Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What do you think of it? The context of my question is that I work in a pretty rough school in Hackney, London. Since we extended our CCTV coverage both inside the school buildings and outdoor areas, it has allowed us to catch two boys who were setting off fireworks in the playground, a girl attacking a boy on the corridor, a group of girls "rushing" a younger girl on the corridor and, yesterday, another boy who started a fire in a bin in the boys toilets. Without the CCTV footage, we would almost certainly have punished the wrong boy for the fire, as we had someone in the right place, at the right time, with a lighter. It was only through watching the CCTV footage last night I am able to show that it was neither him nor our other main subject, but in fact a totally different boy we did not know had even been in the area.

CCTV gets quite a negative press regarding being a "Big Brother" 1984 type tactic, and although I've never been actively against it, I always used to feel a bit uneasy about it. Now that I am in the position of regularly using it, all it has done is show the guilty for what they are, and prevented me carrying out a huge misarriage of justice against someone.

What do you think?

I don't see the problem with cameras being placed in public venues.

I'm totally for it for the reasons you just outlined.
Hell, I'd like it if there was CCTV in the classroom, so that I never end up in a "my word against theirs" sorta situation, because I'm confident that I never do anything wrong, and if I did, it's only fair that I get caught for it, whereas the kids are always pushing things, and I think they'd be less cocky with CCTV there- and much less likely to make false allegations.

People scare monger about CCTV, but its not like they can see Mr me when I'm in the shower. I'm all for it. Same as I don't care if a cop asks me to show him my pocket contents. I find it hard not to be suspicious of people that endlessly complain about such things.

Oh and while I am on, if the coppers are out looking for a 28 year old Pakistani with a beard who they suspect has a bomb in a backpack, they shouldn't pull a young white marine over and demand he empty his luggage, they could also leave the 60 year old Jew stood next to me alone as well.

mattyrm wrote:People scare monger about CCTV, but its not like they can see Mr me when I'm in the shower.

That could be argued as proof of the existence of a benevolent God of course.

mattyrm wrote:People scare monger about CCTV, but its not like they can see Mr me when I'm in the shower.

I thought that was just available on the premium CCTV subscription?

And I have mixed feelings on CCTV - while it can be good for catching people doing things, it is still invasion of privicy. Any system is open to abuse (especially government systems).

Heard the other day at a carlisle united football game "can't you check the camera to see who did it?" "oh that? no we never turn them on"

mattyrm wrote:Oh and while I am on, if the coppers are out looking for a 28 year old Pakistani with a beard who they suspect has a bomb in a backpack, they shouldn't pull a young white marine over and demand he empty his luggage, they could also leave the 60 year old Jew stood next to me alone as well.

It's probably the moustache. Don't worry it will look a lot better once you hit puberty.

I don't mind CCTV in public spaces provided that there is a valid reason for their employment and notification is made that they are present. Monitoring every public space "just because," doesn't really qualify in my mind as a valid reason. However things like red light cameras to catch people who don't stop, cameras outside areas where crime happens on a regular basis, that's all valid uses. Spamming them everywhere, no.

In a school... ehhh, I'm kinda iffy about it. Maybe in your much harsher schools but on the whole it just seems like a lot of expense and trouble to account for not much reward.

I live in Lancaster Pennsylvania, which is the most camera monitored town in the US. When the general public found out about all the cams there were some who protested but overall the cams have done way more good than harm.

Generally speaking, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about from the cams.

If the goverment wants to see my dangly bits they are more then welcome. However I really hope the Goverment has better things to do then watch a overweigth guy in the shower.

snurl wrote:Generally speaking, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about from the cams.

Yeah, just because I'm not doing anything wrong doesn't mean I'm going to be ok with someone tracking my every move in town. Would you be fine with it if someone had a private investigator follow you everywhere you went snapping pictures all the time?

I get your point but the guy taking my picture would be bored to death in short order.
The cams here are controlled by a private group who reports / aids the police and fire depts. There have been dozens of crimes here solved by direct result of the videos.

