Scotland Mulls Surveillence Cameras To Prevent Anti-Surveillence Camera Vandalism
from the endless-loop dept
As surveillance and speed cameras become ubiquitous in society, instances of vandalism against the cameras are becoming increasingly common. In Scotland, it's apparently gotten so bad that the government is considering the brilliant solution of installing cameras that watch the other cameras (via Hit & Run), for the sole purpose of detecting vandalism. Of course, we probably don't even need to mention the obvious issue with this plan: won't they need yet another camera to watch over these cameras?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Obvious issue, obvious answer by Dan on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 1:36pm
Have the two cameras cover different scenes yet have each other on their respective views. That way, at least one camera would get a shot of the vandals before it too gets vandalized.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Rational Beaver on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 1:48pm
Guess I'll have to start wearing a mask.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Matt Bennett on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 2:16pm
Eh, you can always just Paint baloon one from off camera, then hit the other.
I hate speed cameras. Good to see the Scottish haven't lost their revolutionary spirit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by John on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 3:00pm
Must be Robby Burns Day
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by smoke on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 3:45pm
wow, just put them ontop of really high poles like in chicago... the drug dealers ran off to different spots here....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by SFGary on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 4:10pm
The scheme must have been dreamed up by a bunch of bureaucrats.
Reminds me of the time (based on Dilbert) I proposed having a Pre-meeting to discuss the agenda for the department meeting. My boss and the VP bit, but I went over the top and suggested a pre-pre meeting to figure out who will attend the pre-meeting...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
so now....... by mike on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 4:42pm
I have to spray paint 2 cameras instead of one camera big deal I got plenty of spray paint! could make if harder to come up behind it with out being caught by the other camera hmmm anybody got a sniper rifle?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 5:13pm
I remember watching one of those "cops" type programmes a few years back about a group that was going out vandalising speed cameras. Their favourite method was to place petrol soaked tires on the camera and set them ablaze.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by vanillaface on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 5:57pm
but who's gonna watch cameras #2's ass???
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Stu on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 6:00pm
It's all a plot by the camera makers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Future Hi tech Surveillance by security on Jan 25th, 2007 @ 8:02pm
Now perhaps, but...
As hi tech surveillance becomes more advanced - it will likely result in the ablility to place the cameras VERY high up so as to be inaccessable to vandals - but still provide extremely high resolutions.
Another likely option could be to have the cameras blend in so well with common steet devices - that they would be undetectable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I can just see it... by Poss on Jan 26th, 2007 @ 12:58am
Two cameras that do nothing but watch each other. Well, they'd never get vandalised, would they.
"Throwing stones at this notice is prohibited."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Burn in hell camera thing by Enrico Suarve on Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:24am
For those of you who love seeing the things destroyed - pages of pics ;0)
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/news.htm
Note - this is a direct link to a page inside a frameset, if you go to speedcam.co.uk itself there's more stuff. They are maybe a little one-sided but some of their points are interesting, including their claims that since camera usage in their areas went up so did road deaths, which argues against the logic of cameras. I am not sure if there are other factors but its definitly a statistic which needs more research
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by KelpBoots on Jan 27th, 2007 @ 9:22pm
Sounds like the "Surveillence Camera Dealers Association" has formed a lobby group.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
paintball gun? by |333173|3|_||3 on Jan 29th, 2007 @ 6:31pm
oTOH, it would be interesting to plot the FOV for a street of cameras, to see how much of the street can be seen.
all the kids have to do is wear a hooded top, which would sheid thier face. alternaltively, shine a laser pen on the camers, and screw up the image.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment