Surveillance Society 268
An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to a Wired story, a company called Pedagog USA wants to have its cameras be as ubiquitious as cell phones and computers, except that the cameras would be spying on the public. These cameras are pretty cheap and easy to install. Scott Fry, of Pedagog USA, appears to think that if they like it in England, it must be loved here!" The story mentions the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
Imagine .. (Score:1)
Re:obviously... (Score:1)
Basically, it's the age-old arguement of what sort of society you want. America as it was meant to be and still partially is, a land of somewhat controlled chaos in which freedom and security are in a constant, shifting balance, or a society in which there are no freedoms, cameras everywhere, no guns, ridiculously harsh criminal penalties, and a ban on any speech that could incite citizens to break the law or simply incite an emotion (passion, anger, hate, outrage) which could lead to violence... but is still unbelievably safe and peaceful. Both are actually very valid and good ways of running a government.
America is meant to be the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave". This is a society with that controlled chaos, where the government does not completely rule you, and where some freedoms still survive. If I want the government controlling me, other countries are willing to take me in... but as long as I remain in America, I choose to fight for a country which remains free, in a state of constantly shifting balance between free, wonderful chaos and security.
Londoner's Perspective (Score:1)
Firstly, although the number of CCTV cameras continues to grow so to does the crime that at least worries me the most, violent crime. In London violent crime has risen approximately 20 per cent in the last year and is seemingly continuing to rise.
Secondly, whilst violent crime has risen and the number of CCTV cameras has risen the number of police on the streets has fallen. There is no direct evidence to support this supposition, but it would not be outside of the realms of probablity to suggest that perhaps cameras are to some extent being used as a substitute for police. After all, the starting salary of a policeman in London is somewhere in the region of $37000. Whilst the wages of policemen will continue to rise the cost of CCTV will undoubtedly fall.
Thirdly, CCTV is rather ineffective in preventing violent crime. Criminals aren't stupid. In order to counter CCTV they simply wear hooded tops covering their faces so that you are left with a grainy image of the hooded figure who stabbed you.
Fourthly, very few objective studies have actually been undertaken on the effectiveness of CCTV to reduce crime. Those that exist don't really support the proposition that CCTV does have a significant impact on crime. CCTV does however seem to work in geographically segregated ghettos (e.g. old mining communities) but that rules out most urbane areas.
Fifthly, new CCTV technologies either in use or being developed include facial recognition, used in one London borough since 1997 in at least some locations, FLIR (forward looking infra red) cameras used to observe individuals behind walls, night vision capabilities and cameras fitted with parabolic microphones in order to also listen to the conversations of those they surveille.
So, to summarise, whilst the number of CCTV cameras continues to grow violent crime continues to rise and the number of police on the streets continues to fall. You draw your own conclusions.
P.S. If you want to investigate this further go to www.privacyinternational.com (I think) where you can find a link to the one UK site providing a lot on information on CCTV.
Re:cameras are your friend (Score:1)
You know, you'd be even safer if people were stopped every few miles at check points, asked for their papers, and not allowed through until it was known that there had been no crime in the sector they were leaving.
As a matter of fact, with a properly networked system, computer operated "man traps" (one person at a time gates) between sectors, and biometric scans such a system would be easy to run.
As soon as a crime was reported the man-traps could be locked, trapping the criminal in one sector for easy capture.
If the criminal had gotten out of the sector before it was locked down, there would be positive proof automatically collected of everyone who had left the sector and when.
As there would also be proof of who and when everyone had entered the sector, it would be easy to capture the criminal.
Who would object to this? After all, it would be for the safety of everyone and, properly automated, it less of a hassle than walking through a metal dector which everyone already does without complaint!
Britain scares me - and I live here! (Score:3)
Trafficmaster is a company that films you as you drive down busy roads and notes your number plate - it OCRs it I beleive - and waits for you to pass the next camera roughly 2 miles away. It then knows how fast traffic is travelling throughout its network.
The police cameras were first justified in the wake of football violence making the city centre a scary place to be on a saturday afternoon or wednesday night when there was a match on. Since then they have bled out from the 'danger zones' to cover roughly 80% of the streets around the city centre.
Traffic cameras that auto fine speeding cars are probably the least offensive. At least they only grab you if you are actually breaking a law. And speeding kills people - so its a proper crime.
It bugs me that I can't drive to work without all this surveillence. My mobile phone tracks me to the nearest base station, traffic master knows which camera I last passed, and the city centre cameras will even know what I'm wearing.
All this, and the number of attacks on 18-30 year old males is higher now than it was 10 years ago! Attacks on women and the elderly have dropped in the city centre, but have increased elsewhere.
Campaign against the introduction of these things. They are ineffective, costly (I recall that between 2 and 6% of my local taxes are spent on these things every year - depending on how many new ones they install), and offernsive to public liberty.
As acceptance grows people will be open to new ideas, like companies owning the images, in return for operating the network. They are trying to get ID cards introduced across Europe, although publicity is way down on a couple of years back because of electioneering. Add that to the mix and I'll be applying for my green card!
Re:sneakier criminals (Score:2)
That stat astounds me each time I see it. 1 in 50 people in jail
So now lets increase that further. Yes sir. Security and prisons are now a growth industry. Is that making you proud? It casts an ugly pall. This cameras everywhere advocate is just another fear mongering opportunist. My blood boils when I'm around these kinds of people.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:1)
_____
Speaking as a Brit ... (Score:2)
For one thing, apart from some experiments in Lambeth with face recognition software, cameras need monitoring, and this tends to be labour intensive. In fact, there's such a deluge of data at present that the most extreme surveillancenightmares are going to remain just that (nightmares) for a long time to come. (Try calculating the bandwidth needed to carry ten million real time video feeds, 24x7, if you don't believe me!)
