CCTV on Stagecoach buses?
J. Chisholm
There is one 'bubble' camera on each side.
Can anyone confirm that this system is operative, and are there cameras
within the buses?
If there are cameras, are there also notices within the buses informing
passengers of the fact?
I believe there are guidelines regarding the use of CCTV systems in
pubic areas.
I've now twice emailed Stagecoach on this issue but they failed to even
acknowledge my request for information.
Jim Chisholm
Roger Hume
I for one support CCTV, it seems the only effective deterrent to anti
social behaviour and crime.
What do guidelines achieve? So you have a sign saying that you are on
camera. how does that help?
I suppose it might reassure that there are safeguards in place so that
the video is only used for its correct purpose....
Roger
Roger Hume
> The entity calling itself Roger Hume wrote:
>> I for one support CCTV, it seems the only effective deterrent to anti
>> social behaviour and crime.
>
> to be effective?
>
>> What do guidelines achieve? So you have a sign saying that you are on
>> camera. how does that help?
>
>
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/cctv_code_of_practice_html/index.html
>
I have worked out from your link:-
The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the
DPA. This applies where an individual uses CCTV to protect their home
from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas
near their home. Images captured for recreational purposes, such as
with a mobile phone, digital camera or camcorder, are also exempt.
So the ones with least safeguards are not even covered
Kieran Mansley
> I believe there are guidelines regarding the use of CCTV systems in
> pubic areas.
I'm sure there are, but assuming you meant "public areas", would a bus be
classed as a public area? You have to buy a ticket to get on one for one
thing, and I'm sure there are conditions of carriage that would allow a
company to use CCTV.
Kieran
Paul Bird
Oh give over they've had bricks thrown through the windows, they're
entitled to find out who's throwing them or preferably discourage them.
PB
J. Chisholm
talking about are 'external')in such circumstances.
BUT
They need to follow national guidelines, and so if I'm threatened by the
driving of a specific vehicle, I believe I should have the right to see
the footage.
I've no doubt had I been stupid enough to throw a brick at the driver in
question the CCTV tape would have appeared like 'magic'.
Jim
Paul Bird
<snip>
> Unlike some I also support this provision of CCTV (and the cameras I'm
> talking about are 'external')in such circumstances.
> BUT
> They need to follow national guidelines, and so if I'm threatened by the
> driving of a specific vehicle, I believe I should have the right to see
> the footage.
> I've no doubt had I been stupid enough to throw a brick at the driver in
> question the CCTV tape would have appeared like 'magic'.
That's more difficult, they didn't fit the cameras with the intention of
monitoring the driving of their drivers. I can see that's a grey area.
PB
J. Chisholm
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23823467-van-driver-sacked-by-firm-after-deliberately-swerving-into-london-cyclist.do
I remember seeing that some firms in the USA fitted CCTV to vehicles and
found that the cost was soon recovered because such vehicles were
involved in fewer crashes...
Jim
Michael Kilpatrick
>
> I for one support CCTV, it seems the only effective deterrent to anti
> social behaviour and crime.
I'm sure shooting all suspected or convicted criminals is pretty
cost-effective too, given how much it costs to keep them in gaol.
I don't support CCTV at all. I don't want any, anywhere. And if someone
stabs me to death on the street and they're never caught because there
was no Big Brother filming them, then so be it. I'd still be dead, so
I'd rather be dead and liberal than dead and not.
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
>
> Oh give over they've had bricks thrown through the windows, they're
> entitled to find out who's throwing them or preferably discourage them.
By that, I can only imagine that you're talking about bricks being
thrown through the windows from the outside. I have never heard of a
brick being carried onto bus in order to be thrown through the window
from the inside.
Now, if you're saying that buses have cameras that film the streets and
pavements around them as they drive around in order to film people
damaging the bus from the *outside*, then that is illegal, surely,
Because the bus is a business and would need to display clear signage to
everyone in the vicinity of the bus that they were being filmed? In
fact, as all of the filmed area outside the bus is likely to be public
space and the bus is a moving object, I can't see how it can be legal
for the CCTV to be fitted. The pedestrians the bus passes, or people who
happen to be standing near bus stops, are not given the option to enter
the CCTV zone or not - the CCTV zone has *approached them*. No?
Michael
Roland Perry
May 2010, J. Chisholm <jc...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>I believe there are guidelines regarding the use of CCTV systems in
>pubic areas.
<cough> <splutter> Although I do recall there being cctv in the gents at
Kings Cross, and no obvious (very local) signage to that effect. Maybe
covered by more general signage in the station?
--
Roland Perry
Paul Bird
Thank you, I wasn't challenging or disbelieving you I was simply
sympathising with Stagecoach losing windows to vandals but of course if
it subsequently shows up bad driving then I can quite see that you have
a case.
PB
Ian Bidwell
"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:75udnY3g05ZHA2fW...@pipex.net...
