Some Camera to Watch Over You [Free Republic]

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.

If Scott Fry had his way, video surveillance would be as ubiquitous in the United States as it is in Britain, where you can't stroll down certain streets without having your movements shadowed by a dozen cameras.

Fry is the president of Pedagog USA, a wireless application service provider that recently established a beachhead in California to promote its mobile surveillance systems on this side of the big puddle.

Pedagog's software enables video images to be transmitted over wireless networks to portable devices such as Palm Pilots or laptops for a fraction of the price of traditional closed circuit television (CCTV) systems.

The British government is so enthralled with the technology that it announced plans to increase the number of cameras in England to 2 million over the next three years, principally for law enforcement purposes.

Fry says it's high time that Americans jumped on the surveillance bandwagon.

"They're bloody everywhere in England," Fry said. "It's been working over there and we feel the technology has an application here as well. We're good at what we do and we're going after the markets."

Like CCTV, open circuit television cameras (OCTV) track subjects remotely by tilting, panning, zooming and in some cases, using infrared and motion-detection technology. But the new surveillance systems cost 70 percent less than CCTV systems because they don't require pricey cable installation and dedicated monitoring rooms, Fry said.

"Once it's installed, the system costs as much as it does to make a cell phone call," he said, adding that advances in wireless technology will bolster the market. "We're forecasting substantial growth. The faster the networks get, the faster we become and the more needed we are."

Fry suggested multiple applications for mobile video monitoring: Restaurant patrons could dial into their favorite eateries to check who's there and how busy the joint is; transportation agencies could use it to analyze traffic bottlenecks; paramedics could use it in ambulances to beam images of trauma victims to physicians for guidance.

But Pedagog's biggest market in the United States is probably the same as it is in England: law enforcement.

"If we can get a major law enforcement agency interested in doing a trial, we'd be set," Fry said.

In England, where the unblinking eyes of security cameras are as much a part of the landscape as Big Ben, police argue the systems are one of their best tools for controlling crime.

Although the British Home Office (U.S. equivalent of the Justice Department) surveys say that surveillance cameras are widely accepted by the general public, some analysts disagree.

Several studies by Jason Ditton, the director the Scottish Centre for Criminology and one of the few criminologists to research the effectiveness of CCTV, suggest that the cameras have neither the public support nor the crime-reducing power attributed to them.

Furthermore, Ditton's studies reveal that camera operators routinely show bias by focusing on minorities, the homeless or young men in football jerseys.

The introduction of the cameras into British society was gradual and deliberate, said Simon Davies, president of Privacy International.

"There has been a very astute engineering exercise to introduce CCTV into all levels of society," Davies said. "It has nothing to do with crime control, it has everything to do with politics."

English authorities have used a few widely publicized cases to convince the population that the systems are necessary for their safety. Perhaps the best known -- and most horrific -- case is that of two-year-old James Bulger.

James was abducted in 1993 from a shopping center in Northern England by two 10-year-olds who led the boy to a railway yard and bludgeoned him to death. A video camera captured footage of the toddler being led away, hand-in-hand with one of his attackers. The haunting image was broadcast repeatedly on the nightly news, Davies said.

"The cameras were no assistance in stopping the crime, but the images were repeated so often that the average citizen linked cameras to stopping the murder of babies," Davies said. "They believed that if we have enough cameras and the cameras are better, next time we could have stopped this horrible crime. It's a hysteria here."

Nevertheless, in the decade following James' death, the British government has spent an estimated $350 million installing 300,000 cameras around the country, making it the world leader in video surveillance use.

"These systems are used more and more to police public morals and public order," Davies, including "anti-social" behavior such as littering, drunkenness, evading meters and underage smoking.

Some boroughs have even linked the cameras to face recognition technology, so passersby can be automatically scanned and compared with known criminals.

The only legislation regulating images taken by the cameras is the Data Protection Act, which allows citizens to get copies of video footage taken by the police, Davies said.

One person who has taken advantage of the Act is British comedian Mark Thomas.

Thomas, a strident opponent of surveillance, has performed Irish jigs in front of the cameras, then forced the camera operators to perform the expensive task of pixelating out third parties and giving him a copy of the tape. He's even launched a competition for the most creative film obtained under the Data Protection Act.

But efforts to fire up the citizenry about privacy violations on a large scale have failed, causing one advocacy group to throw in the towel.

"Big Brother has won, we have lost the fight for CCTV regulation, and the Campaign and this website will soon be retired," states the homepage of Watching Them, Watching Us.

Based on his company's experience in England, Pedagog's Fry isn't too concerned about opposition to the technology in the United States.

"Some people think it's an invasion of privacy, but my question is what about the civil liberties of the people being offended?" Fry said. "They have civil liberties and this equipment can protect them."

Betcha those cameras can be jammed and destroyed faster than they can be installed.

Based on his company's experience in England, Pedagog's Fry isn't too concerned about opposition to the technology in the United States.

Let's severely disappoint him. I refuse to live in this safety Nazi's fishbowl. If this lunatic wants to give up all his freedom for safety he can do it in Jolly Old England. We're free people here, dammit, don't let him ever forget it.

The fight against public electronic surveillance will be a long one. If we lose it, we're through as a free nation. It got it's foot in the door with cameras in stores. Now it's moving to traffic cameras. The worst instance occurred at the Super Bowl this year where biometrics were used.

I'm peeking over the slippery slope and I don't like what I see one bit. '1984' is there waiting for us if we do not act NOW.

Betcha those cameras can be jammed and destroyed faster than they can be installed.

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

Do you see no problem where technology allows your every move to be photographed and databased? That certainly isn't what comes to mind when I think of a free country.

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself�anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face� was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime� g. orwell - 1984

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

How were the British able to resist Nazism and Communism for so long? And now they cave into government surveillance. Amazing how stupid those people are.

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

I'm with you. Therefore, be advised I am sending a detachment of military police who will escort you at all times. They will closely monitor and record your every activity. They will be given the right to open and preview your mail, paper and electronic, and will electronically record everything you do on your computer. They will videotape your every waking second, and also videotape you while you sleep.

F'em. Put all the cameras you want to, pass all the gun laws you want to. What comes around goes around when the SHTF anyway. It's all moot.

In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face� was itself a punishable offense.

What's the alleged conspiracy? That if several million surveillance cameras are installed, they will be used to monitor and record behavior in public places, just like they already do in England?

Wow, what a wild theory. These cameras wouldn't possibly be used for that. They must have some other purpose. Since it is so obvious, maybe you could tell us what that purpose is?

Check out the book "1984", by George Orwell, at your local library and read the damn thing! Then, come back and talk to us.

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

You are the one who suffers from some conspiracy fantasy disorder if you think the majority of your fellow citizens are committing some species of malfeasance for which they need to be monitored at all times.

Republicans are already responsible for the Carnivore Project, they are now one step closer...

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

Then I guess you don't mind if I go into your home and see everything you have and everything you do. I mean, if you haven't anything to hide because you are blameless, why would you mind?

You know, we are becoming completely obssessed with everyoone elses lives and completely unable to deal with our own lives. Wonderful.

I like to have privacy. I don't like the idea of my every move being videotaped. I don't want there to be any videos of me with messy hair, or wearing sloppy clothes, or picking my nose. What I do is not the business of law enforcement until I commit a crime.

And another thing. There are people object to being photographed for religious resasons. They believe that if someone takes a picture of them, it steals their soul. I can't remember which religion this is, but I wonder how this would be dealt with if cameras were installed everywhere.

Ain't it great? Voyeurism must be really popular in her majesty's government. Oh well, welfare state was a miserable failure. Time to try out the new and improved police state.

Another way of putting it is if the government can't make everyone happy, they can make them pretend to be happy.

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

There's a lot of activists on this forum. In a campaign of harrassment against activists, a video network would be very useful in tracking them. Do I see a potential scenario in the near future? No. Then again, neither did the German Jews in 1910...

Scott Fry is a traitor. Anyone who supports this low life bastard pig is a traitor.

It is time for the fence sitters to stand up and be counted. YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats and have ANY hope of maintaining your Bill of Rights.

"If we can get a major law enforcement agency interested in doing a trial, we'd be set," Fry said.

Shouldn't have any problem there since they don't care about the Constitution either.

Note to Fry: We don't do things exactly like they do in England. We settled that fact during a small disagreement he may have heard of: The American Revolution.

Dont forget to Let Freedom Ring, Freeper Shoot 2001, Saturday, 14 April, 2001. Much banging and clanging with a smokey old cannon too. We can whack and bash the eastereggs, the Iron Bunny and mayhap a camera too.

In virginia our gubernor, Gilmore, vetoed a proposal this year to put cameras on traffic lights to catch red-light runners. He vetoed it due to privacy concerns. I don't often compliment Republicans, so let the record show I thought that was great.

Yes, I think a few hooded people with axes, or as the next poster says, with guns, could do a lot of damage to this Big Brother tactic.

Let's not forget that we already have them here, watching traffic in some cities, we need to be vigilant.

That's the argument of all totalitarians. Note how they use these cameras against really dangerous criminals such as litterbugs, jaywalkers, smokers and other fiends that should not be allowed to run free in a decent society. /sarcasm in spades

If those cameras are so good for law enforcxement, why has Britain's crime rate gone up since their gun ban?

"What do you have to hide?" precedes every fishing expedition. People who have never been wrongly accused -- and had to pay a high price to prove their innocence -- won't likely understand.

Thanks for a post that illustrates that there's a difference between being a "subject" (them) and a "citizen" (us).

Thank you for your sweeping statement on my country, lets just say you worry about your country and I will worry about mine.

The rise in crime has no correlation with the tighter gun regulation, the crime rise ahs everything to do with a new crime wave stealing mobiles, Burglaries and Car Crime has gone down, the only growing crime is teenagers committing crime against teenagers.

These cameras were first introduced to combat terrorism, they are now set up in most city and town centres, in Britain being a aggressive race, at chucking out time 11 O Clock a stupid licensing law the these centres are suddenly full of young people including a lot of young men looking for aggro, the cameras are used to spot these rowdy elements and send the police to defuse the problem.

Don't I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately that won't solve the problem. There will eventually be millions of these things, and from what I've seen in England they'll be placed in very public places, high up in the air so you can't get to them, like they are in stores. Cameras will watch other cameras, Unlike what many people on this thread think, shooting them won't be possible. You can't really expect to walk down Main Street, nailing them one at a time for mile after mile without being caught.

Although I don't condone lawlessness and wouldn't do so myself, a lot of broken cameras in the early stages of their implementation (which is when they will be most vulnerable to pressure) may dissuade them for a while. OTOH, it could make us look like violent extremists.

Ultimately, the solution to this problem must be peaceful, lawful and political. We must convince our representatives that if they allow cameras to go up, they will lose their jobs. We need to become single issue voters at the local level, since that is where the decision to use public electronic surveillance usually originates. This bodes well for us, since local elections are more easily influenced and won.

Yes I dare say a lot of Europeans whine about America, but a lot of Americans whine about Europe, in fact you would be hard pressed to find a nation that does not have something to whine about.

Me I cant stand whiners, well people who have everything but prefer to adopt a whining victim stance about nothing at all, or the whiner who whines about the sky is falling, or we are all doomed.

What about you are you like me a cheerful sort of chap, or a whining doom sayer.

Yes, all intrusive measures usually come about to combat something big and scary, like terrorism. But that is just the ruse used to convince people that they are necessary. Their real uses, as you mentioned, lie in ordinary law enforcement. Of course you can't convince people that a big-brother atmosphere of millions of cameras is necessary to stop last call rowdiness, so they pull out the big boogyman of terrorism.

Just ask yourself this: if there were no more terrorism, would the cameras come down? I think you know the answer.

"What about you are you like me a cheerful sort of chap, or a whining doom sayer."

I'm a live and let live type person, unless someone or some government tries to deny me my individual sovereignty, then I get mad -- then I get even.

