CCTV turned off in mid sized Australian town

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
One man did this, lets hope others follow. The article is short so here it is.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal has found in favour of anti CCTV campaigner Adam Bonner. In a decision handed down on Thursday afternoon the tribunal said council is to refrain from any conduct or action in contravention of an information protection principle or a privacy code of practice.

In a further blow council has been ordered to render Mr Bonner a written apology for the breaches, and advise him of the steps to be taken by the council to remove the possibility of similar breaches in the future.

Council turned off the cameras at 3.30pm on Thursday.

All up, 129 reasons were given by the tribunal for the decision including that expert evidence suggested that CCTV did little to prevent crime.

It said the data available for the Nowra CBD suggests supported the Mr Bonner’s argument that council had not demonstrated that filming people in the Nowra CBD was reasonably necessary to prevent crime.

“In fact, available data suggests that since the council's CCTV program was implemented crime has increased in the Nowra CBD in the categories of assaults, break and enters and malicious damage,” the tribunal finding said.

The decision was handed down in Privacy Awareness Week.

Council has spent $41,000 in fighting the two-year case.



source

Boy were these guys pissed off! This is the report on the ABC, they nearly coudn't stop themselves spitting his name out lol.
ABC news clip

edit on 4/5/13 by Cinrad because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I know Nowra well, cute town. Its a coastal country town.

I'm surprised they ever put up CCTV. The place isnt big enough.

Anyhoo, one for the 'lil guy.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Our town is covered in these cameras too. They waged a campaign of fires in trash bins I think to get them in. We are also heavily watched by drones in the skies circling like predators . Its really disgusting . Sometimes I will give a drone circling past the finger and it will quickly come back to get a closer look in my window to spy . to be nothing but a dirty peeping Tom. These people who run these peep shows are disgusting slime bag creeps that people once shunned as lowlife peeping Toms .
Once they would be put in jail for such outrages actions .that are not considered respectable behaviour in a decent society



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Some good news for a change. Given that this is a decision by the State Administrative Tribunal, this could be used in other counsels where CCTV had been adopted.

Or it goes to appeal... I can see this dragging out as the corporate security firms wont like the implications.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I notice that the people on the street are gobsmacked it has been done. They don't want it removed. Funny that. The actual people there, think it's crazy.

It's one guy and the civil rights people claiming victory. Hurray. Back to the bunkers, one for us!

They say the crime rate went up with them there. Or do they misrepresent the data that more people were being caught.. who knows now.

Silly move if you ask me. Who is going to benefit more? Joe bloggs getting the shopping done? Ok..



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
crime will prolly go up in the area

cctv is all over the place where I live.. huge crime rate so it is there for that reason.

i don't have a problem with it, spose only those who are up to no good will be against it ? !



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by cartenz
Some good news for a change. Given that this is a decision by the State Administrative Tribunal, this could be used in other counsels where CCTV had been adopted.

Or it goes to appeal... I can see this dragging out as the corporate security firms wont like the implications.


Of course they won't like it. It hinders their job. Now when someone steals your mums bag they will have to rely on the shaky and erroneous descriptions of the random guy who wants to get his face on the 5pm news.

It's always great when you have to work backward from the end, while employed by some shopping mall to act as security. But we hate those guys, so anything to undermine their swift operations. Down with the nazi regime.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Save me the hyperbole, CCTV does not stop crime--it dosn't even help in prosecuting criminals as most CCTV is inadmissible.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I've never understood the problem some people have with CCTV surveillance in public places like malls and shopping centres.

'They' can surveill me going about my shopping as much as 'they' like and just about every shop I go into these days has it - big deal as I'm not hiding anything. The reason it's there is to discourage shoplifting which is epidemic and the cost of that is passed on to honest customers like myself. Surveillance installed by local government outside the shops is intended to curb antisocial activities in a place with a history of it and it's much cheaper than permanent guards pounding the beat 24/7.

If it aids in apprehending just one perpetrator it's a good thing as a disincentive to others with similar intentions.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 
are you happy to have your conversations listened as well as you stand under that camera chatting away to your mates, or at the cafe a few meters away .
Your friendly chat being listened too . What a stupid bunch of pathetic morons people have become . So dull headed lot those who want to watch and listen to others,
and more dull headed are those who want to be watched and listened too or are they just exhibitionists with no personal pride or decorum .
Try to not be so low class .

edit on 4-5-2013 by Anusuia because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-5-2013 by Anusuia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Anusuia
 


I'm not happy to be monitored, it just doesn't bother me much and if anyone wants to watch me and record my conversations it'll be their time they're wasting, not mine as I'm not hiding anything. I'd prefer not being subjected to observation but I recognize it as being a necessity in certain places for security reasons. My job is security related and all my phone conversations there have been recorded for years so I've developed the art of thinking prior to speaking.

Try to not be so paranoid



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I can see the point of CCTV in large city areas that are well traversed day and night but this is NOWRA we are talking about. I go through Nowra at least 4 times a year on the way down to visit my grandmother at Bega and I'm struggling to see the reason they put CCTV there in the first place. It's a decent-sized town sure, but it's no city.
edit on 5/5/2013 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
This is brilliant. Well done Adam Bonner.

The way the ABC news clip is produced is interesting too - the anchor, of his own accord, says "could set a dangerous precedent" right at the start. Since when did proper journalism make assertions like that? At one point, one of the news presenters states, without evidence, that CCTV cameras have "proved their worth". Surely their worth is what is in question here? A tribunal heard the evidence and decided their worth was not significant?

CCTV has extreme possibilities for misuse - you can automatically assume that all of these systems can be exploited by hackers and intelligence agencies, so basically, all these systems allow anyone criminal and powerful to monitor you.

And why on earth is Julia Gillard commenting on the general usage of CCTV in response to a council issue in a small town? Why is that a national news item for her? Why does that threaten her? -- If you study Gillard's strong connections with the global intelligence system, you quickly get an answer.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
This is brilliant. Well done Adam Bonner.

The way the ABC news clip is produced is interesting too - the anchor, of his own accord, says "could set a dangerous precedent" right at the start. Since when did proper journalism make assertions like that? At one point, one of the news presenters states, without evidence, that CCTV cameras have "proved their worth". Surely their worth is what is in question here? A tribunal heard the evidence and decided their worth was not significant?

CCTV has extreme possibilities for misuse - you can automatically assume that all of these systems can be exploited by hackers and intelligence agencies, so basically, all these systems allow anyone criminal and powerful to monitor you.

And why on earth is Julia Gillard commenting on the general usage of CCTV in response to a council issue in a small town? Why is that a national news item for her? Why does that threaten her? -- If you study Gillard's strong connections with the global intelligence system, you quickly get an answer.


It would fall on the PM to address this as the precedent is binding in NSW (so this decision could be applied to all local counsels in that state), but also is persuasive in all other states. Eventually, thru appeals it will go to HCA and then it becomes a Federal problem--addressing it now just shows they are prepared to have it shot down in the HCA if indeed it gets that far.

Of course by the time it does filter thru appeals we could have a change of government--but I doubt the fascist coalition would take a different stance than the government.

I predict at least 1 High Court Justice will retire before the election.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


I agree the ABC story was obviously biased and seemed to be pushing an agenda. Of course illuminati cheerleader would be commenting negatively on what a government tribunal decided was in the best interests of its citizens.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by cartenz
reply to post by winofiend
 


Save me the hyperbole, CCTV does not stop crime--it dosn't even help in prosecuting criminals as most CCTV is inadmissible.


yes it does.

yes it does.

it has reduced crime in one area of the cbd but in the suburbs where there is none, crime has gone up.




posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cinrad
 


the illuminati cheerleader = Gillard?

hmm well she did knit some lovely booties for FiFi Box from Tripple J.

I was impressed, even I can't knit that good!




posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz

Originally posted by cartenz
reply to post by winofiend
 


Save me the hyperbole, CCTV does not stop crime--it dosn't even help in prosecuting criminals as most CCTV is inadmissible.


yes it does.

yes it does.

it has reduced crime in one area of the cbd but in the suburbs where there is none, crime has gone up.



Please provide some supporting statistics for that statement. Figures for both before and after CCTV implementation.

For extra points you could cite cases where the CCTV in this town was used as evidence to convict an offender.

Thank you

EDIT: In fact I can go one better:

The introduction of CCTV in Surfers Paradise resulted in significant increases in the extent of
total offences against the person (including assault, robbery, other offences against the person
and sexual assault) and Weapons Act offences. CCTV was found to have no significant impact
on total offences, total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful
entry), unlawful entry, other property damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and handling
stolen goods) and total other offences (including drug offences, liquor (excluding drunkenness))
occurring in Surfers Paradise. Findings from Broadbeach indicated that CCTV had no impact
on total offences or total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful
entry) and other property damage).

Source
edit on 6-5-2013 by cartenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by cartenz
 




um stats where I live are 'creative'... lets just say, many things such as homicide are not reported... cbd is ever so lovely and the 'burbs' the tourists dont see it. You would have to live here to see it.


LMAO I just did a search for the news on the last 'riot' here and nothing comes up on google search...



cctv reduced crime in one area and crime moved to another... that was my point..perhaps you missed that in your defense?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Thurisaz
 



The introduction of CCTV in Surfers Paradise resulted in significant increases in the extent of
total offences against the person (including assault, robbery, other offences against the person
and sexual assault) and Weapons Act offences. CCTV was found to have no significant impact
on total offences
, total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful
entry), unlawful entry, other property damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and handling
stolen goods) and total other offences (including drug offences, liquor (excluding drunkenness))
occurring in Surfers Paradise. Findings from Broadbeach indicated that CCTV had no impact
on total offences or total offences against property
(including other theft (excluding unlawful
entry) and other property damage).


Emphasis mine, just in case you missed the edit to my earlier post

EDIT:


lets just say, many things such as homicide are not reported...

All homicide statistics are published--even if names are not. I could show you where to find them but the onus is on you to support your claims.
edit on 6-5-2013 by cartenz because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join