Last month, I barely knew about details of the riot in London 2011; why really did it happen? or why did the number of protesters increase extremely fast? Actually, I should have studied them because it was useful to compare with the cause of the riot in Thailand. This morning, however, after I read a piece of news on the BBC News website, I found that the Metropolitan Police arrested 2000 people rioting across London. 2000 was an amazing number. In crowed streets, how could the police know who riots were and what they were doing: burning cars, looting or beating policemen? The answer was that the police used CCTV and video footage to identify each riot.According to "Court orders broadcasters to hand riot footage to Met" , broadcasters, including BBC, ITN and Sky News, were forced by the court order to provide the police with untransmitted footage. The police's purpose of requiring the footage was used as the evidence for accusing protesters. the police said that "it was identifying people through pictures, CCTV and through the media to ensure that people are brought to justice"(¶ 2). At the beginning, BBC refused to hand unseen footage to the police .So did ITN and Sky news. They would not sent anything to the police without court orders. However, the police finally obtained the production orders, which asked broadcasters to disclose all footage from the riot. Besides, it was anticipated that similar court orders would be used to require broadcasters to supply footage from other cases.
Actually, I do not care about whether broadcasters should hand the footage to police. For me, the most interesting part of the news is using CCTV and video recorders. By studying hundreds of footage, the police identify considerable offenders correctly and quickly. This shows that no matter how turbulent a situation is, cameras are still able to record it without any problem. Today, the high-technological camera can take vivid pictures of objects moving at high speed or staying far from it. So,when you walk pass its lenses, the camera will record your actions in every second.
Moreover, cameras are increasing in aspect of not only quality but also quantities. In many countries, governments install a lot of cameras in public areas, such as streets, train stations, public schools. In Chicago, for example, according to "Networking CCTV cameras", "it is estimated to incorporate the video feeds of a total of 15,000 cameras"(¶1). It seems that cameras are set up around you, and you are recorded in everywhere you are walking. In my view, although cameras sometimes cause reluctance to me and reduce my privacy, they help me avoid doing a harmful behavior. For instance, while driving on an express way, I always warn myself to keep driving at a legal speed limit because I may be monitored through a traffic camera. Frankly, facing with a camera, I try to behave myself and sometimes pretend to be more polite. Some people think a camera force us to be someone else, but I think a camera reminds me of be careful in a public area.
Moreover, cameras are increasing in aspect of not only quality but also quantities. In many countries, governments install a lot of cameras in public areas, such as streets, train stations, public schools. In Chicago, for example, according to "Networking CCTV cameras", "it is estimated to incorporate the video feeds of a total of 15,000 cameras"(¶1). It seems that cameras are set up around you, and you are recorded in everywhere you are walking. In my view, although cameras sometimes cause reluctance to me and reduce my privacy, they help me avoid doing a harmful behavior. For instance, while driving on an express way, I always warn myself to keep driving at a legal speed limit because I may be monitored through a traffic camera. Frankly, facing with a camera, I try to behave myself and sometimes pretend to be more polite. Some people think a camera force us to be someone else, but I think a camera reminds me of be careful in a public area.
In the modern era, whether you like a camera or not, you still see it everyday. Actually, I think you are facing it now; it is a webcam camera on your notebook.
_________
References
Court orders broadcasters to hand riot footage to Met.(2011, September 22).BBC News. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15024354
References
Court orders broadcasters to hand riot footage to Met.(2011, September 22).BBC News. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15024354
Plan,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your writing very much and I absolutely agree with you. Many cameras around us are annoying but useful. Even though because of these surveillance, our lives are monitored so we feel bothered now, due to them, I think that our securities are more guaranteed . These cameras can play a role to prevent crimes which are serious or not. As you mentioned above, superficilly it can be seen as a reluctant behavior, but the result is no harm to other people and yourself. People say the better cameras are invented, the cleverer crime methods happen. However, I think these cameras are set up for peoples's safety not just monitoring original people.
I don't feel bothered particularly. I think it's OK to have camera's in public spaces where there is a good reason for them, such as at intersections on roads - they are much more efficient than police, and cheaper. But unless there is a good reason for them, they should not be there.
ReplyDeleteIf we do something in public that other people around can see, does it matter if it's also recorded by a video camera? I think, if I don't mind other people seeing me, why should I care about a camera seeing it?
But I think this increasing surveillance might bave some interesting consequences for behaviour, and there should be some limits. The US SUpreme Court is currently considering a related question - they are due to rule next month, I think, an how constantly a specific individual can be monitored without seeking a court order first.
Like all the others, Plan's blog in response to his chosen article is very interesting, and suggests a lot more ideas to discuss. Sunny and I have only commented on a couple of them.
I've enjoyed all of these first blog posts, and the comments.
Camera in public are necessary especially in the south of Thailand. There are booms all most every days at those area, but no one know who set up these explosion. According, to channel 3 is advertising to donate camera so police can arrest terrorist.
ReplyDeleteNoom,
ReplyDeleteThe situation in the South definitely sounds like a government responsibility. Perhaps it would help if police were not wasting money and time on trying to stop things that are not wrong, like prostitution and gambling. Then they could focus on effectively solving real crimes, like terrorism, murder, theft, fraud and so on.
Policing is not something that private interests should have to provide - that is why we pay taxes. I think Channel 3's idea is good, but there is something seriously wrong if private groups have to be doing things like that.