In today’s news, media channels bring Samizdata readers this stunning, shocking announcement:
The UK is becoming a “surveillance society” where technology is used to track people’s lives, a report has warned.
CCTV, analysis of buying habits and recording travel movements are among the techniques already used, and the Report on the Surveillance Society predicts surveillance will further increase over the next decade.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas – who commissioned the report – warned that excessive surveillance could create a “climate of suspicion”.
One of the many justifications for creating this all-seeing, all-knowing state is that it will help reduce crime. Well, it does not appear to be having much impact on Britain’s lovely teenagers, at least according to a new report. Of course, one wonders how much of the worries about crime are partly a moral panic and partly based on hard, ugly reality (a bit of both, probably). Even so, Britain’s approach to crime, which involves massive use of surveillance technology to catch offenders, appears not to be all that much of a deterrent to certain forms of crime, although arguably it does mean that there is a slightly greater chance of catching people once a crime has been carried out (not much consolation for the victims of said, obviously).
I recently got this book on the whole issue of crime, state powers, surveillance and terrorism, by Bruce Schneier, who confronts the whole idea that we face an inescapable trade-off, a zero sum game, between liberty and security. Recommended.
Well, once we have been acclimatised to national surveillance camera saturation then we can start to be weaned onto the idea of the unemployed being made to stand at bus shelters and report on any unusual behaviour they see. Of course then they would no longer be classified as ‘unemployed’ just as ‘community observation wardens’.
If only Kafka were alive and living in London now …
To help resolve the problem of increasing surveillance, our dear Information Commissioner wants to make it an imprisonable offence to write down someone’s phone number without their consent (see yesterday’s Times).
Funny how the state apparatus finds that the way to combat intrusion is to find new ways to persecute individuals in the private sector. Including journalists, who might find things out the government would prefer them not to.
So we’ve got all these cameras, what the hell are they doing with them? They’re obviously not being used to combat antisocial behaviour. I realised ten years ago that CCTV was becoming a problem when I figured out that you could not walk from my flat in Edinburgh to the other side of the city without being continually visible on a CCTV camera. And yet the rate of muggings, assaults and robberies did not go down.
I have heard that under the freedom of information act you can request copies of any and all recordings from CCTV which you appear on. If this is true I think its about time we clogged the bureaucracy and made movies of our lives.
You’re all over-reacting. Do any of you honestly believe that the Ministry of Love would abuse these cameras in any way?
Get real.
Just proves how timelessly topical this particular comedy offering of some 23 years back really is. Yes Minister (Link) (its a volatile link which will expire soon).
What we need is to send in the SAS.
The Samizdata Action Squad
Equipped with Darth Vader Masks and paintball guns.
Take out the cameras and keep taking them out till the cost of repairing them is more than the revenue take.
Then you may find that they disappear.
Don’t laugh, it will giev them ideas.
Take a look at what is happening in Yorkshire(Link).
TAXI drivers in Goole are being urged to help crackdown on crime
Crimestoppers this week launched a new initiative to work in partnership with the 35,000 licensed private hire and taxi drivers in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside.
Tommorow is already here
This story from The Register is a reminder of how well the government can be expected to use the data it collects – All CRB agents broke the law.
“I realised ten years ago that CCTV was becoming a problem …. And yet the rate of muggings, assaults and robberies did not go down.”
Has anyone looked at crime rates vs CCTV penetration? Is there a proper statistically sound academic analysis out there somewhere?
It is worse than a zero sum gain. Trading liberty for security does not equal security – so in the end you give up liberty and get nothing in return.
Not much of a trade, in my view.
Which brings us back to Benjamin Franklin who is supposed to have said
Said (or written) nearly 250 years ago and never was it more apparent that it is true. Its not a zero sum game, its a loss of everything.
Has anyone looked at crime rates vs CCTV penetration? Is there a proper statistically sound academic analysis out there somewhere?
Surprisingly, no. The Home Office has an ongoing national study, which thus far appears to show (though actual data are hard to get hold of) that there is no evidence it is cost effective in crime prevention, and that it does tend to increase the fear of crime. Doesn’t stop authoritarians believing in it tho’. Had an unentertaining argument with a Chief Superintendant on Sky News this afternoon, much to that effect.
He was clearly convinced that the fact they use CCTV footage in evidence proves it is good for the detection of crime. Police Officers frequently have a real problem comprehending that confirmation bias is central to their work.
Senior ones, that is.
Will someone tell the government that “1984” is supposed to be a novel, not a handbook.
And, somewhat bizarrely, I get a telephone call today from a company called ProTel Research wanting me to answer questions on the proposed congestion charge extension into K&C. The odd thing was that they started going on asking if I objected to close surveillance in London (of course), how many employees I have (myob), my average spending habits (again, myob), how much I give my staff in travelcards (even more myob) and a whole raft of other apparently ‘harmless’ (as the researcher put it) yet highly personal and intrusive questions most of which I responded to with ‘no comment’. One sinister end question was (relevant to topic):
Needless to say that one merited a big “YES I [insert reproductive expletive here] WOULD!”