition in any way whatsoever?
Relying on the trustworthiness of surveillance in public places means relying on the trustworthiness of "the government". This would be a fairly easy decision to make if the government was, say, one or two guys. You'd look at the guys, what they've said, how they've behaved, and you'd either trust them or you wouldn't. The government, however, is made up of thousands of people, all of whom now have access to some pretty personal information about you.
What personal information? Well, if there's a camera on every public street, you can pretty easily be tracked at every location you go to. Tuesday 6:15 - you go to the grocery store. 6:45 - you go out to dinner. At the same restaurant you usually frequent. 7:30 - you hit your favorite local bar (you appear to be an alcoholic). 1:15 A.M. - head home. You appear to walk through a dark alley to get from your car to your apartment.
Do you want hundreds or thousands of people to know your exact routine? Doesn't that freak you out AT ALL? Like I said, you don't have to be an idiot to think this is a bad situation - all you have to believe is that the government employs a percentage of sociopaths who would misuse this information that is comparable to the general populace.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
Patriot act? Drug war? Internment camps? Communist trials? Witch burnings? It goes back forever.
Those in power manage to convince the people that some violations of the constitution are for their own good, and anyone who speaks out about it is a bad guy.
You can say "Oh well the supreme court can eventually overturn it.."
Guess what. In places like Britain, they may do some things you think the constitution would prevent. They can also much more easily STOP doing those things... it's more rational.
Re:Do you expect privacy in public places? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if you're out shopping, it's unlikely to be worth caring about.
But what if you belong to some legal but controversial political group, and someone wants to use the surveillance against you?
What if you purchase a new butchers knife they day before a someone gets killed with one and end up being a suspect because the police decides it's easier to use surveillance than spend time looking for real evidence?
What if your employer happens to see you on surveillance tapes reading about drug rehabilitation and fire you assuming it was for you?
The opportunities for abuse are endless, and while it isn't reason for immediately refusing to accept surveillance, one should be aware that it DOES change the game unless the usage is tightly controlled.
There is a huge difference between surveillance that isn't watched until "after the fact" when investigating a specific crime, for instance, than surveillance where someone is actively following what is happening. Both can be appropriate in the right setting, but the former would make me much more comfortable in most cases.
Re:Liberty of circulation ? (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you combine the capabilities of CCTV systems with this [slashdot.org] you've got something REALLY scary because it will only be a matter of time before private corporations are given access to 'manage' these systems due to the large cost to the taxpayer.
This is a BAD idea. We may as well just all get our tracking implants now.
Real benefits of CCTV (Score:4, Insightful)
The deterrent effect is debated. However there are some effects which are for real and not open to debate:
(1) When a perp is caught on camera they are more likely to plead guilty and save lots of time and money in the court system. (This is why the court system puts up some of the cost of the cameras.)
(2) People who have been suspected of an offence have been proved not to be guilty by camera footage, thus eliminating the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
(3) The people like the cameras and keep asking for more of them.
And the main benefit:
(4) Fear of crime is reduced.
It's not the level of actual crime that makes little old ladies to frightened to leave their houses in the evening to go to the bingo, it's fear of crime. Sticking up cameras does not reduce the number of little old ladies who are mugged on their way to bingo (because this crime is pretty well non-existent to start with) but it does make the old ladies feel confident to go out, which is a significant improvement in their quality of life.
hyperbole alert! (Score:2, Insightful)
Surveillance cameras may be helpful in solving crimes, but they are hardly essential. Or do you seriously suggest that before the introduction of CCTV no crimes were solved?
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not yet you didnt - now I am just being hypothecial here...
1. 12 photos of you picking your nose are posted to a website
2. 5 photos and one 14 second video posted of you scratching your ass
3. Evidence that you left work early 30 minutes on the 15th of May 2005 to go and pick up some dry cleaning - why you didnt record this on your timesheet?
4. Who was that woman you were talking to on the 18th of November. This isnt a criminal matter of course, but your wife is now interested.
5. You spent 45 minutes in a competitors shop, and walked out with 2 shopping bags - nothing criminal here, but how does this look to your boss?
I could go on, but basically there *are* issues with 24/7 camera monitoring which affect peoples privacy. I certainly see the benefits of them (catching the kidnappers/murderers/rapists), but I dont think you should say "I didn't do anything wrong so I've got nothing to hide" - people are basically petty, and can often use the stupidest things against you.
