What's everyones thoughts on the Council run CCTV Cameras? One has just appeared in Duddingston Park South at the junction with Magdalene. Initially I thought that the large ominous black poles were going to be for the new Greenway cameras, however it appears that they are for the Council run CCTV cameras. Just from looking around it would appear that there will be another one going up opposite the Lady Nairn hotel. Keep an eye out around the area and i'm sure that there will be more popping up. There was no notice to any residents in the area that the overt surveillance device was being installed, it just appeared.
I am supportive of CCTV Cameras in areas where there is expectant trouble, eg: town centres etc, however, when one of these 'all monitoring' devices lands in your own street, in which there is (touch wood) relatively little trouble, it does take you back. In truth, these cameras have not reduced crime at all in any area of the country. All they have done is displace the problem. Looking at the costs of running these cameras, would the money not be better invested in a youth project. There is the initial erection of the camera and installation of it, then this has to be maintained. Above all this an operator would have to monitor the camera. At present there is usually a maximum of three people monitoring the Edinburgh system which has around 3 banks of screen each with around 20 screens in each bank. The monitor has two specific screens which they can monitor and record, plus they can only maneuver one camera at one time (although colleagues can assist if there is an incident unraveling). It is clear to me that as more cameras are installed, for the system to run effectively and most pro-efficiently, more monitors have to be employed. I would estimate that these employees of the Council will get paid upwards of £15,000 pa, at least, possibly more.
The question that should be asked is, would another area of the community benifit from a portion of this money? For example, would the sports clubs in the area gain from a little financial help to run an initiative to enroll more kids who are slipping through the net? After this years massive reduction in charity funding across the board, I would think the answer is 'yes'... and a resounding one at that.
I'd also question the usefulness of the CCTV cameras. They have never really prevented crime. In town on any given day or night of the week you will still see people fighting, urinating and stealing all in the gaze of the CCTV Cameras. The cameras do help the police solve crimes as there is a greater chance of the culprits being identified. I think that you have to look at this fact to understand what the cameras modus operandi is. Is it to solve crime, or is it to monitor the society and aid the detection figures? The police will be happy to tell us year after year that crime is being solved at a greater rate than ever and part of this reason is down to CCTV. This sounds like great news however there are a few points here;
(1) Does a crime being solved bring back anyones property if there house is broken into? No, very rarely do the police ever recover stolen property. Coupled with the fact that your property has been stolen you also have the feeling of your private family houses integrity being breached. CCTV does not stop this feeling or the loss or property including treasured memories.
(2) The solving of a crime is one thing, however, what is rarely highlighted is the conviction rate. Why we are constantly pumped full of figures from the police is unbeknown to me. We need to look at the final product; the court case and their conviction rate of these offences. It is all well and good that the police have caught someone and have taken them off the street for a few hours, or at most 24 hours, however, what is the point if there is no outcome at the other end. It makes the police and their detection rate look good, but if they cannot secure the conviction and a remedy, be it a custodial one or otherwise, then the detection of a crime is merely a figure boosting exercise and a public relations boost. Are CCTV Cameras securing convictions? If the young guy with the hoodie on cannot be identified then the camera is only going to be able to see his clothing and this will not be enough to convict someone- so in this scenario, yes, the police will possibly get and charge their man; but the courts will probably not go ahead with the case due to problems with identification.
(3) A greater detection rate does not bring with it a reduced crime rate.
(4) One big plus point that has been suggested for CCTV Cameras is that it gets officers on the scene of a crime quicker. Is this the case? Yes, probably so, however, if there was less cameras and more officers would we have more officers patrolling the streets and with their presence alone prevent that crime even happening? We'll never know as we are now in a surveillance society and the reliance on technology is overwhelming. It is also worth pointing out that CCTV cameras raise the crime level. The cameras pick up incidents that usually would not have been reported to police and which in all truth don't need to be reported to police. For example a boyfriend and girlfriend having an arguement after a night out. (By arguement, i mean a non-violent one). How many people can say that they have never argued with their partner either after a night out or even during the day? A CCTV camera can pick this up and have officers on the street taking your details. This is then recorded as an incident which may need solved.
All in all, I feel like there is far too much emphasis being put on technology and also our liberty. We are constantly being spied upon and we are letting it happen. There is the old mantra "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about." The thing that I am worried about is that we are almost in an Orwellian society with talking CCTV Stations in Glasgow and Leads plus cameras which can detect an arguement by monitoring pitch, sound and speed of dialect surrounding it. What is the greatest difference between Orwells 1984 and now... well the people of Oceania at least knew that they were being suppressed. We are gradually taking things for granted and allowing our private lives to be monitored by a faceless being.
The basic question is, i feel, do we want crime solved or do we want it reduced? In an ideal world we'd have both. However, I'd rather have crime reduced and i feel that the highly intrusive Council spy cameras (CCTV) are not the tool to do this. They are merely a tool in their figures battle.
CCTV Cameras
I dont have any probs with street cams to be honest.
I dont have anything to hide, so the street cameras dont bother me, someone can watch me shopping, or speaking in the street, or see what im wearing etc etc; I really couldnt care....lol
I dont have anything to hide, so the street cameras dont bother me, someone can watch me shopping, or speaking in the street, or see what im wearing etc etc; I really couldnt care....lol
Last edited by BeachBum on 29 Aug 2008, 18:24, edited 1 time in total.
Just because they have that tools doesnt mean it actually happens!Eck wrote:How would you feel if there was a camera outside your house which had the ability to view inside your house?
I also have a knowledge of the operators of the City of Edinburgh Council CCTV camera operators and have viewed footage which has been deemed 'unofficial training footage'.
A butcher has the tools to stab someone, but the vast majority dont. A Policeman has the tool to whack someon with his baton, most Policeman that come into my office tell me that they hardly ever used their baton!
Last edited by BeachBum on 29 Aug 2008, 18:25, edited 1 time in total.
The ID Cards are the biggest threat to identity fraud. Once your biometrics are stolen there is no way to retrieve them. Good luck to you on that one.Lava Lamp wrote:aye, help weed out the weirdos. Quicker they role out these identity cards the better to.Eck wrote:Does that mean that you are happy for diminished liberty and the right of privacy to become defunct?
I think that it would be incredibly naive to think that the camera operators have never breached the Regulations of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act and the Data Protection Act by looking into someones house when they are clearly not allowed to.Actually a number of cameras I monitor also have that ability, but just because they have that ability doesnt mean it actually happens!
Meaning? That they are telling lies? Care to expand slightly?Porty wrote:I bet they don't say the same after they leave your office.michael_traill wrote: A Policeman has the tool to whack someon with his baton, most Policeman that come into my office tell me that they hardly ever used their baton!
michael_traill wrote:Meaning? That they are telling lies? Care to expand slightly?Porty wrote:I bet they don't say the same after they leave your office.michael_traill wrote: A Policeman has the tool to whack someon with his baton, most Policeman that come into my office tell me that they hardly ever used their baton!
Re: CCTV Cameras
Have you approached Council planning about this? It might be that there was no requirment under planning laws to provide notification to neighbours? If the Council has no obligation to notify local residents then why should they? I dont expect to be notified about every new item of street furniture (or however your spell it), street signs, street lamps etc;Eck wrote:There was no notice to any residents in the area that the overt surveillance device was being installed, it just appeared.
Re: CCTV Cameras
A CCTV Camera is not a simple item of street furniture. A lamp post or bus stop does not have the ability to monitor your every movement. A CCTV Camera is capable of infringing on your right to a private life and that of your family's.michael_traill wrote:michael_traill wrote:Have you approached Council planning about this? It might be that there was no requirment under planning laws to provide notification to neighbours? If the Council has no obligation to notify local residents then why should they? I dont expect to be notified about every new item of street furniture (or however your spell it), street signs, street lamps etc;Eck wrote:There was no notice to any residents in the area that the overt surveillance device was being installed, it just appeared.
With regards to your comment about police officers using their batons, you are right. They are trained to use their CS Spray first, this is a less lethal alternative to their baton and can be more effective. However, comparing that to CCTV Operatives using their 'tools' in an inappropriate manner doesn't really stand up. As I've said i've seen videos that are classed as 'unofficial training videos' which would open some eyes. You've only got to go onto YouTube and see how many incidents which have been recorded on Council CCTV systems around the country have made it into the public domain.
1984 is a fictitious novel, it has never been presented as fact therefore there is no need to 'swallow' it. It was simply a novel about a surveillance society and has never been put forward as a blueprint of the future. By 'swallowing it hook, line and sinker' would mean that I'd be accepting Orwells novel as a prophetic novel. I don't.
Not a big fan of the Daily Mail... especially for breakfast or brunch.
Not a big fan of the Daily Mail... especially for breakfast or brunch.
Why would they have been disapointed?michael_traill wrote:Some of my colleagues were today wiring up some new city in view street cameras in Craigentinny today. And doing a very good job aswell!.
I must ask them if they were disappointed not to have been faced with a large protest group as they carried out their work... ... ...
Threads like this are great, although someone usually rolls out the
"if you give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security you deserve neither" quote before now.
Quotes like this are great though, people enjoy bandying them about as if they are universal laws of physics.
My feeling is that just because someone else said it, it doesn't make it true (you can quote me on that).
With regards to the CCTV cameras though, would it be more acceptable to have a policeman (or woman) standing at each camera site? The only difference is that a CCTV camera is likely to run across the road and hit any wrongdoers with a police baton.
When you are in public, you are displaying yourself for the world to see, what does it matter if the person who sees you is out on a rainy corner or tucked inside an office with a mug of cocoa.
"if you give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security you deserve neither" quote before now.
Quotes like this are great though, people enjoy bandying them about as if they are universal laws of physics.
My feeling is that just because someone else said it, it doesn't make it true (you can quote me on that).
With regards to the CCTV cameras though, would it be more acceptable to have a policeman (or woman) standing at each camera site? The only difference is that a CCTV camera is likely to run across the road and hit any wrongdoers with a police baton.
When you are in public, you are displaying yourself for the world to see, what does it matter if the person who sees you is out on a rainy corner or tucked inside an office with a mug of cocoa.
As predicted the CCTV Camera opposite the Lady Nairne is now installed.
I think that a CCTV Camera is unlikey to hit you with a police baton.
I have no problem with a Police Officer walking about on any street, however, CCTV Cameras do not move. They are in a fixed position and have the capabilities to view into peoples homes. Police Officers don't tend to be over 15 metres in height and are able to see into peoples back gardens either.
I think that a CCTV Camera is unlikey to hit you with a police baton.
I have no problem with a Police Officer walking about on any street, however, CCTV Cameras do not move. They are in a fixed position and have the capabilities to view into peoples homes. Police Officers don't tend to be over 15 metres in height and are able to see into peoples back gardens either.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Eck, I think one point that you are missing is that, in most cases, local people lobby long and hard to get these cameras installed in their neighbourhoods. The majority of people recognise that the cameras are effective in deterring crime, certainly in displacing crime, in protecting lives and property and as a tool for assisting police in indentifying the perpetrators of crime.
When a camera was installed in Rosefield Park a few years ago, there were one or two people who had concerns initially. However, pretty much overnight, the problems we had been experiencing with large groups of drunken youths and associated noise and vandalism disappeared and everyone was very grateful.
Sure, they moved on to Joppa Quarry Park and caused havoc there. No-one is pretending that cameras are the answer but they have an important part to play.
As for the more sinister use of cameras to pry into people's private lives that you suggest, I think it's Google you need to be more concerned about.
When a camera was installed in Rosefield Park a few years ago, there were one or two people who had concerns initially. However, pretty much overnight, the problems we had been experiencing with large groups of drunken youths and associated noise and vandalism disappeared and everyone was very grateful.
Sure, they moved on to Joppa Quarry Park and caused havoc there. No-one is pretending that cameras are the answer but they have an important part to play.
As for the more sinister use of cameras to pry into people's private lives that you suggest, I think it's Google you need to be more concerned about.
No one in Duddingston Park South asked for CCTV Cameras to be installed in a street/ area of the street where there are relatively few crimes, certainly not enough to warrant having a CCTV camera installed.
