London Police Seek To Install CCTV In Pubs 293
JCWDenton writes "The Met Police got a short sharp rap over the knuckles yesterday, as the Office of the Information Commissioner questioned what looks very much like a blanket
policy to force CCTV onto public houses in certain parts of London. The story begins with a letter to the Guardian last week, from Nick Gibson. He is currently renovating Islington pub The Drapers Arms, after its previous owners allowed it to go insolvent and then disappeared. In his letter, he argues that if he had merely taken over an existing licence, the police could not have imposed any additional conditions. However, because this was now a new licence, the police were able to make specific requests, including one particular request in respect of installing CCTV."
Priva ground ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can we have a bit less old news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called privacy, you dipshit.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you see, a pub is private property.
Once police have the power to install cameras in private property, they'll be able to install them anywhere they want... say, in your home.
Think that's far-fetched? The law is constantly being chipped away, bit by bit. First, cameras are put in pubs. Then since hey, we got them installed in pubs, we can probably install them in restaurants too. They sell alcohol, don't they? What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Now since cameras are already in pubs and restaurants, what's the harm in having them in workplaces? That'll sure make it easier to establish people's whereabouts and make sure that anyone shredding corporate documents gets the scrutiny they deserve. What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Then hey, since everyone is already being monitored at work and everywhere else, the precedent has clearly been set. The government will next want to install cameras in criminal's homes or the homes of their families, and they'll get it, because the law up to this point has said that cameras are allowed on private property.
Well at this point, why don't we just roll the thing out everywhere? If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? What are you all doing that means you mind being on camera?
There are direct parallels with the storage of DNA. First, it was just the criminal's DNA. Now, it's everybody who gets arrested, even if they aren't ever charged with a crime. Next, you'll be pulled over by mobile DNA units and have to submit to tests to ensure that you aren't a criminal, without any probable cause whatsoever.
This is EXACTLY how the law is chipped away. Once chipped away, it's difficult if not impossible to go back to the way it was.
Feel free to dismiss that as an "Orwellian circle-jerk fantasy". You clearly don't understand anything about how the law works and how politicians leverage the law to get what they want. Nor do you have any regard whatsoever for the sort of world your children will grow up in.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you don't understand, the moment you asserted that CCTV had never been abused in the UK you showed you didn't comprehend the concept that you might not know everything that ever happened.
Regardless, even if CCTV hasn't been abused ever it doesn't mean expanding it is a wise idea. It would be hard to argue that implanting people with tracking chips, recording all biometrics yearly and installing ubiquitous CCTV wouldn't cause less crime if the system was used correctly. The arguement against monitoring at that scale is that as the monitoring expands it becomes easier for the system to be used to silence political dissent etc and harder for people to resist.
Re:Follow the letter of their request... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do that, and it's just a matter of time until they fix whatever loophole allowed you to disable it while following the letter. If you disagree in principle, then fight the principle, not the letter. Even if you beat the letter, their principle remains in law, and will bite you in the ass next time round.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to post... (Score:5, Insightful)
... a lengthy rebuttal of the hopeless summary, but then I noticed it was the UK-hating Timothy that posted.
Timothy, why do you feel the need to misrepresent every story about the UK in the worst possible light? Did you even read the article in question?
Perhaps you should. The police aren't installing CCTV cameras in pubs. One police chief is recommending to the licensing board that grants licences to pubs that they require new licensees to fit CCTV. The police would not have access to the CCTV unless they came down and requested the tapes (or more likely DVR drive, these days).
Now - here's the important bit - are you paying attention? They were told that they couldn't do that. Let's just say that again to make sure you've got it - the police were told that they could not ask the licensing board to make installing CCTV a condition of the licence.
So, in fact, the police are *not* installing CCTV in pubs, for several different reasons.
It's called literacy, Timothy. You should try it.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:1, Insightful)
The last study I read about CCTV usage showed that the operators spend more time fulfilling their voyeuristic proclivities than looking for crime.
So if you don't mind a room full of pigs looking at your fifteen year old daughter/sister's tits while a pack of rabid hoodies kick a nun to death and shag the body totally unnoticed, then it's all fine.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution isn't "more cameras" as the cameras doesn't prevent crime. They might sort of help catch the people, but they're not going to stop crime.
No, the solution is to get rid of violent drunk people. Not by throwing them in jail forever. Just outlaw alcohol.
Then you'll complain about prohibition, but outlawing alcohol is only the first step. Alcohol brings out the worst in people - that's why we'll outlaw it. But to give people a chance to wind down with a nice relaxing substance, we'll legalise cannabis.
Think about it - who'd you rather get run over by? Someone who's had too much to drink or someone who's smoked too much cannabis? Hint, the guy on cannabis is likely to be sitting in the passenger seat, and if he somehow manages to find the driver's seat, he'll be likely to drive at 3 miles an hour.
Secondly - who'd you rather get into a fight with? A drunkard or someone who's high on cannabis? The former is likely to smash you over the head with a beer bottle, the latter is likely to just start laughing and pointing at the pretty rainbows.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Drunk crimes are irrational crimes, so rational deterrents (like cameras) won't work so well.
