Nowra NSW a single person has taken council to court to stop these cameras intruding on his privacy, and won!
Cameras of great use to police after a crime have been turned off.
Not sure if it was a member of the PC driven mob claiming to protect our privacy but sounds like it.
How do we see this.
How would we be without the cameras that caught the Murder of that ABC lady.
Or the Boston bombers?
Is PC intruding on common sense?

If they are going to turn off street cameras, they will have to turn off speed cameras, & red light cameras. These not only intrude on our privacy, but a form of self incrimination.

As I believe governments have become addicted to the revenue these provide, I expect a flurry of law making.

Nice to see the lawyers doing well.

Personally I have no problem with CCTV cameras when they are located in public places and are not hidden, as Belly points out they have been very effective in bringing to justice a number of seriously dangerous criminals.

It does however raise a deeper question and that is how far is it legitimate to go to catch people breaking the law. CCTV is at the bottom of a list headed by things like torture and entrapment.

No, we should not ban street cameras.
Street violence is increasing in our society
and having cameras in public places assists
law enforcement agencies in their work and
aids them in the protection of citizens.

Belly this needs taking a step further.

I was thinking we could use this technology to assist Lesser Britain and improve things in OZ at the same time.

Our nation was built upon the import of crooks, villains, bent judges, defrocked priests, bent politicians, crooked lawyers and general repeat offenders of all descriptions.

One would have to say they did a brilliant job of nation building for us however, it’s also clear that we now have a surplus of our former “nation builders”.

So to the solution, cameras.

All security and traffic cameras should be fitted with a “Paralysis Ray” to dispense an immediate halt to such illegal activities. A container truck would be automatically dispatched to the location to collect the offenders. We then pack all our criminals, crooked officials and child offenders of all types, into containers and ship them off to Lesser Britain so they get the chance to make Britain great again the same way we did. I suggested containers for importation into the UK as this seems to be the preferred mode of transport for immigrants.

We win by reducing the costs of our legal system; we put lawyers out of business and have no repeat offenders.

Perhaps OLOers could add to the list of categories for deportation?

How about spin doctors and CCTV technicians for a start?

Copy that Poirot,

Will any spin doctors not on 457 visas and not born in Scotland take one step forward.

Not so fast McTurdman.

Anyway Poirot, we don’t need to pay for McTurdman to go, we get to vote him out in September.

As for CCTV technicians, we won’t need them anyway under my plan. It will all be military technology and can be upgraded to integrate with 24/7 drone technology for greater coverage. Telephone taps, internet monitoring, bank account and social security hacking are so passé, after all everyone is doing that now sweetie.

I also envisage being able to add a much wider range of “eligible offenses” to the system as needed.

All we need to complete this is Suppression of free speech in the media, a Human rights Charter, a government monopoly of the internet and government internet filters.

Oh sorry Poirot I forgot to mention we are nearly there already! Tick.

Dear Belly,

There is one aspect about those cameras not yet mentioned:
They prevent orthodox Jews from leaving their home on the Sabbath (even for going to synagogue).

According to Judaism, activating an electrical current is equivalent to lighting a fire, which is forbidden on the Sabbath (and other Jewish holidays that are treated similarly). This already keeps Jews away from walking on the Sabbath near stores where their movement can activate the door. Now with CCTV on common streets (unless it is turned off during the Sabbath or held by a person that activates it selectively), Jews cannot even exit their door.

This goes way beyond being PC or privacy issues, it in fact constitutes home-detention, intruding bitterly on some people's lives.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't think you're being realistic.
People have to take responsibility for
where they choose to go or not go (and how),
For whatever reasons. If people live in public
spaces that have these cameras (and these
cameras are in public spaces, and not in suburban
streets) - then they know where these cameras
are, and they can cross the street and not go
near them. These cameras are few and far between
and have never been mentioned as a problem -
possibly because they're not

The ubiquitous video surveillance is everywhere (audio too) and much of it is privately owned. Many people, especially women (no surprise given the hysteria of their daytime TV and 'zines) do not trust their fellows, even neighbours.

The technology is progressing in leaps and bounds. It is cheap. Ordinary citizens find it necessary to have video monitoring in their vehicles and home security cameras beam their private home lives to the world (without their knowledge).

Still, I guess they can always sit home with the PC and maybe even earning some points from performing the 'public service' of watching people like themselves shopping in supermarkets and elsewhere. Hey, if those people have nothing to hide they shouldn't object, right?

Honestly is it all necessary in 'public spaces' and is there a better solution that does not require technology? What about better layout and maybe give employment to a few cheap seniors to keep the areas tidy, keep a weather eye on things, show lost people about, shoo away pesky seagulls and pigeons, and generally add a few smiles to everyone's day?

I have become more concerned about the loss of trust and good vibes in the Aussie community. That and the growth of fear and hysteria that have no basis whatsoever in reality.

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for bringing me up to the facts.
I was indeed under the impression that these cameras were installed everywhere, including suburban streets, parks and playgrounds, thus preventing Jewish children from playing outside.

Thank you again.

Gosh, Yuyutsu...

"According to Judaism, activating an electrical current is equivalent to lighting a fire..." Even if it's not intentional or is unbeknownst to the person involved?

Does that include brain wave activity, or is that OK if you don't think?

"This goes way beyond being PC or privacy issues, it in fact constitutes home-detention..." Nonsense, the worst construction would be that it constitutes a weird form of non-physical auto-bondage.

As the tee-shirt slogan might say, "Shabbat happens!"

I accept that as an athiest I can't take comfort that "God is watching over me" and so I'll settle for CCTV substitutes as the presumption of a right to privacy in a public place seems odd.

Can't wait until I get a cloak of invisibility, though...

A single person, maybe backed by a known PC group, has made Nowra streets a crime place with assurances no photos are taken.
What if a child is taken.
Would we be upset if our kid or grandkid was kidnapped and if we had the camera we could have retrieved them before a murder?
Hasbeen is, like me,a petrol head, and hard to read.
Some humor does not translate well in print, is he fair dinkum?
Is he willing to put up with bad drivers who lack the brains to slow down at speed cameras and not to drive through red lights, in front of him or me.
I am a privacy nut, after being sick of time after time being asked by EVERYONE to produce my drivers license, I got the proof of ID card.
My license is between me and the police or RTA.
But welcome every camera and call for more.

onthebeach,

"I have become more concerned about the loss of trust and good vibes in the Aussie community. That and the growth of fear and hysteria have no basis whatsoever in reality."

Agree

To me, those are the most pertinent sentences on this thread.

We should examine the reasons why we have lost our innocent good will, and the mechanisms in modern life which have contributed to it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There's things like traffic lights, speed
cameras, electric wires (for homes as well
as well as the overhead ones for trams) that exist
everywhere. Quite a few synagogues also
have surveillance cameras for security reasons
and as a prevention of vandalism. I do much of
my food shopping in a Jewish neighbourhood
and I've seen people walking on the Sabbath,
stopping at traffic lights, it doesn't seem to
worry them.

I agree with Belly.

These cameras are not monitored by interfering busybodies, but are used in the case of a robbery, attack or murder, when stored information is used to identify or clear someone. 99.9% of this footage is never watched, but cameras have been shown to drastically reduce crime in most areas where they are known to exist, and I personally feel safer with them.

Dear Trevor,

<<"According to Judaism, activating an electrical current is equivalent to lighting a fire..." Even if it's not intentional or is unbeknownst to the person involved?>>

According to Judaism, an unintentional/unbeknownst breach of the Shabbat is a minor sin (a bit like a parking offence, carrying an expiation fee) while an intentional breach is a major sin (that may under some circumstances carry the death penalty).

