This is appalling

[bc2208]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/02/2007-10-02_bloomberg_calls_surveillancecamera_criti.html

LONDON - Mayor Bloomberg has a message for New Yorkers who don't like surveillance cameras: Get real.

"It's just ridiculous people who object to using technology," the mayor said, adding that he had not talked with anyone in London who wasn't "thrilled" at the presence of security cameras in their capital.

[silverhandorder]

Grrrr I really liked NH, I should have stayed there this weekend.

[rodent]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/02/2007-10-02_bloomberg_calls_surveillancecamera_criti.html

LONDON - Mayor Bloomberg has a message for New Yorkers who don't like surveillance cameras: Get real.

"It's just ridiculous people who object to using technology," the mayor said, adding that he had not talked with anyone in London who wasn't "thrilled" at the presence of security cameras in their capital.

Yeah, not only that:

- Our police are a bunch of thugs
- Our gun laws won't let us protect ourselves
- We get our belongings searched whenever we travel on city mass transit, which is random so you can't anticipate when it happens
- There are guys walking around Manhattan with huge guns, and they won't think twice before shooting you if something is up

I don't <3 NYC. I'm moving out of the city and I'm going to get real guns to protect myself.

[SouthernGuy15]

I like technology.

I BOLDLY DESPISE when technology is used to violate my privacy!!!!!!

[[HAF]Foxtrot]

Thats a direct violation of our Privacy in the Constitutional rights. Someone needs to bring this matter to the Supreme Court and shoot it down. They have a camera on a square, they could just as easy move that camera to look into someones home and effectivly "spy" on them.

[10thAmendmentMan]

"It's just ridiculous people who object to using technology," the mayor said...

As if disliking, what could be construed as, a centralized spy database makes a person a Luddite...

[Chester Copperpot]

What a dick.. no wonder he put that new law in place that requires media licensing if 2 people are taking pictures for 30 minutes in NYC... Heil Hitler Mr Bloomberg...How Ironic

[bbachtung]

So Bloomberg is taking advice on civil liberties from the British? They lost out long ago, although the American government is working hard to meet or beat the Brits in lost liberties.

[SeanEdwards]

If you are standing in a public place, why do you have an expectation of privacy?

[saku39]

If you are standing in a public place, why do you have an expectation of privacy?

Is their any reason I shouldn't expect it? Nobody likes or needs perfect strangers staring at them. The cameras are just more big brother crap.

The argument of "we'll it's public" or "if you are a law-abiding citizen you have nothing to fear" doesn't make any sense becasue the England cameras have been a failure. There was a study done that pointed out that the cameras didn't help help to solve crime. The London bombings happened even with the cameras in place.

If they didn't work, why do we need them? Why do you need to monitor the population?

[UCFGavin]

kinda funny, i was talking with some gentlemen from england yesterday that didn't like the cameras at all. they also said they understand why a million english are leaving their country every year.

[SeanEdwards]

Is their any reason I shouldn't expect it?


Is there a reason you shouldn't expect privacy while standing in a public place? Are you serious? What kind of question is that? Do you have delusions of invisibility or something? If you're walking across the street and I see you, do you honestly think I've violated your privacy? What a ridiculous notion.



Nobody likes or needs perfect strangers staring at them. The cameras are just more big brother crap.


You better start wearing a full burka in public then.



The argument of "we'll it's public" or "if you are a law-abiding citizen you have nothing to fear" doesn't make any sense becasue the England cameras have been a failure. There was a study done that pointed out that the cameras didn't help help to solve crime. The London bombings happened even with the cameras in place.

If they didn't work, why do we need them? Why do you need to monitor the population?[/COLOR]

Well that's silly. All kinds of criminals have been identified from video recordings. Sure, they don't stop a bomber from detonating a bomb, but they certainly do provide information that can lead to apprehension of the bomber after the fact.

A camera at an intersection is no different from a cop standing at the intersection. Or a reliable eye witness. In truth, the camera is more reliable, because people have crappy memories.

Cameras in banks help catch bankrobbers.

Casinos in Vegas clearly believe that cameras help with their security. And they are pros at security.

You are in a public place. People can look at you. Deal.

[bc2208]

So what happens when a facial recognition software program bugs out and mistakenly identifies you as a bank robber?

[mconder]

The mayor, who has a home in London's posh Chelsea neighborhood, said he expected to spend more time here once he leaves office.

