Police Chief: Put CCTV in EVERY Home

a reply to: WilsonWilson

It'd also protect you from accusations of being excessively violent if you had to protect yourself from an aggressive burglar.

a reply to: ATF1886

EVERYTHING can be hacked if someone has the ability, the inclination and the opportunity. The trick is to keep the last parameter as accountable as possible so those responsible for such security systems put their best efforts into minimising such opportunities.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

Sir bernie wants us to pay for cameras to spy on ourselves in order to catch burglars. Good thought but it carries no weight.

When I was burgled, I asked the poolice to dna the door that had been broken and the areas of the house that had been ransacked. "Oh No - far too expensive". \When I asked why do they demand dna from anyone they get their paws on then, he merely smirked and when I said obviously you sell it for police benes he turned away. Needless to say they caught the b---ards. or got my property back and even the insurance fiddled the claim so I didn't get enough to replace the items even second hand.

I rest my case with the police - I simply don't want to know and would prefer to have the right to deal with a burglar myself as citizen's justice. T|he mess of Ooh let them get away with it is simply meaning that unless they have robbed some big-wig they walk free - not interested.

ok! have Him put a carmra in his home.

a reply to: buddha

Better still on his head as at home they can be angels in a respectable environment so we might not see the real him.

The thing is, CCTV is only an investigative tool, when used in conjunction with other systems.

I work in the security industry and design building / campus access control and CCTV systems for many differing security level requirements. CCTV on it's own is pointless, as all it will do is show what has happened, after the fact. It won't stop your home being burgled, or even deter the thieves who will all be wearing masks, hoods, gloves anyway.
As the system will not be monitored real-time by anyone, it simply becomes another possible hacking target for the GCHQ and NSA data mining teams, and the camera voyeurs that work for those institutions.

Right now, all commercial systems for use in the UK need to be certified by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) for insurance approval purposes, and I suspect this would be extended to domestic systems too, very quickly. As such, ACPO will receive royalties for this certification process resulting in a nice little earner for the boys in blue at the top of the ladder and greatly increase the money it receives.

ACPO is not a government institution but is a private company. It's board and directors are all either serving or ex senior police officers. It uses current police technology and resources to provide chargeable services to customers - technology approvals and certifications, criminal record checks and a host of other services. In other words, this private company has been set up and handed a monopoly with access to publicly funded police resources. anyone see a conflict of interest here?

Mr. Hogan-Howe sits on the board of directors of ACPO. So, it makes sense for him to push this nonsense as ACPO, and he personally, stand to make a lot of money from this untapped market, whilst at the same time pushing further the surveillance state they all crave.

I work in the security industry and design building / campus access control and CCTV systems for many differing security level requirements. CCTV on it's own is pointless

It's keeping you in a job. Why don't you try and set up a rival, less corrupted company to the one Howe is on the board of, and give us homeowners the systems WE want, not them?

originally posted by: IvanAstikov

I work in the security industry and design building / campus access control and CCTV systems for many differing security level requirements. CCTV on it's own is pointless

It's keeping you in a job. Why don't you try and set up a rival, less corrupted company to the one Howe is on the board of, and give us homeowners the systems WE want, not them?

If it were that simple, we'd all give it a go. However, such is the control they have over the industry, it would be very difficult to do anything outside of their certification process.

Much as I think the need is there for industrial security, with staff, intellectual property and assets to protect, I do not hold that this should also be applied to the domestic sector. If people with assets to protect want to put in their own systems, in conjunction with other monitored access and intruder systems, then great, it's their choice. What is being proposed adds nothing to domestic security, but opens up the floodgates to more abuse and mass surveillance by the government and it's agencies, at almost zero cost to themselves in the way of infrastructure.

However, such is the control they have over the industry, it would be very difficult to do anything outside of their certification process.

Where does this control stem from, and how do we go about wresting it from them?

originally posted by: jude11
1984? Ye have Finally arrived!

Excellent, more irrational knee-jerk "libertarianism" at work.
The man has suggested that people might want to install their own CCTV in their own home...

