I wish there were more CCTV cameras...

[Chabrenas]

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.

You surprise me, Clinton. I'd only expect CCTV cameras to be monitored in real time where there was a high chance of seeing something and being able to take action in time to be of any use. Certainly private security guards in buildings do this, but I thought the only time the Police would be watching live coverage would be when they were forewarned, as part of special security procedures - e.g. during big demonstrations or high-profile visits.

I don't dislike security cameras, although I agree that some are probably unnecessary 'business for the boys' purchases. At least they can't be used to create a revenue stream rather than attacking the problem, as many speed cameras undoubtedly are.

[JJMcClure]

I don't dislike security cameras, although I agree that some are probably unnecessary 'business for the boys' purchases. At least they can't be used to create a revenue stream rather than attacking the problem, as many speed cameras undoubtedly are.

Hah, I've been avoiding this issue but if you guys wanna go there that's fine. Speed cameras aren't a privacy issue but the same logic applies, if you don't speed, i.e. you drive safely, you shouldn't care that they exist.

Policing speed limits can't be done on an individual basis, you may be a better, safer driver than some people but if everyone was allowed to drive at whatever speed they chose, there would be many many more deaths on our roads, most of them innocent victims. So we have blanket speed limits which we all have to adhere to. If you get caught speeding, I have zero sympathy for you. Plus I once did the maths on this and the paltry £110 million that speed cameras generate in the year I worked it out is mostly eaten up by costs and would constitute about 0.000000000000001% of GDP. Hardly the best 'hidden tax' is it....

Simple answer, don't speed.

[Chabrenas]

JJ, I agree that you only end up paying for speeding if you're guilty (or if you are the registered owner of the vehicle that was caught). However, I've seen a lot of cameras placed too late to make an errant driver slow down before a hazard, and others after a serious risk such as a school instead of before it.

The French have just begun to remove warning signs about radar traps, but at the same time they have added flashing signs that tell you that you are speeding, a couple of hundred metres ahead of the camera. As a system that concentrates people's minds at the time rather than punishing them a month or so after the event, it strikes me as a good idea - but it must reduce the revenue significantly.

P.S. Your calculation could well be accurate, but I reckon it uses the wrong input data. Most speed cameras are probably well placed, and should be removed from the population you're considering. I agree that the total amount collected by blatantly wrongly-placed cameras is insignificant, but it triggers a lot of unnecessary resentment that sometimes helps to fuel less deserving fires.

[Nidec]

JJ, I've seen a lot of cameras placed too late to make an errant driver slow down before a hazard

If they get caught because the camera is placed 'too late' that's their own fault for speeding, they probably drove miles over the limit and got away with it so tough luck.
When I was driving in rural France (Loire Valley area) a couple of years ago I noticed they positioned life-size black silhouettes along the roadside for each death that occurred. I thought that really made me think about the human consequence of speeding. Do you still have these in France?

[Mikl]

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.

I see. I wasn't sure about that (at least, the bit about leaving the scene of an accident of failure to report). Does that only apply to accidents involving cars? If someone accidentally broke a shop window, say, would it be an offence not to report it? Who would you have to report it to?

I know that's not relevant in this case. I'm just curious about where the line is drawn.

Mike

[grynge]

I can really only say one thing

The rights of the individual should never be outweighed by the rights of the majority.

Once the individual loses their rights the majority loses their rights. They say all the time, it's about making a safer society. Can you tell me where in the world all of this removal of individual rights has improved safety? From what I read of England your safety is much worse than when you had more freedom and weren't being captured on tv every second of the day.

This person that crashed your car do you think for a second they got out of the car looked around for cctv's and then thought to themselves oh excellent no tv's I didn't get captured its time for me to exit stage left. Of course they didn't they hit your car and without a second thought they drove off.

All the rioting over their in the past 2 years they caught heaps of that on camera but it didn't stop the rioters or make them think wait I gunna pay for this later. So no more cameras won't make your society safer and will only be used eventually to monitor all the movement of the masses. First it is cameras for speeding cars, and then to make the system fairer for big users of vehicles we are going to track all vehicles movement, those that go further pay more registration etc etc. (Just in case you don't believe these systems exist they are already in use in different countries.) The police here in Australia now only have to arrest you to take your DNA, get that theyt don't have to charge you, they can stop you driving your car, make up something like you failed to indicate at the exit of the roundabout and then arrest you. Get you back to the cells take your DNA and then say oh we made a mistake let you go but your DNA stays in the database. All this and you don't have to commit a crime.

