The UK has most CCTV cameras per capita in the western world. But they're pretty much entirely private cameras, including in London.
The government has no real ability to gain access to those cameras beyond asking nicely, or getting an actual search warrant. Even then the police still have to visit the site with the CCTV camera, and mostly capture the footage by filming the screen of the CCTV system with their phone (I've talked to Met police officers about this, and seen the footage). Most of those cameras barely work, point in the wrong direction, aren't recording, are so fuzzy you can't see anything. So comparing it to China is an apples to orange comparison.
The idea that these CCTV cameras could be used by the state for surveillance is laughable. The police struggle to get hold of the footage for actual in-progress investigations where they have real leads, and pretty much know what the footage is gonna show them already. So there's not a chance in hell the state could ever hope to get some sort of live feed of this data.
I don't think so, they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.
Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.
Estimates 4.4 million cameras in London, only 20k run by councils.
> they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.
Perhaps you can provide some sources for your assertions?
> Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.
It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.
Your source seems to support my position more than yours. Perhaps you could explain how research showing that CCTV is frequently of low quality, and doesn’t seem to improve crime solve rates, demonstrates the UK governments extensive CCTV capabilities?
> It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.
Your original point, which I refuted, is that London has a surveillance system which would make china proud. I think I’ve shown that no such surveillance system exists in reality. You’re free to move the goal posts, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not interested in chasing them.
I got mugged just a short walk away from a tube station in London (after having lived here for 4 years already, pretty good track record ruined by my propensity for enjoying night walks early in the morning; won't be doing that again).
But the police didn't have any footage of the event. Not even a business had a camera pointed in the right direction.
Indeed. When I was attacked near Clapham Junction and had a bottle smashed on my head, the police said it was too much trouble/costly to pull the video footage.
A friend had his bike stolen from outside Sainburys. They have high resolution viedo of it happening but refused to shared it with the local police without a court order.
Similarly a friend that runs a bike shop near a Tesco can't get Tesco to share high resolution video of burgalars breaking into his shop. They have it but it's their corporate policy not to share it.
On the one hand I guess right now all this surveilence is siloed to some degree and so less likely to be abused. On the other these seem like perfectly ligitimate uses of video to fight crime.
The government has no real ability to gain access to those cameras beyond asking nicely, or getting an actual search warrant. Even then the police still have to visit the site with the CCTV camera, and mostly capture the footage by filming the screen of the CCTV system with their phone (I've talked to Met police officers about this, and seen the footage). Most of those cameras barely work, point in the wrong direction, aren't recording, are so fuzzy you can't see anything. So comparing it to China is an apples to orange comparison.
The idea that these CCTV cameras could be used by the state for surveillance is laughable. The police struggle to get hold of the footage for actual in-progress investigations where they have real leads, and pretty much know what the footage is gonna show them already. So there's not a chance in hell the state could ever hope to get some sort of live feed of this data.