Cameras are not effective in deterring crime. Crime figures are rising, the only difference being that some solvency rates are increased due to CCTV evidence. However, and it's a big however, a CCTV image of someone in the vicinity of a crime is not enough to convict someone of the crime, therefore the solvency rates of the police do not reflect the successful prosecutions in the courts. So, you have to ask yourself, is it worth the police knowing who committed a crime if we cannot put them successfully through the judicial system? Would it not be more beneficial to pay for a police officer to be on the street and patrolling than it is to have a camera monitor a few streets all the time?
As we have seen CCTV cameras do not prevent crime, if it did crime figures would be falling and we would not have people getting caught on CCTV committing crimes. Think of the percentage increase of cameras in the UK over the past 10 years, if the CCTV systems had been successful would there not have been a decrease in crime? What stops people committing crimes is a police presence. There is a very small percentage of crimes where people are actually caught in the act of a crime by police.
I agree that CCTV systems do have a part to play in tackling crime, however, why cameras have to be installed in residential streets with little problems is beyond me. The UK has the most 'surveilled' population in the Western world... surely if CCTV was the answer other nations would be following suit.
Cameras are not effective in deterring crime. Crime figures are rising, the only difference being that some solvency rates are increased due to CCTV evidence. However, and it's a big however, a CCTV image of someone in the vicinity of a crime is not enough to convict someone of the crime, therefore the solvency rates of the police do not reflect the successful prosecutions in the courts. So, you have to ask yourself, is it worth the police knowing who committed a crime if we cannot put them successfully through the judicial system? Would it not be more beneficial to pay for a police officer to be on the street and patrolling than it is to have a camera monitor a few streets all the time?
As we have seen CCTV cameras do not prevent crime, if it did crime figures would be falling and we would not have people getting caught on CCTV committing crimes. Think of the percentage increase of cameras in the UK over the past 10 years, if the CCTV systems had been successful would there not have been a decrease in crime? What stops people committing crimes is a police presence. There is a very small percentage of crimes where people are actually caught in the act of a crime by police.
I agree that CCTV systems do have a part to play in tackling crime, however, why cameras have to be installed in residential streets with little problems is beyond me. The UK has the most 'surveilled' population in the Western world... surely if CCTV was the answer other nations would be following suit.
If someone is about to break into a car, steal from a shop or mug someone in the street and they see a policeman/ woman they will not, unless very stupid or desperate, commit that crime. If there are a crowd of football hooligans about to start fighting and they see a police presence they tend to disperse. This is evident in the infamous Lothian Road fight between Hearts and Hibs 'fans', which ironically enough was filmed in front of the CCTV cameras. I know the female officer who was first onto the scene and she was walking back to the West End from Bread Street when she walked into the fight. At this time the CCTV operator had not called anyone in although he/she was filming the event. This shows that criminals are not too bothered about CCTV, but a police presence (at first there was only 2 officers) disperses the group. I'd say that police do reduce and prevent crime. A CCTV camera catches crimes.Porty wrote:Police officers don't prevent crime but they probably help reduce it.
Michael, not spoken to anyone about it yet. At the end of the day they are not going to take it down. I'm sure that i'll get hit with the old line "in the interests of public safety" and that will be that. I would have thought that they'd have to prove that peoples safety was at risk first before installing a surveillance device in a residential street with relatively low crime rates. Plus, if the crime rates are high enough to warrant the surveillance device in a street why have the residents not been advised off these crimes in the past.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Eck, your right, the Council wouldnt take down the cameras just because you object, but you should give them a chance to respond to your comments, and you many find that the council give you a full answer rather than the one liner you suggest you would probably get:Eck wrote: Michael, not spoken to anyone about it yet. At the end of the day they are not going to take it down. I'm sure that i'll get hit with the old line "in the interests of public safety" and that will be that. I would have thought that they'd have to prove that peoples safety was at risk first before installing a surveillance device in a residential street with relatively low crime rates. Plus, if the crime rates are high enough to warrant the surveillance device in a street why have the residents not been advised off these crimes in the past.
Ive never been fobbed off by a council official with a one line response like that so you never know.. .. ..in the interests of public safety