SilverMK2 wrote:
And I have mixed feelings on CCTV - while it can be good for catching people doing things, it is still invasion of privacy. Any system is open to abuse (especially government systems).

By that same logic though, how much of an expectation to privacy should you really have in a public setting?

Tyyr wrote:In a school... ehhh, I'm kinda iffy about it. Maybe in your much harsher schools but on the whole it just seems like a lot of expense and trouble to account for not much reward.

You'd be surprised at how much activity even the "nicer" schools have that cameras would catch.

whatwhat wrote:Heard the other day at a carlisle united football game "can't you check the camera to see who did it?" "oh that? no we never turn them on"

mattyrm wrote:Oh and while I am on, if the coppers are out looking for a 28 year old Pakistani with a beard who they suspect has a bomb in a backpack, they shouldn't pull a young white marine over and demand he empty his luggage, they could also leave the 60 year old Jew stood next to me alone as well.

It's probably the moustache. Don't worry it will look a lot better once you hit puberty.

He's got more hair on his back than you have on your head, matey! He's hairier than a barbershop floor....


Just please don't ask me how I know that... *shudder*

Those opposed to being watched are usually the ones that bear watching.

Kanluwen wrote:By that same logic though, how much of an expectation to privacy should you really have in a public setting?

I don't expect to get much, though it would be nice if I could go out and not be caught on CCTV everywhere I go. I'm not a criminal, I'm not doing anything wrong, therefore why should I be monitored?

The usual answer is "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear", but if I do nothing wrong, there is also no reason to watch me.

That would make sense, if there were some way to get people that do wrong to identify themselves as well so we know when to turn on the cameras...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:That would make sense, if there were some way to get people that do wrong to identify themselves as well so we know when to turn on the cameras...

Entirely true. You just have to decide just how much privicy is "ok" to chuck out the window on the chance that you might catch someone stupid enough to do something bad in range of a CCTV camera.

Personally, I think it's a fantastic idea. Give up on conditioning adults, and get the kids used to the idea of always being watched; always knowing someone has their eye on them, waiting for them to do something wrong, that way they'll never question it or attempt to fight it when they're old. It will just be reality. It'll prove finally that 1984 has been read as an instruction manual after all.

Kanluwen wrote:By that same logic though, how much of an expectation to privacy should you really have in a public setting?

Well, if I'm in my own backyard, I'd say enough. Something else these cameras do is they bring the internet effect into realspace: The internet never forgets. Constant surveillance never forgets. I'm picturing reels of "best of" footage being leaked of people doing all manner of embarassing things either through accident or because they believe no one is around/watching. I don't want every moment of my life to be a matter of public interest.

Okay, so say that's not good enough. Fine, but make the video collected open, and the process in which that it is monitored open and public so that everyone is more than aware of what's being kept on file, how long, and what/why/when anything is being kept beyond whatever the standard term is. I kind of like the idea of cameras in the offices they handle the reviewing and monitoring of the video monitoring them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that.

SlaveToDorkness wrote: Those opposed to being watched are usually the ones that bear watching.

Sometimes there are perfectly valid reasons to do things your government does not approve of. If you don't believe me, go read up on the Stasi.

Oh, and if that's not convincing enough, I'd like to draw to the stands that facecrime has been monitored in airports since 2007: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/344868_airportprofiler26.html

How long until you're explaining to the local law office that you've done nothing wrong, and just had that panicked expression because you thought for a moment you left the stove on?

daedalus wrote:Personally, I think it's a fantastic idea. Give up on conditioning adults, and get the kids used to the idea of always being watched; always knowing someone has their eye on them, waiting for them to do something wrong, that way they'll never question it or attempt to fight it when they're old. It will just be reality. It'll prove finally that 1984 has been read as an instruction manual after all.

The idea is more that kids should be getting used to the idea that they can be held accountable for what they do.

daedalus wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:By that same logic though, how much of an expectation to privacy should you really have in a public setting?

