I'd Like Cameras Everywhere

[Evergreen]

p.s. Everyone should also be forced to carry cell phones with the ability to record speech and take pictures.

[Snurx]

Hey guys, i would like my town center to be a playground for the white, rich and pretty, but all these criminals are showing me how the world really works! Can't we just get more police, more cameras, and make all the poor people go away to somewhere else? Im sure they will stop taking heroine and killing eachother if we become more strickt and make them hide even more, instead of looking at why things like rape and murder happens and try to change that instead. It's so to be hip nowadays, we can just ignore the poor people

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

1 is silliness. The issue that i mentioned involved a local department store donating all the money necessary for the equipment to be purchased and run. They have an obvious interest; crime in their neighborhood keeps customers away. Either way costs are going to drop astronomically over the next decade, and it's assumed that costs are trivial.

The capital costs of actually making the cameras will tend to drop greatly. What will not drop so quickly is the maintenance costs, installation costs, the guys who look after the tapes, etc. You're talking about a gigantic operation, I think it's a bit glib to dismiss costs as trivial. Obviously if private enterprises wish to spend billions on this sort of nonsense they can feel free.

Anyway the assumption is the tapes would all be destroyed the next day if no crimes were committed there anyway.

This totally devalues the impact of cameras, as it's not always obvious when a crime has been committed (e.g. with missing persons cases) on a particular street. Certainly not necessarily within 24 hrs.

3 is also done in by the assumption that day-olds will be deleted. there's simply no way to store all the data that would be held by the millions of cameras running 365 anyway.

Huh? I think you've missed my point. I'm not talking about a Totalitarian Regime (TM) in the future using the tapes of today (or yesterday). I'm talking about installing a network of total surveillance being used to enforce bad laws. This already happens with drugs. You trust the government (seemingly) never to do anything stupid, I do not.

Yes, giving the police any power leaves us open to abuse - but it's a question of balance. it's not a blank cheque for unlimited power.

For four, peer pressure to let people cheat, assaults don't get reported cuz obviously popular kids don't get beat up, etc.

I think this has already been asked but have you got any evidence for any of this. I certainly wouldn't have favoured cameras (of this kind) in every class-room when I was at school, and I can't think of anyone who would have. Admittedly I spent quite a lot of time messing around or trying to change people's computer passwords or whatever, but I presume the rule-abiders are probably in a minority.

And "they merely shift crime to other areas" is horrible argument. Exactly the same with having an officer walking the beat. Again your increase in crime is purely immigration related, and "people are going around beating each other up" because they can get away with it.

No. Firstly, I'm not a favour with spending vast amounts of getting officers walking the beat. But, there are other benefits (apparently) to officers patrolling - greating community-police interaction, people tend to "feel safer" (which doesn't appear to be the case with cameras, at least in London where we have an insane amount of cameras plus very high fear of crime).

Our increase in crime is not "purely immigration related" - that's an idiotic statement. Anti-social behaviour + general crime has increased in parts of the country where there is very little immigration.

People beating each other up happens for numerous reasons, but it certainly still happens in town centres here (where CCTV are ubiquitous) since it's generally alcohol related, and people when pissed out of their mind don't normally care for cameras.

Basically, this discussion was had a decade ago. Billions were spent on this sort of crap, and we have a far more dangerous and crime ridden society now. I'm disturbed that when something fails so miserably the answer is simply to accelerate the program.

p.s. Snurx wins.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by queball

And how does the information from CCTV, roughly equivalent to "6ft2 white male wearing a black jumper", narrow down those 6 billion people to something useful? You'd have to be able to track everyone on earth, at least retroactively.

You don't start with 6 billion people. If I set up a camera outside my house I'm damn sure I won't catch any Inuits on it, and if I did he'd be much easier to catch than anyone else, since I don't see many of them walking about round here.
If CCTV is so poor, how is it used already to catch people who commit robbery, abduction, assault and others that occur in shops and streets with cameras.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

You don't start with 6 billion people. If I set up a camera outside my house I'm damn sure I won't catch any Inuits on it, and if I did he'd be much easier to catch than anyone else, since I don't see many of them walking about round here.
If CCTV is so poor, how is it used already to catch people who commit robbery, abduction, assault and others that occur in shops and streets with cameras.

I was responding to Sunday's post describing how CCTV is a reaction against increased mobility. CCTV isn't poor - it can be very useful - but what does it have to do with witness protection?

[JonnyBGood]

This has been a good thread. On a metaphysical level though I feel that the overwhelming abundance of non-responses (namely sarcastic replies which have been done to death, aren't funny, add nothing to the thread and have the sole purpose of degrading the opposing argument without bothering to address it's point) are symptomatic of the large-scale decline in the quality of the recent debates on liberty related subjects on the forums. C+

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

You don't start with 6 billion people. If I set up a camera outside my house I'm damn sure I won't catch any Inuits on it, and if I did he'd be much easier to catch than anyone else, since I don't see many of them walking about round here.

If anything, this makes cameras less useful, not more. If you were selecting out of 6 billion people then "6ft ish white man" at least cuts out 95%+ of the world's population. The same information on a local level is a lot less useful, and half the time seems to just cut out the local white/black villains (delete as appropriate).

What I don't get is that CCTV cameras are supposed to be quite powerful (one article mentioned reading a newspaper headline from x ft or whatever) but all the extracts you see on Crimewatch (or whatever) are always blurred and pretty crappy. Is this just a lighting issue or something?

If we ignore the liberty issues then cameras might be mildly useful. I'm merely saying there are often better ways of spending the money (as another article mentioned, better street lighting is often more cost effective).

[Dante Hicks]

As a btw : Slashdot has a link on this subject : http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/06...tid=158&tid=99

[BeeKiller]

It clearly is a good idea to have cameras in all busy public places and areas of high crime, my reasoning is quite simple. CCTV isn't meant to just be a detterant as some people seem to be citing this as it's purpose, no it is also used to catch criminals, video evidence dramatically helps the victims case. If witnesses are afriad to speak out, or if it's just one persons word against another then why not use the undisputable video evidence which the police have in there posession? You don't necessarily need cctv to catch the criminal, but you most probably do need it to convict them, you see? Also those talking about infingement of our 'rights' or 'privacy', what the hell is up with you, if you feel you can't trust the police or law inforcers in a democratic state then clearly there's no where that you would feel safe, the police are trying to uphold the law and it's that which is protecting your rights. What about your right not to be stabbed, mugged, raped, etc? This isn't a eutopian world, people do commit crimes, surely you'd rather they got caught or even better thought twice about it beforehand rather than you gaining some small sense of freedom from not being videotaped in whatever compromising situation you seem to envisage yourself in?
Also regarding the issue of who should have access to these tapes, in my opinion, ONLY the police, and the tapes should be kept for at least 2 weeks, maybe more. Alot of crimes aren't reported the day they happen, and also the relevance of certain events to a crime aren't always apperent immediately.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by BeeKiller

Also those talking about infingement of our 'rights' or 'privacy', what the hell is up with you, if you feel you can't trust the police or law inforcers in a democratic state then clearly there's no where that you would feel safe, the police are trying to uphold the law and it's that which is protecting your rights. What about your right not to be stabbed, mugged, raped, etc?

I trust the police as much as I trust most people. They're probably on the whole good people trying to do their best. The few policemen I've met have generally been fairly nice fellows. That's not the issue. They have their prejudices (as we all do), they make mistakes (as we all do), and ocassionally they give into corruption (again, as we all do).

That's not the issue however. The issue is the nature of the state. How I feel about an individual police officer is irrelevent compared to the state. There are laws in place which I view as fundamentally wrong which the police are duty bound to enforce. These is no guarantee that laws will not get significantly (or even vaguely) worse in the near future. I don't want the state to have unnecessary powers in place to enforce bad laws in the future (I'm simplifying the argument considerably here, but it'll do). It's basically an issue of safety. I trust most people but giving unnecessary surveillance / enforcement powers over me seems like a pointless risk.

As for being raped, murdered, etc - this is all straw man argument. If camera's are used to convict criminals (as you say) then obviously they are not a total deterrent and thus I could still be murdered, mugged, etc with camera's in place. If cameras eliminated all crime then the argument would be completley different.

The debate isn't privacy vs elimination of crime. It's possible infringement of privacy & large cost vs a possible effect on crime.

[Nodrog]

So do you have any evidence that CCTV decreases crime? Also no, I certainly dont trust the police and I think that anyone who does has failed to think their personal situation through properly.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

So do you have any evidence that increased CCTV increases crime? Also no, I certainly dont trust the police and I think that anyone who does has failed to think their personal situation through properly.

Assuming that you mean it decreases crime I don't think anyone has that evidence as I doubt it's something that's been tried yet, the only countries able to afford it being western mostly liberal countries. Thus the empirical evidence might be slightly lacking.

[Leshy]

It's fairly obvious cameras would only increase crime. Next to a mugging, rape or murder, the criminal will also have to destroy a security camera, adding vandalism to the list.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

whats the point in having hidden cameras? surely the biggest benefit to haing cameras is the fact they deter criminals in the areas they cover, if they are hidden they wont reduce the crime rate, merely increase the likelyhood of the person being caught. although having said that i remember in one of my college classes (possibly sociology so it might be bollocks) that a ery large amount of cameras are of such low quality that it can be very hard to get a positive identification from them.

of course there is alway the privacy issue, but i find it hard to imagine that their is a vast underground bunker somewhere, manned by hundreds of people all watching every single camera in their city/town. except at times like clsing time on friday/saturday night the vast majority of cameras go completely unmonitored, the tapes from which are only looked over when a crime has been reported in that area, and then only in the time frame of the crime actually occurring.

as long as they dont catch me having a wank in my bedroom (just remember to close the curtains) then i aint too fussed.

[Nodrog]

I drew a picture

http://nodrogs.madeup.info/crime.gif

[JonnyBGood]

Let's submit it to the British government and see if they use it in a dossier to justify invading Birmingham.

[Nodrog]

The beauty of it is that you could change the key to make the lines represent "amount of gun laws" and "number of incidents of gun crime", or "amount of drug laws" and "incidents of drug use", and it is still an accurate graph.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you didn't bother researching that adequately beforehand.

[Nodrog]

I have published my research in many major academic journals.

[JonnyBGood]

Alexander?

[Nodrog]

It can be statistically shown that violent crime, drug related crime, and firearm related crime in Britain are all rising at alarming rates, and that the increased laws being implemented are doing nothing to reverse this. I could probably google and find some actual data but I cant be bothered.

[JonnyBGood]

Do you also feel that sterilisation of black people is the best option?


<3 stormfront

[Nodrog]

I think legalising guns and drugs would probably fix 90% of the problems. Allowing people to possess the means to defend themselves is a far better solution to the violent crime problem than peppering the length of the country with pointless cameras.

"Treating the symptoms rather than the disease".

[JonnyBGood]

That's not really a deep enough analysis though really. People go out and steal and murder because a) they have a need to to fulfill certain wishes they have and b) they don't respect others/society at large. Now we all wish to accomplish certain things and at times it may seem like there are easier ways to do this but some/most of us don't go out and rob some old lady (and let's face it the odds say you could probably do it and get away without any bother if you did it right) because we view it as morally unacceptable. We form our morals during childhood (some people say it's later on but that's just specifics, the fundamentals are set much earlier). If those around you, this includes parents, siblings, friends, television and any other influences on your upbringing, don't respect others in this way and don't have the moral belief that stealing is wrong and crime is bad then you're unlikely to grow up with it. Therefore I'd suggest intensive education of children in all aspects of life at an early age through encouragement of parents to help their children become responsible adults and a more interactive mode of education in schools.

[Nodrog]

Well other than advocating the mandatory execution of postmodernists I'm not seeing how you propose to return us to Traditional Objective Moral Values, so I think that allowing people to defend themselves against nihlists is probably a decent idea in the meantime.

[JonnyBGood]

Every community (let's say 100 people) get's together every week for an hour and discusses these problems. Certain individuals perform statistical research and provide these statistics every week. Assuming you do this in the correct fashion (no shouting down, equal time periods allotted, start at the very fundamentals and work upwards) eventually you'll get a balanced community of likeminded individuals who have a comprehension of the causes of various social problems. Once you provide this outlet the process undergoes a geometrical expansion as everyone debates these problems elsewhere and the details get narrowed further and further down. On a long enough time scale no human being is stupid enough to remain ignorant.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Every community (let's say 100 people) get's together every week for an hour and discusses these problems. Certain individuals perform statistical research and provide these statistics every week. Assuming you do this in the correct fashion (no shouting down, equal time periods allotted, start at the very fundamentals and work upwards) eventually you'll get a balanced community of likeminded individuals who have a comprehension of the causes of various social problems. Once you provide this outlet the process undergoes a geometrical expansion as everyone debates these problems elsewhere and the details get narrowed further and further down. On a long enough time scale no human being is stupid enough to remain ignorant.

If you were to set up this situation, I would be prepared to bet you fairly high amounts of money in advance that pretty much every single group would reach the unanimous conclusion that "it is all the fault of group X".

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If you were to set up this situation, I would be prepared to bet you fairly high amounts of money in advance that pretty much every single group would reach the unanimous conclusion that "it is all the fault of group X".

Depends on the fashion you conduct it in. Obviously with a large enough community the mob mentality sets in and he who shouts loudest is right but assuming you get the numbers correct I'd say it's feasible that you'd get fairly rational and factual conclusions.


Of course we'd end up blaming the jews but hey win some, lose some right?

[Weeks]

The only argument that makes me think that this would be ok is:

In public places everyone can see you anyway.

I'd like to see the videos regulated and looked after by a publicly regulated authority mind.

[Dante Hicks]

In public places people can overhear you (most of the time anyway). Would you be comfortable with hidden microphones recording all your conversations in public?

You know, just in case like.

[Weeks]

I don't think i'd be happy with people recording my conversations, but we're talking about cameras not microphones, non?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think legalising guns and drugs would probably fix 90% of the problems.

well thats pretty bloody obvious, if we got rid of all laws then crime would be reduced by 100%!

[queball]

Originally Posted by Leshy

It's fairly obvious cameras would only increase crime. Next to a mugging, rape or murder, the criminal will also have to destroy a security camera, adding vandalism to the list.

Bt if the money wasn't spent on cameras, it would be spent on something marginally as valuable which could also be vandalised.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

well thats pretty bloody obvious, if we got rid of all laws then crime would be reduced by 100%!

He did not say crime, he said problems

there is actually a very big difference, you know.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Snurx

He did not say crime, he said problems

there is actually a very big difference, you know.

i interpreted him as saying the problems being the problem of crime itself, considering he went on to say legal ownership of guns would reduce the violent drime problem, and the fact that in his previous post he was refering to violent crime, drug related crime and firearm related crime.

[djbass]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What I don't get is that CCTV cameras are supposed to be quite powerful (one article mentioned reading a newspaper headline from x ft or whatever) but all the extracts you see on Crimewatch (or whatever) are always blurred and pretty crappy. Is this just a lighting issue or something?

Mostly marketing hype I would say. Most of these cameras are designed to be conceilled or well protected which in most cases means sacrificing some image clarity.

