Should we allow cameras to survey public spaces for criminals?

Great Debates
21

Yes, but the idea is that we have massively parallel surveillance here. There is no one “tape”, since every camera could be accessed via the internet at any time. You watch a streaming video of the cops whenever you want to. And you always have a couple of your cameras recording your every move. So all you have to do to prove your innocence is to submit your personal video log.

Mangeorge, this is not a slippery slope argument. I imagine that cameras will be everywhere, all the time. Not because the authorities will demand this power in order to enforce the law, but because the cameras will be so cheap and plentiful and useful that there will be no way to stop it. How can we pass a law that prohibits video cameras in public places? Tomorrow, if you pass a tourist with a video camera is he violating your civil rights by recording you? No. Well, imagine video cameras so cheap that most people carry a couple at all times, running constantly. How are we going to be able to forbid people from walking down the street with a video camera?

And how is forbidding video cameras going to preserve our civil rights? And why does the prospect of cheap and ubiquitous video cameras imply a totalitarian government? I agree, ubiquitous surveillance in the hands of a totalitarian government is a frightening thing. But do many cameras make totalitarian government more likely? I don’t think so.

And why would surveillance cameras lead to implanting non-removable chips in babies? Sure, I can see that perhaps in the future lots of people will choose to have chips implanted. Why must the chips be non-removable? What is it about cheap and ubiquitous cameras that leads to chip implantation. You’ve lost me here.

22

And that’s not all!
Soon they’ll be putting devices (black boxes) in cars that record how you drive.
How come 2nd ammendment advocates won’t let anybody else have a slippery slope?
No fair.
Peace,
mangeorge

23

Anyway, the OP say’s that the cameras are there for the criminals, not the cops.
That doesn’t scare you?
Peace,
mangeorge

24

Wearing a hat also fools the software.

25

As a civil libertarian, I HATE the argument that says as long as you are law-abiding you shouldn’t care. That same argument has been used to justify public identity cards, random searches of vehicles and homes, civil forfeiture, and other gross violations of our freedom.

It also disturbs me that our society seems to be increasingly willing to trade freedoms for security. The crime rate has been falling for quite some time now, yet the people keep clamoring for more and more protection.

As for abuse, there are already plenty of examples of the police abusing new technologies. Photo radar is now being used as a revenue collection tool instead of a deterrant. I remember reading a report a while ago that indicated that jurisdictions that install red-light cameras at intersections tend to lower the time that the yellow light is on. This decreases safety, but increases revenue from light violations.

And has anyone seen those ‘caught on camera’ shows? Have you noticed that a lot of that footage comes from law enforcement cameras? Just why is this footage making its way onto a commercial television program? How would you feel if some silly but legal thing you did made it onto “America’s stupidest pedestrians” for millions to laugh at?

And if you’re a woman walking down the street and a sudden breeze blows your skirt up, how would you feel knowing that you just made it onto the policeman’s party tape, or onto ‘upskirt beaver shot IV’ for sale on the web, after some unscrupulous technician burned a copy for his black-market buyer? If you think this stuff doesn’t happen, you’re nuts.

And we all break laws all the time. There are so many of them on the books that it’s impossible not to. How would you like to be in the position of having the government want something from you, and therefore sending out the digital signature of your face to all the camera operators, telling them to record everything you do so they can find some tiny infraction to nail you with? Jaywalking, littering, loitering, trespassing by cutting across a lawn, whatever.

And when the technology gets powerful enough to record every tiny violation by everyone, how would you like your government collecting a dossier on you containing every little law you broke, so that when they need to force you to do something they can just wave the stack over your head and threaten you?

I think it was Thomas Paine who said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Being free takes work. Specifically, it means resisting every tiny erosion of your freedoms offered up every time some politician or bureaucrat comes up with a plan to solve our problems.

And it means that sometimes you have to be willing to say, “Well, I wish that didn’t happen, and I wish I were more secure, but if the price is an erosion of our freedoms then the price is too high.”

26

Sam, you’re missing my argument. Do you feel that personal video cameras should be outlawed? Do you feelt that tourists with video cameras violate your civil rights? And will outlawing video cameras preserve your rights if you feel camaras violate your rights?

If we ban video cameras we face more than just the prospect of parents not being able to videotape their kids 4th birthday party. Criminals and powerful people will have access to this banned technology, no matter what the laws are. Bill Gates will be able to monitor everyone, whether it is illegal to monitor everyone or not. All he has to do is show a few tapes to a few judges and suddenly they start ruling in his favor. The FBI, CIA, and the mafia will all use this equipment, although they will have to keep it secret.

How can we prevent the abuse of surveillance equipment. On the one hand we have secrecy. On the other hand we have transparency. I don’t like the thought of the loss of our privacy any more than anyone else does, but the alternative is the loss of our freedom. Making surveillance illegal makes it easier for the criminals and elites to use it, since the average citizen won’t be able to use it to protect themselves.

If you are worried about the fact that everyone breaks a few laws here and there every day, well then ubiquitous surveillance will force us to change the laws. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we find many petty laws would make life impossible if they were evenly enforced then we should get rid of the laws, not get rid of law enforcement.

And where did I say that as long as you obey the law you shouldn’t care? No, I argue that we cannot prevent surveillance, so we had better figure out ways to live with it.

