The BBC has an interesting article on surveillance cameras
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm
London Police reports found that only 1 surveillance camera in 1000 actually helped solve a crime.
This brings into question the money spent on camera surveillance and their price in terms of personal privacy.
Stephen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm
London Police reports found that only 1 surveillance camera in 1000 actually helped solve a crime.
This brings into question the money spent on camera surveillance and their price in terms of personal privacy.
Stephen
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stephen,
That high a percentage, eh?
I love the old "If just one child is saved..." argument. If that were true, the driving age for young women would be raised to 21 and to young men for 25.
What it means is, "If just one child is saved and we can get away with it electorally and it puts money in the pockets of our supporters and it appeals to the none-too-bright readers of the gutter press..."
Cheers,
R.
That high a percentage, eh?
I love the old "If just one child is saved..." argument. If that were true, the driving age for young women would be raised to 21 and to young men for 25.
What it means is, "If just one child is saved and we can get away with it electorally and it puts money in the pockets of our supporters and it appeals to the none-too-bright readers of the gutter press..."
Cheers,
R.
wintoid
Back to film
When my car was vandalised on my road, right in front of a surveillance camera, I called the police and asked them to check the camera, giving them the exact time of the event (I heard it but was too slow to catch the blighters, it was 2am). The police response?
Oh no sir, that camera is used only for traffic monitoring.
Oh no sir, that camera is used only for traffic monitoring.
mackigator
Well-known
Interesting.
But how to measure deterrence?
But how to measure deterrence?
aad
Not so new now.
Doesn't matter if it solves 100 out of 100. Still bad stuff.
peterm1
Veteran
Hmmmm 1 : 1000. So that means we need millions more security cameras to beat the odds...............well I am sure thats how it will be justified.
raid
Dad Photographer
You need to be more specific about the statement:"Only 1 in 1000 London Surveillance Cameras Help Solve Crime".
Does this statement mean that one out of 1000 cameras recorded a crime or does it imply that one out 1000 crimes are recorded on camera?
If crime rate is low, the probability of a crime being committed will be low, and the probability of a crime being committed within the range of a camera will be even smaller.
Maybe 1/1000 is a good rate if you think about it.
Does this statement mean that one out of 1000 cameras recorded a crime or does it imply that one out 1000 crimes are recorded on camera?
If crime rate is low, the probability of a crime being committed will be low, and the probability of a crime being committed within the range of a camera will be even smaller.
Maybe 1/1000 is a good rate if you think about it.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I think you've got things the wrong way around. The way things seem to be going in the UK at present they're likely to define more and more activites as crimes.
...Mike