UK Uses CCTV, Terrorism Laws, Against Pooping Dogs 303
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that it seems the UK is trying make up for their judicious use of surveillance cameras that, according to recent research, do not actually deter crime, by using the surveillance network to prosecute petty crimes. "Conjuring up the bogeymen of terrorists, online pedophiles and cybercriminals, the U.K. passed a comprehensive surveillance law, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, in 2000. The law allows 'the interception of communications, carrying out of surveillance, and the use of covert human intelligence sources' to help prevent crime, including terrorism. Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations."
Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Funny)
What are we playing?
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Funny)
What are we playing?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gTI_D-yqYn4 [youtube.com]
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11! not in UK (Score:3, Funny)
And while we're at it, a British dog would never be so crass as to poop. Shit crap, defecate, but never poop!
Re:9/11! not in UK (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Funny)
Then they..
Damn, they got me with this. I didn't expect them to come after me First.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:4, Funny)
How could anyone be bitter, Boris is so much funnier
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
And do what about it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in the UK, and often many of our people are shocked when they realize how many CCTV cameras are on them at all times, let alone the other 'safety-procedures' put in place for our protection (DRM being a big one atm).
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Interesting)
You could go out and vote in the next general election.
I'd recommend voting Lib Dem, if only because the introduction of proportional representation to Westminster is a condition for entering into a coalition with them (in the event of a hung parliament). The current first-past-the-post system gives an unfair advantage to large parties and means that it's much easier for them to obtain a majority, even without a majority of votes. That in turn means that the smaller parties cannot get elected and means that voices like yours won't get heard if they don't conform to the party lines of the big three.
PR would mean that it's incredibly hard for governments to bludgeon on regardless through an entire parliamentary term with these kinds of idiotic policies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe they'll remain blissfully unaware or just plain roll over like in the US and most other places nowadays.
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, lets hope the people rise up and smite them. Then we can all walk the footpaths of this great nation free from the fear of canine landmines.
As an aside I drove around the UK a couple of years ago and got to play crocidile dundee with some local vandals. Near Cambridge I was waiting in the car for the missus to come out of a shop when I noticed half a dozen 13-15yro kids around a telephone box. One of them started trying to rip the door off with all his might and was putting in quite a bit of time and effort. It was in broard daylight, there were people nearby pretending it wasn't happening.
Now I'm a rather large, middle-aged Aussie so I dragged my arse out of the car and walked up to within a meter or so of the kid bashing the door, folded my arms across my chest and waited till he turned around and caught my eye.
He and his mates froze, the converstaion went something like...
Me: "Is that yours?"
Kid:"No".
Me: "Then I suggest you fuck off now because I might want to use it."
I stayed in position waiting in silence for a few seconds. Some of them moved away faster than the others who were trying there best to stay composed. I can understand a woman or even a man on his own not wanting to takle half a dozen teenage kids but the shopping strip was packed and nobody was batting an eyelid!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fellow Aussies will note the irony of P.Garrett being nueterd by t
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the sound of the point flying far, far, over your head.
It is certainly true that if JUST ONE person stands up asgainst a gang of hooligans, they risk getting beat/killed.
But if ALL the people stand up against them, it is the gang that would be outnumbered, and would risk getting beat (possibly killed, depending) if they start something. But for that to happen, each individual in the crowd needs to make the decision to stand up to them.
With people like you saying "Your solution, while noble, is not an option...", that has a low probability of happening.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Science and Technology [pm.gov.uk]
Education [pm.gov.uk]
Re:Slippery Slopes (Score:4, Insightful)
First, sign a petition like the reply before me has suggested. Then give the CCTV cameras the same treatment as speed cameras are getting. [speedcam.co.uk] Prove to the government that the presence of CCTV actually increases crime, mostly arson. [thenewspaper.com]
Finally a use I can get behind (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, the summary is wrong - that study the other day did not say the crimes didn't deter crime... only that they don't help much in SOLVING street robberies. Big difference, that.
Re:Finally a use I can get behind (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of which (cameras deterring crime), here is an interesting article from SFGate [sfgate.com]
From the article:
They looked at seven types of crime: larcenies, burglaries, motor vehicle theft, assault, robbery, homicide and forcible sex offenses.