I would like to see a reasonable proposal for banning video cameras. I don’t think such a thing is feasible. And I think everyone can agree that video cameras are going to be cheap enough to give away in cereal boxes within 10-20 years. I believe that most people in the future will have every moment of their lives recorded multiple times. Not because Big Brother is watching them, but because everyone will want access to the information that the cameras will provide them with.

Fine, you all hate the idea. How can we prevent it, without the cure being worse than the disease?

27

Here in the UK, closed circuit TV cameras are almost ubiquitous in any major urban area, or at least that’s the way it seems. There’s been relatively little debate about the matter that I’ve come across, but I think most people’s response seems to be “Well I’m not doing anything wrong. let’s hope they catch some criminals”.

Coincidentally, I was talking to a friend from France about this very matter some days ago, whose views were very different; they are totally unacceptable in his mind, although I don’t know how common they are in France.

I’m sure it will have a direct impact…it’ll displace it to a lower crime camera-free area!

28

Rule Number One of the Criminality Handbook: “Criminals are lazy.” If you put up surveillance systems in any given area, that will eliminate all “crimes of convenience” - that is, a crime that occurs because the opportunity arises.

Other sorts of crimes, that are planned out in advance, can easily thwart the All-Mighty camera by using a sophisticated, high-tech device known as a “towel”.

29

SPOOFE, my comment was a little tongue in cheek.
It’s obviously too simplistic an analysis.

A towel? Over the camera or over the head?
I think you’re right though; the recent bomber (suspected) in London (Ealing) simply wore a baseball cap. From the CCTV cameras you can see what he’s wearing but no facial features.

30

Think of it this way. Regardless of the types of camera involved, if we allow electronic surveillance to get out of hand, there will be places here in this country where it will be impossible to be unobserved in a public area. Say what you want, but that is just plain creepy.

31

I don’t understand this paranoia Americans have over this public camera bit. So long as there are no cameras in bathrooms and changing rooms, I find no problem with the concept at all because I don’t plan on going out and doing illegal things.

In a place I worked, they were going to install cameras and the employees got all upset about it but I did not care. Things like rights I never knew we had were brought up and some employees were trying to start little groups to file lawsuits against the company and some threatened to resign and some did resign and others acted like the company wanted their first born kid or something no matter what reasons were given for the decision. I understood the decision, having already had to chase shop lifters across the store and even discovering some of my own group stealing from the stock room.

The cameras went in and our profits went up almost 30% the first year! The store caught 10 employees stealing in areas like the stock room, registers and employees lounge in the first 4 months! In the first year the security guard had to hire help because he caught so many customers stealing that he was in court all of the time!

Outside cameras caught people breaking into cars! At least once they caught a mugging going on and during the late night, caught fights in the lot from the bar 3 units down!

One of our hospitals installed exterior cameras to help stop the muggings of nurses at night in the fenced in parking lots and in the first year, the incidents dropped 90% because the security guys and cops were out almost every night arresting these thugs who were climbing over the fence and getting into the lot! They even caught people sneaking into the hospital through the employees entrances to steal supplies!

With the high crime rates in some areas, I have no problem at all with there being cameras out. I mean, if you aren’t going to be doing anything illegal, why squawk about it? Why should your paranoia over being seen on CCTV affect my safety from being hit over the head by some mugger? Look at the mess graffiti artists have made of some cities, which was stopped in many areas by installing cameras and there are just pages of records where installing CCTV cameras have dropped the incidences of drug dealing, gang activity, car theft and vandalism by over 80% within days!

Worried over Big Brother? Well, maybe we need some big brother since criminal types are learning how to avoid being caught so quickly. I like the British CCTV system and they have proven that it works, but here, we have idiots who are so paranoid over civil rights that they would rather have people killed or injured instead of cameras put up for security.

Just the other day, a judge threw out a whole bunch of charges against people running a red light because their activities had been caught on CCTV, claiming that the camera did not give enough proof that they did the deed. Funny. The Brits have a system that works but their judges agree that a crime is a crime no matter what records it.

Bring on the CCTV. I like to take night walks without fearing being harassed or endangered and if I get in trouble, I like the idea of having people watching out for me.

32

::hands mangeorge his very own slippery slope::

To tell you the truth, it was the cavity searches that bothered me the most.:slight_smile:
:: peeks around to make sure nobody is watching and pushes mangeorge down his slippery slope::

33

Thanks, Freedom. I was feeling kinda left out.
:slight_smile:
HikingBoots28;
Uneasy does not equal paranoid.

Peace,
mangeorge

34

I can’t find the article right now, but there was a recent case in Florida where a man–on a lunch break–was captured by the camera, and used as the “here’s our test of the system” photo in a number of newspapers.

Although the software didn’t ID him as a criminal, a woman somewhere else did, based only on his photo. He then had to deal with the accusation and the police and all that. He was innocent–wrong guy.

This is why these things creep me out.

35

Hell we would love to have something like this for the amusement park I work in. Having a camera pointed at the driveway watching for licence plate numbers of people who have caused problems in the past or watching for their face at the front door would solve half of our problems before they started.

36

What, you found my analysis to be extensive and in-depth? Jeez, I wonder how long your college thesis paper was… :smiley: