What's wrong with CCTV?

[3chordcharlie]

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?!

Everything you listed only requires money. So yes, trivial.

The problem is believing that some made-up entity ('the government') has any business tracking the activities of real, actual people.

 

[HAL9000]

Everything you listed only requires money. So yes, trivial.

The problem is believing that some made-up entity ('the government') has any business tracking the activities of real, actual people.

It does in the same way that a made up entity like "the police" should have any business arresting people. Or a made up entity like "the economy" has any business in dealing with global economics. The Government was put in place to keep order, so it definitely is valid in doing so!

 

[3chordcharlie]

It does in the same way that a made up entity like "the police" should have any business arresting people. Or a made up entity like "the economy" has any business in dealing with global economics. The Government was put in place to keep order, so it definitely is valid in doing so!

'The economy' doesn't do anything. It is a description, more like 'society' than 'government'.

Police have a limited area of responsibility. For the record, I generally oppose any increase in police powers, under almost any circumstance.

The government put itself in place, to look after its own interests.

Even in the rare case where the people actually more or less create the government, it doesn't stay that way. (e.g. USA).

Everyone needs a line in the sand over issues of liberty. I find the best one is to oppose every reduction in liberty, and increase in government control. This helps stave off the time when it will need to be re-set.

 

[her209]

Wonder how many cops would be caught lying if there were CCTVs in place here in the US. Just sayin'.

 

[HAL9000]

'The economy' doesn't do anything. It is a description, more like 'society' than 'government'.

Police have a limited area of responsibility. For the record, I generally oppose any increase in police powers, under almost any circumstance.

The government put itself in place, to look after its own interests.

Even in the rare case where the people actually more or less create the government, it doesn't stay that way. (e.g. USA).

Everyone needs a line in the sand over issues of liberty. I find the best one is to oppose every reduction in liberty, and increase in government control. This helps stave off the time when it will need to be re-set.

In EVERY Society the people created the Government, there was a moment when Government came into being, they didn't create themselves. Government are needed for structure in society, without it there would be chaos. But i'm beginning to get the impression you are one of those Americans that think the government is out to get you and you need to be armed to the teeth incase they attack one day. In which case there is no point continuing this debate.

 

[3chordcharlie]

In EVERY Society the people created the Government, there was a moment when Government came into being, they didn't create themselves. Government are needed for structure in society, without it there would be chaos. But i'm beginning to get the impression you are one of those Americans that think the government is out to get you and you need to be armed to the teeth incase they attack one day. In which case there is no point continuing this debate.

I'm not American, I'm not armed, and I don't necessarily think the government is out to get me.

I do however think the growth in government has to be checked - not just in dollars, but also in control. It either has to stop growing, or it will eventually need to be replaced.

People created every government. Usually two or three people, sometimes as many as a couple dozen, and in rare cases all the white male landowners had a say. Government is more 'necessary evil' than anything else: someone needs to have the authority to use force in order to maintain order, even if that authority is shady and illegitimate.

As long as the government keeps to its useful purpose, I have no issue with it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm not American, I'm not armed, and I don't necessarily think the government is out to get me.

I do however think the growth in government has to be checked - not just in dollars, but also in control. It either has to stop growing, or it will eventually need to be replaced.

People created every government. Usually two or three people, sometimes as many as a couple dozen, and in rare cases all the white male landowners had a say. Government is more 'necessary evil' than anything else: someone needs to have the authority to use force in order to maintain order, even if that authority is shady and illegitimate.

As long as the government keeps to its useful purpose, I have no issue with it.

A liberal (per UK terms) like me.

I agree, and i disagree with the CCTV craze of the UK, i want to be able to beat up people in Essex without evidence of me doing it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In EVERY Society the people created the Government, there was a moment when Government came into being, they didn't create themselves. Government are needed for structure in society, without it there would be chaos. But i'm beginning to get the impression you are one of those Americans that think the government is out to get you and you need to be armed to the teeth incase they attack one day. In which case there is no point continuing this debate.

But government can rule the people rather than the opposite, in Soviet Russia government rules you.

It can happen anywhere, the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance and i agree with that statement while not being an extremist fucked up idiot who thrives on believing that a plinker will protect him against the largest standing military power in the world.

 

[Triumph]

Saw something on Top Gear the other night, Jeremy Clarkson was driving through a construction zone, passing signs that warned, "Average Speed Check In Effect." They didn't explain exactly what this was, but I can imagine that it is some sort of camera that tracks when you pass point A and point B, by tracking your license plate, and calculates the speed by how long you took to enter and exit the construction zone. F that!!! How do you people put up with that shit? Do you really believe that it's in your best interest, or is it really all about revenue, and control?

Sorry that you guys have to live like that. It's like having an overprotective parent who shelters the child from exposure to anything that could be harmful, at the expense of allowing the child to ever actually experience life.

 

[Veliko]

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 what way are they 'invaluable'? What major incidents have they assisted with?

 

[HAL9000]

In what way are they 'invaluable'? What major incidents have they assisted with?

Off the top of my head, the first that comes to mind is the 7/7 bombings.

 

[HAL9000]

Saw something on Top Gear the other night, Jeremy Clarkson was driving through a construction zone, passing signs that warned, "Average Speed Check In Effect." They didn't explain exactly what this was, but I can imagine that it is some sort of camera that tracks when you pass point A and point B, by tracking your license plate, and calculates the speed by how long you took to enter and exit the construction zone. F that!!! How do you people put up with that shit? Do you really believe that it's in your best interest, or is it really all about revenue, and control?

Sorry that you guys have to live like that. It's like having an overprotective parent who shelters the child from exposure to anything that could be harmful, at the expense of allowing the child to ever actually experience life.

That's exactly what it is, I don't agree with speed cameras, but CCTV is different. It's a good thing, it's not 1984.

A liberal (per UK terms) like me.

I agree, and i disagree with the CCTV craze of the UK, i want to be able to beat up people in Essex without evidence of me doing it.

I live in Essex! And I agree, some of the twats here need beating up.

 

[Veliko]

Off the top of my head, the first that comes to mind is the 7/7 bombings.

That's one incident and it only gave us a few scrappy shots of their faces. It doesn't justify the cost of the entire CCTV network.

 

[HAL9000]

That's one incident and it only gave us a few scrappy shots of their faces. It doesn't justify the cost of the entire CCTV network.

It does if you ask me, all missing persons footage, all the footage of assaults that you see on the news, etc. When living in London I feel safer knowing that I'm being recorded, my friend got the crap beaten out of her, they caught the guys who did it, thanks to CCTV.

 

[Veliko]

It does if you ask me, all missing persons footage, all the footage of assaults that you see on the news, etc. When living in London I feel safer knowing that I'm being recorded, my friend got the crap beaten out of her, they caught the guys who did it, thanks to CCTV.

What do you mean by "all missing persons footage"? How much of it is there? And how many of these assaults do you actually think we see on TV?

 

[HAL9000]

What do you mean by "all missing persons footage"? How much of it is there? And how many of these assaults do you actually think we see on TV?

in London... A fuck load

 

[Veliko]

in London... A fuck load

How many are solved through the use of CCTV?

 

[HAL9000]

How many are solved through the use of CCTV?

No idea, but my point was never about how effective it is at solving crimes, my point is that I don't understand why people use it as an insult to the UK.

 

[Veliko]

No idea, but my point was never about how effective it is at solving crimes, my point is that I don't understand why people use it as an insult to the UK.

If you have no idea how useful it is in solving crimes why do you keep mentioning it?

 

[HAL9000]

If you have no idea how useful it is in solving crimes why do you keep mentioning it?

If you don't think that the police having the ability to track criminals in the city, rewind their movements and generally film the scenes of crimes is a good thing, regardless of how many measurable statistics it results in, I don't think we should continue this conversation.

 

[Veliko]

If you don't think that the police having the ability to track criminals in the city, rewind their movements and generally film the scenes of crimes is a good thing, regardless of how many measurable statistics it results in, I don't think we should continue this conversation.

Part of the problem is that the police don't actually do that - they don't bother with the CCTV because it is too much hassle for them. If the CCTV network really was that great then it would result in significantly higher conviction rates but that simply hasn't happened.

What good is the filming of crimes if it doesn't help prevent them or punish those that carry them out?

 

[HAL9000]

Part of the problem is that the police don't actually do that - they don't bother with the CCTV because it is too much hassle for them. If the CCTV network really was that great then it would result in significantly higher conviction rates but that simply hasn't happened.

What good is the filming of crimes if it doesn't help prevent them or punish those that carry them out?

I completely disagree (conveniently) I have a friend in the Met, and they use them constantly, as I've said they use the cameras, find out where people are, follow them around (criminals) and then arrest them when needed, even though the footage shot may not show the crime, it enables them to cover vast areas remotely, it is very useful and does result in prevention and punishment, it's just that it is not always the direct source of evidence, but rather a tool.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Saw something on Top Gear the other night, Jeremy Clarkson was driving through a construction zone, passing signs that warned, "Average Speed Check In Effect." They didn't explain exactly what this was, but I can imagine that it is some sort of camera that tracks when you pass point A and point B, by tracking your license plate, and calculates the speed by how long you took to enter and exit the construction zone. F that!!! How do you people put up with that shit? Do you really believe that it's in your best interest, or is it really all about revenue, and control?

