# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  NYPD Police Chief - "Privacy is OFF the table now."

## Anti Federalist

'Cos, you know, the only people whining about this are a small segment of the population...hysterical technophobes, mostly.

  



*Saying Privacy Is 'Off the Table,' NYC Police Commissioner Demands More Surveillance Cameras*

J.D. Tuccille|Apr. 25, 2013 7:55 pm

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/25/sa...table-nyc-poli

From the Department of Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste comes word that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly thinks that now is a great time to install even more surveillance cameras hither and yon around the Big Apple. After the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaev brothers were famously captured on security camera footage and thereby identified. That just may soften up Americans to the idea of the all-seeing glass eye. 

*"I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table," Kelly gloats.*

From WNYC:




> Could more cameras in New York City help prevent attacks like the one at the Boston Marathon? That's what Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the NYPD is looking into.
> 
> The department already uses so-called smart cameras that hone in on unattended bags, and set off alarms.
> 
> Kelly dismisses critics who argue that increased cameras threaten privacy rights, giving governments the ability to monitor people in public spaces.
> 
> * “The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”*
> 
> Surveillance cameras helped authorities find the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing — giving more fuel to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly’s argument that the more cameras exist, the better.
> ...


As Reason's own Brian Doherty has pointed out, surveillance advocates conveniently forget that it was private security cameras from which footage is shared with authorities only in emergencies, like the aftermath of the bombing, that did the honors in Boston. 

Cautions Doherty:




> The public spaces of Boston were already filled with enough private cameras to close the net on the suspects. Ubiquitous public cameras—watched always by officials with power over us—raise obvious problems, as the American Civil Liberties Union has noted, of criminal abuse, institutional abuse, personal abuse on the part of officials, discrimination, and rampant voyeurism.


Of course, what Kelly wants is public cameras — specifically, an expanded network of police-controlled "smart" cameras watching the city and responding automatically to perceived dangers. 

*With the public frightened and in no mood to consider that surveillance cameras pose their own dangers, he just might get his wish.*

----------


## jclay2

I feel like crying/screaming on the inside when I read these things. God help us if they hit us with another 911 like shock and awe event.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I feel like crying/screaming on the inside when I read these things. God help us if they hit us with another 911 like shock and awe event.


Imagine something *10 times* as bad.

Say good night, Gracie...run for the $#@!ing hills at that point.

----------


## brushfire

I called it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I told my wife to mark my words.  They caught these guys due to the cooperation of private citizens and businesses.  People turned in cell phone images/video, and the surrounding businesses had their security cameras.

I told my wife that it would not be long until the "scourge of tyranny" would claim victory for the actions of many individual citizens, and later use it to justify more government surveillance of the public.

----------


## Origanalist

I don't know who neg repped you but they are either young enough not to see the progression or have the blinders on.

----------


## Weston White

Yes, let us avoid the real concern over such technologies.  Which is to say, scores, upon scores, upon scores of cameras lined and stacked all up and down each side of the street will not ever serve to stop such a bombing attempt (aside from the obvious fact that the Boston incident is a clearlyyet one of many other suchFBI stage-to-sting operation), at best all this would serve to accomplish is to help in reconstructing the crime while identifying the perpetrators (or otherwise the so-called patsies).

The downright surreal truth is that the peoples true enemy is not the perpetrators, but the fear-mongering benefactors to the resulting incident, in all of its evilness.  Having contrived a willing, yet covert partnership with its officials parading around with their self-empowered fruits, telling you to remain impotent, to espouse your patriotism through mere prayer and remembrance, and all upon the backs of those so weak-minded and willing to bite into such blighted apples of hysteria.  Those in government that seek to abuse the authority of their office or position in usurping from you and your family, your individual birthrightsas to self-empowerment, morality, and purposethey are undoubtedly neither your friend nor your protector.

_While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion.  To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian._
 *George Washington*

----------


## QuickZ06

> I don't know who neg repped you but they are either young enough not to see the progression or have the blinders on.


Question is are they big enough to come post in this thread.

----------


## Origanalist

> Question is are they big enough to come post in this thread.


Good question. I notice a lot wilt under a little history.

----------


## Weston White

> I feel like crying/screaming on the inside when I read these things. God help us if they hit us with another 911 like shock and awe event.


I think you meant to state that as the blessed cover surrounding a divine presence, _Shekinah_:

“_By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night._”
— Exodus 13:21

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't know who neg repped you but they are either young enough not to see the progression or have the blinders on.