<<Does that include brain wave activity, or is that OK if you don't think?>>

Nothing to do with what I think or don't, according to Rabbinical Jewish law ("halacha"), electricity passing through metal causes tiny sparks and is therefore considered a form of fire. I don't think the brain produces sparks when you think - but perhaps yours does...

Dear Lexi,

<<Quite a few synagogues also have surveillance cameras for security reasons and as a prevention of vandalism.>>

Yes, but orthodox synagogues do not operate them during Shabbat at times when the congregation may be present. Reform synagogues however may.

<<I do much of my food shopping in a Jewish neighbourhood and I've seen people walking on the Sabbath, stopping at traffic lights, it doesn't seem to worry them.>>

The prohibition is against starting and extinguishing fires on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays as well as feeding an existing fire on the Sabbath (but not during most holidays). Thus there is nothing stopping Jews from using lights that were left on in advance, or were turned on automatically. You would notice however, that the Jews, if they are orthodox, would not press the pedestrian green-light call buttons, but wait patiently until someone else (you, perhaps) pressed them.

So why did the cameras get turned off in this instance?

What’s the full story here?

There surely has to be more to it than just someone complaining about an invasion of privacy as they walk down a public street!

Could the relevant cameras see through his shop window and record what he was up in his private premises or something?

Yes Yuyutsu, if only they realized they landed in Australia. Perhaps they would have looked elsewhere hey.

Sorry mate, but our laws are made to suit us, and if invited guests don't like them, tough titties my friend.

Absolutely correct, Rehctub, to the best of my knowledge there are no Jewish aboriginals.

(though there were Jews among the first convicts sent here from England, in fact 8 Jewish convicts in the first fleet to Botany Bay in 1788)

No Belly, it was not a joke. If this ruling stands, it will be only a very short time before speed cameras are challenged, for the same reason.

What If a speed camera were to catch Lexi & I on our next assignation simply because I was speeding a little. This would be the ultimate intrusion upon our privacy, & surely should not be permitted.

Mate I am the ultimate law abider. At the super market I insert my card when told, dutifully type in my pin when told, & would never even consider taking the thing out, until the remove card instruction appears. And this is not even law.

Although I used to when legal, & know I could perfectly safely today, average 100 Miles/hour [160Km/H for the kids on here] between Sydney & Melbourne, I don't. You see I'm totally law abiding.

It has nothing to do with the fact that those little candid pictures they send you are such bad quality, they are not worth what they charge for them.

So mate, I reckon we should keep the cameras, even if unfortunately, it is usually the more honest people they catch.

<< Mate I am the ultimate law abider >>

Aaaah haaa hahahaa

Hazza, remember, you are famous for being OLO’s resident hoon!

How does that sit with your law-abiding nature??

<< It has nothing to do with the fact that those little candid pictures they send you are such bad quality, they are not worth what they charge for them. >>

Hahahahaa. Those pictures are of poor quality are they?? Well I guess you’d know coz you sped past one of them cameras…. or perhaps several of them cameras?

I musta passed hundreds of speed cameras in my extensive travels all over the country in the last few years. But I’ve never been caught out by a single one of em…. coz I am wot you aren’t….a REAL law-abider!

Sorry Hasbeen. I was a tad drunk when I wrote that post. I’m sober now.

I do appreciate your cleverly sarcastic comments. ( :>)

<< …even if unfortunately, it is usually the more honest people they catch >>

There is a big grain of truth in that. Most people who are booked for speeding, in fact the vast majority, are only doing a little bit over the bookable limit, which is still a perfectly safe speed for the road and conditions, as speed limits are always set well and truly on the side of caution.

"""
It has nothing to do with the fact that those little candid pictures they send you are such bad quality, they are not worth what they charge for them.
"""

LOL! You'd think they'd come in a nice wooden frame with some gold leaf, cheapskates!

I wounder if we can start a new religion, hasbeen and put burkers on our cars :~) They work great for the street cams.

I don't think cameras should be banned but I'd hate to see it become like the UK. Still, it's irritating thinking some obese, Mc GMO inhaling slob is sitting there watching your every move, creepy really!

if people had not stopped smacking children its likely we would need far less camera's as the lack of discipline has led to far more violence. Another lie of the social engineers uncovered.

We all know what a fearful person Belly is but why on earth are the rest of you so blithely accepting cameras watching your every move?

And please do not let Belly nor anyone else tell you wanting to keep the government or 'Big Brother' out of our business is a PC thing. Any true conservative worth his or her salt would be condemning the CCTV-ing of our streets. What they would be demanding instead is more 'bobbies on the beat' and in that I would agree with them.

The fact that this happened in NSW is not a surprise. That state has been dropping police numbers per 100,000 people for years and now ranks second lowest of all the states and territories bar the ACT for operational officers. It is 10% below Victorian numbers and 20% below Queensland's. CCTV-ing is a cheap alternative to adequately resourcing police.

Belly's plaintive cry about “What if a child is taken. Would we be upset if our kid or grandkid was kidnapped and if we had the camera we could have retrieved them before a murder?” Name one instance of a taken child being retrieved before they were murdered due to a CCTV camera in Australia. You can't because there aren't any. He continues with “How would we be without the cameras that caught the Murder of that ABC lady.”? It was a camera inside a shop that captured his image not a public one but leaving that aside shouldn't we be putting our resources into preventing murders like that of Jill Maher with visible policing on our streets rather than cheap fixes that only assist after the fact, if at all.

Let's not let the fear of some strip away what should be a reasonable right to privacy and to safe and adequate policing.

Actually Luddy & Mustard I was on a Pommy motoring site recently. The populous were up in arms about the number of unregistered, & therefor uninsured cars on the road. Including those with stolen plates it is believed to be over a million in England alone.

They are blaming this on policing by camera.

As the owner/driver can't be identified or found, photo enforcement is only with honest people, with legally registered cars.

Evidently there are so few cops on the road in England these days, that these cars are rarely picked up.

If they are actually stopped by the cops the fine for driving an unregistered car is apparently, less than even the bottom end speeding/red light fines.

They believe that photographic evidence, rather than by human cop, is developing a class of people who would not not drive a legal car, if it was given to them.

I think they may have started around here south of Brisbane. I had not seen a cop car for years. My son told me there were hundreds of young dole/alternate income types around, driving $200 unregistered cars.

About that time I started seeing at least one cop car every time I drove the 25Km or so to any of the nearby towns. I think they are having a blitz on dangerous unroadworthy cars. These things are worse than a little minor speeding, & require human detection & enforcement.

I gather some bloke was caught recently, sitting on a 5 gallon drum, with it sitting on the piece of plywood, over the rust hole, where the floor should be. That was a good one, the drum was tied in place with bailing twine.

Continued

Continued

OH & the only time I have ever seen one of those photos, it was photos of my lady's car, not mine. She was photographed twice in one day, by the same camera, would you believe. Once going somewhere & once coming back.

She tells me some cock & bull story about her sat nav having the wrong speed listed for the area involved, as if I'd fall for that one. The judge didn't.

So there you are, I am absolutely law abiding, or very good at spotting cameras, which ever takes your fancy.

Then we have a neighbor known as "the speedy one". She was booked 6 times in 4 days, & reckons it was a rort. I agree with her. They had widened & resurfaced an old very narrow road. She had not noticed they had replaced the 100 signs with 60 signs. I gather there were so many complaints that many fines were thrown out.

Runner I agree completely.

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1479381/urgent-review-after-council-cctv-shutdown/?cs=300
Given much thought to why any of us would not want to be filmed if we are not doing any thing wrong.
And even more to why some do not want to see criminals caught.
csteetle we would not yet have caught the Boston bombers without these cameras.
That play any roll in your written form of smirking at me?
A poll on the seven on line page said 84% of us want the cameras.
Now the sixteen percent are not criminals, but some must be.
You can bet on it some one long ago would have complained about the use of finger prints.
A question remains,why do we let so few ride over the wishes so many so often?

Could the next step be the legal challenge to have all surveilance cameras banned in stores, banks and entrances to private residents?

Actually, Belly, the cameras were only one piece of the jigsaw that went towards stopping the Boston bombers.

Forensic identification of the materials used to make and transport the bombs aided police to zero in on them in the videos.

But it was only after their exposure to the pubic that the brothers embarked on the next deadly phase. They killed a policeman and only then were the police able to begin closing in.

It took most of the police manpower of the city and surrounds plus federal reinforcement, public assistance and more technology to actually catch the surviving member.

In fact, you'd be battling to find an example of a more intensive police operation than the one undertaken in this case.

Belly,
You may not be aware that it is illegal for anyone other than a police
officer or a person with whom you have had an accident to ask for your
driver's licence.
You may offer it, but they cannot ask for it.
This came about when the photo licence proposal came up and some
objected to it saying it was the Australia Card by stealth.

Hasbeen, the British police have their highway cars fitted with number
plate readers connected to the car rego computer and insurance computer.
They pull up unregistered and uninsured cars every time they go out.
I have been watching a program called the Interceptors on Foxtel and
they drive converted rally cars, such as Subaru Inprezors, Mitsubishi
Evos and an Audi (thats not right) all wheel drive.
Stolen cars also get detected.
They sit at the side of the road until one goes past.
They also have cameras on over passes on main roads.
They have a boot full of electronics and can track tracker equipped
stolen cars. Even cars owned by known criminals get flagged.

So it can be done and I am aware that police cars here are being
equipped but I don't know how fast.

Yes Bazz, read all that on those sites.

However it doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps the effort devoted to it is somewhat than that devoted to revenue raising.

in Perth a woman was caught red handed and by camera king hitting a copper. Her only excuse was being drunk. Pathetic judge gives her 8 months prison then some sleazy lawyer finds a loophole to get her released. What good is a camera and good police when you get a useless court system that refuses to make penalties fit crimes.

Dear Belly,

You wrote;

“csteetle we would not yet have caught the Boston bombers without these cameras.”

The bombers were not identified through the use of the cameras. This is why the police ultimately decided to release them since they had few leads. What they were attempting to do was to get the pair to act irrationally and therefore expose themselves to law enforcement. They took a calculated risk that resulted in an officer losing his life but who knows what other mayhem the two might have been capable of if not apprehended. However I repeat the point, they were not directly identified via the camera footage.

You also said;

“Given much thought to why any of us would not want to be filmed if we are not doing any thing wrong. And even more to why some do not want to see criminals caught.”

That is what the fearful trot out every time.

Let's explore the notion. Would you be happy to have your telephone permanently bugged 24 hours a day? No you say? Why would you be worried if you were “not doing anything wrong”? Don't you “want to see criminals caught”?

CCTV cameras are lazy law enforcement. They are little use in prevention but may assist in after the fact identification. That is all.

I don't want my phone bugged or my emails read without due cause and a warrant. Nor do I want my facial features scanned every time I walk down a public thoroughfare. I've read 1984 and I don't want that for my country nor should you.

I do want adequate policing and am happy to contribute to such with my taxes.

Finally Belly I felt we had done a pretty fair job at keeping each other at arms length. Then you drop the line “Ignore csteele, he/she has form for overlooking things like this.” I have just responded in kind.

Here is a thought. Why don't we shorten up the leashes again. I'm sure it will help with the digestion.

Bazz you are quite right, and I as hasbeen is, am quite aware of it.
But it seems most are using it, no matter what is law, to buy a mobile phone, get a wireless connection you must produce one.
Runner we usually disagree, some times I think just for the sake of it.
But you highlight a truth, mentioned here many times.
O sung wo could tell us about it, t6hose handing down justice are often not linked to reality.
Again I tell this story, *ignoring every sign, including speed reduction and warning traffic accident ahead*
An idiotic woman driver, very well off by the car she was in, rolled 3 times, nearly killing me two tow truck drivers and uniformed police, 3 meters of the road, retrieving a smashed car.
In court, her Lawyer, mentioned she was in a part of Ireland the Magistrate comes from, nothing else!
Charges dismissed!*revolting out come*
A thought, as we know most want the assurance surveillance cameras, then.
Why do we so often, let the minority rule?
One man, a single out of step with us and any future victim in Nowra has won, we have lost?

A crimes occur in private residences as well as public places. We should install CCTV cameras in houses as well but to make them unobtrusive we should put them inside television sets.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony Lavis,

Indeed. However as the horrendous crime of incest occurs mainly in bedrooms and almost exclusively within private residences I feel the bedrooms require 24 hour monitoring as well.

You have also perhaps forgotten Churches where child abuse is demonstrably rife. Full monitoring is the only course of action unless you are one of those who condone the sexual abuse of our innocents.

Also the toilets in our shopping centres have been often targeted by molesters so a camera above each cubicle surely should be a must.

Anybody who protests are doing so because they are PC gone mad! Don't they know this is exactly what the community is calling for?

'You have also perhaps forgotten Churches where child abuse is demonstrably rife '

and of course csteele those grubby lefty éntertainers' with the national broadcasters would need a few extra camera's.

Just thought I'd include an excerpt from Tom Hodgkinson's "How To Be Free".

"When it comes to anxiety, I'm here to say: 'It's not your fault.' Shed the burden; that dreadful gnawing, stomach-churning sense that things are awry mixed with a chronic sense of powerlessness is the simple result of living in an anxious age, oppressed by Puritans, imprisoned by career humiliated by bosses attacked by banks, seduced by celebrity, bored by TV, forever hoping, fearing or regretting. It - the Thing the Man, the System, the Combine, the Construct, whatever you want to call the structure of power - wants you to be anxious. Anxiety suits the status quo well. Anxious people make good consumers and good workers....Anxiety will drive us back into our comfort blankets of credit-card shopping and bad food, so the system deliberately produces anxiety while simultaneously promising to take it away....According to the brilliant anxiety analyst Brian Dean, the truth is that crime rates have remained fairly constant for the last 150 years [Britain]. Dean maintains that our fear of crime is vastly out of proportion to the reality. The truth is that we face far more danger from car accidents and heart disease than from crime...The whole panoply of modern state control, also, is surely designed to make us feel nervous. The very institutions and devices that are sold to us as comforts and security measures create insecurity by constantly reminding us of the dangers. Police, speed cameras; CCTV cameras; burglar alarms... Nineteen Eighty-Four is fast becoming a reality. At the time of writing, the US government is trying to subpoena the records of Google, the search engine which can record everything we have searched for, thus gaining an insight to the innermost workings of our mind."

I am the eye in the sky
Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules
Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind...

(Alan Parsons Project)

Dear runner,

What on earth are you on about?

Jimmy Savile was a staunch Roman Catholic who was a great personal friend of Maggie Thatcher, indeed he spent 11 consecutive New Years Eves with her and her family at Chequers.

He also won an award in 1977 from that old battle axe morality campaigner Mary Whitehouse's crowd the National Viewers and Listeners' Association.

When he was seeking to join the prestigious Athenaeum club in England his sponsor was none other than Cardinal Basil Hume, at the time the Archbishop of Westminster.

He is very much one of your lot mate and you can keep him. Don't try and pan him off on to anyone else.

Csteele>> However if you do get tired of them and felt homesick for reasoned and logical positions on issues such as this we would welcome you back.<<

Well many thanks Cs, god I thought I was on the outer for a second.

You ask why I don’t throw my hands up to this error in info transfer, perhaps it is the gracious manner that the old gang addressed my previous “hands up” stance…..I aint going back to that.