For another thing, cameras work as a deterrent to certain types of crime -- vandalism and car theft are the classic examples, shoplifting (in shops with in-store CCTV) is another. However, some types of crime (most assault, for example) are committed on impulse, without regard to whether humans (or cameras) are watching.
So: why not install cameras, keep rolling six hour tape loops, and simply yank them for use as evidence if a crime is reported during that period? Well, this happens -- but some recent and rather worrying studies show that camera images tend to be of such poor quality that something like 40% of the time people trying to identify a suspect from videotape get it wrong. Cameras are no substitute for careful police work, as the police have been learning (painfully).
The Orwellian nightmare of cameras on every street corner with face recognition software that tracks every citizen as they go about their daily life isn't technologically possible yet, and I suspect before it happens there'll be fairly strong legal restrictions on how the information can be used -- remember there's now an explicit legal right to privacy in UK law, and sooner or later someone will sue a police force (and win) to stop them tracking them without a surveillance warrant of some kind. (Although the control-freak tendencies of Home Secretary Jack Straw do not fill me with optimism on this front.)
There's only one area in the UK where cameras have made an unequivocal, positive, contribution to loaw enforcement: that's GATSO cameras for photographing and fining drivers who speed, run red lights, and otherwise endanger other road users.
Quantitative, not qualitative, change (Score:2)
The nature of the change is quantitative, in that it puts more police eyeballs out there on the street.
Essentially it's a force multiplier for law enforcement.
(Of course, as a general commented, "quality troops beat ordinary ones every time, but quantity has a quality all of its own".)
If you want to prevent abuse, what you need is a right to privacy in public. That is: rather than making it a specific offense to stalk someone, there should be a general right not to be stalked (or monitored) without cause.You also need to ensure that law cams are not introduced without stringent regulation over who can monitor them and what they can do with the output -- which also needs to be subject to the rules of evidence.
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:1)
Re:Traffic control (Score:1)
Re:Can we have one small change? (Score:2)
Thanks, but it is David Brin's, or at least I read about it in his book "The Transparent Society". I think he had more arguments for it, but those were the ones I remembered :-)
I didn't remember the tile, or his name this morning. I spotted it when I was upstairs looking for another book.
Re:You read my mind. (Before I posted. ;) (Score:2)
Beats me. Let me try a strawman. The government has to provide an NTSC or MPEG2 feed from any camera to any entity that pays $500 a month (per camera). That entity can rebroadcast that feed under any terms it likes (from totally free to over $500). -- the $500 is just a starting point, it could be more or less.
Or another strawman, all the cameras have to feed into a ATM or Frame Relay cloud (MPEG2, or a future NIST blessed open standard). Anyone that can pay the normal connection fee plus (to the LEC) plus 10% (to the government) into the cloud can get the bits out, and as above can retransmit them as they wish.
Either of those will get coverage of traffic areas and other areas of high interest onto the web pretty fast, either on ad funded sites, or pages with low monthly fees. They will both self fund (the incoming money should cover the cost to transmit)
Third strawman, to get the camera installed it has to have an internet connection and multicast the feed. This will push taxes up a bit, or keep camera deployment down.
To view on a PDA? A ton. To view low frame rate stills on a desktop? Thanks to the porn industry, none.
Wireless has a long way to go. But other things are driving it. Broadband is there already. Let me be clear, I'm interested in granting access to these cameras, but I don't care if it has a modest cost. I'm not looking to have another government subsidy. They shouldn't divert a penny from education, national defense, or wasting my tax dollars. They also shouldn't raise my taxes any for this.
Well, either a fair amount of general CPU, or a little hardware dedicated to the task. If enough people want it, it'll eventually happen.
A click through map (zoomable would be nice). Of corse I expect a 3rd party to do that.
Anyone anywhere (if the system is tax neutral, or actually makes money). USA Citizens only (if it costs tax dollars, only tax payers should see). No geographical limits. Why should there be any? If someone spots the police planting evidence, I don't care where they are. If Nike wants to check how well their new sneakers are selling in NY, I don't care if they do it from CA.
Can we have one small change? (Score:4)
I want the camera images accessible in real time to the public. It has a few advantages:
(I'm not saying I want the cameras, but if we have them, these are my terms)
Re:This is completely inaccurate. (Score:1)
It us understandable to be surly sometimes.
Re:Listen to all of you - pathetic (Score:1)
Re:obviously... (Score:1)
Re:obviously... (Score:1)
There is. It's called "human nature."
As long as there is a non-hostile government
There is no such thing as a non-hostile government.
They are on YOUR SIDE, can't you understand that?
Right. They're on our side. That's why they fill an innocent and un-armed immigrant with 42 bullet holes just because they didn't like the way he looked. That's why a police officer here in SC pulled an innocent woman over and tried to jerk her out of her car at gunpoint because she was black. That's why they attack peaceful demonstrators in almost every protest coming down the pike.
Are you from the U.S.? If not, you may not realize that our entire system of political philosophy is based on the concept that government is essentially evil and oppressive and must be carefully limited by the people to restrain its power.
Re:obviously... (Score:1)
Yes, well, it's getting more and more so every day. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies abuse our guaranteed Constitutional protection every day in the name of "national security."
