The ever present electronic eye of the law isn’t much of a deterrent here in the U.K., especially in London.
CCTV doesn’t keep us safe, yet the cameras are everywhere – Guardian.co.uk: Pervasive security cameras don’t substantially reduce crime. There are exceptions, of course, and that’s what gets the press… Overall, CCTV cameras aren’t very effective.
This fact has been demonstrated again and again: by a comprehensive study for the Home Office in 2005, by several studies in the US, and again with new data announced last month by New Scotland Yard. They actually solve very few crimes, and their deterrent effect is minimal.
Conventional wisdom predicts the opposite. But if that were true, then camera-happy London, with something like 500,000, would be the safest city on the planet. It isn’t, of course, because of technological limitations of cameras, organisational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals.… Cameras afford a false sense of security, encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.
…companies like L-1 Security Solutions are developing police-state CCTV surveillance technologies like facial recognition for China, technology that will find their way into countries like the UK.
This reminds me of a story I read about a car company that developed facial recognition software to determine the mood of the driver. I wonder if something like that could be adapted to this type of surveillance technology. Imagine getting arrested by the police just because you look angry.
Guy on left: “Whatcha doing tonight after work?”
Guy on right: “Think I’ll just go home, relax, watch some TV”
Well, you’re right–“common sense” says this should work? I looked at the linked studies “proving” this and they are very hard to follow.
How about “logic?”
Brakes in cars are not effective in stopping the car IF YOU DON’T USE THEM!!!!
So–put up camera’s and don’t use them together with police to arrest perpetrators and yes, I believe they won’t work. The subway terrorists of a few months ago showed that like car brakes, the camera’s worked when you use them.
Saw a tv show last night about first timers in prison. With camera’s rolling the convicts would still get into fights because they felt they had to to maintain their reputations. The prison guards put the offender into admin restrictions and he convicts excuse that he was attacked first did not fly.
Did the camera’s work to prevent crime?–No.
Did the camera’s work to punish the criminal?–Yes.
As with most issues, much depends on how you frame the question and what kind of answers you want. But yes, the police could do more if taxes were seen as saving property and personal loss.
Penn & Tellers Bullshit also looked at this issue and came to the conclusion, cameras are just tools that are dependent on the human operator.
Just like a hammer, it depends on the person if the result is the Taj Mahal or just a trip to the emergency room.
“A weapon unused is a useless weapon” General Sline, Spies Like Us
And a waste of money!
This is actually a really good story, but compare it to the post count on the gun rights story: People in this country don’t care about being watched, they care about action being taken.
From my humble perch, CCTV is being setup for forthcoming software that can analyze the software on the fly, detect illegal/inappropriate/subversive behavior, and alert the policy with video evidence. Big brother indeed.
This is absolutely not worth it. it doesn’t matter how many more criminals you catch, or how many trials you win because of this. This is a compromise of civil liberties that cannot be accepted.
#5–Noel==what liberty is compromised?
Hint–don’t confuse a childish wish to be anonymous while in public with any of the various civil liberties.
#6-bobbo,
There are many perfectly legal activities that people might want to keep to themselves. A person can not expect to be unseen in public, but being put under surveillance and suspicion by the people who are supposed to be protecting you is another thing all together.
#7–Noel==you correctly say: “A person can not expect to be unseen in public” /// and then you blow it with anything after that.
Make the distinction between being “seen” in public vs being “under surveillance” and we can go on to suspicion.
#8-bobbo,
And you think that I need a dictionary?
Being seen is passive and coincidental. Being under surveillance is to be under “Close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion”.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surveillance
Being watched all the time is… what?
#9–Noel==you ask: “Being watched all the time is… what?? /// well right now that is a paranoid flight of fantasy?
but let us assume you are under camera watch 24/7 when you leave your front doorstep. That would be excessive intrusion in my view.
What about reality?==camera’s in selected location almost always with signage to note their presence. I’d call that good and efficient use of resources IF the camera’s are sufficiently monitored.
Surviellance is not mounting a camera–its having someone look at the video.
How about when they move the camera into your bedroom, bathroom etc. Hey, since you got nothing to hide…
And they’ll have a job for all the sex criminals in prison to do, namely watching you and yours at home to make sure you are up to, you know, anything wrong or immoral or nothing. I mean after all, they know those guys will be paying real close attention to the cameras that they have them monitoring.
And if you don’t think the connections for all those cameras won’t be hacked into by the pimply faced kid down the street that likes the way your wife or daughter looks, well, heh.
Ubiquitous CCTV seems to serve more as a means to track back who did what than to catch criminals in the act or to bring relief in the middle of an assault.
Without the UK’s major CCTV coverage, would they have connected to the bus and tube bombers so quickly? Sometimes the crimes they do help are big enough to warrant continued use.
Like it or lump it, eyes and memory are being produced at astonishing rates, and the resolution is only going higher.
Nobody is advocating the removal of CCTV from 7-11’s, or similar security placements.
But the larger problem is not being addressed in parallel. The reason for rising crime is social, often given amplification by inadequate policies and example-setting from those who govern.