Should there be more CCTV in public?

[prawn_86]

So basically what you are saying is the g'mint can do basically anything they want yeah?

I agree that they will find some way to abuse it, that's what g'mints do, no reason to suspect that the future will be any different.

Exactly. And the more complacent we are, the quicker it will happen. Slightly off topic, but i envisage a day telling either my child or grandkid(s) about how in my day we (the average Joe) could get access to any piece of information or data on the Internet and they will either not beleive me, or wonder in amazement as to what that must have been like. Perhaps it will be the same when they are all microchipped with GPS trackers and i tell them we could go anywhere without the government and police monitoring us...

I just fail to see how more cctv cameras cut the crime rate, although i would happily accept i am wrong if someone can show me some studies

 

[Calliope]

I just fail to see how more cctv cameras cut the crime rate, although i would happily accept i am wrong if someone can show me some studies

Ipswich city's serious crime rate halved

Police say serious crime at Ipswich, west of Brisbane, has halved since 2008.

They say the latest statistics will be analysed to determine why the south-east Queensland city has had such good results.

Commissioner Bob Atkinson says he believes the council's CCTV monitoring system has played a role.

"It's probably the best in Australia and it does two things - it helps in prevention, it's a deterrent factor, and the other area of course is our ability to solve those crimes," he said.

"If we have someone who is assaulted and their wallet's taken from them, if that's been recorded with quality CCTV which they have for the investigators, that's a huge assistance."

Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale says a partnership between council and police is the reason for plummeting crime rates.

He says it also shows the city's CCTV monitoring system is helping to reduce crime.

"I'm passionate about making sure it's a safe city where people can bring up their family and respect it," he said.

"Isn't it great to see the figures so I can tell you everybody has been putting rubbish on Ipswich about crime and everything else and here we are - the shining star of South East Queensland.

(My bolds)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-28/ipswich-serious-crime-rate-halved/3699208

 

[Happy]

Definitely more cameras will help to solve cases, however it would be nice if we could eliminate scum’s existence before crime is committed.

I know wasn’t a question, but death penalty begs to come back too.

So sorry to hear this soul was lost, for no other reason that our streets are not safe.
Heard in London is worse, there are places where Police are unsafe to go, fear it is coming here too if not here already, but we are not told.

Reminds me how for 10 years everybody from authorities tried to convince us that we have no gangs in Australia only to say that now it is out of control.

Yea yea, pull the other leg, unless this problem came with recent wave of boats.

 

[prawn_86]

Ipswich city's serious crime rate halved

(My bolds)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-28/ipswich-serious-crime-rate-halved/3699208

I stand corrected. I still think it is a slipperly slope however that Western societies seem all to happy to accept

 

[MrBurns]

I stand corrected. I still think it is a slipperly slope however that Western societies seem all to happy to accept

Western societies are in some sort of decline, too many people, too much corruption , war usually sorts it out.

 

[Joules MM1]

I stand corrected. I still think it is a slipperly slope however that Western societies seem all to happy to accept

you've made some good points, prawn

what is needed are real statistics......i doubt the politicizing of cctv cameras by top-brass officialdom tells the real story or crime, especially the wax and wane of what types of crime and when they are commmitted.......it would also be fair to say that officialdom tends to react at the end of a cycle, that is, officialdom tend to take action past the point of a cycles peak and then point backwards and say "look, it's what we did that caused less crime"

there are clear cycles of crime regardless of the type or severity of crime......the cycles tend to reflect the economic cycles.....when i see police numbers of low crime with the reasoning that there are more police on the beat i know the real reason is two-fold; that there has been an effort to have more police presence and that the people who commit crime are simply less inclined not as a result of policing, simply as a result of the emotional state of a whole community.....

the cost to the community of installation and maintenance are factors that need to be considered too as this cost (aside from the philosophical) also reaches and restricts other benefits to the community.......

i also notice a sudden rush to discuss the placement of cctv's after an event such as we've just seen, clearly, people are using the technology, or their ideas about it's value, as a result of their own fears, theyre reflecting and flexing their fears about the real value of the technology........while it's true that many crimes are going to be stopped because of the installation of cameras, frankly, when someone intends this type of harm we've just seen and they know cameras are around, the camera can be beaten in very simple ways,

so, is it that the criminal did not know the camera was where it was or was he just an idiot who decided not to disguise himself.....think about that......

edit: this also fits that causalitty is not the same as correlation........there is a clear correlation that more crime causes authorities to take (re)action at the end of a cycle of crime......this does not attest to the ongoing cost of that reaction long after the cycle is completed.......

imho

 

[Happy]

I stand corrected. I still think it is a slipperly slope however that Western societies seem all to happy to accept

Agree with you here, as everything can be used for other shadowy purposes and fears are warranted, otherwise we would have assisted euthanasia, actually NT acceptance of euthanasia would never be revoked by Federal Government for fear of abuse.

