GOP Rep. Peter King On Boston Bombing: "We Need More Cameras"

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/16/gop_rep_peter_king_on_boston_bombing_i_do_think_we _need_more_cameras_.html

[VBRonPaulFan]

And here trots out Thought Police Office King, yet again.

[AuH20]

I feel like picketing his office. I'm fed up with him.

http://massapequa.patch.com/listings/office-of-us-rep-peter-king

[Shredmonster]

Yeah he can start by sticking one up his ass.

[Sola_Fide]

For some reason I turned on my local neocon radio station and Michael Medved was on talking about how cameras everywhere don't violate any liberties.

[familydog]

Boston has more cameras than most, if not all other major cities. Please explain how more cameras will help?

[sailingaway]

Put one in his bedroom. I'm sure nothing happens there, anyhow.

In fact, you can put all the ones spying on us in there.

[Anti-Neocon]

For some reason I turned on my local neocon radio station and Michael Medved was on talking about how cameras everywhere don't violate any liberties.
When you're in a public place and know that there are cameras, it doesn't violate privacy. Same with someone else's private place. Security cameras, along with guns, are the very essence of tools that individuals can use to defend themselves. It's just when the government spies on us without our knowledge or a warrant that it's a bad thing.

There should be more cameras at the Boston Marathon.

[sailingaway]

When you're in a public place and know that there are cameras, it doesn't violate privacy. Same with someone else's private place. Security cameras, along with guns, are the very essence of tools that individuals can use to defend themselves. It's just when the government spies on us without our knowledge or a warrant that it's a bad thing.

There should be more cameras at the Boston Marathon.


That is your opinion but I disagree. Idle gaze is different from facial recognition reconstructed stalking. Anonymity IS privacy.

[Sola_Fide]

When you're in a public place and know that there are cameras, it doesn't violate privacy. Same with someone else's private place. Security cameras, along with guns, are the very essence of tools that individuals can use to defend themselves. It's just when the government spies on us without our knowledge or a warrant that it's a bad thing.

There should be more cameras at the Boston Marathon.

There were already thousands of cameras, cell phone to professional, at the event in Boston. Why does the government need them?

[tangent4ronpaul]

How many crimes have all the camera's in London prevented?

ONE!

-t

[Anti-Neocon]

That is your opinion but I disagree. Idle gaze is different from facial recognition reconstructed stalking. Anonymity IS privacy.
I guess we can agree to disagree then. I see this kind of like I see the smoking ban thing. If you don't like people smoking, you have every right not to go to a restaurant. If you don't like cameras stalking you, you have every right not to go to a place that has them, but the majority of people feel the marginal benefit of security outweighs the marginal benefit of not being watched, and I'm sorry but I agree with the majority.

[Keith and stuff]

Boston has more cameras than most, if not all other major cities. Please explain how more cameras will help?
Why would you say that?

The 4 US cities that I've heard of having an insane amount of cameras are Phoenix (with traffic ticket cameras, though there might have been some reform), DC, NYC and Chicago. Worldwide, I think London has the worst reputation. Anyway, maybe what you said will become true, if it isn't already. I'd think that Obama might give Boston at least enough money to put up another 1,000 cameras :(

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't know who exactly runs the Boston Marathon, but I figured it is probably funded by the city of Boston because it takes place on the streets of Boston which is public domain. Therefore it could be the government's role to secure its public domain. Now you can have an argument of the positives and negatives of having extensive public domain, but as it stands, I don't see why a good government wouldn't make its public domain secure.

[Sola_Fide]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I see this kind of like I see the smoking ban thing. If you don't like people smoking, you have every right not to go to a restaurant. If you don't like cameras stalking you, you have every right not to go to a place that has them, but the majority of people feel the marginal benefit of security outweighs the marginal benefit of not being watched, and I'm sorry but I agree with the majority.

There were already thousands of people with cameras walking around at this event (they got some great shots of the explosion too). Why does the government need cameras?

[The Free Hornet]

I don't know who exactly runs the Boston Marathon, but I figured it is probably funded by the city of Boston because it takes place on the streets of Boston which is public domain. Therefore it could be the government's role to secure its public domain. Now you can have an argument of the positives and negatives of having extensive public domain, but as it stands, I don't see why a good government wouldn't make its public domain secure.

a) owned by the government and owned by the people may not be the same (military base versus public road)

b) it costs us money and the return on investment may not be justified

c) the government is engaged in numerous unconstitutional domestic wars and these cameras can aid those

d) the Boston Marathon is managed by a non-profit, hosted by several cities - it is quasi but ought not use taxpayer money

e) 26.2 miles will require A LOT of cameras - especially for streets with two sides

f) wikipedia has some weird marathon images and cameras would compound this problem, do we need more of this?:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Phidippides.jpg/220px-Phidippides.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#Origin)

[jmdrake]

Boston has more cameras than most, if not all other major cities. Please explain how more cameras will help?

