Even More Surveillance Cameras For England 322
An unidentified reader writes that a "new type of camera to allow the police to monitor from a laptop has been developed. Cheaper, and with G3 about to come in, faster data transmission," and points to this story in the UK Sunday Times. Unnamed experts in that story say that in Britain "an individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day."
Re:Dark times are these.... again (Score:2)
Homicide rate in the UK: 0.11 per 100k citizens.
So you suck.
You're suggesting it's worthwhile to sacrifice freedom to save 3 people's lives per 100,000?
I'm not posting this as flamebait, but honestly, give me the freedom rather than the safety, please!
This is an issue my European friends just can't grok... that we understand the cost of our freedoms and accept it (well, some of us do). Unfortunately, more and more of us just see the statistics and would rather live under an iron fist if it meant their kids were safer....
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Then at least you could shoot into the cameras if they bothered you so much.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Re:Dark times are these.... again (Score:2)
Without touching on the miserably boring history of the English, lets see how we are different today.
Boring of course, as in having a lot of it. As opposed to America.
ISPs and newspapers routinely bend over for big business in the UK, its 10 times worse than over here.
ISPs certainly do, but newspapers aren't so likely to buckle, especially the larger broadsheets.
Guns. The citizenry dont defend themselves. The crown watches over its subjects. Guns are for the hunting of waterfowl on one's estate and the military. End of story.
For a start we're citizens, not subjects. Nice try there though. And as for guns, feel free to keep them and your murder rate.
Privacy. The crown is watching over you and will decide what is good for you. Give us your passwords and don't talk back peasant! Witness the RIP act and numerous other things more recently passed or in the process of passing. Forced handing over of private keys, etc etc etc.
True to an extent, but all Governments enjoy passing draconian legislation that they know will get struck down in the courts - for example several of the attempts made in USia for online decency laws. A lot of RIP is likely to fall foul of the Human Rights Act.
Cars. The brits have an insane traffic and speed system that is designed to a)inconvenience car owners and b) generate revenue with speed cameras. This is part "Green" legislation, part greed, part stupidity.
How is it insane? Because... *gasp*... we drive on the other side of the road???! Anyway, USia is quite happily installing as many speed cameras as possible, we're just ahead of the game.
I could go on for years about all the things that are differnet about the UK, but I havent been there in a while and I think ive made my point anyway.
I think you have made your point quite clearly.
Whether it was the point you were intending to make is something different though. Maybe you should try and find out about things before spouting off like a fool.
Re:You're in public! (Score:2)
If somebody catches you in a photo they're taking on the street, people generally agree that you don't have any right to complain.
But what if they follow you around all day shooting everything you do?
Glancing in your window as I pass by on the street is one thing. Sitting out on the sidewalk with a pair of binoculars looking into your house is another.
These things are abuses of privacy, which Louis Brandeis defined as the "right to be left alone." Meeting people as you and they go about their business is one thing, personally targetted surveillance is quite another.
Like many issues involving technology, the novelty of the technology is something of a distraction. I don't think that morally the technology comes into play at all. It's what can be done with it. Putting a camera in a location is no different than stationing a copper there. Following somebody through a network of cameras is the same as tailing them with the secret police.
When you put technology like this in place, you have to ask how can it be used, and how can it be abused? It really could be a tremendous step towards making ubiquitous, constant and silent surveillance practical and affordable. The degree to which this is a good thing depends on the degree to which government and its agents are subject to superior law and accountable to the people. Thus this would be an utter disaster in China or Iran, but maybe not so disastrous in Britain.
But it is dangerous.
Re:But creative works are excluded from the UK DPA (Score:2)
An example of my point exactly - most people in the third world CAN'T read.
--
You can watch me, if I can watch you watching me.. (Score:2)
Where I heard that, I don't know.. I have no problem with monitoring of public spaces - there's some trial work being done here in Canada, IIRC - the only thing is that I want to be able to watch the same thing that the police are watching. After all, it is public money and my taxes that are paying for it - so I should be able to watch, too. This can easily be done via broadband internet or even cable.. and would be most interesting :). I like the reality channel.. heh heh.
The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(
People still buy drugs on the street? :)
BIG BROTHER – 1984 – by George Orwell (Score:2)
But most people forgot this book was written from a British perspective, the later film is clearly situated in southern England.
Many western politicians used the books tale as a warning against communist totalitarianism, yet it was not written from that perspective...
The old Soviet block has collapsed since 1989, when it still existed it was probably the best defence we had against government (Big Brother) tactics as described in the book.
The Soviets are gone and cynically (or was it predicted?) the British are furthest on the unholy path of total surveillance.
A quote: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
Britain is a strange society, until recent there was no photo on a driving licence due to fears of invasion of privacy, traffic police can STILL not do random alcohol tests on motorists, again a privacy issue, yet the camera's (telescreens maybe?) are absolutely everywhere!
PS, I support the fight against crime, but not with dubious means.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
It's much safer under a microscope, and you can criticise the person using it. Most of us tend to be fairly quiet when guns are pointed at us. Intelligent people with guns are pretty quiet when the other guy has a gun too!
Guns are undemocratic. Guess who said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." He was not really into fair elections was he?
How is the US more free? (Score:3)
This is an issue my European friends just can't grok... that we understand the cost of our freedoms and accept it (well, some of us do). Unfortunately, more and more of us just see the statistics and would rather live under an iron fist if it meant their kids were safer....
I hear this again and again, and I still don't get it. Don't take this as flamebait, but just how is the US freer than anywhere else? And I'm not talking about what the Constitution says, I'm talking about what actually happens in America?
In a country with no-knock searches, Carnivore, mandatory minimum sentances and widespread censorship where is this freedom? And bare in mind that what may be true for you does not hold for the average American.
Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
How do you feel about these cameras? Is all this surveillance actually wanted by the citizens, or is it being shoved down your throats by the Evil Empire? Does it effect your daily lives? Any stories of when the surveillance goes wrong, or is used for something especially good?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
FYI (Score:2)
When you've only got five black people in the entire country, yes, racism is low.
Did you know that by 2010 whites will comprise less than 50% of the population in Leicester? And by 2050 whites will comprise less than half the population in London, which is around the 10 million mark?
So that's hardly "five black people" is it? The white population in Britain is falling due to declining birth rates, whereas those of other cultures are rising.
Sorry, but guns are HIGHLY Democratic. (Score:2)
Or, as a wag once put it. . .
I'll also note the upswing in violent crime, and armed crime, in both the UK and Australia, since guns were confiscated. It's sooooo much safer now...
Re:Actually, they are (Score:2)
His idea is sound. Nothing written anywhere there says that you couldn't stage a skit in front of one of these cameras and request the footage. He's suggesting something akin to going into a local convenience store or bank, putting on a show for the camera there, then requesting the footage of the show to submit to the contest. If it was a news cameraperson and you were jumping in the background and putting ears on folks, you could be denied the footage, since it was their camera for media use; but in the case of the security camera, the footage is still publicly available.
I think you just got confused as to which cameras he was referring to.
Re: Good Gracious. I thought this was fiction (Score:2)
--
A small rebuttal (Score:5)
That's the only negative thing you can think of?
Here, let me add a few more...
1) If you are willing to let the cops film you, you are giving up your civil rights to walk around freely without someone monitoring you. This is possibly the very definition of freedom. If you give that up, you don't have a lot left...
2) Police states DO have lower rates of crime. Nobody disputes that. Saudi Arabia and Singapore monitor practically everything you do, and there's almost no crime. There's almost no innovation, art, or human expression of any kind either. If you want that kind of society, you're welcome to it.
3) Software is a global market. People don't realise it, but $$$ aren't the only thing that programmers, scientists and engineers look at. I can work in Singapore any time I want to, but I don't ever want to go back there because the only thing I remember is clean streets and deadly dull govt. propaganda on TV. The only free expression I encountered was hastily written on restroom walls.
4) You can't have the govt. surgically monitor the "bad guys" and let the "good guys" run around happily inventing things.
5) Britain already has a really bad image - an inbred monarchy, a racist class driven society, slow technology, foot-and-mouth-disease, and mad cow disease. Trust me, surveillance cameras aren't going to make anyone want to go there.
6) If the cops monitor you, who monitors the cops? Abuse is inevitable.
Britain is already leading the charge towards a monitored society, and satisfying bureaucratic deadweights. In contrast, libertarian places such as California are attracting all the talent. It's your choice.
w/m
Re:Nothing to fear, except fear itself (Score:2)
Watched by the police.
My house is not a public area. Diferent thing.
Or how about instead of mounting them on poles in the street they were carried by a policeman on foot and as you walked down the street there he was pointing it in your face.
Sure, why not? It's exactly the same thing. It would be good to see more Police on the streets too.
Or there were some in your car, one pointing at the speedo, one at the road, and one at your face - with sound so they could monitor what you say too.
See "House" above. My car is not a Public area. Although Buses are, and guess what? Thats right, they have cameras on them! Guess what? Violent crime (GBH, ABH, Assualt) on buses, especially at night on the way back from the nightclub, has droped.
1. Swearing in public.
You what? This is not illegal. I'd love to see you backup that one.
2. Illegal gathering : more than 2 poeple stood together (I kid you not - Public Order Act 1985 - enacted in 24hours to strengthen the police during the miners strike).
You do kid us. Go back and check on that law, I dare ya! As far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for gathering more than two people together. (Hey, I saw three police officers walking the beat together the other day. Sack them!)
3. Public consumption of alcohol (geographically dependent)
Wow, you've found one! Yup, it can be a bylaw in some cities (Bath for example). So what? It's a fair law, drink in the pub.
4. Playing soccer (Scotland only).
Oh dear, I don't think so. Anyone from Scotland know more on this? I'd love to hear of someone being prosecuted for playing football you know.
So, basically, remind us what your argument was again?
Re:You're in public! (Score:2)
A surveillance guard interviewed on British TV once said that he would not mind if a camera was checking his garden when he was not in it to avoid burglaries, but he would not like to be filmed when he's having a BBQ with some friends.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
In the places I've visited or lived in on mainland Europe, getting a cab at any time is easy because there are so many of them and there's only one kind of cab not the black cab/minicab bull in the UK.
Also there are the brainless licensing laws. Let's encourage people to get as many drinks down them as possible and throw them all out on the street at exactly the same time. Brilliant.
I'm tired of the UK government tackling the symptom rather than the cause, merely so they can say to their tabloid masters that something is being done.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:3)
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Re:We're not citizens! (significant point) (Score:2)
Cellphone Jammers. (Score:3)
If the picture on the site is anything to go by, the cameras are lowish quality, and look mosly down, and thus can not see people at long distances.
Just call me MR invisible.
They will have to outlaw jammers if they want to succeed.
(But I do agree... I'd rather be photographed in the UK than go to a US school)
:)
ROFL (Score:2)
It's a well known fact that in places where gun ownership is mandatory, there is less crime. You pale faced BSE infected inbred gits might not be able to get that through your thick skulls but leave the rest of the world out of it.
Of course, and the six times as high murder rate in the US proves your point I'm sure. And go, on pull out the Swiss example, please. Just because they all own guns (hint: they don't) doesn't mean they're not controlled.
And while we're on the topic, it seems like you can't even criticize your own government without fearing retribution. So piss off, you tosser.
Strawman. He was an employee of the EU at the time, hardly just a private citizen. Besides which, the EU is not Britain, despite what some people seem to think.
