5 ms·
This is one of the interesting things about CCTV in the UK. Not only is it owned by a myriad of entities but it's monitored by a myriad of entities too. Other t
by petercooper 14y ago
This is one of the interesting things about CCTV in the UK. Not only is it owned by a myriad of entities but it's monitored by a myriad of entities too. Other than national networks for things like ANPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK) tying together people's movements through a town, into a nightclub, out onto a motorway, etc, would involve working with numerous organisations, including the local council, the owner of the nightclub, the county council, etc.
This lack of cohesion means that, currently, intrusions into privacy are hard to automate and such footage can only be collected together into a complete narrative with some serious effort on the part of the police.
(Bias disclaimer: I'm very much pro CCTV.)
- lucaspiller 14y ago> would involve working with numerous organisations To elaborate: Which means about six months of red tape just to find which car park the guy went to after he left the club. (Also pro-CCTV)
- nicholassmith 14y agoI'd be pro CCTV but it often seems an expensive boondoggle as the net effect is pretty slim.
- Osmium 14y agoAs long as the government isn't paying for it, then what's the problem? Private CCTV is great: it's difficult to abuse by the government for mass surveillance, but can be subpoenaed after a crime's been committed so we still get the benefit in that regard, and at no cost to the tax payer.