Street cameras (CCTV)

Should we not be concerned with the ever increasing sophistication in the ability to monitor our every move through CCTV in our streets and communities; or are street cameras the effective tool that will combat crime, and the causes of crime?

 

The latter.

 

It's a tricky one. I'm in two minds about them because my friend was almost raped in the street and if it wasn't for the CCTV the police wouldn't have been able to stop the attack from happening.

 

It seems as if I've tried to start a non starter here. Is this an old discussion?

 

Yes.

 

In my opinion, the only way things will get out of control is if they start putting camera's in our homes. Otherwise, it's all for our own safety. What other logical purpose would there be for them other than that?

 

Im not really bothered about them, I mean if I was worried it would be because I had something to hide, but I dont so I dont mind them. These new cameras on the dual carriageways im not keen on, but thats because they could catch me speeding.

 

I love cameras on the roads, just wish it would make people drive slower rather than just raise revenue for the government.

Cameras in city centres can only be an assistance to the police regarding thugish behaviour, can't think of them anywhere else really.

 

I'm shit scared of what's to come regarding our accountability. I can understand the merits of being watched. I also can see logic in the cheap argument of:

'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.'

One thing I do know, some of the systems that are being installed around Sunderland aren't trying to be discrete; placed in strategic areas, twenty to thirty foot black pillars with a crown of spikes facing downwards, two to three foot in diameter with an camera having full access. It's funny, there can be a local planning outcry over the placing of a street bench regarding its aesthetics but these things seem above any such analysis or evaluation. They also all seem to be in council estates, so are these communities not being ghettoized by these fuckin' things?

Added with the talk of bi-metric ID cards there is soon to be an ability to have full understanding of not only individuals but socail make ups/demographics, habits and traits. If we begin to think that these cards maybe used for buying and spending as a means of living in a cashless system then real analysis can be made of us as individuals and groups. There maybe nothing to fear but there are real meglamaniacs who have control over how we live now, and there is a growing will with them to have more, that's my fear; I know it sounds paranoid and I've been reading too much Huxley and Orwell but there are truths coming to light from their (fiction).

 

I think residents, ask them to be there.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207261&page=8&pp=10

Have you ever read Harry Potter ?. That has more truth, within it than any of those 'classics'. Well , to be fair. That is not true, i'm just bored of hearing about the supposed links those old books have to our way of living. It is a question of taste. i imagine.

 

[/QUOTE]
Harry Potter; ok? Cheap, but I can live with it. It's a question of taste? Yeah, like now you can buy Soma, and watch Celebrity Big Borther. The reference to the teleports that echoes, to an extent, our televisions and PC's, and how these can be monitored and used to seduce and shape opinion, ultimately our way of living.

I appreciate that this debate may have been done to death, especially with reference to these two authors, but as for asking the residents about the CCTV towers..... I know that I'm a lone voice on this side of the arguement but my concerns aren't the immediate, they are for the foundations being laid down for what's in store down the road, 10/20 years ahead. Ok, why should I be concerned after all I'll be an old man by then. I recognise the links and why its there regarding the ID thread. I'll say no more about it.

If we are going to really combat crime and the causes of crime shouldn't we be looking to support people to make real and truthfull informed decisions about how they may wish to develop in their lives, or do we always need toilet cleaners and bin collectors? Just as long its not me, Jack!!!!

Crime is with us just as the hands and feet attached to us, there will always be evil fuckers. I'm not some wishy washy liberal, there are some people who will not only bite off the hand that gives but will take the fucking arm. But I feel we can all understand most crime to be economic, linked to poverty, possibly. Putting CCTV in our communities is a mechanism that is detached and only monitors and records the crime, the crime has been committed. Again, and I know this to be happening, aren't the street police, bobby on the beat, the most effective means of combating crime?

 

I do understand where your emotions lie and I'd agree that every human is capable of care and consideration of another, all they need is someone to spare them the time and offer them the opportunity, trouble is no-ones got the time or the inclination, and if they have they're usually classed as interfering do-gooders.

People have no reason to be considerate of others, take what you can whilst no-ones looking, you see it everywhere around you, there are no consequences to ones actions, god is dead after all. I'm afraid your going to need a few more cameras and some heavily armed police before we're anywhere near through.

Bobby on the beat! No-one wants to pay the taxes for it especially the middle class to assist the poor.

 

I'm deeply unsettled by the rise and acceptance of CCTV surveillance. Many of the responses in this thread along the lines of "they're for our own good, obviously" demonstrate that people have got used to this invasion of privacy and transgression of civil liberties over the past couple of decades as it has grown to be an almost invisible part of our lives.

Doubtless there are some instances (and some locations) where CCTV is useful and important. But what's problematic is the gradual encroaching of the technology into every aspect of our lives, the linking up of databses and software tools to identify and track individuals, and the increasing acceptance that we must forfeit some aspects of our privacy and civil liberties in the cause of some (dubious) claims about crime - actually more to do with placating the artificial fear of crime than actually combatting crime.

Technology which links a database of people with their actual movements in the world through face recognition and number-plate recognition is a serious breach of civil liberties. It assumes guilt and monitors and tracks our movements waiting and watching for us to commit crimes. This is a real move towards a police state, and, like the ID card, a reversal of our traditional liberties where we are assumed innocent and free and systems of policing only get involved with us as individuals once problems have arisen.

CCTV does not deter or prevent crime, it displaces it, and is no replacement for genuine community policing. One could argue that it adds to the sense of alienation in our streets - where our only contact with the police is through a CCTV camera or as they zoom past in their cars and vans.

Like I said, there are some places where limited use of CCTV is probably a good idea. Having CCTV which is capable of tracking individuals *before* they have committed any crimes is something we should be very worried about.

