Paranoia or common sense?

[hvp05]

I'm curious where people stand on the issue of surveillance cameras in our cities. In the aftermath of the London bombings they have proven to be a great aid to learning who the perpetrators were, and, thereby, have proven their worth. The visual evidence has positively shown who each of the terrorists were, which in turn led investigators to their respective residences and the Magdy el-Nashar link.

I have always thought these cameras could be useful, but others are opposed on the grounds that certain liberties are being impinged.

 

[hvp05]

d'oh

I thought I was in "Current Events", but "Politics" is nearly almost as good of a place for this thread...

 

[Larry Gude]

What liberty is being infringed?

I do not like nor want some camera getting me for speeding or running red lights. Part of being an American is weighing risk (ticket) vs. reward (getting there a bit quicker or simply enjoying the speed).

So, that is one thing. On the other side of that coin, should I go plowing into a school bus after running a red light and kill 25 kids then I have no problem with a camera's evidence being used against me.

The London cameras are going to help them in solving this case, as they already have made much progress. There may come a time when recognition software helps them track and catch a known perp BEFORE they commit their crime.

In the mean time, cameras help with traffic flow (which stations are being under/over served and when) and with incidental crimes like pick pockets and others.

Read my library records. Check my credit card statement. Film me picking my nose in the car or subway. Just don't bust ME for petty stuff.

Big Brother can sometimes be a big help.

 

[Railroad]

I'm solidly in favor of surveillance cameras on all streets and alleyways and sidewalks in urban areas. But I've felt like that since the 1967 riots in D.C.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I am against them. I am sure I am in the minority, but "Big Brother" is far too invasive now.

 

[vraiblonde]

If the surveillance cams are on public streets, then they would only capture you when YOU are in public, n'est ce pas? Therefore whatever you're doing is being done in front of other humans, and now it is merely being recorded for posterity.

So put me in the "put 'em all over" category - I fail to see how recording your public actions could be considered "invasive".

 

[Ken King]

To your question,

Following the London attacks, do you think urban surveillance cameras are...

More necessary?
No more necessary?

I voted "no more necessary". By this response I mean that they are just as necessary as they have ever been for tracing a culprit. These devices, after all, are located in public where no expectation of privacy should be expected (that's kind of what "in public" means).

As our law enforcement abilities are usually after the fact versus before hand we should exploit the capabilities of our technologies within the bounds of individual rights to the maximum extent possible.

 

[hvp05]

If the surveillance cams are on public streets, then they would only capture you when YOU are in public, n'est ce pas? Therefore whatever you're doing is being done in front of other humans, and now it is merely being recorded for posterity.

So put me in the "put 'em all over" category - I fail to see how recording your public actions could be considered "invasive".

That's the part that makes me

If they can act as the remote eyes of the police and make tracking down criminals easier then so be it. I suppose a lot of opposition comes from those who don't trust the man. Perhaps the feeling of, "I'll bet they're watching ME right now. They're zooming in on ME for no reason," plays repeatedly through the mind of the skeptic. That clearly can not be the case, especially in a major metropolitan center. Those behind the switch wouldn't have the time to 'stalk' an individual, and if they tried they would be uncovered.

I'll bet a lot of doubters would convert if they were subjected to a real world example: Your wife gets assaulted one night leaving her office building. Police couldn't get there in time to hunt the guy down and she could only recall a vague description. From here, do you take (a) a series of nearby surveillance cameras that recorded him and his vehicle, or (b) nothing else?

If I happen to get caught picking my nose by one of those [devices], oh well.

 

[dustin]

Heck they can already see us with their satellites! Why bother with more cameras???



Seriously though I think survelliance cameras are a good idea as long as some kind of law is passed that says the evidence could be used only if it was like a criminal offense or something....you know, let the little fish go and keep the big ones for fryin'...

not sure how that would work out but i'm sure it could be done

but to answer wether or not the cameras are more necessary or not?
I would say that we should have had already got them in place, proaction is almost always better than reaction. But in light of the events in London, I don't see why we would need them more now vices 5 yrs ago :shrug:...even 10 yrs ago....

 

[2ndAmendment]

I am not doing or planing to do anything illegal, but I still have a problem with surveillance of Joe Blow on the street. Maybe I was overly impressed with "1984", but I can see where government is getting more invasive into our lives. I find that to be wrong. Big government doing more and more and controlling more and more aspect of our lives concentrates power in the government instead of where it should be, with the people. I know is sound like a 1960's cliche', but "Power to the people" was the stance of the Founders and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution affirm that stance. The politicians and judges don't like that and have been working to turn it around for generations and have largely succeeded. Surveillance cameras are just one more step in government's total control of the population.

