Most research suggests, however, that CCTV has less impact on overall crime rates than its supporters claim. A British government study in the late 1990s concluded that better street lighting was four times more effective.
Last year, Britain's violent crime rates actually increased by 4.3 percent,
even though the cameras continued to proliferate. But CCTV cameras have a
mysterious knack for justifying themselves regardless of what happens to crime.
When crime goes up the cameras get the credit for detecting it, and when crime
goes down, they get the credit for preventing it.
Here's an excerpt from the NYT article I mentioned:
During my time in the control room, from 9 p.m. to midnight, I experienced
firsthand a phenomenon that critics of CCTV surveillance have often described:
when you put a group of bored, unsupervised men in front of live video screens
and allow them to zoom in on whatever happens to catch their eyes, they tend to
spend a fair amount of time leering at women. ''What catches the eye is groups
of young men and attractive, young women,'' I was told by Clive Norris, the
Hull criminologist. ''It's what we call a sense of the obvious.'' There are
plenty of stories of video voyeurism: a control room in the Midlands, for
example, took close-up shots of women with large breasts and taped them up on
the walls. In Hull, this temptation is magnified by the fact that part of the
operators' job is to keep an eye on prostitutes. As it got late, though, there
weren't enough prostitutes to keep us entertained, so we kept ourselves awake
by scanning the streets in search of the purely consensual activities of
boyfriends and girlfriends making out in cars. ''She had her legs wrapped
around his waist a minute ago,'' one of the operators said appreciatively as we
watched two teenagers go at it. ''You'll be able to do an article on how
reserved the British are, won't you?'' he joked. Norris also found that
operators, in addition to focusing on attractive young women, tend to focus on
young men, especially those with dark skin. And those young men know they are
being watched: CCTV is far less popular among black men than among British men
as a whole. In Hull and elsewhere, rather than eliminating prejudicial
surveillance and racial profiling, CCTV surveillance has tended to amplify it.
After returning from the digital city of Hull, I had a clearer understanding of
how, precisely, the spread of CCTV cameras is transforming British society and
why I think it's important for America to resist going down the same path. ''I
actually don't think the cameras have had much effect on crime rates,'' says
Jason Ditton, the criminologist, whose evaluation of the effect of the cameras
in Glasgow found no clear reduction in violent crime.
CCTV cameras are often placed in known activist gathering locations to deter organizing. At demonstrations, police offers rely on CCTV footage to identify organizers and agitators who are later singled out for harrassment and/or arrest.
What's Your Opinion of Putting Spy Cameras On City Streets?
by minimus 115 Replies latest jw friends
-
EvilForce
-
stillajwexelder
There are so many in Britain and they have been around for 20 years. I think they are agood idea and no it is not George Orwell and 1984
-
Ellie
EvilForce - I think you'll find the reason why CCTV hasn't been all that effective in Britain is because half the cameras are not monitored and the other half have no film in.
Used properly they are a good deterrant.
-
EvilForce
Sith I understand your point about viewing them live....but please keep in mind this is EXACTLY how the first CCTV was sold to the public in London 20 years ago. Then if you remember the child abducting crime in London 5 or 6 years back? Public outrage wanted the cops to use full time video coverage...live.
My posts are "Be careful what you wish for"!!! London has been down this path already. We can learn from their experience. I say it's bad...you may say it's good...but let's not be blind about it. -
heathen
I would think at this point if they only used it to locate terrorists then maybe not such a bad idea but I think the whole terrorists situation was created for the government to grab more power and control over the masses . I'm telling you man these people are only interested in complete control and not just security . I don't think they can be trusted . I do not trust the government at all nor will ever .I do not rest my salvation in their grimey little hands.
-
EvilForce
As the writer concluded:
There is, in the end, a powerfully American reason to resist the establishment
of a national surveillance network: the cameras are not consistent with the
values of an open society. They are technologies of classification and
exclusion. They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets
in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their
opportunities.
I must agree. -
Sith
I would guess that 99.99% of the population would be absolutely unaffected. So your skirt blows up and some government grunt gets his jollies for the day because he saw your panties. Say that happens 1,000 times a day. Nothing in comparison to tracking down one pedophile. I say let them look up skirts all day.
-
prophecor
Two weeks ago, a surveillance video was able to capture on film the murder of a single mother here in the Philadelphia area. She was on her way to work early in the AM at a local hospital and was shot at point blank range. The surveillance camera was atop the federal post office in center city. There's a sketch of the suspect available, however, due to its grainy photographic effects, it is not a good sketch. It was made from eyewitness accounts of those who think they may've seen the suspect who matched the description in the video after the murder.
That being said, I believe that cameras should not only be placed within the city for the purpose of traffic monitoring and crime deterence, but that the systems that they have available now should be ramped up to better standards in order to more effectively catch criminals like these.
This is just the reality of the world that we live in. If technology is able to be used in order to make our world a safer place, then I'm all for it. I also have nothing to hide and for those who do, or think your civil liberties are being violated, what are you hiding from? Freedom, in this world comes at a great price, but when one has the freedom to walk up on me with the intent of robbing me or causing me bodily harm, then my freedom is no longer valid.
Cameras in high volume, metropolitan cities would give a greater degree of security. In a world gone mad with those intent on making life miserable for the rest of us, they feeling no need to follow rules and regulations desperately needed in a society like ours,it is a small price to pay. I'd rather have the freedom to live without fear, than be in fear of the criminal element, that would like to seperate me from my dignity, self respect, my wallet or my vehicle.
BRING IT ON!!! BIG BROTHER & 1984!!!
-
tetrapod.sapien
There is, in the end, a powerfully American reason to resist the establishment
of a national surveillance network: the cameras are not consistent with the
values of an open society. They are technologies of classification and
exclusion. They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets
in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their
opportunities.here here! (stamps foot)
it's not about having nothing to hide, it's about having privacy. if the camera system were organized, administrated and maintained in any way like the retarded american no-fly list, then i'd say that it is just one more "Bush-Step" to cold war east germany.
people who don't want to be on survielance tapes, don't have anything to hide either. they just side with the founding fathers, and want their privacy protected.
-
EvilForce
EvilForce - I think you'll find the reason why CCTV hasn't been all that effective in Britain is because half the cameras are not monitored and the other half have no film in.
1/2 the cameras are not monitored or have film....of course you don't point out that the average Joe doesn't know which ones are monitored and which ones are not. So let's say your argument is vaild...there are 2.4 million CCTV cams in Britain today by many estimates. So if only 1.2 million "work" and it still doesn't reduce crime why would 2.4 million make it work instead of "only" 1.2 million????