The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected -- except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.
Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big proponent of the CCTV cameras, but I just felt it necessary to point out that the study made no claim about the cameras' ability to deter crime.
That, and this story just points to some blog. Whoopie.
Re:Finally a use I can get behind (Score:4, Informative)
Murder is much less common in the UK than in the US, so much so that every murder is national news. Counting the murders that occur within 250 feet of a camera would probably result in a 0 count. [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp]. The total for 2005/2006 is 765 which includes the results of the terrorist attacks in London. Even in a small country like the UK it would be a rare event indeed for a murder to be carried out near to a camera.
The statistics used also refer to homicide, a term which includes a significant number of deaths that are not murder. For example, illegal immigrants who suffocated in the back of a lorry while travelling to the UK or who died while working illegally in the UK. e.g. the Morecambe Bay disaster in 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly an advocate of these things, but this blog post was completely tangential to whether or not they work for their intended purpose.
Summary on par with blog (Score:3, Insightful)
- Complaining that CCTV is being used to witness crimes (yes, littering and fouling are crimes)
- Complaining that the crimes that CCTV is being used to witness aren't important enough
- Complaining that a law which specifically states that surveillance can be used to solve crimes is being cited when people want to use surveillance to solve crimes
Of course, the submitter takes an incident where CCTV was used to witnes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are they going to do, walk around with surveys asking anyone they think might commit crime if they decided not to because of the cameras?
The most basic step would be to compare the crime rates of areas under survelience with similar areas not under surveliance. Then you'd look at crime reduction or increase in an area before and after cameras were installed, then correct it for overall change in crime rate. Bonus points for a study comparing areas covered by hidden cameras to obvious cameras to fake cameras.
Even a simple plotting of crimes on a map that had colored areas showing where obvious cameras were installed could prove instructive.
1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it was set in London. And you can still see the building that suggested the Ministry of Truth to Orwell, just off Tottenham Court Road at UCL (University College London). During World War II it was the Ministry of Propaganda, and Orwell worked there.
Re: (Score:2)
I would recommend this book for how rapidly scary it can get in this day and age. I couldn't put this book down, everything about it screamed "FOR FUCK'S SAKE, IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!".
Is anyone surprised by this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Judicious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Petty crimes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Petty crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you buy the 'its for the children' nonsence too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Petty crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you to impose your view of an ideal society on these people?
The notion that CCTV will spread and take over the world is absurd, because when CCTV moves in, people opposed enough will move out. Even in the most extreme cases, you will always end up with ares where most of the population is opposed to CCTV, and the legislation wil
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was under the impression that people voted for the CCTV to be there, and if enough people cared, they could vote it away as well.
It's a lot harder to take a law off the books than it is to put one on. PROOF: number of laws now > number of laws 100 years ago. This formula holds for every stable political system. I know these cameras aren't "laws", but they are evidence of legislation. The problem is that people allow and ask for laws without proper consideration and their rights get nickel-and-dimed away. The price of this erosion of freedom is beginning to show. By the way, I am defining the word "right" as the right to do acti
Hot Fuzz (Score:4, Funny)
-Peter
Waitasec... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's one thing to argue that the new laws were unnecessary, but are you really saying it's a bad thing to use them to solve other crimes? Yes, they may be trivial crimes listed, but they are still crimes. If the ability is there to solve them, why shouldn't they? I don't want to dodge dog shit every time I walk down the street, and if there was a camera pointed at the area, I think police should look at the footage to see who is doing it.
Re:Waitasec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure - police using the tools they have available to deal with all manner of crime makes sense. Whether they should continue to have access to those tools is the question.
Won't someone please think...... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually.. (Score:5, Insightful)
*For those with a sense of humour failure, this is a "joke" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really blame the dog so I wouldn't execute it.
But the owner... hmmm.
OK OK I kid. People shouldn't be executed for petty things li
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the days (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully when Bush and his cronies are out of office we can repair the damage and I can once again feel a smug attitude about my country.
