CCTV is in a way a good thing to keep eye on things when not in but being on you 24/7 is enough to drive you to insanity. UK has enough CCTV cameras and its getting stupidly being placed. setting up in quite areas that dont really need it or places that are needing fair play but to have every place and have the eyes over you sort of puts the downers that some fucker always watching your every movement. So go the days of having a good time out and not having to worries about being drunk and going home already been stopped 4 times for this when coming home causing no trouble cctv moving and following my movements and 10min later police asking me questions and where am going told them to go do a proper job and stop stopping people causing no problems.
CCTV and security is a good thing at the sometime making places more secure but man UK to have CCTV in all homes not gonna happen. sure ill have CCTV in my house if government want to give me a full free system and I get option to turn off and unplug for privacy else GTFO with your CCTV in every home cos it not gonna happen.
Topic: Put CCTV In All Homes, Britain's Top Cop Tells LBC (Read 973 times)
He didn't say that!
And if he did said that, he was saying it is ok for him to have CCTV in is own house! I don't think he would be ok with that...
Anyway, media is getting ridiculous with these kind of misleading headlines.
And if he did said that, he was saying it is ok for him to have CCTV in is own house! I don't think he would be ok with that...
Anyway, media is getting ridiculous with these kind of misleading headlines.
We've already got cctv in our homes (assuming most people have camera phones, webcams etc).
Its been proven they don't reduce crime, all the tax payers money wasted on cameras would have been better spent on the actual cause of criminal activity: poverty and the ever increasing rich / poor divide.
Its been proven they don't reduce crime, all the tax payers money wasted on cameras would have been better spent on the actual cause of criminal activity: poverty and the ever increasing rich / poor divide.
I think it's self-evident TPTB have no interest in actually solving problems. Their interests lie in exploiting us for profit and control.
Don't burglars wear masks?
That would make all this talk of facial recognition and eye-level cameras redundant.
Indeed. Only an idiot would make no effort to conceal their identity while committing a crime.
I can see this initiative being much more helpful in the prosecution of occupants of the household or their guests, who may be stupid enough to openly engage in criminal activity. (ie. Drug use, child abuse, domestic violence, harboring a fugitive, parole violation, etc.) For anyone with a little more intelligence, it would only make it a little more inconvenient.
All in all, this initiative is really nothing more than an invasion of privacy, but like newflesh already alluded to in the above comment this is an ever increasing trend and those who ascribe to the "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" mentality will likely be the first to sign up.
But he warned they needed to be positioned correctly to be useful, adding: "Over the last year as facial recognition software has got better we can apply the software to the images of burglaries or robberies and we can compare those images with the images we take when we arrest people.
"What we need to be able to do is to be able to compare that photograph with the images we have of people committing a crime.
"Taking the tops of their heads is not that helpful for facial recognition which relies on the eyes and the configuration of the area around the nose and the mouth. So we’re trying to get people to, ideally, add another camera at face level."
"What we need to be able to do is to be able to compare that photograph with the images we have of people committing a crime.
"Taking the tops of their heads is not that helpful for facial recognition which relies on the eyes and the configuration of the area around the nose and the mouth. So we’re trying to get people to, ideally, add another camera at face level."
Don't burglars wear masks?
That would make all this talk of facial recognition and eye-level cameras redundant.
If they just recognized people's right to self-defence and to bear arms we wouldn't have to worry putting CCTV cameras in our house to catch burglars. A CCTV system can be quite expensive, however buckshot is around 50 p a round.I know which one I prefer.
Just on the side note, burglars used to turn up when you are away from your home. Apart from that you are right, even the most careful burglar can make mistakes
. 
We've already got cctv in our homes (assuming most people have camera phones, webcams etc).
Its been proven they don't reduce crime, all the tax payers money wasted on cameras would have been better spent on the actual cause of criminal activity: poverty and the ever increasing rich / poor divide.
Its been proven they don't reduce crime, all the tax payers money wasted on cameras would have been better spent on the actual cause of criminal activity: poverty and the ever increasing rich / poor divide.
If they just recognized people's right to self-defence and to bear arms we wouldn't have to worry putting CCTV cameras in our house to catch burglars. A CCTV system can be quite expensive, however buckshot is around 50 p a round.I know which one I prefer.