Well, if I'm in my own backyard, I'd say enough. Something else these cameras do is they bring the internet effect into realspace: The internet never forgets. Constant surveillance never forgets. I'm picturing reels of "best of" footage being leaked of people doing all manner of embarrassing things either through accident or because they believe no one is around/watching. I don't want every moment of my life to be a matter of public interest.

In cases where "reels of best of footage", at least where it's a case of an expectation of privacy is involved, have been leaked...the people leaking it have been prosecuted to the full extent that they could be.

Okay, so say that's not good enough. Fine, but make the video collected open, and the process in which that it is monitored open and public so that everyone is more than aware of what's being kept on file, how long, and what/why/when anything is being kept beyond whatever the standard term is. I kind of like the idea of cameras in the offices they handle the reviewing and monitoring of the video monitoring them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that.

That's an idiotic idea to make the video collected open to the public, at least in my opinion. Making the "raw video" open would mean that your first example of people doing embarrassing things through accident would come true.
And as a side note?
People who monitor these cameras/collate the footage from them are watched anyways, despite people seeming to think otherwise.

SlaveToDorkness wrote: Those opposed to being watched are usually the ones that bear watching.

Sometimes there are perfectly valid reasons to do things your government does not approve of. If you don't believe me, go read up on the Stasi.

That's not the same thing. It really isn't.

Oh, and if that's not convincing enough, I'd like to draw to the stands that facecrime has been monitored in airports since 2007: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/344868_airportprofiler26.html

And your point is...?
Police do that anyways, it's nothing new. Most agencies do actually give crash courses in body language/facial expressions specifically because it's an effective tool.

How long until you're explaining to the local law office that you've done nothing wrong, and just had that panicked expression because you thought for a moment you left the stove on?

See above. They don't just randomly say "WHITE FEMALE IN THE CROWD, PANICKED EXPRESSION! GRAB THEM NAO!". They look at other things.

Did you get a panicked expression when the TSA officer said they're going to search your bags? Or was it just while you were standing in line waiting to go through security?
Did you make a call after said expression, and relax afterwards--or did you in fact start looking more nervous?

Things like that.

I worked for about 2 years as a police dispatcher for a university police dept around here (real cops, not security guards with guns). I monitored the alarm center and CCTV station and we used the cameras to stop a lot of bad folks from doing bad things, or more like catch them in the act. It was actually like having our own little Cops TV show, you'd see some dummy breaking into a car, the cops roll up and take him down and the look of horror and surprise on their faces was just pure comedy gold. They'd wonder how they got caught, meanwhile 5 feet away there's a sign saying "Public areas of the campus are under video survalance"

It gets a bad rap because people are paranoid. But, it is pretty easy to abuse it. Our cameras were pretty high tech, you could easily see into someone's window and see what they're doing inside. There were strict guidelines about what you could and couldn't look at and stuff like that.

Kanluwen wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:
And I have mixed feelings on CCTV - while it can be good for catching people doing things, it is still invasion of privacy. Any system is open to abuse (especially government systems).

By that same logic though, how much of an expectation to privacy should you really have in a public setting?

Almost none per court rulings.

Kanluwen wrote:
The idea is more that kids should be getting used to the idea that they can be held accountable for what they do.

So then rather than instill upon them reasons why they should do just through education and good parenting, we simply scare them into it? Seems like trying to finish building the ship after it's sailed.

Kanluwen wrote:
In cases where "reels of best of footage", at least where it's a case of an expectation of privacy is involved, have been leaked...the people leaking it have been prosecuted to the full extent that they could be.

Have they? I'm taking your word on that one.

Kanluwen wrote:
That's an idiotic idea to make the video collected open to the public, at least in my opinion. Making the "raw video" open would mean that your first example of people doing embarrassing things through accident would come true.
And as a side note?
People who monitor these cameras/collate the footage from them are watched anyways, despite people seeming to think otherwise.

