10 ms·

Most important part of the article: "What’s happening now is going to spread across the country," Whitehead said. "If you can start early in life getting people

Most important part of the article: "What’s happening now is going to spread across the country," Whitehead said. "If you can start early in life getting people accustomed to living in surveillance society then in future it'll be a lot easier to roll these things out to the larger populace."

mtgx 14y ago
That's kind of how it happened in UK with the CCTV cameras, I think. I don't think that future generations will be bothered by them anymore, unless the Government does something terrible and oppressive with them and the people find out and revolt about it. Then they might be up for discussion again, and someone who opposes them could get enough political support to remove them.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I'm not sure if I oppose CCTV cameras or not. Sure there's a creepy element to it. OTOH they are all in public places and the footage is not released to the public without some reason (in contrast to basically anyone just recording with a phone). People always say they want more police on the street, so if each of these cameras was replaced with a uniformed policeman watching the street would this be better or worse?
  - maaku 14y ago
    > People always say they want more police on the street, so if each of these cameras was replaced with a uniformed policeman watching the street would this be better or worse? Better, unequivocally. Why wouldn't it be?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I mean specifically from a "civil liberties" point of view, i.e your are being watched either way but CCTV happens to be cheaper (though less effective).
      - maaku 14y ago
        I meant my comment from the "civil liberties" point of view too. CCTV leaves a permanent record, accessible in perpetuity and to the authorities only. But if a police officer were on the street instead, public activities would remain pseudoanonymous so long as he's not paying attention or what you're doing doesn't otherwise stand out as important to the cop in the moment.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      Because cctv cameras are not (at present) armed and thus can't kill innocent people. Nor are they racist and thus they can't beat someone close to death thereby starting riots. And that's real, trained, qualified, experienced, officers. Imagine what it's like if you have people like the UK "Special Constables" (PCSO, Police Community Support Officer) - volunteer police with limited powers (and training). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Community_Support_Officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Community_Support_Offic...) Police on the streets probably aren't much good at catching criminals; from the little I've read there needs to be more detectives but not more beat officers.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        PCSOs are not volunteers, they are paid. Special Constables are volunteers. PCSOs generally do not have any more rights than any normal citizen in terms of arrest etc and therefor don't really have grounds to make threats against you (apart from using their radio to call an actual police officer).
      - frobozz 14y ago
        Special Constables are properly trained, qualified and warranted volunteer "real" police officers. PCSOs are paid, barely trained normal citizens with a police-like uniform.
    - kristopolous 14y ago
      More police mean more people. More people mean more mistakes. And when police make mistakes people die or at best go to jail unnecessarily. Law enforcement is entrenched with a stand-your-ground-to-hell-with-the-facts culture. Their job is essentially to find "bad guys" so when there are many more cops then bad guys, the category of bad-guy gets vastly expanded. In 2002 at LAX there were so many cops it was ridiculous. My friend got a ticket for littering and I got one for jaywalking. Actually he was going to arrest me at first. So yes, please, I want that experience everywhere I go. If I walk briskly, well then I should be stopped and questioned. If I stop slightly ahead of the line at the crosswalk, I should get a $500 fine every time and eventually lose my license. But the police of course can simply turn on their sirens and go through whatever red light they please, or park in front of a hydrant, or on a sidewalk, they are above the law after all. This overreaching police state sounds simply wonderful. Where does one sign up?
      - im3w1l 14y ago
        Police need to be convinced that your oppresive dictatorship is a good thing. Cameras wont revolt.
        Evbn 14y ago
        The history of military recruiting, and even police recruiting, shows that this check is a non-issue. Police departments hire power tripping bullies who enjoy harassing dirty/brown/hippy/communitst/Irish/whatever.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        I don't know more than half-a-dozen policemen but none of them fit that description.
        clarky07 14y ago
        Right. 6 people in your anecdotal experience is a good rebuttal when compared with thousands of years of world history where there have been no problems finding people to do awful things. For the most obvious example, go to Germany in WWII. No idea why the grandparent is being down voted.
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      That's a pretty strong stance you are taking. To suggest that policeman trump cameras unequivocally, well, you'd have to ignore history to make that case. Just reading through various threads here and I see examples of cases where cameras solved problems better then people could have.
