Scotland Mulls Surveillence Cameras To Prevent Anti-Surveillence Camera Vandalism

from the endless-loop dept

Thu, Jan 25th 2007 1:31pm — Joseph Weisenthal

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?

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dan, 25 Jan 2007 @ 1:36pm

Obvious issue, obvious answer
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rational Beaver, 25 Jan 2007 @ 1:48pm

Guess I'll have to start wearing a mask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Bennett, 25 Jan 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 25 Jan 2007 @ 3:00pm

Must be Robby Burns Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smoke, 25 Jan 2007 @ 3:45pm

wow, just put them ontop of really high poles like in chicago... the drug dealers ran off to different spots here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SFGary, 25 Jan 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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike, 25 Jan 2007 @ 4:42pm

so now.......
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vanillaface, 25 Jan 2007 @ 5:57pm

but who's gonna watch cameras #2's ass???

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stu, 25 Jan 2007 @ 6:00pm

It's all a plot by the camera makers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
security, 25 Jan 2007 @ 8:02pm

Future Hi tech Surveillance
///won't they need yet another camera to watch over these cameras?

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poss, 26 Jan 2007 @ 12:58am

I can just see it...
Two cameras that do nothing but watch each other. Well, they'd never get vandalised, would they.

"Throwing stones at this notice is prohibited."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enrico Suarve, 26 Jan 2007 @ 2:24am

Burn in hell camera thing
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KelpBoots, 27 Jan 2007 @ 9:22pm

Sounds like the "Surveillence Camera Dealers Association" has formed a lobby group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
|333173|3|_||3, 29 Jan 2007 @ 6:31pm

paintball gun?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- marry, 1 Dec 2008 @ 4:19am
  
  Re: paintball gun?
  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 laptop AC adapter sure if there are other factors but its definitly a statistic which needs more research
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]