Britain, the Surveillance State

[3278]

It seems like not a week can go past without me seeing some new sign of the bizarre new British tendency to watch and record everything everyone does. Yesterday it was these sweet new Shadowrun-esque roto-drones. Today, it's cops with head-cams. There are currently more surveillance cameras in Great Britain than in all the rest of Europe, combined, a total of 4.2 million cameras, or 14 for every person in the nation. [Seems like it'd be easier to just glue cameras to each citizen; you could do with 1/14th the cameras, then.] And now some of them can talk at you. And I read last week that some of them were going to start listening and watching you and figuring out what you were doing so they could yell at you about it, without any human intervention. And it's not just cameras: if you're arrested in Britain, even if you aren't charged, they keep your DNA. Forever.

I would object to this for only one reason: because I do a lot of things I'm not supposed to, and I'd get caught if I did them in Britain. But is there another, valid, reason to want to stop this surveillance society? What about those who live there: how do you feel about being photographed 300 times a day?

More broadly, should there be any expectation of privacy? What's wrong with being photographed or videoed in public, where people can see you anyway? Isn't it like being watched by 4.2 million cheap cops?

[Crazy Elf]

I can't see what the issue is. It's public space, it makes it easier to track people and catch people when you're after them. There's potential for abuse, but there's far more potential to do a lot of good with such a system.

[Daki]

I don't see it as Big Brother overseeing all since the cameras are all in public places. It does give me pause to watch to see if the British Government starts pushing new legislation that could infringe on personal rights.


And damn if this doesn't remind me of V For Vendetta.

[Instant Cash]

They didn't catch me peeing in the Queens Garden....

Well at least they never came after me for that.

[Harley667]

Sums up this countries approach to policing in a nutshell. We're not bothered about actually preventing crime, we just invent more ways to record it happening.

Besides, most of the footage ends up as "Comedy Crime CCTV show of the week" so I imagine theres some funding from the tv networks too. Also I'm so fucking ugly it'll cause irreversable trauma to the poor sod reviewing the footage, so they can snap away for all I care. Not as if I wander down the road waving a .50 cal and chanting racial hatred so what the hell are they going to charge me with?

Mouthy cameras. Top. "You! You've bought too many DVDs today! You should be ashamed!" Could be quite a laugh. If it brings down the crime or ups the arrest rate for (guilty) muggers, rapists and the like that can only be a good thing. Now only if our prisons weren't all full.

I remember a little skit on a news program, where some guy dressed up in a fairly convincing Predator outfit and stalked the town in the middle of the night. Cops picked him up on CCTV and had a word. Turned out he was protesting about a security camera pointed straight at his house.

Also if the great british public took exception to it, we always outnumber the cops and we have access to ladders.

[Moto42]

How long do you think it will be until people start trying to hack the talking cameras?

[jo_alex]

I've seen how they are concerned with cameras which are supposed to control car speeding. Not at all. They just slow down when they are approaching the camera and then speed up again after passing it. Locals know where they are placed, which means it works as a trap only for unsuspecting tourists.

[Serious Paul]

I can't see what the issue is. It's public space, it makes it easier to track people and catch people when you're after them. There's potential for abuse, but there's far more potential to do a lot of good with such a system.

When I compare your reply here to your previous posting history, especially in the racial threads I have to laugh.

It's habit for you isn't it?

[Crazy Elf]

When I compare your reply here to your previous posting history, especially in the racial threads I have to laugh.

It's habit for you isn't it?

Britain deals with racial issues much better than the US does. They also actually elected the people they have in power at the moment.

[Ancient History]

Dude, they're just setting up SCORPION STARE for CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN.

[Serious Paul]

There are currently more surveillance cameras in Great Britain than in all the rest of Europe, combined, a total of 4.2 million cameras, or 14 for every person in the nation. [Seems like it'd be easier to just glue cameras to each citizen; you could do with 1/14th the cameras, then.]

I'm amazed that the people can tolerate this. But then I recall that the Brit's have dealt with a lot of shit in the last few decades: IRA bombings, terrorism of all sorts, drugs, etc.... SO I guess it's no surprise the people feel scared enough to accept this.

And now some of them can talk at you. And I read last week that some of them were going to start listening and watching you and figuring out what you were doing so they could yell at you about it, without any human intervention.

Man I'd be in prison.

And it's not just cameras: if you're arrested in Britain, even if you aren't charged, they keep your DNA. Forever.

We're slowly working towards this in the US.

More broadly, should there be any expectation of privacy?