My town was one of the first (in 1985) (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem is COST. Some of the cameras are now almost 20 years old, and are starting to show their age. The original 8 million to install them is now 30 or 40 million to replace them all.
Over the years the cost of staffing the monitors, archiving and erasing tapes and so on has also added a huge cost.
So what are the benefits? Well for the most part an increase in solved crimes (convictions). But the argument that you solve more crime by being aware of more crime is an odd one. Largely its petty vandalism, common assault (street fights) and crap like that. Their value in combatting serious crime or terrorism is very low, in 20 years I cannot a single serious crime solved in this town directly due to CCTV evidence - I might be wrong, but surely I would remember _one_.
When the cameras first went up the town was very split over it. Many cameras were smashed and crime _against_the_cameras_ actualy went up for a while. After that people kinda got used to them. The truth is that very few of them are actually switched in anymore, you can see from the rusty water bleeding from their sides and the fact that no LEDs are active on them anymore.
The network is slowly falling apart. I see the same job for 'surveilence observer' at $6/hour offered every week and no takers.
It was an interesting experiment. For a while we all felt safer and petty street crime fell, but now we are left with a dilapidated system that will cost millions to update/replace and very few
real convictions as a result of it.
Spending that money on putting some more coppers on the street would have been a lot better.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of deterrence does factor heavily into criminal justice, but more as an answer to the question, "how can we prevent crimes from taking place?" In the justice system, deterrence is usually interpreted as the "fear factor" caused by the potential punishment for committing a crime. If you're convicted of first-degree murder, you're looking at life in prison or a death sentence. That fact, in and of itself, is supposed to be the "deterrent."
Most people don't commit murder. It's not because there's nobody they'd like to kill; pretty much everyone has at least one enemy they'd love to see removed from society. The reason most people don't commit murder is because they realize the penalty for doing so. That's deterrence.
With surveillance cameras, the idea is that the presence of the camera (and thus the knowledge that if a crime is committed, it's likely to be caught on tape) is supposed to be a deterrent. This week, in Florida, we saw a good example of the fact that surveillance cameras don't deter every crime. This is a given, though, as a best-case sentence of life in prison doesn't stop some people from killing others.
IANALEA, but I did take some CJUS classes in college...
Re:Different views of privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the story perhaps? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is like saying because crimes were solved before DNA it is now not an essential tool for the justice system.
In fact these new technologies are becoming more essential as we are less willing to convict people because they are the wrong color. Sure we could just fry the closest black to a rape or murder again but I prefer that we use DNA profiling and CCTV to catch the real criminals.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're going to claim absolute ownership of all of your discarded skin cells, hair cells, etc. for all of the years of your life? Give me a break... But in any case, manditory DNA testing is no more invasive than manditory fingerprinting.
Fingerprinting requires that you be detained -- in effect under arrest. Without a crime, it is considered in most of the world false imprisonment (if not legally, morally).
Fingerprinting no longer (in the US) requires that you be under arrest. Non-US citizens who enter the country (at least on some flights) will be photographed and fingerprinted... without being arrested or even accused of any crime. It's only a matter of time before this gets applied to all people entering the country, and eventually to everyone (on demand).
I get annoyed when cops follow me -- that is a threatening physical form of intimidation, but cameras?
In my opinion, there are two problems with being followed by cops. First, as you said, it is a threatening physical form of intimidation. However, perhaps even more importantly, you most likely haven't done anything wrong. The cop is simply following you while he performs a license plate check, and/or hoping that you will do something wrong so he can pull you over. And why is he following you? It could be something as simple as having an out-of-state license plate, or weaving a little bit, or being the "wrong"/"right" color/gender. This focused attention for trivial reasons can be abused.
Either you are an idiot or a criminal, or a combination of both if you think this effects you in any way.
You are naive if you think that this can't affect you. You complain about cops following you, but if they have cameras installed everywhere, the cops can be tracking you on a continual basis. And as above, this can be for trivial or circumstantial reasons: perhaps your brother is linked to drug dealers who have just been raided, or your girlfriend's brother's friend gave money to an islamic charity that turned out to be a front for a "terrorist" organization, or you're a woman and some creep who has access to the surveillance cameras decides to stalk you... The main point is that this much power to track people will be abused.