>
> Now, if you're saying that buses have cameras that film the streets and
> pavements around them as they drive around in order to film people
> damaging the bus from the *outside*, then that is illegal, surely,
An illegal act by Stagecoach?--surely not
Ian
Ian Jackson
Michael Kilpatrick <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> as all of the filmed area outside the bus is likely to be public
>space and the bus is a moving object, I can't see how it can be legal
There are no real restrictions on where CCTV can be fitted and who it
can be pointed at. There are some rules saying you have to notify the
people being filmed and what for, but that's it. So filming the
outside of the vehicle would be quite legal if they put a notice on
the bus saying they were doing it.
But I think we're talking here about cameras which are inside the bus
and don't produce plausible images of the area outside. And Jim seems
to be complaining that the required notices are missing.
The new government have promised to "regulate" CCTV but I do wonder
whether they will actually do anything significant.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Paul Bird
Years ago I worked in P&O Ferries and other ships of theirs where they
knowingly had "black box" type voice and data recorders with a maximum
of 24 hours capacity such that for the most part deck officers on the
bridge only worred about being recorded the day before the tape/disk was
about to be changed and then signs went up all over the bridge accordingly.
Were I to be implementing the above scheme I would install a limited
recording capacity coupled with a button on the dashboard that the
driver could press at time of incident to indicate footage to be viewed,
the rest could be deleted. I don't see great civil liberty issues here.
PB
Michael Kilpatrick
> In article <75udnY3g05ZHA2fW...@pipex.net>,
> Michael Kilpatrick <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>as all of the filmed area outside the bus is likely to be public
>>space and the bus is a moving object, I can't see how it can be legal
>>for the CCTV to be fitted. ...
>
>
> There are no real restrictions on where CCTV can be fitted and who it
> can be pointed at. There are some rules saying you have to notify the
> people being filmed and what for, but that's it. So filming the
> outside of the vehicle would be quite legal if they put a notice on
> the bus saying they were doing it.
It's hard to film *only* the outside the bus and no people that might
standing on the pavement nearby when the bus is not moving. And surely
the whole point, if not the letter of the law, of obliging the presence
of notices is that people can enter, or choose not to enter, a CCTV zone
knowingly. If someone is standing still at a busy road junction with
their back to the road and a bus stops (at the traffic lights) right
behind them, then the pedestrian has clearly not *entered* the CCTV zone
of the bus. The CCTV has imposed itself upon him. I don't consider that
acceptable.
Furthermore, how are the Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act
applied to blind people in the case of CCTV, when they can see neither
the signs notifying them of CCTV zones nor the camera that their
neighbour has placed overlooking their garden?
Furthermore, if the bus camera does *not* film people outside the bus
(with the aim of deterring damage to the bus) then what use is it?
Unless they act as visibility aids alongside the usual array of mirrors,
and to see if people are in the doorway of the bus? In which they
wouldn't be recording the data.
>
> But I think we're talking here about cameras which are inside the bus
> and don't produce plausible images of the area outside. And Jim seems
> to be complaining that the required notices are missing.
That didn't seem clear to me. Jim said there were bubbles on each side,
and then he asked "and are there cameras within the bus", which suggests
to me that the bubbles were on the outside.
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
> The entity calling itself Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>>Furthermore, if the bus camera does *not* film people outside the bus
>>(with the aim of deterring damage to the bus) then what use is it?
>
>
> The cameras are located inside the bus, mounted in little smoked
> hemispherivcal pods on the roof, and pointed toward the inside. They are
> intended to prevent vandalism, and attacks upon drivers, or identify
> vandals, or attackers. I don't belive protection of the bus from outside
> is their purpose.
Well, that makes more sense. Still, as sort of business premises, there
should be signs by law, no?
Michael
Chris Jones
> Now, if you're saying that buses have cameras that film the streets and
> pavements around them as they drive around in order to film people
> damaging the bus from the *outside*, then that is illegal, surely,
> Because the bus is a business and would need to display clear signage to
> everyone in the vicinity of the bus that they were being filmed?
Google presumably didn't think so, when they sent the Street View cars around.
Then again, they have since been shredded in court and/or by privacy
regulators or data protection watchdogs in several jurisdictions. Perhaps
more significantly, there have been a lot of complaints from ordinary
people, who simply felt that Google's actions had crossed the line into
unacceptable invasion of privacy.
I don't think the legal rules have really been written in this area yet.
However, with the increasing awareness of civil liberties in general and
personal privacy and data protection issues in particular, I certainly
wouldn't want to underwrite Stagecoach's legal budget if they persist in
mounting cameras on their vehicles and they aren't very careful about how
the data is handled.
Cheers,
Chris
--
My name isn't really Chris Jones, but I play him on Usenet.
Chris Jones
> I don't support CCTV at all. I don't want any, anywhere. And if someone
> stabs me to death on the street and they're never caught because there
> was no Big Brother filming them, then so be it. I'd still be dead, so
> I'd rather be dead and liberal than dead and not.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as ruling it out completely and forever, but I
admire your principled view.
CCTV as it stands today does very little good, but carries a lot of risk of
abuse. Unless and until this situation changes, we are certainly better off
without it. The same goes for almost any other aspect of the surveillance
state and its accompanying security theatre, of course.
tony sayer
<n...@this.address> scribeth thus
A lot of Taxis now have CCTV fitted and its also on trains as well front
cab and rear!...
Shown up some rather tragic things tho...
--
Tony Sayer
Cwatters
It's strange how some people feel their liberty is threatened by them. I
mostly feel the opposite. I guess liberty is a state of mind.
Tim Ward
news:75udnZLg05aCA2fW...@pipex.net...
>
>> I for one support CCTV, it seems the only effective deterrent to anti
>> social behaviour and crime.
>
> I'm sure shooting all suspected or convicted criminals is pretty
> cost-effective too, given how much it costs to keep them in gaol.
Yes indeed. Managing without the death penalty is a luxury that only rich
societies can afford.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Kev Bishop
"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:75udnZLg05aCA2fW...@pipex.net...
+1 to that.
Kieran Mansley
> So you don't think they should be allowed to film the street around the
> bus? Or maybe you think that's not a public area either?
I thought the cameras in question were inside the bus, and was querying
whether the bus was a public area as had been suggested.
That said, I have no objection to people or companies filming the street
(which obviously is a public area) whether there is a bus nearby or not.
Kieran
Linda Fox
>
> I don't support CCTV at all. I don't want any, anywhere. And if someone
> stabs me to death on the street and they're never caught because there
> was no Big Brother filming them, then so be it. I'd still be dead, so
> I'd rather be dead and liberal than dead and not.
>
will affect only them.
So when someone close to you is assaulted at a taxi rank and kicked in
the ribs, you will object to the fact that their assailants can be
identified and dealt with? Blimey, I though *I* was liberal...
Linda ff
Cwatters
"J. Chisholm" <jc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:htds87$f4l$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> All the recent P&R and Citi double deckers 'appear' it be equiped with
> CCTV
> There is one 'bubble' camera on each side.
> Can anyone confirm that this system is operative, and are there cameras
> within the buses?
>
> If there are cameras, are there also notices within the buses informing
> passengers of the fact?
>
> areas.
>
> acknowledge my request for information.
>
> Jim Chisholm
http://www.look-cctv.co.uk/display.php?page=News&article=21
Extract...
In a novel CCTV configuration, all the Stagecoach buses will feature three
externally facing cameras to monitor the movement of traffic and pedestrians
as part of an accident prevention campaign. The forward facing camera is
supplemented by two additional cameras: one on the nearside rear of the bus
pointing forward, and the other on the offside front of the bus pointing
backwards.
In addition to recording high resolution images the LOOK CCTV system will
also record the driver's brake and indicator actions. To ensure the CCTV is
fully operational at the start of each day's service, LOOK is installing an
automatic system checker enabling the driver the check the cameras and
recorder are fully operational.
Michael Kilpatrick
There's little point bleating about it after the event, but if on the
other hand said person close to me were assaulted and the assailant
*not* caught because there *weren't* any cameras: then no, I'm not going
to whinge about someone getting away with it because they weren't being
filmed. My death and injury is on par with the death and injury of those
close to me. Obviously.
And, where said assailant is caught owing to being filmed, why don't I
then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the vicinity of the
taxi rank - someone who might have had the opportunity not only to
apprehend the assailant but also perhaps, with luck, been near enough
actually to deter the assault in the first place.
Michael
Tim Ward
>
> why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
> vicinity of the taxi rank
'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the answer,
which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
Michael Kilpatrick
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:58adnd0KgIBNC2bW...@pipex.net...
>
>>why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
>>vicinity of the taxi rank
>
>
> 'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the answer,
> which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
Well, I seem to recall voting for a party whose manifesto was committed
to more policemen on the beat. And I personally have never complained of
paying too much tax...
Michael
Paul Rudin
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:58adnd0KgIBNC2bW...@pipex.net...
>>
>> why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
>> vicinity of the taxi rank
>
> 'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the answer,
> which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
There are plenty of ocassions where the police walk or drive past
over-ranked taxis without doing anything about it. Issuing a ticket
takes a couple of minutes.
Richard Kettlewell
> Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in
>>> why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
>>> vicinity of the taxi rank
>>
>> 'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the
>> answer, which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
>
> Well, I seem to recall voting for a party whose manifesto was
> committed to more policemen on the beat. And I personally have never
> complained of paying too much tax...
Could Tim just possibly have been using the plural 'you'? Or art thou
really willing and able to personally fund extra extra police officers?
(We should definitely bring back thou and thee.)
Michael Kilpatrick
> Michael Kilpatrick <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Tim Ward wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
>>>>why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
>>>>vicinity of the taxi rank
>>>
>>>'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the
>>>answer, which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
>>
>>Well, I seem to recall voting for a party whose manifesto was
>>committed to more policemen on the beat. And I personally have never
>>complained of paying too much tax...
>
>
> Could Tim just possibly have been using the plural 'you'?
No doubt, but I can only speak for myself. If nobody else pipes up and
agrees with me, tough!
Michael
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
>"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:58adnd0KgIBNC2bW...@pipex.net...
>>
>> why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
>> vicinity of the taxi rank
>
>'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the answer,
>which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
>
I reckon we pay enough as it is Tim .. Next?...
Were do the police hide out these days, hardly ever see one?..
--
Tony Sayer
Tim Ward
news:9r-dnfQave2bLmbW...@pipex.net...
Yes I meant "you" in general of course, I could perhaps better have said
"we".
"Policemen on the beat" is, I hope, usually a shorthand for "policemen doing
front line work rather than sitting in the nick doing paperwork". Point
being that a policeman walking or cycling round a nice middle class suburb
during daylight where the punters can see him waiting for something to
happen is largely a waste - he's much more useful in nasty places in the
dark where the villains are likely to be. At the start of each shift for the
reactive teams there's a briefing as to what's been going on and what sort
of thing they could be looking out for where whilst not attending a shout -
this is intelligence led and will be different each day, it's not a question
of walking a regular "beat".
Yes I know there's a reassurance value of policemen walking around visibly
which is of value to the punters - that's partly what PCSOs are there to
address.
And yes the police do of course hang around the city centre on a Friday and
Saturday night when they've got nothing better to do ... which in my
experience lasts until about 7pm, after which they're all attending
incidents.
Tim Ward
news:LkPx3kA+...@bancom.co.uk...
>
> Were do the police hide out these days, hardly ever see one?..
Do you really want them where *you* can see them, or would you rather they
spent their time where the bad guys are?
For more information, spend a shift with them.
Michael Kilpatrick
> "tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:LkPx3kA+...@bancom.co.uk...
>
>>Were do the police hide out these days, hardly ever see one?..
>
>
> Do you really want them where *you* can see them, or would you rather they
> spent their time where the bad guys are?
>
> For more information, spend a shift with them.
I'm baffled as to why there were two coppers strolling down Duxford
Road, Whittlesford, at 11:55am yesterday. I wish I'd stopped to ask them
rather than just saying good morning. But I was late for collecting Tom
at the end of pre-school.
Michael
Calvin Sambrook
news:861qok...@mid.individual.net...
>
> And yes the police do of course hang around the city centre on a Friday
> and Saturday night when they've got nothing better to do ... which in my
> experience lasts until about 7pm, after which they're all attending
> incidents.
>
Which brings us back to there not being enough police (or at least not
enough available front line police) because of choices we (collectively and
via our elected representatives) have made.
"Society gets the police force it deserves"
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:LkPx3kA+...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> Were do the police hide out these days, hardly ever see one?..
>
>Do you really want them where *you* can see them, or would you rather they
>spent their time where the bad guys are?
>
Where are the bad boyz in Cam then?..
>For more information, spend a shift with them.
Yes someone suggested I'd make a good copper .. once;)...
>
--
Tony Sayer
J. Chisholm
Jim
David Woodhouse
> http://www.look-cctv.co.uk/display.php?page=News&article=21
>
> Extract...
"The £1.2 million contract covers..."
UTF-8 content mislabelled as legacy crap (ISO8859-1) so it gets
misdisplayed. A 'contact' web form which doesn't work. And a mail domain
which doesn't accept mail to postmaster@
They seem to be fairly incompetent -- I don't think I'd ever advocate
buying anything from them.
--
dwmw2
Chris Jones
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:58adnd0KgIBNC2bW...@pipex.net...
>> why don't I then ask why there were no policemen on the beat in the
>> vicinity of the taxi rank
>
> 'Cos there's no need to ask the question, 'cos you already know the answer,
> which is that you aren't willing to pay enough tax.
Nonsense. The answer is that there is no realistic way to provide police
officers everywhere all the time, there never has been, and there never
will be.
This simple truth didn't seem to get through to the previous government
with all their advice about staying out of danger and just calling the
police if you see someone being beaten up in the street: it's all very well
saying that, but since the police are unlikely to arrive within a useful
period of time in that situation, everyone being passive just creates a
society where thugs feel they can get away with robbery, battery or
whatever it is they want to do.
The only way you can really deter such behaviour, short of a police state
with draconian penalties and the accompanying abuses, is if you have
exactly the opposite culture, where responsible citizens will stick up for
each other. I would like to live in a world where threatening a little old
lady resulted in being swiftly surrounded by ten passers-by asking you to
move on, long before plod arrive, rather than one where ministers of state
advocate cowering behind walls while the thugs do their work.