I'll own that.  The neg rep was in reference to the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would ban anyone from using or owning a drone, as well as having a camera with a view of somebody else's front door, God forbid.  The point is, some people are willing to compromise their core beliefs in liberty because they are afraid of new technology.  I never used the word technophobe, but if that's what suits you, then so be it.  Drones are not going away no matter what we do so the best course of action is to maintain a consistent view of personal liberty and hold steadfastly to the non-aggression principle, which I think is violated by the idea that the government can use the Constitution against the people by outright banning a certain technology from private use or ownership.  We should know better than to think the government can solve this problem, and limiting private individuals is something the Constitution was never meant to do.  Big mistake, IMO.  Very, very, very big mistake.

That said, I've never been in favor of government surveillance.  I think that should be taken completely off the table.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'll own that.  The neg rep was in reference to the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would ban anyone from using or owning a drone, as well as having a camera with a view of somebody else's front door, God forbid.  The point is, some people are willing to compromise their core beliefs in liberty because they are afraid of new technology.  I never used the word technophobe, but if that's what suits you, then so be it.  Drones are not going away no matter what we do so the best course of action is to maintain a consistent view of personal liberty and hold steadfastly to the non-aggression principle, which I think is violated by the idea that the government can use the Constitution against the people by outright banning a certain technology from private use or ownership.  We should know better than to think the government can solve this problem, and limiting private individuals is something the Constitution was never meant to do.  Big mistake, IMO.  Very, very, very big mistake.
> 
> That said, I've never been in favor of government surveillance.  I think that should be taken completely off the table.


Ok, I have to admit to ignorance here as there is no link to the actual discussion. However, the dual sword of technological advance seems to be getting rather lopsided. (to me anyway)

----------


## Professor8000

Technology is a good thing, however, like with any kind of advancement, when only a few control it, the rest of us can't compete. There are lots of firearms companies that refuse to sell their products to the general public and only market to the government, which is $#@!ing bull$#@!, and apparently no one is trying to rectify the situation. Honestly, the NYPD would $#@! bricks if someone started keeping tabs on the NYPD and posting the results to the internet.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok, I have to admit to ignorance here as there is no link to the actual discussion. However, the dual sword of technological advance seems to be getting rather lopsided. (to me anyway)


People have been decrying technology for a long time, and to an extent, I sympathize with them, but I don't let it get in the way of my view of reality.  There's a way to make the best of every situation.  If you don't like technology, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with living in the country.  I've lived such a life in my childhood and although I would find it hard to go back, I can't say I didn't have fun in those days.

----------


## jclay2

> People have been decrying technology for a long time, and to an extent, I sympathize with them, but I don't let it get in the way of my view of reality.  There's a way to make the best of every situation.  If you don't like technology, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with living in the country.  I've lived such a life in my childhood and although I would find it hard to go back, I can't say I didn't have fun in those days.


I could have missed something, but aren't we talking about government use of technology to enslave its citizens?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I could have missed something, but aren't we talking about government use of technology to enslave its citizens?


I think you missed something.

----------


## Origanalist

> I think you missed something.


Well no, he didn't. I love to watch technology advance as much as anyone, I also hate to see it turned into instruments of tyranny.




> Technology is a good thing, however, like with any kind of advancement, when only a few control it, the rest of us can't compete. There are lots of firearms companies that refuse to sell their products to the general public and only market to the government, which is $#@!ing bull$#@!, and apparently no one is trying to rectify the situation. Honestly, the NYPD would $#@! bricks if someone started keeping tabs on the NYPD and posting the results to the internet.

----------


## paulbot24

> Well no, he didn't. I love to watch technology advance as much as anyone, I also hate to see it turned into instruments of tyranny.


Agreed. Trouble is, things go from discovery to tyranny so fast. How long was Einstein's famous equation a discovery until it became an instrument of tyranny?

----------


## Origanalist

> Agreed. Trouble is, things go from discovery to tyranny so fast. How long was Einstein's famous equation a discovery until it became an instrument of tyranny?


Exactly, and + rep.

----------


## DamianTV

So basically what they're saying is "Now that we've violated your rights, we refuse to acknowledge that you even have rights any longer".  Can a Dictatorship be run by more than one Dictator?

----------


## Origanalist

> So basically what they're saying is "Now that we've violated your rights, we refuse to acknowledge that you even have rights any longer".  Can a Dictatorship be run by more than one Dictator?


Ask the Russians.

