'Smart CCTV' being developed in the UK (More invasion to innocents?)

Originally posted by JennaDarling
So, answer me this... All those cameras around the UK, how come they cannot identify the rioters?

Er they did.... They were all over every single newspaper and media site for days and days afterwards.


Unless, you mean why didn't the cameras 'identify' the rioters automatically (like an electronic database)? But that would mean your claims of the UK being a police state are slightly unfounded.

Which is it to be?

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by JennaDarling
So, answer me this... All those cameras around the UK, how come they cannot identify the rioters?

Er they did.... They were all over every single newspaper and media site for days and days afterwards.

Not all of them.

reply to post by JennaDarling


Perhaps some of the rioters were unknown to the police then. Like those rioters who didn't have a criminal record.

Do you mean 'recognise' as in the camera filters the visual identity captured image to a known or possible offender? Because that would mean EVERYONE would have to be on some sort of central database connected to every camera and server in the UK.

Originally posted by JennaDarling
Crime is a social problem, not a technology problem.

Scandavian countries are better sociably, lower crime.

So if crime is merely a social problem - and not technological - then presumably the Scandinavian countries do not rely on DNA evidence, photographic and video evidence, fingerprinting, breathalysers, computer evidence, and a multitude of other technological advancements which are used to combat crime ?

They only rely on witness testimony, do they ?

Originally posted by JennaDarling
www.google.com...

That is talking about crime rates, as in reported instances, not crime itself. If anything, higher rates of reported crimes can often be a sign of efficiency in policing, and high social standards in the treatment of witnesses and victims.

Also importantly, crimes differ by country, and the reporting and collating of crime data also varies by country.

Originally posted by JennaDarling
en.wikipedia.org...

You've just provided a list of countries by homicide rates, which shows that there are 28 European countries with a higher rate than Britain !

Originally posted by JennaDarling
www.mapsofworld.com...

Again, crime rate, not crime.

That's also total crimes reported. Of course first-world countries with large populations will feature highly.

By using totals, rather than crimes per x amount of people, then you wouldn't expect to find anything else.

By that same token, Britain is far more socially advanced than Scandinavian countries, because we have way more people in employment than them.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by JennaDarling

 

Perhaps some of the rioters were unknown to the police then. Like those rioters who didn't have a criminal record.

Do you mean 'recognise' as in the camera filters the visual identity captured image to a known or possible offender? Because that would mean EVERYONE would have to be on some sort of central database connected to every camera and server in the UK.

Uhh they have you on databases... PASSPORT photos.. what do you think they scan when you travel across border checkpoints in airports? Driving licenses photos, what do you think the insurance companies check and police check?

They already have databases connected up.

For white lillies (no prior crime records), that is even covered too.

Fingerprints, no problem, they are required on travel to the US borders, a lot travel there. Covered again to close more database gaps.

the UK has lots of information on people without a criminal record.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by JennaDarling
Crime is a social problem, not a technology problem.

Scandavian countries are better sociably, lower crime.

So if crime is merely a social problem - and not technological - then presumably the Scandinavian countries do not rely on DNA evidence, photographic and video evidence, fingerprinting, breathalysers, computer evidence, and a multitude of other technological advancements which are used to combat crime ?

They only rely on witness testimony, do they ?

Originally posted by JennaDarling
www.google.com...

That is talking about crime rates, as in reported instances, not crime itself. If anything, higher rates of reported crimes can often be a sign of efficiency in policing, and high social standards in the treatment of witnesses and victims.

Also importantly, crimes differ by country, and the reporting and collating of crime data also varies by country.

Originally posted by JennaDarling
en.wikipedia.org...

You've just provided a list of countries by homicide rates, which shows that there are 28 European countries with a higher rate than Britain !

Originally posted by JennaDarling
www.mapsofworld.com...

Again, crime rate, not crime.

That's also total crimes reported. Of course first-world countries with large populations will feature highly.

By using totals, rather than crimes per x amount of people, then you wouldn't expect to find anything else.

By that argument, Britain is far more socially advanced than Scandinavian countries, because we have way more people in employment than them.

They do rely on technolgoy, but fighting crime is a two handed approach, the root problem is social, the detection and prosicution is technological.

Scandinavia focus a lot on the social aspect to reduce crime, it seems to work. They have the best social systems around Europe and also the lowest crime figures, the UK seems to primarely on the detection and prosicution, not the source of the problem.

Originally posted by JennaDarling


Uhh they have you on databases... PASSPORT photos.. what do you think they scan when you travel across border checkpoints in airports? Driving licenses photos, what do you think the insurance companies check and police check?

Same in Germany, and if I remember correctly, I remember having to scan my passport into cigarette machines in Germany. And your paperwork is excessive. Does that make you a police state?

They already have databases connected up.

For white lillies (no prior crime records), that is even covered too.

Fingerprints, no problem, they are required on travel to the US borders, a lot travel there. Covered again to close more database gaps.

the UK has lots of information on people without a criminal record.

As does practically any westernised country, even many, many eastern countries - this is not limited to the UK.

reply to post by JennaDarling


If I were to play "devils advocate" here, I could argue that the problems the British face are indeed social, based upon the class system introduced in 1066 when we were invaded by the Europeans

But I'm just playing with you

We have the phrase here "Broken Britain" and I don't think anyone can argue it's not broken, it's a shameful country now more so than ever. The goverments help themselves, not the people, the people get upset and kick off, the goverment crushes us more and tell us that's what we want.

Originally posted by JennaDarling
Not all of them.

There were only about 3,000 reported crimes in London throughout the entire riot.

They released the CCTV images of those who they already had evidence on, many of whom have since been identified by the public and subsequently arrested.

They are still making arrests two weeks after the riots, and presumably many of those are people who have been identified by the police on CCTV.

You can't convict someone on the basis of CCTV evidence alone, so even if they think they've caught someone stealing on camera, there are too many doubts which would arise to gain a conviction, such as the suspect going in and out of camera shot, not being seen in the actual act of the crime or the image of the apparent crime being too blurry to conclusively prove that the crime took place.

reply to post by JennaDarling


What makes you think I already haven't? All perfectly legal. You're just grasping at straws here.

reply to post by sensairich


If a person is driving without insurance and is spotted by an ANPR camera, the police will seize the vehicle and can even crush it. The person driving can be given a fine of up to £5000 and 3 (I think) penalty points on their license.

Well, well, well. I wondered when they were going to invent a so called smarter camera. The problem is not the new equipment, It is the people who are trained to use them. Thinks I will buy blackout tape for my windows. Im no having no perv peeping on me when IM undressing.

And dont anyone dare, say, that this has never happened because it has.

reply to post by Griffo


The problem with the cameras is that if we were all treated the same and all had the same we wouldn't need them, but certain people have to keep us in our place and choose to educate people to a lesser extent than themselves.

Dr Orwell?

Seriously?

You couldn't make that type of crap up if you tried!

I find it bizarre they can, film us with the cameras, but when It comes to the public using Cameras to film them. Some are threatened. Double Standards if you ask me. Them PCSO's are bad for that.