Being filmed like a criminal.

Farway

Islandmaid wrote: »

As a side - I copied my father into this thread - his view - what a load of !!!! - stop gabbing and showing off, it’s not a p’issing competition, start doing x

Wisdom comes with age

Pollycat

+1 to MrsLurcherwalker's post. :T

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I'm loving the OS tips from days of yore on this thread....but I am sensing more than a bit of subtle sexism here. Far be it for me to defend the male sex but it does feel as though they are getting an extra bashing on account of being in a female-dominated zone (as well as the overt generational disagreement).

No sexism from me either.
I don't care who the poster is or what sex they are (or whatever the correct term is nowadays :cool:).
I respond with my views regardless of the above.

Perhaps you could highlight the posts that are - in your opinion - male bashing.

ChrisK....._3

No corner being turned here. You seem to be under the same illusion as the poster, that surveillance is solely for known criminals and murders. It isn't!!!!
People are not entitled to commit their first crime anonymously. Any business is entitled to safeguard it, even from POTENTIAL crimes. Most businesses would prefer to deter crime than prosecute and DISCRETE deterrents are no deterrent at all.

coffeehound wrote: »

I don't dispute the need for surveillance and security, but the corner that has been turned here is that rather than general oversight, this is personal surveillance - they are watching you, and far from being discreet about it, they're slapping the customer in the face with it. The unwritten dialogue goes something like

Right customer, scan your damn stuff now. Come on, move it! Can't you see there's a queue? Don't you dare scan those bananas as carrots now - we're watching you, remember. Put it in the bag faster. Hey staff, this clown's buying alcohol here! And again - is he legit? Don't even THINK about taking that carrier bag without scanning it - we've got our eye on you, Charlie. Alright, now pay your damn money and GTFO, maggot

Okay maybe a little dramatised, but not far from the truth

Mistral001

Ah we are back on topic.

This is all about customers being photographed individually at close range just because they want to buy something as little as baked beans.

A bit of desperation on the part of the shops rather than a complete rethink, which I think the shops who are introducing these cameras need to have. They need to put their ordinary, their non-criminal customers, at the centre of things. However they probably will hope that their non-criminal customers will comply because they do not want to be considered as a criminals when they complain about the cameras.

Pollycat

Mistral001 wrote: »

Ah we are back on topic.

This is all about customers being photographed individually at close range just because they want to buy something as little as baked beans.

A bit of desperation on the part of the shops rather than a complete rethink, which I think the shops who are introducing these cameras need to do. They need put their ordinary, their non-criminal customers at the centre of things.

I think they need to do anything that will discourage theft so that their ordinary, non-criminal customers are not paying the price of stolen stock.

This 'ordinary, non-criminal customer' has no problem with visible deterrents.

Mistral001

Pollycat wrote: »

I think they need to do anything that will discourage theft so that their ordinary, non-criminal customers are not paying the price of stolen stock.

This 'ordinary, non-criminal customer' has no problem with visible deterrents.

Many though do have problems with them. Also they do not mind spending a few extra pennies for human dignity and privacy.

It is not discouraging theft that is at dispute here, just this particular method.

Undervalued

Mistral001 wrote: »

Ah we are back on topic.

This is all about customers being photographed individually at close range just because they want to buy something as little as baked beans.

A bit of desperation on the part of the shops rather than a complete rethink, which I think the shops who are introducing these cameras need to have. They need to put their ordinary, their non-criminal customers, at the centre of things. However they probably will hope that their non-criminal customers will comply because they do not want to be considered as a criminals when they complain about the cameras.

Well you are looked at individually at close range by the checkout operator if you go an old fashioned till to buy your baked beans! I am not sure why a camera in the same place the checkout operator's head would have been is any different? In fact, in a way it is less intrusive as the video may never be looked at.

Mistral001

Undervalued wrote: »

Well you are looked at individually at close range by the checkout operator if you go an old fashioned till to buy your baked beans! I am not sure why a camera in the same place the checkout operator's head would have been is any different? In fact, in a way it is less intrusive as the video may never be looked at.

I think it is a good thing that there is face to face interaction with a human. This is a move way from that it could be argued.

Pollycat

Mistral001 wrote: »

Many though do have problems with them. Also they do not mind spending a few extra pennies for human dignity and privacy.

It is not discouraging theft that is at dispute here, just this particular method.

Pollycat wrote: »

Don't like it?
Shop elsewhere.

Advice that has been given to the OP numerous times.

Not rocket science.
Is it?

Undervalued

Mistral001 wrote: »

I think it is a good thing that there is face to face interaction with a human. This is a move way from that it could be argued.

Yes, that aspect I agree but I feel that is a rather different issue.

Equally though, some people may prefer not to have to make meaningless small talk with a stranger, whilst feeling that they are being judged on their choice of baked beans!