Big Bruvver, or community action?

A few days back, there was a brutal attack of two gay men in Centre City Philadelphia.   The key evidence in the attack is a video showing a group of about a dozen white men and women in their early 20s who are "clean cut" and well-dressed.

These are type of person I am expected to trust with a loaded firearm in a public place.



Anyway, the victims were able to identify their attackers from the above video.  The case was broken  after a Twitter sleuth identified the mob via photos and their social media accounts.

I should add that one of the victims lost his bag, which included a cell phone and credit card that was picked up by one of the women in the group.

Now, if the person who had lost his bag had a gun, would he have had the time to have used it?

Of course, despite this being a brutal attack, the people involved may not do jail time.

See also:

• Sources: Alleged attackers claim mutual fight, not attack, on gay couple in Center City Philadelphia | 6abc.com
• Joe. My. God.: PHILADELPHIA: Multiple Arrests Expected In Brutal Mob Gay-Bashing Case

Government surveillance cameras?

OK, given that most of the CCTV cameras I see are owned by private individuals, this strikes me as amusing.

CCTV solves another case in Philadelphia

smile for the camera, asshole.

First, there was the Rian Thal murder which was solved in a couple of days because the shootings were caught on CCTV.  Dr. Melissa Ketunuti's killer was found because the police canvassed the area and found CCTV footage of the exterminator she had hired in the area at the time she was killed.

Now, CCTV footage once again proves useful in tracking down a high profile case in Centre City Philadelphia.  The rape happened late Saturday night and the perp was being questioned on Monday.  He was charged on Tuesday.

Of course, most of the people with the CCTV cameras are not the "State", but are civic minded citizens who have enrolled in the Philadelphia Police Department's SafeCam programme.  In fact, that is pretty much how the "surveillance state" seems to be playing out.

Of course, CCTV is a lot more helpful than a gun for cutting down crime.  For example, the high profile use of CCTV pictures with facial recognition software were used to prosecute rioters after the 2011 British riots.

The same case with the Boston Marathon Bombers.

While one camera might not get proper pictures, another camera might get an image that makes it easy to identify the culprit.

Even if a camera is not a deterrent, the fact that it provides evidence which can convict criminals will lead to a strong deterrent effect.

On the other hand, how many guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals?

Big Bruvver is Watching YOU!

You think you're so cool here on the internet talking about all your guns.  Maybe you even spout some "anti-guvment" talk in a chat room thinking that you are safe and sound.

GUESS AGAIN!

You are aware that it was the Military, not Al Gore, who developed the internet.  At one time, it was called DARPANET or ARPANET.

You'd kind think that people like NSA and GCHQ might have an "in" on how to track people on it.

But, I've been wanting to write a piece about CCTV and how that is probably a  far more effective method of stopping crime than a bunch of idiots carrying handguns.  And not all those CCTV units belong to "THE STATE".

No, if you want to come to my house, you will walk past at least 3 CCTV cameras before the one that will send your image to a remote server that is focused on MY DOOR.

And NONE of them belong to the Guvment.

But what got me to write this is something from Naomi Wolf in the Guardian:

A software engineer in my Facebook community wrote recently about his outrage that when he visited Disneyland, and went on a ride, the theme park offered him the photo of himself and his girlfriend to buy – with his credit card information already linked to it. He noted that he had never entered his name or information into anything at the theme park, or indicated that he wanted a photo, or alerted the humans at the ride to who he and his girlfriend were – so, he said, based on his professional experience, the system had to be using facial recognition technology. He had never signed an agreement allowing them to do so, and he declared that this use was illegal. He also claimed that Disney had recently shared data from facial-recognition technology with the United States military.

Yes, I know: it sounds like a paranoid rant.

Except that it turned out to be true. News21, supported by the Carnegie and Knight foundations, reports that Disney sites are indeed controlled by face-recognition technology, that the military is interested in the technology, and that the face-recognition contractor, Identix, has contracts with the US government – for technology that identifies individuals in a crowd.

Fast forward: after the Occupy crackdowns, I noted that odd-looking CCTVs had started to appear, attached to lampposts, in public venues in Manhattan where the small but unbowed remnants of Occupy congregated: there was one in Union Square, right in front of their encampment. I reported here on my experience of witnessing a white van marked "Indiana Energy" that was lifting workers up to the lampposts all around Union Square, and installing a type of camera. When I asked the workers what was happening – and why an Indiana company was dealing with New York City civic infrastructure, which would certainly raise questions – I was told: "I'm a contractor. Talk to ConEd."

I then noticed, some months later, that these bizarre camera/lights had been installed not only all around Union Square but also around Washington Square Park. I posted a photo I took of them, and asked: "What is this?" Commentators who had lived in China said that they were the same camera/streetlight combinations that are mounted around public places in China. These are enabled for facial recognition technology, which allows police to watch video that is tagged to individuals, in real time. When too many people congregate, they can be dispersed and intimidated simply by the risk of being identified – before dissent can coalesce. (Another of my Facebook commentators said that such lamppost cameras had been installed in Michigan, and that they barked "Obey", at pedestrians. This, too, sounded highly implausible – until this week in Richmond, British Columbia, near the Vancouver airport, when I was startled as the lamppost in the intersection started talking to me – in this case, instructing me on how to cross (as though I were blind or partially sighted).

The funny bit to me is that you lot are complaining up and down about your "gunz" and "statism"; one the other hand, here is a serious bit of intrusion on your privacy, yet you lot are SILENT.

Is it because it's not coming from the "State", but private enterprise?

Or is it because your masters haven't told you that you need to say anything about it?

I'm hearing you sing:

We are poor little lambs
Who have lost our way.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
We are little black sheep
Who have gone astray.
Baa! Baa! Baa!

More CCTV, Less crime!

What if the solution to crime is simple and doesn't lead to accidental injury or death?

CCTV is beginning to proliferate in urban areas: whether they are governmental cameras, or ones owned by private citizens. In 2006, there was an estimated 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people. It was said that you couldn't travel across country without being on some form of CCTV.

And they are very useful at solving crimes. For example, the Rian Thal murder was caught on the CCTV cameras of her condo complex. The first arrest happened within 4 days of the crime. The crime was solved in a week.

Likewise, UK rioters were caught and prosecuted based upon CCTV footage.

My street has at least two privately owned cameras, which is why I am writing this. One of the cameras was useful in convicting the burglars who broke into another neighbour's house. There was a time stamped video of the crime.

What gets better is that cameras can send their images to multiple, remote locations. That means the robber would need to know where the remote locations were to prevent the video from being saved. CCTV footage that was saved remotely helped convict some crooked Philadelphia Cops.

Ultimately, it's hard to deny the photographic witness's testimony. And criminals hate witnesses.

Read more:

• Britain is 'surveillance society
• In the Petabyte Age of Surveillance, Software Polices
• Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You