What's wrong with CCTV?

[3chordcharlie]

RabidMongoose, I have no interest in reading your drivel, it is rife with irrelevant insults so anything that is addressed to me stop posting as I'm not reading them.

He's had a busy day

 

[bfdd]

They don't accept video evidence in america from shop cameras etc?

not always, but those are very different situations. a camera sees you run the red light, is there any other evidence besides that picture to back it up? no witnesses and they can't investigate the crime scene to prove you were there or find any other evidence that you actually did it. whereas a robbery they can find finger prints or other such evidence to add more credibility to the video footage. makes sense right?

 

[CanOWorms]

I don't think that we can expect much from a country that is considered to be on par with a Middle Eastern slave society.

 

[HAL9000]

He's had a busy day

Link no worky.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't think that we can expect much from a country that is considered to be on par with a Middle Eastern slave society.

But it's OK, the British willingly subject themselves to a monarch-peasant caste system for the 'LULZ' and to sell themselves out to tourists.

 

[Herr Kutz]

I don't think that we can expect much from a country that is considered to be on par with a Middle Eastern slave society.

They aren't quite there yet, but they are working on it with all the muslims immigrants they keep getting.

 

[HAL9000]

Wow 4 ignored posters on one page! A lot of trolling in this thread me thinks... :hmm: I suppose I should have expected it, evidently there is no problem with CCTV and the only ones who complain about it are the trolls. So hence all the troll posts!

 

[bfdd]

a troll bitching about "trolls" whom he ignores.

some people are such blabbering vaginas. i put no one on ignore, no matter how ridiculous or stupid they are.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Link no worky.

Just a search for posts by Rabid with the word Queen in them.

Seemed to work when I posted it; maybe they aren't persistent.

 

[HAL9000]

Just a search for posts by Rabid with the word Queen in them.

Seemed to work when I posted it; maybe they aren't persistent.

Ahh fair enough, yeah every one of his posts will include one or all of the following: Queen, Hag, Whore, Inbred, Toothless, Peasant or Peon, Edit: Also he likes to finish his posts with some kind of East-end accent or 19th century slang, as though it is an insult or something. he is a very deluded confused young man. The main reason people like him make my ignore list is if they are incapable of having a conversation or a debate without insulting people who disagree with them.

Pip pip cheerio caw blimey!! Governor.

 

[RabidMongoose]

a troll bitching about "trolls" whom he ignores.

some people are such blabbering vaginas. i put no one on ignore, no matter how ridiculous or stupid they are.

Commenting on people that you've ignored kind of defeats the purpose of ignoring people.

He should probably receive 25 lashes by the hand of the Toothless Prince.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Pip pip cheerio caw blimey!! Governor.

Bloody well done, mate! Cheerio!

 

[HAL9000]

Exactly.

 

[Infohawk]

Ahh fair enough, yeah every one of his posts will include one or all of the following: Queen, Hag, Whore, Inbred, Toothless, Peasant or Peon, Edit: Also he likes to finish his posts with some kind of East-end accent or 19th century slang, as though it is an insult or something. he is a very deluded confused young man. The main reason people like him make my ignore list is if they are incapable of having a conversation or a debate without insulting people who disagree with them.

Pip pip cheerio caw blimey!! Governor.

My opinion is that rabid is the virulently aggressive alt account of another poster on this forum. The rabid account allows for poster in question to let his emotions go without having to preserve even a bit of credibility. Most people won't put up with rabid for more than a couple posts because he is so inane and repetitive and the poster wants to be able to have what he thinks are rational discussions once in a while. Why do I think it's an alt account? They mysteriously have the same bizarre and extremely uncommon positions and frequently post at the same time. I could be wrong though. Rabid could just be an idiot.

 

[HAL9000]

My opinion is that rabid is the virulently aggressive alt account of another poster on this forum. The rabid account allows for poster in question to let his emotions go without having to preserve even a bit of credibility. Most people won't put up with rabid for more than a couple posts because he is so inane and repetitive and the poster wants to be able to have what he thinks are rational discussions once in a while. Why do I think it's an alt account? They mysteriously have the same bizarre and extremely uncommon positions and frequently post at the same time. I could be wrong though. Rabid could just be an idiot.

Both explanations work for me, but personally I think he is just someone incapable of understanding simple language and concepts, as a result he requires our pity.

 

[Zebo]

If everyone in London is on CCTV constantly I don't see how this helps much - how can the police monitor that many people? If anything, it would seem that catching someone via these cameras would be more sheer dumb luck than anything, that a policeman happened to be watching that particular CCTV feed at the moment when a crime happened. This reminds me of nothing so much as how airport screening is conducted in the U.S., security kabuki meant to reassure the public that something is being done no matter how pointless.

It's to get convictions and deterrence. e.g. I was mugged at 11:12 on 415 downing street. Cops retrieve video from there and pursue it. I'm not sure you can prove deterrence but most retailers in USA seem to think it worth it.

Personally I like them and red light cameras and speed traps. Right to privacy ends in public and cops can't be everywhere.

