Even More Surveillance Cameras For England

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."

How is the US more free?

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.

A small rebuttal

The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(



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:Which would you prefer: Cameras or Guns?

I'd prefer both, guns with cameras, like the sentry guns from Aliens.

Cellphone Jammers.

The answer is simple. Get a Cellphone jammer, and you can walk around undetected.

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)
:)

lets revisit this a year from now

By then the brits will have had enough cameras in place to make a difference. The question will be whether street crime has dropped dramatically and whether there have been abuses of civil liberties of non-criminals.

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.

CCTV, Mark Thomas and the Data Protection Act

Whatever your take on CCTV and the whole privacy issue, Mark Thomas' (British comic, bit like Michael Moore for all you State-side folks) recent take on the issue was interesting.
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.

It works

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

I live here [streetmap.co.uk]. We're getting CCTV over the entire estate; the closest camera is about twenty yards from my front door. I'm actually quite pleased about this. A friend was recently killed in a hit-and-run road accident - it looks likely that the guilty party will get caught eventually, but with CCTV it'd be as simple as reading off the license plate and going to the perp's house to make arrests.

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:Paranoia

(whoops, -1 for replying to my own post)

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:Let's hear from the Brits

How do you feel about these cameras?

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:Let's hear from the Brits

OK, you want to hear from someone from Britain ? Allow me to give my 2p. Personally, I welcome extra CCTV cameras. I come from Brighton which many people will think is a great thing because of the nightlife - which is fair enough - but there's the underside that I really hate which has made me want to get out ASAP.

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

We're not citizens! (significant point)

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

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

I can't wait to hear what happens when the first bobby is nabbed for using this system to follow his wife around all day...or to stalk that girl down the street.

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.

reading license plates?

Unless the cameras are focusing on a particular vehicle, I doubt you'll be able to read plates. That is, unless an operator is attending a camera nearby at the time, your friend would still go unavenged.

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.

Bzzzt! Wrong

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?

1) Your wife goes to a departments store.

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!

Actually, they're not...

The important phrase is

...by the broadcast media...

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.

300 cameras!? NOT A CHANCE!

"an individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day."

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?

As a deterent to crime, which would you prefer:

• Everyone has cameras
• Everyone has guns

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!

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. How can it be an invasion of privacy to be seen or recorded when you're in public?

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

Show me a new piece of technology and I'll show you a way it can be abused. This is pretty much the case for anything that may be used by the police/government, so I don't think this is any different. Personally I couldn't give two hoots that they are filming me picking my nose and scratching my arse whilst walking down the street. I have nothing to hide, and neither should any other law abiding citizen.

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:A small rebuttal

> In contrast, libertarian places such as California are attracting all the talent.

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.