1. It's a suggestion, not a law
2. No one is being "forced" to do anything
3. CCTV evidence is valid and will assist in identifying and apprehending criminals
4. This is not going to be feeding live footage to your government

By all means, be a troglodyte and reject technology even when it can help you, but please stop manipulating the story to suit your own sensationalist agenda. No one is being forced to do anything, it's a sensible suggestion from someone in law enforcement to help lessen crime and the impact it has on innocent people.

originally posted by: Britguy
I work in the security industry and design building / campus access control and CCTV systems for many differing security level requirements. CCTV on it's own is pointless, as all it will do is show what has happened, after the fact. It won't stop your home being burgled, or even deter the thieves who will all be wearing masks, hoods, gloves anyway.
As the system will not be monitored real-time by anyone, it simply becomes another possible hacking target for the GCHQ and NSA data mining teams, and the camera voyeurs that work for those institutions.

I worked in security management for five years, the industry for almost ten. I can tell you that you are wrong on several counts.

CCTV drastically reduces the chances of being a target, in a similar way owning a dog does. The average criminal targeting domestic properties is looking for an easy steal, something they can grab and go and move on quickly. When they see a CCTV sign, or a guard dog sign, they are more likely to move on to another unprotected property. This is a reality, regardless of anyone wanting to believe otherwise.

In addition, most burglaries are carried out by unprofessional drug addicts, they don't tool up with gloves, masks, ninja outfits... you've been watching far too many heist movies.

Almost all burglaries of domestic properties are carried out by simple-minded criminals who see something through a window and chuck a brick through it to get something to sell for their next fix, or by someone who knows what's in the property through relationship to those who live there, they're not preplanned and premeditated crimes by professionals all geared up to avoid capture.

Finally, I know for a fact (I used to work with such systems) that CCTV can be monitored live if you wish. You can pay someone to monitor the perimeter of your property, you can set viewing times, access permissions, lock angles of viewing, log in yourself from any location, even on a phone, receive text alerts to your devices when movement is detected... there are a thousand and one features that you can now get on even the most affordable system.

And, I'm pretty sure that even though the NSA and GCHQ can hack into things like this, they have more things to worry about than whether you cut your lawn this week. I'm as suspicious of these agencies as the next guy, but come on! There has to be a reasonable limit to the justified paranoia about what these agencies are actually doing. Why the hell would anyone at these agencies pick you out from the millions of other avenues of investigation and waste time checking out your washing line in the back yard?

People need to get a grip here. This is one cop suggesting that CCTV might help you, and it actually might. There's nothing in this story that's a remote threat to anyone here - they NOT COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!

they NOT COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!

But...but... they can see me polishing them!

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Britguy
I work in the security industry and design building / campus access control and CCTV systems for many differing security level requirements. CCTV on it's own is pointless, as all it will do is show what has happened, after the fact. It won't stop your home being burgled, or even deter the thieves who will all be wearing masks, hoods, gloves anyway.
As the system will not be monitored real-time by anyone, it simply becomes another possible hacking target for the GCHQ and NSA data mining teams, and the camera voyeurs that work for those institutions.

I worked in security management for five years, the industry for almost ten. I can tell you that you are wrong on several counts.

CCTV drastically reduces the chances of being a target, in a similar way owning a dog does. The average criminal targeting domestic properties is looking for an easy steal, something they can grab and go and move on quickly. When they see a CCTV sign, or a guard dog sign, they are more likely to move on to another unprotected property. This is a reality, regardless of anyone wanting to believe otherwise.

Guard dogs will always be a deterrent, as long as there are actual dogs and not just a sign. CCTV signage and actual cameras in view are no real deterrent to those intent on breaking in.

In addition, most burglaries are carried out by unprofessional drug addicts, they don't tool up with gloves, masks, ninja outfits... you've been watching far too many heist movies.

Agreed, most burglaries are indeed carried out by unprofessional druggies and scallies out to make a quick buck. However, gloves, a hoodie and scarf around the face are common amongst even the most inept burglar. Where did I mention Ninja outfits?

Almost all burglaries of domestic properties are carried out by simple-minded criminals who see something through a window and chuck a brick through it to get something to sell for their next fix, or by someone who knows what's in the property through relationship to those who live there, they're not preplanned and premeditated crimes by professionals all geared up to avoid capture.

True, but again, seeing cameras up is no deterrent as they know they are not monitored and they can avoid recognition by simply covering up their face and wearing gloves.