Re:I miss the days (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember being a kid and watching Ruby Ridge, Waco, et cetera. I remember going to gunshows with my dad and stocking up on stuff, coming home and watching Red Dawn. I remember hating Bill Clinton and Janet Reno with a passion.
I most certainly did not feel SMUG about being an American before Bush -- but I can tell you, I did feel PROUD.
That is now long gone. Between the antics of Bush et al, and the bullshit, lies, half-truths and innuendos I have to endure at work, I am now perhaps the least "conservative" person I deal with on a daily basis anymore.
I am leaving my job and leaving Washington to go back to school for mechanical engineering (I had started out as a comp sci and bio double the first time, ended coming out with a BA in English 'cause my heart wasn't in it at the time) and doing school right this time.
I now hate politics with a passion and I can pretty much guarantee that I hate those in power now more than you ever will. I wanted to buy what they were selling before, but now not only do I want my money back, I want to sue for damages.
I used to be a Ron Paul fan, but even in the last few months I've become so fed up that frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with any of those "let the market sort it out" people who only care what happens to you until you're born, then throw you to the wolves.
Oh, by the way, they're the wolves.
The corner stone of the whole operation, the lynch pin, the original vampire, is the National Right to Work foundation. They operate front groups, pimp fake economic numbers, et cetera.
They're the ones that need to go down first, because they're the ones that have been pushing this crap since the 60s.
Anyway... sorry for the rant. It's been a long week.
Whoa (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is suspending habeas corpus, destroying congressional oversight, and wiretapping phones without permission from any legal authority constitute freedom?
Or is this the crazy part of American culture where abortion is murder and war is heroic?
It's about time (Score:4, Funny)
Good strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you sure about this theory of yours? Because although I have smoked marijuana in the past, some 20 years ago, and gotten away with it; I haven't really felt the need to kill or rape anyone so far...
Re: (Score:2)
What about littering?
At least it'll be easier to take twenty seven eight by ten color photographs of the quote scene of the crime unquote with CCTV...
Taking Liberties documentory (Score:5, Informative)
and if you're a UK view, for free here,
http://www.channel4.com/video/true-stories-taking-liberties/catchup.html [channel4.com]
(WMP11 unfortunately)
For anyone who's studied the UK constitution, and in particular, Lord Nicholls' dicta in Belmarsh, it is frightening to see so obviously what one Government has done to the UK in a way that will effectively bind successive governments: not for want of power, but for want of justification should they revoke popularist statues that give the illusion of service.
Matt
On, a, tangent (Score:3, Funny)
Re:On, a, tangent (Score:4, Funny)
So, are you gonna clean that shit up, or sit around here whingeing about commas?
At the least... (Score:2, Funny)
Privacy VS. Security (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are deeply confused about what privacy is. You don't have privacy when you are walking down the street in a public place. Everybody can see you. People can follow you around and watch what you do if they wish. Cameras don't take away anything, you never had privacy in a public place to begin with.
No, you are deeply confused about what privacy is.
Privacy is NOT a black and white, either you have it or you don't, sort of thing. There are many gradations of privacy - where being in your home with the lights off and no one else around is one extreme and the other extreme is having every movement you make recorded, archived and cataloged in a database for anyone with enough power, money or general sneakiness to peruse at will.
Until recently the scale never really went past a sort of middling-grey. Out
Only Difference (Score:2, Informative)
Poor summary, poor submission (Score:5, Insightful)
The submitter should familiarise themselves with (off the top of my head) three ongoing terrorist trials where CCTV evidence is important to gaining a possible conviction. One in particular, that of the prosecution of associates of the 7th of July London bombers who travelled with them to London in advance to case targets, relies heavily on CCTV to link these people to the bombers, and will help obtain convictions (should that be what the jury decides).
That is just an ongoing trial, and is publicly known, "terrorism investigations" covers a multitude of unknown (to the public) current investigations - monitoring people who have warranted the attention of the intelligence community.
