|
Well, for possibly irrational reasons, I don't like the idea of it at all. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
|
I have one on my motorcycle for filming my roadtrips, however, hooked up to an Archos PVR, I could run it all day non stop which had me thinking I should record every trip for those occasions where an idiot driver might cause me harm and then deny it.
It happens.
|
It seems many people don't like the idea of cameras, yet can offer no sane and rational or logical explanation as to why.
Perhaps its because of the media and the fact that when the red top tabloids claim CCTV is the invention of the cloven-hoofed one then it must be true and we must all be obliged to hate and mistrust the very things that help to protect us and our property and can act as a deterrent even if they do provide fuzzy footage. With technology however, this can only improve.
I've been toying with the idea of buying a Muvi DV camera for my cycle to work and fit it to the handle bars. There's been many a time when I could have done with it!
|
"It seems many people don't like the idea of cameras, yet can offer no sane and rational or logical explanation as to why. "
Because I believe it is my fundamental right to go where and when I please without the police or other government authorities recording and having access to that information without good reason. The lesson of history is that information gathered for one purpose is often eventually use for another less benign purpose.
I consider myself both sane and rational
|
So what is it you do that makes you fear being filmed then CGN?
I too consider myself sane and rational therefore CCTV cameras don't stop me going where I please and I don't give a hoot who films me and what they do with the data. I am a law abiding citizen so have nothing to fear.
Besides, someone would have to be pretty sad to want to film me and keep the footage!
;-)
|
"I don't give a hoot who films me and what they do with the data. I am a law abiding citizen so have nothing to fear. "
Brave statement. Let's hope we live in a country where that is true.
|
Brave statement. Let's hope we live in a country where that is true.
We already live in a country where that statement is true. I do not feel for one minute that we have a big brother society hellbent on knowing every little detail about our boring everyday lives.
This is Great Britain not North Korea. Only the media frenzy and Hollywood make you believe otherwise.
|
"We already live in a country where that statement is true. I do not feel for one minute that we have a big brother society hellbent on knowing every little detail about our boring everyday lives.
This is Great Britain not North Korea. Only the media frenzy and Hollywood make you believe otherwise."
It is not what we are but what we might become that worries me.
|
|
|
|
Because I believe it is my fundamental right to go where and when I please without the police or other government authorities recording and having access to that information without good reason. The lesson of history is that information gathered for one purpose is often eventually use for another less benign purpose.
I believe that we have the fundamental right to, amongst other things, live without intimidation or physical assault. When it comes to CCTV, I think those rights clash with the right to not be observed or recorded, and I think that where those rights clash, the right to not be observed/recorded should take a back seat.
Mis-use of the information will always be a risk but, IMHO, better that than theoretical risk than the very real suffering inflicted by those currently unobserved.
Also, there are plenty of risks of abuse of power, that better observation helps to defeat.
How many fit ups were there before police interviews had to be recorded? How many people fell down police station steps before there was CCTV in every room?
|
Well I did say without good reason. Obviously there are some situations where use of surveillance cameras might be justified but their ever expanding use with very little in the way of justification does seem to me extremely worrying.
We have the widest use of surveillance cameras in the EU
Are our City streets safer than anywhere else in Europe?
|
Fair point that we have more cameras than anywhere else in Europe, but then again we have a binge drinking culture far worse than any European country so perhaps we need them.
If we had less or no cameras at all crime rates would go off the scale.
Besides, lets not lose site of the fact the original OP was about in-car cameras which at worst might record a clip of you picking your nose whilst waiting for the lights to go green or scratching your ball-joints! It won't record you in your bedroom doing foreplay when taking your socks off!
Signing off now. I need me beauty sleep.
;-)
|
|
|
Are our City streets safer than anywhere else in Europe?
I don't have any figures, but I would guess that they aren't. Which brings me back to what I suggested earlier...we don't have enough cameras yet.
The problem is that if you only have a few cameras you displace the anti-social behaviour.
If you are going to rob somebody, rape somebody, break into their car or just give them a kicking for the hell of it, you are not going to do it in front of a camera, you are going to go a few streets over, or down that dark alley or the far corner of that car park.
The number of cameras I think we need is probably still a long way off (for example, we need cameras in every car, people need to have cameras on them, and we need cameras on every street).
Still, we may as well start somewhere....
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems many people don't like the idea of cameras, yet can offer no >> sane and rational or logical explanation as to why.
I don't like cameras pointed at me because I'm not photogenic!
Edited by L'escargot on 21/02/2010 at 07:51
|
|
|
|
... and you never have a moment of madness? Would you turn yourself in, supported by your own evidence?
Edit: This was posted in reply to thread way above this. I don't know why it has appeared out of order (and it seems twice) and I can't be bothered to try and sort it out!!
Edited by Pugugly on 20/02/2010 at 22:21
|
|
|
|
If the government made it compulsory for all cars to be fitted with an in-car camera would you think it a good idea?
