Dummy Heavy Duty CCTV £14 @ tesco - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
-145Expired

Dummy Heavy Duty CCTV £14.00 @ tesco

£14.00 @ Tesco Direct
This Dummy Heavy Duty CCTV has a red flashing LED light to act as a deterrent. It is a low cost equivalent to a CCTV system and can be installed in minutes.
chipp82 Avatar
6y, 3w agoFound 6 years, 3 weeks ago
This Dummy Heavy Duty CCTV has a red flashing LED light to act as a deterrent. It is a low cost equivalent to a CCTV system and can be installed in minutes.
Deal Tags:
More From Tesco Direct:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
chipp82 Avatar
6y, 3w agoFound 6 years, 3 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(44) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
cold as it look like a dummy

click here


Edited By: barginbri on Mar 03, 2011 23:55
#2
I used to be a security guard and some theives stole all the dummy cameras to prove a point so cold from me
#3
ABS_HULL
I used to be a security guard and some theives stole all the dummy cameras to prove a point so cold from me

fair point and funny story
#4
Nasty, horrible, Big Brother, intimidating, CCTV cameras.
Dummies or not they should be banned.
Freezing cold.
#5
JunkMail
Nasty, horrible, Big Brother, intimidating, CCTV cameras.Dummies or not they should be banned.Freezing cold.

Two dummy's in one thread :(
1 Like #6
JunkMail
Nasty, horrible, Big Brother, intimidating, CCTV cameras.
Dummies or not they should be banned.
Freezing cold.
Yeah!, screw people trying to deter thieves and protecting their homes/property! [/sarcasm]

On the topic of security cameras though, couldn't you buy a real one for around this price?
#7
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!
2 Likes #8
Make the fence electric and they won't be coming back again ;)
#9
You want them to get in easy enough, but not leave.....
#10
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!


Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?
#11
Agreed, cameras are only a problem if you're doing something you shouldn't be.
#12
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!


Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?


Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.

Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.
#13
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!


Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?


Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.

Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.


So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?
#14
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!


Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?


Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.

Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.


So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?

I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.
#15
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!
Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?
Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.
So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?
I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.

You will only be continually spied on if your standing infront of a camera infront of my house, go stand somewhere else!!! Also great comment, ban all cctv so when there shootings, muggings and rapes it will make it that much easier for the police to find these people with no cctv. Morons are out in force today
#16
bloko1
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!
Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?
Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.
So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?
I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.


You will only be continually spied on if your standing infront of a camera infront of my house, go stand somewhere else!!! Also great comment, ban all cctv so when there shootings, muggings and rapes it will make it that much easier for the police to find these people with no cctv. Morons are out in force today

If CCTV was as effective as you seem to think it is the crimes you mention would have been eradicated long ago.
CCTV makes the classic mistake of punishing everyone because of the bad behaviour of the tiny minority.
You demean yourself bloko1 by resorting to insults instead of rational debate.
2 Likes #17
JunkMail
If CCTV was as effective as you seem to think it is the crimes you mention would have been eradicated long ago.

I'm not sure you understand the basic operational concept of a camera. It captures images as they happen, and enable you to view them again at a later date if recording equipment is used. They cannot stop a crime because the crime must already be happening for them to capture it, they currently only work in one space/time direction and therefore crime cannot be detected before it happens to allow the police to arrive in sufficient time.

What they are remarkably good at however is proving what happened after the event to ensure the correct people end up in court. This is their sole purpose, they are for detection not prevention.

As for your civil liberties, you may indeed have a point. If my house was burgled and my CCTV showed you hanging about outside looking shifty then there is a good chance of you developing kneecap failure in the near future. This would not happen without CCTV, as I'd have less clues as to who actually burgled me. Therefore CCTV does indeed seriously hamper your liberties if you are a thieving chav scummer.

If you are a completely honest person simply going about your business but hate the idea of others knowing what you are doing I suggest you buy a disguise, as people have these wonderful things called eyes that enable them to watch your actions with amazing clarity.

JunkMail
CCTV makes the classic mistake of punishing everyone because of the bad behaviour of the tiny minority.


Our definitions of punishment appear to be widely different.


Edited By: tek-monkey on Mar 04, 2011 13:59: ...
#18
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!


Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?


Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.

Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.


So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?

I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.


Well, if you're not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties, why did you sidestep the point and change your argument to say that it offends some people?

CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Example? I'm just about to go into my back garden with my guitar. If someone's got it on camera, it makes no difference to me. No-one's going to question me, no-one's going to stop me, no-one's going to use the footage against me. My liberties are in no way breached or diminished if I happen to be on someone's CCTV. The only harm CCTV could do me is if I was doing something illegal, in which case the CCTV would indeed infringe upon my abilities for the inverse of the aforementioned reasons

I think you're a little too paranoid.
#19
tek-monkey - Mar 04, 2011 13:54

JunkMail
If CCTV was as effective as you seem to think it is the crimes you mention would have been eradicated long ago.

I'm not sure you understand the basic operational concept of a camera. It captures images as they happen, and enable you to view them again at a later date if recording equipment is used. They cannot stop a crime because the crime must already be happening for them to capture it, they currently only work in one space/time direction and therefore crime cannot be detected before it happens to allow the police to arrive in sufficient time.

What they are remarkably good at however is proving what happened after the event to ensure the correct people end up in court. This is their sole purpose, they are for detection not prevention.

As for your civil liberties, you may indeed have a point. If my house was burgled and my CCTV showed you hanging about outside looking shifty then there is a good chance of you developing kneecap failure in the near future. This would not happen without CCTV, as I'd have less clues as to who actually burgled me. Therefore CCTV does indeed seriously hamper your liberties if you are a thieving chav scummer.

If you are a completely honest person simply going about your business but hate the idea of others knowing what you are doing I suggest you buy a disguise, as people have these wonderful things called eyes that enable them to watch your actions with amazing clarity.

CCTV does not just affect those who commit crimes. It violates the liberty of innocent people who do not deserve to be treated as suspects.
Innocent people should not have to think about covering their faces to preserve their privacy. There is a world of difference between simply being seen and being videoed like a criminal when you are doing nothing wrong.

JunkMail
CCTV makes the classic mistake of punishing everyone because of the bad behaviour of the tiny minority.


Our definitions of punishment appear to be widely different.

This is clear but two people can hold differing views yet both be correct however, this does not mean that it is right for one view to be imposed over the other as is currently the case with CCTV.
#20
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!


Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?


Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.

Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.


So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?

I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.


Well, if you're not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties, why did you sidestep the point and change your argument to say that it offends some people?

It does both. It interferes with civil liberties and it offends many people.

CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Example? I'm just about to go into my back garden with my guitar. If someone's got it on camera, it makes no difference to me. No-one's going to question me, no-one's going to stop me, no-one's going to use the footage against me. My liberties are in no way breached or diminished if I happen to be on someone's CCTV. The only harm CCTV could do me is if I was doing something illegal, in which case the CCTV would indeed infringe upon my abilities for the inverse of the aforementioned reasons

I think you're a little too paranoid.

I have no problem with the filming of criminal activity but I do have a problem with innocent behaviour being under surveillance. Some people like yourself have no problem being filmed whilst going about their lawful, daily lives however, others find it very unpleasant. Just because you do not mind it does not mean that it is acceptable to subject everyone to it.

Too paranoid? - I would not feel in the least bit paranoid if I did not have CCTV cameras pointed at me everywhere I went.
;)
#21
Tony Harrison
JunkMail
Nasty, horrible, Big Brother, intimidating, CCTV cameras.
Dummies or not they should be banned.
Freezing cold.
Yeah!, screw people trying to deter thieves and protecting their homes/property! [/sarcasm]

On the topic of security cameras though, couldn't you buy a real one for around this price?


most dummy cameras at this price are east to spot as fakes, but you can buy cameras for this money but the picture when recorded will be useless and at night less than useless,but for £30 you can get some nice sony 1/3" ccd all in one small night vision cameras and you will be amazed at the quality, and as for liberties i'm amazed that as i sell cctv that the onl comlaint about liberties i've ever had was a lady who had a son that was always being arrested so of course some people will have good reason to hate cctv , even if you build a brick wall someone will get over it so you still need to see who it was

Edited By: savetothegrave on Mar 04, 2011 16:55
#22
An interesting debate.

I don't like CCTV camera either or speed cameras, those little smart cars with speed cameras on top that look like normal cars but are actually police cars. However I acknowledge that CCTV has its perks for security of buildings and such. It is taking it a little far to have them in every single house across the country takes away some of the trust people have for each other. Most people are pretty decent. This country seems to feed on fear and what ifs.