Sorry that you guys have to live like that. It's like having an overprotective parent who shelters the child from exposure to anything that could be harmful, at the expense of allowing the child to ever actually experience life.

OK, firstly average speed cameras. These are put in place during motorway construction to protect workers. The network here has a speed limit of 70Mph, which is routinely considered by most as 90Mph. When lanes are reduced in width for construction the speed limit is set at 50. Using the same paradigm as above you can safely assume people will still burst through the construction zone at 70Mph. The avg. speed cam ensures that you do at or around 50Mph. In cases when the workers are actually there, I approve of the measure. At 2am, I do not, and feel these should only be active during working hours of the crews.

Any other average speed cameras, and they do exist in non construction zones, but are very rare, I do not approve of, in the slightest.

Secondly, having CCTV on a Bus is great. I was once threatened by four people on a London Bus, and luckily they didn't carry out their threats, but if they had then a conviction would have been simple due to video evidence. I support CCTV on public transport. It protects the bus, train or whatever from vandals, the users from assault and in the case that the crime happens anyway, great supporting evidence for conviction.

A society is nothing if it doesn't try to help others. The 'me, myself & I' approach posited here is kinda sad.

 

[HAL9000]

OK, firstly average speed cameras. These are put in place during motorway construction to protect workers. The network here has a speed limit of 70Mph, which is routinely considered by most as 90Mph. When lanes are reduced in width for construction the speed limit is set at 50. Using the same paradigm as above you can safely assume people will still burst through the construction zone at 70Mph. The avg. speed cam ensures that you do at or around 50Mph. In cases when the workers are actually there, I approve of the measure. At 2am, I do not, and feel these should only be active during working hours of the crews.

Any other average speed cameras, and they do exist in non construction zones, but are very rare, I do not approve of, in the slightest.

Secondly, having CCTV on a Bus is great. I was once threatened by four people on a London Bus, and luckily they didn't carry out their threats, but if they had then a conviction would have been simple due to video evidence. I support CCTV on public transport. It protects the bus, train or whatever from vandals, the users from assault and in the case that the crime happens anyway, great supporting evidence for conviction.

A society is nothing if it doesn't try to help others. The 'me, myself & I' approach posited here is kinda sad.

All of this, every bit, I agree with. Well put. I have noticed that a lot of Americas use the as you put it "my myself and I approach" assuming they should be totally self sufficient and independent and anyone else is a "pussy"

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Off the top of my head, the first that comes to mind is the 7/7 bombings.

In the video I linked to earlier in the thread, Corbett asserts that on the morning of those attacks, 75 of 76 cameras mysteriously malfunctioned for the most important 20 minutes before the bombing occurred. I'm not overly familiar with the bombing myself, but if that is true, then how did they really help in that case?

The story of the CCTV footage in the London Underground on 7/7 is equally unbelievable.

Just days after the bombing, Andy Trotter, the deputy chief constable of British Transport Police, bragged about the CCTV network in the Underground, claiming that there would be an intense investigation to sort through the images and identify the bombers. As it turned out, the police didn’t have much to look at after all.

Of the 76 cameras at King’s Cross that morning, 75 were malfunctioning during the 20 minute period which was coincidentally the exact period when the four alleged bombers were passing through the station.

Luckily for investigators, the one camera that was working in the Thameslink tunnel managed to capture an image of the four accused walking two-by-two. We are told that this image is so startling that the police officer who first saw it immediately identified them as the bombers.

Amazingly, this is the last image of three of the four men. There are no images of the supposed bombers buying their tickets for their supposed suicide bombing journey. No images of any of them boarding the trains. No images of them on the trains, despite the availability of CCTV from the trains.

The movements of the bus bomber, Hasib Hussain, are equally amazing. We are told that he entered a McDonald’s to insert a fresh 9V battery into his explosives, but there is no footage of this. The manager turned off the shop’s cameras before he entered.

He is alleged to have taken a number 91 bus along the Euston Road, but there is no footage from the camera on the bus. The Inspector in charge of the case can no longer even remember why the police were unable to find or use the footage from the bus’ cameras. They are simply unavailable.

He is alleged to have boarded the number 30 bus at Euston Station, the bus on which he is alleged to have activated his explosives, but there is no footage of this. The cameras on this bus were malfunctioning, too, and hadn’t recorded anything since the previous year.

Again and again we find that the surveillance system that is there to “protect” the public has an uncanny ability to break down just as it is most needed. And even if every one of these malfunction coincidences were actually coincidences, the lesson is still plain: if the criminals control the cameras, they can cover up their own crimes.