No doubt, a neighborhood like this is a camera free zone.

[SeanEdwards]

So what happens when a facial recognition software program bugs out and mistakenly identifies you as a bank robber?

In a lawful society you get your day in court to set the record straight.

This isn't any different from the numerous cases of witnesses identifying innocent people as the criminal. It happens all the time.

[runderwo]

Foxtrot;233248']Thats a direct violation of our Privacy in the Constitutional rights. Someone needs to bring this matter to the Supreme Court and shoot it down. They have a camera on a square, they could just as easy move that camera to look into someones home and effectivly "spy" on them.

A Constitutional right to privacy is a myth propagated by liberal courts.

[mconder]

Sure, they don't stop a bomber from detonating a bomb, but they certainly do provide information that can lead to apprehension of the bomber after the fact.

Why not just implement a technology that stops bombers before the fact...they called private firearms. I can't believe we have Ron Paul supporters who want a surveillance control grid watching them 24/7. These technologies can be used for way more than traffic offenders. The camera's aren't just record, but processing information.

[runderwo]

I think the big problem with these cameras is that only the cops can watch you. Why can't I watch the cops?

[mconder]

This isn't any different from the numerous cases of witnesses identifying innocent people as the criminal. It happens all the time.

Well, if there is no difference, lets continue to operate without cameras and save some money.

[SeanEdwards]

Sure, they don't stop a bomber from detonating a bomb, but they certainly do provide information that can lead to apprehension of the bomber after the fact.

Why not just implement a technology that stops bombers before the fact...they called private firearms. I can't believe we have Ron Paul supporters who want a surveillance control grid watching them 24/7. These technologies can be used for way more than traffic offenders. The camera's aren't just record, but processing information.

Did you really need to change the subject?

I thought this was a thread about video surveilance in public places. Why are you now bringing up firearms?

I can't believe there's people who think they can stand in a public area, and think they are in a private place. That's an awfully self-centered attitude.

[SeanEdwards]

I think the big problem with these cameras is that only the cops can watch you. Why can't I watch the cops?

The cops beating Rodney King got watched.

[Abobo]

A Constitutional right to privacy is a myth propagated by liberal courts.

We have a right to everything. We have the right to do fucking everything that isn't specifically taken away from us by the constitution. We have the right to privacy, the right to porn, the right to wear a hat, the right to own gold. You name it we have the right to it.

Has anyone read this article about how the department of homeland security is dolling out millions of dollars for cities to put cameras everywhere?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/12/us_doles_out_millions_for_street_cameras/

[jmunjr]

Here is the problem with surveillance. I think the right to bear arms ought to be considered. We were given that right to help stop tyranny in government. Without arms we would be defenseless. Allowing citizens to bear arms leveled the field (back then).

Surveillance? Well, let's just say someday our country is blanketed with surveillance cameras, all of which permanently archive ever second of footage, and all of it constantly being scanned by software for suspicious people/activity.

Now sure, the good guys the vast majority of the time won't have any problem with it. But let's just say something goes wrong with our government and they become tyrannical, either by subversion or a direct coup. Not likely in the near future but possible nevertheless.

Let's say it happens. Now all of a sudden this tyrannical government suddenly has this enormous power over the citizens with nothing to counter it. The software can be reprogrammed to scan for Ron Paul supporters(anyone wearing a RP shirt, sticker on a car, etc), and once identified, they could all be rounded up and executed because they would pose a threat. Or what about people who visit a mosque? or visit any other place that scares the new government? Round them up too.

Also of course since it is already in place the surveillance will be used to make sure the people don't revolt as easily..

I could go on about it. But what scares me the most about surveillance is how it can be used against us in the future.

If the government successfully took our guns away we could say the same thing - it would prevent the people from fighting back. Surveillance will do the same.

[ClockwiseSpark]

The cops beating Rodney King got watched.

By private citizens, not the government. Are you suggesting the two are the same thing?

[MrKoffee]

The issue here is that the government has no need to monitor me should I be walking around in a city. The only person who is delusional here is you if you think that we don't expect people and strangers to be able to see us in public. The problem is that those cameras can enable anyone to follow you around while you're in a city. Usually the people who say "Well I have nothing to hide so I shouldn't be afraid." Are the people who Benjamin Franklin warned us about when he stated "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." Do you think criminals, terrorists or whatever we're supposed to fear today are stupid? They know there are cameras out there and will do all they can to avoid them, the cameras for the most part will be monitoring peaceful citizens who have no reason to be watched. Criminals are very clever and very resilient. Believe me, I live in a suburb of New York and have walked alone in the city, even at night and have felt completely safe. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for the huge expenses and civil liberties violations that government controlled CCTV cameras bring.