This is my opinion of course, I just thought it was an interesting debate.
#23
Avonius
An interesting debate.

I don't like CCTV camera either or speed cameras, those little smart cars with speed cameras on top that look like normal cars but are actually police cars. However I acknowledge that CCTV has its perks for security of buildings and such. It is taking it a little far to have them in every single house across the country takes away some of the trust people have for each other. Most people are pretty decent. This country seems to feed on fear and what ifs.

This is my opinion of course, I just thought it was an interesting debate.

You are not alone in thinking that way Avonius. Many, many people think that not only do CCTV cameras interfere with liberty and have little deterrent effect but, that they promote a climate of suspicion and distrust.
If you can weed out all the misinformation from the pro CCTV camp and ignore those from the opposite camp who just want to rant, it becomes very difficult to justify the blanket CCTV surveillance that we have in our country today. Here is a link to a very reasoned case against the widespread use of CCTV. -

‪Charles Farrier - The Surveillance State Part 1/2‬ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOuW5dTXJ30
‪Charles Farrier - The Surveillance State Part 2/2‬ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2qrUl8LJCQ

Edited By: JunkMail on Mar 04, 2011 19:04
#24
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.
Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!

Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?

Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.

Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.

So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?
I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.

Well, if you're not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties, why did you sidestep the point and change your argument to say that it offends some people?
It does both. It interferes with civil liberties and it offends many people.

CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Example? I'm just about to go into my back garden with my guitar. If someone's got it on camera, it makes no difference to me. No-one's going to question me, no-one's going to stop me, no-one's going to use the footage against me. My liberties are in no way breached or diminished if I happen to be on someone's CCTV. The only harm CCTV could do me is if I was doing something illegal, in which case the CCTV would indeed infringe upon my abilities for the inverse of the aforementioned reasons

I think you're a little too paranoid.
I have no problem with the filming of criminal activity but I do have a problem with innocent behaviour being under surveillance. Some people like yourself have no problem being filmed whilst going about their lawful, daily lives however, others find it very unpleasant. Just because you do not mind it does not mean that it is acceptable to subject everyone to it.

Too paranoid? - I would not feel in the least bit paranoid if I did not have CCTV cameras pointed at me everywhere I went.
;)



I have nothing to say. I am just quoting everybody to make a dummy reply.
#25
Guys, this is a low cost equivalent to a CCTV system and can be installed in minutes. It wont affect the liberty of innocent people unless you throw it at them or something.
#26
chipp82
Guys, this is a low cost equivalent to a CCTV system and can be installed in minutes. It wont affect the liberty of innocent people unless you throw it at them or something.

When someone points a gun at you it does not matter whether it is loaded or not. The effect is the same. Real or dummy CCTV cameras affect your liberty.
#27
JunkMail
bloko1
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!
Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?
Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.
So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?
I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.
You will only be continually spied on if your standing infront of a camera infront of my house, go stand somewhere else!!! Also great comment, ban all cctv so when there shootings, muggings and rapes it will make it that much easier for the police to find these people with no cctv. Morons are out in force today
If CCTV was as effective as you seem to think it is the crimes you mention would have been eradicated long ago. CCTV makes the classic mistake of punishing everyone because of the bad behaviour of the tiny minority.You demean yourself bloko1 by resorting to insults instead of rational debate.

Err moron, which innocent people are being punished and how, iv not been punished. P.S it wasnt an insult it was a generalisation, accurate one at that.
#28
bloko1
JunkMail
bloko1
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
dxx
JunkMail
Cover your face = camera defeated.Build a strong wall or fence = superior security and no innocent people have their liberty interfered with. WInner!
Um, in what way does this affect one's liberties? If someone walks past my house, how is it any different that I see them with my eyes than with a camera?
Lots of people find being filmed without their consent offensive and object to it. Just because you don't care does not mean that it is OK to do it to people who do care.Strong physical barriers are a far more effective deterrent to crime than any camera.
So in other words, you're conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties in any way, that that point was just groundless (to be honest, I'm thinking that it's a term you parroted from someone else, which is why you aren't able to justify your use of the word), and that your beef with CCTV is just that other people find it objectionable or offensive, for undisclosed reasons. These are weasle points to the extreme. Do you have your own view on these things, and anything to back up why CCTV should be banned, as you said to begin with?
I most certainly am not conceding that CCTV doesn't affect liberties. Being continually spied upon like a suspect without a valid reason is completely contrary to the concept of liberty. That in itself is more than enough justification for the banning of CCTV.
You will only be continually spied on if your standing infront of a camera infront of my house, go stand somewhere else!!! Also great comment, ban all cctv so when there shootings, muggings and rapes it will make it that much easier for the police to find these people with no cctv. Morons are out in force today
If CCTV was as effective as you seem to think it is the crimes you mention would have been eradicated long ago. CCTV makes the classic mistake of punishing everyone because of the bad behaviour of the tiny minority.You demean yourself bloko1 by resorting to insults instead of rational debate.


