LAPD is about to reveal a new tool for surveillance termed LAPD live. Following the approval of next year's budget, LAPD will be able to remotely access live footage from…
I don’t think they have access to private cameras, but why would they need them when there are government cameras literally everywhere? I don’t know if you’ve been to London, but there are cameras on virtually every light pole. There are literally tens of thousands of government surveillance cameras in the UK.
This is not an unusual sight:
If they can’t access private cameras, they will add so many public ones that they aren’t necessary. It’s a bigger problem than just access to private cameras.
I don’t know, this sounds like what they do in London.
Edit: I’m not saying that’s a good thing, I’m saying it didn’t get rid of cameras. It increased their numbers vastly.
do they have access to private video cameras in London or are those all government cameras?
I don’t think they have access to private cameras, but why would they need them when there are government cameras literally everywhere? I don’t know if you’ve been to London, but there are cameras on virtually every light pole. There are literally tens of thousands of government surveillance cameras in the UK.
This is not an unusual sight:
If they can’t access private cameras, they will add so many public ones that they aren’t necessary. It’s a bigger problem than just access to private cameras.
I’m not actually against public security cameras. I think London is a bit much, but hey—they caught that crime.