----------


## The Northbreather

> I'll own that.  The neg rep was in reference to the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would ban anyone from using or owning a drone, as well as having a camera with a view of somebody else's front door, God forbid.  The point is, some people are willing to compromise their core beliefs in liberty because they are afraid of new technology.  I never used the word technophobe, but if that's what suits you, then so be it.  Drones are not going away no matter what we do so the best course of action is to maintain a consistent view of personal liberty and hold steadfastly to the non-aggression principle, which I think is violated by the idea that the government can use the Constitution against the people by outright banning a certain technology from private use or ownership.  We should know better than to think the government can solve this problem, and limiting private individuals is something the Constitution was never meant to do.  Big mistake, IMO.  Very, very, very big mistake.
> 
> That said, I've never been in favor of government surveillance.  I think that should be taken completely off the table.


I personally love technology and consider my self a "work smarter not harder type of individual".

I also believe the "Drones are not going away no matter what we do " viewpoint to be a defeatist attitude that seeks to end discussion of the morality of goverment drones before it has even started.

Consider that those who want to have this conversation are not simply "technophobes" but concerned citizens who are aware of the government's history of abuse with new technology.

Let me put it this way. 

A decent citizen machinist with the right tools could build a rifle in his shop that would be comparable in technology with a goverment rifle and therefore useful in defense.

Could a citizen drone engineer do the same?

If the answer is no, do we just accept that "drones aren't going anywhere" or do we take the fist step and start a dialogue about the goverment using technology and weapons that are foreseeably unattainable to its citizens who don't have anything close to an equal defense.

IMHO we need to nip this in the bud and bring the immorality and unconstitutionality to light.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Imagine something *10 times* as bad.
> 
> Say good night, Gracie...run for the $#@!ing hills at that point.


Or 10 times _not-as-bad_. The threshold keeps getting lower for the magnitude of events it takes for Americans to fearfully give up freedom. Some 3,000 people died in 9/11. 3 died in the Boston bombing, and the reaction was about the same, at least from government. (maybe we haven't invaded a country yet over this)

----------


## moostraks

> People have been decrying technology for a long time, and to an extent, I sympathize with them, but I don't let it get in the way of my view of reality.  There's a way to make the best of every situation.  If you don't like technology, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with living in the country.  I've lived such a life in my childhood and although I would find it hard to go back, I can't say I didn't have fun in those days.


You will not be able to escape by living in the country. Having the ability to do something and being morally justified in doing so is the argument. They work on cloning technology. One could accept the ability to clone humans and suffer the consequences or can decry the reasons why some things are not an acceptable avenue because of the consequences. It doesn't make the naysayers luddites.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Ok, I have to admit to ignorance here as there is no link to the actual discussion. However, the dual sword of technological advance seems to be getting rather lopsided. (to me anyway)



Look at how hard the average cop tries to keep from being video taped.

I'll accept no drones as an alternative to what we'll wind up with.





> Well no, he didn't. I love to watch technology advance as much as anyone, I also hate to see it turned into instruments of tyranny.



And it certainly will.  Citizens will be paying millions of dollars to be spied on.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I called it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
> 
> I told my wife to mark my words.  They caught these guys due to the cooperation of private citizens and businesses.  People turned in cell phone images/video, and the surrounding businesses had their security cameras.
> 
> I told my wife that it would not be long until the "scourge of tyranny" would claim victory for the actions of many individual citizens, and later use it to justify more government surveillance of the public.


Yep.




> Yes, let us avoid the real concern over such technologies.  Which is to say, scores, upon scores, upon scores of cameras lined and stacked all up and down each side of the street will not ever serve to stop such a bombing attempt (aside from the obvious fact that the Boston incident is a clearly—yet one of many other such—FBI stage-to-sting operation), at best all this would serve to accomplish is to help in reconstructing the crime while identifying the perpetrators (or otherwise the so-called patsies).


That is the truth. Cameras don't prevent crime, they just help to catch the criminal after the fact. And suicide bombers probably would like to be on camera when they do it.




> Technology is a good thing, however, like with any kind of advancement, when only a few control it, the rest of us can't compete. There are lots of firearms companies that refuse to sell their products to the general public and only market to the government, which is $#@!ing bull$#@!, and apparently no one is trying to rectify the situation. Honestly, the NYPD would $#@! bricks if someone started keeping tabs on the NYPD and posting the results to the internet.


Yep. Better for individuals to have the cameras. At the very least, the private sector would spend much more wisely.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well no, he didn't. I love to watch technology advance as much as anyone, I also hate to see it turned into instruments of tyranny.


