It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Chief: Put CCTV in EVERY Home

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
1984? Ye have Finally arrived!

I am sure many here will come along and say it's for our own safety and if we are doing nothing wrong, what's the problem? Well, can you see where that line of thinking has gotten you? I mentioned awhile ago that those creepy little eyes will soon be on your doorsteps and here we are.

Right now, it a 'Suggestion' but I can guarantee that after a few people comply with this soft approach to 1984, it will then be said to be so successful that it will become law. You wanted it? You got it.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Homeowners should consider fitting CCTV to trap burglars, the country's most senior police officer declared yesterday. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said police forces needed more crime scene footage to match against their 12million images of suspects and offenders. And he called on families and businesses to install cameras at eye level – to exploit advances in facial recognition technology.


I'm going with door # 2

'The proposals on increasing the amount of privately owned CCTV cameras are quite frankly Orwellian and risk turning members of the public into an extension of the police,' said Renate Samson of Big Brother Watch.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

How do you convince people to spy on themselves? Remember this?



You were warned and you ignored it. Now, no one cares what you think because you apathy and ignorance of the true agenda have sold us all out. www.activistpost.com...

Jude11



edit on 10-3-2015 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Wow, this is a terrible idea! Isn't there such a thing as invasion of privacy anymore? I can tell you I won't do this no matter what their BS laws state....I have money and have no problem fighting this in court if it came to that!



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
No doubt they'd be recommending an IP based CCTV solution too, using ACPO approved IP cameras (with built-in microphones) that will fit nicely on your already compromised home network.


They'll all need to be mini PTZ cameras too, in order for the GCHQ voyeurs to scan around looking for naked chicks.

Of course, if we stated we'd like to set up surveillance on the idiots who come up with this garbage, on a 24x7 basis, watching them, following them and their families everywhere they go, they'd soon have us locked up.

It's a funny old world!

edit on 811Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:28:40 -050028311u15 by Britguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

I want to know where he gets his 12 million suspects figure from!!!!
There are only around 70 000 000 of us on this #ty little island!!!!!!

I call bull #.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: jude11

Wow, this is a terrible idea! Isn't there such a thing as invasion of privacy anymore? I can tell you I won't do this no matter what their BS laws state....I have money and have no problem fighting this in court if it came to that!


Unfortunately, the people who have more money than you are the ones making this crap up. It'll come down to not being able to build or buy without the cameras first installed. And if you already own, they'll hit with the taxes so when you don't pay, bye-bye house.

Peace



edit on 10-3-2015 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: KahnNage
a reply to: jude11

I want to know where he gets his 12 million suspects figure from!!!!
There are only around 70 000 000 of us on this #ty little island!!!!!!

I call bull #.



Of course it's all BS.

But, proving it is another matter.

Jude11



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

No, I understand what the premise is here. I mean I would fight it tooth and nail! Nobody reserves the right to spy on you and your family, even if the false premise behind it is "you and your families safety"! If dumb laws like this pass, and the people allow it to happen, there is no stopping them from global domination! People would be in jail daily for feeding their child sugar in the morning, or smacking your dog for peeing on the carpet, or cleaning your house without gloves....I mean there really is no end to the possibility of people being jailed for absolute BS! Everyone needs to fight things like this at all costs!



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

There may be 12 million people with a PNC file. But that doesn't mean they are active criminals. But as the majority of these will be for spent/historic offences can they be considered suspects? No. No they cant.
Burglary is a habitual offence, the majority of offenders are already known.
Mind you it was printed in the Daily Mail..... My mum will be #ting herself.




posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Yes that's the UK for you...

A real totalitarian police state that the United States could only have nightmares about.



They put em in my house, cameras are gonna get the baseball bat treatment...

Lock me up, reinstall them...

& when I get out, Mr.baseball bat is paying another visit to big brother's technology.




Scum.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Haha, I was thinking the same, it'll never happen for me either, or the rest of us who will choose to be the free 'Proles' as in 1984.
Millions of folk will be against this and as our government is living on maxed-out credit cards there is no chance the state will be paying for this one. Lol, it's a drama DM story anyway, won't happen in my lifetime.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
How bout they lead by example and get those body cams running. Then they can be like "see we have taken steps to help you and us and we are calling on you to do the same." However its never a case of good for the goose good for the gander when it comes to them now is it?



