Who needs CCTV? Get a terrifying slowpoke hoverdrone cam A slow- and low-flying drone has been developed for security guard personnel that will follow visitors and snap their pictures. Japan's largest security outfit Secom says the drone will attempt to identify and photograph any potential intruder's face as well as the licence plate of their car, Kyodo News reports. The 10kmph …
@Jake
CCTV isn't designed to "save". It's designed to record an incident and aid identification of those committing an offence.
In my case a combination of CCTV & fingerprints led to the swift (in British legal terms) identification & apprehension of the worthless scrotes responsible, and to an admission of guilt in an interview.
CCTV isn't a panacea, but lets not pretend it has no value either, as that is obviously nonsense. I quite agree that there is a debate to be had on either cost/benefit grounds, or privacy vs detection of crime grounds, which I'm not sure has ever been properly addressed.
Paris, because doing something in front of a camera that you don't want others to see has been known to produce a range of outcomes.
Has any of this CCTV/mass surveillance ever done any good?
Who, exactly, has been "saved" by it? Ever?
You do have a point, although I suspect it's not one you intended.
CCTV has rarely been instrumental in directly PREVENTING a crime in progress other than catching a shop thief en flagrante, it usually assists in mopping up afterwards and finding the perpetrators. There are plenty of studies around that confirm this.
This means that it does have a possible indirect effect on crime in that it assists in taking perpetrators eventually out of circulation, but that is scant consolation when you're bleeding out on the pavement right now after having been stabbed..
CCTV, like any security system, is not usually about catching the miscreants, that's secondary, they are foremost installed as a deterrent.
The business case for any CCTV (or any other security system) is how much will the installation cost, over how much are we currently, or likely to lose, if we don't install the system (including things like insurance premiums etc).
Whether anyone gets prosecuted after installation is just a bonus.
Same reason why people install a burglar alarm, it's not to help catch the burglars, is to put them off burgling your house, and to go next door/round the corner instead.
"CCTV has rarely been instrumental in directly PREVENTING a crime in progress..."
So what are you advocating instead? Some kind of Minority Report-style "pre-crime" system based on profiling and analytics to stop the crime before it starts?
There's a balance between freedom and enforcement. You're right in that CCTV cameras in and of themselves do little to prevent crime. Perhaps they have a deterrent effect on some people, perhaps resulting in a reduction of crime. Certainly they are useful in helping bring criminals to justice and that's better than letting them get away scot-free for want of evidence.
But when police forces start arresting people based on profiled analyses and statistical likelihoods instead of done deeds, you've thrown anything remotely resembling freedom under a bus.
Unfortunately living in a free society carries with it the risk of becoming a victim of crime. And before you ask, yes, I have been a victim of crime - I've had my home burgled, I've been assaulted and mugged and robbed at knifepoint at times in my life. But I'm still not willing to trade my freedom for the possibility of that never happening again.
So what are you advocating instead? Some kind of Minority Report-style "pre-crime" system based on profiling and analytics to stop the crime before it starts?
Maybe start with some fundamentals and get the police back up to a level that a citizen calling in with a problem can have a reasonable expectation of a response? There really is no substitute for actual presence, however less profit that makes. It is ridiculous that proper tax paying citizens have to recruit private security companies to do what their taxes are supposed to pay for.
I am, of course, referring to the sort of police that would look for evidence instead of engaging in profiling-before-the-facts (all too common right now, and part of the same problem).
I remember a British documentary about police force using cctv, they saw a woman walking home alone at about 2am, and redirected a police car there.
If the police monitor city wide cctv it can help direct resources and prevent crime just by having an officer arrive in the area of suspicious activity.
"If the police monitor city wide cctv it can help direct resources and prevent crime"
*IF* it did, yes, that'd be an improvement, but it doesn't. Instead, the presence of CCTV, whether functional or not, is used as part of the excuse for reducing "active policing".
The police are becoming less and less empowered for the detection and prevention of crime in favour of other areas of law enforcement (traffic, anti-terrorism, anti-protest, protection of key businessess) whilst the average citizen reporting a crime is fobbed off with "Crime Numbers" and Skype calls.
CCTV doesn't work as it should; it's just about spreading FUD.
Has any of this CCTV/mass surveillance ever done any good?
It has, but whether enough to justify its all pervasive presence is perhaps the real question.
It does often seems, when one hopes CCTV will make itself the saver of the day, that the camera is either found to have not been working, pointing in the wrong direction, or the footage is of such poor quality as to be useless.
But CCTV did reveal police lies about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes which may have been difficult to prove otherwise.
And, without CCTV, we would never have had 'lights, camera, action' shows where we could watch a slapper getting shagged in a lift for our entertainment and enjoyment.
All-in; CCTV is a bit of a mixed blessing.
"CCTV isn't designed to "save". It's designed to record an incident and aid identification of those committing an offence."
Except it fails to do that too. The killers of Lee Rigby were identified from mobile phone footage, the CCTV coverage in Paris failed to identify the attackers, the arsonists on the Cutty Sark were never even caught on camera despite over a dozen being pointed in the right direction.
The police don't have automatic access to any and all footage, they have to obtain warrants (and rightly so). They don't serve as a deterrent to real criminals (hoodie and scarf time), and they clearly don't help in identifying criminals after the case. I've been a victim of crime myself in a heavily monitored area (I counted 17 cameras in the days following the incident), and the police said that no footage was available for review.
There is around 1 camera for every 11 citizens in the UK, what on earth are they all for?
Waste of money, except to try and scare the law-abiding in obedience.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6675381.stm
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=KjZxVur2CIrDcJLfkIAM#safe=active&q=number+of+convictions+from+CCTV+evidence+in+the+UK
Add to that a heavy lift version with a winch, that could pick up the taser'd perps, and quite literally 'drop' them off at the nearest cop shop. :-)
I suddenly imagined local police stations with a chute on the roof, a motion detection camera on the way down to take the picture, and a Wallace and grommet type gadget at the bottom that pops a bright orange overall on them before they land!
Add to that a heavy lift version with a winch, that could pick up the taser'd perps, and quite literally 'drop' them off at the nearest cop shop. :-)
Why not go all the way into cartoons and just make them drop an anvil on the perp? That would at least be entertaining, and provide work for all those people whose steelworks just got closed.
:)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
