[News] Listening CCTV cameras

[triggerhappy]

Originally Posted by BBC Scotland

Security cameras have long been a fact of Scottish life, viewed with relief by many communities and with suspicion by civil libertarians.

But what if they were listening to you as well? It has already happened in Glasgow.

A Dutch company called Sound Intelligence carried out a two week long trial in a busy city centre street.

They stress that their system, called Sigard, does not record conversations. It listens not to what is being said but how it is being said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7886656.stm

Bloody hell. I suppose that in its current state it's probably fairly useful in that it directs the cameras to the source of aggressive sounds, but think it opens the door for the government recommending this sort of thing to be used to observe "terrorist activity" and actually monitor conversations on city streets.

They're discussing this on Newsnight tonight at eleven. Should be an interesting watch.

[Kenny Macca Doo]

How did it not overload in the centre of Glasgow?

[L@ur@]

reminds of that comedy scetch my Frankie Boyle.

"lets stand here under this brightly lit post and talk about our plans for terrorist attacks"

or something to that effect.

i see terrorists mainly ploting in wee dark dingy houses

[the.definitive]

Originally Posted by L@ur@

reminds of that comedy scetch my Frankie Boyle.

"lets stand here under this brightly lit post and talk about our plans for terrorist attacks"

or something to that effect.

i see terrorists mainly ploting in wee dark dingy houses

Or in massive warehouses with THE latest gadgets, like in an episode of 24.

[triggerhappy]

Originally Posted by L@ur@

reminds of that comedy scetch my Frankie Boyle.

"lets stand here under this brightly lit post and talk about our plans for terrorist attacks"

or something to that effect.

i see terrorists mainly ploting in wee dark dingy houses

Ha, I know the one you mean. "Terrorist activity prevention" is just a handy way of convincing the public that laws reducing our privacy are necessary.

[fallen_nemesis]

this is a shit idea. Maybe they should spend all the money they're investing in this in actually making sure the existing cameras are recording to ensure victims of crime don't get told, "oh, that camera wasn't recording, so we didn't get anything' as happens so frequently in the city centre.

[princessoPUNK]

Some schools already have cameras that listen, for the sake of children with health based ASN. They are being used for a good thing there though, I'm entirely unconvinced i want people to be able to hear even the tone of what i say.

[Headwork]

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

this is a shit idea. Maybe they should spend all the money they're investing in this in actually making sure the existing cameras are recording to ensure victims of crime don't get told, "oh, that camera wasn't recording, so we didn't get anything' as happens so frequently in the city centre.

I haven't kept up to date on that, but mid last year I did a bit of research on plans to have CCTV departments of sorts (I've forgotten more than I remember on this...) as right now there aren't enough qualified people to operate a camera - and thats the bigger problem.

To properly identify someone via CCTV you need to have no more than 3/4 of their body filling the screen. To do that you'd need CCTV operators watching cameras around the clock looking out for trouble and then zooming in to get a clear view of whats going on and who's involved.

Without the operators all you get is a recording of something thats just off screen, a bit blurry, too far away... not enough to make an ID on who's involved, get a clear idea of whats going on (multi-angles always help) and as such not considered stable evidence.

[Tweez]

Busta Rhymes is fucked if he comes to Glasgow.

[Kirsten]

Originally Posted by Headwork

I haven't kept up to date on that, but mid last year I did a bit of research on plans to have CCTV departments of sorts (I've forgotten more than I remember on this...) as right now there aren't enough qualified people to operate a camera - and thats the bigger problem.

To properly identify someone via CCTV you need to have no more than 3/4 of their body filling the screen. To do that you'd need CCTV operators watching cameras around the clock looking out for trouble and then zooming in to get a clear view of whats going on and who's involved.

Without the operators all you get is a recording of something thats just off screen, a bit blurry, too far away... not enough to make an ID on who's involved, get a clear idea of whats going on (multi-angles always help) and as such not considered stable evidence.

We get regular visits from world experts in various fields with regard to surveillance (inter alia), including Jason Ditton, who has done lots of research here in Glasgow as well. And even in his presence, he has noted that most "camera operators", when they are actually paying attention to their screens, are quite often swatching wee birds, and 'following' them down the street... along with an inexhaustive list of other seedy behaviour.

So I dread to think just how badly this is likely to be used and abused.

Incidently, who can remember a time before there wasn't as much CCTV, when we were younger?

I bet most can't. Particularly the under 25's.
We've been systematically desensitized to it, gradually; in a way that each generation will likely accept it more readilly (or not view it as big a deal, or as an overt infringement upon their basic civil liberties) than those who remember it before we spiralled in to the social paranoia/police state that has been (and continues to be) generated, for example.

It's the Boiling Frog theory, in real time.

[pANDAS Radio]

Yup. Funny, innit?

[Headwork]

Originally Posted by Kirsten

And even in his presence, he has noted that most "camera operators", when they are actually paying attention to their screens, are quite often swatching wee birds, and 'following' them down the street... along with an inexhaustive list of other seedy behaviour.

I can believe it. Christ, I've seen it. There are rules and guidelines and laws to follow - but most people aren't screened properly. The test I had was so easy it was offensive.

Now I think of it.. I don't remember not having CCTV around, though I remember growing up they were far more of a deterrent. No one gives a shit anymore.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by L@ur@

reminds of that comedy scetch my Frankie Boyle.

"lets stand here under this brightly lit post and talk about our plans for terrorist attacks"

or something to that effect.

i see terrorists mainly ploting in wee dark dingy houses

Hahah this episode of live at the Apollo was on last night. I frankie boyle.

[Kirsten]

Originally Posted by Headwork

I can believe it. Christ, I've seen it. There are rules and guidelines and laws to follow - but most people aren't screened properly. The test I had was so easy it was offensive.

Now I think of it.. I don't remember not having CCTV around, though I remember growing up they were far more of a deterrent. No one gives a shit anymore.

One of Jason's findings over the years (and it's been a couple of years since I last spoke to him face to face, about surveillance, anyway), was the fear of crime linked to how useful CCTV is (i.e. it isn't useful at all) - it doesn't prevent crime (and doesn't always help to "solve" it, either), nor does it make people feel any safer; and let's not forget the fact that when it does come in useful - it's very time consuming, and expensive...

He found that a significant number of people (the exact % I don't have to hand nor can I remember, at the moment) don't believe many CCTV cameras even work, and aren't arsed by them. It's true that some (albeit, a minority) are used primarilly as a deterent. But in a place like Marks & Spencers (Sauchiehall street) for example - which has somewhere between 64-70 CCTV cameras - shoplifting had apparently gone up by at least 30% (this must have been around 2006 he told us... which was at least 2 or 3 years after he collaborated with some highstreet shops, as well as the major street camera operations - which I'm assuming is what you do??).

As I'm sure someone else probably said, somewhere on here(?) - CCTV is more about social control on a net-widening capacity, and an excuse to keep tabs of everyone - not as crime prevention, which it has always been fobbed off as.

Now it's getting more intense again, and the majority of folk aren't really giving a fuck. Particularly the next generation. It's just accepted.

I'm not sure which is more of a worry.

Fuck Orwell, I think Bentham had it right all along