I don't know what the legal answer is, but my personal moral answer is there should be something. Some expectation of privacy, but then I am used to the concept of innocent till proven guilty, and I strongly believe in individual rights trumping government wants.

What's wrong with being photographed or videoed in public, where people can see you anyway? Isn't it like being watched by 4.2 million cheap cops?

To me it's different in a lot of ways. The major one being people are assumed to be doing something wrong, which is why the cameras are added. It also sort of says, to me, that discretion is no longer a desired trait. (The camera has no judgment, and can't differentiate between a few kids being kids, and a serious problem.)

Also this doesn't seem to include much about the end run-what to do with all these people we catch? Now that we have them, then what? What next?

[3278]

The national DNA registry wouldn't stop me from moving to Britain. The billion surveillance cameras wouldn't stop me from moving to Britain. The congestion charges and the possibility that the government might start putting GPS units on every car in the nation wouldn't stop me from moving to Britain. Government control of how many inches of space need to exist between the hood of a car and any structural components [for pedestrian safety, for which I always thought, "don't hit pedestrians" was a fine solution] wouldn't stop me from moving to Britain. And no, the new ban on extreme pornography wouldn't stop me from moving to Britain.

But all this together? This mindset, of "have problem, make government fix it" has led to a government which controls all walks of life, from watching and tracking your movements to telling you what kind of consensual sex you're allowed to watch. I don't think, if I could move there tomorrow, that I'd choose to. I see Britain continuing in this vein until they've created a benevolent fascism, and I have no interest in that; I see too much of that in my own nation.

[3278]

Even better, they've figured out it doesn't really work, and their solution is to increase its deployment and pervasiveness. I'm sure that'll make it all worthwhile.

My favorite bit? The plan to post suspects' images on the Met website, so visitors can identify them. I'm sure that won't result in massive abuse and waste.

[paladin2019]

Man I'd be in prison.

I thought you were.

[Serious Paul]

Yeah, but they let me leave.

[Crazy Elf]

Even better, they've figured out it doesn't really work, and their solution is to increase its deployment and pervasiveness. I'm sure that'll make it all worthwhile.

My favorite bit? The plan to post suspects' images on the Met website, so visitors can identify them. I'm sure that won't result in massive abuse and waste.

We do that already over here in Australia with "Crime Stoppers" which shows images from CCTV, be it on the street or from security cameras, of people committing crimes on prime time television. It's also done rather well.

The primary problem, from what I read in that article, is that the police aren't affectively utilising the resources that they have on hand. Remember that CCTV is relatively new, and thus hasn't had time to establish itself as part of the day to day practice of police officers. Thus it hasn't trickled down to the training of new police officers, either.

Really, there's no reason I can see that this wouldn't work well. It just needs to be used better.

[DV8]

There's an interesting bit on Britain as a surveillance state in Terrorstorm by Alex Jones, as well as the (strange) acceptance of the British to this rather invasive element of their government.

[3278]

Really, there's no reason I can see that this wouldn't work well. It just needs to be used better.

See, what we need is to just install the cameras on the populace. If everyone had a camera [with a GPS unit, some cellular equipment, some gyros for when the GPS is out, a little clock, the lot], we could just broadcast all their activities constantly onto a streaming website, which police and citizens could watch. Why, crime would decline overnight!

[Crazy Elf]

The difference being that these cameras are installed to look at public places. I don't see there being a privacy issue in regards to people being seen in public.

[DV8]

That sounds eerily like the argument that you can take photos of anything and anyone you want just because they venture out into a public space, which I find bullshit. Just because you venture out into a public domain doesn't mean you give up any rights. The only way you could convincingly argue for that is if you decide that public domain is actually owned by the state and that they will allow you to use it provided you waive your privacy rights. In that case, the government has once again given you something that was actually already yours, much like all the freedoms we enjoy.

[Crazy Elf]

And were these cameras being used for something other than criminal actions I would agree with you. I don't see a problem with someone losing their right to privacy when they're breaking the law, however. If the footage from these cameras was being used to make calendars then I would agree with you, but to the best of my knowledge it's not. It's only for law enforcement.

[Serious Paul]

And were these cameras being used for something other than criminal actions I would agree with you.

Luckily that will never happen right? I mean there's what? Literally no possibility?

[Crazy Elf]

If it's legislated against then any use of these services for purposes other than policing would be a crime.

[Jeff Hauze]

And if it were the police or government perpetrating said crime, who exactly would be enforcing the law which they broke?

[Crazy Elf]

Upper management and internal affairs. The people that are operating these cameras are generally lower level employees, as it's not the most enjoyable of jobs. Management keeps them accountable. Abuse of use generally consists of zooming into women's cleavage, and it's heavily frowned upon.

[3278]

The difference being that these cameras are installed to look at public places. I don't see there being a privacy issue in regards to people being seen in public.

Why would there be a privacy issue anyway? After all, it'll only be used to detect criminal activity, right? Shit, just coat the world in them. If you're not breaking the law, you've nothing to hide.

Obviously, that's an absurdist position, but I'm not sure what my own position is, and I think I find most positions on the issue a little absurd. I do agree you've no reasonable expectation of privacy in public - if a cop could see you, why shouldn't a cop be able to see you through a camera? But I'm not certain where the right to privacy ends, nor at what point we can magically trust the government to not abuse the powers we've granted them. I mean, the "this'll only be used to prevent crime" argument can be used with equal validity when it comes to searching your house, or car, or person: hey, if you've nothing to hide, don't worry, because we'll only use this to prevent crime, and you can always trust the police.

All this glosses over one of the primary reasons I'm not wild about surveillance states: I break the law. A lot. And being watched all the time would make that very difficult. Which is, I suspect, a good argument in its favor, except that evidence suggests existing deployments aren't actually meaningfully reducing crime, so I suppose I've nothing to fear.

[Crazy Elf]

I understand that there would be a problem if these cameras were absolutely everywhere, but they're not. It's just major public areas and streets. This enables authorities to track people as they move through a major city area. The cameras aren't set up in shopping centres and the like, although most of these places have cameras of their own anyway.

Now, although this doesn't deter crime it's not supposed to. It's supposed to make crimes easier to track. If it were supposed to stop crime then all the cameras would be fluro pink and have "I'M WATCHING YOU!" written on them. These things record crime. You can go out and commit a crime if you like, and it's unlikely that you're going to be stopped from doing so as police aren't omnipresent. With the cameras in place, though, you're much more likely to be caught.

Also note that you're not going to get caught committing a summary offence with cameras like this. Instead they're used only in relation to indictable offences. J-walk and no one's going to care. Punch out a child and you're going to court.

[DV8]

The cameras aren't set up in shopping centres and the like, although most of these places have cameras of their own anyway.

It is my understanding that in central London these cameras are everywhere. It is estimated that in a single day a citizen of London could expect to be filmed by over three hundred cameras on over thirty separate CCTV systems. [source] The networks are integrated into banking CCTV as well as others, like shopping malls, etc. The police has access to all of them.

[Big Jim]

They are friggin' everywhere. And there are also signs everywhere, especially in the train stations, letting you know you're on CCTV. I really don't like it, but I don't really have a choice in the matter.

[Crazy Elf]

Hmm. Well that is very different to the Melbourne situation. Even so I understand that London has had to deal with threats far worse than anything that's happened over here. The IRA weren't nice people.

Still, I'm sure there are plenty of safeguards in place to stop the videos going out into public, otherwise we'd be looking at a whole bunch of them on youtube. If you can dig up a whole bunch of youtube clips that show otherwise, though, I'd be happy to recant on that.

[DV8]

There is quite a bit of CCTV footage on youtube, but my guess is that they got released by the police to aid in the search for suspects and such. There's also a few traffic accidents and that sort of thing.

[3278]

Now, although this doesn't deter crime it's not supposed to. It's supposed to make crimes easier to track.

The purpose of tracking crimes is to prevent them. You catch a criminal, and put him in jail, and in theory, he stops doing whatever he was doing; at the very least, it stops while he's in there. Except this system hasn't achieved that. In fact, only 3 percent of street robberies in London were solved with CCTV footage, despite the immense cost and penetration, meaning it's not "mak[ing] crimes easier to track" in proportion with its expense. Moreover, the system is "supposed to" "deter crime:" Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, the officer in charge of the Metropolitan police unit, says, "CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure."

Now, improved techniques have resulted in an increase of utility to 15 to 20 percent, but that's still not in keeping with the billions of pounds already spent on the system, and the billions to come.

If it were supposed to stop crime then all the cameras would be fluro pink and have "I'M WATCHING YOU!" written on them.

They're well-signed. People just don't think they're working. Again, Detective Chief Inspector Neville: "There's no fear of CCTV. Why don't people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working."

Still, I'm sure there are plenty of safeguards in place to stop the videos going out into public, otherwise we'd be looking at a whole bunch of them on youtube.

They're releasing CCTV images of suspects on the Metropolitan Police website.

This is all from the article I quoted previously, by the way. It's some six months old now, and I wonder what progress has been made in that time. Much of what they said at the time showed a roadplan for moving forward, so it's entirely possible things have changed since then.

[Serious Paul]

Maybe I'm just being a dick, but I just have a problem seeing the Elf as taking an honest position in this discussion, and frankly that bothers me. Not because it's him specifically, but I've found that I just can't meaningfully participate in conversations that start off with a dishonest premise.

Now if I'm wrong, and you really believe what you're saying Elf I apologize. But if I'm right I think we need to reexamine how we discuss and debate things here.

[Crazy Elf]

I'm totally honest about this, Paul. It may seem strange being as anti-government as I am for the most part, but I have no problem with the government using these resources to fight crime. Getting convictions in relation to crimes is hard enough these days, particularly in cases like rape.

32, the releasing of suspect's images on the website doesn't concern me in the slightest. If these people are suspected of criminal activity and the police are having trouble finding them, then the public's assistance is going to be necessary in actually making progress on the crime. How else are they supposed to do it? I am really having a lot of trouble working out what your objection is. Although there is a potential for abuse there's also the potential to speed up the whole process and stop things from falling through the massive gaps in the legal system. Also, I think that the potential for abuse is just that, potential. Until there's a surge of vigilante style bashings or killings as a result of the website images, I'm not going to be convinced of the potential being a real concern.

I don't think these systems are being abused. I think that it would be very difficult for them to be abused. All the youtube footage that's CCTV seems to be directly related to crimes, and isn't just camera techs zooming in on people's butts. It's not currently being abused, and it doesn't look like it's likely to be abused in future.

I really can't see what the problem you all have with this system is.

[Heavy_D]

I think it's the "Big Brother is watching you" idea that is the problem with this system.

To fight crime you need tools, but the CCTV invades on everyone's private life without the question "do you mind? " being uttered at all. In Britain itself people are arguing both in favor of the system, since it helps resolve crimes faster with footage being available, and against it because of the possibilities for abuse and the statement that the CCTV system does not work as a crime prevention method but simply causes crime to be displaced to other not-monitored areas.

[DV8]

32, the releasing of suspect's images on the website doesn't concern me in the slightest. If these people are suspected of criminal activity and the police are having trouble finding them, then the public's assistance is going to be necessary in actually making progress on the crime. How else are they supposed to do it? I am really having a lot of trouble working out what your objection is. Although there is a potential for abuse there's also the potential to speed up the whole process and stop things from falling through the massive gaps in the legal system. Also, I think that the potential for abuse is just that, potential. Until there's a surge of vigilante style bashings or killings as a result of the website images, I'm not going to be convinced of the potential being a real concern.

Humans don't really have a great track record in this regard. Instead of implementing a system where there's potential of relatively easy abuse, especially given our history with lynch-mobs and vigilante-style killings, perhaps we can think before we jump. I don't agree that something has to go wrong before we devise a system where we minimise the risk.

[3278]

Ultimately, you have to weigh the reduction of privacy and the monetary and personnel costs against the benefits of such a system. Whether or not the system seems "worth it" to the individual, then, will depend on the relative valuation within the individual of privacy, money, and reduction in crime. For me, the minimal reduction in crime comes at too high a monetary cost; the cost in privacy is something I'm uncertain of, being uncertain of how one might offer valuation of such a thing.

[Serious Paul]

I'm totally honest about this, Paul.

Fair enough, I apologize.

You're quite correct in that I have a difficult time reconciling your position with what I've always seen as your point of view. For my own part I think the potential for abuse far outweighs any benefits a system like this might have, and not just the tangible results (Like actual villains arrested), but I have a problem with the sort of thinking behind something like this. It says we inherently don't trust our citizenry and that's wrong to me.

[Crazy Elf]

Heavy D, the displacement of crime may work out, but in other cases it won't. Drunks getting into fights because they're drunk are still going to fight, regardless of the cameras. If the cameras can catch those actions taking place then there's more evidence in court for a conviction.

As for privacy, if you're out in public what level of privacy can you really ask for?

Deev, although people have formed lynch mobs and the like in the past, I doubt very much that images that are released on the website are going to lead to this sort of behaviour. Firstly, the authorities know what they're doing, and are unlikely to release the images of people that are likely to cause the formation of such groups. On top of that, the images that are placed on any website will show people that are wanted for "questioning" rather than anything else. As long as the images that are shown provide no details of the crime, people aren't likely to take a claw hammer to them. It's all in the sell.

