Police and CCTV
Discussion
Today broadcast on local BBC television news : still images of two people police are seeking as possible witnesses to a crime. The images clearly show the faces of these people and the voice-over to the images details dates and times. For me this is wrong use of CCTV and police have no rights or justification to use such tactics. Of course I want to see criminals detained, but not with this type of action which violates individual privacy.
I expect to be the only person who thinks like this?
I expect to be the only person who thinks like this?
Well, I can see the problem depending on the crime. Assuming they are witnesses (and not the suspects), the suspects now know someone saw them and what those witnesses look like. So maybe they'll take it upon themselves to find these witnesses and shut them up? Although I'd like to think the police wouldn't be that stupid.
Oakey said:
Well, I can see the problem depending on the crime. Assuming they are witnesses (and not the suspects), the suspects now know someone saw them and what those witnesses look like. So maybe they'll take it upon themselves to find these witnesses and shut them up? Although I'd like to think the police wouldn't be that stupid.
The Sopranos was fictional.Oakey said:
Well, I can see the problem depending on the crime. Assuming they are witnesses (and not the suspects), the suspects now know someone saw them and what those witnesses look like. So maybe they'll take it upon themselves to find these witnesses and shut them up? Although I'd like to think the police wouldn't be that stupid.
My thoughts exactly. Also the privacy of individuals, we are not talking about criminals here, individuals going about their daily business. Would you be care free about seeing your image broadcast on television as wanted witness. I have never seen CCTV used to this extent in this context, what next.crankedup said:
My thoughts exactly. Also the privacy of individuals, we are not talking about criminals here, individuals going about their daily business. Would you be care free about seeing your image broadcast on television as wanted witness. I have never seen CCTV used to this extent in this context, what next.
I guess that's the difference between you and I.If I could possibly help with a Police enquiry into a serious crime then not only do I want to but consider it my duty.
I genuinely couldn't give a flying f
k that my face was seen on a cctv somewhere. Ive got nothing to lose/hide. I might be doing you a disservice, but it strikes me that you are one of those people who are so obsessed with your own rights at the expense of anyone else, and without actually thinking about why you need these rights. To put it in a clearer way- it is because of people like you saying stuff like this that the frankly ludicrous data protection act completely governs every tiny thing we ever want to do nowadays at the expense of any semblance of commonsense
Oakey said:
EDLT said:
The Sopranos was fictional.
The Adams family bribed a bent court clerk to give them information on informants and witnesses but you keep telling yourself this stuff is fictional if it helps you sleep better at night.
blindswelledrat said:
I guess that's the difference between you and I.
If I could possibly help with a Police enquiry into a serious crime then not only do I want to but consider it my duty.
I genuinely couldn't give a flying fk that my face was seen on a cctv somewhere. Ive got nothing to lose/hide.
I might be doing you a disservice, but it strikes me that you are one of those people who are so obsessed with your own rights at the expense of anyone else, and without actually thinking about why you need these rights. To put it in a clearer way- it is because of people like you saying stuff like this that the frankly ludicrous data protection act completely governs every tiny thing we ever want to do nowadays at the expense of any semblance of commonsense
We differ to a certain extent obviously regarding this issue. I do not want to see myself or my family viewed up on television, or elsewhere,as potential witnesses to crime. Already pointed out why but to reiterate, I like my life to be private to a reasonable degree and use MY CHOICE when and how I extend that degree. I was kinda guessing I would be in the minority in this way of thinking. Now, your other point, its because of people like me that others thank for helping to bring about the D.P.A. Its a brilliant bit of legislation that has proven to be such a success. Countering that particular Act of course is the F.O.I. Act which provides some balance. If I could possibly help with a Police enquiry into a serious crime then not only do I want to but consider it my duty.
I genuinely couldn't give a flying f
k that my face was seen on a cctv somewhere. Ive got nothing to lose/hide. I might be doing you a disservice, but it strikes me that you are one of those people who are so obsessed with your own rights at the expense of anyone else, and without actually thinking about why you need these rights. To put it in a clearer way- it is because of people like you saying stuff like this that the frankly ludicrous data protection act completely governs every tiny thing we ever want to do nowadays at the expense of any semblance of commonsense
sparkythecat said:
Yes it is,thanks for posting it up.I am sorry I should have found and posted the link myself in the opening postcrankedup said:
. Already pointed out why but to reiterate, I like my life to be private to a reasonable degree and use MY CHOICE when and how I extend that degree.
On the face of it I deem that to be a completely valid point.However, every time you go outside your home your actions are effectively public anyway. Are people supposed to look away when you walk down the street? I know that is disingenuous, but you seem to have more of a mental hangup about the fact that you are on a screen somewhere than...I am not sure.
WHat does it matter? I understand that you don't like your choice stolen from you, but what is the negative to that choice being taken? I don't see any.
Its strikes me as being moralistic purely for the sake of it.
Guam said:
Depends if you are out on the town with the Girfriend unbeknowns to the Wife lol
Privacy MIGHT be important to YOU not becoming a crime statistic when it was broadcast
I didn't want to suggest this, but it is the point, also just imagine the consequences if you happen to live in a 'gangland area'. Still the few that have responded are comfortable with the notion of being 'shown' on public billboards and I am correct in my assumption that I would likely to be alone in my dislike of the notion of CCTV use being extended in such a way. Privacy MIGHT be important to YOU not becoming a crime statistic when it was broadcast
Look at lots of posters detail in this website and so many are anonymous to the point of being blank. So what is that saying.
EDLT said:
That is exactly the same as identifying someone from a grainy CCTV picture that was on the BBC news for two seconds.
Grainy you say, well what did you expect from images taken from a cctv camera, digital clarity! The point is that local people would either know you or seen you about, still its grainy.EDLT said:
Whats wrong with it.
Well, if they were the suspects that would be different. But two possible witnesses? Now, let's just say a man was having an affair and told his wife he was at work, then suddenly his face appears on the news as a potential witness...... No relation to the facts of this situation but frankly I think this is a step too far.
I mean, the police CAN'T sit and publish lots of photos on the news about convicted criminals and their crimes yet deem this acceptable? Odd.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff