Street cameras (CCTV)

It keeps feeling strange to me that we assume the abuses of the State are what we need to defend ourselves from, when most harm to society is done by the citizenry.

So we've had the odd party or gathering stopped, but thats nothing really compared to the violence found in any town and city centre on a weekend.

 

True, i just think unless we vote in a or have a coup. We are very safe from a 'totalitarian' goverment. I accept the arguements you make. I just disagree with the hyperbolic nature of them. I'm just not at that end of the 'extreme'. Maybe i'm only half awake ?.

I think i need a e.g.

What happens to sex offenders ?. I think unless these people are not being monitored for 'public safety'. I think they will be treated like any other citizen. Of course if they were caught on CCTV, they would be picked up on the 'system' . Tracked and monitored regardless of there 'innocence' or 'guilt' , i do not think so. It does feed into your 'presumption of guilt' arguement imho.. i can notice that. I just think we could over analyse this.

What would convince you that these technologies will be used effectively and 'properly'. I imagine you are a hard task master, so maybe what do you think would be 'satisfactory', to the majority of people.

No scrub that, what would satisfy [just] YOU. I'm not wishing to be sarcastic. i'm just asking.

I have seen a lot of commitee meeting on the BBC, so i DO believe that if 'we' the masses wanted, 'we' could see what is going on or not going on.

I just think and fear, the majority of people would rather watch Eastenders, and believe what ever their newspapers told then the next day.

You should write for Wikipedia.

 

Well, this is the line which most people seem to have accepted, but it's not really based in any reality. CCTV rarely prevents crime - the best it can do is displace it somewhere else. The problems of anti-social behaviour are not going to go away even if we have every inch of the country within view of a police camera. Like I said before, removing police from patrol in favour of installing surveillance devices if anything increases alienation, one of the root causes of anti-social behaviour. Cameras cannot and do not deal with the causes of the problems our society faces.

And if you doubt the potential danger of governmental abuse you need to do some reading and thinking

 

At the moment, yes. But it has happened before, and it probably will hapen again, that democratic governments have turned into fascist ones. We need to be vigilant and to ensure that the government serves us and cannot abuse its power.

Like I've already said, is it wise to put in place the full apparatus of totalitarian control, and rely on the goodwill of the government of the day not to abuse it? When the potential advantages of CCTV (and ID cards, but that's another topic) are so low, I would say the answer is resoundingly "no".

 

You can always find specific examples of cctv being useful - a rape being prevented, a sex offender being caught. The wider implications of this kind of system and the potential for abuse I would say largely negate its positive aspects. You don't need an interlinked system capable of tracking every citizen in the country to make the streets feel safe. Even the cost savings are probably illusory, when you think about the amount being spent on software and hardware systems, their running and maintenance. The money would be better spent on community policing. Nothing will replace a policeman being a part of his community, and we will always need them no matter how many cameras there are - but how many are being replaced by cctv in the name of cost efficiency?

 

The adage should be ''learn from history'' i imagine. The only thing is, that should not blind us to the realities of the present. We also have not got 20.20 vision, so can not see the future.

We could have all the systems in place, but not the 'manpower' to implement it. I suspect people would be 'just following orders'. If that is their excuse, we get what we deserve. It will be the minority as usual, who are effected.

 

Well i don't think that is the plan. According to your good self, that is not the plan or the 'application' at all.

Well i read recently, it cost 21 pound to send a internal memo and documentation to other govermental departments, because of the new system of checks and 'tracking' involved. The cost included all the software and hardware running and maintenance. This was in 'year one' of it's application. How much it will save in the long run, is any ones guess. It will save money though.


So that answer can only legitimately be answered in the future.

I do not know, i know there are a vast amount of new community support officers around. I think they out No. the amount of new 'goverment' CCTV camers [maybe that should be council CCTV camers]. How effective they are, is another topic.

 

Yes. We should learn that we need extremely stringent safeguards on the powers we give to the government, robust regulation to prevent abuse of power, and not least that setting up the full apparatus of a police state and relying on the goodwill of whoever is in power not to use it is probably not a good idea!

I know that "an interlinked system capable of tracking every citizen in the country" is not on the cards yet, but with ID cards and interlinked databases, I see it as highly probable that that's what we will end up with. The technology exists, and is being gradually implemented - face recognition, number-plate tracking, interlinked databases of personal information are all a practical reality in use now.

I don't doubt replacing officers with cctv cameras will save money - the savings are illusory because for all the money saved, it will have far, far less impact on crime than spending that money on beat officers and proper community policing would.

 

Combat crime and the causes of crime must have been the greatest single lie this government has uttered. We claim to live in a democracry, and on the face of it we do. We have the right and supposed freedom to elect a political party to government by voting, but the problem comes when we realize that there is no choice in any difference in ideology between opposing arguement/parties.

Ruth Kelly has every right to choose what is best for her child but it has highlighted the failings of the middle classes, the champagne socialists toward our communities, the career minded politicians; ok its of the beaten track as for as this thread is concerned but all arguements/discussion points are linked when we discuss such events.

Working class people by their description pay tax too; therefore they should have the right to expect to be protected against crime, which mrans by the police even if it costs more than the balance books allow and not be given an alternative that is ineffective and has massive repercussions for the future against their civil liberties, which has been acuately describe in earlier points.