I posted a link so there was no factual malice or decit, I simply misread the paragraph…just to remind ourselves:

"BOCSAR director Don Weatherburn says it proved impossible to compile comprehensive figures because the arresting police often didn't ask the question and many detainees refused to answer it. However, data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that Lebanese make up the fifth largest ethnic group in Australian prisons….”

Cs, I actually picked up on the mistake just after posting, but decided to keep my mouth shut and wait it out, Wm got it first, followed briskly by Poirot and sadly you are a distant third…lol just kidding.

Cs, do you recall I said this to you:

“Thank you doctor, I will take a Bex and have a good lie down and see if the first news report I hear tomorrow has a shooting in a Middle Eastern enclave, or whether the assailants are describes as “of Middle Eastern appearance.”<

There were two on the morning news the next day….nothing this morning though.

Err, my mistake, I had two windows open and posted in the wrong one.

Now I'm here I may as well say something. CCTV is ok except in the suburbs. My fear is bloody google earth; they can case your street from the comfort of home, not to mention if the government turns against us...where you group to counter with the traitors with satellite surveillance.

I'll give it another go.

CCTV is ok except in the suburbs. My fear is bloody google earth; they can case your street from the comfort of home, not to mention if the government turns against us...where do you group to counter if the traitors have drone and satellite surveillance.

Dear Sonofgloin,

<<CCTV is ok except in the suburbs.>>

What then about out in the country? Is it right to intrude on peaceful farmers and hikers?

<<My fear is bloody google earth; they can case your street from the comfort of home>>

I happened to see them when they tried to enter my street, so I blocked their way with my car across the street, then they tried coming around from the other end but I was ready for them there as well, so they left.

<<where do you group to counter if the traitors have drone and satellite surveillance.>>

Then we will all use stones and crossbows from our roofs to take them down.
Hmmm, satellites are harder to reach, perhaps we can hack their software and use electronic signals to make them self-destruct.

Following on...

Beyond Blue is launching a campaign to tackle anxiety.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/beyond-blue-launches-campaign-to-tackle-anxiety/4671876

We're plugged in, switched on, informed, filmed, recorded, archived,...overwhelmed with information, bad news, atrocity - and our own magnificence.

Makes you wonder why the government began an initiative a few years ago to address mental problems in pre-schoolers? Why the government last year began an initiative to address suicides in High-schoolers (3 a week in Australia) and why Beyond Blue is undertaking this latest one.

Surely with all these cameras in place, we can dispense with anxiety...or just maybe it goes much deeper than that.

..We all know what a fearful person Belly is but why on earth are the rest of you so blithely accepting cameras watching your every move?

Because I have nothing to fear and have dome nothing wrong csteel, besides, street cameras just make you feel a little ate ease when your kids are out at night..

I'd rather see more humans employed instead of the cameras. Those who have something to hide can hide from a camera but not from a couple of police or even more effective vigilante.
Street cameras have done nothing to curb violent behaviour. I imagine a few vigilantes would give chase which is rather more effective than a photo & a slap on the wrist.

Yuyutsu>> Then we will all use stones and crossbows from our roofs to take them down.
Hmmm, satellites are harder to reach, perhaps we can hack their software and use electronic signals to make them self-destruct.<<

Valued comments Y, I will stand firm, they will have to drag a retraction from my cold dead tongue...lol

"""
Then we will all use stones and crossbows
"""

Crossbows are BANNED in Australia, sadly :~(

Stones will probably be next. Oh hang on; when sharia law passes, stones will be sold on street corners. Then we'll have to buy burkers for our stones, to hide them from the cameras.

Raw Mustard>> Stones will probably be next. Oh hang on; when sharia law passes, stones will be sold on street corners. Then we'll have to buy burkers for our stones, to hide them from the cameras.<<

RM, I fell on the floor....no more please, my sides are splitting sport.

Dear Rawmustard,

I think you have gone burkers yourself. Crossbows have not been banned in Australia, except perhaps for WA. I had a mate showing off his BEAR just a few weeks ago. Awesome bit of hardware actually. Sure you need a permit in most places and belong to an archery club or some such although in the NT a drivers licence will do.

Funny thing facts. They can be so inconvenient sometimes, though I would agree, they shouldn't get in the way of a good story, sonofgloin will tell you that. ;)

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1482526/no-apology-as-cctv-battle-spreads-wider/?cs=298
At first look this link looks both amusing and horrifying.
But then reading some posts from my last? both exceed the links.
A single person, one, not only stopped the use of *council cameras* but wants council to say sorry!
Do we all notice how some here make fun, or try to of those cameras, asking they be in every home Church, anyplace that amuses them! to take eyes from the simple fact, these cameras do no harm.
But often much good.
What if the minor crimes, seen to have risen after the cameras had to be turned off, included a rape or murder, under one, now turned off camera.
Is the view,strongly disagreed with by me, that privacy over rules safety a worth while view?

Hasbeen & Others who may be interested;
The Police Interceptors program commented that one in twenty cars on
the road in the UK are uninsured/unregistered.
The car computer reads the number plate of every car going past and
checks its status. They pick up stolen number plates and cars that
don't match the number plates.
They sit at the side of the road and when one goes past go after them
and seize the car. The occupants have to walk home.

I would be interested in knowing how many uninsured/unregisted cars
are on our roads. It must be pretty bad news to have an accident with
one of those cars, especially if there is serious injury.
Some NSW police cars do have the camera system installed.

csteele

your distortions and blinded view of the corrupt nature of man speaks for its self. Your selective use of demonisation and denial is well documented in almost all your posts. I see Jimmy entertained in the eyes of his lefist ideology and learnt his child abuse because he was born in a Catholic family.

you write

'He is very much one of your lot mate and you can keep him. Don't try and pan him off on to anyone else. '

sorry csteele but besides being born in a catholic family I have no allegiance to the church. And of course you were not born with a corrupt nature were you. Where then did you pick it up?

runner,

Haw, haw, haw...

There's something singularly fascinating about you accusing another of "demonisation".

Your stock in trade is to jump onto threads and plaster people with whom you disagree with any number of vices.

You appear to employ your religion as a shield as you hurl away "partisan" invective.

Considering Jesus implored his followers not to "judge", you seem to be doing a pretty good job of ignoring that particular tenet.

Poirot

funny how you start to use Jesus as an authority when you claim not to believe in Him or teachings.

"""
I think you have gone burkers yourself.
"""

Heehehe! Good one, csteele. I almost thought you had your funny bone removed at birth.

"""
Crossbows have not been banned in Australia
"""

Well I won't argue semantics with you but what exactly is a prohibited weapon and much hoop jumping to acquire and own one.
I need no such thing for a bow! They may as well be banned outright it's virtually impossible to get one!

I don't have a problem with Jesus at all, runner.

I do have a problem with people who employ their Christianity in the service of their own partisan viewpoint to pass venomous judgement and sling vices at others.

' I do have a problem with people who employ their Christianity in the service of their own partisan viewpoint to pass venomous judgement and sling vices at others. '

and what do you employ Poirot. You certainly do a pretty good job at it.

Why thank you, runner.

Poirot you give a good description of runner.
Bazz in practice police use two cars to set up roadside using that camera.
4 hundred meters apart, the number plat reader is quick enough to see the second car stops offenders.
In Victoria, cars fitted with that camera travels around major car parks, picking up ones the driver has unpaid fines as well as unregistered.
I say again, it is no problem if you have not done anything wrong.
Why are so many offended at the law working as WE ask it to, catching offenders?
Do we want our kids safe?
I honestly think we see minority here trying to once again rule over the majority.

Bazz>> Some NSW police cars do have the camera system installed.<<

Bazz, just before xmas my bride was pulled over because her car rego was 1 day out, she paid it online the night before but the system had a hiccup.

