Surveillance cameras on city streets: Good idea or not?

I dunno about TW, it would depend on how it was implemented and that would go a long way to indicating how successful it would be.

Going back to the original quote, I defenitely think Chicago needs it, I was there last year and visit quite freqiently, and there is a reason it was ranked the most dangerous city in N. America with 600 murders annually, it is dangerous period.

I remember being there during x-mas and hearing about all these ppl getting killed around that time thinkin how sad it was for their families, especially for this one state trooper investigating a broken down car…he was killed by another shooter. Drive by shootouts and gang related activity is rampant there.

[quote]Christ, but you people are whacked.

Giving the government authorities the right to use these cameras means that they are creeping further and further to the point where EVERYTHING you do outside of your home will be recorded. Cameras are getting smaller, storage is getting cheaper. Image quality will only get better.

Oh–but we’ll catch criminals, right? And we can absolutely, positively trust our government employees to never do anything wrong with all of that footage they have of you, right? And there is SO MUCH FUCKING CRIME HAPPENING NOW, right? The crime rate’s getting higher, right?
And of course we should be absolutely so fucking scared shitless of the world outside of our homes that we should sign away every piece of the outside world that we used to be able to walk through unrecorded.

Right?

Now take a long hard look at some of the dorks you can find working for our law enforcement agencies.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is absolutely out of their fucking minds.[/quote]
So tell us, what does (or would) the government do with all that footage of ordinary and decent citizens which you seem so worried about?

And these are just some that got caught:

The D.C. police lieutenant in charge of investigating extortion plots was arrested yesterday and charged with carrying out his own extortion plot against men who frequented a gay bar and then using subordinates to track the FBI’s investigation of his activities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/dcpolice/stories/stowe25.htm

Cops tap database to harass, intimidate
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lein31_20010731.htm

Brad Fair, who worked for a Boston-area hotel restaurant, was shocked to discover that his employer had installed hidden cameras in the men’s locker room, videotaping employees as they dressed and undressed before and after their shifts. Management claimed they suspected that employees were using and selling drugs, but nothing illegal was ever discovered.
archive.aclu.org/news/2001/n010302a.html

And here are a couple of good explanations of the present situation:

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/metro_aclu032202.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-07-22-ncguest11_x.htm

Go to any IT tradeshow and you’ll find that the optical devices, networking equipment and storage for surveillance is only getting better and cheaper. And as this slow creep of camera installation is happening, people are still claiming that crime is getting worse.

The problem is that there are very few (if any) limitations to where government or a private individual can monitor public places. Do you trust that power with a security company employee who makes the wages they pay clerks at Walmart? Would you trust it with a government employee who was placed in their job by their political connections?

Ever go skinny dipping? Ever have a fight with your spouse/significant other in public? Ever make out in a car? Do you feel you have the right to do these things? Or would it change your behavior if you knew you were being recorded? Are you comfortable having those events recorded and archived somewhere?

It’s the same old question: if the government or a company is watching you, who’s watching them?

Still PARANOID. What are you hiding?

TonAng,

I’m showing why there’s reason to fear the pervasive presence of cameras recording public life.

Care to show me a good reason why you’re so afraid of the world that you need it all recorded?

(Now who’s PARANOID?)

Quite frankly…NO!

If it were illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on sexuality then this wouldn’t be a problem, now would it.

Well let’s see…without a criminal record the cops couldn’t harass or intimidate anyone, right?

Unless Brad was playing with himself, what’s the problem? I doubt there is a major market in the seedy underground for fat, hairy, middle-age, balding guys walking around a locker room is boxers.
As for the articles covering the current state of things…

Duh, the whole point of demonstrating is to be seen and heard.

So what’s the difference between observers being on-site to watch the public gatherings or being off-site? One you know about, the other you don’t? Actually nothing more than a false sense of anonymity.
As someone else mentioned, once you leave the comfort of your home and step out into the public everything you do can be witnessed by others. The only thing you seem concerned with is knowing whether someone is watching you or not.

[quote=“Dahudze”]TonAng,

I’m showing why there’s reason to fear the pervasive presence of cameras recording public life.

Care to show me a good reason why you’re so afraid of the world that you need it all recorded?

(Now who’s PARANOID?)[/quote]

The reason is that there are a good number of criminal cases that have been profited from CCTV film. In the UK I can think of the James Bulger case and the Soham murders.

You would rather that killers run free just so you can go shopping without feeling paranoid that Big Brother is watching you?

You have a sense of enormous self-importance. Let me tell you, nobody gives a f**k about your shopping habits. The fact is these tapes/files are only examined as and when a criminal act occurs in the area and they may become useful.

Useful they doubtless are.

