My impression is that there's rather less CCTV coverage in strictly residential areas, with the possible exception of council estates. I don't particularly mind it on public transport; video would be a very inefficient method of tracking the movements of millions of people compared to, say, Oyster cards (this is one reason I buy a season ticket, and only touch in and touch out when I need to - many of the stations and times I travel it isn't necessary because the gates are open).
The data quality of cameras in private establishments such as department stores and office buildings is often so poor that nobody can be identified by it at all. At least one bicycle thief in Canary Wharf knows this.
It's been a while since I've been back to North America, so perhaps I can't comment, but the main difference to me seems to be that here there are lots of signs that say you are on CCTV, and cameras are placed quite obviously. This was not the case a few years ago, but there were still quite a few cameras. I think what's happening is that the government is trying to deter petty crime and violence by warning that people WILL be on camera, only it doesn't work too well because most repeat criminals know that the cameras are pretty much useless.
I'd be interested in walking around a few major cities in the US and counting the number of surveillance cameras there. I'm willing to bet there are more than most people notice, and possibly more given the generally lower population density. I don't see myself traveling to the US anytime in the near future, though.
Would I prefer to have fewer surveillance cameras? Maybe. I'm more concerned about things like biometric ID cards and the national ID register, the mental health register, and so on. I see these as much more threatening than a few crappy cameras.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-12 09:57 am (UTC)The data quality of cameras in private establishments such as department stores and office buildings is often so poor that nobody can be identified by it at all. At least one bicycle thief in Canary Wharf knows this.
It's been a while since I've been back to North America, so perhaps I can't comment, but the main difference to me seems to be that here there are lots of signs that say you are on CCTV, and cameras are placed quite obviously. This was not the case a few years ago, but there were still quite a few cameras. I think what's happening is that the government is trying to deter petty crime and violence by warning that people WILL be on camera, only it doesn't work too well because most repeat criminals know that the cameras are pretty much useless.
I'd be interested in walking around a few major cities in the US and counting the number of surveillance cameras there. I'm willing to bet there are more than most people notice, and possibly more given the generally lower population density. I don't see myself traveling to the US anytime in the near future, though.
Would I prefer to have fewer surveillance cameras? Maybe. I'm more concerned about things like biometric ID cards and the national ID register, the mental health register, and so on. I see these as much more threatening than a few crappy cameras.