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Yeah the Faily Fail has probably blown this out of proportion with a narrative that didn't fit the context...

But Police shouldn't be talking s# like this anyways...



Maybe a Faily Fail fearmonger take on this could be a good thing.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

I recently read a study about a trial of CCTV in people's homes. No surprises, most got used to it and the main, reported concerns involved bathrooms and bedrooms. As much as we can learn to comply with surveillance, nobody likes getting undressed in front of strangers. The Panopticon can be acceptable as long as it turns a blind eye to getting in and out of the shower.

Isn't that a depressing signal of how acclimatised we can become?

In terms of the law enforcement perspective, some people are chasing the ideal of a crime-less society...at any costs. Privacy may well become a privilege of the powerful as it's no longer viewed as a Right. A healthy society, in my opinion, should always include crimes because not all laws are necessary, reasonable or good for the population.

Hogan-Howe's opinion is that of a hammer that can only see nails. It carries no weight beyond a lazy day in the newspapers and who cares? At the same time, future generations might find their lives recorded on black boxes and multiple cameras and it will be opinions like his that will put them there.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Sounds just like 1984. Stuff just keeps getting scarier and weirder.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Am I reading something wrong, he's encouraging people to set up PRIVATE Cameras...

I have a private security system that includes Cameras... Isn't that a good thing?

I understand if the government wanted to put their own cameras and monitor themselves, but he's advocating private individuals to set up their own cameras or am I reading it wrong?



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

One of my favourite avatars!


Yeah, he's advising 'private CCTV' and this generally involves paying a private company to store it. The cameras are motion-triggered and then whatever is recorded is stored off-site at a price. If you think about it, burglars would just steal the set-top box that stored the data and make cameras redundant.

Footage has to be stored at an unknown location...not in the shed, garage or spare room.



'Private CCTV is completely unregulated. Recommending greater use of CCTV to gather more images of people's faces – often innocent people's faces – undermines the security of each and every one of us.' Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


The industry isn't 'completely unregulated.' It's in its infancy with no great checks and balances that define who owns the footage and no definitive framework for who accesses the footage.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
There are from my point of view pro and cons for cctv and cameras.

I think every civilian should have a right to put up a camera to surveillance the home and the surrounding area within reason. If the cameras are not connected to the police in any way, it is not Orwellian if the owner controls the information. I think Police should wear cameras at all times to document what happens. If information on the camera is not manipulated then it is objective truth.

I do think that people who do break the laws rape, abuse, violent behavior should be removed from society for an extended part of their life and have no Stockholm syndrome with wolfs in sheep skin (also support the same for police who go over the line).

In some countries police are to weak and are not allowed the tools to deal with criminals. When that happens some people take the law into their own hands since the system is failing the normal people who do no harm to others.

In some countries the police become abusive and are allow to crack down harshly. Sometimes the people who are peaceful get problems with the abusive police in these countries.

The trouble is to get the best of these two extremes. A police that can crack down on the criminals and serve the peaceful people and at the same time make sure they are not harming the peaceful people.

As a believer in the spiritual I would say this simulation that we are in already have a CCTV built in on all levels so think twice about every action.
edit on 10-3-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Camera Ip adresses can be hacked so that now private system no longer is private...a reply to: PsychoEmperor



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I'm putting a 4 camera system sometime this spring, outside. Mostly because I live in the middle of nowhere, and if someone's lurking around outside I want to be able to see them.
If the cameras were to be put at eye level like they suggest, they'll just get vandalized if they're seen.
As long as I can catch a license plate leaving the driveway, that's all I need (there's no front plates in Alberta).

That said, there's no way anyone could ever convince me to put cameras in the home. I value privacy. I don't even like my picture taken. I think I have a camera phobia....



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I have considered getting cameras to protect my home from time to time. I wouldn't want cameras inside my home, but I don't really have a problem facing them at the street, drive and other means of access to my property.

The idea would be fine if I lived my life in fear, but frankly, I am much more concerned with LEOs and the Government than I am with potential home robberies and I am not sure I would want my armed self-defense recorded on camera.
edit on 2015/3/10 by Metallicus because: sp



new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join