Well, my "genius idea" is that the system like this shouldn't exist to begin with. My "idiotic idea" at least keeps the playing field even, so to speak. I know exactly what video exists such that I'd be judged against, plus people reviewing it could help assist the law enforcement crack down on those who are not being honest, good, upstanding Citizens such as ourselves. It would crack down on the increase in costs of paying employees of the State to monitor the video themselves. Also, if it's a closed system, how do you know that the watchers are being watched?

Kanluween wrote:That's not the same thing. It really isn't.

That's fine, that doesn't make my first statement any less true.

Kanluween wrote:
Did you get a panicked expression when the TSA officer said they're going to search your bags? Or was it just while you were standing in line waiting to go through security?
Did you make a call after said expression, and relax afterwards--or did you in fact start looking more nervous?

Things like that.

I don't know. Maybe I did. Maybe I was being searched or full body scanned (feeling self conscious at this point) as I remembered the oven, combined with the fact that the call I got just afterwards was from my girlfriend saying that the dog got hit by a car. Maybe I then panicked even more, realizing with horror that I brought the gel deodorant rather than the airplane safe chalky stick variety, and I'm now wondering, getting even more nervous, what the TSA goon is going to do with me now that I've been this increasingly nervous, making me more nervous still combined with the standard stress of travel on top of all that. It's really hard to say without it actually happening.

Bottom line, it doesn't sit right with me. You make sure people know you're watching them, waiting for them to do something "wrong", you're going to be catching lots of people who don't deserve it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, who foots the bill for this kind of system? I don't have any intention of doing so. I don't need it to feel safe, and I don't want something that's "for my own good". I'm honestly more afraid of the government than I am of walking around at night, and St. Louis had the most violent crimes reported in 2009 according to wikipedia of any US city. I've never committed any crime, let alone being convicted; I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I deserve being watched.

Daedelus, what about the fact that my pupil was pretty much bang-to-rights, and would have been very seriously punished if it weren't for the video evidence that actually exonerated him? His own story was so implausible, his own friends accounts so different from his own and his own recent and long-term history so pointing towards his guilt that it was only the video evidence that showed it couldn't have been him. What we were shown on video differed by miles from his own account! Without the CCTV we would almost certainly have handed him a lengthy suspension.

You also suggest that families should be doing a better job of raising their children. I agree 100%. What do you suggest we do to people who don't meet your standards?

I assume your suggestion that children should be learning through better education also comes from a background in education, and you can let us know exactly how to do that?

You ask who will foot the bill for this kind of CCTV system, and yet I have to wonder who will foot the bill for your ideas of better parenting and better education? Or will thse things happen for free? If so, why has it not happened already?

"Finish building the ship after it's sailed" is the best phrase I can think of to sum up secondary education I can think of. You work with what you're given, and sometimes what you're given is a pretty cunning a duplicitous kid. CCTV is handy in those situations.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Those opposed to being watched are usually the ones that bear watching.

Ya know, I read that, look at your avatar and I've just gotta laugh.

Fifty wrote:Daedelus, what about the fact that my pupil was pretty much bang-to-rights, and would have been very seriously punished if it weren't for the video evidence that actually exonerated him? His own story was so implausible, his own friends accounts so different from his own and his own recent and long-term history so pointing towards his guilt that it was only the video evidence that showed it couldn't have been him. What we were shown on video differed by miles from his own account! Without the CCTV we would almost certainly have handed him a lengthy suspension.

I'm... not sure. If I had those answers, then I'd be hopefully doing things much greater and world altering than what I do now. What I do know is that you can't solve a social problem with more technology. It's like putting a band-aid over the problem itself. For example, drug use is arguably rampant, and (in the eyes of the government) a crime. We have all kinds of techniques and devices in place for finding and intercepting drugs. We have ultraviolet scanners, trained dogs, drug tests for all kinds of jobs. Does it fix the issue? No. People innovate to avoid it. They find ways to make their own or they make use of pharmaceuticals easily obtained. Rather than trying to impose such monitoring for traffic of substances, they should treat the demand, and then the traffic itself will die. How you do that is beyond me.

You also suggest that families should be doing a better job of raising their children. I agree 100%. What do you suggest we do to people who don't meet your standards?