We can but hope that with the new lot in charge, laws and advice will be
clarified more along these lines, so that trying to do the right thing and
help out someone in need is no longer a cause for concern that it will be
you who winds up spending the night in Her Majesty's accommodation.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Yes indeed. Managing without the death penalty is a luxury that only rich
> societies can afford.
Doesn't look like it to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg
Alex Selby
> Linda Fox wrote:
>> On 24/05/2010 16:41, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't support CCTV at all. I don't want any, anywhere. And if someone
>>> stabs me to death on the street and they're never caught because there
>>> was no Big Brother filming them, then so be it. I'd still be dead, so
>>> I'd rather be dead and liberal than dead and not.
>>>
>> Strange how people so often seem to assume that their death or injury
>> will affect only them.
>>
>> So when someone close to you is assaulted at a taxi rank and kicked in
>> the ribs, you will object to the fact that their assailants can be
>> identified and dealt with?
>
> There's little point bleating about it after the event, but if on the
> other hand said person close to me were assaulted and the assailant
> *not* caught because there *weren't* any cameras: then no, I'm not going
> to whinge about someone getting away with it because they weren't being
> filmed. My death and injury is on par with the death and injury of those
> close to me. Obviously.
It's possible that catching the culprits and taking them through the
justice system reduces the chance of them doing it again. So what you're
saying is that you don't care about the next person they're going to
assault. It is not up to you to say that if you are murdered then you
don't think it matters that the murderers are caught, because it affects
people other than yourself that the murderers are at large.
It's also possible that the increased likelihood of said culprits being
caught would prevent them doing the thing in the first place.
So in either case, it's not just about revenge - there is the
possibility of reducing the occurrences of the crimes.
Of course it may be debatable whether CCTV does deter and reduce further
crime, but that is where the debate should be surely: the upside of
possibly deterring/preventing crime vs the downside of losing civil
liberties. Your form of the argument is dishonest because you don't
admit the possibility of any significant upside, characterising it
as crying over spilt milk ("whinging").
[...]
David Woodhouse
> Of course it may be debatable whether CCTV does deter and reduce further
> crime, but that is where the debate should be surely: the upside of
> possibly deterring/preventing crime vs the downside of losing civil
> liberties.
I've never really understood why some people equate CCTV with the loss
of civil liberties.
Just because someone can _see_ you when you're in a public place, why
does that make you any less free than you were?
If there _were_ a bobby on every street corner watching the proceedings,
would that also be a loss of civil liberties? What if they had an
eidetic memory?
--
dwmw2
Chris Jones
> I've never really understood why some people equate CCTV with the loss
> of civil liberties.
There is a difference between one person casually seeing you in the street
while going about their daily life, and an organisation with much greater
resources than any individual implementing mass surveillance and persistent
storage of what they see.
History to date does not present a flattering picture of the latter: it has
led to well-documented abuses, while showing negligible benefits at any
point in any location that I am aware of.
> If there _were_ a bobby on every street corner watching the proceedings,
> would that also be a loss of civil liberties?
That depends on whether it is just an individual watching the world around
them, or someone functioning as part of a larger machine conducting more
systematic surveillance of the population.
In short, it is not one individual observation in a public place that is
the problem, it is the surveillance state supported by (inter alia) many
such observations.
Perhaps it is a sad reflection of the times we live in, but I am not sure I
really do want more police on patrol any more: I am more fearful of coming
across the bad apple and being abused than I am of not being able to
protect myself or those around me from criminals. And if you think the bad
apples are rare, just watch the terrible attitude shown by many police
officers on the cops 'n' cameras TV shows, and then remember that what you
are seeing is probably the edited highlights, ignoring all the times they
pulled a car over, stopped and searched someone in the street, or otherwise
inconvenienced a person on a "hunch", and it turned out that the person
being so harassed was in fact entirely innocent.
The Natural Philosopher
paymasters.
Would you want your wife to know you were snogging her best friend..its
not illegal..but...
Alan
>
> Perhaps it is a sad reflection of the times we live in, but I am not
> sure I really do want more police on patrol any more: I am more
> fearful of coming across the bad apple and being abused than I am of
> not being able to protect myself or those around me from criminals.
> And if you think the bad apples are rare, just watch the terrible
> attitude shown by many police officers on the cops 'n' cameras TV
> shows, and then remember that what you are seeing is probably the
> edited highlights, ignoring all the times they pulled a car over,
> stopped and searched someone in the street, or otherwise
> inconvenienced a person on a "hunch", and it turned out that the
> person being so harassed was in fact entirely innocent.
>
More likely that the edited highlights show the few agressive officers
that you point it, because it makes more exciting TV.
The vast majority of "well behaved" police officers won't make good TV.
--
Linda Fox
I've always thought the "more bobbies on the beat" solution was
ludicrous, assuming those who use it are thinking of police on foot-patrol.
Michael Kilpatrick appears to want there to be a policeman standing at
every taxi rank. Presumably every bus stop. Every street corner in town.
Outside every night club. Until you can't scratch yourself without being
"observed". How long then before he is complaining about a police state?