 

[HAL9000]

It's to get convictions and deterrence. e.g. I was mugged at 11:12 on 415 downing street. Cops retrieve video from there and pursue it. I'm not sure you can prove deterrence but most retailers in USA seem to think it worth it.

Personally I like them and red cameras and speed traps. Right to privacy ends in public and cops can't be everywhere.

This. All of this.

 

[RabidMongoose]

My opinion is that rabid is the virulently aggressive alt account of another poster on this forum. The rabid account allows for poster in question to let his emotions go without having to preserve even a bit of credibility. Most people won't put up with rabid for more than a couple posts because he is so inane and repetitive and the poster wants to be able to have what he thinks are rational discussions once in a while. Why do I think it's an alt account? They mysteriously have the same bizarre and extremely uncommon positions and frequently post at the same time. I could be wrong though. Rabid could just be an idiot.

I'm pretty sure that InfoHawk is actually a Grand Wizard of the KKK. I can't be wrong. InfoHawk is probably also an idiot.

 

[bfdd]

I don't get it. How is it a crime if there's no evidence? A digital picture is not good enough evidence. When a store is robbed and the cops review the video, that isn't the only evidence they're going to use for a conviction. They're going to try and find DNA, finger prints or even stolen goods on the person "identified" by the video to corroborate the video evidence. Without that there is no proof. That is why traffic lights and speeding cameras are fail.

 

[HAL9000]

I don't get it. How is it a crime if there's no evidence? A digital picture is not good enough evidence. When a store is robbed and the cops review the video, that isn't the only evidence they're going to use for a conviction. They're going to try and find DNA, finger prints or even stolen goods on the person "identified" by the video to corroborate the video evidence. Without that there is no proof. That is why traffic lights and speeding cameras are fail.

I guess over here a video of someone committing a crime is pretty good evidence that they committed it...

 

[bfdd]

I guess over here a video of someone committing a crime is pretty good evidence that they committed it...

can you prove without a shadow of doubt that the digital feed was perfect? you can't. the data can be altered over the line before it's ever even recorded. noise interference could cause that and that's not even a person trying to tamper with it. because it is not PERFECT it must be corroborated. i don't have much a problem with that either. just because my finger print showed up on a crime scene doesn't mean i committed the crime. they need to find more to build off. a picture must be corroborated.

like i said, if the video is of someone robbing a store the police can come in gather finger prints and cross reference those records(if the person is even in any systems) with the video.
a video doesn't prove anything, even if a crime is committed and "positive" facial recognition was found.

 

[HAL9000]

can you prove without a shadow of doubt that the digital feed was perfect? you can't. the data can be altered over the line before it's ever even recorded. noise interference could cause that and that's not even a person trying to tamper with it. because it is not PERFECT it must be corroborated. i don't have much a problem with that either. just because my finger print showed up on a crime scene doesn't mean i committed the crime. they need to find more to build off. a picture must be corroborated.

like i said, if the video is of someone robbing a store the police can come in gather finger prints and cross reference those records(if the person is even in any systems) with the video.
a video doesn't prove anything, even if a crime is committed and "positive" facial recognition was found.

I guess a video of someone committing a crime is good enough here, I'm surprised that in america people would question a video shot by a police officer.

Edit: At the end of the day it's up to a jury, if it's clear footage of someone committing a crime I can't see the issue.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I guess a video of someone committing a crime is good enough here, I'm surprised that in america people would question a video shot by a police officer.

Edit: At the end of the day it's up to a jury, if it's clear footage of someone committing a crime I can't see the issue.

People in the US question the police all of the time. You would be shocked at the legal measures the US system has that have been implemented to keep out of control police at check, and many people feel that this is simply not enough.

Again, British people have a much higher acceptance and subservience to authority than Americans. You believe in whatever the police tell you. Many Americans don't have such beliefs.

 

[bfdd]

neckbeard, how many times do we have to tell you you don't understand America. We don't trust anybody. You're right, it is up to a jury of the persons peers, but odds are it wouldn't go anywhere. There's nothing to back it up and some people do look a like. How could they be 100% sure without some other identifier?

I'm willing to bet people have been put away in the States solely on video or photo evidence, analog I know for sure they have, I'm just saying it doesn't always happen because of reasonable doubt. Analog video or photo would be much harder to argue with, due to being harder to tamper with, but even then I see the need for corroborative evidence due to the high amount of uncertainty.

 

[HAL9000]

neckbeard, how many times do we have to tell you you don't understand America. We don't trust anybody. You're right, it is up to a jury of the persons peers, but odds are it wouldn't go anywhere. There's nothing to back it up and some people do look a like. How could they be 100% sure without some other identifier?

I'm willing to bet people have been put away in the States solely on video or photo evidence, analog I know for sure they have, I'm just saying it doesn't always happen because of reasonable doubt. Analog video or photo would be much harder to argue with, due to being harder to tamper with, but even then I see the need for corroborative evidence due to the high amount of uncertainty.

They wouldn't ever be 100% sure, just sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Aside from the evidence gathered in any event (as i imagine that CCTV is rarely used as the sole evidence in cases) I don't see the issue.