Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:10:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length

"Remain where you are, citizen!" - Talking CCTV camera madness

Started by duckorange, April 04, 2007, 01:01:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wasp_f15ting

Quote from: "arqarqa"
Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"
Since I have worked there have been numerous arrests which have been made simply because drunken psychopaths were followed.

Isn't the location of cameras in the vicinity of pubs just an easy option though? I've always seen that argument as something similar to the old adage about 'arriving before the fire'.

What happened to getting tough on the causes of crime?

I'm not suggesting that CCTV doesn't work per se but I'll bet that they're placed where they are, for the most part, so that figures can be quoted with regard to their 'success'.

Causes of crime eh? Well that would require societal change and economic equilibrium of the working classes. Since that kind of shit is far far away catching crime is important for evidence purposes. Now let me explain myself legally.

Say if someone is battered senslessly on a street outside a pub, you usually have several witnesses and the AP (the victim), the victim decides to press charges, now the witnesses have to agree to go to court to see the cases through. With the extremes of individualism in our society most people do not give a fuck if a girl has been beaten to one inch of her life, since it will impede on their wine parties which requires so much planning. So what happens? The AP presses charges, with the lack of witnesses willing to come forward the case falls flat on its ass.

Now, take the same case, many witnesses plus a CCTV camera with good quality real time visualisation, which A) Identifies the offender, B) Catches the offence. Now, this case goes to court, judge sees the evidence and the said offender is jailed.  Or in reality a plea bargain is agreed upon, and the offender is still jailed.

Now, even if the AP chickens out and pulls the charges, an affray can be filed for a serious assault. So from what I have seen it does work. Ofcourse there are limitations to it. But having it in city centres is an argument I cannot really argue against, simply due to the crimes which have been caught and later taken on into court.

Crime prevention is also possible, how so you may ask. If someone gets away with murder or a fire arms, then they are still out there. Surely catching them is worth more money than is being invested in the industry?

Quote from: "arqarqa"Isn't the location of cameras in the vicinity of pubs just an easy option though? I've always seen that argument as something similar to the old adage about 'arriving before the fire'.

What happened to getting tough on the causes of crime?

Quote from: "Uncle TechTip"Yeah, in that case, the cause of crime being, a pub!!
Are you joking? How is the cause of crime the pub and not, for example, the violent drunkard?

Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"
Causes of crime eh?

Well..erm, yes!

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Well that would require societal change and economic equilibrium of the working classes.

That remark in itself may well reveal your own social prejudices with regard to crime and punishment.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Now let me explain myself legally.

In no way have you described things 'legally'.

In fact:

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Crime prevention is also possible, how so you may ask. If someone gets away with murder or a fire arms, then they are still out there. Surely catching them is worth more money than is being invested in the industry?

All you're doing is defending the the industry. Why do you think the prison service was privatised in the first place? Have a word!

wasp_f15ting

So what do you personally believe to be the causes of crime? I am dying to hear a non - sociology 101 explanation of why crime happens.

It isn't the consumption of alcohol that makes people violent, it is the people who are generally violent inside, this leads to huge fights and terrible assaults on others. Instances where normal passers by have been knocked out for no reason occur quite often.

Having gone to other countries around the world, I have never witnessed the kind of barberism that is displayed by drunken people in the UK. So yes it is a social cause, this isn't something that can be remedied any time soon though.

As for the legal aspect of things, do you know how the CPS works? They work on "public interest" so if they get a AP who wishes to lodge a complaint and there is insubstantial evidence they don't let the case go forward. This is the mechanics of the British legal system there is no way around it. The CPS get so many crappy crimes going through them they aren't interested in an assault that no one witnessed, since to pursue that complaint will mean a significant expenditure of public monies.

I really can't see your argument against putting dangerous criminals in jail. Unless you think dangerous fuckwits with guns / knives should just roam the streets just because you want a freedom that really doesn't exist.

Seriously though, how free do you think you really are? Your ISP tracks everywhere you visit, there are thousands of tracker cookies installing themselves in your PC tracking your internet behaviour and send the data to a sever, further more your credit card company has a score on your credit behaviour, your credit worthyness and how well you pay your bills. Experian is given all of this data of your spending life, missed a bill? they have it..

I think particularly in the west we are under a dellusion we have  some kind of liberty, the moment you open a bank account, the moment you get a car the moment you sign a credit agreement you are in the system. Newer phones even have tracepoint GPS, which if you make a 999 phone call from they can find out the source of the call. So we are pretty much fucked..

General public surveilance in a city centre is useful even if it saves one or two lives, i.e the many drink drivers we catch yearly. The amount of your personal privacy lost is minimal, there are very strict guidlines as to what you can do whilst operating a CCTV camera.

No one person should take more than 10% of the screen whilst the camera is zoomed out, to see suspicious behaviour 25% of the screen can be occupied, to get an identity 50% can be occupied, if that said suspicious behaviour ceases with in 120 seconds you must stop following that person.

So big brother isn't watching you per se. Its only the scrots on the street that can be looked at.

I dunno how you think the control rooms work, but I gaurantee the image of what you think it is, and the reality of it are two different things.

wherearethespoons

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Instances where normal passers by have been knocked out for no reason occur quite often.

Er, no, it's because they've been attacked. Secondly, what exactly is a normal passer by?

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"So big brother isn't watching you per se. Its only the scrots on the street that can be looked at.

The fact that everyone walking past a camera is considered a possible suspect is a joke in the first place. If somebody wants to commit a 'crime' they'll do it regardless of whether there's a camera there or not (or if they are bothered about being seen in the act). Again, the fact that the act has been committed, the cameras aren't actually providing crime prevention, it's just witnessing it. But if a person (or 'criminal') is charged then it doesn't matter really, the 'crime' has already taken place.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"I dunno how you think the control rooms work, but I gaurantee the image of what you think it is, and the reality of it are two different things.

How could you possibly know that? That's such a vague and pointless thing to say.

wasp_f15ting

The point I am trying to make is, you can't simply charge someone with the victims statement these days, you need a witness.. Since most witnesses do not want to go to court, the CCTV helps in providing the evidence the CPS wants.

Say for example your pissed walking down a street, get caught by some scum and they try and rob you, yes you have been the victim of a crime, but with the network of cameras the offender (s) have been caught and detained before they do the same thing again. Now, for future reference the offenders faces and identity are known to not only the police on the ground, but the operators watching the streets.

One way this works is, say if an offendor commits a serious crime, they have an ASBO issued against them from entering the city centre, now from a CCTV standpoint, we see them and get them arrested for breach of ASBO. I simply cannot see how without CCTV these scum bags would be kept out of areas where they operate.

Fucking hell, I shouldn't be advocating this.. you know when you work somewhere you become apart of the culture? Its hard to distance yourself from what you believe and what your working environment makes you think. Ahh well. It works in one way, and it doesnt in another way.

Milo

Wait, you can get banned from entering the city centre?

wherearethespoons

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Say for example your pissed walking down a street, get caught by some scum and they try and rob you, yes you have been the victim of a crime, but with the network of cameras the offender (s) have been caught and detained before they do the same thing again. Now, for future reference the offenders faces and identity are known to not only the police on the ground, but the operators watching the streets.

One way this works is, say if an offendor commits a serious crime, they have an ASBO issued against them from entering the city centre, now from a CCTV standpoint, we see them and get them arrested for breach of ASBO. I simply cannot see how without CCTV these scum bags would be kept out of areas where they operate.

Let's say I was robbed, that surely implies some flaw in the policing system of this country in the first place? Secondly, if this person never commits another crime, it was a one off, what happens then?

Aren't prison sentences, particularly, supposed to be the debt a criminal has paid? That's bollocks when, as soon as they leave, they are suspected and 'known' criminals - if they had paid a debt to society then files and records of all their details wouldn't need to be kept. But I digress slightly.

Pinball

It sounds like the presence of a lot of CCTV cameras is a good indication that an area is shit and shouldn't be visited (if possible). There's certainly a good correlation, notwithstanding the ubiquitous nature of cameras.

London seems more like a John Carpenter nightmare every day, for example, but even there I've noticed that the better, usually richer areas have far fewer cameras. Hmmm.

Jack Shaftoe

Or more discreetly placed ones, due to stricter planning laws in those places.

Last week in my home town, a bunch of local pushed a student though a shop window, and continued hitting him. CCTV got every one of their faces (they each have eight or nine previous) otherwise they'd have got clean away.

My local high street is bloody scary at night - it's a seaside town, and the road runs parallel to the water, so everyone gets channelled down the same road. I'd like more police, but at least with CCTV there's a chance utter bastards will get caught. Maybe eventually they'll even think twice.

Fantastically, all the kids that flip their hoodies, thinking they'll be disguised, don't seem to realise their expensive limited edition trainers make them relatively easy to track.

Jack Shaftoe

This isn't to say I support at that 'face-recognition' shit, which would seem to have the visual acuity of a short-sighted man who's just been spun in a circle very fast. That seems like a clear case of fast-talking tech company ripping off the tax payer then getting the fuck out of dodge before anyone catches on.

But while a vicious minority of the british public insists on behaving like utter cunts, I'm all in favour of CCTV in public places, as long as its use is strictly regulated (which it seems to be) and it supplements policework, rather than replacing it.

Pinball

Quote from: "Jack Shaftoe"as long as its use is strictly regulated (which it seems to be)
As in being everywhere?? :-o

Jack Shaftoe

Er, no I mean as long as there are strict rules about their use.

*goes back to copy of Daily Mail*

(I'm 34 on sunday*, that may have something to do with all this)



* I am not Jesus.

wasp_f15ting

Quote from: "Pinball"
Quote from: "Jack Shaftoe"as long as its use is strictly regulated (which it seems to be)
As in being everywhere?? :-o

Now on this, i'll support you. As everything in government CCTV is corrupt, here is CCTV from somewhere called the printworks in the city centre:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpNZF0YsBGo

This is run by the company owning the printworks. The very nature of this video being on the internet shows many flaws in the system. Furthermore its worrying some cunt went in with a USB stick or whatever and recorded all of this for his own enjoyment.

There needs to be an independant comission to find out what kind of footage is actually being recorded. Once on youtube the same CCTV operator filmed girls undies when they were on a mechanical bull. All of his stuff was illegal, someone ratted on him and he was kicked out.

This footage taken by the same bloke is on youtube dunno how, but tis worrying...legally, morally and whatever is decent in our culture.

Pinball

Well yes, this proves the point. Everything will be misused, and "They" cannot be trusted. Personally, I would rather not give them any more power, control and knowledge about me than I can. Worrying times ahead methinks, not that the present is good either...

Jack Shaftoe

Oh I see, sorry Pinball, I misunderstoood.

I just haven't seen any cases of misuse of CCTV that made me think 'right, that's it, the whole thing should be scrapped'. I would like to see more public access to the records though - webcams on street corners that anyone can log onto sounds like a potentially good thing to me.

Also potentially hell on toast as well, I suppose.

Pinball

In the future, I wonder if we'll be able to look back and define the actual year we lost our freedom? Or has that year already passed?

I suspect some time will elapse beyond that point before people realise the secret reality, however.

monkhouse terror

Quote from: "Pinball"In the future, I wonder if we'll be able to look back and define the actual year we lost our freedom?
define "freedom" first.