Registration is way to expensive in Qld since Labor took the reigns. I can't see Can or can't do Campbell reducing it either. Simply too many bureaucrats hanging off the apron & too many hare-brained, money-wasting schemes.

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1485330/premier-intervenes-to-restore-nowras-cctv/?cs=300
This link, again from near the home of the controversy, seems to say the cameras are on the way back.
Too that while council they appear to be mostly for police use.
Sonofgloin that miss take is common,police system takes not much time, but those in charge of the other system, transport area once a day up dating mob.
In the end we drifted towards cameras other than the street ones.
Put up straw men to make a case against using them.
But we did not,and will not, stop progress, the world is a better place for the use of cameras.

Belly,

"....the world is a better place for the use of cameras."

Are you sensing that there is less community violence now, as opposed to way back when before CCTV?

I'm not.

In that case, how, and in what way, is it effective?

Poirot, please understand I am a fan of yours, but find reason to disagree often.
And often ask my self why folk can think so very differently on some things.
Not a bad pass time, reviewing why we think as we do, and why others do not.
I learn much that way.
Let me tell you what life has taught me.
My wasted and breaf youth, saw me active in one of this country,s then Communist trouble making unions, not my life,s one.
We youths, big strong and headstrong, brave along with it, had schooling,just before a needless strike or meetings, we learned story,s off by heart, untrue but gave the meetings them word for word.
I woke up to what a lie that was, when two older wiser meat boning men and three woman packers jolted me for it.
You do not have to disagree or agree, with every thing, just because you think it may lessen your values if you do not.
It stood me in good stead, all my life,it will again, after the coming election defeat of every thing I believe in.
But I hope in the ruins my party rises, knowing it must not tilt at windmills.
Fighting the cameras, because a case, feeble miss jointed and untrue can be made they intrude on privacy we never had,will change nothing.
World wide evil or just plain bad people are caught because of these cameras.
Your challenge Poirot is to prove to me, what damage they do, and to who.

without street camera's it would be very doubtful that the rapist/murderer of Jill Meahger would of been found along with the Boston bombers. enough reason in a couple of months to justify existance.

Belly,

I take your point....that a filmed society apparently hurts nobody...

Could it be that cameras are perceived as keeping us safer, when the reality is that society has continued on an equally or more violent, less connected and caring path.

Could it be that we've come to the point where we don't expect or feel the need to be looking out for each other. That close-knit communities are now a thing of the past in our centralised conglomerations.

Our streets are now probably more unsafe - especially at certain hours - than they've ever been.

How can that be with the plethora of surveillance on hand?

Poirot I honestly welcome street cameras any thing we can use to combat crime.
Watched a British Cop show, based on police using them, liked what I saw.
I could list reasons for concerns other than them, why constant demands for drivers license not related to driveing ?
Why do judges and others sitting in judgment hand down sentences so bad we cringe?
Like the 6 years for a child killer on tv last night.
All those things are in a way damaged by things like one person! a single one! seeing at least for some time these cameras turned off.

On balance I think the cameras are a help in detecting perpetrators, not so sure that they are effective as a deterant although they should be.

I do have a concern about the creeping intrusion of monitoring into our lives. Generally the individual components have validity but the sum of the parts is something those who value personal liberty and privacy find disturbing.

Belly and I have been over this before a bit in relation to workplace drug and alcohol testing. Differing world views and a divide of understanding.

I don't deliberatey break the law, I've never been drunk or taken illicit drugs but that does not mean that I welcome intrusions on my privacy because someone has a policy. Part of that is just a liking for privacy, some sense of control over my own life and choices in a world where governments seem increasingly determined to remove that control and choice. There is also a practical element to my concerns.

I don't have the level of trust in government (or its agents) to always act ethically with the power at their disposal. Technology is advancing rapidly, tools such as facial recogition and data matching means that data and images gathered today may be able to be used quite differently in a few years tie to the way it can be used now.

Government agendas and poorly thought through laws may well mean that those who have not done wrong may well have something to hide or fear and governments always seem to be able to find people willing to "just do their job" without regard to the fairness or ethics of that job.

I don't have neat answers to the conflict between finding wrongdoers and arming government with more powerful tools to control the population than have ever existed in history. Its and answer we do need to find though.

R0bert

It is reasonable to be concerned about issues of who controls, accesses and uses public CCTV surveillance, though I have an impression these days it is YouTube and current affairs programs...

But the basic expectation of privacy from observation whilst in public is tendentious.

It is comparable to expecting everyone else who is out in public to close their eyes in case they see you.

BTW, what is it with agoraphobics? What are they trying to hide from the rest of us?

For the religious,
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
John Philpot Curran, Dublin 10 July 1790.

[and it was author Thomas Charlton in an 1809 biography who wrote, "fastening upon the minds of the American people the belief, that 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance'."]

Power and control has always been effectively achieved through intimidation, fear and guilt... and to the extent these protect me from harm, I give cautious and very tentative approval.

But to address R0bert's point concerning "the conflict between finding wrongdoers and arming government with more powerful tools to control the population than have ever existed in history." we need to somehow ensure that government has less smiting power than God.

I find the paranoia in this thread quite amusing. There is an assumption that all cameras have someone watching and judging your actions. In reality while you are in public you are being seen by dozens of people anyway. No one is going spend the money to view the thousands of hours of footage every day. The information is stored on hard drive and only referred to if an incident is reported.

Where the information comes in handy is to provide impartial evidence when an incident occurs, which can help find an assailant or thief, or provide clear evidence in the case of an accident where there are often varying accounts. For example a theme park manager recounted to me how the system has saved him a fortune in injury claims where on the CCTV, the "accidents" are clearly staged.

The cameras cannot guarantee that these incidents are stopped, but they do ensure that justice is meted out. This generally has a deterrent effect on most individuals

Dear SM,

<<No one is going spend the money to view the thousands of hours of footage every day.>>

The technology already exists and keeps improving to have thousands of hours condensed into a short report describing only events that may be relevant, including who was there (based on biometric information), short enough for humans to read in a reasonable time.

That raises more questions than answers on how to possibly prevent this information from falling in the wrong hands.

What if the information is used by a tyrannical government to thwart a revolution?
What if the information is leaked to commercial companies by corrupt police, who then use it for advertising or for industrial espionage?
What if the information is stolen by interested parties?
What if, based on those cameras, a policewoman sees her husband in a park at night with another woman?
What if the crime-clip reaches the news, causing innocent by-standers or passers-by to also be shown on TV or youtube?
What if the horrible "crime" is just a busting person relieving their call-of-nature between the bushes in a park?

I could go on filling page after page of such questions...

I actually do not have an argument with cameras at the sites of possible terrorist targets such a Parliament House or embassies but the London bombers were not deterred by their use, if you are a suicide bomber what do you care anyway, nor were the Boston bombers and contrary to runner's assertions they were not identified from camera footage. Further it was not a street camera that identified Jill Maher's attacker it was a fortuitous in-store camera which because of the angle and lighting, made colour identification possible. Usual street cameras offer up quite ordinary images at night.

England now spends a ridiculous 20% of its law enforcement budget on surveillance cameras. Even they are questioning their effectiveness especially in light of abuses.

A 2005 study by University of Leicester, requested by the British Home Office, found that the only place where cameras had a deterrence effect was in thefts from vehicles in carparks. Everywhere else there was a discernible impact either on crime nor fear of crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/4294693.stm

Wmtrevor writes;

“But the basic expectation of privacy from observation whilst in public is tendentious.”

How would you feel in upon entering a public street mall three individuals sitting on a park bench watched you the entire time you were walking through that space? I would feel pretty uncomfortable and would more than likely go and ask them what their problem was. I'm not sure having them out of sight should make me feel any better about their actions.