 

Imho:
Difficult decision
Did not want too
Had advice, telling her it would be for the best
Child back in state schooling in a few years
Storm in a tea cup


It is a little off topic *cough*.

 

Phwoar!!!! Your right about the picture, also right about my drunken rant and getting off the topic, but career politicians without an ideology just isn't cricket olde man. Could live with then, just listen to the language, there aint no 'WHY AYE MAN' here.

 

she was on Paul O'grady the other day.
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0852401/

I responded, so i'm at fault as well.

If her ideology is to keep her other kids in state education, but due to advice, decided that state education would not be enough for her kid. That is her privelage. She also took a career, were she could afford to not 'burden' the local education authority. Who i believe supported her position. I dunno if her 'ideology' somes into it ?? . You maybe right. My feelings - i just boiled it down to that ''Imho'' .

I'm baffled ? What do you mean.

 

No, the point I was really trying to make about career politicians is that it seems that politics is the start and end of a career path, without an experience in another field, I'm generalizing for sure. You're right, she does have the right to do the best for her family, I wasn't disputing that what I was saying it highlights the fact the standard isn't there or else she'd have used the state system. Don't get me wrong, money has been pumped into the secondary school education system like it was going out of fashion. I just feel, and I'm still quite young myself that to have elected politicians who are in their thirties/forties just seems far too young, most definately for cabinet ministers. Granted it has fuck all to do with the CCTV street surveillance.

'Just aint cricket olde boy' and 'whey aye man' is just me messing about, me being upwardly mobile on the social ladder.

Was she in Coronation Street?

She's got a late 60's early 70's look about her. Avengers or something..

 

She is not a 'career politician' [as such- imho] check out her CV.. It might be that she did not spend her life in the career path we might want. She did not go from Uni' to being a MP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4100061.stm

It followed a path, that presumably made her 'good' at her job. Question that if you wish.

Aye... i see .

Yeah.. she is in something on Friday, and was in 'The history boys'... the fact is i would like her in my bed, something that i am sure will not happen.

 

OK, my arguement is a little all over the place. Again, I wasn't necessarily talking specifically about her (Ruth Kelly) as I don't know her background; although I think she was a teacher? Tony Blair on the other hand was on a political career path from the off as soon as getting his university education in law. Look at some of the ill judgements that have been made by him, i.e. Iraq; another thread. The point I was wanting to make is that there seems to be an understanding now that politics and other such positions, as in the civil service where policy is developed and seems to be produced by people without a true grounding in life, that's why I said I'm generalizing. And I'm not echocing some Platonic arguement from Republic about self-proclamation for power.

Then with the notion that policy is developed by people without giving true thought to the potential consequences for such laws and strategies we have a situation where the populations psyche in the future will be affect for sure, I think for the worse, as with the consequenes of CCTV street surveillance. This maybe about becoming over reliant on such systems; or changing our behaviour to one another and in the way we lead our personal lives, which aren't all thrawt with evil and wrong doing, reference to 'If you got nothing to hide...'; or creating a pressure within the population where it may rupture from the stress of constantly being assessed and made to be accountable therefore eventually rip down the walls.

We don't need no education......

As it ended with walls.
Bed? I'm sure she's got a lot of attention. She would certainly be welcome in mine. Is she from Manchester?

'Wolf whistles from the scaffolding!'

 

It's that slightly chavvy look ... looks a bit simple, you pray she just has low enough standards...

 

Would a ex green grocer make better choices ?. Make better policys ?. Understand the complexity of international relations etc etc etc etc ?. I see many 'real' people in goverment and those making policy. i understand your point, but i fail to see if any better decisions would be made by supposedly 'real' people. Plus if what you say is the actuality in the first place.

Supposedly we are filmed 300 times a day by CCTV. Well that is if you live in London, happen to walk around the city centre by seemingly every retail shop on the high street. If you don't live there or do any of those things, it is more likely you are 'captured' about 50 times, not logged in any meaningful way and ignored pretty much.
Imho it is the 'horror' scenarios made by persons such as lithium [no offence]that create panic in some people . Imho i doubt the majority of people feel that way or are overtly concerned. They are dismissed as 'asleep' i'm sure, but maybe the reality is that this country is not going to oblivion or a 'police state'.

It all is very very very dull instead.

Watch a few commitee meetings http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/

Yawn.


I happen to like living in lithiums realm , every now and again. I don't mean any offence by the way. Honestly. I hope you appreciate what i mean .

From the link: Billinge, Wigan, Lancashire, England, UK

 

I know what you mean. She is quite inteligent though. Nothing like her old character. Check her out tonight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/07_july/21/lilies.shtml

 

I tend to agree, though I think public opinion is so far on the opposite of "panic" about these issues that a little bit of consciousness raising doesn't hurt. I stated that I was highlighting the hypothetical worst case scenario. I would say the majority unquestioningly accept the gradual rise and function-creep of cctv and related surveillance/tracking technologies. But there are some important principles involved, and I think they need airing.

 

I think people are not concerned till you highlight the scenarios you hypothetical imagine [i did read that you were only being hypothetical in many cases]. I agree the issues should be discussed, i just wonder if any and all scenarios are likely and should be reasonably discussed. It might make for some interesting debate, no doubt. A reality/likely ? maybe not. I respect your opinion, maybe you are correct and i'm just blind to the truth, i don't discount that possibility.

I just think the UK is a bit more dull than some of the scenarios put forward.