[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=458i0bLw-pM]Widespread use of surveillance cameras in UK schools raises concerns - YouTube[/ame]
Presidential Debate Part II
- Thread starter Dwight Schrute
- Start date
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub5Stz-g3AA]Caught On TV: Man Gets Caught Making Counterfeit Money - YouTube[/ame]
Sounds like someone took his freedom away.
If only he'd invested in the Wickedfire Committee for the prevention of admin corruption (they keep copies of posts for reference in such cases,) then Mr. Franklin could have at least taken his case to trial.
Cameras in toilets? I guess they're trying to catch wankers or perhaps people not properly wiping their bum, amirite?
Very few people know who Lysander Spooner was. Unfortunately, it's probably to their detriment.
Costs vs. effectiveness?
The ACLU of Michigan estimates that the system has cost the city at least $2.3 million to install and maintain the cameras
At least 26 surveillance cameras now operate throughout the city
no major violent crimes have been solved by the use of cameras,
littering, public urination and open alcohol have been amongst the most frequent uses of camera footage.
A comprehensive study conducted by the United Kingdom found that its 4.2 million cameras did not reduce crime.
Lansing Surveillance Cameras Are Costly, Ineffective and Invasive, ACLU Report Warns | American Civil Liberties Union
Huh? The ACLU might have a reputation for having "controversial" opinions, but I wasn't aware they had one for being dishonest.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8_5jnYyl4o&"]Report says CCTV does NOT cut crime (24Aug09) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYQp3EAPx04&"]4.2 million surveillance cameras in Britain, a special report - YouTube[/ame]
Don't bother trying to argue your points with most Americans unless you have a lot of time and are face-to-face. It's a completely different system of thinking.
To the Americans out there who only know about the levels of CCTV in the UK from what they have heard on the news, as always, it's not quite accurate. The countries that make up the United Kingdom are all very different politically and socially to each other. In surveillance this can be seen with a HUGE amount of CCTV cameras in London but the further and further you get away, the fewer cameras there are. I also live in Scotland and the majority of the government/council owned cameras (of which there are actually relatively few, I think my city only has a few hundred) are placed in crime hot-spots and fortunately are not just there to watch us eat/sleep/anything else. To those that were wondering why Scococo had a basic level of trust for the government is because everyone here is very critical of all politicians (no matter what party) to the point that politicians have to be very careful (Of course there will always be some corruption but perhaps this is one of the reasons why the UK is less corrupt than the US?).
Personally I believe that SOME cameras in crime hot-spot areas should be allowed to be placed provided there is reasonable evidence that it should go there. Thankfully we can complain to our local council if we don't think they deserve to be there and often with enough complaints, they get taken down.
However I don't think we need anymore cameras in the cities for now, I recently read an article that my local council (Edinburgh) was paying £25,000 per installment of one camera. Those funds could be used for something much more effectively.
