CCTV in Marmora Road

[Keef]

Sean, asking if your life should be effected by other's timidity, is like that bloke asking why he should bother obeying the laws of the road because he doesn't really think that HE needs to! I don't feel that strongly either way on this, but you are a bright bloke, and I am wondering where the hell your last post came from to be quite honest!

[Ant]

People can be worried about crime without there actually being any crime, whereas the laws of the road are objective fact. I can't see how the two go together, Keef.

[kford]

We're the most watched country on earth, yet we're Europe's high crime country

There are 14m+ cameras trained on us. Who's watching? Where is this data being stored? Who has access to it? Who owns it? What is it being used for?

[macroban]

> There are 14m+ cameras trained on us.

Source of data?

That's more than 150 per square mile for the UK.

[SeanMacGabhann]

What Ant said basically, Keef

To quote from a song:

"The way to keep people in line is to scare the shit out of 'em"

I'm not advocating any criminal activity - be it vandalism, road rules or anything else. And most of us have been the victim of some criminal at some point or other. But if the questions is "right, what can we do about it?" I don't think the answer is "CCTV cameras"

First of all what problem are we solving - has crime become 2 times worse? 10 times worse? 50 times worse? Or about the same? Or have things even improved? (for now let's just call it "crime" and not break it down into the multiple types). My belief is that installing cameras:

Has minimal positive impact on crime

Is politically easy to sell - "look we are doing something"

Installs an infrastructure that makes it juuust a bit to easy for future governments to keep tabs on all of us. And really, when in any historical period has any good from a country which monitors it's citizens that closely?

Sorry if I'm not making sense as I am busy (honest) and I am rushing these posts

[snorky]

CCTV and its ilk are a sticking plaster on a festering gangrenous wound

You need to investigate the reasons behind the infection rather than continually apply bigger and bigger plasters

[kford]

macroban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > There are 14m+ cameras trained on us.

>

> Source of data?

>

> That's more than 150 per square mile for the UK.

Here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553090/Majority-of-UK's-CCTV-cameras-'are-illegal'.html

[Keef]

People can be worried about crime without there actually being any crime, whereas the laws of the road are objective fact. I can't see how the two go together, Keef.

I am not so stupid that I am suggesting they are the same thing. My point was, that when some bloke came on here and basically said that he thought some road sign telling him he shouldn't turn a certain way (or some such nonsense) could be ignored, as he felt that he was a responsible and safe enough driver, and he didn't need to go along with it.

Sean (quite rightly) pointed out to him that he was being a prick and that the road signs/laws are there for safety.

Now I know(!!!!!) that laws are different, and the danger that can be caused by ignoring them is very real, but if we accept that the CCTVs are there for people's safety (and again, I know you will point out that they make no real difference and blah blah blah), then people will feel more secure about them, and just because other people are so much the wiser, don't these "timid" people deserve the peace of mind afforded to them by the presence of the cameras?

Perhaps I picked a bad example, I was on a bus using my mobile, and it was the first thing that sprung to mind. Like I say, I don't really care either way about this, but Sean's Why should MY life be effected because some soft fool wants some peace of mind, attitude just wound me right up!

There are bad things about these cameras, but people get far too caught up in crying out about a nanny state. For me, if a child (for example) went missing, and was traced by CCTV, then they'd have paid for themselves.

[macroban]

> Here: [www.telegraph.co.uk]

Bad journalisam. Does not quote source.

Think about it for a moment: exclude the Highlands, the Islands, mountains, moorland, forests, and agricultural land - at least 80% of the UK landmass - and your "source" is saying there are over 700 CCTVs per square mile.

[Huguenot]

Three interesting things with that Euro crime survey...

The rate of crime has dropped 35% since 1995 (nobody was calling us the surveillance society then, so can we assume that the introduction of CCTV has had an impact?).

The researchers claim it is the increased chance of being caught and greater security that has had most of the impact (to which we assume CCTV must contribute??)

Contentiously I note that since we're happy to blame Labour for bad things since they came to power, then surely we should also give them credence for the good things too?