Re:God help us if democracy fails (Score:3, Insightful)
That is possible but only if people take an active interest in making it so. As technology grows more and more complex, the facilities required to build technological devices grow more expensive, and therefore more easily controlled by those in power. It is perfectly possible for technology to be used to increase the power of the ruling class, and then for that ruling class to turn around and prohibit technology usage by the masses. Yes, if the people constantly insist on technological symmetry with the ruling authorities than technology can be a liberating tool, but I see no evidence that this is the case--where is the public outcry that the footage of these British CCTV cameras should be viewable by ALL people, not just law enforcement?
It must be remembered at all times that technology, like any other power, can be used to acquire more power. Any balance of technological power is unstable--as soon as one side get extra power, it starts to gain power faster than its rival, and the balance is destroyed.
So I oppose this "technology levels the playing field" idea, because technology can either level or steepen the playing field--it's up to us humans to decide which we would rather see. There is the saying that "God made men, but Colt made men equal"--that by giving all people equal killing power, the playing field was leveled. The folly of this was revealed with the rise of machine guns in early 20th century--only waring governments, strike-breaking corporations, and rich gangsters were able to afford this new marvel, a weapon designed for a single individual to take on an entire crowd.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:1, Insightful)
What a stupid argument.
What if you have a sexual orientation that might cause you problems at work or school?
What if you decided to join a political party that the government might feel is threatening?
What if you found out your boss was embezzling, and you needed to anonymously report him?
There are thousands of reasons why you might need privacy and anonymity.
Your argument is the argument of fools and knaves. I suppose you deserve whatever you get, unfortunately, we all have to live in the hell-hole you're constructing, so your ideas and visions have to be stopped.
Brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)
Bring enough money for bail.
And why do only the commons need protection? Certain the President needs constant surveillance and a nation of witnesses? And certainly those who favor surveillance wouldn't mind their own specific cameras to keep them safe, and allow those of us who can take care of ourselves a little privacy?
The hypocrisy of the arguments for surveillance is a little short of disgusting when my own government keeps secrets from me.
In short, fuck you.
Very intrestting, stop reading tabloids (Score:4, Insightful)
The article mentions one extreme case in wich CCTV solved the case and others here have mentioned more. There have also been several BBC programs wich showed CCTV in action and it looked like it was giving the police a lot of help when used properly, meaning used by cops in direct communication with cops on the beat.
Als lets face it in a country like england half a billion is peanuts. More is spend on practically any kind of goverment purchase.
So next time don't use a headline as the basis of your post. Read the article and learn that CCTV is still being tested out as to how it should be used and how effective it is.
Better secure than dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are indeed more likely to get roughed up wandering around London's dark streets in the small hours than in New York. No argument there.
You are also more likely to get killed in New York than in London. You are FAR MORE LIKELY to get killed in the USA capital than in the UK capital. Lets compare like with like after all.
Your choice guys, but frankly I'd rather be roughed up than killed. Just like the USA, btw, the figures for outside the capital are not even vaguely related. There are still much better odds of survival in the UK than the USA.
Yeah I know, mod me down. Yadda yadda.
Simon.
Re:Real benefits of CCTV (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never had to - like I said, this doesn't actually happen very often. Most of the violent crime round here is drunken young men hitting each other, and they're perfectly happy to do it under the cameras, being too drunk to care about being caught.
Most cameras are located in city centres, not on council estates where they are really needed!!
Some are on council estates. And some are mobile, and can be put wherever there's a problem.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the government knows what you're doing, even when it's legal, it can treat you differently for doing it, even when it's legal. This may take the form of petty harrassment, selective enforcement of commonly ignored laws, or something even more ominous. Obviously, you're right, we can't practically prevent the government from knowing about a certain amount of legal activity -- but we should not openly invite them to monitor all legal activity. Maybe that 10pm walk is to a political meeting; maybe it's to your gay lover's apartment; maybe it's to an AA meeting -- but if you're not breaking the law, it's none of the government's business.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
I generally think a lot of people get hysterical about these isues without thinking about it for a minute. There are plenty of things people got hysterical about in the past, and now we laugh at them.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ordinary people ARE affected by cameras in schools because they train kids that cameras are OK. So a majority of those kids graduate with a predisposition towards accepting public surveilence and the next time some Ashcroftian power-hungry freak decides to push for cameras in the streets, these new adults will just meekly nod their heads in agreement and give up even more of their privacy to a controlling state.
