Surveillance cameras being abused in Britain. Orlando bragging about theirs.

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Ten points to anyone who knows what a "fly tipper" is.

The Brit story:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1319813,00.html?f=rss

Councils Told: Stop Spying On The Public
Updated:11:30, Monday June 23, 2008

Councils have been urged to stop using controversial surveillance powers for "trivial" offences.

Bosses have been warned by the head of the Local Government Association (LGA) that they risk alienating the public for so-called snooping.

They may also be stripped of the right to use spying methods.

But Sir Simon Milton defended councils that used surveillance to tackle fly tippers, rogue traders and tax and benefit fraudsters.

There has been growing anger about the methods used by councils to probe minor crimes, such as dog fouling.

The powers were introduced under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act as part of the Government's anti-terror drive but it is claimed some councils are abusing the powers.

Sir Simon has now written to every council in the country urging them to review their use of the Act.

"Parliament clearly intended that councils should use the new powers, and generally they are being used to respond to residents' complaints about fly tippers, rogue traders and those defrauding the council tax or housing benefit system," he wrote.

Figures released by councils under the Freedom of Information Act show that the telephone and email records of thousands of people have been accessed under the Act.

A sample of less than 10% of councils disclosed using spying techniques 1,343 times.

Sky's political correspondent Niall Paterson said: "If councils continue to use their powers in this fashion they'll soon find them being withdrawn - especially given the focus of late on our 'surveillance society'.

"It certainly lends weight to David Davis' by-election campaign against the abrogation of our privacy, even if there's no one of any real importance to campaign against in Haltemprice and Howden."
Click to expand...

The Orlando story:

http://www.local6.com/technology/16685521/detail.html

Orlando Surveillance Cams Will Detect Motion, Alert In Real-Time

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The first 18 of 60 motion-detecting cameras will soon be installed around Orlando at a cost of more than $1.3 million, Local 6 has learned.

The surveillance video program being implemented in Orlando is called IRIS or Innovative Response to Improve Safety and will detect crimes or other incidents and send alerts to law enforcement.

"This is instant," Orlando police Captain Jeff Goltz said. "The cameras are out there and running real time. We see some activity and we send officers to that activity. In a lot of technology that is out in stores, it is being recorded and it is evidence for future use, for future follow up and future investigative purposes. That is a big difference."

The robot-looking cameras are partially funded by the Federal Homeland Security Department and also donations by private companies like Target and Darden Restaurants, Local 6's Chris Trenkmann said.

Monday, Mayor Buddy Dyer and the City Council got a close look at one of the cameras.

Officials said cameras could be set up in the Kirkman Road area and International Drive in addition to the Parramore area.

Parramore has been considered a crime "hot zone" for police and there have been several recent crimes in the International Drive area.

Similar cameras were tested at Lake Eola last July 4. Local 6 showed video of the camera picking out faces from across the lake.

Orlando is one of the first U.S. cities in the nation to get the high-tech cameras.

Critics of the cameras are calling the cameras an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...
 
And don't even think about wering a hat!

Isn't it lovely living in such a free society?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2085192/Hats-banned-from-Yorkshire-pubs-over-CCTV-fears.html

Hats banned from Yorkshire pubs over CCTV fears
By Paul Stokes
Last Updated: 6:58PM BST 23/06/2008

Pubs in Yorkshire have been ordered to ban people from wearing flat caps or other hats so troublemakers can be more easily recognised.

The Park Hotel in Wadsley, Sheffield, is the latest to be asked to impose the rule by senior police officers.

Mark Kelly, the landlord said: "Police asked us to ensure that everyone removes headgear.

"With pensioners, by the time they sit down their hats always come off anyway because they were brought up with manners so usually take their hats off indoors."

The measure, designed to prevent people from obscuring their faces from CCTV cameras, has been questioned by Barnsley's former Test umpire Dickie Bird, 75, well-known for his favoured white flat cap.

He said: "Asking a Yorkshireman to take off his flat cap -- whoever heard of anything so silly.

"It's a Yorkshire tradition, men wearing flat caps. Although youngsters don't bother these days, older men still wear them and should be allowed to continue.

"I still wear a flat cap when I go out shopping and often leave it on when I get home and end up sitting watching TV with my cap on They look smart and they keep your head nice and warm."

A South Yorkshire Police spokesman said bans on people wearing headgear in public premises had been operated in banks and post offices for years.

She added: "There have been incidents both in pubs and other establishments when it has not been possible to identify offenders captured on CCTV because hats were hiding their faces."
Click to expand...
 
What's the problem with a camera used to see something that a cop could be able to see from making his or her rounds, just without being there in person? How is it an invasion of privacy to see what you're doing in public?

There are certain places where there is an expectation of privacy and it doesn't sound to me like the cameras are being set up in those places.

As for forcing businesses to require removal of hats... that's where things start to cross the line. -- not for an "invasion of privacy" in what would be considered a "public" setting, but because of it infringing on the rights of business owners to set rules within their businesses.
 
Inkara1 said:
What's the problem with a camera used to see something that a cop could be able to see from making his or her rounds, just without being there in person? How is it an invasion of privacy to see what you're doing in public?

There are certain places where there is an expectation of privacy and it doesn't sound to me like the cameras are being set up in those places.

As for forcing businesses to require removal of hats... that's where things start to cross the line. -- not for an "invasion of privacy" in what would be considered a "public" setting, but because of it infringing on the rights of business owners to set rules within their businesses.
Click to expand...

Good answer!

Ya come up with anything on that "fly tipper" question? I had to look it up and I am familiar with most Brit terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top