Being able to stop them in the act (like putting police on the beat) is a good way to stop that sort of crime.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're at the crux of the matter. The surveillance is very one sided, if these people want to make a surveillance society it needs to be both ways.
Yet sousveillance just took another hit as they're proposing to make a crime of photographing the police [bjp-online.com]
One privacy rule for us, one for them.
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because no one read the article:
However, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Information Commissioner said: "Hardwiring surveillance into the UKâ(TM)s pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime, and can help to reduce crime in areas of high population density, such as city boroughs.
"However, we are concerned at the prospect of landlords being forced into installing CCTV in pubs as a matter of routine in order to meet the terms of a licence. The use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment.
"Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but hardwiring in blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements. We will be contacting the police and others involved to establish the facts and discuss the situation in Islington.â
Re:compare (Score:1, Insightful)
Whose fault is that exactly? What are you specifically doing to curb extremism in your religion?
How do you expect people to act when people of your religion treat women like shit?
You see those islands over there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, those islands. That's where Great Britain used to be. A shame, really.
Re:Priva ground ? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Since when can police install camera on private ground or private shop ?
Ever since the politicians redefined "private shop" as "public facility" and thereby extended antidiscrimination laws over stores, bars, hotels, et cetera. And now they are extending their power even further. If they can force you to stop discriminating against blacks or females, then they can also force you to meet other requirements - like installing cameras.
Again as 1984 demonstrated, redefine words to extend power. Your store may be privately owned, but it's now a "public facility" under the law and therefore must meet whatever rules the politicians decide, almost the same as if it were publicly owned.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
The joke works a bit better if you remember to mention at the start that the man is blind.
Re:saw that done (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. Most pubs install discreet cctv of their own volition *especially* to places like out of the way cubicles.
It gets silently recorded, and most of the time eventually discarded.. but if something happens it's invaluable evidence.
It's been years since I've seen a city centre pub without its own CCTV in the entrance ways to watch people coming in. This is a non-story, really.
Re:Any pub in central London... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well-behaved people have nothing to fear from being seen sitting and drinking.
Until the government (regardless of what level) decides that your pal Tony did something that maybe they don't like and decide to haul you and everyone else spotted with him in for a good cavity search. They can even look at the tv and say "That guy beat me at *name of event* back in high school!" and get a bogus warrant so that they can ruin your life as well. There are a LOT of police out there who only became police officers for the power and to feed their ego knowing that they are allowed to carry a gun, beat people up, and toss a little baggie on you and your life is screwed up for years. Giving those very people unlimited power over your life is one of the dumbest things you can do.
Re:I was going to post... (Score:3, Insightful)
And you are clearly naive if you don't see the very real concern that the police were a) trying to do this and b)believe they wouldn't make every opportunity of getting tapes.
There was nothing wrong with the summary. The police want to get the cameras installed. They tried and they failed.. this time.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=11161 [hillingdon.gov.uk]
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1331 [london-se1.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/17/rhys-jones-killer-gang-culture [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Follow the letter of their request... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just do what is requested.
I post a comment on Slashdot and it's a standard condition on this site to have profile with a photo to log in that is accessible by the police upon request. It's helped Cowboy Neil (and every website I've run) no end when problems have happened.
Only website that have Anonymous Cowards that they are unwilling to tackle have need for concern. If you have a well run website then where's the problem?
--Anonymous Coward
Re:I was going to post... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree with what you say, but you're refusing to acknowledge the slippery slope argument. If you have enough police chiefs asking pubs and other regulated businesses to add CCTV "for their protection" as part of their licensing scheme, eventually one is going to relent and then you have your legal precedent to do this in other pubs when their license comes up for renewal.
Yes, it is a little sensationalistic, but a) If you shame public figures into not making such requests, hopefully they'll stop and b) the article will be more widely read, better shaming the public figures. If nobody is a whistleblower for these sort of issues, eventually measures like this will come to pass, and once in place are much harder to remove than it was to put them in place in the first case.
Plus the UK doing this somehow legitimizes doing this in the US, so whatever we can do to stop it there will delay it happening in my neighborhood.
Re:It's not authority, it's what the populace fear (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case you presumably wouldn't mind it installed in your living room. Care to post your address and I'm sure some
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardwiring surveillance into the UKâ(TM)s pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime...
And that role is?
I watched a short segment on MSNBC last night - it contained crystal clear footage of someone robbing a fast-food restaurant, holding one person at gunpoint - even putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger (for whatever reason, the gun didn't go off). There were two cameras - one in the back room where the safe was, and another in the dining area. Fortunately this individual was able to wrestle the intruder out the door, at which point he ran. The perpetrator was never caught - apparently there's this weird limitation that cameras have - the guy was wearing a ski mask and was fully covered in dark clothing. But the point is, that even under the best of circumstances, cameras can easily be rendered useless. The crime won't stop, it will just change how crimes are committed.