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

[RGBVideo]

...and you don't want to be WEAK ON CRIME, do you?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6f_1178921294&p=1

[Dauphin]

I thought it was generally accepted that CCTV does not prevent crimes to any great extent, but does help investigate and prosecute them.

[Pekka]

Surveillance cameras do not prevent crime per se. When against privacy, I choose privacy.

These don't have to be mutually exclusive though. I'm not saying cameras are a bad idea. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. It's not really the cameras themselves, it' show this technology is used.

It's a modern day Panopticon and lots of people don't realize what surveillance is about. No. It's not about having a tape if something happes. It's about altering your thoughts, so you will change your own behaviour accordingly.

[Colonâ„¢]

Bit contradictory to demand privacy in public spaces.

[RGBVideo]

I thought it was generally accepted that CCTV does not prevent crimes

If only it would be.

to any great extent

See? It isn't.

but does help investigate and prosecute them.

It's bull****. The only people who get into serious trouble through surveillance are law-abiding citizens who act nice and play by the rules, those working within the system. Thugs, sadists, career criminals et alii don't have their life changed at all, no matter how serious crimes they'll do in front of a video camera.

In this example, if the now-braindead man would've defended his life by pulling up a gun and shooting at two of the attackers before they were kicking him to his death, he would've been caught instantly because his co-workers at his job and his family would've recognised him from the videotape. With concealed weapon carrying being as illegal as it is, his life would've been ruined with the long prison sentence that would've followed.

You think these thugs have any kind of official jobs? You think they have families? You think any of the people who they know would ever speak out to cops? They have a dozen names they'll offer to different authorities if confronted, no official identity to assign and compile their mile-long criminal records. If any of them are caught, do you really think they give a **** even if they have to spend few months in a prison if they don't get away with parole? They've been there before and they have a lot of friends there, they know and understand the prison rules.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Bit contradictory to demand privacy in public spaces.

I'm not even angry at the violent career criminals. They're just pragmatical nihilists to the max: they understand and realize that they'll get a better lifestyle and a better living standard by living as violent leeches than they'd ever get if they were to get a real job and if they started to pay for their own rent. When the politicians behind the justice system have their head up their own ass as far as the Bruxelles bureucrats currently have, it's fun to be a crook.

I'm angry at you, for you're too much of a pussy to confront the problem and instead choose to buy your way into an ivory tower, out of the "troubled neighbourhoods". You choose to play dumb and downplay the Problem by making fun of people who slap you with reality by playing with semantics. People like the 48-year old man who got kicked to death pay the price.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by VJ

If only it would be.


See? It isn't.

It may not prevent crime at all, but all you provide is an anecdotal example. If there were a hundred of these crimes a year before, and only one a year now then it would be shown to be crime prevention. Your statement is without substantiation.

It's bull****. The only people who get into serious trouble through surveillance are law-abiding citizens who act nice and play by the rules, those working within the system. Thugs, sadists, career criminals et alii don't have their life changed at all, no matter how serious crimes they'll do in front of a video camera.

In this example, if the now-braindead man would've defended his life by pulling up a gun and shooting at two of the attackers before they were kicking him to his death, he would've been caught instantly because his co-workers at his job and his family would've recognised him from the videotape. With concealed weapon carrying being as illegal as it is, his life would've been ruined with the long prison sentence that would've followed.

You think these thugs have any kind of official jobs? You think they have families? You think any of the people who they know would ever speak out to cops? They have a dozen names they'll offer to different authorities if confronted, no official identity to assign and compile their mile-long criminal records. If any of them are caught, do you really think they give a **** even if they have to spend few months in a prison if they don't get away with parole? They've been there before and they have a lot of friends there, they know and understand the prison rules.

What are you on?

[BeBMan]

Yeah, Colon could at least rant about it on the net

[Pekka]

Most surveillance cameras in stores are because of the employees of that store. Maybe some day they'll figure it out.

[RGBVideo]

If there were a hundred of these crimes a year before, and only one a year now then it would be shown to be crime prevention.

Yes. My point is exactly that it isn't crime prevention. Widespread increase in CCTV/video surveillance usage all over Europe has not drawn the crime rate down.

What are you on?

Frustrated rant directed to both people who are indifferent to rapidly increasing crime rates in urban EU and to people who are thinking that increased CCTV surveillance will be a solution of any kind.

If there needs to be increased protection of ordinary citizens on the streets of our cities, it should be in the form of police, not cameras. Police can prevent violence. Cameras only report violence. In violent crimes against people, irreversable damage will be done. Murdered people can not be raised from the dead. In havoc-creating crimes against property, the damage can be reverted. Stolen property or destroyed windows can be replaced with money. Replacing police activity with video cameras is a decisively pro-ownership and anti-people act. CCTV might be a massively cheaper thing to upkeep than a paid cop, but it can't intervene in a murder case. It couldn't save that man from turning into a vegetable in the hands of sadists.

[RGBVideo]

Most surveillance cameras in stores are because of the employees of that store. Maybe some day they'll figure it out.

This thread is not about video cameras in private stores or homes.

[Meticulous Man]

Originally posted by Pekka
Most surveillance cameras in stores are because of the employees of that store. Maybe some day they'll figure it out.

At least in Lidl...

[Colonâ„¢]

VJ is angry at me.

[RGBVideo]

Wow. That's the best come-back I've seen thrown against a two-paragraph response of mine since Doddler's "Looks like VJ is on the sauce again." when we were discussing global warming.

If you have absolutely nothing to answer with, you don't have to reply. It's not a duty.

[Donegeal]

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