An Imaginative Use For CCTVs 191
An anonymous reader writes "Everyone knows we're being watched by CCTVs everywhere — particularly in the UK — and virtually everyone (at least on Slashdot) complains about that fact. But have you ever stopped to consider the ways you can use all those CCTVs to your advantage? The Get Out Clause, an unsigned band from Manchester in the UK, did just that; they played in front of 80 different CCTVs around Manchester, and then asked for the video via Freedom of Information Act letters. (About 25% of the CCTV owners complied with the law and turned them over.) The result isn't too bad."
Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mark Thomas (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I applaud this band as well as the comedian. So many good ideas, get wasted due to indolence. I am glad someone didn't waste this one.
Many people may have thought 'whats the big deal, I thought of doing that as well, it's no stroke of genius.'
I ask 'But did you do it?'
Kudos and applause to these guys, not only for the idea but for the balls and willingness to do it.
So if you got an idea, don't waste it. Do it, or at least tell someone who will do it. Don't let ideas die.
No I am not promoting some self-help book.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Smaller companies' cameras are more likely to be outsourced to security firms, who, since it is their primary business, would be well versed in their obligations relating to cameras covering public spaces, and are generally quite lenient in making the video available. It is probably chargeable back to the client, so an additional revenue source for them, and not worth refusing over a technicality like the wrong Act being used to request the images.
Re:Data Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the feeling that the latter is normally the main goal here, but the former is required for that to be tenable.
Specifically in the UK, according to Wikipedia's entry on the Data Protection Act [wikipedia.org]:
The person who has their data processed has the right to
So they may have tried to use the 'subject access' thing. Wikipedia also mentions that costs cannot exceed £10.
Re:Really good (Score:4, Insightful)
No-one is watching (Score:5, Insightful)
The only change is that the feral brats who congregate in town centres now wear a sporting baseball cap and hooded top combination to escape identification on camera. Teenagers nowadays have never known life without CCTV anyway so it's not really any sort of deterrent to them commiting crimes. The camera on the street corner is pretty much a totemic reminder of their impunity and the impotency of the police.
I know friends and relatives over the years who where assaulted and have asked police to survey CCTV in order to catch the offenders. Usually there's some lame excuse about the camera not being on, pointing the wrong way, a technical fault or some equally daft reason. I suspect the police don't have the man power to go back over it or most likely they just plain can't be bothered. Just last year, this happened to my brother when he was attacked by a gang of thugs in Edinburgh.
Try not to worry too much about your rights being slowly eroded way by CCTV. It's security theatre on a massive scale and no-one's watching anyway...
Re:DPA not FoI (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you're not convicted, doesn't mean the law isn't abused.
Re:The story is about a month old (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not persuaded they used *any* real CCTV at this point.
Re:No-one is watching (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that CCTV is only for deterring crime is ridiculous. It has plenty of very useful applications that are indeed helping the police to catch more bad people. Saying CCTV is eroding rights is ridiculous - no-one has the right not to be looked at in the street. Your rights through the data protection act cover access to the video, and your right to access it.
Do you read the daily mail?
Re:No-one is watching (Score:4, Insightful)
The post wasn't about whether or not CCTV is heavily eroding your rights (which is debatable and not as cut and dried as you seem to suggest) but rather about the fact that it doesn't do anything except waste a lot of money. All that crap you see on TV about the cops tracking someone from camera to camera only happens in mass crimes like bombings. For every day crimes, like rape and mugging etc, the cops don't have the manpower or the desire to put forth that kind of effort. Even if they did, it wouldn't be in any reasonable time frame (it would take weeks at a minimum, not days) and it still wouldn't "revoke" the actual crime. Therefore, your public safety has not been enhanced in the slightest, which was the whole point of the GP's post.
Re:No-one is watching (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not living in some magical world with infinite funds. In order to install a massive CCTV system, money has to be taken from some other place -- that other place might be more effective at reducing crime. Or keeping the criminals from an early release. Or some other such thing.
But if it's not as newbite-worthy, if it doesn't sound as tech-savvy, well then the CCTV wins!
The whole "IF IT SAVES JUST ONE..." argument is a worthless and ridiculous appeal to emotion.