CCTV 24/7 monitoring with speakers

[mosy]

Middlesborough has these, see link as shown in BBC programme yesterday:
http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/ccm/con ... B88A5A9C76
The programme is up on iPlayer at the moment, scroll to 31mins 30secs in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Episode_2/

Doesn't this show the current trend of letting people do wrong, then catching or fining them with this as yet another "frightener" rather than putting money into somehow teaching earlier to restore both self respect and that of others' property etc?

In the past it has always been the case that teens and late teens go though a silly session (then grow out of it) I guess because of the buzz of knowing it's wrong. The difference now seems to be that some either don't know the difference or just don't care.

I didn't want to contaminate the Riots thread so started this one. I'm not sure similarly monitored cameras will come to Sydenham in the short term since serious crime here seems to be more predetermined so clearly would take place in un-camera'd places.

It's more the a*** about face mentality of how money is being spent that concerns me. There are many pros and cons of course.

[bensonby]

I'm not sure of the point you are making?

Doesn't this show the current trend of letting people do wrong, then catching or fining them

What do you mean by that?

[mosy]

What I said was "Doesn't this show the current trend of letting people do wrong, then catching or fining them with this as yet another "frightener" rather than putting money into somehow teaching earlier to restore both self respect and that of others' property etc?"

What's not to understand?

[Robin Orton]

I agree with Mosy, I think this is a horrible idea, the surveillance state of '1984' carried even further than Orwell imagined. Big Brother is not only watching you, he will shout at you when he thinks you're up to no good and expose you to humiliation by publishing your picture to all and sundry without your consent. I can't believe this is England, land of the free.

[bensonby]

what trend of letting people "do wrong" with things? How do we "allow" people to do wrong?


I'm also perplexed by this idea that CCTV is somehow intrusive. How can recording people in public places be intrusive?

CCTV is a good thing, indeed, we should have more of it: it is invaluable in criminal investigations. If it wasn't for CCTV we might never have caught Delroy Grant.

[Tim Lund]

I agree with Mosy, I think this is a horrible idea, the surveillance state of '1984' carried even further than Orwell imagined. Big Brother is not only watching you, he will shout at you when he thinks you're up to no good and expose you to humiliation by publishing your picture to all and sundry without your consent. I can't believe this is England, land of the free.

Calm down, Robin. I'm not going to be able to find the quote, but I seem to remember a typically dry aside in one of Jane Austen's novels about how in a small village almost anyting you did would be noticed and talked about by your neighbours. I suspect most of us living in what you once described as ""the organic harmony of the older English society" would find it quite intolerable.

And Mosy - as I wrote on another thread in response to you recently:

In many ways databases nowadays are more reliable than previous ways of holding information, when it could only be kept on cumbersome paper, or in less than objective human memory. Even as we use Forums such as these, we should remember that databases are our friends - on balance.

But hang on to laws such as the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Has anyone on this Forum yet read thelatest Steve Pinker book - “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined”? i don't expect it'll be quite Robin's cup or tea, but I'd be interested to know if you'd like to challenge the evidence in it that over the centuries we humans have become that much more peaceable as we have lived closer together, in better regulated and policed cities. On the downside, we may have lost some freedoms, like the freedom to go as fast as we like on roads, but that sort of thing does not bother me too much. Maybe there are some freedoms you would regret more?

[Robin Orton]

How can recording people in public places be intrusive?

If the recording is done by an Government agency (rather than, say, by an innocent tourist recording a holiday video), how can it not be intrusive? The question is, whether or not it's unacceptably intrusive. I think we should assume that, other things being equal, people should have the right to go about their business without being snooped on by the state. I accept of course that there's bound to a trade-off between freedom and privacy on the one hand, and prevention and detection of crime and anti-social behaviour on the other. But in my view, the surveillance technique which Mosy has drawn our attention to goes too far in the Big Brother direction.

Calm down, Robin

I am perfectly calm, Tim, but thank you for your concern.

I seem to remember a typically dry aside in one of Jane Austen's novels about how in a small village almost anyting you did would be noticed and talked about by your neighbours.

Village gossip is one thing, state surveillance is quite another.

[Tim Lund]

But in my view, the surveillance technique which Mosy has drawn our attention to goes too far in the Big Brother direction.

So the rule of law, as in the application of the DPA and FOIA mean nothing to you? You chose to overlook how our liberal polity actually works?

Village gossip is one thing, state surveillance is quite another.

But most people now living in actual villages seem to prefer to move to cities - as indeed they did in the era of Jane Austen. I always think it a good rule of thumb in judging political and social systems to see how people vote with their feet. From the establishment of the Soviet Union almost until its final collapse, there were those who imagined that life was better over there, and while a few may have gone east, many more overcame considerable odds to come to live in the West.

[Eagle]

The more CCTV the better. Ig you have nothing to hide why worry.
How many of the criminals were caught by CCTV after the riots.

[bensonby]

Robin, you don't seem to grasp the concept of a public place. You don't have privacy in public, nor do you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in public.... It is, after all, public: anyone can see, hear or, indeed, record you in a public place and you may do the same. It has always ever been thus. When you use an emotive word like "snooping" you imply something clandestine and an invasion of privacy. It couldn't really be further from the truth as (for reasons I'm not too sure about or comfortable with) any kind of covert filming has to have RIPA authority and, thus, CCTV is highly visible and there is no invasion of privacy as privacy doesn't exist (and never has existed) in public.

[bensonby]

Village gossip is one thing, state surveillance is quite another.

I'd much rather be watched, tried and convicted by my state and it's rule of law rather than face a similar fate at the hands of my neighbours, their gossip and predujice, in my small pastoral village: that's what happened at Salem.

[Robin Orton]

It's not privacy as such I'm particularly concerned about, Bensonby, but rather the power of the state, the continuing encroachment of which I think it is prudent to regard with suspicion. Obviously, whatever I do in a public space is public, in the sense that other people can see what I'm doing. But what I feel uneasy about is if there are also the agents of the state (human or electronic) hanging around everywhere specifically to keep an eye on me and ensure I keep to the rules they think I should be following. The standard response 'If you have nothing to hide why worry' (Eagle) is, in my view, quite inadequate, and would justify almost any excess of a police state.

I don't think your reference to the Salem witch trials really undermines my point. It wasn't the neighbours who put the alleged witches to death, it was the colonial government of Massachusetts. Due process (of a sort) was followed.

So the rule of law, as in the application of the DPA and FOIA mean nothing to you? You chose to overlook how our liberal polity actually works?

What I'm saying, Tim, is that at any rate on the evidence presented to us in this thread, it isn't, in my view, working as well as it should.

I haven't read the PInker book, only some reviews, but I would have thought that any suggestion that improved methods of police surveillance had a significant effect on the overall decline (if you accept Pinker's thesis) of violent deaths over the centuries, would be, at best, controversial. The police forces in Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China were, I read, very efficient in that regard, but that didn't seem to stop tens of millions of people meeting violent ends under those regimes.

[bensonby]

So, Robin, you are against police officers patrolling the streets?

I'm also interested in who you think "agents of the state" are.... what do they do, why do they do it and who do they work for?

I'm rather more interested in, and concerned about, private corporations getting access to and utilising private information to be quite honest...

[Tim Lund]

So the rule of law, as in the application of the DPA and FOIA mean nothing to you? You chose to overlook how our liberal polity actually works?

What I'm saying, Tim, is that at any rate on the evidence presented to us in this thread, it isn't, in my view, working as well as it should.

100% agreed. Let's make them work better. When was the last time you submitted an FOI request?

The police forces in Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China were, I read, very efficient in that regard [surveillance], but that didn't seem to stop tens of millions of people meeting violent ends under those regimes.

Surveillance is not just what the police do, but includes how the rest of society keep an eye on the police. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, you might say.

[mosy]

My first thought about the speaker cameras was one of depression that the authorities assume that almost any and all citizens will or might behave badly and that "they" need to keep the general populace in line. There will of course always be criminals who are likely to be too savvy to be caught on CCTV, hence masks and hoods, so these are aimed at "normal" people. There is also, to me, a ridiculous lack of distinction now between misdemeanours and serious crime.

We are told that jails are already full to capacity, so the alternative is fines. I wonder how many are actually paid. If fines are paid then it's another form of tax for minor misdemeanours and what constitutes a misdemeanour seems to increase almost daily, meanwhile potentially dangerous acts like using a mobile whilst driving seem to be rarely enforced.

As to who guards the guardians, people with camera phones seem to do a better job than state cameras, the footage for which seems mysteriously to disappear in some cases.

I did say there were pros and cons though. A big complaint I have about cameras is that they record an event but don't prevent it of course. Now that "life" is being monitored in real time (in Middlesborough's town centre), doesn't it mean that there would still need to be boots on the ground, what we used to call bobbies on the beat, to do something about it? Middlesborough council said that the monitoring saved them money. Perhaps they should spend it on more bobbies - or more litter bins, lol, which are few and far between these days.

A minor aside, but the council here has finally installed a bin near Syd Station walkway to Silverdale (thank goodness) and it is always full, so it shows how much was being chucked over proximate fences etc. They missed a trick - they should have set up CCTV and fined people for littering

[Annie]

CCTV is a good thing, indeed, we should have more of it: it is invaluable in criminal investigations. If it wasn't for CCTV we might never have caught Delroy Grant.

bensonby

I'm all for it, put it everywhere,I do no wrong-so am not worried about it at all.

OH!,while i'm at it DNA everyone!

[Annie]

I agree with Mosy, I think this is a horrible idea, the surveillance state of '1984' carried even further than Orwell imagined. Big Brother is not only watching you, he will shout at you when he thinks you're up to no good and expose you to humiliation by publishing your picture to all and sundry without your consent. I can't believe this is England, land of the free.

But we are not all free are we? I know people who won't go out for the fear of crime.
time to sort out the crinminal element, no more libral softly softly,

[Tim Lund]

This thread addresses the same sort of issues as arose in a thread I started following a request at the SydSoc AGM this year, passed on from the police, for people to take photos to help them enforce the Drinking Control Zone. I don't think it was ever a very realistic idea, although I'd be happily proven wrong by an example of it happening. I was more interested in the possibilities of semi-automating such as system in the way that the LoveLewisham web site accepting mobile phone photos of graffiti and fly-tipping expedites the process of keeping our streets clean. It's an example of how modern IT systems can help - but obviously subject to safeguards. It's also an example of how what is discussed in SydSoc meetings could be usefully either passed on, or critiqued.

[mosy]

I'm not sure it does address the same sort of issues Tim as that described in your linked thread. In that thread, the police apparently were asking for help. Here, the cameras belong to the council who I assume are limited to the same powers as a citizen's arrest would carry (aside from issuing fines) unless a criminal enforcement officer were present. If that is so, then the cameras aren't catching criminals, just misdemeanours whilst serious crime will undoubtedly continue.

PS to Annie, it isn't possible to have cameras everywhere so I assume that was tongue in cheek (though we're not that far off in London). It does remind me of the last scene from the original Bodysnatchers film where all the zombied peeps were walking along expressionless. All we need now is two-way TV sets - our computers already are. That's progress.

[Edit for typo, tsk!]

[Robin Orton]

@Bensonby

So, Robin, you are against police officers patrolling the streets?

Not particularly, although I've often wondered whether any studies have been done to find out exactly how cost-effective an activity it is. Other things being equal, I think of police officers in the same way as I think of doctors - I'm glad they're there, but the less I see of them the happier I feel. (Perhaps I should make it clear that I number doctors and at least one policeman among my friends!)

I'm also interested in who you think "agents of the state" are.... what do they do, why do they do it and who do they work for?

They work for various state organizations - central and local government, the NHS, police authorities etc - in order to enable those organizations to fulfil their statutory functions and meet the objectives that the various arms of government have set for them. These organizations are usually - and perhaps this is the point of your question - publicly accountable in the sense that they report, directly or indirectly, either to Ministers who report to Parliament or to elected local councils. But that doesn't mean that we, their ultimate customers, should not be able directly to challenge the way they do things if we believe they are being (for example) incompetent or oppressive. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, as I think someone said.

I doubt whether one could give a simple answer to the question as to why people choose to work for the various agencies of the state. I hope a desire to serve the public will often be one reason; it certainly was in my case, as a civil servant. But, as I know from my own experience, it's all too easy to be captured by the corporate culture and start putting the (perceived)needs of the organization before those of the punters.

I'm rather more interested in, and concerned about, private corporations getting access to and utilising private information to be quite honest...

I agree that's an important issue.