CCTV and ID cards

[Shifty22]

I have no issue with being on cctv when in a shop for example but I don't like being tracked. In a shop you have a higher risk of a crime taking place ie robbery or theft but on the streets the risk is no higher than if you're at home or work. Most of the time the cctv footage is not clear enough to secure a conviction anyway without additonal evidence. I am not a criminal so I don't expect to be watched like one.

The DNA database has some positive uses but equally has the potential to be corrupted. You "could" be set up for any crime once they have you on file, if they can't convict you for one thing they can just use your DNA to fit you up for something else or actually plant evidence to secure a conviction.

As it stands already, the police can pretty much work out where you are on a daily basis just by your driving license, passport and place of work, do I really want them knowing what i'm doing in my free time?

I genuinly believe that cctv does not have a positive effect of reducing crime in the same way that speed cameras do not have a positive effect on reducing accidents.

The line of "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to worry about" p*sses me off, you can actually be arrested under terrorism laws with no right to a phone call, a solicitor or even to be told what crime you have committed. If you are really that much of a threat or an inconvenience to the police/government, it's not inconceivable that poeple could go missing without a trace is it?

We are supposed to be free, being monitored 24/7 is not what i'd class as free.

 

[snico]

Tha majority of the cases are people trying to 'get off' with speeding and other traffic offences and looking for the smallest loopholes possible

 

[Lincsbodger]

I have no issue with being on cctv when in a shop for example but I don't like being tracked. Ina shop you have a higher risk of a crime taking place ie robbery or theft but on the streets the risk is no higher than if you're at home or work. Most of the time the cctv footage is not clear enough to secure a conviction anyway without additonal evidence. I am not a criminal so I don't expect to be watched like one.

I agree. Since its no use in reducing crime, whats the point of it ?

The DNA database has some positive uses but equally has the potential to be corrupted. You "could" be set up for any crime once they have you on file, if they can't convict you for onr thing they can just use your DNA to fit you up for something else or actually plant evidence to secure a conviction.

The ID card database and ID cards were de facto a charter of ID theft as well. ALL Big state databases are a threat to our freedom.

As it stands already, the police can pretty much work out where you are on a daily basis just by your driving license, passport and place of work, do I really want them knowing what i'm doing in my free time?

I genuinly believe that cctv does not have a positive effect of reducing crime in the same way that speed cameras do not have a positive effect on reducing accidents.

I believe the evidence suggest its a proven fact.

The line of "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to worry about" p*sses me off, you can actually be arrested under terrorism laws with no right to a phone call, a solicitor or even to be told what crime you have committed. If you are really that much of a threat or an inconvenience to the police/government, it's not inconceivable that poeple could go missing without a trace is it?

Of even be killed for it - Dr David Kelly, for example, killed b ySpecial Branch in case he opened his gob about the lying prick Blair.

We are supposed to be free, being monitored 24/7 is not what i'd class as free.

Too right.

 

[snico]

Of even be killed for it - Dr David Kelly, for example, killed b ySpecial Branch in case he opened his gob about the lying p***k Blair

Are you serious

 

[Thermo]

dont patronise me, or you'll be debating on your own...........

why the insults? are you not capable of answering without that? Im not patronising im answering your points which in my view are weak and unsubstantiated

if you know how pace works, then why do you say there is no right of silence?

so which two cases are these then?

by the way if you want to insult me because i voice an opinion on a thread you post on, then dont bother asking for my help in another section.

 

[imamartian]

Fact is, it doesn't matter how many facts are thrust under the nose of any dogged supporter...

I agree totally, but that works both ways.

You chose not to respond to the 3% figure - why's that?

What 3% figure?

But if cctv is so good, and given that the UK has the highest concentration of them in Europe, it's safe to assume we have less crime isn't it?

CCTV isn't that good... quality can be very poor. But at least it gives the law more of a chance to solve a crime.
And there are many many reasons why we don't have less crime than elsewhere. Govmnt policies, standards in society, a cr@p CPS etc etc.
Plus cameras aren't there (IMO) to reduce crime, but to help solve crime.

But the answer of the indoctrinated is always, well we just need more...

I'm not indoctrinated... just don't mind being filmed, or the authorities knowing what i'm doing when i'm in the town centre.

That is the kind of 'logic' (?) that has made it 'acceptable' to use covert surveillance for such heinous crimes as dog fouling, whilst being unable to deal with serious ones...

I support that too... have you ever had a young kid slip over in a pile of stinking dogsh!te? People who let their dogs do that and not clean it up are scum.

But since you aren't worried about losing your privacy, how come youareamartian..what's your real name, if you have nothing to hide in a public place?

That's different.... i trust the authorities, but i don't put my name on here because i don't trust other people.

 

[imamartian]

I have no issue with being on cctv when in a shop for example but I don't like being tracked. Ina shop you have a higher risk of a crime taking place ie robbery or theft but on the streets the risk is no higher than if you're at home or work. Most of the time the cctv footage is not clear enough to secure a conviction anyway without additonal evidence. I am not a criminal so I don't expect to be watched like one.

Disagree. The most likely place for crime is on the road (speeding/tax/insurance etc) but it depends what sort of crime you're talking about. I think film footage of a group of thugs stamping on someone's head at 2am is essential.

