This is appalling

[SeanEdwards]

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???

I don't know.

But I do think any such recording would be a target for a supboena by a court.

 

[swissmiss]

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.

I still do not get it, (maybe just because it is unthinkable to me): The state puts up a camera, films you speeding, swearing, laughing, whatever, summons you before a judge, and now it is up you to prove, that you weren't speeding, laughing, whatever? (Irrelevant in principle but not in practice if a camera or a policeman delivers the evidence). What about: innocent till proven to be guilty?

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.

That is nonesense. (Not that I haven't payed huge fines for speeding). They cannot charge you multiple times, but they can charge you 5% interest if you happen to pay late. (Question again: Why can they put a fine on you in the first place?)
Edit: If you speed multiple times, of course they can charge you multiple times. But that is exactly the problem, isn't it? (I'm not saying, that there are no surveillance cameras in Switzerland, there a to many!)

 

[wgadget]

Mike Gallagher (radio talk show host) was going on and on about how cameras are already watching us anyway, we can't put a cop on every corner, and we just need to get used to it.

Someone said that he has another way to deal with crime: carry a gun.

I wonder what good these cameras do after a crime has been committed? They don't exactly go and run after the criminals, do they? Wow, now THAT'S some technology.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I still do not get it, (maybe just because it is unthinkable to me): The state puts up a camera, films you speeding, swearing, laughing, whatever, summons you before a judge, and now it is up you to prove, that you weren't speeding, laughing, whatever? (Irrelevant in principle but not in practice if a camera or a policeman delivers the evidence). What about: innocent till proven to be guilty?

That's how the process works here. Someone accuses you of a crime, and you get a chance to defend yourself. You aren't guilty of anything until the court, upon reviewing the evidence and testimony, determines you to be guilty.

I don't really understand what you are saying here. People are inncocent no matter what they do? I shoot somebody in the face, and it's caught on camera, I don't have to appear before a court because I'm innocent until proven guilty?

That is nonesense. (Not that I haven't payed huge fines for speeding). They cannot charge you multiple times, but they can charge you 5% interest if you happen to pay late. (Question again: Why can they put a fine on you in the first place?)
Edit: If you speed multiple times, of course they can charge you multiple times. But that is exactly the problem, isn't it? (I'm not saying, that there are no surveillance cameras in Switzerland, there a to many!)

I sped multiple times on consecutive days. I wasn't aware I had been cited until I checked my mail and found like 5 speeding tickets.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Mike Gallagher (radio talk show host) was going on and on about how cameras are already watching us anyway, we can't put a cop on every corner, and we just need to get used to it.

Someone said that he has another way to deal with crime: carry a gun.

I wonder what good these cameras do after a crime has been committed? They don't exactly go and run after the criminals, do they? Wow, now THAT'S some technology.

We need gun rights, AND cameras, so us bystanders can enjoy watching the shootout later.

 

[swissmiss]

I don't have to appear before a court because I'm innocent until proven guilty?

No, you have to appear, but the gvmnt has to prove that you are guilty and not you that you are not. It is one of the most important principles of liberty: Whoever wants to forbid something has the burden of proof, not the other way round.

I sped multiple times on consecutive days. I wasn't aware I had been cited until I checked my mail and found like 5 speeding tickets.

So, you are compaining about what? I thought you loved those cameras.

Addendum: Note, that I consider speeding limits to be utterly worthless- and it is the gvmnt job to prove that they are not.

 

[SeanEdwards]

No, you have to appear, but the gvmnt has to prove that you are guilty and not you that you are not. It is one of the most important principles of liberty: Whoever wants to forbid something has the burden of proof, not the other way round.

Yes, and in this hypothetical case, the prosecution may rest their case on the evidence of a videorecording. I'm still innocent until the court says I'm guilty. I have the chance to refute the video evidence, or provide an alibi, or whatever. A video recording does not equal guilt, it's exactly the same as an eyewitness saying 'yeah, that guy is the criminal'.

