BIG Brother Has arrived--NOW

livvy wrote: That information alone wouldn't infer guilty knowledge on your part of course, but it is never the less something that I would consider prudent & good practice for the Police to look into. Cameras will help with this.

If I am not a criminal, it is none of the police's business where I travel. Prudence and good practice be d@mned.

I never claimed to be reasonable.

I do value my privacy. I fear that I am in a very small minority.

livvy wrote: Your movements can be watched on CCTV over lots of our city centres, in most shops, in the workplace, in government/council buildings, on our trains & buses etc etc. Watching cars moving around is no more intrusive than that, infact maybe less so as it tracks the car movements, it doesn't focus on the individuals.

Did I say I approve of CCTV watching me every time I set foot out of my house?

And from the crime stats I see, CCTV doesn't actually prevent or reduce crime, or particularly do wonders for the arrest rate, either. Every so often, there is a major bit of PR for CCTV as someone is caught using one, but for every one of those there must be a hundred where the CCTV is less than useless. (Jean de Menezes, anyone?)

So I wonder why the police are so keen on keeping an eye on all of us, when it doesn't seem to work on crims or on the police.

livvy wrote: CCTV is used to great effect with prevention & detection of crime.

Really? Please prove this assertion.

livvy wrote: Many arrests & successful prosecutions can be attributed to the evidence it provides. From shoplifters, to assaults & public order on friday/saturday nights in city centres, criminal damage to cars, vandalism to public property, armed robbery, even murders. The numbers & differing types of offences that it has been instrumental in contributing to seeing justice done & those breaking it brought to count are huge.

Huge, eh? Don't suppose you have any numbers? I have had a car broken into within view of a CCTV and all the police did was issue me with a crime report number so that I could claim from my insurance. So the CCTV didn't prevent the crime and clearly wasn't much use in bringing anyone to justice.

In fact, the only real use for CCTV seems to be to provide the Daily Mail with articles "retracing the last tragic steps" of some innocent who snuffed it.

In the mean time, if facial recognition software ever does get to work properly, one of these days they'll be able to keep track of us all in a fully automated way with CCTV in the same way that ANPR does.

spokey wrote: In fact, the only real use for CCTV seems to be to provide the Daily Mail with articles "retracing the last tragic steps" of some innocent who snuffed it.

You really should stop reading that paper spokey!

What this comes down to is how bad you percieve the threat of crime including terrorism. Is is better to reduce individual freedom in order to help prevent another terrorist attack or should we maintain our freedom and accept that terrorism is a part of life? I have heard arguiements for both sides and am currently undecided.

I don't think that cameras themselves pose a great threat to our freedom at the moment but it only takes a change of government to make it a different matter entirely.

livvy wrote: My viewpoint is that I don't care if the Police have access to where my car is moving at all times. I'd rather have some of the protection that the cameras offer in helping the Police catch criminals.

And I do care if the police have access to where my car is moving at all times. It's none of their business.

I also disagree strongly with the erosion of all our freedoms to catch criminals. Crime pays far too bl00dy well, and if you're caught, you get six months of cushy life with a Playstation and internet access. I'd start with that, before I advocated a state where the police can watch our every move effortlessly.

I don't think the ANPR system will do anything to stop another 7/7, and yet, just like ID cards, that is the threat that is being used to justify this fascist rubbish. The Soviets were rank amateurs, the SS was a mere bagatelle. For a truly invasive, all-seeing state, come to Britain in the 21st century.

It's what your parents and your grand-parents died for in two World Wars!

Nigel wrote: This is alongside my own thoughts Spokey. I'm undecided at best, coming down on your side at worst....not that I think we actually have much of a say in it, I'm of the opinion its just going to happen.

Welcome Nigel to the Realist/Fatalist's world!

I'm against Livvy...I think, not that I want to frustrate the police, although I think they use the media to over egg the terrorist stuff, I'm thinking against this as I'm afraid the government will missuse it for other purposes.

I'd be happier if it was just for police tracking purposes, and couldn't be used to convict for speeding or gathering of data for charging us to use the roads.

thepits wrote: Nigel wrote: This is alongside my own thoughts Spokey. I'm undecided at best, coming down on your side at worst....not that I think we actually have much of a say in it, I'm of the opinion its just going to happen. Welcome Nigel to the Realist/Fatalist's world!

..and I'm another member.

There's no point arguing about whether you like it or not, the government (Bliar) does what it (he) wants anyway. Plod are going to stop you anyway if they want to - I've been followed before and I've made it known that I knew, the difference is you won't know when you're being watched and I guess you will get used to it.. eventualy.

One plus point, if plod are harrasing you in the way that they drive they too will be on cctv (ie tailgating/following), the only thing is they seam to have the power to make footage dissapear..