 

[Railroad]

I am not doing or planing to do anything illegal, but I still have a problem with surveillance of Joe Blow on the street. Maybe I was overly impressed with "1984", but I can see where government is getting more invasive into our lives. I find that to be wrong. Big government doing more and more and controlling more and more aspect of our lives concentrates power in the government instead of where it should be, with the people. I know is sound like a 1960's cliche', but "Power to the people" was the stance of the Founders and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution affirm that stance. The politicians and judges don't like that and have been working to turn it around for generations and have largely succeeded. Surveillance cameras are just one more step in government's total control of the population.

I understand and agree with most of what you said, but we have a problem with the people, particularly in urban areas, where crime runs rampant and victims can't get witnesses.

As I'm sure you'll agree, we have a nationwide morality problem that includes everyone from the the 12-year-old armed stickup thief to the supreme court "justice." While I also think the right answer is to correct the people and the morality problem, I see that taking some time to happen. In the meantime, do we allow rapes and murders and robberies and drive-by shootings to continue without some more effective way of catching criminals with effective evidence?

I think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written for a nation that, at the time, had an overwhelming majority of people abiding by Christian principles. I feel very strongly that those documents hould still apply today, and I wish with all my heart that we could trash everything and start over with those documents and the Bible as our basis.

But I see a nation bent on self-destruction, from the bottom up. I don't know how to quell the rising tide of evil in practical terms except by better detection and better evidence and tougher penalties.

 

[SmallTown]

I am not doing or planing to do anything illegal, but I still have a problem with surveillance of Joe Blow on the street. Maybe I was overly impressed with "1984", but I can see where government is getting more invasive into our lives. I find that to be wrong. Big government doing more and more and controlling more and more aspect of our lives concentrates power in the government instead of where it should be, with the people. I know is sound like a 1960's cliche', but "Power to the people" was the stance of the Founders and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution affirm that stance. The politicians and judges don't like that and have been working to turn it around for generations and have largely succeeded. Surveillance cameras are just one more step in government's total control of the population.

Ok, fine. Have the cameras owned and operated by individuals or the business in the area. Then if a crime occurs, the government can go to them and ask to see their tapes. Everyone is happy. We still have surveillance, but it isn't controlled by the government trying to have complete power over us. (Which, BTW, is how it often works here already)

 

[Railroad]

Ok, fine. Have the cameras owned and operated by individuals or the business in the area. Then if a crime occurs, the government can go to them and ask to see their tapes. Everyone is happy. We still have surveillance, but it isn't controlled by the government trying to have complete power over us. (Which, BTW, is how it often works here already)

The only risk there is, individuals who would use the tapes for bad things.

 

[hvp05]

Ok, fine. Have the cameras owned and operated by individuals or the business in the area. Then if a crime occurs, the government can go to them and ask to see their tapes. Everyone is happy. We still have surveillance, but it isn't controlled by the government trying to have complete power over us. (Which, BTW, is how it often works here already)

I concur with most of what Railroad said in his most recent post. In an ideal society (smaller with more uniformity) we could trust the people to govern themselves in an orderly enough manner that we would not require the inclusion of 'extra measures' beyond the standard police force.

Now, if you go way out into the remote reaches of our nation (rural New England, Midwest, etc.) you may find that environment intact. But in our cities you never know what kind of person may be walking near you on the street. He may be a common thug ready to seize your wallet, your leather jacket or your life... or he may be a terrorist approaching his destination with a bag of explosives in his backpack. Having a camera located at every corner (or other key points) may not prevent the punk from committing his act, but at least the technology can play a vital role in proving who the perp(s) was/were and how they did it. That will hopefully result in their expeditious apprehension and potentially educate us on how to defuse future plans.

If you want to privatize it that may work... but not by loading the burden onto the backs of the local businesses. First, mom and pop shop owner already have enough expenses and hassles. Second, there may be a discontinuity in the application of the cameras. What if on one block Joe runs his camera 24 hours/day, but a few blocks over Mike only runs his camera when he can remember to turn it on? Obviously, you would need someone dedicated and consistent and who can keep up with the technology. The gov't. could hire contractors and grant a given contractor a whole state or region of the country.

Does that sound feasible? Is that better than our 800-pound gorilla of a gov't. pulling the strings? Or is it still too much?

 

[Railroad]

Obviously, you would need someone dedicated and consistent and who can keep up with the technology. The gov't. could hire contractors and grant a given contractor a whole state or region of the country.

Does that sound feasible? Is that better than our 800-pound gorilla of a gov't. pulling the strings? Or is it still too much?

I like it. Brinks or Pinkerton or Wells Fargo (to name a few) are well-acquainted with how to do that job correctly. JMHO. Have them reporting to the city police and the local FBI (read, Homeland Security) office.

 

[Ken King]

…but I can see where government is getting more invasive into our lives. I find that to be wrong.