[quote]Quote:

Quite frankly…NO! [/quote]

I believe you lead a sad and sheltered life.

So you’re saying that the police should have the right to use this information against people?

So you believe that the police have the right to harass and intimidate? Vannyel, you make for a lovely little fascist.

[quote]Unless Brad was playing with himself, what’s the problem? I doubt there is a major market in the seedy underground for fat, hairy, middle-age, balding guys walking around a locker room is boxers.
As for the articles covering the current state of things… [/quote]

So you have no problems with me videotaping your mother, sister or daughter while she’s undressing?

It’s one thing to protest. It’s another to have the police record you on video and use the footage against you, or as a way or surveillance against you. Do you believe that a citizens have the right to assembly? In the US we have the right to protest anonymously, without hindrance by the government. Under Hoover the FBI used their power to spy on and record private meetings of groups that they believed were dangerous to society (like ones run by Martin Luther King Jr.). Or do you qualify that right by saying that the police can use cameras and face-recognition software to track your actions? (That’s assuming that the face-recognition software actually works correctly and doesn’t tag somebody else as being you.)

So if private companies use your drug store shopping habits as a way of profiling you as a consumer, then turn that information over to, say, an insurance company as a way for them to adjust your insurance rates, you have no problem with that?

You have no grasp at all of the concepts of marketing data, profiling, and surveillance issues, do you?

All evidence to the contrary. Obviously you feel the government has the right to monitor your life. Odd. I used to think the British respected their freedoms.

If it were illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on sexuality then this wouldn’t be a problem, now would it.

Well let’s see…without a criminal record the cops couldn’t harass or intimidate anyone, right?[/quote]

Classic Vannyel contributions - defending the indefensible, arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

[quote=“TonAng”]The reason is that there are a good number of criminal cases that have been profited from CCTV film. In the UK I can think of the James Bulger case and the Soham murders.

You would rather that killers run free just so you can go shopping without feeling paranoid that Big Brother is watching you?[/quote]

Why am I surprised you didn’t answer the basic question…

[quote]The problem is that there are very few (if any) limitations to where government or a private individual can monitor public places. Do you trust that power with a security company employee who makes the wages they pay clerks at Walmart? Would you trust it with a government employee who was placed in their job by their political connections?

Ever go skinny dipping? Ever have a fight with your spouse/significant other in public? Ever make out in a car? Do you feel you have the right to do these things? Or would it change your behavior if you knew you were being recorded? Are you comfortable having those events recorded and archived somewhere? [/quote]
Given that I am in Taipei and the high amount of surveillance cameras in the streets and buildings (public and private) I think it is not unlikely that my movements are constantly recorded and they have not and do not change my behaviour and so far no underpaid security guard has come after me.
Of course there is a risk of misuse, but the examples you posted seem to be rather rare and illegal but certainly not government-authorized.

If it were illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on sexuality then this wouldn’t be a problem, now would it.

Well let’s see…without a criminal record the cops couldn’t harass or intimidate anyone, right?[/quote]

Classic Vannyel contributions - defending the indefensible, arguing purely for the sake of arguing.[/quote]
Typical quack response from Spack, too.
I point out that if the U.S. wasn’t such an ass-backwards country where people were still targets of discrimination based on sexuality and you say I am defending the indefensible and arguing for the sake of arguing?
As for the cops harassing, well neither you nor your buddy, Dahudze, have pointed out how the cops could harass anyone NOT doing something illegal or immoral. I think it’s you that likes to argue for the sake of arguing since you obviously didn’t add any insight into this conversation.
And Dahudze, just because I don’t believe you ‘have the right to make out, go skinny dipping or fight with your SO in public’ doesn’t mean I lead a ‘sad and sheltered life;’ actually if you consider these things to be necessary for you to have a normal life, I feel compelled to recommend you seek therapy as soon as possible.
How is it you can take an observation - if people didn’t have criminal records then the police wouldn’t have anything to use against them - as meaning “the police have the right to harass and intimidate?”
As for the undressing in an employee changing room - “So you have no problems with me videotaping your mother, sister or daughter while she’s undressing?” No, I don’t have trouble with you doing this (you obviously don’t know my mother or sisters. But considering the most you’re likely to see is some chubby women in ‘granny’ underwear, have at it. Like I said before, I doubt if there is a real market for this type of stuff anyway. Your Puritan attitude that changing clothes should never be witnessed by anyone else might be another issue you’d like to discuss with your therapist.
What is this nonsense - “In the US we have the right to protest anonymously, without hindrance by the government.”
Is this why every major city in the US requires demonstrators to get a PERMIT PRIOR to the event??? I think it’s time for a reality check.
As for the police videotaping it and using it against you, well once again if you are doing nothing illegal then you should have no problem. Should you?

