Dashcams can be quite revealing

[Dryce]

I asked the consequences of it in a surveillance society. One where accidentally (ahem) recorded private conversations on a dash-cams are considered acceptable.

We don't actually live in a surveillance society. The vast majority of CCTV setups are intended as a deterrent. (Whether they effective or not is a different matter).

If we did live in a surveillance society then the consequences would be mixed. For each person incriminated by a casual recording there may well be others who would be provided with an alibi.

If we live in a society where the people are just going to be fitted up then technology isn't a actually requirement.

What most people are probably concerned about in the UK isn't surveillance but privacy.

 

[Bellow]

just for interest, how does all this fit into being able to get an MP to send you snaps of themselves just so you can get a newspaper story out of it?


How is that not breach of privacy etc etc?

Makes me a little queasy also. I guess we say that someone considered fit to pass laws on our behalf failed a pretty basic integrity test. Or IQ test at least.

Not sure how the rules seem to be being applied here. OP seems to have done nothing but 'accidentally' over hear a conversation about a bumper.

On that point our opinions differ.

I'd be more narked it looks like they might have charged for time spent on the job when it wasn't needed.

If we can't trust...then perhaps it's time dealerships/garages installed their own CCTV and offered copies showing cars being worked on along with issuing the invoice?

 

[markjay]

I think that the underlying issue is... dilemma.

When something is plain bad, or wrong, it is easy to digest. Oppression, Dictatorship, etc.

But we have an issue when dealing with mixed blessings.

Mobile phones and bank cards are great, but then our daily activities can be tracked and traced and our habits learnt by computers (and the people who run them or hack them).

Of course those who are concerned can simply avoid using mobile phones or bank cards - we had neither when I was a child and things worked just fine. But then we lose out on the convenience...

This is true for many other technological innovations. And our love-hate relationship with CCTV is no exception. We want it because it is useful, but we fear that it invades our privacy. As always, a balance has to be struck...

 

[Derek Smith]

I am partially deaf. I ask for people to speak up on the 'phone but this, it seems, can only be remembered for a short period of time. So on 'official' 'phone calls I generally record the conversation so I can go back later to listen again in case I've missed something.

I have an expensive digital 'dictaphone' type thing with a fair sized memory and it, in theory, overwrites the oldest conversation when full, but I've not reached that stage yet.

You would, no doubt, believe the number of times this has caught out businesses and officials who are willing to tell lies. The odd thing is that if they are trying to con your out of money, when you say to them: 'No, you did not say that. I recorded the conversation and I can play it back to you if you wish.' they will always say they will report me to the police, and similar threats.

Twice, I have been told at the start of the phone call that the call is being recorded by the other person, only for it to be denied when I've asked them to check back.

The way that well respected officials are willing to lie, even if only on an inconvenience, has surprised me. In the past I would assume that I had made the mistake. Now I know better.

I would suggest to anyone that they should record telephone conversations with businesses and similar.

 

[Derek Smith]

Further to the above, I used to be in charge of the CCTV set-up in Brighton town centre, as part of my police control room remit. I did not believe the hype and felt, like many others, that it was an invasion of privacy that could not be justified.

Within two or three months I was convinced that it was the best innovation for policing in my, up until then, 20 years in the Job.

As for the privacy side, I put in place a series of checks on the unit. Further, as part of lay visitors to the cell blocks, members of the public could come to the CCTV room at any time, operational matters allowing, and see what was going on. The police had no say on the make-up of these visitors.

If anyone had a specific problem or concern, I would invite them to the room to see the specific recordings or the set-up. Most, probably all but the prejudiced, went away relieved.

Officers would point to a camera when they stopped a vehicle. This had two benefits: 1/ the occupants would know they were being watched, and 2/ if they refused to look at the camera, a natural response, it would arouse suspicions.

A number of times complainants have come into the station to suggest a police officer or officers have done something heinous. I would then invite them to the viewing room to see the recording of said incident. None would take up the offer. CCTV must have cut complaints by large percentage. It is like CCTV in cell blocks. Most officers, all of those I spoke to, wanted it. When it came in, complaints of ill-treatment dropped to all but zero.

I accept the infringement of privacy is of concern with CCTV. Those steps I put into place are no longer followed due to the massive cut in funding: they used to take up about 4 hours a week of experienced officers' time, so no chance of them surviving now. So my concerns have increased. But if you want policing on the cheap, and to still feel secure, then CCTV is the only way.

 

[John Jones Jr]

Within two or three months I was convinced that it was the best innovation for policing in my, up until then, 20 years in the Job....

.....But if you want policing on the cheap, and to still feel secure, then CCTV is the only way.

Is it the best innovation. I always reckoned cops on the beat was the best 'innovation'.

As for cheap, I've no idea what that means. Other than it's just plain cheap and considered as policing.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

As for cheap, I've no idea what that means. Other than it's just plain cheap and considered as policing.

I think what he's saying is that instead of the cost of an actual policeman on the beat, it's 'cheaper' to stick cameras everywhere and have people sat somewhere watching what's happening and then reporting it.

I'd call that reactive policing as opposed to proactive.

 

[John Jones Jr]

I think what he's saying is that instead of the cost of an actual policeman on the beat, it's 'cheaper' to stick cameras everywhere and have people sat somewhere watching what's happening and then reporting it.

I'd call that reactive policing as opposed to proactive.

Agree with you and understand exactly what he's saying.

 

[Bellow]

You want cheaper policing - try this.

Hypothetical conversation between two politicians.

Politician A: I’ve been thinking, why don’t we monitor the speed our motorists drive at remotely and enforce speed limits by that method?

Politician B: How do you propose to do that?

Politician A: Pretty simple really. Telemetry on the car, bike, whatever, tied in with GPS so the prevailing speed limit is known, and any speeding can be automatically flagged up and passed straight to the CPS for prosecutions to be raised.

Politician B: Never! The public won’t stand for such state intrusion!

Politician A: Don’t be so sure. I’ve had my researchers snooping on internet fora and the likes and trust me, the public just love this whole surveillance thing. Thing is, they so believe that it protects them from crime they lap it up as though it was sugar coated. There’ll be a few dissenters of course – those damned civil liberty types – but there’ll be enough of the ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong then you’ve nothing to hide’ to get it through. Save the aggro of the Police having to do it. We can keep some for VIP protection and just get rid of the rest. Anyway, the public say they resent state intrusion when it’s really taxes they resent. Sack a load of coppers and we can spend the pounds on tax cuts. We know how to keep them sweet!

Politician B: Excellent! I’ll get my chaps onto it straight away.

 

[WDB124066]

They should have never canned Yes Minister.

 

[mannikon]

So, while "servicing" the car (after a fashion), the mechanic never wondered if the cam was operational? I would expect a good mechanic to give a car a good "visual check" everywhere and if he didn't notice the cam, what else did he miss? I would inform the manager/owner of the garage.

 

[Scott_F]

So, while "servicing" the car (after a fashion), the mechanic never wondered if the cam was operational? I would expect a good mechanic to give a car a good "visual check" everywhere and if he didn't notice the cam, what else did he miss? I would inform the manager/owner of the garage.

"I wish to make a complaint. During my car's recent service, your technician failed to notice that my dashcam was operational."

I don't think so.

 

[boxbrownie]

I'm not worried about privacy... if my neighbours want to see me pottering about naked in the garden then they are welcome.

Fixed that for you

 

[def90cars]

They should have never canned Yes Minister.

Didn't you watch the new feature length episode last month about an independence vote in some obscure country. But the lead character of the hopeless first minister was played by some Scottish bloke. Alex something.

 

[Derek Smith]

I think what he's saying is that instead of the cost of an actual policeman on the beat, it's 'cheaper' to stick cameras everywhere and have people sat somewhere watching what's happening and then reporting it.

I'd call that reactive policing as opposed to proactive.

Thanks for that.

Another advantage is that the control room can resource an incident effectively if they can see it. Previously we might get a call to 'big fight, West Street' and would be reluctant to send a foot unit on its own. So we'd detail a car, perhaps move another nearer just in case, until we got a report as to how bad it all was.

With CCTV we could see precisely the seriousness of the incident, either just the foot unit if that was all that was required, or perhaps every unit if the public were at serious risk.

The CCTV controllers were a very keen lot and would often generate work, being the originators of an incident.

In the 'old days' the beat bobby was the eyes and ears of the job. I have to say that they were better, much better in fact, but with the current reductions in officers - one current PC reckons that numbers are down by almost 30%, with promises of it getting worse - a foot unit is an expensive luxury.

I reckon my time on the beat was the best in my 30 years. Information, meat and drink for policing, flowed in. One bloke running a cafe had precons for manslaughter. He was a very pleasant chap who was, remarkably one might think, very pro police. He got me a commendation just by recognising a chap I'd asked him to keep an eye open for.

Those days are all but gone.

CCTV is all we can afford nowadays, but it is a very effective tool.

However, there is a major privacy issue, certainly with the data, which hasn't yet been addressed.

 

[John Jones Jr]

DS, I accept all the points you've made but to laud the effectiveness off CCTV because it's cheaper than having cops on the beat doesn't make sense. If there was less or no CCTV there would be more proper day to day, on the ground policing carried out and every cop would know a helpful cafe owner.

Now, I fully understand you or the ordinary Bobby don't call the shots when it comes to policing numbers but I'm somewhat surprised an ex cop with your long service record hasn't actually said that that CCTV is the dead knell of good policing. No offence intended.

 

[nick mercedes]

However , unless I was doing something I ought not to be doing , which I wouldn't be , I wouldn't find it such a big deal

Everyone should be treated like a criminal on the off chance that they are one.

More cameras I say, after all, as you say if you've done nothing wrong why should you object to being watched/recorded/leered at by some faceless pervert in an outsourced control room 24/7?

 

[flowrider]

Everyone should be treated like a criminal on the off chance that they are one.

More cameras I say, after all, as you say if you've done nothing wrong why should you object to being watched/recorded/leered at by some faceless pervert in an outsourced control room 24/7?

I don't think all the people manning the control rooms to protect you, your family and your property will appreciate being called "faceless perverts"