But that would put the power and control back into your own hands, something the government and corporations clearly do not want.
If they just recognized people's right to self-defence and to bear arms we wouldn't have to worry putting CCTV cameras in our house to catch burglars. A CCTV system can be quite expensive, however buckshot is around 50 p a round.I know which one I prefer.
This is exactly the kind of shit that turned me into an Anarchist, it's one thing to have them in public places, especially if you plan on defending yourself from any attacker because they're extremely useful for court purposes, it's another thing entirely to have cameras continuously spying on people in their own homes.
Society is crazy sometimes, or at least the security freaks that want to try selling these privacy invading tools.
Considering this is the police force they always want to make their own jobs easier
Best approach to do that is to of course use surveillance methods, in public places as you mentioned not private ones why else do people have security systems like Alarmforce already lol.
(Assuming that they aren't the ones breaking into houses to scare others to use security systems)
But or me the idea of selling a home security system always was a bit of a slippery slope if they were not monitored.
Then again could not think of other alternatives besides electric doorknobs, window locks and a lot of chains.
Potentially a slippery slope but a misleading title. It implies that the cops will want to tune in to watch grandma rutting in the comfort of her bedroom.
Well, title is not only misleading, it is a lie, he didn't say that nothing like "Put CCTV in all homes", he said people should put the cameras at eye-level and "If anyone who is listening has a business, think about installing a new one – they’re cheap, relatively. If you can’t buy one, could you think about moving it?".
This doesn't sound bad at all...
This doesn't sound bad at all...
This is exactly the kind of shit that turned me into an Anarchist, it's one thing to have them in public places, especially if you plan on defending yourself from any attacker because they're extremely useful for court purposes, it's another thing entirely to have cameras continuously spying on people in their own homes.
When I said this will one day become mandatory (for your own protection) the same way smoke detectors are, people thought I was absolutely insane. Here we are, one step closer.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/put-cctv-in-all-homes-uks-top-cop-tells-lbc-106091
Quote
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe told Beverley Turner that eye-level cameras will help catch burglary suspects.
He told LBC: "We’ve got a strategy to encourage people, with their cameras, is to move them down to eye level."
But he warned they needed to be positioned correctly to be useful, adding: "Over the last year as facial recognition software has got better we can apply the software to the images of burglaries or robberies and we can compare those images with the images we take when we arrest people.
"What we need to be able to do is to be able to compare that photograph with the images we have of people committing a crime.
"Taking the tops of their heads is not that helpful for facial recognition which relies on the eyes and the configuration of the area around the nose and the mouth. So we’re trying to get people to, ideally, add another camera at face level."
LBC host Beverley suggested that burglars would just smash an eye-level camera, but Sir Bernard dismissed that notion. He said: "Most criminals are pretty disorganised, they don’t think about it. The reason the cameras are high is two-fold. One is to keep it out of harm’s way.
"As importantly, you get a whole shot of what happened at the event: What did they steal? Did they use a knife? You get all that. But more relevant today is a face. That’s what we need.
"If anyone who is listening has a business, think about installing a new one – they’re cheap, relatively. If you can’t buy one, could you think about moving it?"
He told LBC: "We’ve got a strategy to encourage people, with their cameras, is to move them down to eye level."
But he warned they needed to be positioned correctly to be useful, adding: "Over the last year as facial recognition software has got better we can apply the software to the images of burglaries or robberies and we can compare those images with the images we take when we arrest people.
"What we need to be able to do is to be able to compare that photograph with the images we have of people committing a crime.
"Taking the tops of their heads is not that helpful for facial recognition which relies on the eyes and the configuration of the area around the nose and the mouth. So we’re trying to get people to, ideally, add another camera at face level."
LBC host Beverley suggested that burglars would just smash an eye-level camera, but Sir Bernard dismissed that notion. He said: "Most criminals are pretty disorganised, they don’t think about it. The reason the cameras are high is two-fold. One is to keep it out of harm’s way.
"As importantly, you get a whole shot of what happened at the event: What did they steal? Did they use a knife? You get all that. But more relevant today is a face. That’s what we need.
"If anyone who is listening has a business, think about installing a new one – they’re cheap, relatively. If you can’t buy one, could you think about moving it?"
Jump to: