Closed circuit cameras are watching you...

[DanS]

7,000 on just the tube? Jeezus.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I find such talk amusing. You really think there is going to be an uber-database of CCTV from across the country designed to track your movements, complete with filing and indexing?

computer technology currently cannot do this. But in about 30 years it will be able to.

First of all you need to start of with DVR recording. All the cameras at my place of business are digital and record on hard drives. And we have a lot of cameras.

I'm not sure if that is what London uses. I sure hope they don't use VCR tapes. That would be a ****load of tapes.

[Solver]

There are no cameras used around here. I do, though, support their use, as long as:

1) I can find information that details which streets/places are being taped
2) I can be resonably sure that tapes won't be used unless there is a crime

I support it because:

1) It does seem to really reduce crime or at least make investigations easier. If I got mugged, I'd prefer the police to have a video of it.
2) If those are public places that are being monitored, I'm seen by other people in the street anyway. If I'm not doing something I don't want them to see, there's nothing I wouldn't want cameras to see
3) I'm not a hot young girl so I'm sure the operators wouldn't want to stare at me

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Eli
Assume that you install such system in the States and that by 2009 a rudimentary but working facial recognition system is available. As you pointed out earlier, the system today is used mainly to solve crime but that is a cause of our technical inability to monitor all cameras at once. With the new software, such constant monitoring can be achieved and then, even with proper restrictions in place, all you need is another 9/11(a 99.9% probability for that happening IMO) for these restriction to go the way of the Dodo.

You would have to have every single persons face stored on a database in order to run that comparison, and you would have to have all CCTV cameras processing hundreds, if not more, people an hour.

I do not envisage any feasible system with that much data and data requirements - if your face isn't on the database or isn't correctly input, you will not be recognised, and that much processing requirement - millions of cameras data searching the face database or vice versa. Besides that much integration, co-operation and co-ordination of millions of disparate council, private and other systems is not going to happen, even if the technology allowed.

[Az]

While I think that Eli's nightmare is a technological possibility, Dauphin's defence is very much solid. And hell if that crumbles, I mean, sure, a police state can use CCTV to hunt you down like the dog you are, but the technology is already out there, and there is nothing you can do but make sure your government are not a bunch of *******s.

[DanS]

After thinking about it some, I guess that about 900 cameras are used in the Washington Metro. A couple of years ago they weren't even recorded, however. Not sure if these are recorded nowadays.

[Kontiki]

I'm all for them. Public space is just that - public space. Don't expect privacy. And if you think the government wants to keep a constant eye on you, take off your tinfoil hat and move out of your mom's basement.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Dauphin
You would have to have every single persons face stored on a database in order to run that comparison

And how is that a problem? Passports, driving licenses, ID cards, all have your picture on it even today.

, and you would have to have all CCTV cameras processing hundreds, if not more, people an hour.

I do not envisage any feasible system with that much data and data requirements - if your face isn't on the database, you will not be recognised, and that much processing requirement - millions of cameras data searching the face database or vice versa.

Here I simply dissagree. The dataset is not that big and processing power is getting cheaper by the second.

Besides that much integration, co-operation and co-ordination of millions of disperate council, private and other systems is not going to happen, even if the technology allowed.

That could be true.
I'm talking about more of a universal system organized by the government, who eventually is the only body who's supposed to fight crime.

[Adagio]

They should upload the images taken to a website with a frame per second so I can keep an eye on what's going on down there on the streets

I don't mind having cameras following me around, it's not like I'm a criminal who has something to hide... Who cares if they're recording me 24/7... hell, I wouldn't even mind the above mentioned "idea" about the images being displayed on a website for everybody to watch

[DanS]

Originally posted by Adagio
They should upload the images taken to a website with a frame per second so I can keep an eye on what's going on down there on the streets

That's exactly what I was thinking. Just like they do for traffic cameras. It's a public space after all.

http://app.ddot.dc.gov/services_dsf/traffic_cameras/index.asp

But I doubt our cheap ass city government wouldn't spend the money on this. The Feds wouldn't want to give out information on the location of the cameras.

[Eli]

While I think that Eli's nightmare is a technological possibility, Dauphin's defence is very much solid. And hell if that crumbles, I mean, sure, a police state can use CCTV to hunt you down like the dog you are, but the technology is already out there, and there is nothing you can do but make sure your government are not a bunch of *******s.

It could be argued that such a system will make it easier for a police state to gain power.

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm all for them. Public space is just that - public space. Don't expect privacy. And if you think the government wants to keep a constant eye on you, take off your tinfoil hat and move out of your mom's basement.

Rule of thumb: If you were in charge and in control of such system, what would you do?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Eli

That could be true.
I'm talking about more of a universal system organized by the government, who eventually is the only body who's supposed to fight crime.

The almightly government is not supposed to fight crime unless you have a weird judicial system.

[Provost Harrison]

My home city is CCTV central - more of the things than anywhere else I have seen. It almost seems to be getting to the point where there is one on every corner. However petty crime there (often related to drugs) is rampant...

[Dis]

Originally posted by DanS


That's exactly what I was thinking. Just like they do for traffic cameras. It's a public space after all.

http://app.ddot.dc.gov/services_dsf/traffic_cameras/index.asp

But I doubt our cheap ass city government wouldn't spend the money on this. The Feds wouldn't want to give out information on the location of the cameras.

I think we as the public, have a right to know where these cameras are. perhaps they fall under the freedom of information act.

[Donegeal]

What I find entertaining is that some people think that out of the 300,000,000 people in the us, the operators would even care if you scratch your balls. It just too much work!

Besides, if it is a DVR (like we use at work), its pretty much self automated. No one is watching anyway!