I believe a private business or organization has the right to install surveillance cameras in their facilities, because you have a choice not to enter that facility and be watched, with CCTV cameras in public. The government has no right to watch me while I conduct my business.

Here here to the comment above about firearms. Part of the reason in this nation we are willing to give the police and government all of our liberties to protect us is because we give the police a monopoly on power. You think the police should be the only people who have guns? Take it as the son of a former NYPD officer. Banning the carrying of firearms only allows criminals to have guns while law abiding citizens are helpless to protect themselves.


Jeeze, what's next people, cameras in urinals? How long will you stand for this, when will it be too much.

Is all this really worth it? We lost roughly 3,000 people on that infamous day of 9/11. I personally faced the loss of people I know. Hundreds from my county (Nassau) died and dozens from my town and surrounding towns were on that list. My grief however was not a call for war, nor was it a call for more "security." I don't fear another terrorist attack even when one has occurred so close to me. I still remember smelling the towers burning even though I live more than 25 miles away, I still remember seeing the smoke in the sky that day and days after. It is something I will never forget. What I never will forget though is how our government failed us, leading us into pointless wars, jacking up spending and our deficit and going about with careless disregard of our constitution. I'm a college student right now and I'm terrified more of our government and our future as a nation than of another 9/11 attack and that to me is very sad. Frankly I don't know if America will really be "land of the free" for much longer, it already isn't in many ways.

[transistor]

There was a really good article about privacy in the last issue of the economist.

[SeanEdwards]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter.

But I don't agree with this hysteria about videotaping the commons. I think it would be great if every public place was being recorded on tape. Video evidence helps to promote justice.

Would anyone here know about students being tasered by university cops if it wasn't for video? Or know about the abuses of police when acting under color of authority? Or have any idea who led some 4 year old kid off before murdering them?

When you walk out your front door and enter the commons, you lose a degree of privacy. That's a fact of reality. It's not a neocon plot. Light waves bounce off you and these reflected light waves can be detected by the optical receptors of other people. You don't own those reflected light beams, and you have no right to demand that others not detect them. You don't have a right to demand that I shut my eyes as you walk by.

In your home, you absolutely have a right to not be observed. But that's not what we're talking about here. Nobody is proposing placing video cameras in your bathroom.

All this discussion does remind me of a funny thought I had recently though. With this inevitable rise in public surveilance, will the fashions of the future tend towards voluminous full-body coverings that hide the identity of the wearer? I think it's possible. Just judging by the irate posts in this thread, I can imagine a real market for clothing like this.

[Givemelibertyor.....]

Correct me if I am wrong, isn't there a new law against filming anything in NYC?

An individual can't film his vacation without permission, but the government can film him without permission?:confused:

[SeanEdwards]

By private citizens, not the government. Are you suggesting the two are the same thing?

The camera in the police car that records the traffic stop is also recording the actions of the police officer.

I know of at least one case where the police car recording was used to provide evidence that was used to charge the police officer.

[ClockwiseSpark]

But I don't agree with this hysteria about videotaping the commons. I think it would be great if every public place was being recorded on tape. Video evidence helps to promote justice.

Would anyone here know about students being tasered by university cops if it wasn't for video? Or know about the abuses of police when acting under color of authority? Or have any idea who led some 4 year old kid off before murdering them?

Once again, all your examples are private citizens. This is not an discussion about being SEEN, it's about the government monitoring us. As a Ron Paul supporter I'm suprised you don't get that.

[ClockwiseSpark]

The camera in the police car that records the traffic stop is also recording the actions of the police officer.

I know of at least one case where the police car recording was used to provide evidence that was used to charge the police officer.

Camera in a police car that monitors the police and people who are stopped by them as opposed to a camera monitoring people who walk down the sidewalk.
I fail to see how these are even close to the same thing.

[ARealConservative]

We have a right to everything. We have the right to do fucking everything that isn't specifically taken away from us by the constitution. We have the right to privacy, the right to porn, the right to wear a hat, the right to own gold. You name it we have the right to it.