 

Sorry, it was. I apologise.

I agree they hold up to comparison, to a certain degree. I just tire of the comparison, sorry. On many other levels, there is no comparison.

It was just rude, but you did ask. I'de only read a few to be honest. I just know that these are always referenced wherever i go.

'Slippery slopes' ?. Nobody has 20/20 vision. I just take note as to where we have been and where the we may possibly be going in that time frame. I don't forsee it descending into a fascist state, by then. I suspect that is another thread entirely. In that other thread i posted, i think sentient, makes some very good points. Though, i think he has aired them many times. He seems well versed on that way of thinking. Full praise to him.

I don't think 'concerns' wither with age. You just might change your mind [so might i].

I agree, it possibly is linked to economic reasons. Even if that is ''I want what that other fucker has''. I don't think you need to be poor to be that way.
I think drugs is the major fuel for crime. Feeding the habit or selling it, possibly even protecting it and themselves [guns/knives].

I agree, CCTV is not combating the 'causes of crime'.
What the goverment do about that is, or should i say claim they do. Is almost endless.
http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=blair+combating+the+causes+of+crime&geovar=70&FORM=REDIR

Police are, i agree. I suppose the new 'support' officers' are a step in the right direction.

 

Is it possible to have CCTV cameras that can ONLY pick out criminals ?.

 

CCTV technology can pick out whoever you ask it to pick out. I don't think we have this ability in place yet - we have face recognition linked to a database of known criminals, but it's not (I think) operating over the whole of the UK yet, and its still in experimental stages. But rest assured, it's coming, and when biometric ID cards are here, the databases will all eventually be linked up, meaning anyone can be tracked.

The technology exists to identify behaviour, clothing, baggage etc which does not "fit in" with crowd behaviour and norms, to target individuals for tracking who might possibly be thinking about committing a crime - or may not. The police like documenting political protests with cameras. Soon the technology will allow them to do this via CCTV, identifying individuals and recording their presence. Much of this activity is based on the assumption of guilt, on the principle that we the public are given freedoms by the state, and not that the state operates on all our behalf - a reversal of our traditions of freedom. A subtle point, but an important one.

There are very real civil liberties concerns surrounding this technology, but there is almost no debate about it, because people have slowly come to accept that CCTV is necessary to prevent crime. All these technological add-ons and link-ups are happening very gradually, and almost by the backdoor.

Of course many of the concerns I'm raising are worst case scenario, and point to possible future abuses of the systems we are now putting in place - but I think we need to raise consciousness that this is not as straightforward an issue as many seem to think. Putting in place the full apparatus of a police state and relying on the good will of the government of the day not to abuse it is not a particularly good idea.

 

i watch various crime programes on sky but there was this one that stood out to me the most. when i first saw the title i thought it was going to be one of those shop CCTV crime shows but as i watched i reaslied that this show was about the street CCTV that has been popping up in towns & citys all over the country.

one of the problems that it pointed out with the running of the system was that these cameras are run & operated by the councils rather than the police. the operators watching the monitors dont have direct contact with the police and vise versa.

when the camera operators see crime happening on screan they have to go through the same chanels as we do, phoning the police & reporting the crime, then that information has to be passed on to the police on the ground & they then have to get to the location, by which time whatevers happened has happened & the criminals have moved on.

the camera operators need to be able to be in direct contact with the police on the ground, cut out the middle man to save time. they would contact the squad car or whatever give full description of what is happening, where & by who so the police can get to the exact location to know exactley who they are looking for as quickley as posible. the police also need to be able to contact the camera operators direct so they can get other information, eg which direction the criminals came from, are going to, what happened before the incedent etc.

for CCTV to be operating as effectivley as posible changes need to be made in how these systems operate & a good comunications system need to be in place, instead of camera operators just sat there people watching.

 

I know certain systems are 'out there' . I think individual or a combination of applications, will be used in certain areas of life for example in Airports or road traffic offences. Imho it will save time and manpower. Unless the goverment or companys place CCTV cameras in every street and within every place where people go. I don't see how it will be abused. Wherever it is used, will be regulated imho.

Anyone, not everyone ?.

'assumption of guilt' ... That is a subtle point and an important one, i agree. This for me is a fundemental point. This is one of the points, any of these systems could [Not imho necessarily WILL] be used to abuse our 'liberties'. I fully accept that.

As technology progresses we will all have to face a more technological world [obviously]. We have gotten used to a multitude of things over the years, with again [it could be argued] no debate. No debate amongst the 'masses' atleast. Hopefuly due to technology, this will change. I think it has over the last 10 years.

I agree with you on all the points, apart from the 'Police state'. It assumes the goverment will have full and total control over these systems. They will not imho. They will regulate and legislate, yes. Full total control ?.. No imho.

 

I think Torz has just demonstrated [very well] imho, why the police do not have full control.

Thanks for saving me a shed load of typing.

 

Well, the notion (hope?) that this technology will be properly regulated shows a great amount of trust in the government, and today's regulation could easily disappear tomorrow. The apparratus for significant social control will all be in place, and we are dependent on the goodwill of the government to behave responsibly. Examples like the Terrorism Act show that when the police are given more power, they will find ways to use it which are way beyond or contrary to the reason the power was granted.

What regulation is currently in place? When face recognition systems were first installed, that didn't seem to require any additional regulatory legislation, it was all put in place under existing laws, wasn't it? But surely tracking people according to their criminal history has implications for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

I'm not at all sure that these technologies will be properly put before the public and robust legislation strictly limiting its use put in place. It seems we are sleepwalkng into giving away our basic freedoms.