I don't know that either. Well, I know, but by the same token, I don't feel I have or would like the authority to declare whether my standards are what mankind should be held to. The safest thing I can think of is perhaps some sort of mandatory classes raising awareness for expecting parents. Anything else seems subjective or draconian enough such that it would beat out CCTV.

I assume your suggestion that children should be learning through better education also comes from a background in education, and you can let us know exactly how to do that?

I won't lie, I have no background in education, I do pay attention though. I've seen what a "typical" American education system is like (so it's not necessarily applicable to yourself, by any means). It panders to the least common denominator, breeds apathetic teachers, and fails to truly reward for excellence. It's a system that teaches basic facts without trying to impart any reason to gaining greater understanding behind those facts. I saw these things years ago when I was a part of it, and I've seen it cause my brother to go through hell. It's really easy not to care when you're perceptive enough to realize that the person who supposed to be teaching you doesn't care either. It's just gotten worse with the standardized testing that they put kids through to determine how much funding they get. They get taught little more than what it takes to get the test answers right. My brother was learning long division before they covered the concept of fractions. He had barely covered multiplication. If I recall, they spent about 2 weeks on it. He could tell you that 3*5=15, but he couldn't tell you why, or what the significance of that would be.

You ask who will foot the bill for this kind of CCTV system, and yet I have to wonder who will foot the bill for your ideas of better parenting and better education? Or will thse things happen for free? If so, why has it not happened already?

Oop, noticed the horrendous sentence structure in that post.
Apologies Dakka, I'm tired and there's a big crack across my computer screeen that makes it harder for me to spot things like that.

daedalus wrote:

Fifty wrote:Daedelus, what about the fact that my pupil was pretty much bang-to-rights, and would have been very seriously punished if it weren't for the video evidence that actually exonerated him? His own story was so implausible, his own friends accounts so different from his own and his own recent and long-term history so pointing towards his guilt that it was only the video evidence that showed it couldn't have been him. What we were shown on video differed by miles from his own account! Without the CCTV we would almost certainly have handed him a lengthy suspension.

I'm... not sure. If I had those answers, then I'd be hopefully doing things much greater and world altering than what I do now. What I do know is that you can't solve a social problem with more technology. It's like putting a band-aid over the problem itself. For example, drug use is arguably rampant, and (in the eyes of the government) a crime. We have all kinds of techniques and devices in place for finding and intercepting drugs. We have ultraviolet scanners, trained dogs, drug tests for all kinds of jobs. Does it fix the issue? No. People innovate to avoid it. They find ways to make their own or they make use of pharmaceuticals easily obtained. Rather than trying to impose such monitoring for traffic of substances, they should treat the demand, and then the traffic itself will die. How you do that is beyond me.

I'm pretty sure noone has said this is an end-all, be all solution.
It, however, is not "putting a band-aid over the problem itself." Being able to hold people accountable for irresponsible behaviors taken because they're "not being watched" and showing that just because nobody's looking over your shoulder in person doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't wrong.

Drugs are a crummy parallel to draw the line to, especially when you put down that it's only a crime "in the eyes of the government".

daedalus wrote:

You also suggest that families should be doing a better job of raising their children. I agree 100%. What do you suggest we do to people who don't meet your standards?

I don't know that either. Well, I know, but by the same token, I don't feel I have or would like the authority to declare whether my standards are what mankind should be held to. The safest thing I can think of is perhaps some sort of mandatory classes raising awareness for expecting parents. Anything else seems subjective or draconian enough such that it would beat out CCTV.

"Mandatory classes raising awareness for expecting parents" is somehow less draconian than CCTVs in schools? Think about that for a moment. How do you enforce those expectant parents to attend said class?

daedalus wrote:

I assume your suggestion that children should be learning through better education also comes from a background in education, and you can let us know exactly how to do that?