Has anyone read this article about how the department of homeland security is dolling out millions of dollars for cities to put cameras everywhere?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/12/us_doles_out_millions_for_street_cameras/

Yep, we even have a right to allow cameras in public squares.

[SeanEdwards]

Once again, all your examples are private citizens. This is not an discussion about being SEEN, it's about the government monitoring us. As a Ron Paul supporter I'm suprised you don't get that.

No, they're not all examples of private citizens. Those police car cameras have recorded all kinds of crimes, some of them committed by police.

What's really amusing to me, is that all these people crying about the existence of cameras recording public places, are likely the same people demanding to see video recordings of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

[swissmiss]

And sorry to say, but the real problem is: "Why are this places "public" in the first place? "

(and by a sidenote SeanEdwards scares the fuck out of me:
In a lawful society you get your day in court to set the record straight. Do US citizens have to prove their innocence? Please tell me, that is still the other way around: that gvrmnt has to prove your wrongdoing. )

The only use of the left here in Switzerland is, that they strongly oppose any surveillance (at least as long as they are not elected state officials.)

[Marshall]

IWould anyone here know about students being tasered by university cops if it wasn't for video? Or know about the abuses of police when acting under color of authority?

So your assuming here that:


A. People running the cameras wouldn't know where they are, and

B. The cops friends monitoring the cameras would make sure that the film of the incident became public.


Sounds like a solid plan to me.

[mconder]

I thought this was a thread about video surveilance in public places. Why are you now bringing up firearms?

You brought up bombs? I thought we were talking about surveilance in public places. Since you asked, firearms largely negate the need for Cameras. Firearms will actually prevent crime from occurring in the first place, so we wont need cameras to record crimes after the fact of far less crimes are committed.

[ClockwiseSpark]

What's really amusing to me, is that all these people crying about the existence of cameras recording public places, are likely the same people demanding to see video recordings of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

lol
Seriously, are you just trying to be contrary?

[SeanEdwards]

And sorry to say, but the real problem is: "Why are this places "public" in the first place?

(and by a sidenote SeanEdwards scares the fuck out of me: Do US citizens have to prove their innocence. Please tell me, that is still the other way round: that gvrmnt has to prove your wrongdoing. )

The only use of the left here in Switzerland is, that they strongly oppose any surveillance (at least as long as they are not elected state officials.)

A human eyewitness can falsely accuse you of a crime, just as easily as a videorecording. Our justice system supposedly addresses this problem by giving the accused an opportunity to defend themself in court.

Funny that you should mention Switzerland. When I lived there I had an experience with a traffic camera that recorded me speeding on my way to work. This was in Neuchatel. I didn't check my mail for a few days, and when I finally did, I found I had received several speeding tickets, one for each day that I had sped past that camera.

I quickly learned to slow down on that stretch of road.

[mconder]

Would anyone here know about students being tasered by university cops if it wasn't for video?

Nope...not unless there was a PRIVATE party video taping the incident. Do you think had the University got it on video that it woud have immediately found it's way to YouTube???

[SeanEdwards]

I thought this was a thread about video surveilance in public places. Why are you now bringing up firearms?

You brought up bombs? I thought we were talking about surveilance in public places. Since you asked, firearms largely negate the need for Cameras. Firearms will actually prevent crime from occurring in the first place, so we wont need cameras to record crimes after the fact of far less crimes are committed.

You're assuming there's a gun toting person standing on guard wherever a crime might occur? And that this gun toting person recognizes a crime in progress and is able to effectively respond?

And what about the case of a person parking a car bomb, and then walking away from it? What does your posse comitatus do in that situation? A video recording just might capture the face of the person parking the bomb, and might help with capturing them later. Your armed vigilante in this example is nothing but another casualty.

Personally, I want personal gun rights, AND video surveilance of the commons. I don't see why you think these are mutually exclusive ideas.

[SeanEdwards]

Would anyone here know about students being tasered by university cops if it wasn't for video?

Nope...not unless there was a PRIVATE party video taping the incident. Do you think had the University got it on video that it woud have immediately found it's way to YouTube???

I don't know.

But I do think any such recording would be a target for a supboena by a court.

[swissmiss]

A human eyewitness can falsely accuse you of a crime, just as easily as a videorecording. Our justice system supposedly addresses this problem by giving the accused an opportunity to defend themself in court.