If not why why would you fit one voluntarily?
|
I do not think the fitting of a recording device will ever be compulsory. There isn't the need (from a Government perspective) unless it raised a stealth tax on the purchase of a device, however if my insurance premiums decreased by having one fitted I'd be all for it.
I have posted along similar lines before in that 30 years ago, car alarms were not the norm. Now every car has one, or an immobiliser and insurance premiums rise if you don't have such a device. An in car camera may just become the norm too for the same reasons.
|
I can't agree that there aren't enough CCTV cameras, there are too many already. So why am i fuelling the arms race by running my own camera?
There is no way i can click my fingers and they'll all disappear, so i need a better solution. To me the risks of pervasive CCTV are
1) Intrusion on my privacy. I might not have anything to hide but that doesn't mean i find it acceptable for X to be seeing, and therefore knowing details about me. At what point does this descend into control over me -- you film me in an inconvenient moment, i am now open to pressure from you.
2) Difficult to refute CCTV evidence, in the same way that the computer's never wrong, and yes, your gas bill is £99999999 this month, CCTV can be wrong. Whether it's the purported date / time of recording, or who is actually in the grainy image, it can be wrong. However, that would be very difficult to persuade anyone of if there was any circumstantial evidence against you.
3) Loss of control. I can't control what you do with images of me. If i had a son or a daughter this would be even more important to me.
4) CCTV is susceptible to abuse, whether it's the pervert operator zooming in on drunken women on a saturday night in a town centre. Or whether you had an altercation with a CCTV operator who then went to his office and followed you home by viewing the footage.
5) Lack of limits. The footage can be stored indefinitely. The purpose of it could change over time (always expanding to encompass new uses because remember noone would voluntarily relinquish excessive rights to use footage).
My approach at dealing with the issues raised by CCTV is to democratise CCTV. Give everyone the ability to exercise equal rights if they choose. Its not perfect and a strong criticism would be i'm fuelling an arms race.
I think i can handle an arms race (i can fly my cameras just like the police), but i can't handle someone forever more holding compromising footage of me.
|
If I do nothing wrong how can there be compromising footage of me?
If you want to slow it down start putting in data protection requests for any film a body holds which you are on - try telling your local council which streets you walked along last time you went into town and at what time and see what they produce! i think it will cost you £10 max.
As a company we have only had one data protection request and it cost us thousands of pounds to deal with!
|
|
|
Its interesting that in an earlier post CP said that he had one fitted, yet in that last post he give 5 good reasons why they are bad in "uncontrolled" hands... I have had direct experience of "controlled" CCTV and don't have a problem with it, however I do have a problem with other people filming me without my knowledge or permission and without any control on what they might do with that footage. You say that you regard it as an "arms race" which, tbh, worries me more, the police have strict guidelines on how they can use theirs but you have carte blanche, thats hardly a level playing field! Would you argree to the same controls as they? I doubt it!
Remember that it is as easy to change video footage to what you want it to show as it is a photograph...
I hope those of you who are so keen on their use are right and nothing untoward comes of their use... but I don't share your confidence... I just await the report of the first person to use their "footage" to stitch up an innocent person.
It seems that Big Brother is here already, and its not the State, as in the book, but the individual who is the BB! Heaven help us that we have stooped so low as to people thinking that they need these things...
Edited by b308 on 18/02/2010 at 08:47
|
Not keen on the routine use of cameras in private cars. All sorts of stuff will end up on Youtube.
Had a quick look at what was up already and funnily enough there's one video from a guy who reckons it shows a car pulling out into him in town as *proof* for insurance. What the video does show is he was driving too fast with a lack of care and had rubbish anticipation/avoidance skills.
Also came across a gem...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE82FZpq0qM
It's a journey from London to Bath (through Reading, Theale, Newbury, Hungerford etc) filmed in 1963 and edited to 10mins. It's taken in the Jaguar S-Type of an IAM guy. The term mimser gets an outing as does his headlamps and horn to move over a slower car from the outside lane... which is met with the two finger salute.
Fellow oldies will enjoy I'm sure.
|
I was thinking about rigging up an in-car camera, but really just for the purpose of filming some scenic journeys just for interest to look at in the future.
However, I think in-car cameras for use as evidence in accidents could go both ways, since they could show evidence of the driver's guilt just as much as proving their innocence. They could encourage people to drive more safely.
I have ho problem with the growing use of CCTVs - they're monitoring public places, so I don't see what the privacy argument is unless the cameras can look into peoples' homes.
Edited by Pugugly on 20/02/2010 at 22:21
|
Sorry - I managed to accidentally place the entire last message in the title box as well while I was editing - and then it wouldn't disappear when i deleted it.
Have I started a new trend???
|
No its an annoying bug the mods have had to edit all evening. I think I will leave this one as evidence. You did nothing wrong.
Apologies for the problems - although nothing to do with the moderators. We await some new code from the code monkeys for you all to test again.
Edited by rtj70 on 20/02/2010 at 22:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