Finally, I know for a fact (I used to work with such systems) that CCTV can be monitored live if you wish. You can pay someone to monitor the perimeter of your property, you can set viewing times, access permissions, lock angles of viewing, log in yourself from any location, even on a phone, receive text alerts to your devices when movement is detected... there are a thousand and one features that you can now get on even the most affordable system.

I too am fully aware of all that you mentioned above, but we are not talking about a few rich households being monitored for a fee. They are talking about the general population, which it becomes logistically impossible to monitor real-time. Thus the whole idea becomes a fantasy and we are back to the real reasons for pushing this, which is as an extension to the already in place surveillance state.

And, I'm pretty sure that even though the NSA and GCHQ can hack into things like this, they have more things to worry about than whether you cut your lawn this week. I'm as suspicious of these agencies as the next guy, but come on! There has to be a reasonable limit to the justified paranoia about what these agencies are actually doing. Why the hell would anyone at these agencies pick you out from the millions of other avenues of investigation and waste time checking out your washing line in the back yard?

Simply making a forum posting, attending an open house debate or a peaceful demonstration is enough to get you monitored these days. It has happened a hell of a lot and they have been called out for it. Let us also not forget the revelation about GCHQ staff hacking all those webcams and watching / recording people as they strip, have sex etc in front of unsecured webcams on the laptop they left open. This is fact, that they admitted to, where there was zero justification to be doing so. so yes, they DO monitor people and seem to have the time on their hands to do so rather frequently and without cause, other than their own voyeuristic perversions.

People need to get a grip here. This is one cop suggesting that CCTV might help you, and it actually might. There's nothing in this story that's a remote threat to anyone here - they NOT COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!

This is one very senior cop with political connections and aspirations, not some lowly plod. Given the power he already has amongst the elites and politicians, and likely links to the spook agencies in the city, such talk is dangerous and shows the mindset of these idiots. We know mass surveillance is already here, it's paranoia talking, it's fact and has been shown many times over. They just think they need more and will make such suggestions based on complete bollox and use the time tested fear aspect to get people to comply.

Like many my initial reaction to this was one of anger.
But after careful consideration I'm not entirely sure its a bad idea.

Consider the facts; you as the home owner / occupier can choose to locate the camera's - don't like the idea of a camera recording you in shower, toilet, bedroom etc, simply don't place one there.
Place them in locations that are most likely to capture an image of a burglar or intruder.

Now these images will not be sent on some sort of live feed where a government employee will be monitoring your every movement etc - the images would be stored on your hard drive and in the event of a burglary etc you will be the one who chooses to pass on the police / insurance company etc just what images you want to pass on.
Your choice.

Of course the Security Services, GCHQ, Police etc would probably be able to hack your hard drive etc but for 99.9% of us I'm sure they have far more important things to do. Bear in mind they have very much limited resources in these days of austerity cuts etc.

I know a few people who have their homes covered by home security systems of varying degrees of sophistication - the majority of these people are hardly the sort who want their 'doings' monitored by anyone, and they are still very much at liberty.

At the end of the day its an individuals choice - get a simple camera system, strategically place the camera's and wipe the drive as regular as you wish.....or don't.
No-one is forcing you either way.....and no-one will.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Like many my initial reaction to this was one of anger.
But after careful consideration I'm not entirely sure its a bad idea.

It seems to be nothing more than irrational paranoia, from people who constantly fear the state. There are times and reasons to do so, but claiming that a police officer suggesting you use CCTV in your own home is akin to the arrival of 1984 is clearly complete nonsense.

this is getting out of hand. make your stand america!

a reply to: Rocker2013
Awsome you've solved it for us..just install CCTV signs.
What a joke.

a reply to: jude11

I'm going to set one up and have as much sex as humanly possible right in veiw. Want to invade my privacy? You won't after a few hours of that.

Sure - start with his own.
Next, the Clinton's.
Then, all the jerks who wrote those emails in Fergusson.
Set 'em up, I'll watch 'em.
ETA: Y'know, our "Foundin' Fathers" had a good way to make sure every home was protected:
Keep a gun in it.

a reply to: dr1234

lol that was my first thought.
go ahead and watch, pervs!