Pinball


Vaguely Phallic

The loss of our liberties is happening so gradually, one step at a time, that we won't be able to pinpoint the moment we lost our freedom. Moreover, for each generation brought up, what seem like infringements to us will be the norm for them. If that's all a person knows they're not going to sense any loss. That's not to say people will be happy with their way of life. Perhaps stress and other illnesses that result in unhappiness will rise as our civil liberties continue to be curtailed. On the other hand, if a person is conditioned into believing they should be automatically answerable to the state before any reasonable criminal charges have been brought against them, for the benefit of society as a whole, and privacy becomes a suspicious desire of the past, maybe people will feel a big jolly sense of unity.

The stripping of our human rights is not something the last couple of governments are responsible for though. Any government, from an old communist state to your local council today, operates more efficiently when it's easier for them to get the information they require to do their job. This is common sense. And so it is in their interests to support measures like CCTV and ID cards, because for a single department that can get data at their fingertips there is no big picture to worry about; that's our problem as citizens. Technology makes this infinitely easier, and if CCTV was available in Queen Victoria's day they would have gone for it.

One of the the next major steps to occur is it will be deemed suspicious to criticise and protest against any measure which has the potential to reduce crime and terrorism. I'm starting to notice through colleagues and some friends an awkwardness when discussing the subject of privacy, government and protests, as if it's a subject one shouldn't talk about. The way any civil protest is contained through an out-of-proportion number of police officers (and helicopters, which make people feel like instant powerless fugitives) is bound to make people afraid to show how they feel for fear of being labelled extremists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'

A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and -- one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency -- bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.


PS Sorry if this post seems a bit poncey. I edited out the "I think"s as they told me to in school and it might make it seem a bit patronising to the esteemed people on this forum! I just wanted to add the poem and extract of 1984 because they represent my fears.

Hypnotoad.

Quote from: "Vaguely Phallic"words

Well said, *sir!




*or Madam, of course.....

Vaguely Phallic

Thank you. I'm all boy. Another thing.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"[...]General public surveilance in a city centre is useful even if it saves one or two lives[...]

How do you compare the cost of saving lives to liberty? You can't because they'd be different units of measurement. So it's not logical to say so. There might be an argument in saying "Electronic public surveillance is worth it compared to more police on the streets because these figures in this independent report show the cost savings and increased crime reduction." But then you still have to weigh up the loss of privacy and how that affects society, which is difficult. It's not reasonable to say anything's worth saving lives/protecting children though, when whatever it is that aids in this gives more potential for a government to abuse their power.

By the way, I'm not saying I'm against CCTV in city centres, but once it becomes talking CCTV and then this spreads to suburban areas (i.e. the next step - you've got nothing to hide so why should you mind? And we'll place it in your living room one day once you're used to it incase you have a heart attack) I have a big problem with the change in the relationship it creates between citizen and government.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Now on this, i'll support you. As everything in government CCTV is corrupt, here is CCTV from somewhere called the printworks in the city centre:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpNZF0YsBGo

There needs to be an independant comission to find out what kind of footage is actually being recorded.

If you* got attacked in the street and the CCTV footage helped identify, prosecute, and put away the dick who did it, I think you'd be glad for it.

*not you specifically

Milo

Quote from: "SteveLampkins"If you* got attacked in the street and the CCTV footage helped identify, prosecute, and put away the dick who did it, I think you'd be glad for it.

I have twice been the victim of random violent attackings and I really couldn't give a toss if the people go to prison or not, I just don't want it to happen again. I'm not convinced that CCTV prevents it.

I wonder if that's the difference in views. CCTV seems mainly concerned with helping to get revenge (or justice, etc) rather than stopping crime in the first place. I don't really want revenge, I just want to be safe.

Vaguely Phallic

You have to be right when it comes to thoughtless drunken brawling. But I can't resist the obvious: if the person who attacks you gets locked up surely it's less likely to occur again.

Anyway, what angers me is the sheer lack of subtlety with the competition for children to be the talking CCTV voice. Surely people realise this is only being done to get children behind this aspect of technology, so they won't question other future further shifts in the balance of power between state and individual. Well clearly not enough people do realise this or there'd be an outcry. So I suppose I'm angry that we're unlikely to get any more protests in future against this type of thing; that the line seems to have been crossed. Well maybe people are against this but it's not made the news. One thing's for sure: if my child was involved (yeah okay, if I had a child) they'd better ask for permission first so I can refuse.

Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"So what do you personally believe to be the causes of crime? I am dying to hear a non - sociology 101 explanation of why crime happens.

This is moving away slightly from what I was getting at. i.e. CCTV is not the way to stop crime. I agree that alcohol can make already violent people more violent. It can also make them tearfully apologetic. Likewise the sweetest of things can become a total cunt after a few glasses of wine.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"As for the legal aspect of things, do you know how the CPS works?

Yep. And two 'old' policemen I've had the pleasure of knowing have put forward very convincing arguments as to why policing should be left to policemen (and most specifically senior officers when charges are to be brought) instead of the "point-scoring" scheme offered by the CPS. Coppers know who the one-man crimewaves are, so to speak.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"I really can't see your argument against putting dangerous criminals in jail

I'm not arguing that at all. CCTV doesn't discourage violent crime. Last time I saw any figures I wasn't convinced that CCTV reduces crime either.  Judging by the argument for cameras and their abundance in general, we should be seeing better results, surely?

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"Seriously though, how free do you think you really are? Your ISP tracks everywhere you visit, there are thousands of tracker cookies installing themselves in your PC tracking your internet behaviour and send the data to a sever, further more your credit card company has a score on your credit behaviour, your credit worthyness and how well you pay your bills. Experian is given all of this data of your spending life, missed a bill? they have it..

Pretty much my argument there :)  All of these things are small parts of the road we've been pushed along. You hardly notice until you look at the bigger picture....

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"General public surveilance in a city centre is useful even if it saves one or two lives

Or maybe the longer that the causes of crime aren't addressed it's easy pickings for surveillance companies to provide the courts with feedstock with every violent assault and drunken murder they zoom in on?


Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"The amount of your personal privacy lost is minimal, there are very strict guidlines as to what you can do whilst operating a CCTV camera.

And I bet those guidelines are followed to the letter, eh?  Excuse the sarcasm. They're a cash cow for the CCTV companies because they can't fail to find the easiest targets. The causes of crime are of no interest to these people and a privatised prison service is just begging for 'customers'.

Quote from: "wasp_f15ting"So big brother isn't watching you per se. Its only the scrots on the street that can be looked at.

And meanwhile... the features are added....

Pinball

Big Brother is watching us, waspy. In fact, you're one of the fuckers ;-)

After the physical control will come the psychological conditioning, and as has been alluded to we're already seeing the beginnings of that. Talking in favour of privacy will become as publicly unacceptable as sexism.

Milo

Quote from: "Vaguely Phallic"But I can't resist the obvious: if the person who attacks you gets locked up surely it's less likely to occur again.

I guess that's what it boils down to - all sorts of 'potential' crimes might be stopped.

Wilbur

It just doen't work.

My home town is a fucking war zone from about Thursday at 8pm until Monday 5am.

We have bouncers outside Alldays.

We have about three hundred cameras.

You cannot go anywhere in the town without being filmed. The increase in arrests ? Virtually none. Extra convictions ? Virtually none. Is it a good trade off? No its fucking not and I resent it.

Another argument against  (which sounds a bit contradictory but isn't, its a different demographic). A local village was having "youth problems". So Uncle Sainsbury  agrred to pay for CCTV (in exchange for planning permission). End result is they have moved half a mile down the road to our estate which is far too big for the Police to patrol and has led to daily smashed bush shelters, keyed cars, broken windows and the rest.


CCTV alienates people. It is uncivilised. I despise it and cannot believe (well I suppose I have to) that we have willingly walked down this path.

Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: "Wilbur"
CCTV alienates people. It is uncivilised.

Indeed it rubber-stamps an unhealthy sense of one's relationship with authority (and one's image of where one fits within the general order of things).  "Something to hide" or not, we're all potential criminals now... eh, proles?