I still do not get it, (maybe just because it is unthinkable to me): The state puts up a camera, films you speeding, swearing, laughing, whatever, summons you before a judge, and now it is up you to prove, that you weren't speeding, laughing, whatever? (Irrelevant in principle but not in practice if a camera or a policeman delivers the evidence). What about: innocent till proven to be guilty?


Funny that you should mention Switzerland. When I lived there I had an experience with a traffic camera that recorded me speeding on my way to work. This was in Neuchatel. I didn't check my mail for a few days, and when I finally did, I found I had received several speeding tickets, one for each day that I had sped past that camera.


That is nonesense. (Not that I haven't payed huge fines for speeding). They cannot charge you multiple times, but they can charge you 5% interest if you happen to pay late. (Question again: Why can they put a fine on you in the first place?)
Edit: If you speed multiple times, of course they can charge you multiple times. But that is exactly the problem, isn't it? (I'm not saying, that there are no surveillance cameras in Switzerland, there a to many!)

[wgadget]

Mike Gallagher (radio talk show host) was going on and on about how cameras are already watching us anyway, we can't put a cop on every corner, and we just need to get used to it.

Someone said that he has another way to deal with crime: carry a gun.

I wonder what good these cameras do after a crime has been committed? They don't exactly go and run after the criminals, do they? Wow, now THAT'S some technology.

[SeanEdwards]

I still do not get it, (maybe just because it is unthinkable to me): The state puts up a camera, films you speeding, swearing, laughing, whatever, summons you before a judge, and now it is up you to prove, that you weren't speeding, laughing, whatever? (Irrelevant in principle but not in practice if a camera or a policeman delivers the evidence). What about: innocent till proven to be guilty?



That's how the process works here. Someone accuses you of a crime, and you get a chance to defend yourself. You aren't guilty of anything until the court, upon reviewing the evidence and testimony, determines you to be guilty.

I don't really understand what you are saying here. People are inncocent no matter what they do? I shoot somebody in the face, and it's caught on camera, I don't have to appear before a court because I'm innocent until proven guilty?



That is nonesense. (Not that I haven't payed huge fines for speeding). They cannot charge you multiple times, but they can charge you 5% interest if you happen to pay late. (Question again: Why can they put a fine on you in the first place?)
Edit: If you speed multiple times, of course they can charge you multiple times. But that is exactly the problem, isn't it? (I'm not saying, that there are no surveillance cameras in Switzerland, there a to many!)


I sped multiple times on consecutive days. I wasn't aware I had been cited until I checked my mail and found like 5 speeding tickets.

[SeanEdwards]

Mike Gallagher (radio talk show host) was going on and on about how cameras are already watching us anyway, we can't put a cop on every corner, and we just need to get used to it.

Someone said that he has another way to deal with crime: carry a gun.

I wonder what good these cameras do after a crime has been committed? They don't exactly go and run after the criminals, do they? Wow, now THAT'S some technology.

We need gun rights, AND cameras, so us bystanders can enjoy watching the shootout later.
:D

[swissmiss]

I don't have to appear before a court because I'm innocent until proven guilty?

No, you have to appear, but the gvmnt has to prove that you are guilty and not you that you are not. It is one of the most important principles of liberty: Whoever wants to forbid something has the burden of proof, not the other way round.


I sped multiple times on consecutive days. I wasn't aware I had been cited until I checked my mail and found like 5 speeding tickets.

So, you are compaining about what? I thought you loved those cameras.

Addendum: Note, that I consider speeding limits to be utterly worthless- and it is the gvmnt job to prove that they are not.

[SeanEdwards]

No, you have to appear, but the gvmnt has to prove that you are guilty and not you that you are not. It is one of the most important principles of liberty: Whoever wants to forbid something has the burden of proof, not the other way round.


Yes, and in this hypothetical case, the prosecution may rest their case on the evidence of a videorecording. I'm still innocent until the court says I'm guilty. I have the chance to refute the video evidence, or provide an alibi, or whatever. A video recording does not equal guilt, it's exactly the same as an eyewitness saying 'yeah, that guy is the criminal'.

If a person walks into a police station and says "Swissmiss robbed me", Swissmiss will have to appear before a court. That doesn't mean Swissmiss has to prove their innocence, it merely means that Swissmiss must address the charges.

If the person charged was assumed guilty, there would be no trial. Some magistrate would look at the testimony, be it video or human or you name it, and order Swissmiss thrown in prison. Then from your jail cell, you'd have to try and prove your innocence.



