UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that it seems the UK is trying make up for their judicious use of surveillance cameras that, according to recent research, do not actually deter crime, by using the surveillance network to prosecute petty crimes. "Conjuring up the bogeymen of terrorists, online pedophiles and cybercriminals, the U.K. passed a comprehensive surveillance law, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, in 2000. The law allows 'the interception of communications, carrying out of surveillance, and the use of covert human intelligence sources' to help prevent crime, including terrorism. Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations."

Re:1984

[mbone]

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

Yes, it was set in London. And you can still see the building that suggested the Ministry of Truth to Orwell, just off Tottenham Court Road at UCL (University College London). During World War II it was the Ministry of Propaganda, and Orwell worked there.

Taking Liberties documentory

[QX-Mat]

Available at http://www.noliberties.com/ [noliberties.com]

and if you're a UK view, for free here,

http://www.channel4.com/video/true-stories-taking-liberties/catchup.html [channel4.com]

(WMP11 unfortunately)

For anyone who's studied the UK constitution, and in particular, Lord Nicholls' dicta in Belmarsh, it is frightening to see so obviously what one Government has done to the UK in a way that will effectively bind successive governments: not for want of power, but for want of justification should they revoke popularist statues that give the illusion of service.

Matt

Privacy VS. Security

[silentcoder]

It's interesting how attitudes differ. People (including in the UK) seem to think the CCTV there is a terrible violation of privacy and the justifications for it, even if true, would be weak. In South Africa, CCTV is profligating faster than that and our tech is actually MORE advanced now. Here, it has gotten nothing but praise. People just don't care about privacy. There is a twofold reason for that I think. The first is that just a generation ago we were living under what was little less than a military dictatorship. A dictatorship that had propaganda SO effective that some people to this day yearn for their rule ! What's worse, people here seem to chaos and order as a black/white thing. Either everybody does what they are told all the time, nothing more, nothing less- or you have complete chaos. The idea of a free society in between those extremes, where the individual's rights matter is basically non-existent. Throw in a massive crime wave, and putting up CCTV will get you hailed as heroes, with nobody wondering if it may be abused. It is scary to see the same thing happening in the UK though - because it removes from the rest of us yet another example of liberty being respected - if the UK with their relatively small crime problems lose it... how will we with a crime wave possibly convince people that the little extra security you may or may not get out of CCTV may not be worth the incredible price we are paying ? We already live in a country where it is now a crime for teenagers under the age of 16 to HUG OR KISS. How long before we have teenagers arrested for making out - and CCTV used to find them/as evidence ? It's no less of a minor crime than dogpoop (of course, the kissing should never have been a crime at all but at least it's classified as minor). The biggest irony of all is, even in South Africa the camera's have not actually had a real positive effect, the criminals simply moved to other neighbourhoods. So the cycle ends up with every street everywhere being under surveillance in the end. 1984 Was not so far fetched.

Re:May not deter crime, but...

[pembo13]

Few ever say that CCTV fails at its advertised goal. Its the unadvertised goals we are worried about.

Only Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between the UK and USA is the UK has the decency to get the police to lock you up, in the USA any major corporation has the power to spy on you and attack you so harshly you have no come back. Welcome to the Digital Millenium Gentlemen.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[mikael]

Sign a Downing Street E-petition?

Science and Technology [pm.gov.uk]

Education [pm.gov.uk]

Re:Petty crimes?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell it all looks like tarmac

Re:Slippery Slopes

[infonography]

no I am sorry, it has to be a number between 1-99 http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/thatmitchellandwebbsite/numberwang/game.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gTI_D-yqYn4 [youtube.com]

Re:Yay

[JohnBailey]

I would say it has more to do with not wanting to tread in a stinking pile of shit.

Wuss! Try the same event from the perspective of a wheelchair user.

Re:Petty crimes?

[LaskoVortex]

I was under the impression that people voted for the CCTV to be there, and if enough people cared, they could vote it away as well.

It's a lot harder to take a law off the books than it is to put one on. PROOF: number of laws now > number of laws 100 years ago. This formula holds for every stable political system. I know these cameras aren't "laws", but they are evidence of legislation. The problem is that people allow and ask for laws without proper consideration and their rights get nickel-and-dimed away. The price of this erosion of freedom is beginning to show. By the way, I am defining the word "right" as the right to do action X without breaking law Y, not the "Inalienable Rights" narrowly defined in the US Constitution. The rights about which I am talking are very hard to get back and rationalizing away the expense is not going to bring them back. BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

Re:Finally a use I can get behind

[janrinok]

What makes you think that US data is applicable to UK crimes?

Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras.

Murder is much less common in the UK than in the US, so much so that every murder is national news. Counting the murders that occur within 250 feet of a camera would probably result in a 0 count. [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp]. The total for 2005/2006 is 765 which includes the results of the terrorist attacks in London. Even in a small country like the UK it would be a rare event indeed for a murder to be carried out near to a camera.

The statistics used also refer to homicide, a term which includes a significant number of deaths that are not murder. For example, illegal immigrants who suffocated in the back of a lorry while travelling to the UK or who died while working illegally in the UK. e.g. the Morecambe Bay disaster in 2004.

Re:Yay

[Macthorpe]

You don't have a right to privacy in a public place and you never have.

I suggest if you don't want to be 'spied on' that you stop leaving the house. You don't want those crazy neighbours and citygoers looking at you with their eyes, do you!

Re:Slippery Slopes

[Peter Cooper]

Or maybe they're aware and actually support CCTV (like myself). Prosecuting people for letting their dogs crap on the streets is not an "abuse" of CCTV cameras. Letting your dog foul on the pavement is illegal and is a nuisance to pedestrians and nearby residents. They're also starting to use CCTV to catch people for parking violations.

CCTV *could* be abused at some point, but catching people doing illegal things with them is not an abuse. Perhaps if people actually get nailed for committing crimes they thought no-one had seen, the level of crime would actually drop. I (and a few other drivers) was almost wiped out by an idiot on the motorway yesterday undertaking at about 90 mph. With CCTV coverage, he could have been prosecuted. Instead, sod all happens and he'll keep driving like a twat until something worse happens.

Perhaps if people are worried about CCTV, they should stop screwing around on their wife, stop breaking laws, and stop acting like twats in public.