32, if Britain feels that the investment is worthwhile (and at the height of hostilities with the IRA, it certainly would have been) then that's their choice. The US wastes a lot more money than they do on projects that are far more pointless.

Paul, no one trusts their citizenry. That's why there's a police force and separate sections of the police force that are trained to specifically beat people into submission. Also, it's not entirely a trust issue. If police are given the choice between not filming everything that's going on in London and filming it, they're going to want the tapes.

[Serious Paul]

Paul, no one trusts their citizenry.

Really? You really believe that?

That's why there's a police force and separate sections of the police force that are trained to specifically beat people into submission.

Isn't it funny how you can put forard, on the one hand, how we should trust the police, but then berate them with the other hand. Of course what you've just said is no more true than any other childish accusation any of us could make.

Also, it's not entirely a trust issue. If police are given the choice between not filming everything that's going on in London and filming it, they're going to want the tapes.

Don't be so quick to assume you're right. Not all of us who work in law enforcement are drooling monkey fucks man.

[Crazy Elf]

Um, Paul, there <i>are</i> sections of the police force that are specifically trained to beat people into submission. Riot cops and SWAT or their equivalent. The police didn't start with these sections of the force, they evolved over time because the traditional policing methods of negotiation weren't working in certain situations. Now whenever there's a protest or something like that the normal police are on duty, and the riot police are around the corner in a van in case things get hairy, able to be deployed in under a minute, typically.

Although most people are trustworthy there is a good chunk of them that are anything but. Police are deployed to deal with those people. They behave accordingly.

As for your drooling monkey fucks comment, you'd have to be a drooling monkey fuck if you would forgo evidence that would lead to a solid conviction. If you're policing a high crime area you're going to want as many resources on hand as you can possibly manage. CCTV is just another resource.

It's not easy to convict someone of a criminal offence. Proving something beyond reasonable doubt is very difficult. Video footage of someone committing a crime is exceptionally handy. I'd like to see conviction rates go up due to better evidence being available. Good use of CCTV allows that to occur.

[Serious Paul]

Um, Paul, there <i>are</i> sections of the police force that are specifically trained to beat people into submission.

That's just how you view it, which isn't how I view it, nor does it actually reflect the truth. True almost officers are trained to use force if necessary, but no one is trained to "beat" people no matter how much you want that to be true. You can insist on loading your terminology but that doesn't make it true.

[Crazy Elf]

No, Paul, they <i>are</i> trained to beat people. Riot cops and the like are trained to specifically incapacitate people as quickly as possible. Attempts in training are made to limit the potential to cause permanent injury, but they <i>are</i> trained to beat people. Also, quasi-military sections of police forces are now common around the world. These were not their to begin with.

You're jumping at a chance to twist my comments into something other than they are. I was not saying that these developments in police behaviour and training was a bad thing. Without the threat of force at their disposal police cannot operate.

I believe in giving people as much freedom as is possible as long as it does not harm others. CCTV does not harm anyone. There are no massive abuses of the system taking place. Thus I don't have a problem with it.

Your distrust of a policing system that has many checks and balances in place boggles me, particularly when you claim that you dislike the idea of citizens being perceived as untrustworthy when they have <i>no</i> checks and balances in place. Perhaps you are confusing your US perspective with that of the rest of the world. The US does not lead the field in terms of policing, instead they are WAY behind.

[Serious Paul]

Whatever dude, time for me to walk on.

[DV8]

I believe in giving people as much freedom as is possible as long as it does not harm others. CCTV does not harm anyone. There are no massive abuses of the system taking place. Thus I don't have a problem with it.

I guess your argument all hinges on 1) what you define as "harm" and 2) not only that it isn't used to harm, but that it won't be used to harm. Personally, I am not keen on being video-taped just like I'm not keen on someone recording everything I do on the Internet. Things change, society changes, and morals and values change, too. When (not if) China takes over the world, I really don't want them to cross reference everyone who's ever read about China's dictatorial rule, or written comments about all the bad shit that China does right now. In a similar way I don't want anyone recording anything I do, preferably. You put an awful lot of faith in a system that, especially over the last few years, has becoming increasingly oppressive and omniscient. Your arguments against fear are largely based on "oh, they wouldn't do that," and "I'm sure there are sufficient checks in place," while there are plenty of presidents and a tonne of anecdotal evidence that suggests otherwise. And again, what if tomorrow the laws change and clown suits are forbidden? I'm sure you've been caught on camera in a clown suit, and when I find that tape I'll make sure you and your clown friends hang from the highest tree!

