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.