Nevertheless, most people are not targets of this abuse, so few people raise a fuss about it. When high-profile cases do occur (as with the African immigrant who was murdered) there are usually a lot of cries of, "This is horrible! We must do something!" Then, everybody forgets about it and things continue as they were. This, in my mind, justifies the quote (that I mangled before) "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Be glad that this sort of thing hasn't happened where you live. But, the lesson you must learn is that it *can* happen if people cease to care.
Um, no. (Score:2)
Re:It wont happen, here is why. (Score:1)
And don't tell me "The weapons today are more powerful". The AK47 was developed in 1947. The Model 1911 .45 handgun was developed in 1911. None of this is new - it has been around far longer than most readers of /.
It is what you are taught. Children today are not taught that killing is wrong; nor are they taught that their actions have consequences. A respect for life and a firm fear - yes, fear - of the consequences for their misdeeds must be established. Otherwise no amount of law will help you.
And please don't prattle on about "controlling access to guns". You can't do it. It still hasn't worked in England: English gun bans a total failure [thevanguard.org]
All your solution would do is disarm the law abiding public - the criminal, who is already willing to commit murder - is not going to obey the law. Or are you going to create a "magical" law that criminals will obey?
Do us a favor and try to think before you post, ok?
Re:cameras are your friend (Score:2)
The governments et. al have a hard enough job actually getting the film out when needed in a crime that people are jumping up and down about.
When you go in a picket line, you frequently rely on the police present to guard yer butt against people who don't really want you to be there.
And yes, there are a lot of scary clashes on picket lines between opposed pressure groups, not groups and police.
Do you really think they're going to waste their time getting a group of people to pick out each face in thousands, cross reference it against any files they may have, and write notes on you if you're having a peaceful demonstration?
Whoah, please keep taking the paranoia pills.
All government departments (well, over here in the UK anyway, and most likely over there too) are cash starved for keeping up with what needs to really be done, not just what they'd like to do.
I'm of the feeling that when I'm out in public, I don't care if it's a camera or people's eyes that see me. All equates to the same thing. I'm in public. Note the difference between public and private.
Interestingly enough, I knew a few people who actually use the stuff from surveillance cameras. Most are pretty much automated, with no real operator control, although, the one or two people operating huge numbers of cameras can override in the case of emergency.
I'd sorely love to know where your sources of that state they're not used for the advertised use come from.
Cheers,
Malk
Re:We do not (all) like it in England (Score:2)
I don't think so. (Score:1)
Local communities might get away with it, but for how long?
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:2)
It's like when you drive out the pimps and the prostitutes from a district, they just move elsewhere.
That's a so fucking typically anglo-saxon "solution": drive the problem elsewhere, so someone else is stuck with it.
--
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
--
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
That's because England, the seminal culture of the USA (no matter how much the americans drum being a colony that broke free) had quite a few "revolutions" where powerful barons revolted against weak kings, and thus the notion that the State (the king's power) was nocious was slowly, over the centuries, brewed into public opinion.
The corolary is that it is not seen wrong that the powerful barons/big corporations are able to accumulate so much wealth and influence so they can directly challenge the State/king. This is why the US is so corrupted: it's okay for powerful corporations to abuse the people, but the State cannot abuse the people (or big powerful corporations).
--
Re:but (Score:2)
--
cameras that can't be abused (a tech solution) (Score:1)
Video streams are not public, not viewable by public or police unless deemed necessary. Streams are encrypted and saved for a set period of time - unencryptable only by public court action. (The judicial system retaining the key.) If A assualts B in a certain spot, B can go to a judge asking for that video stream to be decrypted. If C witnesses a crime in a certain spot, C can report this crime and during an inquiry (public action only, no secret subpoenas) the police can request decryption of the particular video stream for that particular place/time/date.
This depends highly on evolution of technology, but such a system could provide a tremendous benefit to the public while keeping the public private. It also depends on Congress not passing laws allowing police/secret service/intelligence have private access to encrypted streams.
Maybe it'd be best done by a third party NGO?
I'd like some comments. I think about this plan every time the whole video camera in public issue comes up.
- Jon
Neal Stephenson was right! (Score:1)
It probably will happen here (Score:1)
Politicians are to a (wo)man weasels. Almost the definition of a good politician is one who can understand and manipulate public fervour to make his/her viewpoint actioned. Do you think the jingoism in wartime is an accident ? Do you ever see a politician attacking a wrong but popular idea when (s)he's up for election ?
Guns were just one (convenient) example. Any semi-competent politician will measure public mood for the latest "all-bad-thing", then concoct a story illustrating how his/her pet project will be society's saviour. Get used to it. The issue here is larger though. You *are* at risk. Complacency is *not* the answer. Don't let what happened to us happen to you.
Simon.
Re:It wont happen, here is why. (Score:2)
You're making the mistake of assuming a consistent average population density throughout the US. Sure, hicksville Nevada will not get mandated cameras any time soon, but major cities (where the majority of the US population lives!) are not immune.
Britain has a population of ~60Million. The US has a population of ~300Million. According to US Gov figures, the top 20 cities by pop. in the country housed 40Million people in 1990. The cost of coverage of only these 20 cities would be on the same order of magnitude as Britain's spying network, and would probably cost less than the individual cities garbage collection bills...
Seems pretty simple to get it through to me, especially with all those kids killing themselves and others in schools. Just put the argument "We'd see the guns before they got to the school, don't you think your child's life is worth more than your garbage ?"
BTW, I'm not in favour of CCTV everywhere (see www.domesday.org [domesday.org] for my views!)
Simon
Canadian blues (Score:2)
Re:Traffic control (Score:1)
Re:Cameras Do Prevent Crime. (Score:1)
When you post as AC, your post invariably starts at 0.
If you click on the (#383) and look at the bottom you will see that that there was no moderation.
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:1)
One day the city centre had many cameras installed and a police monitoring room was put smack-bang in the middle of the main city mall. As crazy kids with few morals we were very much deterred from comitting crimes in the areas with cameras installed. This dosn't mean the crimes disappeared.
What does this mean? You deceide.
Re:Cameras Do Prevent Crime. (Score:1)
One day the city centre had many cameras installed and a police monitoring room was put smack-bang in the middle of the main city mall. As crazy kids with few morals we were very much deterred from comitting crimes in the areas with cameras installed. This dosn't mean the crimes disappeared.
What does this mean? You deceide.
Re:We have them in Australia (Score:1)
The real problem is that they're not a crime reducing remedy. It doesn't stop anyone from committing crime. It just increases their chances of being caught. If you want to reduce crime put an armed cop with orders to shoot to kill on every corner.
As an aside, the cameras have proved so ineffectual in the nightclub district of Perth, Australia, that they're turned off at night and replaced by 50-100 armed cops.
skribe
Re:obviously... (Score:1)
The problem is not their use NOW; its what their use will turn into once the wrong persons have power, and the people are used to the cameras presence. And lest we forget: how many more jews would have been rounded up had the Nazis had cameras everywhere to watch them as they ran? How much more effective would the Soviet Secret Police have been in controlling the people (the State, as you seem to think)? How much more powerful will the powerful become in places like Iran and Iraq, where dissidence is a crime?
Sometimes I can't believe how much paranoia there is on Slashdot
Just because I'm paraoid doesn't mean there's no one trying to get me.
You know, the state is *YOU* after all; all people
In theory, that's true; however, anyone who truly believes that in this country is either idealistically naive, or a complete fool, or both. "The State" is no more for the people, by the people, in this day and age than it was in communist russia. The State is run by the privileged elite, who run it in a balance designed to keep the governed happy while they increase their wealth and power. Sounds a bit communistic, i know; the reasons communism was able to rise are the same today as they were then. The solution, however, is not Communism; its educated democracy, and while we have a democracy here, every year it becomes less and less educated, and therefore less effective in protecting the real rights of the people.
So in conclusion, if you want cameras watching your every move, go to Europe. We aren't going to take it here.
Re:cameras help prosecutors but DO NOT PREVENT CRI (Score:1)
Congratulations, you have just reconstructed the argument behind re-legalizing concealed carry.
"An honest society has 270 million policemen. A dishonest society cannot ever have enough."
jafager
Re:I just don't see the problem with this (Score:1)
There's a large difference in usefulness here, though. Police stationed on corners, or even patrolling a small area, can respond. Cameras continue staring on obliviously, and only if they're actively monitored will an officer be dispatched, which means (s)he still has to get there for it to be purposeful at all.
This raises an issue in and of itself -- how are you going to pay for monitoring 24/7? Sure, you can do it, but it'll cost insane amounts of money to pay a staff to watch a bank of probably thousands of cameras.
I'm not sold on this crap. Grainy video from a tiny camera can easily be misconstrued, the cost is far too high, and it doesn't honestly solve anything.
Feed me the lines on cameras making people behave all you want, it's not true. Once people have adjusted to the idea of the camera being there, it no longer matters. Many criminals are too brazen to worry about some surveillance device, as well -- recently, someone broke into a museum gift shop and stole thousands of dollars in jewelry. Audible alarm, visible surveillance system, criminal breaks in, criminal escapes.
Cameras were installed at my old school a while back, and nothing changed after about a week of adjustment. Students continued fighting despite the cameras, or found a location where they knew a camera wouldn't see.
Photoradar and red light cameras have recently been installed in my city. The people who want to run the red lights and do 10, 15, or 20 miles over the speed limit still do it.
See a trend yet?
Cameras can't replace people. Period. It just doesn't work.
Re:Just my two cents... (Score:1)
My feelings on the subject seem quite equal to yours (though I don't have racial profiling or anything else going against me).
Cameras can't discern reality, and the picture quality often mutates it. If the police decide to view the tapes looking for drug dealing, and see a friend handing me something on the street at 10:30 PM, what's going to be their first reaction? I may claim to be innocent, and I may well be, but that means nothing in this day and age. "Video doesn't lie," as they say. Innocent until proven guilty is becoming more and more a fantasy, and judges are becoming less willing to actually analyze a case (and people like That Guy In The White House aren't helping, what with mandatory sentencing and all. Judicial discretion, people...).
The sad truth of the matter is the U.S. is going down the tubes fast. All the liberties our forefathers put their lives down for are being taken away by the government, and with "our" blessing, no less. What a stupid bunch of sheep.
obviously... (Score:2)
There are already security cameras everywhere and when you're walking downtown, on a subway station or in a store, they are watching you. How many here have suffered from some kind of misuse from security cameras? How many have benefitted from them? Probably everyone has benefitted from them in form of added security on subway stations late at night etc.
Sometimes I can't believe how much paranoia there is on Slashdot. I mean, really.. What do you think they will do to you? Send you videotapes with you picking your nose and ask for money? Just because "Enemy Of The State" says the state is out to get you doesn't mean it's so. You know, the state is *YOU* after all; all people. So relax a little and breathe. Nobody is out to get you.