Alternatively, if they are keeping down the crime, the waste of money
having them standing there "doing nothing"? (Like the police walking
down Duxford Road elsewhere in this thread)
What's needed is (a)a cost-effective way of observing what's happening
and (b)a fast, easy and efficient way of summoning police help whenever
needed.
The CCTV cameras seem to me to be the simplest solution to (a). The
problem is with (b) someone up there ^ complained about them cruising
around in panda cars - surely this is the point of being on the beat,
that they are out and about ready to go to where they're needed when
called. The problem is getting hold of them in the first place. I'd go
with the "more bobbies on the beat" proposal if it simply means ready
and available for quick response; but walking around a beat? You'd need
_thousands_ of them to be sure of one coming round the corner just as
the smash'n'grab or the putting in of the boot was occurring.
Linda ff
Michael Kilpatrick
> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>> There's little point bleating about it after the event, but if on the
>> other hand said person close to me were assaulted and the assailant
>> *not* caught because there *weren't* any cameras: then no, I'm not
>> going to whinge about someone getting away with it because they
>> weren't being filmed. My death and injury is on par with the death and
>> injury of those close to me. Obviously.
>
>
> Of course it may be debatable whether CCTV does deter and reduce further
> crime, but that is where the debate should be surely: the upside of
> possibly deterring/preventing crime vs the downside of losing civil
> liberties. Your form of the argument is dishonest because you don't
> admit the possibility of any significant upside, characterising it
> as crying over spilt milk ("whinging").
That's a ludicrous suggestion - almost verging on the offensive - to
suggest it's dishonest. Absolutely nowhere did I deny that the upside of
CCTV might be that some criminals get identified and caught. Do we each
need to state repeatedly the bleeding obvious each time we add a comment
to this discussion? No. SO, what you don't seem to accept is that my
view is that the downsides are of more weight than the upsides. There is
absolutely nothing dishonest about such a view. If you want to call me
dishonest for happening to have a different set of values to yourself,
please don't bother contributing any more here!
Michael
The Natural Philosopher
report on crime: so the CCTV does it for you.
Its lazy policing,
Here, where people are at home much of the time, and the normal business
of life is an obvious pattern, we dont need CCTV to e.g. spot the odd
ball vehicle that is simply unfamiliar.
David Woodhouse
Thanks; that's the first time I remember seeing a specific potential
outcome that people were concerned about, rather than just vague
handwaving about 'liberty'.
It gives an interesting insight into the objections. Are you saying that
those who object to CCTV are doing so because they want to preserve
their freedom to do reprehensible and immoral things that fall short of
being illegal?
In public places. Without any (perceived) chance of being discovered.
--
dwmw2
Michael Kilpatrick
> The entity calling itself Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>>That's a ludicrous suggestion - almost verging on the offensive - to
>>suggest it's dishonest. Absolutely nowhere did I deny that the upside
>>of CCTV might be that some criminals get identified and caught.
>
>
> Fewer than one might hope or, expect, though, as many (most?) CCTV
> systems are poorly set up and mantained, and produce recordings which
> are useless in court.
That may be true. Certainly on a point of principle CCTV *ought* to
result in more captures and/or prosecutions, which I have never denied.
But that's not the point (in my view).
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
>
> I've always thought the "more bobbies on the beat" solution was
> ludicrous, assuming those who use it are thinking of police on foot-patrol.
>
> Michael Kilpatrick appears to want there to be a policeman standing at
> every taxi rank. Presumably every bus stop. Every street corner in town.
> Outside every night club.
Ah, someone else trying to put words in my mouth. Indeed, I said "on the
beat in the vicinity of the taxi rank". That's a far cry from "on every
corner, at every taxi rank, outside every club".
Give it a rest.
Michael
David Woodhouse
> No, they simply want to keep their private life private. It could
> equally well be not wanting their employer to know they attended a gene
> counseling service, or a marriage guidance counselor. Neither of those
> are in any way morally reprehensible, yet one might still want the fact
> of attendance to remain private.
If it can be inferred from the employee's behaviour IN A PUBLIC PLACE
then arguably it's already public knowledge. The employer can just send
someone to follow them, and see where they went.
Of course, there's a serious argument that this kind of behaviour would
damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and
employee -- and there is already very clear legislation which protects
the employee in such cases.
The CCTV isn't enabling anything that wasn't possible before. Even if we
accept the somewhat far-fetched idea that the city centre CCTV cameras
are set up as webcams for public access, AND they're pointed at the
doors of the establishments in question, AND the employer has someone
watching them to see where the employee goes...
(I don't really see why anyone should _care_ whether their employer knew
such things either, mind you, but people are weird.)
--
dwmw2
daniel...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Only the ones somebody else picks and chooses, they won't chase
people parking in cycle lanes, or taxis blocking St Andrews St. on
CCTV evidence .....
