Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CCTV cameras in Sligo - Big Brother is watching!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭TequilaMockingBird


    Thats what you think!

    <_<

    >_>

    O hai is that the police?
    Yes, I appear to have a chimp in my bushes.
    Send ARU asap.
    kthxbai.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    May be true with regards murders and some assaults, but an awful lot of crime in Sligo is random and doesn't stem from any long running conflict. If those cameras are PTZ (I.e. controlled via a joy-stick), a hoodie would not always be enough to save a criminal from detection. If an operator is zoomed in on his face, one glance in the wrong direction and they have a still photo. Clothing such as distinctive shoes, jacket or even tattoos to corroberate and your screwed. Modern video surveillance equipment, whilst not at the C.S.I. level day to day, is extremely impressive. They can operate in low light with iris adjustment from base. They can zoom in on an upper body shot from 200m. They can read the small print on a tax disc at 30m. Allied to that is the fact that the footage would be stored digitally and therefore with instant playback, clear freeze framing and quick duplication and distribution.
    Used properly it could make the town a safer place for the average person. It'd be a disgrace if it turned into a white elephant. Community Alert areas anyone?:rolleyes:


    that all sounds wonderful,except they've been putting up cameras in britain for a decade now with no discernible impact on crime.Afaik the 'evidence' they provide is only useful in convictions 16% of the time.
    Also,lolz at the tags.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,589 ✭✭✭Hail 2 Da Chimp


    Afaik the 'evidence' they provide is only useful in convictions 16% of the time.

    16% of the time, they work every time!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    that all sounds wonderful,except they've been putting up cameras in britain for a decade now with no discernible impact on crime.Afaik the 'evidence' they provide is only useful in convictions 16% of the time.
    Also,lolz at the tags.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2071496.stm
    This link is a balanced report on the issue. The most telling point for me is the paragraph headed "money saving". Of course cameras aren't effective if they don't actually work. I suprised the fact that they're neither manned nor maintained reflects on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras in general. Why did you write evidence in inverted commas? I have first hand experience of CCTV footage gaining convictions where there was practically no other evidence as well as some serious crime where it was corroborating evidence. Considering the ineffectiveness of our local policing as it is, I'm suprised anyone would think diverting a tiny fraction of their budget to a diiferent approach is dubious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,589 ✭✭✭Hail 2 Da Chimp


    il gatto wrote: »
    I'm suprised anyone would think diverting a tiny fraction of their budget to a diiferent approach is dubious.

    Well the fact that this government has a habit of wasting money, there doesn't seem to be any clear laws governing the use of these CCTV cameras and the fact that I don't believe they are going to allocate money to man or repair the cameras spells disaster to me.
    If the cameras are going to be manned, then I would have liked to have had more information on that...


  • Advertisement
Advertisement