CCTV Cameras

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2008, 18:24

Are you concerned the cameras may catch you having a wee eck?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2008, 19:06

Now seriously.

Unless 100% of those convicted by CCTV camera evidence subsequently re-offends there appeas to be prime facie evidence that they prevent some crimes.

Police officers do prevent specific crimes from happening but they do not prevent crime; full stop. Eck's fine example of the Lothian Road head to head could easily have had the effect of dispersing crime to other areas of the city that evening. Just like the effect of a CCTV camera. (except that CCTV costs a lot less)

Eck, have you considered that the CCTV cameras on DPS are there partly because it as an arterial route to one or more of the citiy's crime hot spots? Vehicle movements in DPS could be used to solve or even prevent crimes happening elsewhere.

I understand that for some considerable time to police have been using technology to track every vehicle movement in and out of the city. I imagine that this can be really useful in murder and drug investigations, as just two examples.

Finally, DPS may be a quiet street but the summer before last there was a hideous daylight fracas there. Involving 2 cars, swords, machetes and about 9 people. It got to court, they had some witnesses but ultimately the participants would not give evidence against each other. CCTV may have helped convict.

I don't think you have anything to fear from CCTV.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 20 Sep 2008, 19:15

Porty wrote: I don't think you have anything to fear from CCTV.

Well said Porty, and I specifically (or however you spell it) agree with your closing comment as quoted above.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2008, 00:52

Thanks Michael much appreciated.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2008, 11:11

On reflection this is may be no more that the usual gripes from the NIMBY's up Duddingston Park way. They don't want schools in their vicinity, they don't want childern in "their" parks, they don't want bus shelters outside their houses and now they don't want crime prevention hardware that will likely be to the greater good. Yet they choose to live in a city.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 22 Sep 2008, 13:43

Eck wrote: What stops people committing crimes is a police presence.

Actually I'm pretty sure it's education and an installment of moral and ethical values by the peer group that prevents crime.
But until people start understanding that they need to take responsibility for their actions as well as responsibility for the actions of their dependents we need to take measures like these which, are put in place in an effort to protect the willing participants of our society.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2008, 16:56

Grunk-that is way too sensible for this environment!!

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 09 Oct 2008, 12:31

Porty wrote:On reflection this is may be no more that the usual gripes from the NIMBY's up Duddingston Park way. They don't want schools in their vicinity, they don't want childern in "their" parks, they don't want bus shelters outside their houses and now they don't want crime prevention hardware that will likely be to the greater good. Yet they choose to live in a city.

NIMBY?

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 09 Oct 2008, 13:20

Eck wrote: NIMBY?

Not In My Back Yard

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 09 Oct 2008, 13:37

michael_traill wrote:
Eck wrote: NIMBY?
Not In My Back Yard

Ah right. Thanks for that.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 13 Oct 2008, 11:32

Most of you have expressed your thoughts about CCTV cameras, how do you all feel about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... es.privacy

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Oct 2008, 15:35

I think it is an unacceptable intrusion of privacy.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 13 Oct 2008, 15:37

It's a bit worrying when there are stories like this going about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7667507.stm

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 13 Oct 2008, 17:12

Eck wrote:Most of you have expressed your thoughts about CCTV cameras, how do you all feel about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... es.privacy

If it is true, then that is surveilling people who are inside their homes. Which is not good.

Although I think a lot of communications are already scanned and alarms are set to trigger on certain key words, but unless the trigger has occurred peoples' anonymity is generally protected.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Oct 2008, 17:46

Of course we should be concerned and that is why we need groups like Liberty. It's all about balance. How much of our privacy are we prepared to compromise? Who will have access to this database and how will they use the information? And how secure is the data?

But let's not get carried away. The government couldn't care less whether you are having an affair or not, your sexual predilictions (unless they are criminal) or indeed you in general. The fact is you are just not that important.

That's not to say that this type of information couldn't be used by other regimes to persecute political enemies, minorities or 'deviants' but let's not confuse the technology with the use to which it might be put.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 14 Oct 2008, 10:39

Bob Jefferson wrote:Of course we should be concerned and that is why we need groups like Liberty. It's all about balance. How much of our privacy are we prepared to compromise? Who will have access to this database and how will they use the information? And how secure is the data?

But let's not get carried away. The government couldn't care less whether you are having an affair or not, your sexual predilictions (unless they are criminal) or indeed you in general. The fact is you are just not that important.

That's not to say that this type of information couldn't be used by other regimes to persecute political enemies, minorities or 'deviants' but let's not confuse the technology with the use to which it might be put.

The fact that i'm trying to point out is that the information is not currently in the possession of the authorities. The MOD, which supposedly has one of the highest levels of security in the world, have lost the information of 1.7 million people which may include Bank Details, National Insurance numbers etc. The Government have said that any Identity Register would be based on Military levels of security... just like the MOD one. There is a concern about why any Government would require so much information, but the simple fact that they cannot safeguard that same information is not getting carried away, it's happened not just once but on a number of occasions. The information which has been lost would be a fraudsters dream.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Oct 2008, 16:57

I agree that security is a real issue and it's difficult to believe how the various agencies who have lost data could be so careless. Some of the recent cases have been laughable. Government ministers losing hard copies of sensitive files on the train, databases sent by post - there is no excuse for that sort of thing.

But technical solutions are on the way:

'Unbreakable' encryption unveiled

Post by **wangi** » 14 Oct 2008, 17:39

Bob Jefferson wrote:But technical solutions are on the way:

'Unbreakable' encryption unveiled

Problem is... that the problem isn't a technical one. It's organisational, it's administrative, it's poor working practices...

You hear of these databases being protected - what they are talking about is a password protected XLS or ZIP file. That's a joke, that's not encryption.

There are already many strong encryption schemes.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Oct 2008, 18:33

Sure, you can have all the protocols under the sun but if they aren't adhered to then you have a problem.

The problem may not be a technical one but I believe there are technical solutions. We just need to take the stupid humans out of the equation.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 16 Oct 2008, 08:37

If something can be encrypted then there has to be the technology for it to be decoded and read. Therefore technology is not the answer.

The protocols that are in place are ridiculous. The fact that the MoD had the information stored in a 'secure' area meant that there was no need to encrypt the data

. The fact that it needs to be stored in a 'secure' area means that it should be encrypted.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 26 Jan 2009, 19:59

BeachBum wrote:I only just noticed the city in view cctv camera along the High Street near the kings road roundabout, has that been there for ages?

I knew about the one along at pizzahut which city in view operate, and the cctv unit outside the Police station but not the one at the roundabout.

See there is a new addition to the public space cctv operated in Porty. A new one along the High Street.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 13 Feb 2009, 08:02

From the BBC News website 13/2/09:

I wonder if "Eck" has seen this. He wasnt pleased about regular CCTV cameras so he will be even less chuffed about these ones being given a try out.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 13 Feb 2009, 11:40

I'm sure that these are already in use in England. They also have cameras which are able to transmit the operators voice to tell people to stop doing something or warn them of something.

"They won't record conversations" - My erse.

They will have to record conversations. If the camera is drawn to something because of the noise then surely this will have to be presented in court as evidence.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 26 Feb 2009, 22:08

Eck wrote:I'm sure that these are already in use in England. They also have cameras which are able to transmit the operators voice to tell people to stop doing something or warn them of something.

The SfC department at CEC has been using a similar sytem for years, albeit a rather more low tech option. Next to numerous cameras is a two way inercom system that is activated by the person operating the CCTV camera in order to speak to someone if they appear to be in distress or to shout an instruction. Its a bit more low tech than having the system integrated into the actual CCTV camera.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 11 Mar 2009, 19:25

You have probs seen the mobile CCTV unit a million times.

According to the Evening News its out and about again.

Pupils CCTV plan to catch dog mess offenders.

And ofcourse the fixed CCTV installation near your home Eck can also be used in such a manner in your neck of the woods. Providing two people are watching it at the same time whilst it records. Recorded evidence that wasnt being watched at the time is no good in the case of dog foul. It must be witnessed live by two people.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 11:35

BeachBum wrote:And ofcourse the fixed CCTV installation near your home Eck can also be used in such a manner in your neck of the woods. Providing two people are watching it at the same time whilst it records. Recorded evidence that wasnt being watched at the time is no good in the case of dog foul. It must be witnessed live by two people.

"Single witness and corroboration
33. The Bill provides that for this offence it will be lawful to convict on the evidence of one witness (for example, an authorised officer)." Taken from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... 55s1pm.pdf

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 11:43

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... size=30418

1 Offence
(1)Subject to section 3, if a dog defecates at any time upon any place to which this Act applies and a person who is in charge of the dog at that time fails immediately to remove the faeces from the place, that person shall be guilty of an offence unless—
(a)the person has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so; or
(b)the owner, occupier and other person or authority having control of the place has consented (generally or specifically) to the person failing to do so.
(2)A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(3)For the purposes of this section—
(a)a person who habitually has possession of a dog shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog;
(b)placing the faeces in a receptacle which is provided for the purpose, or for the disposal of waste, shall be sufficient removal from the place;
(c)throwing, depositing, dropping or otherwise putting the faeces onto any other place to which this Act applies shall not be sufficient removal from the place; and
(d)being unaware of the defecation (whether by reason of not being in the vicinity or otherwise), or not having a device for or other suitable means of removing the faeces, shall not be a reasonable excuse for failing to remove the faeces.
(4)In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be lawful to convict the accused on the evidence of one witness.

A brush up on the legislation would do you good before attempting a smert erse comment

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:02

So I put that comment about being a smart erse right back to you, I never said that I was refering to law, my comments included best practice that we work to at the Council in relation to the protocol in place between the relevant council service and the council service I work for.

I have no need to know things which do not affect me. I work to the arrangments and protocols in place between my council service and the other council service involved.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:10

Ofcourse you are correct in that I shoud not assume that the protocols are similar for other members of staff. There are a host of different staff groups who use the CCTV van.

My main concern is the CCTV which im responsible for. And I will always adhere to the working practices put in place by CEC. Even if in some places they exceed what is required by law.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:10

It's not like the Council to waste resources eh.

What is the point in that when the legislation clearly points out that one witness is sufficient- one of the few crimes in Scotland to have this proof of evidence. It is therefore, more than enough evidence to have one witness and CCTV evidence to secure a conviction. Plus, at the end of the day, very few people will fully contest a charge and commit to a trial when there is CCTV evidence for a £40 fine.

The Police would take one witness statement and charge the offender. Why are the Council different?

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:11

Eck wrote:
The Police would take one witness statement and charge the offender. Why are the Council different?

Shouldnt that be a question directed to the Council?

I would have thought that many organisations have differing working practices. Perhaps an example being when a company puts in more health & safety measures than are required by law. Pointless ? and why do something if someone else isnt doing it?

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:14

I thought you may be able to answer this. Did you not question when briefed with the protocol, why an extra resource was having to be utilised when one was enough and one witness plus CCTV evidence is more than enough.

Just seems a complete waste to me.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:17

BeachBum wrote: Shouldnt that be a question directed to the Council?

I would have thought that many organisations have differing working practices. Perhaps an example being when a company puts in more health & safety measures than are required by law. Pointless ? and why do something if someone else isnt doing it?

Health and Safety measures can save peoples life or their well being. Providing proof of evidence of dog fouling doesn't really measure on the same scale.

This is just another strand of red tape that is un-necessary.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:18

Eck wrote:I thought you may be able to answer this. Did you not question when briefed with the protocol, why an extra resource was having to be utilised when one was enough and one witness plus CCTV evidence is more than enough.

Just seems a complete waste to me.

Nope. No need to question it. Dog foul is a very minute aspect of my job. If I questioned every policy & protocol that I work to I wouldnt have time to any work at all.

Also, im not sure why it would be a waste. If im with a co-worker anyway, and they seen it anyway, im not sure why thats a waste because giving a brief incident statment takes less than ten minutes and the provising of stills & footage of CCTV takes less than 10 minutes (including paperwork). Its not like extra esources are being drafted in.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:20

Eck wrote: This is just another strand of red tape that is un-necessary.

Perhaps you should start a campaign group.

Have you started one against CCTV? I seem to recall you posting complaing about the council putting CCTV facilities in the local area?