Wow. I really don't think that any government that represents it's people should be in the business of spying on them. However, cameras are statistically proven to reduce crime and enhance safety. I see no problem doing this in the private sector because everyone has a right to protect their investments. Personally I will take my personal freedom over crime and safety any day.

I wish I had that job.

I have no reason to fear cameras and speakers. They are useful as crime deterrants, but I bet a real criminal doesn't care afetr he/she has done the deed.

How about floating cameras and speakers, as in the "Dark Angel" series? They can follow criminals until the helicopters and ground troops arrive.

Raymond

I'm all for stopping the bad guys, but I think things have gone too far. Cameras in certain areas, Ok. But the proliferation they have taken is way too much. And now more noise pollution. It's too much. People, we need to stop 'Big Brother'!

This sounds like a sensible petty crime deterrant, but I do have reservations about the government watching our every move. None the less, it sounds like these cameras are watching public spaces, maintained and patrolled by the government, so this is hardly an invasion of privacy. These systems are not perfect however. My last year at Penn State, the town installed a number of camera in "high risk" areas after much debate. The cameras resulted in 0 arrests or positive IDs for crimes. An RV hit and destroyed one (never ID-ed), and one was even stolen from its mount, while recording! It's important to point out that these systems can end up as just a huge waste of taxpayer money with nothing to show for it.

Though I shudder at the fact that cameras in a public place are watching my every move, it has been shown that according to some law enforcement data anyway, that cameras can act as a deterrent. Though I do think that some of that data is skewed to benefit the various corporations that tout their product, as well as the city councils and agencies that say "We are doing this for your protection" as they are getting the money from the taxpayers and putting residuals in their collective pockets. I also point to the fact that all one has to do is look at various TV programs that show crimes caught on tape to see that if a bad guy is going to do something untoward, they don't care about the video tape. Some criminals tape their own exploits and get caught later proving that my father was right, "You can't fix stupid". Still, I wouldn't mind getting on the mike every once in a while as a lark, but the freedoms that we are suppose to have have been vastly eroded by the politicos and the voters who say "I don't mind Big Bro watching me." So people need to stop and think before all of our freedom has evaporated.

Government cameras in public areas? Fine. Nothing wrong with that. We've had those here in Britain for years, now, and we're hardly the most oppressed people on the planet. We haven't even had the dealth penalty since the 1970s.

Government cameras in our homes? It hasn't happened, nor will it happen. And we wouldn't tolerate it. A knee-jerk reaction a lot of people have to the whole police-camera business is saying "They'll be in your homes next!" No, they won't.

I'm not really aware of any "freedoms" we've been "denied" over here owing to police camera distribution in public areas, other than the freedom to break the law and have a better chance of getting away with it.

I am by no means an ultra-right-winger, or even a right-winger. I'm more a middle-of-the-roader. But seriously, folks: loss of freedom, my posterior. What freedom are you giving up in this case, honestly? None that any law-abiding citizen or visitor would miss.

Anyway, who ever said the British government represents its people these days? ;D

Sadly, this is the only method to keep some trouble makers in line.

We already have cameras watching us in select places. Right now we have little use for them since they're not too good at getting people to stop the stupid and minor stuff(like the guy on the bike). This will allow them to do something about the ultra-low-level offenses without a police state. I've never seen or read 1984, but I can see a parallel with The Giver: Using nonspecific messages broadcast over a large area to embarrass people into following the more minor(and obscure) laws.

What ever it takes to make the hoodlums stop. There wouldn't be a need for cameras and speakers if "some" people just respected public property and obeyed the laws. In a public area the only ones who fear the cameras are those that are doing something wrong or wish to. They protect the law abiding citizen and the tax payer. The only "freedom" at risk is to break the law without video evidence.
Just keep the cameras and speakers out of my private space.

People can't really be complaining about an invasion of privacy here? It'd be like saying the government shouldn't be putting in speed cameras because it's spying on people in their cars. It's ridiculous - you wouldn't be in a public place if you didn't want to be seen. Who cares if someone behind a camera is watching you as well? It'd be like walking around with lots of policemen on the streets. I think it's a really good idea to have these speakers. It enforces those laws that are there to maintain common courtesy, something I think all of us could use a reminder of every now and again.

The only issue anyone could have with it was if they were watching your houses - which they aren't. So I don't see how this can be considered bad!