Surveillance security?
New cameras going up in Britain claim to be able to “predict” if a crime is about to happen. The cameras monitor activities to alert operators to suspicious behavior–such as loitering, unusually slow walking, or even joyriding. The operators can then notify the police, who may question the suspicious individuals about their behavior.
Councillor Jason Fazackarley of Portsmouth Council said: ‘It’s the 21st century equivalent of a night watchman, but unlike a night watchman it never blinks, it never takes a break and it never gets bored.’
The whole set up may remind some people of Tom Cruise’s science-fiction film Minority Report, in which authorities arrest people before they’ve even committed a planned crime. But Britain’s latest move is no fiction story, and critics fear such extensive monitoring is just another step toward making Britain a surveillance society entirely.
And yet there are those who find the increasing surveillance almost comforting. As one individual commented, “I think the cameras are needed. Young boys are always up to no good in my neighborhood. I feel safer with the cameras. We need more, possibly.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top18 Comments to “Surveillance security?”
Brit society is not doing any proactively protective things as to its youth (teaching any sort of a functioning moral system, undercutting the revolutionary Islamic faction, etc.) so they will have to ramp up the reactive protective measures like this – remember, the Brits don’t let anyoone protect themselves.
Report comment to moderator
KRM, so true. The proactive teaching you spoke of is rare and no doubt highly derided as an imposition of one set of values. So their response? Surveillance cameras galore. Cheaper than paying a beat cop [no insurance, retiremt etc] and given the choice I guess unobtrusive hidden CCTV gets my vote over a cop on every street corner.
But some areas of the underclass would no doubt be ecstatic to have a living breathing friendly man going thru the neighborhood on regular foot patrols a la Sheriff Andy Taylor, no? (Andy never walked a beat on the show but I think he knew all the neighbors, no?)
Report comment to moderator
“Cheaper than paying a beat cop [no insurance, retiremt etc]…”
Seems to me that you do have to pay someone to monitor those cameras no?
Report comment to moderator
Although I plan to take a grand tour of Europe sometime (maybe just the UK if I don’t have a lot of time or money), but you knw what? You can’t even have a knife over there (let alone a gun).
There’s the answer to all crime: simply increase government control.[/sarcasm]
Report comment to moderator
Rio, the criminals have knives and guns. They don’t mind breaking the law.
Guns aren’t allowed in the District of Columbia, but DC mayor Marion Barry famously said, “The level of crime has gone down, except for the murders.”
Report comment to moderator
It’s my understanding that law enforcement and sentencing in Britain is so lax that this will probably resuln in almost no arrests anyway. So why do it?
I guess the point might be to deter a criminal act such that an arrest isn’t necessary. But if the guy is a criminal and you stop one individual act rather than getting him off the street, what have you accomplished?
Anyway, I hope citizens who are approached have the option of declining to answer questions.
Report comment to moderator
My wife and I were just discussing this the other night. They have put surveillance cameras (no “predictive ability” so far as I know) on several street corners in our city, and there are two basic complaints I’ve heard.
1) The cameras are an invasion of privacy.
Well, they actually show what is going on on the street. Do you have an expectation that you are private, when walking down a public street? Anyone out on the street can see you, and you could just as conceivably have a beat cop walking the block or stationed on the corner.
And I think it is more effective (cheaper), both for the reason Sawgunner points out, and also you can have one human being watching several monitors at once. A beat cop, unless he posesses the power of bilocation can only be in one spot at a time.
2) The cameras are not in the right locations
I think this complaint actually has a little more justification.
Rather than being in the areas that are poorest and/or most dangerous for the residents, the cameras are being located in more gentrified areas of the city, as well as some downtown entertainment districts frequented by suburbanites.
While effective in reducing crime in those areas, there is evidence that in some cases, they are merely shifting the crime to other, unmonitored, areas. The cameras are expensive, and resources tend to be allocated to areas where there is more money and influence.
I think one solution would be to place look-alike dummy cameras in certain of the existing locations, and place a mix of real and dummy cameras in under-monitored neighborhoods. The precedent for that is the use of dummy speed traps in certain locations. After all, the entire goal here is prevention before the fact, not apprehension after a crime.
But finally, getting back to the gist of the article, the “predictive” ability is probably somewhat overstated. Take the simplest case you can – if there is nothing moving in the scene, then obviously there isn’t anything happening. If something is changing in the scene, then perhaps there is criminal activity. So, you have an algorithm that detects motion in the scene.
So now, out of a bank of say 20 cameras, you can filter out the 4 where there is motion, and alert the human who’s watching the screens – “Hey, look at these four, we’ve pre-screened out the other 16 because it doesn’t look like anything is happening.”
The algorithms are certainly much more complex than that, but you get the idea. You want to help focus the human being’s attention on things that look unusual.