Well with Redditors pouring over the evidence they're sure fueling the conspiracy theories.

[Christian Liberty]

That is your opinion but I disagree. Idle gaze is different from facial recognition reconstructed stalking. Anonymity IS privacy.

On private property, with the person's knowledge (When there's signage such as "This place is under surveilance" or such) its fine, in my opinion. Its their property, they can do what they want.

Public property shouldn't really be a thing, but if and when it is, using cameras is a warrantless search.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Don't you find the irony of Congressman Peter King's statement?

Peter King has openly supported the IRA in the past, London has become the camera surveillance capital of Europe because of the IRA... second only to Washington DC in the world. The IRA's retaliatory actions on England created this camera surveillance state.

Judge Napolitano addressed the camera surveillance this morning on FOX NEWS, in reference that they also have the capabilities to record all audio sounds too... "Surveillance State of 'Security' over Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties".

[Christian Liberty]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I see this kind of like I see the smoking ban thing. If you don't like people smoking, you have every right not to go to a restaurant. If you don't like cameras stalking you, you have every right not to go to a place that has them, but the majority of people feel the marginal benefit of security outweighs the marginal benefit of not being watched, and I'm sorry but I agree with the majority.

The difference is that in public property there's aggression being used to make me pay for the cameras and the upkeep of the property.

The solution to this is to privatize all such property. Until then, any cameras owned by government whatsoever are a vilation of the 4th.


Don't you find the irony of Congressman Peter King's statement?

Peter King has openly supported the IRA in the past, London has become the camera surveillance capital of Europe because of the IRA... second only to Washington DC in the world. The IRA's retaliatory actions on England created this camera surveillance state.

Judge Napolitano addressed the camera surveillance this morning on FOX NEWS, in reference that they also have the capabilities to record all audio sounds too... "Surveillance State of 'Security' over Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties".

Yep, that's what we're stuck with...

[MelissaWV]

Interesting that the Government wants more cameras, when it appears that the best evidence so far was from a private store's security footage. It's being reported that the person-of-interest-du-jour popped up on footage from a camera at Lord & Taylor.

Oh and the quality on most of the "street cams" was godawful (yes yes I know... that's just what they want us to see) compared to the private cameras and cellphones and news footage.

[jkr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5NPcZ_mLGI

[Mini-Me]

When you're in a public place and know that there are cameras, it doesn't violate privacy. Same with someone else's private place. Security cameras, along with guns, are the very essence of tools that individuals can use to defend themselves. It's just when the government spies on us without our knowledge or a warrant that it's a bad thing.

There should be more cameras at the Boston Marathon.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the attitude that "government cameras in public are okay" will lead to panopticon in which facial recognition, license plate recognition, and correlation of data will allow the government to track everyone's movements and know everyone's positions, all the time.

From what I can tell, the total control grid is built on two complementary goals:
Know where people are all the time, and what they're doing if possible. Ubiquitous cameras in public are the most important aspect about one half of the infrastructure for a total control grid, and this "half" of things is merely rounded out by highway X-ray scanners, IR cameras, GPS trackers in vehicles, and smart meters. Cell phones are extremely helpful to them here too, but they know that anyone who doesn't want to be tracked can leave them somewhere...which is why they need public cameras.
Know who people's friends are, who they're talking to, and what they're talking about. Ubiquitous NSA surveillance of all electronic communication is central to this. (Black boxes in vehicles will help capture meatspace communication not heard by public cameras, so that leaves the home...and Petraeus even talked about spying on people through appliances like refrigerators.) I also wouldn't be surprised if the NSA already performs man-in-the-middle attacks on all encrypted communications relying on a central authority (which might be under their control), which is why BitMessage is such a clever and important protocol for individuals. Ubiquitous communications surveillance creates information overload however, and individual profiles built from data-mining Google and Facebook records is probably a quicker "first reference."
In principle, cameras in public do not violate the Fourth Amendment (although it violates Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment for the government to spend tax money on them or have basically any involvement). In practice, a huge program of government cameras pointed at us (but not them) at our own expense is a TERRIBLE idea, because it provides the techological infrastructure for total Orwellian control of the population. The people behind these cameras make no distinction between catching actual crime (murder, etc.) and "crimes against the state."

