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.

 

NEWS: Big Brother Britain, 2004

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Over 4 Million closed circuit television (CCTV) exist in the UK making it the most watched nation in the world. It is said that the average person can expect to be filmed on camera up to 300 times a day. I don't understand why the Brittish put up with this crap.
 

"Civil liberties groups complain that the rules governing the use of the cameras in Britain are the most lax in the world. They say that, in contrast to other countries, members of the public are often unaware they are being filmed, and are usually ignorant of the relevant regulations. They also argue that there is little evidence to support the contention that CCTV cameras lead to a reduction in crime rates."

news.independent.co.uk...

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Ocelot]




posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot
It is said that the average person can expect to be filmed on camera up to 300 times a day. I don't understand why the Brittish put up with this crap.
[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Ocelot]


Hi Ocelot!!

Thanx for the news link, which *was* on our TV this morning in UK incidentally.

As a (very) average person in the UK, I doubt very much I'm "on camera" up to 300 times a day - or anything like that. Of course, "averages" are like that, aren't they - if "mean averages", then I suppose that if you visit a "large" city then the "hit" rate will increase proportionately?

As for *why* we put up with it: well, we're a very tolerant society (as a rule) and, because of our generally dense population to land area, probably more used to being "spied" on than others might be? By that, many of us live very close to our immediate neighbours, and possibly feel less intimated by "remote" CCTV observation, since "real time" scrutiny takes precedence?

Just my "two pen'north", for what its worth...



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Actually after reading this question it reminded me that I was filmed 12 hrs during my workdays and got so used to it I never even noticed it after a while which is the way it is for British people probably. I used to work on a psych ward in a hospital, security had cameras on every floor and also on the elevators and the cameras were on 24 hrs a day and viewed on six monitors by security 24 hrs a day. The first 5 minutes I was working I was freaked out by it but then after that I stayed so busy I literally did not have time to think about it and until I saw this post had forgotten about it.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I read that this morning and its very true, you can't move over here without being watched by camera's.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
as a resident of the uk i can say in relative surety that there are only a limited number of cameras in the city in which i stay under goverment control



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
as far as im concerned cctv is a great thing in this country, they can film me every day of the week if they like because im not out in the public committing crimes, which after is what cctv is for, and if civil liberties group honestly think that it has no effect on crime rates then they obviously run by very stupid people, it stops criminals committing a crime if they have half the sense to realise that they are going to get caught on camera and for the ones that do commit the crimes anyway cctv gives the whole public a positive id on the people doing it, true it might not always stop crime but when you sit at home watching a tv programs showing how pedophiles attempting to run off with small children are caught on cctv and then we able to be arrested by the police because of the footage, i am definatly of the opinion that when it helps stop people like that then being filmed every day of the week is certainly a price im willing to pay.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
i remember they were introducing this in Spain in the 80s, there were tunnels and some traffic lights that had them installed. I am not sure how it is now, but I foudn this site that it says it was only implemented in Basque areas, but i do remember this was mentioned as happening in Madrid also. Any in the forums is in Spain now? i will ask some friends and see what they tell me.


"Closed Circuit Television - Spain
The Spanish have enacted laws intended to regulate the use of closed circuit television data by authorities and provide more detailed information for private citizens. Spain has installed CCTV cameras in the Basque region in an effort to combat street violence and vandalism. Video surveillance use in Spain is part of an extensive security program undertaken as a result of terrorist activity in the country. Statistical data is currently being compiled to determine the volume of sales for closed circuit television equipment in Spain. "

Excerpt taken from.
www.cctv-systems.com...

Also this one.
www.cctv-systems.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I have absolutely no problem with CCTV over here in the UK. Why should I? It makes absolutely no negative impact on the way that I live my life and it's positives are tremendous.

