Surveillance Cameras in Public Streets

[Armenum]

More and more, surveillance cameras having become more of a reality in cities across the world. For example, one nation well known for having an abundance of them is Great Britain. Obviously, being filmed by the government while your outside will not rest with some people who see it as a blatant violation of one's rights. Though the police, may praise the workings of such cameras as a key instrument to both tracking down crime and criminals, and also even deterring such crimes from happening in the first place. What do you think? Are such surveillance cameras truly a violations of one's rights - or does its effective outcome outweigh the greater exposure?

---------

My view:

I tend to side on the law enforcement on this one, because I inherently just don't have any qualms in being filmed by law enforcement while I'm in public. Indeed such surveillance can be a powerful tool against crime, and while I think there is a line to be crossed when it comes to "fighting crime" - I don't think that such cameras are really crossing that line.

The video of one in the street is not going to be distributed to the public, one's friends and family will never be aware of it, it will be looked at given it can be used to look for a criminal or crime occurring.

[leeho730]

It's public place, so I support street cam.

[Tacitursa]

CCTV is not much of a deterrent. It is used for investigative purposes but lacks punch as a preventative measure. This alone makes is a poor choice for dealing with crime as a social problem.

I disagree.

Street cam's have improved my town alot i'm all for them.

Our city center is basically one long road about a mile long, Since the cams were added fighting outside the pubs has disappeared and people just go home peacefully. People would sometimes smash shop windows walking home drunk aswel and none of that happens anymore either. After a few people smashing windows and fighting got jail time, people got the message.

Thousands of pounds worth of damage has been prevented and hundreds of police hours have been saved not dealing with drunk idiots. Some CCTV cameras even have microphones and operators and they can talk directly to the public and defuse situations.

Let's not forget the benefits of technology and recognition software either. CCTV cameras can pick up license plates of stolen vehicles , identify wanted criminals etc. Who knows in the future they might even be able to scan for weapons and drugs.

[Claudius Gothicus]

About a decade ago or slightly less I lived in a rough area being poor and they put up cameras and the whole neighbourhood was bloody grateful for it I can tell you.

Most poor areas have unfortunate level of crimes in my neck of the woods being the North of England (aka the arse end) and I've no doubt every community wants them. If I was back there I'd lobby to keep them.

then those areas enter into the...

I wouldn't be too afraid of public surveillance cameras. But one thing is true these should only be putted in places where there's critical knowledge of criminal activity. Like main squares, Train Station surroundings etc. etc.

part. I'm pretty sure that putting some strategic cameras on certain street cross or area of a run down neighborhood where's criminal rates are high is not only justified but completely functional and harmless to well doers. With the later part of my statement I was referring to the people who seem to believe that having cameras everywhere will somehow solve all criminal problems, while truth is more jobs, a better trained and placed police force and strong bonds between the neighborhoods can do much more than a camera every five feet on every corner.

All the examples that you gave before are clear cases of cameras being needed, a lot.

Instead of cameras they should just hang up signs saying "Area is under camera surveillance."

Same deterrent value, less expensive

A mere two years ago the Urban areas of Buenos Aires were experiencing a rather high level of petty crime(more than usual, and usual means a lot therefore more than usual is unbearable) and armed robbery(less prevalent but still with a high tendency towards extreme violence on some areas, drugs being the main cause). Our Ministry of Public Security divised a groundbreaking idea... parking empty patrols on severals corners of the city, two weeks later the media found out reported it on the morning news and the plan went down the toilet. lol

[MathiasOfAthens]

The cameras are not spying on you. They protecting you. In GB all the time cameras catch pickpockets and random crimes easier with these cameras. Theres nothing to complain about. The absence of these cameras though wont make you more free but less safe.

[xcorps]

The cameras are not spying on you. They protecting you. In GB all the time cameras catch pickpockets and random crimes easier with these cameras. Theres nothing to complain about. The absence of these cameras though wont make you more free but less safe.

And how is it that they protect you? They put up a force field a millisecond prior to you being stabbed? They shoot a net over a would be mugger? They set off a klaxon in the event of a rape?

These are tools for building evidence. Has absolutely nothing to do with protection.

[the_mango55]

And how is it that they protect you? They put up a force field a millisecond prior to you being stabbed? They shoot a net over a would be mugger? They set off a klaxon in the event of a rape?

They protect you because people are less likely to stab, shoot, or rape you when you're on camera.

How hard was that to figure out?

[xcorps]

They protect you because people are less likely to stab, shoot, or rape you when you're on camera.

How hard was that to figure out?

How hard is it? I guess it's plenty hard if you happen to be a victim in one of the "unprevented" crimes, eh?

[the_mango55]

How hard is it? I guess it's plenty hard if you happen to be a victim in one of the "unprevented" crimes, eh?

So if it doesn't prevent all crimes it's not worth using?

[Enemy of the State]

We should have cameras in government institutions, with a live feed to anyone who wants to watch. If they can watch us, we should be allowed to watch them.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Nothing wrong with surveillance cameras in public places, with a few exceptions. Don't break any laws and you have nothing to fear for them. Don't act like a buffoon and you probably won't be noticed by them anyway.

[Incesticide]

Public places are public. It is a very simple concept to grasp. When you are in a public place people might be observing you, you might be seen by unseen observers too, and you have no reason to fear simply being observed. Observation is not oppression. The people who have something to fear are those up to no good. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I really struggle to think up any scenarios in which people with nothing to hide have something to fear by being seen by cameras. People being unfaithful or “pulling a sickie” would have far more to fear from the general public observing them than by a security guard in a booth looking at a bank of TV screens. Such a security guard would see lots of things each day and would be under a duty of confidentiality, which could not be said for your neighbour who might be walking through that same public place. There is no right to anonymity or confidentiality in a public place.

[Ancient Aliens]

We should have cameras in government institutions, with a live feed to anyone who wants to watch. If they can watch us, we should be allowed to watch them.

That is actually an interesting concept. If government officials are on the public payroll, then the taxpayers have a right to see exactly how our money is being spent.

[Denny Crane!]

That is actually an interesting concept. If government officials are on the public payroll, then the taxpayers have a right to see exactly how our money is being spent.

Its just more cost and the government would of course make it even more expensive than it should be.

[Angrychris]

bathrooms and break rooms while your at it

[the_mango55]

I'm fine with cameras on public streets (though I'll still make fun of cities that do and call them nanny states) as long as people have the right to film whatever they want in public as well, including the cops and government.

The states in the US that are trying to enforce those rules against filming police need to be slapped down by the supreme court.

[Angrychris]

we gave up many of our rights so why not strip the rest?

[Armenum]

we gave up many of our rights so why not strip the rest?

It does not in anyway limit what you can do. Will you act different in public because there is a street camera? Isn't worth it if it can help cut down and track down crime?

I just don't see how this is an act of "giving up" a right, but I'm happy to hear the other side of the argument.

[(s)AINT]

There are a couple in the downtown entrainment district in my city. They are only operated during specific hours and are staffed by 2 officers. 1 on the camera/console and 1 watching what he is doing.

They've been used quite efficiently. Vandalism, stolen cars, etc.

I agree, however, that while you are in public do not expect 100% privacy. Hell if you are so subconscious about people seeing what you are doing do not go outside, stay inside and lock the door, cover your windows and keep the lights off.

But I also agree that normal people should be able to film people in public (consent) and film police, etc. The two can mutually exist.

[(s)AINT]

It is not a right to not be filmed / watched while in a public area.

Show me if I am mistaken.