Err moron, which innocent people are being punished and how, iv not been punished. P.S it wasnt an insult it was a generalisation, accurate one at that.

This is the typical reaction of someone who lacks the ability to discuss rationally and who is losing the argument. I shall not waste further time on you.
1 Like #29
tek-monkey
JunkMail
If CCTV was as effective as you seem to think it is the crimes you mention would have been eradicated long ago.

I'm not sure you understand the basic operational concept of a camera. It captures images as they happen, and enable you to view them again at a later date if recording equipment is used. They cannot stop a crime because the crime must already be happening for them to capture it, they currently only work in one space/time direction and therefore crime cannot be detected before it happens to allow the police to arrive in sufficient time.

What they are remarkably good at however is proving what happened after the event to ensure the correct people end up in court. This is their sole purpose, they are for detection not prevention.

As for your civil liberties, you may indeed have a point. If my house was burgled and my CCTV showed you hanging about outside looking shifty then there is a good chance of you developing kneecap failure in the near future. This would not happen without CCTV, as I'd have less clues as to who actually burgled me. Therefore CCTV does indeed seriously hamper your liberties if you are a thieving chav scummer.

If you are a completely honest person simply going about your business but hate the idea of others knowing what you are doing I suggest you buy a disguise, as people have these wonderful things called eyes that enable them to watch your actions with amazing clarity.

JunkMail
CCTV makes the classic mistake of punishing everyone because of the bad behaviour of the tiny minority.


Our definitions of punishment appear to be widely different.



Extremely well said sir I agree implicitly :{
#30
JunkMail
When someone points a gun at you it does not matter whether it is loaded or not. The effect is the same. Real or dummy CCTV cameras affect your liberty.


If I draw a picture of a cctv camera does that also affect your liberty? What if I had a camera that looked like a gargoyle? Or a gargoyle that looked like a camera? Which liberties are infringed in each of these examples?
#31
tek-monkey
JunkMail
When someone points a gun at you it does not matter whether it is loaded or not. The effect is the same. Real or dummy CCTV cameras affect your liberty.


If I draw a picture of a cctv camera does that also affect your liberty? What if I had a camera that looked like a gargoyle? Or a gargoyle that looked like a camera? Which liberties are infringed in each of these examples?

@tek-monkey - Please try to keep this sensible.
Just you go and hold up a bank with a dummy gun and you'll soon find out that there is no difference in the effect that they have.
#32
Its a dummy camera, not a gun. What kind of comparison are you trying to draw here, I fail to see any connection.

Please explain how a fake cctv camera infringes your liberty, when it is even less invasive than a person seeing you.
#33
tek-monkey
Its a dummy camera, not a gun. What kind of comparison are you trying to draw here, I fail to see any connection.
Please explain how a fake cctv camera infringes your liberty, when it is even less invasive than a person seeing you.

I thought that is was obvious. :-
It is not possible to tell whether a CCTV is real or a dummy or, whether it is working or not. Just as it is not possible to tell whether a gun is real or not or, if it is loaded or not.
The effect is the same.
#34
No it is not, a gun kills people whereas a camera records images of them. Whilst a person may indeed suffer real terror at having a fake gun pointed at them because they may think its real (and therefore kill them), the worst thing a camera could do is record them and they could just look the other way. Therefore the only thing a fake camera can do is make you scared you are being recorded, which is a paranoia issue not a civil liberties issue.

You also don't seem to mind people looking at you, which is no different to a camera without a recording functionality and is certainly worse than a dummy camera.

