Washington DC might become London, England!

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-16 10:12pm

MKSheppard wrote:
innerbrat wrote:OK, more surveillance cameras would have saved me six months of extended PTSD
How? Are surveillance cameras going to magically mow down your
assailiants?

No, but they can be used to send a ambulence before the fighting starts. Cuts down on the deathes. Also lowers the number of criminals that can escape.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-16 10:22pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: No, but they can be used to send a ambulence before the fighting starts. Cuts down on the deathes. Also lowers the number of criminals that can escape.

Wow, so how are you going to pay people to look at every fucking TV
screen 24 x 7?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-16 10:33pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:How? Are surveillance cameras going to magically mow down your
assailiants?
No, but they can be used to send a ambulence before the fighting starts. Cuts down on the deathes. Also lowers the number of criminals that can escape.

Oh, so your surveillance cameras now have magic psychic powers too? Gimme a break, sending an ambulance before the fighting starts my ass! What are you gonna tell me next, that cameras can predict crime so that perps can be arrested before they get a chance to commit crimes?

In a best case scenario the guy watching the TV screen will notice you getting the shit beat out of you on screen, if he's really on the ball he might be able to dispatch cops and an ambulance for you. Unfortunately by the time they get there the only thing they can do is pick up the pieces of whatever's left over.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-16 10:43pm

Beowulf wrote:
aerius wrote: IMO surveillance can go fuck itself. Until our laws allow police and citizens to discourage criminals and put them away for a good long time, video surviellance is just another useless feel-good clusterfuck.
Like Gun Control

Shut up! Just shut the hell up!

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-16 10:46pm

victorhadin wrote:You shouldn't be doing that in the car anyhow, so you can take your chances.

I have no problem with CCTV. It has its uses and a large fraction of CCTV systems are in fact private, not government owned, and used in such areas as petrol stations and convenience stores; they serve a useful role in these situations, and they also serve useful roles in the surveying of traffic incidents.

Tassie has quite a few red-light cameras and a fair bit of police operated CCTV. Mainly around the CBDs where previously there was a bit of a crime epidemic.

Christ; it's not like anyone is tapping your phones or anything or putting cameras in your houses, so what's the problem? CCTV doesn't even cost much either, especially when private interests contribute to their installation, as is often the case outside of traffic CCTV systems.

No, people have been tapping yolur phone etc since the early 80's.

Unless you have a habit of shunting other cars, beating people up in the street or vandalising phone booths when drunk, I don't see the problem.

'Invading privacy'? Yeah right. If you want privacy then get out of the public street and go indoors like everyone else.

I think CCTV is a good idea in some areas. But it remains true that it merely relocates the crime. But with Tassie being highly reliant on tourism as an industry moving the crime out of sight of the tourists fitted perfectly with our governments agenda.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-16 11:47pm

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote: No, but they can be used to send a ambulence before the fighting starts. Cuts down on the deathes. Also lowers the number of criminals that can escape.
Wow, so how are you going to pay people to look at every fucking TV
screen 24 x 7?

One cop can watch a bank of screens more cost effectively than a cop on a beat. That doesn't mean you get rid of beat cops, you just have some on remote survaillence duty. Saves money, increases response time, helps solve crimes, saves lives, and pisses off little fucks like you. I see no downside.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-16 11:57pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: One cop can watch a bank of screens more cost effectively than a cop on a beat. That doesn't mean you get rid of beat cops, you just have some on remote survaillence duty. Saves money, increases response time, helps solve crimes, saves lives, and pisses off little fucks like you. I see no downside.

Someone, put C.S. Strowbridge in front of a bank of TVs for six hours,
and tell him he has to watch each and every one ATTENTIVELY for
six hours, and not miss a damn thing...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-17 12:03am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:saves lives

And HOW are they going to save lives? Most CCTV footage is
used in post-incident analysis and in courtrooms showing the
bad guy walking in and robbing the place on TVs to the Jury...

