Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is Pete said:Then you're advocating anarchy and an emasculated police force. Crime can happen without fear of prosecution, rampant fraud can result in taxation beyond most people's means, and drunken hit-and-run drivers can sleep peacefully at night....
Me? I'd prefer to be protected rather than neglected...
This is Pete said:And who's going to pay for enough beat officers to make up for the lack of cameras?
Finally - I'm still waiting for ANYONE to post their personal details here, as requested multiple posts ago as evidence that had nothing to hide...
srefre said:You realise that there is a difference between not hiding something, and publicly displaying something?
It is possible for there to be an area in between the two extremes, rather than all or nothing.
I'm not particularly fussed by CCTV, and I don't believe I have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I will go around publicly broadcasting pictures of my genitals, and my bank account details, it's common sense.
CCTV costs a lot to run and set up and isn't nearly as effective ad proper policing.
If you are really worried about all the cameras, do not watch Person of Interest, channel 5 it will scare you sh!tless
Someone stole my number plates a few weeks ago, ANPR defeated with a screwdriver...
As is spinals post.
CCTV costs a lot to run and set up and isn't nearly as effective ad proper policing.
We have to remember what privacy actually is. It is not interchangeable with anonymity, but traces its route in society and culture to to those parts of personal life that individuals deem to segregated, or put apart from, others.
Some cultures and society have little or no concept of privacy. Others enshrine privacy in legal or constitutional terms.
Whilst there may be a desire to keep all aspects of one's life segregated from society, there has to be some consideration between wanting to engage and participate in society and relinquishing some aspects of privacy. So if I want to use the net, I expect that many organisations will have details of my virtual journey. As soon as I walk out of my front door I can be observed and monitored by nosey neighbours, security guards, police officers, etc. The government knows how much I earn, my bank knows my spending patterns, and the telco knows who I spend time on the phone to (and on a mobile, where from).
I know that is going to happen, and that's part of the "contract" resulting from being an active member of society. That is very different to me opening up details of bank accounts or phone conversations to the general public - in that case there is no contract or duty of care, and the personal risks involved are very high.
When it comes to ANPR we know what its used for and so are fully aware of the risks involved. Unlike the STASI, neither the intelligence services or the police have the manpower to monitor individual movements beyond those they are interested in. So, for me, there is little personal risk involved at the moment and I'm not so interested in the segregation of my movements from everyone else. Realistically that's unlikely to change unless there is a big change in taxation in this country.
The use of CCTV is subtly different. It would seem that actively-managed systems (those in town centres for example that are centrally monitored) do prove effective in being able to mobilise police officers to incidents and identifying the perpetrators of crime. Passive systems (those that just record) seem to be of minimal use - they seem to be poorly maintained and so any record they do make is of little use. Those bent on criminal behaviour know this and so they have little or no impact.
Spinal unfortunately pulled together a number of unrelated things. The £0.7m cost of phases 1&2 of the Oxford ANPR system he quotes is for the system, not the cameras only. At the back end is a pretty expensive traffic management system bundled in with the cost. Maintenance includes the annual running costs of both the comms line and electricity. Reading the report fully shows that Gloucester appointed an additional CCTV operator, not related to the ANPR system that report was covering, and this was funded by the police. That report also gave an insight into some of the efficiency gains made through more effective targeting of police resources:
"Officers working on ANPR teams arrest 10 times more offenders than the average
non ANPR-directed officer.
Arrests are mostly for significant numbers of robbery, vehicle crime, theft, burglary
and drug offences.
57% of people stop searched as the result of an ANPR alert were arrested,
compared to 14% when stop-searched not as a result of an ANPR alert.
75% of arrests from ANPR alerts (excluding warrants) resulted in a charge,
compared to 45% of non ANPR cases.
Only 12 % of ANPR arrests resulted in a ‘refused charge’, compared to 21% for
non-ANPR arrests.
Vehicle crime has fallen by 13% in ANPR areas, in contrast to rises elsewhere in
the country."
So the investment in technology seems to help the police be more effective.
Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep watch on the individual-society privacy relationship. That would be foolish. However, it's equally foolish to listen and report on one side of the story only.
Post of the year.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.