Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Whose jurisdiction are these CCTV under, and do you think that they serve any practical use in the first place?
Some companies that I have worked for have utilized them and some have not.
At some, they were managed by IT and at others they were mananged by Physical Security (which was part of a large IT organization).
At some places they were superfluous, at others they were essential.
I think they are fine, in the workplace.
Outside the workplace, I don't think they are very useful.
CCTV stops only one group of people from committing crimes: those that are VERY unlikely to in the first place.
Yes, there are many cases where it helped solve crimes, but I think they are a weak link.
I think law enforcement learns to rely on them to police crime for them (it's just human nature).
I think it offers people a false sense of security. As I said, it isn't going to stop a violent criminal from killing you. It might help the police in punishing him for doing so, but that is little consolation to you (the person that is already dead).
The simple fact that only five percent of these cameras are in compliance with law should say a great deal about their usefulness (or lack thereof) and their flaws.
At some, they were managed by IT and at others they were mananged by Physical Security (which was part of a large IT organization).
At some places they were superfluous, at others they were essential.
I think they are fine, in the workplace.
Outside the workplace, I don't think they are very useful.
CCTV stops only one group of people from committing crimes: those that are VERY unlikely to in the first place.
Yes, there are many cases where it helped solve crimes, but I think they are a weak link.
I think law enforcement learns to rely on them to police crime for them (it's just human nature).
I think it offers people a false sense of security. As I said, it isn't going to stop a violent criminal from killing you. It might help the police in punishing him for doing so, but that is little consolation to you (the person that is already dead).
The simple fact that only five percent of these cameras are in compliance with law should say a great deal about their usefulness (or lack thereof) and their flaws.
- that the cameras can show clearly who killed you, but the killer can walk because he wasn't warned in advance that he would be on CCTV?
What bloody nonsense. But then most of the legislative landscape in the UK is bloody nonsense, why would I expect anything different regarding CCTV...
What bloody nonsense. But then most of the legislative landscape in the UK is bloody nonsense, why would I expect anything different regarding CCTV...
Mark Thomas (British political comedian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thomas) pointed this out about ten years ago.
Why has it taken 'experts' this long to say tsomething about it??
Why has it taken 'experts' this long to say tsomething about it??
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