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:07am

aerius wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:How? Are surveillance cameras going to magically mow down your
assailiants?
No, but they can be used to send a ambulence before the fighting starts. Cuts down on the deathes. Also lowers the number of criminals that can escape.
Oh, so your surveillance cameras now have magic psychic powers too? Gimme a break, sending an ambulance before the fighting starts my ass! What are you gonna tell me next, that cameras can predict crime so that perps can be arrested before they get a chance to commit crimes?

In a best case scenario the guy watching the TV screen will notice you getting the shit beat out of you on screen, if he's really on the ball he might be able to dispatch cops and an ambulance for you. Unfortunately by the time they get there the only thing they can do is pick up the pieces of whatever's left over.

No, the people watching the TV screen can tell a fights about to start before it starts cause they're not fucking retarded like you obviously are. I haven't been in many fights, but even I know when I situation is getting out of control. The first sign a fight is going to break out is not when someone's fist hits you in the face.

I've seen these in action. They work. Your claims that they don't contradict reality as I have seen it. You vs. Reality - Guess who wins?

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:11am

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote: One cop can watch a bank of screens more cost effectively than a cop on a beat. That doesn't mean you get rid of beat cops, you just have some on remote survaillence duty. Saves money, increases response time, helps solve crimes, saves lives, and pisses off little fucks like you. I see no downside.

Someone, put C.S. Strowbridge in front of a bank of TVs for six hours,
and tell him he has to watch each and every one ATTENTIVELY for
six hours, and not miss a damn thing...

Two points:

1.) Nothing kills the effectiveness of an argument than a row of Emoticons.

2.) False Dilemma: Your argument can be summed up thusly, 'If it can't work 100% of the time, we shouldn't even try.'

Just to point out a parallel, 'Evolution can't explain everything, so Creationism must be correct.'

Do you see the problem?

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:13am

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:saves lives
And HOW are they going to save lives? Most CCTV footage is
used in post-incident analysis and in courtrooms showing the
bad guy walking in and robbing the place on TVs to the Jury...

So 'most' suddenly means 'all?'

Cause that's the clear implication of your statement.

While most might be used in post-incident analysis the systems being discussed are used to direct police dispatch to event as they happen. That's right, a live feed.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-17 12:14am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: I've seen these in action. They work. Your claims that they don't contradict reality as I have seen it. You vs. Reality - Guess who wins?

Anecedotal Evidence. Provide statistics, or STFU.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-17 12:17am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: While most might be used in post-incident analysis the systems being discussed are used to direct police dispatch to event as they happen. That's right, a live feed.

Wow, the cops can see the gang beating you up LIVE...that really is going
to HELP you as you're getting the shit beat out of you...

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-17 11:39am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:No, the people watching the TV screen can tell a fights about to start before it starts cause they're not fucking retarded like you obviously are.

They might be able to tell if the fight in question involves the people jabbering at each other and pushing each other around for a good while before throwing any punches. How exactly are they going to predict a mugging where you get "Pearl Harboured" from behind?

I haven't been in many fights, but even I know when I situation is getting out of control. The first sign a fight is going to break out is not when someone's fist hits you in the face.

Real life isn't like high school dumbass. Your friendly neighbourhood criminal scumbag ain't gonna posture and push you around acting all tough before he kills you for your wallet. In real life the scumbag will blindside you and
a)take your wallet or whatever else he wants on the spot, and/or
b)blindside and drag your ass to a secluded area to rape, beat, rob, and/or kill you.
And the fun part is it'll be over so fast that all the guy watching the CCTV's gonna see is your bloody body lying face down on the street.

I've seen these in action. They work. Your claims that they don't contradict reality as I have seen it. You vs. Reality - Guess who wins?

