it's not true that cctv* doesn't work; the problem is, it never got a chance.

says martin gill - and others agreed. gill finished some studies on the topic and does research by including offenders to find out, how they get around surveillance tools and how they think about it. their problem is not that they are watched by cameras; they are used to that as they are used to steal things while having people around. also they know very well how to deal with tags.

_{* cctv doesn't stand for the chinese tv station, nor the cambridge community tv station, but cameras for the purpose of surveillance.}

another story he told goes like this:

the british government made a mistake as they were not asking: dear people of the uk, if you have a crime problem, tell us, and we will try to help you. instead they said: dear people of the uk, if you have a crime problem and it can be solved by cctv, we give you money.

no wonder uk has a high penetration rate of cameras, as the prior task for many local politicians was now to get money out of the government.

it also seems most cameras don't work, are installed on wrong positions, not taking into account that trees have leaves during summer or christmas decorations in winter.

true, there were some interesting talks, yet i am wonderning since when it is enough in social studies to have a sample rate of 9, 11, 20 persons, to tell something about fear and crime. if that is the basis for politicial decisions on using more surveillance tools on society, i get sick. it simply gets to the point to give up a lot for something that is not worth a dime. quite the opposite. as again technical tools are used with the wrong distinction to reduce stuff and the false presumption, that the rest of the crew is eager to learn multitasking or is capable to watch 60screens at once. even if that would be possible, what's the motivation to do so?

privacy, said charles raab, who wrote the governance of privacy with colin bennett, is not just the right to be let alone, but to interact freely with and within the social. at least, that's how i understood him. i am not sure what he means by "privacy impact assessment" nor the notion to standardize privacy, which seems to be on the agenda of iso.

he also suggests in regard to surveillance one should think about veillance or - i guess - veiller, and add any prefix you want to it.

also to consider: britain is said to have weak data protection and germany a high one. measured by laws and paragraphs. but does this really tell anything about how it is used and placed within society? also: how would life be, if cctv and crime protection agencies work as industry and some theorists suggest?