5 ms·

The UK has been a surveillance state for a long time. I've been the victim of property crime 4x in the UK, and 3 of those times the entire thing was caught on

The UK has been a surveillance state for a long time. I've been the victim of property crime 4x in the UK, and 3 of those times the entire thing was caught on multiple CCTVs. But that didn't help me get my stuff back or prosecute criminals. The one time I did get my computer back was when the police raided a stash house (due to an anonymous tip, not surveillance) and found a treasure trove of stolen electronics, which included my computer. But having cameras everywhere in London didn't help at all, so AFAICT they only exist to surveil you.

Freedom5093 1y ago
This is untrue? Cameras in the UK are not "just used for surveillance". The facial recognition used recently has led to arrest of many offenders. > The Met reported that in 12 months they made 580 arrests using LFR for offences including, rape, domestic abuse, knife crime, GBH and robbery, including 52 registered sex offenders arrested for breaching their conditions. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/live-facial-recognition-technology-to-catch-high-harm-offenders#:~:text=Live%20Facial%20Recognition%20has%20already,across%20the%20country%20moving%20forward. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/live-facial-recognition-t... That's statistics for London, not the rest of the UK.
- d--b 1y ago
  It doesn’t say how many times they handcuffed the wrong guy.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  > The facial recognition used recently has led to arrest of many offenders. I'm confused as to how that isn't also "surveillance". Being able to know where someone is on your city sure seems like it fits the bill to me, unless you're considering it "enforcement" (and different from surveillance)?
teamonkey 1y ago
Realistically, CCTV probably will help catching and prosecuting the people who invaded your home. But CCTV doesn’t act as a deterrent like a bobby on the street would. And because there’s a lack of visibility of criminals being caught, it just feels like the police are doing nothing. If they’re caught down the line it’s unlikely you’d hear about it anyway. The police can’t tell you without it being proven in court unless essentially caught red-handed, and even if proven successfully that could be months or even years away. Unfortunately, it’s impractical for them to track down your stolen items without investing much more time than the value of those goods (though I would rather they did that than, say, arrest hundreds of peaceful protestors). This isn’t unique to the UK; my house was raided when I lived in another country and the police attitude was only to record the theft and assume it was gone for good. It really hurts and makes you feel unsafe but I doubt the police force in any major city in any country will spend time looking for stolen goods after a break-in. (I’m not saying that the surveillance aspect isn’t a very real problem.)
- skeezyboy 1y ago
  >Realistically, CCTV probably will help catching and prosecuting the people who invaded your home. not if the police cant be bothered to investigate. they dont bother with anything non-violent.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    Not true. If the CCTV gives a clear and obvious result they will pursue it. If there’s a string of thefts they will investigate and use the CCTV to provide evidence. CCTV won’t always provide that but sometimes it does. What they won’t do is send Columbo to track down your laptop, because your laptop is worth a few minutes of police time at best, and by the time you report it it’s already been fenced and there is almost zero chance of recovery. They should prioritise violent crime.
    - seabass-labrax 1y ago
      > They should prioritise violent crime. I just want to point out that theft can be violent. In England and Wales, burglary is considered to be a more severe crime if house was occupied, due to the psychological effects on the victims. The famous 'phone-snatching' can hardly be considered non-violent either, given that it requires physical contact and is almost guaranteed to produce fear in the victim. (I don't personally know how it has been prosecuted - if at all - in the past though.)
      - teamonkey 1y ago
        Yep, you’re right.
    - skeezyboy 1y ago
      > If the CCTV gives a clear and obvious result they will pursue it. And how are you defining "clear and obvious"? Because unless the robber writes his name and address on some paper and holds it to the camera, it wont get investigated mate. > What they won’t do is send Columbo to track down your laptop, because your laptop is worth a few minutes of police time at best, and by the time you report it it’s already been fenced and there is almost zero chance of recovery. They should prioritise violent crime. Which is exactly what I said, they dont bother with non-violent crime. But if laptops arent worth investigating, they should make stealing one legal, or at the very least tell the public they cant be bothered with laptops. Because I was under the impression you could ring the police to enforce the law, not just the parts they deem "worth police time"
hyperbolablabla 1y ago
I was robbed at knifepoint on Oxford Street at about 3am while drunk, and let me say, there had to have been about 100 cameras pointed in my direction at the time of the mugging. Despite all this, the police told me nothing could be done because they were unable to acquire any useful footage at the time of the robbery. I lost a lot of faith in the Met after this incident, or that mass CCTV was even really that useful in getting a prosecution.
echoangle 1y ago
That’s fallacious, they could have a deterring effect and crime would be even worse without cameras.