Re:Do you expect privacy in public places? (Score:4, Insightful)
One significant difference between public spaces with cameras and without is that, in general, in public spaces the observer is also public; he cannot hide from you any more than you from him. That seems to be a good check on particularly odious police monitoring; it is legal, for sure, but since it can be observed by anyone, the police are still checked by public opinion. There is no public opinion of secret police activity, though, and all monitoring via camera falls into this category.
Privacy vs living in the real world. (Score:4, Insightful)
There seem to be a large number of people who consider CERTAIN laws to be an injustice against them. Note that emphasis on certain. These speeders seem to have no trouble with the law preventing me from driving my fleet of tractors side by side on the highway. Hell most get pretty upset when trucks dare to overtake each other.
Speed camera's exist because people do no obey the speed limit. Rememeber your childhood? "Mom I want to be threathed like a grownup." "Then act like one". Worse even are the people who think speed cameras are tax collectors. Taxes are unavoidable. Speed tickets are easy to avoid. Don't speed.
So on to CCTV. Why is it there? Because people just can't seem to behave when out on the street. When I grew up and you had to go to the toilet you went to the nearest store or goverment building and asked to use the toilet. If unavailable then you went to the park and INTO the bushed and peed there. YOU DID NOT PEE IN PUBLIC AGAINST THE DOOR OF A BUILDING.
We do not want to pay for police to be everywhere and another problem is that if as a citizen you say something about this you can easily end up dead. Several people who said something about misbehavious have ended up dead in holland alone and I do not think that is a local problem.
So we either all learn to behave or impose some really heavy penalties on badly raised people or learn to live with cameras. of course the alternative is living in a lawless unchecked society.
Civilization is a great number of people living together. We need rules to be able to handle that and tools to make sure the rules are obeyed. So far I never heard a single civil liberty fanboy give an alternative. Greenpeace I respect because they give alternatives, even funding the development of electric cars. Civil Liberty groups I detest because they are only ever against.
come off it! (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Its a bit more than petty to bother to grab and post images and footage of people for no real reason, besides which the person who lifted the images/footage from the source are no doubt not permitted to do so in their terms of employment, in addition iirc its actually a criminal offence in the UK to do so without authority.
3. You are assuming that the feeds will be monitored constantly, or their their recordings of the feed, if the feeds are even being recorded at the time, at all often get looked at by anyone. In most cases the footage would only be looked at if there is a need to go back over the recordings. The manpower needed to do this on any large scale would quickly balloon to frightening levels as you would want people to constantly concentrate on single feeds on the off chance that something of import can be seen on it.
We have an "unwritten" constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, both constitutions appear to be worth not much more than the paper they're written on. In the UK, the current socialist government is engaged in tearing up the "ancient rights of Englishmen", due to a complete incomprehension of their purpose -- and in the USA... well, PATRIOT act, need I say more.
Ask the government to protect you: ask the fox to guard the hen house.
Create a constitution: require the fox to promise on his honor to be good -- said promise to be enforced by the fox, at his sole discretion, upon himself.
Re:All the better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have nothing to hide! And you have no reason to fear your benevolent government! Because America is the land of the free and so IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
But it can't happen here!
Oh, I guess it can happen here.
Maybe whatever you do, whoever you are by ideology, political association, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation isn't illegal now.
But that could all change tomorrow -- and it can happen here.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:1, Insightful)
If you ask me, if a prisoner can benefit society in no other way than to spend all day on a treadmill or exercise bike hooked up to a generator creating electricity for the rest of us, then that is how they should spend 14 hours a day.
The point of a prison isn't deterrence. The point of prison is not reformation. The point of a prison IS to punish, and to have the prisoner learn or be forced to benefit society.
If they refuse to pedal, either shoot them or hook them up Matrix style!
It is sad that the worst 1% of society cost the other 99% so much. Indeed, 90% of the cost of prisons, police, and security are spent to fight that 1% of the population. Jerks.
