Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Surveillance in the stadium

13

Comments

  • Yeah I'm not comfortable with this move at all. It was put best by both @swords_alive and @Off_it so I've not much further to add - except that this sort of thing often boils down to those who would prefer freedom (of rights, expression, and so on), versus those who prefer safety (so more surveillance, a potential "big state" effect).

    I prefer the former despite the attendant risks, because it is part of what upholds a free and open society. This comes at a risk to safety, to an extent.

    By extension, those more comfortable with surveillance are probably somewhat okay with compromising civil liberties in the name of safety, even though it risks a "nanny state", and (when applied in a much wider context) fractures and divides in society.

    But yeah, not keen on this move.
  • edited April 2019
    .

  • Chizz said:

    By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable  efforts  to  gain  the  consent  of  that  person  before  publishing  such  images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.

    Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.   

    On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
    Come on Chizz, drink up mate the derby kicks off in 5 minutes....

    Hold up lads just going to read the T&Cs, see you in there.

    :-) 
  • PaddyP17 said:
    Yeah I'm not comfortable with this move at all. It was put best by both @swords_alive and @Off_it so I've not much further to add - except that this sort of thing often boils down to those who would prefer freedom (of rights, expression, and so on), versus those who prefer safety (so more surveillance, a potential "big state" effect).

    I prefer the former despite the attendant risks, because it is part of what upholds a free and open society. This comes at a risk to safety, to an extent.

    By extension, those more comfortable with surveillance are probably somewhat okay with compromising civil liberties in the name of safety, even though it risks a "nanny state", and (when applied in a much wider context) fractures and divides in society.

    But yeah, not keen on this move.
    How do you get on when you fill your car up? There will be a record of you and your number plate. A lot more information than most cctv systems.
    I have read somewhere that we are the most watched society on earth which doesn’t really bother me, no one is interested in me.
  • Not sure what my opinion is on this. 

    See the reasons for it but do feel uncomfortable with the thought of an innocuous heat of the moment angry faced nescafe sign* in the ground is filmed and snapshotted and suddenly you're in the Daily Mail as thug of the year with reporters camped outside your house painting you out to be the biggest threat to middle England since  the Luftwaffe and the Waitrose humus shortage of 97.



  • Off_it said:
    It’s interesting that this is irritating some people, as though football clubs are behaving differently to any other business. I’m pretty certain that you’re being filmed many times a day - banks, supermarkets, bars. Lots of places have CCTV. 

    You’re in public, so you have no expectations of privacy. The concern should be less about the filming and more about how it can be used. Who can access it? How long is it kept?  How is it disposed of?  Is it kept securely? 


    That's the same issue though, isn't it?

    It's not so much that you can be filmed, it's what it can be used for, who has access and why, etc.

    I can remember a time when people could never figure out how Facebook was ever going to make any money. Letting people use it for free you say?. The idiots!



    If they can film each individual seat and there my be issues who will see it they will have to think carefully as there will be an awful lot of children/minors involved.

    My wife & daughter own a children's nursery and they have CCTV in every room and the rules & regs are very tight
  • Off_it said:
    Addickted said:
    We should all be microchipped at birth.

    Make life a lot easier for law enforcement agencies.


    Microchipped and a camera installed in our foreheads. Just in case.

    Oh, and ID cards if you want to do anything extreme - like go to a football match.

    ID cards? Too easily forged.

    Now barcode tattoos across everyone's foreheads is the way to go. Also acts as a double check on the microchip.
  • PaddyP17 said:
    Yeah I'm not comfortable with this move at all. It was put best by both @swords_alive and @Off_it so I've not much further to add - except that this sort of thing often boils down to those who would prefer freedom (of rights, expression, and so on), versus those who prefer safety (so more surveillance, a potential "big state" effect).

    I prefer the former despite the attendant risks, because it is part of what upholds a free and open society. This comes at a risk to safety, to an extent.

    By extension, those more comfortable with surveillance are probably somewhat okay with compromising civil liberties in the name of safety, even though it risks a "nanny state", and (when applied in a much wider context) fractures and divides in society.

    But yeah, not keen on this move.
    How do you get on when you fill your car up? There will be a record of you and your number plate. A lot more information than most cctv systems.
    I have read somewhere that we are the most watched society on earth which doesn’t really bother me, no one is interested in me.
    I don't drive. And I would assume that people fill up their cars way more times than they attend football matches (insofar as more people drive and such), and nicking fuel is/was a potentially common problem, whereas disruption at a football game is not.

    And again, it's not about whether someone's interested in you. It's about infringement on rights - we have a right to privacy and it is on entities to justify infringing on that right.

    To quote Snowden/swords alive - Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

  • The sensible reasons given are fine, and yep, I accept I am informed that I will be on CCTV when I go inside the ground. 

    A few people got singled out during the protests as it's an offence to throw things on the pitch. If you 100% knew you were, not could be recorded, that's a lot of people committing crimes all of a sudden. 

    If we were run by someone sensible I wouldn't care and agree that it makes sense to buy decent recording equipment (bit like buying a boiler when installing undersoil heating I suppose) but when we are owned by the toerag we are then it isnt being done with noble intentions of protecting people or keeping anyone safe, it's being done to catch people. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited April 2019
    PaddyP17 said:
    Yeah I'm not comfortable with this move at all. It was put best by both @swords_alive and @Off_it so I've not much further to add - except that this sort of thing often boils down to those who would prefer freedom (of rights, expression, and so on), versus those who prefer safety (so more surveillance, a potential "big state" effect).

    I prefer the former despite the attendant risks, because it is part of what upholds a free and open society. This comes at a risk to safety, to an extent.

    By extension, those more comfortable with surveillance are probably somewhat okay with compromising civil liberties in the name of safety, even though it risks a "nanny state", and (when applied in a much wider context) fractures and divides in society.

    But yeah, not keen on this move.
    How do you get on when you fill your car up? There will be a record of you and your number plate. A lot more information than most cctv systems.
    I have read somewhere that we are the most watched society on earth which doesn’t really bother me, no one is interested in me.
    Deffinately not The most watched.PaddyP17 said:
    PaddyP17 said:
    Yeah I'm not comfortable with this move at all. It was put best by both @swords_alive and @Off_it so I've not much further to add - except that this sort of thing often boils down to those who would prefer freedom (of rights, expression, and so on), versus those who prefer safety (so more surveillance, a potential "big state" effect).

    I prefer the former despite the attendant risks, because it is part of what upholds a free and open society. This comes at a risk to safety, to an extent.

    By extension, those more comfortable with surveillance are probably somewhat okay with compromising civil liberties in the name of safety, even though it risks a "nanny state", and (when applied in a much wider context) fractures and divides in society.

    But yeah, not keen on this move.
    How do you get on when you fill your car up? There will be a record of you and your number plate. A lot more information than most cctv systems.
    I have read somewhere that we are the most watched society on earth which doesn’t really bother me, no one is interested in me.
    I don't drive. And I would assume that people fill up their cars way more times than they attend football matches (insofar as more people drive and such), and nicking fuel is/was a potentially common problem, whereas disruption at a football game is not.

    And again, it's not about whether someone's interested in you. It's about infringement on rights - we have a right to privacy and it is on entities to justify infringing on that right.

    To quote Snowden/swords alive - Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

    I don't agree with what Snowden said at all, whilst I might have nothing to say, plenty of other people do. No one should have the right to hide their crimes.
  • edited April 2019
    I don’t know if it’s still the case but a few years back Bromley were reported as having the largest number of CCTV security cameras in the town centre and surrounding areas, than any other in the country.
  • edited April 2019
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47885242 

    hibs also considering sniffer dogs while Hearts are upgrading their cctv in the summer as well as closing sections of the ground after a number of recent incidents including a coconut being thrown on the pitch at the derby last week 
    I watched the derby live and the coconut was the most bizarre thing I'd ever seen in a football match. You really couldn't make it up.



    As for the CCTV, I read on a site that it would cost Hibs 100k. I don't know much about Scottish football but a coach I quite like is now Heckingbottom's assistant there so I've done some reading about this club. It seems 100k is no small money to them. Their supporters group has been calling for fans to dig into their pockets to help the club so I don't think they'll be happy to see their own money spent on surveilling themselves rather than recruiting players.
  • Hibs have announced that they are installing a new CCTV system that will give recorded HD coverage of every seat.

    Now that kind of thing will stop me attending football.

    1984 here we come.
    LOL. London is already the most spied upon city on the entire planet. And NOW you are worried about 1984? Because of CCTVs in stadiums? A little late.


  • Hibs have announced that they are installing a new CCTV system that will give recorded HD coverage of every seat.

    Now that kind of thing will stop me attending football.

    1984 here we come.
    LOL. London is already the most spied upon city on the entire planet. And NOW you are worried about 1984? Because of CCTVs in stadiums? A little late.


    When I was mugged at Catford train station two separate CCTV's were not recording, so who knows how useful all those cameras actually are. Admittedly this was some time ago.

    Also, I imagine BJ had surpassed London since that article was published, the face recognition software used here is amazing, I think it's great.
  • Hibs have announced that they are installing a new CCTV system that will give recorded HD coverage of every seat.

    Now that kind of thing will stop me attending football.

    1984 here we come.
    LOL. London is already the most spied upon city on the entire planet. And NOW you are worried about 1984? Because of CCTVs in stadiums? A little late.


    When I was mugged at Catford train station two separate CCTV's were not recording, so who knows how useful all those cameras actually are. Admittedly this was some time ago.

    Also, I imagine BJ had surpassed London since that article was published, the face recognition software used here is amazing, I think it's great.
    I bet 10 cities in BJ have passed London, possibly. In some Chinese cities, their cameras have face recognition and if you  crosswalk, within 5 seconds your name and face are projected on giant screens on the corner.
  • edited April 2019
    Hibs have announced that they are installing a new CCTV system that will give recorded HD coverage of every seat.

    Now that kind of thing will stop me attending football.

    1984 here we come.
    LOL. London is already the most spied upon city on the entire planet. And NOW you are worried about 1984? Because of CCTVs in stadiums? A little late.


    When I was mugged at Catford train station two separate CCTV's were not recording, so who knows how useful all those cameras actually are. Admittedly this was some time ago.

    Also, I imagine BJ had surpassed London since that article was published, the face recognition software used here is amazing, I think it's great.
    I bet 10 cities in BJ have passed London, possibly. In some Chinese cities, their cameras have face recognition and if you  crosswalk, within 5 seconds your name and face are projected on giant screens on the corner.
    Drivers going over zebra crossings have the exact same thing here in Kunming, it's fantastic and has done wonders to improve road safety, if you don't want the embarrassment, don't break the law, it's pretty simple.
  • If Charlton started selling the video footage trained on my seat, I could start receiving adverts about dietary products, hair weaves and fashion tips. 
  • Could be used to root out those doing racist chanting. As others have said, we are watched pretty much everywhere we go in the UK. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • PaddyP17 said:
    PaddyP17 said:
    Yeah I'm not comfortable with this move at all. It was put best by both @swords_alive and @Off_it so I've not much further to add - except that this sort of thing often boils down to those who would prefer freedom (of rights, expression, and so on), versus those who prefer safety (so more surveillance, a potential "big state" effect).

    I prefer the former despite the attendant risks, because it is part of what upholds a free and open society. This comes at a risk to safety, to an extent.

    By extension, those more comfortable with surveillance are probably somewhat okay with compromising civil liberties in the name of safety, even though it risks a "nanny state", and (when applied in a much wider context) fractures and divides in society.

    But yeah, not keen on this move.
    How do you get on when you fill your car up? There will be a record of you and your number plate. A lot more information than most cctv systems.
    I have read somewhere that we are the most watched society on earth which doesn’t really bother me, no one is interested in me.
    I don't drive. And I would assume that people fill up their cars way more times than they attend football matches (insofar as more people drive and such), and nicking fuel is/was a potentially common problem, whereas disruption at a football game is not.

    And again, it's not about whether someone's interested in you. It's about infringement on rights - we have a right to privacy and it is on entities to justify infringing on that right.

    To quote Snowden/swords alive - Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

    I was just using the petrol station as an example but there are plenty more examples that don't involve cars. The right of privacy, does it really exist other than inside your home? I will be on camera at the station, on the train and on and around my place of work and as far as I know there is nothing I can do about it.

    I cant agree with Snowdon, two totally different things and I don't believe there is free speech in this country either. You can certainly be arrested for saying quite a few things but I you could argue your free to say what you want up to the point of arrest.

  • Hibs have announced that they are installing a new CCTV system that will give recorded HD coverage of every seat.

    Now that kind of thing will stop me attending football.

    1984 here we come.
    I was told on good authority a few years back when the security cameras were last upgraded that they were being used to photograph every supporter in the stadium and link faces to the club's database of season ticket holders. 
  • Hibs have announced that they are installing a new CCTV system that will give recorded HD coverage of every seat.

    Now that kind of thing will stop me attending football.

    1984 here we come.
    I was told on good authority a few years back when the security cameras were last upgraded that they were being used to photograph every supporter in the stadium and link faces to the club's database of season ticket holders. 
    Only if you sat in your seat.
  • Lost my keys a few months back at a game. Went up the valley the next morning hoping someone had found them and handed in.

    Guy in reception got the CCTV system on and asked where I sat (Covered End back row) and he zoomed the thing right into my seat on the floor around it looking for keys, whereby I noticed my mates empty beer bottle next to our seats - oooops.

    Was both surprised, worried and impressed by the clarity of the system.
  • edited April 2019
    There is a lot of trust on here of the people operating the CCTV, which is a bit surprising given there is a history of past Charlton security staff using the system in the neighbourhood to zoom into people’s bedrooms in their houses to spy on them.
  • There is a lot of trust on here of the people operating the CCTV, which is a bit surprising given there is a history of past Charlton security staff using the system in the neighbourhood to zoom into people’s bedrooms in their houses to spy on them.
    I'm assuming arrests were made after this came to light
  • There is a lot of trust on here of the people operating the CCTV, which is a bit surprising given there is a history of past Charlton security staff using the system in the neighbourhood to zoom into people’s bedrooms in their houses to spy on them.
    I'm assuming arrests were made after this came to light
    I think the individual concerned was sacked but I don’t remember whether it went any further.

    My point is that football clubs are not organisations in which you should trust your privacy. This is not the only example of things which happened in the past that would alarm people.
  • That is indeed very worrying, if true and absolutely shocking if the club failed to report it to the police!
  • That is indeed very worrying, if true and absolutely shocking if the club failed to report it to the police!
    It is true, but it was about ten years ago.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!