  - djisjke 14y ago
    Is there not any other ways to stop violence than with threats of violence (like more police and cctv who will make sure the cops gets you if you do crimes)? A better, but harder way, is to design society so that crime is low because it's not as necessary as it is today.
    - pepve 14y ago
      History is littered with designed societies.
      - qu4z-2 14y ago
        History is littered with societies in general.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    The problem with CCTV cameras is camera footage can be processed automatically to track people's movements. This gives the state more power than it reasonably needs.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Good point. But OTOH what if some private organisation (cough google) decided to pay private property owners to put street facing cameras on their buildings, record everything and upload it to some server? This could then be used for all kinds of purposes but AFAIK they wouldn't be breaking any laws in doing so, so in this case it doesn't give the state any extra rights than a private company has.
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      You're once again believing the ridiculous notion that somehow all CCTV cameras feed into a central state monitored control station. They don't.
      - mcantelon 14y ago
        Note the use of the words "can be". What's the trend of modern states? Is it towards limiting or increasing surveillance?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Zak 14y ago
    I don't want more police in my neighborhood. At first, more police would probably improve a few things. Fewer people would litter, and the occasional drunk who passes out on the side of a street would be removed faster. The trouble is, there's not actually much for extra police to do, so they'd eventually find things to do. They'd have to start writing speeding tickets for 5 mph over the limit and picking up stray cats. That kind of enforcement would not make this a more pleasant place to live.
    - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
      "start writing speeding tickets for 5 mph over the limit and picking up stray cats" Aren't those good things? I wish for someone to get a ticket if they drive faster than the speed limit, they're a hazard to themselves and others. I'd like stray cats to get picked up so that they will get taken care of and won't be a nuisance to the neighborhood.
      - rizzom5000 14y ago
        I completely disagree. Speed limits are not based when someone becomes a hazard to himself or others. A great many people can and do safely travel faster than the speed limit. Also I don't think that stray cats are a nuisance, and that they do in fact keep down the rodent population and are a generally healthy element of the urban ecosystem. If you are in the US and want more cops in your community, you can make it happen by convincing enough people to vote for the necessary tax increases to hire more law enforcement. Alternatively, you could move to a gated community, many of which hire security guards, that you pay for, who will help take care of the stray cat problem - but you'll still have to contend with the speeders outside the gate.
      - Zak 14y ago
        Those might be good things in some cases, but usually not. In my area, stray cats are mostly beneficial and not overpopulated. Speeding by such a small amount is not usually dangerous, and drivers paranoid about overzealous speed enforcement are likely to focus too much attention on the speedometer and not enough on their environment.
      - 14y ago
  - clarky07 14y ago
    I don't want either. I'd prefer more people took care of themselves. An armed society is a polite society.
    - natrius 14y ago
      "An armed society is a polite society." Do you really believe this platitude? On a purely logical level, there are so many counterexamples that one has to be embarrassed to state it as fact.
      - clarky07 14y ago
        I do. Please show lots of examples of people with their HCP committing crimes. Look at Switzerland. Do they have huge mass murders happening on a daily basis?
      - clarky07 14y ago
        I'm still waiting on your counterexamples, but in the mean time here are a few links. In Switzerland, most 20-30 year olds are in the militia, and have automatic assault rifles in their homes. After their service, they are made into semi-automatic rifles and generally kept by the servicemen in their homes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland 2006 - 34 gun killings, 7.6mil population - rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly DC - poster child for gun control, had 137 gun killings last year with a population of 600k. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/18/effectiveness_of_dc_gun_ban_still_a_mystery/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/18/effect...
        rmccue 14y ago
        In Australia, we've decreased to about 0.1 gun homicides per 100k: http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-200... (Note: somewhat biased site) That's compared to 0.22 for DC, or 0.04 for Switzerland, so it's still higher than Switzerland with vastly higher gun control. However, I think that it's more about the surrounding gun culture than it is the laws: most Australians are against gun usage (see the response to the Port Arthur massacre or the Monash Uni shootings), whereas for Americans, it's their right to hold arms, and they seem to defend that adamantly. See also, this opinion piece by our former Prime Minister: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-... Edit: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia notes 30 gun-related homicides in 2008 for a population of ~21 million.