Re:God help us if democracy fails (Score:1, Insightful)
Surveillance cameras have the best of intentions. However, it sure makes a police state easy if one ever takes over. THAT'S why they're bad.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:5, Insightful)
No that is not why we do it. Despite our attempts to appear sympathetic, we don't really give a damn about the family of a rape victim we don't know, and we probably don't know the story very well -- perhaps the rapist was wrongly accussed. What we care quite a lot about is ourselves and our own families, and we would like to think that punishing someone guilty of assualting another will deter that person and hopefully others from doing something similar to us or our families.
Herein lies the scary part of justice. The masses want a symbol of deterrance, a hangman, and are often willing to settle for "close enough" rather than proven guilty with hard evidence. Our legal system may be built to attempt to minimize mistakes, but it begs the question of whether the sacrafice of one innocent may be utilitarian in acting as a detterant for 100s of would be offenders.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:5, Insightful)
If the people of a society act only because of a fear of getting caught then that society is lost, as people will always find ways around the law, and privelege will become the deciding factor on who must follow the law and who need not. Only within a society of which the people believe in moral principles ("morailty is what you do when no one is watching") will advance.
Creating "bad" laws - that is laws which the majority do not desire to follow and appear to only serve as a source of revenue - only cheapens the "good" laws - those that advance the freedom of people.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely how we are dealing with the 9/11 disaster.
Our legal system may be built to attempt to minimize mistakes, but it begs the question of whether the sacrafice of one innocent may be utilitarian in acting as a detterant for 100s of would be offenders.
More often than not it breeds contempt for the system. And rightly so. It seems that more and more often we are reading about wrongly accused people being released from from prison after anywhere between 10 and 40 years of incarceration. We should never ever tolerate this.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Read the story perhaps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Assuming you're referring to the Jamie Bulger case, how do you know? Sure, the CCTV showed that the kidnappers didn't fit the usual profile and allowed the police to shift their search. OTOH, traditionally police have asked witnesses (of whom there were probably rather a lot in that particular case) to obtain such information, and there's no reason to believe they couldn't have done so here as well.
CCTV may have saved the police some time, but you can't extrapolate from that that they wouldn't have solved the crime anyway. In fact, if you look at overall crime rates before and after CCTV is installed, you find that it helps reduce certain types of crime where it's installed, but actually makes surprisingly little difference to the proportion of crimes solved overall. OTOH, it also results in an increase in some types of crime in neighbouring areas.
That's fine, taken in isolation. However, as with most civil liberties objections, the key point here is that you are not working in isolation. You have to consider not only the effect on criminals/suspects, but also the effect on everyone else: mistaken identity and voyeurism are both serious concerns, with numerous examples of each identified in relation to the CCTV. For a technology so open to abuse, there's precious little evidence to show it's really helping enough to justify that downside.
Incidentally, the story concludes with, "Despite this, people still seem to prefer the cameras." I don't know who the author talked to, but I doubt it was anyone I know.
Re:Deterrence is not the only factor (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not so much about controlling drugs, it's about controlling people -- and not just the people who do drugs, either. Keeping heroin illegal keeps the prices high. This gives the police a ready supply of petty criminals to arrest. Keeping cocaine illegal was what led to the popularity of crack in the first place; and by happy chance, crack -- or, more specifically, the withdrawal effect of crack -- is even more effective than heroin in fostering a criminal culture. A certain level of crime builds up fear in the law-abiding population, which gives the establishment leverage with the public.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes and I'm still miffed that I lost my freedom to dump toxic waste in drinking water. Why can't I take guns on airlines? Why can't I have the freedom to molest young children?
There are lots of "freedoms" that should NOT be granted for the interest of society. This cameras sounds like a good one. Do people really have an expectation of privacy when they're on public streets?
I'd love to see national ID's, I don't even understand the privacy argument against it. It's simple the government needs a way to identify it's citizens. Licenses and SSN just don't work, since they weren't designed to be used as ID's.
I'd love to see black boxes in cars. It defends society, it defends me. When some jerk can't control his car and causes a freeway pileup. Guess what, they'll be able to see they're going 80 in the rain.
Hell I'd go so far to say everyone should have a tracking tag (RFID doesn't have the range) that goes into a database that can only be opened by subpoena. That'd be a real deterrent for crime if they can identify who's present when the crime occured. It'd also be great for medical purposes, with alerts if someone's biometrics go out of whack (heart attack etc)
Some people are so concerned with the rights of even the criminals that they can't think of the health of society as a whole.