Today, they might catch people participating in an "illegal protest." They might catch people smoking marijuana from their porch, when they thought they were out of a snooping camera's view...but noooo, they did it in "public." Cameras might catch the movement and transfer of drugs too...as well as OTHER things. Specifically, I imagine the cameras outside gun shops and collectibles shops will be more closely scrutinized than most, to see who might be leaving with a new firearm or potential physical gold...and add them to a list. In other words, if the government has enough cameras in public, agencies with access (e.g. the NSA and CIA) can build a national gun registry covertly, with dangerous accuracy. This will be especially helpful to the government once they finally get their way on eliminating the Second Amendment (note that even Feinstein's amendment got a full 40 votes today - that's WAY too high for comfort).

In short, government cameras in public have an enormous likelihood of blatant abuse, not least of which is because the government's true reason for wanting them in the first place is to enable such abuse. Let's take them to their logical conclusion: As time goes on, certain political views - specifically, ours (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?411598-I-feel-like-I-might-be-sick&p=4979792&viewfull=1#post4979792) - are being increasingly equated with terrorism. If and when they're finally criminalized, the ubiquitous cameras tracking everyone's movements everywhere sure will help the government track down its dissidents. Still agree with them?

Not only will ubiquitous government cameras better enforce unjust laws on the books today and in the future, but importantly, they will help *enable* the passage of these laws: The government can't well criminalize free speech or gun ownership unless it's sure it can quickly locate and neutralize anyone attempting to organize resistance (or anyone trying to evade them after being declared a "terrorist"). Once the government's technological control grid is complete, they will be able to do exactly this, which will allow them to do anything they want without any recourse from us. In short, they're aiming for ubiquitous surveillance of the public by the government, which can and quite possibly will end in complete despotism.

[torchbearer]

just about every person carry a phone today has a camera. don't need anymore.

[LibertyEagle]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I see this kind of like I see the smoking ban thing. If you don't like people smoking, you have every right not to go to a restaurant. If you don't like cameras stalking you, you have every right not to go to a place that has them, but the majority of people feel the marginal benefit of security outweighs the marginal benefit of not being watched, and I'm sorry but I agree with the majority.

You are comparing what someone chooses to do on their own property vs. what is done in a public area. It's not the same.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know who exactly runs the Boston Marathon, but I figured it is probably funded by the city of Boston because it takes place on the streets of Boston which is public domain. Therefore it could be the government's role to secure its public domain. Now you can have an argument of the positives and negatives of having extensive public domain, but as it stands, I don't see why a good government wouldn't make its public domain secure.

Public areas don't belong to the government. They belong to the people.

[Mini-Me]

just about every person carry a phone today has a camera. don't need anymore.

For now...but cell phones aren't foolproof. If they were, the government wouldn't be pushing for CCTV everywhere. ;) Someone who doesn't want a particular trip to be tracked can leave their cell phone behind, for instance.

Moreover, cell phones may enable widespread surveillance today, but the future is unclear: The optimistic side of me believes we're going to eventually cut out the middle-men in the area of communications, i.e. cell providers and many ISP's. Ultimately, I think they will be largely replaced by mesh-connected devices like routers and cell phones...and if they run open source software and don't contain creepy hardware features like hardware rootkits (see intel's V-Pro/AMT for a "creepy feature" on x86), they just might respect their users' privacy...and that's something the government won't like one bit.

[PaulConventionWV]

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Whether or not this was staged, they are certainly making good use of it.

[PaulConventionWV]

a) owned by the government and owned by the people may not be the same (military base versus public road)

b) it costs us money and the return on investment may not be justified

c) the government is engaged in numerous unconstitutional domestic wars and these cameras can aid those

d) the Boston Marathon is managed by a non-profit, hosted by several cities - it is quasi but ought not use taxpayer money

e) 26.2 miles will require A LOT of cameras - especially for streets with two sides

f) wikipedia has some weird marathon images and cameras would compound this problem, do we need more of this?:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Phidippides.jpg/220px-Phidippides.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#Origin)

Do you know of any streets with one side?

[torchbearer]

For now...but cell phones aren't foolproof. If they were, the government wouldn't be pushing for CCTV everywhere. ;) Someone who doesn't want a particular trip to be tracked can leave their cell phone behind, for instance.

Moreover, cell phones may enable widespread surveillance today, but the future is unclear: The optimistic side of me believes we're going to eventually cut out the middle-men in the area of communications, i.e. cell providers and many ISP's. Ultimately, I think they will be largely replaced by mesh-connected devices like routers and cell phones...and if they run open source software and don't contain creepy hardware features like hardware rootkits (see intel's V-Pro/AMT for a "creepy feature" on x86), they just might respect their users' privacy...and that's something the government won't like one bit.

i'm thinking about voluntary people videoing events like the race would lead to footage that could be used. and with so many people with cameras pointed everywhere, all that is needed is true crime, and people will voluntarily submit their video evidence from their own phones. and people on the internet would help scour them for clues. we can do so much with the internet.