Nice troll though. Made two classic mistakes from the list of erroneous arguments linked to in the troll HOWTO.
Re:reading license plates? (Score:2)
Reading the plates may be unrealistic, but what about using the camera footage to track the car? You would, most likely, get a rough make/model/color and the direction the car was headed. Even better, you're likely to get the car on other cameras further along. While I would be hesitant to treat it as conclusive evidence if the car were to pass through an unmonitored gap, it would probably be sufficient to track the suspected car to wherever it stops. Hit-and-run should leave enough physical evidence that finding the car rapidly could help secure a conviction. If I'm not mistaken, this is how the generally try and find hit-and-run drivers over here (US), where we don't have cameras and where the witnesses didn't get the plates; they take the make/model/color and then do lots of tedious foot-work.
Of course, personally, I still dislike the idea of cameras everywhere. But I won't argue that they aren't useful. It's just a question of whether or not it's worth sacrificing some privacy for some safety. (And yes, despite them being used in public places, it is an issue of privacy. "Public" may mean that there's a reasonable expectation of other people knowing where you are, but doesn't cover a reasonable expectation of someone tracking your every single move outside of private property.)
Re:You can watch me, if I can watch you watching m (Score:2)
The cost of this would be pretty prohibative, though, and it may aide in crime, because with good planning, a criminal can sit at home and plan a robbery using the very cameras that are supposed to protect.
Re:We're not citizens! (significant point) (Score:2)
How do you remove Murdoch from his position of power? Only the government or large institutional investors can do that and they have too much at stake.
However a European parliament composed of some of the staunchest defenders of real freedom of speech would neuter his enormous political clout. Why do you think Murdoch doesn't own anything in, say, Denmark. Because his megalomania would not be tolerated, and his ego couldn't stand that.
Re:A small rebuttal (Score:2)
In any case, all these things are relative - London is more racially segregated than california. When I say California is libertarian, I don't mean that it's perfect. All I'm saying that it offers MORE freedoms than most places in the world.
There's one very simple way to measure this - the number of people who go there, of their own will. For some reason, most hardware and software companies start up in California. And more migrants move there than any other place.
Maybe they don't share your opinion. Maybe they like it there. Whatever the reason, California is the most vibrant place for migrants from around the world, and for technology companies to be founded.
Again, I'm not saying it's perfect, but it offers more choices - to start a company, to immigrants looking for a new life, and for getting better bandwidth.
It's all relative, and the UK doesn't even come close to california. And it shows.
w/m
Stoopid Stoopid Brits (Score:2)
Yeah, it worked really well back in 1776, didn't it? Dang authoritarian governments restricting civil liberties...good thing some folks had some guns to do something about it.
If you won't even consider the possibility of abuse by the authorities, then abuse is inevitable. What if the police do start abusing their power? You have no recourse, no means to defend yourself and your family. Nazi Germany disarmed their population, too, BTW. And fat lot of good a camera is going to do if a criminal with an illegal gun breaks into your house and shoots you dead. Sure, he'll be caught, but it's a little too late by then for you law-abiding non-gun-owning citizens, isn't it?
More kids are killed in car accidents every year in the US than in gun accidents. A nut driving down kids in a school parking lot gets no media attention, but a nut with a gun in school gets every major network. Don't tell me there's not an attack on our freedoms.
Flamebait != Disagree
Re:What sort of fail-safes are in place? (Score:2)
For a start, I'd take issue with your statement that the British police are "notoriously corrupt". That just doesn't wash, especially in contrast to the American police. But leaving that aside...
I don't think stalkers are a real force to worry about. That's a poor example. Stalkers just turn up and stare; they don't try and bribe police for CCTV footage.
As for organized crime: why would they be interested in me walking to the movies, or being sick behind a dumpster on a Saturday night (poor example, but hey
I'm not bothered at all by these cameras.
lets revisit this a year from now (Score:3)
I can certainly see how this could cut down on gang violence but I also know that police and companies can't resist the opportunity to get in your mess. So, lets hold off for a year and see what shakes out.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
[Disclaimer: I'm actually Canadian, but I've been living in the UK for a couple of years.]
I have absolutely no problems with having a police camera on me while I'm walking to work or back home. I usually work late and end up arriving home at 2am or so. The streets of Inverness are utterly deserted at this time, except for the chain of police cameras along my route. As I pass the last police camera (actually bolted to the side of my house) I normally wave at it. After about a week of doing this it started to nod up and down in response. I have no idea who is on the other end of the circuit, but it is really nice to see just before going to bed.
--
Re:A small rebuttal (Score:2)
When you've only got five black people in the entire country, yes, racism is low.
Racism is the price of diversity. It can be improved to a degree through education, but I refuse to believe that any area is significantly "more racist" than any other. If the cause (diversity) is not there, the symptom won't be either.
CCTV, Mark Thomas and the Data Protection Act (Score:5)
Seems CCTV footage is now covered by the UK Data Protection Act, which means that, for a nominal fee (ten pounds in most cases) the owners/operators of the cameras have to release any footage they might have of you.
Mark's taken this to the obvious conclusion by hosting a competition for the most creative short film captured via CCTV and obtained via the DPA. Details here [demon.co.uk].
As to whether CCTV is a good thing or not, I'm still sitting on the fence on the issue I must admit. Key point seems to be how the use/availability of any captured film is regulated and policed, but you're probably looking at cases on a site by site basis, which naturally makes it very hard to administrate.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
I choose no cameras (even though I don't especially respect gun nuts [slashdot.org])
--
The goal of all these cameras... (Score:2)
"Our plan is not to tackle crime as such but to reduce the fear of crime - and to that end this system was ideal," said PC Harry Wilkinson, crime prevention officer in Hexham.
