France planning to 'triple' CCTV surveillance capacity
By Darren Murph 
posted Jul 28th 2007 1:11PM
posted Jul 28th 2007 1:11PM
At least those residing in the UK can breathe a momentary sigh of relief, as it's not the only locale where the amount of surveillance drones is quickly approaching the number of citizens. Reportedly, French interior minister Michele Alliot-Marie recently announced that the government is planning to "triple" the existing CCTV surveillance capacities across the country, "with a view to curb the risks of terrorism and acts of violence." Beyond just bumping the amount of eyes scanning for troublemakers, she also suggested that the network of systems be more tightly connected in order to effectively "protect the French people and enable them to move freely without fearing for their lives or property." Of course, we're sure there's quite a few citizens who'd have beef with the whole "moving freely sans fear" tidbit, no?[Via The Raw Feed]
Anyone who wants to know the *real* reason there are so many CCTV cameras in the UK should read The Atrocity Archive by Charles Stross. It's an anti-Cthulhu measure :)
Concrete Jungle, the novella from the Atrocity Archives which features the CCTV cameras, is actually available for free online under a Creative Commons license: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html
IMHO, it's quite a good read.
I'm totally for it. It's proven to work.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Unless you're joking, the fact that people like you exist scares me to no end.
A 13y/o girl got kidnapped in Chicago within 75ft of a police cam
I've lived in London for many years, with the most CCTV cameras in the world. Personally, I have no objection to more cameras. Nobody's going to be "spying" on me, unless they have good reason to (otherwise it would be a waste of resources, not to mention stupidly boring). You're either an unsuspecting, innocent person, or not: if you are, you won't be watched, as their is no point, and even if you are, why do you care? If you are not, there is an increased chance that you will be caught and more evidence for a civilian court to reach a fair verdict with.
Take a leaf from Socrates' book: when you are part of a society, you agree to live with that society's rules and respect any effort it makes to safeguard its people.
People from the US don't tend to understand. They have a very different relationship with their government than we do in Europe. I can't see a solid objection to CCTV cameras, other than paranoid people, thinking the government (for whatever reason) has some interest in watching their personal business.
Why don't they put people that want to be monitored 24/7 into pods with feeding tubes.
Perhaps in old coal mines where they aren't in the way.
Karl, I don't know what substances you took, but let me assure you: There are a LOT of people in Europe who don't like being monitored by the government all the time.
Like, for example, 90% of everyone I ever met.
Well, everybody, if it's so bad - give me a specific objection.
So far you've all just blasted the idea like it's crazy without needing any arguments to say so.
By all means, feel free to try change my mind on the matter.
I'll assume that this has something to do with 8,973 torched Peugeot's in 20 nights by certain disaffected Muslim youth in the suburbs of Paris.
I have a feeling Engadget just posts these news items (which are only tangentially gadget related) to create controversy and drive traffic. Where there is a flame war, there is ad revenue! Flame on!
They should make them all webcams. Why should the gummint get all the fun.
Julian, can't you see that they make these cameras private for a reason? NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY, comrade! Ignorance is strength, comrade, and your wishes to interfere with the affairs of the state are doubleplusungood.
It doesn't do any good to videotape the (largely Muslim) hoodlums unless they're actually going to ARREST them, too.
Adam way to go overreacting and frothing at the mouth at the mere suggestion that being muslim may have had a role to play in those riots in Paris. I don't know what's scarier.. that people could actually dare ask questions about whether or not muslims are violent people or that people like you could dare think they have the right to take offense to anything that shakes their very touchy PC sensibilities.. that people like you think they have the right to censor, censure and outright decide what is or what isn't accceptable discourse.
Get a grip you self-righteous buffoon. The question raised is a legitimate one as are many questions relating to society and religious tension. Is it unreasonable to ask yourself WHY nearly all the rioters are muslim? Or the fact that in nearly every country with a sizeable muslim country there is not only violence but in many cases outright war and or separatist movements? Is it an accident that Islam tends to indoctrinate youth into a mentality of 'us versus them'? Do you refuse to take into consideration the possibility that maybe, just maybe there is a growing ideology within mainstream islam that promotes global domination in a fascist sense? Here you are pew pewing over cameras like its 1984 but you refuse to consider the very obvious existence of a real fascistic ideology, one that has a very real possibility of affecting all of us in one way or another in the next few decades. Maybe one day, when you wake up and realize you can't shave of your beard without facing a public flogging for offending a medieval religion, you will finally realize as we all do what an idiot you are.
Maybe they should legalize guns. When guns are legalized crime rates go down. It's a fact. Banning guns doesn't take them our of the hands of criminals.
http://www.gearsofwarpc.com
and the number of severe casualties goes up.
I remember in the UK earlier this year, possibly late last year, when there were lots of prostitutes murdered apparently by a serial killer. The police had to rely almost exclusivly on CCTV evidence to find suspects and make a case the CPS would prosecute on.
and the number of severe casualties goes up.
I remember in the UK earlier this year, possibly late last year, when there were lots of prostitutes murdered apparently by a serial killer. The police had to rely almost exclusivly on CCTV evidence to find suspects and make a case the CPS would prosecute on.
"HAD to exclusively rely on CCTV", sure, it's an alternative for incompetence I guess.
your all right.
down with sarcozy.
down.
People like you remind me of 1984, or V for Vendetta if you're into movies. With your help, that fiction will soon become reality...
that picture looks like the end of my road...
(I'm english)
Umm, that was a reply to Karl.
Karl, If banning guns worked, Washington, DC and New York City would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, it's been illegal in Washington, DC to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington, DC is the "murder capital of the United States."
New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.
A national gun ban won't help. With an estimated 220+ million guns now in the US, an unpoliceable 12,000 miles of borders and coastlines, and the world's largest stock of precision machine tools, criminals will always be able to buy, steal, or make guns and ammunition.
A competent backyard mechanic can build a rifle or handgun. Even Afghan peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those in the Sears catalog, have built machine guns capable of firing Soviet AK-47 cartridges.
Illegal home production of handguns is already a fact of life; a BATF study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by police in Washington, DC were homemade.
The Police Cannot Protect You –
But You Can Protect Yourself
If a criminal attacks you on the street or in your home, you cannot afford to wait 30 minutes, 20 minutes, or even 10 minutes for the police to arrive – assuming that you even get the chance to call police and they respond. Ten minutes is more than enough time for a thug to rob, rape, murder, or cripple you for life.
Making guns illegal will primarily disarm peaceful citizens. That gives a green light for violent criminals to attack everyone – both gun owners and non-owners alike.
That's not the whole article, but I think this part makes some really good points, especially with New York and D.C. It was from isil.org, because I am too lazy to type one out my self.
Excellent idea, Wwhat.
O Brave New World!
"A competent backyard mechanic can build a rifle or handgun. Even Afghan peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those in the Sears catalog, have built machine guns capable of firing Soviet AK-47 cartridges."
True, but at least natural selection would have a chance to step in when their faulty engineering blows their face off. By the way, despite your seemingly made up NRA talking points ("Maybe they should legalize guns. When guns are legalized crime rates go down. It's a fact. Banning guns doesn't take them our of the hands of criminals."), the US leads year after year in per capita gun deaths. The country with the most gun control, Japan, has 1/4,000 of a percent of our gun deaths. Are all those bodies worth the gun control? Seems kind of pointless, actually harming more then helping. Anywho, thanks for your entirely thoughtless post.