--
Dan
Chris Jones
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:36 +0100, August West wrote:
>> No, they simply want to keep their private life private. It could
>> equally well be not wanting their employer to know they attended a gene
>> counseling service, or a marriage guidance counselor. Neither of those
>> are in any way morally reprehensible, yet one might still want the fact
>> of attendance to remain private.
>
> If it can be inferred from the employee's behaviour IN A PUBLIC PLACE
> then arguably it's already public knowledge. The employer can just send
> someone to follow them, and see where they went.
If someone followed you around everywhere you went in public, photographing
your credit card numbers over your shoulder and recording a video every
time you typed a PIN into a card machine, would you find that acceptable
behaviour?
Would you worry if your kids were walking to school, and every morning you
saw someone waiting outside your house who then followed the kids?
What if someone set up camp outside your home and noted every time people
went in or out, recording when the house was unoccupied?
Theoretically, there's nothing there that anyone couldn't do. We walk past
other people in public all the time with no problem. But someone passing
you in the street makes only a momentary observation, and probably forgets
it just as quickly anyway because they have no particular interest in you
at that time.
With CCTV, you have surveillance that is permanent and pervasive. It is the
*cumulative effect* of ongoing surveillance that opens up the more
dangerous possibilities.
CCTV is also covert. Normally, we deal with the kinds of situations I
mentioned above socially, because we (and everyone else around) can see
someone following us around and sneaking looks over our shoulder, or
someone standing outside our home with a pen and paper all day. CCTV is
insidious partly because it is a one-way system: it can see you, but you
have no idea who is on the other end or what they are going to do with any
footage they capture.
> The CCTV isn't enabling anything that wasn't possible before.
I don't think that is really true. In an age when technology readily allows
mass surveillance, persistent storage, data mining and redistribution, and
when the associated information can be collected covertly without knowing
who has it or for what purpose, I believe privacy and data protection laws
need to catch up to protect us from the dangers of abusing those technical
capabilities. As the old saying goes, just because we can do something,
that doesn't mean we should.
zulu
"Stephen Gower" <socks-1...@earth.li> wrote in message
news:htj571$l2b$1...@calculus.wolf.ox.ac.uk...
> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>
>>The cameras are located inside the bus, mounted in little smoked
>>hemispherivcal pods on the roof, and pointed toward the inside. They are
>>intended to prevent vandalism, and attacks upon drivers, or identify
>>vandals, or attackers. I don't belive protection of the bus from outside
>>is their purpose.
>
> On buses from both companies (Stagecoach and Go-ahead) in Oxford,
> at least, the cameras are both inside and outside the vehicle. The
> outside cameras cover the surrounding street, and at the time of
> introduction I recall the press reporting that these were in part
> to stop spurious claims against their drivers from other road
> users. See, for example
> http://www.busandcoach.com/newspage.aspx?id=209&categoryid=0
>
> The Stagecoach Condions of Carriage cover the internal ones
> http://www.stagecoachbus.com/conditionsofcarriage.aspx - I guess
> they reply on the provisions for covert surveillance for crime
> prevention for the external ones, although if so, then they're
> really pushing the boundaries.
> --
>
How can a covert camera _prevent_ crime?
By definition, any criminal would be unaware of its existence!
--
¦zulu¦ VIP
The Natural Philosopher
Basically yes.
That's my take. But I don't think that e.g. having a knee trembler in a
dark alley is particularly immoral or reprehensible, or pissing in one,
or falling over and being sick in one either. But later on when you get
to be an MP etc, its deeply embarrassing when the footage makes You-tube...
Just as paedophiles naturally gravitate to scout troops and junior
schools, nasty little voyeurs and snoops naturally gravitate to CCTV
surveillance.
Why put temptation for petty blackmail in their way?
You are actually INCREASING the likelihood of quite a different sort of
crime.
Think of all the crimes you can commit with a CCTV camera. Loitering
with intent, casing the joint, gathering material for extortion and
blackmail..
Quis custodies custodiet?
.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:36 +0100, August West wrote:
>> No, they simply want to keep their private life private. It could
>> equally well be not wanting their employer to know they attended a gene
>> counseling service, or a marriage guidance counselor. Neither of those
>> are in any way morally reprehensible, yet one might still want the fact
>> of attendance to remain private.
>
> If it can be inferred from the employee's behaviour IN A PUBLIC PLACE
> then arguably it's already public knowledge. The employer can just send
> someone to follow them, and see where they went.
>
> Of course, there's a serious argument that this kind of behaviour would
> damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and
> employee -- and there is already very clear legislation which protects
> the employee in such cases.
>
> The CCTV isn't enabling anything that wasn't possible before.
That's a bit like saying that a machine gun doesn't enable anything a
rock in your hand doesn't.
Or a computer doesn't do anything an abacus cannot.
Even if we
> accept the somewhat far-fetched idea that the city centre CCTV cameras
> are set up as webcams for public access, AND they're pointed at the
> doors of the establishments in question, AND the employer has someone
> watching them to see where the employee goes...
