UK has cameras every place

[question everything]

which is used, apparently, to help fight crime. Right now, with all the murders of prostitutes a camera mounted on a train caught one of the victim shortly before she was killed.

Will this ever cross the Atlantic? How would DUers feel about this?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. If it's in public it's fine with me.

I've been in a couple of flame wars with people who got ticketed for running red lights because of the cameras.

But I like them.

[originalpckelly]

3. They don't prevent crimes...

they simply record them.

Anyone willing to rob another person, is not thinking or they wouldn't be robbing the other person. (Or what ever else crime might be thought of.) It doesn't really protect the victims.

They also record activities of political protesters, whom the videos may be used against at a future date. (I.e. retribution.)

They certainly do not prevent terrorism, look at the 7/7 bombings. It's common sense that someone who's about to blow themselves up won't be too interested if they are caught on tape. Hell they might even like that because it will help spread the fear of their terrorist groups acts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Well, using that logic...

neither do police, courts, or prisons.

[Az]

10. They don't

Cops do not arrest people for thinking about doing a crime. They arrest them after the fact. Education and establishing social connectivity is a far more efficient method of preventing crime than putting people out there looking for it to happen.

[question everything]

34. If someone just robbed a bank, or a person

and there is a cop nearby, s/he in theory can chase the robber and catch him.

But if you just have a camera, by the time you see the crime in action that robber can be miles away.

[951-Riverside]

39. a robber can easily foil the camera by wearing a ski mask or hoodie....

Next you folks in the UK will have to line up so they can implant you with RFID chips. *moooo* or *baaa*

[originalpckelly]

12. Gee, what are sting operations?

Cops can and do protect unwilling victims from willing criminals all the time. However, I do see your point. By helping to record the criminal's illegal activities, it becomes easier to arrest and detain someone to prevent further victims from being harmed.

The real question I suppose, is what poses a greater risk: a government which knows what all of its citizens are doing every moment or a criminal being caught a few days/months/years later.

We should always remember that governments enabled to tyranny have killed millions of people, criminals kill relatively smaller numbers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. ...

Is having a camera monitor a busy intersection for red light runners any different than paying a cop to sit at that same intersection 24 hours per day?

[originalpckelly]

24. No, and that might be a very good argument against that...

it won't prevent a traffic incident, if any laws are broken the cop will simply be right there to arrest someone or pull them over and give them a ticket.

I always find it odd how there are so many traffic cops out near the end of the month, yet not at the beginning, what do people speed only at the end month? It's less about law enforcement than it is about money.


In general, the idea of surveillance is that someone is suspected of a crime. Most people wouldn't allow a cop to follow them around wherever they went. Why allow a video camera to do that?

It's a presumption of guilt, a presumption which is not supposed to exist until someone has convicted of a crime.

[Az]

14. Not really

Sting operations target criminal endevours that have already taken victims. People that are already breaking the law.

[originalpckelly]

26. Turn on Cops, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Most people don't consider themselves to be victimized by a prostitute, however, there are sting operations which catch them all the time.

[Az]

33. Ah... thats just oppression

I am actually for the legalization of prostitution. The notion of laws against consentual acts of adults in a free society is patently absurd. The fact that they are arresting people for that is just an argument against the power of the government.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Banks use them... Convenience stores use them...

The criminals generally know there are video cameras. Has it stopped crime?

[GoneOffShore]

41. If you like the cameras move here to Philly

They're all over the place.

You can't walk up past Independence Hall without getting put on the surveillance cam that sits in the bell tower. And they've got the Liberty Bell surrounded with the damn things.

Yeah, they're a great idea. Just like National ID cards!

:sarcasm:

[MazeRat7]

2. There are not enough "public" cameras...

Personally, I prefer high-res satellite photos but today only the wing-nuts in the government have access to that technology. So, with that being off the table, I would love nothing more than to have a grid of publicly accessible cameras in my city for viewing the general population.

MZr7

[Beelzebud]

4. Totally against this type of invasion of privacy...

[annabanana]

5. creeps me out

sorry..

I find it objectionable that the entire population is being treated as potential perps...

[originalpckelly]

30. DING DING DING! We have a winner!

There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence, but there is no such thing when a security camera is around.

Everyone is being followed around by police officers and mall cops, and I can guarantee you that very few people would allow that to happen if they could see the cops.

[GoneOffShore]

38. Thank you - Presumption of innocence

And the presence of cameras changes peoples behaviour and not necessarily in a good way.

Seemingly innocent acts can be misconstrued when viewed out of context by these cameras. And innocent people can (and probably are - no citations, no evidence) be mistaken for perpetrators of crimes.

Sure, put up cameras on every street corner. Observe every citizen. Make everyone carry their "papers" all the time. Then we'll be 'really safe'!
:sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

42. Oh heck, that whole Presumption of Innocence bit was pre-9/11 thinking.

It doesn't matter anymore.
:sarcasm:

[spanone]

7. Dublin, Ireland....everywhere.

[treestar]

8. Was it mounted there for another reason?

Could be terra. :hide:

7-11 tapes have shown things like that too.

They can't have cameras everywhere - maybe in a train station it makes sense, in a bank, etc., as we already do. If the private entity, like a store, wants to have them, fine, but the government should not make them (here at least). But they can hardly cover the entire public space, and at what point are there diminishing returns? Crime is bad, but only so bad. It is still the exception rather than the rule in most places.

In my city they have cameras at intersections where there were allegedly high numbers of drug deals. So the drug deals move up the street or into houses. Well, we cleaned up those intersections, at least.

And one concern is the next will be cameras in your house; plenty of crime takes place inside the home.

[Selatius]

9. I read an article somewhere which basically said privacy rights in the UK were the weakest in...

the industrialized world. I don't know if that's true or not, but the fact that they have security cameras everywhere makes me draw comparisons to Orwell's 1984.

[sweetheart]

19. and yet, privacy is amazingly good

If number of camera's deployed is the measure, then perhaps indeed, but
if privacy includes not having the media making spurious claims about citizens
and screwing with their lives, for televising trials or perverting the course of
justice, both areas where UK is much more private than the US. The media are
not allowed to simply go on fishing expeditions to attack and destroy peoples
reputations for entertainment purposes, and can be sued to bankruptcy if they do.

Its good reason, why rich artists who can afford to, live in the UK, like madonna,
where, she can still live a regular family life for the privacy.

The police in the UK, are nothing even remotely as evil as US police. They have
very strong respect for privacy and are much closer to a public servant than anything
i've ever seen stateside.

Its true, that the police are given surveillance powers via the cameras to prevent
IRA bombings and whatnot, especially when driving a vehicle in the UK, there are
cameras everyeverywhere. These cameras, and their uses are overseen by parliament,
so there are checkpoints on unfettered police powers.

European data privacy laws are better than US corporate 'voluntary' codes that are
resulting in all these heinous breaches of data privacy by US corporations. The huge
profession of private lists and information firms of US ilk, is not in business the
other side of the atlantic.

For those reasons, i find in the UK to be much more private.

New NHS computers stand to make a monkeys of this, but they're not running yet.

If you are stopped by police in UK, you have 1 week to show your drivers license at
the police station... they can't just ask you for your papers (yet!).

When i read that post, i immediately said to myself, 'that must be wrong.' yet i expect
that the comment comes from the number of cameras deployed per capita. But a camera is
indeed a light touch.... and i've not had police grabbing me and pushing me like the US
police who love to get in people's faces and prove that they have the right to shake
people around.

[LiberalFighter]

22. I wonder how many corrupt police per 1000 there are in UK vs USA

[sweetheart]

32. don't know if statistics are calculable

In searching and reading around, i found this report on british
police corruption. The numbers are very small indeed, around 101
cases over several years for the UK (pp. 25)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr1103.pdf

This source from the world bank gives comparative indexes that
show the UK to be less corrupt than the US... but the numbers are
pretty meaningless outside the comparative context:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ethics.xls

Anecdotal evidence suggests that US police corruption is mostly due
to the escalated drugs war, and the vigilante attitude cops take given
that cannabis is as common as coffee in american life.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/corrupt.htm

You can't have a graph like this without intense corruption:

[LiberalFighter]

20. Anyone remember the British show "The Prisoner"?

The premise was that a Cold War era spy resigns. His bosses do not believe the reasons he gave in his resignation letter and so have him kidnapped and taken to "The Village." This village is not run by any one government — it works for any government — and all sorts of people are there to have their secrets extracted or kept there until they die so that no other government can know their secrets. McGoohan's character is assigned a number - - Number 6 - - upon his arrival. No one is to use names in the village.

He immediately takes offense at being Shanghaied and sets about escaping. To do so he is always battling in a game of wits against the people who run the village.

Interpretation by website owner
Each episode is a reflection of both the current (and foreseen) operation of society as well as a profile of both No 6, and the people he deals with.

Sometimes it is an allegory of the village - society - trampling down on the individual for the greater "good" of society; most of the time it is "good vs. evil" with some shades of gray thrown in to make you think about what is on the surface is good but when overused or mis-used turns into evil.

It also is a warning that if people act differently from how they are expected to act then they are singled out to be watched over as a perceived threat to the society.

[question everything]

40. Yes, was an excellent program

and cameras were following the every move of each person there.

And "1984" does come to mind, too.

Of course, now there are satellite photos of every corner of the globe. Not that I have ever done this but can you imagine tanning in the nude in your backyard knowing that there are satellites taking pictures of you? And if you've ever used Google earth, you can see how sharp and close they are.

[LiberalFighter]

45. I've looked at my place with Google and it is at least 3 years old

It has a car that didn't work in my driveway and there is a house at the end that isn't shown in the map.

[Squatch]

11. A camera isn't a police officer.

ie. it's only effective AFTER the crime has occured.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Cameras Don't Stop Crime, and are a Big Invasion of Privacy

Better lighting does more to stop crime than cameras.

[WinkyDink]

17. Gives me the CREEPS. Who wants their every move watched?

Where is the Freedom of Assembly then??

[kineneb]

18. just makes me want to go there to flip them off

"there goes that bloody American giving us the finger again"

[Crandor]

21. I'd be fine with them.

What is with all the people complaining about how they're an invasion of privacy? When you're out of the house you already have no privacy.

[originalpckelly]

29. Would like a police officer or private security guard to follow you around

wherever you go, without you choosing?

[Matariki]

23. Did you see the news item about the loud speakers attached to some of those cameras?

some person monitors the cameras and if they catch someone breaking some petty law they broadcast an admonition - like, 'take your bicycle off the sidewalk' or 'pick that up and use the rubbish can'. Uber creepy.

[originalpckelly]

27. Comrades, please touch your toes, anyone under 45 ought to be able to touch their toes...

It's really not at all different from 1984, but what do we expect from a country which is not based upon popular sovereignty?

[AnnInLa]

25. Was just in London for 10 days in September

and I noticed all the cameras....and, I felt safer with them about. I had no expectation of "privacy" in public places. Also, from my hotel room window one night I observed the following: a bunch of police walking two by two down the road, slowly and methodically examining every thing on the ground, in the bushes, under parked cars, in dumpsters, just everywhere. At one point, something was found on the street, and the rest of the officers were called over and all of them shone their flashlights on whatever it was, and they discussed it. Finally one picked it up, examined it, and then threw it away. Met my friend the next night at the local pub, and they explained that it was a terrorist training exercise for new officers. They were so slow, methodical and thorough! I was impressed.

I am a regular on several London travel message boards/forums, and the London natives certainly have no problem with the cameras....in fact, think they are useful, and are glad they are there. So, if the citizens have no problems with them, neither do I. Also don't think I would have a problem if there were cameras placed around where I live.

[originalpckelly]

28. How would you like a police officer or private security guard to follow you around...

wherever you go?

How is the surveillance camera any different?

[951-Riverside]

43. *baaaaaaa*

Feeling safe and actually being safe is two different things. Of course they want you to feel great while they are raping you and your friends of basic human rights.

The cameras can't and won't prevent crime... Think about it.

[GoneOffShore]

44. I lived in the UK in the 70's and won't go back there now

as much because of the surveillance cameras as the high prices.

Also the police powers are far greater than they are here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1181972

It's a lot closer to a completely surveilled society than it was when I lived there.

A good many citizens there have had these cameras foisted upon them by the great "nanny state' mentality that exists in the UK.

[walldude]

31. What makes you think they aren't already in use in the US?

I don't know about anywhere else but they are all over in Colorado. Big brother has been watching for awhile now. Not to mention satellite survellience. The only privacy you have left is inside your own head.

[951-Riverside]

36. Now they want to fly those UAV drones over major cities.

...to search for missing children they said. :rofl:

[951-Riverside]

35. It didn't prevent the public transportation bombings, the radiation poisoning....

the random street crimes, vandalism, etc.

Keep your stupid TV licensing, CCTV cameras, useless royally and the rest of the crap you people put up with on your side of the ocean.

Thanks You.

:patriot:

[originalpckelly]

37. I know, the first time I found out about that TV Licensing bit...

I was totally shocked. I mean I understand that they all benefit from the BBC, but you can't choose to not watch the BBC and still not have the license. It's pretty terrifying to hear they have that much control over the media.

And add to that, the fact that in law they still aren't a real democracy. The queen still is considered the sovereign not the people.

It's pretty fucked up if you ask me.

One last thing, I can guarantee you there wouldn't have been a Revolution in America with the CCTV cameras.