BTW: I lived in Mildenhall for a time, and also go on trips to Whales and parts of England. I rather like the people (accept London, but then people in large cities are rarely �friendly�).

They were first set up to combat terrorism, you know of the North Ireland Conflict, well most of the action took place in North Ireland. Attacks against the RUC, and the Army, I served over there so I have first hand knowledge of the Terrorist threat.

Well in 1994 the IRA tried a new tactic, they started planting Bombs in the City the famous financial district in London. This was considered a real threat, there was enough chaps like me to soak up the low death toll of the security forces, but killing stock brokers it would have had a very bad effect on are economy as all those foreign banks moved out of Britain too safer countries, business especially financial business must always come first, that is as true for your country as mine no matter what we say or think, so they set up a security cordon around the city including these cameras, it was found that the cameras cut crime so they decided to start introducing them o other cities plus the IRA started targeting the other cities so yes they are used to combat both crime and terrorism still a very real threat in Britain.

Steady on there I am a Londoner not just a Londoner but I was born in the East End, a great place except we cant seem to open any decent restaurants, just over priced average food joints

We could talk quite a bit about the Irish conflict, but that would be a whole other thread.

Maybe if England hadn't invaded and stayed in Ireland, terrorism wouldn't be a problem, and cameras wouldn't be necessary? It seems your country ended up paying for its foreign aggression with its privacy.

Yes, I know our country is equally guilty in foreign aggression. I don't approve of it. I hope the same thing (terrorism, cameras) doesn't happen here.

Socialism is the first step towards tyranny, and Great Britain is well on its way to becoming a police state. Didn't the Brits fight against these types of fascist Gestapo tactics during World War II?

I hope so as well, the peace process looks rather unsteady at the moment, if you ever want to debate the North Ireland Conflict I will be more than happy to debate with you and anyone else on a thread started here.

I served three tours over there from the urban to bandit country, I also have an Irish Mother so I have a perspective from both sides.

"...The faster the networks get, the faster we become and THE MORE WE ARE NEEDED..."

Which, as I see it, is none whatsoever! WHEN are we gonna' have enough Big Brother watching our every move, listening to every word and reading every e-mail? Now they've got to watch us walk down the sidewalk too. Sounds a lot like Singapore to me, that bastion of liberty where they cane you for chewing gum.

Just what is it that you are doing that you don't want monitored? What is it that you have to hide?

Have you ever thought about how your every action might look on film? The idea that the camera doesn't lie is a lie. Many things on still or video film appear to be something that they are not. If you were not aware of the profile that the watchers behind the cameras were looking for you wouldn't know what types of behaviour/clothing to avoid doing/wearing yourself. If the profiles they were looking for were well known it would be a simple matter for criminals to avoid them. Do you really want to be stopped and frisked and/or questioned for possible shoplifting, theft, littering, pickpocketing, loitering, soliciting a prostitute, ad nauseum based on what it looked like you were doing in a fuzzy black and white surveillance video?

Oh right. You wouldn't care, you've got nothing to hide. Just a small inconvenience for a little temporary safety. Unless of course your boss happens to drive by and sees you being frisked and doesn't want to take your word that it was just a mistake.

I sat in on a meeting of the Judiciary Committee of the Georgia State House in February. Among the items being discussed was uniform statewide law for digital cameras at traffic signals to ticket those running red lights. Sensors would approprately trigger the camera to get a shot of the car entering the intersection on red and the car's license tag. Ticket shows up in the mail.

What I learned is that these are already being installed in several municipalities here in GA. They just have local enabling legislation at the municipality level.

How long before these proliferating red light systems, plus cruise cards (automated toll pay systems), other cameras, and other systems useful for tracking individuals (LoJack? cell phones?), are used to feed into a central government database for a real-time tracking systems?

Yes, it's a paranoid view of the future. And my read of the history of the 20th century is that there is much out there to be paranoid about, especially when it comes to governments.

Big Brother is already watching you. How much more will we allow?

A 7mm Rem Mag bump.

Kinda noisy, though. You wouldn't be able to do that (much) without getting noticed, at least in the populated areas where these things are going first.