Justice is not Deterence nor Revenge (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, we don't put a rapist in a prison cell for revenge, or to comfort the victim, any more than we do it to deter other rapists. The main reason why we put people like that in prison is to make sure they don't harm society like that again. Maybe it feels like personal revenge to them, because they are in a shitty situation. Maybe the family feels comfort in that they know someone else won't suffer in that way, maybe other people see the consequences of his choices and decide not to do it. - All those are consequences of justice, not justice in and of itself. The justice comes from society being able to more effectively secure their freedoms from the choices of those who wish to take them away.
Confusing justice with revenge is dangerous, because justice and revenge tend to be mutually exclusive. Revenge is more focused on someone else suffering, justice is more focused on bad choices not being made again. Revenge tends to pass arround the problem, justice tends to get to the root of it. Although it may feel otherwise to people, the simple fact is justice never leads to revenge and revenge never leads to justice. Justice tends to revolve arround choices and facts, revenge tends to revolve arround feelings and subjective things. Justice tends to teach people to be more just, revenge tends to teach people to be more vengfull.
So if you want revenge, then fine. But please don't call it justice, that is really a slap in the face, and belittles the millions of people who have suffered from crimes, but never have had the comfort to know justice. That their loss was for a greater good other than just to see some looser squirm.
Re:Privacy vs living in the real world. (Score:3, Insightful)
And for civilization to work, you need to have a basic level of trust and respect for people. If you don't, and all your resources go into putting together the rules and the tools to enforce those rules, then you have a civilization who figured out what the problems are with those tools and how to evade them. (My example to prove this point is a little odd...but its politicians and campaign finance laws. Plenty of rules, plenty of tools, but the more rules and tools you put together, the more politicans seem to go out of their way to creatively raise money.)
In this light, two examples come to mind. One is that of the Japanese, a highly rule based society, but one where the people have an intense need for privacy--something about so many people in such a small space, and the people just go crying out for a little bit of privacy.
The other example works well with the speeding camera issue.
here is quite a lot of fighting in the Airbus v. Boeing arguments, different attitudes toward building airplanes.
The Airbuses have computing systems which will preven a pilot from making extreme manoevres if the computer believes the action will have severely negative results.
A lot can be said to defend this concept, pilot eror does cause accidents. On the other hand, a lot can be said against, sometimes a really evasive maneovre will save the ship, that would normally crash it.
But I think that a lot of pilots also just wanna be treated as professionals...and they should be the ones making the decisions, either bad or good. Its not the plane's role to decide that.
I think that's the case with speeding cameras...it's an idea of a lack of trust and respect to the driver. It's also very removed from people...for many people, their only dealing with government may be what happens when they get pulled over. That officer's fairness and treatement will decide how that person thinks of government, to me it's essential to have real people involved in this process, as opposed to hiding behind cameras.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is that, despite the great document the US constitution is, it's terms are violated whenever those in power feel it's convenient.
You feel that constitutional violations are okay if it involves terrorists? Have I forgotten Sept 11th? Nope. Have you forgotten how many people are being imprisoned with no trial, no charges, no access to a lawyer, no nothing?
"If the tables were turned" is a shitty argument.. aren't you supposed to be BETTER than the other guy? What some foreign country would do is not justification for violating your own constitution.
My only point is that the constitution cannot be held over the world as a shining example of power of the people becaues it's effectively ignored for practical purposes all the time.
As to what I mean about laws being undone.. that was a poor choice of words. What I mean is this.
It seems to me that once something passes the "constitutionality" test... it's on the books, and it's bad form to question it. If the constitution says something isn't allowed, it's not supposed to be allowed.. and it's okay to question that vigorously.
Let's face it.. constitution aside, the problem we have with cameras in public places isn't crime prevention, but the other abuses that go along with it. WE don't really care if law enforcement can scour every database on earth for criminals.. but what we don't want is the other abuse that goes along with it.
In many other countries, it is easier for the government to do things tha twould be "unconstitutional" in the US, within a narrow law enforcement scope.. but very hard for them to go outside that scope without getting in deep shit.
Re:Why all the concern? (Score:1, Insightful)
The constitution only grants rights to american
citizens.
Now go and post a retraction.