The safety of a society has 1 big problem with it. The safer they make a society the less free the population of that society is.

It's safer for you to wear a seatbelt so now you don't get a choice
It's safer for you to wear a helmet riding a motorbike so now you don't get a choice.
Oh some guy went crazy and killed some people, so now you don't get guns.
Oh you can't have mace, tasers or any self protection because it would make you safer but the society less safe because they could get into bad peoples hands.

We now have more gun crime and gun shootings than ever before. Yet all these guns are illegal. So the criminals know if they bust into some law abiding citizens house they won't have to deal with a gun toting householder. You should have seen the outcry when I allowed my 8 year old daughter shoot a sniper rifle, and a pistol in thailand. Most of my wifes friends said I was crazy to let her do that. As a kid I used to go fox and rabbit shooting just about everyweekend from the age of 8 with family and friends and then 12 my mates and I used to go hunting alone.

Here's something to think about (I am not saying this will happen and what I have been reading could all be wrong). England from what I have been reading now has quite a large religious based government movement, who hope to be in control by 2050 of your main government and change to another legal system. What will happen to all these cameras if that should ever happen? Who will be watching then? and for what Crimes will they be watching?

Goodluck England, Australia has it's own problems so we can't help you any.

[JJMcClure]

The rights of the individual should never be outweighed by the rights of the majority.

I'm not going to be sidetracked into a discussion about 'rights'. They're meaningless.

Once the individual loses their rights the majority loses their rights. They say all the time, it's about making a safer society. Can you tell me where in the world all of this removal of individual rights has improved safety? From what I read of England your safety is much worse than when you had more freedom and weren't being captured on tv every second of the day.

How does a camera on a street corner lose you a right, a right to what? To walk down the road without a digital camera being on it? Other people can see you, a policeman in a car can see you, you can be seen, what difference does it make that it's through a lens?

This person that crashed your car do you think for a second they got out of the car looked around for cctv's and then thought to themselves oh excellent no tv's I didn't get captured its time for me to exit stage left. Of course they didn't they hit your car and without a second thought they drove off.

No but perhaps you're missing the point, if there'd been a camera we'd be able to identify the individual. If they're stupid enough to drive off when there actually is a camera, that's their problem. There was no camera, so it's my problem.

All the rioting over their in the past 2 years they caught heaps of that on camera but it didn't stop the rioters or make them think wait I gunna pay for this later.

No, it made them all wear face masks (except the really stupid ones) but a ton of CCTV evidence was still used to convict rioters. You're just wrong on this point.

The safety of a society has 1 big problem with it. The safer they make a society the less free the population of that society is.

It's safer for you to wear a seatbelt so now you don't get a choice
It's safer for you to wear a helmet riding a motorbike so now you don't get a choice.
Oh some guy went crazy and killed some people, so now you don't get guns.
Oh you can't have mace, tasers or any self protection because it would make you safer but the society less safe because they could get into bad peoples hands.

You just sound like you don't like being told what to do here. Fact. Those laws save lives. My son fell off his bike yesterday and broke his wrist as well as slamming his head into a telegraph pole. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet it would have been much much worse and bike helmets aren't even compulsory, it's just common sense. Only an idiot wouldn't wear a safety belt or a motorbike helmet but there are so many idiots that there has to be a law about the stuff you listed to make them do it.

You should have seen the outcry when I allowed my 8 year old daughter shoot a sniper rifle, and a pistol in thailand. Most of my wifes friends said I was crazy to let her do that. As a kid I used to go fox and rabbit shooting just about every weekend from the age of 8 with family and friends and then 12 my mates and I used to go hunting alone.

It might surprise you but I actually agree with you here. I'm going to let my kids target shoot real weapons so that they understand that guns are real and dangerous and are mostly used for violence and that they’re not ‘cool’ toys that are supposed to be part of childhood games. My kids have no toy guns or other military toys or realistically violent video games I don't want them turned into cannon fodder by the toys they're exposed to as kids.

Here's something to think about (I am not saying this will happen and what I have been reading could all be wrong). England from what I have been reading now has quite a large religious based government movement, who hope to be in control by 2050 of your main government and change to another legal system. What will happen to all these cameras if that should ever happen? Who will be watching then? and for what Crimes will they be watching?

lol.... do you hope to scare me into seeing your point of view because I'll probably be guilty of one the crimes this hypothetical religious government will be watching for on the CCTV system? IF that occurred, and the laws of the land were the laws of the land, I'd still have no sympathy for anyone caught breaking them by a CCTV camera, I'd have a problem with the laws themselves.

[grynge]

How does a camera on a street corner lose you a right, a right to what? To walk down the road without a digital camera being on it? Other people can see you, a policeman in a car can see you, you can be seen, what difference does it make that it's through a lens?

It is about rights, I have no right not to be on those cameras,

No but perhaps you're missing the point, if there'd been a camera we'd be able to identify the individual. If they're stupid enough to drive off when there actually is a camera, that's their problem. There was no camera, so it's my problem.

Read any crime statistics and they state crimes against women and children are most likely to happen in the persons home so we should have cameras in all rooms of all homes at all times. Crimes happen in public toilet cubicles so by your stand we should also have cameras in toilets. Crimes happen at all schools so all schools should be under survailance too. Where is your point of a humans right to privacy versus the right of the government to protect us from crimes? You can't say because the crime might not happen because that is what I am saying about general cameras they don't stop crime from happening. If the cameras are good enough to be in the streets then surely by your standard they are good enough to be in every room of every home waiting wand watching on the off chance a crime happens.

(I wanted to address a couple of other points but am on my way out and will do a bit later)

[Nidec]

From what I read of England your safety is much worse than when you had more freedom and weren't being captured on tv every second of the day.

Where have you read this? The link Clinton referred to earlier shows that death by terrorist offences are down to an average of less than 5 per year, much lower than the 1970's and 80's (IRA terrorism) when the UK started using cameras to track suspects, and early 2000's (Al-Queda) after which surveillance was increased to counter this new threat. Its no use making comments that you can't substantiate, it just undermines your point.

All the rioting over their in the past 2 years they caught heaps of that on camera but it didn't stop the rioters or make them think wait I gunna pay for this later.

No, it didn't, but the 3000 convicted using CCTV evidence may think twice in the future

So no more cameras won't make your society safer and will only be used eventually to monitor all the movement of the masses. First it is cameras for speeding cars

Are you saying that speed cameras have not made roads safer, because I think you will find most countries statistics disagree with you. Its also widely known that a lot of people stopped for speeding offences are then found to have committed other offences (no tax, no licence, no insurance, car unfit to drive, etc) so the cameras are helping catch these people as well

The police here in Australia now only have to arrest you to take your DNA, get that they don't have to charge you, they can stop you driving your car, make up something like you failed to indicate at the exit of the roundabout and then arrest you. Get you back to the cells take your DNA and then say oh we made a mistake let you go but your DNA stays in the database. All this and you don't have to commit a crime.

Just a personal feeling here, but I don't have a problem with that, in fact I would be happy for the authorities to take DNA samples at birth. If 20 years later it helps catch 1 rapist or murderer before he can commit more crimes than thats all worth while

England from what I have been reading now has quite a large religious based government movement, who hope to be in control by 2050 of your main government and change to another legal system.

Again I have to question your reading material. Its true that the UK does try to tolerate all religious beliefs but I cant think of any that influence government. Religious-run schools are given a certain amount of autonomy but what they say & teach is monitored and, when extremist views are voiced, the school can have its state funding removed. There are also laws in the UK which go against the wishes of many religious movements, such as Sikhs having to wear motorbike helmets, female Muslims having to lift their veil to show their face at customs, outlawing of forced marriages, and there are more laws promised or in the pipeline.

[Clinton]

All you CCTV enthusiasts would like the latest TED talk this week: Four principles for the open world.

However, CCTVs don't make for an open world, they don't make for more transparency (6:15). They make for a world where there's a ratcheted transfer of power from consumer to vested interests and this transfer is facilitated by a feeble argument, seemingly bought by the masses, of greater security and safety.

As Daniel J. Solove says in his book, Nothing to Hide, the debate between privacy and security has been framed incorrectly as a zero-sum game. It's a fallacy that we need to choose between one and the other.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security