Frightening Pictures from London
November 1, 2009 – 7:29 pmI wrote that I would get back to you on my experiences from London. I will, however, keep the written word to a minimum and let these pictures speak for themselves. The London Police Service has come to the conclusion that security cameras do not, in fact, contribute to the prevention or solving of crimes. Is this, then, the kind of society we want?
One does not have to look particularly far in order to find one of these cameras. Wherever you are, simply survey the surrounding area and you will find yourself in the line-of-sight of at least three or four of them. (In the following three pictures, I have marked the spots where the cameras are located, in order to ease identification due to the zoom level. Please also note that there are numerous cameras to my sides and rear, outside of the field of view.)
Outside one could find these black dome-type cameras everywhere, some of which were privately-owned.
Middle: This appears to be a lamppost at first sight, but the black dome tells another tale. (Oxford Street)
I also met with Andrew Robinson, leader of the Pirate Party UK. We talked a lot about their electoral system, as well as exchanging thoughts and experiences in general. He shared a valuable insight with me that shows why laws need changing – a point of view I had not considered myself:
It is currently legal to sometimes capture a few images of people, on a few streets, simply because no one has had the means to do more than that. However, having acquired the means, that same right to sometimes capture an image is suddenly taken to mean always, everywhere. This dramatically changes the balance of power and grants the observer an information advantage that is directly unpleasant, as well as threatening.
To rephrase: some types of surveillance have been unregulated because it is practically harmless when done on small scale, privately. However, as this has been escalated to a level where there arises a complete awareness of how we go about in our day-to-day lives, it has become a very real menace to society, calling for a different set of regulations altogether.
Add to this, that, as has been said above, this type of surveillance does not aid in either preventing or solving crimes.
5 Responses to “Frightening Pictures from London”
I think you’re kind of using a very biased set of images here to make your argument (which might not be a terrible one) somewhat stronger.
the london underground has been subject to a major terrorist attack and will continue to be a target should someone (regardless of what kind of agenda) have an issue be it political, social, religious or personal. It is a confined space with large number of people and can create somewhat catastrophic damage.
thus showing images of london underground covering as many spots as possible is simply a point of logic for crime prevention and solving, the camera’s were instrumental in catching the 7/7 attackers on the London Underground.
Using a Swedish article as a source for an English blog post is poor writing. These two simple facts for me discredit anything that you might be attempting to write in this article. You don’t need to cotton wool a legitimate story with poor research…
By Shadi Almosri on Nov 1, 2009
Let me also point out that i don’t think you have covered the “crime prevention” angle, it is a very valid point that there are alot of cameras, but cameras are often not for crime solving but crime prevention, who is going to try and commit a crime infront of a camera, and an interesting statistic would be looking at data of crime rates in areas that have implemented CCTV and then neigbouring areas that have not and to see the effect over a similar period.
You might want to look at such information provided on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8219022.stm and the discussion here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/24/2031258/One-Crime-Solved-Per-1000-London-CCTV-Cameras
By Shadi Almosri on Nov 1, 2009
Shadi: Thanks for your feedback. The Swedish source was actually used as source for a Swedish blog post; I have kind volunteers who translate my blog posts into English.
The original source (for the Swedish source) was Bruce Schneier.
Also, regardless of whether the cameras make crime prevention more effective, one needs to ask the question if the society we are supposed to protect is lost in the process.
By Rick Falkvinge on Nov 1, 2009
Rick,
Rather than providing a question in place of a question, i’d prefer an answer
then we can deal with “other” questions in a separate conversation.
You as a leader of a political party should be providing answers, guidance and innovations, not merely throwing hypothetical questions.
So do the cameras in the London Underground provide more harm than good?
Did the London Underground surveillance policy help in the prevention or the solving of crime?
Do cameras in general help crime prevention?
Do cameras in general help the solving of crime?
Who is being hurt by CCTV cameras? (and why?)
What alternatives do you propose for the current thinking behind the implementation of CCTV cameras?
It’s very easy to say “something doesn’t work” but not so easy to provide a viable alternative.
I’ll be looking forward to your response.
By Shadi Almosri on Nov 1, 2009
Shadi, I don’t think this article was meant to “provide answers.”
Any answers he has to your closed questions will, of course, be his opinion. And, I believe his goal, was to stray from that.
Anyone can preach. I like that Rick used a simple question for us to consider and think for ourselves. You should give it a try instead of looking for some conflict resolution.
By Derek on Nov 2, 2009