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.

Find me an actual company these days that doesn't have CCTV surveillance or some other way of keeping tabs on their employees and your "gotcha" point has merit.

Kanluwen wrote:Find me an actual company these days that doesn't have CCTV surveillance or some other way of keeping tabs on their employees and your "gotcha" point has merit.

I take it you've never worked in anything other than a plc? Unless blind extrinsic accusation by other employees calsses as 'keeping tabs on employees'.

Kanluwen wrote:Find me an actual company these days that doesn't have CCTV surveillance or some other way of keeping tabs on their employees and your "gotcha" point has merit.

ISAS, Illinois State Archaeology Survey

Obviously no CCTV, but as far as your second statement it is so broad that no one can win. Even being far removed from management they still show up, although always at the designated time.

daedalus wrote: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.

Some things will move outside of school, but many of the things that happen are only possible because school is such a pressure cooker environment. Pupils are forced together in situations that are not replicated outside of school. Sure, if two kids want to fight, they will find a way. But if Pupil X is bullying Pupil Y, sometimes the only place this happens is in school. Away from there, Pupil Y manges to just stay the hell away from the bully.

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?

Parents just won't though. The worst children also have the worst parents. I know for a fact that some of my pupils are dealing drugs outside of school, but I have good reason to believe some of their parents are further up the chain. (Ironically, it doesn't generally seem to be the kids who are dealing whose parents are also dealers!!). Quite a few of my kids should be in care, but it just doesn't happen. I often feel like I am living in an episode of The Wire.

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.

Kids are not just small adults. The human brain goes through a developmental process that takes in many stages. There are lots of models that have been developed to explain this process, but essentially, there is a move from simple, personal and concrete to complex, empathetic and abstract. Knowing they will be caught is a concrete idea, and part of a consistent approach. It occurs to me now that this concrete of knowledge of being caught is present in smaller groups/societies/schools, and is actualy restored by CCTV. Once a child moves beyond the concrete onto dealing with more abstract ideas, they are better able to think of the long term consequences of their actions for themselves and others.

snurl wrote: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.

Who carried out the research? What methodology was used? Where were the results published?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

It all sounds great to catch criminals, but it will not end well. It will end with a giant nation of tattling little children in the visage of vindictive neighbors. Liberty is too precious to fritter away because of petty criminals (which should be put back on chain gangs).

Stormrider wrote:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

It all sounds great to catch criminals, but it will not end well.

See the word 'essential' in the quote - that's what makes it such an interesting expression worth consideration and discussion.

Would anyone argue that it is essential that we are not publically recorded while walking across a public street? If so, is it just as much an invasion of our personal liberty to be simply observed by a policeman but not recorded? Or is it only essential that we are not recorded while in public spaces?

Kilkrazy wrote:

snurl wrote: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.

Who carried out the research? What methodology was used? Where were the results published?

Read about them here:
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/241002

There are about 600 articles on the lancaster online site that hit when "security cameras" is typed into the search feature on the site.

I've quoted that Benjamin Franklin quote myself, in relation to some of the measures that the USA took following 9/11.

I think I'd have to agree with the point about essential liberty. However, he clearly doesn't mean that all liberty is essential, which only leaves the option that he considers it to be important to judge where the line between essential and unessential lies.

I find that if you look hard enough, you can always find a quote from a respected, usually intelligent individual to support your point of view. Sadly, it is easier to quote soundbites than to actually study full texts of speeches or publications.

How does being on camera restrict your liberty, anyway? You are still perfectly at liberty to do anything legal. No-one is stopping you going anywhere, or preventing you gathering. They only want to stop you doing illegal stuff.

Also, to a few people in this thread: why is there this assumption that just because you are caught on camera, somebody is watching you? What fills you with such a sense of self-importance that you think you are worth bothering to watch if you are not breaking the law?

Stormrider wrote:It all sounds great to catch criminals, but it will not end well. It will end with a giant nation of tattling little children in the visage of vindictive neighbors. Liberty is too precious to fritter away because of petty criminals (which should be put back on chain gangs).

It does sound great to catch criminals, doesn't it? I can't see, personally, how that will end badly. You imply a nation that will go to the police regarding criminal activity is a bad thing. You prefer the old Cosa Nostra idea of Omerta then? I'd quite like to live in a society where people do not protect criminals.

As for petty criminals, I don't personally think of the use of incendiary devices by 14 year olds to be petty, especially as they used their firework in a dangerous way that could have resulted in serious injury. I also don't consider arson to be a petty offense. Nor, for street cameras, do I see rape, murder, assault and robbery, nor even vehicle theft to be petty crimes.

As for putting these "petty" criminals in chain gangs, how are we going to do that if we can't catch them? And how on Earth is a chain gang less repressive than CCTV? You don't want to be on CCTV, because that restricts you liberty, but you have no problem with a shopllifter (someone else!) being forced to do hard labour?

People use the idea that when CCTV is used, it leads to a Big Brother repressive regime. Inappropriate use of CCTV would be one small element of that, and it would be a symptom, not a cause. Inappropriate use of firearms, Inappropriate use of the penal system to incarcerate political opponents, Inappropriate use of the military to control the population... all of these things would be part of such a society too, yet no-one in the USA wants rid of those things. They just want controls on them to make sure they continue to serve the people, not control them.

There are many aspects to CCTV, which have not been properly studied.

For example, there is some research to show that because of the amount of surveillance in the UK, ordinary people are less inclined to involve themselves in the suppression of petty crime.

The total cost of operation – is it effective compared with other forms of crime fighting? Each £100 million spent on cameras is 10,000 fewer police on the streets, or education or rehabilitation.

The privacy implications of the fact that most systems are operated by private companies.

There is a growing conflict between the proliferation of CCTV, the increasing tendency of the general public to regard the public space as a place for privacy, and the rights of non-CCTV photographers.

I have no idea whether CCTV is a good thing or not, however I do not believe it has been well enough studied for people to know.

The only "liberty" that is infringed upon by CCTV is the freedom to do wrong without getting caught.

Just because a camera is there does not stop people from doing what they want. See Youtube for proof.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:The only "liberty" that is infringed upon by CCTV is the freedom to do wrong without getting caught.

Just because a camera is there does not stop people from doing what they want. See Youtube for proof.

That is a very solid, but I'm sure accidental, point I would like to draw attention to. Cold justice after the fact is good and all, accountability for your crimes and all that, but a camera is not stopping someone from getting raped. It's not stopping that fire from being started or that store from getting robbed. There's not going to be enough people monitoring them realtime. If there were, then we could just put them on the streets as law enforcement.

The problem is that cameras are tools, and like any tool, be it a hammer, explosive, circular saw, firearm, or what have you, it can be abused. Once a system like this were implemented, it would be safe to say that it wouldn't be going away, simply because the cost of implementation would almost demand it's upkeep, because it cost too much to get in place. I mention this, because while this may sound like tinfoil-hatting, off topic of schools, what happens if the government goes oppressive? It's happened to several rather well known countries in the last 100 years, who's to say it wouldn't happen again? I'd rather not they have such infrastructure in place, ripe for abuse.