So in other words, they make white people feel safe, but they don't really lower the actual crime rate.
On an unrelated note, in the US, the fine line between legal and illegal surveilance has to do with 'expectations of pricavy' (eg in the recent florida - superbowl thing, florida's argument was that people going to a public sporting event could have no expectation of privacy, and therefore could legally be recorded without notification) , so if video cams became this prevalent in the US, would we ever have any "expectation of privacy"? What I mean is, could increased surveillance support its own legality?
Re:How is the US more free? (Score:2)
It's all a question of theory vs. implementation. At its core, the United States as a Constitution, a Declaration of Independence
The current implementation of this government may stray quite far from these principles, but the people have the ultimate power to vote out these guys and put people in place who will change that.
It's oh-so-easy to say "All the legislators are corrupt" and ignore the issue from then on. It's so much harder to actually vote for people to replace those corrupt legislators, to find clueful candidates and get them into office, to spread the word that these people exist and are need our support.
I like to hold on to the belief that at its core, the US is a great nation mired in a crappy implementation. If the people get educated, they will eventually correct the implementation.
In reality
It works (Score:4)
Sure we have a hell of a lot of cameras over here, but just making the film easier to view isn't going to further "erode" the rights of UK citizens. As the article says, CCTV cameras are already everywhere in the UK, and you can't walk through a major urban metropolis without being caught every 50 yards or so.
This is a good thing, because it has worked in keeping levels of crime in our cities down, and making them safer for people to walk late at night. CCTV footage has led to convictions for many people committing acts of violence, and I, and many other UK citizens feel safer for having them around.
Considering that the police already have access to all of the footage, it's hardly going to change much for them to be able to access it on the move. Rather, it will enable them to respond more quickly to criminal acts, and hopefully mean they can be stopped quicker. By piping them through a computer, face and car number plate recognition technology can be used to further aid identification of criminals and their vehicles.
The police need every bit of help they can get in their fight against crime. This development is something that can help, whilst at the same time causing no further decrease in our freedom or privacy.
Paranoia (Score:5)
The other reason I'm in favour is that Brixton (in South London) has a bad (but deserved) reputation for aggro between the police and the local black population, going back beyond the riots in 1981 [police.uk] (that's the London police's site, by the way - more realistic stuff here [utexas.edu].) With CCTV, allegations of brutality can be more easily verified and rascist / thuggish cops thrown in jail, where they belong.
The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
A report a few years back said that you were more likely to fall victim to mugging, burglary, car theft, sexual attack (not including rape), and other violent acts (which do not end in murder) in England and Wales than anywhere else in the world.
These cameras are there to protect the public at large from quite serious criminals, they are not looking into your bedroom at night, or monitoring your normal activities.
I know it might be chic to say this is a violation of ones freedom, but in reality it is something that is needed to help tackle a serious problem in the UK.
Re:Dark times are these.... again (Score:2)
What makes you think that more gun laws will make me less likely to be brutally killed? The people doing the brutal killings are doing it with illegal guns anyway! You don't get it
Not only that, but attempts to show a correlation between gun laws and crime have consistently failed. Why does the rural state of VT have the most permissive gun laws in the area, yet the least violent crime?
A million people murdered, just so a few groups of rednecks and gun freaks are free to carry their weapons around and shoot at signposts.
Your bigotry is showing here. This isn't about "rednecks and signposts," or "freaks." This is about freedom. The foundation of the US is that the people have the power and right to replace their government, through the use of force if ncessary, when the government is corrupt. If you take away the guns, you take away the last illusion that this right still exists.
It's simple really, some rights are more sacred than others, nothing comes for free and *everything* is a compromise, I really think the USA gov has its priorities wrong
You're entitled to that opinion. Everyone has a scale which shows how much freedom they are willing to sacrifice in exchange for security. Some folks would consent to mandatory daily strip searches in their schools, if it meant one less murder a year. Some want to outlaw tobacco. Others would like to see all drugs legalized, and no gun laws. Most of us fall in the middle somewhere.
Re:Paranoia (Score:3)
Just remembered a recent and definite case where CCTV in the local areawas beneficial. We had a loony running around planting nailbombs in Brixton, then Brixk Lane (large asian population) and a gay pub in Old Compton St in Soho. Here's the nutter [guardianunlimited.co.uk] caught on CCTV in Brixton: unsurprisingly he was caught very soon after this picture was released.
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
Re:Oh dear (Score:2)
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
--
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:3)
Personally, I'm not that bothered except that there is great potential for abuse - in that I don't believe this is happening just yet.
Is all this surveillance actually wanted by the citizens, or is it being shoved down your throats by the Evil Empire?
It is wanted by a surprising number of people. Friday and Saturday nights down town are now much safer in certain areas than they used to be as the emergency services have much better response times. Alcohol fuelled violence is now dealt with more efficiently (where the cameras are in place).
Does it effect your daily lives?
Personally, no.
Any stories of when the surveillance goes wrong, or is used for something especially good?
It goes wrong if it simply pushes the crime from one (usually wealthy) neighbourhood to another (usually not-so-wealthy) one. In terms of drink-related violence (see above) this is not really a problem. But shifting car theft etc. to a suburban area is a step backward - it's easier to deal with in the city center where most of the police are stationed.
DILBERT: But what about my poem?
Re:A small rebuttal (Score:2)
In any case, all these things are relative - London is more racially segregated than california.
How do you know this? I'd like to see something other than bald assertion please. Having lived in London almost all of my life, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Sure there is racism, but hardly to the level of "segregation". And London has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world.
Again, I'm not saying it's perfect, but it offers more choices - to start a company, to immigrants looking for a new life, and for getting better bandwidth.
So how does all of the recent stories and news about the poor treatment of H1-Bs come into all of this? And looking at the eligibility requirements for the UK and the US, they appear much the same except for the requirement of an American trivia test for American citizenship. Not sure about relative ease of getting into the country in the first place though.
