Question of British Surveillance

**sephodwyrm** · November 09, 2006, 08:12 PM

OK, I have seen some BBC videos and documentaries that includes footages in England.
I am rather surprised by the existence of numerous surveillance camera.
I hope UK residents can give me a better picture about this. The number of surveillance cameras in public areas are just staggering. Even Singapore doesn't have that many!

**the Black Prince** · November 10, 2006, 04:06 AM

there are 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK

they are used in several different ways
public cameras monitor principle public areas in city centres, generally monitored from a central office and operated by the police. in particular they are used to detect and record incidents of shoplifting and street brawling for future prosecution

car park cameras
public and private car parks tend to use CCTV especially in multistory car parks to detect and prosecute car thieves

security cameras
any number of privately owned cameras are in use in shops, in clubs, in secure locations (i.e goernment agencies) police stations, and other sensitive locations for the security monitoring.

to be honest, the only ones i can see people having any problem with are those used in public areas... and yet, there cameras are the most helpful to police and the courts. these are the ones used most often to prove what happened in drunken affray, and other such activities, and also to trace a persons last no steps in the event of people going missing. some of the last movements of the Soham victims, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were pieced together by CCTV footage from a public camera, and a camera at a petrol station (used normally to record the number plates of people who drive off without paying).

ultimately, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear here...

**Fianóglach** · November 10, 2006, 04:18 AM

Got to love the CCTV, no problem with them I say, helps keep us all safe. Now if they would just open a hotline to help me locate where I parked my car...

**edders** · November 10, 2006, 04:38 AM

I never really notice them when I'm out and about. I think the most noticable ones are around the worst council estates, where nobody with any sense goes anyway.

**Markas** · November 10, 2006, 04:50 AM

Stories about surviellance cameras and how the British are 'the most watched people on earth' are great for selling papers and increasing viewing ratings, but I know nobody who's worried about a 'big-brother' future (the book rather than the crap reality show). as TBP says, if you're innocent you've nothing to fear....

**sephodwyrm** · November 10, 2006, 05:36 AM

Did England have immense problems of petty crime?
I don't get it.
You have cameras at intense four crossings like straight from a high way so that people won't speed through lights. I can make sense with that. But constant surveillance is rather unique, and would take up a lot of money and resources to maintain and man. Has anyone really ran a cost benefit analyses?

**Rhah** · November 10, 2006, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

Did England have immense problems of petty crime?
I don't get it.
You have cameras at intense four crossings like straight from a high way so that people won't speed through lights. I can make sense with that. But constant surveillance is rather unique, and would take up a lot of money and resources to maintain and man. Has anyone really ran a cost benefit analyses?

I believe the logic is that it is cheaper to use CCTV surveillance than it is to employ more Policemen.
Unfortunately, we do have a problem with random drunken violence and petty crime in the UK, and the government seems to think that CCTV is some sort of deterent.

It can be quite weird sometimes when walking through an empty town centre in the very early morning, because the mounted camera's will actually swivel and track you as you walk down the street.

Personally I detest the invasion of privacy, but at the same time, there are some benefits to it, so its something I'll have to live with.
On the other hand, RFID chips, DNA databases and ID Cards are things that I'm vehementaly opposed too.

**the Black Prince** · November 10, 2006, 06:42 AM

a lot of cameras are unmonitored. they simply record images, with the recordings stored for x amount of time. if there is then a late night pub brawl spilling out onto the street, the police can go through the CCTV tapes to confirm what happened and use the footage as evidence.

in other areas, like busy city centres, there will be people monitoring, but the trade off is less police. instead of having several police (or security) patrols, you'll have one or two patrols, and monitoring, and if something happens, the monitoring team direct the patrol team to the incidence, and can also follow people running away through the highstreet/town centre/shopping centre on camera.

i recall one time, i was in a shop in newcastle-under-lyme High Street and the shops main checkout had a 2 way radio. all the stores on the high street contracted with a local security firm for in store detectives. someone had shoplifted from a store, a detective was in pursuit, and asking other stores on the network to confirm the thieves position. as some excited store clerk reported he'd just run past her window, a calm voice cut in on the channel, this is police mobile 1, we have camera visual of the shoplifter, a police car is currently waiting for him at the end of the street.
a mobile camera unit had picked him up, was following him with the camera... caught red handed

**sephodwyrm** · November 10, 2006, 02:14 PM

So you guys actually feel comfortable with your actions being monitored?
I learn something new everyday...its a shame that a land that have participated in the rise of liberal democracy has become, IMO, a surveillance state.

**Fianóglach** · November 10, 2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

So you guys actually feel comfortable with your actions being monitored?
I learn something new everyday...its a shame that a land that have participated in the rise of liberal democracy has become, IMO, a surveillance state.

Its not as if they have cameras in our bloody houses. I think you have the wrong idea about this mate. A Camera is no different than a Policeman standing on a corner, if something happens the POlice can find out who did it, and help prosecute the scum, and get them off the street. I don;t really give two ***** if a camera films me walking into a shop, or walking down the street. If some scum tries to club me and take my wallet, and I clump him in the face, it only helps me to prove that I was defending myself. So unless you are a rapist or a theif why would you be opposed to cameras in public places?

**Lusted** · November 10, 2006, 02:47 PM

I can understand why we have them, but i do not like the intrusion on privacy they bring. And like Rhah im completely opposed to the ID-Card scheme.

**the Black Prince** · November 10, 2006, 03:44 PM

yeah, like Fian said... its a cheaper better alternative than having police standing at street corners. by all means, we WANT more "bobbies on the beat" but there are limits as to how many there will ever be. this way, if a crime is committed, police can find out the how and the who

i'm variable on ID cards. in principle, i see limited issues with the overall idea, but i do have grave concerns over how the proposed scheme will operate, how much, and what data will be colcted, and who will have access to it.
certainly there are situations where having a card you by law have to carry with you would be useful, serving as proof of age, as well as ID