Report comment to moderator
I have no problems with remote videos being used as evidence once a crime has been committed.
But I don’t trust the government not to use the information for illegitimate purposes.
Just for one example; both the Democratic and Republican headquarters in my small city were in areas which would certainly be covered by cameras, if there were any. There are also several bars, an adult book store, and 5 or 6 churches, one of which is quite politically active, in the immediate area. Do I trust either the city, county, or state officials not to use this surveillance capability to keep track of their opponents’ (or their friends’) activities?
Do you?
Report comment to moderator
We had surveillance monitor cameras installed at the historic Texas governor’s mansion. It was hit by a molotov cocktail. The state trooper in the monitor room was surfing the net instead of doing the job he was paid and trained to do.
So a camera is only as good as those staring at it.
Report comment to moderator
There was a series on PBS recently that dealt with the oversurveillance of government called The Last Enemy, which “offers a frenetic ride through the paranoia and politics of a futuristic surveillance society.” It goes right along with the idea that cameras can be used for nefarious purposes.
Report comment to moderator
There is no expectation of privacy in a public space, so any complaint about “intrusiveness” of the surveillance cameras is a nonstarter. The cameras merely enhance the observational abilities of beat officers, and in this implementation, help them identify suspicious behavior worth investigating.
As a former officer I frequently checked on suspicious behavior. Sometimes a perfectly innocuous behavior merely appeared suspicious in context. I stopped a man pushing a heavy box through a deserted commercial hour after dark only to learn he had been put out of his house and was taking a shortcut with all his belongings to another place to stay. Other times it identified people who would become suspects (or witneses) as later information about crimnal activity arose.
Aggressive policing also reduces crime, by depriving criminals of some of their opportunities. Nothing a good beat officer would do, or these cameras, by enhancing the beat officers’ ability to observe, actually “predicts” crimes a la “The Minority Report.”
Report comment to moderator
11. I agree with Ken on this one. As a woman I appreciate the extra security that gives me more freedom to move around in safety.
Report comment to moderator
8. Anyone could stand on the street corner and tape someone going into any of these places. If you’re not doing anything wrong why do you care who sees you?
Report comment to moderator
I think there is some expectation of privacy in a public place if no one else is around. For instance, if a friend and I are walking down the street and alone on the street, I might tell her all sorts of things I wouldn’t say in a crowded area where we might be overheard. We might even make the kinds of jokes that would be taken wrong if overheard by authorities. I think there is a difference between an officer observing a scene and taping its citizens.
I personally fret over the idea of sending a ticket through the mail based on evidence from a camera. You probably don’t remember going through that particular intersection, so you can’t dispute the ticket as you might if you were pulled over right then and you had a valid reason for your action, and furthermore, the person who owns the car isn’t necessarily the one driving it–the driver, not the owner, should receive a ticket. In other words, video-based police action does present some problems.
Is it worth the tradeoff of privacy for safety? Perhaps. But the question is certainly worth asking, and I for one wouldn’t give it an automatic yes.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS (13): Anyone could stand on the street corner and tape someone going into any of these places. If you’re not doing anything wrong why do you care who sees you?
FRANK: I don’t think the concern is one of “mere” privacy, but rather the State’s wholesale collecting, collating and sharing of information on law-abiding citizens. (Notice, however, that how I frame the question presupposes that there’s something downright strange about wanting to keep one’s affairs private.)
Consider: If you withdraw, deposit, or even make a purchase with cash in the amount of $10,000 or more, your actions will by law be reported to The Authoritahs — all in the name of fighting the War on Drugs, you understand.
But suppose you’re not a drug dealer, but on sheer principle, you don’t like the idea of Big Brother knowing you have your hands on ten grand. So you withdraw, deposit or spend $9,500 instead. Well, if The Authorities find out), you can be charged with the “crime” of “structuring” — intentionally transacting in an amount less than $10,000 in order to avoid reporting requirements. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t.
But hey, KBells, you hold the answer: “If you’re not doing anything wrong why do you care who sees you?”
Stop ask yourself just how that kind of sheeple-think contradicts everything America’s Founders stood for and sought to bequeath us. Consider just for a moment that people inherently don’t like to be suspected of criminal activity just because they have ten grand in their duffel bag. And that kind of presupposition of privacy shouldn’t automatically make them suspects.
Report comment to moderator
The collecting of information makes me nervous.
Consider the use of FBI files by powerful politicians to silence opponents. Just because the original intent is good, it doesn’t protect from those who come later who see an opportunity to punish or control.
My husband says I have a “catastrophic rolladex” about things like this…
Report comment to moderator
MomOf5:
A “catastrophic rolladex”?
Please elaborate?
Report comment to moderator
I can imagine the worst possible consequences of most choices. I guess that comes with being risk averse.
OTOH, my husband is an optimistic estimator. We balance each other well!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!