[Mini-Me]

i'm thinking about voluntary people videoing events like the race would lead to footage that could be used. and with so many people with cameras pointed everywhere, all that is needed is true crime, and people will voluntarily submit their video evidence from their own phones. and people on the internet would help scour them for clues. we can do so much with the internet.

Ahh, my mistake. I misunderstood you before, but I totally agree. :)

[DamianTV]

The ability to record the public should be kept in the hands of the public.

[Anti Federalist]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I see this kind of like I see the smoking ban thing. If you don't like people smoking, you have every right not to go to a restaurant. If you don't like cameras stalking you, you have every right not to go to a place that has them, but the majority of people feel the marginal benefit of security outweighs the marginal benefit of not being watched, and I'm sorry but I agree with the majority.

And when there is no place that doesn't have them?

It is like the smoking thing...prohibition right around the corner and every square inch of the earth's surface watched by the Matrix 24/7.

Millions of cameras watching your every move is not freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

Could not have said it better myself.

+rep


Taken to its logical conclusion, the attitude that "government cameras in public are okay" will lead to panopticon in which facial recognition, license plate recognition, and correlation of data will allow the government to track everyone's movements and know everyone positions, all the time.

From what I can tell, the total control grid is built on two complementary goals:
Know where people are all the time, and what they're doing if possible. Ubiquitous cameras in public are the most important aspect about one half of the infrastructure for a total control grid, and this "half" of things is merely rounded out by highway X-ray scanners, IR cameras, GPS trackers in vehicles, and smart meters. Cell phones are extremely helpful to them here too, but they know that anyone who doesn't want to be tracked can leave them somewhere...which is why they need public cameras.
Know who people's friends are, who they're talking to, and what they're talking about. Ubiquitous NSA surveillance of all electronic communication is central to this. (Black boxes in vehicles will help capture meatspace communication not heard by public cameras, so that leaves the home...and Petraeus even talked about spying on people through appliances like refrigerators.) I also wouldn't be surprised if the NSA already performs man-in-the-middle attacks on all encrypted communications relying on a central authority (which might be under their control), which is why BitMessage is such a clever and important protocol for individuals. Ubiquitous communications surveillance creates information overload however, and individual profiles built from data-mining Google and Facebook records is probably a quicker "first reference."
In principle, cameras in public do not violate the Fourth Amendment (although it violates Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment for the government to spend tax money on them or have basically any involvement). In practice, a huge program of government cameras pointed at us (but not them) at our own expense is a TERRIBLE idea, because it provides the techological infrastructure for total Orwellian control of the population. The people behind these cameras make no distinction between catching actual crime (murder, etc.) and "crimes against the state."

Today, they might catch people participating in an "illegal protest." They might catch people smoking marijuana from their porch, when they thought they were out of a snooping camera's view...but noooo, they did it in "public." Cameras might catch the movement and transfer of drugs too...as well as OTHER things. Specifically, I imagine the cameras outside gun shops and collectibles shops will be more closely scrutinized than most, to see who might be leaving with a new firearm or potential physical gold...and add them to a list. In other words, if the government has enough cameras in public, agencies with access (e.g. the NSA and CIA) can build a national gun registry covertly, with dangerous accuracy. This will be especially helpful to the government once they finally get their way on eliminating the Second Amendment (note that even Feinstein's Amendment got a full 40 votes today - that's WAY too high for comfort).

In short, government cameras in public have an enormous likelihood of blatant abuse, not least of which is because the government's true reason for wanting them in the first place is to enable such abuse. Let's take them to their logical conclusion: As time goes on, certain political views - specifically, ours (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?411598-I-feel-like-I-might-be-sick&p=4979792&viewfull=1#post4979792) - are being increasingly equated with terrorism. If and when they're finally criminalized, the ubiquitous cameras tracking everyone's movements everywhere sure will help the government track down its dissidents. Still agree with them?

Not only will ubiquitous government cameras better enforce unjust laws on the books today and in the future, but importantly, they will help *enable* the passage of these laws: The government can't well criminalize free speech or gun ownership unless it's sure it can quickly locate and neutralize anyone attempting to organize resistance (or anyone trying to evade them after being declared a "terrorist"). Once the government's technological control grid is complete, they will be able to do exactly this, which will allow them to do anything they want without any recourse from us. In short, they're aiming for ubiquitous surveillance of the public by the government, which can and quite possibly will end in complete despotism.