AggieDave 6 #1 August 25, 2009 All of that money, all of that intrusion into person's privacy and only 1 crime per 1000. Wow, that's really "worked." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #2 August 25, 2009 AAaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh Quote A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs "help communities feel safer". "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #3 August 25, 2009 QuoteA Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs "help communities feel safer". As long as they feel good about spending/wasting all that money and manpower. (Up until the moment they get mugged themselves...) Obviously, the solution to the low criminal apprehension rate is to install yet more cameras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #4 August 25, 2009 Quote All of that money, all of that intrusion into person's privacy and only 1 crime per 1000. Wow, that's really "worked." Of course, this was expected. Usually the anti-crime measures look very helpful when being applied to the past, like "we'd catch them easily if we had a camera on this intersection". People (except equipment suppliers and contractors) tend to forget that there is counter-measure for each measure. Well, if there was a camera, the criminals would know about it and put a stocking on their heads. What if there was a high-quality infrared camera with infrared light to see through it? Criminals would shot it. And so on.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #5 August 25, 2009 The article focuses only on the data point of "solved crimes", which is fine, but only as far as that goes. But another data point the article did not mention, which would also be useful, would be to compare "before & after" crime rates for the camera coverage areas. That would be relevant to whether the cameras - specifically, public knowledge that they were there - did or did not act as a deterrent to crime. One might speculate, but the hard data would be better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #6 August 25, 2009 You Yanks are so obsessed with us, you know, if you ask nicely we might take you back and restore your Monachy.... Just ask, really its getting embarassing.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #7 August 25, 2009 Breath .... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #8 August 25, 2009 Quote You Yanks are so obsessed with us.... Oh yeah, we spend all our time thinking about spotted dick and tea.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 August 25, 2009 QuoteThe article focuses only on the data point of "solved crimes", which is fine, but only as far as that goes. But another data point the article did not mention, which would also be useful, would be to compare "before & after" crime rates for the camera coverage areas. That would be relevant to whether the cameras - specifically, public knowledge that they were there - did or did not act as a deterrent to crime. One might speculate, but the hard data would be better. I would be interested in that too. However, other reports have indicated the coutries rates are increasing. But that in and of itself would only be useful if cameras were used everywhere. Hopefully that data wll yet come out. On the other hand, I am not a fan of big bother cameras for the most part"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 August 25, 2009 Quote You Yanks are so obsessed with us, you know, if you ask nicely we might take you back and restore your Monachy.... Just ask, really its getting embarassing. WE are obsessed with YOU???? 10 for 10 on the irony meter! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #11 August 25, 2009 Quote Quote You Yanks are so obsessed with us.... Oh yeah, we spend all our time thinking about spotted dick and tea. Whatever floats your boat dear boy. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #12 August 25, 2009 QuoteThe article focuses only on the data point of "solved crimes", which is fine, but only as far as that goes. But another data point the article did not mention, which would also be useful, would be to compare "before & after" crime rates for the camera coverage areas. That would be relevant to whether the cameras - specifically, public knowledge that they were there - did or did not act as a deterrent to crime. One might speculate, but the hard data would be better. The cameras are also used as a surveillance tool, helping to direct resources. Hence, data that indicates how many arrests were made based on the spotting of incidents on camera and direction resources would be helpfull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #13 August 25, 2009 It would be interesting to know how many cheating husbands/wifes have been caught because of that system... More seriously, here's a possible explanation for this lack of efficiency: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/audio/2008/may/06/cctv.police.failure "One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #14 August 25, 2009 I, for one, benefited by the presence of CCTV when someone scarfed my ticket in Mayfair. The video was reviewed, which showed me paying for the ticket, so I was given a pass through the turnstile. The Crime was not Solved, in the sense that the culprit was not apprehended, but I was not left holding the bag, for which I am grateful. There have been more instances where I wished that I had video to demonstrate what really happened than cases where I was relieved that events were not filmed. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 August 25, 2009 QuoteThe article focuses only on the data point of "solved crimes", which is fine, but only as far as that goes. But another data point the article did not mention, which would also be useful, would be to compare "before & after" crime rates for the camera coverage areas. That would be relevant to whether the cameras - specifically, public knowledge that they were there - did or did not act as a deterrent to crime. One might speculate, but the hard data would be better. Your point is that the subject report takes only a partial view of the issue. However, your counter-point does the same thing. Yes, it's possible that a camera are might deter crime in that area. But then you also need to look and see of the same crime just moved somewhere else, outside of view of cameras. Moving the same number of crimes around to different places doesn't really help anything. So, the real question is: Do the cameras stop criminals from committing crimes, or just make them commit their crimes somewhere else? I think we can all guess the correct answer to that question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #16 August 25, 2009 QuoteThere have been more instances where I wished that I had video to demonstrate what really happened than cases where I was relieved that events were not filmed. You should ask the police to install a video camera in your bedroom, so that if a burglar ever breaks into your house, they can have clues to capture the miscreant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 August 25, 2009 QuoteThe article focuses only on the data point of "solved crimes", which is fine, but only as far as that goes. But another data point the article did not mention, which would also be useful, would be to compare "before & after" crime rates for the camera coverage areas. That would be relevant to whether the cameras - specifically, public knowledge that they were there - did or did not act as a deterrent to crime. One might speculate, but the hard data would be better. This is the question in areas with small implementations. SF put in a few at high profile intersections. Little was accomplished, but the public felt good about it. The UK installed millions of cameras, with 500k of them in London. They're all over the place. With that sort of footprint, it seems more appropriate to look at overall crime rates, as well as how often cameras do anything. As the linked article suggests - they spent a lot more on installing the cameras than actually using them. So basically you get all the downsides of a Big Brother world with little of the benefits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 407 #18 August 25, 2009 QuoteThe UK installed millions of cameras, with 500k of them in London. Who could possibly watch that many TV screens, in real time? If they're just recording for playback later, they are obviously not very effective. If there was a watchable number of cameras, accompanied by on-the-beat police patrols in the area, maybe they could help the police be more effective by directing them, in real time, to trouble spots. Sounds like a data management problem in a way, too many cameras in too many places = too much information to process = impossible to use in real time. Sometimes less is more. Doesn't address the privacy issue of course, but how much of an "expectation of privacy" can you really have walking down the public street? Is your privacy more invaded by a real beat cop on the corner watching you than it is by a camera? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 407 #19 August 25, 2009 QuoteAll of that money, all of that intrusion into person's privacy and only 1 crime per 1000. Wow, that's really "worked." Just to quibble about the "1 crime per 1000", the article indicates 1 crime was solved per 1000 cameras, not 1 crime was solved and 999 not solved. If there was only 1 crime per 1000 cameras one might wonder whether the expense/invasion of privacy is justified (a very legitimate question in my view), but it would be a 100% solved rate. Actually the article does say that 70% of murders, and 8 out of 269 robberies (about 1/30), have been solved using the cameras. 70% of murders is pretty good, 1/30 robberies not so much, but both are very different from "1 in 1000". Just another example of how numbers can be cherry-picked to slant a story. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #20 August 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe article focuses only on the data point of "solved crimes", which is fine, but only as far as that goes. But another data point the article did not mention, which would also be useful, would be to compare "before & after" crime rates for the camera coverage areas. That would be relevant to whether the cameras - specifically, public knowledge that they were there - did or did not act as a deterrent to crime. One might speculate, but the hard data would be better. Your point is that the subject report takes only a partial view of the issue. However, your counter-point does the same thing. Yes, it's possible that a camera are might deter crime in that area. But then you also need to look and see of the same crime just moved somewhere else, outside of view of cameras. Moving the same number of crimes around to different places doesn't really help anything. So, the real question is: Do the cameras stop criminals from committing crimes, or just make them commit their crimes somewhere else? I think we can all guess the correct answer to that question. I really had no counter-point. I just think this is best analyzed by examining as many data points as practicable. It's better than guessing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #21 August 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere have been more instances where I wished that I had video to demonstrate what really happened than cases where I was relieved that events were not filmed. You should ask the police to install a video camera in your bedroom, so that if a burglar ever breaks into your house, they can have clues to capture the miscreant. What, you don't have a video camera in your bedroom? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #22 August 25, 2009 Quotethe article does say that 70% of murders have been solved using the cameras. 70% of murders is pretty good What was the murder resolution rate before the cameras? I'm betting it was also about 70%. In other words, the cameras won't have really improved anything about murderers getting caught. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 August 25, 2009 Quote Doesn't address the privacy issue of course, but how much of an "expectation of privacy" can you really have walking down the public street? Is your privacy more invaded by a real beat cop on the corner watching you than it is by a camera? Don I think you should be able to expect that you'll be seen as you walk in public, but there won't be video recordings of you 24x7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 407 #24 August 25, 2009 QuoteI think you should be able to expect that you'll be seen as you walk in public, but there won't be video recordings of you 24x7. I'm inclined to agree. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #25 August 25, 2009 >You should ask the police to install a video camera in your bedroom, so >that if a burglar ever breaks into your house, they can have clues to >capture the miscreant. You could do the same with a film camera! BAN FILM CAMERAS! Better ban paper and pencils while you're at it; someone could sketch something you don't want seen! BAN PENCILS! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