Well, no negatives except that I daren't scratch my balls in a public place or pick my nose and eat it.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
thanks leveller finally the voice of sense talking there, the only people that seem to have a problem with it are either criminals, people who dont live in the uk but apparently know our country better than we do for some reason, or those who believe every conspiracy known to man who are actually self indulged enough to believe that the government have the time and resources let alone the inclination to follow their every move coz their sooo important, lets face it theres no big brother they are just trying to make this country a safer place and if people have so little sense of community that they have a problem with that then im sure theres some uninhabited island they could go hermit on!



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
how are the crime rates where these cameras are ?

if the crime rates are low, then amen, if not well then I guess just get used to big brother watching ...

I dunno



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
After reading 1984 I can't understand why anyone would want a camera watching them. Even before the book I did'nt trust public cameras set up by goverment groups. A private orginazation setting them is a differnt ball park.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavind5uk
as far as im concerned cctv is a great thing in this country, they can film me every day of the week if they like because im not out in the public committing crimes, which after is what cctv is for, and if civil liberties group honestly think that it has no effect on crime rates then they obviously run by very stupid people, it stops criminals committing a crime if they have half the sense to realise that they are going to get caught on camera and for the ones that do commit the crimes anyway cctv gives the whole public a positive id on the people doing it, true it might not always stop crime but when you sit at home watching a tv programs showing how pedophiles attempting to run off with small children are caught on cctv and then we able to be arrested by the police because of the footage, i am definatly of the opinion that when it helps stop people like that then being filmed every day of the week is certainly a price im willing to pay.


I'd love to know what you base that on, and I'm also amazed that you're not looking at the bigger picture here. Ignorance is bliss.

You are however really overlooking 3 key factors. Does CCTV really prevent crime at all? Who actually has control of the usage of CCTV? Who has control over what information is obtained from CCTV and what rights do you have?

First off there is absolutely NO evidence that CCTV prevents crime. It's only effective on small petty crimes or not effective at all. That's hardly worth the tax spent on it is it? Studies have shown that more would be done to deter crimes if streets were better lit and more police were walking the beat.

"The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (Nacro) revealed that Home Office statistics show crime fell in 13 of the 24 cases studied after CCTV cameras were installed but crime rates rose significantly in four others."
BBCNews CCTV: Does it deter crime?

"The organization said lower-tech crime-busting strategies such as improved street lighting are significantly better at reducing criminal activity.

Areas need to be appropriately policed, not remotely policed," she said. "Given the choice between walking down a dark alley monitored by CCTV or having that alley adequately lit, which would you prefer? CCTV is not a panacea.

The study found that cameras had no effect on violent crime and were most effective when used to curb thefts from cars.
"
'Big Brother' Cameras Have Little Effect On Crime

the report also says that the cameras "make people feel safe." which is something I will call on later.

Did you know that alot of the companies in control of CCTV are private security companies, and that there is absolutely no higher group to check how they operate them or what they do with the information?

Here are some good articles you might want to take a look at, see how much you have nothing to fear if you don't commit a crime.

Who's watching the watchers?
Big Brother Britain, 2004

As for what rights we have and who owns the content of what is found on the footage, well, the laws are a joke. There are also no regulations as to who operates these cameras which in the future could be a serious problem with the digital revolution from people who could zoom in and see you keying pin numbers, security codes e.t.c.

"The use of cameras to film people in the street is banned in Germany, Canada and several other countries. But it is accepted practice in Britain, which is alone in not having a privacy law that protects people against constant surveillance. The Data Protection Act states that the public has to be informed that CCTV systems are in operation, and be told how they can exercise their legal right to see their own footage. But civil rights groups said many councils, shops and businesses were failing to provide this information, and they estimated that up to 70 per of CCTVcamera operators were breaking the rules."

"Some shopping-centre security guards use the cameras to track "socially undesirable" people, such as groups of teenage boys or rough sleepers, around stores, and then eject them even if they have done nothing wrong."

Now regardless of what you think about the yobs it is actually against the law. These private companies are taking the law into their own hands and throwing your rights out the window. They are now being selective of who they want there, will everyone eventually have to conform? Do you support this? I hope not.

Did you know that there are no laws to protect your image rights on these cameras? They can very well just go out and sell the footage to anyone they like. They can show it anywhere. Employers can take the footage home and do lewd things with footage of YOU.

If they caught you falling over in the street they could sell it to You've Been Framed and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Did you know there are no known regulations for how people are employed to operate CCTV? There could be peadophiles, burglars e.t.c. casing you and your kids and you wouldn't have a clue.

Because of it not being public property did you know you can't go and view the footage yourself if needed? You have no rights to the footage, shouldn't it be public property? These guys can do anything with it.

Oh, and then there's the things they can do under the guise of "suspicion of terrorism".

"What has happened to the faces of all the thousands of innocent travelers who were no doubt videoed and possibly run through face recognition systems ? Is it still on file ? Will it remain on file and get transferred into some HOLMES type statistical weighting system to plague innocent people with "suspicion of terrorist association" points ? "

Take a look at the links which go much more into depth about the confusion over all of this. There doesn't appear to be any laws and no one knows where this information is being stored. They could make a routine check and you, an innocent man, could be stuck in their logs as a potential terrorist. Constantly watched through no fault of your own and as a result of lax or no laws.

Now, why do they need so much surveillance? One word, money (isn't it always). Big security firms and the armed industry can make a bucketful out of their little gadgets and in return the government gets all the information it wants on people. You think that's far fetched? I'm sorry to hear that.

So why are people in the UK so accepting of CCTV? Simple, they've been scared into it and have falsely been led to believe that it is a deterent.

This is of a result of media hype mainly concerning peadophiles. The way the media goes on you'd believe there are peadophiles on every street corner, licking their lips waiting to snatch your child when it's unlikely there are anymore now than there has ever been. The media has got parents scared senseless and wondering what they can do to prevent it.

Then right on que the government steps in and offers CCTV. What? Not more police walking the beat? Not better street lighting? No, CCTV. If you think this hasn't all been orchestrated you'd better think again. This is kids stuff, the government working with the media that is.

So now they have to convince the public that CCTV is effective. Well, the two biggest cases of CCTV involvment especially in the media are The James Bulger Murder and The Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman Murders.

These are the two that are arguabley the most famous uses of CCTV in the media, and what is not surprising is that they both involve kids.
What is very important to remember here is that in both cases CCTV did absolutely nothing to prevent the crimes, although they remotely helped in bringing convictions to the murderers. It's important to remember however that these crimes would've been solved without of CCTV.

Why were people convinced that CCTV was useful from all this? Because both times it was responsible for showing the childrens final moments. Such strong and powerful images never leave anyone's brains of who have seen them, and subconciously this rates to the families, public e.t.c. that it has somehow served a purpose in crime prevention when in fact it has done no such thing. The power of them final moments seen through CCTV is what made people get used to it.









Today now we have more conditioning to the idea of surveillance through the media in the form of "Reality TV Shows" such as "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here" and of course the biggest of all "Big Brother". These shows condition us to believe that spying on people is normal and ok. Well for all our sakes I hope you fight this conditioning, otherwise Big Brother will most certainly be here, and it wont be as entertainment.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Sorry Nada. I don't agree with you one little bit.
A helluva lot of your post is mere speculatation and unfounded statement and some of it is just plain wrong.

I have personally felt the benefits of CCTV. It has saved me a lot of trouble as a detterant. When people are about to do something wrong they only have to be told that they are on camera and believe me it does have an effect.

I own and run a bar. I have CCTV installed. 99% of the time it is not even running but the customers do not know that. I've also been down to my local police statin and seen their CCTV setup. 99% of the time, that isn't manned either but the general public don't know that.
I've used CCTV many times to defuse situations that otherwise would have got out of hand.

As one who actually has dealth with CCTV and actually knows it's negatives and benefits, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your post.

By the way. You have no proof that the two murder cases you cited would have been successfully solved without the use of CCTV. The CCTV footage was massive evidence in gaining convictions in both cases.