I'm glad you enjoy watching those "Caught on Camera" specials on FOX and TLC. Real accurate portrayal of reality there retard. They go through thousands of hours of videotape to find the dumbest of the dumb criminals to show for our entertainment. What they don't show you are all the successful crimes that happen, or all the ones they miss because that would take away from the show. It's about as real as a video of "NASCAR's Best Crashes" where all they show is cars crashing.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-12-17 11:53am

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote: No, but they can be used to send a ambulence before the fighting starts. Cuts down on the deathes. Also lowers the number of criminals that can escape.
Wow, so how are you going to pay people to look at every fucking TV
screen 24 x 7?

Shep give it up, CCTV is a GOOD thing.

Take a look at a security room in a building. There's a whole row of monitors with a few guys staring at them.

What would you rather have, being beaten up, and waiting for HOURS for a cop or until you pick yourself off the ground with injuries, or rather wait a few minutes and get cops and an ambulance there, which could save you from dying through loss of blood or somesuch.

If the CCTV catches you doing something illegal, such as smoking in a no smoking area, fuck you, you were stupid enough to do it there, your own bloody fault you got caught and fined, it means that CCTV is doing a GOOD thing.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-17 12:24pm

Ted wrote:Take a look at a security room in a building. There's a whole row of monitors with a few guys staring at them.

What would you rather have, being beaten up, and waiting for HOURS for a cop or until you pick yourself off the ground with injuries, or rather wait a few minutes and get cops and an ambulance there, which could save you from dying through loss of blood or somesuch.

Note that those buildings are Private property. Also note that despite all the screens they don't have full coverage of everything. And here's the fun part, those security rooms are only responsible for building itself, nothing else, and they have a hard enough time as it is keeping track of things. They work mainly by keeping track of who goes in and out of the building, not what goes on in employee room #3417. They're more of an access control and tracking device than anything else, if the note someone suspicious entering the building they can follow him around with the cameras. If Fred the CEO has a heart attack and keels over at the coffee machine, no one's gonna notice, but it'll be on the tape archives so they can replay it the next day.

With the city based system that's been proposed, it's the equivalent of keeping track of what goes on in each room of the building on a constant basis, except that it'll be city wide. The manpower required for this would be staggering, and the chances of missing stuff would be huge.

If the CCTV catches you doing something illegal, such as smoking in a no smoking area, fuck you, you were stupid enough to do it there, your own bloody fault you got caught and fined, it means that CCTV is doing a GOOD thing.

I don't know about you, but I don't want people watching me make out with my GF in a park on CCTV and making take home videos of it. Nevermind that the videos might make it out and end up on the internet. Think it doesn't happen? Working in Customs I saw leaked videos from CCTV systems getting sent around in the underground market.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:50pm

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote: I've seen these in action. They work. Your claims that they don't contradict reality as I have seen it. You vs. Reality - Guess who wins?
Anecedotal Evidence. Provide statistics, or STFU.

He's saying it can't work. Zero Percent. All I have to do is show ONE example of it working to prove his claim wrong.

Unless he comes up with a less extreme position based on statistical evidence I don't have to do anymore work. Claiming otherwise is a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:57pm

aerius wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:No, the people watching the TV screen can tell a fights about to start before it starts cause they're not fucking retarded like you obviously are.
They might be able to tell if the fight in question involves the people jabbering at each other and pushing each other around for a good while before throwing any punches. How exactly are they going to predict a mugging where you get "Pearl Harboured" from behind?

You do know cops are trained in this shit, right? Just cause you can't figure it out, doesn't mean a solution doesn't exists. Although there are people who think that way, what are they called. Oh yeah, Creationists.

I haven't been in many fights, but even I know when I situation is getting out of control. The first sign a fight is going to break out is not when someone's fist hits you in the face.

Real life isn't like high school dumbass. Your friendly neighbourhood criminal scumbag ain't gonna posture and push you around acting all tough before he kills you for your wallet.

No, but a trained cop can spot the warning signs of an attack. Some guy hiding in the bushes is one of those.

You argument seems to be based on one of two points:

1.) Cops can NEVER predict an attack, therefore they can never save lives.
2.) Cops can't save ever life, so the system is useless.

Which is it?