So, I ask again, which civil liberties are being infringed upon by the use of a dummy camera? You do realise that even with real cameras the footage is virtually never viewed, and only actually gets looked through if there has been an incident?
#35
tek-monkey
No it is not, a gun kills people whereas a camera records images of them. Whilst a person may indeed suffer real terror at having a fake gun pointed at them because they may think its real (and therefore kill them), the worst thing a camera could do is record them and they could just look the other way. Therefore the only thing a fake camera can do is make you scared you are being recorded, which is a paranoia issue not a civil liberties issue.

You also don't seem to mind people looking at you, which is no different to a camera without a recording functionality and is certainly worse than a dummy camera.

So, I ask again, which civil liberties are being infringed upon by the use of a dummy camera? You do realise that even with real cameras the footage is virtually never viewed, and only actually gets looked through if there has been an incident?

Most people do not mind being seen as this is completely normal behaviour. However, many people also do not like having cameras pointed at them everywhere they go. This is about as far from normal as you can get. They find this very threatening and intimidating and they strongly object to it as they see it as violating their liberty. It does not matter whether the camera is real or not, whether it is working or not, whether the footage is viewed or not. The effect on those who do not like having cameras pointed at them is just the same.
#36
So if I strongly objected to beards we should ban them? Just because people don't like something doesn't mean its wrong, you do realise you are filmed everytime you buy petrol, use a cashpoint or go shopping?

If I want to film my own driveway, or my own back garden, then maybe people scared of cameras should just stay away from my house? Nobody needs to walk on my side of the road, they could always cross over? Or perhaps the people cared of cameras could set up a compensation fund for the victims of burglary where the burglars were never caught?

IIRC the law states that you can film your own property whenever you want, but must put up signs making people aware if you are filming them in a public place. People scared of cameras can just look for these handy signs and easily avoid being filmed (unless they are in my garden, in which case they can **** off!)
#37
tek-monkey
So if I strongly objected to beards we should ban them? Just because people don't like something doesn't mean its wrong, you do realise you are filmed everytime you buy petrol, use a cashpoint or go shopping?
If I want to film my own driveway, or my own back garden, then maybe people scared of cameras should just stay away from my house? Nobody needs to walk on my side of the road, they could always cross over? Or perhaps the people cared of cameras could set up a compensation fund for the victims of burglary where the burglars were never caught?
IIRC the law states that you can film your own property whenever you want, but must put up signs making people aware if you are filming them in a public place. People scared of cameras can just look for these handy signs and easily avoid being filmed (unless they are in my garden, in which case they can **** off!)

Please keep this sensible. Your comment about beards is irrelevant.
Yes, I do realise the amount of filming that is going on and that is exactly what many people find so offensive. We do not like or want to be filmed without our permission as we see it as a violation of our liberty. One side of the argument believes that, "If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear," but the other side believes that if you are doing nothing wrong then you shouldn't be filmed. Neither argument is correct in every situation but, I am strongly with those who believe that we shouldn't be filmed unless we are doing something wrong.
I suppose that if you want to film on your own property and the other occupants do not object, then that's your business however, if your camera's gaze strays beyond the confines of your property then that is a very different matter. Although this is currently legal I firmly believe that this is wrong and should be outlawed for the reasons that I have already stated.
#38
I think you should let this one go guys, as I think i'm only one of three people still following it.
#39
Avonius
I think you should let this one go guys, as I think i'm only one of three people still following it.

Hi Avonius. Yes, this discussion is probably going nowhere as it is clear that we are never going to agree. All I shall say is that we mainly hear from the pro side of the CCTV argument very rarely from the anti side. What I am trying to do is to make people realise that not everyone agrees with or approves of the widespread use of CCTV. In fact CCTV cameras can and are having a very damaging effect upon the lives of innocent people who don't like the surveillance and who feel that a great injustice has taken place against them. CCTV haters don't go to places where there are cameras simply because the cameras are there. I know about this because I am one of them. The UK is a pretty unpleasant place for us to live in right now but that is never taken into consideration.

Edited By: JunkMail on Mar 07, 2011 12:44: I can't spell!
#40
[/quote]Err moron, which innocent people are being punished and how, iv not been punished. P.S it wasnt an insult it was a generalisation, accurate one at that.[/quote]This is the typical reaction of someone who lacks the ability to discuss rationally and who is losing the argument. I shall not waste further time on you.[/quote]
Go on then, answer the question "which innocent people are being punished and how", this was a valid question, and on losing an argument about an opinion is impossible unless the persons opinions changes, but I suppose you knew that.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!