I thought some of you might be interested in talk about security cameras
from this side of the pond. Since my conversations with 2eggers, my ears
have perked up.

A transcript from last night's "Keeping Them Honest" on CNN -- with Anderson
Cooper and Joe Johns.

COOPER: Well, some of the suspects in the latest U.K. terror plot were
caught with the help of surveillance cameras. Britain has some 200,000
cameras on its streets, far, far more than any force is using in America.

So the question is, if they're working so well, why aren't there more in
America?

You're looking at some of the men who plotted to blow up London's transit
system back on July 21, 2005. The attack would have been carried out just
two weeks after suicide bombings killed 52 commuters. Today, the four men
were convicted.

Surveillance pictures played a role in bringing them to justice. It is also
part of life in the U.K. In London, it's estimated the same person is taped
about 300 times a day.

Viva wrote:

So far in one town centre only, but about to spread. It's not just
littering they warn you about, either, apparently.

That sounds like a local council being busybodies on the cheap. They can
say they're doing something about a problem that they probably caused by
cutting back on rubbish collection for very little cost. A cynical view,
maybe, but....

"John Williamson" btinternet.com> wrote ...

Viva wrote:

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:39:47PM +0100, John Williamson wrote:

You are wrong. There is always a cost beyond which it doesn't make
sense to do something. If it were to cost, say, a mere 500 quid per
resident per year I suspect that people would decide that that's too
much.

As it happens, I think that putting spy cameras on rural footpaths "to
prevent rape" can't be justified at all. Why? Because spy cameras
don't prevent crime even when you have ubiquitous coverage, let...

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:42:02AM +0100, John Williamson wrote:

An excellent point, and this is especially a problem on the roads.
Cameras are great at spotting someone who is driving over the speed
limit, but they can't spot dangerous driving.

People driving like lunatics used to get pulled over, fined, points on
their licence, whatever, and the risk of that happening made people be
more careful. These days people know that they can get away with
anything as long as they slam their brakes on just before they get to
the camera.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear
shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.
-- Robert A Heinlein

"David Cantrell" cantrell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20070711112724.GE23188@bytemark.barnyard.co.uk...

Harry Keane wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Harry Keane wrote:

I never had a problem with being pulled over by the police, even when
I was stopped 3 times in the same week by the same policewoman - it
wasn't for driving dangerously it was because it was a young lad
driving a nice car around at 1am and they were trying to catch a gang
who were nicking cars wholesale at night.

One of the guys who taught me to drive used to be a class 1 instructor
for the police and his line was that the job of traffic police was to
educate drivers into driving better and only to nick them when they
were being truly cretinous (drunk driving etc).

"John Williamson" btinternet.com> wrote ...

[..]

I'm thinking how terrible this is, then I remember that local cabbies (taxi)
experience the same thing .. sometimes even murdered during a robbery. I
live near an army town and there's a lot of crime after dark in skidrow,
especially when the bars/clubs close at 2am. Drunken soldiers are a problem,
people who 'roll' the drunks are a problem, drug dealers and prosties who
prey on the drunks are a problem ... but, there are many cops roving around
in that part of town, I don't know if they use cameras or not. I never go ...