5 ms·

One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-

One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveill... I'll leave it to you to estimate how many people live per street corner, on average.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
foldr 5y ago
For the UK government to be “spying on every street corner”, these cameras would have to be hooked up to some kind of central system. They’re not (and indeed most are privately owned).
- jevoten 5y ago
  Don't forget to count automated license plate readers, too: https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/48/4865.asp https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/48/4865.asp And in the context of a crime investigation, all those private cameras will have their recordings looked at by the police - though I concede "spying" is too harsh a word for that.
  - foldr 5y ago
    >And in the context of a crime investigation, all those private cameras will have their recordings looked at by the police This might happen in a parallel universe where the police were well resourced and competent. In reality, they rarely bother to access CCTV footage. It's not a particularly quick and easy process. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-fail-to-solve-crimes-because-of-ignorance-about-cctv-footage-a3442416.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-fail-to-sol...
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Said surveillance is available at a moment's notice and without a warrant. Just because they can't do the show "24" level of surveillance doesn't mean it's not bad, real bad, out there for someone who just want's to live their life relatively unscrutinized. Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras.
  - foldr 5y ago
    Private individuals and organisations are not obliged to give their surveillance footage to the police without a warrant. There's no centralized system, so the data is not in any way available 'at a moment's notice'. >Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras. As explained in the guidelines, there's a broad range of opinion on HN. However, I wouldn't say I'm 'standing up for' it. I'm fairly ambivalent about CCTV. I don't think it makes a large amount of difference, either positively or negatively. I do, however, think it's important to be accurate about how (un)sophisticated and (in)effective the surveillance apparatus actually is.
    - jevoten 5y ago
      I only have information on the US, but warrants don't offer much protection: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...
      - foldr 5y ago
        I have to say this discussion is getting a little frustrating. First of all, information regarding the US is obviously irrelevant in the context of UK surveillance. Why even bring it up? Second, every time you reply, you keep broadening out the terms of the discussion further and further, rather than addressing any of the specific factual claims in my posts. I have not taken any strong stance for or against surveillance in general. I'm only concerned to address inaccurate claims about the extent of CCTV surveillance in the UK. The police can easily get warrants to look at lots of things that might be relevant to solving a crime. Maybe that is a problem. If so, that's an issue that's only tangentially related to CCTV surveillance in the UK. All I am doing is correcting the claim that the police in the UK can force private individuals to hand over CCTV footage without a warrant. If you have a problem with warrants per se, then that's probably a discussion to be had elsewhere.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

foldr 5y ago

For the UK government to be “spying on every street corner”, these cameras would have to be hooked up to some kind of central system. They’re not (and indeed most are privately owned).

jevoten 5y ago
Don't forget to count automated license plate readers, too: https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/48/4865.asp https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/48/4865.asp And in the context of a crime investigation, all those private cameras will have their recordings looked at by the police - though I concede "spying" is too harsh a word for that.
- foldr 5y ago
  >And in the context of a crime investigation, all those private cameras will have their recordings looked at by the police This might happen in a parallel universe where the police were well resourced and competent. In reality, they rarely bother to access CCTV footage. It's not a particularly quick and easy process. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-fail-to-solve-crimes-because-of-ignorance-about-cctv-footage-a3442416.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-fail-to-sol...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Said surveillance is available at a moment's notice and without a warrant. Just because they can't do the show "24" level of surveillance doesn't mean it's not bad, real bad, out there for someone who just want's to live their life relatively unscrutinized. Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras.
- foldr 5y ago
  Private individuals and organisations are not obliged to give their surveillance footage to the police without a warrant. There's no centralized system, so the data is not in any way available 'at a moment's notice'. >Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras. As explained in the guidelines, there's a broad range of opinion on HN. However, I wouldn't say I'm 'standing up for' it. I'm fairly ambivalent about CCTV. I don't think it makes a large amount of difference, either positively or negatively. I do, however, think it's important to be accurate about how (un)sophisticated and (in)effective the surveillance apparatus actually is.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    I only have information on the US, but warrants don't offer much protection: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...
    - foldr 5y ago
      I have to say this discussion is getting a little frustrating. First of all, information regarding the US is obviously irrelevant in the context of UK surveillance. Why even bring it up? Second, every time you reply, you keep broadening out the terms of the discussion further and further, rather than addressing any of the specific factual claims in my posts. I have not taken any strong stance for or against surveillance in general. I'm only concerned to address inaccurate claims about the extent of CCTV surveillance in the UK. The police can easily get warrants to look at lots of things that might be relevant to solving a crime. Maybe that is a problem. If so, that's an issue that's only tangentially related to CCTV surveillance in the UK. All I am doing is correcting the claim that the police in the UK can force private individuals to hand over CCTV footage without a warrant. If you have a problem with warrants per se, then that's probably a discussion to be had elsewhere.