I know that last death penalty in Australia was performed on innocent man.
This is regrettable and we should try to avoid it, but on our roads die hundreds of innocent persons and we happily allow that, so the difference is minimal, still innocent life.

Having said that, we also know that some cases are so evidently clear, that risk of mistake is ZERO.

Almost forgot, also no face covers, head hoods, masks religious or not, this is Australia still Judeo-Christian country and we should have a right to call shots and we should.

 

[Joules MM1]

the statistics i am referring to should be considered a little like a placebo and a real drug....in other words, has a similar crime reduction, without cctv, occurred in other (similar culture/economic) communities?

simply posing a 'remedy' to an evil by immediacy has costs that need to be calculated especially in a balanced and constructive query

http://www.urbanportal.org/issues/entry/does_video_camera_surveillance_make_cities_safer

excerpt

While law enforcement has typically argued that cameras make cities safer, recent studies have called into question this claim, suggesting that their effectiveness might be limited and that their impact on citizens’ sense of safety might be the opposite of what governments intend.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418820902873852

 

[Julia]

Exactly. And the more complacent we are, the quicker it will happen. Slightly off topic, but i envisage a day telling either my child or grandkid(s) about how in my day we (the average Joe) could get access to any piece of information or data on the Internet and they will either not beleive me, or wonder in amazement as to what that must have been like. Perhaps it will be the same when they are all microchipped with GPS trackers and i tell them we could go anywhere without the government and police monitoring us...

It sounds fanciful, doesn't it, but I'm with you on this, prawn. The trespassing on our privacy is insidious and can be presented in moralistic terms, viz the hopefully now defunct internet filter where the reasonable exchange of views on some controversial subjects was to be banned, purportedly to prevent our unsullied innocent minds from material some bureaucrat deems unsuitable.

The calls for additional CCTV in the wake of this murder are predictable. Would it help? I don't know. I'd expect if you thought a camera were about to capture your nefarious activity you might think twice about it. But someone who is going to murder a young woman is not going to be thinking with such clarity, is he?
The Ipswich example Calliope has provided is seemingly justification for additional cameras, at least for petty crimes.

And I suppose it's not possible to conclude that the installation of cameras have not had an impact on crime statistics, because we'll never know how many would be criminals were deterred from their plans when realising they could be caught on camera.

There is, of course, much said about how a woman should be able to walk home safely at any hour.
Perhaps so. But the reality is that there are bad people everywhere, and imo it makes more sense for women (or maybe blokes also, for that matter) to acknowledge the reality of risk, and get a cab when the streets are pretty deserted, however short the distance.

 

[MrBurns]

Would you rather privacy or security ?

Perhaps all those checks at the airport are an invasion of privacy too.

 

[prawn_86]

Perhaps all those checks at the airport are an invasion of privacy too.

Despite the fact that you were being sarcastic, i totally agree with you. Since the new so called "anti terror" laws have been implemented how many attacks have been stopped?

I fail to see how a metal detector like they had 15 years ago isn't enough. Body scans, bag searches etc etc are all just the illusion of safety. If someone wants to bomb a plane they will figure out a way.

Would you be comfortable having your phone tapped and internet monitored by the government MB? Genuine question

 

[MrBurns]

Despite the fact that you were being sarcastic, i totally agree with you. Since the new so called "anti terror" laws have been implemented how many attacks have been stopped?
I fail to see how a metal detector like they had 15 years ago isn't enough. Body scans, bag searches etc etc are all just the illusion of safety. If someone wants to bomb a plane they will figure out a way.
Would you be comfortable having your phone tapped and internet monitored by the government MB? Genuine question

It's not impossible but bloody difficult to hijack a plane these days the checks are so thorough.

On your questions - I would be concerned if my phone or internet was being constantly monitored but they aren't .

They can log in and monitor your phone any time they like , that's how they catch crims before crimes are committed and that's how they get information thats how they found out about a plot to launch a terrorist attack in Melbourne not long ago but they arent interested in you or I.

Similarly your ISP can track every web site you visit, but they arent watching it or monitoring it BUT thats how they catch the pedophiles and would be terrorists.

So while they can do these things they arent a threat to you or I unless you're involved in some criminal activity.

 

[Miss Hale]

Would you rather privacy or security ?

Perhaps all those checks at the airport are an invasion of privacy too.

Yes, I think some of them are actually, as do many other people. Despite increased secruity we have increased terrorism so something not working is it?

 

[Happy]

Yes, I think some of them are actually, as do many other people. Despite increased secruity we have increased terrorism so something not working is it?

