A question for you Britons here.......
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
im not a fan of having them every where on the streets but they dont really bother me much ,
and the privately owned ones in pubs n shops and the like really arent much of an issue round my little part of the uk as half of them are just there for show n not even connected to anything , and the other half have a resolution so low they'd struggle to identify hagrid in a croud of toddlers.
(im guessing there's some kinda insurance benefits to putting cams up)
and the privately owned ones in pubs n shops and the like really arent much of an issue round my little part of the uk as half of them are just there for show n not even connected to anything , and the other half have a resolution so low they'd struggle to identify hagrid in a croud of toddlers.
(im guessing there's some kinda insurance benefits to putting cams up)
Nice Slippery Slope Fallacy, there.Gunner 51 said:
I don't care much. I live out in a small town so there are none around here, and I've never noticed any in the streets when I am elsewhere. Even so, they're only ever put in public places anyway, so it's no different than if someone was actually there.
Why should it matter whether I'm seen by some passer-by or a camera?
Edit;
Oh, and CCTV cams installed in shops or private property are owned and put there by the management of that shop or the properties owner, respectively.
I can't say it has ever bothered me. I don't go around commiting crimes, and people who do tend to cover their faces as mentioned before. Anyway, whenever a show like Crimewatch has CCTV footage, the resolution is so bad that I can never tell who they are anyway.
Only cameras we have around here are in major points (if 'major' even applies to Cannock in any sense of the word) of the shopping centre. They don't bother me to be fair, whatever helps security stopping the layabout trying to shank me over who was in line for a Greggs sausage roll first.
On the question of privacy - no. They're in public places or have been set up by private businesses in their own premises. Setting up a camera in an area that could be expected to be private without informing the users would be illegal.
Does it bother me? Yes, but for specific reasons to do with their deployment. The original plan was that they'd be accessories, tools to work alongside the police. Instead in some cases they became replacements. Rather than have a few police officers patrol an area instead set up cameras and have one operator monitoring 12 screens (or more). Then it got worse. Rather than being active in that a crime could be seen and called in; they became more reactive. Once a crime has been committed then pull up the CCTV footage to see if the perpetrators can be identified.
So if they're being monitored at all they're sharing time with other cameras and screens so provided a criminal takes basic precautions it could be said they have a lower likelihood of being caught than they would have been with random patrols.
Does it bother me? Yes, but for specific reasons to do with their deployment. The original plan was that they'd be accessories, tools to work alongside the police. Instead in some cases they became replacements. Rather than have a few police officers patrol an area instead set up cameras and have one operator monitoring 12 screens (or more). Then it got worse. Rather than being active in that a crime could be seen and called in; they became more reactive. Once a crime has been committed then pull up the CCTV footage to see if the perpetrators can be identified.
So if they're being monitored at all they're sharing time with other cameras and screens so provided a criminal takes basic precautions it could be said they have a lower likelihood of being caught than they would have been with random patrols.
Living in Liverpool, arguably renowned as one of the 'crime' hotspots in the country then i say that the increased incidence of cameras has done jack shit to the levels of crime. There still at nearly the same levels they were before all the cameras were installed. They don't make as much of a difference as the pro-camera people would have you believe as the criminals just employ the age old tactic of 'covering your damn face up so nobody can see who you are' or they just vandalize the camera.
I think some one mentioned the average speed cameras we have on a lot of the motorways here in the UK too. If you don't know how they work then basically, a camera by the roadside identifies your car by the reg and then measures the time it takes for your car to pass by another roadside camera a fixed distance away. Form this result the speed is calculated over the distance between the cameras and a fine and points are issued automatically if your going too fast. Now this sounds fine in theory but is quite dangerous in practice.
Because what happens is that people see the camera and think 'shit gonna have to be careful here' so they have one eye glued to the speedo and aren't concentrating properly on the road ahead where someone else hasn't been paying so much attention to his speed but then glances down and notices he is going too fast so slams on to slow down, the driver behind does'nt notice in time for the aforementioned reason and promptly slams into the car that has slowed down cue ambulances, firemen and police closing the motorway while people get cut out of cars and the traffic wombles keeping it closed for hours more so they can pick up all the bits of smashed car.
I think some one mentioned the average speed cameras we have on a lot of the motorways here in the UK too. If you don't know how they work then basically, a camera by the roadside identifies your car by the reg and then measures the time it takes for your car to pass by another roadside camera a fixed distance away. Form this result the speed is calculated over the distance between the cameras and a fine and points are issued automatically if your going too fast. Now this sounds fine in theory but is quite dangerous in practice.
