Increased usage of CCTV

[educatedfool]

Wasn't sure if this is supposed to go in here or not, but it's quite a hot topic in the world today so:

What do you think of the increased CCTV in todays public places? and the proposals for more CCTV around and about?

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.

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.

[Agent]

BBC NEWS | UK | CCTV boom 'failing to cut crime'

Seems like a lot of money for little return?

[Rosaline]

It's late and I really should sleep, so I'm just going to quote from my literature review notes something you might find interesting...

Nacro02 - To CCTV or not to CCTV? A review of current research into the effectiveness of CCTV systems in reducing crime
===
NACRO, Armitage, R. (2002).
- Effectiveness of CCTV dependant upon context of it's application
- Warns against over-investment in CCTV, when better street lighting may be a better measure
- CCTV in car parks effective, CCTV in town centres have little impact upon serious or violent crime
- Evidence shows, without constant publicity, CCTV schemes loose effectiveness
- Biggest fall in crime associated with BEFORE the cameras become operational (because of the increased publicity)

[fatbears]

The CCTV doesn't bother me, i like the idea of being on TV

If you got mugged and the only evidence of who did it was on that camera, and it ended up in them getting caught...i don't think you would mind about the cameras then?

[Fraz]

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.

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.

[educatedfool]

No - the streets are owned by EVERYONE.

But the council has the responsibility of looking after it.

And CCTV has proved very useful in catching criminals. It would be hard to catch them before the crime happens because someone is not always watching, but it does happen.

[TheAnimus]

As for CCTV acting as a deterent, the average criminal will make a risk assesment (if they realise it or not) as to if they will get caught.

As we can see by the figures, the CCTV is having little effect. They are either saying no, we won't get caught, or have skewed perception of the risk (read, their stupid).

So which is it? Is the CCTV having little effecting in clearing up crime, causing little prevention, or are the criminals so stupid they don't realise the increased risk?

[Betty_Swallocks]

And the people who operate them don't even look at the footage because "it's too difficult"

Total waste of time. It just gives an appearance of doing something about crime without actually having to cough up for the extra policemen we need to do the job properly.

[G4Z]

As for CCTV acting as a deterent, the average criminal will make a risk assesment (if they realise it or not) as to if they will get caught.

As we can see by the figures, the CCTV is having little effect. They are either saying no, we won't get caught, or have skewed perception of the risk (read, their stupid).

So which is it? Is the CCTV having little effecting in clearing up crime, causing little prevention, or are the criminals so stupid they don't realise the increased risk?

Or... they have correctly assessed the risk and realise that CCTV makes little difference?

[iranu]

The problem with CCTV is it is now being used outside of the original remit. Recently laws have been passed to allow CCTV footage to be used to catch parking violations, however, this is being abused by over zealous and money hungry councils. I've seen numerous reports whereby motorists stopped for less than 10 seconds are being given parking fines on the basis of CCTV footage. It's ridiculous but we let it happen.

[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...

[Lucio]

I don't see a major issue with camera's posted by private companies, but I don't agree with council's wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on them.

[mediaboy]

Y'know.. a really good trick to play - when there's no one else around - is to stand completely still in midstep in front of a private CCTV camera. They think the camera has gone bodged and it takes them a good 5-10 minutes to realise that you're actually just standing still, and it's not the camera.

But anyway, like I said in my previous post, the more cameras there are, the furthur we travel along the path of tyranny.

In theory, if one person had access to every camera (speed cameras, CCTV etc.), it is possible to track a person's journey from London to Edingburugh if they take a car or train. Presuming that they travel along roads with speed cameras of course... which 90% of them do now.

It's also theoretically possible to track any person at any time and have access to all their files and data under the anti-terrorism act, as well as imprisoning them basically indefinitely (They only have to release for a few hours before they bring you back in I think) for no crime at all.

Its not just CCTV that we should be thinking about.. think about the bigger picture. And the pictures of you that get taken everyday.

They can breach your right to privacy without a second glance or a court order. Naturally, if they were proved wrong you MIGHT stand a chance of winning a court case against the person that - according to the book - authorised the breach, but - since terrorism act - it's no longer definite that you will win.

[zetsurin]

I think CCTV would be a great idea if it were actually used to solve crimes. This is something it clearly isn't and I remember hearing a statistic that claimed that of the London CCTV network, in only 5% of crimes is it ever attempted to be used for vital evidence. That's unacceptable for a system that invades our privacy daily and costs so much to install and maintain.

[fatbears]

Ah yeah i heard that, that is just unbelievable! Such a waste of money!

[Steve A]

Im all for it tbh, i dont break the law so i have nothing to fear from big brother unless he makes me start doing some tasks to earn extra shopping budget.