This is appalling

[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/w.../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?

 

[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/w.../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.