>
> (I don't really see why anyone should _care_ whether their employer knew
> such things either, mind you, but people are weird.)
>
Not good if you are seen entering a hotel with your employers wife, hand
in hand.
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:htjdl6$bbn$1...@news.albasani.net...
A good point!
Perhaps a CCTV camera in their place of work?
Sauce for the goose etc....
--
�zulu� VIP
The Natural Philosopher
the local community officer was very interested in the shot I took of a
white van with Irish plates that I noticed parked up where it had no
reason to be, when I had the big telephoto on trying to take pictures of
a pheasant..
Cwatters
"David Woodhouse" <dw...@infradead.org> wrote in message
news:1274866109.205...@macbook.infradead.org...
> It gives an interesting insight into the objections. Are you saying that
>those who object to CCTV are doing so because they want to preserve
>their freedom to do reprehensible and immoral things that fall short of
>being illegal?
>
>In public places. Without any (perceived) chance of being discovered.
>
>--
>dwmw2
How about your boss discovering you aren't really on holday but are in fact
attending an interview for another job?
Not exactly immoral or illegal.
Paul Bird
Dissatisfaction tends to show anyway doesn't it? Perhaps you're
particularly good at hiding your feelings.
PB
Tim Ward
news:865c1v...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Dissatisfaction tends to show anyway doesn't it? Perhaps you're
> particularly good at hiding your feelings.
A very common reason for wanting to change jobs is that your manager is
crap. A crap manager is perfectly capable of failing to notice that their
staff are unhappy, pretty well by definition.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Alex Selby
Well I'm sorry if I've offended you. I was meaning more that you were
using an argumentative sleight of hand - something that orators do all
the time and find admirable, but I find annoying. I'm sure you're a
perfectly decent and honest chap.
No, you didn't explicitly swear an affidavit in blood in triplicate
denying the possibility of an upside of CCTV, but that was (to me
anyway) the implication of what you said. IMHO a natural interpretation
of what you said was:
1) I've already suffered the crime.
2) Catching the crim wouldn't change 1)
3) Therefore I shouldn't care about people getting away with it
4) Therefore people who do care in this situation are just whingers
You also said
"I'd rather be dead and liberal than dead and not."
I don't agree that it is liberal to leave such people at large to stab
other people (or harm themselves perhaps - they might be mentally ill).
Did you momentarily forget to think of the other people who might
have a stake in this? Same reason it is not up to you to prosecute
someone for (eg) attempted murder against you - it is up to the crown,
because it is a public interest thing.
Michael Kilpatrick
Actually that doesn't really represent what I said. I merely stated that
from the view point of someone who doesn't want pervasive CCTV, there
was little point "bleating about it after the event", the "it" referring
to CCTV being used in evidence against someone involved in a crime
affecting me (or my family etc). I then stated that I wouldn't whinge if
someone got away with a crime because there was no appropriately
positioned CCTV.
Neither of those statements imply that I don't care about people getting
away with crime: it merely means that I don't wish CCTV to be the means
by which people are prevented from getting away with it, which is not
the same thing. The second statement does not imply that I think any
group of people with opinions on this are whingers. There are plenty of
people who have been the victims of crime which were *not* caught on
CCTV, and I do not recall ever hearing on the news any repeated
lamentations from said victims to the effect that "there should have
been a CCTV camera to protect them". In that sense there is no group of
"whingers", which is precisely why I couldn't be one of them. Maybe, to
your surprise, the feeling that they should have been monitored by CCTV
when going about their business, doesn't that often appear to be at the
forefront of people's minds after they become a victim of crime which
the law fails to resolve. At least, that's the impression I get.
> You also said
> "I'd rather be dead and liberal than dead and not."
> I don't agree that it is liberal to leave such people at large to stab
> other people (or harm themselves perhaps - they might be mentally ill).
Well, we also have a legal system in which criminals get off owing to a
technicality which results in a judge having to throw a case out of
court. It's part of the (unfortunate) price we pay for having a diligent
legal system. I'm quite happy with that and I accept that I might well
be the unfortunate next victim of said knife-wielding maniac.
On the other hand, a few years ago we seemed to have a shoot-to-kill
policy which resulted in an entirely innocent Bralizian electrician
being summarily "executed". Quite the contrary situation to what I
describe in the above paragraph. I don't accept it at all. I feel pretty
dirty about that. It therefore follows that I accept the risk of being
blown up by a bomber because the gun-toting policemen didn't shoot first
without ascertaining that the said bomber really *was* a bomber.
> Did you momentarily forget to think of the other people who might
> have a stake in this?
If you or they don't like it, you can simply vote for more CCTV (and/or
shoot-to-kill policies if you wish) whenever you have the opportunity to
do so.
Michael
Linda Fox
>
> Give it a rest.
>
A somewhat twitchy response that, Michael, considering I think it's been
my only contribution to this subthread.
Linda ff