Security Alarm Systems

Open your eyes:

I live on an estate on the outskirts of a small city and they have big black cameras on every corner. Infact they have these cameras on just about every corner in the city. I expect it to get worse. They also have cameras that face every direction on top of the high rise flats. Six years ago there were none. They don’t actually deter crime. They do help catch some criminals as they are all linked to one huge database where they are constantly monitored. They are also recorded. Do people feel safer? lol sorry, the answer is no. Crime continues to happen regardless. Infact more so now than before the cameras were erected. I think the cameras are an annoyance to most people as they feel they are being spyed on even though most are law abiding citizens. The feeling of being constantly watched everywhere you go is very disconcerting.

shambling:

Apparently we have the most CCTV cameras per head of population in the world!
The statistics say that if you spend a day in London your image maybe captured up to 300 times by the cameras – this includes cameras that are used in shops as well as those on the street.
The CCTV in shops and businesses are the property of that business but the tapes can be handed over to the police as evidence of any alleged crime.

They are used mostly in cities and large towns and to monitor traffic flows on motorways.
Images are monitored live and also taped – the tapes are used to gather evidence and may be used in evidence in court.
There seems to be two schools of thought
1) If you are not doing anything wrong or intending to break the law then what’s the problem?
2) Some people think that it means that the UK is becoming a Big Brother state.

Like all things there are pros and cons for instance, the cameras on the motorway give early warning of congestion, accidents, bad weather conditions etc.

Video evidence is reviewed by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service as potential evidence that may be presented in a Court Case.

The installation of cameras was seen as a crime deterrent/ prevention measure as well as a security issue.

Does it deter crime?
Probably – people are hardly going to commit a crime if they are going to be videoed.
More cynically it means that crimes will be moved from the areas where they occur are to areas where there is less observation.

Strangely, the number of speed trap camera violations seems to be steadily increasing.
These cameras seem to be very unpopular (particularly by the people caught by them!) and many people see them as ‘revenue-generators’ for the County whilst others see them as a road safety factor.
The County say that the revenue generated is or will be used to install further ‘road safety’ cameras.
(This isn’t helped by some Counties having a tariff of deaths and/or accidents before a camera can be installed – obviously if you’re a resident concerned about speeding having to wait until some of your fellow residents are maimed/killed before a camera is installed doesn’t prove popular.

Does it help solve crime?
Someone said ‘the camera never lies’.
A lot of evidence for the London bombings (7/7) was collected from cameras at rail stations, on motorways and through the streets of London and led to the conviction of the bombers.
Again this amount of camera surveillance should act as a deterrent to any future attacks.

Video evidence is seen by its supporters as another tool in the tool-kit for fighting crime and/or potential crime.
The Government and local authorities i.e. Counties have invested vast sums of public money in CCTV so, of course, they will (or have) to say it is a success as it is their proclaimed strategy and as they are politically motivated they will use major incidents (e.g. 7/7) to justify such claims.
Of course, this is difficult to prove or disprove as no figures have been published to show that the number of crimes prevented has increased/decreased. (Virtually impossible to do that anyway.)
It is also difficult for anyone to prove that CCTV evidence is pivotal in how many cases and even then does it justify the costs nationwide.

Bit more information if you need it

To follow on from what Dev said while I was preparing my answer:
If your image has been captured by say 100 cameras during the day (quite easy if you drive to a city and walk around a bit) you are not going to know whether your image has been taken or by which camera(s ). Therefore you would not know which private companies had your image so you could not ask them for the copy. Also can you imagine the problem if everybody wanted a copy of a piece of a tape that they appeared on – the overheads would be astronomical! So there are a lot of tapes with images that are stored as potential evidence – both from private companies/shops reception areas etc.
However it is true that you are charged with a crime you are entitled to a copy of any part of the tape that the prosecution may use to try to prove you guilty – because you may want to use some parts of it in your defence.
Warning signs are present particularly in private companies – this may be a legal requirement (I don’t know) but mostly these are put there as a deterrent. Towns and cities may have warning signs up but they do not tell you were the cameras are. Strangely enough back to speed cameras they are not allowed to be concealed – in fact there has to be a warning sign and the camera has to be in a high-visibility yellow box so drivers can see where they are!
It is not illegal to video people – for instance if someone videos me on their camera in a public place I cannot stop them doing that or demand a copy of their film.
(However if someone was seen videoing minors for no good reason the police would soon be called and questions asked – I’m sure I don’t have to go into the reasons for this. This now means that schools are unwilling for people including parents to video school plays/nativity plays of young children.)
Dev mentioned the Data Protection Act – the police are exempt from large parts of this act -furthermore so are large parts of national government, County and local councils as well if they say they are collecting evidence under the UK Terrorism Act (which all started after 9/11 – I’m sure you don’t need any more information on that) which gives them enhanced powers of surveillance.
(Don’t think that I’m trying to say whether this is right or wrong but you asked for information and all I’m trying to do is paint what is hopefully an objective picture – well an outline sketch of the situation in the UK. You can see from the other replies what other people think)

It gets more complicated! If I have a security CCTV camera on my house it is not allowed to pan or scan onto the public highway i.e. it can only cover my own property. But if someone did commit a crime on my property and I captured that on a hand held video I could follow them on to the public highway and continue to video. That tape would be admissible as evidence of any alleged crime subject to the rules of provenance.
If someone comes into my garden with a video running without permission they have committed a civil offence (this means that it is not a police arrestable offence) of trespass. As it is my property I have the right to use ‘reasonable force’ to move them if they do not leave when asked. If during this process the camera gets dropped I must return it to them when they are off the premises otherwise I would leave myself open to potential arrest for theft if they involve the police

No public street camera is allowed to be pointed at the windows or to film through the windows of a private dwelling as this would be a violation of privacy under the Human Rights Act. As other people have said there are exceptions to this of course – for security/crime investigations reasons people can be filmed but it has to done through a separate process – too complicated to go into here – even so that public street camera cannot be used. These laws are there to counter the Orwellian Big Brother argument – you’ll have to weigh this up against other replies you get.
A lot of speed cameras are vandalised as they are at a low level.
In towns/cities there are a lot of motorised cameras (so they scan the street – and these are expensive pieces of kit) on reasonably low level posts.
This means they are targets for vandals – so a lot of the time there are cameras pointed at cameras to make sure they are not being damaged!
This may help to explain why some people think we need so many of them.
It’s a strange old world!

♥Holly Cookie Starr ™♥:

I just kind of pick my nose infront of them …. Honestly I know nothing about them, my hubby says their invasion of privacy because they’re rarely used to solve crimes but to be honest I don’t notice them or even care