Here's a link to balance out the paranoia in the Slashdot article:
CCTV gives an arresting sight! [police.uk](in this window)
CCTV gives an arresting sight! [police.uk] (in a new window)
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
You say "as long as I remain in America, I choose to fight for a country which remains free, in a state of constantly shifting balance between free, wonderful chaos and security".
Cameras that help catching criminals make your country - or any other - no less free than the police makes it less free. They are on YOUR SIDE, can't you understand that? It's no first step to anything.
And btw.. throwing around empty slogans like "land of the free, home of the brave" makes you look pretty silly. You do realize that most of Europe is more free than the USA and people all over the world are just as brave as the Americans. Right? I mean, people will just laugh at you when you say stuff like that and sing the national anthem with the hand on your heart.
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
And as far as human nature goes, I have a much more faith in humans than you do.
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
The George Washington quote.. Well, I think it's irresponsible NOT to put up cameras to allow criminals to be more easily identified and caught.
As far as traveling and seeing the world goes, I was talking about Europe and you mention ONE COUNTRY you have been to in Europe. I've been to 35 countries, including most in western Europe, Canada and USA in North America, Singapore, Malaysia and China in Asia, Gambia, Senegal and Morocco in Africa and I can say that of these, the only places I could imagine living in is Canada, Finland (where I live), Sweden and The Netherlands. I wouldn't want to live in Germany either, but I also wouldn't want to live in the USA and have my (future) kids shot up in school or by some gunman in McDonalds. Otherwise, the USA seems to be ok.
I don't want some country vs country fight though. I'm just saying that your "extensive traveling" and supposed knowledge of the world doesn't impress me one bit. Except for Japan.. I've always wanted to go there.. What's it like (except damn expensive)?
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
U.S. Gov't-in-Exile: http://www.USGovernment-in-Exile.org"
Clicking on the last link is all I have to do to know that you're a fruitcake.
Re:then obviously (Score:2)
Re:but (Score:2)
However, if I'm just watching TV or surfing the net or whatever at home, I couldn't care less if someone is watching or not.
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
The whole idea of the government being hostile sounds totally ludicrous to me, but maybe I'm just lucky living in a place where the police DOESN'T fill people with 42 bullet holes and nobody is jerked around because of their skin color and nobody is attacking demonstrators. And imagine that this country is such WITHOUT a constitution that guarantees guns for everyone...
Selection Bias?? (Was: Re:If it saves one life...) (Score:1)
I've lived in regions (S.F. Bay Area and the Pacific N.W.) that had too many (i.e. non-zero) unsolved murders. Somebody has to be killing and getting away with it. If so, do they repeat?
--
If it saves one life... (Score:2)
Re:If it saves one life... (Score:2)
Re:If it saves one life... (Score:2)
Privacy vs. Security (Score:1)
Cameras on a Small Island. (Score:1)
A question of our liberty (Score:1)
Re:Just look around you. (Score:2)
The 'typical' intersection camera replaces those crazy loops in the pavement. See: This Autoscope pdf [imagesensing.com] or visit the autoscope [imagesensing.com] site.
There are uses for video that don't mean that you are spying on your fellow person -- /. being /., that will of course be ignored.
-- Multics
Where to put the cameras... (Score:1)
:-)
Re:jokers (Score:1)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:If it saves one life... (Score:2)
Are you sure they would have carried on murdering? Most murderers, IIRC, are single offenders.
Regardless, though, that's the limitation of any sort of law enforcement. They do very little to directly protect you; they just draw the chalk outline around your body and try to track down the murderer and lock him away. That might protect others, if your murderer has intentions to repeat the crime, but often that's not the case anyway.
What protects you from violence is being able to defend yourself, and having neighbors who are able and willing to help defend you.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:We have them in Australia (Score:2)
First, if I'm a law-abiding citizen, they have no right to spy on me. Second, the only non-law-abiding citizens these have much effect are are either very petty crimes, or crimes that have no business being crimes.
Want to make the public safe by surveillance? Those cameras should be going into government offices and corporate boardrooms. Corporate crime is much, much deadiler and more costly than street crime.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
Uh, right.
Something like COINTELPRO could never happen in a democratic country.
And a democratic nation would never single out people of certain political beliefs (no matter how unworkable said beleif may be) and drag them before a committee on Un-American activities.
And something like the Holocaust could never be instituted by a democratically-elected government. (Ok, you may now invoke Godwin's Law...)
Democracy is no guarantee of liberty; and building the infrastructure of oppression under the promise that "we'll never actually use this!" is foolish.
The police are not on "my" side of anything. Police can do very little to directly protect you, and a hell of a lot to destroy your life. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the idea of large full-time professional police forces, at least as we currently structure them, is a failed experiment.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:cameras help prosecutors but DO NOT PREVENT CRI (Score:2)
You can't put enough cops on the street to make it statistically likely that one will be around when you're being victimized. Increasing police presence has not reduced crime; in fact, the need for more police has resulted lower standards for recruitment and retention and led to increased misconduct.
