I wonder how many Britons smugly assured themselves that they would never be the target of their country's CCTV network because they are not criminals. So, it's always amusing to read that those people who earnestly declared that they had nothing to fear because they are not criminals, now face the prospect of having their dog walking habits monitored by the government.
Deliciously absurd in that rib-tickling way that only the British can deliver, and quite educational too about being one of those conformist morons who thinks that life is so black and white that they can cheerfully stop worrying about pesky issues like human nature and how it relates to police powers. Of course, you could argue that it is public, and no one should have an expectation of not being watched. Fair enough, I suppose, but even if we were to go entirely on that basis, it doesn't change the fact that getting the government into the game of routinely spying on the public outdoors gets the government into a frame of mind with respect to the public that is quite dangerous for individual liberty.
Definitely, and a bother here as well (cameras). Though, whether the man on the street in Britain has any real say is dubious. Actually, it is highly doubtful we have much say in our government. After telling the Republican party no to amnesty so loudly even the Democrats heard, we now have no choice in candidates for the president regarding that issue. Who wants to bet every legislator (or the majority running, in both parties) are also rigged for amnesty? But cameras, right. Britain sounds like it is about through with them though. As they get destroyed, fail, or just break down normally, the expense (and lack of any demonstrable reduction in crime) are leading that dodo bird to the sweet goodbye.
Our cameras, however, are becoming ever more pervasive. However, we have as much to fear from corporate cameras as we do from government cameras. Banks, sure, up to a point, but 20 cameras? Then add in laundromats, gas stations, salons, bowling alleys, bars, restaurants, and then stop lights, public buildings, schools, hospitals, subways...
Now, a fellow I heard about had an interesting question, or idea. He was curious about what (the slightest possible) caliber rifle could take out one of those cameras. I, myself, being of the curious nature, would also like to know. As gun ownership advances, I wonder if this topic should not be more fully explored? Academically, of course. As I would never encourage the break down of civil order, disobedience to dogmatic law practices (especially those with a socialist bent), or any of that jazz. As I said, just wondering.
Thankfully, the big difference between the cctv cameras here in the States and those in the UK is the difference in ownership.
Those stateside are privately owned; to my knowledge very few cctv systems are owned and monitored by g-men on this side of the Pond (but I guess the trend is growing). Although cctv video may be examined after the fact since, as the article cited notes, they don't actually deter crime, they just help you clean up afterward, this fragmentation helps to ensure that Big Brother isn't watching you all the time.
While I am uncomfortable with the proliferation of private cameras, I differ with Dread in that I don't fear them as much as government ones. Yet.
Er, Dread, Doom, these guys all look the same :)
My apologies Doom!
I would suggest a crossbow. They're quiet compared to rifles, and if you are standing 30-40 feet away from the camera, at an angle that it doesn't cover, the bolt will have more than enough power to split open the camera.
I too am not worried about the handful that are put in businesses to protect their assets. That said, I doubt that people like Mayor Bloomberg would ever consider the "lessons learned" from Britain about the efficacy of the CCTV network in London. He announced not that long ago that we are "far behind" the British and need to play catch up.
Never a problem, I have been called much worse (sometimes rightly:P).
Oh, the other problem that Britain is coming to understand, the manpower it takes to monitor the feeds has, in and of itself, become overwhelming. And then, the realistic database storage of this continuing boondoggle is beginning to haunt even the fools of liberals in their government. Though, every little triple the projected cost project brings that Socialism one step closer to collapse. So long as we are not "caught up to them" by then, I suspect we will have to bail their arses out, again (again, again, again). Perhaps we should end their barbaric "kingdom" and push them into real republican democracy? Oddly, I like the queen, even if she is a severe libtard quite naively at times, quite typically femininely at other times. But, the next is to be a king, and to a one of them, I do not think they will be able to hold on if they are anything like daddy (who will be skipped).
The Queen is dead! Long live the Republic!
You underestimate the cost of storing the data, considerably. A full DVD of video can be fit into about 800MB, without losing any resolution, if you use MPEG4. At VHS resolution, which is more than enough in most cases for law enforcement, you'd probably be able to get that down to about 300MB. A 1TB hard drive costs just a few hundred dollars now, and Blu-Ray disks can hold around 50GB of data.
So the city of London has a modest-sized data center with a large number of hard drives to store the current feeds. Every month, they take the data and have them professionally mastered to Blu-Ray, and get a bulk discount in the process for having hundreds of disks burned every month. That's really not going to present a budget problem.
Of course, you could argue that it is public, and no one should have an expectation of not being watched.
Just wait until the goverment decides that your home is a public domain because it collects taxes on it. Seriously. I can hear the "for the children!" crowd begging for it already.
If there is a single group that should be liquidated for the betterment of my country, I can think of no better candidate than that one. Do it for the children, do it for the future of a fascism-free America!