My daughter came home the other day complaining that a man had been taking pictures of her surreptitiously at a bus station. After staring him down she went to complain to the staff and was told they knew him and that he does it quite often. They did nothing to stop him. Studies have shown that 1 in 10 women in public places are targeted by camera operators for purely voyeuristic reasons. Perhaps the increasing pervasiveness on surveillance cameras now means that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. It certainly wasn't for my daughter nor is it for me.

Those who want the cameras turned off or removed must have something to hide. We need more cameras. If I was a crim I would love to know where the cameras are turned off so I could go and do my thing. Cameras must cause a lot of anxiety for criminals which is a good thing.

I don't think most criminals give a hoot about cameras.

Let's face it, most of us don't walk about thinking about the fact we're being filmed. A situation where a brawl between a bunch of drunks gets out of hand causing serious injury or death, is one where CCTV footage would be useful....but I don't believe the intoxicated participants are likely to call a truce while they duck into a building to carry on their argument.

It's not put in place to stop "criminals". Street cameras are put in place to try and identify people indulging in anti-social behaviour. Store cameras are mainly about catching thieves or shop-lifters and both are normally only useful for identifying people "after the act".

Dear Siller,

<<Those who want the cameras turned off or removed must have something to hide.>>

Are you saying that having something to hide is always a bad thing?

When Europe was under the Nazis, there were, not too many, but some heroes who risked their life hiding Jews.
Had today's technology been available then, not a single Jew in occupied Europe would have survived the holocaust.

Criminals who are not afraid of cameras are the best type, Dumb!
That old but different one RObert about drugs in the work place.
What workplace first come to your mind?
And what drugs?
My fears started on the Highway out the front, after semi trailers rolled over, some times on top of cars, mates in other trucks first searched for the drugs! to hide them.
Next, while wheel rolling a temporary patch, involves filling the hole truck wheel rolling back and for wards.
Then toping it up and rolling till hard, a Laborer stepped in behind the truck.
Eyes rolling he was out of it,only luck saw me not having to live with his death on my mind.
We found a tin weed and pills in it in his pocket.
Later as Union official, I watched the rat bag mob refuse to have drivers tested , after smashes, drivers of fast moving giant rock buggys!
Habitual use on construction sites kills.
Bit concerned, I once again agree with Shadow Minister.
No need to fear cameras or drug testing unless you fear being caught.

Not sure, csteele… context is everything.

"How would you feel in upon entering a public street mall three individuals sitting on a park bench watched you the entire time you were walking through that space?"

Depends on appearances – if they were 'right fit' I might find myself swelling with self-satisfaction and starting to strut somewhat, appreciative of their obvious good taste. If they were in police uniform in a public street mall in Australia I might relax knowing I wasn't going to be taken from behind in a random mugging, but in Pyongyang I'd wonder where the secret police were. However, and wherever, unlike yourself I doubt that I'd "likely go and ask them what the problem was."

Your daughter's story is discomforting. Has she made an official complaint, both about the man and the bus station staff? Without any attempt at being surreptitious did she take a photo of the man's stalking behaviour? Surely the bus station CCTV footage would be evidence of specific and ongoing public nuisance?

I've already said "It is reasonable to be concerned about issues of who controls, accesses and uses public CCTV surveillance…" Because I am.

But I've not lost confidence in Australian's abilities to manage an appropriate balance – yet.

Nor do I want the last known images of me to be grainy surveillance footage shown on nightly news services.

But if it helps achieve some justice for those who survive me… that's better than nothing.

Belly the workplace which came to mind was my workplace. An office environment where management have admitted they don't have any known problem with staff being under the influence in the workplace.

As far as I can tell across the board random testing was introduced so that they would not seem to be singling out those who do work in parts of the business where the physical risks are significant.

"No one is going spend the money to view the thousands of hours of footage every day.", as has been pointed out some of the technology is here now to avoid someone spending the hours viewing the footage. Given the rate of advancement in image recognition we can pretty much assume that any image captured now and not disposed of will one day soon be relatively easily processed to extract whatever the searcher is looking for. If the government is sane and has adequate safeguards around the use of the records then most of us have little to be concerned about. History has shown all to often that neither of those proviso's are a given.

The concept of privacy is murky, it's hard to tie down the boundaries around it for most of us. Clearly privacy in public is limited but it does not indicate having something to hide by now wanting your outdoor actions recorded without any control over how that record is later used.

It's not only those with something to hide who might prefer not to be recorded without consent or otherwise have their privacy breached. No more than it would be valid to suggest that everyone who is not a nudist has something to hide.

R0bert

RObert many forms of testing exist, and rather like this thread, some look only at the negatives ignoring the sound reason for having both.
Drug use has always, well post ww2, been an issue in road transport, the first drug was same as pilots took on long bombing trips.
Construction and mining, are still endemic with the worst of them.
Deaths do take place, even on the way to or from work.
Picture the 12 hour shifts,the sometimes two hour travel, and see men camped away from home too, earning very big money,and you will begin to see my concerns.
While off subject I think it is worth telling, leftist unions stand firmly against ANY TESTING but not in mining, it is mandatory for all.
Peer testing is my preferred option.
A selected random number, including the boss and office staff are tested.
And after fears of some ones seeming influence of drugs or grog a peer can test.
RObert including staff in the pool to be tested if nothing else shows workers they are not unfairly targeted, and historically has seen some BIG FAILURES at the highest levels.
As with the cameras, anything really, those putting straw men, csteele,s park bench is a perfect one, in the way of what is truly best for most/all often stop a practice most want.
Democracy demands all voices be heard, but if it demands too often rights for minority's that overrule majority it fails us all.

Belly the creeping intrusion of government into our lives is not really off topic. It all part of the broader issue ofwhere do we draw the line(s) when it comes to protecting individual freedom vs some aspects of social good.

You are clearly further along the line in societies needs overriding individual freedom than I am, at the same time I'm somewhat closer to your position than I am to the dedicated individualists.

It is in my view an ongoing balancing act. On both ends of the spectrum lies great harm to the majority as more power is concentrated in the hands of those willing and able to abuse whatever advantage they can get.

R0bert

Dear WmTrevor,

No there is absolutely no legal remedy afforded my daughter in relation to anyone choosing to take her photograph in a public place, no matter how creepy the circumstance. If the person was to focus on the certain areas the may be a case;

“Visually capturing genital or anal region of another person. Section 41B summary offenses Act 1966 (Vic), where undertaken intentionally and in circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the other person that his or her relevant region not be captured, e.g. “upskirting”;”
http://www.ccp.org.au/docs/Davison-Legal-Manual.pdf

There are civil liabilities that address nuisance but only in a very limited manner;

“Nuisance and privacy. In limited circumstances where a photographer captures images from outside a private property, this might constitute an unreasonable interference with a recognised right in the property. In particular repeated action that by virtue of repetition interferes with the enjoyment may be a nuisance. A right of privacy per se however, does not yet exist in Australia;”

And in my opinion will now likely never exist because our own governments and councils are are stripping away at the expectation of a degree of privacy in a public place at such an alarming rate, cheered on it must be said by certain members of this forum.

So there are neither criminal or civil avenues open to her.

The staff also have no right to curtail his behaviour. Just for a heads up to people who may be travelling to Ballarat by train or bus you may well encounter this individual.

This is what comes of a society that treats calls for a certain level of privacy when in a public place so flippantly.

“Why should you protest unless you have something to hide”.

How much serious crime is there where the thousands public cameras are situated?

Do criminologists agree with the public perception, anxiety whipped up by 'current' affairs shows and their paper tabloid equivalents, that there is a lot of crime and that crime is increasing?

What hard evidence is there that the cameras have actually deterred crime? True, in some cases the grainy CCTV images may have given some vague lead, but it is public cooperation that results in arrests. Do people even bother to pay attention or take care, where they know that CCTV exists?