It's all relative, and the UK doesn't even come close to california. And it shows.
How? You've offered nothing apart from your opinion. Have you ever been to the UK? Lived here for a period of time? I've never been to California I'll admit, so I'm not passing judgement, which you seem to have done.
Then again, judging from your earlier post you aren't incredibly informed about the UK. So it's not really suprising.
Re:A small rebuttal (Score:2)
You've obviously not been to London.
I spent a week there last year, and was amazed at the diversity of the population. The best places to eat are Indian and Chinese restaurants for instance.
One saw all races walking down the streets at all times of the day. It was just no big deal.
After spending some time in the UK and seeing how the different populations interact, I have to agree that America is a very racist country. That has nothing to do with diversity, it has to do with the fact that nobody is doing anything about it here.
Re:Cellphone Jammers. (Score:2)
CCDs in nowadays cameras are sensitive to IR radiation. Have a test: fire-up that webcam of yours, grab your trusty TV remote control and fire away.
Chance is that you'll see light coming from the remote. That's the IR beam, boys.
So, now make yourself a canvas hat studded with IR LEDs, wire them all up, and just walk around. The IR will simply outshine whatever ambiant light is reflected off your face, and you won't be identifiable on camera, as you will look with a saint with a halo of light...
--
Re:Dark times are these.... again (Score:2)
The fact that, despite that they can CHANGE their corrupt government by democratic, that is, non-violent means, that they haven't done it, means that the american people have lost the right to even have arms, because they won't use the peaceful means they have at their disposal.
--
freedom from and freedom to (Score:2)
I don't have a right to steal, or break the law in any way, so I'm not losing any rights if I'm filming doing so. But I do have a right to Freedom From other people breaking the law with me as the victim. The CCTVs around here have certainly cut down on street crime, and petty violence, and for that increase in my own personal freedom I am thankful.
Actually, the concept of positive and negative freedoms is one most slashdotters should know. Life isn't just made of Freedom To. Many people - the RIAA for one (uh oh, asbestos trousers on) - also quite like Freedom From.
Are you really that stupid? (Score:2)
Have all those cameras reduced the number of IRA bombings at all? Whose brains are you mopping off the floor?
Did having an armed populace stop the Unabomber from planting numerous bombs? No. In fact, none of the bomb attacks America has had have been stopped by people with guns have they?
How on Earth are people with guns supposed to stop someone quietly walking into a building and leaving a bag containing a bomb? Do guns make you psychic? Give you X-ray vision? Well?
Lay off the gun propagranda. If you were really interested in making a case for gun ownership you wouldn't spout off like a moron.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
--
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:4)
There are two, no three, estates in Brighton that you DON'T want to walk alone in. Crime is high, people get beaten up and the police can't do much about it. The suburb my parents live in have steadily declined over the last few years. A reason for this is the fact that the bus company made a single bus route serve us and the worst estate in Brighton. Now all the little brats hop on a bus and cause mayhem where things used to be OK.
There is CCTV but that's in the town center, places of retail and the shit estate I have mentioned. I would welcome more especially as I have had members of my own family attacked. My father has been attacked by groups of youths on two occasions now. He didn't know who they were so what chance is there of prosecution. Now that I have moved away (albeit only for a year before my final year of uni), my father has got a job teaching in Japan and my little brother has got a scholorship over there too. They can handle themselves in a fight - they are both blackbelts in karate. But what of my mum and sister. I do worry that anything could happen - especially to my sister.
I'd feel safer knowing that I was being watched. the police aren't stupid - they know who to look for and there are statistics to show that crime is reduced by CCTV. I ask the people who feel that their personal privacy is being invaded "How would you feel if you, a member of your family, or a friend were attacked ?".
I was in two minds whether to post this anonymously or not but I thought I'd better had to preserve my privacy.
Me
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
The really bad air pollution?
I could hardly breath when I was visiting London. *cough* *cough* *hack* *wheeze*
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Hmmm, that sounds kind strange, but it's fine by me if they want to do that. Find a pink elephant and "drive around", by all means...
--
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
If you think about it, who has gotten in trouble because of cameras. Our neighbors?
Or was it people like that Dick Morris who was photographed with a prostitue, or people like the LAPD beating up Rodney King?
The people in power have a great deal to fear from cameras. When I am caught on tape picking my nose, everyone says "Who is that geek picking his nose?" When the Mayor is caught on tape picking his nose, people say "I'm not voting for a nosepicker."
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
Whenever the fuckin' limeys stick their stinkin' noses somewhere in the world (India, Kuwait), there's ALLWAYS trouble to follow.
--
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
especailly in the "ring of steel"
The "ring of steel" has been a real triumph of police surveillance cameras. Without its intel, the Met police would never have found out that most of the IRA's active service units in London turned out to be black.
We're not citizens! (significant point) (Score:3)
In the UK, we're not citizens. We are subjects of the throne. The UK is a monarchy. We have people making laws that have been given that right just because some great-great ancestor happened to be a very useful thug on a battlefield (the House of Lords, hereditary peers).
Also the UK doesn't have a written constitution. Any English or Scots lawyers care to make a comment on this point?
For my part, I have mixed feelings about the fact that Britain has something like the highest density of CCTV cameras in the world. Yes, they reduce crime in some areas. But there is the other theory that they just push it elsewhere.
In the big cities you're filmed a lot. I'd feel a lot happier if there was a degree of accountability. There are private as well as public bodies filming, and while I assume there is some sort of legislation controlling the public bodies filming me (anybody care to give me a URL?) I am a lot less happy about how private security companies are held to account.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:3)
I don't have any realy objection to the majority of the CCTV camera's, it's not as if they're realling spying on you since they're all stuck on the top of huge posts or bolted to the side of walls.
They are a good thing believe it or not, they do serve a practical purpose, if not reducing crime, making it a damn sight easy to catch the criminals, someone has already given the example of the Brixton nail bomber.
They don't really effect your daily life, they're just there, you get used to them, sure there's scope for abuse (I know the operators in Chelmsford quite often watch people shagging after they've come out of the Nightclub, apparently there's a favored wall).
They do give you something to do when you're in an A-Level Computer Science lecture getting bored out of your skull too, trying to work out a route from Chelmsford College to Chelmsford Bus Station whereby you avoid all the camera's.
Only ocassion I know of where it went "wrong" was where the police had a CCTV camera which could be turned to point straight in some guys bedroom window, he just complained and a court ordered that the police had to physicaly prevent the camera from pointing in that direction. So it now has a piece of metal welded to it.
All in all I have no objections to the camera's as long as someone keeps an eye on them and makes sure there's no scope for serious abuse, which comes tbh when the camera's are in the hands of private companies, but they seem to be fairly responsible in the UK. So far.
--
what about misuse (Score:3)
The question is: would he get in trouble for stalking, or would he get in trouble for misusing resources (i.e. costing money)?
With what I've heard from the UK, I'd guess it'd be the latter.
Re:ROFLMAO!!! (Score:2)
I guess what I'm saying is that it would be very difficult for the citizenry to overthrow the US government. With the weapons we're allowed to keep, we'd have little hope against tanks, aircraft, etc.
However, at some level, each citizen may protect himself and his home. If things went all wacky, and we had soldiers going door to door collecting (insert ethnic or religious minority here) for shipment to gas chambers, individuals would have a chance at defending themselves.
So, in a way, it's an illusion. Nobody thinks they could lead a revolution against the state with shotguns and pistols. But at its core, it is a symbol, and as such, worth protecting.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Most countries have extrememly stringent gun ownership rights (except of course places like afghanistan, iran, israel etc where war in one form or another has been waging for centuries).
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
People in the suburbs are white and police almost never brutilize white (or even almost white) people.
People in the suburbs have enough room to breathe and get privacy. Crowded people are more on the edge.
The ratio of people to cops is greater in crowded areas which makes for more opportunity.
It's easier to get away in a crowded scene. In the suburbs you have to drive a car which could be tracked by helicopters but in the city all you gotta do is outrun some fat cop for a block or two.
I am sure there are tons of other reasons too these seem most likely to me.
reading license plates? (Score:3)
That is, unless you take the model in Demolition man and apply it -- lo-jack everyone, and then when there's a Murder-Death-Kill detected, every camera in 50 blocks can focus in on the perp, and the unqualified cops can respond, and then they'll have to unfreeze Syvester Stallone to catch him and he'll team up with Sandra Bullock...oops, got sidetracked there.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Perhaps a two year old reading history books might come to this conclusion but adults realize that without the stinger missles sold to the afghans by the good old U.S of A also helped quite a bit. Same with viet nam you don't really believe that the vietnamese were able to repel the US armed forces without help from the russians and the chinese do you?
I'll give a more recent example. David Koresh was armed to the teeth but he could do nothing to stave off the ATF and the FBI. How about the Militia of Montana? they too were armed but eventually could not get along without their TV and surrendered. Show me one instance in the united states where an armed citizenry was able to repel the armed forces and the police. Even the civil war was lost and that was the most stark evidence of people fighting their own government.
A future vision (Score:2)
London, 2084. MicroCop(tm) software is scanning the city, detecting crimes and filing them.
Crimes are also displayed on-screen at the local police station.
On screen, a man is stabbed to death.
MicroCop(tm) status is "orange"
Copper 1: Ouch! That really must hurt.
Copper 2: I'm getting tired of this. Switch the channel.
The screen shows a pickpocket
MicroCop(tm) status drops to "yellow"
Copper 1: Sheesh, this is not even a real crime.
Copper 2: Next channel, please.
On the screen, a young girl is getting raped.
MicroCop status is "orange" Copper 1 (Drools)
Copper 2 (to coppers 3-8): Hey, guys, look at this!
A few minutes later the MicorCop(tm) lauches the "red alert sequence".
On another channel, it has detected a "real" crime: UNLICENSED SOFTWARE
Copper 2 (picks his gun): Damn!
Copper 1: Lets beat the shit out of 'em.
NYT article on privacy (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/12/opinion/12SAFI.
Privacy & Cameras (Score:2)
The thing that really changed my mind were a few violent crimes that made the newspaper. Shortly afterwards the police could release pictures of the people they thought were involved. This right away struck me as a wonderful thing. In Canada all we would get would be a description along the lines of "White male, 5'9" wearing a red jacket"... Eye witnesses would then report if they saw someone like that in the area...
Basically, I'd much rather have to refer to a picture on an impartial camera than the generally biased/impressionable eyewitness account.
How quickly can a black person be remembered as hispanic when the only person in the area was hispanic? Cameras won't make that kind of a mistake.
Bzzzt! Wrong (Score:4)
This is a common mistake made by people, but it's simply not true. We are in fact British citizens [homeoffice.gov.uk], and seeing as no legislation at all relating to nationality existed before the British Nationality & Status of Aliens Act of 1914, the term "subject" is simply a holdover from when the monarchy wielded real power.
Cameras everywhere? (Score:4)
2) She goes into a dressing cabin to try on a new dress.
3) She unknowingly gets caught on a camera in the dressing cabin installed there to prevent shoplifting.
4) The camera operator gets a boner and saves the tape for his collection.
5) Camera operator needs cash and sells his private coolection to porn-mongerer.
6) You accidentally walk in on a colleague in the men's room at work. And find that he is wankinig him self off over a vidcap of your wife's naked tittes that he downloaded from www.amateur-sluts.com.
