CCTV-The Curse of the 21st century

26 Feb 2009

Quote by Lucyandmike7
Its swings and roundabouts really!!(some agree with them some dont)
Apparently they're there to reduce crime and protect civilians.
But if you ask me the best way to cut crime is to put more cops on the street, but since that is "hard work" for the goverment they've taken the easy option of installing CCTV every 2 yards!!
They dont bother me the slightest, i know ive done nothing wrong and dont intend to!!

Going just off topic for a mo.....but that avata picture, has well............done it for me. What a butt. redface

Sorry for the hijack.
Kenty love.......do you know that is a mans botty?? wink

I think....the profile is anyway!!!
pmsl Lucy!! :lol2:

26 Feb 2009

Quote by benrums0n
LOL No mr powers but Im far more likely to murder somebody in my own home.

not popping round 2 see you then biggrin

26 Feb 2009

Quote by JTS
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear !

That's an interesting phrase,
Attributed to, amongst others George Orwell in '1984' and Joseph Goebbels who also incidentally made the following quote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
See where that line of thinking could possibly lead? At the moment we have I suppose, quite a benevolent political system, however, that is not to ensure it will always be the same. We all of us, have something about ourselves we do not wish to become public knowledge, whether to shield ourselves from embarassment, predjudice, financial penalty or a million and one other reasons.
Nothing to hide etc Is a false dichotomy, simply because it presumes that either you are guilty and deserve everything that comes your way, or are innocent and should not be afraid, very black and white isn't it? In my experience life consists of many shades of grey....I wonder if perhaps a large percentage of people contributing to this thread could think of something completely legal and consenting, although somewhat against societal conventions, they freely take part in which would cause them untold personal problems should it become public knowledge?
I wonder......

26 Feb 2009

Quote by staffcple
a cliche

something to shoot the quote down in flames.
worship

27 Feb 2009

Quote by noladreams30
May I ask Ben, do you use credit or debit cards? Do you shop online and then get "recommendations" for future products? Do you have a loyalty card for a major retailer?
It's just there are waaaaay many more ways than CCTV that you are being observed/catalogued/watched/analysed.
Why get narked by CCTV which, let's face it, does have safety benefits?
By simply using the internet regularly you are "on the grid" and being noted.
Nola x

Indeed Nola, but they are completely different in that the examples you cite are all based upon your explicit consent. You have chosen to opt into those schemes, and agree that they will hold a certain set of data, to be used in certain limited ways, because you presumably believe that the benefits of their services outweight the risks. They are little threat to your personal liberty.
I see CCTV in the same light as I see biometric ID cards and DNA databases. I accept it serves a fairly limited purpose, but on the whole it's all part and parcel of the ever increasing encroachment of the State into the private realm. I agree absolutely with Staffscpl suggestion that we are sleepwalking towards a time when our goverment, if it so chooses, will be in a position to implement all the very worst excesses of a police state, and the reason they'll be in that position is because we have all consented to it. It's time to say no to it IMO. The threat to our liberty is so obvious, that we have to say we've gone far enough now, and the sooner the better.
Neil x x x ;)

27 Feb 2009

I think it's frightening the way cctv and other stuff has risen in use the UK, we are now the most moinitored country in the world and we are supposed to be a free and democratic country, freedom of speech and all that.
Most of this stuff has come off the back of protection from terrorism, and to keep us safe from thieves and rapeists etc.......
So why then have a lot of councils turned the cameras that are supposed to be there to catch these criminals now being used for parking and driving offences. There was a debate on one of the london radio stations and a serving police officer was getting frustrated about not being able to catch people because the councils have control over the cameras and they are using them to raise revenue.
Since all these cctv has come in can anyone actually prove that the level of crime has actually gone down, because thats what they were supposed to do. We can all definately say they have increased revenue for the goverment and local councils that is a fact, but the crime side of it dunno

speed cameras did not reduce speed and car accidents.
I read in an earlier post about all our details and childrens details being shared with the US but that senior figures families would not be included. Why not :dunno: they will say its because for the safety and security of their family, but they say we are all on it for the safety and security of the country :silly:
When you look at all the stuff one piece at a time its nothing and very easy to say your scare mongering or if you have nothing to hide then dont worry, but when you put all the bits together it's one rule for the goverment and one rule for the masses.
That is a dictatorship in all but a name, you could say we are technically in one right now, noone in this country ever voted brown in and because of the rules laid down by the people in power we can only do somethng about it when they think they can win.
jacqui smith used rules laid down by MP's in other words themseleves to gain finacial advantage in her expenses over her home, if you or I did this and many actually do with the benifits system, they will be done for fraud but because they actually wrote the rules they do want they want.
I know I have rambled a bit and gone on a side tangent but this one rule for them and one rule for others and all cctv is doing at the moment is just a slow decline in to a big brother state, think of it as baby brother at the moment.

27 Feb 2009

i think we ought to have better quality cameras as theres nothing worse than viewing programmes like crimewatch trying to identify some scumbag only to see a fuzzy film clip.

28 Feb 2009

Quote by JTS
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear !

try telling that to anyone who had dealings with the west midlands serious crime squad in the 70's 80's or Colin Stagg or .....you get the idea

28 Feb 2009

Quote by noladreams30
Why get narked by CCTV which, let's face it, does have safety benefits?

I apologise for pulling one line out of your post Nola, but perhaps someone could explain what these safety benefits are? Are there any figures which prove a correlation between number of cameras and crime rates? Do cameras prevent crime? Can they stop an offence from taking place? Can they prove an individuals intent before a crime is committed? Can they detain a suspect after a crime is committed?
They can't can they? I'd be amazed if the presence of CCTV cameras have stopped one crime of any type. If the answer is 'no' why do we need them? There are no viable 'safety' benefits to CCTV at all IMHO, as I said earlier on, they are only of use after the fact and even then, sometimes of limited value.
Some quite worrying facts and figures appear in this link;

It is of course two years old, but i see no reason to doubt it's validity, especially given the source.....

28 Feb 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear !

try telling that to anyone who had dealings with the west midlands serious crime squad in the 70's 80's or Colin Stagg or .....you get the idea
No.
Relevance to cctv ?
Anyway, back to my fav topic: cctv.

Domehawk: Going-up everywhere.
Loads of makers, same basic design. How many can you spot near you ?
Usually found on the top of lamposts, where they are extremely unnoticeable.
Councils are supposed to have notices telling you that you are being monitored, I had to complain to the ICO to get them put-up in my town. One law ?
Many are STILL not notified, they get around it by making them "portable". They can usually be found in carparks, where they doubtless do not do a good job of preventing crime since the crooks do not know they are there, but do a reasonable job in increasing the amount of dvd's about featuring "watch this couple shagging in the back of their fiesta" (the footage can be sold....as long as it is not identifiable).
I'll move along now, to SPECS, that well-known anti-speed camera system...it times you along a set distance to get you average speed. A less well-known feature, but one used as well as the speed function, is to provide information about who-where-when. The specs system is just a video camera, the fun stuff is performed by operating software: it is also an anpr system. Used by police to track baddies along their route...those thick enough to use their car and not a cloned one....
I often wonder about the innocence of people, their willingness to accept what they are told as truth.

28 Feb 2009

Just examples of abuses of power cctv is just another tool to be abused.
If video footage is so useful in the fight against crime why did the police officers who beat the crap out of Rodney King get off ??

28 Feb 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Just examples of abuses of power cctv is just another tool to be abused.
If video footage is so useful in the fight against crime why did the police officers who beat the crap out of Rodney King get off ??

For exactly the same reason O J Simpson got off. The colour of ones skin can have negatives and positives.
We all knew both parties were as guilty as hell, but still got off. Political pressure or.....colour issues?
Could be either.

28 Feb 2009

There is strong evidence to suggest that OJ was covering for his son

28 Feb 2009

The problem with CCTV cameras is not just that they are an invasion of privacy but also that they are used for purposes they were not originially intended for.
The "Powers That Be" (Police, local council et al.) are now using Anti-Terror laws to spy on and punish the general public for error and/or misdeamours not covered by the legislation.
This proves that the "Powers That Be" cannot be trusted. It is this betrail of trust which upsets most people.
I, being a rather private person, object extremely strongly to this, which is why I now live south of Paris - one of the reasons you haven't heard from me in a while smile

28 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
For exactly the same reason O J Simpson got off. The colour of ones skin can have negatives and positives.
We all knew both parties were as guilty as hell, but still got off.

Not me I'm afraid, I don't know they're guilty, can't say beyond all doubt that I know they're guilty. Only one on the planet practically lol

But can't say I know
What a cracking read this thread has turned out to be. I started reading the thread as a "don't bother me in the slightest, can't see much wrong" - to a "cor flippin eck, bluddy cameras taking my liberty and privacy away" :shock:
I'm all for hotspots being monitored. But not sure about sticking a camera up somewhere cos Gary Lager came out the pub one night and peed outside Morriscos, next to be viewed on Sky TVs "Scum caught on cam" confused

Certainly would be mortified if I got caught having saucy fun and my lardy ass shown on the same program :shock:
Same as speed cameras, they were originally put up in places that were proven accident hotspots. The camera that nabbed me doing 33mph - Dad said that there had never been an accident there. Although he did later retract that statement and admitted that a cat got run over in 1973 :?
This thread has changed my mind and I am now wary that we are being over monitored :?
Down with unnecessay cameras I say! cool

Cor bluddy ell - Just about to press submit and notice that flippin lovely man JQL on here!! :bounce:
How brilliant to see you JQL, just brill!! :bounce:
kiss

28 Feb 2009

Missy,
Great to see you on here still and Mod as well!
You know I've always wanted to take your dress off :twisted:

Agree with your post 100%

28 Feb 2009

Quote by JQL
Agree with your post 100%

You too would be mortified to see my lardy ass??? poke

Cheeky bugger - 10 minutes back and already down for a damn good spanking cool

8-) 8-) You're supposed to do the no no no you've a great ass routine don't ya know :jagsatwork:
smackbottom

28 Feb 2009

Quote by Missy
Agree with your post 100%

You too would be mortified to see my lardy ass??? poke

Cheeky bugger - 10 minutes back and already down for a damn good spanking cool

8-) 8-) You're supposed to do the no no no you've a great ass routine don't ya know :jagsatwork:
smackbottom

It was far from lardy last time I saw it!!
.

28 Feb 2009

Quote by westerross
Agree with your post 100%

You too would be mortified to see my lardy ass??? poke

Cheeky bugger - 10 minutes back and already down for a damn good spanking cool

8-) 8-) You're supposed to do the no no no you've a great ass routine don't ya know :jagsatwork:
smackbottom

It was far from lardy last time I saw it!!
.
Sadly its always faaaaaaaaar from Lairdy sad

28 Feb 2009

Quote by the_Laird
Agree with your post 100%

You too would be mortified to see my lardy ass??? poke

Cheeky bugger - 10 minutes back and already down for a damn good spanking cool

8-) 8-) You're supposed to do the no no no you've a great ass routine don't ya know :jagsatwork:
smackbottom

It was far from lardy last time I saw it!!
.
Sadly its always faaaaaaaaar from Lairdy sad

Any man who has Feebees arse within clutching distance, and can still complain he aint getting enough is wayyyyyyyyyy to spoilt. You deserve derision and contempt sir..... rolleyes

for the perky one biggrin

28 Feb 2009

Perhaps we should have a "Missy's arse Cam" dunno

1 Jul 2009

I am activly involved in CCTV . Let me tell you this streight from the hourses mouth. Without CCTV we would not have Captured the 7/7 bommber, the bishopsgate bommbers, Jamie Bulger Murderes, but to name a few. The only thing that made it possible to identify these cowards and linked them all togeather was CCTV footage taken from train stations. They were then able to see what car droped them off, traced that car to an adress, watched the house, shaw other people entre house and traced them etc etc etc. CCTV is very very important to civilisation as a whole.
If you have nothing to hide, then you have everthing to gain.

1 Jul 2009

While I don't think Ray Bradbury or Orsen Welles could fully appreciate the technological advances we've made, I am reminded of near-future movies like Gattaca and Minority Report. I also imagine a situation where I'm on a genetic database, they find my eyelash at a crime scene... but cctv shows I passed through before the crime took place.
I have more faith in the tech than the people using it, because they're the ones who can abuse it. So I have no specific argument against cctv or speed cameras. The biometric ID and genetic database I'm not so sure about, though.
What really irks me (and others, I suspect) is the idea of everything I do being recorded without my knowledge or consent. I suspect the internet is where this happens the most, actually; which is why we have softs like firewalls, anti-virus, ad-aware, spybot... the list goes on. Would we allow the the invasion of privacy that can go on in our online activities occur in our real lives?

2 Jul 2009

Recently watched this and thought it had some interesting and relevant points to make about the surveillance society.