Are the cameras in lieu of the physical presence of staff, including police of course?

From crime statistics, it is home burglaries that represent most crime apart from drugs and drug involved violence, eg booze related, and few home burglaries are being cleared. It is not in a public place that you at risk at all, but while you are in the kitchen of a day or as a family watching The Box in the evening. Your response should be to quietly leave your house, while praying the offender is of the old fashioned sort and doesn't want to meet you either.

Cameras in public places are a solution to a problem that was invented by the entrepreneurs who sell the technology and the present technology is *bleep* in picture quality. Every local authority has to have them though. The alternative is employing some youth or seniors as tourist ambassadors, or general street carers. What about that option instead? The option offers far more sophisticated technology, multipurpose and proactive as well.

Meanwhile we should be wondering a bit more about the public hysteria and distrust that are being cultivated and taken advantage of by a feckless media and by leaders who should know better.

Adam Bonner from Nowra started this nonsense with compliant solicitors no doubt and probably legal aid. What has he got to hide? My experience with Nowra is that they need CCTV on every street corner in town.

Never fear, Premier Barry O'Farrell has immediately stepped in to provide a legal loophole for the said cameras.

Nothing said about the high incidence of home burglaries and the low clearance rate though.

Nothing said about more police on the beat either.

RObert and others of a like mind, and I understand the reasoning behind those views try this.
On a trip stop at roadside rest areas, just say three, used by trucks, wander the full length and look for first medicine bottles, then oil bottles filled with urine.
See behind many more truck steering wheels than you will like, is a driver under the influence of drugs, not always do they even know what they are taking.
Bikers first got in to drugs via speed, sold to these blokes.
An office desk is unlikely to mow down, even kill others.
But recreational drugs covers a lot.
Who is happy to know that truck or rock bugy is not driven by some one off their face?
Is their right to privacy more important than workmates right to be safe at work?
Now as been said one dropkick/bloke stopped those cameras.
Are his needs more important than the rest of Nowra?
Is it the government/law makers job to look after most? or all?
It can never work if it is all.

My early morning romp, in the news papers not the cold air, has shown another positive for the use of cameras.
Seems school have been caught street fighting under one, and one has been hurt will post the link later having trouble finding it after reading many sites.

Belly, "Seems school have been caught street fighting under one"

Don't bother with the street camera. The incident would have been on social networking sites from mobile phones. Any action by authorities would rely on interviews because the street camera images are always rubbish.

Apart from the opportunities for voyerism and endless tutt-tutting by serially offended members of the public, the camera offered squat in this case. A camera might be observed and acted upon only in very narrowly defined zones of major metropolitan cbds or affecting precise targets eg suspected car bomb ramming of Buck Palace gates.

Once again authorities find convenience in lulling the public into a false sense of security. The fact is that the prime use of public CCTV camers is to offer a political 'solution' to medial-led hysteria about crime. The politically populist 'solution' of a fecklesss sensationalist media that makes rather than reports news.

At best a camera might suggest a vague possibility and it is the public appesal for witnesses and better images from mobs that actually helps, not the CCTV. It is always reactive, never proactive as staff on the street offer. A deterrent?! Vut it out, the offenders are wise to the cameras' limitations and anyhow they wear hoodies and sun glasses.

Your risks are at home though and there the same applies with bells on: the police will arrive after the ambos, which is well after some member of the public raises the alarm on finding you, and in time to order coroner's van with your zip bag for departure.

We are alone. The risks still exist as they always did and always will. It is our own proactive mindfulness that is our defence. None of the Nanny State 'solutions' help at all and certainly never public cameras, many of which are not maintained or could be U/S anyhow.

Wise up people and take responsibility.

Dear onthebeach,

Spot on.

This was O'Farrell's comment when announcing new laws to further extend intrusive surveillance to our streets.

''CCTV has proven essential in assisting police - most recently in the brutal rape and murder of Melbourne woman Jill Meagher,'

Something that was echoed by the fearful on this thread;

“without street camera's it would be very doubtful that the rapist/murderer of Jill Meahger would of been found”

“How would we be without the cameras that caught the Murder of that ABC lady.”

The only problem is that it is all untrue. CCTV footage only played a peripheral role in the case. Here is what really went down;

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/jill-meaghers-mobile-phone-proved-the-vital-clue-for-police-tracking-down-accused-adrian-ernest-bayley/story-fnat79vb-1226596495389

When he was actually shown the CCTV footage he simply said that wasn't me.

Now to have the likes of those asserting otherwise on this thread is probably understandable as they are the victims of our media just as we all can be. But for Mr O'Farrell to be taking the same line when it is expected he would be hardly ignorant of the circumstances around Bayley's capture really paints the picture of a man wants to continue the lie that CCTV is effective. Keep in mind this is also the man who is in charge of a state that has the second lowest operational police numbers per head of population in Australia.

If there are people on this thread who want to be conned into low cost alternatives to adequate policing then so be it, but they shouldn't be casting aspersions on the one bloke who has stood up and said he doesn't want CCTV cameras in his town. I have no doubt if he were to be asked if he would rather have more police on the beat in Nowra he wouldn't have a problem.

My hat goes off to him.

onthebeach, others who try somewhat desperately, to find evil in the cameras, try harder.
Early on I mentioned those figuring in an English police show, a true one.
Police got to events that once would have taken a lot of time, and the cameras even followed offenders on foot.
Some here would oppose police having hand cuffs, or taking finger prints.
Again, some one please tell me in what way are honest people harmed by these cameras?
Luddites, or just anti police? not sure but I am unable to see a problem.

Increasing populations inevitably result in the kind of evils that lead to big-brother style surveillance. Typically most of the sheeple are either too apathetic to care or rationalize by crap like 'if you have nothing to hide'. To each their own, personally I choose not to live in an area which will never be subject to constant monitoring of my comings and goings. For the peanut gallery, I don't grow or smoke pot or any other illegal substance, I don't deal in suspect merchandise or generally do anything particularly antisocial that would excite the powers that be. That said, I believe my personal business is exactly that & any inquisitive bureaucrazies who want to stick their grubby noses where they have no business being can take a hike Noddy. Go get a court order if you really want to know.

Belly, " not sure but I am unable to see a problem"- and that's part of the problem. You know I generally respect you so I'm not trying to be abusive or nasty but you are one of those cheering on ever greater intrusion into the lives of people by government.

Whilst I'm personally not specifically overly bothered by the immediate privacy issues around street cameras I am concerned about the power we are placing into the hands of some future government (or some company holding the contract to manage government data).

There is always a case for intrusion due to some harm that may be prevented and those saying I don't recognise the harm in this action therefore it does not exists. Once you get around to recognising the harm it's too late.

Once something is in place it's hard to withdraw it, it's hard to say this much is Ok but the next step is not. It's hard to put safeguards around tools that give power which we can rely on to keep working.

There are good reasons to be concerned about giving government the tools to monitor the people of this land ever more closely. Giving tools to some future government which may act in ways we'd not expected.

R0bert

RObert le tme be clear, nothing you have ever said, or are likely to has or will offend me.
Not on the basis I think you said it to hurt.
I find myself batting on this issue, against a thing I value more than most, privacy.
But,truly, think the positives are greater than the negatives.
So much so, street cameras,any surveillance cameras, are a useful tool in protecting us.

My whole philosophy here and in general is, far too often minority views over rule majority's interests.
Yes I understand, and it is a rock in the middle of my thought road, sometimes the minority view, can be the right one.
But if the links are active, and if we took the time, I feel on safe ground questioning what the negatives are.

Robert,

How much privacy do you expect in a shopping center? The slippery slope argument is always to taken to extremes. Cameras in public areas is not a precursor to Big brother watching you in the can. The only way to ensure privacy in a public place (with or without cameras) is not to go there. If I take a photo of a public building, I don't need your permission to post it on Facebook or anywhere else.

