CCTV Cameras

[Eck]

What's everyones thoughts on the Council run CCTV Cameras? One has just appeared in Duddingston Park South at the junction with Magdalene. Initially I thought that the large ominous black poles were going to be for the new Greenway cameras, however it appears that they are for the Council run CCTV cameras. Just from looking around it would appear that there will be another one going up opposite the Lady Nairn hotel. Keep an eye out around the area and i'm sure that there will be more popping up. There was no notice to any residents in the area that the overt surveillance device was being installed, it just appeared.

I am supportive of CCTV Cameras in areas where there is expectant trouble, eg: town centres etc, however, when one of these 'all monitoring' devices lands in your own street, in which there is (touch wood) relatively little trouble, it does take you back. In truth, these cameras have not reduced crime at all in any area of the country. All they have done is displace the problem. Looking at the costs of running these cameras, would the money not be better invested in a youth project. There is the initial erection of the camera and installation of it, then this has to be maintained. Above all this an operator would have to monitor the camera. At present there is usually a maximum of three people monitoring the Edinburgh system which has around 3 banks of screen each with around 20 screens in each bank. The monitor has two specific screens which they can monitor and record, plus they can only maneuver one camera at one time (although colleagues can assist if there is an incident unraveling). It is clear to me that as more cameras are installed, for the system to run effectively and most pro-efficiently, more monitors have to be employed. I would estimate that these employees of the Council will get paid upwards of £15,000 pa, at least, possibly more.

The question that should be asked is, would another area of the community benifit from a portion of this money? For example, would the sports clubs in the area gain from a little financial help to run an initiative to enroll more kids who are slipping through the net? After this years massive reduction in charity funding across the board, I would think the answer is 'yes'... and a resounding one at that.

I'd also question the usefulness of the CCTV cameras. They have never really prevented crime. In town on any given day or night of the week you will still see people fighting, urinating and stealing all in the gaze of the CCTV Cameras. The cameras do help the police solve crimes as there is a greater chance of the culprits being identified. I think that you have to look at this fact to understand what the cameras modus operandi is. Is it to solve crime, or is it to monitor the society and aid the detection figures? The police will be happy to tell us year after year that crime is being solved at a greater rate than ever and part of this reason is down to CCTV. This sounds like great news however there are a few points here;

(1) Does a crime being solved bring back anyones property if there house is broken into? No, very rarely do the police ever recover stolen property. Coupled with the fact that your property has been stolen you also have the feeling of your private family houses integrity being breached. CCTV does not stop this feeling or the loss or property including treasured memories.

(2) The solving of a crime is one thing, however, what is rarely highlighted is the conviction rate. Why we are constantly pumped full of figures from the police is unbeknown to me. We need to look at the final product; the court case and their conviction rate of these offences. It is all well and good that the police have caught someone and have taken them off the street for a few hours, or at most 24 hours, however, what is the point if there is no outcome at the other end. It makes the police and their detection rate look good, but if they cannot secure the conviction and a remedy, be it a custodial one or otherwise, then the detection of a crime is merely a figure boosting exercise and a public relations boost. Are CCTV Cameras securing convictions? If the young guy with the hoodie on cannot be identified then the camera is only going to be able to see his clothing and this will not be enough to convict someone- so in this scenario, yes, the police will possibly get and charge their man; but the courts will probably not go ahead with the case due to problems with identification.

(3) A greater detection rate does not bring with it a reduced crime rate.

(4) One big plus point that has been suggested for CCTV Cameras is that it gets officers on the scene of a crime quicker. Is this the case? Yes, probably so, however, if there was less cameras and more officers would we have more officers patrolling the streets and with their presence alone prevent that crime even happening? We'll never know as we are now in a surveillance society and the reliance on technology is overwhelming. It is also worth pointing out that CCTV cameras raise the crime level. The cameras pick up incidents that usually would not have been reported to police and which in all truth don't need to be reported to police. For example a boyfriend and girlfriend having an arguement after a night out. (By arguement, i mean a non-violent one). How many people can say that they have never argued with their partner either after a night out or even during the day? A CCTV camera can pick this up and have officers on the street taking your details. This is then recorded as an incident which may need solved.

All in all, I feel like there is far too much emphasis being put on technology and also our liberty. We are constantly being spied upon and we are letting it happen. There is the old mantra "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about." The thing that I am worried about is that we are almost in an Orwellian society with talking CCTV Stations in Glasgow and Leads plus cameras which can detect an arguement by monitoring pitch, sound and speed of dialect surrounding it. What is the greatest difference between Orwells 1984 and now... well the people of Oceania at least knew that they were being suppressed. We are gradually taking things for granted and allowing our private lives to be monitored by a faceless being.

The basic question is, i feel, do we want crime solved or do we want it reduced? In an ideal world we'd have both. However, I'd rather have crime reduced and i feel that the highly intrusive Council spy cameras (CCTV) are not the tool to do this. They are merely a tool in their figures battle.

[Lava Lamp]

There is the old mantra "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about."

How about a new mantra... "If you've something to hide then you might get caught on cctv."


sounds ok to me

[Eck]

Does that mean that you are happy for diminished liberty and the right of privacy to become defunct?

[BeachBum]

I dont have any probs with street cams to be honest.

I dont have anything to hide, so the street cameras dont bother me, someone can watch me shopping, or speaking in the street, or see what im wearing etc etc; I really couldnt care....lol

[Eck]

How would you feel if there was a camera outside your house which had the ability to view inside your house?

I also have a knowledge of the operators of the City of Edinburgh Council CCTV camera operators and have viewed footage which has been deemed 'unofficial training footage'.

[Lava Lamp]

[BeachBum]

[Eck]

[Porty]

[BeachBum]

[Lava Lamp]

[ali]

[wangi]

[BeachBum]

[Eck]

[Lava Lamp]

[Eck]

[BeachBum]

[Dadaist]

[BeachBum]

[Dadaist]

[Eck]

[Porty]

[BeachBum]

[Grunk]

[BeachBum]

[Porty]

[Eck]

As predicted the CCTV Camera opposite the Lady Nairne is now installed.

I think that a CCTV Camera is unlikey to hit you with a police baton.

I have no problem with a Police Officer walking about on any street, however, CCTV Cameras do not move. They are in a fixed position and have the capabilities to view into peoples homes. Police Officers don't tend to be over 15 metres in height and are able to see into peoples back gardens either.

[Bob Jefferson]

Eck, I think one point that you are missing is that, in most cases, local people lobby long and hard to get these cameras installed in their neighbourhoods. The majority of people recognise that the cameras are effective in deterring crime, certainly in displacing crime, in protecting lives and property and as a tool for assisting police in indentifying the perpetrators of crime.

When a camera was installed in Rosefield Park a few years ago, there were one or two people who had concerns initially. However, pretty much overnight, the problems we had been experiencing with large groups of drunken youths and associated noise and vandalism disappeared and everyone was very grateful.

Sure, they moved on to Joppa Quarry Park and caused havoc there. No-one is pretending that cameras are the answer but they have an important part to play.

As for the more sinister use of cameras to pry into people's private lives that you suggest, I think it's Google you need to be more concerned about.

[Eck]

No one in Duddingston Park South asked for CCTV Cameras to be installed in a street/ area of the street where there are relatively few crimes, certainly not enough to warrant having a CCTV camera installed.

Cameras are not effective in deterring crime. Crime figures are rising, the only difference being that some solvency rates are increased due to CCTV evidence. However, and it's a big however, a CCTV image of someone in the vicinity of a crime is not enough to convict someone of the crime, therefore the solvency rates of the police do not reflect the successful prosecutions in the courts. So, you have to ask yourself, is it worth the police knowing who committed a crime if we cannot put them successfully through the judicial system? Would it not be more beneficial to pay for a police officer to be on the street and patrolling than it is to have a camera monitor a few streets all the time?

As we have seen CCTV cameras do not prevent crime, if it did crime figures would be falling and we would not have people getting caught on CCTV committing crimes. Think of the percentage increase of cameras in the UK over the past 10 years, if the CCTV systems had been successful would there not have been a decrease in crime? What stops people committing crimes is a police presence. There is a very small percentage of crimes where people are actually caught in the act of a crime by police.

I agree that CCTV systems do have a part to play in tackling crime, however, why cameras have to be installed in residential streets with little problems is beyond me. The UK has the most 'surveilled' population in the Western world... surely if CCTV was the answer other nations would be following suit.

[Porty]

Police officers don't prevent crime but they probably help reduce it.

[BeachBum]

[Eck]

[Bob Jefferson]

Eck, clearly you are troubled by this perceived intrusion into your privacy. What is it precisely that you actually fear? What do you imagine is the hidden agenda? If the crime rate does not justify the presence of the CCTV, then what is the camera there for?

[BeachBum]