Hahaha funny? Or maybe not!
Re:Cameras everywhere in Brisbane. (Score:2)
To date, that I know of, there hasn't been any abuse of the system.
Isn't that exactly the problem? You don't know how these cameras are being used.
Re:We're not citizens! (significant point) (Score:2)
Personally I'd rather have parliament be sovereign than end up with the courts trying to apply a constitution written 225 years ago to circumstances its writers never dreamed of.
[1] Note to Canadians: the Bill of Rights doesn't count even as a partial constitution because Parliament could revoke it if it chose.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
I've also lived in a few big cities, and live in London now & comparatively Brighton is safe - the worst troubles are caused by Londoners out for the night.
Re:Strange, but true. (Score:2)
Actually, they're not... (Score:3)
The important phrase is
CCTV cameras are not owned/operated by the "broadcast media", and so are not covered this clause.
This clause is intended to prevent some smart-arse using the DPA to demand a copy of "Brideshead Revisited" for a tenner.
Re:Cellphone Jammers. (Score:2)
I've written framegrabbing software for a security company on linux and winnt (inclusive of the entire rest of the access control system) and have played with many types of cameras.
Most colour cameras must not be sensitive to IR if they want to be colour perfect.
As a matter of interest: Never mind your remote control, look at elevator doors with the IR detectors! It looks like a disco!
-chuckle-
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
I think you'll find that needs to be qualified. Possibly 'anywhere else in the world that produces reliable crime statistics', possibly...
These cameras are there to protect the public at large from quite serious criminals, they are not looking into your bedroom at night, or monitoring your normal activities.
Firstly, many of the town center cameras have views into people's rooms, flats above shops etc. Secondly I include 'doing the shopping' and 'walking home' within the category of normal activities, so yes, they are monitoring normal activities.
300 cameras!? NOT A CHANCE! (Score:3)
Anybody who really knows what's going on out there doesn't ever step outside!
Even if I lived in Britian (which I don't of course!), and even if I did go out side (which I don't of course!) they still wouldn't be able to get a good look at me because of my Groucho Marx glasses, full-body ape suit, and leather overcoat!
They can put up all the cameras they want! They will NEVER find me!
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:4)
As a deterent to crime, which would you prefer:
We Britons find it offensive that the US criticises us for having too many cameras whilst at the same time the US is repeatedly mopping the brains of their schoolchildren off the floor.
--
You're in public! (Score:4)
If you're walking down a public street, you can expect to be seen by anyone. If you're on someone else's property, you can expect to be seen by them.
If the police started recording me in my home, that would be different. But no-one would stand for that. In fact, such evidence isn't even admissible in court.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:3)
The fact that so few people I've spoken to even really care about it shows that the vast majority of people are happy for these to be in place. Those that aren't are either just your average kick-up-a-fuss arseholes, or criminals themselves.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
Two good links (Score:2)
Also these guys [notbored.org], the surveillance camera players.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
Bottom line is that we're all happier we've got these cameras. OK, they're not perfect - ppl watching get bored or whatever. But there's a good chance they can spot stuff going down, especially at night when there aren't large crowds on the streets to make it difficult to spot it. And they can then get a police car to the spot as quickly as possible. Also, with a large network of connected cameras, they can track someone through the range of the cameras if they leg it after mugging someone.
I'm amazed the US hasn't done more like this. Is it constitutionally OK to have daily drive-by shootings, but it's wrong to have cameras which would catch the ppl responsible?
The standard argument about cameras is that they can't actually do anything at the time. That's a fair enough point. But they can get help there as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the police won't find out about the mugging/rape/whatever unless (a) they happen to be around the corner, (b) someone rings them to report it, or (c) they come that way later on as part of a patrol. (a) is unlikely, (b) is only an option for the victim _after_ the attack (assuming they're conscious), and (c) involves a delay during which time the attackers have run away.
Incidentally, anyone reckon the US military's "heat gun" would be a useful addition to a camera system, to provide some real control? Full-on weaponry is a bit extreme, and bullets have a nasty habit of riccocheting into bystanders and property, but a non-lethal "laser" weapon would be superb for immobilising attackers until the police arrive.
Grab.
Re:Cellphone Jammers. (Score:2)
Tell that to the person busy breaking into a car:
"Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, Sir. But that there cellphone jammer you are carrying there is illegal."
"Oh, sorry, you are quite right! I forgot... let me put it off."
-chuckle-
My point? I don't think criminals care.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
The Troubles led to the development of a large number of advanced security techniques being deployed, initially in Northern Ireland, but increasingly across the UK, such as:
1 camera recognition of number plates and the creation of a tracking network of cameras on major roads that can follow a car.
2 camera recognition of faces
3 advance intelligence collation techniques and the building of considerable files of information on individuals and groups of people.
Now it can be argued that emergency measures are required to deal with an emergency, but the problem that arises is when there are no constitutional checks and that emergency regulation leaks out. Many of the techniques developed in Northern Ireland have now been deployed in the UK - spread by IRA bombing campaings in particular.
The IRA's bombing campaign against the City of London (the City is the Financial District, London's Wall Street) led to a Ring Of Steel (based on the successful Belfast Ring Of Steel) being thrown around the City with all the kit and kaboodle and vehicle check points etc, etc. Now lo and behold 40% of the people stopped at the Ring Of Steel aren't white. There are reports that the UDA (the largest of the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland and the sworn enemy of the IRA) used to have a black member (out of 100,000) in the 1970s...
