Not sure if it'll get merged with a speed camera topic but oh well :)

On almost all the speed/camera topics on here, you get comments about how motorists are targeted because its easy and the police should be out catching muggers, rapists and theives (ad infinitum).

What I don't understand is why this is so wrong - there is a law saying that you shouldn't go above 30mph (or 40 etc). Why does it make a difference if its automatically checked rather than you actually being caught doing it. The amount of police time spent maintaining these schemes is negligible and regardless of how you feel, it is a law being broken (campaign for political change to get the law changed).

I do understand the arguments about speed cameras causing unsafe driving, things like that - but I've never got the 'easy target' argument. If we could detect muggers automatically (obviously with a photo of them mugging someone), should we, or would that be too easy as well?

edit: I'm not after an argument either, I can probably be talked around to seeing this point of view :)

Well, given that human beings often make mistakes when identifying 'snap shots' of behaviours between two people I wouldn't put too much money on it....

However....there is work being done to get CCTV cameras to respond to certain noises, like breaking glass and possibly raised, angry voices, and start tracking where the noises are coming from.

I think technological assistance like this would be great IF it were used by skilled people - distinguishing 'high jinks' screaming from genuine screams of terror and pain is probably not that easy in a reallife situation for teh sofwtare involved.

Lots of research into human and animal behaviour has shown that it's very hard for machines to either predict or accurately describe what's actually happening in front of them because of everything from poorly articulated motives to seemingly random things happening that are actually part of a larger action. The ability of computers to deal with things more complex than simple speeding is down entirely to the imagination, logic and programming skills of those setting the parameters for the machines. There are an almost infinite number of scenarios that could come about from human interaction and there's no possible way that a computer could learn and apply them all.

For that reason I think that the mechanised checks are always going to be on the crimes/misdemeanours that are easy to define, such as speeding. Other things such as dangerous driving, mugging, deception and the like need some sort of longer observation in order to prosecute. It's not sufficient to say 'X mugged Y' because that's not a definition of what's happened. With speeding all you have to say is 'X passed this spot at a speed in excess of the limit' but there are virtually no other crimes that are this easy to define.

If a way could be found to get every crime down to a single fact with a yes/no answer then that could be used, but the application of logic circuitry wouldn't help with most crimes and so I don't think that the detection of them will ever be automatic.

As Joe says, there is a place for CCTV operators to track the sounds of raised voices or crashes, but I think that any furthering of the information gathered in this way will always come down to humans and therefore will always be harder to prove than something simple like speeding.

What I don't understand is why this is so wrong - there is a law saying that you shouldn't go above 30mph (or 40 etc). Why does it make a difference if its automatically checked rather than you actually being caught doing it. The amount of police time spent maintaining these schemes is negligible and regardless of how you feel, it is a law being broken (campaign for political change to get the law changed).



This is precisely my argument. Too many people seem to confuse the issue of whether we should have spped limits and what they should be, with the detectiona nd punishemtn of speeding.

I have always said that the real way to screw over spped cameras is not to speed - that'll foil the Police's money grabbing schemes....:suspect:

Personally, in regards to automatic detection of crimes it all comes down to reliability. Whilst speed cameras are not perfect they have taken many years opf development to have a high level of accuracy, and the system isn't so automated that you are not allowed to prove it wrong.

As Medusa said, this is highly difficult to achieve for most other offences, the best thing that is likely to be achieved is semi intelligent CCTV to best gather information and raise tha alarm.

Not sure if it'll get merged with a speed camera topic but oh well :)

On almost all the speed/camera topics on here, you get comments about how motorists are targeted because its easy and the police should be out catching muggers, rapists and theives (ad infinitum).

What I don't understand is why this is so wrong - there is a law saying that you shouldn't go above 30mph (or 40 etc). Why does it make a difference if its automatically checked rather than you actually being caught doing it. The amount of police time spent maintaining these schemes is negligible and regardless of how you feel, it is a law being broken (campaign for political change to get the law changed).

I do understand the arguments about speed cameras causing unsafe driving, things like that - but I've never got the 'easy target' argument. If we could detect muggers automatically (obviously with a photo of them mugging someone), should we, or would that be too easy as well?

edit: I'm not after an argument either, I can probably be talked around to seeing this point of view :)

The issue is privacy and personal liberty. If you watched everyone all the time it probably would reduce crime, but the cost would be far too high. People would be less free.

Along with CCTV this government has invested heavily in Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) road cameras. These are currently located on motorways and A-roads, and they work by filming the number plates of cars as they pass and recording these details. Although these may help to detect speeding and people driving without insurance etc, they're also a gross violation of privacy. If Mr. X is a law-abiding citizen, why do the authorities need to know that on Monday morning he drove to Plymouth, on Tuesday afternoon he drove to Birmingham, on Thursday morning he drove to Ipswich etc? It's not their business.

As with CCTV, the ANPR camera network is going to be rolled out more and more across the country, so that it won't just be main roads but lesser roads too. A database will be able to be constructed of where everybody drives all the time. That's not on. Even worse, if the government manages to introduce its road pricing system there'll be satellite tracking of all car journeys so that people are charged per mile. Every journey everybody makes will then be stored.

Unlike Joe and Medusa, I don't agree with listening CCTV cameras trained to a particular sound threshold. It's bad enough being watched all the time as it is, never mind being listened to as well. If such cameras were introduced, I would make a point of walking past them with a tape player in my pocket playing loud shouting sounds to deliberately set them off on principle. It'd be a great form of civil disobedience that wouldn't involve any actual criminal damage. :)

if all the people who buy from burglars and thieves or share lives with them ,reported their crimes we wouldn't need any technology at all.

the issue drivers have with speed cameras is that they are officially an accident prevention/safety measure. so the placement of cameras where accidents don't or haven't happened isn't fulfilling the criteria for which they were introduced.

Not sure if it'll get merged with a speed camera topic but oh well :)

On almost all the speed/camera topics on here, you get comments about how motorists are targeted because its easy and the police should be out catching muggers, rapists and theives (ad infinitum).

What I don't understand is why this is so wrong - there is a law saying that you shouldn't go above 30mph (or 40 etc). Why does it make a difference if its automatically checked rather than you actually being caught doing it. The amount of police time spent maintaining these schemes is negligible and regardless of how you feel, it is a law being broken (campaign for political change to get the law changed).

I do understand the arguments about speed cameras causing unsafe driving, things like that - but I've never got the 'easy target' argument. If we could detect muggers automatically (obviously with a photo of them mugging someone), should we, or would that be too easy as well?

edit: I'm not after an argument either, I can probably be talked around to seeing this point of view :)

I think the main difference is one of perception.
Breaking the speed limit is a victimless crime, it's just an arbitrary number imposed by the government and council and people feel cheated if they accidentally break the limit by a small amount and get punished.
Comparing it with mugging, I doubt anyone has ever accidentally mugged someone, there's definitely a victim and the victim is caused distress and possibly harm. So no one could argue that mugging should be legal, or that some automated system that would catch muggers would be bad.

I think the governments lies about it all being about safety stick in peoples throats as well. If they just came out and admitted that it makes them a lot of money and that's why they do it, then people would at least acknowledge their honesty.

Interestingly it's been in the news recently that since the focus of road enforcement turned towards automated speed enforcement to the detriment of police patrols, the rate at which our road deaths had been falling dropped dramatically! So if anything this failed policy has contributed to the deaths of many people (the estimate was 7000).

The issue is privacy and personal liberty. If you watched everyone all the time it probably would reduce crime, but the cost would be far too high. People would be less free.

Along with CCTV this government has invested heavily in Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) road cameras. These are currently located on motorways and A-roads, and they work by filming the number plates of cars as they pass and recording these details. Although these may help to detect speeding and people driving without insurance etc, they're also a gross violation of privacy. If Mr. X is a law-abiding citizen, why do the authorities need to know that on Monday morning he drove to Plymouth, on Tuesday afternoon he drove to Birmingham, on Thursday morning he drove to Ipswich etc? It's not their business.

As with CCTV, the ANPR camera network is going to be rolled out more and more across the country, so that it won't just be main roads but lesser roads too. A database will be able to be constructed of where everybody drives all the time. That's not on. Even worse, if the government manages to introduce its road pricing system there'll be satellite tracking of all car journeys so that people are charged per mile. Every journey everybody makes will then be stored.

Unlike Joe and Medusa, I don't agree with listening CCTV cameras trained to a particular sound threshold. It's bad enough being watched all the time as it is, never mind being listened to as well. If such cameras were introduced, I would make a point of walking past them with a tape player in my pocket playing loud shouting sounds to deliberately set them off on principle. It'd be a great form of civil disobedience that wouldn't involve any actual criminal damage. :)

ANPR is incredibly good at catching untaxed and uninsured cars though. Personally I'd like to see that no data was kept beyond 24 hours except for the purpose of prosecuting those drivers. But I'm not too concerned about the privacy aspects of ANPR, it's far from ubiquitous, it can't track someone if they use any other form of transport, and it proves nothing if someone has access to more than one vehicle or a vehicle has more than one driver in terms of their movements.

The issue is privacy and personal liberty. If you watched everyone all the time it probably would reduce crime, but the cost would be far too high. People would be less free.

Exactly how would anybody - apart from criminals - be less free?

Exactly how would anybody - apart from criminals - be less free?

Because it's a violation of privacy, which is a basic human right. When the European leaders sat down in 1950 to create the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the obvious rights like right to a fair trial, right to freedom of expression and prohibition of torture, they also specified the right to respect for private life.

Privacy is just as important as the other articles. It's the right to be left alone to live your life without a succession of bureaucrats poking their noses in. It's the right to respect from the state that you know right from wrong and so don't need to be watched. It's the right to be granted a modicum of intelligence about managing your own life and not having it micromanaged by nanny. It can be summed up in four short words - "mind your own business".

Most people would be against cameras in their own living rooms and so would accept that there is a line of excessive surveillance. IMO we've already reached and crossed that line.

Part of me thinks that people get overly paranoid about things like road cameras, CCTV and the like. So some data is recorded and then stored on the movements of you or your vehicle? So what? It goes onto data storage and that's that. Nobody is going to look at it as not only is there nobody remotely interested in your trip to IKEA in Leeds on Monday 12th November, there is nobody to physically look at this stuff.

We have the idea that 'they' have armies of snoopers looking at us. 'They' don't. 'They' cannot afford that. But believe me, if 'they' think you are suspicious, they can and will track you, technology or not, it's been going on for years and years.

Course, we're all worried about the elephant in the corner - what would happen if a totalitarian regime came into power? Yes, there is that risk, but then if you ARE dodgy, as in considering acts of sedition, then as I say, you will be being watched anyway. Even under a totalitarian regime there would be a finite amount of manhours available for monitoring us (and even 'snooping' technology requires manhours to operate and manage) and then punishing us.

Most totalitarian regimes rely instead on something very untechnological - fear. It is fear of getting grassed up, getting 'snooped on' and hence getting caught that makes people conform, even under democratic systems. You can even see it in practice with dummy traffic cameras - you can't be sure there's a live camera in that box, but fear that there 'might' be makes you slow down anyway.

Because it's a violation of privacy, which is a basic human right.


I'll repeat the question. How does said violation of my privacy make me any less free? What can't I do, that I could have done if there was no such violation?

There have been advances with CCTV monitoring.

I recall having seen tv/articles with regard to the likes of the Oxford Street cameras having systems that would highlight types of individual movement to an operator.

The system would be able to follow forms and recognise a pattern of 'hovering' etc. as opposed to walking through, window shopping etc.

The system would just alert an operator to something that may need watching more closely.

I also believe that in the event of a crime/offence being committed, an operator can highlight an individual and the system will then track them as long as possible.

I think that facial recognition (against criminal databases) has been reaching practical levels as well.

It is a shame that people are eager to chain their own legs in vain, they'll regret it when they figuratively can't move.

It is a shame that people are eager to chain their own legs in vain

What chains?

What chains?

The chains of slavery in society, slapped on by people who think that they are free.

What if all crime could be automatically detected and every criminal could be removed from society?

Would you want to live in a future like that?

The chains of slavery in society, slapped on by people who think that they are free.

Since you can't be bothered to give a sensible answer .. anybody else know what chains he's on about, and what it has to do with surveillance - if anything?

What if all crime could be automatically detected and every criminal could be removed from society?

Would you want to live in a future like that?

There wouldn't be many people left, would there?

It would be worryingly totalitarian if the state removed everyone who drove too fast from society, and if the people who speed aren't 'criminals' then where do you draw the line, who decides on this and who decides how long each criminal gets removed from society for?

There wouldn't be many people left, would there?

It would be worryingly totalitarian if the state removed everyone who drove too fast from society

No, not really. What would actually happen is that people would start obeying the law - which they should be doing anyway, so I see no problem.

There wouldn't be many people left, would there?

It would be worryingly totalitarian if the state removed everyone who drove too fast from society, and if the people who speed aren't 'criminals' then where do you draw the line, who decides on this and who decides how long each criminal gets removed from society for?

Of course there's always the idea that everyone should be given a life sentence at birth and can be recalled to prison at any time.

I'll repeat the question. How does said violation of my privacy make me any less free? What can't I do, that I could have done if there was no such violation?

It makes someone less free not in the sense of them physically being restricted from doing something, but in making them uncomfortable in doing so. Mass surveillance is like the difference between me standing on a street corner watching you and me hiding in a bush watching you. If I'm standing on the street corner watching you as you walk past, you get to see me, who I am, what I look like and maybe get some sense of my character. If I'm hiding in a bush you don't get to see me at all.

CCTV is much the same. When I see a CCTV camera on the street, I have no idea who is sat at the other end of that system. They may be male, they may be female, they may be young, they may be old, they may be educated and smart, they may be scruffy and crude, there may be several people in the room at that point. As the footage is recorded, it may be watched later by several other people.

Now I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I'm so important that I have my own operative watching me all the time. Of course not. I'm just one Brit in a population of sixty million. I don't like the idea, however, that someone could choose to watch me from afar on a whim as I walk down a particular street. Who is this person? What gives them that right? What makes them so superior to me that they get to scrutinise me like a naughty little child?

That's where the loss of freedom comes from. It's law-abiding privacy-minded people being made to feel slightly uncomfortable in their day-to-day lives by a vast network of snoopervision.

It makes someone less free not in the sense of them physically being restricted from doing something, but in making them uncomfortable in doing so.

Why does your paranoia make anybody less free? I'm still seeing no coherent argument.


There is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely nothing that will be altered. I can still do everything I ever did, and I can still NOT do everything I ever couldn't. It just means I'm more likely to be caught if I break the law and do it anyway.


That's where the loss of freedom comes from. It's law-abiding privacy-minded people being made to feel slightly uncomfortable in their day-to-day lives by a vast network of snoopervision.

Law abiding people, privacy-minded or not, will not BE made to feel uncomfortable. There's nothing on record of their activities that is of any concern to anyone. Unless they're as paranoid as you are, and in equally desperate need of a psychiatrist, they won't have any care at all.

It makes someone less free not in the sense of them physically being restricted from doing something, but in making them uncomfortable in doing so. Mass surveillance is like the difference between me standing on a street corner watching you and me hiding in a bush watching you. If I'm standing on the street corner watching you as you walk past, you get to see me, who I am, what I look like and maybe get some sense of my character. If I'm hiding in a bush you don't get to see me at all.

CCTV is much the same. When I see a CCTV camera on the street, I have no idea who is sat at the other end of that system. They may be male, they may be female, they may be young, they may be old, they may be educated and smart, they may be scruffy and crude, there may be several people in the room at that point. As the footage is recorded, it may be watched later by several other people.

Now I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I'm so important that I have my own operative watching me all the time. Of course not. I'm just one Brit in a population of sixty million. I don't like the idea, however, that someone could choose to watch me from afar on a whim as I walk down a particular street. Who is this person? What gives them that right? What makes them so superior to me that they get to scrutinise me like a naughty little child?

