UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs 303
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."
1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
Waitasec... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's one thing to argue that the new laws were unnecessary, but are you really saying it's a bad thing to use them to solve other crimes? Yes, they may be trivial crimes listed, but they are still crimes. If the ability is there to solve them, why shouldn't they? I don't want to dodge dog shit every time I walk down the street, and if there was a camera pointed at the area, I think police should look at the footage to see who is doing it.
Good strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yay (Score:1, Interesting)
Far worse is when these same pissfuck dipshit cuntflaps stop to let their dogs out and let them into fields full of sheep or cows, and then get all whiny and pissy when I shoot their dog.
Re:What do you mean, privacy? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I miss the days (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember being a kid and watching Ruby Ridge, Waco, et cetera. I remember going to gunshows with my dad and stocking up on stuff, coming home and watching Red Dawn. I remember hating Bill Clinton and Janet Reno with a passion.
I most certainly did not feel SMUG about being an American before Bush -- but I can tell you, I did feel PROUD.
That is now long gone. Between the antics of Bush et al, and the bullshit, lies, half-truths and innuendos I have to endure at work, I am now perhaps the least "conservative" person I deal with on a daily basis anymore.
I am leaving my job and leaving Washington to go back to school for mechanical engineering (I had started out as a comp sci and bio double the first time, ended coming out with a BA in English 'cause my heart wasn't in it at the time) and doing school right this time.
I now hate politics with a passion and I can pretty much guarantee that I hate those in power now more than you ever will. I wanted to buy what they were selling before, but now not only do I want my money back, I want to sue for damages.
I used to be a Ron Paul fan, but even in the last few months I've become so fed up that frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with any of those "let the market sort it out" people who only care what happens to you until you're born, then throw you to the wolves.
Oh, by the way, they're the wolves.
The corner stone of the whole operation, the lynch pin, the original vampire, is the National Right to Work foundation. They operate front groups, pimp fake economic numbers, et cetera.
They're the ones that need to go down first, because they're the ones that have been pushing this crap since the 60s.
Anyway... sorry for the rant. It's been a long week.
Re:Waitasec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure - police using the tools they have available to deal with all manner of crime makes sense. Whether they should continue to have access to those tools is the question.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Waitasec... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure, you can put it that way.
However, I think the point of the article is more like you spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a souped up ferrari, only to drive it off the lot and discover that it has had a limiter installed that keeps you from driving more than 25 MPH... Sure, you can use it to drive over to the grocery store, but more likely you're going to be pissed off.
Now, how muany of UK's tax dollars went into chasing down dogs, again?
Re:Finally a use I can get behind (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of which (cameras deterring crime), here is an interesting article from SFGate [sfgate.com]
From the article:
They looked at seven types of crime: larcenies, burglaries, motor vehicle theft, assault, robbery, homicide and forcible sex offenses.
The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected -- except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.
Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
R. v. Nature (Score:2, Interesting)
Stray dogs poop. Slave dogs poop. Why should it matter if the dog has a home ? Pick up the turd and toss it out! If you don't like keeping your property clean, then don't be a property owner!
Having an officer issue fines over stray poop is yet more proof that society has failed.
Boarding pass hacker - author of the article (Score:1, Interesting)
http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2006/11/good-news-and-bad-news.html
FFS don't bite (Score:3, Interesting)
There seems to be a media campaign against CCTV which has been amplified recently despite the many successes of which I hear on a daily basis. The reports that I've being reading in the media strike me as being sensationalist and far from what I've been seeing "on the ground".
The 3 percent figure which was touted the other day is utter rubbish. Maybe 3% of crimes were proven by CCTV, but the vast majority of those were likely to be violent crimes, in which case the police actually bother to obtain the footage. In many other cases CCTV is an enabling factor. For example, if there is a brawl outside a pub in a town or city centre, it is likely to be spotted on camera and the police can respond quickly. When the police arrive, they see the fight, and their visual accounts are sufficient for a prosecution - no need to obtain the footage in many cases. Doesn't mean the CCTV had no input.
Most of these stories regarding policy are referring to "city centre CCTV" yet they always quote numbers of cameras in total, i.e. including private premises, shops, facilities, etc... In a lot of shops, the cameras are used to settle customer disputes ("I gave you 20 not 10", "Ok sir, let's check the camera and sort it out"), and most importantly, theft by staff. There is certainly a lot of crime committed within private organisations which gets settled behind the scenes, i.e. theiving employee gets fired. I'm sure that doesn't get accounted in the 3 percent figure.
As just mentioned, these stories focus on city centres. It's not all-pervasive, it's more like: If your dog craps in the high-street or outside the shopping centre (mall to you guys!) you stand the risk of getting punished. The same thing applies to smoking weed and other minor offences. They don't monitor anything except the busy areas where families are out going about their business. If you want a cheeky smoke or underage drink, find somewhere quiet, nobody cares, just don't do it in the main high street. The bottom line is, if it didn't work, the authorities wouldn't keep spending money on it.
A music video with CCTV of the band. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seen on Boing Boing [boingboing.net].
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, lets hope the people rise up and smite them. Then we can all walk the footpaths of this great nation free from the fear of canine landmines.
As an aside I drove around the UK a couple of years ago and got to play crocidile dundee with some local vandals. Near Cambridge I was waiting in the car for the missus to come out of a shop when I noticed half a dozen 13-15yro kids around a telephone box. One of them started trying to rip the door off with all his might and was putting in quite a bit of time and effort. It was in broard daylight, there were people nearby pretending it wasn't happening.
Now I'm a rather large, middle-aged Aussie so I dragged my arse out of the car and walked up to within a meter or so of the kid bashing the door, folded my arms across my chest and waited till he turned around and caught my eye.
He and his mates froze, the converstaion went something like...
Me: "Is that yours?"
Kid:"No".
Me: "Then I suggest you fuck off now because I might want to use it."
I stayed in position waiting in silence for a few seconds. Some of them moved away faster than the others who were trying there best to stay composed. I can understand a woman or even a man on his own not wanting to takle half a dozen teenage kids but the shopping strip was packed and nobody was batting an eyelid!!!
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in the UK, and often many of our people are shocked when they realize how many CCTV cameras are on them at all times, let alone the other 'safety-procedures' put in place for our protection (DRM being a big one atm).
Re:Yay (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't agree more. A shit-free Congress or White House now
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Interesting)
You could go out and vote in the next general election.
I'd recommend voting Lib Dem, if only because the introduction of proportional representation to Westminster is a condition for entering into a coalition with them (in the event of a hung parliament). The current first-past-the-post system gives an unfair advantage to large parties and means that it's much easier for them to obtain a majority, even without a majority of votes. That in turn means that the smaller parties cannot get elected and means that voices like yours won't get heard if they don't conform to the party lines of the big three.
PR would mean that it's incredibly hard for governments to bludgeon on regardless through an entire parliamentary term with these kinds of idiotic policies.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:3, Interesting)
Fellow Aussies will note the irony of P.Garrett being nueterd by the labor party......meh.