We need not to create a special class of citizens with a monopoly on the capability to defend us (and thus, the means to oppress us); we need ordinary citizens who are capable and willing to defend themselves and others.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:If it saves one life... (Score:2)
It's a vaugely remembered factoid from a criminal justice class. A few minutes with Google found this, [nlada.org]
but I don't have any other numbers. And the FACT remains that widespread video surveillance is an ideal tool for repression, something that (even if it's not at all the intent of the current government) make you less safe from state oppression, and that putting such a tool into place in return for a negligable - if any - gain in safety against ordinary violent criminals is not wise.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Cameras Do Prevent Crime. (Score:3)
Glasgow has been one of the best cities in Britain for combatting its street crime, with more police on the streets, rewards programs, a big push against hard drugs, and more money to aid prosecutions. Glasgow's crime levels have bucked the major trend in the UK for low level street crime, not due to cameras, but because the city council wanted to clean up the image of the city.
camera operators usually focus on minorities or young people in "hostile" outfits
My biggest concerns of camera surveillance are along the lines of operators trained by a mostly white police force saying "Look, he's wearing a Man-U stripe, damn baby rapist, lets track his every move", as well as "track only blacks and asians, because they are the most likely to commit crimes". Since I work in security, I do notice the cameras, and I do have opportunities to observe the operators being biased. It is quite disturbing to watch cameras track you every where you go when you clearly aren't breaking any laws.
the AC
But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:5)
Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived record levels. The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date. The
the AC
You can't go back in time (Score:2)
Look, cheap cameras are a fact of life.
The net is a fact of life. People hooking up
their cameras to the net and forming
a surveillance network of public places
is now a fact of life. Get used to it.
Would you be opposed to streetlights, because
they can help identify you on the street at night?
Are you against licencse plates on cars?
I think people should have whatever privacy they want in their houses. But in public places,
there should be no assumption of privacy. If
people cannot behave within the limits of the law in public places, they should be accountable. That
means they must be identified.
People can do whatever they want in cyberspace,
but we all share the physical world, and it is
our obligation to behave socially. This means
physical accountability of some kind.
If the concern is that the goverment will use
surveillance to harrass people? Then lets
come up with some laws and procedures, some
checks and balances, just like we did for
the US constitution. The founding fathers didn't
just give up and say "the government will always
crush our liberties, let's outlaw goverment". They
came up with a workable system of negative feedback to keep the concentrations of power from
being unstable.
BTW, the
anti-abortion nuts have a web site already
listing names and addresses of doctors who
perform abortions. The scum bags are already
using networked surveillance. Why can't the
rest of us?
Re:If it saves one life... (Score:4)
He covered the idea of ubiquitous cameras in some of his other books -- his version of cheap cameras were called "TruVue."
Essentially, the idea is, i the government gets to spy on you, you get to spy on the government.
He also advocated citizen teams that were given free passes into any area of government, at any time, for six month (or was it week) periods. See and hear whatever you want. Surprise people. Ater all, the government gave itself the authority to do that to you.
- - - - -
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:3)
The kind of conclusion you seem to draw from the national rise in violent crime is not really valid unless you look at the corellation between regional crime figures, and relative numbers of security cameras in the areas.
One interesting note:
Two of the largest news stories in the UK in recent weeks have featured security camera footage as key evidence.
The first is the case of a dutch lorry driver, sentenced to, uh, 15 years, for the murder of 60 chinese imigrants, who suffocated in the back of his lorry, after he closed an air vent. He claimed that he didn't know what cargo he was carrying, and unless this could be proven, he would have got off (unless you can demonstrate that he knew the imigrants were in the back of the truck, then closing the air vent cannot constitute murder). His conviction depended entirely on Dutch CCTV footage showing his buying crates of tomatos that were used as a screen to hide the imigrants, showing that he was involved in loading the lorry.
The second is a trial still running, of a group of professional football players accused gbh on an asian student. Not too much information, since the jury is still out, but apparently key evidence is 12 clips of CCTV footage taken from Leeds city centre camaras.
hell, I don't like them, but as I understand it the results from the CCTV systems are very good.
just my £0.02,
G
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:3)
- And the violent crime rate went up something like 40-50% in the unsurveillanced neighbouring areas, right?
Not likely. One of the key problems in the area was to do with violence associated with drunk and dissorderly behaviour late in the evenings after pubs emptied out onto the streets, and as people made their way home. Not the type of problem liable to migrate elsewhere.In the more general case, you make a fair point, but the kind of problem you describe would not occur if you similtaneously increase CCTV coverage at a reasonably uniform rate everywhere. Obviously, this would make implementation more difficult.
- That's a so fucking typically anglo-saxon "solution"
I'd quite like to hear some explaination/justification for this statement.G
Less cameras, more guns (Score:2)
Just think, you're confronted with an intruder on-the-spot, without warning- do you: a) say "smile for the camera!" b) say excuse me, could you please hand me the phone so I can call the police on you; c) say please mr. criminal, don't rape and kill my girlfriend or d) shoot them, so long as they present a serious threat of killing you or doing serious bodily injury.
Cameras won't stop violent crimes, because criminals don't know reason and logic (ie they don't read Slashdot!). If the crime is being committed by a thoughtful person, then they might think twice before doing it if they know they might get shot in the process.
Civic Hygiene (Score:2)
The ongoing distortion of the agreements embodied in the Constitution, regardless of the rationalizations, rhetoric and movies portraying patriots as villians, breaks a social contract written by the rivers of honorable blood spilled to gain and preserve those freedoms.
The criminals may appear to have gained control of the law, but do they really believe their lies can long delude those who built and defended the civilization that nurtures and protects them?
