andteater wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:Why not place public cameras in the all the halls and rooms of government? That's where the real crimes against society are committed.

how old are you? 14 ???

absolute sillyness.

andyk

Just as silly as all the reasons for the cameras we have now.

And I'm 14 + 20 pal. Old enough to know what a police state is.

Antero wrote:

space junk wrote:

Antero wrote:I object to them.

On top of that, they don't work. In London, you're caught on camera 300 times a day, but the only reduction in crime from the cameras has been in regards to vehicular crime (and is basically the result of catching more car thieves rather than from deterrence)

The footage contributes to convictions for worse crimes than car theft. I don't know what your statement is based on but it seems very generalised and emotive. I have first hand experience that says you're wrong.

No, it's a literal, statistical fact. They've served as witnesses in convictions, certainly, but the fundamental truth is that London's closed circuit surveillance cameras have been a miserable failure at their primary intended function, resulting in statistically insignificant reductions in violent crime, while improving street lighting could cut crime in an area by 20%. (UK Home Office studies)

My "generalised and emotive" statement is based on the fact that I've actually studied this crap.

So when you said "they don't work", you meant apart from helping to convict criminals.

You accept that they do work for that. So in some capacity, they do actually "work".

andteater wrote:unfortunately, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you are filmed so much every day even without noticing the recent addition of outdoor cameras being put up.

I don't "have to deal" with all of it. I have a right to point out just how atrocious I think the particular practice is and to change it if I can. It's a government by, for, and of the people. Not the other way around.

andteater wrote:anytime you go the bank, 7-11, ATM, airport, any major office building, the train station, etc. etc. you are being filmed walking in and out...and if nothing of real interest happens during that time span of recording, that recording will be deleted to make space for future events that may need to be saved...

A camera in a business or at an ATM or an airport is one thing. Cameras mounted on light poles on public streets is another. They are not the same thing at all.

I expect a private business, like a private home, to secure itself as much as possible because they are securing their property. I expect to be under surveillance in these situations. It is reasonable for these places to conduct surveillance. One may not always like the idea and the use of these films might not always be appropiate but I have a right not to enter these private businesses and homes just as they have a right to secure them.

But government run cameras watching public streets? Who controls and views these cameras? Why should we trust them to use them solely for their intended purpose?

If I am walking down the street and am seen by passing cars and pedestrians the only record of that are the memories those people who saw me have. So even though I am out in "public" I retain some of my privacy. When you film me walking down the street you are intruding on that privacy.

Private citizens are not the only people who commit crimes. Political and police corruption is a fact of life. People are infinitely corruptable. Our Constitution is based on a suspicion of government and the inappropiate use of political power by individuals. You people who are for this are for giving government way too much intrusive power. In Chicago there is very little check on police power as it is and we all know about how they can and do abuse it. So you'll just give them more? You call yourselves Americans?

andteater wrote:i think i may be the only one on this board who actually works in the CCTV/video surveillance industry...

Then you are the only one on this board who has a financial interest from increased government investment in this. Why then should anyone listen to you?

I'd like to hear someone explain exactly what it is they object to about the cameras, other than a) they "don't like" being filmed, b) it is totally "Orwellian" or c) erm...they just don't like being filmed.

What - exactly - are you scared of? I find their presence unpleasant, and I don't like being filmed one bit, by anybody. So I get filmed in public. So some creep I don't know watches me. So someone has footage of me. What the fuck are they going to do with it which could be so harmful to me?

I really don't give too much of a fuck about surveillance cameras.

space junk wrote:I'd like to hear someone explain exactly what it is they object to about the cameras, other than a) they "don't like" being filmed, b) it is totally "Orwellian" or c) erm...they just don't like being filmed.

Why aren't any of those reasons good enough for you? Sometimes ideas are important.

space junk wrote:What - exactly - are you scared of?

Abuse. I am suspicious of the police and the government. They do not have the benefit of my doubt.

space junk wrote:So I get filmed in public. So some creep I don't know watches me. So someone has footage of me. What the fuck are they going to do with it which could be so harmful to me?

I am sure that as the practice becomes more common we will find out.

space junk wrote:I really don't give too much of a fuck about surveillance cameras.

Then why argue about it one way or the other?

Look, I understand you Brits might have a different idea of what "liberty" means, what with your lack of freedom of speech and a sitting monarch and everything, but over here some of us still believe that our idea of "liberty" is important and worth fighting for. Especially with a criminal administration running roughshod over the civil rights of it's own citizens and the human rights of rest of the world.