But god forbid the truth should get in the way of a hyperactive slashdot submission - desperate for 500 comments of "1984", "slippery slope" and every other cliché under the sun. There may be (and indeed I would personally say, are) valid criticisms of CCTV and how people are monitored in public places - but that debate is entirely short circuited and debased with juvenile submissions like this that are not interested in facts, only hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the only way not to get recorded all the time by CCTV is to be a Brazilian electrician. That's the only way to be safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a bunch of guys who didn't actually do anything themselves
Nope - a bunch of guys who (allegedly) knew what the 7/7 bombers were going to do in advance and (allegedly) actively helped them to do it. The parenthesised words can be removed if they are convicted.
I'm not going to stand here and "defend the camera's at all costs" - I don't want to, or believe that they are the all singing all dancing saviours of civil society. What I do want to point out, and did so in my post, was highlight that the reactionary, hyperbole filled junk that characterises so much of
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, folks, it's in there (Score:2)
Metaironic (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a new word for something that's ironic because it is designed to seem ironic but really isn't.
The meta-irony here comes through in the point that terrorists aren't really a danger to normal people (statistically speaking), and in fact are probably less of a hazard than slipping on dog poop on the sidewalk. But you can get CCTVs pushed through based on the former and not the latter because almost all people have extraordinarily poor risk assessment skills.
Re:Metaironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you really making the case that most people in the UK are more likely to be killed by sidewalk dog poop than acts of terrorism? I understand that the likelihood of either is quite low, but I'm still going to have to see a few cases of death by sidewalk poo before I believe they occur with any frequency.
wrong section (Score:2)
cameras and crimes (Score:2)
I, like many, have a problem if cameras are used as surveillance tools, i.e. watching in real time what people are doing, either automatically or in a supervised fashion.
However I have fewer problems with cameras being used in a forensic context, i.e their data is analysed if a crime was committed and we want to catch the culprits, given the existence of a criminal investigation and strict guidelines being followed.
Now I absolutely hate people who illegally let their dog poop in the middle of the stre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's like saying, "The 20 new police officers who were hired to help reduce drunk driving should not be used to catch burglars even if they happen to be the closest officer at the time."
If your job was traffic law enforcer, and you saw a murder, would you just ignore it? What are you trying to say, that you believe that millions of taxpayer euros should be thrown away to prove some kind of point purel
R. v. Nature (Score:2, Interesting)
Stray dogs poop. Slave dogs poop. Why should it matter if the dog has a home ? Pick up the turd and toss it out! If you don't like keeping your property clean, then don't be a property owner!
Having an officer issue fines over stray poop is yet more proof that society has failed.
Lick it up. (Score:2)
No, I am not joking.
If they use CCTV to prosecute people for crimes, why is that a bad thing? That's kinda why it's there.
If you don't want to be prosecuted then here's an idea, don't break the law.
FFS don't bite (Score:3, Interesting)
There seems to be a media campaign against CCTV which has been amplified recently despite the many successes of which I hear on a daily basis. The reports that I've being reading in the media strike me as being sensationalist and far from what I've been seeing "on the ground".
The 3 percent figure which was touted the other day is utter rubbish. Maybe 3% of crimes were proven by CCTV, but the vast majority of those were likely to be violent crimes, in which case the police actually bother to obtain the footage. In many other cases CCTV is an enabling factor. For example, if there is a brawl outside a pub in a town or city centre, it is likely to be spotted on camera and the police can respond quickly. When the police arrive, they see the fight, and their visual accounts are sufficient for a prosecution - no need to obtain the footage in many cases. Doesn't mean the CCTV had no input.
Most of these stories regarding policy are referring to "city centre CCTV" yet they always quote numbers of cameras in total, i.e. including private premises, shops, facilities, etc... In a lot of shops, the cameras are used to settle customer disputes ("I gave you 20 not 10", "Ok sir, let's check the camera and sort it out"), and most importantly, theft by staff. There is certainly a lot of crime committed within private organisations which gets settled behind the scenes, i.e. theiving employee gets fired. I'm sure that doesn't get accounted in the 3 percent figure.