You must have missed something, too.  How do you know he didn't miss something?  My post was related to the trail of posts I was responding to if you'll go back and look.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I personally love technology and consider my self a "work smarter not harder type of individual".
> 
> I also believe the "Drones are not going away no matter what we do " viewpoint to be a defeatist attitude that seeks to end discussion of the morality of goverment drones before it has even started.
> 
> Consider that those who want to have this conversation are not simply "technophobes" but concerned citizens who are aware of the government's history of abuse with new technology.
> 
> Let me put it this way. 
> 
> A decent citizen machinist with the right tools could build a rifle in his shop that would be comparable in technology with a goverment rifle and therefore useful in defense.
> ...


See, I'm not talking about government drones.  I'm talking about drones in general.  That's the problem here.  The very instant someone brings up drones, everyone assumes we're talking about drones in the hands of government and when an argument is made in favor of drones, that same argument is misconstrued as being in favor of government.  Slow down and take the time to read.  

The answer to your qestion is "yes" by the way.  It has always been yes.  This fight isn't against drones, it's a gainst government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 'Cos, you know, the only people whining about this are a small segment of the population...hysterical technophobes, mostly.
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> *Saying Privacy Is 'Off the Table,' NYC Police Commissioner Demands More Surveillance Cameras*
> 
> J.D. Tuccille|Apr. 25, 2013 7:55 pm
> ...


  DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!!!!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'll own that.  The neg rep was in reference to the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would ban anyone from using or owning a drone, as well as having a camera with a view of somebody else's front door, God forbid.  The point is, some people are willing to compromise their core beliefs in liberty because they are afraid of new technology.  I never used the word technophobe, but if that's what suits you, then so be it.  Drones are not going away no matter what we do so the best course of action is to maintain a consistent view of personal liberty and hold steadfastly to the non-aggression principle, which I think is violated by the idea that the government can use the Constitution against the people by outright banning a certain technology from private use or ownership.  We should know better than to think the government can solve this problem, and limiting private individuals is something the Constitution was never meant to do.  Big mistake, IMO.  Very, very, very big mistake.
> 
> That said, I've never been in favor of government surveillance.  I think that should be taken completely off the table.


Have all the drones and model planes you want, they just can not be used for surveillance purposes.

You do have a valid point though, one that I am willing to concede, having given the matter a little thought.

But, at the same time, and this was my point all along, I still reject the "all technology is neutral" argument.

There are some that are just pure evil and should not be.

Just because we *can* does not mean we *should*.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

The police should not have drones, ever.

Any argument stating otherwise is easily destroyed.

Only the naive would concede to them using drones *for any purpose.* Search and rescue included.

----------


## Czolgosz

The problem with technology, et al.  is that a counter balance to tyranny does not exist.

If tyranny is not held accountable, evidence suggests you'll need a militia to do so, it will run rampant.  

Does North Korea need high tech to keep people under its thumb?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The police should not have drones, ever.
> 
> Any argument stating otherwise is easily destroyed.
> 
> Only the naive would concede to them using drones *for any purpose.* Search and rescue included.


+rep

----------


## Anti Federalist

(t)hat would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. 

And those who are doing it can get away with it. 

*Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it's no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.*

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz2Rmpe8JFg

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Does North Korea need high tech to keep people under its thumb?


No, and that's what is so upsetting about all this.

With NK, it's obvious and blatant, right out in the open, naked tyranny.

Here, the system of control that technology is offering is...hidden, running in the background, so to speak.

But it will afford the controllers a much greater degree of control and much more vast network of surveillance..

One that would make Kim Jong drool.

----------


## phill4paul

Real Estate. "Real" is the definition of the earth you own from the surface of the earth of the core below. In real estate terminology that means if you have sold the rights to the minerals, water, oil, etc. below the surface of your property it is no longer considered "real." 
  Why does this definition not define the space ABOVE our "real" estate? Certainly, if you are my neighbor and you burn tires and the toxins enter my space then I might hold you culpable.
  The reasons why surveillance is an issue is because not a one of us own property. It is not our from the earth below to the sky above.
  If we did then I would not care one wit about what technology you own as long as it does not enter my property. This included pictures. No photos should be available from anyone property, or across anyone's property, unless there first be a warrant.

----------


## KingNothing

Technology is awesome.  Government is awful.

