London’s Surveillance Fails - Only 1 Crime Solved per 1000 Cameras

Re:London’s Surveillance Fails - Only 1 Crime Solved per 100... by Musashi on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @01:45AM (#799545)

What the article has missed is the fact that these cameras and their operators are less interested in crime and far more interested in fine-able offenses such as motorists parking incorrectly; stopping in the wrong place; driving too fast; people putting their rubbish out on the wrong day; people putting the wrong rubbish in the recycle bins; or whatever else they can bill you for to pay off the bank-bailouts.

Local councils are milking these cameras for all that they are worth. Most of the cameras aren't even watching crime spots, but are instead focused on the roads at stop signs etc. Given the added revenue - irrespective of the crime prevention stats - those cameras are here to stay.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London’s Surveillance Fails - Only 1 Crime Solved per 100... by TomOfTTB on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @01:53AM (#799550)

Well but that's sort of the point. I think 99% of the people on earth would be in favor of camera setups like this if there was some way to guarantee it would only be used to catch murderers and rapists. But it's a slippery slope and once you put that power in the Government's hands they will almost certainly abuse it.

You're probably right about the cameras being a permanent fixture in London. But the fact that Government officials are using them more for minor infractions than serious crime is a lesson that may prevent setups like this in other places.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London’s Surveillance Fails - Only 1 Crime Solved per 100... by axod on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @06:06AM (#799810)

Definitely. Why solve crimes when you can catch people going to the toilet on the street and fine them each £60 or whatever it is.

You know there's a good reason to not live in cities. Move out to the country! Do what they hell you want! :)

[ Parent | on HN ]