So, you are compaining about what? I thought you loved those cameras.

I don't think I was complaining about that Swiss traffic camera. I broke the law, I paid my fines, no big deal. The entire commentary about that camera was more of a response to your outrage about cameras recording the commons, and my attempt to point out an element of hypocrisy, since I had personal direct experience of Swiss cameras recording the commons.

[The Dane]

I sped multiple times on consecutive days. I wasn't aware I had been cited until I checked my mail and found like 5 speeding tickets.

Well you got it right there. Apart from govermental abuse (like a tyranny, a non-democracy, or a democracy were the politicians of the people are not elected... :rolleyes: ...).

So apart from that, with cameras hooked up to computers you got an in-humane surveilance system: Dont you think it would have been more fair, if after the 1st. speeding ticket from a police officer, you then did not drive as fast anymore, - in general??

Something is very wrong with the idea of cameras hooked up to computers, hooked up to ONE big computer.

That is the future in question my freind, the cameras are just a small part of it.

[SeanEdwards]

Well you got it right there. Apart from govermental abuse (like a tyranny, a non-democracy, or a democracy were the politicians of the people are not elected... :rolleyes: ...).

So apart from that, with cameras hooked up to computers you got an in-humane surveilance system: Dont you think it would have been more fair, if after the 1st. speeding ticket from a police officer, you then did not drive as fast anymore, - in general??

Something is very wrong with the idea of cameras hooked up to computers, hooked up to ONE big computer.

That is the future in question my freind, the cameras are just a small part of it.

It was sucky, but it should be said these were relatively small fines. Each ticket was roughly $20. What killed me though is I got cited for exceeding the speed limit by like 5 km/hour or less.
:rolleyes:

I just don't equate this use of cameras in public with some vast 1984 scenario of tyrannical oppression. I see the cameras much like guns. They're just a tool. They're not inherently evil, it all depends on how they are used.

[swissmiss]

Ok, so you like the cameras, I do not. There are some in Switzerland for the purpose of recording speeding, but increasingly for other purposes too. This breaks my heart but not yours, as long as you are not the victim, so be it for now.

But still you say:


I have the chance to refute the video evidence, or provide an alibi, or whatever.

No. It is the f**** other way around (or should be). You shouldn't have to refute video evidence, but the video should show some evidence that you are guilty. You shouldn't have to provide an alibi, but the police should show that you do not have one. That you do not see the difference in the first place scares me and probably shows that you live in a police state, but haven't realized it yet.

[The Dane]

It was sucky, but it should be said these were relatively small fines. Each ticket was roughly $20. What killed me though is I got cited for exceeding the speed limit by like 5 km/hour or less.
:rolleyes:.

:) Yes i agree thats stupid, and that is what you get with the camera/computer combination: Stupidity and In-humaness. Also it dosent make any sense to let cameras take over the job of police men, just because they are cheaper. That is also valid from society's point of view. And also from the argument that the direct meeting with a living human person representing the law of society, is generally the best education for the people who dont respect the law.

Make it inhuman, and you will get more crime. Thats another argument.



I just don't equate this use of cameras in public with some vast 1984 scenario of tyrannical oppression. I see the cameras much like guns. They're just a tool. They're not inherently evil, it all depends on how they are used.

I dont think you can find anyone in this thread who would disagree with you on this. Its kind of difficult for me to imagine an "evil camera". - Could it be a script for a lousy horror movie, maybe ? :D

[saku39]

Cameras in public places are a waste of time. They do not make you safer. The only thing they do is record the crime. And even then there is no guarantee that the crime will ever be solved.

It's an appalling idea and it is without question an invasion of privacy. Why do I, a law-abiding citizen, have to be watched by cops via CCTV if I'm stratching my butt, sitting on a bench, waiting for the bus?

Going down the path of public surveillance is a bad idea. It sets up a framework that can be abused, just like Bush's Executive Orders, the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. When you cede rights away with the idea of security, you actually lose those rights and lose the security.

With all that said, I've got no problem with private companies wanting to install cameras in their places of business. I would sooner trust Best Buy, Target and gas stations than I would the government at both federal and local levels. But think about it, have the cameras stopped shoplifting? Or robberies? They haven't.

[SeanEdwards]

But think about it, have the cameras stopped shoplifting? Or robberies? They haven't.


Laws, courts, and police have not stopped crimes from occuring either.

