CCTV's might destroy our privacy, but at least they prevent violent crime

[Colonâ„¢]

My come-back really is better than Doddler's.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yeah, Colon could at least rant about it on the net

i think vj is looking to take the title of 'most mental finn' from pekka.

[Donegeal]

He's got a LOOOOOONG way to go...

[Pekka]

Yeah, but it was to point out that surveillance cameras do not function the way people think, I mean their primary goal is not to tape things so possibly later on we can find out something. They work very much the same way CCTV works.

[RGBVideo]

Sure VJ... take away the cameras in public places. Take away another tool of the police. Real smart.

A 24/7-on camera within your jacket would be a tool for "the police" too, a really efficient anti-corruption measure making sure that you won't do anything illegal. Somehow I doubt you'd think it was a smart idea, though.

Let me say this again: My point is that camera surveillance does nothing to prevent violent crime. In an areas with an increased crime rate, police presence should be increased instead. But that would be expensive, so politicians are more attracted to "increasing safety" by slowly popping up cameras to monitor every damn street in the city.

If you're the sort of person who feels safer when an anonymous authority figure is looking at you, then you're delighted because of them and think of CCTV routine surveillance as a good idea. And thus, we slowly get more and more cameras instead of cops.

[Donegeal]

You're right VJ, that CCTV won't effect the habitual criminal. It will effect things like road rage and people that aren't habitually violent. What it does, and what it's designed for, it to put that little thought in the back of peoples head that this is a public place where I would be caught if I did something illegal.

YOur idea about the camera on the uniform actually sounds like a good idea, except for one thing: A camera from that angle would probably not do any good showing resistive tension... the thousand mile stare. Probably wouldn't pick up on the fist that is out of camera range that is clenching in preparation to strike. I really do prefers the dashboard cam. Maybe attach one to the flood light. Much more often than not, cameras of police action supports and protects the officers from suspects that are rying to score the easy money. The more cameras the merrier, I say.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by VJ
Let me say this again: My point is that camera surveillance does nothing to prevent violent crime. In an areas with an increased crime rate, police presence should be increased instead. But that would be expensive, so politicians are more attracted to "increasing safety" by slowly popping up cameras to monitor every damn street in the city.

this is spot on.

it's all part of the 'surveillance society' we're slowly becoming. cameras everywhere (300 times a day you'll appear on CCTV on average, in london), and more going up all the time. plans to extend the london congestion charge (which can pinpoint when your car enters a city centre to charge you) to other cities and towns. on the tube, if you use an oyster card it can pinpoint when you enter and leave a station and thus your movement can be tracked, of course you don't have to use one, but it'll cost you a lot more if you don't. a plan to scrap road tax and replace it with charges based on where and how far you drive, it was going to be monitored via satellite tracking in all cars (i'm not making this up :/), but now they're looking at plans to monitor it nationwide with cameras (i'm not 100% sure how this will work). most outrageously of all, ID cards with all sorts of sensitive information about you on a microchip and also on a huge database accessible by thousands of government employees.

[fed1943]

Why not have cameras and cops?

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by C0ckney
ID cards with all sorts of sensitive information about you on a microchip and also on a huge database accessible by thousands of government employees.

This is the part that always makes me laugh. You guys sure are ego-maniacs if think that those employees would want to be bothered to check you out individually.

Get a grip. You just don't matter.

I have access to hundreds of thousands of records and "sensitive information". Personally, I'd rather eat a cheeseburger or read a book than bother looking up information on some yahoo who has no connection with me in any way. I just don't care.

BTW, in this regard, I am not the exception, but the standard.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Donegeal


This is the part that always makes me laugh. You guys sure are ego-maniacs if think that those employees would want to be bothered to check you out individually.

Get a grip. You just don't matter.

I have access to hundreds of thousands of records and "sensitive information". Personally, I'd rather eat a cheeseburger or read a book than bother looking up information on some yahoo who has no connection with me in any way. I just don't care.

BTW, in this regard, I am not the exception, but the standard.

That wouldn't be the area of greatest concern though. Suppose you wanted to find out sensitive information about your problematic next door neighbour or your daughter's boyfriend or somesuch. That is what gives you the incentive rather than just the ability to do it.

FWIW, I don't see it as a big problem either way.

[C0ckney]

donegal, i don't think you really get what i'm saying. there are many objections to ID cards, such the fact it will cost a fortune, will not achieve its stated aims and have grave implications for privacy.

there are also plans to link government agencies' databases and allow different agencies to share information, which they're not allowed to do at present.

this site gives an overview of the scheme and the objections to it. take a look if you're interested.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Donegeal


This is the part that always makes me laugh. You guys sure are ego-maniacs if think that those employees would want to be bothered to check you out individually.

Get a grip. You just don't matter.

I have access to hundreds of thousands of records and "sensitive information". Personally, I'd rather eat a cheeseburger or read a book than bother looking up information on some yahoo who has no connection with me in any way. I just don't care.

BTW, in this regard, I am not the exception, but the standard.

Do you ever take a peek at people who you are about to rent to?

[Sava]

Can someone explain to me how having cameras in public is an invasion of privacy?

[Ecthy]

And carrying ID?

Think about it. AAHZ would have been able to drink in Vegas had he been carrying ID from age 16 on.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Cameras will help solve crimes for a while, until the first time that gang members go to a camera's house and shoot a couple members of its family. Then we'll start seeing a lot of blank tape as evidence, and things will be the same as they were before cameras.