I won't lie, I have no background in education, I do pay attention though. I've seen what a "typical" American education system is like (so it's not necessarily applicable to yourself, by any means). It panders to the least common denominator, breeds apathetic teachers, and fails to truly reward for excellence. It's a system that teaches basic facts without trying to impart any reason to gaining greater understanding behind those facts. I saw these things years ago when I was a part of it, and I've seen it cause my brother to go through hell. It's really easy not to care when you're perceptive enough to realize that the person who supposed to be teaching you doesn't care either. It's just gotten worse with the standardized testing that they put kids through to determine how much funding they get. They get taught little more than what it takes to get the test answers right. My brother was learning long division before they covered the concept of fractions. He had barely covered multiplication. If I recall, they spent about 2 weeks on it. He could tell you that 3*5=15, but he couldn't tell you why, or what the significance of that would be.

Welcome to the American Public School System?

daedalus wrote:

You ask who will foot the bill for this kind of CCTV system, and yet I have to wonder who will foot the bill for your ideas of better parenting and better education? Or will thse things happen for free? If so, why has it not happened already?

Good question. I'd imagine the unfortunate taxpayers would. At least I'd really hope they would. If I could choose between paying $5 a year for CCTV put in EVERYWHERE in my area, or paying $100 extra a year in taxes to further education in local schools, I'd vote for education every time.

You wouldn't be voting on it. The money would come from within the education system's budget or be added in. That's how it's worked every time the WCPSS has added CCTVs to the schools.

daedalus wrote:

Da Boss wrote:"Finish building the ship after it's sailed" is the best phrase I can think of to sum up secondary education I can think of. You work with what you're given, and sometimes what you're given is a pretty cunning a duplicitous kid. CCTV is handy in those situations.

I understand that, and I'm not blaming teachers here, at least, not directly. If anything, I'm on their side. More funding and no longer playing to the status quo would easily help things along.

More funding won't do diddily, nor will "no longer playing to the status quo". Not when kids know they can get away with doing whatever they damned well please.

Kanluwen wrote:
I'm pretty sure noone has said this is an end-all, be all solution.
It, however, is not "putting a band-aid over the problem itself." Being able to hold people accountable for irresponsible behaviors taken because they're "not being watched" and showing that just because nobody's looking over your shoulder in person doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't wrong.

I think perhaps part of the problem is that I'm more against CCTV surveillance in the world as general, and less specifically in schools. I still don't think it's a fantastic idea for schools specifically though. You're not teaching kids that they're accountable for their actions. You're teaching them that you have a "gotcha" to ensure that they can be caught. They understand how you're catching them. They'd have to if by no other reason that you showing the footage to SOMEONE to prove that the kid is lying. They'll learn that they're being caught through the cameras, and then it'll get to the point where if they're up to shenanigans, they'll just move the shenanigans outside of the school system. I remember most fights back in my day occurred outside of school time, typically either off school grounds or at least in portions of them seldom visited by any faculty. That's what I mean by the use of the term band-aid. I suppose from the administration's point of view, it would be a overwhelming success, simply because 'in-school' events would be down. If kids old enough to want to cause trouble decide they want to cause trouble, they'll find a time and a place.

"Mandatory classes raising awareness for expecting parents" is somehow less draconian than CCTVs in schools? Think about that for a moment. How do you enforce those expectant parents to attend said class?

In a perfect world, you wouldn't have to. In a realistic world, I'm not sure. Perhaps not make them mandatory, but perhaps attach some sort of tax incentive to them or something that would make them lucrative?

You wouldn't be voting on it. The money would come from within the education system's budget or be added in. That's how it's worked every time the WCPSS has added CCTVs to the schools.

I understand that in this case. Again, arguing against CCTV as a whole. I think that outreach/afterschool programs would get you further. My girlfriend does that for a job at a library and from her point of view it seems to make a good deal of difference.

More funding won't do diddily, nor will "no longer playing to the status quo". Not when kids know they can get away with doing whatever they damned well please.

And just why do the kids feel the need to do whatever they damned well please? Find that out, and you'll have the solution to the problem. If CCTV based enforcement is going to make them behave, then it will only keep them behaving long as CCTV based enforcement is around.