From: Cynic on
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:34:23 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world
wrote:

>They generally don't help catch offenders - thats a convenient myth. The CCTV
>images are either too poor to identify someone and/or the criminal is wearing
>a hoodie/mask and couldn't be identified anyway even if the picture was in
>1080p widescreen.
>
>The only time CCTV can help catch someone is if when incident is spotted
>the police can get there before its over - eg a street fight.
>
>I'm no bleeding heart liberal lefty , but CCTV is turning this country into
>totalitarian state albeit with elections once every 5 years to swap
>interchangable ruling parties.

The best way to look at CCTV that I have read is to do the following:

Imagine that the same surveillance was being carried out without
modern TV technology. That would mean that in the place of every CCTV
camera in your town or city there would be a guard tower manned by a
uniformed officer watching the area through binoculars, and
occasionally reporting what he sees to a central command post.

That situation, if you can imagine it, would be *identical* in terms
of privacy and surveillance to the CCTVs that we have now.

Would such a sight in every town and city make you feel safer or would
it make you feel oppressed?

--
Cynic

From: baggy1963 on
On 30 Mar, 13:34, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > duh:))  Incidentally, are these things not illegal?
>
> Some laser pointers aren't.
>
> I don't think deliberately using (even a legal) one to wreck a CCTV
> camera would be particularly legal, though.
>
> It'd also be rather monumentally stupid, since the last image on the
> camera would be... umm... you, pointing a laser pointer at the lens.

They've remembered the A56 in Lancashire. The was a Police BMW 5
series estate in a lay-by it has ANPR on the side.
From: boltar2003 on
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:15:46 +0100
Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>What do you mean *even* the Sun? Try the following: 1) focus a laser
>beam from a laser pointer onto the back of your hand using a large
>magnifying glass. 2) Focus the Sun onto the back of your hand using a
>magnifying glass.
>
>You will soon discover why it does so much damage to point a camera at
>the Sun while the average laser pointer will do no lasting damage at
>all (though it may well interfere with the exposure system of the
>camera and render the image unusablewhile it is pointed at the
>camera).

I'm not an expert on cameras but I have seen a laser damage one. And the
sun can't be a complete death zone for cameras or no one would ever be able
to take photos with it in.

B2003

From: boltar2003 on
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:25:00 +0100
Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Imagine that the same surveillance was being carried out without
>modern TV technology. That would mean that in the place of every CCTV
>camera in your town or city there would be a guard tower manned by a
>uniformed officer watching the area through binoculars, and
>occasionally reporting what he sees to a central command post.
>
>That situation, if you can imagine it, would be *identical* in terms
>of privacy and surveillance to the CCTVs that we have now.
>
>Would such a sight in every town and city make you feel safer or would
>it make you feel oppressed?

A very good analogy. I'm going to have to remember that one.

B2003

From: Big Les Wade on
Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> posted
>On 24/03/2010 16:09, Ret. wrote:
>
>> I don't put my e-mail address on my posts because I know from early
>> naive experience that that is the fastest way to end up with tons of
>> spam cascading into my inbox on a daily basis.
>> But we are not talking about public forums - we are talking about
>> official and secure databases.
>>
>
>Ah yes, official and secure.
>
>As I recall in the last couple of years, the entire records of the
>child benefit system have gone missin and there have been several other
>gaffs by HMRC, Benefits Agency and security services all involving
>personal data of many many thousands of people.
>
Here's another today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/31/barnet_data_loss/

"Barnet Council has lost records of 9,000 school children after a laptop
and unencrypted USB stick were stolen. Nick Walkley, chief executive of
Barnet Council, has written to parents to apologise but said the risks
associated with the data breach were minimal. Information held included
children's names, educational attainment, entitlement to free meals and
postcodes and phone numbers. Some records were more detailed ..."

"Minimal" ... Entitlement to free meals is information that schools are
obliged to keep strictly private. And names and postcodes - we've had
parents banned from taking photos at school plays just in case the
paedos use them to track down kids' names and addresses. But when the
school loses it, suddenly it's a "minimal" risk.

--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.