24 hour surveillance

MrNuked · 03-06-2003 12:55am #1

suggesting this in the hope of provoking interest and encouraging debate, not because it's something I've thought about and believe (so don't call me a twit or something if you think it's stupid):

24 hour video surveillance eveywhere except bedrooms and bathrooms would end crime more or less. To maintain civil liberties the vdeos could be accessed only when relevent to an actual reported crime, from which point they could be used to monitor and record the movements and actions of the accused. It would also help stop people from being wrongly incarcerated. Another idea would be to have neural networks monitor the videos for unreported crimes - while still maintaining a degree of privacy. this would be particularly cool I think because there would be the chance of the neural network eventually evolving genuine intelligence and trying to take over the world. Also all crimes should be made civil rather than personal. That way people couldn't be intimidated into not pressing charges.

ecksor · 03-06-2003 1:35am

to nitpick a bit, you're putting forward two quite different ideas there. I don't quite follow your point about personal versus civil crime reducing intimidation.

As for your surveillance question, I don't know that increasing surveillance would lead to less crime, but I'd be interested in any arguments for or against that assertion. It would certainly increase crime detection, which would lead to more jailings, a less cooperative public (with government/authorities), a generallly less nice place to live, etc etc.

Actually, you claim that it would end crime. I don't believe that for a second. The way to end crime is to end social inequality (and sure, that's a huge oversimplification, but you started it :P ). Crime (in my view) tends to be a reaction by people or groups who feel marginalised or abandoned by society. Surveillance would probably lead to more people with negative feelings of this nature.

MrNuked · 03-06-2003 2:11am

If it's a personal offence then the victim can choose whether or not to press charges. If they fear reprisal as a result of pressing charges they probably won't. this is part of the reason why people from bad families get away with so much. if it's a civil offence then the state presses charges.

Two different points yes. Sorry my mind wandered a bit.

So long as the surveillance wasn't obtrusive and it was only actually viewed in order to monitor a crime or track a criminal it shouldn't have too strong negative effects.

Chaos-Engine · 04-06-2003 2:19am

Sounds a bit too much like a telescreen in 1984

Come to think of it. 1984 should be on the reading list for this forum

:D

theciscokid · 05-06-2003 9:05pm

its heading this way isnt it, its starting with the reg plate scanning of cars in germany which is coming to britain,

the only thing stopping face scans is that the technology isnt cheap enough to do a big rollout

karlin · 02-07-2003 10:57pm

The other thing that is stopping face scans is that the technology is so woefully poor at actually scanning faces! When the Guardian talked to the places that were actually using some of the systems the reporter discovered that the companies were hyping the systems but the systems actually couldn't do much of anything at all -- failed to spot the reporter even when he loitered in front of the CCTV cameras. They have a very high rate of false positives and false negatives according to the security experts I've talked to at security and crypto conferences.

Of course they'll improve but claims about face recognition's abilities, even in highly controlled circumstances such as security checkpoints for employees, are vastly exaggerated...

dahamsta · 07-07-2003 10:00am

Come to think of it. 1984 should be on the reading list for this forum

Heh, somebody sent that to me off my Amazon wishlist last week. I wonder were they trying to tell me something...

adam

tribble · 22-07-2003 5:40pm

24 hour video surveillance eveywhere except bedrooms and bathrooms would end crime more or less

If we were to introduce such a uber totalitarian system why would you exempt the bedroom and bathroom? Criminals would simply commit more crime there. Besides, presumably the reason you excluded those two is to protect modesty, can you honestly look me in the eye and say that they are the only two places you and your girlfriend (presumably) require privacy.

To maintain civil liberties the vdeos could be accessed only when relevent to an actual reported crime, from which point they could be used to monitor and record the movements and actions of the accused

Who watchs the watchers - basically it comes down to trust. Humans (and the systems they create/control) are inherently untrustworthy. I wonder what Bertie would give for the tapes of the oppositions private meetings, democracy would be at an end.

. It would also help stop people from being wrongly incarcerated.

Sorry have to disagree with you again, no system, human or otherwise is flawless. Mistakes happen.

Though I strongly disagree with the system you suggest I do accept that that is the way we seem to be going. In London the police can trace the movements of any car throughout the city. Coupled with cell phone triangualtion data (which vodafone ireland keep for 10 years, don't know uk) stitching somebody up for a crime has never been easier.

tribble

24 hour surveillance

the idea stated below is: 2 votes

Comments