Police know quite a lot, but problem is suspect cannot be eliminated, just because it is known that there is possible danger.

Like somebody said that law, rules and regulations are for those who obey them, those who don’t are actually protected by our laws, rules and regulations and laugh all the way including suspended sentences, or lack of enough evidence.

Seems that our laws can only handle crimes after they happen.

Preventative measures are in its infancy, maybe one day…

 

[Macquack]

While i do understand peoples views, i just don't see any evidence that it owuld reduce or eliminate crime. It is a typical police response of catching the criminal after the offense, instead of preventing the offense.

Knowing you will be caught is a great deterrent to commiting a crime.

If this piece of scum knew he would have been seen on CCTV he would not have committed this particular crime.

I can't see myself being booked for speeding while walking on the pavement, so I am for more CCTVs.

For the first time on ASF I whole hearted agree with Mr Burns.

Prawn, how do you propose to address the use of private CCTV as used in this case to pin a murderer.

 

[Calliope]

Knowing you will be caught is a great deterrent to commiting a crime.

If this piece of scum knew he would have been seen on CCTV he would not have committed this particular crime.

I can't see myself being booked for speeding while walking on the pavement, so I am for more CCTVs.

For the first time on ASF I whole hearted agree with Mr Burns.

Prawn, how do you propose to address the use of private CCTV as used in this case to pin a murderer.

And I agree with you "If this piece of scum knew he would have been seen on CCTV he would not have committed this particular crime."

In the Ipswich case which I posted earlier, CCTV surveillance is probably the most concentrated system in Australia and with live monitoring liaising with the police. This has been a great deterrent to the crime and hooliganism which previously existed in this city. Even if crimes are still committed on the streets the CCTV footage gets them convicted and off the streets for a while.

I don't give a stuff about innocent people being captured on CCTV if it helps to convict just one murderer.

 

[sptrawler]

From memory(dubious) the extensive use of cctv in London was due to the IRA bombings.
Once the deployment was carried out, I would have thought it was sensible to continue and upgrade it.
The cost of video storage was a huge problem 20 even 10 years ago, now video storage and digital imagery has moved on to a point where it is not an issue.
The resolution from the cameras and the physical size of mass storage has made cctv a cheap option for local councils.
Everyone knows you can't have it everywhere, but councils know where problem spots are i.e graffiti, vandalism, drunks, car thefts, major pedestrian traffic routes, bus stops, train platforms, taxi ranks.

 

[namrog]

On principal, I am with prawn on this, there is enough prying into our lives by organisations posing as security and supposedly protecting us from ourselves..! more of the nanny state mentality...!

Having said that, you tend to have a totally different perspective when it becomes personal, and should a dangerous situation arise where a member of my family suddenly found themselves in a threatening situation, such as that encountered by the unfortunate Jill Meagher, and they were able to point out to the threatening person that they were being filmed, and were therefore able to escape unharmed, then I'm sure we would all breathe a sigh of relief for the fact that this technology had possibly saved a life..

But there has to be a limit on this type of surveillance, so I wouldn't have any problem with CCTV in the main centres of activity such as inner city areas that cater for late night entertainment, if you know what I mean , but certainly not outside these areas.

I suspect that if someone were evil enough, and in the wrong frame of mind, prepared to commit a crime such as we have seen in Brunswick, then they would one way or another find a victim , regardless of CCTV.. similar to the port Arthur massacre, where after that terrible event, those who surrendered their guns were more than likely law abiding people, but obviously not those who are want to use them as per western Sydney shootings for example.

I know I shouldn't say this, I am not female, but if I was, I would not walk alone on a city street at 2 AM anywhere on this planet, and even as a male who can look after himself, I'm inclined not to do so..!

I've got to say that I was disappointed but not surprised by Tony Abbots views on the matter of Jillian Meagher's abduction and murder, where he used the occasion to suggest the enhanced use of CCTV, he could have left that out..


R.I.P.. Jillian .

 

[Tink]

I think we all said that, who walks home alone at 2am, when we first heard this case, but sadly things can happen, no taxi etc or for whatever reason for a one off -- people should feel safe wherever they are.
We are not going to make excuses for this animal.

Agree, if its going to save one family, I couldnt care less if I am going to be filmed.
He had no chance for an alibi, before he could count to 3, the police were there and the whole of Melbourne were onto him.

 

[Calliope]

But there has to be a limit on this type of surveillance, so I wouldn't have any problem with CCTV in the main centres of activity such as inner city areas that cater for late night entertainment, if you know what I mean , but certainly not outside these areas.

Suburban railway stations are dangerous places late at night. I surprised that you think they do not need CCTV surveillance.