*****

On the camera issue, I'd say that the average camera sees 10m x 10m, so 100 square metres. 150 of them cover 15,000 square metres. A square mile is 2.6m square metres.

That would mean that only 0.5% of a square mile is covered by security cameras.... Hardly worth the fuss? Is my maths right?

[David Mc]

This article puts the number at 4.2m cameras http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6524495.stm

It also says that these talking cameras are to be installed in Southwark, so being ordered by some gimp in a monitoring centre telling you to "Stop picking your nose" may not be so far off!

[Jimbob]

Sean Macgabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blimey the Stars would have been delighted if

> East Germany had more citizens like Steve, PGC and

> jimbob

>

> Here is what camera's will achieve: Should you be

> the victim or perpetrator of a crime in the

> future, you will need to have thought ahead and at

> least look good for when ITV 57 shows the CCTV

> Crimes - LIVE!!!.

>

> Have a look at some of the most crime-affected

> areas in the country. See all the cameras there?

> Gazillions of them. So who is it helping? Do

> people really feel safer because of them? And is

> that a good enough reason anyway - should my life

> be affected by someone else's timidity?

>

> Any government can wash their hands of social ills

> if they say "well, we have invested x million in

> CCTV upgrades" etc - and never once address the

> reasons behind the crime in the first place.

you know sean i,ve read a lot of your posts over that past while and they always seem to strike me as well thought out, balanced and rational. however the "should my life be affected by someone else's timidity" has blown them all out of the water. what a selfish ,insensitive attitude, me, me ,me that's what its all about. whether or not cameras are effective is relevant, so to is the belief that they do provide a source of deterrent which is highly relevant to the vulnerable members of our society who are able to brave the walk to the local shops/park/bingo in the knowledge that the presence of cameras will lessen any actual or perceived risk of crime. so its not all about you,you,you, its also about the others who live in our society as well.

[Keef]

Having given this a bit more thought, I have realised that I really don't care about the cameras, and that I'm basically with PGC, Steve and Co.

Depressing as it may be, I believe that we are all just little worker ants with very little power, making the world tick on for the big people. We try and read, and we rage against the machine, and we drink and we go on holiday, but at the end of the day we are back at work on Monday, making the wheels turn, and earning the money to go on holiday and drink... We then have kids, and they go on to live the same lives we're living, and really and truly, it could be a lot bloody worse!

Maybe one day I'll be in Room 101 screaming, and regretting ever having typed this, but I doubt it really. I imagine I'll carry on going about my business, having quite a bit of fun. Breaking a few laws here and there, and the CCTV's really won't make a blind bit of difference to me whatsoever.

Naive perhaps, or perhaps realistic... Time shall tell. Anyway, that's my philosophy for the day.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

For anyone who has the opinion that we should be saturated with CCTV Cameras as "if only one person benefits its worthwhile" then would they agree that IF we ever had the funds then a camera should be placed in EVERY room of every house because "if one person is saved from domestic violence then they are worthwhile".

Surely it the same principle.So,presumably,all those for CCTV's in abundance would have no problem with this either...?

Then if we put in "Tracking" systems in all cars.Have CCTV's on every street,in as many places as possible and have cameras in every home,in abundance we have FINALLY reached "Nirvana"/"El Dorado"/"Elysium"/ and The "Utopian" ideal of 1984..>:D<

[Jimbob]

on the nail with that one keef, a lot of fuss over nothing that will never directly affect anyone on this forum, unless of course they,re up to no good.

[Loz]

There are 14m+ cameras trained on us.

The best estimate I've heard is 4.2m, and even that was based on a rather dodgy premise of extrapolating Putney High St. The truth is that no one actually knows how many CCTV cameras there are in the UK. That is a worry in itself.

For me, if a child (for example) went missing, and was traced by CCTV, then they'd have paid for themselves.

No, no, no. Please not the 'won't somebody think of the children argument'. Apart from anything else, it's a classic thin-end-of-the-wedge approach. Anything that is rather unpalatable can these days be shoved through under 'just think of the children' or 'it will prevent terrorism'.

[Keef]

Tony, no I wouldn't suggest that was a good idea, but extreames are always useful for scare mongering don't you think?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

"If it helps just one person".......reminds me of the old Song.

"If I can help somebody on my way then my life will not have been in vain"....lovely...

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tony, no I wouldn't suggest that was a good idea,

> but extreames are always useful for scare

> mongering don't you think?

but Keef "if it helps just one person.."...it MUST be good,innit?..innit?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

If someone does not mind the positive plethora NAE proliferation of public camera's because it only affects people up-to-no-good then ask them if they would mind someone following THEM round 24/7 in the street with a Camera shoved up their hooter..I mean,if they are NOT up-to-no-good then waz dere problem? yougetme?

[Keef]

Okay Loz, forget children, make it some middle aged bloke, or a woman in her 20s, or an elderly gentleman. My point remains exactly the same!

The thing I was thinking of is all those "last sightings" of such or such 15 year old girl last seen at a train station on Tuesday afternoon. What if we could follow exactly where she went after the train station?

Again, I'm not strongly in favour of these cameras, but it angers me that people are immediately against them because they feel their liberty is somehow being threatened by the big bad state, and unwilling to even consider how they might be useful.

David Carnell earlier said he could put up with them on a main road, and I see what he means... But to be honest, you are so much more likely to be attacked or something when you turn off of the main road on to a quiet back street!

Likewise, it is unlikely that a "petty" criminal will decide to get up to no good on a well lit busy road.

[Ant]

They might be useful in some certain cases, but they're not the only way of getting things done. Taking them away doesn't instantly mean that Little Johnny (no matter how old he is) won't be found, just like putting them there doesn't instantly mean that he will.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't think I put it QUITE that way Keef, but I see what you mean. I should have emphasised what I think the wider impact on society as a whole will be - not "my" life.

But I still think people being unduly worried, or "soft fools" in your words isn't a good enough reason for something so drastic

Good comparison with the previous car drivers debate (now I get where you were coming from) but it's not really the same thing. I'm not really for traffic cameras either. What I'm giving out about in that other thread is - and hang on, I'll find it... here we go, from about a week ago

"Look - if people want to dicuss the merits or otherwise of cameras/fines/litter/whatever, what's the problem. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that people are behaving like children - waiting to be caught at something and then bleating how unfair it all is. ie - it's not about the principle of the thing - it's the childish "mwaaaaaaaahhhhh" that eminates after a parental smack. Calling it an easy cash-cow is equally childish. "

So in the scenario on Marmora Rd if CCTV were everywhere and someone did "some bad things" and got caught, I would adopt the same attitude

But that doesn't make the presence of the cameras themselves desirable. Fixed cameras on roads for traffic are bad enough but the wider spread of CCTV is something else again. I'm not worried about it becoming a "cash cow" catching people doing things they aren't supposed to. It's about how we view ourselves - which sounds poncey but still. If you were in a relationship but relied on a camera to follow your partner around the whole time to be sure they weren't cheating.... it's not great is it? Saying to them "well if you aren't cheating you have nothing to worry about...." isn't good enough...

[Loz]

Unsurprising, I'm with Sean here. I'm not against CCTV as such, it's the unregulated side of it. I think CCTV in railway stations, for instance, is a good idea. Airports? Can't argue there. But, Marmora Road? Why?

The problem is their is no rules or regulations about how and why it is used - and RIPA (the council snooping charter) means they are being used in more and more insidious ways (i.e. tracking parents to make sure they live in school catchment areas). Also, there is a strange cloak of secrecy about them and what happens to the recordings. In the thread about the guy who had the accident with the bus someone said check the CCTV - I'd actually be surprised if Southwark released the pictures (data protection act waved erroneously at this point). They're not there for US, you know.

Like speed cameras, there are few studies into their effectiveness. If there is a crime problem, at best it just pushes it somewhere else.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Just realised by the time I had sent that last post that several more had been posted - so just saw jimbob's re: my selfish comment

As I said it wasn't quite what I said but more than one person has picked me up on it, and I did write something like it so... I'm just goingto re-iterate I didn't mean it that wa - it's not about "me" in the way that it read. Yes I did write it but I'm really not that selfish - just a rushed post

But I'm still on the anti-camera side!