----------


## jkob

Ray Kelly seems like a nice fascist in waiting to takeover when Fuhrer Bloomberg takes his horror show on the road. What is wrong with New York?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Technology is awesome.  Government is awful.


So you are of the belief that the police should never, no matter what the circumstances, be given the authority to operate drones?

----------


## KingNothing

> So you are of the belief that the police should never, no matter what the circumstances, be given the authority to operate drones?



I'm not sure how to answer this.  I don't think police should even exist, let alone spy on people.  With that said, given the current paradigm, i have absolutely no problem with police using drones for surveillance if they have a warrant and I could envision a situation where a drone could be used to kill or incapacitate a dangerous person.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ray Kelly seems like a nice fascist in waiting to takeover when Fuhrer Bloomberg takes his horror show on the road. What is wrong with New York?


The same thing that is wrong with most people...most people hate freedom and prefer to be told what to do and when to do it, *especially* if their neighbor is being told to do more or being bossed around more aggressively than they are.

They like a benevolent dictator like _Gauleiter Doomberg_.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

What I'm wondering is, if my sister and her husband have a neighbor who is wealthy (which they do) and that neighbor has a surveillance camera on their property that "accidentally" can see across the road to my sister's front door, is that some breach of privacy and does anyone seriously think that should be illegal?  It is IMPOSSIBLE in this day and age to prevent all surveillance.  I honestly don't care too much about private surveillance.  If my neighbors are spying on me, then I can build an electric fence around my property and spy-proof my house.  In fact, my sister's neighbors often do comment on their daily activities as if it was any of their concern.  Creepy, yes, but should it really be illegal to accidentally have a view of someone else's front yard?  As long as I don't have any trespassers and nobody commits aggression on me or my property, I'm not that afraid of spies unless it is clear they have an intent to harm, in which case I arm myself.

----------


## TomtheTinker

Does this mean I get to look up his wifes skirt?

----------


## TaftFan

> The police should not have drones, ever.
> 
> Any argument stating otherwise is easily destroyed.
> 
> Only the naive would concede to them using drones *for any purpose.* Search and rescue included.


Why are drones a bad thing for search and rescue specifically? I am not saying they wouldn't then be used for other things.

----------


## phill4paul

> What I'm wondering is, if my sister and her husband have a neighbor who is wealthy (which they do) and that neighbor has a surveillance camera on their property that "accidentally" can see across the road to my sister's front door, is that some breach of privacy and does anyone seriously think that should be illegal?  *It is IMPOSSIBLE in this day and age to prevent all surveillance.  I honestly don't care too much about private surveillance.  If my neighbors are spying on me, then I can build an electric fence around my property and spy-proof my house.*  In fact, my sister's neighbors often do comment on their daily activities as if it was any of their concern.  Creepy, yes, but should it really be illegal to accidentally have a view of someone else's front yard?  As long as I don't have any trespassers and nobody commits aggression on me or my property, I'm not that afraid of spies unless it is clear they have an intent to harm, in which case I arm myself.


 Why should someone within the limits of their own property have to pay to provide for counter-measures to anyones snooping? Are you saying that even though it is illegal for me to bug your house that I can use the latest sound technology to record you from my own property? The onus is on YOU to try and prevent me from surveilling you?
  That's pretty $#@!ed up.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Why are drones a bad thing for search and rescue specifically? *I am not saying they wouldn't then be used for other things*.


This.

----------


## Czolgosz

> No, and that's what is so upsetting about all this.
> 
> With NK, it's obvious and blatant, right out in the open, naked tyranny.
> 
> Here, the system of control that technology is offering is...hidden, running in the background, so to speak.
> 
> But it will afford the controllers a much greater degree of control and much more vast network of surveillance..
> 
> One that would make Kim Jong drool.



Indeed.  You and I know the solution.

----------


## liberty2897

> Why should someone within the limits of their own property have to pay to provide for counter-measures to your snooping? Are you saying that even though it is illegal for me to bug your house that I can use the latest sound technology to record you from my own property? The onus is on ME to try and prevent you from surveilling me?
>   That's pretty $#@!ed up.


Be careful if you resort to using a higher power green laser to record the vibrations from sound off your neighbors windows,  it can cause serious damage to the CCD camera sensors that they may have installed and pointed in your direction (as well as eyeballs).

----------


## phill4paul

> Be careful if you resort to using a higher power green laser to record the vibrations from sound off your neighbors windows,  it can cause serious damage to the CCD camera sensors that they may have installed and pointed in your direction (as well as eyeballs).


  I've been meaning to look into this....................

----------

