5 ms·

Well..CCTV cameras caught the 2005 bomber's at King's Cross Station and helped establish their identities and their full itinerary when cross-referenced with ot

Well..CCTV cameras caught the 2005 bomber's at King's Cross Station and helped establish their identities and their full itinerary when cross-referenced with other CCTV videos

gmueckl 8y ago
That was done by looking at the tapes afterwards. But hiw.many crimes were actually prevented by the cameras? Do they provably act as a deterrent? In how many cases did the cameras result in help arriving on time?
- lenkite 8y ago
  Only MI5/GCHQ/OSCT can answer your questions with actual numbers. (EDIT) There are several studies on effectiveness of camera surveillance on crime prevention.The UK unlike other nations actually has a lot of material here. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.650481?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.6...
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    I haven't followed up. Are these numbers published? If not, I would tend to assume that they are too embarrassing to show. But despite my bias, I'm actually curious.
ksajadi 8y ago
I'm not disputing any facts if they are indeed facts. I am merely pointing out how the public opinion can be shaped to react differently given the same subject wrapped differently. I am very sure, inspecting phones has, or will at some point in future be used to stop some crime or terrorist attack, but that's not the point here.
- lenkite 8y ago
  Yes, cameras in public spaces are one thing. Surveillance of private property (personal phones) is a completely different thing. I agree that the latter is terrible.
fabricexpert 8y ago
One case 14 years ago that didn’t prevent a terrorist attack is a terrible reason to give up civil liberties
- lenkite 8y ago
  Its not merely prevention of one bombing. It is also prosecution and preventing future bombings. Otherwise the folks who plan these bombings are free to organize the next bombing.
jscott0918 8y ago
That doesn't mean its worth it. There is always a tradeoff and I would rather live in a world where I know I am free from surveillance than a world where I am .000001% safer or criminals are caught 10% faster.
- lenkite 8y ago
  Well. Strangely I happen to be one of the folks in that .000001%, so I apologize if my opinions have been shaped differently. I lost one of my ex-school mates in an market-place explosion (2005 Delhi bombing). While the London Bombing suspects were identified, all suspects in the Delhi bombing that same year were released due to "lack of evidence". I am completely in favor of surveillance of public property.
  - tclancy 8y ago
    But if we make a world safe from these .000001% events, what do you think that will look like? I can only imagine a dystopian/ Orwellian society where we are all encouraged to report any suspicious behavior and everything becomes a race to the bottom, a Prisoner's Dilemma where I feel pressured to rat out my neighbor for _something_ before he does it to me.
    - lenkite 8y ago
      Who's asking everyone to report suspicious behaviour ? You have raised a _strawman_ argument. Automatic surveillance of public property and public spaces is in my opinion necessary for analysis, investigation and prosecution of terrorists. This must be done by career intelligence folks not by amateurs.
      - barry-cotter 8y ago
        Pervasive surveillance will inevitably lead to machine learning techniques being used to analyse the data which will massively increase the rates of false positives, people who aren’t a threat but who the system flags as potential threats. Freedom and security trade off against one another.
rangibaby 8y ago
CCTV, 2005 London Bombings, Jean Charles de Menezes
clubm8 8y ago
>Well..CCTV cameras caught the 2005 bomber's at King's Cross Station and helped establish their identities and their full itinerary when cross-referenced with other CCTV videos But it didn't prevent the bombing

Well..CCTV cameras caught the 2005 bomber's at King's Cross Station and helped establish their identities and their full itinerary when cross-referenced with other CCTV videos

gmueckl 8y ago

That was done by looking at the tapes afterwards. But hiw.many crimes were actually prevented by the cameras? Do they provably act as a deterrent? In how many cases did the cameras result in help arriving on time?

lenkite 8y ago
Only MI5/GCHQ/OSCT can answer your questions with actual numbers. (EDIT) There are several studies on effectiveness of camera surveillance on crime prevention.The UK unlike other nations actually has a lot of material here. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.650481?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.6...
- gmueckl 8y ago
  I haven't followed up. Are these numbers published? If not, I would tend to assume that they are too embarrassing to show. But despite my bias, I'm actually curious.

ksajadi 8y ago

I'm not disputing any facts if they are indeed facts. I am merely pointing out how the public opinion can be shaped to react differently given the same subject wrapped differently. I am very sure, inspecting phones has, or will at some point in future be used to stop some crime or terrorist attack, but that's not the point here.

lenkite 8y ago
Yes, cameras in public spaces are one thing. Surveillance of private property (personal phones) is a completely different thing. I agree that the latter is terrible.

fabricexpert 8y ago

One case 14 years ago that didn’t prevent a terrorist attack is a terrible reason to give up civil liberties

lenkite 8y ago
Its not merely prevention of one bombing. It is also prosecution and preventing future bombings. Otherwise the folks who plan these bombings are free to organize the next bombing.

jscott0918 8y ago

That doesn't mean its worth it. There is always a tradeoff and I would rather live in a world where I know I am free from surveillance than a world where I am .000001% safer or criminals are caught 10% faster.

lenkite 8y ago
Well. Strangely I happen to be one of the folks in that .000001%, so I apologize if my opinions have been shaped differently. I lost one of my ex-school mates in an market-place explosion (2005 Delhi bombing). While the London Bombing suspects were identified, all suspects in the Delhi bombing that same year were released due to "lack of evidence". I am completely in favor of surveillance of public property.
- tclancy 8y ago
  But if we make a world safe from these .000001% events, what do you think that will look like? I can only imagine a dystopian/ Orwellian society where we are all encouraged to report any suspicious behavior and everything becomes a race to the bottom, a Prisoner's Dilemma where I feel pressured to rat out my neighbor for _something_ before he does it to me.
  - lenkite 8y ago
    Who's asking everyone to report suspicious behaviour ? You have raised a _strawman_ argument. Automatic surveillance of public property and public spaces is in my opinion necessary for analysis, investigation and prosecution of terrorists. This must be done by career intelligence folks not by amateurs.
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      Pervasive surveillance will inevitably lead to machine learning techniques being used to analyse the data which will massively increase the rates of false positives, people who aren’t a threat but who the system flags as potential threats. Freedom and security trade off against one another.

rangibaby 8y ago

CCTV, 2005 London Bombings, Jean Charles de Menezes

clubm8 8y ago

>Well..CCTV cameras caught the 2005 bomber's at King's Cross Station and helped establish their identities and their full itinerary when cross-referenced with other CCTV videos But it didn't prevent the bombing