I wish there were more CCTV cameras...

[JJMcClure]

Last week some kind soul sideswiped my car while it was parked up and then failed to stop and leave details. I got back to the car to see the whole driver's side damaged and the wing mirror completely gone. So far the cost is up to £850, out of our pockets. I reported it to the police and a policeman said 'it's a shame there's no CCTV there'. I agree. If there was, I'd be able to identify the culprit at least, even if they're not insured.

It struck me that there are a lot of people in this country who really don't like the number of CCTV cameras that there are and I wondered how they'd feel in my situation, or if they got mugged, or if a family member was attacked. Would they still think 'oh well, at least I can walk down the road without 'big brother' watching me' or would they wish that a camera might have captured the attack on film to be used to prosecute, or even to have allowed an immediate police response while the attack was actually happening? What about terrorist activities, which are not government fueled paranoia, I have a friend who was a senior policeman and he's told me a little about the briefings they used to get on terrorist cells in this country, will we not be glad when a CCTV camera picks up suspicious activity before people start dying and allows intervention?

Are the privacy fans the first people to moan when it all goes wrong and there was no surveillance to help them? Kinda like the people who hate the police but then are the first on the phone to them when they need help.

At what price do we obtain our privacy?

[Nidec]

I live and work in and around London and it is estimated that Londoners get filmed by camera's around 300 times a day. I have no problem with that, I don't break any laws or have anything to hide.
Unfortunately so long as organisations like Liberty take it upon themselves to campaign 'on our behalf' (funny, I don't remember them asking me for my opinion) to have these removed or evidence from them to be invalid (I won't give their website any promotion, but here is a quote from it "Liberty has today written to the architects of the Project Champion counter-terror scheme to inform them that they must to agree to dismantle the full surveillance infrastructure or proceedings will be commenced in the High Court..."
Too many do-gooders in this country who can't see they are aiding and abetting lawbreakers and the anti-social by their actions.

[Kay]

I agree, if you're not committing crimes, then what's the problem about being filmed in public places? I wouldn't mind. I'd see it as protection for me as a member of the general public. However, some people might have something to hide even though they're not committing crimes, eg extra-marital affairs, homosexuality, (can't think of any that aren't sex-related). Well, that's tough - they'd have nothing to fear if they weren't sneaking around.

Sorry to hear about your car, JJ.

[Clinton]

While I'm sorry for the damage to your car, I am against blanket CCTV.

In theory CCTV exists to pick out suspicious activity. In the implementation you've got hundreds of millions of tax payers money spent on equipment to watch public areas even those that are usually very, very safe and more millions spent on poorly trained, voyeur employees watching those cameras. The cost doesn't justify the returns. Further, have you ever tried getting a copy of a CCTV recording?! In cases like yours where the "only" damage is the car, you'd like get refused a copy on grounds of "Data Protection". If you got a court order demanding release it would be too late as the recording would have been written over.

Oh, you say, but if there was a serious criminal case, CCTV footage would be useful. Does anyone know where the London Underground recording is of the police chasing and killing the innocent Jean Charles de Menezes? Or Ian Tomlinson's death within yards from a CCTV camera? Monitoring cameras costs money and authorities don't like spending money. But they buy the cameras because it means lucrative contracts for their mates.

Far more can be achieved by having a more visible police presence on our streets - bobbies on the beat, and giving them the power to actually do stuff.

Terrorist attacks are grossly overstated. More people die from bee stings in the UK every year than are killed by terrorists. Our security forces are already doing a good job protecting us from terrorists. They don't need a CCTV camera watching every street and recruiting a million operatives to watch those cameras. It's unlikely to make much of a difference to how many lives are lost to terrorism.

Mission creep is a big problem. Give authorities like LAs a bit of power and they'll grab more and more. CCTVs in every street could be used for a lot of revenue generating activity like fining cars for leaving their engines on idle for more than x minutes, for example. Or catching truants (how would the cameras know that my children are home educated and not pupils at a school?). Governments aren't benign and don't act in our best interests, they act in theirs.

[JJMcClure]

I live and work in and around London and it is estimated that Londoners get filmed by camera's around 300 times a day. I have no problem with that, I don't break any laws or have anything to hide.

That's how I feel but that argument sends the privacy campaigners up the wall, check this post out - Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

Surveillance will not necessarily lead to a police state in the UK, we've had our freedom for too long to accept that and we're not a third world country. This is the 21st century, not Germany before the Nazi party came to power.

In a world where privacy is being broken down (and that's our perception of it, go to China and see what their idea of privacy is, totally different culture) it's redundant to cling to privacy for the sake of it.

Yes, surveillance leads to control, that's kinda the point isn't it? Control of criminals/terrorists etc etc.

I agree, if you're not committing crimes, then what's the problem about being filmed in public places?

I don't know. Perhaps someone from the privacy lobby can explain it?

Sorry to hear about your car, JJ.

Thanks. I hate cars, I'd not own one if it was easy to do but it's not.

[JJMcClure]

While I'm sorry for the damage to your car, I am against blanket CCTV.

In theory CCTV exists to pick out suspicious activity. In the implementation you've got hundreds of millions of tax payers money spent on equipment to watch public areas even those that are usually very, very safe and more millions spent on poorly trained, voyeur employees watching those cameras. The cost doesn't justify the returns.

'hundreds of millions' is a drop in the ocean compared to how much tax payer's money gets wasted on many many other issues. If it were to be decided based on cost, CCTV would be a long long way down the list of things to get sorted, that's not a pertinent argument.

You call the CCTV operatives 'voyeur employees', well, I think the nature of that comment speaks for itself.

Does anyone know where the London Underground recording is of the police chasing and killing the innocent Jean Charles de Menezes? Or Ian Tomlinson's death within yards from a CCTV camera?

Why do you or I need to see that? Maybe it was 'lost' the same way other graphic and shocking footage has been lost, like the films of the Omaha beach massacre which the US government accidentally lost. It's accepted that they killed the wrong man, why does CCTV footage of the event even come into this discussion?

Terrorist attacks are grossly overstated. More people die from bee stings in the UK every year than are killed by terrorists. Our security forces are already doing a good job protecting us from terrorists. They don't need a CCTV camera watching every street and recruiting a million operatives to watch those cameras. It's unlikely to make much of a difference to how many lives are lost to terrorism.

How are you qualified to make this statement, unless you have access to the kind of information that Mi5 and Mi6 have? I was involved in a discussion about terrorism in a pub once, my senior policeman friend stayed out of it but afterwards he told me that the other two had no idea what they were talking about and that if they'd seen the info he'd seen in anti-terrorist briefings they'd soon change their tune. He couldn't say anymore because of the OS Act, he just wanted me to know that I wasn't paranoid or talking rubbish.

CCTV isn't the sole answer, it simply contributes to our overall security.

Governments aren't benign and don't act in our best interests, they act in theirs.

I'd argue that they act in the interests of the big money and the big money needs a nice safe population to keep buying it's products. Keeping us safe is very much in the interests of both government and the big money. CCTV helps keep people safe.

Seriously, what difference does it make to you if you pass a CCTV camera or five on the way to buy a newspaper? I think this is very much about 'perfect world' principles and has little to do with the practical benefits of good surveillance.

[Mikl]

JJ,

I'm sorry about your car, but - in this particular situation - I wonder if CCTV would have helped you trace the culprit.

If you had been mugged, the police could use the CCTV footage to try to identify the offender. That might result in the offender being prosecuted (which is presumably a desirable outcome, from your point of view).

But mugging is a criminal offence. Accidently causing damage to a car (assuming it was an accident, of course) is not. You have the right to seek damages from the perpetrator, but that's a civil matter. Would the authorities hand the CCTV footage over to you in order to pursue the matter? Or would they be disallowed from doing so?

There is also an issue of identification. At best, the footage can indentify the car that caused the damage (assuming it was a car). It can't tell you who was driving it. I know that in the matter of speeding fines, the registered keeper of the car is deemed to be the driver, but does that apply in civil cases?

None of this invalidates your main point, of course. If cameras genuinely deter crime and help catch villains, I'm all for them. I'm only questioning the assumption that they can be used in private disputes and civil actions.

Mike

[JJMcClure]

JJ,



None of this invalidates your main point, of course. If cameras genuinely deter crime and help catch villains, I'm all for them. I'm only questioning the assumption that they can be used in private disputes and civil actions.

Mike

It was a policeman that said it to me which is why I'm assuming that the footage would have been useful to the police. In the UK, a hit and run is a criminal offence (Leaving the scene of an accident, Failure to report an accident, Possible driving without insurance) so I don't see why CCTV footage wouldn't be used as evidence or as a means of identification.

[Nidec]

The cost doesn't justify the returns.

Would you like to explain that to someone who lost a loved one in the terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, New York, etc, etc?

Far more can be achieved by having a more visible police presence on our streets - bobbies on the beat, and giving them the power to actually do stuff.

This is even more expensive than cameras and the camera is looking, and recording what it sees, 24/7.

More people die from bee stings in the UK every year than are killed by terrorists.

According to The Surrey Allergy Clinic, London 4 people die from bee stings in the UK each year, your article itself says 5. So how many years worth of bee stings did terror attacks accumulate in London, Madrid, New York etc? Quite a few.
The main point, which you have either missed or ignored, is that the terror attacks were avoidable. The bees stings were not, so your example is totally irrelevant.

Our security forces are already doing a good job protecting us from terrorists. They don't need a CCTV camera watching every street and recruiting a million operatives to watch those cameras. It's unlikely to make much of a difference to how many lives are lost to terrorism.

Why do you think they are doing a good job? CCTV cameras, together with email & telephone call monitoring play a huge part in this

Governments aren't benign and don't act in our best interests, they act in theirs.

And neither are terrorists

Miki says, rightly, that accidentally damaging someones car is not a criminal offence. However, leaving the scene of an accident and failure to report same to the authorities is.

[bwelford]

In a way there's a parallel between every-where CCTV Cameras and the Internet. Online visibility does mean that more people are aware that there are a great many people out there watching. You don't always think about it but in general I believe it can improve how people behave. CCTV cameras function in a similar way in the physical world.