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
That network will nominally only be for the prevention of crime, but is ultimately so tempting of a tool that it will (not may, but will, because again, human nature is what it is, and for every 1000 or so ethical people, there is always at least one bad apple) be used in a less then honorable fashion, perhaps something along the lines of watergate, or Hoover's abuse of the FBI, or the whole CoIntelPro scandal, or any other of the numerous, well-documented, government abuses of power that are the result of simple human nature.
We need a national camera survellience system just like we need instant, on-demand wiretapping of every phone in the country. After all, if the FBI were listening in on every conversation, so many crimes could be prevented. Right?
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:2)
Watch your whole camera experiment go down the tubes when your new generations find ways to survive psychologically in a world that suspects them.
I can't wait 'til some kid cracks your networks and makes a business of publishing any camera you want to see on TV for entertainment.
Re:No Such Arrangement (Score:3)
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
While I'm not for the cameras, in these cases you don't have any right to expect privacy. If you do something on the street, it is to be assumed someone is watching you. There is no reason someone would not. And yes, this includes cameras. The right to privacy does not include the right to not have people view you in public. And if you can see your pool from the street, then yes, once again, you have no right to expect privacy there. I could stand in the street and personally film you in your pool if I wanted, as long as I did not trespass on your property. To say I couldn't do that would deny me the right to stand on the public ground. The right to privacy only extends to private places. The street is not a private place.
A society where there are no secrets anywhere (Score:2)
Cameras Do Prevent Crime. (Score:4)
The story mentions the slow slide in Great Britain when the public became convinced that surveillance would prevent crimes...
We must have read different articles. I looked at the links to Scottish crime statistics [u-net.com] in the Wired article and although critical it admits that the incidences of certain crimes have dropped and the loss of life has been prevented on several occassions by the surveillance cameras.
I am opposed to surveillance cameras for a number of reasons chief of which is the one mentioned in the article (camera operators usually focus on minorities or young people in "hostile" outfits) as well as the loss of privacy but even I don't delude myself into thinking that they don't prevent crime.
If you want to oppose to installation of cameras, complain about the potential rights violations or 4th ammendment violations. of course with the growing rise of reality television in the U.S. if there ever was a time that this kind of action would be gotten away with, this is it. Trying to pretend that crime isn't prevented is hiding your head in the sand and won't win you any supporters if the battle against them is fought in the U.S.
Miami has 'Spy Cams' all over (Score:2)
Re:But crime in Britain has skyrocketted (Score:2)
Particular forms of crime (pickpocketing, mugging, etc) has tended to have slowed due to the introduction of cameras in a given area.
However, after a while, the habitual petty criminals have realised that the results are low, mainly because the images are blurry and cannot normally, by themselves, stand up in court.
Catching and convicting is not the only aspect, of course. If two people can watch 20 cameras, and two are on the street, that's four staff with the effictiveness of twenty. That's a significant saving in public spending.
This applies mainly to day-time crimes (pickpocketing, etc), but at closing time this can aid police effectiveness massively. (Yes, we have draconian alcohol laws over here!)
Steve.
#include <stddiscl.h>
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
Re:cameras are your friend (Score:2)
The only thing that might help (Score:2)
Re:cameras are your friend (Score:2)
The reason to fear government surveillance is not because you trust in the benevolence of your government, but because it can become a tool of despotism if the government ever turns against the people. And recent history is a sad statement on how often that comes to pass. However much you trust the current overseers, imagine the system in the hands of your worst enemy and ask yourself what they could do with it. Just off the top of my head, I think of China and what it would mean to be captured on tape visiting the home of someone later found to be a Falun Gong member.
Re:We do not (all) like it in England (Score:2)
Yes, but they are not recording your every action and scrutinizing(sic) you.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't see the problem with this (Score:2)
Put it this way; if we had the money, would people be opposed to putting a cop on every street corner in the country? Unless you have paranoia about the police, most people wouldn't see a problem with this and in fact, think more police is a GOOD thing. This is just extending the eyes and mobility of the police.
As with all things (like the police), they can be abused, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them.
--
We do not (all) like it in England (Score:2)
The Mark Thomas (Comedy Product) on Channel 4 last series did a big thing about the civil liberties issues behind CCTV.
FatPhil
--
Where are the majority of cameras placed? (Score:2)
Does anybody have any reliable info on where the majority of these cameras are put? I get the impression that the most popular places for them are crowded areas (malls, main streets, train stations, etc).
It's sad to think that a camera is considered greater protection against crime (particularly the violent crime these cameras are purported to prevent) than the great crush of your fellow citizens surrounding you.
I can see it now... (Score:4)
Installation of 1.7 million CCTV cameras at strategic urban locations: 1.2 billion dollars
Yearly operation and maintenence: 2.9 billion dollars
The look on Congress' face when they realize their system is being systematically destroyed by teenage graffiti taggers with $1.95 spray paint cans:
Priceless
An old internet SIG (Score:2)
- Benjamin Franklin
--------
Re:I can see it now... (Score:2)
--
Re:cameras are your friend (Score:3)
Since cameras are routinely used for this purpose in the U.S. A Google search on the words "demonstration surveillance camera" will yield numerous reports of this practice. Put yourself in the shoes of the police and politicians. Would you be able to resist the temptation to use this flow of information to keep tabs on your enemies?
Re:We do not (all) like it in England (Score:2)
R.
No Such Arrangement (Score:3)
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
For such a so called great thing it only seems to be a good thing in the eyes of officials.
And the icing on the cake...
Instead of installing these cameras, they should take any financing for a program such as this, and put it into community centers to assist people in high crime areas. Show them there is more, and show them you are willing to help them change, as opposed to building more prisons, installing cameras all over the place, spending money on weapons and military related garbage.