In regards to Amsterdam, Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:We found this channel on the television that was just a video camera taping an intersection. We took turns going to the intersection so we could be on television.

If they televise it for everyone to see, then NOT CRAP
watching a drug dealer/tranny stand on the corner and scratch his nuts for half an hour will get old pretty quick

I like the cameras. I wish that they were observed more closely and that we had adequate police to respond when crimes are witnessed on them. In Baltimore the Cameras having flashing blue lights on top of them and black banners with white lettering that say "BELIEVE".

space junk wrote:I'd like to hear someone explain exactly what it is they object to about the cameras, other than a) they "don't like" being filmed, b) it is totally "Orwellian" or c) erm...they just don't like being filmed.

Well, some practical and specific concerns/arguments against surveillance equipment that I imagine people might have:

- CCTV/similar technologies could be used to track your movements, so an organisation (governmental or not) could know where you are at all times. This seems to be an invasion of privacy, and is perhaps paramount to stalking which is a criminal offence.

- Following on from point one, CCTV/similar technologies could be used to build a profile of you - your general activities, who you hang out with, where you go, what you like, etc. This could then be used to target you as a consumer, which is at best a nuisance, or for more politicised ends - building up a profile of your political activities or anything you do that does not support/fall in line with state policy, which could later be used against you if, for example, you are implicated in a political crime or you are an immigrant.

- CCTV/similar technologies are perhaps more easily abused/manipulated than we, and the judicial system, might think. Images could be relatively easily manipulated by anyone with access to the images they record (and that includes a lot of people), in order to frame someone. This could be a personal attack or the work of an organisation (governmental or not).

- CCTV/similar technologies are being championed by many as a great resource for fighting crime. This is misguided. CCTV merely pushes much crime underground or sends it to already ghettoized areas. It is not a solution, merely a distraction.


There are probably other concerns but I think (if I've understood what everyone's saying on this thread) these are pretty much the main ones....


I voted waffles, but I do have a question for you about this:

space junk wrote:What - exactly - are you scared of? I find their presence unpleasant, and I don't like being filmed one bit, by anybody. So I get filmed in public. So some creep I don't know watches me. So someone has footage of me. What the fuck are they going to do with it which could be so harmful to me?

Why does something need to be actually (i.e. physically, mentally) harmful to someone in order for it to be an invasion of their civil liberties or abuse of their human rights?

Imagine some guy comes up to you in the street and just takes a picture of you. Maybe that doesn't bother you - it'd probably just bemuse me. But then imagine he follows you everywhere, all day, snapping away. Would you not wish to confront him and ask him why he need take pictures and to what end does he use them? Would you not feel that you had a right to know?

Then imagine that you discover that the pictures he's been taking are passed amongst friends - for whatever reason, voyeuristic intrigue, I don't know. Or that they're being posted on the internet, or sold, or doctored to make pornographic images. None of these things would "harm" you in the physical sense, nor in the mental sense if you never found about them. But if you did, my guess is that you'd be livid, and feel that your privacy had been thoroughly violated.

I'm not saying that anything close to this analogy is reflected in contemporary society - I don't think the level of surveillance is anywhere near high enough - but my point is simply that just because you're being filmed on CCTV doesn't harm you in any tangible way, it isn't necessarily justified.

Will Smith and Gene Hackman are fantastic in Enemy of the State

that's about CCTV isn't it?

beloveless wrote:I like the cameras. I wish that they were observed more closely and that we had adequate police to respond when crimes are witnessed on them. In Baltimore the Cameras having flashing blue lights on top of them and black banners with white lettering that say "BELIEVE".

I was hoping this wasn't true, that it was a joke I didn't get.



The "BELIEVE" is such a lame exhortation to the public to think that this kind of thing could possibly cause an actual change in behavior or become a desirable and "normal" part of urban life. Begging or commanding us (which is more pathetic?) to replace an assessment of the costs and benefits of a given public policy with "belief".

"BELIEVE" that this is a substitute for just and equitable policing.
"BELIEVE" that cameras are effective in reducing violent crime.
"BELIEVE" that police equipment budgets aren't bloated, that we're not just looking for the next way to control the desperate without having to touch them or even be there, that after a while, ubiquitous anodyne little robocops lashed to a pole will turn Baltimore around.

It makes me sadder than I can really express.