3 ms·

Well, the Independent claimed in 2004 that the average Briton is caught on camera 300 times a day. [0] Since London probably has more than the average number o

Well, the Independent claimed in 2004 that the average Briton is caught on camera 300 times a day. [0] Since London probably has more than the average number of cameras per area, even if we wind the clock back 3-4 years, I suspect the answer is yes. --- [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-average-briton-is-caught-on-camera-300-times-a-day-5354728.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-avera...

antihero 5y ago
Which is an amazing number yet the MET seem incapable of solving most crimes.
- bruce343434 5y ago
  So why is that? Isn't this amount of surveillance basically a god tool?
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    It's a very large haystack.
  - zo1 5y ago
    Because it's apparently taboo and dystopian to perform facial recognition and surveillance to help victims. Most of those cameras' and their recordings go into the void instead of some sort of central database that can be used for tracking criminals.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Probably because most of the cameras aren’t hooked to anything centralised or necessarily known about. Which necessitates an enormous data gathering and combing operation to find any useful of which there might not actually be anything. Cameras aren’t magic.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Solving real, victim-reported crimes requires effort, rarely scales and pretty much never brings any political clout. Solving bullshit manufactured crimes such as drug-related ones scales better, doesn't even require a victim to complain and provides seemingly-decent political clout and a veneer of "we're doing something, see?". What's the last time you heard about stolen bikes or phones being recovered on the BBC? Personally, never. But drug-related stuff is common.
cameronh90 5y ago
The vast majority of cameras in London are private installations, rather than something hooked up to some central system. There are the ring of steel cameras, but that area hasn't been widened recently. TFL cameras are possibly linked into some security service, and there's a fair few of them, but they're mainly pointed at roads.

antihero 5y ago

Which is an amazing number yet the MET seem incapable of solving most crimes.

bruce343434 5y ago
So why is that? Isn't this amount of surveillance basically a god tool?
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  It's a very large haystack.
- zo1 5y ago
  Because it's apparently taboo and dystopian to perform facial recognition and surveillance to help victims. Most of those cameras' and their recordings go into the void instead of some sort of central database that can be used for tracking criminals.
meheleventyone 5y ago
Probably because most of the cameras aren’t hooked to anything centralised or necessarily known about. Which necessitates an enormous data gathering and combing operation to find any useful of which there might not actually be anything. Cameras aren’t magic.
Nextgrid 5y ago
Solving real, victim-reported crimes requires effort, rarely scales and pretty much never brings any political clout. Solving bullshit manufactured crimes such as drug-related ones scales better, doesn't even require a victim to complain and provides seemingly-decent political clout and a veneer of "we're doing something, see?". What's the last time you heard about stolen bikes or phones being recovered on the BBC? Personally, never. But drug-related stuff is common.

cameronh90 5y ago

The vast majority of cameras in London are private installations, rather than something hooked up to some central system. There are the ring of steel cameras, but that area hasn't been widened recently. TFL cameras are possibly linked into some security service, and there's a fair few of them, but they're mainly pointed at roads.