News itemCCTV in the Sky: Police plan to use military-style spy drones - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones
      – Thelevellers, 2010-02-05 at 21:10:33   (7 comments)

On 2010-02-05 at 21:11:21, Thelevellers wrote...
I read this in last week's Guardian Weekly today and it made me really quite angry. *sigh* Hell in a handbasket, etc, etc... ☹
On 2010-02-06 at 15:47:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
This has been seen in sci-fi, of course. I see various issues with it, one being reliability (i.e. not having them drop out of the sky on people would be good). I don't see them being useful anywhere but the most crime-ridden areas, and those are the areas you'd least want to send expensive hardware. I was thinking yesterday about my vision of the future where every lamppost has a camera installed. This would be an excellent deterrent, as for almost any crime the police could start with the lamppost nearest the scene and gradually work their way through footage from further away until they perhaps reached the suspect's own home. Of course you'd know the cameras were there but by the time you'd thought of a way to avoid them you'd realise it's easier to just not commit the crime!
On 2010-02-08 at 21:29:55, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Nice to meet you, Big Brother!
On 2010-02-08 at 22:43:51, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: I suppose you might think that the downside is that if you have a camera at every intersection then it'd be easy to calculate how fast someone is travelling, making speed limits pretty much absolute. Then again, I actually think that could be a good thing - less accidents and eliminating yet another crime. As far as I'm concerned there's a big difference between the Orwellian Big Brother in every home and simply having cameras in public places. So long as the cameras don't peer into people's homes and workspaces they're not being excessively intrusive. There's an issue that you wouldn't be able to go anywhere to, say, pick your nose, but that's mitigated by the sheer amount of video footage that would be created.
On 2010-02-09 at 11:40:06, Thelevellers wrote...
One problem I see with haveing cameras everywhere is that you would literally need them EVERYWHERE, because - knowing what British people, especially vandal types, are like - if not then anywhere there weren't cameras would instantly become a hot spot for the graffiti etc that would other wise be spread out. Obviously it would be prohibitively expensive to roll out 100% outdoor CCTV coverage.
On 2010-02-09 at 11:42:18, Thelevellers wrote...
Hmmm. That said, you could then maybe be able to make a more successful version of 'allowed' vandalism areas - as you could control where the cameras AREN'T... Of course, there's always the potential for an en-mass adoption of masks outdoors, a la V for Vendetta...
On 2010-02-09 at 14:10:37, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I forgot to reiterate that I'm talking about the distant future - when powerful cameras are tiny and dirt cheap, wireless communication is ubiquitous and storage isn't an issue. At that time it wouldn't make sense to withhold deployment of the technology available. The future will be televised. Vandalism of cameras is relatively easy, but if you have a powerful camera right at the top of a lamppost then that should be less of an issue - especially if they're on every lamppost. Some areas would obviously be blackspots, and high on crime, but I was talking about for the rest of us going about our normal lives and not wearing masks. You already pass under speed cameras in cars, after all...