Posted on 06/28/2002 7:13:41 AM PDT by white trash redneck
Putting closed-circuit TV cameras in public places has only a small effect on crime, according to a British report released Friday, but the U.K. government insists the police cameras dissuade criminals and make people feel safe.
The study came out on the same day that police turned on a $4.5-million system blanketing the downtown area of Manchester, England's third largest city, with 400 video cameras.
The report by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NARCO) analyzed government statistics and independent reports, finding that in 14 British cities using closed circuit television, six recorded falling crime. In two others, crime actually increased.
The CCTV cameras had no effect or an inconclusive effect on the rest of the cities studied.
NARCO said that while the cameras have helped to solve several high-profile crimes, giving them a "common sense appeal", they often amount to a poor use of taxpayer funds.
The organization said lower-tech crime-busting strategies such as improved street lighting are significantly better at reducing criminal activity.
"It would be foolish to claim that well-planned CCTV can never have an impact, but the effectiveness of CCTV is often overstated," said Rachel Armitage of NARCO's crime and social policy unit.
"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.
In launching the Manchester scheme, one of the government's top justice officials refuted NARCO's findings and said the cameras give the public a feeling of safety and are cost effective.
"They help the police in both apprehending people they wish to interview and all of us have seen examples over the last few weeks and months of CCTV cameras helping to apprehend such people," Home Office Minister Lord Falconer said.
"They also help to secure convictions in court," he said. "In terms of providing people both with security and a sense of security, this is a good investment."
Use of closed circuit television has soared in Britain over the last decade. There were about 100 police cameras in England in 1990, according to NARCO figures, but that number has steadily risen and will be at about 40,000 by the end of 2002. The cameras are nearly ubiquitous in urban shopping and entertainment districts.
Despite their ever-increasing numbers, the cameras are still politically contentious in a country that was given a nightmarish vision of its own future in George Orwell's 1984. In Orwell's novel, the shadowy Big Brother uses cameras and other technology to track Londoners' movements and enforce a brutal communist regime.
Police groups say privacy and data protection legislation prevents officials from using the cameras for nefarious ends.
"There are protections set down by the Home Office under which all CCTV systems operate," said Brian Young, a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. "There aren't many instances where people feel that Big Brother is watching them."
"The general populace is largely in favor of the cameras, because they make them feel safer," he said. "They've reduced drunken, disorderly behaviour because people know they are being watched, or that they can be caught later."
But civil liberties campaigners said safeguards are lacking.
"Each day we are tracked by cameras and there are inadequate laws to ensure that the footage is not misused and inadequate enforcement of those laws," said Mark Littlewood, director of campaigns for Liberty.
"While there may be situations where the use of CCTV has assisted in the detection of crime there is no evidence to support the argument that it prevents crime taking place," he said. "It is time for a reassessment of the worth of CCTV in terms of is cost, both financial and in terms of privacy."
LOL!
Police do not prevent crime -- they are there to pick up the pieces and take notes. They are historians. Any system that will help them in their note taking and crime solution is welcomed by them. You'll still get mugged, but now they have it on tape.It is amazing how many people are deluded into thinking that the police are there to somehow stop a crime before it happens. They have a rude awakening when they call 911 and ask for help to prevent a crime that is about to happen, and get told, "Sorry, we can't send an officer. If something actually happens, call back."
By 2010, you will be required to show 'full face' as you step out the door of your home so they can track all of your movements.By 2020, no problems , with your in cameras and your skin embedded chip transmitters England will be the worlds safest country on earth.
Really? Crime rates in the UK have soared since the place first became infested with spy cams!
I hope every gay Member Of Parliament going to a gay bar is recorded for prurient laughs by those watching the spycams.
Yes, I have read it. The fact that the British government is using the foot and mouth epidemic to justify monitoring people's emails and phone calls shows that Orwell was right about governments always wanting to erode the rights of their people.
Personally, I don't think surveillance cameras do much good, since they usually just displace crime from the city centres into the suburbs. Although, recently here, 4 policemen were caught on camera beating up a young couple, so I suppose they sometimes help justice be done.
I suppose they have also started covertly compiling dossiers on the known political and economic characteristics of Russians, since that could be done automatically using a computer program. After all, this is the former KGB we're talking about and the President of Russia is a former KGB career officer. But like President Putin said its all just to fight terrorism and organised crime, it couldn't possibly be misused, even though there are no safeguards in place. Oh well, Stavka, you had better not say anything controversial. Who knows what list of subversives you might be put on.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using *Photo_Radar, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Photo_Radar | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
The Echelon system monitors international not intranational electronic communications. Echelon is supposed to detect espionage, but I have heard it has been misused for the benefit of the US, not the UK, economy.
The British government currently holds copies of emails for a set period and can only access them with a judicial warrant. It is not allowed to scan emails for keywords. Encryption is allowed in Britain, although you can be forced to reveal the key. I doubt encryption will be legal for much longer in Russia, considering the Russian government's totalitarian instincts.
The Russian email surveillance system is fundamentally flawed if it exists, (as the Russian government claims), to prevent organised crime and terrorism. This is because any gangster or terrorist can afford to use an ISP outside Russia, which means SORM2 can't monitor their communications. Also unlike law abiding civilians, they are likely to have the expertise and money to use military grade encryption software. This is why email surveillance is a nonsense, since anyone who really has something to hide will use effective methods to protect themselves, or they won't use such a fallible communication method in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.