Better yet here's a solution. Build a steel door in front of the house of every American citizen, then on a timed basis lock everyone in their homes. Will this be a politicians next pitch?
U.S' secret war with Japan [antioffline.com]
sneakier criminals (Score:3)
Lets look at the way the justice system works now, we can say the Rockerfeller laws are a joke that need to seriously be revamped, for one.
Lets have officers arrest people for things that they would normally turn away from at times in big cities per se... Disorderly Conduct, a man and woman arguing, someone horseplaying, someone fixing a flat where their not supposed to. And don't dare say it doesn't happen, recently an 8 year old was arrested for pointing a paper gun and classmate while horseplaying. So don't think the law wouldn't stoop so low to just conduct sweeps for stupid actions, e.g., political race heats up, "Lets use the cameras and go after everyone."
Thats the harsh reality of it all. Those concerned with putting in cameras are not going to monitor who views what, and what should or shouldn't be viewed, and in the fairness of justice someone jaywalking (although not a crime that can do much) should be equally treated as breaking the law as any other law breaker. You can't it a single sided issue.
So if cameras were to go up, try arguing that in a court of law, "Your honor my client was caught on top urinating somewhere, but on the camera you could clearly see the officers turn a blind eye to 30 jaywalkers." Is it fair? No
Now what would happen is, criminals (hardcore) would take greater risks to avoid getting caught which is more likely to signal they'd adapt and perform sneakier, possibly even more dangerous crimes.
George Bush's dirty secret [antioffline.com]
Re:Privacy vs. Security (Score:2)
Lies, Damned Lies... (Score:2)
Talk about flame bait. Let's just examine your statements one by one shall we?
1) Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived (sic) record levels.
Gee, the level of violent crime is rising in Britain. Shock. Horror.
Perhaps I might point out that this has been the case throughout recorded history in every non-totalitarian society in the world? Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia, and just about every place on the planet can share this dubious claim to fame, so why focus on just one nation? Ironically, Britain is far from the most violent society in the world - countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category.
The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too.
As a famous politician once said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" and you just proved the point.
Far more important than your groundbreaking discovery is what society does to try to halt and reverse this trend. Should it sit on its collective arse or should it take proactive measures to improve the situation. Gee, that's a real tough one...
2) The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Wrong again. CCTV footage has proven to be an effective deterrent against all forms of organised crime, from terrorism to bank robberies to pickpocketting to car theft.
What it hasn't been able to do is convince pissed up idiots that Saturday night isn't alright for fighting and that going home peacefully would be preferential to picking a pointless fight or smashing in a shop window. Mind you, few things do work in such circumstances, but at least a well placed CCTV can bring the police's attention to such incidents more rapidly than any phone call and also offer some evidence should criminal proceedings arise. Case in point: the high profile trial of Leeds' footballers [bbc.co.uk] currently in the balance.
3) Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date.
Just about everything of significance we do is recorded in some way, from registering to vote to opening a bank account to joining a library. I don't hear people advocating that we stop using credit cards because our card issuers might be tracking our purchases (which btw, is going on right now).
Perhaps societies like the US that permit gun ownership should clampdown on that too. After all, a handgun can be used for self-defence but it can also be used to perform "even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date." Shock. Horror.
4) The /. community is well aware of the dangers of the misuse of technology, but the average public only cares about the perception of security.
The public only cares about the perception of security?
"Gee Martha, I'm not worried about my kids being shot in their classrooms or being mugged in the streets, I'm only worried about the perception of them being shot or mugged."
The public isn't worried about perceptions of security. It's worried about security. All the more so when politicians, beaurocrats and lawyers tell them they are safe when they clearly are not.
I could go on. Suffice to say that more people have had their lives saved or have been brought to justice by the use of CCTV footage than will ever read this thread.
cameras are your friend (Score:3)
As a resident of Glasgow I am delighted to see cameras on every street corner and every road junction. Most of you
Many people have commented here that "the cameras don't prevent crime", showing a determined effort to neglect their power as a deterrent. Even Glasgow's most neanderthal bampots think twice about mugging Granny McShoogle in Argyle Street when they know they will be forced to watch the action replay on Her Majesty's telly.
We have a program on the telly here (I think it's called "Police, camera, action!"), which shows footage from surveillance cameras of cerebrally challenged criminals performing for our amuesment. Not only is this highly entertaining, it also gets the message across "don't jerk about in a public place unless you have a truly awesome disguise!"
If you want privacy then go somewhere private!
When you're out in public in Glasgow remember, Smile Please!
Big Brother Lives! (Score:2)
Imagine a world with cameras on every street corner, canvassing every public place, combined with high-banwidth data transfer and fast computers. Anybody with access to that camera data could use, say, a facial recognition system to track any given individual. Say you think that your boyfriend is cheating on you, and you have access to the needed camera data. You run a background process that looks for his face. He walks out of a cafe somewhere and your system catches him by recognizing his face, automatically archives the video of him walking around, down the street, around a corner, meeting up with his new girl.
This is a level of intrusion is not possible without hiring a private detective in the 'real world' without the cameras. If we allow the cameras, then this sort of thing will be very easy for anybody with access to the information. If the information is public, then you have just obliterated privacy in your entire society. If the information is guarded and used only by the government, then you have just created a very powerful tool for your government to use for opression.
Didn't anybody read "1984"?
-Keslin [keslin.com], the naked nerd girl