As just mentioned, these stories focus on city centres. It's not all-pervasive, it's more like: If your dog craps in the high-street or outside the shopping centre (mall to you guys!) you stand the risk of getting punished. The same thing applies to smoking weed and other minor offences. They don't monitor anything except the busy areas where families are out going about their business. If you want a cheeky smoke or underage drink, find somewhere quiet, nobody cares, just don't do it in the main high street. The bottom line is, if it didn't work, the authorities wouldn't keep spending money on it.
A music video with CCTV of the band. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seen on Boing Boing [boingboing.net].
Re:Yay (Score:5, Funny)
And I didn't speak up because I was not a dog owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)
But I still believe in due process and privacy and small government and limiting government's power over people's lives. I'm not a doom sayer conspiracy theorist who thinks that the British or Canadian government turning into Nazi Germany in my life time is a likely scenario (sorry for the Godwin) but there are still a lot of bullshit laws that IMO do more harm than good and democracy has this one downside where the majority (some times a rather large group of people which was demonstrated in the last 2 US presidential elections) gets consistently screwed over.
Government is force even when they are democratic and are doing their job and serving the will of the people. They exist solely for the purpose of exercising force. They can take away your freedom, your property. They can send you to your death. The control and moderate and arbitrate. They are force and authority by it's very definition. So while CCTV has some positive uses I don't favour it because I don't like giving force more force. I don't like the idea of living in a world where everyone is considerate just because they're afraid. I don't like being afraid of being caught on camera walking into an adult bookstore. I don't trust the government to keep data safe and I realize the same can be said about passports and census data etc. but the way I see it the less there is to be abused or breached the better.
While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public I think that you *should*. To a much lesser extent then on your private property obviously but people need to know that they're not being followed and recorded everywhere they go and having everything they do stored to some hard drive that can be accessed later and used against them.
I'm not crying Orwell or Hitler and I'm not even saying "slippery slope". I just don't want video footage of me when I'm out and going about my personal affairs. I'm a private person who doesn't even like his picture being taken in family portraits. My worst nightmare would be for me to be a celebrity. Video surveillance makes me feel like one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the part of the UK where I live, there is no law of trespass. There is, however, a law that says I'm legally required to shoot any dogs harassing livestock on my land.
If you're outside your own home, keep your dog on a lead and clean up its shit.
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on where you feel public resources should be allocated. Dog poop certainly annoys me, but I do not want millions of taxpayers dollars to be used dealing with that problem. I'd rather they spend it on free breakfasts for schoolchildren or going after drunk drivers.
The point is, there are finite dollars to throw at a relatively large number of potential issues, and every dollar spent enforcing dog poop laws is one less dollar that will be spent on some other public good.
Oh, and using terrorism to justify spending any large amount of money is also annoying. But that is another issue.
Re:Yay (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)
Some may think 'what a waste of tax payer money, pulling people over for not making a complete stop at the stop sign'. But I decided instead of whining to talk to the police officer. Know what I found out??
They were there BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD COMPLAINED PEOPLE WERE SPEEDING DOWN THE STREET. In other words, they were doing exactly what the citizens who pay taxes asked for. Just not the ones that were speeding down the street.
Why did I not stop fully?? Because there were several kids hanging around the street and I was paying more attention to them than the stop sign. My fault, I paid the ticket.
But the police were hoping to slow people down so that none of these kids get hit because some moron is speeding down the street.
So
All laws have to be enforced (or eliminated), otherwise people learn very quickly which ones they can get away with. When people learn they don't get stopped for speeding, they start to go faster. When they learn they can let their dogs poop anywhere, they will do that to.
So
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't agree more. A shit-free Congress or White House now
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All Americans suck because they think that you can get a +5 Insightful for saying all Americans suck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If we could substitute the war on terror/drugs/pirating with the war on inconsiderate bastards, I'll volunteer extra tax money and elect every republican that comes along. But that's never going to happen because dog shit, "booming" stereos, car alarms, and loudmouth apartment dwellers just don't make front page news.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest if you don't want to be 'spied on' that you stop leaving the house. You don't want those crazy neighbours and citygoers looking at you with their eyes, do you!
Re:May not deter crime, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be this pervading Slashdot meme that British people are d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)