I really couldn't give a crap about these fake freedoms. If you're worried about somebody possibly watching you, you should stay indoors each day. When you go out into the world there are people there. Everyone is watching you anyway.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
By the way. You have no proof that the two murder cases you cited would have been successfully solved without the use of CCTV. The CCTV footage was massive evidence in gaining convictions in both cases.


Oh really I have no proof? The video footage was instrumental in the convictions of both these cases? You sure about that?

Unforunately for you I remember the Bulger murder case extremely well. Maybe you might want to check out this link The James Bulger murder case which provides many of the details of the evidence that convicted the murderers. I have also read all the court transcripts which unfortunately I read in a book and cannot find online, although I'll do my best to scan them in for you.

Now, first off take a look at the CCTV image of the boys taking James Bulger at the top. What the hell can you dertermine from that? I'm guessing that you're thinking it shows two boys taking him away, so that lead the police on the hunt for two boys with similiar clothing, right? Wrong. 38 witnesses had already come forward and identified the boys long before this footage was ever released. They saw the boys beating James Bulger but did not do anything to stop it. The CCTV footage was release after the fact and was used merely to fuel media frenzy. The footage had no bearing on the trial at all. The only purpose it did serve was to provide exact times for when the abduction took place, which is really just stocking filler for the prosecution.

"During the entire walk the two boys and James were seen by 38 people, some of whom noticed an injury to the infant's head and later recalled that he seemed distressed. Others reported that James appeared happy and was seen laughing, the boys seemingly alternating between hurting and distracting him. A few members of the public challenged the two older boys but they claimed that they were looking after their younger brother and were allowed to continue on their way. "

What did convict the boys beyond a reasonable doubt was forensics and DNA. I urge you to show me a report that says the CCTV lead to the conviction.

"Forensics tests confirmed that both boys had the same blue paint on their clothing as was found on James's body. Both had blood on their shoes; blood on Jon Venables's shoe was matched to James's through DNA tests."

As for the Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman murders, the CCTV footage was completely useless and had no bearing on the conviction. You're just making this stuff up man.

As with the previous case, all the footage showed was the two girls walking past and had no evidence whatsoever to help the police. However, the only good thing that did come out of it were that people who saw themselves on the footage came forward. They were no help at all to the investigation.

As in nearly all these cases, what gave the case it's break through were witnesses. The white van identified as the possible abduction vehical was seen by a human witness, not CCTV, and lead to the Capture of murderer Ian Huntley.

"Det Supt David Hankins said the van, which appeared to have lettering on its side, was not on the CCTV footage but was spotted by a member of the public who had alerted police. He said it appeared to be there for loading or unloading something and appealed to the van driver to contact police immediately."
Girls Caught on CCTV

Where you believe you heard that CCTV was evidence of the crime is beyond me.

Now, to back up my claim of media and government frenzy praying on families who are scared, take alook at this:
CCTV plan 'could have foiled snatch'

"The abductor who snatched the missing schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman could have been detected if plans to install CCTV cameras on the street where they were last seen had not been delayed due to a hold-up in gaining technical parts.
In a cruel twist of fate, seven cameras were due to have been installed last month in the centre of the tiny market town. But the installation was put back until the autumn due to delays in gaining crucial BT parts from a factory in Finland.
"

This was all over the media when it was announced. After this what parent wouldn't say "Put a camera up my arse for all I care, just please protect my children"? That's what they prey on, your weak areas. Do you know what else can protect our children? Locking them up in boxes, do you want to go that far just so they will be safe? They are preying on peoples weak spots and conditioning you to the idea of being watched through the media.

As for the rest of your post I wont even go into it it's so laughable. You dare say I'm just "speculatation"? You say I'm "wrong" but nearly everything I've provided are plain facts, except for my theories on the why. Did I say that CCTV didn't work at all? I said it did little and there are better ways to spend tax money so your point was pretty useless.

You think everything I say is just "speculatation"? Look up the laws for yourself and you'll see they are a joke or don't exist at all.

You call me "wrong" yet I have provided facts to back up my case, whilst you have provided your half arsed opinion off as fact.

If you're going to have anything to say including calling me "wrong" and putting words in my mouth then back your statements up with facts or shut the hell up. You're the only one "speculating" around here.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
If you're going to have anything to say including calling me "wrong" and putting words in my mouth then back your statements up with facts or shut the hell up. You're the only one "speculating" around here.



WOOOWwwOooooo. A bit touchy aren't we?
Well, as I stated before - I've actually seen the benefits of cameras.

Of course there are always going to be the whining idiots who complain that this is an infringement of their "civil liberties".

Personally, I couldn't give two craps about these people. They'd be the first ones running to the police and asking for camera evidence if it was their person assaulted.

The camera evidence was pertinent to the cases you mention. It doesn't matter if a thousand people saw Bulger or Holly or Jessica - it is a viewable record. Something that comes in handy in a criminal investigation.

As for putting words in your mouth? I couldn't be bothered. They'd only come out as a different substance.

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Actually I'm not touchy, I just knew stating the truth like that would get you to write more drivel because I know you can't back up a single word you say. I hate being proved right sometimes.

You're amazing! You completely overlook the facts I provided to prove your "assumptions" wrong and yet you repeat them again, well I'm done playing in the sand pit with the foolish kids now, you're wasting my time. Ignorance is indeed bliss for some people, sad but true.

[edited for typo]

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by John Nada]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
Actually I'm not touchy, I just knew stating the truth like that would get you to write more drivel because I know you can't back up a single word you say. I hate being proved right sometimes.



Heh. I can tell you from personal experience that you aren't right. The links that you have provided do absolutely nothing to change my opinion.
As I've stated a couple of times before, I have been personally involved with the use of CCTV and have actually seen the benefits. This isn't a theory - it's something that I've actually seen with my own eyes. Not something I have to speculate about or post links to.

I've lost count the number of times that CCTV has prevented someone from being physically assaulted in my town. Once people know they're on camera, 99% of the time, they will not break the law.

Do you ask me to deny something that I have seen and experienced in real life?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I agree with Nada on this, its basically more forms of control, and more than a question of putting a few cameras up to watch the bads guys.

I work in Leicester Square, central london, and travel through the City of London on a bus to work, and its like a flaming police state, cops everywhere, cameras EVERYWHERE, as well as the Parking attendents on every corner harrasing anyone, who even thinks about pulling up in their cars, lets face it all the police in the 'City Of London' arent really guarding the people who work there they are guarding the corporations and finance of the global elite (screw it why pull words)

So what I want to know is, what is going to be the result of the 'inevitable' terrorist attack on british soil(quoted by David Blunkett on 25th Feb 2004), we will probably hear EVEN MORE calls for security and probably MORE cameras, It goes to show its a farce and it another Excuse to bring in even more security & control.

You may say that you go about your everyday lives, but its always in the back of your mind that YOU ARE being watched, and with facial recognition software being developed, they could watch you and track you and I find this an insult.

And if you are familiar with the term 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' you'll understand what Nada was describing about putting Using the(THE PROBLEM) fear of crime and putting that fear into people, so the people(THE REACTION) want something to be done to bring about the Goverments (THE SOLUTION) solution of more controls to the crime, is a example of this concept.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
CCTV Does Not Reduce Crime


Most CCTV systems do not cut crime or make people feel safer, a "disappointing" Home Office study has revealed.

Of 14 closed circuit television camera schemes examined by criminologists, only one - for car parks - was shown to reduce offences.

Prof Martin Gill, who led the CCTV Initiative study, said: "For camera supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and it did not make people feel safer."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I'm so glad to know £170million has been spent so we can spot illegal parkers, rather than spending it on actual police on the beat so that people feel safer and crimes might actually be prevented before they happen.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
if cameras are so effective why do people rob banks, shoplift, kidnap, speed, etc all in front of cameras, all the time, all you do is cover your face and they are useless, i dont see how you can say it has any effect.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join