Essentially without proper constitutional oversight this stuff can get out of hand. The Data Protection Act doesn't cover the security forces and the information they hold. UK governmental organisations have traditionally been able to claim Crown immunity - the law doesn't apply to the Royal Family and their instruments. So for instance, between its foundation in 1948 (1949 in Northern Ireland) the and the late 1980s/early 1990s, the National Health Service wasn't subject to Hygeine Regulations - hospital canteens could be overrun with rats and cockroaches and the local authorities couldn't close them down. Customs and Excise can break into your house, and arrest you without a warrant and search for whatever because they are crown servants. (The police can't). The Security Services were only put on a Statutory footing recently - before that they didn't exist - despite having prominent buildings in London and spending hundreds of millions a year.
Another example of leakage is the new Prevention Of Terrorism Bill. When we had a civil war running with 3,500 dead over 30 years we were subject to a temporary PTA which was renewed every year (made permanent after 20 years). Now there is peace we have a new, more draconian, Terrorism Act that criminalises supports for organisations both at home and abroad in a way that the previous one didn't.
The Gung-ho attitude towards civil rights spills over into the electronic world with the RIP Act making it illegal for ISPs not to keep and reveal encryption keys, etc, etc
One the other hand we have put the European Human Rights Act into law as a Foundational Act (ie other statues can be struck down if they don't conform to it) so this might not all last that long, but I'm quite pessimistic about things...
Disclaimer - I am a Labour Party member, used to work in Northern Irish politics, and am 'effectively' a 'Unionist' on NI politics
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
--
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
You need to start thinking outside the box. If you want to wage war against the US you best bet is not to buy a 9MM but to learn how to make nerve gas, how to deliver caustic chemicals in jell format, how make and distribute drugs, how to poison water systems, how to effectively deliver biological agents and how to detonate massive explosives from a distance.
When the police hit your door with a battering ram the other side of that door better be rigged up with C4 and you better be coming out of that tunnel you dug last year. That's how stop opression.
Re:Dark times are these.... again (Score:2)
Homicide rate in the UK: 0.11 per 100k citizens.
So you suck.
Re:big brother.... (Score:2)
Some people may be fine living in a society where the authorities know exactly where you are 24 hours a day, but personally I find it a little bit disturbing.
But creative works are excluded from the UK DPA (Score:2)
The DPA specifically excludes creative works. Any camera owner can refuse to hand over footage of creative works.
From the DPA CCTV guidelines (Introduction), actually linked from the Mark Thomas website (for fuck's sake, he obviously hasn't even bothered to read the DPA guidelines linked from his own site):
It is not intended that the contents of this Code should apply to: -
...
Use of cameras and similar equipment by the broadcast media for the purposes of journalism, or for artistic or literary purposes.
Document is here (MS Word) [ccta.gov.uk] and is linked from this page on Mark's own site [demon.co.uk] about a third of the way down, link entitled "CCTV Code of Practice guidelines".
Mark Thomas' journalism is purile schoolboy smart-arse childishness of the most pathetic kind. He constantly claims to be fighting The Man but invariably his shows revolve around taking the piss out of some poor doorman, security guard or receptionist on minimum wage. Mark just makes easy jokes about headlines and never actually bothers to read the small print, as this cock-up demonstrates.
--
Strange, but true. (Score:2)
I.e. if you see that you are being recorded in a department store, you are within your rights to demand a copy of that tape!
(see Mark Thomas Comedy Product for more info)
Obvious uses for this would be to get videos of youself getting it on with a hot chick at a christmas party...
Re:What's the real problem? (Score:2)
So why haven't they caught the BBC bombers yet ? Surely with all these cameras around it should be dead easy.
Well, obviously we don't have enough, maybe we should install a few more. Sheeesh.
Re:Actually, they are (Score:2)
Refers to USE BY not OWNERSHIP OF.
And the Mark Thomas Comedy Product definitely counts as use by the broadcast media.
--
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
No offence, but please, don't presume to speak for the whole of the population of Britain.
Some of us really aren't that keen on the idea of having cameras everywhere.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:freedom from and freedom to (Score:2)
Surely by your logic it should be decreasing.
Re:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns? (Score:2)
This is best of both worlds but it only works if your weapons are able to cause large damage while being wielded by only 3 to 5 people.
This BTW works for everybody weather you are a malcontent who dislikes the govt or an environmentalist who wants to stop a mine. A small team with the ability to kill many people via chemical, poison, or sabotage gets the job done.
You can achieve your goals by poisoning the water supply of the mining camp. This will shoot the cost of operating the mine sky high (especially if it's done a couple of times). The mine will eventually be economically unfeasable.
What I am advocating is terrorism which has traditionally worked very well. It could work even better in the united states.
Re:Let's hear from the Brits (Score:2)
Thus I will concede that the crime is nowhere near as bad as I made out, but it is definately a problem, which needs to be solved somehow, and if security cameras help, then the loss of a small portion of your liberty is a small price to pay.
Re:A small rebuttal (Score:5)
You had me up to there, I hate cameras too, but you don't really know what you're talking about. What the hell is libertarian about Ca ? I lived in Ca for 5 years, the weather was great and people were friendly (but vacant, especially in SoCal) but:
You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a can of beer.
You can get arrested for crossing the street.
You can get arrested for going to the beach at night.
I came close to getting done on all three of these.
One more thing - there are police *EVERYWHERE*. It is enormously striking to a brit how overpoliced Ca is. I don't like cameras but I prefer them to a bunch of neanderthal ex-high school bullies with guns cruising around looking for somewhere to throw their weight around. The police in UK are wonderful in comparison.
Another striking thing is how racially segregated life is. Black people are mostly confined to ghettos or fast food counters, you hardly ever meet any socially. It's hard to quantify, but CA *feels* more racist to me, it seems like race is just less of an issue here.
The proportion of the population kept in jail at any time is a huge in CA. There is no more meaningful judge of freedom than to check how many people are locked up. England is bad by European standards, but CA is in a different league.
In short: England may suck, but lose the complacancy.