What's wrong with CCTV?

[Infohawk]

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.

You're acting like video is different from all the other kinds of evidence in the world. It's really not. Evidence has to be authenticated. Video is authenticated all the time in this country. In other words, video is used in the American justice system. Where are you going with all this?

 

[HAL9000]

You're acting like video is different from all the other kinds of evidence in the world. It's really not. Evidence has to be authenticated. Video is authenticated all the time in this country. In other words, video is used in the American justice system. Where are you going with all this?

Exactly, I believe that when CCTV is used as evidence in the UK it will use multiple cameras, multiple angles, multiple copies etc.

 

[davmat787]

NB, did your Queen ban the book 1984 in the UK or something? Just curious, k?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

[HAL9000]

NB, did your Queen ban the book 1984 in the UK or something? Just curious, k?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

No the Queen can't do that, sorry what was your point? The CCTV style setup in 1984 was invading people's privacy, not so in the UK.

NB: NB means nota bene which refers to something that should be noted, a question isn't something that should be noted. But rather asked, unless said question is rhetorical

 

[davmat787]

Snide remarks aside, I guess it comes down to how you view the role of government. I don't expect the state to watch over me all the time. But I grew up under a very different system and values than you did, so I don't expect you to understand this. Just as I can't understand the monarchy, and what it really means to live in the UK. This isn't the first time you have asked for american opinion to validate some aspect of the UK however.

Since you are asking, can you give us a brief history of the London CCTV system? Why and when was it implemented? Crime rates up or down since they were put in place?

 

[HAL9000]

Snide remarks aside, I guess it comes down to how you view the role of government. I don't expect the state to watch over me all the time. But I grew up under a very different system and values than you did, so I don't expect you to understand this. Just as I can't understand the monarchy, and what it really means to live in the UK. This isn't the first time you have asked for american opinion to validate some aspect of the UK however.

Since you are asking, can you give us a brief history of the London CCTV system? Why and when was it implemented? Crime rates up or down since they were put in place?

No I'm afraid I can't purely because I don't have that data, I just know that there are a huge amount of CCTV cameras in the popular parts of the UK, the only reason I have asked for what you consider validation on this subject is because (as I'm sure you can imagine) I often get a huge amount of troll insults on this forum about being in the UK and a lot of them are around the fact that we have CCTV systems in place, I just can't comprehend why they consider than an insult. Hence the thread.

 

[Rainsford]

Videotaping everything happening everywhere initially seems like it would help solve crimes, but I've seen very little evidence that it actually works. Despite videotaping EVERYTHING in the city (or near enough), London hasn't managed to eradicate violent crime. In fact, the rate of robbery and assault in London is higher than the rate in New York City (murder rate is lower though, maybe because of gun availability). Obviously you can't directly compare two different cities, but I see little to suggest CCTV works in practice.

As far as morality/privacy is concerned, the argument that you have no expectation of privacy in public misses a key point. While it's true that your presence in particular areas in public isn't expected to be private, there IS an implicit expectation of privacy in terms of your aggregate movement throughout the day. In other words, the privacy issue with the UK's omnipresent surveillance society isn't that it can see a picture of you near Piccadilly Circus at noon walking into a restaurant, it's that the system knows exactly where in London you went over the entire day, how long you spent at each location and what you did there. It's the difference between seeing a pretty girl at the gym and spending the rest of the day following her around. She may not have any expectation that people won't see her out in public, but I think it's reasonable that she can expect NOT to be stalked.

In other words, my objection to the UK's CCTV fetish is that it's of questionable effectiveness and it's creepy as hell.

 

[Infohawk]

Videotaping everything happening everywhere initially seems like it would help solve crimes, but I've seen very little evidence that it actually works. Despite videotaping EVERYTHING in the city (or near enough), London hasn't managed to eradicate violent crime. In fact, the rate of robbery and assault in London is higher than the rate in New York City (murder rate is lower though, maybe because of gun availability). Obviously you can't directly compare two different cities, but I see little to suggest CCTV works in practice.

Why are you asking CCTV to eradicate crime? That's like saying universal health care is not worth it unless it can make everyone live forever.

Why not compare pre-CCTV London crime to post-CCTV London crime? You're absolutely right that it's difficult to compare the two countries. Many European countries have lighter punishments than the US does. It wouldn't surprise me if CCTV catches criminals that the system puts out on the street again. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which having videos does not make it easier to identify and catch criminals.

The real argument against CCTV is the "creepiness factor" which is fairly irrational once you realize that you never had a right to privacy in public anyway. I like to ask people to imagine that you live in a small town in 19th Century America. Do you think walking the streets you'd have anywhere near the level of anonymity that you have now? Hell no. Everyone knew your business. If you're concerned about the government knowing your business than make a subpoena necessary to access records. It's not that difficult.

 

[CanOWorms]

I don't know where people are getting the idea that you have no right to privacy in public spaces. There are lots of exceptions to such a broad statement.

