What's wrong with CCTV?

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Speeding cameras are easily avoided. Don't go over the speed limit.

I have yet to hear one decent argument against them to be honest.

Speed traps.

Changing timing on lights to increase revenue (EXTREMELY dangerous and is done often by municipalities)

Having a private company do the work creates conflicts of interest.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Speed traps.

Changing timing on lights to increase revenue (EXTREMELY dangerous and is done often by municipalities)

Having a private company do the work creates conflicts of interest.

Those aren't arguments against speed cameras...

You might as well use 'enemy spies' as an argument against trench coats...

 

[Rainsford]

My question isn't about whether it does stop crime, because obviously it doesn't It rarely pre-empts anything, it's more for recording the after affects of a crime. like the 7/7 bombings for example. Why the hell is it creepy! It's useful, I don't understand the problem that americans (in my experience) have with it, hence the thread. The point is that the cameras don't follow you around unless you have committed a crime or are on some kind of watch list. It's exactly the same as someone seeing you go into a restaurant at noon, then two hours later someone else seeing you come out. No ones following you....

If cameras don't affect the crime rate, then why is it valuable to have them? Sure, they can record things for after the fact analysis...but we manage to solve quite a lot of crimes here in America without recording everything everyone does. For example, we figured out exactly what happened with our own terrorist attack without massive camera surveillance. Is there any evidence to suggest CCTV allows police to solve more crimes than if it wasn't present?

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but of course the cameras follow you around no matter what you're doing. The operators of those cameras are gathering an enormous amount of evidence about pretty much all law abiding citizens, more or less treating them like potential criminals. It's no different than if the government paid policemen to follow everyone everywhere they went, it just SEEMS different because you don't see the cameras all the time.

 

[Rainsford]

Those aren't arguments against speed cameras...

You might as well use 'enemy spies' as an argument against trench coats...

At least in America, the problem with speed cameras is that our speed limits are absurdly low in the vast majority of places that install speed cameras, so the cameras amount to a method of automated revenue generation and have nothing to do with safety. And as a result, speed cameras prevent the implementation of more reasonable speed limits.

 

[3chordcharlie]

At least in America, the problem with speed cameras is that our speed limits are absurdly low in the vast majority of places that install speed cameras, so the cameras amount to a method of automated revenue generation and have nothing to do with safety. And as a result, speed cameras prevent the implementation of more reasonable speed limits.

Don't give the cameras too much credit. We don't have them (except on-again-off-again on freeways), but I can think of a half-dozen places where the limit has been dropped for no evident reason, and exactly zero where the limit has been raised.

I think it's more 'nanny-state' than 'big-brother' though I'm sure it's partly both.

 

[HAL9000]

If cameras don't affect the crime rate, then why is it valuable to have them? Sure, they can record things for after the fact analysis...but we manage to solve quite a lot of crimes here in America without recording everything everyone does. For example, we figured out exactly what happened with our own terrorist attack without massive camera surveillance. Is there any evidence to suggest CCTV allows police to solve more crimes than if it wasn't present?

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but of course the cameras follow you around no matter what you're doing. The operators of those cameras are gathering an enormous amount of evidence about pretty much all law abiding citizens, more or less treating them like potential criminals. It's no different than if the government paid policemen to follow everyone everywhere they went, it just SEEMS different because you don't see the cameras all the time.

You seem to think the CCTV operators are specifically targeting citizens, following them around all day then compiling a big file about each person...?! That's not the case, you may be on footage all day, the same as everyone else, but they aren't specifically picking you unless you are committing a crime, so I don't see the problem...? If it helps crime, and it does, because the footage is often used in criminal conviction cases, whether or not it was the direct reason they were arrested, then it's a great thing! It's not a problem unless you are a criminal...

 

[3chordcharlie]

You seem to think the CCTV operators are specifically targeting citizens, following them around all day then compiling a big file about each person...?! That's not the case, you may be on footage all day, the same as everyone else, but they aren't specifically picking you unless you are committing a crime, so I don't see the problem...? If it helps crime, and it does, because the footage is often used in criminal conviction cases, whether or not it was the direct reason they were arrested, then it's a great thing! It's not a problem unless you are a criminal...

You're not likely to convince a proper American of this...

Edit - you're not likely to convince me, either, and I'm neither proper, nor American.

 

[HAL9000]

You're not likely to convince a proper American of this...

Edit - you're not likely to convince me, either, and I'm neither proper, nor American.

Why? This is what I don't get about America, they seem to think it's them vs everyone else.

 

[Infohawk]

You're not likely to convince a proper American of this...

Edit - you're not likely to convince me, either, and I'm neither proper, nor American.

I'm American and I'm "convinced." Maybe because I've been to Europe and know it's not a dystopia. My friends that live there don't live in fear of CCTVs.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'm American and I'm "convinced." Maybe because I've been to Europe and know it's not a dystopia. My friends that live there don't live in fear of CCTVs.

There needs to be a major upside for these things to make sense. I don't see why anyone would support being spied on just because 'it's not all bad'.

It would be like the government getting fulltime access to everyone's bank and CC records.

Private property? That's cool, just post a sign.

Probable cause? That's cool too, get a warrant and follow me around all you like.

 

[Infohawk]

There needs to be a major upside for these things to make sense. I don't see why anyone would support being spied on just because 'it's not all bad'.

It would be like the government getting fulltime access to everyone's bank and CC records.

Private property? That's cool, just post a sign.

Probable cause? That's cool too, get a warrant and follow me around all you like.

You misunderstand the legal boundaries of privacy. You don't have any privacy in public. You never did and you don't now. A bank account is not at all analogous to walking around in public. Neither is private property. Legally, you do have privacy interests in those realms.

 

[3chordcharlie]

You misunderstand the legal boundaries of privacy. You don't have any privacy in public. You never did and you don't now. A bank account is not at all analogous to walking around in public. Neither is private property. Legally, you do have privacy interests in those realms.

I don't misunderstand at all - you or I can easily be charged with stalking while never leaving public property. I don't see why the government should be any different.

Until recently, the notion of actually being able to track 'all the people, all the time' was so technically impractical that it didn't really bear mentioning. That's simply not true anymore.

 

[HAL9000]

I don't misunderstand at all - you or I can easily be charged with stalking while never leaving public property. I don't see why the government should be any different.

Until recently, the notion of actually being able to track 'all the people, all the time' was so technically impractical that it didn't really bear mentioning. That's simply not true anymore.

Lets assume they do track you, what's the problem with the police watching what you do in public???

 

[Infohawk]

I don't misunderstand at all - you or I can easily be charged with stalking while never leaving public property. I don't see why the government should be any different.

Until recently, the notion of actually being able to track 'all the people, all the time' was so technically impractical that it didn't really bear mentioning. That's simply not true anymore.

Stop making stuff up. This is what stalking is:

a stalker is someone who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another (victim) and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place the victim or victim's immediate family in fear for their safety. The victim does not have to prove that the stalker had the intent to carry out the threat. (California Penal Code 646.9)

So sorry but someone could follow you in public if they wanted to. You ever heard of a private investigator?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Stop making stuff up. This is what stalking is:

So sorry but someone could follow you in public if they wanted to. You ever heard of a private investigator?

Try noticing the PI, and start calling the police to complain that someone is following and taking pictures of you, day after day

It's none of the government's business what it's citizens are doing as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

I don't mind the police watching me drive through a speed trap, or even tailing me if I'm out driving late at night. But if they want to follow me around for no reason at all, then yes, I have a problem with it.

The government does not own you, period. If you've already decided that they do, try Venezuela.

 

[Infohawk]

The government does not own you, period. If you've already decided that they do, try Venezuela.

Nobody said they do. That's a strawman argument. Adding "period" doesn't make that any less the case.

 

[HAL9000]

Try noticing the PI, and start calling the police to complain that someone is following and taking pictures of you, day after day

It's none of the government's business what it's citizens are doing as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

I don't mind the police watching me drive through a speed trap, or even tailing me if I'm out driving late at night. But if they want to follow me around for no reason at all, then yes, I have a problem with it.

The government does not own you, period. If you've already decided that they do, try Venezuela.

As I said before you assume that the police are singling you out everytime you step in front of CCTV that's not the case, you are one of many in an image, then you are on another image, no special attention is being paid to you...

 

[RU482]

The problem with CCTV is this. It is an infrastructure that, under certain circumstances, can be abused.

Police and Government are NOT pure entities. They can and ARE polluted with corruption. Where there is corruption in power, liberty can be violated. This is the problem.

 

[3chordcharlie]

As I said before you assume that the police are singling you out everytime you step in front of CCTV that's not the case, you are one of many in an image, then you are on another image, no special attention is being paid to you...

Actually, I'm saying that *used* to be true. It would be relatively trivial to create near-100% coverage and tracking of every individual in urban areas. Expensive maybe, but not overly difficult. That's where the big problem comes in for me.

 

[shangshang]

CCTVs interfere with my sexual spontaneity. For example, no more pinning the gf in the elevator for a quickie before a power meeting. lol

 

[Veliko]

You seem to think the CCTV operators are specifically targeting citizens, following them around all day then compiling a big file about each person...?! That's not the case, you may be on footage all day, the same as everyone else, but they aren't specifically picking you unless you are committing a crime, so I don't see the problem...? If it helps crime, and it does, because the footage is often used in criminal conviction cases, whether or not it was the direct reason they were arrested, then it's a great thing! It's not a problem unless you are a criminal...

You are wrong about this, very wrong. CCTV footage is rarely used in court simply because the quality of it can be so low and also because of the fact that the police often cannot even be bothered to check it.

If you look at the total cost of the CCTV network in terms of money spent, continued maintenance and the manpower needed to keep it running and then compare it to the amount of crimes it has helped solve it is very poor value for money.

 

[HAL9000]

Actually, I'm saying that *used* to be true. It would be relatively trivial to create near-100% coverage and tracking of every individual in urban areas. Expensive maybe, but not overly difficult. That's where the big problem comes in for me.

Tirvial?! It would require huge super computers, operators, maintenance, storage, processing, a database of vast proportions, it would be absurdly expensive and a massive waste of time. Further more in this 1984 style world you imagine would be trivial, what would the problem be if there was a file on a vast database somewhere that listed that "John Smith entered Starbucks at 12:04 and left at 14:23" Who cares?!

You are wrong about this, very wrong. CCTV footage is rarely used in court simply because the quality of it can be so low and also because of the fact that the police often cannot even be bothered to check it.

If you look at the total cost of the CCTV network in terms of money spent, continued maintenance and the manpower needed to keep it running and then compare it to the amount of crimes it has helped solve it is very poor value for money.

Well I disagree, maybe public CCTV isn't often used but private cameras are used very very often, also major incidents use the public system constantly, as well as missing persons they are invaluable.

In any event, as I've said my question wasn't directed at the effectiveness of them but the notion that they are some how a reason to insult the UK?!...

 

[dainthomas]

In any event, as I've said my question wasn't directed at the effectiveness of them but the notion that they are some how a reason to insult the UK?!...

You are correct, there are so many better reasons to insult the UK (squatters rights etc).

 

[HAL9000]

You are correct, there are so many better reasons to insult the UK (squatters rights etc).

Glances at avatar... Moves on.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You are correct, there are so many better reasons to insult the UK (squatters rights etc).

There are lots of reasons to insult the UK. The peasant need to be constantly watched via CCTV, the peasant need to be looked down by an Overlord/Queen, etc.

It is a pretty messed up society. The sad thing is that British people just laugh it off and say 'it's for the LULZ' or 'it's for German and American tourists! That's why we are fine with imposing a monarch-peasant caste system upon us.'

They are peasants, peons, serfs, etc.