The DNA database has some positive uses but equally has the potential to be corrupted. You "could" be set up for any crime once they have you on file, if they can't convict you for onr thing they can just use your DNA to fit you up for something else or actually plant evidence to secure a conviction.

Absolutely everything could be corrupted or abused. But you have to weigh up the benefits of a full DNA database against the small risk of corruption.

As it stands already, the police can pretty much work out where you are on a daily basis just by your driving license, passport and place of work, do I really want them knowing what i'm doing in my free time?

Yes you could be tracked by many means... but do they? is anyone actually monitoring you? And you make it sound like you'd be monitored all the time... if you go for a walk in the country, or play golf, or visit the beach... or go fishing etc etc you're unlikely to be on cctv.

I genuinly believe that cctv does not have a positive effect of reducing crime in the same way that speed cameras do not have a positive effect on reducing accidents.

IMO cctv is not designed to reduce crime, but more to help solve crimes

The line of "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to worry about" p*sses me off, you can actually be arrested under terrorism laws with no right to a phone call, a solicitor or even to be told what crime you have committed. If you are really that much of a threat or an inconvenience to the police/government, it's not inconceivable that poeple could go missing without a trace is it?

but you have to trust someone in this world.... and being arrested as you describe has got to be a one in a million situation surely? so hardly worth getting worked up about?

We are supposed to be free, being monitored 24/7 is not what i'd class as free.

nobody in this world is monitored 24/7 - in reality, you're probably on cctv much less than an hour a day.
And do you truly think we're free? we're not free at all.

 

[snico]

Well actually......no. Labour has removed so many of our rights and liberties, and warped the judicial system so badly that the very tenant of 'innocent until proven guilt' is currently not true. Fortunately, this government is going to correct that, but pointing CCTV at everyone everywhere is not the solution, but IS part of the problem

Well you have Mr John Major to thank for that, he is the man who introduced a massive government run CCTV initiative and investment

 

[Shifty22]

Ok to simplify the issue with regards to cctv, if your boss at work for example said, "we are considering installing cctv cameras but we will only install them if all the staff say "yes" to it", would you say "yes" to them being installed? If you would say "yes", would the positives outweigh the negatives ie being watched 9-5 5 days a week on the off chance that some unlikely event may take place?

I definately wouldn't, not because I don't do my job or I have anything to hide, I genuinly would feel uneasy about my superiors being able to scrutinise everything I do without having a choice.

I think you'll find the "superiors" reference I made could easily be adapted to be the police or councils.

 

[Shifty22]

Why do people on here always have to resort to the tory arguement whenever they can't back up their opinions? maybe if you're soo anti tories you could perhaps question why Labour didn't change it in the 12 odd years they had in charge?

Not a dig guys but Lincs does put up a good arguement and contributes to the debate even if he has the minority view, perhaps slightly less political references wouldn't go amiss?

 

[snico]

Its called a debate.....backs up the opinion quite easily. Lincs stated that the Tories are going to correct what Labour have done,

I just pointed out that it was in fact the Tories that introduced an initiative to put CCTV on every street corner!

 

[imamartian]

CCTV cameras are usually installed where most crime and vandalism occurs.... so town centres, railway stations etc.

The people that commit these sorts of crime are quite often jobless or drunk (or both). So it's highly unlikely that these sort of criminals would be in an office between 9 - 5.

 

[ellal]

What 3% figure?

hello...

"Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe."

Plus cameras aren't there (IMO) to reduce crime, but to help solve crime.

Not what the propaganda says is it...and as above they're not much good at solving much are they. And yet they are 'sold' as a panacea to crime!

I'm not indoctrinated... just don't mind being filmed, or the authorities knowing what i'm doing when i'm in the town centre.

Baaa!

That's different.... i trust the authorities, but i don't put my name on here because i don't trust other people.

But 'authority' is made up of 'other people'...what makes them trustworthy?

 

[imamartian]

hello...

That's very polite... or did you forget to put "d1ckhe@d" after that too?

"Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe."

As i said earlier... i think there are many other reasons for this... i.e. cr@p CPS.. and too many crims being let off etc.
Plus, that's 3% of crimes that wouldn't have been solved without cameras.

Plus cameras aren't there (IMO) to reduce crime, but to help solve crime.

Not what the propaganda says is it...and as above they're not much good at solving much are they. And yet they are 'sold' as a panacea to crime!

The cameras are fine at what they do... it's the poxy criminal justice system that's at fault

I'm not indoctrinated... just don't mind being filmed, or the authorities knowing what i'm doing when i'm in the town centre.

Baaa!

Just for a minute there ellal, i thought you'd turned into a sheep

That's different.... i trust the authorities, but i don't put my name on here because i don't trust other people.

But 'authority' is made up of 'other people'...what makes them trustworthy?

You know what i meant, people employed and trained and bestowed with the appropriate authority (and you being the cynic at this point will complain about corruption... and i agree with you on that). And i don't want Joe Public knowing my details from a web forum.

 

[Lincsbodger]

Major was only in power 3 years, labour was in power 14 years, and in 14 years it was they who expanded the whoel thing far far beyond anything envisaged, as they rolled out there police surveillance state.

Im afraid you cant try and absolve labour from blame here, they are indeed the major protagonists, whilst atthe same time embarking o na massive program to rob us of our democratic and legal rights, and expand the monitoring and documentation of us.

We were well on the road to a National Socialism thanks to Labour.