Hutch

It might well have been the key to the case, but that's not the point. The case may also have been solved without resorting to 24/7 intensive CCTV surveillance.

Ermm, because I was merely demonstrating the logic, not putting forward a solution. I'm of the thoroughly old-fashioned view that if you want crimes solved, employ more people to solve crimes. The money that's been spent installing, maintaining and running those cameras could have been spent on extra police who may well have prevented the crimes from happening in the first place.

Stable doors and horses.

rabsody

Not only that, but a visible police presence is probably the best deterrent you can get for preventing crime.

Tableland

But that can't extend to the internet.

rabsody

Sorry, I was referring to the CCTV sub discussion going on.

Hutch

The cyber-cops are doing a pretty good job reeling in digital kiddie fiddlers. And if Rudd and Conroy opted to spend the $44m this farce of a firewall will cost on real Australian cyber-police it would have considerably more impact on the distribution of child pornography.

BadgeIsBack

Very, very true. The web has opened up a whole subculture of nerdy stuff not all related to geekdom. Good in some ways, bad in others.

Like BE, for example.

CynOpt

Well, it didn't prevent the crime, did it?
I think an attitude of educating people toward individual social responsibility is a much better thing to promote, rather than relying on a "don't do it if your being watched" culture, which subtley allows people to do anything they want to if they think won't be caught doing it...

Funky Monkey

It did not prevent that crime no.
We are never going to know how many crimes are prevented by cctv in any given town, it could be very few it may be hundreds.

CynOpt

Well, we can fairly easily find out what the crime rates were BEFORE they were put in, and after. However, crime is not necessarily prevented by cctv, much of it is just displaced to the surrounding areas. So a study of this kind is not valid unless it also measured crime rates in the surrounding areas prior to the installation.

It does however improve the clean up rates. And people caught on good quality cctv usually fess up much faster, thereby saving the public money.
Of course, then they get out faster too, cos they co-operated.

Anyway, I'm not dead set against cctv, there is a place for this kind of technology.
I just don't ascribe all kinds of benefits to it that aren't there, or are less pronounced than the companies who create and monitor them would like us to think.

One big effect it has is making people feel safer, which given that it is mainly crimes such as property damage and vehicle theft that are affected, not violent crime, is not entirely warranted.

At the very least, CCTV, with all its if's, buts and maybes, is a lot better at preventing and protecting against crime, than this internet filter will.

Funky Monkey

Very well put

Hutch

True. But wouldn't you say that having actual policemen and women on patrol and 'on the beat' would make people feel just as safe and have a far greater effect as a deterrent?

Hutch

Okay - it's a story from the Daily Wail, but it illustrates two of my points quite succinctly. Firstly, the fact that this spying is going on and secondly, the fact that the Daily Wail used the UK's freedom-of-information laws to force councils to reveal this:

More than half of town halls admit using anti-terror laws to spy on families suspected of putting their rubbish out on the wrong day. Their tactics include putting secret cameras in tin cans, on lamp posts and even in the homes of 'friendly' residents. The revelations have raised fresh concerns about the Home Office's plans to create a 'Big Brother' database of every citizen's e-mail and internet records.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...wrong-day.html

CynOpt

Oh absolutely, cctv is a poor second place. But it needs to be local cops, get to know the kids, the families, not just farming them in and out as needed.

It'd be nice, but it's not realistic unfortunately, in terms of cost, and practicality.
I'd be really happy if you could disagree with me on this, and persuade me otherwise.

NikiL

Actually, there is. There has been comprehensive research in recent years on the effect on a developing brain of being exposed to computer game violence and it has been proven that the part of the brain exposed to violence and porn in children cannot distinguish the difference between reality and make believe. Additionally, it develops the part of the brain that deals with violence by conditioning it to recognise it as normal because their brain cannot recognise the difference.

Yes, there is an argument (and a strong one at that) to say that it is the parents responsibility to prevent the exposure in the first place - and I would be one of the first to agree. However most parents who are prepared to buy their kids this sort of game are the sort who don't recognise the reason for age restrictions, and they are precisely the sort of parents that create the problem kids we have now.

If it means we lose a little freedom of information etc to protect the majority, then sobeit. Its a price I'm prepared to pay. I still remember the Jamie Bulger case where a strong link was made between their behaviour and the exposure to 18+ movies of Chuckys etc. A childs brain cannot make that distinction between reality and fantasy, its just not developed enough.

Pollyana

And if this were a poposal to prevent porn, I'm sure people would supprot it. But its not, its a proposal to censor everything we wish to read on the net. Every website your browser requests weill take longer to reach your pc because it will have to go through a government check first.........