Originally Posted by educatedfool
Personally, I like the idea, many people complain that it is an infringement on freedom. I don't get that though, what freedom exactly? You are walking down a public street, there is no difference between that and a policeman standing there.
What, other than the fact that the policeman doesn't have a permanent timestamped visual record of what has been happening? Or to reverse the argument, does the camera have the ability to actually do anything at all about what it sees? I think there is considerable difference between a policeman and a camera.
Originally Posted by educatedfool
It is exactly the same as a shop installing security camera's. The public places are owned by the council and so have to protect it.
No - the streets are owned by EVERYONE.
Cameras are basically useless. They are ineffective for a number of reasons:
- They are defeated by something simple like a hoodie.
- They are generally of poor resolution, and view teh events from a poor angle so you can't see the face of the people involved even when they aren't wearing a hoodie.
- Even when they are effective, they tend to displace crime rather than remove it.
CCTV = very nearly pointless, IMO.