Shall we abandon them all in favor of totally anarchy?

[swissmiss]

Laws, courts, and police have not stopped crimes from occuring either.


So why have them?


Shall we abandon them all in favor of totally anarchy?

Well yes. What stops you from killing me?

[saku39]

Laws, courts, and police have not stopped crimes from occuring either.

Shall we abandon them all in favor of totally anarchy?

So no cameras now equals anarchy?

America has existed for over 200 years with no public surviellence cameras, we'll be fine continuing that tradition.

[acstichter]

I agree with having cameras in public. I think they should only be viewable by court order. This would occur after a crime has occurred in a specific area. The DA would ask a judge to order approval to his right to view the tape as evidence to solve the crime.

I do not think cameras should be used to catalog all that is happening into a database. If a police officer is on the lookout for a felon or suspect of another crime and wants the cameras to watch for his license plate or facial recognition, he should have to get a warrant for that specific request.

Cameras and computers can be a huge crime stopping tool, but they must be used responsibly.

[SeanEdwards]

So no cameras now equals anarchy?



No, the stupidity of your arguments equals anarchy.

I'm very happy that police cars have cameras that record the cops interaction with motorists. I think it's great that the cop has to keep in mind that he can't easily lie about my actions, or shoot me with impunity and then plant a gun on my corpse.

I think it's fantastic that criminals get caught on tape committing their crimes, so that the whole world can see them, and so that the criminal can not so easily lie.

I want more cameras recording things that should be known by the public. I'd like to see cameras in the Federal Reserve meetings.

Cameras record the truth. Do you have a problem with the truth?

[saku39]

No, the stupidity of your arguments equals anarchy.

Oh, so now I'm stupid because I don't want some stranger watching me via CCTV camera?

I should remember this. When I'm trying to convince somebody of the validity of my argument, I'll insult them-- That way, they'll be that much more open that what I'm suggesting.


I'm very happy that police cars have cameras that record the cops interaction with motorists. I think it's great that the cop has to keep in mind that he can't easily lie about my actions, or shoot me with impunity and then plant a gun on my corpse.

But that's a camera recording the cop. We're talking about recording private, law-adibing citizens.


I think it's fantastic that criminals get caught on tape committing their crimes, so that the whole world can see them, and so that the criminal can not so easily lie.

I've got not problem with criminals going down for what they did. What I'm saying is the cameras didn't stop the criminals from committing the crime in the first place; and just because they have video of a suspect committing a crime, it doesn't mean they will actually catch the perpetrator. And, in fact, what you're suggesting treats all private citizens as criminals.


I want more cameras recording things that should be known by the public. I'd like to see cameras in the Federal Reserve meetings.

Again, the argument is about surviellence on private citizens, not government. I have no problem with cameras being trained government officials. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.


Cameras record the truth. Do you have a problem with the truth?

I must have a problem with truth because I don't like public surviellence? That's a leap of logic.

What you're saying is I must be a criminal because I don't like being watched.



Again, let me state that if you set up a public surviellence system, you take away liberty and security. Having a system like that in place leaves the door open to abuse.

[SeanEdwards]

[COLOR="Navy"]

Oh, so now I'm stupid because I don't want some stranger watching me via CCTV camera?

I should remember this. When I'm trying to convince somebody of the validity of my argument, I'll insult them-- That way, they'll be that much more open that what I'm suggesting.



I said your argument was stupid. I did not, and have not personally insulted you at any point in this discussion.

[SeanEdwards]

Well yes. What stops you from killing me?

I've got bigger fish to fry.

:D

[kylejack]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/02/2007-10-02_bloomberg_calls_surveillancecamera_criti.html

LONDON - Mayor Bloomberg has a message for New Yorkers who don't like surveillance cameras: Get real.

"It's just ridiculous people who object to using technology," the mayor said, adding that he had not talked with anyone in London who wasn't "thrilled" at the presence of security cameras in their capital.

Someone should introduce him to a fellow named George Orwell.

[SeanEdwards]

Someone should introduce him to a fellow named George Orwell.

But Orwell is dead...

Oh, I get it now. That's harsh.

[kylejack]

But Orwell is dead...

Oh, I get it now. That's harsh.

Heh. In general, I meant that historically there have been plenty of Brits that object to government intrusion, and indeed, one of their most famous authors was sharply critical of such intrusions.

But yeah, that too. ;)