I've seen these in action. They work. Your claims that they don't contradict reality as I have seen it. You vs. Reality - Guess who wins?
I'm glad you enjoy watching those "Caught on Camera" specials on FOX and TLC. Real accurate portrayal of reality there retard.

Wrong and wrong, but thank you for Poisoning the Well.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:59pm

aerius wrote: I don't know about you, but I don't want people watching me make out with my GF in a park on CCTV and making take home videos of it. Nevermind that the videos might make it out and end up on the internet. Think it doesn't happen? Working in Customs I saw leaked videos from CCTV systems getting sent around in the underground market.

That can happen with the CCTV system. All you need is a video camera and a capture card. Hell, with Digital cameras you don't even need the capture card.

You're freaking out over a loss of privacy when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-12-17 01:02pm

I wonder; how do the hardliners here feel about 'passive' CCTV systems, which simply record.

i.e traffic monitoring cameras set up to ascertain the causes of accidents, in-store CCTV for catching the criminals on tape for use by the police later or CCTV over cashpoint machines as I mentioned earlier?

Since these are passive systems where tapes are kept and re-recorded, records will only be kept when something occurs that necessitates it, such as a mugging or a car accident. They react after the incident, certainly, but dissuade criminals, help identify subjects and are useful in vehicular accidents for insurance purposes and finding out who was at fault.

And furthermore, nobody will be observing you making out with your girlfriend because unless someone mugs someone else within the same night, nobody will ever watch the tape.

Passive and active CCTV systems are separate issues, and passive ones are far more common.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-17 01:15pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: That can happen with the CCTV system. All you need is a video camera and a capture card. Hell, with Digital cameras you don't even need the capture card.

You're freaking out over a loss of privacy when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Ah, now I finally understand where you're coming from. I hope you don't mind if I hire a couple PI's to follow you around 24/7 with video cameras in hand to film you. Furthermore I'm sure you won't mind if I circulate these videotapes around, after all, you're not doing anything wrong are you? I'm sure someone will enjoy that video of you taking a shit in the washroom.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-17 01:15pm

Double post, oops.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-20 01:47am

aerius wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote: That can happen with the CCTV system. All you need is a video camera and a capture card. Hell, with Digital cameras you don't even need the capture card.

You're freaking out over a loss of privacy when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
Ah, now I finally understand where you're coming from. I hope you don't mind if I hire a couple PI's to follow you around 24/7 with video cameras in hand to film you. Furthermore I'm sure you won't mind if I circulate these videotapes around, after all, you're not doing anything wrong are you? I'm sure someone will enjoy that video of you taking a shit in the washroom.

Only when I'm in public. Once I'm in my house I'm no longer subject to cameras.

As for the bathroom cameras, weren't those set up but private individuals? They have nothing to do with what we are talking about and therefore, they are a red herring.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-20 11:28am

Let me put it to you this way since you still don't seem to understand. The only effective video surveillance systems are the ones found in large casinos such as the ones in Las Vegas. The reason they work is because they have hundreds of cameras covering every possible location in the casino constantly, AND they have tens if not hundreds of security personnel hovering around the casino to back up those cameras. Not to mention that they have lots of people manning the TV screens and that they're in constant communication with the security on the floor. Try something funny and someone will see it, and security will instantly be sent your way. You are never more than 30 feet away from a security guy, and with the radio contact that works out to a response time measured in single digit seconds.

To duplicate this level of effectiveness on a city sized scale would be impossible. You'd need millions of cameras and police/security officers on the streets, and a few tens of thousands of people to watch the TV screens at the very least. Unless you do something like this CCTV will be ineffective at best, and merely gives a false sense of security to the citizens and is a waste of resources.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-20 12:55pm

aerius wrote:Let me put it to you this way since you still don't seem to understand. The only effective video surveillance systems are the ones found in large casinos such as the ones in Las Vegas.

<SNIP!>

That's funny, cause they're effective in London. Or do you have proof that their not?