Should councils be allowed to snoop?

Question

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2176047/Councils-told-to-stop-snooping.html

Councils are using surveillance powers to catch people dropping litter, allowing dogs to poo in parks and the like. Should we welcome this surveillance society or fear it?

Answer 1

It makes for a cleaner society.   Anti-social behaviour affects us all....and costs us money on Council Tax.

Answer 2

Yes!

Answer 3

Surveillance by cameras is something being used for collecting extra revenue . It provides the opportunity for the council to issue Penalty Notices of Fines? I believe that 5 English boroughs have agreed to allow cameras in Wheelie Bins It was on Television last week .The focus is on catching you on camera positioned along our streets ,,,in places where there is a problem that would most likely lead you into entrapment . Our roads  markings are a good example

Answer 4

A Brave New World you think ?

Answer 5

I am surprised that Sir Simon Milton should consider dog fouling or the blatant dropping of litter to be "trivial" offences.

If the streets where he lived was covered in litter as many areas in London are, then he may have a different view.

Maybe if one of his grandchildren went blind because they played with dog f***s, he may consider this not at all trivial.

We should use every power at our disposal to stop this anti-social behaviour.

What concerns me is the more serious issue of invasion of privacy with re guards to the private information this Government already holds on us, which will expand drastically when ID Cards come into force.

Also the fact that the CCTV cameras never seem to work correctly when it comes to drug dealing, murders, assaults, so called terrorist activity, the pictures are more than likely to be grainy and such poor quality that they are of no use, or so they say.

Answer 6

Yes, and you messy pigs should pay the fines too if you get caught.

Answer 7

Absolutely!

Answer 8

no

Answer 9

This is typical of PC Britain. The councils are not being told that they cannot use surveillance cameras. They are being told that they can not use the recordings as evidence when prosecuting people for minor offences like littering or dog fouling. What is the point of this?

Either remove the cameras or use them. Restricting what the recordings can be used for means that we still have the invasion of privacy but aren't realising the benefits of less litter and not stepping in dog s**t.

We need to get rid of the morons who issue these kinds of ridiculous edicts and spend their salaries on better policing.