Increased usage of CCTV - Page 2

Sinizter · 28-05-2008, 09:47 AM

They arent worth it if all they do is act as a deterrent (a minor one at that) and evidence from them is not used more. Not surprised its not used more because the quality from is quite frankly awful considering how far technology has come - very difficult to distinguish faces and things unless they look dead on straight at the camera and stop and smile.

I don't like being on all these different CCTVs, but nothing I can do really.

**Saracen** · 28-05-2008, 11:25 AM

I have no particular problem with CCTV as an invasion of privacy, if it's either in public places or places like shops. But I do doubt it's effectiveness, and especially cost-effectiveness as a crime-fighting tool. I rather suspect that all it'll do it convince people committing crimes to either do it elsewhere (i.e. relocates the crime to, perhaps, rural areas) or to take steps to hide their identity .... like a hoodie.

But, of course, it's a big-brotheresque tool that could be used to give "the man" a considerable degree of power, if you extend the coverage and technology far enough.

Stringent · 29-05-2008, 03:53 PM

I read somwhere that the majority of CCTV cameras don't work anyway, and the police are "too busy" to go through footage. I think someone's purse got stolen from a shop or something right opposite was a CCTV camera. The police attitude was not very helpful, in that they were too busy and the camera probably didn't work anyway. Britain has the largest CCTV than any other country, and yet our crime rate is still very high, so what does that show?

CCTV boom has failed to slash crime, say police | UK news | The Guardian

The Big Question: Are CCTV cameras a waste of money in the fight against crime? - Crime, UK - The Independent

fatbears · 29-05-2008, 04:38 PM

The billions of pounds spent on CCTV could have gone towards giving old and more vulnerable people tazers!! to stop the robbers!?!

iranu · 30-05-2008, 11:33 AM

Don't taze me Grandma!

**Saracen** · 30-05-2008, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Stringent

I read somwhere that the majority of CCTV cameras don't work anyway, and the police are "too busy" to go through footage. I think someone's purse got stolen from a shop or something right opposite was a CCTV camera. The police attitude was not very helpful, in that they were too busy and the camera probably didn't work anyway.

It happened to me. My car was broken into in a CCTV area. I reported it to the police within 15 minutes, including that the CCTV was there, with the EXACT time. Weeks later, after me querying it, the police told me that they had inspected the footage and could not find the incident. The manager of the local CCTV operation, however, told me that the police had not been in touch, had not requested access and that if they had, the camera location and the exact time would have allowed them to locate the incident in minutes.

My inference is that they just could not be bothered, or did not have the time, or it was not a high enough priority for them, so they didn't bother and lied to me about it.

And that kind of thing does not endear the police to me. If they wonder why there's an increasing disconnect between police and public that didn't used to be there, that's part of the reason. Is it the fault of the police, or the government for providing inadequate resources and an ever-increasing paperwork burden? Different question, that. But, nonetheless, if the police either can't or won't act on detectable crime because of "resources", then they're of very limited use to me.

fatbears · 30-05-2008, 12:11 PM

Yeah the police either don't bother sometimes or take at least 6 months to get back to you with something!! It some times easier to take it upon yourself to sort something...a lot quicker anyhow!

Fraz · 30-05-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Saracen

But, nonetheless, if the police either can't or won't act on detectable crime because of "resources", then they're of very limited use to me.

You know who to call...

Sinizter · 30-05-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Saracen

The manager of the local CCTV operation, however, told me that the police had not been in touch, had not requested access and that if they had, the camera location and the exact time would have allowed them to locate the incident in minutes.

My inference is that they just could not be bothered, or did not have the time, or it was not a high enough priority for them, so they didn't bother and lied to me about it.

And yet, when you break a speed limit by 2-3 mph, you will automatically get sent all the required documentation to force you to confess and to pay for the privilege.

Stringent · 31-05-2008, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Saracen

It happened to me.

...

Man I'm sorry to hear that.

Thats the problem with the Internet, one reads and gets round to reading stories, news, threads and it all gets mixed up.

The police do have a lot of paperwork to sort through. With the increase of cameras, they have to examine every bit of evidence. Now if there are lots of cameras to go through, thats cameras paperwork, time etc. So one can see why they 'can't be bothered' but that is their job. But you are right, it doesn't make us feel any better. The police seem to be too occupied with catching motorists with minor infringements than other crimes.

One of my friends parents got burgled recently, police and forensics were round, they found a few clues. However I would be round the local markets and stores where people sell these things on. But I guess nothing else will be done. Insurance will pay up and thats it.

**Agent** · 31-05-2008, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Saracen

It happened to me. My car was broken into in a CCTV area. I reported it to the police within 15 minutes, including that the CCTV was there, with the EXACT time. Weeks later, after me querying it, the police told me that they had inspected the footage and could not find the incident. The manager of the local CCTV operation, however, told me that the police had not been in touch, had not requested access and that if they had, the camera location and the exact time would have allowed them to locate the incident in minutes.

My inference is that they just could not be bothered, or did not have the time, or it was not a high enough priority for them, so they didn't bother and lied to me about it.

And that kind of thing does not endear the police to me. If they wonder why there's an increasing disconnect between police and public that didn't used to be there, that's part of the reason. Is it the fault of the police, or the government for providing inadequate resources and an ever-increasing paperwork burden? Different question, that. But, nonetheless, if the police either can't or won't act on detectable crime because of "resources", then they're of very limited use to me.

You should have requested the footage under the Data Protection Act 1998 / Freedom of Information Act of 2000. While they can only show you and are required to block out other peoples faces - you could have at least proved that the camera was covering the location and that they just have to fast forward it.

Not that they would have probably done anything with the footage anyway, assuming it wasn't the usual 'pixel face' that we see on the news so often.

**Saracen** · 31-05-2008, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Agent

You should have requested the footage under the Data Protection Act 1998 / Freedom of Information Act of 2000. .....

Nowadays, I might. But this was before either piece of legislation. '96 IIRC.

But it makes a point. It was that long ago, and while the little toe rags that did it are pretty much off my radar, the attitude of the police still narks me off now, more than a decade later.

Blitzen · 31-05-2008, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by mediaboy

Orwellian society!!

They're coming for us! They're going to arrest us for preaching against their rules.

Not that I'm saying we're in an orwellian society. We're already on the other side of that particular situation...

You have an obsession with posting this.

chicken · 04-06-2008, 01:19 AM

Two (almost) opposing points...

1. Increased CCTV = Increased noise-to-signal ratio... swamp the system with information and suddenly that "hillarious" footage of you caught picking your nose isn't so important. So more coverage means less consideration per minute of footage.

2. The Government = Everyone knows the government sucks at keeping supposedly secure information secure... so one day, someone somewhere is going to get caught abusing the system and shock-horror, 12 million copies of the Daily Mail will be sold in seconds.

Stringent · 04-06-2008, 08:47 AM

LOL nice pic!

**Agent** · 25-07-2008, 03:21 AM

Ahhh it gets better

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7523306.stm

Now being the most CCTV'ed nation around, we have no one to watch them all.

It won't be long before they are nicking the cameras

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)