http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/birm ... 337961.stm


This is a rich topic for debate.

Personally, and currently ignoring the racial and ethnic implications of the article, I'm strongly opposed to hidden cameras. I mean, the main task of the police force is prevention, hidden cameras won't do jack s*** against that. And once we get people saying that hiding a camera so they can get a grainy, unclear picture of someone being stabbed is more important than possibly saving the person's life, I think we're on the entirely wrong track.

Also, am I right in supposing that at least some of these are your run of the mill speed cameras?

...

I don't see how speeding and terrorism relate.

I'm gonna have to agree with Hakker on this one.
Cameras in stores, schools, etc. never catch anything. What makes them think that sticking them around the street is going to help?

Why don't you try a five-finger discount at the local 7-Eleven or Wal-mart or whatever chain of convenience stores are in your area first then tell us how it went.

When I was younger I used to steal quite a bit. Most of the time the loser employees don't pay attention. But then again, I live in one of the s*** neighborhoods around and nearly everyone steals at some point.

If I recall correctly, it's not the camera's job to catch crime.

If there was a robbery, murder, etc., the police would use the tapes to identify the perpetrator along with other evidential samples through forensics.
Most of the time, the camera is invaluable, as it reveals enough information to move a case forward.


However, I am unsure about Britain's laws so I can't just go around saying "herp derp public place = no right of privacy and therefore cameras lol," so I have no further comment.

If the criminal is too stupid to avoid the cameras, I doubt they'd have much trouble catching him anyway.

I believe that is correct. Hell they have CCTVs everywhere in London. I've seen em and I bet Kyuubit has too.

Either they have someone monitoring these cameras 24/7 nonstop, or they only use them as evidence when someone actually thinks something has happened.

The first is absurd, and the second may be useless as it's horrendously slow.

Correct me if I'm wrong?

Ah, CCTVs in London. Though I haven't read that much of it, the idea is more than enough to make me go s*** insane.

I really don't like privacy infringement, the fact it is still so little questioned in the Netherlands really bugs me.

Also, it reminds me of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqxYlvjIEw4

Oh come on, they're just watching you. What do you have to hide?

My abhorrently unphotogenic countenance.

You worry too much about appearances.

I have more principled qualms about them, too.

One more outlandish problem I have with them is that I have absolutely no guarantee that they actually don't use those cameras that "see through clothing", or rather do not register the clothes at all. (It is not a serious concern actually, but it is a possibility and useful as a rhetoric device. )

Also, I implore all people who claim not to have anything to hide to shed off their fabrics and embrace total freedom. Let's see who really has nothing to hide.

I dunno, those CCTVs would prove me guilty of indecent exposure or some law to that effect. Not worth it m8.