While I agree that it is wrong to invade anyone’s privacy, beyond what is already allowed after law enforcement obtains a warrant to do so, I don’t see surveillance cameras in public as being such a wrong.

Big government doing more and more and controlling more and more aspect of our lives concentrates power in the government instead of where it should be, with the people. I know is sound like a 1960's cliché, but "Power to the people" was the stance of the Founders and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution affirm that stance.

But haven’t the “people” that have the “power” recently expected more of the government? Don’t we expect to be protected from terrorists like we experienced on 9/11 and what Britain just experienced? And don’t we expect our government to do this for us?

BTW, this is so “right on” for your “Power to the people” phrase as it was Katz v. US in 1967 that established the 2-tests used by the courts when dealing with electronic surveillance. Subjectively, is the expectation of privacy. Objectively, a reasonable expectation of privacy (what we, the people, are ready to recognize as reasonable). A video capture of someone walking down a street, entering a building, or otherwise out in public that may or may not ever be viewed is what is at issue. If activities captured on the video can help track and capture a criminal or possibly deter criminal activity I think it is within our government's duty to use the tools they have or can make available, like these cameras.

The politicians and judges don't like that and have been working to turn it around for generations and have largely succeeded. Surveillance cameras are just one more step in government's total control of the population.

The right to privacy, as what is clearly given by the 4th Amendment, is for the people, not places. As such I don’t see this instance as being an invasive intrusion. In Katz an invasion was determined to have taken place when he was arrested with evidence obtained by placing wire-taps in a public pay phone booth without first obtaining a warrant. The phone booth, while in public, is a place where a person reasonably expects privacy. Sidewalks, streets, and public building entrances are not.

 

[vraiblonde]

An aside: I want the church controlling me even less than I want the government controlling me. At least the government has a Constitution and checks and balances to give me a fair shot - the church just pretty much does what they want. Salem witch trials, anyone?

Anyway, if our HOA wanted to put up surveillance cameras all over our neighborhood, I'd offer to foot the bill. And make it widely known that if you commit a crime in our neighborhood, we will take your picture and use it to convince your parents that you are truly a bad child.

People act better in front of the camera than they would if they thought no one was looking. If nothing else, it would serve as a deterrent to petty crime and general poor behavior. Louella might scream profanities at the driver in front of her because he was too slow coming off the light, but I'll bet she'd think twice if she knew video of her actions would make the evening news.

 

[itsbob]

An aside: I want the church controlling me even less than I want the government controlling me. At least the government has a Constitution and checks and balances to give me a fair shot - the church just pretty much does what they want. Salem witch trials, anyone?

Anyway, if our HOA wanted to put up surveillance cameras all over our neighborhood, I'd offer to foot the bill. And make it widely known that if you commit a crime in our neighborhood, we will take your picture and use it to convince your parents that you are truly a bad child.

People act better in front of the camera than they would if they thought no one was looking. If nothing else, it would serve as a deterrent to petty crime and general poor behavior. Louella might scream profanities at the driver in front of her because he was too slow coming off the light, but I'll bet she'd think twice if she knew video of her actions would make the evening news.

AMEN.. I don't think terrorism has increased the need for cameras, nor do I think it will help in deterring today's terrorists from attacking. The cameras can't stop an attack, only identify the attackers after the fact, and if you are going to die in the blast who cares if you get identified.

I do like the idea of towns and municipalities using cameras, but I think they should be portable and concealable. Move them to trouble spots, but do it without anyone knowing, with the intent of CATCHING the bad guys, not just having them move to a different corner or block. London, and Las VEgas both have reduced their crime rates in high crime areas SIGNIFICANTLY by the use of CCTV.. and you can walk around Vegas at 2AM without too much concern about your safety.

AND your privacy is NOT protected in public areas, from people like me OR the government.. and for the better of society, I'm willing to give up a LITTLE privacy.. so what if they catch me on camera scratchin my butt, other then the people in the control room (which I REALLY hope I don't know) who will ever see the tape??

 

[ylexot]

I like the potential for crime solving and the "someone is watching you" effect that cameras may have on criminals (or would-be criminals), but I am a bit leery about the potential abuses of the cameras. How's this for an idea...have the cameras and video is stored for some period of time (one year maybe?). After that time, the video is erased. And here's the important part...access to the video can only be obtained via court order. No monitoring of the video. No computer programs spying. Just straight to archive until there is a need.

 

[vraiblonde]

No monitoring of the video.

No deal. I want some butt-scratcher sitting there monitoring every single cam, every single second, so that if he sees something suspicious, he can call the proper authorities.

Y, there's no point in having them if you're going to neutralize them. If the cams are in public, anything they record will have already been seen by someone milling around you. What's the difference?

What possible abuses could occur? Give me a for instance.