If a person walks into a police station and says "Swissmiss robbed me", Swissmiss will have to appear before a court. That doesn't mean Swissmiss has to prove their innocence, it merely means that Swissmiss must address the charges.

If the person charged was assumed guilty, there would be no trial. Some magistrate would look at the testimony, be it video or human or you name it, and order Swissmiss thrown in prison. Then from your jail cell, you'd have to try and prove your innocence.

So, you are compaining about what? I thought you loved those cameras.

I don't think I was complaining about that Swiss traffic camera. I broke the law, I paid my fines, no big deal. The entire commentary about that camera was more of a response to your outrage about cameras recording the commons, and my attempt to point out an element of hypocrisy, since I had personal direct experience of Swiss cameras recording the commons.

 

[The Dane]

I sped multiple times on consecutive days. I wasn't aware I had been cited until I checked my mail and found like 5 speeding tickets.

Well you got it right there. Apart from govermental abuse (like a tyranny, a non-democracy, or a democracy were the politicians of the people are not elected... ...).

So apart from that, with cameras hooked up to computers you got an in-humane surveilance system: Dont you think it would have been more fair, if after the 1st. speeding ticket from a police officer, you then did not drive as fast anymore, - in general??

Something is very wrong with the idea of cameras hooked up to computers, hooked up to ONE big computer.

That is the future in question my freind, the cameras are just a small part of it.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Well you got it right there. Apart from govermental abuse (like a tyranny, a non-democracy, or a democracy were the politicians of the people are not elected... ...).

So apart from that, with cameras hooked up to computers you got an in-humane surveilance system: Dont you think it would have been more fair, if after the 1st. speeding ticket from a police officer, you then did not drive as fast anymore, - in general??

Something is very wrong with the idea of cameras hooked up to computers, hooked up to ONE big computer.

That is the future in question my freind, the cameras are just a small part of it.

It was sucky, but it should be said these were relatively small fines. Each ticket was roughly $20. What killed me though is I got cited for exceeding the speed limit by like 5 km/hour or less.


I just don't equate this use of cameras in public with some vast 1984 scenario of tyrannical oppression. I see the cameras much like guns. They're just a tool. They're not inherently evil, it all depends on how they are used.

 

[swissmiss]

Ok, so you like the cameras, I do not. There are some in Switzerland for the purpose of recording speeding, but increasingly for other purposes too. This breaks my heart but not yours, as long as you are not the victim, so be it for now.

But still you say:

I have the chance to refute the video evidence, or provide an alibi, or whatever.

No. It is the f**** other way around (or should be). You shouldn't have to refute video evidence, but the video should show some evidence that you are guilty. You shouldn't have to provide an alibi, but the police should show that you do not have one. That you do not see the difference in the first place scares me and probably shows that you live in a police state, but haven't realized it yet.

 

[The Dane]

It was sucky, but it should be said these were relatively small fines. Each ticket was roughly $20. What killed me though is I got cited for exceeding the speed limit by like 5 km/hour or less.
.

Yes i agree thats stupid, and that is what you get with the camera/computer combination: Stupidity and In-humaness. Also it dosent make any sense to let cameras take over the job of police men, just because they are cheaper. That is also valid from society's point of view. And also from the argument that the direct meeting with a living human person representing the law of society, is generally the best education for the people who dont respect the law.

Make it inhuman, and you will get more crime. Thats another argument.

I just don't equate this use of cameras in public with some vast 1984 scenario of tyrannical oppression. I see the cameras much like guns. They're just a tool. They're not inherently evil, it all depends on how they are used.

I dont think you can find anyone in this thread who would disagree with you on this. Its kind of difficult for me to imagine an "evil camera". - Could it be a script for a lousy horror movie, maybe ?

 

[saku39]

No cameras, please

Cameras in public places are a waste of time. They do not make you safer. The only thing they do is record the crime. And even then there is no guarantee that the crime will ever be solved.

It's an appalling idea and it is without question an invasion of privacy. Why do I, a law-abiding citizen, have to be watched by cops via CCTV if I'm stratching my butt, sitting on a bench, waiting for the bus?

Going down the path of public surveillance is a bad idea. It sets up a framework that can be abused, just like Bush's Executive Orders, the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. When you cede rights away with the idea of security, you actually lose those rights and lose the security.

With all that said, I've got no problem with private companies wanting to install cameras in their places of business. I would sooner trust Best Buy, Target and gas stations than I would the government at both federal and local levels. But think about it, have the cameras stopped shoplifting? Or robberies? They haven't.

 

[SeanEdwards]

But think about it, have the cameras stopped shoplifting? Or robberies? They haven't.

Laws, courts, and police have not stopped crimes from occuring either.

Shall we abandon them all in favor of totally anarchy?

 

[swissmiss]

Laws, courts, and police have not stopped crimes from occuring either.

So why have them?

Shall we abandon them all in favor of totally anarchy?

Well yes. What stops you from killing me?

 

[saku39]

Laws, courts, and police have not stopped crimes from occuring either.

Shall we abandon them all in favor of totally anarchy?

So no cameras now equals anarchy?

America has existed for over 200 years with no public surviellence cameras, we'll be fine continuing that tradition.

 

[acstichter]

I agree with having cameras in public. I think they should only be viewable by court order. This would occur after a crime has occurred in a specific area. The DA would ask a judge to order approval to his right to view the tape as evidence to solve the crime.

I do not think cameras should be used to catalog all that is happening into a database. If a police officer is on the lookout for a felon or suspect of another crime and wants the cameras to watch for his license plate or facial recognition, he should have to get a warrant for that specific request.

Cameras and computers can be a huge crime stopping tool, but they must be used responsibly.

 

[SeanEdwards]

So no cameras now equals anarchy?

No, the stupidity of your arguments equals anarchy.

I'm very happy that police cars have cameras that record the cops interaction with motorists. I think it's great that the cop has to keep in mind that he can't easily lie about my actions, or shoot me with impunity and then plant a gun on my corpse.

I think it's fantastic that criminals get caught on tape committing their crimes, so that the whole world can see them, and so that the criminal can not so easily lie.

I want more cameras recording things that should be known by the public. I'd like to see cameras in the Federal Reserve meetings.

Cameras record the truth. Do you have a problem with the truth?

 

[saku39]

No cameras, part II

No, the stupidity of your arguments equals anarchy.

Oh, so now I'm stupid because I don't want some stranger watching me via CCTV camera?

I should remember this. When I'm trying to convince somebody of the validity of my argument, I'll insult them-- That way, they'll be that much more open that what I'm suggesting.

I'm very happy that police cars have cameras that record the cops interaction with motorists. I think it's great that the cop has to keep in mind that he can't easily lie about my actions, or shoot me with impunity and then plant a gun on my corpse.

But that's a camera recording the cop. We're talking about recording private, law-adibing citizens.

I think it's fantastic that criminals get caught on tape committing their crimes, so that the whole world can see them, and so that the criminal can not so easily lie.

I've got not problem with criminals going down for what they did. What I'm saying is the cameras didn't stop the criminals from committing the crime in the first place; and just because they have video of a suspect committing a crime, it doesn't mean they will actually catch the perpetrator. And, in fact, what you're suggesting treats all private citizens as criminals.

I want more cameras recording things that should be known by the public. I'd like to see cameras in the Federal Reserve meetings.

Again, the argument is about surviellence on private citizens, not government. I have no problem with cameras being trained government officials. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.

Cameras record the truth. Do you have a problem with the truth?

I must have a problem with truth because I don't like public surviellence? That's a leap of logic.

What you're saying is I must be a criminal because I don't like being watched.



Again, let me state that if you set up a public surviellence system, you take away liberty and security. Having a system like that in place leaves the door open to abuse.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Oh, so now I'm stupid because I don't want some stranger watching me via CCTV camera?

I should remember this. When I'm trying to convince somebody of the validity of my argument, I'll insult them-- That way, they'll be that much more open that what I'm suggesting.

I said your argument was stupid. I did not, and have not personally insulted you at any point in this discussion.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Well yes. What stops you from killing me?

I've got bigger fish to fry.