In addition, what Rainsford states regarding knowledge in the aggregate has actually been supported by various courts.

 

[Rainsford]

Why are you asking CCTV to eradicate crime? That's like saying universal health care is not worth it unless it can make everyone live forever.

Why not compare pre-CCTV London crime to post-CCTV London crime? You're absolutely right that it's difficult to compare the two countries. Many European countries have lighter punishments than the US does. It wouldn't surprise me if CCTV catches criminals that the system puts out on the street again. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which having videos does not make it easier to identify and catch criminals.

I'm not sure when "pre-CCTV" London was. But the stats available going back 20 years (when blanket CCTV was presumably harder to do) don't seem to show much of a drop in crime. Of course it's hard to say what crime would be like now without CCTV, but I'd say that the burden of proof is on the people who support CCTV, since at the very least it's pretty expensive.

If you can't imagine how CCTV could make catching criminals more difficult, then I'd argue you're just not thinking hard enough about it. At the very least, CCTV takes money away from all other possible police uses, so it needs to be more effective than other ways the money could be spent. Visible cameras are more likely to drive crime into areas not covered by cameras. Which is great if you're a store owner, but less great if you're trying to stop street crime. And while cameras can provide evidence that something happened, they're not actually that great at identifying people without knowing who they are ahead of time. Facial recognition is hard, and it's really hard at a weird angle from a camera a hundred feet away.

There are certainly situations where cameras work, but there are a lot of situations where they fail. And since they're not free, some trade-off analysis should be done before saying "hey, why not".

The real argument against CCTV is the "creepiness factor" which is fairly irrational once you realize that you never had a right to privacy in public anyway. I like to ask people to imagine that you live in a small town in 19th Century America. Do you think walking the streets you'd have anywhere near the level of anonymity that you have now? Hell no. Everyone knew your business. If you're concerned about the government knowing your business than make a subpoena necessary to access records. It's not that difficult.

I'm not sure it's a very good solution to allow the government to gather unlimited records about you, then somehow require a subpoena for them to access that information. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds kind of stupid from a legal perspective.

In any case, the point I was making was about the EXPECTATION of privacy. I don't live in 19th Century America in a small town, so my expectation of privacy is different than someone living in that time in such a place. And while your hypothetical small town neighbors could know your business, even back then it was reasonably assumed that the government wasn't keeping track of your every movement.

Technology has made casual surveillance much easier, allowing surveillance on a level not previously possible for practical reasons (cops COULD follow you around all day, but they have better things to do). I think it's reasonable for the law to keep pace with technological advances in police capabilities.

 

[HAL9000]

Videotaping everything happening everywhere initially seems like it would help solve crimes, but I've seen very little evidence that it actually works. Despite videotaping EVERYTHING in the city (or near enough), London hasn't managed to eradicate violent crime. In fact, the rate of robbery and assault in London is higher than the rate in New York City (murder rate is lower though, maybe because of gun availability). Obviously you can't directly compare two different cities, but I see little to suggest CCTV works in practice.

As far as morality/privacy is concerned, the argument that you have no expectation of privacy in public misses a key point. While it's true that your presence in particular areas in public isn't expected to be private, there IS an implicit expectation of privacy in terms of your aggregate movement throughout the day. In other words, the privacy issue with the UK's omnipresent surveillance society isn't that it can see a picture of you near Piccadilly Circus at noon walking into a restaurant, it's that the system knows exactly where in London you went over the entire day, how long you spent at each location and what you did there. It's the difference between seeing a pretty girl at the gym and spending the rest of the day following her around. She may not have any expectation that people won't see her out in public, but I think it's reasonable that she can expect NOT to be stalked.

In other words, my objection to the UK's CCTV fetish is that it's of questionable effectiveness and it's creepy as hell.

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....

 

[bfdd]

You're acting like video is different from all the other kinds of evidence in the world. It's really not. Evidence has to be authenticated. Video is authenticated all the time in this country. In other words, video is used in the American justice system. Where are you going with all this?

I'm not saying it isn't used in a conviction. I'm saying it's not the ONLY thing that is used. A photo id is not as good as a DNA or fingerprint id. That's just fact.

 

[HAL9000]

I'm not saying it isn't used in a conviction. I'm saying it's not the ONLY thing that is used. A photo id is not as good as a DNA or fingerprint id. That's just fact.

I disagree, but that's not the issue this thread was written for.

 

[Cogman]

Mostly it is just the fear-mongering that I dislike about CCTVs. Everywhere you go, you'll see signs "Behave, we know everything about you!". The fact is, the amount of footage being generated by these things is cumbersome. Thus their value is somewhat diminished. Not only that, but these aren't exactly HQ cameras, more like crappy black and whites.

Think of it this way, someone commits a crime in a high traffic area. How do you track this individual down? There isn't, after all, a registry of faces that you can search through quickly and the footage is crappy enough that even if there was you would be able to pinpoint a single individual.