  - tareqak 14y ago
    My personal complaint with CCTVs is, "why are they so hidden?" I understand that in a public place (shopping mall, public park etc), people could be watching me. I'm alright with that simply for the fact that those people watching me are themselves subject to the same condition of being watched. CCTVs are often black on very dark wall/ceiling or very reflective against a light wall/ceiling making them very hard to pick out unless you are looking for them. It wouldn't be surprising to me if some of them are even more hidden (embedded in decorations, wall hangings, toys, mannequins etc). To me, some of these CCTVs are effectively an attempt at being robotic peeping-Toms. I think a CCTV would afford more real security (if it does at all to begin with) by following the norms of a real watchman (being visible). tl;dr I think I have right to watch the watchmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...), even though this is not guaranteed by any law. If the police feel that hidden cameras are the way to go, then they should surrender the protection that claim to have (not being allowed to videotape or otherwise perform surveillance on a police officer). (I am not at all sure about this last part, please correct me should I be wrong). edit: replaced <em></em> with *s
  - alexakarpov 14y ago
    It's probably way cheaper with cameras..
    - conradfr 14y ago
      Some studies point that operating cameras is expensive and in some way just move or change crime, therefore less efficient than real police at the same cost.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  Please don't peddle the "UK CCTV" bullshit. It's simply not true. CCTV in the UK is widespread in large cities, but operated by individual shop owners, and has been since the 80s when cameras became cheap enough. There is no big government CCTV operation. Closest thing is probably the London congestion charge cameras, or individual towns who decide to install their own to cut down on crime. And if you go out of the cities, you can go forever without seeing a CCTV camera.
  - lelandbatey 14y ago
    I'd like to expand on your point. There seems to be a misconception that most/all cctv cameras are operated by the government. Currently, and nearly all cameras are owned and operated by private parties, and such as shop owners. No one but the owners have access to the footage from these cameras, and and in fact most are set up to record to static media (tapes or hard drives).
  - dogonwheels 14y ago
    Nothing more than anecdote, but hey: My Yorkshire village has a playground. They installed CCTV last month. More people complain about the main road changing from a 40mph to 30mph. I don't care if the 'they' is government or centralised or whatever. The numbness to surveillance unsettles me greatly.
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      What do you think they're doing with the CCTV? They're almost certainly recording to a VHS tape, which cycles every couple of days. IF some crime or vandalism happens on the playground, they will then grab the tapes, and check them. The chances of a conviction will be far higher with video evidence. It's not "numbness to surveillance", because it's not really surveillance. If you want to be free to take videos and photos of random places/things without being arrested, you should also allow that same freedom to owners of property who want to reduce crime.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
- itsprofitbaron 14y ago
  Noone in the UK cares about CCTV, I certainly don't and my friends don't either. The average person in the UK is seen 300 times per day[1] on CCTV and the number is probably higher now. CCTV in the UK is essentially completely privatised anyway & thats even considering that the government run cameras to track car plates etc. Similarly, the government can request that the shop keeper etc hands over the CCTV footage but seriously who cares?! [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2071496.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2071496.stm
nickbarone 14y ago
Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing. They're actually a really good thing, because they, theoretically, let you get a lot more security without losing a lot of liberty (instead, you lose privacy). The problem people have - universally in my limited experience - is with the people and institutions behind the cameras, not the cameras themselves. If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?
- krapp 14y ago
  <paranoid>Within a surveillance society, however, most of the effort involved with the loss of liberty is taken care of by the loss of privacy. Once you can track someone's whereabouts constantly, in realtime, and gain access their communications, know where they've been, where they plan to be, what assets they have, and who their friends are, ending their liberty becomes a minor exercise in telling the black vans where to be and when.</paranoid>
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing. East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing. >If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother? Neighbourhood watches aren't centralized and funded to the degree that state surveillance is.
  - viraptor 14y ago
    > East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing. Street CCTV is not the same as a microphone hidden in your light switch, without you knowing about it. Not nearly the same thing.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      The ability to eavesdrop through cell phones, even where they're not making calls, is pretty similar (although probably more effective) to the capability of bugging light switches: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html Street CCTV can augment traditionally eavesdropping intel, tracking movements and, from that, extrapolating relationships and activities.