Lighting though is a key factor for some instances, one of the principles of photography is that the more lighting you have the better your focus, so many of these cameras are placed in poorly lit areas where it may not necessarily perform to the best of their ability. Having ones modified for night vision partially solves this problem but because they work off the infrared spectrum you wont get details such as colour information out of the picture.

There's also the issue of colour vs black and white cameras. Traditionally the black and white where more common because they are cost effective. Black and white does have one advantage in that it provides better contrast between elements in the image making it easier to distinguish between objects, but you don't get the level of detail you would with a colour image.

The next issue is the size of the lens used. Many of the security cameras have very small lenses so that they can be easier conceilled or hidden which reduced the clarity of the image. Bigger lenses will provide a much sharper image which is why webcams and most of the current line of inexpensive home video cameras have terrible picture quality as compared to their bigger cousins.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Bt if the money wasn't spent on cameras, it would be spent on something marginally as valuable which could also be vandalised.

Not everything you spend money on can (or is likely to) be vandalised.

[Waku]

I would like to have camera's in showers and bathrooms of hot females

[Deciduous]

Dante's argument always seems to be 'legalise it and it wont be a problem any more'. Especially when it comes to drugs and firearms, like the root of all crime is the need to steal for your next fix.
How do you fix the problem of motivating people to work who'd rather just take what you have than break their back earning it for themselves?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Dante's argument always seems to be 'legalise it and it wont be a problem any more'. Especially when it comes to drugs and firearms, like the root of all crime is the need to steal for your next fix.

It was Nodrog who said that, not me (in this thread at least). I'm not really concerned if related crime went down if you abolished drug laws or gun laws. I imagine it would, but that's not really relevent. The reason why drugs should be legal isn't some sort of utilitarian concern (although that is important) - I think drugs should be legal but it's fundamentally unjust to deny individuals the right to do what they want with their bodies. Whether or not this will reduce/increase crime is a side-issue (although an important one)

How do you fix the problem of motivating people to work who'd rather just take what you have than break their back earning it for themselves?

Crime is a complicated issue with many interrelated causes. Go to the Criminology section of your local University library. You will most probably see many volumes. There are no glib easy answers.

All of this is irrelevent to the issue of personal liberty however. I have numerous ideas on how to cut crime - but I don't see how this justifies attacks on whether individuals have rights to poison themselves.

[Evergreen]

Have Jonny and Nod stopped having sex in this thread yet?

[Deciduous]

Toccata, when I posted 'break their back' I didn't literally mean hard manual labour. A lot of jobs are very taxing and will never involve anyone touching soil or stone.
If more people refused to work all the crappy jobs then the world would probably grind to a halt. The crappy jobs are also a matter of opinion.

[Deciduous]

This is a point that was never in question and is heading off topic. I merely meant people who go by the socially accepted route and get a job, rather than breaking the law and taking whatever they want from people who have earned it, in whatever fashion.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

This is a point that was never in question and is heading off topic. I merely meant people who go by the socially accepted route and get a job, rather than breaking the law and taking whatever they want from people who have earned it, in whatever fashion.

This is fine, but what's it got to do with personal liberty or the legalisation of drugs?

[Deciduous]

What are you on about multitude of flaws.
I made my point on the last page, Dante replied. That was fine.
Then you go off and turn it into some argument about work ethics.

[Deciduous]

The question is only flawed if you start being a pedantic fker with it, rather than taking it as it was intended, that there are people who will commit crime simply because it's easier than working.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Then working should be easier.

if wishes were fishies

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

The question is only flawed if you start being a pedantic fker with it, rather than taking it as it was intended, that there are people who will commit crime simply because it's easier than working.

..so they can more easily by more things and consume more, the basis of our so called civilization

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

if wishes were fishies

Aladdin wouldn't have been such a fascinating tale of greed and betrayal?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Then working should be easier.

You're right! I demand an audience with god to rectify this situation immediately!