Because what happens is that people see the camera and think 'shit gonna have to be careful here' so they have one eye glued to the speedo and aren't concentrating properly on the road ahead where someone else hasn't been paying so much attention to his speed but then glances down and notices he is going too fast so slams on to slow down, the driver behind does'nt notice in time for the aforementioned reason and promptly slams into the car that has slowed down cue ambulances, firemen and police closing the motorway while people get cut out of cars and the traffic wombles keeping it closed for hours more so they can pick up all the bits of smashed car.
Privacy: uneffected people can SEE YOU outside.. seriously what's the difference between that and a camera anyway?Saucycardog said:
really?
right.
safety? plegh.. probably makes it less safe because actual criminals will hide their faces so getting an id of them is paradoxically less likely as the helmet/face-mask idea spreads so you wont even get vague descriptions any-more
it's only the concealed spy-cameras that really deliver the goods, if you make criminals paranoid about cameras they'll just cover up.
mostly it's a waste of money and power.
but it makes brilliant you-tube videos so i don't mind.
he also said "most surveillance cameras than any other"Hookman said:
If you're going to nitpick, do it with class and do your job.
No, not really. The surveillance cameras are in shops and on high streets, both areas which I technically don't own, so if the government wants to watch me using their streets, or if a shopkeeper wants to watch me shopping in their shop, or if my university wants to watch me use their library, then that's fine by me since I have no right to make rules about what they do with their property. If the cameras were in my house or something, then I'd be complaining about breach of privacy, but since the cameras are in places accessible to the general public, we can't argue that the things we do there are meant to be private.Saucycardog said:
Unless your commiting crimes there should be no real issue really, they are there to help reduce crime and catch criminals when a crime is commited (and they do work), they are generally used to direct the police to criminals running rather than identifying them (as any crim with half a brain will know to wear a mask).
Either way it doesn't bother me.
Either way it doesn't bother me.
This.Sleekit said:
Regarding the 'giant waste of money' part, so are a lot of things the government do...
It doesn't bother me that they're there in regards to privacy, as they don't look into my house or anything. But don't be mislead - this isn't like 1984 - you don't walk down the street only to have cameras ominously following you. In fact, I've hardly noticed. Of course they're outside quite a few shops or banks but that can be expected.
I still think it is a slippery slope. But I'm the kind of guy who would like my private life to remain just that. If I want to go to the chemist for some prophylactics or even take a shower - I don't want to be videotaped doing it on the grounds that it's embarrassing and intrusive. (Even if I don't notice it, I still think it's morally wrong to videotape someone without their consent.)MGlBlaze said:
But the cameras are everywhere. Not just ones that log your whereabouts, but we're talking speed cameras too. Those things have people diverting their attention from the road to their speedometers.
I don't see how inconveniencing and spying on the public all the time justifies catching a few drunken fools on a Friday night. The means don't justify the ends.
Btw the term is "Britons" you yankie dumbass.
Also the word is said "Al-oo-min-ee-um" you hick prick
I'll stop now.
Anyways the cameras ain't in our goddamn bedrooms dude, the fact that we have so many is down to us bieng in a downwards social spiral where dozens of benefits bottom feeders eponentially produce dozens of little chav children that fill the streets with crime. Just look at the recent riots.
So I like the cameras.
Also the word is said "Al-oo-min-ee-um" you hick prick
I'll stop now.
Anyways the cameras ain't in our goddamn bedrooms dude, the fact that we have so many is down to us bieng in a downwards social spiral where dozens of benefits bottom feeders eponentially produce dozens of little chav children that fill the streets with crime. Just look at the recent riots.
So I like the cameras.
Hold on a bloody second I just read this and, WHAT?Caligulas.dog said:
I have never encountered any of this sort of thing in all my 16 years of living here.
The only place I'd expect to encounter such a thing is in YOUR country of Germany (Circa 1942)
I call thee a LIAR!
It used to really bother me, its an invasion of privacy, and the government should not have to watch your every move. I can barely leave my house without being on camera.
But. As the recent vandalism and criminal acts in London and other cities showed, CCTV has its use. Its helped to prosecute hundreds of scumbags involved in the vandalism and looting, and now I'm having a moral struggle with my opinion on it. On one hand I still object to the idea of CCTV, but seeing how useful it has been and how much it has aided the police, I find it harder to take such an Anti stance as I used to.
But. As the recent vandalism and criminal acts in London and other cities showed, CCTV has its use. Its helped to prosecute hundreds of scumbags involved in the vandalism and looting, and now I'm having a moral struggle with my opinion on it. On one hand I still object to the idea of CCTV, but seeing how useful it has been and how much it has aided the police, I find it harder to take such an Anti stance as I used to.
In my opinion, if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. Personally I have nothing against them seeing as a friend of mine got attacked in town once (live just outside Bristol) thanks to CCTV the 3 guys who attacked him got caught and paid damages.