Freedom5093 1y ago

This is untrue? Cameras in the UK are not "just used for surveillance". The facial recognition used recently has led to arrest of many offenders. > The Met reported that in 12 months they made 580 arrests using LFR for offences including, rape, domestic abuse, knife crime, GBH and robbery, including 52 registered sex offenders arrested for breaching their conditions. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/live-facial-recognition-technology-to-catch-high-harm-offenders#:~:text=Live%20Facial%20Recognition%20has%20already,across%20the%20country%20moving%20forward. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/live-facial-recognition-t... That's statistics for London, not the rest of the UK.

d--b 1y ago
It doesn’t say how many times they handcuffed the wrong guy.
rkomorn 1y ago
> The facial recognition used recently has led to arrest of many offenders. I'm confused as to how that isn't also "surveillance". Being able to know where someone is on your city sure seems like it fits the bill to me, unless you're considering it "enforcement" (and different from surveillance)?

teamonkey 1y ago

Realistically, CCTV probably will help catching and prosecuting the people who invaded your home. But CCTV doesn’t act as a deterrent like a bobby on the street would. And because there’s a lack of visibility of criminals being caught, it just feels like the police are doing nothing. If they’re caught down the line it’s unlikely you’d hear about it anyway. The police can’t tell you without it being proven in court unless essentially caught red-handed, and even if proven successfully that could be months or even years away. Unfortunately, it’s impractical for them to track down your stolen items without investing much more time than the value of those goods (though I would rather they did that than, say, arrest hundreds of peaceful protestors). This isn’t unique to the UK; my house was raided when I lived in another country and the police attitude was only to record the theft and assume it was gone for good. It really hurts and makes you feel unsafe but I doubt the police force in any major city in any country will spend time looking for stolen goods after a break-in. (I’m not saying that the surveillance aspect isn’t a very real problem.)

skeezyboy 1y ago
>Realistically, CCTV probably will help catching and prosecuting the people who invaded your home. not if the police cant be bothered to investigate. they dont bother with anything non-violent.
- teamonkey 1y ago
  Not true. If the CCTV gives a clear and obvious result they will pursue it. If there’s a string of thefts they will investigate and use the CCTV to provide evidence. CCTV won’t always provide that but sometimes it does. What they won’t do is send Columbo to track down your laptop, because your laptop is worth a few minutes of police time at best, and by the time you report it it’s already been fenced and there is almost zero chance of recovery. They should prioritise violent crime.
  - seabass-labrax 1y ago
    > They should prioritise violent crime. I just want to point out that theft can be violent. In England and Wales, burglary is considered to be a more severe crime if house was occupied, due to the psychological effects on the victims. The famous 'phone-snatching' can hardly be considered non-violent either, given that it requires physical contact and is almost guaranteed to produce fear in the victim. (I don't personally know how it has been prosecuted - if at all - in the past though.)
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      Yep, you’re right.
  - skeezyboy 1y ago
    > If the CCTV gives a clear and obvious result they will pursue it. And how are you defining "clear and obvious"? Because unless the robber writes his name and address on some paper and holds it to the camera, it wont get investigated mate. > What they won’t do is send Columbo to track down your laptop, because your laptop is worth a few minutes of police time at best, and by the time you report it it’s already been fenced and there is almost zero chance of recovery. They should prioritise violent crime. Which is exactly what I said, they dont bother with non-violent crime. But if laptops arent worth investigating, they should make stealing one legal, or at the very least tell the public they cant be bothered with laptops. Because I was under the impression you could ring the police to enforce the law, not just the parts they deem "worth police time"

hyperbolablabla 1y ago

I was robbed at knifepoint on Oxford Street at about 3am while drunk, and let me say, there had to have been about 100 cameras pointed in my direction at the time of the mugging. Despite all this, the police told me nothing could be done because they were unable to acquire any useful footage at the time of the robbery. I lost a lot of faith in the Met after this incident, or that mass CCTV was even really that useful in getting a prosecution.

echoangle 1y ago

That’s fallacious, they could have a deterring effect and crime would be even worse without cameras.