mtgx 14y ago

That's kind of how it happened in UK with the CCTV cameras, I think. I don't think that future generations will be bothered by them anymore, unless the Government does something terrible and oppressive with them and the people find out and revolt about it. Then they might be up for discussion again, and someone who opposes them could get enough political support to remove them.

jiggy2011 14y ago
I'm not sure if I oppose CCTV cameras or not. Sure there's a creepy element to it. OTOH they are all in public places and the footage is not released to the public without some reason (in contrast to basically anyone just recording with a phone). People always say they want more police on the street, so if each of these cameras was replaced with a uniformed policeman watching the street would this be better or worse?
- maaku 14y ago
  > People always say they want more police on the street, so if each of these cameras was replaced with a uniformed policeman watching the street would this be better or worse? Better, unequivocally. Why wouldn't it be?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I mean specifically from a "civil liberties" point of view, i.e your are being watched either way but CCTV happens to be cheaper (though less effective).
    - maaku 14y ago
      I meant my comment from the "civil liberties" point of view too. CCTV leaves a permanent record, accessible in perpetuity and to the authorities only. But if a police officer were on the street instead, public activities would remain pseudoanonymous so long as he's not paying attention or what you're doing doesn't otherwise stand out as important to the cop in the moment.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Because cctv cameras are not (at present) armed and thus can't kill innocent people. Nor are they racist and thus they can't beat someone close to death thereby starting riots. And that's real, trained, qualified, experienced, officers. Imagine what it's like if you have people like the UK "Special Constables" (PCSO, Police Community Support Officer) - volunteer police with limited powers (and training). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Community_Support_Officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Community_Support_Offic...) Police on the streets probably aren't much good at catching criminals; from the little I've read there needs to be more detectives but not more beat officers.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      PCSOs are not volunteers, they are paid. Special Constables are volunteers. PCSOs generally do not have any more rights than any normal citizen in terms of arrest etc and therefor don't really have grounds to make threats against you (apart from using their radio to call an actual police officer).
    - frobozz 14y ago
      Special Constables are properly trained, qualified and warranted volunteer "real" police officers. PCSOs are paid, barely trained normal citizens with a police-like uniform.
  - kristopolous 14y ago
    More police mean more people. More people mean more mistakes. And when police make mistakes people die or at best go to jail unnecessarily. Law enforcement is entrenched with a stand-your-ground-to-hell-with-the-facts culture. Their job is essentially to find "bad guys" so when there are many more cops then bad guys, the category of bad-guy gets vastly expanded. In 2002 at LAX there were so many cops it was ridiculous. My friend got a ticket for littering and I got one for jaywalking. Actually he was going to arrest me at first. So yes, please, I want that experience everywhere I go. If I walk briskly, well then I should be stopped and questioned. If I stop slightly ahead of the line at the crosswalk, I should get a $500 fine every time and eventually lose my license. But the police of course can simply turn on their sirens and go through whatever red light they please, or park in front of a hydrant, or on a sidewalk, they are above the law after all. This overreaching police state sounds simply wonderful. Where does one sign up?
    - im3w1l 14y ago
      Police need to be convinced that your oppresive dictatorship is a good thing. Cameras wont revolt.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        The history of military recruiting, and even police recruiting, shows that this check is a non-issue. Police departments hire power tripping bullies who enjoy harassing dirty/brown/hippy/communitst/Irish/whatever.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        I don't know more than half-a-dozen policemen but none of them fit that description.
        clarky07 14y ago
        Right. 6 people in your anecdotal experience is a good rebuttal when compared with thousands of years of world history where there have been no problems finding people to do awful things. For the most obvious example, go to Germany in WWII. No idea why the grandparent is being down voted.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    That's a pretty strong stance you are taking. To suggest that policeman trump cameras unequivocally, well, you'd have to ignore history to make that case. Just reading through various threads here and I see examples of cases where cameras solved problems better then people could have.
- djisjke 14y ago
  Is there not any other ways to stop violence than with threats of violence (like more police and cctv who will make sure the cops gets you if you do crimes)? A better, but harder way, is to design society so that crime is low because it's not as necessary as it is today.
  - pepve 14y ago
    History is littered with designed societies.
    - qu4z-2 14y ago
      History is littered with societies in general.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  The problem with CCTV cameras is camera footage can be processed automatically to track people's movements. This gives the state more power than it reasonably needs.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Good point. But OTOH what if some private organisation (cough google) decided to pay private property owners to put street facing cameras on their buildings, record everything and upload it to some server? This could then be used for all kinds of purposes but AFAIK they wouldn't be breaking any laws in doing so, so in this case it doesn't give the state any extra rights than a private company has.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    You're once again believing the ridiculous notion that somehow all CCTV cameras feed into a central state monitored control station. They don't.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      Note the use of the words "can be". What's the trend of modern states? Is it towards limiting or increasing surveillance?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Zak 14y ago
  I don't want more police in my neighborhood. At first, more police would probably improve a few things. Fewer people would litter, and the occasional drunk who passes out on the side of a street would be removed faster. The trouble is, there's not actually much for extra police to do, so they'd eventually find things to do. They'd have to start writing speeding tickets for 5 mph over the limit and picking up stray cats. That kind of enforcement would not make this a more pleasant place to live.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    "start writing speeding tickets for 5 mph over the limit and picking up stray cats" Aren't those good things? I wish for someone to get a ticket if they drive faster than the speed limit, they're a hazard to themselves and others. I'd like stray cats to get picked up so that they will get taken care of and won't be a nuisance to the neighborhood.
    - rizzom5000 14y ago
      I completely disagree. Speed limits are not based when someone becomes a hazard to himself or others. A great many people can and do safely travel faster than the speed limit. Also I don't think that stray cats are a nuisance, and that they do in fact keep down the rodent population and are a generally healthy element of the urban ecosystem. If you are in the US and want more cops in your community, you can make it happen by convincing enough people to vote for the necessary tax increases to hire more law enforcement. Alternatively, you could move to a gated community, many of which hire security guards, that you pay for, who will help take care of the stray cat problem - but you'll still have to contend with the speeders outside the gate.
    - Zak 14y ago
      Those might be good things in some cases, but usually not. In my area, stray cats are mostly beneficial and not overpopulated. Speeding by such a small amount is not usually dangerous, and drivers paranoid about overzealous speed enforcement are likely to focus too much attention on the speedometer and not enough on their environment.
    - 14y ago
- clarky07 14y ago
  I don't want either. I'd prefer more people took care of themselves. An armed society is a polite society.
  - natrius 14y ago
    "An armed society is a polite society." Do you really believe this platitude? On a purely logical level, there are so many counterexamples that one has to be embarrassed to state it as fact.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      I do. Please show lots of examples of people with their HCP committing crimes. Look at Switzerland. Do they have huge mass murders happening on a daily basis?
    - clarky07 14y ago
      I'm still waiting on your counterexamples, but in the mean time here are a few links. In Switzerland, most 20-30 year olds are in the militia, and have automatic assault rifles in their homes. After their service, they are made into semi-automatic rifles and generally kept by the servicemen in their homes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland 2006 - 34 gun killings, 7.6mil population - rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly DC - poster child for gun control, had 137 gun killings last year with a population of 600k. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/18/effectiveness_of_dc_gun_ban_still_a_mystery/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/18/effect...
      - rmccue 14y ago
        In Australia, we've decreased to about 0.1 gun homicides per 100k: http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-200... (Note: somewhat biased site) That's compared to 0.22 for DC, or 0.04 for Switzerland, so it's still higher than Switzerland with vastly higher gun control. However, I think that it's more about the surrounding gun culture than it is the laws: most Australians are against gun usage (see the response to the Port Arthur massacre or the Monash Uni shootings), whereas for Americans, it's their right to hold arms, and they seem to defend that adamantly. See also, this opinion piece by our former Prime Minister: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-... Edit: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia notes 30 gun-related homicides in 2008 for a population of ~21 million.
- tareqak 14y ago
  My personal complaint with CCTVs is, "why are they so hidden?" I understand that in a public place (shopping mall, public park etc), people could be watching me. I'm alright with that simply for the fact that those people watching me are themselves subject to the same condition of being watched. CCTVs are often black on very dark wall/ceiling or very reflective against a light wall/ceiling making them very hard to pick out unless you are looking for them. It wouldn't be surprising to me if some of them are even more hidden (embedded in decorations, wall hangings, toys, mannequins etc). To me, some of these CCTVs are effectively an attempt at being robotic peeping-Toms. I think a CCTV would afford more real security (if it does at all to begin with) by following the norms of a real watchman (being visible). tl;dr I think I have right to watch the watchmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...), even though this is not guaranteed by any law. If the police feel that hidden cameras are the way to go, then they should surrender the protection that claim to have (not being allowed to videotape or otherwise perform surveillance on a police officer). (I am not at all sure about this last part, please correct me should I be wrong). edit: replaced <em></em> with *s
- alexakarpov 14y ago
  It's probably way cheaper with cameras..
  - conradfr 14y ago
    Some studies point that operating cameras is expensive and in some way just move or change crime, therefore less efficient than real police at the same cost.
mibbitier 14y ago
Please don't peddle the "UK CCTV" bullshit. It's simply not true. CCTV in the UK is widespread in large cities, but operated by individual shop owners, and has been since the 80s when cameras became cheap enough. There is no big government CCTV operation. Closest thing is probably the London congestion charge cameras, or individual towns who decide to install their own to cut down on crime. And if you go out of the cities, you can go forever without seeing a CCTV camera.
- lelandbatey 14y ago
  I'd like to expand on your point. There seems to be a misconception that most/all cctv cameras are operated by the government. Currently, and nearly all cameras are owned and operated by private parties, and such as shop owners. No one but the owners have access to the footage from these cameras, and and in fact most are set up to record to static media (tapes or hard drives).
- dogonwheels 14y ago
  Nothing more than anecdote, but hey: My Yorkshire village has a playground. They installed CCTV last month. More people complain about the main road changing from a 40mph to 30mph. I don't care if the 'they' is government or centralised or whatever. The numbness to surveillance unsettles me greatly.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    What do you think they're doing with the CCTV? They're almost certainly recording to a VHS tape, which cycles every couple of days. IF some crime or vandalism happens on the playground, they will then grab the tapes, and check them. The chances of a conviction will be far higher with video evidence. It's not "numbness to surveillance", because it's not really surveillance. If you want to be free to take videos and photos of random places/things without being arrested, you should also allow that same freedom to owners of property who want to reduce crime.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
itsprofitbaron 14y ago
Noone in the UK cares about CCTV, I certainly don't and my friends don't either. The average person in the UK is seen 300 times per day[1] on CCTV and the number is probably higher now. CCTV in the UK is essentially completely privatised anyway & thats even considering that the government run cameras to track car plates etc. Similarly, the government can request that the shop keeper etc hands over the CCTV footage but seriously who cares?! [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2071496.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2071496.stm

nickbarone 14y ago

Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing. They're actually a really good thing, because they, theoretically, let you get a lot more security without losing a lot of liberty (instead, you lose privacy). The problem people have - universally in my limited experience - is with the people and institutions behind the cameras, not the cameras themselves. If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?

krapp 14y ago
<paranoid>Within a surveillance society, however, most of the effort involved with the loss of liberty is taken care of by the loss of privacy. Once you can track someone's whereabouts constantly, in realtime, and gain access their communications, know where they've been, where they plan to be, what assets they have, and who their friends are, ending their liberty becomes a minor exercise in telling the black vans where to be and when.</paranoid>
mcantelon 14y ago
>Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing. East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing. >If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother? Neighbourhood watches aren't centralized and funded to the degree that state surveillance is.
- viraptor 14y ago
  > East Germany is a historic example of why surveillance states aren't a positive thing. Street CCTV is not the same as a microphone hidden in your light switch, without you knowing about it. Not nearly the same thing.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    The ability to eavesdrop through cell phones, even where they're not making calls, is pretty similar (although probably more effective) to the capability of bugging light switches: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html Street CCTV can augment traditionally eavesdropping intel, tracking movements and, from that, extrapolating relationships and activities.