Dear SM,

<<If I take a photo of a public building, I don't need your permission to post it on Facebook or anywhere else.>>

You do.

This is an example of something that is legal, but not moral.

No, I do not expect the law to guard our morality: it cannot, it should not, and certainly the law-makers of this age have no clue about morality anyway.

But if you do wrong, it WILL weigh on your conscience, forever or until you atone for it.

Y you do present thoughts that are hard for some to fathom.
That one just defies logic.
A criminal, most, surely by their actions shows no ability to be concerned by their actions.
Increasingly, people we would never believe would do it, commit crimes.
In a country market day, just two weeks ago, I dropped cash, a well presented woman leaped on it and took off.
I cannot get my head around a Liberal/Conservative, as RObert is, holding tightly to a minority and usually leftist concern.
Who has lost, other than perpetrators by these helpful law assisting cameras?

Dear Belly,

There are two separate issues here:

One is about preventing serious crimes.
The other is about invading the privacy of ordinary, non-criminal people, or even of light-transgressors who fell from grace once or twice.

How is it possible to balance those two, to prevent serious crimes without hurting innocent people? This is an extremely difficult problem, one for which I believe the only solution, as wisely noted by Praxidice, is to reduce population numbers, or at least try to live as far as possible from population centres. I honestly believe that there's no other just solution.

In any case, the example that I quoted from Shadow-Minister, is definitely and obviously not a situation where sacrifice of privacy is required for the sake of preventing crime: SM suggested sacrificing other people's privacy merely for his personal gratification, and that is plainly wrong.

<<In a country market day, just two weeks ago, I dropped cash, a well presented woman leaped on it and took off.>>

Whenever I dropped cash recently, people came and told me to pick it up or even returned it to me themselves. If as an exception that woman took it, I would assume that she needs that money more than I do and bless her for having her dire situation improved. I would also contemplate, digging my memories, reflecting on when have I done something similar myself that I deserved to have my money taken like that and thanked God for getting even with me. Had she been caught on camera and sent to jail because of me, I would have felt much worse than just to lose that money.

<<Who has lost, other than perpetrators by these helpful law assisting cameras?>>

Many can potentially lose if the information from the cameras is used in other ways, other than to stop serious crime: some I've listed above (on 9 May 2013 1:25:50 PM). Earlier I also mentioned orthodox Jews whom the very presence of the cameras in their suburbs would force them (and their children) into a weekly home-detention for the duration of the Jewish Sabbath.

Yuyutsu if orthodox Jews are so stupid as to believe that a 2+thousand year old religion made some pronouncements about something that has only existed for a hundred or so years, then so be it. They deserve to be restricted by their stupidity, not the rest of society.

I am getting totally sick of being expected to make changes in my life, in consideration of fools, or religious rat bags.

I go along with allowing others to practice their strange cults, but I draw the line at changing how we live our lives, just because they are rat bags.

As with any migrant, it is they that must adapt to Oz ways. If they don't like what they find in Oz, well it is a big world out there, & just may be they would fit better somewhere else.

Tolerance is a two way street, & if some small groups have difficulty tolerating our ways, it is their problem to solve in their own way, not our problem.

I am still wondering why, if people are concerned about crime, they are not badgering government over the high incidence of home burglary and the low clearance rate?

Could it be because the government and police commissioners serve up to the public what they want them to believe and the lazy, incompetent media are only to willing to focus on stories to sensationalise for an audience that wants to be entertained?

Honestly people, use the grey matter God gifted you with, instead of always allowing the spruikers and storymakers to do your thinking for you.

There are very few situations where public cameras can actually help you more than just a few extra police patrols or Council employees, such as monitoring traffic flows on busy roads and intersections, and reading number plates for regulatory authorities.

Dear Hasbeen,

First, the Jewish issue is not to be confused with immigration: Most Australian Jews have been here for as long as any other non-indigenous Australian, some have even come with the first convict fleet to Botany Bay, so:

<<If they don't like what they find in Oz>>

When their grand-grand-grand-parents came to oz, they found here no electrical devices whatsoever.

Second, you assume that their reason is belief in 2000+-old pronouncement. That may be the case for some, but not all. One could for example observe the Sabbath because they solemnly promised to keep it to their mother on her deathbed.

Avoiding electronics on the Sabbath is more relevant now than ever and is very much in line with the original spirit of the Sabbath. While nowadays lighting of actual fires is no longer Laborious, electronic-addiction has become a modern plague. Most people now use electronics at work, but don't stop it when they arrive home to their families. A discipline of foregoing electrical manipulations for one day a week is a good detox program, not only for Jews.

Computer games are now available where one doesn't even need to touch a keyboard, a mouse or a screen: the computer just watches and follows the player's hand and eye movements. When one is on an electronic-detox program, CCTV introduces a dangerous slippery-slope: why would a recovering-addict say 'Yes' to CCTV, but 'No' to an addictive computer game that similarly doesn't require physical touch?

Third, if people were restricted for being stupid then...

Fourth, and most importantly, nearly everyone lives for something, dear to their heart and bigger then their physical needs - be it noble or stupid (such as being a fan of a football team). For orthodox Jews, this is the following of God's alleged biblical commandments.

If you allow government to rob what's most dear to others, don't be surprised if one day government will rob away the apple of YOUR eye.

I found this little gem on wikipedia:

>>Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman recounts that he was approached by young rabbis in a seminary who asked him "is electricity fire?". He replied, "no", but asked why they wanted to know, and was shocked that they weren't interested in science at all, but just wanted to interpret the Talmud. Feynman said that electricity was not a chemical process, as fire is, and pointed out that there is electricity in atoms and thus every phenomenon that occurs in the world. Feynman proposed a simple way to eliminate the spark: '"If that's what's bothering you, you can put a condenser across the switch, so the electricity will go on and off without any spark whatsoever—anywhere." But for some reason, they didn't like that idea either'.<<

Cheers,

Tony

I am unsure how we came to yet another minority, those of the Jewish faith who are orthodox.
Even in Israel they divide that community, with many unacceptable practices including a reluctance to live other than on governments purse strings.
Nothing racist here, I am pro Jewish, but with every shop having cameras, just about, and speed cameras, it is too late to say stop the world I want to get off.
Many of us, hopefully, heard of the mind seeming to set us on our lifes political paths, based on mind set.
Here I without reserve, think we are set to oppose small links to our privacy, concerns I see as unusual to the extreme.
Yet ignore the simple fact huge and real, not straw man, information banks on us are increasing and sold firm to firm.
I, rather than reduce our safety on the streets, think large paper bags eye holes cut may be the answer for those fearing being seen.

Not cameras but the IRS targetting of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status in the USA is I think relevant to understanding the ways those with access the power of government can misuse that power even in a situation where it does not appear to be government policy. http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bmDT8dvt

There are so many ways that digitally stored recordings could be used to selectively hurt individuals or groups. The technology for automated tracking of individuals may not be there yet but I think it will be soon.

Putting aside the misuse under an extremist government and working with a similar proactive approach from low level staff, its easy to imagine selective leaking of images damaging to one side of politics or some cause and hiding of similar by the other side.

I don't have neat answers, as others have pointed out we don't really have privacy in public places (and may have less in private than we hope for). The cameras may help in some situations. At the same time think that placing additional power in the hands of government and its functionaries is something that should be subject to serious consideration.

R0bert

RObert I am aware of the American situation.
But while concerned, even aware both sides world wide target the other this and other ways.
Miss using the power we give them.
It is far away from a council doing what most rate payers want all to do.
Installing cameras to help cut crime and catch offenders.
We all, should/must? confront in a world that has real dangers of terrorism and increasing disregard for law we need any protection we can get.
Rather cameras than American gun culture.