These things are simply ineffective at preventing, or stopping crime. They are also ineffective at finding criminals.


I hate all fear mongering. On buses I saw signs like "If you are anti-social we will find you using DNA evidence!" Yet, how could they since they don't have my DNA on record? The british government is constantly BSing its citizens.

 

[HAL9000]

Mostly it is just the fear-mongering that I dislike about CCTVs. Everywhere you go, you'll see signs "Behave, we know everything about you!". The fact is, the amount of footage being generated by these things is cumbersome. Thus their value is somewhat diminished. Not only that, but these aren't exactly HQ cameras, more like crappy black and whites.

Think of it this way, someone commits a crime in a high traffic area. How do you track this individual down? There isn't, after all, a registry of faces that you can search through quickly and the footage is crappy enough that even if there was you would be able to pinpoint a single individual.

These things are simply ineffective at preventing, or stopping crime. They are also ineffective at finding criminals.


I hate all fear mongering. On buses I saw signs like "If you are anti-social we will find you using DNA evidence!" Yet, how could they since they don't have my DNA on record? The british government is constantly BSing its citizens.

I've literally never seen anything remotely like that. But aside from that, while I'm sure it's not the most accurate thing in the world. it does work, the 7/7 Bombings demonstrate that, also every time someone goes missing they can track them to their last known location via CCTV, they do it alot the footage is often on TV. In this respect it's excellent. Also the notices that there is CCTV around you is not scaremongering but a legal requirement to notify you you are on film.

 

[irwincur]

CCTV is scary, plain and simple.

 

[HAL9000]

CCTV is scary, plain and simple.

y?

 

[Infohawk]

y?

Clearly a lot of people in this thread don't need reasons. It's just "bad" because. It's 1984 or a libertarian utopia with no in between.

 

[HAL9000]

Clearly a lot of people in this thread don't need reasons. It's just "bad" because. It's 1984 or a libertarian utopia with no in between.

:hmm: Yep that does seem to be the way with some people.

 

[Steeplerot]

It's because someone on a talk radio/gun industry in the USA told them being a paranoid freak who stock up on guns was the only way we are free today against our own government, and of course that a rifle would save them from the actual military, total fantasyworld. Yet, many other countries made their way fine. Another glaring flaw in paranoid wingnut logic that comes from getting their history of the American people from bumper sticker soundbites rewritten for a agenda.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

CCTV does not deter or solve crime near enough to justify it's excessive use. So why is it really so popular?

 

[HAL9000]

It's because someone on a talk radio/gun industry in the USA told them being a paranoid freak who stock up on guns was the only way we are free today against our own government, and of course that a rifle would save them from the actual military, total fantasyworld. Yet, many other countries made their way fine. Another glaring flaw in paranoid wingnut logic that comes from getting their history of the American people from bumper sticker soundbites rewritten for a agenda.

I definitely get this impression.

CCTV does not deter or solve crime near enough to justify it's excessive use. So why is it really so popular?

Because sometimes it does work, the more help we can give the police the better.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Because sometimes it does work, the more help we can give the police the better.

Yes, the only answer to it's ineffectiveness is MORE CAMERAS!

Here's an article from December: 'Six crimes a day' solved by CCTV, Met says

Wow, SIX crimes per day.

The number of cameras in Britain has gone up from 21,000 in 1999 to 59,753 in 2010, it added.

So one crime per day for every 10,000 cameras!

The Met said among the 2,512 suspects caught this year, four were suspected murderers, 23 rapists and sex attackers and five wanted gunmen.

Of the 2,512 crimes solved suspects caught (propaganda much?) for the year, 32 were serious crimes. That means that the remaining 2,480 (98.7%) suspects were suspected of committing petty crimes.

Crime is not the reason for the cameras, I assure you.

 

[HAL9000]

Yes, the only answer to it's ineffectiveness is MORE CAMERAS!

Here's an article from December: 'Six crimes a day' solved by CCTV, Met says

Wow, SIX crimes per day.



So one crime per day for every 10,000 cameras!



Of the 2,512 crimes solved suspects caught (propaganda much?) for the year, 32 were serious crimes. That means that the remaining 2,480 (98.7%) suspects were suspected of committing petty crimes.

Crime is not the reason for the cameras, I assure you.

Well it is... It's ineffectiveness is an argument to have them removed, but the fact is a lot of serious crimes in front of CCTV cameras (as you mentioned) do result in arrests. But aside from how effective they are, what is the problem with them? Effective or not?

 

[Infohawk]

It's because someone on a talk radio/gun industry in the USA told them being a paranoid freak who stock up on guns was the only way we are free today against our own government, and of course that a rifle would save them from the actual military, total fantasyworld. Yet, many other countries made their way fine. Another glaring flaw in paranoid wingnut logic that comes from getting their history of the American people from bumper sticker soundbites rewritten for a agenda.

There are plenty of left-wingers who think it's scary too. How do you explain them?