That's where the loss of freedom comes from. It's law-abiding privacy-minded people being made to feel slightly uncomfortable in their day-to-day lives by a vast network of snoopervision.

Generally there isn't anybody sat at the other end of the camera watching you, and if there is it is a poor sod on a pretty low wage, not MI5 feeding the details into a massive tracking computer system - which doesn't exist anyway.

No, not really. What would actually happen is that people would start obeying the law - which they should be doing anyway, so I see no problem.

Sometimes the law is an ass.
If many people are breaking a law, the correct thing to do is change it, not find a better way to enforce it.
Laws only exist in order to enforce the collective decisions of society (and to make it clear what those decisions are). When the laws are not what a majority want then they are simply no longer correct.
Putting the law above the will of society is very much putting your cart before your horse.

Not sure if it'll get merged with a speed camera topic but oh well :)

On almost all the speed/camera topics on here, you get comments about how motorists are targeted because its easy and the police should be out catching muggers, rapists and theives (ad infinitum).

What I don't understand is why this is so wrong - there is a law saying that you shouldn't go above 30mph (or 40 etc). Why does it make a difference if its automatically checked rather than you actually being caught doing it. The amount of police time spent maintaining these schemes is negligible and regardless of how you feel, it is a law being broken (campaign for political change to get the law changed).

Quite, except that in the case of speeding everyone does it at some point aswell as the fact that breaking an arbitrary speed limit may not in itself be dangerous.
It's fine to say that automation simply leaves the police to concentrate on other things, but the reality is that that hasn't happened. Camera's have all but replaced traffic police, which is why we're seeing an increase in careless/dangerous driving.

I do understand the arguments about speed cameras causing unsafe driving, things like that - but I've never got the 'easy target' argument. If we could detect muggers automatically (obviously with a photo of them mugging someone), should we, or would that be too easy as well?

Actually it would be incredably hard to automate. How do you determine if someone is having a conversation, or is being mugged (for example)?
Also, for that to happen you would have to be on camera at all times, and I find the notion of being tracked everywhere I go rather disturbing.
Personally I'd rather have a real person walking the beat who is able to correctly determine what is actually going on.

I'll repeat the question. How does said violation of my privacy make me any less free? What can't I do, that I could have done if there was no such violation?

You can't do anything that you'd like not be watched doing (for whatever reason). The information could easily be abused. There are any number of activities that are perfectly legal but people might not want recorded and watched by a third party, i.e because of their standing in the community or political affiliations.

THere are hundreds of other legit reasons people don't want to be filmed 24/7, I'll leave them to your imagination ;)

Lets not forget we all still use envelopes when posting letters!

The right to privacy is one of the fundamental rights of a free society, any reduction in this right must be proportional to it's advantages. Watching people 24/7 is not in anyway proportional to the advantages it would provide (in my view).

Watching people 24/7 is not in anyway proportional to the advantages it would provide (in my view).

Watching people 24/7 is not what we're talking about; unless you're lunatic enough to think that the Government employs 150 million people to constantly monitor the activity of the 50 million who live here. :loopy:

Stuff being recorded on cameras is what we're talking about.

Lets not forget we all still use envelopes when posting letters!

You've never heard of a postcard, then?

Watching people 24/7 is not what we're talking about; unless you're lunatic enough to think that the Government employs 150 million people to constantly monitor the activity of the 50 million who live here. :loopy:

OK, for the pedants among us, change it to "in public" (which is what I meant anyway) and my points still stand. There are any number of reasons why people who are not criminals will be affected by being monitored in public, not all of them positive.

Stuff being recorded on cameras is what we're talking about.

Yes, which is what "being watched" means, you don't honestly think I meant everyone had someone following them 6 feet behind?

Anyway, who do you imagine would have to watch the footage to see if a crime has occured?

You've never heard of a postcard, then?

I didn't say postcard I said "letter", I don't get my bank statements, legal papers & *private* correspondance delivered on postcards... weird eh! Do you?