[Crazy Elf]

First of all, the most extreme laws that have passed in recent times have been in relation to counter-terrorism. As extreme as these laws have been, there is no provision within them to have people arrested for, "Walking while black." If someone is arrested on suspicion of terrorism, the government has still needed to support their case so that the public doesn't go completely ape shit. The same thing applies with these cameras. If there was any severe abuse of power regarding them the media backlash would be horrifying. No one wants to risk that, and thus people are very careful in regards to their use of these systems, at least here in Australia.

Although it is possible that the government could pass a law outlawing clown suits in public, it's highly unlikely. If that is a serious concern, then the issue is not the camera system that's set up in the city, but rather the formation of the legislation that they are to help enforce. Sometimes legislation that is passed is, well, stupid. However, I've never encountered legislation that is on par with the example that you're giving here. If there are laws that are ridiculous, such as not being able to perform a puppet show from a window in New York City (true story), they're typically antiquated laws rather than modern ones, which are not enforced. In which case, getting arrested for them would probably result in the laws being overturned.

At least, that's how it would work over here. Judges can do that.

Also, in regards to your clown suit law, if law was passed it would be in effect from the day after the law was actually passed. Retroactive laws are a big no no, which is one of the main concerns that was raised in relation to the Guantanamo Bay situation, in which people were charged with crimes that were made up after they were arrested. That is a massive violation of human rights. When people start doing things like that there are bigger problems than a camera system being in place.

All in all, the potential for abuse of a system like this appears to me to be outweighed by the checks and balances that are in place to stop such abuses occurring. That's why there's a separation of powers in the first place. This separation of powers also means that the government can't directly access these camera systems without leaving a paper trail akin to a child first discovering that playing with the toilet paper roll is fun. Also, even though the fourth estate (the media) hasn't been doing its job very well these days, it still does its job well enough to put mass violations of systems like this into the public eye.

I do understand where you're all coming from, I just feel that you're concerns are misplaced in this situation.

[3278]

Firstly, the authorities know what they're doing...

It's funny, but the guy in charge of the whole program specifically says they don't, and that this whole thing's been botched. So it's odd to hear someone anti-establishment saying they do.

32, if Britain feels that the investment is worthwhile (and at the height of hostilities with the IRA, it certainly would have been) then that's their choice. The US wastes a lot more money than they do on projects that are far more pointless.

It certainly is their choice, and my government certainly wastes more money on more pointless pursuits.

This in no way changes the fact that the choice they've made is not successfully accomplishing the goals they set for it, and has done so at an incredible rate of expenditure. In my view, irrespective of privacy concerns - an important but different issue - the program has been too expensive for the potential gains.

And it wouldn't have made, in my opinion, a significant impact on IRA activities. Determined local insurgents simply work around cameras, in my experience.

[FlameBlade]

Worth a read, http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0807.html

[Crazy Elf]

I agree that the program has been botched. The organisational structure behind it is crappy, and they're not syncing up with police operations. That's a terrible way to do things. Another terrible way to do things is to tell everyone that there are cameras all over the place and make a big noise about it.

Melbourne, where I live, is covered in cameras. However, they have open lines of communication with the police force, and thus it works pretty well all in all. The cameras are all moveable, for one thing, and thus not limited in what they can pick up, and have lots of checks and balances in place to make sure there's no abuse of the system. On top of that, very few people know they're being watched, which helps. Over here it works pretty well, all in all, and thus I don't see a problem with the system being in place. It's useful.

Thus I've every reason to think that the CCTV systems in England are being poorly utilised. With better communication between the CCTV operators and police forces their effectiveness would be increased a good deal.

As for IRA working outside of the camera's vision, all you have to do is heavily camera things that you don't want damaged in any way. It's impossible to stop everything that a militant group like that wants to conduct against you, but it's certainly possible to limit their opportunity to do so. This is another limiting factor. Also, good use of the cameras and facial recognition software can help a great deal in tracking known offenders. It's not a perfect system, but it has the potential to get much better.

[paladin2019]

Putting cameras on things you don't want damaged only works if you have the ability to put force on things you don't want damaged in a timely fashion.

"Oh, we don't want the Nelson statue damaged, let's put cameras up all over Trafalgar Square."

"Right, so we drive the truck up next to the thing and "BOOM!'"