[quote]So if private companies use your drug store shopping habits as a way of profiling you as a consumer, then turn that information over to, say, an insurance company as a way for them to adjust your insurance rates, you have no problem with that?
You have no grasp at all of the concepts of marketing data, profiling, and surveillance issues, do you? [/quote]
You have no grasp of ‘paranoid delusional’ do you? Do you REALLY think that you are important enough for the government (or pornographers) to care what color underwear you wear, what brand of condoms or lubrication you buy, or what tree-hugging event you went to last year? Now, if you STEAL those condoms or lubrication; or commit a crime while hugging your tree then someone might give a damn but you may be reasonable certain than your mundane existence will pass with your name occurring in the media the average three times - birth, marriage, and death. Sorry but that’s just one of the facts of life. Most of us are so unimportant to the ‘boys in charge’ that it would be depressing - if we really cared. :s

to what degree are phone calls recorded here? cell phones, landlines …?

should we also record all calls, or only those with certain key words (bomb, president etc.) and delve into all those aspects of everyone’s lives as well, because phones are said to be used in connection with lots of crimes. if we record all phone calls, then we stand a good chance of getting rid of even more crime. as well, using a previous argument, any call you make or take in public has the chance of being heard by passers-by anyways.

not being facetious here, but i am wondering where we should draw the line. little microphones/cameras every 2 meters on the side of the street?

i’ve never had a credit card, b/c i don’t like sharing my purchasing decisions with anyone, whether they be for groceries or that austin powers penis pump thingy. just don’t feel that it’s anyone’s business other than my own, and the poor clerk who has to put it in a bag for me :wink:

slowly, technology is seeping into every aspect of our lives. i’d hate to find a video of myself linked to someone’s “middle-aged and hairy” websites. maybe people need to collectively pay more attention to what is going on around them, rather than rely on a bunch of video cameras … or not.

And if I were the defense lawyer for those crooked cops I would probably come up with a desperate argument like this. :laughing:

Now then, how do you respond to the prosecution’s assertion that no matter what the context is (sexuality, whatever) it is never acceptable for law enforcers to use surveillance in order to extort money from people?

Oh dear, you didn’t read the article that was linked to, did you? Here it is again. It describes how some police in the U.S. routinely use the Law Enforcement Information Network to harrass and intimidate people with criminal records as well as non-criminals.

If a theft or something illegal occurs on your street and was filmed by one of these cameras, by the time the police come and you persuade them to take a report, won’t the tapes have been taped over already?

I’ve seen a lot of photocopies of still frames of robbers at banks, supermarkets and such but my one experience when I really needed the police was not encouraging. It took forever to get them on it.

Also, can a (non)citizen call up the police and say “Watch the camera on my street because something’s going down”?

As dumb as these questions may sound, I’m sincerely interested if any one knows.

Vannyel, my darling little crypto-fascist: think of any piece of information that the police could use to embarrass or harass somebody.

And read this: http://www.aclu.org/Files/getFile.cfm?id=11572

So you believe it’s the government’s right to out somebody or extort from them? You believe that the government has the right to monitor someone for whom they have no expectation of commiting a crime? You believe they have the right to monitor every street? And you believe that the people you would give this power to would not increasingly abuse it as the years pass?

You’d make a find sheep.

I can only point out the obvious. If you can’t recognize the substance there’s nothing more I can do.

And I believe that George Orwell would have thought you monstrous. I don’t think that these things are necessary–but I believe that the freedom to do them without being monitored is necessary.

Because the police would be using private information to damage innocent people. Unlike you I believe that government must be limited–that there are aspects of our life that must be protected from their prying.

And you need therapy. Please tell me you’re not working around children. One of them may be stealing English books and you might use that as an excuse to monitor their bathrooms.

[quote]What is this nonsense - “In the US we have the right to protest anonymously, without hindrance by the government.”
Is this why every major city in the US requires demonstrators to get a PERMIT PRIOR to the event??? [/quote]

And you believe that it’s the government’s right to record the names of everyone who protests against it? http://www.justiceonline.org/readmore/j20protorder.htm What kind of country do you come from where this isn’t one of your basic rights? (Feeling a little ass-backwards yet?)

[quote]I think it’s time for a reality check.
As for the police videotaping it and using it against you, well once again if you are doing nothing illegal then you should have no problem. Should you? [/quote]

(sigh) Re-read what I wrote earlier.

Again–go back and read what I posted. You obviously didn’t understand it.

Well, your little anal-retentive perfect world is a place I’ll be careful to avoid. I have met many of those “boys in charge”, and I have gone to trade shows showing off this new gear, and I have seen the software being used to record and track private citizen’s behavior. Business and government are very interested in this.